Depoe Bay council debates new tree ordinance; exemptions for small lots and stronger penalties proposed

Depoe Bay councilors spent the bulk of their Feb. 13 work session revising a draft tree ordinance, debating definitions, permit triggers, pruning limits and penalties before directing staff to prepare a clean copy for a first reading and public hearing.

The council’s discussion focused on who the ordinance would cover and how it would be enforced. A staff presenter (identified in the transcript as Speaker 4) said the draft defines a “protected” tree as one with a trunk diameter of 20 inches or greater or any tree listed as a heritage tree, and that diameter should be measured 4.5 feet above the ground. The presenter also recommended exempting removal of trees on lots 5,000 sq ft or smaller unless the trees meet the protected definition.

Why it matters: The draft would extend permitting and replacement obligations beyond large development sites to some private‑property situations, prompting residents to argue the rule could be intrusive on small lots and create additional compliance costs.

Councilors and commenters raised several practical and legal questions. Speakers noted the draft already exempts trees under 6 inches (measured at 4.5 feet) and debated whether the city could require utilities to replace trees they remove as part of franchise work; one council member said requiring utilities to replace trees may be constrained by franchise agreements. The council sought clearer cross‑references with the land‑use code and a native‑species list to guide mitigation plantings.

Penalty and replacement proposals animated much of the discussion. The draft includes a minimum penalty (initially $500 per regulated tree); council members suggested raising the floor (options discussed included $750 and $1,000) and retaining language allowing penalties up to three times the appraised value of the tree plus costs of prosecution for intentional violations. Council members also proposed creating a “tree canopy replacement fund” to receive penalty payments and finance replanting.

On pruning and health‑based exceptions, speakers recommended following ANSI guidance rather than a single large percentage. The group reviewed an ANSI‑based chart in the packet and discussed a conservative cap on live‑canopy removal in a single year (examples cited ranged from 10–25 percent depending on age and stress of the tree); the draft will be revised to clarify excessive pruning versus normal pruning and to make clear when an arborist report may be requested. The draft currently says the applicant may, at their discretion, submit a certified‑arborist report and that staff may ask for one if approval criteria are unclear.

Notification and inspection procedures were also discussed. Staff and council debated whether to flag trees for neighbor notice (which can provoke disputes) versus requiring city staff inspections with the property owner present; council consensus was to rely on inspections and targeted notification where permit rules require neighbor notice.

Procedure and next steps: Council asked staff to produce a clean, easy‑to‑read version of the ordinance and agreed to schedule it for a first reading (members discussed a meeting on the 20th as a possibility). Public hearings were described as occurring later in the adoption process (the transcript indicates the public hearing would coincide with adoption/second reading rather than at the first reading).

Direct quotes from the meeting include concerns about property rights and administration: Speaker 2 said, “I joined city council primarily so I can help keep the look and feel of Depoe Bay,” and Speaker 4 said, “Trees belong to you,” while also arguing for protections for mature trees. The transcript shows robust disagreement over whether permitting homeowners on very small lots is appropriate; several members emphasized that the council will hold public hearings and that the clean copy should make the rules easy to understand.

What the ordinance would do (as discussed): protect trees defined as 20 inches DBH or designated heritage trees; exempt trees under 6 inches; potentially exempt most lots under 5,000 sq ft from routine permit requirements unless trees are protected; require permits before ground‑clearing; allow the city to request arborist reports where criteria are unclear; require replanting/mitigation (native species preferred) and create a fund to receive penalty payments; establish a penalty framework with a minimum per tree and a maximum tied to appraised tree value plus fees.

Next step: staff will revise the draft (fix section references, incorporate pruning/ANSI guidance, and clarify application requirements and notifications) and return a clean copy for council consideration at a first reading and the later public hearing and adoption process.