HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-23 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - for PRAT committee, PUF Board, City commissioners-PRAT commentsFrom:Marcia Kaveney
To:Agenda
Subject:[WARNING: ATTACHMENT UNSCANNED]for PRAT committee, PUF Board, City commissioners-PRAT comments
Date:Thursday, February 23, 2023 10:56:12 AM
Attachments:PRAT-comments.2.23.23 (1).docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please send this letter to the above listed parties.Thank you,
Marcia Kaveney
2/23/23 Comments for draft PRAT plan Dear City Commission, Advisory Board members, and PRAT committee, I am writing you with my third installment of comments in regards to the draft PRAT plan. I feel I may have arrived a little late to the party as so much work has already been done, but want to weigh in nonetheless. I appreciate all the work that has been done. My family and I have long enjoyed the parks, recreation, open space, and trails of the Bozeman area. Since I don’t currently work for a parks related organization, I’d like you to know a little more about my background in hopes that my comments may be more meaningful. I hold a BS in Biology with an emphasis on ecology and outdoor education. I have worked as a Naturalist, Outdoor and Environmental Educator, and Science Teacher. I have also been a long time volunteer in Bozeman since arriving in 1989- having observed early on that Bozeman is very dependent on it’s generous volunteer community. I am very invested in helping Bozeman maintain it’s charm, livability, and sensitivity to wild spaces. In the past I have chaired the Wetlands Committee for NENA, been a member of the Northeast Urban Renewal Planning Board, chaired the Creek Committee in Legends II, spearheaded and chaired the Park Committee in Legends II, which resulted in a “natural park” addition to the city park system, served a term of 3 years on my HOA Board of Directors, in addition to countless hours volunteering in the schools and other functions around town. It is my hope that knowing something about me will help my comments not seem so random but rather that they come from a place of deep caring. I read the draft PRAT document and have organized these additional comments in two sections- one more general, the following more specific with page references. My goal is to offer constructive comments that may help in the completion of this updated parks plan. Thank you for your time and effort in this endeavor to produce a good working document for the city. Best, Marcia Kaveney GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Changing the name diminishes the value of open space and trails. Keeping the name PROST is consistent with similar cities in Montana such as Missoula and adds predictability for residents.
2. Clarify who is the document for? It seems to be designed more as a marketing campaign of goals and processes rather than a place for residents to go for information. Suggested chapters: a. Add a Trails chapter which would include “Active Transportation. b. Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails, can all be separate chapters under the “PROST “plan and would make more sense to the reader. Goals could be it’s own chapter. 3. The priority of preserved open space is lacking from document. Include more emphasis on natural and open space preservation. 4. Preservation of wildlife habitat and movement corridors is nearly missing from document and yet it is something that is necessary for co-existence with nearby wildlife sanctuaries. 5. I recommend looking at the Missoula Open Space Plan, which is part of their PROST plan, for inspiration on how to include the concept of preserving open spaces. It’s a thorough document and plan that has a strong, easy to understand inclusion of open space. Link to Missoula Open Space Plan (part of PROST) https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/51355/2019-11-Missoula-Urban-Area-Open-Space-Plan Quote from Missoula PROST- “Through our work on this new version of the open space plan, we expand upon the community’s open space accomplishments by continuing to prioritize conservation of diverse open space lands. These include conservation and recreational areas, wildlife habitat, accessible river corridors, developed parks, agricultural lands, and an integrated trail system.” The above quote could very easily be a quote from Bozeman that would support the community’s desires, the Climate plan, and the Bozeman Community Plan. 6. How is public input being incorporated? At the 2/14/23 City Commission meetings, I did not hear any specific comments referenced. At the Transportation Advisory Board Meeting 2/22/23, a question about use of public input was not clearly answered by staff. 7. Staff presenting draft PRAT plan (2/22/23 work session with Transportation Advisory Board) do not seem to know or fully understand watercourse setbacks. This is concerning to me and does not inspire confidence when the authors are advocating encroachment on watercourse setbacks. Watercourse setbacks and the reasons for them need to be fully understood by staff if they are going to be considered for trail locations. It also needs to be understood that rivers and creeks
don’t stay in one place. Yellowstone River in 2022 and the yearly flooding in Bridger Creek are great examples of this. I previously emailed comments about the $100,000 CIP (taxpayer dollars), the hundreds of staff hours already spent, and the trapping and killing of a dozen innocent beavers -all of which could have been avoided by staying out of watercourse setbacks. 8. Please note that a plan often becomes unspoken code with developers so language such as “all typologies of trails allowed in zone two watercourse setbacks may become problematic. i.e. Future Land Use Map- used more as a foregone conclusion of land uses. 9. In strategy section, I cannot find any reference to procuring land for more habitat and natural or open space protection. 10. The use of chat bubbles in the document is distracting. PAGE SPECIFIC COMMENTS Page 3- Content page include chapters on History, Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails. Include overall mission statement early. Each chapter could have mission statement and short summary. Page 5. As previously written in my earlier comments, this sentence is untrue and misleading and needs to be rewritten. “Bozeman’s location near these ecological sanctuaries cements its identity as a city co-existing with nature.” Substitute something about the location demanding great responsibility or the city aspiring to co-exist with nature and what steps they are taking to do so. Page 8, “From PROST TO PLAT”, the change of names is not explained, defined, or justified. The draft plan does not say who decided on the name change and when. Yet, as a draft, it is being used as though already approved. To the contrary, it states the importance of open space and no reason for dropping it out of the name: “The City and its residents want to ensure that it maintains the quality elements, natural resources, and recreational opportunities that continue to draw people in. Bozeman’s parks, open spaces, and trails are important in realizing this vision.” Page 10- In 2012 voters approved $15 million “open space bond” and a Parks and Trails District in 2020. This is another illustration of needing inclusion of chapters on both Open Space and Trails and how PROST would better suit the plan.
