City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, today is Wednesday, May 20th, 2026, and I'd like to call to order the work session of the Oregon City City Commission.

Commissioner Mitchell.

Here.

Commissioner Wilson. Here. Commissioner Smith. Here. Commissioner Morrill. Here. Mayor McGrath.

Present. All right, so tonight we have one item on our agenda, and I'm hoping we can get through this in the time we have allotted. So street tree code review and fee Staff, thank you so much for being here tonight and having this discussion with us. And I actually pulled my March 18th, 2026 staff report that you guys prepared so that I could review that.

Okay, well, thank you very much. Kelly Hart, community development director. Here as a update and next steps conversation for the street free penalty discussion. We also have Ryan from the Code Enforcement Division and Sean available to answer any questions. So just as a quick overview, we kind of had two tasks that came out of the work session in March. It was to develop some proposed code language that was clear, that was simple, easy to follow, and pretty black and white. And then also do some updates to the civil infraction fee while also doing some modifications to the proposed fee penalty structure for street trees specifically. So that is what is before you tonight. We have done some code amendment proposals. It falls under two chapters of the code. The first one is pretty simple. It's chapter one. This is where it just has the clear language that says that it's a $300 civil infraction fee. And we have increased that to the $1,000 as directed. And then chapter 12 is where we have put the modifications to the enforcement structure specifically for street trees. So chapter 12 is regarding the street tree code. We have done minor adjustments to make it very clear that there is an application required for the removal of street trees and done clarifications to sort of cross-reference the existing definitions in chapter 17 that provides the definitions of what is tree topping, crowning, severe removal, damaging, that kind of stuff and making sure that it sort of cross references for this section. Beyond that, the majority of the amendment that is proposed is there was a section that talked about the basically penalty section and we have removed that because it was just general language that referred back to the civil infraction and we're proposing to modify that to put in an enforcement section And that basically lays out the, what is considered a violation of the street tree code, which lays out, you know, you didn't obtain a permit. If you did obtain a permit and you didn't follow what the requirements of said permit was, is a violation. If you willfully remove a tree without going through the appropriate procedures, those kinds of activities are identified as a violation. We also included a section regarding enhanced penalties based off of our conversation at the work session. And so it's a two tiered process. Any street tree removal is a violation if you don't receive a permit. However, there are enhancements if you do not receive a permit to remove a tree and it's more than 24 inches in diameter, if it's a heritage tree, if it's located within the MUD, MUC1 and MUC2 zones, and different factors like that. And so if you have that enhanced qualification, you get an additional penalty on the proposed fee structure. In terms of the fee structure, the direction that we received was the current structure is insufficient and does not create a deterrent. And we would like to see the maximum penalty to be around 25,000. We also received the direction that instead of doing it by the exact diameter of the tree to put it into tiered categories, like we have on the mitigation section requirements. And so we have done that. And this is a proposal where the regular fine is inclusive of the city of the civil infraction fee. And then it continues to increase above that as you increase in the size of the tree. So the regular fine is again any tree that's a street tree that's removed within violation. The enhanced fine is those clarifying and categories of the city has identified these as more as important trees to be retained. So this is one option where you create that tier and you have the general max out where upon the enhancements is about $25,000. There is an alternative that is proposed in the language where you have the regular fine and then if you have a base fee of a standard charge basically for each violation of the enhancement. So we provided an example in the staff report and in this fee structure here, You can see, for example, if it's a 40 inch tree that was obtained without a permit, the enhancement is that it's a tree that's larger than 24 inches in diameter. And so the base fee is the 15,000 based off of the size of the tree. And then the enhancement would be $5,000. If there's a second violation that it's a 40 inch tree, but also located in the Willamette Greenway, that would be a $10,000 addition and so on and so forth, where we would cap out at either no more than 25,000, or you continue to add those enhancements. And in this example where there's three different violations of the enhancement code, it would be a $30,000 fee. So before you tonight, we kind of have the proposed code language to verify that it's right-sized and kind of what we're looking for. And then these two different fee options to work through and make sure that we have also appropriately right-sized that. So to help along with the conversation, we have a couple of items that we're requesting the city commission direction on. Number one, should we proceed with the code amendments for chapter one to increase the $1,000 violation? Number two, should we proceed with the proposed code amendments as drafted or are there any modifications? Number three would be what fee structure do we prefer? And then do we want to have the hard cap at 25,000 or depending on what we do, increase it beyond that? And then are the proposed enhancement penalties, which are a heritage tree, a larger tree, more than 24 inches, trees within the Willamette Road Greenway, repeat violators, and trees that are located within those three specific zones, are those the scope of the enhancements that we agree want to fall under that larger penalty?

