Lake Oswego council tentatively affirms most tree removals at 233 E Avenue, defers single‑tree alley decision
February 18, 2023 | Lake Oswego City, Clackamas County, Oregon
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Mayor Buck and the Lake Oswego City Council on Feb. 18 tentatively affirmed a Development Review Commission decision that cleared the way for the removal of 22 trees at 233 E Avenue to allow construction of an eight‑unit cottage cluster, but deferred a separate decision on one western hemlock to allow the city engineer to re‑review alley standards.
The hearing centered on two Type 2 tree removal applications: AP2404 (site improvements, 22 trees) and AP2405 (alley/public improvements, a single 18‑inch western hemlock). Staff recommended approval for both applications after applying the city’s tree‑removal criteria (LOC 55.020.080), concluding there were either no reasonable alternatives for removal or that trees were in poor condition and could be mitigated. Courtney Sims, associate planner, told council staff found criteria 1, 2 and 6 met, that exceptions applied for trees in poor condition, and that applicants proposed mitigation totaling roughly 36 replacement trees plus payment into the tree fund for the hemlock.
“In looking at these alternatives, the DRC and council have repeatedly held that reasonable alternatives cannot consider a site plan that reduces the scope of development to less than is permitted in the zone,” Sims said in the staff presentation.
Residents and the appellant urged a different outcome. Deborah Link, a First Addition resident and the appellant, said she had canvassed neighbors and opposed what she called “decimation” of the site’s canopy. “Indiscriminate clear cutting of trees in order to cram eight houses on one quarter‑acre lot makes me question the city’s commitment to our trees,” Link said. She asked the council to return the matter to the DRC and to require a binding covenant to ensure replacement trees are maintained.
Applicant counsel Greg Hathaway said the developer, Coval Holdings LLC, had complied with code and had explored alternatives. “This applicant has tried to do everything possible to move forward with the proposed development, but also try to save as many trees as possible,” Hathaway said, noting the mitigation commitments in the record and telling council the applicant was willing to pursue narrower alley standards if the city engineer approved.
A central technical issue was the required 20‑foot alley right‑of‑way for public improvements. Erica Rooney, city engineer, explained that most residential alleys in the First Addition are a 20‑foot right‑of‑way by code and are typically graveled; narrowing would not meet standard unless a formal review or variance process justified a change.
After extensive questioning and public comment, Mayor Buck moved — and council unanimously approved — a deferral of action on AP2405 (the single hemlock tied to alley improvements) to the March 18, 2025 meeting so staff and the city engineer could re‑review applicable engineering standards for the specific location. The motion to defer passed 6‑0.
On the 22‑tree application (AP2404), the council then moved to tentatively affirm the DRC’s approval, adding conditions that the mitigation plan include a mix of native trees (the council asked for five varieties) and other measures discussed in the staff report. That motion also passed 6‑0. Mayor Buck described the decision as applying quasi‑judicial standards on the record rather than a broader policy call about density or the city’s tree code.
The council’s actions leave the main site permit (AP2404) tentatively affirmed with mitigation conditions; the narrower alley/hemlock question (AP2405) is continued to March 18 for an engineering re‑review. If the engineer determines a narrower alley is feasible the applicant may withdraw AP2405; if not, the council will act on the record. The appellant and neighbors retained the option to pursue judicial review under Oregon land‑use appeals procedures.
What’s next: AP2405 will return to council on 2025‑03‑18 for a report from the city engineer on feasible alley configurations and constraints. The council’s written findings will reflect the limited scope of issues permitted on appeal — that is, whether the DRC’s decision complied with the applicable LOC criteria and procedures.
The hearing centered on two Type 2 tree removal applications: AP2404 (site improvements, 22 trees) and AP2405 (alley/public improvements, a single 18‑inch western hemlock). Staff recommended approval for both applications after applying the city’s tree‑removal criteria (LOC 55.020.080), concluding there were either no reasonable alternatives for removal or that trees were in poor condition and could be mitigated. Courtney Sims, associate planner, told council staff found criteria 1, 2 and 6 met, that exceptions applied for trees in poor condition, and that applicants proposed mitigation totaling roughly 36 replacement trees plus payment into the tree fund for the hemlock.
“In looking at these alternatives, the DRC and council have repeatedly held that reasonable alternatives cannot consider a site plan that reduces the scope of development to less than is permitted in the zone,” Sims said in the staff presentation.
Residents and the appellant urged a different outcome. Deborah Link, a First Addition resident and the appellant, said she had canvassed neighbors and opposed what she called “decimation” of the site’s canopy. “Indiscriminate clear cutting of trees in order to cram eight houses on one quarter‑acre lot makes me question the city’s commitment to our trees,” Link said. She asked the council to return the matter to the DRC and to require a binding covenant to ensure replacement trees are maintained.
Applicant counsel Greg Hathaway said the developer, Coval Holdings LLC, had complied with code and had explored alternatives. “This applicant has tried to do everything possible to move forward with the proposed development, but also try to save as many trees as possible,” Hathaway said, noting the mitigation commitments in the record and telling council the applicant was willing to pursue narrower alley standards if the city engineer approved.
A central technical issue was the required 20‑foot alley right‑of‑way for public improvements. Erica Rooney, city engineer, explained that most residential alleys in the First Addition are a 20‑foot right‑of‑way by code and are typically graveled; narrowing would not meet standard unless a formal review or variance process justified a change.
After extensive questioning and public comment, Mayor Buck moved — and council unanimously approved — a deferral of action on AP2405 (the single hemlock tied to alley improvements) to the March 18, 2025 meeting so staff and the city engineer could re‑review applicable engineering standards for the specific location. The motion to defer passed 6‑0.
On the 22‑tree application (AP2404), the council then moved to tentatively affirm the DRC’s approval, adding conditions that the mitigation plan include a mix of native trees (the council asked for five varieties) and other measures discussed in the staff report. That motion also passed 6‑0. Mayor Buck described the decision as applying quasi‑judicial standards on the record rather than a broader policy call about density or the city’s tree code.
The council’s actions leave the main site permit (AP2404) tentatively affirmed with mitigation conditions; the narrower alley/hemlock question (AP2405) is continued to March 18 for an engineering re‑review. If the engineer determines a narrower alley is feasible the applicant may withdraw AP2405; if not, the council will act on the record. The appellant and neighbors retained the option to pursue judicial review under Oregon land‑use appeals procedures.
What’s next: AP2405 will return to council on 2025‑03‑18 for a report from the city engineer on feasible alley configurations and constraints. The council’s written findings will reflect the limited scope of issues permitted on appeal — that is, whether the DRC’s decision complied with the applicable LOC criteria and procedures.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
