I can move.

Thank you.

Welcome everyone.

I would like to call to order the Planning Commission session for Monday, April 13th, 2026.

Iris or Christina, I see you're both here.

Will you please call roll?

Najok?

Present.

James.

Bruce.

Here.

Moreno?

Here.

Mitchell is absent.

Guinea is absent Sly.

Here.

Wing?

And for DRC, we have Leek.

Not present yet.

Commissioner Mino.

Here.

Here.

Sangry?

Here.

Yeah, you're thank you.

Did I get Livin Lindstrom?

Present.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving to item number three, approval of minutes from the Planning Commission meeting on March 9th, 2026.

Do I hear a motion to approve the meeting minutes as written?

I'd like to move to approve the minutes as written.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Right.

All those in favor of approving the minutes from March 9th, 2026 as written, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Iris and Christina.

Do we have anyone for public comment tonight?

No.

Thank you.

Agenda item number five, Commission for Citizen Involvement General Updates.

We have three different postcards from neighborhood associations.

First up is the Westlake Neighborhood Association meeting.

It is going to be Tuesday, April 21st, 2026 at 6:30, Oak Creek Elementary School Library.

Meeting agenda will be welcome and introductions, some new business, and uh introduction of candidates for board of directors.

People are invited to come connect with their neighbors.

The agenda is a casual conversation with food and presentations and ENA overview and election of officers, learning about the backyard habitat program and the Clackabus County update from commission Commissioner Martha Schrader and updates on preparedness and disaster planning in the neighborhood.

Lastly, we have the North Shore Country Club District Neighborhood Association Annual Meeting.

With a guest presentation by Chris Durke, Chair of the Lake Oswego Fire Station Rebuild PAC.

Next, item number six, we have our joint work set work session with the development review commission.

So thank you all for moving your regular time to join us here at our time.

And we will be having the tree regulation amendments, PP 24-0006, presented to us by Jessica Nomonalu, Community Development Director.

Jessica, are you ready to present?

Yes, thank you, Chair Najak.

Really appreciate it.

And first of all, I just want to start off by um welcoming our guests here tonight from the Development Review Commission.

Thank you so much for coming.

I know this is an off night for you.

Um I will say that back when we did an update to our urban and community forestry plan, uh we also invited the development review commission to come have a joint study session with the planning commission, and it went really well, and it was it was very helpful, and there was a lot of great discussion between the two groups.

As you know, the planning commission uh is a policy body that makes recommendations to our city council.

And while the DRC does not have that function, they're the ones who actually apply the code in real in the real world.

And I know you all have a lot of experience with tree uh the tree code through our appeals because our we have type two applications that can be appealed to the development review commission.

So lots of knowledge to bring here and again, thank you so much for being here tonight.

Um I thought I does everyone has everyone met each other before on these commissions.

Would it be helpful if maybe we just did a quick uh go through about your name and maybe how long you've been on your commission, and we can just kind of run down the line real quick.

Do you want to start?

Sure again.

Hi, everyone.

Uh, I'm Mita Sarunke.

Um I serve on the DNC uh DRC uh since last summer.

I'm a landscape um architect, and um it's good to serve with my fellow committee.

Uh good evening.

I'm quite sandwiching.

Yep, there it goes.

Uh I'm a retired civil engineer, lived in Lake Oswego uh 30 some years.

I have live in Mountain Park and have been a member of DRC.

This is my second term.

Hello, my name's John Dews, and I am a retired architect.

Um have moved to Lake Oswego from Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota, about five years ago.

And um I'm serving my second term on the DRC.

Hi, my name's Yuko Mino.

I'm an architect.

Um I've been on the DRC for two years now, and I am also on the tree task force.

So I'm Larry Lindstrom.

I'm the chair of the DRC.

I've been on the commission since 2024, and I'm happy to be here with all of you.

Thanks for having us.

Do you want to introduce yourself?

Marie.

My turn.

Diana Moreno, this is my fourth year in my first term.

My name's Jeremy Sly, and this is uh my first term and about a year and a half in.

Thank you all for coming tonight.

My name is James Bruce.

Uh, this is my first year on the planning commission, and I'm an attorney here in Lake Oswego.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Rachel Najak, the chair of the Planning Commission for this upcoming year.

I believe it's my third or fourth year, first term on the commission, and I am also a project manager at Hacienda CDC.

So you may be familiar with the project over on Boonesbury.

Uh, I am the one in charge of that.

So if you have any questions after uh come find me, happy to answer them.

Good evening.

I'm Jim Twing.

I'm a resident here of Lake Oswego for about 30 years.

I'm an attorney of about 50 years and uh enjoying my third year of being on the planning commission.

Well, thanks everybody.

Again, welcome.

And um I think what we'll do is maybe do some quick introductions for the project team, and then we'll just jump right into the study session.

Oh, Commissioner Leek, I'm so sorry.

Thank you.

Better late than never.

Um I'm Helen Leek.

I am a realtor here in Lake Oswego, and I've been where you are, because I was chair of the uh planning commission for a while, and then it somehow got kicked up stairs or sideways.

I don't know why it switched to the DRC, which has been really fun.

And um glad to be here, and I'm very interested in seeing how this all shakes up.

Uh so as far as the project team goes, um, my name is Jessica Numonolou.

I'm uh the uh project manager for this uh update to our city's tree regulations, and I'll introduce our project consultant from Cascadia, Sarah Goldstein.

Hi everyone.

Hi everyone, my name is Sarah Goldstein, and I'm uh consultant with Cascadia Partners supporting this uh project.

We are a city-based planning firm, uh and we do a wide range of planning projects, mainly land use, housing, environmental planning, and tree and urban forestry related projects.

Uh so we've worked in Lake Oswego before on the State of the Urban Forest Report.

Um, and before we jump to Morgan, I do want to call out our uh tree task force chair, Brandon Nam in the back, if he gives us a wave.

Hi, Brandon.

Yeah.

Uh he is available to ask to answer any um tree task force related questions.

And uh off to Morgan.

Good evening.

I'm Morgan Holin.

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

So excited to be here with you all tonight.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I do want to acknowledge that we do have a couple of other project team members, although they're not presenting tonight.

We have Daphne Sissel, and she is our associate planner.

She basically administers basically our entire uh tree program.

And then also Christine Johnson, who is one of the uh subconsulting arborists for this uh project.

Right.

So here's today's agenda.

Um most of the session today will be spent digging into some key policy questions that we've prepared.

Um these were included in your meeting packets and the the state uh the staff report.

Um but I'll give some project background and context first.

Uh, just since we haven't met with the development review commission yet.

Um, and the last time we met with the planning commission, we were on code concepts.

So that seems very long ago.

We now have draft code.

Uh so I do want to kind of uh lay the groundwork for these uh code amendments first.

So, oh, this looks small up here, but uh hopefully it's bigger for those with screens.

Um our objectives for the meeting today are to focus on important policy discussions, again, outline in your meeting packet.

But there's kind of four groupings but six questions.

Uh there's two questions that we have around the clear and objective track and what it applies to.

Should it apply to only new residential units and new lots?

And should it uh apply to applications for additions and remodels?

For the specifics of the clear and objective track, we also want to discuss tree retention percentages.

First, what should the minimum tree retention percentage be?

And what should we set as an incentive tree retention percentage?

Uh, we also want to talk about today some of the changes to the significant tree definition and the applicability of forest management permits.

We're gonna discuss these policy options all together, and uh this will directly inform how the project team brings these topics to the council work session, which is upcoming in May.

So to back up a bit, we've been to the planning commission once about this project, but it's the first time.

Yeah.

Yeah, sorry to interrupt, sir.

Um there was a great deal of material distributed.

The six questions you've outlined were pretty clearly documented.

What about all of the other proposed changes in there, some of them on your significant list.

Yeah, do you want to take this up?

So after we get through these, so these six policy questions are really ones that we wanted to focus on.

But there are other things that the commission would like to uh or either commission would like to talk about afterwards, then we can we can uh we can discuss those as well.

So we it we were just it's overwhelming because this is there's you know 84 pages long.

So we really were trying to tailor the quote the policy issues around issues that this these commissions would have some expertise or background on.

Um, when we go talk speak to the sustainability advisory board and the parks board on uh Wednesday, we have a little bit different set of questions, more focused on their expertise.

But again, welcome to discuss other topics um after we get through those.

Great, thank you.

So uh to back up a bit just to the overarching project objective and project outcome uh for this tree regulation for the set of tree regulation amendments.

The objective of this project is to amend Lake Oswego's tree code and tree-related provisions in the community development code, um, as specifically recommended by the urban community forestry plan, which is shown up here, and the key findings that were part of the urban community forestry plan, which uh, as I understand many of you are part of.

Uh and the outcome is to preserve the city's wooded character overall.

This the city has an immense tree canopy, and uh we would like to promote a sustainable urban forest and kind of maintaining that canopy while supporting responsible development and complying with state law, and this is specifically around housing, state law around clear and objective standards with housing.

And this project aims to integrate best practices in urban forestry, uh, enhance both the clarity and efficiency of tree regulations and ensure meaningful community involvement throughout the process.

So complying with state law is a very important piece of this uh this revamp and this uh these updates to the to the code.

And it's also really important to understand since this is directly in response to the Oregon state statute requiring cities to adopt clear and objective standards and procedures that regulate residential housing development to ensure that the city does not use discretionary or subjective criteria to deny residential housing projects or discourage housing production through unreasonable cost and delay.

The term needed housing here is defined in a separate part of the code, but essentially it covers missing middle housing types, multifamily duplex, triplex, and it's all housing, but it's uh it's to address the state of emergency of housing in Oregon.

So it does go back to all housing production.

Lake Oswego is required by state law to make these clear and objective changes to reduce expensive process time for developers and to make the code more clear so that there's not a lot of back and forth and uh procedural procedural costs for developers.

So this means uh changes to a subset of type two tree removal applications, not all tree removal.

And so just to show how this plays out in the code, the the current code uh for Lake Oswego is discretionary.

It's subjective, it's up to interpretation.

Right now it reads that the removal of a tree should not have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood.

And there's some more criteria involved, but it's it's very up to interpretation.

And a clear and objective alternative is something that's measurable and you can say yes or no, it does or does not qualify.

Uh, and here I have uh the draft code requiring a minimum percentage of total quantity of healthy non-invasive trees over 15 inch trunk diameter to be retained, or require a minimum percentage of the total diameter of healthy non-invasive trees over six inch GBH, that's diameter at breast height, to be retained.

And applicants can choose which retention percentage to apply.

So we are required to offer this clear and objective track.

And although there can still be discretionary tracks as an option, um, we have to offer this for needed housing.

And you'll see with the the draft that you received, we did keep a discretionary track and just added a clear and objective track as well.

So does anyone have any questions about kind of the mechanics of clear and objective versus discretionary or any of the state law that's uh requiring these changes.

Okay, great.

So just a bit of background on this project since we are kind of in like the last 25% of the project timeline here.

At the beginning of the project, the team started by creating a key list of issues that were important to uh a variety of different stakeholders and members of the public around uh these tree code changes.

The team bought the team brought this list of key issues to city council to the tree task force, which is an advisory body of 14 professionals that interact with the code in and around Lake Oswego.

We brought this list to city staff through three group interviews.

We did seven stakeholder focus groups.

Uh, and we also engaged the public with this list of issues through an online open house.

Uh, we tabled at the Urban Forest Summit, and we went to the Lake Oswego emergency preparedness fair.

So there were a lot of eyes on the initial list, which was shorter than this one.

Um, you have that list separately, so this is just uh you don't need to read this tiny text up here.

Um, but there uh was a result of 12 substantive key issues and 25 technical key issues, and kind of how we uh have been describing them as the substantive ones are gonna be really big kind of policy shifts, while the technical issues are just slightly smaller tweaks or surgical changes to the code.

So a lot of the conversations we've had have focused on those substantive issues on the left, but we are addressing all of these issues in that draft three that you received.

And so here is the project timeline.

Um we are here at the bottom on the third draft of the code amendments.

Um, and the last time we saw the members of the planning commission, uh it was in December.

And so we had done a we had developed the list of key issues.

We did a best practice research by looking at peer jurisdictions, and we developed alternative approaches.

And after all of this, we still needed more directions.

So we came to the planning commission and council with some code concepts, and uh, and then we moved into draft code when we got their feedback on four key code concepts.

So we're in the final stages of drafting code.

The first draft was reviewed by the city staff and city attorney for compliance with law.

And the second draft was reviewed by the tree task force at their fifth meeting.

So we have made changes after both of those drafts, and you're seeing the product of that.

So coming up, we have a couple more work sessions and hearings, and um I'll outline all of those at the end because we'll forget about them if I do them now.

But we're meeting with the uh council and then doing a couple hearings as well.

So in just to give an overview of kind of all of the changes that were made in the draft, uh, there were 33 primary amendments, and this consisted of 12 substantive changes and 21 technical updates across these four sections of the code.

And key changes proposed in the draft are this two-track type two tree removal process, like I was mentioning, the existence of the a new clear and objective track and a discretionary track.

But uh, before we jump into the rest of the changes, I'm gonna hand it off to Jessica to give a little more context about type two tree removal applications.

Right.

I know that the development review commission is probably pretty familiar with this, but just as a refresher, our type, we have nine different types of tree cutting permits in the city.

Um, and I'm not gonna go through all of them, um, but you know, we have like invasive, we have what's called a type one, we have dead, we have hazard, etc.

Type two is one of those nine permit types.

And the type two is basically a type of permit where if you don't qualify for any of the other type of permits, then you would apply under a type two.

But primarily it's gonna be the removal is either for landscaping or development purposes, and it requires public notice as well, uh, which is a two-week uh appeal uh public notice period, and then also a two-week appeal period after the decision is issued.

Then that permit or that um application is then eligible to be appealed to the development review commission and then could be further appealed to the city council, and then after that, the the appeals uh have been exhausted.

Um, and so these are typically going to be for trees that are over 15 inches in diameter, and again being removed for landscaping or development purposes.

So I just wanted to provide that quick context just as a refresher of what a type two permit is.

Thank you, Jessica.

Um, and so this this new type, this new type two track tree removal process will include uh the clear and objective track that's specifically for new residential housing development, uh, and this is based on retention percentages, um, ensuring that uh a minimum tree retention standard is met.

Uh, and then there's still the discretionary track.

So this is applicable to non-residential development, uh, and residential developers can decide to opt in.

Um, so it generally retains existing criteria with updates to clarify the definition of significant tree and a couple other uh kind of smaller general tweaks.

Umtably, there's also a couple other changes.

There are now uh draft amendments for a program specific permit for use in sensitive lands for simplified permits to allow for the proactive removal of trees that are uniquely susceptible to emerald ash borer.

So this includes ash white fringe and uh expanded mitigation requirements as well as street planting requirements.

And again, there's a lot of changes.

Hopefully, if you have any kind of questions that fall outside of what we are discussing in these topics, we can reach we can revisit them afterwards.

Um but maybe we'll end up talking about them uh tangentially or related to our discussion and and we'll get some some clarity for everybody.

So moving in to the main topics, um we'd like to first get your feedback on them before we we open up the discussion.

Uh so we're gonna present, we're gonna give some context similarly for each of these topics.

Uh I'm gonna show the current code and how the proposed amendment differs from the existing code, and then we'll cover a couple key considerations and policy alternatives uh and then open it up for discussion.

We also brought uh many of these questions to the tree task force as well, so we will report back on what they said so you can have that uh for context.

Okay, so our first topic is clear and objective track as a whole and what it applies to.

So uh first we're gonna discuss should the cleared objective track apply to additions to dwellings or uh just new dwelling units?

And then as a second part of the conversation, uh if so, should an applicant be able to consolidate tree removal for site improvements with new dwellings under the clear and objective track.

Okay, so feeling feeling good.

Anyone have any questions before I jump into the topics?

The current code permits the removal of a tree if it has outgrown its landscape area or is part of a landscape plan to construct development that's already approved and allowed by the Lake Oswego code.

And the removal can't have a significant negative impact on uh erosion, soil stability, the flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks, or a significant negative impact on the character aesthetics of a neighborhood.

And this includes uh a significant tree, alterations to the distinctive features or continuity of the neighborhood skyline, a visual screen, a street tree, or fit greater than 50% of a stand of trees.

So this proposed amendment um on the right here would add a new clear and objective track, but specifically for residential development.

This track is outlined in the code changes, um, but high level, like I mentioned before, it uh it means that uh there's a minimum retention percentage in the draft, it's 45% of all the trees on the lot, or 45% of the total DBH on a lot.

And there's there's some more specifications beyond that.

Um, but that's the clear and objective track we're talking about.

Um and what we want to know from you all is what types of development count for this clear and objective track, where there's a little bit of uncertainty right now around what is uh required by law.

Um, and they all have very important implications to um the way things work and and what trees are and are not approved for removal.

So currently uh there's uncertainty about whether they apply to only new dwelling units or new residential lots or to all housing related development.

And the scope of this, uh, namely how housing and development of housing are defined is currently before the Oregon Supreme Court in Roberts versus City of Cannon Beach.

Um the court's decision may clarify or further complicate this issue.

A ruling couldn't might not occur before the adoption of these proposed code amendments, which are rapidly um coming up.

Uh so there's a couple different ways that we could go, a couple policy alternatives.

Uh we could take a broader approach and include everything.

So new housing, alterations, um, remodels to reduce the risk of future code amendments in case case law expands the scope of how they're defining these these terms, housing and development of housing.

Um this could simplify administration in the future.

It could avoid having to do uh an update really soon after this update, but it also could increase potential tree removal um compared to the discretionary track.

So uh additionally, applying uh to applying the clear and objective track to new dwelling units, lots, and new alterations could simplify um the administration process for the city and the permit process for applicants, which we can dig into a little bit more.

Yeah, right.

So here's the discussion question for you.

We want to know if we should apply these clear and objective standards to only new dwelling units, or should we also apply them to additions and alterations?

We pulled the tree task force on the same question, um, and there's no clear consensus.

Uh consensus for the tree task force is over two-thirds majority, it's not just over 50%.

Um, but there also wasn't a 50-50 majority between the between these two options uh was split half and half, 44% and 44%.

Um we discussed this as a team, and we believe that there could have been some confusion about what the permitting process would look like in the event that one or the other was true.

Um, but let's let's get your opinions and your feedback on on this first question here about um whether you think we should apply it to only new units, dwelling units, or um additions as well.

And yeah.

I guess I have a question to kick it off.

I mean, the it comes from the new ORS statute that's to promote development of new housing.

Does the city see um additions to existing dwelling units as a source of new housing for new housing units in any way?

Well, I think what the statute says is it's to the development of housing.

So it's just broad.

Right.

So the question is, is it is it just new housing where it's new.

Yeah, I understand that.

Does the city see additions to existing dwelling units as a source of new housing for the city, or is that just somebody renovating their house and it doesn't really lead to like new additional units?

So to me, that would seem like additions to existing dwelling units don't relate directly back to the statute, the the state statute that we're trying to address here.

Well, that that yeah, that is that is one way to look at it, and that's initially what my thoughts were.

Um, because you're right, if someone just simply adds on to an existing dwelling and they're just adding a new another bedroom or a bathroom or whatever, um, that's not new housing.

However, someone could put an addition on existing house and make it an a new ADU that's that's contained within the existing dwelling.

That would be captured under the the new unit.

Um so I think we would be okay there.

But I think the issue is, and I'm I'm glad we have our um contract attorney here, uh uh Attorney Miller.

Um, I don't know if she can shed more light on this, but the there is this issue of potentially the state um defining it more broadly as any type of housing, which would include additions.

I don't know if you have anything else to add to that.

Well, I I think that pretty much covers it.

So the risk here is that it's uh it's a developing area of the law, the middle housing rules are new, the legislature keeps making these adjustments, and so we don't really know what it means yet.

And there is a current case, um, the Roberts versus Cannon Beach case that's up at the Supreme Court right now, which may or may not um address this issue.

So it's that one is um related to a narrower issue uh with respect to I think a public road and basically whether the development that could lead to the development of housing counts.

So they may or may not get into this question in that decision, but um there will most likely be a case that addresses this issue, and it's just um so that is one consideration for the city.

And I think that we would still have to consider it new housing if someone tore down a small house and and put in a new house to replace it.

I still think that would qualify as new housing under the statute.

You believe do you agree?

Um I I think so.

Well, and and certainly I would recommend that even if it didn't, that that's where we draw a line in the code, because that would be I think fairly unclear for staff.

So that's slightly different than an addition or um an ADU.

But it's that seems more clearly to me to be the development of housing.

And I think ultimately it's there is a lot unclear, right?

And how we define it and and the intent and the outcomes, and we we need to know if we should kind of have that broader scope or the narrower scope.

And it's I don't think there's gonna be anyone who knows exactly how it's going to turn out, but we're looking to you all and your expertise to maybe shed some light on what would be uh a better, a better option at this point in time, knowing that you know things could change, definitions could be clarified.

Um I have a question on that, and maybe council can help me.

It seems to be what we are trying to do is mitigate a risk and do uh over correction for something that has not occurred yet.

Given that ORS 197A says something and there's a case pending in court, it seems to me there are only likely three outcomes.

It can either go with a narrow interpretation, it can go with a broader interpretation, or it can throw a zinger and come up with something else.

All of them right now, it seems to me, are equally indicated 33%, 33%, 33%.

And yet we are trying to make a policy decision based on a legal strategy for mitigating just one possible decision.

Why are we not considering the other two?

If we consider that if we go along with that the likely outcome is a broader decision right now, and we amend the code based on that.

If the code goes with a narrow decision, does it not mean that we have to anyways do an amendment again from broader to narrower?

So it seems to me that we are trying to mitigate something that is not indicated.

And when three likely outcomes are possible and all three are equally indicated, then I'm not sure what we are achieving by either discussing or focusing this because it's unknown.

Given that the in basic intent of the tree code is tree preservation and tree retention and tree canomy.

If all three possibilities are equally indicated, then I think it's prudent, I would think to go with an interpretation that most helps the tree code intention.

Yeah, I reached the same conclusion through a different argument.

It seems to me that there has been no discussion so far, and I didn't see very much in my review of your draft of a fundamental and very objective characteristic, which is what modification of the existing footprint of a home has been involved.

And if you have a 5% modification versus a 105% modification, the impact again on trees and the tree cover is very different versus the housing issue.

I think the housing issue we all appreciate is very important, but this is fundamentally a tree code relating to canopy.

And so I reached the same conclusion, broad.

