HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-04-23 Public Comment - M. Kaveny - Comment for the CBD re_ the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection PlanFrom:Marcia Kaveney
To:Agenda; Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Jeff Mihelich
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comment for the CBD re: the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan
Date:Monday, December 4, 2023 11:37:34 AM
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.
Dear members of the Community Development Advisory Board, Deputy Mayor Cunningham,
Commissioner Madgic, and Mr. Mihelich,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands ProtectionPlan (GVSLPP) that is before the CDB Advisory Board tonight. Some of you may know me
from my involvement with Canyon Gate, but I also had the pleasure of being a SensitiveLands Study interviewee as both a member of the Gallatin Wildlife Association and a local
resident living within the wildlife corridor of Bridger Creek and the Story Hills.
Prior to being razed, the Canyon Gate parcel would have met 3 of the 4 Sensitive LandsThemes (Wildlife and Biodiversity, Connectivity, and Water Quality and Quantity) and is
shown as sensitive on the many maps that I reviewed in the GVSLPP. Despite this, myneighbors and I lost our battle to save even the smallest portion of existing habitat on Canyon
Gate. I am writing in support of this plan because if it had been approved, codified, andenforced by the time Canyon Gate came along, it might have allowed us to preserve some of
the existing wildlife habitat and native cottonwoods, ensuring the continuation of theirecological services. I hope it will be helpful in the future with other developments.
Since the GVSLPP is an effort to identify and protect the sensitive lands that currently exist
and because the UDC Update has also been a large part of the city's recent conversations, Iwould like to draw your attention to the last paragraph at the bottom of page 49 in the green
box:
"Focusing development within existing city planning jurisdiction areas can reduceimpacts to sensitive lands elsewhere. City planning jurisdictions, Bozeman’s Growth
Policy Boundary, and the Triangle Plan Boundary provide the necessaryinfrastructure to support development in an efficient and cost-effective
way. Developments within these areas should consider designs and neighborhoodlayouts that work with natural drainages, provide wildlife friendly passage, and
support nature in the city. All these elements also provide human benefits such asefficient stormwater management, clean air and water, and access to passive
recreational spaces."
The underlined sentence is particularly important: "Developments within these areas shouldconsider designs and neighborhood layouts that work with natural drainages, provide wildlife
friendly passage, and support nature in the city."
Over the last two years I have reviewed codes for Canyon Gate's annexation, zoning,preliminary plat, and site plans, and found that the city already has several existing codes that
require developments to work with natural drainages, provide wildlife passage, and support“nature” in the city. Simply put, they are not being applied or enforced in a consistent
or effective manner.
Had the existing codes been enforced we would be seeing a very different development on theCanyon Gate parcel; one that would have been embraced by its neighbors and fully embodied
the vision of the Sensitive Lands Study, as well as the environmental stewardship goals of thegrowth policy. I believe if there are rules on the books, everyone should have to follow them.
In the case of Canyon Gate, these codes were not enforced or followed and the results havebeen very destructive to both our community and our natural environment.
One wonders why these codes are not being enforced by the city. I have been trying to solve
this mystery for months and still don't know. What I do know is that if the codes we have noware not being enforced, then how can we ever expect to effectively codify the goals of the
Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan?
In taking these comments into consideration tonight, I hope you will unanimously agree to addan amendment to your recommendation to the City Commission regarding the Gallatin Valley
Sensitive Lands Protection Plan asking for the prioritization of all code enforcement. Withoutsubstantial improvement in the enforcement of city codes, we can expect to see business as
usual thus negating all the good work done in the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands ProtectionPlan.
If anyone on the board is interested in learning more about the codes to which I have referred
in this letter, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you,Marcia Kaveney