Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb 2138 Tree Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wilsonville staff outline tree‑preservation changes and housing code updates under HB 2138
Summary
City planners presented Part 2 of housing statutory compliance (HB 2138) focusing on clear‑and‑objective tree‑preservation standards for residential development, proposed process standardization (city‑prepared tree surveys at applicant cost), and other statutory updates including unit bonuses for middle housing and limits on frontage improvement requirements.
City staff presented Part 2 of Wilsonville’s housing statutory compliance effort at the July 8 Planning Commission meeting, describing how recent state laws — principally House Bill 2138 — require the city to adopt clear, objective standards for tree preservation and removal tied to residential development reviews, and asking commissioners where policy discretion should remain.
"HB 2138’s primary piece is the tree code update that’ll be needed to establish clear and objective standards for tree preservation and removal in regards to residential development," staff said in the presentation. Staff explained the city’s long history of site‑specific, discretionary tree review, noted the city’s existing one‑for‑one mitigation and tree‑fund payment options, and proposed standardizing tree surveys (city‑prepared at the applicant’s cost) so that objective rules would apply consistently across projects.
Staff described other statutory changes captured in the packet: changes to middle‑housing land divisions and single‑room occupancy allowances, limits on the local ability to require frontage improvements for relatively small renovations (staff cited a statutory example threshold of $150,000), and a unit‑bonus mechanism that allows middle‑housing projects to add bonus units when at least one unit is deed‑restricted as affordable or accessible. Staff also noted timing: many HB 2138 provisions take effect Jan. 1, 2027, and staff plans public outreach and draft code amendments for late 2026 public hearings.
Commissioners discussed whether the code should remove the word 'household' and instead rely on 'dwelling unit' or building‑code occupancy limits, noting state statute language that prohibits local occupancy limits based on familial relationships (ORS citation referenced in the meeting). Commissioners also asked what kinds of outreach and visuals would help the public weigh tradeoffs, and staff said they will present more detailed options, definitions of 'secondary' use (for items such as data centers) and suggested standard tree survey language at the Aug. 12 session.
Staff said the work is primarily to align local code with state requirements while preserving valuable local tree outcomes where feasible; commissioners and staff agreed to continue discussion in August and refine clear‑and‑objective criteria, mitigation options and public‑engagement materials before drafting final code amendments.