I would be also curious to know that I mean we are weighing whether the broader or narrower approach makes sense.

And if you're thinking in terms of tree canopy and again basic development or addition, I would be curious to know why or if there has been any discussion why we can't just specify how much do we need.

So for example, let me give let me flesh that out a little.

If you have one acre of plot and a person's uh owner's building a house, that's a new house.

Assume that one acre of plot has 100 trees, 40 uh 15 inches.

They are allowed to remove 55.

They have to retain 45 trees.

They do that.

Five years, seven years, or 10 years later, they want to add an addition.

Now the question is do we hold them to the original 100 trees or do we hold them to the new.

What would be the new one?

They could keep making additions there.

So it seems to me that that discussion would be tweaked if we can also specify, just like Vancouver does, I'm sure you're uh aware of that, how much tree canopy is actually desired and required.

So Vancouver, for example, says for X amount of site disturbance, we need so many units of tree canopy.

So they don't really care whether you know you're doing a big development, a large small development, new development, or old development.

We want 30 units per acre of site disturbance.

And that I think kind of helps reduce a little bit of confusion in terms of tying ourselves in, like, okay, are additions included or are not included?

Because now you're telling somebody that it doesn't the nature of the development doesn't matter because what we are focused on, how much of tree canopy we want per unit of land.

And I think that would be helpful.

Would that include um mitigation trees or just existing trees?

They uh no, they uh that is beyond proposed trees.

So mitigation is separate.

Okay.

I have a I have a uh thought too.

It seems patently obvious to me that new construction, a new dwelling is in Lake Aswego means it's a teardown.

So if it's a teardown of an existing home, that's new, that's a new home.

That should be getting no hall passed, because there's you know, we can't leave one wall anymore.

It's you know, take it down and take it down.

So that's new construction, that's a new dwelling.

Well, maybe we'll move on to the second part of the question since it kind of has to do with the the application process and how this is seen kind of with boots on the ground with with an applicant in an actual project.

Um we uh here uh currently the applicant applies for this discretionary type two permit um for all removals.

Once they demonstrate that the criteria are satisfied, um, then they can they can go ahead and begin construction.

Um but the clear and objective track is happening um and needed housing has not been defined yet, or uh what what counts as housing development has not been defined yet.

Um other site improvements are pretty common with new dwellings as well and require multiple different permits.

Requiring multiple different permits could be confusing and create some administrative complexity.

So we have these two we have these two uh concepts here for the application process.

If somebody, for instance, was doing uh adding an ADU and also doing a remodel of uh a pool or uh a patio, um, would they need to submit two different types of applications?

One for the clear and objective track for the ADU, and then separately, if we were talking about a pool or a patio, then a different application for the removal of those trees and have to you know prove different things for these different purposes and the different um the different permits, or if because they're adding an ADU and they're adding a unit of of housing, can they combine all of these changes under one application?

Um that's all reviewed under the clear and objective process.

Yes.

So essentially what we're trying to do is avoid the confusion of somebody coming in who I'm telling you when people come in and they have a new dwelling, it's never just the tree removal for the dwelling, right?

I mean, the what we consider to be part of the dwelling would be obviously the footprint of the dwelling, the driveway, and the utilities to the dwelling, but they may also do landscaping improvements, they may also put a detached garage and perhaps a sport court or a pool.

And so we need tree removal for that as well.

And so the question is can we apply, and we can is that we can make a policy choice to apply the clear and objective track to all of that if it's applied for at the same time.

The confusion would be is if we parsed out that dwelling part of it and said, here's your clear and objective track, and then you parsed out all the rest of it under the discretionary track, and that way so then you have staff having to administer two different types of permits, you have the public not necessarily understanding, even though you don't need that true removal for the pool for the housing development, it's all part of one development.

So, what staff that really the staff recommendation is that we believe that the administrative burden of trying to separate those out would just be too high.

Um, and so our recommendation would be to allow them to be combined if they're all come if they're all applied for at once.

But this does have policy implications, which is why we brought it to this group and we wanted to make sure that it's something that um was in the legislative history that we discussed and made a policy choice so that later on we don't have appeals saying, well, this should have been a processed under a different kind of permit.

We would like this to be a deliberate policy choice.

So there's just a little bit more uh.

I assume you mean when they are combined, combined as under clear and objective, correct?

Yeah.

Yeah, and so this question does change whether depending on what we end up on for the original first part of the question, you know, what qualifies for clear and objective track.

If we're going with the broader approach and it all qualifies, this question isn't as serious.

We yes, we can combine these applications very easily because they already um are under both under clear and objective tracks, both the alterations um and it would have impact things like landscaping permits and and other types of permits, but um, but if if we go for the narrower approach and we're saying let's not for now include additions as development, uh then can we say are we saying now you have to do two permits, or are we saying because you are building a dwelling unit, you can now uh qualify for the clear and objective track for these additions, but otherwise you would not qualify for the clear and objective track, and you'd have to go discretionary.

I have a question.

Um I want to take a step back, and if you can help me understand, the focus is tree retention.

Or does staff have any recommendations or suggestions to look at it differently in the sense, for example, if uh if we combine it and now we are having more tree removal in any given situation, possibly than just a footprint out and having two set separate permits?

If we say, okay, the owner can remove uh five extra trees to make this happen, and this makes administrative sense, and the owner says, okay, I'm going to plant five more trees on my site.

Is that is that an acceptable outcome, or that is not how you think what the code is targeting?

Like what I'm saying is we are we are focusing on how much can be retained or how much can be removed.

But it seems to me that it is unclear how much do we want.

If somebody by by including additions or landscaping or whatnot, whether they meet the 45% cutoff or not, if the if the case is made that okay, I'm cutting more than 45%, but I'm planting trees so that in 10 years I'm going to have a 45% canopy or whatever is the desired number.

Is that an acceptable solution?

Or is that not the is that not the intent that we are hoping to achieve?

Because they are two different things.

Because now you're telling them that yes, something is there's a flexibility here, and it is possible to plant more trees, right?

How much density do you need on a on an acre?

Because we are not specifying that, I think removal is becoming very critical.

And there's different ways to achieve that.

So I'm just trying to understand.

Is that not a possibility, or is that not something we hope are trying to target for for some reason?

So I would tell you our existing tree code does not have any sort of target for any canopy.

Um citywide, we have a canopy cover of 53% approximately.

And so when we were trying to come up with the percentages, what we're trying to do is maintain our tree canopy cover.

We can't keep growing it forever.

We have a very, very high tree canopy cover.

We want to maintain that, but it isn't our purpose to set a lower standard or set a higher standard.

We're really looking at trying to maintain that.

So when we came up with that 45%, which I believe is one of the items we're going to be discussing next, we actually did look at our existing tree code and did a study of um, it was very labor-intensive, so we only did it over the last year of uh what are the percentages that were resulting from our existing code versus what would happen if we um applied this new code, and that's what where we came up with that 45%.

And again, I don't want to get ahead of it because that is something we're gonna be covering next.

So it's not necessarily an arbitrary number, but because we don't have an existing target, we're establishing a target now to try to maintain our existing cover to the extent possible.

Yeah, well said, and I think ultimately we're trying to pick something that won't create waves of significant change.

So if you as developers and as members of the planning commission see something and uh it has a there's a red flag, and you're like, wow, this is going to result in a lot of people taking advantage of a loophole where every year they apply for they do one more addition to their house and they can cut down 55% of the trees on their lot.

Like that sounds like maybe an issue.

Uh we're kind of looking for those those that expertise from you all to know like is that some is that something that is that a part of the code, the draft code that's going too far?

Is that going to kind of initiate a whole a whole bunch of changes?

Because what we want is to keep it, keep it steady, keep the Lake Oswego code hovering around that 53% and not spiking up or spiking down because of any of these code changes.

But we have to make the code changes because of the law.

So yeah, it's it's it's a tricky, it's a tricky situation.

It's like it's working as it is right now, but we have to make this change.

Right.

So, how do we do that?

Well, I'm I'm interested in knowing because I don't I don't know the tree code all that well, but I do know that within it, there are some real problems with the trees, period, and none of these huge trees.

I live in a forest of trees, and in the summer, there are friends, but in the winter time there are enemies.

And uh I'm always perplexed by the thought that uh have homes that have these huge fir trees looming over them.

And at some point in time, if they fall over, they're going to just really cause a lot of damage, as we saw here a couple of years ago when we had an ice storm that was accompanied by wind, and you had a huge tree fall in the city here.

Is there any thought about this?

Yes, there is.

I can tell them that.

Yes, so under the discretionary track type two applications, um, one of the code proposed code amendments has to do with the removal of trees rated as moderate risk for a landscape improvement.

So the intent really is to help address some of those concerns about trees that aren't necessarily high risk, so they don't qualify for hazard permits.

But after these ice storm events, people are really afraid of their trees, and they want um a permit type that allows them to manage them.

So by adding um moderate risk trees as a landscape reason for removal, it allows people to manage them in that way.

Um that's really the the big change that gets at that particular issue.

Yeah, because we didn't want to, you don't want to just open the floodgates because everybody will decide, oh, I don't want these big furs.

Um, so they'll take them down.

But it that has impacts to your neighbors' trees, and it can have this domino effect.

So we want to reasonably allow people who have moderate risk trees as um determined by a qualified arborist um to give them more options than they have today, um, but also not just open it up to where it's just like if you just you just take any tree down you want just because it might be a big fur.

Well, it doesn't just because it's a big fruit doesn't mean it's dangerous.

There are certain aspects of the tree that can make it more hazardous than others.

Yeah, there is a real issue of responsibility involved in this, though.

If it comes down to a tree fall, it it is I think most people don't understand that uh you can have a tree on your property fall on somebody else's property, and that person is responsible for that.

Yeah, and that's just the unusual nature of the law with regard to tree fall.

And so when you're when your house is located in a forest of these things, you're you're continually concerned about what your neighbor is doing there because you cannot do anything.

You you are really at in abeyance as to what you can do, but if you actually are thinking that this tree might fall, you have to contact your neighbor and see what your neighbor is going to do.

Well, if his or her interest is, I like that tree, and then a storm comes up and it falls over, you're gonna end up with a responsibility of taking care of that.

And this is something that is uh especially on uh the east side of Lake Oswego here, uh, pretty prominent.

And it it is especially prominent along the street lines as well.

And you could you could drive through there and see any number of oak trees leaning out clear over the street, and you wonder who is gonna be responsible for this if there is a tree fall here, because these are trees that are very to me.

If you had another storm like we had a couple of years ago, there's going to be a lot more tree fall than there was then.

But then when that happened two years ago, this whole town was completely obstructed by fallen trees, and there's still a forest of them near I5 that are still not attended to, and they've all fallen over.

I mean, it was in the entire forest of them.

So if you have you given thought to that, you know, how to how to deal with this problem.

Yeah, so that's a topic that comes up a lot when you talk to anybody and homeowners especially, but especially with Lake Osvigos history of storms, this is something that the public brought up.

The stakeholders brought up in the engagement phase of this project.

And I think it's important to remember that like there are some things that we can do in the code, like an um allowing moderate risk trees uh to be removed now.

Um, but there's also going to be a lot of other strategies that we have to utilize to address this, and a lot of it's gonna be education.

The urban community forestry plan as a whole um sets forth a bunch of goals and strategies for the city.

