HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngagement Summary Memo 12-01-2025
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Tree Regulation Amendments Project
Stakeholder Focus
Groups and Public
Outreach Summary
MEMO | December 1, 2025
City of Lake Oswego | Tree Regulation Amendments Project Engagement Summary 1
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... 1
I. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 2
KEY TAKEAWAYS ................................................................................................................. 3
I. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY .......................................................... 4
II. PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY ......................................................................... 7
City of Lake Oswego | Tree Regulation Amendments Project Engagement Summary 2
I. Overview
The first phase of the Lake Oswego Tree Regulation Amendments Project involved a large
effort to engage with many different interested parties about the existing key regulatory
issues identified in the City of Lake Oswego 2024 Urban and Community Forestry Plan.
The project team engaged Council, City staff, the Tree Task Force, the public, and
community stakeholders. There were seven (7) 90-minute stakeholder focus groups for the
following categories: (1) Arborists, Tree Care Professionals, and PGE, (2) Developers,
Businesses, and Landscapers, (3) Community Organization and Advocacy Groups, (4)
Neighborhood Associations, (5) Tree Removal Applicants, (6) Boards and Commissions, and
(7) Large Landowners.
In the stakeholder meetings, each group was asked to provide feedback on 12 substantive
key regulatory issues and answer a category-specific set of the following questions:
• What aspects of Lake Oswego’s tree regulations present challenges or conflict for
your line of work or interest group?
• Do you have suggestions for improvements to tree regulations that will make it
easier to advance your mission and goals?
In addition to stakeholder interviews, the project team engaged the public by tabling at two
public events, the Lake Oswego Emergency Preparedness Fair (September 19th, 3:30-
7:30pm) and the Oswego Lake Watershed Council Urban Forest Summit (November 1st,
9:00am-12:00pm) and hosting an online open house with a survey component from
September 1st through November 1st. At all events the same three questions were asked:
• What key tree regulation issues are the most important to you? (Select all that apply,
and write-in “other” option)
• What do you love the most about Lake Oswego’s urban forest? (Open response)
• What is your biggest concern about Lake Oswego’s urban forest? (Open response)
The key takeaways from the stakeholder and public engagement process will be used by the
project team to inform how key code issues are addressed with code concepts and draft
code amendments.
City of Lake Oswego | Tree Regulation Amendments Project Engagement Summary 3
Key Takeaways
Stakeholder Focus Groups
» There was a lot of discussion around shifting the existing tree-by-tree replacement
standard to a density-based approach to support best forest management practices
and a holistic approach to ecological health.
» Offsite mitigation options, tree preservation incentives, and large-stature
replacement requirements are all important tools in balancing housing production
with the community’s needs. It is important to strike a balance between these three
components that encourages developers to maximize benefits to the community,
without being overly burdensome to housing development.
» The appeals process often takes a long time, which is a large inconvenience and
expense to developers. Many residents believe the appeals process is important – it
currently fails to meet the needs of any stakeholders interviewed.
» Education is extremely important, particularly around right-tree-right-place and
best maintenance and risk-mitigation practices.
Public Engagement Events
» A top concern among the public is retaining existing trees during development and
making it easier for homeowners to remove trees on their lot that they planted
themselves or perceive as dangerous.
» The public loves Lake Oswego’s urban forest because of its beauty, cooling and
shade, privacy, connection to place, and environmental benefits.
» The community values the preservation of mature trees and wants to see them
retained whenever possible. If mitigation plantings for development on a lot are the
only option, the public wants to see larger stature trees planted and showed interest
in community-based mitigation banking – although this would likely require
grassroots efforts and organization.
» Education about tree regulations and best practices for tree care and maintenance
is needed for homeowners.
» The public is concerned about environmental challenges like English ivy, emerald
ash borer (EAB), climate change fueled drought and extreme heat, and wildfire
safety.
City of Lake Oswego | Tree Regulation Amendments Project Engagement Summary 4
I. Stakeholder Engagement Summary
Stakeholder Focus Groups
City staff identified interested stakeholders and invited them via email to participate in a
focus group. Those who responded were asked to indicate their preferred meeting times
using Doodle Polls before the sessions were scheduled.
