5A - Discussion of Tree Protection and Preservation Objectives and Potential Code Changes (Title 9)
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 7, 2009
AGENDA TITLE: Discussion of Tree Protection and Preservation Objectives and
Potential Code Changes (Title 9).
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning
David Driskell, Deputy Executive Director of Community Planning
Kathleen Alexander, City Forester
Elizabeth I.okocz, Landscape Architect
OBJECTIVE:
Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request:
1. Hear staff preservation
2. Hold public hearing
3. Planning Board discussion: Provide direction on tree protection and preservation
objectives.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
"1`he purpose of this item is for Planning Board to discuss aril provide direction on tree protection
and preservation objectives. Staff will refine objectives and corresponding potential code
changes described in this memo based on Planning Board feedback. Draft code language and the
final ordinance will be prepared and submitted fbr final Planning Board consideration and
recommendation prior- to City Council review and consideration later this year.
The issue of tree protection arid preservation has been raised over the years by Planning Board,
residents, and staff, during the site review process and at final building perrilit inspection. It has
also been an ongoing question relevant to solar photovoltaic installation and the broad goals of
the Climate Action Plan. As a result of these ongoing issues, staff' wrote a WIP to City Council
on August 30, 2007 outlining possible long term strategies and short term changes to address tree
protection and preservation concerns. Refer to Attachment C for the WIP and a list of potential
short and long terns changes identified at that time. The 2007 WIP identified that additional
research and public input was needed before extensive long term changes could be implemented.
Staff continued its response to this issue in 2008 by completing a research and public
participation phase. Focus group meetings, a public open house, inter-departmental staff
meetings and research on existing tree protection code was completed and is summarized in
Attacbments A and B.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A Page 1
Boulder has approximately 400,000 trees, of which an estimated 40,000 (10%) are on public
lands. The city's existing regulations only address tree protection on public property, in public
rights-of-way, and during construction on private property. They do not address tree protection
on private property adjacent to developing properties, or outside of a building permit or
development review process. Likewise, the State of Colorado does not regulate trees on private
property.
At this time, staff is seeking feedback from the Planning Board regarding the revised draft
objectives for the potential strengthening and expansion of the city's policies for tree protection
and preservation. Proposed objectives speak to the overall balance between public interest in tree
protection and private development goals; tree protection on properties adjacent to development
projects; protection of large and mature trees on public and private lands; tree preservation on
development sites; and city licensing of tree professionals. Based on Board input and direction
on these objectives, staff will develop specific proposals for potential regulatory changes, with
analysis regarding potential time and cost impacts for both private property owners and the city.
OBJECTIVES:
Objectives outlined in the August 2007 W1P were further developed by staff taking into
consideration public input, internal discussion and research. The Analysis section starting on
page five of this memo provides a brief discussion of each objective.
1. Balance development potential with public interest and private development goals.
2. Provide protection for trees on properties adjacent to development projects.
3. Prohibit removal of especially large and mature trees without appropriate analysis.
Support additional protection for significant trees, public and/or private, as defined
through size and species criteria.
4. Provide additional incentive for the preservation of existing trees on development sites.
5. Ensure that qualified professionals perfo n-n tree assessment, construction management
and root or canopy removal.
BACKGROUND:
A Note regarding "Protection" versus "Preservation"
Although tree protection and tree preservation are not strictly the same thing, application within
the Boulder Revised Code has a high degree of overlap. Protection is typically defined as the
prevention of death or injury that causes death; preservation may grant the same limit on death or
serious injury but adds the elements of maintenance and long term care. Both are reflected in the
identified objectives. Current regulations address many aspects of public tree protection and
preservation, but do not extend to the private canopy.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) speaks to the community's desire to protect,
preserve and expand the city's tree canopy through both a range of general policies related to
community sustainability and environmental quality, and specific policies regarding the urban
forest.
See Attachment E for a fist of general policies, including:
AGENDA ITEM # 5A Page 2
• Recognition of sustainability as a unifying goal to secure Boulder's future economic,
ecological and social health.
• Use of urban growth boundaries to maintain a compact city (the boundaries of the
service area have remained virtually unchanged since first developed in 1977).
infill land
• Encouragement of compact, contiguous development and a prefkrence,for,
redevelopment as opposed to sprawl.
• Provision of quality urban spaces, parks and recreation that serve all sectors of the
community, and trails and walkways that connect the community.
• Commitment to preservation of natural, cultural and historic.feattrres that contribute to
the unique sense of place in Boulder.
The two BVCP policies that most directly address the issues of tree protection and preservation
are 4.13 and 4.14:
4.13 Urban .Environmental Quality
To the extent possible, the city and county will seek to protect the environmental quality of areas
under significant human influence such as agricultural and urban lands and will balance human
needs and public safety with environmental proteclion. The city will develop community-wide
programs and standards.for new development and redevelopment so that negative environmental
impacts will be mitigaled and overall environmental quality of the urban environment 144/1 not
worsen and may improve.
4.14 Urban Forests
The city will support and promote the protection of healthy existing trees and the overall health
and vitality of the urban. forest in the planning and design of public improvements and private
development. The city will encourage overall species diversity and native and low water demand
tree species where appropriate.
Current City Regulations Pertaining to Tree Protection
City of Boulder code sections that address tree protection include:
• Title 9 (Land Use Regulations) of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (BRC).-
Section 9-9-12(d)(18) requires that trees over six inches in caliper located in ally
development, including detached dwelling units, in the required setback or on the property
line, be protected from construction impacts within the dripline of the tree in a manner that is
consistent with the city's Design and Construction Standard's.
• City QfBoulder's Design and Construction Standards (I)CS):
Section 3.05 of the DCS requires the protection oftrees and plants in the public right-of-way
and on any project or construction site where public improvements arc proposed.
• Title 6, Chapter 6 (Protection of "Trees and Plants) of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981
(BRC.):
The BRC provides protection for trees growing on city property, including within the public
right-of-way. Trees on private property are regulated only in reference to dead, diseased or
dangerous trees. Mitigation for the removal of public trees is also regulated under this
chapter.
AGENDA ITEM 4 SA PajZe 3
Summary of Current City Regulations for Trees on Public and Private Property
P.dbfic.Pr4perty Private Property
Protection 'T'rees must be protected if they are 'T'rees over 6 inches in caliper on any
on city property, in the public development site must be protected
right-of-way, or on a site where from construction impacts if used to
public improvements are proposed meet landscape requirements (B.R.C.
(DCS, section 3.05 and B.R.C. 1981, Title 9, Chapter 9).
1981, Title 6, Chapter 6) Any tree used to meet landscape
requirements and/or site review criteria.
• Protection provisions do not apply to
trees on adjacent properties that might
be subject to construction impacts.
Preservation Trees may be removed with city • Trees may be preserved in development
approval, but mitigation is projects to achieve Green Points
required (B.R.C. 1981, 'T'itle 6, compliance (optional points)
Chapter 6). Planting of street trees may be required
• If trees arc removed without city of private developments, on private
approval, mitigation is also property adjacent to rights-of-way that
required (B.R.C. 1981, Title 6, are too limited for public plantings
Chapter 6). (13.R.C. 198 ],Title 9, Chapter 9).
PROCESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT:
The August 2007 WIP stated that additional research and discussion were needed before long-
term changes could be identified or effectively implemented. Staft' completed this phase of the
process in 2008 by:
I . Organizing an interdepartmental team (see Attachment D) to develop a list of questions
and ideas of how best to implement tree protection in Boulder.
2. Researching how other communities along the Front Range and beyond are addressing
tree protection concerns (see Attachment A for a summary) including follow up phone
interviews with communities to see how well their regulations are working.
