5B - Recommendation to City Council on Phase I ordinance amending Titles 4, 6, 8, and 9 pertaining to tree protection
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 5, 2009
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council
on a Phase 1 ordinance amending Titles 4, 6, 8 and 9 of the Boulder Revised Code pertaining
to tree protection through impact analysis, maintenance requirements, and Arborist licensing;
and, additional discussion on proposed Phase 2 tree protection code changes including
potential expansion of the landmarks program, a tree removal permit requirement and/or
other incentives or mitigation requirements for removal of trees on private property.
REQUESTING DEPARTMEN'T':
David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability
Charles Ferro, Acting Land Use Review Manager
Kathleen Alexander, City Forester
Elizabeth Lokocz, Landscape Architect
OBJECTIVE:
Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request:
1. Hear staff presentation
2. Hold public hearing
3. Planning Board discussion and recommendation to City Council of code amendments.
4. Planning Board discussion and comment on potential Phase 2 code amendments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Tree protection in Boulder was identified as a topic of concern by City Council in 2007.
A staff Weekly Information Packet (WIP) identified potential code gaps, short and long
term solutions and the need for additional research and public input. Council
subsequently directed planning staff to add tree protection to the 2008/2009 work plan.
As a result, Planning Board discussed the goals and objectives appropriate for tree
protection in Boulder on May 7, 2009. Draft objectives were presented by staff and
refined by Planning Board during the meeting. The overall project goal is to balance
private property rights with the community's interest in protection of the urban tree
canopy.
In response to the refined project goal and objectives, staff proposes code changes in two
phases. See the analysis section for detailed discussions and Table I on page 14 for a
summary of the analysis and proposed code changes. Phase 1 includes changes that have
few negative impacts to the public or staffing needs. Proposed changes include:
AGENDA ITEM # 5b Page I
• Additional tree protection through design and impact analysis;
• Extending landscape maintenance requirements; and
Ensuring quality tree care through Arborist licensing.
Phase 2 will further analyze potential changes. Staff is requesting additional direction
frorn Planning Board on the following options identified as having greater impact to the
public and staffing needs:
Expansion of the landmarks program to define individual trees as historic features
and enact certain protections for trees so designated;
• A tree removal permit requirement and/or other program to regulate negative
impacts from the complete removal of significant trees;
Mandatory mitigation requirements for the removal of signif cant trees;
• Defining "significant" for the purpose of these changes.
Overall Project Goal
Ensure that the City's regulations balance private property rights with the community's
interest in protection of Boulder's urban tree canopy through the preservation of existing
healthy mature trees, promoting long term tree health and mitigating tree loss.
Objectives
Staff presented five key objectives for consideration and discussion. See the May 7th
memo (Attachment A) for a brief introduction and background of each objective. Based
on the Board's discussion and direction, the objectives were refined as follows:
i . Discourage or prohibit the removal of existing healthy mature trees
a. On public land including parks and rights-of=way.
b. On sites proposed for development or redevelopment.
c. On private properties adjacent to sites undergoing development or
redevelopment.
2. Protect the long term health of existing healthy mature trees.
a. Require the long term maintenance of trees in public rights of way adjacent to
private property and on sites subject to development approval.
b. Ensure that qualified individuals perform tree related work.
3. Mitigate the impacts from removal of existing healthy mature trees on both public
and private lands.
Assumptions
Several central assumptions arc critical to the ongoing discussion of tree protection
within Boulder. These assumptions have guided much of the discussion to date:
I . Trees have environmental, social and economic benefits as stated in numerous
publications including the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, Climate Action
Plan and the Municipal Tree Resource Analysis (2005).
2. One of the basic tenets of Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) is the
encouragement of compact, contiguous development and a preference for infill t
and redevelopment as opposed to sprawl. With little vacant land left in the city,
new development typically occurs through redevelopment, often in areas where
the city's goals and regulations encourage more dense development, often with
AGENDA ITEM # 56, Page 2
zero setbacks. The need to balance development with natural resources protection
will become only more important as this process continues.
3. Private property rights must be balanced with the community benefits all trees
provide.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the objectives and research completed to date, staff recommends a two phase
approach to accomplish a range of code amendments. See Table 1 on page 14 for a
summary Of current regulations, gaps within those regulations and proposed changes.
Phase 1 includes changes to multiple titles which can be integrated into existing review
processes and staffing. Phase 1 would make significant additions to the quality and
quantity of information provided to staff regarding existing trees on and adjacent to
development sites. It also would increase and clarify maintenance responsibilities. See
Attachment B with the proposed code change language. In summary these changes
include:
I. Arborist Certification: Create a contractor license type for arborist certification
and specify when a Certified Arborist is required (chapters 4-28 and 6-6 B.R.C.);
2. Protection of Trees and Plants: Changes reinforce and increase the inspection
and enforcement processes already in place with particular attention to diseased
trees on private property (chapter 6-6 B.R.C.);
3. Mandatory Tree Inventory for Discretionary Reviews: Require "free
Inventories for all Discretionary Reviews at the time of initial submittal (chapters
9-2 and 9-9 B.R.C.);
4. 'Frees Crossing Property Lines (Trees in Adjacent Setbacks): Require all Site
Review and Building Permit applications to submit landscape plans that include
all trees six inches or more in caliper adjacent to development sites (chapters 9-2
and 9-9 B.R.C.);
5. Landscape Guarantee: Remove the five year limit on landscape guarantees and
require ongoing maintenance and replacement in perpetuity of the originally
approved landscape plan (chapters 8-2 and 9-9 B.R.C.).
Phase 2 changes will include the development of specific criteria to evaluate landmark
nomination for historic trees. Significant analysis is needed prior to completing this
phase. The completion of a detailed inventory to identify potential Landmark Trees in
the city is needed to estimate staff time. Staff anticipates coordinating this survey with an
urban canopy survey in the summer of 2010. This information would require
development of a new Geographic Information Systems dataset and maintenance of that
data by the Information Resources work group. Historic Preservation language of
chapter 9-11 and related sections such as the BOZA variance criteria of chapter 9-2
would require amendment.
In addition, Phase 2 will consider more significant requirements for the protection of
trees on both private and public property including the possibility of a tree removal
AGENDA ITEM # 5B Page 3
permit and/or new mitigation requirements for the removal of trees. Criteria and
processes need to be developed based on any remaining protection gaps.
BACKGROUND:
Current regulations (see summary below) address a relatively small percentage of the
urban canopy in Boulder. The Weekly Information Packet (WIP) of August 2007 and
previous Planning Board discussion of May 7, 2009 (see Attachment A for the memo)
identified several areas where additional protection is needed to support Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan goals. During 2008, staff conducted a research and public outreach
effort summarized in the previous memo and attachments. That research generated a list
of potential code changes to address the draft objectives. 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 D.
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 regarding trees on adjacent lots as part of its
development review process.
■ 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.
Designating trees as "Landmarks" is another form of tree protection found in many levels
of government. The level of protection ranges from merely recognition to highly
regulated permitting processes- A national level program is jointly administered by the
U.S. Forest Service and Community Forestry Program and propagates cuttings from
nominated trees. Trees included in this program are connected to historical events,
famous people or places, or nominated due to age and uniqueness. The program relies on
the power of recognition and public's interest in history and not on direct regulation.
State level programs, which Colorado does not currently offer, are typically recognition-
only, offering education and outreach opportunities but no direct prohibition on the
damage or removal the recognized trees. In other states, county level programs offer
some protection. No county level programs were found in Colorado. In most cases, city-
based programs offer the highest level of protection. Lafayette is the only Front Range
community offering a Landmark tree program. The tree is nominated by the property
owner and approved by the city Forester; however, this is a recognition only program and
does not affect development potential. Other highly regulated programs include Seattle,
AGENDA ITEM # 5 Page 4
WA and Freemont, CA. These programs require additional review and evaluation prior
to any activity that may damage or remove a Landmark Tree and can significantly limit
development potential. Both regulate removal of non-landmarked trees as well.
ANALYSIS:
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 C for a list of general policies, including:
• 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).
• Encouragement of compact, contiguous development and a preference for infill
land redevelopment as opposed to sprawl.
• Provision ofquality urban spaces, parks and recreation that serve all sectors of'
the community, and trails and walkways that connect the community.
• Commitment to preservation o_f natural, cultural and h istoric.fea lures 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
7o 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
protection.. The city will develop community-wide programs and standards.Jor
iicw development and redevelopment so that negative environmental impacts "lilt
be mitigated and overall environmental quality of the urban environment will not
worsen and may improve.
4.14 Urban Porests
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.
Climate Action Plan
The Climate Action Plan includes a number of specific Urban Forestry goals and
recommended actions. Several arc specifically addressed by staffs recommended code
AGENDA ITEM # 5,8 Page 5
changes. See the Urban Forestry section of the Climate Action flan for a complete list of
goals and Recommended Actions.
Goals: Ensure city code promotes 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 developments. Enforce existing city codes to increase
survivability of trees planted through development.
Recommended Actions: Consider land use code changes to improve the long-term
survivability of trees on private and public land.
Promote changes in land-use planning for long term benefits
Determine the feasibility of 'strengthening the tree preservation requirements in
the land use code for private development.
Current City Regulations Pertaining to Tree Protection
City of Boulder regulations that address tree protection include:
• Title 9 (Land Use Regulations) of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (B.R.C.):
Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(A)(iii) provides for the preservation and mitigation of
adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation healthy long-
] ived trees.
• Title 9 (Land Use Regulations) of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (B.R.C.):
Section 9-9-12(d)(18) requires that trees over six inches in caliper indicated for
preservation on the landscape plan located in any 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.
• Title 6, Chapter 6 (Protection of Trees and Plants) of the Boulder Revised Code,
1981 (B.R.C.):
'T'he B.R.C. 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.
• Design and Construction Standards (DCS):
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
are proposed.
• Residential Green Points Program:
Private trees may be selected for preservation in residential development projects
to achieve Green Points compliance (optional points).
AGENDA ITEM # 58 Page 6
Gaps in Current Regulations
Categories used to identify existing regulatory gaps throughout this discussion include:
1. Trees on private versus public property;
2. Trees on private property undergoing by-right versus discretionary review
development; and
3. 't'rees removed outside of any proposed development.
Specific gaps identified through code analysis and staff discussion include:
1. Sites proposed for development or redevelopment:
a. No protection for private trees proposed for removal outside of Site Review.
b. Site Review applications rarely provide documentation of existing trees on
site.
c. Insufficient information required at submittal for all types of review to
identify and protect existing healthy mature trees.
2. Trees on private properties adjacent to development sites.
3. Long Term Maintenance for all trees.
4. Qualified workmanship for all trees.
5. Mitigation for the removal of healthy mature private trees.
Tree Protection Options Identified
The following options were identified through the research process completed by staff:
Based on initial research, staff discussion and anticipated analysis needed to fully identify
cost benefit comparisons, potential Phase 2 changes require additional research as
directed by Planning Board and City Council.
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. Longront,
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)
cert ification as a basic level of competence. Longmont and Denver currently use this
system and we already have reciprocal contractor licensing with these communities.
Pros: 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, 'T'housand Cankers disease of black walnut, mountain pine beetle and emerald
ash borer. Licensing local arborists would help ensure all applicable rules pertaining to
proper disposal of diseased wood were followed. Practical exams, if determined to be
necessary, would be administered by the city Forester. Applications and renewals would
be reviewed by the city Forester and could be administered through the Landlink
contractor license process. Cost would be recovered under fees. The city Forester
routinely contracts with Certified Arborists to assist in the maintenance of public trees
and the city Landscape Architect requests tree inventories also be completed by Certified
Arborists. This new license type would review these qualifications and provide the same
AGENDA I'I'L+'M # 59 Page 7
level of knowledge to the general public now used by the city. The benefits of Arborist
Certification reach far beyond the plartning process.
Cons: Additional staff time will be required to adapt existing license application forms
to the new license type, contact and test all companies currently doing tree work in
Boulder. Some additional cost is expected both to contractors to receive the license and
potentially to the public when completing work on public trees.