So that is my report. Sorry, there's something buzzing back here and it's not one of us. It's a chainsaw. Too soon, too soon. I just heard something going, I don't know what that was.

So that concludes my report on what we have produced. We're all available to answer any questions.

So what about the, what are we doing, again, so let me just ask the question, what are we doing with the R zones?

So based off of the direction, the R zones would fall under the standard fee penalty. So it is still the significantly increased fee, but it doesn't fall under the enhanced penalty. So as proposed, these increased fees based off of the tiering of the size of the tree would be citywide with these areas of enhancement. So our zones are the standard fee and then non-R zones as proposed are the enhanced fee.

So somebody cuts down, let's say a 30 inch diameter tree and they're in the, well, let's see, what's the mixed use zone? The MUC1 zone? No, I'm talking about a residential zone. Sorry, my brain went right back to the old RC4 zone, which we haven't had for years, but that's what the zoning was on my property for like, so I think, what are we, R3?

So that is still just a residential zone that does allow for a mix of residential uses in it. And so the 30 inch would require a $10,000 fee as currently proposed.

If they cut it down.

If they cut it down without obtaining a permit. And for example, if you obtain the permit, but then you don't do the required mitigation, that would create that $10,000 fee.

And then, so this would be, let's say for all zones, the judge can make some sort of say, okay, your penalty is X, but then we have the enhanced penalty, which is, outside of her purview that we can say, or the staff can say, you're gonna have this.

So Sean can jump in here a little bit too. Sean, jump in there, please, sir. Chief.

Yes, Mayor Commission, good evening. I did talk to the judge and she can modify the enhancements. She can? She would be able to modify the enhancements.

Do we want her to do that or whoever it might be in the future?

Yeah, I think she should be able to because I think she works with, she hears the whole entire case. So she gets to understand maybe some reasoning why people did some of these things and she can then make a decision based upon her expertise and her position to be able to reduce those. She doesn't always have to do that, but that is an option that she would be able to do.

I'm not sure I like that primarily because as they say, there's a million stories in the Naked City and that has not played very well with the community. I understand that judges have discretion, not with everything, but they have discretion. So I'm trying to look at it from the standpoint, not that it's land use, but I'm thinking about what's been proposed is fairly clear. And I feel it's subjective and I think it is reasonable. So I guess I would say the community has an expectation that it's not just gonna be a hand slap. I just don't know if I feel comfortable, if we set these enhanced fees, I don't know if I feel comfortable with the judge being able to, at their discretion, modify all that.

I can't control that. I would say that the judge is very astute to other jurisdictions that have some of these fines and enhancements, and she's very aware of the public impact. And I think she takes all that into account when she makes her decisions.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

This might be a question for Judge. Could we set, could the commission set a minimum that can't be reduced below?

I believe that's a possibility. That would have to be... I mean, we can bring that back. Sorry, you have to speak over the lawn more. I think that can be over. I think we can get some clarification on that to bring that back.

So I guess I don't have a problem with the judge using her discretion, but I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a minimum either, depending on if that's something that can be done. I do like the other version. Can you go forward one slide? Yeah, where there are $5,000 jumps per penalty, because what started this whole thing, we were trying to make the MUC 1, 2, and MUD more painful. Yes. So for that reason, I don't generally come down on the side of the more complicated way of doing things, but I think it might make sense on this one. So that would, I'd be leaning toward this. One question I do have, 12.08.035E2, where you don't have to have a permit or replace a tree in a three foot or narrower parking strip. What about tree wells? How does a tree well, is that a,

So that was actually an interesting question, and I had a very similar one because I was concerned that, for example, in the areas of downtown that we would fall under that exact exemption issue. We went out and measured them, and they don't fall under that. They're four foot, and some of them are five foot in width. The width of the sidewalks? Yeah, and even the depth of it. And so... We evaluated that and unless there's other areas of the city that have tree wells that are smaller than three feet, we interchangeably identify tree planters, like the planter strips and tree wells, because the tree well is actually not defined in our code. And so for the downtown area, it's not going to be exempt under that section of the code because they're already larger.

I think we ought to spell that out specifically.

Okay.

