Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2017-09-191. CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 19, 2017 Council President Manz called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. on September 19, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Council President Manz and Councilors LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck (via phone), O'Neill, and Gudman Excused: Mayor Studebaker Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Anne -Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager; Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council President Manz led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. CONSENT AGENDA — For City Councilors' Approval 4.1 Resolution 17-46, A Resolution of the City Councilors of the City of Lake Oswego Approving Appointments to the Tourism Advisory Committee Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-46. Report and Attachment END CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Gudman moved the adoption of the Consent Agenda. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7 September 19, 2017 A voice vote was held, and the motionap ssed, with Councilors Manz, LaMotte, Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, and Gudman voting'aye'. (6-0) 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 6. CITIZEN COMMENT • Jeff Wiens, 785 9'h Street Mr. Wiens described his concerns about clearing of lots in the First Addition neighborhood for construction of new houses. In a recent tour of all streets in the neighborhood, he had discovered the extent to which trees had been removed and better understood his neighbors' complaints. Specific issues were the loss of shade and the relationships between existing residents and the neighbors moving into the new houses. A rule of reasonableness should be applied by the City in allowing developers to remove trees, he indicated; if current rules do not allow for this approach, they should be created. 6.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow -Up No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented. STUDY SESSION 7.1 2016 Tree Code Amendments Update Report and Attachments At the request of the Council, Ms. Numanoglu provided an update on the Tree Code amendments that had been adopted in August 2016, essentially as recommended by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee. With accompanying PowerPoint slides, she first discussed likely statistical effects of the main Code amendments. Tree removal permit activity for the period following enactment of the Tree Code amendments (August 2016 to August 2017) was compared with the prior year (2015), as shown in Attachment to the Council Report. Highlighted were (1) a dramatic increase in Type I permits; (2) a large increase in Dead tree permits; (3) a decrease in Type II permits issued in recent months; and (4) moderate increases in Hazard, Invasive, and Tree Protection permits (Council Report, Attachment A, p 1 of 2). Council was cautioned that this summary was based on limited experience; additional years of data would be needed to identify any trends. She noted that the significant increase in total permits issued over the August -to -August period could have been affected by such factors as delayed applications because of the pending amendments; storm events; and the increase in building activity. She reviewed specific aspects of the amendments that may have accounted for changes in tree removal activity: redefinition of dead trees to include those in an irreversible state of decline but not actually lifeless (Council Report, p 4); increased threshold for size of trees permitted for removal under Type I, implemented with the intent to decrease regulatory burden on single-family property owners, with an expected increase in Type I permits and a small decrease in Type II permits issued (Council Report, p 5-6); as City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 September 19, 2017 desired by the Tree Committee, a change from a quantitative to a qualitative review process for Hazard tree permits, entailing completion of a hazard evaluation form by a Tree Risk Assessor Qualified arborist, when required (Council Report, p 5); storm events of the more recent 12 -plus months may account for the slight increase in Hazard tree removals. Next addressed were amendments related to Type II permits, which involved criteria changes. Noting that these changes posed a challenge forthe Tree Committee's goal of achieving clear and objective criteria, she emphasized that the main tension of Type II permits was the criterion that the removal cannot have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood. In that Type II tree removals were permitted only for landscaping or development purposes, the Committee clarified the meaning of "landscaping", which had been helpful. The neighborhood impact criterion, however, was found to be best addressed by retaining subjective criteria, with enhanced language to clarify how Staff evaluated this standard, thereby providing predictability to applicants (Council Report, p 7-8). The greater concern heard from the community, though, had been with regard to tree removal for development purposes. She discussed a graph based on data showing the applicant categories for Type I I permits (Attachment A, p 2 of 2). A significant majority of Type II permits were issued to single-family property owners; however, the average number of trees removed under these permits was higher for developers than for single-family property owners. Mr. Siegel observed that the data showed a total of 20 trees more were removed by developers than by existing residents; however, developers might be removing trees for more than one lot, as in the case of a partition. Ms. Numanoglu pointed out that the Tree Code has never been intended to regulate development; that is the province of the Community Development Code (CDC). The purpose of the Tree Code is to ensure that when tree removal for any reason is planned, that reasonable alternatives to removal are considered. It is not set up to prevent development that is allowed under the CDC. She outlined examples of reasonable alternatives that were typically suggested, noting that reasonable alternatives did not include a smaller development than allowed by the CDC nor a substantially