3. Conduct focus group meetings to gauge how affected industries and the public might
respond to the code changes (see Attachment B for summaries)-
Interdepartmental Team:
A multi-disciplinary group of staff (see Attachment D for a detailed list) provided significant
input on the objectives for tree protection and preservation and preliminary information on how
potential code changes might impact city staff's workload, where possible issues might arise, and
suggestions on where code changes would be most effective. The staff members involved have
extensive experience in their respective fields and frequently address tree protection issues. Staff
identified key areas of overlapping concerns such as lack of tree inventories, tree removal prior
to application review, and lack of analysis to incorporate mature trees into the early stages of the
site analysis and design process. They will continue to be involved in the analysis and language
development process through review of specific code language for intent, consistency and
practical application concerns.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PaQe 4
Research:
Research was a primary component in generating a list of potential code changes to address the
draft objectives. See Attachment G for a list of potential code changes and discussion of their
application. Examples were developed from other communities' existing regulations, although
not necessarily all together- or all within the front Range. For example, the state of California
has enacted legislation that allows municipalities a high level of tree protection as a means to
support environmental quality. Staff recognizes the importance of adapting any code to fit the
specific concerns and conditions of Boulder. Summaries of tree protection code sections are
included in Attachment A.
Staff initiated follow up phone interviews with several of the Front Range communities that have
incorporated various aspects of tree protection- Planners in Castle Rock, "Telluride and Parker
provided additional information regarding how well current tree protection measures function
and issues they've identified that could be addressed with language changes. For example,
■ Castle Rock requires information on adjacent lots-
■ Telluride, although outside the Front Range, is one of the few Colorado communities to
require permits to remove public and private trees.
■ Parker's code includes the ability to withhold building permits or certificates of
occupancy if a developer is in violation of an approved tree conservation plan, a
requirement for all subdivisions.
Focus Groups:
'T'hree focus groups were organized to provide an opportunity for staff to gain feedback and ideas
on the realistic application of potential code changes. How will these code changes affect the
average home owner? The developer? The designer? The tree care professional? The solar
installer? To respond to these questions, staff met with three general groups 1) Residents,
including a concerned citizens, a landscape designer and representatives from historic Boulder;
2) Tree care professionals who regularly complete private and public work in Boulder; and 3)
Solar installers. Each group provided information on their particular experience with tree
removal in Boulder and how the potential code changes might impact their property and work.
A summary of comments and key points is included in Attachment B.
The ideas generated from this process were then organized into objectives and potential
strategies and revisited by staff. Objectives and strategies were further refined and presented to
the public at an open house on July 30, 2008. Staff gave a formal presentation explaining the
process to date, remaining questions and each discussion point's overall application procedure.
Pros and cons were identified whenever possible. Questions and answers were welcorned from
attendees. The public open house had one attendee- Staff is exploring other opportunities for
public input.
ANALYSIS:
Tree Protection and Preservation Objectives
To inform the Board's discussion, following are some of the points raised by staff and the public
in regard to each of the revised draft objectives.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A Page 5
1. Balance development potential with public interest and private development goals.
Existing public and private trees may be viewed as an asset to be incorporated into
development patterns and creative site designs, or they may be seen as an obstacle to be
removed. Many development projects that might result in tree removal provide other
significant public benefits, including affordable housing, needed infrastructure, employment
and revenue. Trees, however, also provide public benefit, including substantial enhancement
of environmental quality (cooling effects, carbon sequestration, run-off control, etc.) as well
as aesthetic benefits. A policy approach that balances development benefits with the public
benefits of the city's tree canopy is needed.
Although public trees require approval from the Forestry Division prior to removal, private
property owners are not required to incorporate tree preservation into the site design process,
regardless of health or size. Mature private trees can be incorporated into the existing by-
right or discretionary reviews resulting in preservation. However, property owners could
avoid such requirements by removing trees prior to any development application submittal.
The Site Review Process could also be revised to incorporate additional private tree
preservation. Tree preservation is one factor, among many, that are balanced against each
other in the decision making process.
Analysis is needed in several areas: Can we achieve additional preservation through the
existing regulatory process merely by clarifying policy, or is a code change required? Would
a code change be a revision of the Site Review Criteria or would it be something entirely
new? What will be the cost and time impacts to staff and to development applicants of each
alternative approach?
2. Provide protection for trees on properties adjacent to development projects.
This objective addresses protection of private trees on properties adjacent to other private or
public properties undergoing development activity. These trees can be negatively impacted,
resulting in complete loss of the tree. Protection standards for off-site root and canopy
systems may be one of the many factors included in Site Review, but clear documentation of
development impacts and mitigation measures would aid in staff review. Reviews that
incorporate surrounding neighborhood character can capture sonic of this information, but no
clear or consistent format exists for documentation. Nor is there any clear threshold for when
impacts may be contrary to Site or Use Review criteria.
3. Prohibit removal of especially large and mature trees without thorough analysis. Support
additional protection for significant trees, public and/or private, as delined through size
and species criteria.
Colorado's and climate is not supportive of many large tree species. This objective
recognizes the importance of large trees in natural and developed settings focusing
sped#ically on the protection and preservation of large trees regardless of whether they are
on public or private property, and regardless of whether a property is undergoing
development review. Such trees can be historically, aesthetically and envirorumentally
important. But their protection can also require that a large buffer area be kept free of
development.
AGENDA IT FM_ # 5A Page 6
At present, the city has no mechanism to protect tree roots or crowns that extend from public
into private property, or to protect trees on private property that extend across multiple
private properties. A criteria-based removal process incorporating species and size could
both help protect and preserve these especially large trees. Analysis would require criteria
development and some level of inventory to determine the number of trees included as well
as careful consideration of staff time demands and cost to the applicant.
4. Provide additional incentive for the preservation of existing trees on development sites.
Existing public and private trees arc often not significant factors touring the site analysis and
design process. Given the time frame required to achieve a mature tree in Boulder,
preservation is essential to maintaining urban canopy. lncentivizing preservation may be one
approach to saving more trees. Site Review can recognize efforts made to preserve trees, and
existing trees can be credited towards landscape requirements for street trees or the Green
Points program. However, no process can accurately quantify the effort that may be required
to save mature trees. Research would be required to detenninc what trees should receive
credit, how much credit, and in what form it should be applied. Cost to the applicant and
staff lime will require evaluation.
5. Ensure that qualified proPssionals perform tree assessment, construction management
and root or canopy removaL
Accurate tree evaluation is key to determining preservation goals. Correct root and canopy
pruning can sustain or kill a tree. Therefore, tree health or, condition should be a key
component during the analysis and site design process, but is rarely provided during initial
review. Staff consistently asks for tree inventories as a part of Site Review and as part of the
Green Points evaluation process. I lwever, the city of Boulder does not currently regulate
who may perform private tree related work. Staff often requests that a Certified Arborist
perform tree related work or assessment, but does not have the authority to require
certification.
Due to staffing limitations, the forestry Division often contracts with certified arborists to
complete work on public trees at its discretion. Arborist certification sets a base level of
competence and is in and of itself a level of tree protection and preservation. Staff time may
actually be reduced through such a requirement. A cost benefit analysis is needed to identify
staff and contractor needs and impacts.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on comments and input from the Board, staff will develop potential code language
changes based to achieve the agreed upon objectives.
Staff anticipates scheduling Planning Board review and recommendation of the draft ordinance
and code changes later this year followed by City Council consideration immediately after.
