Christina Good evening.

I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Lake Oswego Planning Commission on Monday, June 8th, 2026 at 6 30 p.m.

Christina, can you please call roll?

Chair Narruk?

Here.

Vice Chair Bruce?

Here.

Commissioner Moreno.

Here.

Commissioner Mitchell.

Here.

Guinea?

Here.

Commissioner Sly?

Here.

Commissioner Twing?

Here.

And Council Liaison Rachel Verdict.

Here.

Thank you.

We are going to a uh item not on tonight's agenda, but we are going to sneak in a city council update with Councillor Burdick.

Thank you.

And I'm glad I could be here tonight.

My plans changed, so I was able to make it.

So a lot of my updates you guys are actually going to be talking about tonight, so I'll not go into detail, but the tree code as well as foothills.

And then the I think the exciting news is uh former councillor Jackie Manns is going to be filling Aaron Rap's seat through the end of the year.

So she was just brought on board and had her first meeting back with us on June 2nd, I believe was the meeting.

So Councillor Manns um was able to join us for that last meeting and jumped in and was ready to go.

So that was uh a great meeting.

It's nice to have her back.

And then we also have been working um with the library director, and we are going to be moving forward to start working on where potentially a new site for a library could be, as well as what will we do with the existing site.

So we have two committees that will be formed to deal with those two issues, and so those are two aspects of the library that we're we will be uh working on as we proceed to move forward with a failing building at that location.

So I think those are pretty much the biggest updates.

Any questions?

Well, if you need have any or need anything, please let me know.

Great.

Thank you, Counselor Verdick.

Moving on, item number three, approval of minutes for May 11th, 2026.

Do I have a motion to approve as written or any amendments to the minutes?

I make a motion to approve as written.

Do I hear a second?

Second.

Oh, great.

Thank you.

I beat you.

All in favor of moving to approve the minutes as written for May 11th, 2026.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Item number four, we have public comment.

This is for items that are not present on tonight's agenda.

I believe we do have uh someone here or remotely for public comment.

Uh reminder that time is limited to three minutes per individual.

All right, thank you very much.

Um if you can please start by introducing yourself.

What do I push?

Oh, yeah.

Okay, I'm I'm on the board.

There we go.

Okay, great.

Yeah, my name's Dorothy Atwood.

I'm uh I live here in Lake Oswego, and I am the president and board chair of the Lake Oswego sustainability network.

Actually, my item is on the agenda of Foothills, but that wasn't a choice that I had, so I chose this one and and um I'll just go ahead and testify right now.

Lake Oswego Sustainability Network has been really excited about seeing what's happening at the foothills.

This provides a wonderful opportunity for us.

It's undeveloped land, well, it's it's land that we can have a vision for, and you'll hear more.

You have been hearing more about that.

And um, our objective is to support sustainable, inclusive, and a forward-looking community to prioritize clean energy and the integration of middle housing, affordable and high-density residential options, and uh we'd love to see the city explore clean energy with district heating.

We actually just hosted, I think we had someone here to invite you to a uh we had a panel on clean energy just earlier today, which some of your members were at, where we uh really want to start a conversation, a community conversation about um what could a clean energy district look like?

How would it work economically?

So we have a great opportunity in in our Foothills district by having the wastewater treatment plant there that also provides another source of energy that can be integrated into something like that.

So I just wanted to be here to be thank you for your service to our community, but also let you know that we're we're supportive of the direction that the city seems to be going with the guiding principles that include sustainable elements and use your expertise and your influence to really think openly about policies and procedures, um ordinances, overlays.

How could we make this happen?

And let's make sure that as we move forward with the Foothills district, we don't close the door to opportunities, but we keep it open so that we can really explore these things.

Great, thank you.

Do we have anyone else signed up for public comment for items that are not on the agenda tonight?

Right.

Thank you so much.

Item number five, uh, commission for citizen involvement, general updates.

I do not believe that we have any items for this.

Perfect.

On to item number six, our public hearing for tonight.

And now is the time for public comment that is on tonight's agenda, which I believe we also have some folks signed up for.

All right, Chair.

Um it might be I think the public comment would go in the public for this item would go in the public testimony portion of the hearing.

So we'll probably do proceed with the uh staff report first.

Staff report first.

Okay.

Got it.

Thank you.

We can do that.

That brings us to 6.1 tree regulation amendments, LU 26-0014, uh presented by uh Jessica and Monolio Community Development Director.

Want to start out with the hearing procedures?

Sure.

And I'll just quickly go over the hearing procedures.

So for tonight's public hearing, we'll hear from staff first on the staff report, and then after that, um, the commission will have an opportunity to ask staff questions, um, get any clarification that you need.

Um, there may be, so I do want to differentiate here between clarifying questions and deliberations.

So deliberations will be when you are sharing your opinions and your concerns, your conclusions.

Um deliberations, and we can let you know that we'll save that for the the next piece.

Um, after the staff report and questions, we'll take the public testimony, and that'll be an opportunity for the public to come up and provide their comments on this agenda item.

Um, that too is an opportunity if the commission has clarifying questions.

Um it's primarily an opportunity for you less than, but if you have clarifying questions for anyone who's speaking, feel free to ask those at that time.

Um, and again, deliberations will wait until the deliberations portion, which will be after the public comment.

And during deliberations, uh, if questions do come up, you're still free to ask questions of staff.

And if you have any questions during the entire process, I am always here to um help you through process as well as staff.

Do they have to?

Thank you very much.

Uh no, okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair Najak and uh good evening to the commissioners.

Uh I'd like to start off uh first by introducing the project team.

Um, of course, I'm Jessica Numonalu, I'm the project manager, the community development director.

We're also joined by Sarah Goldstein.

She is the uh from Cascadia Partners and is our consultant on this project.

We have Morgan Holan, who is uh our uh city contract arborist and uh is helps us uh administer our tree code.

Uh Daphne Sissel is sitting uh in the back.

Uh she is one of our associate planners and she administers our tree code as well.

And then a special thanks to Deanne Knippel, who is the vice chair of our tree task force.

Tree Task Force is an advisory body body that met throughout the course of this project to advise the project team and were really important in the project.

And I wanted to start off before we went into the staff presentation to give Deanne a few minutes to talk about the Tree Task Force.

So I'd love to invite her to speak for a few minutes.

Thank you, Jessica.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Deanne Cronen Knippel, and I am, as Jessica mentioned, speaking tonight as the vice chair of the Tree Code Task Force.

I'll go ahead and read my remarks.

I want to make sure I don't miss anything.

This task force was appointed by City Council, and it consisted of 12 members.

The task force members were chosen intentionally to represent a range of perspectives and expertise.

This included folks from development parks, sustainability, the neighborhoods, arborists, and community members.

The task force was charged with reviewing proposed amendments to the city's tree regulations and working towards three main objectives.

First, ensuring that the amendments align with the intent of the Lake US of the Urban and Community Forest Plan update from 2024.

Secondly, enhancing the long-term sustainability of Lake Oswego's urban forest via effective and efficient regulations.

And thirdly, ensuring that all recommendations comply with state law.

The task force met six times over the past year.

And this process was supported by Cascadia Partners and by leaders in the city's planning development and key staff, as Jessica just introduced folks.

The Cascadia Partners and City staff provided the committee with technical expertise.

They helped clarify policy implications.

And I think they really helped us understand, helped the committee understand what are the practical impacts of the proposed changes we were discussing.

They also provided us with all the documentation.

Excuse me, we would need to be well prepared before the meetings and summarize each meeting accurately and in a timely manner right afterwards.

And I have to say that I was impressed and quite grateful for their effective and thoughtful guidance of this important group process.

I feel that one of the great greatest strengths of this process was the diversity of viewpoints that was represented by the committee.

Members of the committee brought perspectives from environmental stewardship, development, property ownership, arbiculture, neighborhood interests, and other areas of community concern.

And so, you know, not surprisingly, there were times when perspectives differed significantly.

But I feel like this was really a strength that was built into the process of the Tree Code Task Force.

Differences of opinion allowed the task force to test assumptions, identify unintended consequences, and really to better understand how different members of the community could be impacted and affected by changes to the code.

I feel like we often found ourselves balancing important community values, and these included protecting and enhancing the urban forest, respecting property rights, maintaining clarity of regulations, supporting housing and development goals, and also ensuring that the code updates would be practical and possible to administer.

In many cases, there were no perfect solutions, but rather thoughtful trade-offs that required careful consideration.

I think this can be a very difficult process to navigate.

And I felt that Cascadia Partners and our city staff really did an admirable job of structuring the process, managing time, being informative, and in recording and sharing out the outcomes of the meetings and decisions, both to the committee and to the public.

So I feel like, in conclusion, while individual task force members likely hold different views on the specific amendments, I do believe that the process itself demonstrates the value of bringing diverse voices together to address these complex community issues.

I think the recommendations that will be shared with you this evening reflect truly an earnest and honest effort to balance the multiple objectives and to summarize the multiple perspectives.

So I'd like to thank you for your time and for your service to the city of Lake Oswego.

Thanks so much, Deanne, and a big big thanks to the Tree Task Force.

They did a wonderful job, all volunteer members of the community, people that we've tapped before for other types of projects.

So we so appreciate your time.

And I know there's probably some Tree Task Force members who are streaming this right now, so hello to them and thank you very much for your time on this project.

So hello to them and thank you very much for your time on this project.

So we'll uh jump right into the uh present the staff presentation now.

And the request before the commission tonight is to consider draft amendments to the city's tree regulations and standards, and this includes in the tree code, which is chapter 55, the community development code, which I'll also call sometimes the CDC.

That's chapter 50 of the code, and that has our development regulations.

And then finally, Article 34.10 in the city code, which is regarding nuisances, and you all will be making a recommendation for to the council tonight for the uh hearing that is right now at least tentatively scheduled for July 21st.

I do want to note just a point of procedure that typically chapter 55 or other chapters of the tree code that are not chapter 50 of the community development code are typically not heard by the commission.

The commission doesn't usually make recommendations on those chapters.

However, there's nothing in our city code that restricts the commission from providing a recommendation, and we do believe that because the the all of these regulations, even with chapter 50, are related, um, staff would like you all to make a recommendation on the entire amendment package to the city council, not just chapter 50.

So I just wanted to point that out that even though it's not required by code for you to make a recommendation on those, um, we would like the commission to do so.

For the presentation tonight, um, Sarah is going to be going over the project background, including public engagement that informed the code amendments, and then she will provide an overview of the proposed proposed code amendments.

There is a lot, and we recognize that this can be a little bit overwhelming.

We've had a few study sessions with the planning commission, um, but we did try to summarize them, um, provide references in the code.

Uh, they're all in it's in numerical order essentially, um, and uh the different key issues that we covered in the code uh correspond in that numerical order to the actual draft code amendments.

Um I will then discuss key amendments that we wanted to highlight for the commission's consideration.

And these are amendments that the council either had questions about or were uncertain about at their last study session, or we just got kind of mixed feedback from them, and it would uh it would really benefit uh, I think the council to for the commission to have some deliberations on them and then make a final recommendation to the council so that uh they have a little bit more uh feedback uh from the commission, although you'll see that we did get a pretty good consensus on at least one of the issues from the DRC, the planning commission, as well as the tree task force.

So those three um key issues that I'm gonna be talking about are expanding the ability to remove moderate risk trees, changing the appeals process for type two applications, and addressing enforcement of dead trees that are hazard hazardous to private property.

So, with that, I'm going to pass it over to Sarah, who will provide the project background and overview of the amendments.

All right, perfect.

Uh so we were just here only a few weeks ago, and these slides will look familiar to you since we've been here a few times, but to orient everyone to the project objectives and the uh the outcome of this project.

Uh the objective is to amend Lake Oswego's tree code and tree-related provisions as outlined by Jessica, it's in the community development code, um, in accordance with the goals uh outlined and the the key issues outlined in the urban community forestry plan.

And the outcome of this project and the code amendments is to preserve the city's wooded character.

Lake Oswego has a tremendous tree canopy.

Uh, and the goal of this project is not to do a complete overhaul of the code, but to make very specific edits to ensure that that doesn't change and that Lake Oswego maintains its beautiful canopy.

Um, while also supporting responsible development and complying with state law.

So this project has integrated best practices in urban forestry.

It's uh enhanced the clarity and efficiency of tree regulations that have been identified as clunky and needing a reboot.

Um, and we've incorporated a lot of meaningful community involvement throughout the process as well.

So recent changes in state law have affected this project, and the proposed amendment includes uh needed updates for compliance.

These laws establish specific requirements and limits on how tree regulations can be applied to housing development applications.

So all housing.

First, there is House Bill 2138, which passed in 2025.

And this requires clear and objective standards for tree removal and maybe applied to housing development.

And this one we've talked with a bit, we kind of went over a background of the clear and objective regulation mechanism during the code concept review session we held with you a while ago.

But more recently, there have been a new bill, House Bill 4037.

So it passed, it passed very recently, and this limits public notice for housing development applications that are subject to clear and objective standards to properties within 100 feet of the site or within 500 feet when 20 more units are proposed.

So this law also limits appeals of these applications at both the local level and to LUBA, the land use board of appeals, to the applicant only.

So the applicant is the only one allowed to appeal decisions.

So the proposed amendments we have modified to be in compliance with House Bill 4037.

So you might recommend you might recognize this timeline as well.

But just to give an overview of the whole process that's led up today in the far bottom right corner, we've made a lot of progress and we've interacted with a lot of different advisory groups for this tree, this recommended tree amendment package.

Then it became clear.

Oh, so code concepts were developed and brought to council in November 2025 when it became clear that we needed to kind of look at how some of the major policy implications would impact code.

And we brought it to you all, the planning commission and the tree task force in December.