Table 1. Outreach Efforts and Participation Tracking
Focus Group Category
Number of
Stakeholders
Invited
Number of
Stakeholders
Who Attended
Arborists, Tree Care Professionals, and PGE 11 5
Developers, Businesses, and Landscapers 10 2
Community Organization and Advocacy Groups 11 4
Neighborhood Associations 24 9 + 1 write-in
Tree Removal Applicants 12 1
Boards and Commissions 8 2
Large Landowners 10 6
The following table shows the substantive key issues that focus groups chose to
discuss in depth:
Table 2. Key Issues Covered
Focus Group Category
1.
C
l
e
a
r
a
n
d
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
2.
Pe
r
m
i
t
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
3.
A
p
p
e
a
l
s
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
4.
T
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
So
l
a
r
5.
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
6.
S
o
i
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
7.
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
a
t
i
c
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
8.
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
9.
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
10
.
R
O
W
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
11
.
W
i
l
d
f
i
r
e
-sa
f
e
Pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
12
.
L
a
r
g
e
-st
a
t
u
r
e
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
t
o
p
i
c
s
Arborists, Tree Care
Professionals, and PGE ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Developers, Businesses,
and Landscapers ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Community Organization
and Advocacy Groups ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Neighborhood
Associations ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Tree Removal Applicants ✔ ✔
Boards and Commissions ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Large Landowners ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
City of Lake Oswego | Tree Regulation Amendments Project Engagement Summary 5
There were several themes that came up across multiple stakeholder focus groups:
Canopy Density vs. tree-by-tree standard.
The way that the number of required replacement trees is calculated was a large
topic of conversation. Currently Type 2 permits require one to two replacement
trees, depending on if the tree removed is considered a “significant tree1”.
Arborists/PGE, Developers, Large Landowners, Community Orgs/Advocates, and
Neighborhood Associations groups were in favor of density percentages over the
existing tree-by-tree approach. Some groups preferred this approach so that overall
ecological health and best forest management practices could be factored in (e.g.
thinning to improve forest health). Others preferred this approach because it feels
more fair in that it would take the overall canopy coverage of a lot into account.
Existing permit types
The City has nine different tree permit types including: 1) type I; 2) type II; 3) dead;
4) hazard; 5) emergency; 6) invasive tree species; 7) verification (of approved tree
removals for land use applications); 8) topping; and 9) forest management.
Arborists/PGE, and Community Orgs/Advocates are satisfied with the existing
permit options, because of their simplicity and flexibility, however there were a few
concerns about how often Type 1 permits can be used and PGE voiced concern
about having to apply for permits in emergency situations when short reaction time
is needed.
Ideal incentives for developers
Developers and others agreed that if there is a menu of incentives, developers will
likely take advantage of them – especially if they result in a faster and more efficient
process, which is extremely valuable. Developers were very interested in expedited
review and were supportive of flexibility around fees, setbacks, building height, and
side wall plane standards.
Invasive tree removal and removal for emerald ash borer should be easier.
Arborists/PGE and Large Landowners discussed how the invasive tree removal
process should be more streamlined and not result in penalties and advocated for a
proactive permit for ash tree removal in response to emerald ash borer. Boards and
Commissions alternatively spoke to the fact that invasive removal is easy, but there
is needed education to inform the public (1) about how to identify invasives and
navigate the removal process, and (2) when an invasive tree is removed how to
prevent public outcry and pushback.
1 From LOC 55.02.020 Significant Tree “means a healthy, noninvasive tree over 15 in. DBH that is considered
significant to the neighborhood due to size, species, or distinctive character, or the only remaining tree on a
property.”
City of Lake Oswego | Tree Regulation Amendments Project Engagement Summary 6
Large stature tree incentives and right-tree-right-place
Developers and Large Landowners agreed that large-stature trees should be
incentivized through reduction in total number of replacements (e.g. if 3 small-
stature replacements are required, this could be swapped for 1 large-stature tree
planting). Boards and commissions stated that large-stature trees should be
replaced with large-stature trees, but most of the other focus groups believed that
this strategy may result in undesirable outcomes of wrong-tree-wrong-place.
Need standards to be clearer and objective
While the Arborists/PGE group cited that they liked the flexibility of the existing
code, Developers and Boards & Commissions were strong proponents of tightening
up the code to be more objective and easier to use. Especially for Developers, who
greatly value time, having clear code and regulations at the beginning of the project
is important.
