Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTree Task Force Meeting #4 Presentation PP 24-0006Tree Task Force Meeting #4 Lake Oswego Tree Regulation Amendments December 17th, 9:30am - 11:00am 03 01 02 04 05 Next Steps (5 min) Project Updates (10 min) Code Concept Update and Wrap Up Discussion (60 min) Engagement Report Back (15 min) Lake Oswego Tree Regulation Update Per Resolution 25-08, attached, the Task Force is charged with reviewing work products and providing input to the City project team in accordance with the following objectives: ○The proposed amendments to the City’s tree regulations shall align with the general scope and intent of code changes identified in the 2024 Urban and Community Forestry Plan. ○The recommendations shall focus on enhancing the long-term sustainability of Lake Oswego’s urban forest by incorporating best management practices in urban forestry, while also ensuring regulatory efficiency, clarity and effectiveness. ○All recommended amendments shall comply with state law. Tree Task Force Charge Statement 01 Project Updates 01 | Project Updates 2025 2026 May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July Task 1: Project Kickoff Task 2: Code and Policy Audit Task 3: Best practices/alternatives research Task 4: Tree Task Force meetings Task 5: Stakeholder and community engagement Task 6: Public Outreach and Events Task 7: Code Concepts Task 8: Draft Tree Code and CDC Amendments We are here Council Work Session & PC Meeting Hearing TTF #4 02 Engagement Report Back Lake Oswego Emergency Preparedness Fair Thursday September 18th, 5:30 - 7:30pm Urban Forest Summit Saturday November 1st, 9:00 am - 12:00 pm Online Open House September 1st - November 1st 02 | Engagement Report Back What We Asked 02 | Engagement Report Back Q1: What key tree regulation issues are the most important to you? (n=772) Benefits or incentives for retaining existing trees. Ensure tree permit rules apply consistently across all types of projects. Clear and objective standards for residential development. Define who is responsible for taking care of street trees in the public ROW. Require replacement trees that can grow to be large whenever possible. Create clear rules for increasing the amount of tree canopy in commercial and industrial areas. Make more types of tree removal permits include requirements to plant replacement trees. Update tree rules to support wildfire-safe landscaping. Set soil standards for street and parking lot trees so they stay healthy and have room to grow. Improve the appeals process so it’s faster and less confusing. Develop more efficient permit process for public agencies/utilities to manage trees. Find solutions to balance trees with solar panels and other sustainable practices. 02 | Engagement Report Back Q2. What are your biggest concerns about Lake Oswego's Urban Forest? ○Safety and Hazard Risk: Large old trees falling in storms. ○Developer Removals: Developers can easily removal a massive number of trees for projects, fairly easily, and can use subdivisions to remove even more. ○Homeowner Regulatory Burden: Permit process is too restrictive, expensive, and time consuming for the average property owner. ○Inadequate Mitigation and Replacement: Replacement requirements are seen as inefficient and the dogwood problem is not ensuring long term integrity. ○Wildfire Risk and Prevention: Current code doesn’t support wildfire-safe landscaping. ○Invasive Species and Forest Health: Ivy and EAB are top concerns. ○Lack of City Maintenance (Public Trees): City isn’t leading by example in maintaining trees in the ROW. ○Climate Change and Drought: More climate resilient, drought tolerant species and natives are needed. “Developers who work around the rules by lot subdivision”. 02 | Engagement Report Back Q3. What do you love the most about Lake Oswego's Urban Forest? ○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 “It keeps us cool in the summer, it keeps the air cleaner and makes our city a beautiful place to live” “I love living among so many beautiful huge trees” “It makes LO feel quiet and secluded” 02 | Engagement Report Back 03 Code Concepts Update and Wrap Up Discussion ●Concept Overview ●Report Back: PC and Council Feedback ●Discussion and Questions/Clarification Creating clear and objective standards for residential development Concept 1 of 4 ●Applicants choose between options to retain a minimum of: 1.Percentage (50% or TBD) total trees over 15” DBH or 2.Percentage (33% or TBD) total DBH preservation over 6” DBH Code Concept 03 | Code Concept Update 1. Creating clear and objective standards for residential development ●Exemptions for trees within the building envelope for: 1.Small lots only (5000 SF or less) or 2.Lots that are no larger than 15% (or TBD) of the minimum lot size required in that zone. ●Alternatives analysis not needed, can go straight to the percentage of trees or DBH to determine if removal is ok. ●Exemptions for dead, dying, hazard, and nuisance trees. ●Bonus credits for high value native trees (e.g. Oregon white oak, Pacific madrone, Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, and western redcedar etc.) (no change) Concept Overview 03 | Code Concept Update Which option do you prefer for clear and objective tree retention standards? ●Retain a minimum % of total DBH over 6” DBH ●Retain a minimum % of total trees over 15” DBH ●Allow both ●Only small lots (≤ 5,000 SF) ●Small and modestly sized lots (no larger than 15% of the minimum lot size required in that zone) ●All lots (no size limit) ●Yes ●No ●Need criteria defined first Should exemptions for trees within the building envelope apply to: Should bonus retention credits be provided for preserving high-value native trees (e.g., Oregon white oak, Douglas-fir)? 