Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2026-04-15 MEMORANDUM V O OREGOC� TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Advisory Board and Sustainability Advisory Board FROM: Jessica Numanoglu, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Tree Regulation Amendment Project, LU 26-0014, Joint Parks Board/SAB Work Session DATE: April 7, 2026 MEETING DATE: April 15, 2026 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this joint study session is to gather feedback from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Advisory Board (Parks Board) and the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) on draft code amendments implementing the 2024 Urban and Community Forestry Plan. The updates aim to improve clarity and efficiency, support sustainable urban forest management, and ensure compliance with state law, including requirements for clear and objective housing standards. The draft reflects technical analysis, peer city review, and extensive outreach with City boards and commissions, stakeholders, and the public, as well as prior Council and Planning Commission direction. The amendments include 33 primary changes (12 substantive and 21 technical), along with additional minor revisions for clarity and consistency. Key updates include a new clear and objective Type II tree removal track for housing development to comply with state law, expanded mitigation requirements, programmatic permits for public agencies and utilities, provisions addressing Emerald Ash Borer-susceptible species, and new street tree requirements for residential development. Feedback from this joint study session will help refine the draft code amendments in advance of upcoming public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. BACKGROUND In May 2025, the City initiated the Lake Oswego Tree Regulation Amendments Project to update provisions in the Tree Code and Community Development Code. The project is guided Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. 503-675-3984 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 of 7 by the goals and recommendations of the City's 2024 Urban and Community Forestry Plan and is intended to improve regulatory clarity and efficiency, support sustainable urban forest management, and ensure compliance with state law. In the first phase of the project, the consultant: • Reviewed existing City tree regulations and policies and conducted internal staff interviews; • Evaluated tree regulations in peer cities to identify best practices and alternative approaches; • Conducted stakeholder and public outreach to gather input on key regulatory issues; and • Engaged the Tree Task Force, an ongoing advisory body throughout the process. Extensive outreach and public engagement were conducted in 2025 to better understand how existing tree regulations function in practice and where key challenges exist. The project team engaged City Council, City staff, the Tree Task Force, community stakeholders, and the broader public. A total of seven stakeholder focus groups were convened, representing a range of perspectives, including arborists and utility providers, developers and businesses, community and advocacy groups, neighborhood associations, tree removal applicants, boards and commissions, and large landowners. Participants were asked to identify challenges with the current regulations and suggest potential improvements, with discussion centered on 12 substantive regulatory issues identified in the Urban and Community Forestry Plan. In addition to stakeholder interviews, the project team conducted broader public outreach through tabling at community events and hosting an online open house and survey.These efforts gathered input on community priorities, values, and concerns related to the urban forest. Key themes from this engagement were used to inform the development of code concepts and draft amendments. Building on this outreach, the project team worked with the Tree Task Force to refine potential approaches to the identified regulatory issues. Study sessions were held with the City Council and Planning Commission in November and December 2025 to seek direction on conceptual approaches for several of the most complex topics. This guidance helped establish a framework for developing draft amendments. The project team has prepared draft code amendments addressing both substantive and technical updates. A preliminary draft was reviewed by staff in February 2026, and a revised draft was reviewed by the Tree Task Force in March 2026, with focused discussion on key topics. The current draft reflects this iterative process and is now ready for broader review and feedback by city Boards and Commissions. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. Page 3 of 7 A link to the Project Page where meeting recordings and materials for prior Task Force meetings, PC work sessions and City Council study sessions can be accessed is provided at the end of this report. DISCUSSION Overview of Draft Code Amendments The proposed amendments update tree regulations in the following sections of City Code: • LOC Chapter 55—Tree Code: This chapter is dedicated to the protection and preservation of trees citywide. It contains: o Provisions for tree cutting permits; o Tree protection plan requirements during development; o Mitigation standards for tree removal. • LOC Chapter 50—Community Development Code (CDC): The CDC provides the overall framework for land use planning and development and implements the Comprehensive Plan. This chapter prescribes tree planting and preservation requirements, including in: o Design and Overlay Districts, which include context-specific tree requirements; o Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts, which regulate trees in environmentally significant areas, including streams, wetlands, and upland tree groves; and o Landscaping and street tree requirements applicable to certain types of development (e.g., land divisions and new commercial buildings). The proposed amendments also add new tree maintenance requirements in the following sections of City Code: • LOC Article 42.08—Sidewalks • LOC Article 34.10—Types of Nuisances In total, the draft includes 33 primary amendments, consisting of 12 substantive changes and 21 technical updates. These items were identified through the Urban and Community Forestry Plan and the project's public outreach process. In addition, 35 minor "General Technical Revisions" were identified during code drafting. These are distributed throughout the draft and are intended to improve clarity and consistency. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the 33 key amendments, including cross-references to the related code amendment item numbers in the draft code (Attachment 2) and identification of which project goals each item supports: regulatory clarity and efficiency, sustainable urban forest management, and compliance with state law. Notable Changes Key changes proposed in the draft code include: Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. Page 4 of 7 • Two-track Type II tree removal process: o New Clear and Objective Track—Applies to residential development, as required by state law, and establishes minimum tree retention standards based on tree count or total diameter. o Discretionary Track—Applies to other Type II removals over 15 inches DBH and generally retains existing criteria, with updates to clarify the definition of"significant tree" and to allow removal of moderately hazardous trees under specific conditions. • Programmatic permits and flexible mitigation in Sensitive Lands for public agencies and utilities to streamline routine maintenance and operations. • Simplified permit for removal of tree species susceptible to Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), including ash, white fringetree, and cultivated olive. • Expanded mitigation requirements for additional tree removal types, including Type I trees (except fruit trees) and dead, hazard or EAB susceptible trees in the public right-of-way or part of an approved landscape plan. • Street tree planting requirements for new single-family, duplex, and middle housing development, with standards to guide placement and avoid conflicts with infrastructure. Key Issues for Parks Board and SAB Discussion Given the volume and complexity of the proposed amendments, the following section focuses on key policy issues where guidance is most needed from the Parks Board and SAB, aligned with their respective expertise and advisory roles. DISCUSSION ITEMS SUMMARY TABLE Draft Description of Draft Amendment Issues and Policy Alternatives Code Reference See LOC Tree Removal for solar access and Issue:Tree removals for solar features are 55.02.080 defensible space currently uncommon so there is potential for Pgs. 21-22 a new provision like this to significantly Not proposed, but could consider: expand the removal of trees for solar Adding approval criteria to the Type II features. Note that the definition of solar permit discretionary track to specifically feature in LOC Chapter 50 includes "... a allow tree removal for solar features window that contains at least 20 sq. ft. of (defined in Chapter 50), and to maintain glazing oriented within 45° east and west of fire defensible space consistent with LO true south, a solar greenhouse, or a solar hot Fire Dept. guidelines. water heater..." so it could be construed very broadly. NOTE:The Tree Task Force considered this amendment and opted not to Tree removal for wildfire risk reduction could recommend it. likewise significantly expand the removal of trees. In public engagement, solar access and wildfire risks were not in the top 5 priority issues. Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. Page 5 of 7 Policy Options: • Solar: apply the solar exception to only photovoltaic panels rather than any solar feature. • Defensible Space: do not include this provision and instead utilize education and outreach with the LO Fire Dept.to assist the public with wildfire risk reduction strategies. See LOC Expands tree removal mitigation Issue: Dead tree permits are now proposed 55.02.084 requirements to include EAB-susceptible species (Ash, Pg. 29 white fringe tree) in order to ease Proposed Amendment: Would now permitting.This allows for proactive removal require mitigation for all Type I tree of EAB-susceptible trees, which become removals, except fruit trees. more expensive to remove and treat once Would also require mitigation for the they are infested. Given the abundance of removal of dead, declining, EAB- ash trees in