JP Hines, the landscape consultant, presented a consolidated chapter that brings tree preservation, parking-lot landscaping, and surface-water buffering into one module and converts many of the city’s guidance items into numeric requirements.

Hines described a point-based system for required landscaping that assigns values to plantings (example: a canopy tree = 40 points; a tall evergreen = 30 points) and links the required points to the size of the development. She said the draft also includes thresholds that require more extensive landscape upgrades for full redevelopments and graded, lesser upgrades for partial parking-lot work.

Why it matters: The proposal moves the city from discretionary, guidance-based landscaping toward measurable standards. That can raise on-site planting quality and reduce incremental, patchwork plantings, but it also raises questions about cost and feasibility on narrow or older industrial lots where planting room is limited.

Key points presented

- Point system and examples: The consultants applied the proposed point rules to local projects. They showed a Starbucks infill that would have exceeded required points under the draft and a downtown hotel project that would struggle to meet proposed glazing and planting thresholds because of its programmatic constraints. A large industrial site example showed how tree preservation credits could count toward required points but that later phases would need additional planting.

- Tree preservation and removal: The draft retains a general requirement to preserve shade trees above 5-inch caliper (and conifers above a specified height) unless exemptions apply. Commissioners asked the staff to clarify whether the rule should apply to all private property or be limited to multifamily and nonresidential developments; most favored allowing single-family homeowners to remove trees more freely while protecting significant trees on commercial/multifamily parcels. The draft also contains standard exemptions for diseased or hazardous trees and suggested options for replacement or fee-in-lieu if on-site replacements are infeasible.

- Soil volumes and installation: The draft requires minimum soil volumes and installation standards to improve tree establishment and long-term survival; consultants recommended smaller-caliper trees planted with larger soil volumes rather than larger caliper trees planted in poor soils.

- Alternatives and waivers: Commissioners and staff discussed an alternative minimum tied to project value (a graduated percent of construction cost) as a fallback for larger industrial projects. Commissioners favored the point system for its clarity but asked staff to explore whether some older industrial properties should be allowed alternatives, such as public-art installations or off-site plantings, subject to Planning Commission review.

What remains unresolved

- Applicability to private single-family lots: Commissioners asked staff to make the distinction clear in code text — preserve significant trees on commercial and multifamily sites but avoid onerous permitting for residential homeowners.

- Fee-in-lieu vs on-site replacement: Staff will bring options (on-site replacement profiles, in-lieu fee schedules and examples) and impact analysis to a future meeting.

Ending

Staff said they will run additional scenarios, test the point system against more local projects and return with draft language that clarifies tree-preservation applicability, alternatives for constrained industrial lots, and the administrative path for waivers or art-in-lieu proposals.