Um, and the the team is going to the um the city is planning on doing a lot more education and outreach um as well as part of these efforts to uh to educate neighbors on tree care maintenance and things that will prevent trees from going into uh to becoming more dangerous for falling.

And we also heard from the public and stakeholders about how they might need more resources about how to deal with neighbors and talk with neighbors about this as well.

And that's something that we've heard and are thinking about in terms of education and outreach as well.

But in the code, it's hard because the second you start permitting removal based on what could happen for healthy trees, then we lose a lot of the canopy.

And I think that's kind of what Jessica was saying.

Yeah, we need to strike a balance.

And so, but you're right.

It is an issue, and we hear about it every time we have uh uh any sort of like community or public engagement or outreach, a lot of people talk about.

So it's it's top of mind.

Uh we do have options.

We have hazard tree, we have emergency tree, and now we're adding this extra um step into type two where it doesn't quite fall into either of those, but with if they can show with documentation that it's at a moderate risk and potentially that you know your my neighbor's tree fell last year in the storm, then that will give them a basis to get the potentially get those trees removed.

So we definitely have some options.

Yeah.

Um, but I do want to um just check in with um, I know we've heard from some folks, and just if anybody else had anything on as far as just going back to should this apply to just new dwellings or additions, what I'm hearing from folks is let's take the narrower approach.

Um, let's just apply it only to new units.

Does anybody else have is the is that is there general agreement?

Is anybody else have anything they want to add to that?

Or um that's my position for sure.

Okay.

And then come.

Yeah, I heard a couple people say broader, but I think that they were talking about the what we are calling the narrow approach.

So I wanted to clarify that next.

Yeah, broader but the narrow.

Um I want to, yeah, I wanted just to triple check that that is what I'm also hearing.

Yep, but yeah.

That's what I'm also hearing.

And then what I was hearing too.

Um was that potentially people are I I heard maybe one or two comments potentially leaning towards this, the second um the second option to allow alterations and modifications to be combined under the clear and objective track, if there's new dwellings.

But um I I think I I saw a lot of uh head shakes and nods um agreeing that having two separate application processes and permits would are is just is a lot and and more confusing than it comes down to me again.

The the overall objective from the state is to give clear and objective standards for development of new housing.

And so if you're involved, your project involves adding a new dwelling unit, I think you fall under that clear and objective standard.

If not, then it still stays under discretionary.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay, but let me clarify.

So but so you're saying if it's a new dwelling unit and they're putting in, say, a shed and they need to take out a tree for that shed, it should all be combined because they're proposing that new dwelling.

Okay.

I just want to clarify that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes, thank you.

It seems like I'm getting a lot of nods.

So if anybody nobody has any additional comments or yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, I guess I just would have one thing.

If um somebody mentioned teardowns earlier, tear down and a replacement of a dwelling isn't adding a new dwelling.

It's keeping the housing stock the same.

So should that be treated the same?

Because or is that considered by the state is adding a new dwelling?

Well, and and then I guess the bigger question of this is um that I have is like which one protects more trees, the clear and objective standard that we're gonna have for new development or the arbitrary standard.

Maybe we'll have attorney um Miller answer the first question, and then I think we can answer the second question.

So I think you could get into a legal risk area if you don't apply clear and objective standards to the replacement, the one-to-one um replacement, because the statute says um the statute says that the clear and objective standards need to apply to the tree codes that are related to, or I'll get you the exact language.

Tree removal codes related to the development of housing.

And so you know, you there's one way to read that where this isn't the development of new housing, but it is the development of housing.

And so I think there's a distinction there to be drawn between a replacement that's creating that's allowing a house to continue to be there and an addition that just adds maybe another room, but not another unit.

And it it, you know, we we can't get super into the so what's of it.

Like, yes, it's not increasing housing stock, but some could argue it's increasing housing quality if they're replacing like uh an older home, they're making a more livable one.

Um, but yeah, I I it just it kind of gets down to the semantics at that point.

But but our attorney is is uh yeah, giving us the advice that we can't really uh make that distinction.

Um and then the second question was about which protects more trees.

Um and Jessica, did you have something that you sounded like you had a I would say it's equal because even if someone parsed them out, it doesn't mean that they're not going to get approval of that second permit, but they have to go through this whole different process.

Because the way that our code is written up is your allowed development that's allowed by the code.

If if the removal will have a significant negative impact, then they have to look at alternatives.

But if it doesn't, then they can get approval for that removal.

And in many cases, there probably isn't a lot of alternatives, especially if you're redeveloping a whole site.

Um, we can't tell someone that they can't have an accessory structure or they can't have uh a pool, but we may be able to say, well, you need you need to kind of move it around here and save more trees.

So I would say uh it probably isn't gonna be that big of a difference, if at all, if they combine them versus separate them.

All right.

Um I will move on to the next topic here.

If I can interrupt for a minute with a point of order.

Uh Iris, thank you for pointing out to me that I missed the uh public comment that we have some folks signed up to testify in person.

If it is all right if we pause the presentation here and hear their testimony.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right, we have uh first name Nolan, last name Wenker signed up for public testimony, as well as Jeff Shearer.

If you would like to come forward, please.

And Iris, how many minutes do they get?

Five minutes.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh and if you can state your name as well for the record.

Okay.

Um can everybody hear me okay?

Uh Planning Commission, my name is Nolan Winker.

Uh, while I am not a resident of the city of Lake Oswego, I am a long-standing contributor to this community as the head golf course superintendent at Oswego Lake Country Club, uh, where I have served for the past nine years.

I have worked as a golf course superintendent for nearly 20 years and have participated in stakeholder focus groups regarding changes to the Lake Oswego City Tree Code.

Oswego Lake Country Club has been a pillar of this community and an environmental steward for 102 years.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment regarding uh proposed changes to Lake Oswego Code 5502072, specifically the amendment that would prohibit the use of forest management permit for private and municipal golf courses.

I would like to ground this discussion uh in data and stated purpose of the forest management purpose itself from 2021 to 2025.

Approximately 13,075 trees have been removed across the city.

Of those, only 63 trees have been removed by Oswego Lake Country Club, uh, which accounts for less than one half of one percent of total tree removals.

This is a very small fraction of total tree removals and does not suggest a disproportionate use or abuse of the permit by the golf course.

Similarly, the entire city encompasses approximately 6,912 acres, while Las Vega Lake Country Club occupies uh roughly 129 acres of that.

Um percentage-wise, roughly 2% of the city's land area.

Again, this is a limited footprint, not one that justifies a categorical exclusion from this permit.

It is also important to note that mitigation and replanting have been required for our removals.

Um these are not unregulated activities, they're part of a structured and uh um accountable process.

The stated purpose of the forest management permit is to sustain forest cover and health and assist property owners in manage forest properties while minimizing risks such as wildfire, drought, pest disease, storms, and landslides.

These goals apply equally to golf courses, which often contain significant tree canopy and large contiguous green spaces.

Beyond risk reduction, the code recognizes that forested tracts provide important community benefits, including thermal comfort, water quality through reduced runoff and erosion, air quality noise reduction, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, and overall community character and well-being.

Excluding golf courses from the forest management permit does not advance these goals.

Instead, it removes a key tool for managing large landscapes that contribute to the city's environmental system.

When tree removal is necessary, these areas are often replaced with turf grass.

While different from forest cover, turf grass still plays a role in reducing runoff and carbon sequestration.

More importantly, these landscapes remain permeable, maintained, and environmentally functional compared to hardscape alternatives.

A blanket prohibition fails to account for the scale, the data, and the actual environmental outcomes.

It is a blunt policy response to what appears to be a very limited issue.

A more balanced approach would be to retain the eligibility for golf courses while ensuring strong oversight, which we have through mitigation requirements and replanting standards.

The forest management permit is designed to promote responsible stewardship of land and trees across the city.

That purpose does not change based on land use designation.

Excluding golf courses risks undermining the very goals the permit was created to achieve.

Thank you very much.

Next we have Jeff Shearer.

Good evening, Chairs.

Commissioners.02.072 forest management permit.

My name's Jeff Shear.

I've lived in Lake Oswego since 1968.

I graduated from Lake Oswego High School, learned a golf at Lake Oswego municipal golf course.

I served on the DRC for eight years, two years as chair, and currently sit on the tree committee.

I'm a member of Lake Oswego Country Club.

One of the things I like most about our city are the opportunities that Lake Swivel provides recreationally.

The diversity of the outdoor opportunities make this community a great place to live, whether it's soccer fields, dog parks, skate parks, playgrounds, the new aquatic center, tennis clubs or golf courses.

They're all within our city code and our approved uses.

If the code applying to these activities are working, why do we need to change?

The purpose noted in code 55.02.072 forest management.

The criteria for approval of forest management permits are intended to sustain forest cover health and assist property owners in managing forest properties.

This goes on for another paragraph and a half, which Nolan touched on.

After you review this, Oswego Lake Country Club is already complying with this criteria by providing fire breaks, controlling pests and disease, our landscape scaping provides runoff control.

We have biodiversity in wildlife.

We help maintain real estate values, provide commerce and recreation, as noted in the criteria.

All of these items are directly listed for the forest management forest management permit.

It seems odd to me that the forest management permit is under consideration to change.

The change has not been discussed by the tree committee, making this provision a one off out of our normal process that we are following.

Further, the country club has had no violations as it pertains to the forest management permit ever, to our knowledge in 102 years.

Although we were there before the code, so not all 102.

This coupled with the less than one half of 1% of the total trees removed over the reviewed period in the city of Lake Oswego that were removed by Lake Oswego country club.

Definitely seems like a targeted code change for no real reason.

I really do not understand this change.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, everyone, and my apologies again for the oversight in the public testimony on this topic.

Jessica, could you elaborate on why this has been added to the tree code?

Yeah, I'd love some context on this.

Yeah.

Well, this is one of the items for discussion, so I it'd be, I think, a better if we could reserve that for when we get to that item if that's okay.

Um, and we did receive a number of um comments, I think about 26 in total, and hopefully you had a chance to look over those.

So if you don't mind if we could cover that when we get to that item.

So next, we're gonna discuss some of the really important criteria that this clear and objective track hinges on, which is the minimum tree retention percentage.

And if any, what should the uh incentive be?

What should an incentivizing tree retention percentage be?

So current code does not allow the removal of a tree if there's significant negative impact to the following, which we covered earlier.

Um the proposed amendment adds a clear and objective track specifically for residential development.

Um it means that the applicant can get a permit for removal if they retain 45% or more of the trees on the lot that are larger than 15% diameter at breast height, or if they retain at least 45% of the total DBH that exists currently on the lot.

And this is calculated by taking the sum of the DBH of each tree that are that are greater or equal to six inches.

Um and if they fall short of re reaching this percentage, um, they can pay per inch of retention if the minimum standards are not met.

Having multiple options instead of just say one saying, oh, you have to keep 50% of the trees on the lot, um, having multiple options allows flexibility for developers.

Um this helps with the needed housing um goal as well within the clear and objective structure, since we wanted a little bit of flexibility and leeway um instead of just saying you have to, there's one there's one thing you have to do, and there's only one way you can do it.

So if they cannot meet these requirements for some reason, they still are able to go to the discretionary track in the way that it exists now with the with the tweaks that are in the code.

Um, but this could take them extra time and money.

So they're still open for them.

Um, but we're trying to make the clear and objective track doable, feasible, um, and also promote sustainable um preserving the sustainable amount of canopy that we have now.

Could you elaborate?

Go back to that slide, please.

Oh, that was the forward button.

Yes.

Pay a per inch fee of retention if the minimum standards are not met.

Could could you elaborate on that?

Yes.

So uh if for instance the developer could not figure out a way to retain 45% of either total trees or total DBH, um, but they could retain 42%, they would have to pay a fee for those three inches that they the three percent that they could not um meet.

And that fee is is currently still being discussed in right size, I believe, um, because it can't be super punitive, but it needs to be high enough.

Um, there's currently uh a fee and lie that the city has right now, and it goes into the tree fund, which um created the position for um the city arborist um and created some new work um for urban forestry, and they're going to be doing a tree inventory of of public trees and trees in the right-of-way coming up.

Um so the the fee and lie does contribute to other urban forestry goals for the city now, and it would continue to do that.

The 45% on either of those bullet points is separate from the mitigation trees, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um a quick question.

The fee per inch of retention, is there a floor to that?

So can someone pay for three inches of fee or 10 inches of fee, or all 45 inches to cut down all of the trees.

Is there a spot where we say you can't pay fee and loo anymore?

This is just like you have to keep this many trees on the lot.

Right now we don't have a floor, and I think that's going to be you know a bit a big a big point when they're setting the fee.

It can't be, it can't be too low, because then many people would just say, great, I'll just clear cut the whole the whole lot and and pay.

Um, but it also can't be prohibitively high, where every single person or every single applicant that wants to develop residential housing has to go to the discretionary track, and then it's like, why did we why does the cleared objective track exist if nobody can use it?

Um, and it would be of any it could be contrary to state law.

That's the trick is that we can't because it would be totally clear and objective for us to say you have to save 90% of all the trees on the site.

That's clear and objective.

But I think that that could be found to be run of L for state law because very few applicants could comply with that.

And so um we need to be able to strike that balance.

But to answer your question, no, there's not currently a floor.

So if someone, if we set the fee high enough where it's it's it's a diversion from just paying to play, then um then they would they would probably bump into themselves into the discretionary track.

So we we need to find what that balance is.

And we aren't here today to talk about what that fee should be.

It's just assuming we pick that right size fee, what should the percentage be for um for the minimum for the city?

Could it involve the fee gets larger the further that you deviate from that target number as well?

That's commonly done in some of my engineering practice, have an exponential fee.

One inch costs you a hundred dollars, two inches cost you a thousand dollars.

Three inches cost you ten thousand dollars.

That's if the fee is a way, I think, of taking care of this uncertainty you're if your objective is 45% but the butt needs to really have some teeth in it and an exponential fee is the way to do that.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah.

So to give you some background on how we got to the 45% that's written right now in the code, um, but is up for discussion.

I'm just gonna give you some some background on uh the studies that we did and the and the analysis that was done uh first in the best practices part of this project.

We looked at some pure jurisdictions and what they are currently doing in their tree code for preservation.

Um, and you know, there's a lot of information here, but it ranges somewhere between 25% to 45%.

Um, and which trees count kind of varies between the jurisdictions, but that's a general ballpark of where other jurisdictions um are with their code.

And at the request of uh counselor and the tree task force, city staff did pull permit data.

Um, and for the past uh you said year, I had two years down, but it's a year.

Um, and each permit has unique considerations.

So it isn't every single permit, but it's the ones that we could kind of look next to each other, and they weren't completely, you know, broccoli to oranges.

Um, so there are 20 that we looked here for these for these um for this analysis here, so that we could look at trends.

And these permits showed that in the past year, under the existing code, uh where there was no minimum percentage requirement where it's it's all with the discretionary code as it is today, there was an average of 49% retention of total trees on the lot and a median of 45%.

Um but the range, as you can see here, is is quite wide.

It was from 11% to 91%.

Um, but again, it's it's kind of almost evenly spread out.

There isn't a ton that there isn't, you can't look at this and say, like, I see you know, the the golden, the silver bullet here.

Um, but the median and the average both fall around that 45, 40, uh 50 percent.

And so we looked at these permits and we said, okay, well, this is what did happen.

Now what would happen if we applied these this new clear and objective track?

What would the uh what would the percentage of retention look like?

So here this graph is showing um Daphne Sissel calculated um out of all of these 20 case studies, how what percentage of trees were retained that were over 15 inches in DBH.

And so uh it's all graphed here from 0% to 100% on the right, and you can see that the median percent is that yellow uh dash at 48%, and the average is 49, but the range all over the place.

And then when looking at the total percentage of diameter at breast height inches retained for trees over six inches, um we saw a slightly higher median and a slightly higher average at 52 and 53%, respectively.

Um, and a slightly smaller range, but again, six to 97%.

So as a reminder, the draft code also includes an option to pay into the tree fund.

This is the um the pay per inch uh fee in lieu um in order to meet the minimum percentage when the retention falls short.

Um, but also to incentivize their preservation, there's a bonus credit for native species.

Um this makes it easier to meet the requirements if native species are being preserved.

So it's also important uh to consider that the higher retention percentage could result in more projects paying mitigation fees, and this could impact affordability, and this would butt heads with the um compliance with state law.

Uh and higher percentages could also be seen as as too stringent and uh deny or discourage needed housing.

Um and so when we bring these uh code changes to LD, um they could send us back to the drawing board.

But setting retention percentages too low could go against the overarching goal of sustaining like Oswego's current canopy.

So we need to set a retention percentage that's high enough to maintain the robust canopy, um, but also um comply with this the state uh legislative goals and the state uh the state law.

So 45% seemed feasible for the team based on the data we just showed.

Um, but we'd we'd love to hear more from you.

Um about how you feel about the standard.

Should it be you know less than 45, 40 percent, should it be 40?

Should it be, you know, 45% like we suggested or or more?

Um the tree task force was polled on this exact same question with the same information.

Um and respectively, it was 10%, 20%, 20%, 30%, 20%.

So there was no consensus.

Um there was barely even a trend.

Uh they kind of leaned slightly more towards the higher percentages.

Um, but we're we're looking to you for uh your thoughts on this.

Could you go back two slides to the one with the bell graphs on it?

What do you get out of this slide?

I don't, it's hard for me just to take it all in.

Yeah, absolutely.

So I mean, just I'm I I know that you know how to read graphs, but the first the first thing is because it's a lot that you're looking at, um, the number of projects on the y-axis on the left, um, it's showing that you know, across the board, you're getting about two projects hitting almost every every bin.

It's pretty it's pretty well distributed across projects um with this new code.

And we're seeing that, you know, some of a lot of there's a there's a lot of projects that are retaining a significant amount of tree canopy on the lot, between 70 and 80 percent um if you're looking at total trees, and um 80 to 90 percent if you're looking at DBH.

Uh and then I just mostly we're comparing it to the current code, right?

And it's looking pretty similar.

And I think that's just kind of where we went with the 45 percent.

We're we're saying we're not seeing anything dramatically different with this code.

That means that this code seems like it's in a good place right now because what we want is not to uh create a lot of change or dramatic shift, yeah.

The dramatic shift.

We want to we want to keep things kind of in the same place.

Uh so that's what the data told us.

Um again, we you know we we didn't go that far back, but the it ranges so much, it it's it's it's it's not easy data to to look at.

It's all very site specific, as as Daphne and Morgan, who who both dug into the permits could tell you.

They're all very unique.

But the fear is that if we offer these two choices and one could lead to people cherry picking, you know, a better option that's not borne out by the data that we've seen here, right?

Correct.

Yeah.

I would like sorry, go ahead.

That's it, thank you.

I would like a clarification.

Um I'm confused between 45% for 15 inch trees and 45% retention for say six inch and above, because it seems to me they are not apples to apples, they're apples to oranges.

If if we say if there are equal quantities of 15-inch or greater trees on one plot, and if there are same amount of trees of six inch and over in an equivalent area of plot, if 45% of 15-inch and larger trees are retained, you're getting more tree canopy retention.

If you're retaining six inch and above and 45% of those, because those trees are smaller, you're getting less tree canopy retention.

So when we are when we are saying that it's this or this, how are we bridging that gap?

Because now we have a gap between how much tree canopy you're actually seeing and what are the incentives for that.

I mean, it's on it seems unfair that if you have a plot of land that has mature trees, well, too bad, because you're, you know, you can still do 45%.

Do I get do I make myself clear?

Well, I should make um a couple of clarifications.

So the first one is that it this isn't where someone could just come in and let's say they have a huge a huge lot with tons of trees on it and they're building a new home.

They can't just go out and take out everything but 45% of the trees.

They have to they have to show that the trees are actually um, I think the criteria say that the tree trunk has to be within the area of development.

Okay, so if there's a tree that's way in the back of the lot, they can't just go and remove that for no reason.

That just doesn't count towards the 45%.

So they they have to retain overall on the entire lot, but it doesn't open every single tree on the lot open for development.

Does it am I am I making myself clear?

Do you understand?

No?

Yes, I I understand what you're saying, but I think that is not my question.

Because my question is that we are talking about what is the optimal level of retention, and then we're discussing 45%, more or less, and how what's allowed by code.

It seems to me that what is allowed by code, 45% of 15 inch or higher, or 45% of a cumulative DBH of six inch or higher.

Essentially, when you distill it down, the outcome is different.

A 15-inch tree is much larger than a six-inch tree.

So essentially the canopy is different.

What we are saying through the code, I think my interpretation is that both outcomes are equal or both outcomes are desirable.

And I'm what I'm trying to ascertain is is that a gray area, or is that the intent that we are okay with apples and oranges, different outcomes?

So I I do want to pass this off to Morgan maybe to explain a little bit more about where the you know the 15-inch and the six-inch, um, why those are different for the DBH and the trees and the total trees.

But ultimately, like what we're seeing with this data here is that there isn't a ton of difference in what's retained if you're looking at them from these two different perspectives.

They're they're pretty close.

And and that aside, the purpose of having these two, the two different that the apples and the oranges, as you say, is to allow for flexibility for developers.

Because if we just give them the apple, if we just say you have to preserve 45% of the trees on the lot, a lot of them are gonna struggle with that.

And um, there's not going to be a ton of flexibility about weird-shaped lots or really site-specific things.

Um, and you know, if they want to, and it also it also allows for flexibility when there is, you know, a significant um a native tree on the lot, like a very large native tree.

Um, it might it might mean that they can't preserve that one if they and instead they have to preserve every single other one.

And so this is giving just some options, you know.

We've we've played around with a couple different, like a couple different sites, but it's not necessarily supposed to be the same.

They're supposed to be a little different because we're offering, we're offering to the developer, you know, which is the way forward that you want.

These are both giving us a good amount of retention, as we can see here, on average, around 50%, either way, um, plus or minus 5%.

Um, but this is allowing them to have a little more flexibility.

But um, Morgan, did you have anything to add kind of about you know those those differences?

Because I hear what you're saying, and yeah, it's they're different on purpose, but they're also I agree with that, that they are different on purpose because we want to offer people like these options to choose from so that there are multiple avenues to meet these clear and objective standards.

And you know, the the consultants team, their arborists that they're have on their team selected those thresholds, the 15-inch for the quantity and the six-inch for the diameter.

Um after running the case studies, I didn't question it because there wasn't a lot of difference.

And the way the code amendments are written, uh, native species trees, not all natives, but it's spelled out, like Oregon White Oaks, high value native species, um, get bonus credit, but only in terms of that diameter category.