AGENDA i'rEM # 5A Page 7
Approved By:
Ruth McHeyser, Exrutive Director of Community Planning
Planning Department
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Research Suminarics
B: Focus Group Summaries
C: Tree Protection WIP Aug. 30, 2007
D: inter-departmental discussion members
F: Additional BVCP Policies
F. Draft Land Use Code changes
G: Tree Protection Options
AGENDA ITEM # 5A Pagc 8
SUMMARY OF TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCES
DRAFT 5.16.08
• Code,
•Minimize tree removal for all new Publicly-available listw/ aacfresses. - -
construction. • Permit required for removal or over 25% pruning.
• Inventory all trees prior to • Failure to protect/maintain trees is grounds for
12.12.100 Heritage tree list and suspension of building permit.
construction/demolition/removal.
nomination process. ~ Utility companies get annual permit for tree work.
Specific construction Standards.
Capitola 112.12.130 Tree Protection, I. Remove by permit only including single ' Must obtain permit prior to removal.
management & maintenance. family residential. • Applicant pays $500 deposit prior to approval
12.12.160 Permit Requirements . Must replace on-site at 2:1 + ratio (canopy 'and fees are expected to cover all replacement
12.12.190 Tree Replacement cover included in determining replacement costs includirg staff time.
ratio) or pay for off-site replacement as last • Replacement tree is garuanteed for life,
resort. applicant must replace as many times as needed if
12.28.100 Permit for Removal - 2" DBH gereral threshold for permit requirement
Improvement of Private Property on private property, vacant lots and for
12.28.150 Trimming Trees Partially construction.
on Private Property Permit required for private and public • 6" DBH for pine, redwood, oak or cypress on
12.28.170 Cutting Trees on Private improvements. i private property.
Carmel Property, Vacant Lots and for • Tree removal thresholds based on size and • Penalties include 90 suspension of
Construction species. demo/building permits.
12.28.180 Permit for Removal - • Construction undertaken w/in 6 months of
Improvement of Private Property removal, it shall be presumed that the tree was
12.28.185 - Violation removed for construction.
Guidelines for Inventorying, Includes mature trees on public and private
Evaluating and Mitigating Impacts to property. • Mitigation required for removal of native and non-
San Jose Landscaping Trees in the City of San • Tree inventory required. native trees as high as 5:1 ratio.
Jose I • Permit required for larger trees (over 18" at Heritage trees part of code.
13.32 Tree Removal Controls 12' height),
includes Heritage Trees _
9.56.199 Protection of Heritage Permit required for Heritage trees and any y
Trees public tree removal. Single and duplex under 1/2 acre only required to n
Santa Cruz 13.30 Permits Required Requirements for landscaping based on rneet turf limits.
16.16 Water Efficient Landscaping water demands.
• Permit NOT required for specific non-native
or invasive trees.
17.44.080 Tree Protection Permit required for any tree w/in 5' of ROW More specific permit requirements than other
Scotts Valley Regulations regardless of size. 13" in DBH, any single cities.
trunk oak w/ an 8" DBH, any multi trunk oak of.
4" DBH, any tree w/in 20' of a steep slope and
8" DBH. Heritage trees.
. Code Sections Summary Key ftints
Development Standards Limits turf coverage for single family
Brighton Section V.E - Landscaping development. None
• No specific tree preservation ordinance.
17.38.160 Site Development Plan General ROW (public tree) protection.
Broomfield Contents Requirement to include existing trees on Must show existing trees on site plans
17.70.010 Residential Landscape Site Development Plans. regardless of removal.
Requirements
• Good (specific) inventory & analysis
• Detailed requirements to show existing requirements, but no direct protection.
Be Water Wise - Landscape {
Castle Rock Regulations & Principles natural features, Required to show all natural features within 100'
Section 3 - Landscape Regulations Separates Multi-family/PUD development, of property line.
commercercial etc. Differentiates single family ad duplexes built by
developer/builder.
57.20 Permit Required. Required to show all existing trees on
57.25 Removal of trees on certain separate inventory/protection plan. Public list of champion trees including address.
residential properties.
Denver Preservation of certain trees 'Protection for existing trees in front setback Includes some level of protection for single
59.126
demolition or new for single and some multi-family over 6" DBH family development.
1
((specific by zone).
construction.
• Specific protection language and
Fort Collins 3.2.4 Landscaping and Tree replacement requirements. Larger replacement requirements than Boulder:
Protection No permit needed for removal. Shade 3" cal, ornamental 2.5" cal, evergreen 8' ht.
No inclusion for single family development.
i Golden 18.40.220 Landscaping Very General protection language. None
i0
• General protection language for trees over
7.15.3 Review Procedures, Design 4" Cal. "to the extent reasonably feasible". Awareness that additional layer of information
Lakewood Considerations, Controls and • Recognized need in 2008 Master Plan and potentially protection could be beneficial.
Requirements update goals to develop an inventory and
management plan for existing trees.
• General protection for existing trees over 4" Excludes single family lots.
8.4.5 Removal of Trees and Shrub or shrub mass. Removal includes over 33% damage or pruning
Littleton Masses; Permit Required • Permit required for removal but no fees. in a single year.
• Appeal to Board of Ajustment w/in 10 days if • Unclear how necessary for construction is
denied. defined.
Specific protec ion language an caliper
- - - - -
replacement requirements. • 1:1 caliper replacement (i.e. removal of a 24" cal.
• Landscape plans should incorporate all Tree could be mitigated through planting 8 -3" cal.
Longmont 15.05.090 Landscaping, buffering, replacement requirements for existing canopy Trees).
and screening. inventory. • Landscape requirements include survey of all
1• Single family landscape requirements (1 existing trees noting location, species, size and
-1 tree/4 shrubs noncorner; 2 trees/4 shurbs condition. -
1 , corner
4.02.07 Existing Vegetation General in nature. When is general helpful and
Loveland Performance Standards No specific protection given. when is it an obstacle?
• Extensive Plant List available to public.
• Detailed requirements for a variety of i• Tree Conservation Plan is required as part of
plans/developments prior to beginning any subdivision (prelim. and final plat), site review or
construction. minor development plat.
13.06.070 Landscape Regulations • Requires protection and preservation of Existing vegetation justification for variance.
Parker 13.07.010 Procedures and existing trees and shrub masses through a • Specific size standards: 6" cal. Deciduous, 8' ht.
Requirements for Subdivisions Tree Conservation Plan, coniferous, shrub mass over 5' ht. and 100 sq. ft.
Town Council or Planning Commission • 1:1 caliper replacement; 1:1 height replacement;
s~ ;approves Plan. cash in lieu; 50% credit for relocation.
• Excludes single family lots from i • May refuse to issue any building permit or CO
- - requirements. - until violation is cured. -
i
• Permit required to remove or damage any • Building Official, Director of Parks and
Telluride 9.12.180 Cutting, Removal or deciduous tree over 6 inches and coniferous Recreation and Planning Director reviews.
Relocation of Trees tree over 3 inches. • Site visit required before issuing permit.
• Permits issued by Building Official. • Replace in kind as feasible.
I
11.7.5 Provisions for the Detailed landscape requirements based on
Requirement of Landscaping type of development, but very general Requires 2:1 replacement ratio of trees removed.
Westminster Landscape Regulations effective protection guidelines. Replacement trees may not count towards total
9/1/2004 • Tree removal and preplacement approved landscaping requirements.
as part of review process.
I
I
i
ATTACHMENT B
FOCUS GROUP SUMMARIES:
Residents - 6/2108
Areas of Discussion/Concern:
■ Can trees be protected under current landmark regulations? Yes, but they haven't been.
• Clarify who's responsible for caring for public trees; DCS doesn't state clearly enough
that the home owner is in many situations.
• We should define the "urban canopy" as part of the character of Boulder. Removing
trees degrades the context.
There could be significant solar issues especially if (Xcel) subsidy requirements aren't
met.
• How do we change the current trend of removing trees? It needs to be both a top down
(ie code changes) and bottom up (ie citizen/developer driven) approach.
