I don't understand why the Urbanist continues to state that 102 brings "new tree retention requirements" and that it "would expand the City’s definition of a tree preservation area and regulations relating to them."

102 allows SDCI to *shrink* the TPZ, adding flexibility for retention.

Sorry, you're right about that. The important part is that there is no longer a basic tree protection area defined in a way that cannot be modified.

What do you mean by "planning"? Isn't this just the kind of building you get when Florida developers go play in Texas?

I think you're missing the most interesting part: the authors are arguing that the bridge is likely already nearly at capacity NB during peak hours, and cite a lack of volume growth 1990-2017 as evidence.

Growth in daily volume with peak flat does smell a bit like saturation.

Did a thing. (Never leaving Seattle)

Smart doggy understands that mitigating the heat-island effect requires preventing structures with high thermal mass from absorbing solar energy in the first place. Good boy!

I count at least three before noon.

Funding isn't the only problem with this plan. As published in the original Urbanist piece, it advocates for undaylighting intersections by pushing trees into sightlines. It's a deeply unserious idea which only exists to club people with differing ideas.

The kind of YIYBY developer that thinks residential architectural criticism is "vile" but has no problem smearing the people who live in their city with slightly different opinions.

Mitigation of the heat island effect, air and water filtration, as well as water transpiration are all local effects.

Cle Elum is so inconsequential to Seattle and our metro housing needs that the most recent Seattle commuter survey doesn't even register it in the responses. It's not a SEA exurb

Everywhere! Many of the specific public comments at the May 19 council meeting were about the senselessness of allowing tree removal during SFH dev. Grace the greenlake sequoia and the cedar on the log cabin site in Broadview were two big campaigns. www.greenlakesequoia.com

You're arguing that dense development in Seattle is saving/adding more tree canopy than resi development as a whole? I don't see that in the cities numbers. Multi-family alone removed net 14 acres of canopy

Where does your "less than 10%" number come from? According to the 2021 canopy report, development accounted for at least 13.7% of total canopy loss.

Parcels exposed to development saw a nearly 40% reduction in canopy coverage.

Moore's amendment 8 basically only affects setbacks for SFH and maxes out at 15ft. Kettles is a QA-only loophole. You do missing middle and amendment 8 is a moot point.

I'm not in love with setbacks either, but the hyperventilation over this imaginary 20ft setback is goofy and hurts the cause

R2 specifically:

Subscribing to publications while abroad is probably my best life hack. Haven't paid more than $20 a year for NY Times for over a decade.

The false narratives Moore was citing here was the one conflating tree activists with anti-development NIMBYs, which is a line people are actively pushing. ie, These projects aren't attracting opposition for being high-density or big, they're just typical SFH+DADU ... except for the tree removals.