And based on feedback on these four key code concepts, the consultant team drafted this package of code amendments, draft one, which was reviewed and revised through a long iterative process with many drafts.

As you see today, we are now on draft 5.0C.

So the first draft was reviewed by city staff and the city attorney for compliance with law and any legal issues that may arise.

Then draft two.

The third draft was reviewed by the planning commission and DRC for the joint session we had last, as well as the Parks Board and Sustainability Advisory Board that also held a joint session.

And then the draft was revised into draft four that was reviewed in a work session with City Council.

And the tree task force then reviewed kind of an interim draft before the draft you saw today.

So for the draft 5A that came before your draft 5C today.

So the amendments that you'll see tonight reflect the feedback and revisions that are made through this this long iterative process and the final draft we will be presenting to the city council for consideration and adoption at a public hearing on July 21st.

So you've been in a few meetings for this project, and you're familiar with the way that we've been kind of structuring some of these policy issues since this project has so many, so many issues, and it's very, very dense.

And in the last three months alone, we honed in on these 11 policy issues on the left.

And you'll see that how the table kind of maps out who we brought these policy discussions to, and this was strategic because there's only a limited amount of time that we can we can talk to everybody.

And so you see that the tree task force got to discuss a lot of these, and the the city council weighed in on the last four, which had really big implications on city funding, resources, and budget.

Um, and we are going to be bringing uh two of those issues today to the planning commission as well, and those have been asterisks there.

So after today, we will have discussed all of those.

Uh the the issues that we brought to the sustainability and parks joint session were specifically relevant to their work, and we wanted their direct feedback.

So again, this list is in the meeting packet that you got today in this in the staff report.

But at the beginning of the project, we developed a key tree regulation issue list.

And the list on the right is this this final list of 12 substantive issues and 25 technical issues that were a result of all of the engagement and work sessions on the left.

The substantive issues are going to be mainly the focus of our policy discussions and have been the focus of our policy discussions because they involve a significant shift in the city's current regulatory framework, whereas the technical issues, although we have discussed them when they've been brought up are kind of smaller tweaks, especially around like definitions and language.

So I will give an overview of the draft code amendments that have been made that address each one of these 12 development related and non-development related substantive revisions.

And so again, a lot of this information was presented in the meeting packet, but I'm just gonna go through these substantive issues one by one so that we're we're all reminded of the changes that are part of this packet.

So for this first development related substantive issue, uh we needed to create clear and objective standards for needed housing.

And this was the one of the biggest changes that we had to make.

We created an entirely new track for these applications for the development of housing that was required by uh House Bill 2138.

Um we have maintained the existing discretionary track for all type two for all other type two tree removals with wording and record and reorganization for clarity.

And more flexibility is included for applicants to remove semi-hazardous trees in the discretionary type two tree applications.

This came up during our last session and during our council work session.

Um we have prepared some more information that I'll present on that Jessica will present later on in this presentation that uh dives a little bit deeper into this two-track system and especially um the new amendment to allow for the removal of semi-hazardous trees in specific situations.

So the next key issue uh consistency between development and non-development tree permitting permitting.

There are new issues that we face with the uh the new state law.

Um there was a this came this issue came from the desire to have residents be treated like everybody, like like developers as well, and to have the permitting, the land of permitting be more of an even playing field for both residents and developers.

Um but with these new state laws that has kind of posed some some issues here since there is an onus on development that is taking away some of the ability for residents to appeal, um as I remarked in the previous slide.

There's there's going to be a limit on who can appeal to certain applications in the clear and objective track, and that is because of a state law change.

These code amendments, though, uh we have uh drafted to improve consistency by requiring tree removal for non-housing development to apply under the discretionary type 2 track and expanded the opportunity to remove semi-hazardous trees, like I just mentioned, and like we'll expand on in the in the later in the presentation.

Revisions have also created tree preservation incentives to retain high-value trees.

Um, this includes uh native trees like the Oregon White Oak, Douglas fir, um, and several others under the clear and objective track.

Uh, and we've also implemented minimum soil volume standards through this draft amendment package for required street and parking lot trees to allow trees in this context to reach mature sizes for full shade potential and all the other benefits that come from having successful mature trees and and not just small trees that keep dying and getting replanted with small trees.

Uh this draft code also supports parking lot tree canopy standards for commercial and industrial development.

These amendments reduce the notice period from two weeks to one week to address this issue of evaluating the appeals process to reduce delays and conflicts between groups.

Um, and we've also had uh made changes to the hearing body for the appeal of a staff decision from the development review commission to a hearings officer and removed the second appeal opportunity to the city council.

We will be providing more details about what this process looks like later on in the presentation as well.

We've included options to address potential conflicts with solar.

And we discussed these options with the tree task force and decided to remove the drafted code amendments, but include in this in this project package that the intention of the city is to address to address solar energy through education and outreach and kind of address these, address these potential issues in other ways besides code.

For non-development related code amendments, we have added a criteria to the minor forest management permit to require the removal of up to six trees or four square feet of basal area per large forested track, must be tied to an urban to our forest management purpose, which ties in goals directly from the urban community forestry plan.

The discussion around this issue in particular started out focusing on whether golf courses should be allowed to qualify for a minor forest management permit because they are not what most people would consider a traditional forested site.

And you might remember this discussion from our last session.

The concern here is more about the purpose of the minor forest management permit, not necessarily which uses uses should be eligible.

And we received a number of public comments regarding this amendment at the last planning commission and DRC joint session, as well as at the last council work session, advocating for no changes to the permit type and to continue to allow the golf course to utilize this permit to steward their land.

So after this round of public comment and meeting with the council, after the round of public comment at the last planning commission and DRC meeting, we brought several new policy options to the council to vote on.

And they wanted us to move forward with the one that we have currently drafted, but they haven't received the full language.

So we're we're open to discussion, but the council did unanimously want to see the drafted text as it is today in the code.

And they will they will deliberate later on.

So we have expanded mitigation requirements as well to type one permits, uh except for fruit trees, and also to invasive dead declining and emerald ash bore susceptible trees, as well as hazard trees.

If the trees are in the public right of way, if they're in sensitive lands, or part of an approved landscape plan.

And they all voted to keep the draft changes out of this amendment package.

But for this, for this case as well, draft code amendments are have also exempted city departments from mitigation requirements for dead declining EAB susceptible and invasive removal to allow departments to efficiently manage risks due to wildfire or risks from wildfire, as well as pests, specifically on city owned and managed land.

And this was because the city and parks uh departments oversee these lands and have uh expert professionals that uh spearhead these restoration efforts.

Um we will we'll hear a little bit more later about wildfire resistant landscaping and some public comment as well.

Um, Jessica will address that later on.

The amendment package also requires the removal of native trees to be mitigated with native trees that have similar heights and statures when feasible to address concerns about uh large native trees being replaced with small stature trees or ornamental trees that don't provide the same amount of health benefits.

And last, in the stents updates on all of the code amendments, uh there's a new programmatic tree permit process drafted into this package for public agencies and utilities to allow for the efficient management of ongoing work plans and retreat and routine tree maintenance for time frames of up to five years.

So now I'll hand it over to Jessica to discuss some key amendments in more depth and answer any questions after that.

Thanks, Sarah.

So I'm gonna move on to the three key amendments that we're going to highlight.

I do want to point out though that during after the presentation, when you have have questions of staff, we're more than happy to talk about any of the other amendments if you have any other questions or comments or or whatnot.

Um but uh these are the three we wanted to highlight because this is where, like I said, council either had questions or had some mixed feedback for us.

Uh so the first issue we're gonna be talking about is um the proposed amendments to our type two discretionary process criteria that would expand opportunities to remove moderate risk trees.

And this concern was raised pretty frequently during public engagement and city council discussions, as I recall, it was also raised during the joint session with the Planning Commission and the Development Review Commission.

And that's um this concern by residents, especially especially in light of this the storms that have happened in the city and trees that have come down that have been otherwise looked perfectly healthy.

Um, they've they were expressing frustration that trees that they perceived as threatening their homes that are quite large often do not qualify for removal under the hazard tree criteria because they don't qualify as either high or extreme risk.

And these trees, because they're so large in size, may also not qualify under type two because it would have a significant negative impact on the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood.

So, in response, kind of early on in this process, the council asked us to look at ways that we could provide more option to remove these moderate risk trees.

Um, so before I dive into this issue, and also just to be able to explain to you the new type two uh tracks that we have now available, um, because I I know that you all don't deal with the tree code a lot.

I'm gonna provide a little bit more context and I'm gonna talk to you about the different tracks that um as it's set out in the the code amendments that are proposed.

Um so first of all, type two permits are for the removal of trees that are generally either for development or landscaping purposes that don't qualify for any other permit.

And I'm not gonna go through all the permit types, but we have other ones like dead hazard invasive, there's a type one for smaller trees, um that type of thing.

So it can be a catch-all type of permit for when you don't qualify for other types.

Um, the existing type two uh criteria are pretty highly subject subjective, and I'll talk about that in a minute when we talk about the discretionary track.

And in order to comply with state law, it requires that only clear and objective criteria can be applied to housing developments.

So we're proposing uh through these draft amendments to create two-track process.

And this is something we vetted early on with the council, the planning commission, and the tree task force, because it was either we all everything's clear and objective, or you create this two part process.

And um, everybody felt like it in order to retain our tree canopy, we really should retain the two uh two-track process or key or propose a true two-track process.

So I would just note that the clear and objective track would only apply to the development of new housing units, although it would also apply to replacement of existing dwellings.

So there doesn't have to be a net increase in density.

If you completely raise a site that had a single family dwelling and you replace it, you're still under state law required to have a clear and objective process.

Um I will note it does not apply to remodels or additions unless those remodels or enditions add a new dwelling unit.

So, for instance, if you expanded your house to add an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit, that would also qualify for clear and objective standards.

Um, and just for reference, about 17% of all yearly annual tree removal in the city is for development purposes, but that is inclusive of both residential and non-residential development.

So we would expect that the clearing objective would probably stay around that same percentage or maybe lower.

So I just want to put that in context that we're not talking about like the majority of tree removals in the city.

So I think that that is a little bit um encouraging.

Um it does establish a minimum retention requirement.

So this is where that clear and objective numerical standard comes in.

As you can see, the way that we've drafted it, is that it would require either uh 45% of the trees greater than 15 uh inches diameter at breast height or 45% of the total diameter of breast height for trees greater than six-inch diameter at breast height on the site to be retained.

If an applicant cannot meet that standard, so for instance, they can only do 40%, then they are required to pay a fee per caliper inch for that 5% deficit.

We don't know what that fee is yet, and the reason is is because that fee is established in our fee code, or sorry, master fee schedule, and that's established by the city council.

That's not something that the planning commission sets.

So staff is going to be separately meeting with the city council to help establish that fee.

And it needs to be strategic.

We need to make sure it's a fee that's large enough that it discourages people from just paying instead of retaining trees.

But we can't make it so high that it doesn't comply with state law, because state law says that we cannot have standards that are cause unreasonable costs or delay to housing development.

So we're gonna have to walk a fine line.

Our consultant does have references from other cities, some good and some bad that we can reference from, but we'll be working with the council over the next few months to establish that before this becomes effective.

So the other thing to point out is that there is also an incentive that we have built into the clear and objective process that allows enhanced DBH credit if someone saves a high value tree.

And we have a list of what those are Oregon White Oak, Doug fir, other native trees that are of certain size, if they save those, then they get extra credit for that.

So that is an incentive for them to save those high value trees.

The discretionary process would be the other track available.

And this applies, as I mentioned before, to non-residential development and resident, and it would also apply to commercial development, anything that's not residential.

But I do want to point out that someone who is otherwise eligible for the clear and objective track can opt into this.

So it's still an option for someone who's doing housing development, but but we can't force them to go through this process, but it is an option for them.

The discretionary track is generally for uh besides development purposes other than residential development, um, if it if a tree is outgrown its landscape area or is part of a landscaping plan, and what we added into the amendments is also or other landscape improvement.

So for instance, if a tree is in really poor health, but it's not dead, but it's not hazardous, but it just looks really bad, or it's diseased, but it doesn't otherwise qualify for another permit, that could be a landscape improvement.

Another landscape improvement could be I am, you know, the tree is too close to my house, and I am concerned about wildfire risk, and I can't, if I I can't trim it up more than 10 feet away, so the branching is more than 10 feet vertically and horizontally.

And if they aren't able to do that, that could be another reason to remove under the under the type 2 criteria with that expanded or other landscape improvement.

Um but the criteria are, as you can see, very subjective.

Removal can't have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, et cetera.

Removal won't have a significant negative impact on the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood, and this is standard is met when the removal of the tree does not involve a significant tree, alterations to distinctive features or continuity of a skyline, street tree greater than 50% stand of trees, et cetera.

So there is some objective criteria in there, but largely by and large, uh it is still discretionary.

So one of the proposed revisions to the discretionary criteria would amend the definition of significant tree.

And this is important because right now it's highly subjective.

It's defined as a healthy, non-invasive tree over 15 inches diameter that is considered significant to the neighborhood due to size, species, or distinctive care character, or the only remaining tree on the property.

That's highly subjective, and there are some people that think every tree is a significant tree, and there's some people who think it's only when it's you know 40 inches and it's right in the front yard.

So to take out some of the discretion, we proposed in the amendments an actual tree table to replace that discretionary uh definition, so that any Douglas fir that's over 30 inches for five inches, that's considered significant.

But a 20-inch Doug fur would not automatically.

Um you can read this, I won't read that, but um, and then it has a catch-all for any other non-invasive tree species over 30 inches would which would also be considered significant.

I want to note that this is just one of several criteria that we look at to determine whether a tree will have a significant negative impact on the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood.

