West Linn council reviews technical updates to community tree code; staff to seek public comment

City staff and the consulting arborist presented a package of technical updates to West Linn’s Community Tree Ordinance and Tree Manual at the May 5 council work session, and council directed staff to publish the proposed amendments for public comment and return with adoption language following that outreach.

Planning and urban forestry staff said the proposed updates are framed as technical changes rather than broad policy shifts. Megan (staff) and consulting arborist Todd Prager told council the revisions are intended to bring the ordinance in line with current state law, industry standards and implementation realities, reduce ambiguity in decision criteria, and improve administrative efficiency.

Key technical changes summarized by staff and the consultant include:

- Updated, clearer definitions and alignment to contemporary arboricultural practice (consultant said the manual follows ISA standards). - Explicitly designating the city arborist as the permit decision maker for administrative review while directing applicants to provide evidence (consultant: “the burden of proof onto the applicant”). - A clearer, more objective set of approval criteria for tree removal permits so multiple qualified arborists would reach consistent conclusions. - A streamlined permitting submittal standard and an option for the city to require a third‑party arborist report when facts cannot be established from the submittal alone. - Aligning fee references to the City’s master fee schedule rather than keeping a zero fee figure in the code text. - Clarified notification and appeal timelines and modernization of notice options (email/website in addition to mailed notices and signs where appropriate).

Consultant Todd Prager told council that the current tree removal criteria are highly discretionary and can produce inconsistent results: “Two reasonable arborists…can come to different conclusions. When you have a code, you want to avoid that because it creates arbitrary decision making.” The proposed language aims to make criteria objective and predictable.

Staff also described updates to the Tree Manual, noting it will be a technical guide for practitioners that adopts current ISA standards for pruning, planting and risk assessment. The manual clarifies the city arborist’s role and the applicant’s responsibility to provide technical documentation when removal is requested.

Councilors asked about fee levels and mitigation funds; staff said different cities handle administrative fees and mitigation (planting fees) differently and that mitigation fees, when used, typically support replacement planting or a tree fund. Staff provided examples from nearby jurisdictions and noted the city’s current tiered fee structure (desk approval, site visits, mailings) while recommending council keep fee setting with council as part of the master fee schedule process.

Councilors also raised resident concerns about utility pruning practices (PG&E and private cable firms) that had previously damaged trees and asked staff to investigate the city’s ability to coordinate or require better notice from utilities. Staff said the Oregon Public Utility Commission and franchise arrangements limit the city’s authority but agreed to research options and report back.

Public comment was limited to one speaker who expressed support for the update. At the end of the discussion councilors agreed to send the draft ordinance and manual out for a public comment period and return the item for adoption following the comment period.

No formal vote was taken; staff will publish the draft for public comment and return to council for adoption action following the outreach.