Consultants for the City of Lake Oswego presented preliminary regulatory concepts Dec. 8, 2025 for updating the city's tree cutting and preservation rules, saying the effort will implement state requirements for clear‑and‑objective standards while aiming to preserve the city's roughly 53% tree canopy.

Sarah Goldstein of Cascadia Partners outlined four interrelated concepts the project team wants the commission's feedback on: establishing a clear‑and‑objective permitting track for residential development, creating incentives to preserve trees, streamlining the notice and appeals process, and making permitting consistent across development and nondevelopment uses.

On the first concept, Goldstein described a three‑part approach. Part one would let applicants choose one of two objective retention metrics — retain a percentage of total healthy trees on a lot or retain a percentage of total DBH (diameter at breast height). "We want to keep the focus on whether these two approaches... are appropriate and if there's a preference for one or the other," Goldstein said (Sarah Goldstein, SEG 651). Part two would exempt trees inside a building envelope on very small lots (about 5,000 square feet or smaller) from certain retention requirements; part three would remove the discretionary term "significant tree" and replace it with objective criteria and bonus credits for native species.

Commissioners asked whether the clear‑and‑objective track would apply to all residential development. Jessica, the project's manager, responded that state law requires a clear‑and‑objective option for needed housing and that the proposed track would apply to all residential types, including single‑family and mixed‑use projects (Jessica, SEG 829–833). Several commissioners suggested tying stronger preservation incentives to very‑low‑income housing projects; staff said that incentive may be legally possible but would require consultation with the land‑use attorney.

On incentives, the team proposed several pathways: exempting applicants who exceed minimum retention by a significant margin from public notice and appeals, offering limited dimensional adjustments, and providing stormwater credits tied to tree preservation. Staff and the tree task force generally supported stormwater credits and exemptions from public notice when preservation thresholds are high; the city council expressed caution about dimensional adjustments because of administrative complexity.

Consultants presented data on appeals from 2020–2024: 15 appeals in five years (about three per year), eight of those escalated to council, and one staff decision was overturned. Based on that record, the team suggested shortening the notice-and-appeals period from three weeks to two weeks and routing appeals to a contracted hearings officer; the hearings officer could be made final or allow further appeal depending on policy choice. Commissioners and task force members were supportive of streamlining to reduce delays, while some expressed concern about removing city council review entirely.

The fourth concept would add a narrowly defined exemption for "moderate risk" trees when a qualified arborist documents that risk cannot be reduced through reasonable treatments or where there is demonstrable history of similar tree failure nearby. Staff emphasized that an existing hazard permit process remains for high‑risk trees and that public education is part of the overall approach.

Goldstein said the consultant team and staff will run case studies to test different retention percentages and to refine how the clear‑and‑objective metrics will work in practice. Draft code is expected to be returned to the commission in spring 2026 for a continued review of proposed ordinance language. "So these code concepts are preliminary. Nothing's been decided yet," Goldstein said (Sarah Goldstein, SEG 552).