2. Protection of Trees and Plants
Current language within Chapter 6-6 B.R.C., "Protection of Trees and Plants," is
insufficient to prevent movement of walnut wood infected with a new tree disease first
discovered within the city of Boulder, Thousand Cankers Disease of walnut. This disease
has the potential to devastate black walnut populations within their native range in the
eastern U.S. if diseased walnut wood is allowed to move outside of infested areas.
Current ordinance language allows the city to require removal of diseased trees on private
property and provides an administrative warrant process to have trees removed if the
property owner does not comply. It does not, however, give the City Manager flexibility
to adopt new rules and regulations prohibiting movement of diseased wood or allow for
criminal penalties should the property owner remove the tree and keep the wood or move
wood outside of the city. City staff was aware of several instances of diseased walnut
wood leaving city limits but was unable to prevent it. The proposed changes would close
these loopholes and allow for better enforcement.
Proposed language allowing the City Manager to issue new rules is consistent with that
from other city code (i.e., Chapter 6-2 B.R.C., "Weed Control"). The proposed language
fOr penalties is consistent with subsection 5-2-4 B.R.C., "General Penalties".
Pros: These changes reinforce and increase the inspection and enforcement processes
already in place. Allowing criminal penalties for non-compliance will better protect trees
on both a state and national level by preventing spread of potentially epidemic tree insect
and/or disease problems-
Cons: Although this code change creates additional prosecution options, enforcement for
(lie removal of diseased wood will continue to be a challenge.
3. 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 a property and Certified Arborist who 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
AGENDA ITEM # 51S Page 8
always provides valuable information during the review process. 'Flee proposed change
of Item 3, trees in adjacent setbacks, would ideally be included.
Pros: I sigh quality information provides a more comprehensive analysis on the part of
the developer and a more complete review by city staff resulting in a shorter timeline
within the Site Review process. This change may actually reduce staff time during the
review process. This requirement also has a basic recognition or education component
that compares the value of existing trees to all other physical constraints-
Cons: 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 a detailed survey 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 only after the
start of the city review process. Removing trees prior to initial submittal is also a
potential problem. Phase 2 code amendments could address this issue by creating
retroactive timelines for removal; for example, evidence of any tree removed within a
defined period of time, typically six months to one year prior to Site Review application
review would be subject to all tree,inventory and protection requirements.
4. Trees Crossing Property Lines (Trees in Adjacent 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
Permit 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 follow up by completing site visits to
verify information. Trees having a trunk on an adjacent property, but root systems and
canopies clearly crossing property lines, shall be included on all landscape plans and tree
inventories. Trunk location is necessary to determine the approximate development
impact and can be by determined by visual observation, high quality aerial analysis or by
gaining permission to survey trees on properties adjacent to the development site.
Canopies and therefore an approximation of the root system, on the development site can
be accurately surveyed. A reasonable level of impact requires case-by-case evaluation.
Pros: Inforination provided earlier in the review process would facilitate impact analysis
on the part of the owner/developer and city staff. Providing this information as early as
possible in the design and review process would save significant staff time spent on
gathering information not currently required yet important for review.
Cons: This code amendment does not protect trees adjacent to development sites as a
matter of course. Conflicts between development and trees on adjacent sites will still
arise from time, to time that may not have a solution agreeable to all parties involved.
This requirement also raises questions of how the data will be gathered. Trespassing is
not a solution and is in no way encouraged through this change. Some financial impact
to the property owner/developer is expected and will vary depending on the number of
existing trees and complexity of the site. The cost of adding trees on adjacent sites to an
AGENDA ITEM # 54 Page 9
already required site or landscape plan is very low compared to the greater cost of
preparing a survey and construction drawings.
How to determine a consistent area around the development site also needs to be
addressed. On adjacent lots with no required setback, no trees may be impacted. On
adjacent lots with a large setback, marry trees may be affected. Staff recommends an
approach that would capture the greatest number of trees while not including trees that
would be unaffected.
5. Landscape Guarantee
The I.and 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 of all trees, public and private, and adding code
language clarifying long terrn maintenance responsibilities of public trees including the
ability to hold escrow to guarantee survival or replacement one year after planting.
Given the inherent life span of a tree, a five year maintenance standard 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 free 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 changes are required in several
sections to complete this change.
Pros: These changes reinforce and provide clarity to the inspection and enforcement
processes already in place. Many developers and property owners of projects approved
through site review incorrectly refer to the five year maintenance period, rather than their
development agreement which requires ongoing maintenance. Many single family
homeowners are simply unaware of their responsibility to maintain adjacent right-of-way.
Cons: Public perception of such a change may be mixed. Some education and outreach
is anticipated as a result of this change. Internal process for holding escrow is already in
place, but additional staff time (1-2 hours per week) will be needed to process escrow
held for street tree planting.
AGENDA ITEM # 5.,6 Page 10
Potential Phase 2 Changes:
6. 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 ten 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 arc 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
form 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. Mitigation is currently required to remove public
trees. The need for consistent public and private tree mitigation requirements would be
part of this analysis.
Pros: This change recognizes the significance of trees at different life stages, trees not
yet old or large enough to be recognized as having some unique value. Required
mitigation adds value to healthy mature trees not currently recognized through the
development process. Required mitigation is likely to have a significant positive impact
to the overall urban canopy both through increased preservation and increased ability to
plant and maintain trees through the funds generated. This review process could easily
be incorporated into the current landscape review with little additional staff time.
Cons: Public reaction to this code change could be significant if it is seen as prohibiting
development and economic growth or arbitrarily applied. On-site mitigation is difficult if
not impossible to achieve in many areas. Although the existing review process could
easily incorporate assessment and mitigation requirements, significant staff time may be
needed for enforcement of such a change.
7. Preservation of Significant 'Trees by Requiring Removal Permits
The goal of this 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. Small maturing trees, as classified in the Design and Construction Standards
approved tree list, may qualify at a relatively small diameter, well under ten inches,
versus medium or large trees that may not qualify until they reach 24 inches or more. 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. Health and
species are 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
AGENDA ITEM # 54 Page I I
development potential are valid reasons for tree removal; however, maximizing
development potential by itself may not qualify a tree for removal.
Pros: 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 could provide additional opportunity for review.
Enforcement ability is a key part of this review process. Although this may viewed as a
controversial approach, it should be noted that Denver limits tree removal in front 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.