Yeah, I think that people are going to misconstrue this. And even if it's not a permit that they have to pay for, they should have to get a permit. Any tree removal, period. That way there's no, you know, No misunderstanding whether we have them pay for a parking strip that's three feet or less. There's not that many of them. They are out there. I'm aware of that. So you're saying that three foot or less, you have to get a permit? Yes. Even if they don't have to pay for it, they need to let somebody, because that's when the phone calls start on the weekend. They took the tree out. Well,

It's just being consistent. Everybody get one. If I may, we included the language in 1208035 that says tree removal may be authorized through a tree permit application in the form established by the city and mitigated as followed. Did you say 08? 08035. 035, okay. I'm with you. So we explicitly established now that a tree permit is required for tree removal. We exempt trees that are in landscape planters that are three feet or less from the mitigation side of the equation, the equation of having to replant there or to do a one-for-one or one-for-two replacement sort of thing. So we do have it clarified that basically any tree removal at this point does require a permit.

Not according to E2. Yeah, so it needs to be, E2 needs to be fixed.

It says may be removed without a permit. Without a permit, and that's underlined in blue. Well, shoot. I printed this in color, so it's in blue saying without a permit. Okay, we can fix that.

So we're going to make it that they have to have a permit for removal, but don't have to replace it.

Right. And I'm okay with that because that really is a, you know, we don't want them, we don't want trees in those plants, you know. There are a few of them around here that are that small. Well, there's 400 in my neighborhood.

Okay. 400 lots, which would be way more than that on trees.

So is all of section E being removed? The entirety, one and two? If you're saying any tree removal, even if it needs to get a tree removal permit, even if it's free, even the evasives?

So I think we would modify E2. to say that trees in planter strips three feet or less in width may be removed and then without replacement or feet and loom replacement and then it reverts back to that other section that specifically says that tree removals require a permit so we would clarify it like we have under number one under the exemptions and utilize that same language for number two instead of saying you have to do it without a permit right

I was going to ask a question about D, sorry, let me go back to the main thing. So 12.08.035 under D sub two sub A, where it says, again, I would switch the as the last resort rather than starting the sentence with it because you know, that's my pet peeve. So it says the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of none of the alternative planning options in D1 is sufficient for replanting. So do we want to say they must do it or they shall do it? or are they required to do it?

So in our code must and shall are interchangeable. And so it's a requirement that they have to do the work to demonstrate that they can't replace it back in that same spot, or they can't replace it on their neighbor's property and that kind of thing, and they can't place it on a city property someplace else. And they have to demonstrate all that process first before they get to the, we can just have you pay into the fee.

So must and shall is interchangeable. Well, we must have gone to different schools of planning because my training says it's either shall or they may. Must is kind of one of those weaselly words.

We want to provide that. I understand the opposite, that guidelines are that you should use words like must because they are very clearly directive, like you are required, you must do something, whereas like shall or may are more ambiguous in nature.

What's the legal term of art that you shall do something in land use? I mean, it could say the applicant is required, blah, blah, blah. I mean, it's more words, but okay. You say that that's the norm. That is how staff has interpreted it and implemented it, yeah. I can see somebody, one of these attorneys nitpicking that one. So, Michael, I concur with your suggestion about the enhanced... item that chart, I think I'm in total agreement with that. I guess I would want that. And I would like to see us have a minimum that can't go below that.

And this is per tree, right?

Yes.

Is there agreement on a minimum if we can do that? Would we like to see a minimum?

Yes, I think we're getting concurrence. How do you feel about that?

I would be fine with just letting it be up to the judge's discretion.

I think we can give her, we have basically four that are saying, let's try to come up with a minimum.

Okay, do you have a number in mind?

Michael, what do you think would be a good?

I'm really torn. I'm not sure that we don't just leave it up to the judge. Well, judges change.

So I didn't want to use see, that's why I said they. I said judges change. That's why I said I used the word they rather than she, because it might not always be a she. And we hire them. Yes, we do. Well, somebody does. It may not be us all in a group.

might throw out a thousand dollars just well my my issue with having a minimum if the concern is you know a judge at some point you know reducing it too far i mean this is such a wide range of fees i mean you're talking 3500 to 25 000 so how do you set a minimum like could could we say like okay the minimum is a thousand bucks that's a 25 000 fine oh we're going to reduce it to a thousand. That doesn't feel good. I mean, I don't know. I'm actually more in line with... I'm not against a minimum, but I don't feel particularly passionate about setting one. And I think the judge should have a level of discretion, but I'm not against a minimum. I just...

Especially if we're just going to sit here and try and pull a number out. That seems even...

Yeah, but it suggests we leave it at the judge's discretion, and if we don't like the way it's going, then we can always go back and revisit it.

Every situation is unique, and that's not our job to deal with. That's the judge's job.