• Education is an important component - community involvement (in an organized
approach).
• Is the community ready for this?
• Enforcement issues: enforce responsibly and educate construction community.
• At what point is mitigation incentive to prevent removal? How does it factor into scrapes
(FAR questions). Would the city ever consider an incentive based program in which
developers get some benefit from preservation? More FAR etc.? Reduced fees?
• Consider more specific large/mature/significant tree protection standard to include in
code changes; that would get smaller tree types and deciduous which won't meet a 36"
standard.
• Any Mitigation plan should be specific to the site; need to acknowledge that there is no
perfect solution to mitigation since the tree can't go back up.
• Uncomfortable with mitigation fees in general, but might be OK if they were going into a
specific tree planting and maintenance fund. Should absolutely not go into general fund.
• Compare historic trees to historic houses. We should use the landmarking process for
trees too wl self nomination being the primary format.
■ Historic Boulder is willing to approach the Landmarks Board to discuss the idea and
possibly schedule a presentation to them.
Key Points:
• Simple/clear criteria for protection and mitigation.
• Create incentive for people to protect trees (ie make mitigation much worse than permit
process!).
• Use what we already have in place - landmarking esp.
• Fducation is a necessary component.
• All participants were supportive of a mandatory tree inventory including adjacent
properties as part of plan review.
Solar Installers - 6/3/08
Areas of Discussion/Concern:
■ They look for sun from 9:00 am - 3:00 pm as an ideal. Xcel does the same and reduces
the amount of the rebate based on sun exposure.
Better installers look at all installation options before removing trees - ground, roof,
garage, moving panels, using smaller panels, transplanting trees, etc. for a creative
solution.
• Use to completing permit applications and working with historic limitations. Trees are just
another layer to the review process.
■ Customers typically have three priorities 1) Biggest and best; 2) Cheapest; and 3)
Aesthetics. Most people in Boulder go for aesthetics meaning smaller and less visible
from the ground.
• Smaller panels can reduce coverage by half, but cost more.
• Never removed large tree due to solar installation but have seen coniferous trees limbed.
Key Points:
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PaT*c L
• Installers can use a Solar Path Finder to track shadows and provide a definitive analysis
of what is shading a roof. Technology exists to assess the impact of a tree; black and
white NOT subjective analysis process .
• Tree preservation may force more creative solutions and use of smaller more efficient
panels, but is not necessarily prohibitive.
• Tree protection should be a °non-issue" overall; they would rather see large trees than
solar installation.
Tree Care Professionals - 6/5/08
Areas of Discussion/Concern:
Boulder is one of the few (only?) Front Range communities which does not certify
arborists...Denver/Aurora/Wheatridge have a shared certification system. We could use
Longmont & Louisville for ours...
• Builders/designers should get more creative and build over tree roots - floating decks,
sunrooms, garages are possible and have far less impact.
• How do we enforce removing trees prior to construction/development review? The six
month enforcement idea is good, but still hard to enforce.
• Is passive solar (vs. panels) an issue?
• 36" protection limit is too general. It needs to be more specific to tree species.
• How much could tree inventories or appraisals cost? $150-300 per tree and $2-3,000 per
site for an inventory.
• What about realtors? Can they be held liable if they don't disclose information about a
tree to potential buyers? Many people in Boulder buy houses with the intention of adding
on or renovating.
Key Points:
• Removing a tree on private property is one thing, but development should not impact
trees on adjacent property.
• Supportive of mandatory inventory including adjacent property. Unclear how best to
define limits of impact/inventory on adjacent property.
• Every estimating method has some subjective aspect. Value of a tree can vary widely
based on who is completing appraisal. Suggestion that anyone seeking a permit for
removal should ask for at least two appraisals to be the overall characteristics match-
AGENDA ITEM # 5A Pam
A'ITACHMENTC
WEEKLY INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Ruzzin and City Council
From: Frank Bruno, City Manager
Stephanie Grainger, Deputy City Manager
Ruth McHeyscr, Acting Planning Director
Maureen Rait, Director of Public Works for Development and Support Services
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Date: August 30, 2007
Subject: Information Item: Tree Protection Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The issue of protecting trees during construction is not new, and has been raised again recently
as a result of a by-right residential development project on the Howe Mortuary site (I 1"'/Spruce
streets)- Specifically, a horsechestnut tree (listed as a Second Place State Champion on the Colo-
rado Tree Coalition's Champion Tree Registry) located just inside the property line of 1040 Pine
St., adjacent to the Howe Mortuary site, had several roots cut in preparation for constriction of a
retaining wall between the two properties.
Existing city regulations protect trees in public rights-of-way and on construction sites, but not
trees located on private property adjacent to developing properties. Staff has reviewed several
options available to the city and concluded that additional study and public input is warranted
prior to establishing a formal policy pertaining to the protection of trees on private property, al-
though three interim measures (discussed below) have been initiated by staff to prevent the loss
of additional high-value or champion trees, pending further study.
FISCAL 1 MPACT:
Potential impacts to the city's budget could vary significantly, depending on what type of tree
protection measures (if any) are adopted.
COUNCIL FILTERS:
• Economic: It is possible that, depending upon the parameters of'potential tree protection
measures, some development projects might prove financially untenable due to site con-
straints imposed by a potential private property tree protection policy.
• Environmental: The preservation of trees is a positive goal that supports the Climate Action
flan and contributes to not only the aesthetic identity of the community, but the environment
as a whole.
• Social: The preservation of trees contributes to the overall well-being of the community. In-
cluding the public in any discussion pertaining to the development of a private property tree
protection program would result in a more balanced and better supported program.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A Page 1s
AYFACHMI NT C
BACKGROUND:
This issue was most recently made public in April of this year as the result of a letter published
by the .Daily Camera, written by Margery Goldman (property owner at 1040 Pine St. where the
tree is located). The letter raised the issue of who should be responsible for protecting trees on
property adjacent to development.
The redevelopment ofthe Howe Mortuary site initially involved an application for use review.
However, following receipt of neighborhood feedback, the applicant withdrew the request for a
use review, reduced the scope of the proposed redevelopment, and obtained project approval as a
by-right project (a project that meets the form, intensity and use standards for the zoning district
in which it is located, and thus requires only building permit review). Located within the Ma-
pleton Hill Historic district, the Howe Mortuary project was also reviewed by the Landmarks
Board. The city's Land Use Regulations require landscape plan review for all site review pro-
jects, but landscape plans for by-right projects are typically reviewed at the building permit
stage. In any case, however, landscape review does not include a review of trees on adjacent
properties.
In the case of the horsechestnut tree located at 1040 Pine St., the developer was granted permis-
sion by Ms. Goldman (in cxchangc for a written commitment from the developer to restore the
disturbed portion of her property to her satisfaction) to over-excavate onto her property in order
to place the footings for a retaining wall; as a result, the horsechestnut tree's roots were severed
21 inches from the trunk, and damage done to the southeast and northeast root systems. After
the roots were cut, Davey 't'ree Service - at the request of the applicant inspected the tree. It
was pruned under Davey Tree Service's direction, and the damaged roots cut back to the soil
line, draped with burlap and kept moist to protect and extend the life of the tree. No coating was
added to the end of the roots per current best practices for protection of the roots. Backfill was
completed with native soils and appropriate soil amendments to extend and encourage new
growth. The footings for the two new homes on the Ilowe Mortuary site were adjusted to permit
future root extensions to the east.