remodeled plan. In response to questions from Councilors LaMotte and Manz, Ms. Numanoglu expanded on the process of Staff's efforts to explore alternatives with applicants, as well as new tracking capabilities that will be available with the City's online tree application. Mr. Siegel described the implementation of a tree protection plan as another opportunity offered by Staff to preserve trees. Councilor O'Neill noted that the Tree Committee had placed high priority on protection of large, old trees. He asked about available data for tracking removal permits for such trees by neighborhood, particularly for First Addition, noting the need to distinguish between Douglas fir and other species. Ms. Numanoglu confirmed that the data has been tracked beginning in August 2016, to a high degree of accuracy. Councilor Gudman inquired about the number of large -tree removals on single-family properties versus on lots with redevelopment or simply empty. Ms. Numanoglu explained that the tracking did not include this level of detail about the type of development/redevelopment. Her perception was that the larger number and size of trees being removed was for teardowns of older homes in order to build new homes. Continuing with key changes to the Type II application process, Ms. Numanoglu highlighted the reduced period of time for requesting a hearing on Type II permits, from two weeks to one week. Additionally, those eligible to request a hearing were limited to specific parties. Staff had received no complaints nor seen any increase in appeals. This was credited largely to the numerous process improvements that had been made possible by the online tree "app". Another positive effect of the one-week time period was an estimated savings of 79 hours of staff time over the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 September 19, 2017 past year because no posting of a second sign was required; use of other City resources related to site visits was also reduced. Next she addressed key changes to the mitigation requirements (Council Report, p 8-9): Included was the reduced size requirement for mitigation trees, which decreased costs for the applicants, among other benefits. Another change prescribed a 2:1 mitigation rate when removal of a significant tree is for development purposes. Additionally, removal of a native tree must be mitigated with a native tree from the City's Master Plant List. After discussing some of the challenges of this limited selection, she noted that Staff was recommending an amendment to expand the choices to the native and naturalized tree list maintained by Oregon State University (OSU). In recommending the Tree Code maintenance amendments (Attachment B), Staff intended to clarify the Code and remove some potential conflicts with Sensitive Lands code, in addition to the minor changes to mitigation requirements for native trees. Staff hoped to have Council direction about whether or not these amendments should be included in the non -CDC amendments to be considered later in the year. She reported that Staff had followed up on a Councilor's concern that replacement of the Resource Conservation (RC) district designation with the voluntary Habitat Benefit Area had possibly resulted in more tree removals (Council Report, p 10-11). The main finding was that, of the approximately 600 properties with the former RC designation, 42 had applied for either a Type 1, Type II or Verification tree removal; this constituted about 7% of those properties. In only one case was the removal for development purposes, with the rest attributed to various landscaping purposes. Council members were invited to raise any questions. Councilor Kohlhoff expressed interest in receiving data going forward. A primary concern will be the Douglas fir removals and suitability of mitigation trees. She acknowledged that subjectivity was intentionally left in the Tree Code as a means of examining neighborhood impacts, but asked about sources for making these determinations. Given the close link between the Douglas fir and the state and city, removal of the tree should be weighed in specifically with other subjective factors, she indicated; Staff was asked to help Council to explore the issue. Lastly, if Council moves forward to consider making the Tree Code part of the Development Code, she asked about operational effects in terms of the Planning Department. Ms. Numanoglu indicated that effects could vary greatly, depending on how the program was structured. The crux of the issue, Mr. Siegel observed, was the question: Are significant trees of such importance that they are going to drive site planning and development, thereby modifying the development standards? Under current policy, provided the developer's plan meets the dimensional standards of the CDC, there is an obligation to look at alternatives to protect a significant tree on the lot, but the developer is entitled to that development on that lot. Additional issues would need to be considered, and this would be an entirely different policy direction for the City. If it necessitated that Staff operate in more of a design -review mode to ensure tree protection, it would add another layer to the development standards. This would likely be more labor intensive, and the City could anticipate related time and costs, he indicated. In response to questions from Councilor Buck, Ms. Numanoglu confirmed that it was generally easier to remove a tree under a Type II permit for development purposes than for a homeowner's landscape plan; the landscape plan would likely offer more options to be weighed as a reasonable alternative. She also confirmed that currently there are no codified incentives for developers to save a significant tree, although in order to secure support from neighbors the developer might propose some concessions. Councilor Buck indicated that he endorsed Staff's recommended City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 September 19, 2017 amendments. He reminded his colleagues of their objective at the outset to reduce the regulatory burden; this was done in response to complaints from residents that it was too difficult to remove trees. If Council was to move ahead with exploring options as mentioned by Councilor Kohlhoff, people would need to recognize this as a departure from the original goal. He expressed interest, however, in