Cons: As an additional step and application in an already complex review process,
public perception of such a change could be negative. Although a relatively simple
application, extensive staff time in public outreach could result. Enforcement of such a
permit could also prove very time consuming in cases where trees are removed prior to
application. Selection criteria will be critical in balancing tree preservation with
development.
8. 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
Ilistoric Preservation co& 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.
Several steps need to occur to create a Landmark Tree program comparable to the Current
program used for structures. Structures meeting landmark criteria are reviewed as a
matter of course with all building permit applications. To
AGENDA ITEM # 56 Page 12
Pros: This is a generally accepted form of protection in Boulder for buildings. The
process, although needing criteria to review a tree, is in place with an existing staff and
review board. Cost to the applicant, if owner nominated, would be limited to arborist
inspections. The Landmark approach also provides flexibility in who may nominate a
tree for protection.
Cons: City nomination of landmark trees may be viewed negatively. The preservation
of a constantly changing living organism also presents inherent problems. Very clear
thresholds for nomination and removal will be necessary.
NEXT STEPS:
After receiving Planning Board's recommendation on the proposed Phase I code changes
and discussion on Phase 2 issues, staff will proceed with the following steps:
Phase 1:
1. City Council public hearing and consideration of adoption.
Phasc 2:
1. Tree Inventory to determine the potential number of Landmark Trees.
2. Complete analysis including, but not limited to, staffing time, budget
implications, effectiveness and conflicts of potential Phase 2 code amendments as
identified by staff, Planning Board and City Council.
3. Draft code amendments in response to Planning Board and City Council direction.
4. Planning Board public hearing and recommendation of Phase 2 changes.
5. City Council public hearing and consideration of adoption of Phase 2 changes.
Anticipated completion for Phase 2 code changes is the third quarter of 2010
Approved By:
R r
D; vid Driskell. Executive Director
Department of Community Planning and Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS:
A: `Tree Protection Memo of May 7, 2009
B: Proposed Code Language
C: Comprehensive Plan Goals; general to tree protection
D: Research summary
AGENDA ITEM # 54 Paae 13
Table 1: ANALYSIS & CODs; CHANGE SUMMARY
Tree Protection Objective Existing Regulations Gap in existing regulations to meet the objective Proposed Regulatory Change to Address Gaps
1. Discourage or prohibit the a. Public Land/ ROW: a. Public Land/ ROW: a. Public Land/ ROW:
removal of existing healthy Trees are protected through the Design and Construction Standards (DCS) No gaps identified. • No change proposed as part of Phase 1.
mature trees: Chapter 3 and Section 6-6 B.R.C. Right-of-Way Permits are required for • Potential Historic Landmark Designation as part of Phase 2,
a. On public land tree removal. b. Sites proposed for development or redevelopment-
including parks and No protection for private trees proposed for removal outside of b. Sites proposed for development or redeyelopmeilc
rights-of-way, b. Sites proposed for development or redevelopment-. Site Review. Require tree inventory in Site Review and Landscape Plan
b. On sites proposed for Protected if preserved through Site Review (Section 9-2-14 (h)(2) (iii). Site Review applications often don't provide sufficient application
submittals (sections 9-2-14 and 9-9-12 B,R.C.);
development or Protected if used to meet Green Points compliance. documentation of existing trees on site Phase 1.
redevelopment. Insufficient information required at submittal for all types of Potential Historic Landmark Designation as par( of Phase 2.
c. On private properties c_. Private properties adjacent to developient sites: review to identify and protect existing healthy mature trees
adjacent to None c. Private properties adjacent. to development sites:
development sites. c. Private properties adjacent to development sites. Require projects in Site Review to show existing trees over
Current regulations do not require any information be provided on 6" in caliper within the setback of adjacent properties
how or if development will impact trees on adjacent sites. (sections 9-2-14 and 9-9-12); Phase I.
• No change proposed for by-right projects at this time.
2. Protect the long term health a. Long'ferm Maintenance a. Lang Term Maintenance a. Long Term Maintenance
of existing healthy mature Trees are protected through the Design and Construction Standards Chapter • No maintenance specified for private trees adjacent to development
• Clarify adjacent property owner's responsibility to maintain
trees: 3 and Section 6-6 B.R.C. sites. street trees (sections 8-2-25, 9-9-12 and 9-9-13 13.R.C.);
a. Require the long term • Maintenance for trees as part of development approval per DCS Phase 1.
maintenance of trees in Chapter 3. • Require tree inventories for all Site Review applications
public rights of way, sections 9-2-14 and 9-9-12 B.R.C.); Phase 1.
adjacent to private b. Qualified workmanship b. Qualified workmanship
property or required as None. Specify who may perform maintenance under what situations for b. Qualified workmanship
part of development public and private trees. • Require all tree work, public or private to be completed by
approval. a qualified professional (chapters 4-28 and 6-6 B.R.C.);
b. Ensure that qualified Phase 1.
individuals perform Require tree inventories be completed by a Licensed
tree related work. Arborist (chapters 4-28 and 6-6 B.R.C.); Phase I .
3. Mitigate the impacts of Per the requirements of section 6-6-713.R.C. removal of public trees requires No mitigation is required for private trees removed outside of the No
changes proposed as part of Phase 1. Additional direction
removing healthy mature mitigation in the form of replanting or financial reimbursement. Site Review process. needed from the public, staff, Plarming Board and City
trees. Council regarding appropriate mitigation for removal of
• No clear standards exist for setting appropriate mitigation within private trees outside of Site Review, if any, as part of'Phasc 2.
Site Review.
AGENDA ITEM # 5,6 Page 14
A'l" I'ACI IMI:NT A
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 7, 2009
AGENDA TITLE: Discussion ofTree Protection and Preservation Objectives and
Potential Code Changes (Title 9).
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director ol'Community Planning
David Driskell, Deputy Executive Director of Community Planning
Kathleen Alexander, City Forester
Elizabeth Lokocz, Landscape Architect
OBJECTIVE:
Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request:
1. Hear staff presentation
2. Hold public hearing
3. Planning Board discussion: Provide direction on tree protection and preservation
objectives.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this item is for Planning Board to discuss and 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. Dralt code language and the
final ordinance will be prepared and submitted for final Planning Board consideration and
reconunendation prior to City Council review and consideration later this year.
