Take a quick glance at Bend's new tree code and you'd be forgiven for thinking it's a bit confusing. You can cut this number of trees at this diameter – or cut a certain percentage at a certain breast height... or just pay to cut down what you want. The ifs, ands or buts that relate to the program do take a little time to wrap your head around.
We'll throw developers a bone on that one.
What seems unreasonable, however, is to go as far as Pahlisch Homes is currently going to oppose a new tree code that went into effect this month. The local developer has lawyered up in hopes of seeing something change around a thing that only went into effect four days before we are writing this. In Pahlisch's complaint to the City of Bend, the developer claims that the tree code process went too quickly – that somehow the two years that transpired between the start and end of the process wasn't enough. They also gripe that too few people from the building industry were brought onto the committee that decided the rules around the new code. In total, of the 14 people the Bend City Council appointed in 2023, six work in the building industry – and one of them was there on behalf of Pahlisch Homes.
With someone from that developer on the committee, certainly in the months and years between then and now, the issue could have worked its way up the chain? It's all so puzzling, and based on the makeup of the committee, it hardly feels like developers – especially Pahlisch – were left out of the process.
If anything, we'd argue that the building industry is a bit too cozy with the Bend City Council. A person who works for one of the area's largest developers was appointed by the Council to join them in 2023 and still sits on that governing body today.
That same Council also found itself effectively held hostage by another developer that started a project near the Box Factory, then argued it was already too far down the road in the project to be denied a highly unpopular tax break. The fact that the Council paused its Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption program just after that approval could stand as evidence that the program wasn't in the best service of Bend residents.
Perhaps we shouldn't fault a developer for doing what they do: aim to save every penny and use up every scrap of possible land they can for building more housing. In theory, that's how we get out of the humanitarian crisis we find ourselves in, with people still occupying unsafe housing and living in the forest and on the streets. That's a tidy argument, if you don't take the environmental costs of projects into account. Trees and shade help keep our cities from becoming heat islands and driving up costs around heating and cooling, among other things. In aiming to tackle this thorny issue, the members of the tree code committee looked at the myriad concerns and sought to balance the needs of the plurality.
Given the timing and the length of time the committee deliberated, we're puzzled by this developer doing this thing at this time.
But heck, if they're worried about how many trees they can or can't cut down in a certain part of a development in Bend, we'll offer one piece of friendly advice: With a new fire risk map released by the state, it's time to consider the responses, and the realities, of the home-hardening codes that will hit developers next.
Those codes, planned to go into effect in certain areas once risk maps are established, will require developers to use fire-resistant siding, resilient roofing and other materials thought to help keep homes from burning during a wildfire. As Bend continues to push housing farther into the forest, there will be more homes likely to fall under those pending hardening codes. It's not a cheap addition to building requirements, either. Home hardening is estimated to cost about 2 to 11% more than standard construction, according to Oregon's Building Codes Division.
When and where that happens, it might just make simple tree codes look like a day in the shade.