So you could potentially still have a 20-inch dug fur that doesn't meet the definition of significant, but maybe the removal of that tree and other trees would have a significant negative impact on the skyline, or maybe it represents more than 50% of uh the uh the stand of trees that are on the site.

So this is not the only way that a tree could be found to have a significant negative, or its removal to have a significant negative impact.

So I just want to point that out.

Um, when a tree under the discretionary track, there are exceptions that still allow tree removal that would that would have a significant negative impact to uh the character aesthetics of the neighborhood to still be removed.

And the current criteria or exceptions are that either the tree is likely or will cause damage to a permanent viable existing structure or to infrastructure, and it can't be remedied through reasonable tree maintenance or pruning, or that no reasonable alternatives to the tree removal exist to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.

So what this brings us basically to the issue at hand, which is providing options that would allow the removal of moderate risk trees that don't qualify for a hazard tree permit and don't qualify for type two under the current criteria.

So basically the proposed amendment would add an exception under the discretionary track that would allow the removal of a tree that would have a significant negative impact on the character aesthetics of the neighborhood if it is classified as a moderately risk tree by a tree risk assessor assessor qualified arborist.

And you can see here it's within a five-year time frame, and you need to have like a demonstrated history of failure of similar trees growing in similar site conditions or on adjacent sites.

So for those folks who have these large trees where they saw trees come down in their neighbor's yard and they have a similar situation, this could be a potential avenue for them to remove those trees.

I do want to know a few things about uh tree risk just for your information.

Tree risk falls under a spectrum ranging from low, moderate, high, and extreme.

And really the vast majority of trees fall under the low risk, while extreme and high risk trees are pretty, you know, pretty rare.

Many tree codes, including the Lake Oswego's code, allow removal of high and extreme risk trees under our hazard tree permit criteria.

Tree risk assessors often agree when trees are classified as high or extreme risk since the issues are relatively obvious.

But the tree risk assessors also generally agree on low risk due to lack of serious issues.

However, moderate risk trees represent more of a gray area.

The proposed code amendments allow for the vetting of moderate risk trees through the discretionary type 2 tree removal process.

And one key factor in this vetting is the history of failures of similar trees in the area.

I do want to note that the proposed code change only requires this special vetting if the tree removal would have a significant negative impact.

If it doesn't, if it doesn't fall under that, then you don't even have to tell us why, you know, essentially you it could be a landscaping reason.

You don't have to tell us it's because you think that the tree is an actual risk to the property or life on the site.

During the last study session, council had asked why the hazard tree permit criteria could not be amended to allow moderate risk trees to be removed under that permit type instead.

And they were just concerned that we were putting people through more process, and why did we have to do that when you could just change and allow people to remove moderate risk trees.

What I would say is that this is a conservative approach because it increases flexibility for considering additional tree removes, but it also doesn't open the door because you can have we have a lot more gray area, moderate risk trees out there, and that could have a pretty significant impact on the canopy if we start allowing those to just be removed under a simple hazard tree permit.

So we wanted to make sure that there was a little bit more vetting, but still allow that flexibility.

So it's really that balancing between the potential risk of the tree and making sure we still retain the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood.

I do want to note that council could revisit this issue in the future after code amendments have been implemented and we have additional data to show what kind of trees are coming out under these criteria.

And so that you know, this could always be changed later on.

Just to give you some more context, uh, this graph illustrates the spectrum of tree risk ratings using a recent project in Lake Oswego.

And as you can see, this risk this slide shows the risk rating results from a large scale risk assessment conducted on parkland in Lake Oswego in 2024.

It involved 621 trees, and the vast majority, about 587 fell under the low risk, while 30 were moderate risk, and you can see the high and extreme was only four.

So allowing removal of high and extreme risk tree trees, which is our current hazard tree permit criteria doesn't really have a really high impact.

Um just for reference, hazard tree removal represents about 12% of all annual tree removal in the city.

But allowing removal of all moderate risk trees could increase that impact significantly, and that is why we're recommending more vetting for moderate risk trees under the type two uh criteria rather than lowering the risk rating for a hazard permit.

So the next amendment is to the appeals process for the type two applications.

We actually talked about uh this with the commission and uh not only with the planning commission but the development review commission at the last uh study session.

I will just point out that the existing appeals uh the existing code has three decision points for type two applications.

The first is the staff level decision, which is open for public comment, and we take that into consideration before we make that decision.

Uh that process uh takes about three weeks to go through that process, um, and it is a potential to be appealed to our development review uh commission.

So the second decision point is an appeal of the staff decision to the DRC.

This appeal adds a minimum of three more weeks to the process.

The third decision point is an appeal of the development review commission's decision to the city council.

This adds an additional three weeks to the appeal process.

So, all told a type two application that is appealed up to council could take a minimum of nine weeks to process, but I can tell you it's usually uh longer than that.

I would say it's it it generally takes upwards of three months because of scheduling because the DRC and this and the city council only meet twice a month, and we have to um uh you know schedule those um those hearings at um and also sometimes the applicant is not available, and so um we might not be able to get it done that quickly.

But nine weeks is the minimum.

Can I ask your question now?

Or should I see that?

Go ahead.

And has city council in the current process ever overturned one of these appeals once it's gotten all the way through the nine or more.

Once in the last uh between 2020 and 2024, there have been uh eight that were uh applications that were further appealed to the council after the DRC's decision, only one was overturned.

Uh the feedback we have received during public outreach is that the appeals process is time consuming and contentious.

So um, and just for reference, we have about three appeals per year.

Um, so not a ton of applications get appealed.

We did discuss this process, uh the appeal process uh with the tree task force, the development review commission, and the planning commission, and the recommendation of all three of these bodies was to change the appeals process so that the appeals would be heard by a professional hearings officer instead of the development review commission, and to eliminate further appeal to the city council.

We also discussed this uh at two study sessions with the city council, and it was more mixed results from the council.

Um, their last study session in May in particular, a slight majority of the counselors present favored the recommendation of the tree task force, the planning commission, and DRC.

There was only five members from council available who attended that meeting, so it was about three who who were in favor of that.

But a couple of counselors just felt that uh appeals should be heard by city representatives that know the community and its values, and that the council should remain part of the democratic process in reviewing tree applications.

The council also had requested more information on what a hearings office officer appeals process would look like.

And basically for hearings officer, it looks a lot like the DRC meetings would have.

Um we did have to change who can appeal because under the clear and objective track, only an applicant can appeal an application.

But for under the discretionary track, either the applicant, the neighborhood association, or any person who submitted comments can appeal.

So that will remain the same.

Um the uh time to request a hearing is uh seven days from the notice of uh tentative decision, and then we provide 10 days notice of the hearing.

So that is the same for both the clear and objective and discretionary track.

And then for the hearings procedure, um, there's still a public hearing that's held even for the clear and objective track, even though there's no public comment period for the um clear and objective track, anyone can still come to the public hearing and testify, but it has to they have to speak to the criteria.

That's what the hearings officer will consider when looking at the application.

But it's it's really held the same.

The hearing is opened, staff presents a staff report, anyone can testify, and then after the close of the public hearing, the hearings officer would make a decision, probably in writing later on rather than at that meeting, and then there would be an appeal opportunity to the Clackmas County Circuit Court or to the land use board of appeals if it involves a clear and objective standard.

That is different.

Instead of going to the city council, it would go to circuit court or LUBA, but otherwise the process is very much very similar to the existing process for DRC.

So the final issue that I want to talk about is hazardous tree dead trees on private property.

This is not something that the commission weighed in on.

This is something we brought to the council because it has impacts on staff resources.

And so the question here is should the city enforce removal of dead trees on private property that pose a hazard to nearby private properties.

The existing code currently requires property owners to address dead trees that are a hazard to the use of public property or public right-of-way.

But we do not get involved if it's a tree that's just potentially threatening another neighbor's property.

So the key issue that we were focusing on for this project was quote evaluating options for addressing dead and hazardous trees on neighboring properties.

And this was identified during the first phase of the project when we got some public testimony.

I won't say it was a lot, but we had a few people who were really struggling with this issue, and the council asked us to look into it.

So the current practice that we have when we receive complaints about dead trees on a private property that's threatening another private property is we try to just provide education.

Okay, did you talk to your neighbor?

Um, did you uh you know find out what their concerns are, what what's keeping them from removing it?

Did you notify your insurance company, those types of things?

Um if that doesn't work, we do offer mediation services, which is uh offered free through Clackamas County.

So it's not that we don't provide any support, but we just don't go out there and enforce or you know through the backing of uh violations or fines or citations, um, the removal of those trees.

Um staff actually found in our research that this code section was modified back in 2013.

It actually used to allow the city or require the city to require, excuse me, require the property owner to remove trees that were threatening private property, and the city could enforce that.

But because it was we were getting a lot of complaints and they were actually quite time consuming to deal with because there was often a dispute between the owners.

Sometimes they were one of them wouldn't remove it because the tree was in the middle of the property line and they were disputing who it belonged to, or sometimes they disputed whether the tree really was dead or was a hazard.

And it was really, it's not so much a straightforward issue.

So there was a lot of staff resources being employed on this.

And so we actually removed that from the code in 2013.

So if we were to revert back to that, we would go back to the code that we had pre-2013.

Can I also add something, Jessica?

I know it wasn't in your notes, but we talked earlier about our extensive engagement process, and we did engage in with seven different stakeholder focus groups that we assembled for this project earlier on.

Um, and we reached out to permit applicants and people who are directly had expressed uh opinions about this and invited them to stakeholder meetings.

The one about this issue that didn't get great attendance, even though we reached out directly.

Um, and one woman kind of spoke about all of the uh resources of her own that she used to deal with a neighbor's tree, um, but ultimately she found a solution with her neighborhood association three years in.

Um, and so again, it's kind of there is a really important education piece.

Um, you know, this this person went directly for to legal action, um, um, but there were other channels, and I think uh the education piece of this project too is going to be really important in communicating these options to the public directly.

So we offered two options for consideration to the council.

Option A was just to maintain the current code and just keep it, just keep it the way it is.

And the advantage of this are that it would avoid any new regulatory and enforcement burdens on the city that would limit the ability of forcement staff to address other priorities.

As you can imagine, we have two code enforcement officers, they're enforcing our entire development code and tree code, and it takes away from their ability to focus on higher priority, uh higher priorities of the council in the city.

Um it would, of course, continue reliance on private resolution, and it could result in potentially unresolved safety risks.

Option B was also offered, and this would include code amendment that expands responsibility to trees that are a hazard to private property too.

And this amendment would give the city the authority to require removal of dead trees on private property that are within striking distance of specific types of buildings or structures.

The process would only address dead trees that are hazardous to neighboring properties, dead trees that are don't have a target or an odd hazard, we would not go out and enforce.

Some advantages of this is it does address public safety concerns and it reduces risk to neighboring properties and provides an enforcement mechanism.

And then the disadvantages include, of course, increased enforcement responsibility, which reduces the capacity of our code enforcement officers to address other priorities.

If there is non-compliance, the only tool in the toolbox is a citation, and that is a lengthy process.

You have to go to court.

It can take months to resolve, and it can be quite costly to an applicant.

And particularly if the reason that someone can't remove something is because they can't afford it, this does not help that situation.

So there could be an equity concern as well.

We discussed these options with the council at their last study session, and a slight majority, again, three out of uh five favored option A just to keep the code at way the way that it was.

But there were some counselors that we do want to point out, they they were very concerned about potentially leaving property owners vulnerable to safety risks.

So they had concerns about that.

Following the study session, we did bring this issue to the tree task force for consideration, and the task force recommendation was to keep the existing code as is.

So the staff doesn't support this or recommend this, but of course, the planning commission, you can make your own recommendation to the city council, but we just wanted to provide that full context.

And the last thing I want to talk about is not a key issue, but um, I did actually receive a call or um not a call, a comment from the lake corporation that pointed out I actually thought it was very clever that they caught this in the code, but we were making one what we consider to be a technical revision in to the type one uh permit criteria.

Because we allow middle housing, um, the way that the uh it used to read is it just said a single family dwelling unit.

It was only one that qualified for type one.

But our practice was like if you had a condo unit where you had a completely private yard and it was not part of the common area, we still allowed them to remove uh a type one uh tree on that private yard area.

And we wanted to, because because of middle housing, we wanted to take out the reference to single family dwelling because it just doesn't apply anymore.

It's outdated.

So it was really just supposed to be a very uh technical fix, but the lake corporation pointed out that by doing that it opens it up to the possibility that they might consider the lake core property to be part of the private yard because it looks like that.

When you look at some of the lakefront properties, there's actually many of them have a portion along the lake that actually is not part of their private yard.

It's on the lake core property.

And under the current code, no type one permit is allowed within the 25-foot special lake setback that abuts that lake core property.

So you could have a situation where we wouldn't allow it removed within the 25-foot setback, but we would allow it removed on the lake core property, and that was not the policy intent.

So one of the recommendations recommended changes would be to add this um uh yellow highlighted text, which would say located on lake corporation property or within the 25 foot Oswego let back uh setback, those would not qualify for a type one permit.

So it's really a technical fix, but I did want to point it out because it is a small change from uh the draft amendments that you received, and I appreciate the feedback from the lake corporation.

So moving on to the staff recommendation.

Before I make the final recommendation, I do want to acknowledge we received uh public comment that came in on Friday, as well as a few comments that came in from today.

I do believe that person is here to testify this evening, and that's exhibits G1, G2, and G3, and it was with it's with regard to wildfire risk reduction.

I do have response to that.

I can answer questions about that in terms of how it was considered in the code, which it absolutely was.

I thought I thought it might be more appropriate for us to discuss that after the person uh the person gives their public testimony, and then the the commission would have an opportunity to ask both the person testifying as well as staff of any questions or clarifications on that issue.