Okay, let's move on then.

I've got a question. As I'm sitting here, and I guess I've never really thought this through in real depth. I'm looking, I'm still on 12.08 point, what is it, 035? 035. Yeah. The whole thing? Well, no. D. D. D1 and D2. So D2 says they have to demonstrate to the city manager's designee that none of the alternative replanting options is sufficient for replanting. If you look at the options, number two, number B, pardon me, is on public property with city manager designee approval. Well, there's always places we could use a replacement tree. So why would we ever get to fee in lieu?

So if I may, I think the reason it's written that way in particular is say it's outside of planting season. I'm sorry, what? To say it's outside of planting season. Okay. So during the summer when we specifically say you shouldn't plant a tree during this period, do we want to leave an open case, an open code enforcement case with a violated permit for six months until the new planting season comes into play and then have them plant it? Or do we say we will take the fee in lieu and then be able to plant it on city property in the future when it's an appropriate planting season?

Okay, I see.

Thank you. As Mike said, there are a number of places that I suggested that replanting could be placed in that particular corridor where there were tree topping so that the canopy of that particular corridor could be restored in addition to the trees that are gonna have to be replaced. There are at least three other locations in that corridor that are within the public right of way that could be used to put additional trees. And I think that would be what I was suggesting, that would be an appropriate way to make some restitution in addition to the fine or whatever. I understand. So I hope that that suggestion is not going to go by the wayside.

Are you? I'm not real sure what you said.

I don't understand what you said. Sorry, I didn't really understand what you're trying to get to. We have a situation on an MUC1 corridor where there's some trees that were damaged. And there was, let's just say that there was a request to replant because there will be those trees that were damaged but there are additional places so you're talking about i agree with you there are places in the city where trees could be planted there are tree there are some vacant tree wells in that corridor that could have additional trees so there is there are places where trees could be planted That was all I was saying. Okay. Is that I would hope that that would be taken into consideration in that particular corridor or other corridors like it that could use additional trees. Okay. It's like there's like two or three dead ones on the 7th Street corridor that are going to have to, you know, they just died through their own volition, unfortunately. Okay, so do you have enough direction to move forward?

I believe I do. If I could just reiterate. Sure. Do some definition of a tree well to make sure that it is clear that that is separate from the three-foot planter strip. Fix E1 and 2 to make sure that it is clear that you still require a permit, but you don't require medication. And then I believe the proposed fee of the standard fee plus the $5,000 per enhanced penalty is the preferred fee structure. I think so. So if that sort of captures everything, then I believe our next step would be to go ahead and make some of those minor modifications and bring forward the proposed code amendments and resolution.

Thank you. So we are moving forward with requiring a permit for all?

Yes. Whether they pay or not. Just helps with documentation. There's no question. It's treating all the three issues the same.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

I think we're good. Nope, we're not good. No, I'm sorry, but now I'm having a problem. Are we saying then that if I take out a tree in a three foot planter strip that I don't have to replace, but I didn't get a permit, I'm gonna get fined?

You would get fined For something of that size, it'll probably be the smaller area of the 1,000 to 2,500 or 3,500 based off of whatever the fee structure is currently. But if you do it without a permit, but you would not have to also do the next step of the mitigation is how it would be laid out as identified tonight.

We went back in some of the older subdivisions where there were trees planted, the parking strips were too small, The staff went through and looked at all the old plans. It would be good to have some documentation as to, you know, we're all gone. Somebody comes in later and says, well, gee, there was supposed to be trees there. What happened? Is there any documentation anywhere that they were removed? So you've got some documentation that they're removed.

I'm having a problem with a fine in that situation. Yeah, I would not be inclined.

I didn't say anything about a fine. I just said it's a free permit.

I'm sorry, but one of the things you get fined for is not having a permit.

Correct.

And plenty of people are not going to because they probably don't assume that they need one, which isn't to say that that should guide our decision-making, but I just have a problem with... I struggle with requiring a permit for all of them.

If I could, I think... Let's just say we ended up on any tree... removal of a public street tree requires a permit. Let's just say we ended up there, right? I think, you know, one of the things we would probably be proposing is some type of an education, trail news, get the word out. Maybe there's a little bit of a grace period, but I will say, you know, other jurisdictions have the same requirement and part of it is education of the arborists. Like it was one of the first things, even though personally we had an invasive tree, no replacement, but you still had to pull a permit that the arborist knew, right? The contractor knew, you know, this is going to be the other thing, right? If a contractor comes in and just does the work, property owner is going to get dinged as the owner. But you know, I, you know, you know, either we require it, and I don't know how you somehow exempt them from a penalty if we're gonna require it, right? So then it becomes the question of do you require it, right?