Further evaluation of the tree conducted by an arborist employed by Ms. Goldman, however, in-
dicated that the excavation destroyed 60 to 70 percent of the tree's roots, resulting in a hazard
tree (one that endangers Iite or property). To avoid removing the tree, the consulting arborist
suggested two courses of action: Installation of an in-crown irrigation system within the tree
canopy to provide moisture lost with the severing of the roots; and anchoring the tree to provide
stability on the east, northeast and southeast sides. While the in-crown irrigation system has
been installed, the design of an anchoring systern has proven problematic and, to date, a system
acceptable to Ms. Goldman, the consulting engineering finris and the developer has yet to be
agreed upon. Likewise, a meeting among staff members representing P&DS and Urban Forestry
and Ms. Goldman on August 23d did not result in any specific strategy to prevent the impending
removal of the tree.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A 1'a e~Io
A` I'ACHMF.Nt' C
ANALYSIS:
Current City Regulations Pertaining to Tree Protection:
Although there are regulations protecting trees on public property, in rights-of-way and during
construction on private property, there are no existing regulations that address trees on private
property adjacent to developing properties, or outside of a building permit or development re-
view process. Likewise, the State of Colorado does not generally regulate trees on private prop-
erty. Specifically:
• 't'itle 9 (Land Use Regulations) ofthe Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (BRC):
o Section 9-9-12(d)(18) requires that trees over six inches in caliper located in any devel-
opment, including detached dwelling units, in the required setback or on the property line
be protected from construction impacts within the dripline of the tree in a manner that is
consistent with the city's Design and Construction Standard's tree protection for con-
struction site standards.
• City of Boulder's Design and Construction Standards (DCS):
o Section 3.05 of the DCS requires the protection of trees and plants in the public right-of-
way and on any project or construction site where public improvements arc proposed.
• 'T'itle 6, Chapter 6 (Protection of Trees and Plants) of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981
(BRC):
o The 13RC provides protection for trees growing on city property, including within the
public right-of-way. Trees on private property are regulated only in reference to dead,
diseased or dangerous trees.
• State of Colorado:
o The state does not regulate the protection or removal of trees, but the non-profit Colorado
Tree Coalition maintains a Web site at llttp:llwNvw.coloradotrees.or ,/cham_ pions/registry
that lists champion trees and their location by city (but not by address), which is updated
on an annual basis.
Why the horsechestnut tree at 1040 Pine St. was not detected on plans earlier:
As indicated above. city regulations do not provide for review of trees on properties other than
those ;ocated on the prc~pc sty under development. The horsechestnut tree is located just inside
the property line of 1040 Pine St. and, thus, was not shown on building plans submitted by the
dcvrloper of the: Howe Mortuary site. The tree was not noted until staff received a building per-
mit and request for variance l'or a combination retention wall/lence separating the two properties
that curved inward toward the Howc Mortuary site, in an eflort to leave. -is much of the tree's
roots untouched as possible. I lowever, by this point, excavation had been initiated on the project
and the tree had already been damaged.
What can be done to protect such trees in the future:
A number of suggestions from both the public and staff have been considered and are discussed
briefly below, together with the likely effect of each on the Planning & Dcvelopnient Services'
and Urban Forestry's work programs.
• Option: Expand the city's definition of "historic" to include trees.
o As with right-of-way trees in Mapleton Hill, the city could establish criteria by which
champion or other high-value trees could be "landmarked," or as currently practiced in
I listoric districts, considered to be "designated features" that could riot be removed, al-
AGENDA ITEM # 5A Page,
A"ITACHMENf C
tered or cut into without an alteration certificate fioni the city. Roots would be consid-
ered protected features. In response to the controversy regarding the tree at 1040 fine
Strect, the Landmarks Board has initiated a discussion regarding the possibility of ex-
panding the protection of mature "historic" trees on landmarked properties and in historic
districts.
o Effect on the work program: Either the creation of new or expansion of existirg historic
designation criteria and guidelines for review of alterations/demolitions should likely be
accomplished in conjunction with public input. A yet to be determined, but significant
amount of staff time would be required for public process. Additional time would be re-
quired to codify new regulations and, depending on the nature of any new policy, addi-
tional staff may be required to ensure protection for designated trees.
• Option: Revise existing regulatory language to protect trees on property adjacent to de-
veloping sites.
o Section 9-9-12(18) of the Land Use Regulations could be amended to read as follows:
All existing trees sir inches or more in caliper and located in any development, includi,-;
detached dwelling units, in the required setback or on the property line or in the setback
on any property adjacent to a development, shall be protected, from construction impacts,
unless the tree is a noxious weed. Trees over six inches in caliper shall he protected from.
construction impacts within the dripline of the tree in a manner that is consistent with the
city of Boulder Design and Construction Standard 's tree protection for construction site
.standards.
■ In conjunction with this amendment would be the added requirement that all trees of
six inches in caliper or greater on adjacent properties be shown on all site and land-
scape plans.
o Effect oil the work program: A minor amendment to the Land Use Regulations can be
accomplished quite readily and with existing resources. The effective use of the addi-
tional information proposed for site and landscape plans, however, would require training
additional staff in landscape review and dedicating staff to the review and inspection of
such plans.
• Option: Establish a city database incorporating information from the state regarding
champion trees, and adding pertinent information on local champion or other high-
value trees.
o A database that could be linked with the city's Land Link database would assist staffin
identifying champion and other high-value trees with a relatively high degree of accu-
racy. The development of such a database would have the added effect of establishing a
"baseline" of existing champion and high-value trees for use in monitoring the tree inven-
tory, while preventing the incidental removal of such trees.
o Effect on the work program: The development of such a database would be a time-
intensive and relatively costly endeavor, as it would be necessary to identify and locate
specific trees throughout the city. Once developed, maintenance of accurate data would
be essential and, again, time-consuming and potentially costly.
• Option: Prohibit the destruction of any tree with a circumference of 50 inches or more,
measured at 24 inches above the natural grade, to include any construction or other dis-
turbance of the roots within the dripline of any such tree. ~^f
ACENDA ITEM # 5A Page r5
ATYACIIMENT C.
o This option would ensure the protection of all long-lived trees, regardless of champion or
high-value status and preclude destruction (with exceptions for diseased or hazard trees)
whether in a review process or not, though it could be used in conjunction with a tree da-
tabase. Used in place of the database, however, it would have the advantage ol'not re-
quiring development of a resource-intensive high-value tree database, instead being based
on the assumption that all long-lived trees are of value.
o Effect on work program: Minimal; an amendment to the Land Use Regulations requiring
permits to cut any tree meeting the requirements, regardless of location, would be needed.
Resources required for staff training would be minimal, as specific trunk circumference
and dripline standards (or height, in the case of evergreen trees) would either be satisfied,
or not resulting, once specific standards are adopted, in a relatively straightforward and
transparent decision-making process.
In reviewing the central issue, existing regulations and potential methods for ensuring protection
of, at minimum, champion or high-value trees, staff has concerns that a response which is not
fully considered could prove inadequate or even detrimental to the overall goal of tree preserva-
tion. Among issues of concern identified by staff are:
• I'he issue of property rights and the concern by some citizens that limitations on what can be
done with large trees on private property is unfairly restrictive;
• 'T'ile development of appropriate and equitable criteria for identifying champion and other
high-value trees;
• The development of effective and efficient internal processes for assisting tine public in com-
plying with any new regulations;
• The extent to which additional FTE may be required to both catalog and maintain a tree in-
ventory and enforce new or expanded regulations;
• Ensuring that any new or expanded regulations do not unwittingly limit the ability of city
staff to perform necessary repairs on city infrastructure (e.g., repair of water and or sewer
lines within the driplinc of large trees), or allow unsafe or hazard trees to remain standing.
• Finally, the potential impact to the city's budget could vary significantly, depending on what
type of tree protection measures (if any) are adopted.
It is the consensus of staff that additional analysis among staff, the development community and
representatives of the public would constitute the most effective and prudent approach to consid-
ering any tree protection measure.