Certainly if you want to ask questions during um after our uh our staff uh presentation, we can answer that too.

But I did want to acknowledge that we did receive public comment there, which was all distributed to the commission.

So um, in conclusion, sorry for the long presentation, but there was a lot to cover there.

Uh staff does recommend the commission recommend approval of the draft amendments in attachment two to the city council with the following changes.

First would be to delete the amendment in Article 34.110, which would require property owners to remove dead trees that pose a hazard to nearby private property, and then add that recommended text under the type one permit criteria uh that I just covered that it type one permits are not eligible on like corporation property.

Uh the next steps after this, as I mentioned before, if the uh planning commission makes a recommendation tomorrow tonight, then we have a hearing scheduled on July uh 21st at 3 p.m.

before the city council.

So with that, I am more than happy uh our project team to answer any questions that you have.

All right, thank you very much, uh Jessica.

Any questions from planning commission staff at this point?

If we choose not to amend the private property nuisance portion, are there any practical options for a homeowner that would be kind of a middle ground of how they can address dealing with this, you know, dead tree on a neighbor's property?

Or is it just they they're on their own, basically, or go through this, you know, mediation process?

Well, we always tell people it's a private matter, but we often obviously offer the mediation.

Um we always uh recommend that they contact their insurance uh company because sometimes the insurance company will put the neighbor on notice so that if there was something to happen, then it's possible that the liability could fall on the neighbor instead of what's typically what's counterintuitive is when if a tree falls from somebody else's property onto yours, it's actually the person it fell on, their insurance company is the one who pays for it.

Um but uh I did speak to insurance provider, a local insurance provider, and they said in some cases if you put the property uh owner on notice, then that liability could be um on the actual person who had the tree.

Um sometimes it's an affordability thing, so we might suggest to them if you have the means and you're really concerned, you can you could offer paying for part of it, and that might that has helped kind of move the needle and had people address it.

Um but it's a really hard thing because sometimes neighbors don't like each other, and that's the reason why the person won't remove the tree, and there's not a heck of a lot you could do about that, although you could try mediation.

So um not a lot of uh other options, but we do try to at least give them some advice to help them uh try to resolve it on their own.

Thank you.

I find that uh common law with with respect to this issue of a dead tree on a property when it falls over in another's property, it's pretty counterintuitive because it becomes the problem for the person whose tree the tree lands on to take care of it, and they don't realize that.

And as a result of that, there's a big conflict because it looks like the person that should be responsible is the landowner who has the dead tree up.

Yeah, I was I was very surprised by that, but that's what I'm told from uh from the insurance person that I talked to.

It's a real problem of understanding because typically in situations like this, if a person is being negligent about something on their property, they're they're responsible for the natural and probable results of that going awry, but that's not true of trees.

And it's very confusing at the time that this takes place.

So most people don't even know that.

And and most lawyers don't even know that.

Did we discuss the tree fund or the fee in lieu part?

Is it appropriate to ask questions about that now, or is that coming later?

I know there's been a ton of things.

You can ask questions about, yeah, this is the time.

If you have any questions about any of the amendments, feel free to ask them.

Do we know the methodology for how we're gonna or staff is gonna recommend that, you know, um setting the per inch tree fund fee so that it's not too high, you know, to you know, make it so that nobody does that, but it's high enough so that it's not just like cost of doing business to just buy out, you know, and not take down all the trees.

I mean, I we wanted to, we didn't want to throw out specific numbers at this point because we want to do some testing.

And like I said, there is some there's some um cities that have done better than others.

Uh so I can't I I can't give you a specific number at this point, but we are very um cognizant of the fact that it needs to be a number that is meaningful in order to uh deter folks from just paying into um that that mitigation per inch, I guess is what your fee per inch, but I don't know if anybody else has anything to add.

No.

Okay.

Yeah.

Seems like such a critical issue because if it's too high, then people can argue to the state that you know this is not promoting affordable housing because it's it's too too high, or you know, so I'm I'm curious to get some more details about that.

It seems like such a critical issue.

Yeah, and and like I said, this is going to be uh something that we're gonna have a uh a study session and then a meeting, it'll be a it'll they adopt it by resolution, so there's no like necessarily public hearing that happens on it, but um certainly um if the planning commission wants to weigh in on that, um we can we can look into to doing that as well.

But you're absolutely right.

There is a threshold.

I mean, we had someone who is suggesting that if you don't, you know, if you're below you know 15%, it should be a hundred thousand dollars.

Well, I don't I don't know if we could pull that off.

That's probably not reasonable, but that does need to be a high enough amount to deter folks.

And I do want also want to point out that even if it is a situation where say they can't meet like maybe they get only they can only save retain 15% of the trees on the site, they could just opt for the discretionary process and avoid having to pay for those fees, but they're gonna be subject to public comment, an appeal and all of that kind of stuff.

So um, and it is more discretionary standard.

So there is another option for the the builder to to get out of that.

So it's not like it's all they only have those two options.

Yeah, I think we talked about something like the further away you get from the standard, the more expensive it gets, something like this.

Right, something that kind of uh is more exponential in the fee kind of gets higher and higher.

But again, that it can get to a point where it it's a little bit much, so we have to be careful in how we calibrate that.

Such a balance, you know, to preserve the the canopy that we have, but also comply with state law.

So I'd be curious to get you know how we can learn more about this or comment or participate.

Absolutely.

We'll keep you informed on that.

Thank you.

I have another question.

Sorry.

How do is there was so much material that I may have missed it, but is there any enforcement when someone has to plant mitigation trees to follow up to make sure that they're maintained or still alive after a period of time.

Do you want to talk about the process that you go through, Daphne?

Yeah.

So all development related permits, every single one of them gets um inspected for mitigation trees before final occupancy.

It's one of the things that they have to do before they can get their certificate and move in.

Once those are uh inspected that one time, we never go back.

We don't have a way to go back.

We don't have anything because then it's private property.

We no longer have a permit open.

Staff doesn't have a way to go visit again.

We have gotten complaints uh in the past from a neighbor that says, you know, I know that they had a mitigation tree, they took it out.

In those instances, we can, because then code enforcement can get involved because it is a required tree.

So that has happened not very often.

Um everything that's not development related is uh mitigated mitigation inspections are ones that I do.

Um there's so many of them I can't do them all.

I do a sample, about 50%.

Uh so I just pulled the sample from last year, and there's about I think about 85 to 90 that I need to do.

What I the sample that I take though, it takes all of them.

So some of them are already planted, they've already gotten their, you know, I've already inspected them.

Uh some of them did tree fund.

So it's it's a mixed bag.

Um, and I do these a year later.

So these are trees that have already been planted, they're already in the ground, and they are still alive.

I do get emails from people that say, Oh, I planted that and it died, and I say you have to replant, so please replant a tree.

Uh, and they do.

I have to send sort of a it's not really a violation letter.

It's a there are fees attached if you don't plant, if you don't follow through with the conditions of approval.

Um so I'll send a letter that says, if you haven't planted or you're there's never a choice of not planting.

It's if you haven't planted, I give them a date.

If you haven't planted by this date, these are the fees you're gonna owe for not planting your two trees, four trees, whatever.

Um, they usually plant the tree because they don't want to pay the fee because then they're reminded that they not only do they pay the fee, they still are required to plant.

So they don't want to pay a fee and plant a tree.

So it's a little bit of a back and forth.

Um, but after they've been approved, again, we don't have the I don't have the time or the resources to go back to these three years later, five years later.

Um, if we get a complaint, that is when code enforcement will get involved and go back and they'll get them to replant, but it's really on a complaint basis for further down the line.

Does the city have any obligation to maintain a mitigation tree that's been planted on city property?

I they follow the same rules as any any other resident in the city.

So um I think with the city, it's they're usually street trees, so we usually they're noticed, so they usually get complaints.

Um I don't think there's any higher enforcement for them to no, but I mean our parks department and I mean typically it's gonna be our parks or public works department that are used to be.

That's what I'm talking about parks.

And yeah, I mean we are we we need to set an example, and I would say it's not an enforcement issue that we have a problem with.

I mean, we do we do um check mitigation for all development.

So if it was a city project that involved development, we will check the mitigation and we will verify that it was planted.

But we do not have the staff resources to go out and continually follow up to make sure that the tree survived.

And that is something we discussed as part of this project, and it was something that was pointed out, and we recognize that it would be a great thing to be able to do, but it would require a different level of resource to be able to do that.

Uh, given that, you know, I would say in the last five years, we've I would say about 4,000 trees were plant were taken down that required mitigation.

And um, and we are expanding that mitigation requirement to type ones, which is going to add another probably 2100 trees over a five-year uh five-year period.

So it's that's a significant amount of trees to be continually following up on, and it just keeps adding on and on.

Um related to the the parks uh issue specifically, when we did our joint session with the sustainability advisory board and parks, they they spoke about how they often plant more than is required for mitigation trees in the event that any of them do fail, especially in sensitive lands or areas that they don't visit often.

Um so the parks parks parks department it does think about that, and I think they they were speaking very vocally about how they how they usually they parts plant exponentially more trees than the removed.

I mean, I think so.

If you're worried about parks, the parks department planting mitigation trees and having them fail.

I was talking about a private landowner that's required to plant mitigation trees in a park and they die and bought it.

Like we don't allow that.

We do not allow a pro someone who is has a private mitigation requirement to plant on public property.

We do not allow that.

I was required to do that myself.

When in 2019, okay.

That code requirement is no longer in our code.

Okay.

So it did used to be that option.

We had that option where I I apologize, that was an old code provision.

You're absolutely right, where um there was an option that if you couldn't fit it on your property or another property that you owned in the city, then you could um plant on a public property.

We got rid of that because it's too difficult for our parks department to try to track and maintain all of these trees all over the city on these one-off things.

So we got rid of that provision that's no longer allowed.

Yeah, now they're allowed only on properties that they own.

So that there is the all there's there is the ability to plant a mitigation tree on a different site or a different lot, but they have to own the same site, but that provision is no longer there.

Thank you.

That makes way more sense.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, we figured it out.

Um, I have two questions that are kind of related to each other.

Uh one, the tree fund uh that we've been talking about that would collect monies for uh per inch on trees that are being uh removed.

Is there a planned use for those funds?

Yes, currently.

Um right now, the what we use it for is for like Arbor Month and educational uh outreach.

So, for instance, we do a work workshop series uh on tree removal, tree protection.

We just did a wildfire risk prevention workshop and other community education.

Um we can also use it for mitigation.

Um the planning department doesn't do much mitigation on its own.

So the way that it's been used in the past is when it's accumulated a certain amount that has been transferred over to our habitat enhancement program, which is um a program that is administered through our parks department, which um gives grants on private property to do restoration in sensitive lands areas.

Um that was a one-time use.

Another one-time use that we have budgeted for this upcoming budget cycle is for a full tree survey of the of city-owned property and rights of way, not public, not private property.

I just want to clarify that.

Only city-owned properties and public rights of way.

Um, that's a substantial amount of money to do that, and so we've earmarked that, and that um also goes towards the implementation of our urban community forestry plan.

Future use of that is up for council um discretion on how we want to use it.

Um, but typically it it needs to be tree related or to support our urban and community forestry goals.

Great.

Um, so related question uh for item four hazardous dead trees on private pro private property.

What I'm hearing is that one of the objectives that people have of why they are not removing their trees is affordability.

Is there any thought to using this tree fund to have uh monies available for people to apply for financial hardship to the city for assistance in removing their tree?

I think that's a great um suggestion.

I would say for right now, um, those funds that we currently have are going to are already spoken for because again, it takes time for the tree fund to accumulate.

Um I would say right now there's over 300,000 in that fund, uh, but the vast majority of that is gonna go to the um the tree survey that's going to be conducted um by our urban our urban forester and parks department.

Uh but in the future, could that is that something we could use it for?

Absolutely, if that is what council decides um that they want to use it for as a priority priority.

So we could definitely keep that as a suggestion to the city council for use of those funds.

Okay, thank you.

I had written down the same question, so I think that's a something that I would definitely support as well.

Okay, thank you.

Just writing down some notes here quickly.

Um, I think then we are ready to move on to public comment on this agenda item 6.1 tree code updates.

Um we have signed up Nolan Wenker.

Thank you.

Can you please state your name uh for the public record?

Yep.

Everybody hear me okay.

Uh Planning Commission, my name is Nolan Winker.

I have served this community for the past nine years as the head golf course superintendent at Oswiggle Lake Country Club, and I've worked as a golf course superintendent for nearly 20 years.

I have participated in stakeholder focus groups regarding the truth the city's tree code.

Oswigalake Country Club has been a pillar of this community for 102 years.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide public comment on the proposed amendments of the forest management permit.

I testified before both planning commission and development review commission on April 13th of this year.

Since that time, both commissions and the tree task force have recommended allowing the forest management permit to continue in its current form without changes.

I appreciate the thoughtful review that these bodies have given the issue.

I also appreciate the city council has uh has recognized the golf courses should remain eligible to utilize the forest management permit.

However, I am concerned that the promo uh that the proposed permit parameters put forth by the city council would significantly limit the permit's practical usefulness for golf courses and other large properties that actively manage tree resources.

While golf courses may technically remain eligible, the proposed restrictions would require us to rely primarily on type two removal permits for many management activities that have historically been addressed through the forest management permit.

This represents a significant departure from the current framework and would make it more difficult to implement proactive forest management practices.

The forest management permit was established to promote responsible stewardship of large forested properties and to address issues such as tree health, pest pressure, disease, storm damage, wildfire risk, and long-term canopy sustainability.

And yes, the golf course is a part of the urban forest.

As I stated in previous public comment, the data demonstrates that the golf course is not driving tree loss within the community.