Uh so that's why I think that the average and the mean was slightly higher in the case studies that we ran because of the diameters.

Um, but there just wasn't a lot of difference between the two, and I think they were intentionally chosen that way.

And we have to keep in mind that there are other types of permits, right?

So any tree six inches and larger requires some type of permit.

In the count of trees, there are non-exempt, there are exempt trees like dead trees, invasive trees.

Those don't count towards your percentages because you you can get this other type of permit.

Um, and with the residential properties are also eligible for type one permits, which is um two trees per calendar year that are between six and fifteen inches.

And I think that's why that 15-inch threshold was chosen, because people could come in and get type one trees after the fact for those smaller size trees.

So I hope that adds some context, but it is it's supposed to be different.

There are two options.

But they are they're not apples to apples, but they're still comparable when we when we did the case study analysis.

And there's also value in trees that are smaller too.

And they're smaller in diameter a lot of times because they haven't grown up yet.

And we need trees that are both large and medium age and small and young.

We need all of these different age classes.

So we don't want to skew only for the older trees.

We want to make sure that we retain a wide variety of age classes for our canopy.

Thank you.

I understand.

My my thought is I wonder if that retention criteria would be served better if it is tied to a certain percentage of land that needs to be covered by canopy and not with a specific focus on tree number and tree size.

Well, what's a desired canopy?

How much ground do we want shaded?

And not just 45% of this or 45% of that.

Because it seems to me that if we say 45% of six or are larger and we get a lesser tree canopy for the current time, then it would be better fortified if we say, okay, but your X percentage of land still needs to be shaded or covered by tree canopy.

Just a thought.

Yeah, and I I appreciate you valuing the canopy here because ultimately that's how we measure where like Oswego is right now compared to pure regions.

We're at 53% in Lake Oswego, and you know, Milwaukee's 17.

Like, you know, it's like Oswego is significant, and it's it's it's a really important thing, but also it's really hard to measure site by site.

Like we do they do LIDAR, they send out remote sensing uh LIDAR planes to take that data.

Um, and so with the clear and objective standards, it has to be easily measurable by somebody walking through the site, and that's you know, that's why we picked the um the number and DBH.

Um but I yeah, I hear that, and I yeah, I appreciate you bringing that up because we are trying to maintain that 53% canopy.

Um we're just trying to do it through some some smaller, kind of more on the ground uh some on the ground code.

We're trying not to affect that that greater canopy um through this.

Any other thoughts about uh the retention, the minimum retention percentage?

And do people feel like 45% is right?

Um I'm seeing some nods.

Anybody feel like it should be higher or lower.

Would you like to say something?

I yeah, I would love it to be higher, but yeah, I I understand the concerns.

Yeah.

And I will say, and we this is always an option.

This code can be changed at any time.

So if we are as we are applying this and we need to retain, you know, um, collect data and and see how this is working out.

And if we see it's not getting the result we want to, that can always be a change later.

And then I would also point out that while this is a consequential decision, um, as far as uh type two trees for development purposes, it represents about 17% of all tree removals.

So a lot of people think the number one reason for removal for trees in the city is for development, and that's not the case.

It's dead hazard invasive type ones.

Those are by far the bulk of the trees that are removed in the city.

For that, Jessica.

Um, and then moving on to this this next question that we have about retention percentages.

We were just discussing the minimum retention percentage.

But you know, if if we want more trees, we can we can do that through incentives.

And this is a really big thing that we heard from the community from our stakeholder focused groups and the public that they want, you know, just they don't they don't necessarily want us to be more punitive or more strict, but they want to see more incentives uh so that you know developers can want to preserve more trees or get you know financially rewarded for uh or financial benefits from preserving more trees.

So the the current code doesn't allow removal if there's significant negative impact on the things that you know I've already gone over twice now.

Um, but the proposed amendment um is to incentivize greater tree retention with a with a percentage.

Um and this if this percentage is met, they could skip public comment and opportunities for appeal for projects meeting these enhanced retention thresholds.

So projects like main major and minor developments that are already subject to public notice and opportunity for appeal would not count under this.

Um we wouldn't be just allowing people to skip this if if there's other due process that needs to happen.

But this could incentivize applicants and potential developers with a little bit more flexibility on their site to choose preservation and preserving a higher higher amount.

And so, you know, back to back to these slides again, um, kind of showing the the spread here.

Uh we are seeing, you know, that there were several projects, it looks like four that retained between 70 and 80% of the total trees on the lot, and there were also four projects that retained between 80 and 90%.

So those are pretty high retention percentages, but they were achieved by four of the 20.

Um just, you know, and put putting it in your head that you know that's doable, that's like a doable percentage.

Some projects did it.

Um I I took all that information and put it on the left here.

So if the incentive was okay, I can't see that.

Um if the incentive was 45%, um 55% or 11 of the the case studies would qualify um under total trees and 12 would qualify under DBH.

If it was set at 70%, seven of the uh projects would qualify under total trees, and also seven would qualify under trees retained.

So that just kind of shows the breakdown there.

Um up to 70%, there's a good amount um of those of those case studies that could uh choose that incentive and then skip public notice and appeals.

Quick question.

How would the separate criteria or criterion relating to significant trees apply to this?

If somebody had a significant tree, chose to go to 80% retention, can you cut down the significant tree?

There's no notice or appeal indicated here.

Yeah, um if they were to cut down a significant tree, they would have to go to the discretionary track, right?

No.

The way it says.

No.

Uh the definition of significant tree is only um uh relevant if you are going through the discretionary track, because that's a one of the criteria.

Or if we change the definition of significant tree, which is one of the proposals next, then it would require higher um mitigation rates under the clear and objective track.

But that's the only way it would apply under the clear and objective track.

This is um trying to um, because it was one of the um it was one of the um the suggestions in the uh the actions um in the urban and community forestry plan to look for more ways that we can incentivize um builders and developers to retain more trees.

Um and so this we thought, you know, builders and developers what what they want is less time, more certainty, let and that reduces their costs.

So if we take away the public notice and appeal period, that's a real incentive to developers to potentially save more trees.

Um but we want to make sure it's meaningful.

We don't want to just give it away.

So we were just having a hard time saying, well, what are different ways that we can do this and and what is a reasonable percentage to um set that at?

Um and so that's what we're seeking the seed back uh feedback, excuse me, from you all on.

Yeah, I didn't quite understand how significant trees fit in there, but what you're saying is you could say if you achieve 60% and no significant trees, then you can get a no public notice.

That could be one of the incentives too.

Um we laid out these these three potential policy alternatives to you know not add an increased incentive, but if if we if we if the person meets 45% um as a retention percentage and there's no significant trees involved, then they don't have to participate in public notice and appeals.

Um we could also set a higher retention percentage for the incentive, um, or we could allow both.

We can we can do both of those things.

Uh so that's that's kind of where we're landing in terms of like asking asking for your feedback here.

Um we didn't ask the tree task force uh this question.

Uh so I just included the information here on the right.

I think we were toying around with 55% as the project team as maybe what we would uh suggest, but I don't think that we we landed anywhere.

So that's that's not our official recommendation, but it's why it's highlighted.

Would it be correct to understand that projects tied to major and minor permits are the ones that have the most impact on tree canopies and this incentive structure is exempt from major and minor permits?

So who's actually benefiting from these incentives and what is the percentage of that kind of development?

Daphne, do you have the percentage for the um the development uh handy?

Oh, you do it, okay.

So it would be the uh verification versus the um yeah.

So the five year average.

Sorry, the five year average from 2021 to 2025 verification permits made up just six percent of all tree removal types.

So those would be the minor and major developments.

Correct.

And then the other is 11%.

Is that uh for type two for development was at 8% over the five year period?

Okay.

And so that means that there's a slightly higher percentage of applications where they're just coming in for a building permit.

So they don't have to go through the minor major development process.

I would just say that um I think it's it's the right thing to do, but you're kicking a hornet's nest because there's a lot of neighbors and neighborhoods that will take umbrage with this.

I think it's I think it's a smart thing to do because as you said, it incentivizes the builder to retain as many trees as possible, move the project forward because time is muddy, and as the DRC has seen, many times when a developer comes in and wants to do a project, the neighbors are are specifically just trying to hold it up, thinking he'll go away.

And that's not the case.

And so this supersedes that happening.

Yeah, I'd I'd like to say that the public notice and appeal, I think is a crucial um idea of our city.

Yeah, well, not just our city, but everywhere.

And if you are going to get rid of that, then I think the incentive would have to be higher than 55%.

I I really think it if you want to incentivize and take away that right from the other citizens, then uh I'd say something closer to 70% would be would be appropriate.

I agree with that 100%.

I yeah, I was going to say I was even gonna say like 75% or something.

They have to be above and beyond the minimum requirement.

Um I think once we hit that like 70, 75% range, then we will see um more tree retention for sure.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So it sounds like I'm hearing most people not agreeing with A that if there's no significant trees involved in their meeting minimum thresholds that they can skip appeals.

Um, I'm hearing that people are more leaning towards the 70 to 75% only incentive.

I am not.

You're not.

Are you are you feeling more?

I think the 45% retention and no significant trees, they're doing their job, they're doing what everyone else has to do.

Give them the give them the bonus.

Anyone else agree with that sentiment or have anything else that they want to add to this to this topic?

All right, well, I've I've heard both both sides, so thank you so much, both of you.

Um we'll keep this moving since I know that we have we have two more um topics to get through.

Um this next one is going to be about significant trees and how they are defined in the discretionary type two track.

So we're moving away from the clear and objective track and into the discretionary track.

Uh the current code defines significant trees as trees that are healthy, non-invasive, over 15 inches in DBH, and considered significant to the neighborhood due to the size, species, or distinctive character, or are the only remaining tree on the property.

And these trees require two to one mitigation.

So if you're removing the tree, you have to plant two.

Uh the proposed amendment keeps the definition mainly the same, but the last tree cannot otherwise be eligible for uh a different permit type.

So it can't be eligible for a dead hazard invasive permit.

So I'm actually going to start first here on the right side with the policy alternative, which is to revise the significant tree definition to add this table of specific species and sizes.

As you see here, right in that fourth bullet down on the left, it just says considered significant due to species.

And that's that's just confusing whether or not you're, you know, no matter who you are, that's that's not very clear.

So this table uh, you know writes out exactly what trees would be considered significant and at what sizes.

And this was this was looked over by by Morgan and the team of arborists.

Uh and you know, we're we're open to feedback on this as well.

Um but uh clear and objective definition of any type with a table like this uh would be more predictable and it would be more equitable, it would be easier for applicants to understand.

And by having uh a clear and objective definition of significant trees in the discretionary tract, um this could also require uh applicants to address exceptions criteria uh to demonstrate no reasonable alternatives to removal, which is an added burden on the applicant, um, and potentially an added cost if they need to hire an arborist to do an assessment.

Uh so it could be it could be clearer, but you know, now anything that isn't part of this list, um, they might need to do perform an assessment to prove that it's significant in other ways.

Uh, but the clear and objective definition here would be easy to apply, um, and the two to one mitigation could continue to be applicable to all type two applications for the purposes of development, whether or whether whether the discretionary or the clear and objective track is used.

Uh so if if made objective staff has less discretion also to determine whether a tree is significant, um, regardless of these, which you know could reduce staff time and capacity, but it you know, it gives a little bit more power to the to the applicant and the code itself than any kind of subjective perspective of the applicant or the city.

