Pahlisch Homes, a local homebuilding company, submitted an appeal of the City of Bend’s tree code on Aug. 6, calling for the City to pause its newly implemented regulations.
On Aug. 28, other local businesses and organizations joined in on the effort, asserting that the new tree code will cause impacts on housing in Bend. Those that joined the motion include Brooks Resources, Central Oregon Association of Realtors, Central Oregon Builders Association, Empire Construction and Development, Hayden Homes and Bend Yimby, short for “Yes In My Backyard.”
The Bend City Council approved the updated tree regulations on June 20, attempting to clarify how and when trees can be removed in new developments. The amendments state that if a certain percentage of trees are removed in a project, developers will need to plant new trees on-site or make a payment in lieu of tree preservation.
The tree code went into effect on Aug. 16.
The Aug. 28 press release from Central Oregon Builders Association stated that the new code will make building on residential land more difficult and costly. This, COBA said, will discourage or prevent housing production, making it more difficult to increase Bend’s housing supply, while adding costs to housing.
The parties involved are calling for the city to pause and amend key elements that better balance community housing concerns.
“We are asking City of Bend’s elected leaders to reconsider and take another crack at doing a better job of balancing our priority need for housing in this community with tree preservation,” said Jim Roberts, with Bend YIMBY, in a press release.
The Tree Regulation Update Advisory Committee, which helped recommend amendments to the City’s tree code, was created in June and included 14 community members with a range of viewpoints, including several in the development sector. Cory Bittner with Pahlisch and Morgan Greenwood with COBA were among the 14 members.
Organizations joining the appeal hope the City will agree to meet to consider specific recommendations for lessening impacts on housing, while also protecting trees.
“The cost of housing is a concern for more and more people and employers across our community,” said Morgan Greenwood, vice president of government affairs at COBA. “This motion to intervene is an attempt to bring the City Council back to the table on behalf of working families who cannot afford higher housing costs. By working more closely together we believe we can find a better approach to the tree code that achieves preservation goals AND is accountable to community’s housing concerns.”
Related Stories
Un esfuerzo colectivo para apelar el código de árboles en Bend
This article appears in Source Weekly August 22, 2024.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Trees are part of Bend’s fabric and Bend’s livability and natural beauty. When you look across our landscape our views are framed by stellar trees and I frankly prefer to not just see houses !
Our native trees are not being watered today. and this is really important.
Think about the water savings of keeping established trees instead of cutting them down, and then having to water newly planted vegetation especially a bunch of non- native imported tree varietals that will continue to need that artificial watering.
Isn’t Bend worried about it’s water future?
Mature vegetation commands additional land valuations : so should affordable home owners be stripped of the property enhancement of having mature trees?
How about the climate action goals of our city: mature tree canopies absorb more CO2 and provide wildlife habitat than smaller trees with smaller DBH and smaller canopies.
It’s time that realtors and developers not control our city government…
For all the work that the tree committee and citizens have invested; it’s time for City Council to NOT delay the implementation of the adopted ordinance.
(Afterall the city wants citizen involvement: so what a burn on citizens to get to the goal post and the city moves the goal post to suit realtors, builders, developers)
Hello it’s 2024 !
Bend’s Livability is at issue and so is the fabric of why people come to this special community and why citizens are fraying because government is shunning their voices.
I’ve waited plenty YEARS for Bend City Council to craft and adopt this tree ordinance.
NOW it’s time for City Council to defend it’s ordinance and to IMPLEMENT it.
Bend City Council: don’t let a few special interests bully you into further delay.
I understand our need for housing but this is bittersweet for those of us who mourn for Bend the way she used to be, less houses/apt’s, less traffic and less transplants and golf courses to accommodate for. I just built my house on the family property and built it around my Pondo’s I have on my property, only having to remove 2 small Junipers and 1 small Pine. I get it, change is inevitable; doesn’t mean I have to like it. RIP Old Bend.
What are these people thinking?! Keep the trees.