Instead, we are managing a small percentage of the city's overall tree removals while maintaining significant tree canopy and open green space that provides environmental environmental benefits, including stormwater, stormwater infiltration, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, cooling effects, and community character.

The question before the commission is not simply whether golf courses may access the forest management permit.

The more important question is whether the permit will continue to function as an effective tool for responsible forest management.

A permit that is so restrictive that it forces land managers into alternate permitting pathways for routine forest health activities no longer fulfills its intended purpose.

The result may be delayed management action management actions, increased permit fees, and administrative burden, as well as reducing flexibility to address emerging forest health concerns.

I respectfully encourage the commission to recommend retaining permit standards that allow qualified property owners to continue managing forest resources at a landscape level while maintaining the oversight, mitigation, and accountability measures already built into this process.

The forest management permit has worked effectively for many years.

The recommendations from the Planning Commission, Development Review Commission, and Tree Task Force suggests that the existing framework is functioning as intended.

I encourage the commission to preserve a permit structure that continues to support responsible stewardship, forest health, and long-term environmental sustainability through the city.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Up next, we have Tom Horman.

Good evening.

Before we start my time, I think that I missed a significant part of this change, and which changes a lot of what my testimony is.

If you would indulge me to ask one clarifying question before I start.

So if there's either a type one or type two tree, that the trunk of that is within 10 feet of a home.

Would the change that you're suggesting for the setting up the uh the defensible space?

Would that allow that tree to be taken out?

Not just the trunk.

It's uh it's uh according to the the fire marshal guidelines, it would be the branches of the tree.

So I understand, but but what I'm getting is if the trunk is at 10 feet, then for sure there's no pruning option.

That's why I worded it that way.

So if the trunk is there, removal is the only option.

Would that be allowed under these changes that you're proposing?

It depends.

If the tree does not have a significant negative impact on the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood and otherwise qualifies under a type two, yes, you could remove that.

Um, I'm thinking of what ones that would be type one or type two, so they would Douglas furs in particular.

They would be considered significant trees.

It could be if they're over 30 inches in diameter.

That's assuming okay, so then type two only then.

Yeah.

I guess if you're what you're asking is are we just gonna allow the removal of any tree that's within 10 feet of a dwelling just?

Okay.

Specifically Douglas fir, that'd be a good example.

Yeah, no, that code doesn't just allow that carte blanche, but there are pathways that you could remove.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Then most of what I'm saying is still true, even with the change.

Okay.

So um good evening, planning commissioners.

Thank you for your service to our community.

I'm Tom Horman, residing at 1660 Campus Way.

As a past member and chair of the Forest Group Planning Commission, I know what it's like to do your job.

I've submitted several supporting documents that provide you with science-based details from the likes of the National Fire Protection Association, Oregon State University, at Oregon's Fire Marshal.

I know that it will probably take you a few hours to read them all.

I haven't done that out of any desire to have you waste your time.

Rather, having the knowledge that they'll provide you is what it will take for you to know that the statement of facts that I'm making in this testimony are true, statements of fact and not based on personal opinion.

If I've overlooked something, please let me know.

But as I read it, there's no provision to even consider that I would reword now.

But does not adequately address the fire safety risks associated with most trees, especially large conifers.

By having a treat code that requires people to keep a large conifers that are located close to their homes, you cause those residents to have a dramatically increased risk of severe harm to themselves and their property or even death from a fire that can quickly sweep through large portions of our neighborhoods.

We in LO have been lucky so far.

However, you may remember that in 2020 and 2021, the fire risk was so great that many people worried that such a fire could happen at any time.

And the city of Lake Oswego issued a state of emergency asking residents to refrain from doing anything in their yard that could produce a spark.

Perhaps the peer-reviewed publication from OSU titled Fire Resistance Plants for Home Landscapes as it's best by stating don't plant conifers next to a home.

It also states if you choose to use a specialty conifer, plant it as far away from the home as possible with few fire-wise plants near it.

You can plant conifers in the extended zone, 30 to 100 feet outwards, with no other plant material around them.

I offer these statements a fact.

Climate change is real.

Global warming will continue for at least as long as the causes of climate change continue to exist.

More extreme weather events will occur, driven by the warmer air and warmer water conditions, higher winds and heavier rainstorms are likely, and longer periods of drought are expected.

As the Pacific Northwest experiences warmer and drier conditions over time, many of its native trees that thrived in cooler and wetter conditions, especially large conifers, will struggle to survive.

And as the trees become drier, they will come become more susceptible to wildfire.

Cities such as Oakland and LA's Pacific Palisades neighborhood in California, Lahaina and Maui, Hawaii, and our Oregon cities of Rowena, the Dalles, Burns, Ukaya, Condon, Maupin, and Ontario have all experienced homes lost to wildfires.

And the ones that have larger numbers of homes lost also had several deaths.

All conifer trees, including Douglas fir trees, except Ponderosa Pine and Western Larch, are rated in the highest risk category for wildfire risk around homes.

Fire prevention experts advise against having conifer trees within 30 feet of a home.

Compared to conifer trees, trees that have a lower fire risk rating, such as deciduous trees, can provide similar or better shade benefits in the hotter months and better warmth from sun exposure in the colder months and can be promoted as good options for newer mitigation trees to be planted within most neighborhoods where lot sizes tend to be too small for the safe placement of conifer trees.

As a matter of public safety, people must be allowed to take reasonable steps to protect themselves and others on their property from known hazards, especially ones that can cause severe damage or death.

Forcing a property owner to keep a known high-risk tree that is located where any part of its crown that is above the ground is less than six feet away from a home, leaves our city management and staff who oversee the tree code enforcement, the city governing bodies, such as the mayor and city council members and the planning commission members exposed to possible criminal and civil penalties if their tree causes or contributes to a fire that results in the loss of their home or if anyone is seriously injured or killed.

Therefore, I urge you to make additional changes to the tree code to address this risk from fire wildfire and give residents who have trees that violate defensible space guidelines a process that allows them to take appropriate actions to comply with those guidelines.

Pruning should be the preferred method of providing the defensible space.

But tree removal will also need to be allowed when pruning would not be sufficient.

An example would be when the tree is trunk is within six feet of a house, or when it is a little more than six feet away, but an Risk includes that the extensive pruning that would be required is not a viable option.

One other quick thing.

Insurance company would not even quote them.

More of that will be happening as fire dangers continue to increase.

Happy to answer your questions.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, so this is uh I mean, I I spoke to the I we've spoken to the fire marshal throughout the project, but um I I specifically um asked for him to address some of the issues um raised um uh by Mr.

Horman, and then um I also can talk about the considerations that we had in terms of wildfire risk reduction in as part of the throughout the project.

So um when I was discussing this with the fire marshal, he noted that in the Oregon defensible space model code, it actually states in section 301.4.1 that well-maintained trees are encouraged within the dispense uh defensible space.

He also noted that defensible space is not intended to remove uh all vegetation and trees around homes.

Within the immediate zone of zero to five feet, we recommend removing bark dust, wood chips, and flammable plants such as junipers and arborvidae.

We actually did have a arborvidae go up in flames in the city recently, um, which was quickly extinguished, but it has a lot of dead branches on the inside, and that can be a flammable uh source uh that uh can cause uh obviously fire to uh start and spread.

Uh those do not require a permit for removal.

Um the reduction of fine fuels around the home, he said, will have a larger impact on risk reduction than the removal of large trees.

He note that there are two planting guidelines, guides that are available on our website that are better suited to our area, um, and that referencing some from other areas is not necessarily appropriate because those are not necessarily going to be the right types of trees to be planted in our um uh in our uh climate area.

Trees should be trimmed so that they do not make contact with the exterior of the home and provide a 10 foot clearance horizontally and vertically from the branches to the roof line or decks when possible.

And um I would note that one of the key issues that we had that we identified early on in this project was assessing tree regulations to support wildfire resistant landscaping.

Um, in one of our early drafts, we actually did come up with a draft code that proposed adding wildfire risk reduction as well as sustainability as potential reasons for removal for type two permits.

And over the course of the project, we had discussions with the tree task force, the consulting team, uh parks and recreation board, as well as the um sustainability advisory uh board, and they found that the concerns, at least as it um as it is meeting the guidelines of our um uh our fire marshal here in the city of Lake Oswego, again, because defensible space might be different in Bend, Oregon, or in somewhere where it's drier or east, there's different, it's gonna be different in in different contexts.

Uh, we're also not in the wild fire wild um land urban interface here in Lake Oswego.

Um, we uh this is more of an urban area, but not not to um, you know, the concerns are real and I understand them, um, but it it's not the same type of uh response in every city.

It's gonna be a little bit different depending upon the climate and the topography and whether it's in an urban area or a rural area or in an area that's in, you know, surrounded by um forests.

Um we did talk to uh, like I said, the sustainability advisory board, and what they found is that large carnivors may be eligible for removal through existing or newly revised tree permits.

So, for instance, dead and dying trees, that's always easy to remove those.

Um, we have a permit process.

Arborvitae can be removed without any permit.

Um, a type two tree removal permit or minor forest management permit could be used to remove trees that pose a wildfire risk as long as none of the denial criteria are met.

And so, for instance, under the type two process, if you have a tree that you want to remove for wildfire purposes and it doesn't qualify as a significant tree or doesn't otherwise have a significant negative impact, you can remove it.

If you can show that you can't trim the branches of the tree to be at least 10 feet vertically or 10 feet horizontally from the building, you can apply to remove that under a type 2 permit, and that would be an acceptable reason to remove it under the type 2 standards.

So even though it doesn't specifically call out that is available.

If a tree is just, you are right, though, if a tree is just within six feet of a trunk, that doesn't necessarily meet the guidelines, um the recommended guidelines of the fire department.

So you may not be able to remove it just for that reason on its own.

But there may be other reasons you could remove that tree.

Um, as I talked about, um, you know, if it's a 20-inch Doug fur and it's not significant negative impact on the character aesthetics, you may be able to remove it for landscaping reasons.

Um the tree task force and parks and sustainability advisory board uh favored focusing on education about this topic in the community.

Um, and so uh with which would of course would be the assistance of the fire marshal.

And so, as an example, we held us a workshop last month uh that covered creating defensible space to help prevent fires from starting near or spreading to homes and had uh participants tour a park to show examples of what the city has been doing to manage park and natural areas for wildfire risk reduction.

The fire marshal also offers free home assessments for homeowners on fire risk reductions.

Um the amendments include changes to the type two mitigation list to specifically call out fire resistant trees so that the public can understand when they're picking mitigation trees which one are fire resistant.

Um, as um Mr.

Horman mentioned, a lot of conifers are not.

So they may not be appropriate to be replanted.

So people should take that into consideration for mitigation.

Um we're also proposing a new programmatic permit in the code amendments that allows public agencies within a time five-year time frame to basically implement ongoing work plans, which includes addressing wildfire risk reduction in our parks and natural areas in a more simplified and efficient manner.

So we've um uh we now have that programmatic permit available for the um for uh public agencies if the code amendments are passed.

Um, also proposed to add a criteria to the minor forest management permits uh that, as I mentioned, that would allow wildfire risk reduction as a reason for removal, and this is particularly pertinent on large landowners who have a lot of trees that they're managing.

Um, and then we reduced mitigation requirements in city parks and natural areas to remove barriers to pest management and wildfire risk reduction as recommended by the Sustainability Advisory Board and Parks Board.

And I would just finally um I would just point out that mitigation or I'm sorry, the management of vegetation in the defensible space is one aspect of wildfire risk reduction.

It's important that people homeowners understand that that's not the only way or even the best way.

Um having fire resistant materials on your house is incredibly important, making sure that you uh cover vents and cracks and eaves where embers can enter into a home during a wildfire event is also a great way to help prevent um uh wildfire risk.

Um but uh it is a tricky subject, and I don't want to diminish the concerns raised by Mr.

Horman, but it is something we did consider in the amendments, and we do believe that there are avenues for removal, although it isn't going to be a situation where you just get to remove every tree that's within 10 feet or 30 feet of your property or whatever different defensible spaces are recommended in each in different communities.

If a homeowner has the fire marshal come out to do the assessment and the fire marshal determines that a tree does pose a risk, does that get considered if a homeowner wants to apply to remove that tree?

Sure, it could be because um he would be uh he with a fire marshal would be following our guidelines.

So, for instance, if the tree can't be um uh trimmed so that it's 10 feet above the roof, um, and uh otherwise it would top or disfigure the tree, or it's just not possible to do it, then he could say that's one that we would recommend for removal, and that would absolutely would be taken to consideration as part of the type two criteria.

Thank you.

Mind if I do one quick response.

Love to hear it.

So I mean, I respect our fire marshal, and most of what he said is true.

Um the difference is removing the brush and the lower smaller stuff, that's absolutely a good idea.

There's no city ordinance that currently restricts somebody from doing that.

So it puts the onus on the homeowner where it should be to make their place fire safe.

I had the fire marshal come out to my property, and their conclusion at the end was well, it wasn't fire marshal self, one of the fire department staff that my house was like a model house for fire safety.

But I have large Douglas firs with branches overhanging my house.

The attitude towards these large Douglas firs directly contradicts all of the major fire protection agencies' recommendations.

Every single one that I've looked at, and that's why I had the six-foot in mind, even though I knew the state uses the ICC code that says 10 feet, which must be where you hold yours from.

That's great too.

But every single one says at least six feet.

And there's different classes of plants and trees.

Some are very low fire risk.

They can be up there in even in that six foot window in small numbers.

But not a single one talks about a high fire risk tree like a Douglas fir or other large conifers being in that six-foot zone.

So again, I believe that there's absolute risk to litigation, even criminal prosecution from people that force people to keep a known high whisk tree that's less than six feet away.