Uh so we wanted to ask you uh what you think about this.

Um, should we include the last tree on a lot as a significant tree if it's not uh otherwise eligible for type two, dead declining EAB susceptible hazard, emergency or invasive species removal permit?

Um, or revise the significant tree to include this table that I had on the previous slide.

Um this slide says policy alternative, but the tree task force uh was in favor of this.

So we did add it to the draft that you saw.

Um we pulled them on this, and it doesn't it didn't have an official consensus, but 33% voted for B to add the table, and 44% voted for A and B.

So assuming that you can add those together for um adding the table, that is 66%.

That's oh nope, that's 77%.

So, you know, it's not an official consensus, but that's how I'm interpreting it.

Um so that was added to two draft three.

Uh so yeah, I'd like I'd like to hear your thoughts on this and um if you have any questions as well.

What's the justification for the last tree on the lot as a significant tree?

I've always heard like if you take out a bunch of trees and leave one, it's less you know, strong because it's been protected by other trees.

So leaving one tree can often leave a potentially dangerous tree.

So I guess what's the significance or the justification between just making just because it's the last tree that becomes significant.

Yeah, I think your example is certainly true in a stand of trees.

Right.

And it would be easy to meet the exceptions criteria even if it were deemed significant because it would be unstable if exposed and left all alone.

So it's um but the last so the way it's currently written includes that the last remaining tree.

The problem that we run into is that the last remaining tree is often a six-inch apple, which is eligible eligible for a type one permit anyway.

Um so we could call it significant, but they could turn around and remove it under a simple over-the-counter permit anyway.

So our thought was that by um modifying the definition to say as long it could be the still be the last remaining tree, but as long as it's not eligible for any other type of permit, uh, we would call it significant.

So does that make sense?

We don't want you to remove the last 20-inch Douglas fir if the only other tree on your property is a six-inch apple tree that you can get a type one permit for without addressing the exceptions criteria.

It doesn't mean you can't remove it if it's significant, it just holds you to a higher burden by demonstrating that there are no reasonable alternatives to removal.

It's another question on the on the application checklist.

Morgan, when you when there is a significant tree request to be taken down, or back up.

It says staff decides whether it's a significant tree, correct?

It's discretionary.

So I mean applicants often describe it that way as well.

Staff staff staff, or do you also get a say in this?

Oh, I I review all type two applications and I make recommendations to city staff.

So I I draft findings, and then if they have questions, we can talk about them.

Thank you.

And oh what else did I want to say?

Oh, I also wanted to say um, so the definition of significant tree, it falls under criterion three of the type two discretionary code.

And and that criterion three has many different things under it, right?

So significant tree is just one reason removal could have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood.

It's just one reason.

It could also be because it's a street tree in the right of way, or it's providing a visual screen between different zoning districts.

Um it's just one step.

So it's a small piece of that total criterion.

A plus B makes sense to me.

Yes, thank you very much for explaining the significance of the last tree to us.

So I would also go for uh adopting both.

Any other thoughts or any thoughts uh against A and B.

All right.

Well, moving on to just uh and one more question related to this one.

Um I will pass it off to Morgan to just talk a little bit about the the mitigation of significant trees.

So under the discretionary code today, if a tree is determined to be a significant tree and it's permitted for removal for the purposes of development, the code requires two to one mitigation trees.

So you remove one significant tree for development, you're required to replant two.

Under the clear and objective standards, um by recommending the proposed amendment to include that tree table to define significant tree.

Uh applicants under the clear and objective track could include can use that table to identify trees that are significant because it's clear and objective.

By doing that, we could permit removal if they meet all the clear and objective standards, but we have a way to uh also require the two to one mitigation and keep it consistent between the two tracks.

So with your previous recommendation to include that table in the definition of significant now to make it clear and objective, even under the discretionary track.

We have this option to require two to one mitigation under the clear and objective standards.

Would they have to mitigate with as the a similar tree from that significant tree list?

So it would be the mitigation as it's written in the proposed amendments is is similar.

Like if you remove a native species tree, you have to replant with a native species tree.

Yeah, but we don't need to how many dogwoods do we need?

No, but if there's also requirements for um plant large shadow tree where space can accommodate it.

So if it makes sense to plant a Douglas fir instead of a dogwood, great, but it doesn't always make sense.

Yeah, thank you.

And um just for the record as well, the true task force just polled on the same question, and they were 89% in favor of uh the first option here that it should be extended.

Yeah, I think that that table with the specific trees and their size certainly clarifies a lot of confusion that we've dealt with in the last five years at DRC.

So I'm seeing a lot of nods.

It helps us.

Right.

Keep us moving since we're it's getting it's getting late.

So this is the last issue for the evening, and one that we heard about with the public comment.

We received uh how many public comments now?

It was you said about 20 something, but I don't want to.

It's about 26-ish.

26 public comments on this topic here.

So it's an important one to think through thoroughly and get your expertise on.

Um and before we jump into the question of should private and municipal golf courses qualify for the forest management permit.

Jessica's gonna give a little bit of context about the forest management permit itself.

So there we have two different types of forest management permits.

One is called a minor forest management, and the other is called a major forest management permit.

And they were added to the code in about 2015.

And the whole purpose of it was when you have a kind of larger landowners who own uh at least an acre of land with at least one acre of tree canopy on that land, that they were having a hard time, you know, having to come in and apply for 10 different tree cutting permits or or nine different tree cutting permits for all the different ways that they needed to manage the trees on the property.

Because one acre of tree canopy, that's a lot of trees to manage.

And so we came up with this um uh permit process to allow them to sort of consolidate it.

So essentially it allows them to consolidate dead hazard um invasive, all on one tree permit, plus they're allowed to remove um up to I think it's six trees or what they're called four square feet of basal area, which we can get into if you want to, but um it's a forestry term.

Um in each calendar year for every one acre of forest canopy.

So if you have two acres of forest canopy, you could remove potentially up to 12 trees per year.

Of course, once you go below that one acre of forest canopy uh tree canopy, you're no longer qualified for the uh minor or major forest management permit.

I would say 99.9% of all the tree permits we've ever gotten under these have been under minor.

And um uh I don't know if Morgan, if you recall getting even a major forest management permit ever.

Uh so that those are the most common, and we find that most of those larger uh landowner applicants, it works just fine for them to use the minor.

Um, it's not subject to public notice or appeal.

So they just come in and they meet these clear and objective criteria, and then it's essentially an over-the-counter permit, except for we do do a little bit of verification before we issue them.

Um, of course, we have um our contract arborist review it.

I will say there's just a couple of other caveats I would put in there in that it does not the areas that do not qualify for this permit are areas in sensitive lands.

So if they have mapped tree groves or mapped um stream corridors, that does not count.

You can't do a minor forest management permit um if you have that.

It also does not count if you're in the 25-foot Oswego Lake Special setback, or if you're within the Willamette uh greenway management overlay, which is along the Willamette River, or if it's a heritage tree, which we have uh designated heritage trees in the city, or if it is a noteworthy landscaping feature or tree on a historic property.

So those are the those don't qualify.

But uh, for example, as you heard tonight, um, the golf course does qualify for that, and they have applied for um those types of permits in the past.

So with that, I'll pass it over to you.

Yeah, you just covered all of the things um about the current code.

So we're just yeah, we're just bringing the the issue of the proposed amendment to discuss today.

Um the draft code adds to this list of of areas that don't qualify for the forest management permit.

Um, those that are located within the property, though those trees located within the property managed by a municipal or private golf course.

And these uh this edition, I we heard today that there is, you know, there's some concern about how this was added to the draft, and nothing was added without uh a good amount of feedback from the stakeholders and the community, and you know, there's gonna be that I can speak to that.

And and yeah, Jessica.

Yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt it.

Yeah, the the big question is where did this come from?

So it didn't come out of nowhere, as um as Sarah alluded to.

Uh so it started back with the urban and community forestry plan.

And at that time we were uh did a lot of public outreach um as part of that plan to identify the different issues with the urban forest.

And there was a lot of concern, and it could have been around activity that was happening at the golf course at that time.

That may or may not be fair, but but for whatever reason it was brought up during that time as an issue that people felt that that type of forest management permit shouldn't be applied to a golf course because it's this highly manicured, highly managed um property type.

Um, and again, I'm not this isn't my own personal views of this.

I'm just telling you what what we heard during that public uh comment.

And so uh one of the recommendations that came out of that plan was to address this as part of the tree code update.

Um we also took it to the city council.

We had some counselors who expressed similar concerns about it, and so that's why it made it into this draft.

But I do want to point out that this is a draft.

This is not does not mean that this is what's going to be adopted.

This is why we have this process and why people can come in and give us feedback so that we can consider all policy options and make a recommendation to the council.

So I just want to be very clear this is not set in stone, but that is where it came from was the concerns of um what people perceived as a lot of tree removal happening on uh the the uh um uh on the excuse me, the the Oswega Lake uh country club golf course.

And um, and that's why it was made in in here.

But it's certainly something that if you recommend we we could remove that if you feel that that's not uh the right policy direction.

Yeah, from from looking at permits, uh there were 122 trees removed under the force, all forest management permits between 2021 and 2025.

So that averages about 25 trees per year.

Uh and the intent of the forest management permit is to uh sustain forest cover for property owners that have large lots with a lot of canopy cover.

Um and uh so disqualifying the golf course from this permit would treat them differently from other large properties, uh housing complexes and open spaces that don't contain designated sensitive lands.

So there's there's a couple options here um to remove this provision that is as it's drafted currently um and continue to allow golf courses to be eligible for this management permit.

Um we met with Nolan um in one of our stakeholder interviews, and and we heard today that you know that the golf courses are actively managing their land um with kind of with greater environmental goals in mind.

And so it's it's it's not to you know demonize anybody.

We we you know, we respect that you came to the stakeholder group and you provided a lot of really great feedback.

And and so I hope that this doesn't uh read read in that way.

There's a lot of different um interests in Lake Oswego, and and this one cropped up.

Um so there's also you know, the option to just to not add it.

We can we can take that draft out.

Um, but we could also keep it in um for the reasons uh that Jessica Jessica mentioned um and the concerns that the community has.

Could you answer a question?

The um municipal golf course was redone recently.

How many trees of that 125 that were taken out in the last five years are countable to the redo of the municipal golf course?

Zero.

And the reason why it's zero is because they did it under a minor and major development permit.

They didn't do a four forest minor forest management permit because they were they were doing other development on it, so they just lumped it all together.

So none of that 122 is attributable to attributed to the municipal golf course.

I will tell you that in the last five years, the um uh Oswego Lake Country Club did apply for two tree permits under the minors for minor forest management, and they removed a total of 63 trees under those permits.

How many?

63.

63.

Yeah.

And um, and again, it's the total is less than one percent of all trees removed.

So when you look at overall, it's a it's a very small percentage.

But um, yeah, it is it is a large, you know, they have 123 acres, I believe.

So they've got a lot of land.

I mean, they can never go below one acre of canopy um per acre of land.

So if that happened, they would no longer be eligible for it.

But yeah.

I think adding that excluding them from the tree code is is ridiculous.

I mean, they they have a big vested interest in keeping their trees healthy, which they do if you've ever been on their golf course.

Um it just seems one-sided to make them fall under that purview.

And I just I'm sorry, and I just this last thing I'll say is that um they would be eligible for other permit types.