Offsite mitigation
Currently, if the City determines there is insufficient space on the property for the
required replacement trees, permit applicants can (1) Plant the mitigation tree on a
property the applicant owns or controls elsewhere in the City, (2) Plant mitigation
trees in an open space tract that is part of the same subdivision as the lot where the
trees were removed, or (3) Payment of a fee to the City’s Tree Fund if all options are
exhausted. Large Landowners who often don’t meet insufficient space requirements
discussed how being required to plant onsite can result in suboptimal forest
management outcomes. Neighborhood Associations, Boards & Commissions, and
Community Orgs/Advocates are seeing trees disappear from their neighborhoods
due to development and want to see trees replanted closer to the locations they were
removed from through various options for replanting. Options for replanting could
include allowing planting in riparian areas, planting of other valuable understory
species, or an organized system for Neighborhood Associations and/or homeowners
to identify locations that need trees and have developers plant there. These
solutions could be facilitated by changes in the code but would rely on the
organization and buy-in from many other non-City agencies and stakeholders.
Opposed to allowing tree removals for solar projects
Both Community Orgs/Advocates and Neighborhood Associations agreed that the
climate-benefits of mature trees in the Pacific Northwest are significant and tree
removal should not be permitted for solar projects.
Public education
Most of the issues brought up by focus groups underscored the need for public
education to support tree regulations. The public education topics identified as the
most important are right-tree-right-place, maintenance best-practices, risks and
mitigation practices for wildfire and winter storms, and education around invasive
removals.
City of Lake Oswego | Tree Regulation Amendments Project Engagement Summary 7
Removing or reducing appeals
Developers and Boards & Commissions are big proponents of removing or
streamlining the public appeals process, where Neighborhood Associations not only
felt that the appeals process should stay, but should have cost barriers removed and
simplified to make it more accessible to the public.
Sensitive Lands
Currently regulations allow for tree removal in sensitive lands if they are “high risk
trees”. Large Landowners and Arborists/PGE feel that it needs to be easier and
faster to get hazard permits approved and dead trees removed in sensitive lands
even for trees that may qualify as significant trees to address wildfire risk
particularly where there are powerlines and utilities and ash tree removal.
II. Public Outreach Summary
Public Engagement Events
Both in-person events were well attended, and the online survey received a total of
118 responses. Figure 1 summarizes the responses to the question, “What key tree
regulation issues are most important to you?”, where people could vote for as many
issues resonated with them – for a total of 772 answers.
Figure 1. What key tree regulation issues are most important to you?
Percentage of total answers (n=772)
City of Lake Oswego | Tree Regulation Amendments Project Engagement Summary 8
Many of the write-in answers in response fell into the 12 substantive issues, but
respondents also brought up property rights and burdens to homeowners,
incentives for preserving trees for homeowners, developer accountability and
enforcement around mitigation trees, and needed education for the community
around tree regulations.
When asked “What are your biggest concerns about Lake Oswego’s Urban Forest?”
the following themes rose to the surface:
• Safety and Hazard Risk: Residents fear old trees falling in storms.
• Developer Removals: Developers can easily removal a massive number of
trees for projects easily and can use subdivisions to remove even more.
• Homeowner Regulatory Burden: The permit process is too restrictive,
expensive, and time consuming for the average property owner. There is no
path to removing trees homeowners planted themselves or perceive as
dangerous.
• Inadequate Mitigation and Replacement: Replacement requirements are
seen as inefficient and too many people replant with small ornamental trees,
like dogwoods, which does not ensure long term integrity and canopy health.
• Wildfire Risk and Prevention: The current code doesn’t support wildfire-
safe landscaping and best practices should be incorporated into
amendments.
• Invasive Species and Forest Health: Ivy and emerald ash borer are top
concerns for residents regarding longevity and health of the urban forest.
• Lack of City Maintenance (Public Trees): The City of Lake Oswego is seen as
leading by example in their maintenance of trees in the ROW.
• Climate Change and Drought: The City needs to prioritize planting climate
resilient, drought tolerant species and native trees.
When asked “What do you love most about Lake Oswego’s Urban Forest”, the public
responded with the following reasons:
• Aesthetic Beauty and Visual Appeal
• Climate and Cooling
• Wildlife and Habitat
• Sense of Nature and Escape
• Clean Air and Health
• Quietness and Privacy
• Mature and Large Trees
• Connection to Place
• Variety and Diversity
• Stormwater/Erosion Control