Because not a single publication makes that recommendation.

So you will have no defense that you you listen to the experts, and you know, there was differing opinions, and I so I did this one.

There's not going to be a scientific document that's going to justify that decision.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further questions on uh on this topic of wildfire risk for trees.

Seeing none.

Um, any further questions uh in general on the tree code amendments before we jump into deliberations.

All right.

Looks like no uh further questions from planning commission.

So we are on to deliberations then.

Floor is open.

I had some thoughts on the dead trees threatening private property.

Um, I also don't want to see the city in the middle of neighborhood debates.

Um yeah, I'm glad it was mentioned, you know, going back and reading about 2013 and how much staff time was consumed and you know, unclear facts and things like that.

Um yeah, I would support no change consistent with the staff and tree task force recommendation.

Um we've got private resolution, we've got insurance remedies, we've got mediation resources, and certainly to your point, continuing education on yeah, it is very counterintuitive of this sort of act of God things.

Um, but I think we do have remedies uh presently.

Um, so I do not support uh leaving this as is uh from a personal story that my family member had this exact situation happen to them where a neighbor had a had a hazardous tree fall on their property in the middle of the night on their bedroom on Christmas Day, and thank God they were traveling for the holidays because if they were not, they would have lost their lives.

And I hear the issues about affordability, which we've touched on solutions, and I hear that there are options that people can take currently and the burden on staff time, but this is a life safety issue, and if there is anything that can be done to prevent loss of life that the city can contribute towards, I believe it is worth the effort and the time.

Um, additionally, as a former commercial property and casualty underwriter for insurance, having an official city citation would be submitted as evidence in a court of law if something like this were to happen and would greatly support the affected property owner in seeking damages.

That's it from me.

Thank you.

That the city should aim to do more when it comes to these type of trees.

Issuing a citation, I think would go a long way.

And I also like the idea of opening up the tree fund as a way to support low-income folks to be able to apply to gain access to some support financially to be able to handle this if they can meet certain standards so that that equity issue is taken off the table.

I think this should be a high priority for city staff to come up with a way that we can do this.

Other than that, I think I'm on board with the city staff recommendations here.

Not hearing any further comments.

Umly, do you have any comments to add?

I'll just go around the table.

No, I just agree with um what the staff has written with the um changes that were added today.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Marino.

Uh same here.

I um also agree with the additional comments that you both made.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Mitchell.

I guess a clarification of what are the additional comments, the comments to keep in, or no, to make the changes on the dead trees issue.

For the city to take a more active role in enforcement or citation, and also uh the fund to provide some relief to lower lower income applicants.

I asked the question just to try to tie it into what our recommendations are and what we'll be voting for.

And I guess it would be a little bit of a negative because we have something in the report in the in the report that you're telling us not to recommend.

I don't think that's ever happened actually before.

Um so we would be if we went along those lines, we'd be saying we recommend or we approve the proposed findings or we the conclusion the way staff has written it, except for we would be recommending to city council that it does make the changes to the dead tree issues, right?

Well, if you the staff recommendation is up on the the screen right here, and so if you wanted to keep the amendment, then you would just get rid of the first bullet point because it it's currently in the uh draft amendments for the gender.

Okay.

Um it I tend to lean on relying on staff's recommendation.

It doesn't sound like it's much, it's it doesn't sound to me, it sounds to me like it's a resource issue, right?

And even if we um were to leave the amendment in there, do we have the resources at the city to actually go out and enforce it?

So unless I'm missing that basis of what of why staff's recommendation is to delete it, I'd I would you know I would I would go with staff's recommendation, so I would approve these as they're drafted.

And to clarify that's that was my stance as well to as drafted to delete the amendment.

I don't think the city should um have to enforce dead trees on private property.

Thanks.

Uh Commissioner Guinea, any further comments?

Uh same same recommendations.

Okay.

Approve as as drafted.

Okay.

And Commissioner Twing.

I agree.

Agree with Commissioner Guinea as written.

Okay.

Do I hear any uh motions on the table?

Uh okay.

I'll make a motion to approve uh the um uh to recommend approval of the draft code amendments uh in the attachment as they have been drafted with no changes and uh send it to city council for deliberation and vote with no changes or the or the changes that are a bolt with a bullet of points up here.

Yeah, so this is why you're it's like a logic puzzle because I'm saying the report as it's drafted, which recommends changes.

There we go.

All right.

Staff has a report.

They're recommending we approve this as they've drafted it, but with two changes.

So it's drafted right now with that amendment in there, but staff is recommending to delete it before we give it to City Council, and that was what my motion was on that we go with that.

Yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

And yes.

Commissioner Sly?

Yes.

Commissioner Twee?

Commissioner Bruce?

Uh no, and I share the sentiment of Chair Najak that I believe the city does have an obligation to address removal of dead trees that pose a hazard to nearby private property.

So no, so that's five zero.

Five two, sorry.

Five in favor, two post.

All right.

Uh so motion passes five two to present the uh report to City Council with the staff recommendations as written.

Do we want to take a brief recess before moving to six two?

Does anyone need a break?

Yes.

Okay.

Looks like everyone is back.

All right.

Welcome back, folks.

Let's wrap this up.

Agenda.

It's a late meeting.

Here we are.

Agenda item 6.2, Foothills District Plan Update, PP 25-0005 work session number six.

Presentation outlining preliminary development concepts for the Foothills District Plan Update led by Jason Graff, our urban planner and consultant with first 40 feet.

And our staff coordinator is Eric Olsen Long Range Planning.

Thank you, Chair Najok, and uh good evening, definitely solidly into the evening, I guess, at this point.

Uh, planning commissioners.

Um, thank you for your patience.

We will hopefully not belabor this topic for too incredibly long, but um, you know, we we really are excited here though to come and talk about some of these draft development concepts that we've developed for our Foothills District Plan update.

Um, and yeah, obviously, as you mentioned, I am um Eric Olson, Long Range Planning Manager, and I'm here with Jason Graf from our consultant team at first 40 feet.

And um, yeah, we have a few things to go over with you today.

Um, hoping to dive into those concepts pretty quick, but we'll also talk a little bit about how we've refined the vision and guiding principles for the project.

And uh that's an ongoing process.

So we're we're always welcoming more input on that.

Can you hear me okay?

Yeah, yes.

Sounds like I'm now audible.

Um, yes, we're here to um review the refinements to the vision and guiding principles, and those refinements came out of two discussions, one with city council and also with you all, the planning commission.

And we were able to able to share those updates with the citizens advisory committee as well.

So it's been great that we've kind of been able to come full circle.

So tonight we'll we'll share with you some of those updates as well as um some preliminary concepts for the district, really kind of what's the big idea for how we'll progress into um looking at redevelopment in the district.

So we have a little bit of summary here in terms of our our project engagement in progress, so I'll cover some of that.

I'm I mentioned bullets two and three, two being the vision and guiding principles, and then it goes as preliminary development concepts and getting your feedback and direction and what what you hear from the vision and guiding principles, but also as you look at three um concepts for the district, they they sort of follow the same purview in terms of the big idea, but how they're executed are slightly different.

So we're really anxious to hear what how you perceive those concepts and the type of feedback that you you want to share with us tonight.

Um, recent prog progress, as I mentioned, vision and guiding principles refinements, um, and also developing those three concepts organized around those guiding principles and the project objectives, of course.

Um, it was spearheaded by the citizens advisory committee.

And I mentioned we've we've had a CAC Citizen Advisory Committee meeting, we gathered um feedback on the the revised vision and guiding principles you'll see tonight, as well as city council work session that is doing a similar exercise to what you all are doing tonight.

So our draft vision statement really included some additional aspirational statements around um kind of the meaning of the the meaningful riverfront presence that this district plan is gonna do that we really need to be thinking about that we're building on the success of downtown Lake Oswego.

That this is not a new thing, this is really building off of that great effort that is sort of um taking the downtown to another level, that the anchor project is continuing to do, and this is another piece in extending that.

So we wanted to make sure that language was clear around that, and also that we're creating a vibrant mixed-use district that extends the downtown.

The downtown is the core.

This is a piece then that extends that connection between sort of state street um across the rail line, down the hill, and into uh foothills park and the waterfront.

But this idea of a vibrant mixed use district was important because previous language had talked about um sort of a new neighborhood, and this really um, and I heard from you all directly about clarifying that this really is about extending downtown.

So that's some of the language that you're seeing here, and of course, that that extends you know to the riverfront and reflects like a suit of those identity and values.

Some of those we'll we'll cover in other statements here in the next paragraph.

But future development will build on also the existing neighborhood.

There's folks who live down there today.

And there's the foundry and other uses.

And the importance of direct access from downtown to the waterfront, that we want to continue to make this grand, what we'll call a grand connection from the downtown is an extension of the downtown to the waterfront, that we should balance urban form with the natural environment where we're surrounded by the Willamette River, Triangle Creek, the tree canopy that we've all talked a lot about, which makes Lake Oswego pretty special.

So ensuring that development really encapsulates those key assets and improves those is really important.

That the mix of uses will not only provide that the mix of uses will provide diverse housing options.

That was important that we're more overt about how we state that.

And that retail and commercial are kind of limited elements or smaller, let's say, elements of the plan.

Um the idea is not to compete with downtown, but to complement housing is really the core piece, but there is some opportunity for limited commercial, especially at State Street, and some opportunities at the waterfront.

So that's why you see that language.

And then there was some additional discussion about how the buildings play a really key role in defining the spaces that are really important, only in the view and the procession down from downtown to the waterfront.

Those buildings then have a role in contributing to a great pedestrian-oriented uh walkable environment.

And so that is sort of added that sort of design piece.

And then, of course, additional language that's still there, guided by the site's topography and a commitment to long-term adaptability, development and foothills will emphasize sustainability, continuing to keep that, honoring the land, history, and cultural narratives while welcoming future generations.

So this is the update then to the language.

Um probably not adding a ton more words, but you know, it is maybe doing some additional clarification.

So I'll pause for a moment and uh and let you all sort of give me your thoughts on what you're seeing.

This all looks really good to me, but I mean, the key issue right now is how are we going to get a secondary point of ingress and egress?

Has that been addressed?

Um, not in the vision statement directly, but yeah, I mean, that's what we will be pursuing in our in our concept development.

We also have guiding principles here, but um, yeah, that that's really getting into the details of the concepts.

But yes, that is a central sense of the case.

This all looks great, it's flowery language.

Okay, it looks good to me, but I mean the key issue is how are people gonna get in and out of here?

Yeah.

It's a great question.

Sorry, it's been a long night already.

So I appreciate it.

It's a little chippy.

But that is the key issue.

So I can roll with that.

And so, yeah, if if we'd like to move into guiding principles, I'm happy to do that as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

This uh amended vision statement, it really aligns with what I have been seeing at the CAC meetings of encapsulating the spirit of what we're all envisioning.

And I feel like I can read that statement and see in my mind exactly the plan that we've been talking about.

Great.

Thank you.

Um, the guiding principles, just to reiterate those, there's six of those, starting with uh creating a walkable mixed-use waterfront district, and I and I'll sort of align these in pairs.

So we'll be going one, two, three, four, and so on uh together.

But creating a walkable mixed-use waterfront district, um, again, complementing the downtown is important that we have that in the language that provides views and accessible connections to Foothills Park, continuing that that continuity of getting to that community asset, and it's really about promoting a cohesive, active and human-scaled district.

So buildings will contribute to that uh walkable environment with a mix of uses, and then balancing development, as you mentioned, with the natural environment, really ensuring that we respect and enhance.

I mentioned this Rolama River, Trion Creek, Tree Canopy, those are core elements in the surrounding landscape by integrating natural systems into the district's design, and that is an opportunity we can do through infrastructure, street design, tree canopy, um, and so on.

So, while supporting long-term environmental performance, really giving some more credence to that resilience and stewardship.

And then in guiding principles three and four, so reconnecting Lake Oswego to the Willamette River and Waterfront, creating safe, welcoming and multimodal connections.

And we know walk and bike is going to be a really important extension between A and B avenues, in particular the district.

Vehicular access a little more difficult at that location, but we are pursuing that additional connection, what we're calling the north portal.

We do still see that as a critical element to the success of the district.

There's access to the south today, and that north portal will continue to be something we explore to complement that south portal so that we have good access both from north and south to the district.

That'll be important not only for the community to continue to access Foothills Park, but also to promote and stimulate development in the district.

So supporting an inclusive and economically vital community is a really important.

So a mix of housings, including affordable housing options.

Let's be overt about that and opportunities for employment, civic amenities and local businesses.

There will be some opportunity for that with commercial development on each end.

You know, really supporting the long-term economic vitality is really keeping downtown, you know, the going concern in the community.

I think the this project is going to be a chance to kind of highlight that entry, what it means to arrive in downtown Lake Oswego at State Street, and that view and that future connection through development to the waterfront is really going to expand what that experience is like to come into the downtown.

So this vital community is really important that will support long-term economic vitality.

I think this extension to the waterfront is going to be extremely beneficial to existing downtown businesses and creating a really a great place for people to arrive in downtown like Oswego with the waterfront right at your fingertips.

And then integrating sustainability, ecology, and climate resilience, design foothills as a model, sustainable district.

So restores and integrates those natural systems.

We talked a bit about that, habitat, reducing carbon emissions, and incorporating clean energy and resilient infrastructure to support long-term environmental performance.

I mean, that is kind of what we're looking to try and do here, which we can through infrastructure, which we can through development and being protective of those resources that then wrap around the district.

Plan for adaptability over time, create a flexible framework that allows foothills to evolve over decades.

And we know that's going to be the time frame that it takes for this to happen.

The initial infrastructure will set the stage, but you know how development infills those blocks will will evolve and change over time.