Pages 16-19. Public engagement so far was approximately 1500 hundred people- just over 2% of the city’s population. More public input is needed before approval of plan. What is a good number to try for? The “engagement process” overall reads somewhat like a journal. Could be bulleted instead. Page 24 . Open space protection is only 390 acres compared to 895 acres of Park Spaces. Yet on page 42, natural areas acreage is listed on diagram as 179 acres. Which is correct? Page 39. Confusing chart. Demand and Need are too similar. If Bozeman residents don’t have demand for something, is it really a need just because other communities do have it? Pages 40-41. Can consolidate this information. Page 42-43. Natural Areas very small in comparison to other land uses. Only about ¼ of the acerage is for natural areas. According to the chart on page 43, the natural area is not for habitat unless it is a wetland or pond. This is a deficiency in the plan and should be reconsidered for habitat and wildlife corridor procurement. Page. 44. Vision comes very late in the document. Confusing. Page 53. TMP definition?. The northeast corner of NENA bounded by Broadway, Main St., and the RR tracks has no park and no easy access to parks. Missing from map. Page 61 . Revisit park hours to close at dark or by 10 pm to align with noise ordinance. Keep buildings open longer in evenings. Pages 74 and 75- Missing from document and thereby offset numbers when scrolling through the document in preview. Page (93)95. Pathway improvements; Only place trash cans near public buildings and they need to be bike proof. Do not incorporate composting sites away from public buildings. Also need to be bear proof. Lighting in neighborhoods will conflict with dark sky ordinances and also have a negative affect on wildlife since much wildlife uses the cover of darkness for safe movement.
I support NOT paving trails except the shared use paths along major roadways. Pavement is not permeable thus producing runoff of asphalt oils and can cause more erosion. Gravel is still accessible and causes fewer problems near waterways. Water is a limited resource in Gallatin Valley and should not be used for outdoor water where leaks might go unnoticed thereby wasting water. Fountains can be located inside public buildings near park facilities. Page (94)96. Watercourse setbacks should be strictly adhered to. Developers should be required to allow room for trails outside of setbacks by limiting the encroachment of lots to the setback boundaries. Page (98 online pdf) ** Numbering issue worsens here. Goal 4 is misnumbered and should be 100, or actually 98. See above- page 74, 75. Page (98). Goal 4 needs some careful rewriting. What is it trying to say? How and where has the city worked to balance new development with open spaces? Previously in this document a chart showed open/natural spaces were only about ¼ of the land use. Page (99) This is confusing. What is the evidence that the parks will become over abundant? And if parks do become “overabundant” why would that jeopardize the state of watercourses, wetlands, and riparian corridors. Why are we not including the protection of natural places for use of generations to come as well as wildlife? Page (99) Land cover. Where is this information from? What are the boundaries? What area does “and surroundings cover?” And why are we including “surroundings” when this is a city and not county plan? For example “introduced vegetation” such as turf surely must account for more than 1%. Page (101) Goal 4.2. Reducing the use of machinery and chemicals supports limiting the paving and plowing of natural trails. Also, note that people will not stay on trails exclusively along waterways if the waterways are accessible. Keeping trails outside of sensitive habitat is the only way to truly protect the habitat. Page(102) I agree that natural areas could part of the required park land especially if human use of those natural areas is not encouraged- if it is set aside as habitat. Page (103) Goal 4.5. To support the city’s water restrictions, outside water fountains and water parks should not be built. These are no longer appropriate in our climate. Page (120) Cash-in-lieu funding. When we acquire cash in lieu of parks, we lose an opportunity to gain more natural spaces. Instead of only trails, use some of the
cash-in-lieu for funding acquisition of natural spaces- along trails perhaps to allow for better wildlife corridors, but consider options outside of human use. Page (133).Lighting is not always an amenity. If lighting is needed for safety in certain areas, consider solar powered lighting and not in parks that are adjacent or near other natural areas. Page(142). Tree Canopy- suggest native trees (Douglas Tallamy- Nature’s Best Hope) as they use less water and contribute to habitat. (Page 145) Remove reference to tidal marsh. This illustrates that the authors are cutting and pasting from another document. What document is being used as a reference? (147) Linear parks will only provide for actual habitat and corridors if they are wide/large enough, with native plants left intact, and generally unlit at night. How do we know what is wide enough to be useful? Have wildlife experts been contacted regarding corridor width? Keep in mind that active transportation will have a negative affect overall on wildlife corridors.