The issue of tree protection and preservation has been raised over the years by Planning Board,
residents, and staff, during the site review process and at final building permit 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 term 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
Attachments A and B.
AGENDA ITEM # Page 15
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 WIP 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 yfespecially 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 perforin tree assessment, construction management
and root or canopy removal.
BACKGROUND:
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 Attacluncnt L for a list of general policies, including:
• Recognition of sustainability as a unifying goal to secure Boulder's future economic,
ecological and social health.
• Use of urban growth boundaries to mainiain a compacr city, (the boundaries of*the
sPn ice area have remained virtuall}% unchanged since first developed in 1)77),
• Encouragement of compact, contiguous development and a preference for infill land
redevc 1opment as opposed to sprawl.
AGENDA ITEM # SE Page 16
• 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 features that contribute to
the unique sense ofplace 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 .seep 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 protection. The city will develop community-wide
programs and standards far new development and redevelopment so that negative environnicntal
impacts will he mitigated and overall environmental quality of the urban environment will 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 any
development, including detached dwelling units, in the required setback or on the property
line, be protected from construction impacts within the dripiine of the tree in a manner that is
consistent with the city's Design and Construction Standard's.
• City of Boulders Design and Construction Standards (I)CS).-
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 are proposed.
• 't'itle 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 # 5,6 Pagge 17
.Summary of Current Cily Regulations for Trees on Public and Private Properly
Public Property Private Properly
Protection Trees must be protected if they are Trees 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 R.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, Title 6, compliance (optional points)
Chapter 6). - Planting of street trees may be required
• If trees are 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)_ (B.R.C. 1981, 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. Staff completed this phase of the
process in 2008 by:
1. 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 # 56 Page 18
Research:
Research was a primary component in generating a list of potential code changes to address the
draft objectives. See Attachment , 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:
Three 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 welcomed from
attendees. The public open house had one attendee. Staff is exploring other opportunities For
public input.
ANALYSIS:
1'ree 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 # 5,8 Pay-,e 19
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. 'T'hese 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 some 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 defined 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
specifically 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 environmentally
important. But their protection can also require that a large buffer area be kept free of
development.
AGENDA 1TFM # 5.8 Pap_c 20
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 are often not significant factors during 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. Incentivizing 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 determine what trees should receive
credit, how much credit, and in what form it should be applied. Cost to the applicant and
staff time will require evaluation.
S. Ensure that qualified professionals perform tree assessment, construction management
and root or canopy removal
Accurate tree evaluation is key to detennining preservation goals. Correct root and canopy
pruning can sustain or kill a tree. T'heref'ore, 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. However, 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 ITEM # 5,8 Pate 21
Approved By
Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning
Planning Department
AT'T'ACHMENTS:
A: Research Summaries
B: Focus Group Summaries
C: Tree Protection WIP Aug. 30, 2007
D: Inter-departmental discussion members
E: Additional BVCP Policies
F: Draft Land Use Code changes
G: Tree Protection Options
AGENDA ITEM # 5,8 Paite 22
A]TACHMENT R
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS
FOR A CERTIFIED ARBORIST LICENSE AND OTHER
REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE. PLAN'T'ING,
CUTTING, REMOVING, OR APPLYING PESTICIDES
TO ANY TREES; AMENDING TITLE 4, "LICENSES
AND PERMITS," B.R.C. 1981; AMENDING CHAPTER
6-6, "PROTECTING TREES AND PLANTS; AND
SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BF IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF T] IF CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1 _ Title 4, B.R.C. 1981, is amended by the addition of a new Chapter 28,
to read:
Chapter 28 Certified Arborist Contractor License.
4-28-1 Legislative Intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by
licensing persons who plant, cut, prune or remove trees in the city.
4-28-2 License Required.
(a) No person shall engage in the business of planting, cutting, pruning, removing or
applying pesticides to any trees on public or private property within the city for
commercial gain or profit without first obtaining from the city manager a license
under this chapter.
(b) Any licensee must perfonn all tree related work in the city in accordance with all
requirements adopted by the city manager, and all city, state, and federal laws. Any
licensee not complying with the requirements of this chapter may have its license
suspended or revoked pursuant to the provisions of 4-1-10, "Revocation of
Licenses," B.R.C. 1981.
(c) All motor vehicles and other major equipment used by any licensee hereunder in
conducting the licensed tree services must be clearly identified with licensee's
business name and phone number.
AGENDA ITEM # 54 Pave 23
4-28-3 Application for License.
An applicant for a contractor license shall:
(a) Apply on forms furnished by the city manager, provide such information relating to
the applicant's competence, education, training, and experience as the city manager
may require;
(b) Pay the fee prescribed by section 4-20-63, "Arborist License Fee," B.R.C_ 1981; and
(c) Provide evidence of insurance coverage required by section 4-1-8, "Tnsurancc
Required," II.R.C. 1981.
4-28-4 License Application and Qualifications
(a) An applicant for a license under this chapter shall show proof of current International
Society of Arboriculture certification or an equivalent exam.
(b) The city manager may approve a license under this chapter for persons that have
demonstrated equivalent qualifications to those described in subsection (a) above-
4-28-5 Authority to Deny Issuance of License.
(a) The city manager may deny an application for a license under this chapter upon a
finding of any of the conditions set forth in subsection 4-1-9(a), B.R.C. 1981, or
upon a determination that:
(1) The applicant has had any contractor's license revoked or suspended; or
(2) The applicant has previously failed to comply with the ordinances and
regulations of the city relating to conducting any contracting business licensed by
this code.
(b) If the city manager denies a license application under this section, the manager shall
follow the procedures prescribed by subsection 4-1-9(b), B_R.C. 1981.
4-28-6 Contractor Responsibilities.
A contractor licensed under this chapter is responsible for all work performed under each
contract executed pursuant to the license, whether the contractor, an employee, or a
subcontractor performs the work.
4-28-7 Revocation and Suspension of License.
The city manager may suspend or revoke a license issued under this chapter for the
grounds and under the procedures prescribed by section 4-1-10, "Revocation of
Licenses," B.R.C. 1981 _ Grounds for suspension or revocation include, without
limitation, failure to maintain required insurance.