In the interim, however, three measures are being implemented by staff in an effort to prevent the
loss of additional champion or high-value trees, pending further study. These measures are:
• Adding a requirement that Site Plan and Technical Document plans include the locations of
trees having a caliper of b inches or greater and driplines that overhang the property lines
from properties adjacent to developing sites.
• Modifying the by-right internal review process to more readily identify potential issues in-
volving the unnecessary loss of trees on property adjacent to developing sites at an earlier
stage of'review.
• Using data from the Colorado Tree Coalition's tree registry and available local data, incorpo-
rate the locations of such trees within the city's Land Link database system, which would re---1
AGENDA ITEM # SA Yaae f `7
ATTACIIMENT C
suit in a "tag" prompting more detailed staff review of developing properties identified as lo-
cations of high-value or champion trees.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff has reviewed several options available to the city, and concluded that additional study is
warranted prior to establishing a formal policy pertaining to the protection of trees on private
property, Specifically, an inter-departmental team representing P&DS' Land Use Review, Long
Range Planning, Engineering Review, Historic Preservation and the City Forester will be lormed
to consider the need for (additional) tree protection measures; determine what measures are taken
by other communities; the proposed scope of any such measures; and recommended amendments
to the Land Use Regulations or other city codes. Recommendations will be presented to the pub-
lic for discussion and review prior to consideration by applicable boards and City Council. This
work is not currently budgeted for in 2007 and should it proceed, would need to be offset by ad-
justing work program priorities, which could be expected to impact the review of land use appli-
cations. As an alternative, this proposal could be considered in the context of 2008/2009 budget
and proposed action plan priorities.
AGENDA ITEM # 5A PjgeaO
TREE ORDINANCE SUGGESTED TIMELINE ArrACHMENT D
Kick - Off Research I Draft Ordinance Staff Comments & public Input RevisionslFinal PB21CC1 ICC2
Revisions Ordinance/P1311
Identify key committee I.D. other communities! Ordinance options w! Collect staff/ committee Incorporate revisions &
L.A. members. ordinances. ~ pros/cons. comments. Hold Open House. distribute for final Attend PB meeting. Attend CC meeting
committee comment.
Research options & Incorporate comments
Schedule and complete trade offs of tree ',Circulate for Comment to Organize/ distribute
1st meeting. preservation (including staff & committee. into single draft minutes. Draft Ordinance Attend CC Meeting.
solar). ordinance.
Conduct Focus Group Schedule and publish
I.D. key issues & Incorporate Changes
meetings w/ public, notice for Public Open (revisions. Attend PB meeting. land draft to Memo 2.
private sector and solar. iHouse.
PB Check in Draft Final Ordinance.
Discuss goals &Meet wl committee to No Meeting. Committee
discuss ideas/ Members read and Review Public Drat prior Discuss key issues &
COMMITTEE potential impacts of Draft CC Memo 1.
ordinance. preferences based on comment on draft to meeting. revisions.
~research, ordinance.
i
CC1 (L.A. & other staff CC2 (L.A. & other staff
MEETINGS: ICommittee Committee Focus Groups Committee Public Open House Committee as identified) as identified)
IPB Check in Committee
Staff Members
Bev Johnson Planning Long Range (303-441-)3272 JohnsonB a(7bouldercolorado.gov
Brian Holmes Zoning (303-441-)3212 HolmesB(a,bouldercolorado.gov
Elaine McLaughlin P&DS Current Planning (303-441-)4130 McLaughlinE((~_)bouldercolorado.gov
Elizabeth Lokocz P&DS Landscape Architecture (303-441-)3138 LokoczE aa)bouldercolorado.gov
Ellie Bussi-Sottile Forestry (303-441-)3406 Buss i-SottileEAbouIdercolorado.gov
Jeff Aurthur P&DS Engineering (303-441-)4418 ArthurJ(a)bouldercolorado.gov
Jonathan Koehn Environmental Affairs (303-441-)1915 Koehnj a(~bouIdercolorado.goy
Kathleen Alexander Foresty (303-441-)4407 AlexanderKcDbouldercolorado.gov
Paul dander Public WorksMater Conservation Program (303-413-)7407 LanderP anbouldercolorado.gov
Robert Ray P&DS Current Planning (303-441-)4277 RayR(c-)bouldercolorado.goov
Focus Groups
1. Interested public: TBD
2. Private sector: arborists etc.
3. Solar installers and advocates as of 2/21108
AF& kM r
ATYACHMENT E
2.03 Community/Regional Design.
The city and county support improved design of individual urban areas, rural areas and
the region through policies and practices such as clear urban boundaries, open land
buffers separating compact communities, vital activity centers, preservation of critical
natural areas and vistas, appropriate connection of trail systems, efficient multi-modal
travel corridors, a balanced distribution of'housing and job opportunities, provision of
diverse housing, and conservation o/ physical and social resources.
The preservation and protection of Boulder's urban canopy promotes improved design
and transition between urban, rural and natural areas. Including mature existing trees as a
routine element of the site analysis and design development process creates a more
environmentally sensitive approach and final product.
2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern.
The city and county will, by implementing the comprehensive plan, ensure that
development will take place in an orderly fashion, take advantage of existing urban
services, and avoid, insofar as possible, patterns of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered
development within the Boulder Valley. The city prefers redevelopment and infill as
compared to development in an expanded set-vice area in order to prevent urban sprawl
and create a compact community.
With ever increasing infill and redevelopment in Boulder's developed neighborhoods, the
incorporation of existing natural features, such as trees, becomes an important and
frequent component to a successful design. Clarification within the code of how to treat
existing natural features would support and offer guidance to this policy.
4.30 Storm Water.
T he city and county will protect the quality of its surface waters, meet all state and
federal requirements for storm water quality and evaluate additional voluntary standards
as appropriate.
During a major rainstorm, trees intercept the rain on their leaves, branches and trunks and
thereby reduce storm water runoff by preventing the water from reaching the ground. The
tree cover in Boulder reduces storm water runoff by approximately 12.2 million ft3 (the
volume of a 20-story building the size of a football field) per 2-inch storm. For every 5%
of tree cover added to a community, storm water runoff is reduced by approximately 2%.
Trees also reduce topsoil erosion, prevent harmful land pollutants contained in the soil
from getting into our waterways, and ensure that our groundwater supplies are
continually being replenished.
4.39 Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy.
The city and county will implement policies and programs that enhance opportunities for
individuals, businesses and public organizations to limit the use of non-renewable energy
resources by conserving energy and converting to renewable resources. The city will set
goals.for the use ofnon-renewable energy that are consistent with an orderly transition
to a sustainable energy economy in order to preserve.fossil_fuels for future generations.
The city will support private decisions to use renewable energy, will publicly develop
Agenda Item 11 6 _ Page #
local renewable energy resources where economical, and will preserve future options for
renewable energy so that they may he developed when they become cost effective.
4.40 Energy-Efficient Land Use.
The city and county will encourage the conservation of energy through land use policies
and regulations governing placement, orientation and clustering of development and
through housing policies and regulations. The conservation of energy is served by the
development of more intense land use patterns; the provision of recreation, employment
and essential services in proximity to 36 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Boulder
Colorado housing; the development of mass transit corridors; and efficient
transportation.
Trees lower local air temperatures by transpiring water and shading surfaces. It is 6-19
degrees cooler under a tree canopy during the summer months. Because they lower air
temperatures, shade buildings in the summer, and block winter winds, they can reduce
building energy use and cooling costs. Boulder's urban forest reduces energy costs city-
wide by approximately $1,400,000 per year.
Agenda hem # _ _ Page ~
NIJACIIMENTF
4-4-4 Classification of Licenses.