But establishing a way to get into the district, as Commissioner Bruce has mentioned, it's going to be really important to set the stage then for future development, which will evolve over time.

We know we have the wastewater treatment plan coming on, plant coming online early.

And so it's important that that piece of the puzzle gets implemented first, and we know that's going to open some doors as the old wastewater treatment plant leaves.

So the evolution and adaptability will will go through a variety of different steps and phases.

It's the basic framework which will allow things to evolve over time.

So with number five, it was encouraging to see so many community partners out, and many of us here today at the LOSN learning event with great state agencies and folks from all over the country talking about thermal energy networks and the opportunities at getting in early this at this point in the plan with the wastewater treatment plant and all of the various folks from the city represented.

Yes.

Yeah, um, Commissioner Guinea's just describing the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network had a great um group of folks who are experts in uh thermal energy networks, um, some local, some in Texas, and so we we learned a lot about how those are performing.

We also had a lot of questions about how that might work in Lake Oswego, and I think having those conversations more often is gonna help inform all of us, and we're we're excited to be a part of that.

So we were glad that we could attend that with LOSN.

Um, and those members are a part of our citizens advisory committee as well.

So I think good representation there.

Um, let's talk then about preliminary development concepts.

And um, you know, this is a great view of the district here, and you can see the wastewater treatment plant in in its full glory there.

Um, but what an amazing setting.

And this is an opportunity, you know, for you all to look at the variety of different concepts and really kind of give us a sense of of what you're what you see that you like, um, where you might have concerns and and kind of what information is missing.

We're gonna be developing a little more information than you have here as we go to the public, but this really kind of sets the stage for the big idea and basic understanding of where the development opportunities might be and sort of the character of development that we we might see down the road.

There's also some key design moves that we need to just keep in the back of our mind as we we look at the development concepts, and the first is that we cite the wastewater treatment plant.

So the location you see there is the general location that's been developed with the consultant team, Jacobs.

And so we have an understanding now of kind of the general area that'll be located, the types of access points of access that will be necessary to feed the different portions of the wastewater treatment plant.

So that kind of that establishes a datum line that we have to work around.

And the downtown connection, this idea of a grand connection is really kind of the big idea, and there's an opportunity not only to create a special moment along that connection, but think about the beginning and the end.

So the arrival is at State Street, and that creates an anchor in your first kind of decision and point of understanding of this new district.

The grand connection is your procession down to the water, but then how you engage the park edge and how development uh interfaces with Foothills Park is the other piece of the puzzle.

Think of a dumbbell sort of shape, and it's really important that we think about the beginning and the end as much as the piece in between.

So we're gonna talk a bit about the focus of how development engages State Street and how development gauges engages the park edge as much as what's going to infill in between.

The other piece is southern access, thinking about not only Foothills Road, but maybe connecting into additional road networks around the condominiums, um, using some of the roundabout of the foundry, for instance, so sort of cleaning up the access points along the south edge, and then how we connect into the north portal.

What is that point of access as we weave between the old wastewater treatment plant and the new wastewater treatment plant, and what are our options to consider for that connection, and then development character will also be really important in terms of scale of development, and each of the concepts offer a different way of developing in the district, some of them more flexible, some of them uh less so in the amount of development area that's provided by the street network.

Our our design concepts are always leaning on our project objectives, so those are you know, first and foremost, as well as the guiding principles, and these will allow us to evaluate the concepts moving forward.

So they're helping to evolve the concepts at the same time.

We can use these as ways to measure how well each of those concepts might be performing across the project objectives and guiding principles.

And so there are three preliminary development concepts that we're we're bringing forward today.

One is called Park Plaza.

They all have this this emphasis on the grand connection, but the park plaza creates that sense of arrival at State Street and a really special place at the waterfront and Foothills Park, really organizing development around a larger public gathering space.

The downtown plaza stresses the state street arrival is really a big opportunity to open the door to the Foothills district at State Street.

So you're that real, that moment of engaging the district is really important at State Street, the Grand Connection, and then there's a smaller sort of public space where development can organize around and be a transition to Foothills Park.

The park promenade is really more about the connection and building in sort of a rhombless style, think of double row of trees, intensive walk-bike connection with A Avenue as being the primary seam, but B Avenue also providing a great tree-lined walk-bike connection that extends from Avenue B as well as Avenue A, A being the more prominent one.

And this then creates development in between those two green spines that connect off those right-of-ways of Avenue A and B.

Of course, these all still have auto access as well, but there is an emphasis on as a promenade, the tree line, and the walk-bike connection.

And so what I have here is kind of a um a diagram to sort of set the stage for you.

You see where the wastewater treatment facility is located, and you'll notice those three arrows there.

Those are the points of access that are required to serve the facility.

You have an administrative piece that's on the high point, and then it steps down.

So actually the site will stair step and not be at one level.

The upper level will be administrative, the lower level will be where we're we're doing managing the waste, and then there's additional connection that goes to an old pump house or existing pump house that will be necessary in the district.

So that that sets the stage.

Foothills Road is still in purview here.

But then we want to think about how we reconnect and realign that southern access point.

First, think about this grand connection, which starts at State Street.

So this is a roadway that that extends through the redevelopment center of the redevelopment area with a plaza space at one end, State Street, a larger public gathering space on the southern end, the south portal then extends from the roundabout and goes in between the wastewater treatment plant site, both existing and proposed, and then development then is built around those blocks along that central spine and that north connection.

The north portal is either going, we're exploring both to Williger and through the public storage yard.

And then this is a kind of a pretty rough representation, but this gives you a sense of that grand connection running down through the center of the redevelopment area.

So those properties that are largely the ones that we're considering for redevelopment, you see the wastewater treatment plant in the upper right, State Street is at the far end there, new State Street storefronts and gateway landing, and then the procession down to this park plaza with development surrounding that space.

Option two, similar to that, we show the sighting here of the wastewater treatment plant.

But now there's a slight variation in that grand connection.

And in this opportunity for the downtown plaza, we really extend accentuate that arrival.

We've shifted the road down a bit instead of running dead through the center of the redevelopment area.

We've pushed it down a bit toward the condominium property.

So that creates a smaller block on one side of the street, but it creates larger blocks on the north side.

And that creates more flexibility for development because those larger block areas then are more representative of what you'd see downtown on a full block versus a half block setting.

So that that is one shift.

And then the plaza space is at a smaller scale than the previous concept.

Again, State Street becomes an important sense of arrival.

And then there's a smaller plaza space, that central road becoming the grand connection.

And then you see this north phase extending the roadway up into the redevelopment area, the old wastewater treatment plant, and then finally those north portal connections would would continue then either at the storage yard or to Willager Boulevard.

Then you get a sense of this here, a narrower roadway, creating a smaller development footprint next to the condominiums, larger blocks then for redevelopment between that new road and the wastewater treatment plant.

And then finally the park promenade, this really then extends both A Avenue and B Avenue is really the processional into the district, creating much larger development blocks through the center.

So now the core of the redevelopment area is really openness, creates the highest level of flexibility for development.

What it doesn't do as well is the other two concepts is it doesn't create active uses on both sides of that new grand connection because you see the roadway to the south is effectively bumping up against the back side of the condominiums.

Now that could evolve over time and redevelop and create a frontage.

And then on the B side, you know, you've got you still have the wastewater treatment plant on one side of that green space.

So it gives more flexibility, but it may not give the activation on that sort of core grand connection as the other two concepts provide.

So then this is a representation of that development.

You see much greater opportunity of larger blocks through the redevelopment area and then those promenades on either side.

This is part of the exercise we did with City Council, which was to sit on these three alternatives because seeing them together, I think really helped folks to sort of think back on the variety of different concepts here.

Some of the things we heard are, you know, does one concept have a much more clarity, for instance, than the other in terms of its purpose.

And I think so that that was sort of a topic that came up.

And I'll pause now.

I'm happy to just open up for discussion amongst all of you on what you're seeing here and you know, thoughts about any one of these options in terms of what you think might have some positive benefits or not.

Yeah, I guess I would just encourage you.

You know, I think it's important to talk about, you know, if you really like one of the alternatives here, but I think more specifically we'd be interested if there's like any elements within these concepts that you like or would like to see um followed through.

We're not necessarily like picking one or the other right now.

I think ultimately we'll probably end up with sort of a mixture of these as we move forward and refine more alternatives.

So more specifically, you know, if you do like one of these alternatives, um, it'd be great to hear specifically what you like about it.

Thanks.

In some of the previous conversations, well, most of the previous conversation we've talked about.

This is an extension of downtown, and we're activating the water space from park plaza, the park plaza sketch here.

Could you could you see the if you're looking east from State Street down this?

Would you be able to see the waterfront from State Street?

Um, I think there's gonna be a lot of obstruction between the rail line and Foothills Road.

You all know the changing topography and the tree canopy.

I don't think that you're gonna get this moment where there is this really direct corridor.

I mean, we we can by thinning and doing some some things, but I think it's gonna be hard to get like a full open open view.

Now, I think the buildings, for instance, in the park plaza concept to your point, because the buildings are really gonna be framing that outline.

It is your eye is going to naturally probably follow that corridor because it is gonna it is gonna create that seam, I think that that directs your eye to the water more so than the other two concepts.

Now, although, yeah, I think it's really at the moment at State Street.

Imagine now, we're not really extending the view down straight from A or straight from B.

That's all that's all changed.

In 2012, Avenue B was really that was the going concern.

That was the great opportunity because that was where the large redevelopment opportunity existed.

And um, so that's that shifted a bit.

And so now that seam wherever it goes is really going to be defined by the things along its edge.

More specifically to that question, you know, even in a lot of areas of Foothills Park, when you're hanging out there, you don't really directly see the water.

There's still kind of a dip down to the water.

So, you know, I think it's probably more accurate to say you will definitely see the park.

You might get some water, but I think even just kind of opening up and sort of providing more visibility to the park itself as a destination is kind of one component of that particular concept where it's like that visual kind of invitation to come um traverse the district, I suppose.

But yeah, I think opening up a specific view of the water would require some like excavation potentially here.

I'm not exactly sure.

But um, yeah, you know, you you never know when you start um playing around and if trees move around what you can actually see.

But um, yeah, I'm not super optimistic on that.

Can you describe a bit more what the promenade would actually entail?

Is it grass?

Is it paved?

Is it what does it actually look like with the promenade there?

Yeah, it ends up being more like about like a hundred, a hundred and twenty-foot right-of-way.

I think I I have some street sections here which give allude a little bit to sort of the the design of that.

But you know, imagine a larger setback on one side of the street with a double row of trees and this promenade where you've got you know, protected bike facilities, and you've got, you know, you can ride your bike, you can walk, there'll be outdoor seating.

It's just much more of an experience going from State Street to the waterfront because it's creating this canopy, it's creating opportunity for movement, but also lingering.

So it acts more like kind of like a linear park in a way.

Um, and imagine that like 30, 40 feet just for head and bike.

It still have the roadway next to it.

So that'll create the processional that is why we're calling it a promenade, because it uh it's bringing you down in that kind of lush pedestrian type of environment.

That concept seems really appealing to me.

I think of like some Latin American countries or European cities where there's you know, sidewalk cafes that people it draws people in and you want to linger, you want to hang out there.

And we, you know, we have a couple restaurants in downtown area that have like segmented off parts where you can sit outside, but it seems like that promenade concept would really invite local businesses to open up that you know, part for sidewalk dining and things like this would be pretty cool.

Concept.

That's true.

I we do worry about um too much commercial development.

I mean, in 2012, the new street was gonna have retail uh on both sides running the length of the street.

So quite a bit of retail and commercial.

And I think our our thinking now is more some retail and commercial up near State Street, um, and then some retail commercial down at Foothills Park.

Think of like stoops, you know, that kind of stoop culture where people are residents who are living there are kind of fronting on that sort of in-between space.

How much commercial or retail we could get in that, I think is is kind of limited.

But to your point, isn't an experience of going down that promenade?

Are you going to want to do that from Strait Street?

I think the answer is, you know, undeniably, yes.

It's a certainly a more glorified version of kind of what the curly queue is today, which we'll keep fully intact, by the way, because I think that that arc is one of the most interesting sort of historic elements of the district because the original foundry where the Lake Oswego condo uh condominiums are today, that was where that industrial building was, and the rail line was the arc that fed right to that facility.

Um so I think the curly queue stays intact.

I think it's an important element of the district.

It's part of that zigzag as you come between the rail line and Foothills Road.

This promenade just becomes another layer, but sort of more overt and direct to your point.

Um James, yeah, I think it's it's going to be an attractor in itself, and it should be a great amenity for for the development.

Um but as I mentioned, just the layout of that is it's not double-sided with buildings on both sides.

So you see here that you got a great edge on one side, but there's no guarantee on the south side, for instance.

But way more flexibility in terms of the development opportunity, the larger blocks.

Um a clarifying question then is for this uh development along the east-west connection.

The from what I'm hearing, it sounds like that's planned to be more housing less commercial and have the commercial spaces more towards each end.

Yeah, I mean, I think that is what we're thinking.

Yeah, I think I think that's what we're thinking about in terms of how we can set up the zoning framework.

I think you know, there might be some benefit to thinking about at least allowing lower story commercial uses on that Grand Promenade.

You know, I I don't know that we can get away with requiring it, though.

I think that we've had a lot of um sort of issues when we've tried to do similar ground floor requirements and been hearing a lot about the difficulty of um really getting some developments to hash out feasible and make them feasible financially that way.

So um anyway, I think it's something that could be incorporated to a certain degree depending on what the market wants, but I think we're just assuming that it's probably not going to be sustainable on a full scale there.

And we've also been thinking a little bit about the sort of relationship between foothills commercial activity and what we want to see there and downtown and kind of thinking about, you know, we don't necessarily want just to have um, you know, we don't necessarily want it to be competitive or try to duplicate downtown.