So it's, the code has an enforceability cited to it, but if there is nothing to enforce other than you needed a paper trail, then then what's the what's the cause of a code enforcement action at that point one thing i can suggest is as part of the fee structure that we put together we can sort of add a a pre-line that says for trees located within planters that are three feet in width or less would only be subject to a civil infraction, which is the lowest fee that you would get with $1,000. If you wanted to require the permit for the tree. On the exchange side of the equation, since we, if somebody does require, does take out a tree in a three foot planter area, our code is already saying we don't require them to put anything back in there. And so even without the permit itself, what is the violation other than paperwork? That would be my question.

Well, maybe noodle on that and see if there is some way to exempt that from a civil penalty.

Okay.

And if it isn't, then we just leave it the way it is.

So I'm curious, you were saying other jurisdictions, regardless of the circumstances around the tree, the street tree have to have a permit. I'm curious in this situation, what that a permit isn't pulled? I'm not sure. I pulled a permit. Right, right. But we have to be real that that's not going to happen all the time. So what is our action at that point? I'm curious what other jurisdictions...

So I will say, although this looks great and I'll take credit for it, it's not my language. So this is a pretty exact language between a hybrid of both Lake Oswego and Milwaukee. Recreate the wheel when it already is perfectly fine, which means there's two jurisdictions that already have language in it that talks about if you don't obtain a permit, then it's a violation regardless of the size of the tree or anything like that, right? We have the specific language because we no longer feel that it's appropriate to have trees in a three foot wide planter. because of root intrusion and all that kind of stuff, right? And so we're specifically identifying that this is something that is not necessary in our code for you to mitigate and replace. And so I think, I mean, I can always go back and look at other cities to identify whether they have that exact exemption, but the city of Oregon City has identified specifically in the code in the past that this is something that we feel is appropriate not to require them to do anything further. So I guess it's the... The question of since this is consistent language with neighboring cities, it's the question of do we still feel that the three foot wide planter is still appropriate not to require mitigation? And at that point in time, then it's the question of is a permit appropriate?

The reason I think that the three-foot tree well is kind of a different beast is we have the permit so that we can track from removal to replacement because they'll get fined if they don't replace the tree. In this case, they don't have to replace it. So we get a big pull of permit and we go, yep, you cut your tree down. Now what? I don't see the point of a fine... whether or not I have a permit when I'm not going to be replacing the tree.

Especially if we're going with a suggestion to not charge for the permit, then that just means staff is going out without the reimbursement on the staff time, which is a strain on our budget.

And if they do end up removing the tree and it's in a planter that's three foot 10 inches wide, that's outside of the code of the exemption and they would fall under the requirements of obtaining the appropriate permit and the violation structure.

Well, I'll take the Mike Mitchell suggestion. Let's leave it as it is and see what happens. And if something happens, then there's the ability to come back and change it. Yes, Rocky.

So three foot planter versus three foot. 10 inches. What? She said 10 inches. She said three foot 10 would require. Three foot 10. I'm just trying to visualize the planters, the planter strip, right? And when we're talking tree well, we're talking about the, what is, what do we call the metal grates that the tree. They're tree grates. There are trees in a tree well in a planter strip. Right, so there's a scenario where someone could cut that tree down and it wouldn't need to be replaced, but then we have an empty tree well?

No. We're going to provide a definition differentiating between the three foot or less planter strip and tree wells. So tree wells would be replaced. What kicked this in was some of those older subdivisions had two and a half foot planter strips.

Cutting down a tree, not replacing it, then we still have to deal with a tree well that's got to be replaced.

If you've got a tree well and you've got a 12 by 12 square that's the metal grating, it's going to be bigger than three feet.

You were saying, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not aware of anywhere in the city where it's less than three feet and it is a tree well?

No. uh let me clarify in the downtown area corridor where we did do the measurements everything was beyond that three foot measurement and so would still fall under the requirement of a permit replacement street has three grates and tree wells but they are larger sidewalk yeah it's not three feet but we're going to differentiate between yeah we will provide the definition of a tree well to make sure that it's clear that'll i think that'll take care of it yep

So are we maintaining the exemption then?

That's what it sounds like.

I said we have consensus to keep it as it is until it isn't. So I have definition of tree well and your preferred fee structure and that is the simplest code amendment process I'm going to have to do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. I don't think there's any other business for the work session.

Correct.

So we are now on recess till seven o'clock. Thank you.