the city, should mitigation trees susceptible, hazard, and emergency trees be required for the removal of all EAB- only when located: (1) in the public right- susceptible species or only required if of-way, (2) in sensitive lands, or(3) as located in the ROW, in sensitive lands, or as part of an approved development plan part of an approved development as (e.g., parking lot trees).This is consistent proposed in the draft amendments? with existing mitigation requirements for invasive tree removals. Additionally, during staff interviews we heard that the replacement requirements result in City staff not removing EAB- susceptible and invasive trees due to logistical challenges involved with replanting in remote areas. Policy Alternative 1: Expand replacement requirements to all EAB-susceptible tree removals (beyond sensitive lands, ROW, and approved plans). • Benefit: Greater canopy retention. • Drawback: May discourage proactive removals due to combined cost of removal plus mitigation and could result in higher risk trees when they are eventually infested with EAB. Policy Alternative 2 (City Parks): Do not require replacement of EAB-susceptible and invasive trees removed for restoration or fire prevention in City parks and natural areas. • Benefit:The proposed programmatic permit would allow phased removals Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. Page 6 of 7 and system-wide replacement planting to improve flexibility. • Drawback: Current replacement requirements have the effect of discouraging removals in remote areas due to replanting logistics. See LOC Minimum Tree Retention%for Type II Issue:To assist in establishing a minimum 55.02.080 Clear and Objective Track tree retention rate for the new Type II C&O Pgs. 24-26 Track, staff reviewed 20 Type II tree removal Proposed Amendment: permits issued in 2024 for new dwelling units For the NEW Type II Clear and Objective and compared tree retention rates under the (C&O)Track, would require a minimum existing code and the proposed Clear and retention rate of at least 45%of trees Objective Track. While retention rates varied greater than 15-inch DBH within the widely by project,the average and median development site and abutting street retention rates under both scenarios were right-of-way fronting the site; or similar, ranging from 45-53%. Peer a minimum 45% retention rate of total jurisdictions that have established minimum DBH of trees greater than or equal to 6- tree retention rates range from 20-40%. inch DBH within the development site and abutting street right-of-way fronting Policy Alternative: Establish a lower tree the site retention rate or higher tree retention rate than 45%. • Considerations:A retention rate higher than 45% may result in significantly fewer housing developments qualifying for the Clear and Objective Track, or may be found to be contrary to state law, which prohibits cities from adopting standards that discourage or cause unnecessary delay in the development of needed housing. A rate lower than 45% may result in a decrease in the City's tree canopy over time. See LOC Removal of invasive plants and addition Issue: Supports the UCFP goal of"healthy 55.02.084 of native plantings as mitigation for tree understory and soils," but since mitigation Pgs. 32-33 removal in Sensitive Lands through invasive plant removal and native plantings would be staff-intensive and Proposed Amendment: Would add a difficult to monitor long term compared to provision in the Tree Code to allow standard tree replacement requirements, alternative tree mitigation for City this amendment is only proposed to apply to Projects to occur through the removal of City projects. invasive plants and planting native plants Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service. Page 7 of 7 in Sensitive Lands areas.The standards Policy Alternative 1: Do not add any are similar to the invasive plant removal provision allowing removal of invasive plants and native plant replacement standards and planting of native species as an in LOC§ 50.05.010, Sensitive Lands alternative to tree mitigation. Instead,focus Mitigation. on education and outreach to the public on creating and maintaining healthy soils and healthy understory to improve the health of the urban forest. Policy Alternative 2:Allow tree mitigation requirements for any project located in Sensitive Lands to be met through the removal of invasive plants and planting native plants in sensitive lands areas.This approach would be the most staff intensive, requiring tracking and monitoring to ensure plant survival and establishment. Timeline and Next Steps April-May 2026: Drafts of the code amendments will be reviewed at a joint study session with the Planning Commission and Development Review Commission, and a study session with the Council. June 8, 2026: Public hearing with the Planning Commission. July 21, 2026: Public hearing with the Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Key Issues Summary Table 2. Draft Code Amendments, dated April 2, 2026 Meeting materials for prior Council and Planning Commission study sessions and Tree Task Force Meetings can be accessed from the project page at the following link: www.ci.oswego.or.us/planning/pp-24-0006-tree-regulation-amendments Respect. Excellence. Trust. Service.