4-28-7 Renewal of License.
AGENDA ITEM # 5 Page 24
A existing licensee under this chapter who has passed an examination designed by the
city manager to test the qualifications for the category of license requested, may renew
the license by completing an application on forms furnished by the manager, filing the
certificate of insurance prescribed by section 4-1-8, "insurance Required," B.R.C. 1981,
and paying the fee prescribed by section 4-20-63, "Arborist License Fees," B.R.C. 1981.
4-28-8 `t'erm of License.
The term of the license issued under this chapter is twelve months from its date of
issuance.
Section 2. Chapter 4-20, B.R.C. 1981 is amended by the addition of a new
section 4-20-63, to read;
4-20-63 Arborist License Fee
An applicant for an arborist license shall pay an annual fee of $125.00.
Section 3. Section 6-6-2, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
6-6-2 Removal of Dead, Diseased, or Dangerous Trees.
(a) The city manager may enter upon any premises without a warrant to inspect all trees
and plants in the city.
(b) If the city manager finds that there exist on any private property in the city dead trees
or overhanging limbs that pose a danger to persons or property, the manager will
notify the owner, lessee, agent, occupant, or other person in possession or control of
the property upon which the condition exists of the duty to remedy the condition
within fifteen days from the date of the notice or such shorter time as the manager
finds appropriate in view of the nature and extent of the condition.
(c) If the city manager determines that any tree growing on private property within the
city is afflicted with any dangerous or infectious insect infestation or disease, the
manager will notify the owner, lessee, agent, occupant or other person in possession
and control of the property of the condition and order such person to take specific
prescribed measures that the manager determines are reasonably necessary to cure
the infestation or disease and to prevent its spread, within fifteen days from the date
of the notice or such time as the manager finds appropriate in view of the nature and
extent of tlic condition._f f_necessarv to address _a danu-crous_or infectious insect
infestation or disease, the city rl~ana er ina rej%Le that work shall_bc,_LC7mlzleted
unde the su~crvisic~n ol~a certificd.arborist that has a valid contractor license
pubsuar1t to chapter 4-283"('crtifi_ed Arborist Contractor License B.R-C. _1981.
AGENDA ITEM 4 Page 25
(d) If the person notified pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this section fails to correct
the condition as required by the notice prescribed in such subsection, except in cases
of extreme emergency, the city manager may enter the property, pursuant to an
administrative wan-ant issued by the municipal court, and correct the condition and
charge the costs of such correction, plus an additional amount of $25.00 for
administrative costs, to the owner and to the lessee, agent, occupant, or other person
in possession and control of the property. If any property owner fails or refuses to
pay when due any charge imposed under this section, the city manager may certify
due and unpaid charges, including interest, to the Boulder County Treasurer for
collection, as provided in section 2-2-12, "City Manager May Certify Taxes,
Charges, And Assessments To County "treasurer For Collection," B.R.C. 1981.
(e) Notice under this section is sufficient if it is deposited in the mail first class to the
address of the last known owner of property on the records of the Boulder County
Assessor or to the last known address of the lessee, agent, occupant, or other person
in possession or control of the property.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the city manager from taking such
steps to correct an immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare that the
manager detennines is posed by such diseased, dead, or dangerous trees-
(g) The city manager may prune, spray, or remove any diseased or infested tree on
private property upon the written request of the property owner- or a lessee, agent,
occupant, or other person in possession or control of the property if such person
agrees in writing to pay for the costs of such service_
Section 4. Section 6-6-6, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
6-6-6 Protection of Trees and Plants.
(a) No person shall remove, damage, or destroy any tree or plant growing within or upon
any city-owned or controlled property, except for public rights-of--way, without first
having obtained written permission from the city manager.
(b) No person shall remove, damage, or destroy any tree or plant growing within or upon
any public right-of-way without first having obtained a permit pursuant to chapter 8-
5, "Work in the Public Right-Of-Way and Public Easements," B.K.C. 1981.
(c) No person shall attach to or install on any tree or plant growing within or upon any
city-owned or controlled property, including public rights-of-way, without first
having obtained approval from the city manager, any metal material, sign, cable,
wire, nail, swing, or other material foreign to the natural structure of the tree, except
materials used for standard tree care or maintenance, such as bracing and cabling,
installed by tree professionals.
(d) No person shall attach any electric insulator or any device for holding electric wires
to any tree or plant growing or planted upon any city property. No person owning
any wire charged with electricity running through public property shall fail to fasten
AGENDA 1TFM # 5. Pa ,e 26
such wire securely to a post or other structure so that it will not contact any plant. If
the city manager determines it is necessary to prune or cut down any plant growing
on city property in the city across which electric wires run, no person owning such
wires shall fail to remove any such wire or to discontinue electric service within
twenty-four hours after being notified by the manager of the scheduled pruning or
cutting of the trees.
(e) No person owning or operating a gas pipe or main within a radius of forty feet of any
tree or plant shall fail to repair the same immediately if a leak occurs and stop such
leak in order to protect the plant and the public health, safety, and welfare.
(f) No person shall perform any work or construction within or upon any city-owned
property, public right-of-way or public casement without providing tree protection in
conformance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards.
No~rson shall-engtige in the business of lIlanti~cuttin& pivtiing,_rci77o_v_i~ig or
ap i~ - S-&Jdc to any trees on~7lic nr_l~riyatc_pru Der( -within the c i for
cone Le ial-girt car rof t without first obtaining. from the cit n~ttnaPer a -license
under this chapter.
Section 5. Section 6-6-7, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
6-6-7 Mitigation Of Trecs Or Plants Removed Or Destroyed.
No person shall remove or destroy any tree or plant in the public right-of-way without
first having a plan approved by the city manager for the mitigation of the loss of such tree
or plant. Tile removed or destroyed tree or plant shall be replaced in an amount
equivalent to the value, as determined by the city manager, of the tree, shrub, or plant that
existed prior to loss, by:
(a) Planting or transplanting an approved tree or plant of the same species and size as
previously existed in a location approved by the city mariager;
(b) Planting one or more approved trees or plants where the combined value equals or
exceeds that which previously existed in terns of species, condition, and size, in a
location approved by the city manager; or
(c) Reimbursement of the city for the value of the tree or plant removed or destroyed
subject to a determination by the city manager that the trees or plants lost could not
be adequately replaced at or near the location where the loss occurred,
(d) All plantings shall 1) cot~fleled under the supervision of itcertified arhorist that has
a- valid _contra ctc~t Iic_ensc-pursuant to chapter 4-28 "Certified Arhorisl Contractor
License " B RC. 198 1.