(a) A Class A license entitles the licensee to contract for the construction, alteration, wrecking, or
repair of any type or size of building or structure permitted by the International Building Code 130.
The annual fee for a Class A license is that prescribed by section 4-20-4, "Building Contractor
License and Building Permit Fees," B.R.C. 1981.
(b) A Class B license entitles the licensee to contract for the construction, alteration, wrecking, or
repair of all commercial and residential buildings or structures defined as Type V, Type V-1 hour,
Type IV, Type II-N, and Type 111-N in the International Building Code. 13 The annual fee for a Class
B license is that prescribed in section 4-20-4, "Building Contractor License and Building Permit
Fees," B.R.C. 1981.
(c) A Class C license entitles the licensee to contract for:
(1) The construction, alteration, wrecking, or repair of any R-3 occupancies or of R-1
occupancies, as defined in the International Building Code, chapter 10-5, "Building Code,"
B.R.C. 1981, of two stories or less not involving reinforced concrete construction-, and
(2) The repair of non-residential buildings not involving load-bearing structures. But this
Class C license does not entitle the holder to contract for construction, alteration, or repair
of public buildings or places of public assembly, nor for non-residential projects whose
total value of the labor and material exceeds $5,000.00. The annual fee for a Class C
license is that prescribed in section 4-20-4, "Building Contractor License and Building
Permit Fees," B.R.C. 1981.
(d) A Class D license entitles the licensee to contract for labor or for labor and materials involving
only one trade, these trades will be identified as listed below:
D-1. I Moving and wrecking of structures -
D-2. Roofing
- D-3. j Siding - - - _ _ - - - - - -
DD^4. Landscaping, irrigation and site work _ y
D-5. Detached one-story garage and sheds accessory to single-family
dwellings
D-6. Mobile home installer
D-7. Elevator and escalator installer I
D-8. Class not identified above but requiring a building permit and inspection
D_9. I Rental housing inspector
D-10 Certified Arborist
A Class D licensee may be licensed to perform more than one such trade. The annual fee for
Class D license is that prescribed in section 4-20-4, "Building Contractor License and Building
Permit Fees," B.R.C. 1981.
Agenda Item # _ 5ft pagg#"L.
ATTACHMENT F
4-20-4 Building Contractor License and Building Permit Fees.
(a) An applicant for a building contractor license shall pay the following annual fee according to
the type of license requested:
I Application Fee
(1) Class A - - - - t $460.00
(2') Class B j 307.00
(3) - -Class C- ` 197.00
(4) Class D-1 through D_8; D-10 153.00
(5) Class D-9 1. 15.00
(6)
(b) The fees herein prescribed shall not be prorated-
9-2-13. Concept Plan Review and Comment.
(c) Application Requirements: A concept plan should be preliminary plan for the development of a
site of sufficient accuracy to be used for discussing the plan's conformance with adopted
ordinances, plans and policies of the city. The concept plan provides the public, the city
manager and the planning board opportunity to offer input in the formative stages of the
development. An application for a concept plan review and comment may be filed by a
person having a demonstrable property interest in land to be included in a site review on a
form provided by the city manager and shall include the following:
(3) A scaled and dimensioned schematic drawing of the site development concept and an
area of not less than two hundred feet around the site, showing:
(C) Approximate location of major site elements, including buildings, open areas,
natural features such as watercourses, wetlands, mature trees and steep slopes on
the site or in the setback on any property adjacent to a development; and
9-2-14. Site Review.
(d) Application Requirements: An application for approval of a site plan may be filed by any
person having a demonstrable property interest in land to be included in a site review on a
form provided by the city manager that includes, with-out limitation:
(13) A general landscaping plan at the time of initial submission to be followed by a detailed
landscaping plan due prior to final Site Review approval showing the spacing, sizes
ate--specific types of landscaping materials, and quantities of all plants and ~.^^^.Ihe"ewe
Sant--is con+fereus or-des+deosSee Section 9-9-12(d)(1) for additional detail on
Landscape Plan requirements;
-(17) Plans for preservation of natural features existing on the site or plans for mitigation of
adverse impacts to natural features existing on the site from the proposed development
and anticipated uses. Natural features include, without limitation, healthy long-lived
trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian
areas, drainage areas and habitat for species on the federal Endangered Species List,
Agenda Item # cj? Page
ATTACIIMENT I-'
"Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or
prairie dogs (Cynomys ludiovicianus) which is a species of local concern. Al trees 6
inches and over in DBH on the development site or in the setback of any property
adjacent to the developm of shall he shown on _the site ;)]an roc 2rdless of the inlenlion
to preserve the tree.
(18) A Tree Inventory and Prote(,tion Plan indL1C incl the location, size. <)pecins and cIgnorZl
health of all trees over 6 in caliper on the site and in the setback on any property
adjacent to the development prepared by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
certified arborisl or other qualified professional Trees to be. removed and trees to be
savers should be clearly indicated. Any tree with a DBH_ of 30 inches or more shall be
sub[ect to the tree protection and mitigation requirements of Sections 6-6-6 and 6-6-7
B.R.C. 1981.
(h) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency
finds that:
(2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of
place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural
environment and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which
enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the
approving agency will consider the following factors
(C) Landscaping:
(jj) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to important
native species, healthy long-lived trees, plant communities of special concern,
threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing
natural environment into the project,-
9-9-12. Landscaping and Screening Standards.
(d) General Landscaping and Screening Requirements:
(2) Landscape and Screening Maintenance and Replacement: The property owner shall
maintain the landscaping plan as originally approved, and provide for replacement of
plant materials that have died or have otherwise been damaged or removed, and
maintenance of all non-live landscaping materials including, but not limited to, fencing,
paving, and retaining walls; fef,a-period ef-five-year-s from the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or certificate of completion.
(18) Tree Protection: All existing trees six inches or more in caliper and located in any
development, including detached dwelling units, in the required setback or on the
property line or in the setback on any property adjacent to a development, shall be
protected from construction impacts, unless the tree is a noxious weed. Trees over six
inches in caliper shall be protected from construction impacts within the drip line of the
tree in a manner that is consistent with the City of Boulder Design and Construction
Standards' tree protection for construction site standards.
9-12-6 Application Requirements for a Preliminary Plat.
(a) Application Requirements: Any preliminary plat submitted for subdivision approval shall be
drawn to a scale of no less than one inch equals one hundred feet, and of a scale sufficient to
Agence hem # Page
A'FFAClIM1,.NT F
be clearly legible, including streets and lots adjacent to the subdivision. The preliminary plat
may be an application under section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, if it meets both the
requirements of this section and those of chapter 9-2, "Review Processes," B.R.C. 1981. The
applicant shall-include on the preliminary plat or in accompanying documents:
(6) The location of structures and trees of 4vesix-inch caliper or more on the property or in
the setback on any property adjacent to a development and approximate location of
structures off the property within ten feet of the proposed plat boundary;
AP,I_5?.~.~
ATTACHMEAT G
"TREE PROTECTION OPTIONS:
The following code changes summarize all research completed to date. Staff requests
direction from Planning Board for future recommendation to City Council.
1. Create a contractor license type for arborist certification.
2. Require Tree Inventories for all Discretionary Reviews at the time of initial
submittal.
3. Require all Site Review and Building Permit applications to submit landscape
plans that include all trees six inches or more in caliper within adjacent property
setbacks.
4. Remove the five year limit on landscape guarantees (Section 9-9-12(d)(2) BRC
1981) and require ongoing maintenance and replacement of the originally
approved landscape plan.
5. Require mitigation for the removal of existing mature trees (trees over ten inches
in caliper) on all projects requiring discretionary review.
