HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-18 Public Comment - E. Darrow - NCOD Review 1
NCOD Comments: I appreciate the efforts so far by the city and hired consultants to engage us
in a process that should help manage growth with gentle infill and preserve this beautiful small
town. But will our citizen engagement actually make any difference? Many of us are burned by
the Black/Olive fiasco, SoBo Lofts, the rezoning without appropriate stakeholder involvement,
the myth of “new urbanism” that density prevents sprawl, and many other tone-deaf actions
and opinions by elected officials and developers. Now-- will the NCOD survive? That is our
current brief.
First regarding the Neighborhood Character Survey: I am very concerned that this survey is
another example of a failed opportunity to elicit meaningful citizen participation from a
population who have shown their passion and concern in countless forums, letters, meetings
etc. What exactly are the expected outcomes from such a survey? I do not see any explanation
for this confusing odd breakdowns and distinctions between “district and neighborhood”, or
character, buildings and properties, to expect us to grade by order of importance the thousands
of structures and landscapes as a “ whole” with a highly subjective and intangible criteria? To
what end?
In my opinion this “breakdown” of the town is to justify replacing the NCOD –something I
completely oppose. The idea behind this "balkanization" or dividing—up our historic districts
and neighborhoods—is ill-conceived and is suspect as it implies a “divide and conquer” kind of
mindset—this benefits developers not residents or the city in the end. In reality the city
administration will find it impossible to manage successfully the multiple transition and buffer
zones between all the different parts of town, snarling permitting, enforcement, appeals,
design review, etc.—it will make neighborhoods "compete" for attention, prioritizing narrow
interests without a unified commitment to the "whole " –our town that is made up of the
wonderful parts as characterized but unified in the NCOD. I believe we should be working
together with the goal, a view of the whole—as the current NCOD intended and has succeeded
in great part—to be improved but retained.
However, my primary contribution in this discussion outside of the built environment, is the
need for improved protection and management of street trees/the urban forest –
understanding and maintaining the tree canopy--and creating a new Tree Protection Code
(Bozeman has none). This code would include replacement policies and fees, permitting, public
and private as many cities have, environmental benefits of trees in development decisions, and
designation and create incentives for retaining "Exceptional" or Heritage trees.
Bozeman must improve its commitment to the health and retention of magnificent trees that
make our town so unique. These are the most vulnerable victims of unmanaged growth.
Witness Seattle drowning in its current growth juggernaut now down to 6000 “Exceptional
Trees” in the so-called “Emerald City of the pacific northwest.” Tree canopy in neighborhoods
at 19% (Tucson is at 12%). I hope that is not our fate here.
2
Other urgent issues about trees and growth:
Ø ADUs must be planned and designed in number and scale to protect greenspace and
trees.
Ø Contracts with sub-contractors on city street projects: the contracts currently have no
provision for protecting trees along streets or the tree driplines. The excavations and
repaving now occurring could hypothetically kill a whole street of trees.
Ø see dripline: https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottowp/?qa_faqs=what-is-the-critical-
root-zone
Ø The city must take a role in educating the public about the economic and environmental
benefits of trees on public and private property. Public outreach!
Ø Affordable housing should include the benefits of greenspace and trees.
Elizabeth Darrow
603 West Babcock Street
Bozeman, MT 59715