The Rich always complain where there is the possibility of something cutting into their profits. Per usual they will just roll the cost into the Buyer’s purchase price, but will continue to whine about costs regardless.
“The parties involved are calling for the city to pause and amend key elements that better balance community housing concerns.” I refer back to my statement above.
It’s never enough for these guys…community wellbeing and concerns be damned. After all, increased profits supersede all else.
One option for the tree code they oppose actually allows any lot of any size to be totally clear cut. It simply requires that inventoried trees either be replaced or a mitigation fee be paid. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Ponderosa pine tree seedlings can be ordered online for less than $10 each. Realizing that they require 3 years of irrigation and maintenance, then replant in locations on the lot already designated for landscaping. I know it’s anathema to some ears, but it is time to adopt ordinances that require building up for multifamily dwellings–not out.
A big, resounding, AMEN to the above comments in support of the trees. It should surprise no one to see those names on the list, the very same developers and real estate tycoons only thinking about their money, not the community nor the environment. Look around and see the bare lots clearcut by these greedy folks and that’s just the way they want to keep doing business, to save a buck or two. If they had it their way, there would be no trees left and bare ground leading to erosion, landslides, more pollution (did they forget that trees clean our air and let us breathe?), and eventually, people just giving up completely on the idea of a livable Bend. C’mon Bend, don’t let them continue to buy their way to our destruction.
Developing an urban tree canopy plan will be of upmost priority as the earth warms. It’s no surprise that production home builders would oppose this regulation. Retaining versus mass removal of trees from a development isn’t the hinderance that’s influencing the cost of homes, and developers are not doing their job if they’re not taking into account the existing landscape and how the development can benefit from it.
The urban heat island effect should already be a concern to citizens with respect to Pacific Power’s lack of concern to address overhead power lines, and resistance to burying lines in specific project plans. The sheer volume of established canopy that is continually removed and cut back due to overhead power lines is already an issue.
As a community, we should be pushing Pacific Power for a multi-decade plan to bury lines, or vote on a bond measure to develop a publicly owned underground infrastructure – to assist in retaining the canopy we do have.
It’s a shame to see the list of opponents to this measure and how it’s all about profits and ease of churning out neighborhoods to them, while citing the cost of homes as the reason to oppose.
Lets take a look at the opposition here.builders and realtors??? Hmmm, Please lets keep in mind that Pahlish and Brooks Resources are not building affording housing.
They are both culprits of destroying wildlife habitats and when it has been brought to their attention, they dismiss it. Developers own this town and lets hope for once our city doesnt grab their ankles for the developers . They destroyed all but a few trees from two lots in our neighborhood leaving mother birds distraught and nests with baby birds and eggs smashed without any consideration for the wildlife. The great horned owls that used to hoot nightly, gone. Deer dont have a place to rest. Not a care for the relationship we have and need with nature. This is the problem with developers , its all about the almighty dollar.
I’m actually a bit gob smacked that the “developers” have come out in a seemingly coordinated manner against this ordinance, and only to complain about “added costs”.
As a prior commenter stated, all they’ll do in the end is pass on any costs to buyers. It’s the nature of the process: builders build and buyers buy, compensating the builders for the cost plus some profit margin necessary for the builders to stay in business.
Is there a buyer’s strike in Bend? Doesn’t seem so to me.
On the other hand, how many of us have driven down 8th between the Butler Market circle and Revere? Note the recently bulldozed area west of 8th? Is that bare enough for the developers? To the rest of us it’s already an eyesore, and evidence in plain sight of the need for exactly this type of ordinance.
Personally, I’d rather that there wasn’t an “out” to offset tree removal via a fee in lieu of preservation. The ordinance doesn’t call for all or even most of the trees remain; it calls for *some* of the trees to be preserved. How is preservation respected when it can be bought off for some fee?
And to The Source, could you add a follow-up that gives a better sense of the nuts and bolts of this issue/ordinance? What does the ordinance actually call for? Is it objective, or are there subjective components? What are the options for replanting that offset taking large, old, mature trees? What are the fees imposed, and how are they calculated?