Section 6. Chapter 6-6, B.R.C_ 1981 is amended by the addition of a new section
6-6-10, to read:
AC.F I)A f"I"Ui 19 5 1' 27
6-6-10 City Manager Authorized to Issue Rules
The city manager is authorized to adopt rules, pursuant to Chapter 1-4, "Rulemaking,"
B.R.C. 1981, that are reasonably necessary to implement the requirements of this chapter.
Section 7. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 8. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published
by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the
city clerk for public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE ONLY this _ day of i 20-- .
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
AGENDA 1TEN1 # 5 Pa<~c 28
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this _ day of , 20
Mayo
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
AGENDA ITEM # 5 a e 29
ATTACHMENTli
ORDINANCE NO_
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ADDITION`I'AL TREE
PROTECTION STANDARDS, AMENDING CHAPTER 8-2, B.R.C.
1981 CREATING AN AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION OF ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAINI'IAIN STREET TREES; AMENDING
"TITLE 9, LAND USE CODE: B.R.C_ 1981 REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE
REVIEW AND THE LANDSCAPING STANDARDS, AND SETTING
FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Chapter 8-2, B.R.C. 1981 is amended by the addition of a new section
8-2-25, to read:
8-2-25 Adjacent Owners' Duty to Maintain Street Trees.
No property owner shall fail to maintain required street trees on or adjacent to the owner's
property in the public right of way, including landscaping or a mulched sod-free base
around the tree and sufficient irrigation to sustain the life of the tree.
Section 2. Subsections 9-2-14(d) and (h), B.R.C. 1981, are amended to read:
9-2-14. Site Review.
(d) Application Requirements: An application for approval of a site plan may be filed by
any pet-son having a demonstrable property interest in land to be included in a site
review on a fi)nn provided by the city manager that includes, without limitation:
(13) A general landscaping plan at the time of initial submission to be followed by a
detailed landscaping plan prior to or as a_ condition. of approval- showing the
spacing, sires, and-specific types of landscaping materials quantities of _all
plants and whether the plant is coniferous or deciduous. -All trees 6 inches and
over measured 1iftV40ur fee4-5-1-_1nches abq_vc (lie ground on the pi-opcrt Q! in
the landscape tiethtlcl:_ cif an rc~p_er a scent to (lie deyelonnlent shall be
shown can the la+idscain_pla~i_witil_s'ktmcnl of_tivl etljcr lhc_t lp_ca_nt
proposes to _preserve the tree
AGENDA ITEM # _5.. Pa e 30
(_I_8) A tree iaiycntory and protection plandiat includes,tlle locati_on_ si e- occics and
g_eneral_heal_1-1-i_of alI t►ecs 6 inches and over rnGasurccl fii_ i< ur inches iliove
th_c_gruuiid un lhc_hroperty_or in the landscape setback of any Lroherty IicJlacenl
to the development. The inventory shall indicate which trees shall be. preserved
or removed. The tree invento shall be prepared by a certi liui arbor ist_ that lias
a valid contractor_ligen5p- krsuant_ to chapter 4-28 "Certified -Arborist
Contractor Liccrnse " BAX. 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 duality of the project. In determining
whether this subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following
factors:
(C) Landscaping:
(ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on
and off site to important native species, hcalthy Lng-livW trees- plant
communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and
habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project;
Section 3. Subsection 9-9-12(d), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9-9-12. Landscaping and Screening Standards.
(d) General Landscaping and Screening Requirements:
(1) Landscaping Plan: A landscaping plan designed in accordance with this section
and sections 9-9-13, "Streetscape Design Standards," and 9-9-14, "Parking Lot
Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981, shall be provided for all developments
except detached dwelling units. The site plan shall include the following:
AGENDA ITEM i_5,5_ F:i cm
(K) The location si e and six,cic;s_ of all cxistina trees on the property and
within the landscape setbacks of all properties ac i scent to the de=velopment site,
(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-five landscaping materials including,
but not limited to, fencing, paving, and retaining waltsJe period of five eats
from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion.
Section 4. Section 9-9-13, B_R.C. 1981 is amended by the addition of a new
subsection (h), to read:
9-9-13. Streetscape Design Standards.
(li The street antl alley tree installations shall be considered complete if the required
trees survive for one yar from the issuance of a_ce_:rtific<ate of occupa cy or certificate
- -
of coipletion.- The cif ml_ rmn ,er is authorized to require an applicant xovide the
GnanciakXL!a ai.itce ccan5ititciit with the requirements of section 9-2-20 " Required
Improvements aid Financial Guarantees}' B,R.C. 1981_ he_linanci~d'g 'g-garan tee will
be released after one year, alter an i!).!iaection that confirms the trees is in itood_health,
Section 5. Subsections 9-12-6(a), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
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 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 fwesix-inch caliper or more on the
property and approximate location of structures off the property within ten
feet of the proposed plat boundary;
_AGENDA 1'1'EM # 56 Page 32
Section 6. Sections 9-16-1, B_R.C. 1981, is amended by the addition of the
following definition, to read:
9-16-1 Definitions
"I-lcalthy, jin'_lived tree" means a tree that is:
(1)_j Hc~tlthy Ludclassilicd_as=being.- in Cair ur hettcr Conditicit1 IV ieally
me n_in -In-pre than Gof the root and canstructure are irttaet_as
determined- ~y an expert rn tree/land,;czii c appra sal;
(2) Not listed on the state of_Colorado 110xioL s weed list
3) Not listed bathe eit rnana cr as a noxious weed or unrlesirablc tree-
In a location that does not threatenjLlublic_hlth, safet ?and=Welt<irc.