6. Preservation of significant, especially large and healthy trees, including but not
limited to, those on the state champion tree list, local notable list or others
identified by staff and residents through a Tree Removal Permit process.
7. Develop criteria within the existing Historic Preservation Land Use Code, Section
9-11, to clarify the nomination and review of trees as significant historic features.
Code Options - Short Term Implementation
1. Arborist Certification
Boulder is one of the few Front Range communities that does not require some level of
certification for tree work including assessment, maintenance and removal. Longmont,
Denver, Castle Rock, Fort Collins and Parker, to name a few, all have some variation of
contractor licensing related to trees. Currently, anyone may perform tree work in
Boulder. Staff recommends using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
certification as a basic level of competence. Longmont and Denver currently use this
system and we already have reciprocal contractor licensing with these communities. No
exams would be required. The additional contractor type can easily be added to the
existing database of contractors and administered under Boulder's existing licensing
program. Arborist certification supports several of the other code changes as described
below. Cost would be minimal to staff and contractors and renewed on an annual basis
as all other contractor licenses are. The benefits of Arborist Certification reach far
beyond the planning process. Arborist are often the first to identify, treat and properly
dispose of trees infected with many common problems that can devastate the urban
canopy including Dutch elm disease, black walnut twig beetle, pine beetle and emerald
ash borer.
2. Mandatory Tree Inventory for Discretionary Reviews
This change provides staff additional opportunity for comment and design assistance
during the Site Review process. Current Site Review submittal requirements do not
include a tree inventory including species, size and condition identification as a matter- of
course. The case manager or landscape architect may request an inventory after
completing review of the initial submittal package. A tree inventory is typically prepared
by a surveyor who locates all the trees on the property and certified arborist who
Ayorda Item - Page # °K
identifies the species and condition of each tree. If the site is heavily wooded, only trees
over six inches in caliper are typically surveyed. In more urban settings, no trees may
exist on a site. The level of complexity of such a survey varies greatly depending on a
site, but always provides valuable information during the review process.
A key component of the survey is to include all trees on a site regardless of the intention
to remove the trees as a result of development. Although this does add some additional
cost to the owner/developer, it is likely to be significantly less than a costly project
redesign in an effort to preserve high quality mature trees. The proposed change of Itein
3, trees in adjacent setbacks, would ideally be included.
3. `frees within adjacent property setbacks
This proposed change is an information gathering effort to supplement current submittal
requirements. Staff recommends adding a requirement that all Site Review and Building
Pen-nit applications that are required to submit a landscape plan also provide information
on all trees six inches or more in caliper within adjacent property setbacks. Tree roots
and canopies often cross property lines. Staff currently relies on aerial photography to
alert them to potential conflicts and must then fellow up by completing site visits to
verify information. Information provided earlier in the review process would facilitate
further comprehensive staff and consultant analysis and a record of' Identified conflicts.
This information can be gained by visual observation, high quality aerial analysis or by
gaining permission to survey trees on properties adjacent to the development site. A
reasonable level of impact requires case by case evaluation.
4. Landscape Guarantee
The Land Use Code currently requires a five year maintenance guarantee on all living
and non-living materials. Staff recommends removing the five year limit as a means of
encouraging long term maintenance. Given the inherent life span of a tree, a five year
maintenance standards does not adequately protect newly planted or existing trees in the
urban landscape. The City of Fort Collins is one example of a Front Range community
taking this approach. Article 3.2.1(1)(5) of their Site Planning and Design Standards
states:
Maintenance. Trees and vegetation, irrigation systems, fences, walls and other landscape
elements shall be considered as elements of the project in the same manner as parking,
building materials and other site details. The applicant, landowner or successors in
interest shall be jointly and severally responsible for the regular maintenance of all
landscaping elements in good condition. All landscaping shall be maintained fi-ee from
disease, pests, weeds and litter, and all landscape structures such as fences and walls
shall be repaired and replaced periodically to maintain a structurally sound condition.
This language presents a broad common sense approach which encourages stewardship
rather than replacement as the preferred option. Enforcement could be initiated at any
time, but is most likely to occur at the time of application review, routine building permit
inspection or during a Forestry Division inventory.
Code Options - Long Term Implementation
APA
5. Mitigation Requirements for Discretionary Review Projects
This proposed change recognizes the benefits trees provide for the greater community.
Based on development patterns and climate limitations, trees in Boulder often do not
reach even 10 inches in diameter (measured four feet six inches from the ground). This
proposed change affects projects requiring discretionary review including single family
development. Many project sites are heavily disturbed prior to any application review.
Some developers assume that the less expense and more profitable approach to site
design is clearing all vegetation. `Thorough site analysis is often not performed.
Undesirable or diseased and dying trees would be excluded from this review process
based on the assessment of a certified arborist. Mitigation would be required in the fonn
of increased landscaping requirements and/or fees for the removed trees. Fees collected
would only be available to directly fund the planting and maintenance of public trees.
Equitable mitigation standards need to be developed based on input from the Planning
Board and City Council. This review process could easily be incorporated into the
current landscape review with little additional staff time.
6. Preservation of Significant Trees Requiring Removal Permits
The goal of this proposed change is to preserve especially large and healthy trees. This
level of protection acknowledges the ecological benefits, public appeal and difficulty in
replacing trees of a larger size. Extensive discussion was had among staff and within
focus group meetings regarding the "right" size for this level of protection. The answer
varies with the species. Trees classified as small maturing trees may qualify at a diameter
as low as ten inches, as classified in the Design and Construction Standards approved tree
list, versus medium or large trees that may not qualify until they reach 24 inches. A list
of the commonly planted trees and minimum size thresholds needs to be developed as
part of this change. A detailed assessment would be required of each tree over the size
limit, public and private, that is proposed for removal for development. flealth and
species arc key factors; no tree considered to be a public safety hazard as assessed by a
certified arborist would qualify for preservation. Site access and severely limited
development potential are valid reasons for tree removal; however, maximizing
development potential by itself may not qualify a tree for removal.
Tree removal permits could be administered through the current Administrative Review
process, providing an inexpensive and relatively quick two week turn-around. An appeal
process for denial of a pen-nit would be developed with the Board of Zoning Adjustment.
Enforcement ability is a key part of this review process. Review should be required
regardless of any proposed development. Mitigation should be applied as for Item
number 5 above.
Although this may viewed as a controversial approach, it should be noted that Denver
limits tree removal in fi-ont yard setbacks; Telluride requires a permit to remove any
deciduous tree six inches and over and any coniferous tree three inches and over; Parker
allows Stop Work Orders, withholds building permits and withholds Certificates of
Occupancy if development removes trees marked for preservation during review.
Additional discussion regarding mitigation and size thresholds is needed.
1Ide Item 9 _ 54 Page 0
7. Landmarking Trees
To date, historic preservation has been primarily applied to architecture and very
generally to the character of the surrounding landscape. For example the Mapleton
Historic district generally refers to the existing mature trees, but does not list specific
standards for review. The historic landmark program could take advantage of the ability
to designate a feature, such as a tree, as historically significant. This application of the
Historic Preservation code has not, to date, been applied in this manner in Boulder.
Based on staff discussion, there has been a long standing assumption that if a natural
feature was nominated, it had to be associated with a built structure; however, none of the
existing code language makes association with a built structure either an explicit or
implicit requirement.
The current Historic Preservation code does not include clear criteria for the review of
natural features and some training for the Ilistoric Preservation staff and Board is
anticipated. Criteria for review would take into account the species and condition of the
tree indicating its desirability and potential longevity. As with historic buildings,
nomination could be made by a landowner or initiated by the city. This protection option
is probably not applicable to the vast majority of Boulder's urban canopy; rather it is
appropriate only for a handful of exceptional high quality trees.