1. Creating clear and objective standards for residential development Key: TTF , Planning Commission , Council Report Back 1. Creating clear and objective standards for residential development 03 | Code Concept Wrap Up Discussion Discussion Affordable housing exemptions and/or incentives ●Suggestion: allow flexibility (lower bar) of C/O preservation percentages on lot for developers doing low income housing. ●Risk: Reduction of tree canopy and benefits of trees for low income residents ●Existing conditions: There are currently fee exemptions for affordable housing. Need more feedback on this slide pros/cons list from Todd and others. Or other mechanisms to incentivize affordable housing through tree code or reduce barriers of the tree code for affordable housing development. 1. Creating clear and objective standards for residential development 03 | Code Concept Wrap Up Discussion Discussion ●Suggestion: allow flexibility (lower bar) of C/O preservation percentages on lot for developers doing low income housing. ●Risk: Reduction of tree canopy and benefits of trees for low income residents ●Existing conditions: There are currently fee exemptions for affordable housing. Should we increase incentives and/ or add exemptions/adjustments for affordable housing development, specifically with tree code? Affordable housing exemptions and/or incentives 1. Creating clear and objective standards for residential development 03 | Code Concept Wrap Up Discussion Discussion ●Applicants choose between options to retain a minimum of: 1.Percentage (50% or TBD) total trees over 15” DBH and, 2.Percentage (33% or TBD) total DBH preservation over 6” DBH Code Concept ●Peer cities: Look at what percentages they are using. ●Case Studies: How different percentages appear on various lots. ●Comparative Past Projects: Look at recent projects and compare how the existing code would compare to various percentages of total trees and total DBH. 1. Creating clear and objective standards for residential development 03 | Code Concept Wrap Up Discussion Discussion ●Applicants choose between options to retain a minimum of: 1.Percentage (50% or TBD) total trees over 15” DBH and, 2.Percentage (33% or TBD) total DBH preservation over 6” DBH Alternative Concept What information would be the most helpful to consider when determining an appropriate threshold for these percentages? ●Peer cities: Look at what percentages they are using. ●Case Studies: How different percentages appear on various lots. ●Comparative Past Projects: Look at recent projects and compare how the existing code would compare to various percentages of total trees and total DBH. Lots ≤ 5000 sq. ft. ●25% of all residential and mixed use zones that permit residential use (4,065 total) ●15% of the residential zones that have minimum lot size requirements. R-3 high-density zone would be impacted the most. 1. Creating clear and objective standards for residential development 03 | Code Concept Wrap Up Discussion Discussion Exemptions for trees within the building envelope for small lots only (5000 SF or less): “Allowing trees to be removed within building envelopes on smaller lots recognizes the challenges of retaining trees where there are space constraints.” 1. Creating clear and objective standards for residential development 03 | Code Concept Wrap Up Discussion Comparison of lots to be completed by Daphne either summarized here or add another slide Discussion C/O standard option on a 5,000 SF lot C/O standard option on a larger lot Creating tree preservation incentives Concept 2 of 4 Code Concept 03 | Code Concept Update 2. Creating tree preservation incentives Concept Overview If an applicant retains a high percentage of trees (e.g., 50%+), should they be eligible for: ●Exemption from public notice and appeals ●Small dimensional adjustments (setbacks, height) ●Both ●Neither ●Stormwater credits 03 | Code Concept Update 2. Creating tree preservation incentives ●Exemption from public notice and appeals ●Small dimensional adjustments (setbacks, height) ●Both ●Neither ●Stormwater credits Report Back Key: TTF , Planning Commission , Council If an applicant retains a high percentage of trees (e.g., 50%+), should they be eligible for: 03 | Code Concept Update 2. Creating tree preservation incentives ●Exemption from public notice and appeals ●Small dimensional adjustments (setbacks, height) ●Both ●Neither ●Stormwater credits Discussion Key: TTF , Planning Commission , Council If an applicant retains a high percentage of trees (e.g., 50%+), should they be eligible for: Recommendation: Don’t offer additional small dimensional adjustments as a tree preservation incentive. Keep variance process as-is. Evaluating appeals process to reduce delays and conflicts between groups Concept 3 of 4 Code Concept 03 | Code Concept Update ●Reduce notice and appeals process for all applicants to two weeks total. ●If there is an appeal it goes to the DRC or Hearings Officer. No longer can appeal the decision to the City Council. 