Section 7. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 8_ The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published
by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the
city clerk for public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
13Y TITLE ONLY this clay of 20
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
n(:f?Nl}A I'I'F.M # 5 , I':3c 33
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY "TITLE ONLY this__ day of _ _,20-.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of I- inance and Record
AGENDA ITEM # 5„& Page 34
AI FACI IM ENT C
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.
General Policies:
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 us clear urban boundaries, open land
buffers separating compact communities, vital activity centers, preservation oj'critical
natural areas and vistas, appropriate connection of trail systems, efficient multi-modal
travel corridors, a balanced distribution of housing and job opportunities, provision oj'
diverse housing, and conservation ofphysical 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 it
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 service 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.
The 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 stone 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.
AGENDA ITEM # 5,3 Page 35
4.39 Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy.
1 he 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. A e city will set
goals for the use of non-renewable energy that are consistent with an orderly transition
to a sustainable energy economy in order to preserve fossil fuels Jor future generations.
The city will support private decisions to use renewable energy, will publicly develop
local renewable energy resources where economical, and will preserve future options_for
renewable energy so that they may be developed when they become cost effective.
4.40 Energy-Efficient Land iJse.
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 Talley 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.
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 protection. The citywill
develop community-wide programs and standards for new development and
redevelopment so that negative environmental impacts will be mitigated and overall
environmental quality of the urban environment will 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 cif 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.
AGENDA ITEM # 5,6 Page 36
SUMMARY OF TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCES
DRAFT 5.16.C8
'California Sections Points
- - - ___P - E avaiiat53e I~st ~vr a dresses.
• Minimize tree removal for all new
construction. Permit required for removal or over 25% pruning.
I. 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 12.12.130 Tree Protection, Remove by permit only including single 'Must obtain permit prior to removal.
management & maintenance. Applicant pays S500 deposit prior to approval
12,12.160 Permit Requirements family residential. .Must replace on-site at 2:1 + ratio (canopy land fees are expected to cover all replacement
12.12.190 Tree Replacement costs including staff time.
cover included in determining replacement
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
~trPP diPG
!12.28,100 Permit for Removal - i 2" DBH general threshold for permit requirement
Improvement of Private Property on private property, vacant lots and for
12.28,150 Trimming Trees Partially construction.
Ion Private Property • Permit required for private and public 6" DBH for pine, redwood, oak or cypress on
Carmel 12.28.170 Cutting Trees on Private oimprovements. private property.
Property, Vacant Lots and for • Tree removal thresholds based on size and • Penalties include 90 suspension of
iConstruction ispecies. demo/building permits.
12.28.180 Permit for Removal - Construction undertaken wlin 6 montns 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
iLandscaping Trees in the City of San property. I• Mitigation required for removal of native and non-
San Jose Jose Tree inventory required. native trees as high as 5:1 ratio.
113,32 Tree Removal Controls Permit required for larger trees (over 18" at Heritage trees part of code,
height). Heritage Trees 19.56.199 Protection of Heritage Permit required for Heritage trees and any
Santa Cruz Trees public tree removal, Single and duplex under 1/2 acre only required to
C~ 13.30 Permits Required Requirements for landscaping based on meet turf limits. --3
16.16 Water Efficient Landscaping (water demands. >
z
43 C
• Permit NOT required for specific non-native
f or invasive trees.
Permit required for any tree wlin 5' of ROW
17.44.080 Tree Protection 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.
Colorado Sections Points
Development Standards Limits turf coverage for single family
Brighton Section V.E - Landscaping development. None
• No specific tree preservation ordinance.
117.38.160 Site Development Plan General ROW (public tree) protection.
Broomfield Contents Requirement to include existing trees on 'Must show existing trees on site plans
X17.70.010 Residential Landscape Site Development Plans. regardless of removal,
Requirements
• Good (specific) inventory & analysis
Be Water Wise -Landscape Detailed requirements to show existing 'requirements, but no direct protection.
Castle Rock Regulations & Principles natural features. • Required to show all natural features within 100'
• Separates Multi-family/PUD development, of property line.
'Section 3 - Landscape Regulations -commercercial etc. • Differentiates single family ad duplexes built by
developer/builder.
15
57.25 7.20 Permit Required. Removal trees on certain Required to show all existing trees on
separate inventory/protection plan. Public list of champion trees including address.
residential it
Denver residential properties. Protection for existing trees in front setback Includes some level of protection for single
59.126 Preservation of certain trees for single and some multi-family over 6" DBH family development.
(during demolition or new (specific by zone).
construction.
• Specific protection language and
Q, 1 Fort Collins 13.2.4 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 i• Very General protection language, None
• General protection language for trees over
.7.15.3 Review Procedures, Design 14" Cal. "to the extent reasonably feasible". i• Awareness that additional layer of information
Lakewood Considerations, Controls and i• 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.
18.4.5 Removal of Trees and Shrub or shrub mass. I• Removal includes over 33% damage or pruning
Littleton Masses; Permit Required Permit required for removal but no fees. lin a single year.
• Appeal to Board of Ajustment w/in 10 days if • Unclear how necessary for construction is
'denied. defined.
I- Specific pro ec ion anguage an ca iper
replacement requirements. 1:1 caliper replacement (i.e. removal of a 24" cal,
Landscape plans should incorporate all iTeee could be mitigated through planting 8 -3" cal.
Longmont 15.05.090 Landscaping, buffering, replacement requirements for existing canopy Trees).
and screening, inventory. 1• Landscape requirements include survey of all
• Single family landscape requirements (1 'existing trees noting location, species, size and
tree/4 shrubs noncorner; 2 trees/4 shurbs (condition.
C_OLOQI- _
General in nature. When is general helpful and
Loveland 4.02.07 Existing Vegetation Performance Standards I• No specific protection given when is it an obstacle?
• Extensive Plant List available to public.
• Detailed requirements for a variety of 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 I• Existing vegetation justification for variance.
Parker 113.07.010 Procedures and existing trees and shrub masses through a I• 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;
approves Plan. cash in lieu; 50% credit for relocation.
• Excludes single family lots from • May refuse to issue any building permit or CO
i requirements, until violation is cured.
• 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.
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 Regulations effective protection guidelines. Replacement trees may not count towards total
Landscape
Lands04 • Tree removal and preplacement approved (landscaping requirements.
as part of review process.
I
T