Lake Oswego planning commission backs revised tree code but declines to reinstate private-property enforcement

The Lake Oswego Planning Commission voted 5–2 on June 8 to recommend a package of tree-code amendments to the City Council, endorsing a two-track framework for tree removal, numeric retention requirements for housing projects and changes to appeals procedures while accepting staff’s advice to not reinstate city enforcement for dead trees on private property.

The staff-led package, presented by Community Development Director Jessica Numanalou, creates a clear-and-objective track that applies to housing development and a discretionary Type 2 track for other tree removals. "The request before the commission tonight is to consider draft amendments to the city's tree regulations and standards," Jessica Numanalou said during the presentation. The clear-and-objective track includes a minimum retention requirement intended to preserve canopy while enabling development: applicants must retain either 45% of on-site trees larger than 15 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) or 45% of the total DBH for trees larger than 6 inches; applicants who fall short would pay a fee per caliper inch to offset the deficit, with the exact rate to be set later in the city’s Master Fee Schedule.

Why it matters: the state recently tightened rules around housing and tree regulation. Staff and the consultant said House Bill 2138 requires clear-and-objective standards for housing-related tree removals and House Bill 4037 narrowed public-notice and appeal opportunities for certain clear-and-objective housing applications. To comply, Lake Oswego’s draft establishes numeric, objective standards for the housing track while preserving a discretionary pathway for non-housing removals.

Key changes and safeguards

- Two-track system: a clear-and-objective track for housing (and replacement dwellings) with numerical retention standards; a discretionary Type 2 track for nonhousing and other landscape removals. Staff emphasized applicants may opt into the discretionary track.

- Retention and mitigation: staff proposes 45% retention thresholds for qualifying trees and an in-lieu fee for shortfalls; fees will be calibrated by council through the Master Fee Schedule so they deter buyouts but comply with state law.

- Incentives for high-value native trees: the draft gives extra credit toward retention for certain native species (e.g., Oregon white oak, Douglas fir) and adds minimum soil-volume standards for street and parking-lot trees to promote longevity.

- Appeals process: the recommendation moves appeals of Type 2 decisions to a professional hearings officer and removes the second-tier appeal to the City Council. For clear-and-objective decisions, appeals would continue to be handled per state rules (e.g., circuit court or Land Use Board of Appeals when applicable).

- Hazardous/dead trees on private property: staff outlined two options and recommended keeping the current approach (education, mediation and private remedies) rather than returning to older enforcement authority. The commission voted with staff’s recommendation, rejecting the reinstatement of a broad city enforcement mechanism that would require the city to compel private-property tree removals.

Public testimony and concerns

Dorothy Atwood, president of the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network, urged the commission to preserve options for sustainable energy and dense housing in Foothills as the code is refined: "Lake Oswego Sustainability Network has been really excited about seeing what's happening at the Foothills," she said during public comment.

Nolan Winker, head superintendent at Oswego Lake Country Club, asked the commission to retain the forest management permit's usefulness for large properties and cautioned that overly restrictive parameters would shift necessary stewardship work into more burdensome permit pathways.

Resident Tom Horman urged stronger wildfire-focused authority, warning that large conifers close to homes raise safety risks; staff and the fire marshal responded that defensible-space practices emphasize trimming and removing fine fuels and that wildfire risk may be addressed through existing or revised permit pathways when trimming is not feasible.

Commission action and next steps

Commissioner Mitchell moved to forward the staff-drafted package—with staff’s suggested deletions and technical fixes (notably removing the private-property enforcement amendment)—to the City Council. The motion passed 5–2. The staff report and draft amendments will go to a City Council public hearing currently scheduled for July 21; council will set any fee rates (the Master Fee Schedule) and consider final adoption.

What remains open: the exact per-caliper-inch fee will be determined by council; staff and the commission suggested monitoring outcomes after implementation and revisiting the moderate-risk rules or enforcement approach if data indicate unintended canopy loss or safety gaps.

The commission packet and staff attachments list the draft code (Attachment 2) and supporting analysis; the council hearing on July 21 will be the next formal public opportunity for comment.