finding options that would incentivize developers to retain significant trees. Councilor O'Neill questioned the wisdom of deriving too many conclusions from only one year's data, given the three significant weather events in that period. In addition to meeting the goal of a simpler process for citizens, he was pleased that the reduction of staff time had been achieved. Staff had observed that there was good justification for most tree removal applications that are coming in, Ms. Numanoglu noted. Councilor LaMotte discussed the real tension between the development and tree codes, among other tensions. Reviewing his understanding of how the updated Tree Code addresses these tensions, he posed questions and cited examples according to permit type, with Staff responding. He indicated a particular concern about the requirement to assess neighborhood impact when an individual homeowner requests removal of one or two trees, in contrast to a developer's required tree survey that ends in "clearcutting" of the 35 or more trees on a lot. Approaches might be explored to negotiate or incentivize alternatives to mass tree removals; his suggestions included minor modification of standards in the CDC to make a connection to the Tree Code. As to mitigation trees, he regarded the reduced minimum size of 1.5 -inch caliper as a regressive measure and questioned the 1:1 replacement ratio for large trees. Councilor Kohlhoff requested clarification about the proposal to expand the list of native trees. Ms. Numanoglu indicated that the 20 species on the City's current list does not comprise an exhaustive list of native trees, and the OSU list would offer applicants greater variety to choose from. Mr. Siegel clarified that Staff's suggestion was to provide an expanded list of options, drawing from the native species on the OSU list. In response to Councilor Kohlhofrs inquiry about removal of fruit trees, Ms. Numanoglu provided background on the Tree Committee's recommendation for a reduced regulatory burden on homeowners. In ensuing discussion of how the City could administer the OSU list, Ms. Numanoglu suggested that the City could prepare its own expanded list of acceptable trees, limiting the selections to native trees on the OSU list. Councilor Kohlhoff stated that this approach would be her preference. Councilor Gudman noted that the Council consensus appeared to be that an expanded list of native trees would be beneficial. Council also seemed to agree that the eight minor amendments to the Tree Code were generally acceptable as proposed by Staff. He commented that the Climate Action Plan to be considered by Council in the coming months would include a section on planting of trees. Finally, he noted that the 2016 Tree Code update seemed to have succeeded in terms of preserving big trees on already -developed properties. What remains now seems to be largely a matter of the tension between Tree Code and Development Code. He offered a motion to go back to Staff and the Planning Commission to initiate some development code amendments that would establish "significant tree" precedence over the development of the lot to its maximum permitted square footage. Councilor O'Neill noted that the Tree Committee had debated this topic extensively, and had determined that the Tree Code could not be used as a tool for development. Councilor Gudman City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 September 19, 2017 stated that he agreed. Discussion ensued, with Councilor O'Neill describing how bringing trees into the development equation would inevitably result in smaller homes on smaller lots, with decreased property values. He emphasized the critical need for homeowners to understand these and other effects fully; Council should not move in this direction without ensuring what citizens are asking for. Councilor Gudman indicated that his intention was not to suggest that the Tree Code be used to drive the Development Code. After a further exchange of views, he withdrew the motion. Discussion continued, with Councilors Manz and Gudman in support of considering potential CDC modifications as a Council Goal Setting topic in January. Councilor LaMotte reiterated his priorities, including the importance of meaningful mitigation. He indicated that he would like to have Staff explore opportunities to incentivize large -tree preservation by developers and to soften the development approach; Council could consider this further at Goal Setting or sooner. Councilor LaMotte asked for clarification about removal or trimming of trees by PGE in terms of the City's permitting processes. Mr. Siegel explained that removal of trees for PGE and other utilities was treated essentially the same as for Public Works and for City projects protecting infrastructure. He described the process followed when the utility identifies a tree(s) that is presenting a safety concern; this includes expedited Planning Department processing of the tree removal permit. This process also addresses the need to remove hazardous trees, rather than simply pruning them. Mr. Lazenby, while acknowledging aesthetic concerns with some of the pruning, reminded Council of the serious issues related to trees in proximity to power lines. As the study session concluded, Councilor Buck endorsed his colleagues' recommendation to discuss the topic of the Development Code and trees at Goal Setting. Councilor Kohlhoff noted that she and other Councilors regard this as a topic that should have a thorough vetting, sooner rather than later. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Councilor Gudman followed up on Council's recently -approved award of the contract for work on the Marylhurst Pump Station: The underlying pad will be anchored to basalt so as to withstand an earthquake. This is another element of the City's effort to upgrade public infrastructure to meet the challenges of natural disasters, he noted. 9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS No reports were made. 10. ADJOURNMENT Council President Manz adjourned the meeting at 4:22 p.m. Re/�jpectfully submitted, Anne -Marie Simpson, City Recorder City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 September 19, 2017 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON 7,201Z Kent Studebaker, Mayor City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 September 19, 2017