Document text
Some in city want ordinance protecting trees photo by Jim Craven Jon Elliott, who chairs a city panel that reviews development, is pushing for Medford to adopt a preservation ordinance to protect trees around the city. Oversight harms important part of Medford, they say By Chris Bristol of the Mail Tribune Jon Elliott says he does not hate developers. What he hates is what he sees developers do to trees. As chairman of Medford's Site Plan and Architectural Review Commission, Elliott and some of his colleagues want to do something about what they consider an oversight in city code that lets developers clear property of trees before city planners review proposed construction plans. The result over the years, says Elliott, has been the destruction of countless trees. Gnarly old Oregon white oaks. Even gnarlier California black oaks, some predating pioneers by hundreds of years. Shady maples. Even shadier cottonwoods. Long-needled pines. Short-needled spruce. The list of irreplaceable "specimen trees" goes on. "Developers aren't stupid people," he says. "They go cut everything down because they don't want to deal with it." Now Elliott and Site Plan colleague Skip Brothers say the time has come for a change. Recently, the two approached the city's fledgling Tree Subcommittee about writing a preservation ordinance. But the subcommittee, a volunteer panel that answers to the Parks Commission, was lukewarm to the idea. Only five years ago, a similar suggestion met with stiff resistance from the City Council. At least one developer said he doesn't see real problems with the concept, though. "If it's managed properly I don't see it's all bad," said Mike Burrill, who developed the Crater Lake Plaza center that houses Costco and other big-box retailers. "The problem is, it's government stepping again and telling you to do things. "In most cases, the developers will try to keep all the trees they can," he pointed out, noting that trees add beauty and value to developments. Tree-preservation ordinances are catching on in development-crazy Oregon. Salem passed one this year, leaving Medford as the largest city in Oregon (No. 6) without one. Many smaller cities, particularly Portland suburbs such as Tualatin and West Linn, have them. All the ordinances are different. Gresham relies mainly on a voluntary "significant" tree list, similar to a historic-building registry. Portland codes regulate developers but not homeowners. Lake Oswego regulates everybody, requiring a permit for almost anything involving a saw. One of the key questions is whether an ordinance would affect not only developers but homeowners as well. It's one thing to limit developers, another to say what residents can do with trees in their own back yards. The Medford City Council shunned the idea in a 1995 proposal, says former council member John Hallett. "I just couldn't get consensus," he says. "There was never any public outcry in opposition to it. Just the council." "I don't know this go-around what's going to happen," says Mark Gallagher, chairman of the city's volunteer Tree Subcommittee. ``When you talk about going into people's back yards, that's a real tough political issue. This is the kind of thing that's definitely going to generate some public interest." But Elliott says an ordinance would almost certainly be limited to commercial development and new subdivisions. He would like to protect trees on private property _ including the windmill-like California black oak (circa 1600) that guards his home in east Medford _ but his first priority is limiting developers. "I doubt seriously whether we could get anything passed that would affect homeowners," he says. "Frankly, I doubt we would even try." Hallett says no ordinance would be truly effective if it applies only to developers and not homeowners. "There are people out there who buy a house and the first time they have to rake leaves they get mad and chop down an oak tree that might be 100 years old," he says. "Then they go and sell the place after living there only a year or two. "People just whack 'em down when they feel like it," he adds. "It's a tragedy, I tell you, because those trees are gone forever." Current code requires developers to document trees over 6 inches in diameter at a proposed construction site and plant trees as part of landscaping. The Site Plan commission reviews most development plans and has the power to protect existing trees _ but not if the trees have been cut down before the developer files a site-plan application. "If you go cut them down first, then you don't have to show them," says Gallagher, who is also the city's interim planning director. "Obviously you can see what that would do." Last year, city officials proudly publicized Medford's new "Tree City USA" title, an honor that stemmed from the city's efforts to plant more trees. A consultant also inventoried park and street-trees _ the so-called "urban forest" _ and evaluated their condition. The report contained some trouble spots. Among them: Medford has just under 5,000 trees, far fewer than city officials previously thought. The Tree Subcommittee was started as part of the "Tree City USA" program. It remains unclear if the committee wants to get involved in proposing an ordinance, but Elliott says if it doesn't, his group will. He already has copies of other cities' tree-preservation ordinances. "We don't want the credit for it. We don't want any notoriety at all," Elliott says. "We just want a tree ordinance." Elliott says the tree-cutting problem is actually twofold: Not only are old trees lost, but the new trees that developers plant are often inferior. "You don't see any oak trees planted of the white oak or the California black oak variety," he says. "You don't see any conifers particularly planted. You see things like arborvitae, which is like a little cedar tree. "There's nothing wrong with it," he says, "but it's not a very long-lived tree. What people go for is immediate greenery. The longevity of the tree doesn't make any difference to them." Elliott laughs at the notion he's some sort of tree-hugger. In fact, he's a rancher who runs cattle on Klamath land out toward Rocky Point. And he believes he understands a thing or two about the sometimes pragmatic ethos of resource management. As far as he's concerned, though, that resource includes the urban forest. "Out in the country, I wouldn't think of cutting down trees just to cut down trees," he says. "Harvesting trees for wood and lumber, that's fine. I have nothing against that. But in town, the only way you have a city that's viable and livable ... is by protecting the resources you have. "We aren't planting any new ones. Instead, we're cutting down the old ones. If we want to look like Houston, then that's what we want to look like, I guess. But I don't want to be a part of it." Today's Edition : News | Sports | Business | Weather | Tempo | Classifieds Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA