HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 11/03/2025 - Memorandum from Kendra Boot and Sylvia Tatman-Burruss re October 21 Council Requested Follow-up: Tree Policy
1
Memorandum
Date: October 28, 2025
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Dean Klingner, Community Service Director
From: Kendra Boot, City Forester, Forestry, kboot@fcgov.com
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Sr. Policy & Project Manager, City Manager’s Office,
statman-burruss@fcgov.com
Subject: October 21 Council Requested Follow-up: Tree Policy
The purpose of this memo is to provide clarity regarding the three follow-up items on tree
policies requested by Council from the October 21, 2025 Regular Council meeting. Six
Councilmembers were present and one absent. Staff are available to answer any remaining
questions or offer clarification regarding the proposed tree policy updates. Policies will be
brought forward for second reading on Monday, November 3, 2025
Follow-Up
Council requested follow-up and clarity on the following items:
Does the City follow the same mitigation standard as development?
Does the double row of street trees conflict with Poudre Fire Authority standards?
Question regarding transfer of ownership of street trees to the HOA during development.
Does the City Follow the same mitigation standards at development?
Yes, the City adheres to the same mitigation standards and leads by example in tree
mitigation on City development projects. Examples of City development projects that are
required to adhere to Land Use Code (LUC) requirements include City parks and City
facilities. It’s important to note that the tree mitigation standard is a standard of the LUC
and does not apply to all scenarios. Generally, applicability of tree mitigation is dependent
on if the project is development or regular maintenance. For all private development on
Docusign Envelope ID: 6ECC886B-8587-4A31-9430-3E1F8D3FF793
2
commercial property, and public development projects such as new parks or City
facilities, current and proposed tree mitigation standards apply.
Regarding regular maintenance, trees that are in poor health, are a hazard to public safety,
or are a detriment to the health of the urban forest, would not be subject to LUC tree
mitigation according to the current and proposed exemptions that are in the code. These
are managed using either the tree replacement program or healthy trees are maintained
through the urban forest management General fund.
The Forestry Division is not in the business of removing healthy trees, however, the Division
removes trees for the following reasons: imminent risk to public safety, dead or dying
trees, trees damaged beyond survival (i.e. storm damage, run over by vehicles, damaged
by construction), insect or disease infestation (i.e. Dutch elm Disease, emerald ash borer,
Ips beetle, etc.). Trees removed for these reasons are then replaced through the tree
replacement program one tree for one which is the same expectation held for removed
dead and dying trees on commercial properties, outside of the development process.
Below is a chart clarifying reasons for tree removal, if they are subject to tree mitigation,
and if the City mitigates for the loss.
Reasons for Tree Removal Mitigation/ Mitigation
Standard
Private Development
Examples: commercial, multi-family, mixed use, larger
neighborhood developments; new city parks or facilities;
not single home projects
Yes by LUC standard
Public Capital Improvement Projects, streetscapes, etc. Yes and while these
projects are not required to
adhere to LUC, Forestry
Docusign Envelope ID: 6ECC886B-8587-4A31-9430-3E1F8D3FF793
3
Examples: Timberline widening, Oak St Stormwater Project,
West Elizabeth BRT
consistently applies same
mitigation standards for
these project types.
Public Tree Loss Damaged
Examples: run over by vehicles, damaged by construction,
vandalism, weed whacker damage
Yes by tree
appraisal/assessed
damages
Private Tree Loss Other
Examples: dead/dying, insect or disease, climatic, storm
damage (not including single family)
Yes by bringing landscape
plan into compliance (1 for
1 replacement); LUC
Landscape Maintenance
Requirement
Public Tree Loss Other
Examples: dead/dying, insect or disease, climatic, storm
damage
Yes by City tree
replacement program*
*The Forestry Division is planting more trees than they are removing and are attempting to
fill all public vacant sites over the next 10-12 years as funding allows. See annual removals
and planting graph below.
Docusign Envelope ID: 6ECC886B-8587-4A31-9430-3E1F8D3FF793
4
Associated costs of compliance for developers
To fully evaluate costs for developers across many different development scenarios for
compliance with all of our tree policies would take some time and effort, but we can
confirm that our analysis shows that the proposed tree mitigation changes are cost neutral
across many different situations and all together the proposed changes reduce time and
compliance burden for developers.
Does the double row of street trees conflict with Poudre Fire Authority standards?
In this case, including a double row of street trees is listed as one of several optional site
improvements to allow developers to reduce their payment in lieu fee through site design,
understanding that this would be dependent on other site constraints (i.e. fire code). While
the double row of street trees, as an enhanced tree planting measure, is not required,
neither are transplanting existing trees, Silva Cells, or wider parkways. Similarly, these
enhanced tree planting measures are proposed as a number of options to reduce a
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
#
o
f
T
r
e
e
s
Year
Public Tree Removal and Replacement
Removals Replacements
Docusign Envelope ID: 6ECC886B-8587-4A31-9430-3E1F8D3FF793
5
developments payment in lieu fee if feasible, and to promote landscape improvements for
tree health in development.
Regarding transfer of ownership of street trees to the HOA during development.
Staff understands the challenges Hartford Home’s developers voiced regarding this topic.
While we did not modify this portion of the code, staff is willing to continue exploring
options that simplify the developer experience while ensuring the City accepts healthy,
viable, established tree infrastructure.
Changes in process and policy that have been made over the last few years, coupled with
the three-year establishment period will create more predictability, alleviate frustration,
improve tree survivability, and will create a defined finish line for street tree replacement
for the developer. To that end, staff will continue to learn from and adapt policy and look
for future simplification and process improvement.
CC: Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: 6ECC886B-8587-4A31-9430-3E1F8D3FF793