3. Evaluating appeals process to reduce delays and conflicts between groups Concept Overview Code Concept 03 | Code Concept Update ●Reduce notice and appeals process for all applicants to two weeks total. ●If there is an appeal it goes to the DRC or Hearings Officer. No longer can appeal the decision to the City Council. Type II Permit Appeals 2020-2024 Average Annual Appeals: 3 ●8 of which were further appealed to the Council ●Only 1 of the original staff decisions were overturned by the hearing body 3. Evaluating appeals process to reduce delays and conflicts between groups Concept Overview 03 | Code Concept Update 3. Evaluating appeals process to reduce delays and conflicts between groups Do you support reducing the total notice and appeal period for non-housing development applications from 3 weeks to 2 weeks? ●Yes ●No ●Hearings Officer ●DRC ●Yes ●No If an appeal occurs, who should it go to? Should decisions (made by DRC or Hearings Officer) be appealable to City Council? Report Back Key: TTF , Planning Commission , Council 03 | Code Concept Update 3. Evaluating appeals process to reduce delays and conflicts between groups Jessica to include information on RFP for the last hearings officer for context - I think we should go back to TTF with these options and use their feedback here to help interpret Council and PC’s feedback on this concept. - Sara Option 1 ●DRC ●CAN’T appeal to council Option 2 ●Hearings Officer ●CAN appeal to council Option 3 ●Hearings Officer ●CAN’T appeal to council Discussion 03 | Code Concept Update 3. Evaluating appeals process to reduce delays and conflicts between groups Include information on RFP for the last hearings officer for context. Option 1 ●DRC ●CAN’T appeal to council Option 2 ●Hearings Officer ●CAN appeal to council Option 3 ●Hearings Officer ●CAN’T appeal to council What should we consider when selecting which option to draft code for? Discussion Consistency between development and non-development tree permitting Concept 4 of 4 Code Concept 03 | Code Concept Update 4. Consistency between development and non-development tree permitting For non-development Type II permits, applicants are given a path to permitting removal of moderate-risk trees, even if removal will have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood, if a: (1) Tree Risk Assessment Qualified arborist to classify tree with a “moderate” overall risk rating…. AND (2) Arborist determines there are no alternatives to reducing risk rating to low; (2) Arborist determines demonstrable history of similar tree failure in the immediate area. OR Concept Overview 03 | Code Concept Update 4. Consistency between development and non-development tree permitting For non-development Type II permits, applicants are given a path to permitting removal of moderate-risk trees, even if removal will have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood, if a: (1) Tree Risk Assessment Qualified arborist to classify tree with a “moderate” overall risk rating…. AND (2) Arborist determines there are no alternatives to reducing risk rating to low; (2) Arborist determines demonstrable history of similar tree failure in the immediate area. OR Report Back Key: TTF , Planning Commission , Council Should non-housing development applicants be allowed to remove moderate-risk trees when: -A qualified arborist determines the tree is moderate risk, -And there are no feasible mitigation options, -And there’s a history of similar failures nearby? ●Yes ●No 03 | Code Concept Update 4. Consistency between development and non-development tree permitting Should Clear and Objective standards apply only to housing development as required by State law? Or apply C&O standards to all Type II tree applications? ●Only housing development ●All Type II tree applications Report Back Key: TTF , Planning Commission , Council 03 | Code Concept Update 4. Consistency between development and non-development tree permitting Should Clear and Objective standards apply only to housing development as required by State law? Or apply C&O standards to all Type II tree applications? ●Only housing development ●All Type II tree applications Discussion Key: TTF , Planning Commission , Council 04 Next Steps Next Steps 05 | Next Steps ●Poll (Hand raise): Should the last two Tree Task Force meetings be extended to 2 hours instead of 90 minutes? ●TTF Meeting #5 ○Week 2-3 of March 2026 ○Date: TBD via Doodle Poll ○Topic: review draft code amendments Thank you!