Lake Oswego Planning Commission and Development Review Commission Joint Work Session on Tree Regulation Amendments - April 13, 2026

The Planning Commission (PC) and Development Review Commission (DRC) held a joint work session on Monday, April 13, 2026, beginning at 7:00 PM to discuss proposed amendments to the city's tree regulations (PP 24-0006). The session focused on six key policy questions to shape draft code language before it goes to city council in May. Commissioners heard public testimony on the proposed exclusion of golf courses from the forest management permit and discussed retention percentages, the clear and objective track, significant tree definitions, and incentives. No formal votes were taken, but clear direction was provided to staff.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval: The minutes from the Planning Commission meeting on March 9, 2026, were unanimously approved by voice vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Nolan Wenker (Head Golf Course Superintendent, Oswego Lake Country Club): Opposed the proposed amendment to exclude private and municipal golf courses from the forest management permit (Chapter 55.02.072). He presented data showing that between 2021 and 2025, the country club removed only 63 trees—less than 0.5% of the approximately 13,075 trees removed citywide—and that the club occupies 129 acres (about 2% of the city's land area). He argued the permit is a vital tool for managing large landscapes and that removals are already subject to mitigation and replanting requirements.
• Jeff Shearer (Lake Oswego resident, former DRC member, current tree committee member): Strongly opposed the golf course exclusion, noting that the club has never been found to have violated the forest management permit. He stated the change was not discussed by the tree committee and appears to be a targeted modification without justification.

Discussion Items

1. Clear and Objective Track Applicability

• Commissioners discussed whether the new clear and objective track should apply only to new dwelling units or also to additions and modifications. The consensus was to apply it narrowly to new dwellings (including teardowns and replacements) but to allow site improvements (e.g., pools, sheds, driveways) applied for concurrently with a new dwelling to be combined under the clear and objective track to avoid administrative complexity. This was seen as a compromise to prevent loopholes while keeping the process efficient.

2. Minimum Tree Retention Percentage

• Staff proposed a 45% minimum retention (either 45% of total trees >15" DBH or 45% of total DBH of trees ≥6") based on analysis of 20 recent permits showing an average of 49% retention under current discretionary code. Commissioners generally supported 45% as a starting point, though some expressed a desire for higher percentages. The discussion noted that the fee-in-lieu mechanism must be set appropriately to avoid either encouraging clear-cutting or making the clear and objective track unusable.

3. Incentive for Higher Retention

• Staff proposed an incentive to skip public notice and appeal periods for projects retaining a higher percentage of trees (draft suggested 55% or 70%). Commissioner opinions were divided: some favored retaining 45% and offering the incentive if no significant trees were involved; others argued that to take away public process, the retention threshold should be much higher (70-75%). No clear consensus emerged.

4. Significant Tree Definition

• The draft code adds a table of specific species and sizes to make the definition of "significant tree" clear and objective, and clarifies that the "last tree on a lot" is significant only if it is not eligible for another permit type. Commissioners from both the PC and DRC strongly supported both parts (A and B), noting it would reduce confusion and staff discretion.

5. Forest Management Permit – Golf Course Exclusion

• A proposed amendment would exclude trees on property managed by a municipal or private golf course from eligibility for the forest management permit. Commissioners nearly unanimously opposed the exclusion, calling it unnecessary and biased. They noted the minimal tree removal (63 trees over 5 years by the country club) and that the permit already requires at least one acre of tree canopy. The consensus was to remove the exclusion.

6. Other Draft Code Concerns

• Commissioner Nainoa raised concerns about ambiguous language in the draft, particularly use of "may require arborist services" without clear criteria, the shift of street tree maintenance costs to homeowners (which may create inequity and liability), and the lack of clear definitions for emergency tree removal (homeowners risk penalties if post-removal arborist finds removal unjustified). Staff took notes and will address in draft revisions.

Key Outcomes

• Direction to Staff: Based on commissioner input, staff will proceed with:
  • Narrow application of clear and objective track to new dwelling units (including teardowns and replacements), but allow concurrent site improvements to be included.
  • Minimum retention percentage of 45% (with two calculation options).
  • Incentive threshold for skipping public notice set at a higher percentage (70-75% as a starting point for further discussion), not just 45% with no significant trees.
  • Adoption of the significant tree definition table and last tree clarification.
  • Removal of the golf course exclusion from the forest management permit.
  • Review and clarification of ambiguous language around arborist requirements, street trees, and emergency removals.
• Next Steps: Staff will incorporate feedback into Draft 4. A work session with city council is scheduled for May 2026. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the final draft on June 8, 2026. The tree task force will have its final review in late May. City council hearings are expected in June and July 2026.