So if they weren't eligible for this one, they could apply for type two, hazard, dead, whatnot, but it means they have to apply for those all separately, and it is quite a large lot.

So um, I just want to point that out.

It doesn't leave them no options, but it it definitely is not as um, I guess easy for them to manage their trees.

Yeah, what was the rationale for identifying as exception golf courses rather than common properties that are managed by homeowners' associations and parks and those other large pieces of uh property with trees on them are not exempted.

I I'm very familiar, I think, with the emotion that went along with the timing of this decision to add this.

And do you think that that was the major reason it was added?

Because it doesn't seem to me to be fundamentally different from other large pieces of property that you know are eligible for forest management permits.

I would say that in general, we don't see many from the city because so many of the city's parks and natural areas have sensitive lands on them.

And then the ones that don't are like um they tend to not have an acre of tree canopy because they've got ball fields and um other things on there that they just don't have enough acreage.

So we don't, I don't know that we've seen them, um, Morgan.

I don't know if you've seen any from uh from the the city, but I I don't recall any.

Most of them are going to be like apartment complexes like Oswego Point or one Jefferson Parkway, are some examples.

Um homeowners uh common areas would also be eligible only if they don't have sensitive lands, and there are some of those out there as well.

There are yeah.

I know we're always supposed to disclose a conflict of interest, and I am not a golfer, I'm a fisherman, but uh you know, any time you walk on a golf course, you are struck, especially the two that are in question here with how carefully they maintain the property and the careful stewardship of the land that was alluded to by the um public testimony that we received tonight, and also the the public comments, and so I think I would be in favor of keeping the golf courses eligible under the current forest management permits, you know, based on those those factors.

Yeah, as as a weekend golf hacker and a bad one.

Um I would you know for my game, it would be better if all the trees were gone.

Yeah.

However, um yeah, having read through the 26 or 27 um notice that that we've received and and the public testimony tonight.

The fact that we were basically talking about one golf course within the city.

You know, that's again one and a half percent of the city overall.

Um I just don't see how that has in it really contributes anything to um putting that uh or taking that away from them.

I I think it yeah, it they should continue to be a part of that system.

I have to agree with Commissioner Bruce, Commissioner Dews, Commissioner Leek on that one.

And it's almost seems like that came up out of some kind of bias.

That's just my own personal opinion here with thinking of this just because there's there's some people that aren't a part of the club, so they hate the club, you know, it's just kind of that, in my opinion.

I'm thinking the unpopular people against the popular people type of a thing.

So there's that deep-rooted mentality there that that deep bias that's bred into people's past traumas that comes out in the future, you know, looking at bullies and other nonsense that happens.

So I just want to put my two cents in on that one.

I I will say, just to be fair, we did have people who are opposed to that were actually members of the country.

I I can't tell you how many, but there were some of those folks.

So I don't I just want to point that out.

But uh, but yeah, um, I have a question.

Is forest defined in our code, or is this being loosely used?

Is this just a question of semantics?

What is a forest?

What is a golf course?

So forest itself is not, but large forested tract is, and that's the only thing that's eligible for a minor forest management permit.

And so it's really broadly defined, and it's basically a lot, parcel or tract that is one acre or larger in area containing not less than one acre of tree canopy.

Um it goes on, but I'll stop there.

So it is it's pretty broad.

So as long as you meet the minimum size in terms of the lot and size in terms of the tree canopy, you qualify.

But we do not have a definition of forest.

Okay, thank you.

In that case, I'd say there is no obvious reason in our code that there's a conflict here.

So I would support keeping the management of the golf course as is.

That seems to be the general sentiment here tonight.

I'm getting nods from some of those who haven't spoken.

Um so yeah, thank you for discussing that, and thank you to the members of the public that came here today and gave your testimony.

Um we you know, we've talked with some of you in stakeholder engagement, and um we've also talked with some other people on the other side, and so this is kind of where those decisions are made, and now we know what to pass forward uh to council.

So we are concluding these these topics here, and I just wanted to cover a couple of the next steps for the draft code.

Um, we'll be incorporating some of these, some of these changes along with uh some of the um feedback that we get from both the parks board and sustainability boards.

Um, this Wednesday um we'll be incorporating feedback from this session and that session into draft four that we'll bring to city council.

Um, and we're having a work session with them in May.

Uh, we'll meet with the tree task force.

Um many members are here today.

You go, Brandon, and and Jeff.

Um we'll be meeting with the tree task force for a last meeting and review of the code, also sometime in in late May, and then uh the the code will go back to the planning commission for a hearing and the city council for hearing in June and July.

But I did want to give um an opportunity now for for folks that have other questions or other things they wanted to discuss about uh the draft code um beyond those those focus, those focus items.

Um quick question.

I am I've heard it rumored that these kind of tree disputes will not come up in front of the DRC, that there will be a tree code person arbiter panel, something.

Yeah, so the proposed code um eliminates review of the DRC from tree disputes and the the current proposal um with this draft is a hearings officer who will be it's a hired position by the city, other cities do this as well.

Um they will give a final decision on these these um these issues.

Um we've heard you know from many members of the planning commission and the council that these these disputes tend to uh be take a lot of staff time, take a lot of staff energy, a lot of staff money, and we are seeing um we are seeing that there's only been one uh one issue that was overturned in the past five years out of nine different cases that were escalated to um to the DRC.

So because of all of this, um the hearings officer would would just be one person um who could make a final decision um based on this new clear and objective code.

So it would no longer um yeah, the clear and objective track and the discretionary tract.

Thank you.

A new occupation for somebody graduating in landscape architecture.

I they would most they would likely be more um, I think have a background in uh as an attorney, I think um for this.

It would be I think I think uh that hiring a recent grad could be uh dramatic.

But it I think the position would most likely be filled by somebody who has experience as an attorney.

Yeah, we currently have a contract with uh a hearings officer for expedited um land divisions, so we could potentially utilize that same hearings officer for appeals, which we get maybe for a year.

So not the other thing that maybe I don't know how you put it in the code, but when people want to appeal something, tell them the things they can't appeal.

But they don't read the code and they want to come and tell us that these trees need to be saved because I had a tree for it in there once or carbon, whatever that term is, so that I can't even remember tonight.

Um that those are not part of the code.

And if it's spelled out in the very first paragraph, please do not try to appeal based upon these items.

Might save everybody a lot of time.

Any other questions or comments about the draft before I hand it back over.

I have I just wanted to before I have my um express my comments.

I just wanted to thank staff and everybody involved in this process.

It's been comprehensive, long, and I appreciate the effort that's gone into it to get the draft to the point it is.

And there's lots of things that are uh very commendable and good about it, and in the interest of time, so let me just stick to two things or a few things that I think um maybe better addressed.

One of the basic takeaways from reading the draft was the number of times there's a loop back to arbitrary services may be required.

This is something I feel that we should look at a bit more prudently and judiciously because now we are creating loop backs.

Uh we are creating ambiguity because we are not clarifying when or how, but we are just saying may.

We are increasing loopbacks to uh for services that would increase time and cost for project uh projects, and that would be in conflict of basically what we are trying to do.

So if there is a bit more clarity in exactly when arborist services would be required and what is the nature of that services, or if they can be codified, you know, do you really need a arbore service uh report to advise how planting should be done in a critical root zone, or can we say four-inch pots and hand you know, hand digging only, or something that if we can reduce loop backs, extra loop backs in the process, I think it would make it more efficient and um help save costs and time.

The other um concern I have is that we are changing, we are either changing or modifying how people understand tree street trees, especially when we are now putting the onus of maintaining and all the costs associated with street trees on homeowners.

My thought on that is street trees are a community resource, not all homeowners have street trees in front of their homes, or even if their properties are adjacent to uh streets.

That could be construed as extra onus on few and not on the others.

Anytime I feel that policy, the outcome is unfair, it also creates a possibility of liability because you're asking some people to take more um responsibility for cost and maintenance and not others.

So I think that's something that we should look at a bit more prudently.

And I know that we have given comparative um we compare with other jurisdictions, but uh I do feel that that that opens the city up for more uh liability claims.

And the last one is I think uh emerge uh emergency tree removal.

It seems to me that uh we are creating a pathway for emergency tree removal, but we are not telling them exactly what the criteria is, besides a few basic things.

Because at the end of the emergency tree removal, we are saying that if uh post-tree removal, if an arborist finds that you know um the reasons for the tree removal um can be contested, then the owner is going to be penalized, right?

So I feel that that's creating again another ambiguity and risk for the city because now people have to weigh in the possibility of penalties for something that they are not qualified to evaluate.

If there's a snowstorm, and as a homeowner, I feel that the tree is leaning, and the city manager is not available, and I make a decision that the tree needs to be removed because I'm scared of um loss of life, a loss of property.

Well, if I give photographic evidence and somebody is going to come and say, well, I don't think it was leaning that much.

That's a subjective opinion.

So when we are when we are pegging uh penalties to the owner for that, how do we expect residents to you use that clause when there is no clarity?

What are what is the definition that they have to meet to ascertain that you know, okay, I need to remove this tree.

So I think there are a few loopbacks that create more ambiguity when we use more words like may, may require, may require, and those I feel can be sharpened, uh, and that can help communicate uh better.

What is it that you know we are expecting folks to do?

That's all.

Thank you.

Well, thank you so much.

Um, your your comments are we've we've taken a lot of notes, and you're all welcome to email any of us directly um with your comments, and we can pass them along and discuss them as a project team.

Um, so we we welcome that.

I I know that you have Jessica's email.

Um, and yeah, thank you so much for your time and your your thoughtful consideration on all of this.

Uh, we appreciate you all coming in for public comment as well.

Um, and hope that uh you you found a you got a resolution that that you're you're happy with this evening.

Um so I'll pass it back to you.

Yes, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us tonight and all of your collective efforts on this, and we're excited to see these changes come in in a few weeks in final form.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to item number seven, other business.

Seeing no other business, uh, item number eight, schedule review iris.

I can I can take that over.

Uh just a couple of updates for you.

Um, one update and then the then we'll go over the schedule.

Uh the first is that the search committee for the boards and commissions um is currently reviewing applications for new planning commissioners.

And um there is there are two vacancies on the planning commission.

And so we uh it looks like they'll be scheduling interviews in late April, so a little bit later this month.

Um so in addition to filling two vacancies, we'll also be recruiting for two alternates, which is what we have every year.

So just wanted to give you an update on that.

I'm sure Eric uh uh planning manager Olson will provide more updates um when he is at your next meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled for April 27th, and at that meeting, you will have a work session on foothills, and this is going over the vision and goals and objectives for the district.

And then on May 11th, your meeting will be a work session on the rezoning project.

So this is where things are gonna start to kick in, kick in now.

Um, we're also gonna be finalizing the selection of the consultant for the code audit as well.

So you'll be starting you'll be seeing a lot more of uh of us uh uh and you're gonna have a lot more meetings uh coming up really soon on both of those.

Um on the 28th, it looks like Eric Um excuse me, planning manager Olson is still trying to determine um what will be scheduled for that evening, but on June 8th, we will have a uh public hearing on these very tree code amendments that you talked about tonight.

So we look forward to seeing you uh there uh uh on the 8th.

And that will be kind of a long night because you also have another work session on foothills and looking at the uh conceptual alternatives for the district.

So that's everything that I have for the schedule and management update.

Great, thank you so much.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Thank you.