We want it to be a natural extension and maybe build a little bit more on the amenities that exist in the area, like the waterfront and the park, and try to, you know, center um the commercial development a little bit closer to those.

Um so yeah, that that's just a few thoughts.

But also just wanted to mention, you know, we've heard a few folks, including at council throw out the idea of, you know, maybe um in certain configurations, and I could see it potentially happening with almost all of these, but maybe that grand connection is um something that you could actually close down and turn into like a festival street under um, you know, on special sort of days where you know you can have a permit to do that, but maybe you design it in a way where you want to create that type of environment that is um something you can activate without automobiles and then sort of have another um you know, sort of parallel access that could accommodate automobiles at the same time.

So um definitely want to encourage as much pedestrian activity as as we can in that area.

It's some of the so from a regulatory perspective, it should be a mixed-use district.

I mean, we'll that's gonna be the case.

It's how much you want to require that.

I mean, you want to allow mixed use, but where do you want to require it?

So, for instance, requiring some retail and commercial along State Street is probably valid, and along the waterfront where that's gonna add to the activity at Foothills Park, and because you have such, you know uh an aggregate of people coming down there, it really is an opportunity for commercial development, but don't require it down the core middle.

I think that's that's kind of the message here.

Um doesn't mean that we couldn't see some of that, and it may be really attractive, and some developers do want to do that.

And I think that could be great.

The other thing is some of the nuanced things, and and Eric mentioned this.

The park plaza, you'll notice the the southern road really brushes up against Foothills Park.

So it really creates a sense of arrival not only at Foothills Park, but then the development and that that roadway and Foothills Park are all sort of together.

So it really creates this great moment at the park and near the water's edge where development and foothills park are kind of commingling in this public plaza, adds some additional sort of more hardscape gathering opportunities that can complement Foothills Park.

Um I so I I kind of like that one for that for that reason, um, is it really creates a good integration of the new new development with the existing great community asset, which is Foothills Park.

The other two concepts sort of tee into Foothills Road, you see there, and so the development is kind of oriented to that road, and you you'll have a great experience of getting to Foothills Park, but for instance, the promenade probably does less in terms of sort of commingling the development with with the use of Foothills Park.

I think uh downtown plaza option, the one in the middle does some of that because we have a smaller public gathering space, which can help create that transition between development and offering some additional amenities to support Foothills Park.

So on that downtown plaza, does that road in the south?

It does not, that's the one of the three where it does not loop around.

It's just creating it does, it loops around.

It'll it'll connect to the central, the grand connection.

So we'll enter the district the way we do today.

So on the lower left of the screen there.

And as we come into Foothills Road again, you'll be able to go either left or right, like you do today.

Left takes you to the wastewater treatment plant, or or our new road here on the park plaza that there'll still be access to the wastewater treatment plant, and that'll connect through to any of the street networks that we add here.

So there's sort of like an internal loop.

I don't know if we can see a mouse, my mouse here.

No, we can't see that, but yeah, I think it was probably not meant to be omitted necessarily from the central uh diagram, that that sort of existing connection, but um, yeah, we're hoping just to focus on the other pieces that we are proposing to change, I guess.

So my thoughts would be uh leaning towards the promenade version.

Um I don't uh maybe with adding the uh downtown plaza, so we got a little bit at the entrance.

I don't think we need to add anything, a plaza or porch at the end since we already have Foothills Park.

That's just my opinion.

And I like the idea of the potential for outdoor retail and all that as well.

And I think the larger blocks will be easier to develop from a developer standpoint than a bunch of smaller, chunkier blocks.

Yeah, um, I agree, Commissioner Sly, those are my thoughts as well.

Looking at this from multiple angles, actually, the promenade, I like the connections with A and B.

Um, thinking about it's been brought up before the safety and just like mechanics of having multiple people crossing at A that is already such a busy intersection.

I think it's important to have that B connection that people can get through to relieve circulation issues, both car and foot circulation.

Um, and regarding the larger development blocks, um it will attract a different caliber of developer to the area in that middle section.

Um as a practitioner, we are seeing really challenging feasibility at all, both market and affordable, and having just um more density and more units does help things to pencil.

It's you know, just having a bigger project is is useful from a practical standpoint.

Um, and then I I also support if on the park promenade, if we could maybe like squeeze that porch concept in there because it it does seem somewhat abrupt to have the development just like cut, and then there's a park, and I think I could see having that smaller porch plaza um in there as well.

Yeah, mixing and matching is great.

This is, I think it's part of what we would love to hear from you.

So I appreciate that.

And the B connection gives us we have the potential to go over the rail line in that location because of the grades.

A would be extremely difficult to pull that off.

So the A connection would either have to be at grades, so steps down from States Avenue, and you use the original sidewalk for more universal accessibility and kind of loop around the tracks like you would today.

Another option that we want to consider is connecting Millennium Plaza over State Street and into the district, thinking about that as a potential opportunity as well as sort of a third connection.

I didn't state here in these concepts, but we have been we're looking at that in terms of the ability to get over State Street and over the rail line.

And so that may be another project to consider because imagine what a great assembly area to go from Millennium Plaza over State Street right into the district is really something that wasn't considered before.

But I think considering how important that is as a public amenity, we we want to look at that idea as well.

The other thing is State Street, um, we're looking at with Oregon Department of Transportation.

How can we create a better sense of arrival when you come in on State Street?

Is there an opportunity to adjust the right of way there to you know make it more pedestrian friendly?

Think about adding buildings on both sides of state streets.

So it feels like you come in, you know, to that kind of historic downtown.

And so we've been talking to Oregon Department of Transportation about how what are the mechanisms we have to adjust the right-of-way there.

Maybe it's going down to three lanes.

We can add on street parking, um, you know, think about improving the pedestrian environment there and make that really a sense of arrival.

So we'll explore that as well.

So we're looking at a couple of different ways to configure uh state street.

That's the most interesting to me, as Commissioner Bruce brought up as like the critical vulnerability to this project, the the North Portal.

And this could be something it sounds like it's already happening concurrently, but our local elected officials, state representatives, metro, our US Congresspeople, ODOT of like getting a highway 43 realignment, whether that's roundabouts, fish ladders, army corps of engineers.

Like this is a this will be a massive project on Highway 43, like the entire high, and that's gonna be the barrier to attracting investment and capital is is this north portal.

And so those kind of bus tours, walking tours, getting this project on the list of the budget riders in Salem for three or five years down the line, like that's critical.

I mean, we all know this north portal connection is either going to cost a ton of money to go through the public storage facility, or to Willliger because you you've got a rail line there and an old trestle, and we got to cross Trion Creek to come into the district.

But I think to your point, and this is what we've been exploring early on is there's interest in fish-friendly culvert, and there's a geography around the Tewilliger intersection that has a variety of different interests.

And for big projects like this to really see the light of day, it takes those variety of different entrants who are kind of pinpointed on that that location for a variety of different interests to work together to try and achieve something.

So we're continuing to have those conversations.

We met with the Tryon Creek uh watershed council recently because the fish-friendly culvert project is you know, it it's still alive.

The Portland Bureau of Environmental Services is still engaged in that conversation.

We weren't sure if they were going to walk away or not, which means that like a Swego potentially could step into that void and help be that non-federal partner that could move the fish project forward.

Um sounds like the Bureau of Environmental Services is still engaged in that, but we are trying to figure out how how like a swigo can tap into that as well.

So and Lynn Peterson's just great, you know, she's a great leader, a city manager, and I think she's thinking pragmatically about how a large infrastructure project like getting the north portal and improvements to highway 43 are just that.

But if we create a compelling, you know, reason for promoting development in the district, improving access along Highway 43.

Um we're gonna explore that.

So it's uh to be determined, but I think it's a hot topic, and we're excited to see how far that will go.

Importantly, you know, this type of stuff is not you know, it's it they aren't the types of investments the city can just make on its own, even if we wanted to.

Importantly, you know, this type of stuff is not, you know, it's it they aren't the types of investments the city can just make on its own, even if we wanted to, um, not that we have the finances to do that, but there are a lot of opportunities to you know try to wrangle some funding for these larger projects, and right now we're just trying, you know, to get folks at the table really, and just um, you know, other folks are in a similar position where that's what they're trying to do right now as well.

So I think um, you know, sort of initi initiating those conversations through the TAC as well.

But I think um, you know, as you pointed out, the next you know, three to five years, I think are gonna be really crucial with all the work that's going to be um contemplated, at least um, with lots of TSP updates and those types of things as well.

So anyway, we're trying to seize that moment, but it's hard to know exactly how things are gonna play out in that north portal when you are looking at these large sort of um, you know, convening lots of different parties and trying to come to a resolution that makes sense and um trying to move forward, you know, you don't want to necessarily preclude anything either.

So um anyway, we're working our best to navigate that, but that's why you see us kind of trying to keep our options open and not necessarily picking one or the other quite yet.

Well, it's yeah, I I just want to it is somewhat late, um, but I so I want to check in, just make sure that there are no other um comments or um sort of uh you know notes that you wanted to give us as we proceed.

I think um I want to mention at least that we are going to um take you know your input as well as the input that we got from the city council and our um citizen advisory committee and our technical advisory committee and incorporate that into our next round of refinements.

So that's what we're going to be doing as one of our next steps is you know refine the concepts as well as of course the vision statement and guiding principles and you know basically take this out to the public relatively soon.

So um we are, as I will go over at schedule update um or schedule review in just a moment.

We are slated to come here back to the planning commission in late July to talk about this sort of refined um concept alternatives um that are going to be a little bit different than what we discussed today, but um, you know, improved upon um based on this input.

Uh so yeah, in terms of our schedule, we are hoping to get a meeting on the books with the Chamber of Commerce.

Haven't been able to submit a date for that yet, but um hoping to talk with downtown business owners in a lot more depth about what um they'd like to see in the Foothills area in particular.

Um we have our next technical advisory committee meeting scheduled for June 17th, so a week from Wednesday.

Um we have tentatively actually landed on a date for the second community event.

We're going to target July 8th, which is a Wednesday, um, and we're hoping to hold that at the um gathering sort of common space in the Oswego Point um village condominiums.

Um so that's something that we've actually gone and presented to those folks that's in the district, but they have a common space that they've offered um to allow us to use for that event.

So that should be a fun one.

Uh so we're going to take out some of these concepts and get some input then.

And of course, you know, as I mentioned, we're planning to come back to the planning commission in late July as well as the city council.

So going to you know, incorporate a lot of this input.

Um, really a lot of um what we're gonna see in the schematic design alternatives, I think will be more information, you know, about the development feasibility and um you know number of units and just a little another layer of kind of um detail that we can talk about as well.

So we will have something to come talk to you about next month uh at the end of the month.

So moving fairly quick.

Um but yeah, with that being said, thank you so much for your time and thanks for staying here on a relatively late one.

It really um hasn't been like this for a couple of years, I think, to stay till 9 30.

So I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Um item number seven, other business.

Oh, okay.

Oh, is it merch?

What is this?

Yeah, um, yeah, our our other business is very important tonight.

I think I just wanted to um recognize that tonight is our last meeting in person um with commissioners Don Mitchell and Deanna Moreno.

Um I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your years of service on the planning commission.

It's been great to work with you both.

You've been really good problem solvers and really great at sort of identifying areas of both, you know, uh agreement as well as you know items that we need to discuss further as a group, but I think you know you've done really great managing that.

And I think it's been um it's been great working with you these past few years.

Um, and we have some distinguished service awards as well as these uh City of Lake Aswego special blankets that we give folks when they step away from the planning commission here.

So these are both for you.

Yeah, please, your easiness also it's for us to go.

Well, it is raining.

Thank you.

Yes.

No, thank you.

Just um it's been it's been very educational four years.

I don't want to put words in Deanna's mouth, but it's been very educational.

It's been great to serve the community.

Um and the staff, Jessica, Eric, Christina, Iris, Evan, when he was here, like top top notch world class staff that has made uh us who are, you know, no offense, everyone.

Most of us are amateurs up here.

Um, and it's made it, it's made it really easy-ish for us to do this job, and we wouldn't be here without you.

So thank you.

Well, look at the time.

I'm just gonna say ditto.

But thank you.

Thank you so much for this experience.

It's been a really great learning opportunity for me.

And uh I just it's really good to have the opportunity to be up here and to be a part of this whole planning process.

I mean, I sometimes when I get really sleepy and tired, I just think this is the future of my grandkids that are gonna grow up here.

So thank you for everything you do, and thank you to all my fellow commissioners for your expertise, your uh your passion for what you're doing.

So thank you.

And Christina, muchas gracias te agradezco todo lo que has hecho.

Yes, thank you both so much for your candor for your leadership and your example to the city and leaving big shoes to fill.

Yeah, definitely sad to see you both go.

But um, yeah, I'm just thankful that you were here for as long as you were.

So thanks.

Thank you.

And no other business assuming at this hour, no other business.

Uh item eight schedule review.

I will keep this very quick.

Uh, so we just have a remote meeting scheduled for our next meeting in June, which is why I wanted to do this now.

Um, but it's on the 22nd of June.

We're gonna meet remotely to adopt findings for the uh tree code amendments that were passed tonight or recommended for adoption.

Uh in early July, we'll have two work sessions on the 13th, a work session on the code audit um presented by Evan Franstead, as well as one on what I'm now calling our semi annual code amendments because we don't quite get around to them every single year.

So um, but regardless, we're gonna have Ellen Davis talk to us a bit about those on July 13th, and then on the 27th, as I mentioned in our last presentation, uh, we'll have another work session on foothills for you all, or at least all the two of you.

Um so uh hope to see you there.

Thank you.

With that, we are adjourned.