HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-25 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Comments for the UPF Board meeting tonight, 1_23_25From:Marcia Kaveney
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Alex Nordquest; Mitchell Overton; Addi Jadin
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comments for the UPF Board meeting tonight, 1/23/25
Date:Thursday, January 23, 2025 11:46:50 AM
Attachments:2025.1.23.UPFBoard.comments.pdf
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.
Thank you for including these comments in the UPF Board members packet for tonight's
meeting.Best,
Marcia Kaveney
Jan.23.2025
Tree related comments for UPF 1/23/25 Board Meeting
Dear Board members of the Urban Parks and Forestry Board, Addi Jadin, Mitch Overton,
and Alex Nordquist,
We, founding members of the Bozeman Tree Coalition (BTC), thank you for your service and
the opportunity to comment on a discussion you will be having tonight. We are particularly
interested in Item J.4. the UDC Process Update and ask that you consider our following
concerns and requests in advance of your discussion.
The UDC Update is of utmost importance to the Bozeman Tree Coalition because we have
heard from city planners, the city Attorney, and commissioners at commission and
advisory board meetings that, although it would be nice to protect our current mature trees
and tree stands, some of our current tree protection codes are too vague to uphold and
might invite lawsuits.
Whether we agree this is true, the UDC update is the perfect time to improve the language
of the tree protection codes while also improving the integrity of Bozeman’s Urban Forest.
Because although we may have an excellent tree planting program with Branch Out
Bozeman, a strong tree maintenance crew, and encouragement for native plantings in the
water conservation program, we continue to lose many significant trees each year to new
or redevelopment. Specifically, the Bozeman Tree Coalition would like the UPF Boards’
support in the following UDC areas.
1. Support for the inclusion of tree protection as a focus area of UDC update.
*January is the last month to suggest focus areas to Takami Clark.
Both native and non-native trees on private and public property need better protection
during times of re-development and new development. Until the canopy measurement
tools are up and running, the City has no idea how many trees are being lost each year
compared to how many are being planted. But all of us know that a mature native willow or
cottonwood’s ecosystem services and ecological functioning is not replaceable in a one-
to-one ratio with a non-native sapling.
Example of removal vs planting: Canyon Gate removed over 150 mature cottonwoods plus
many aspens, junipers, and chokecherries numbering upwards of 200 trees in total. The
entire property was razed in June of 2023 while upwards of 20 bird species were actively
using the property for nesting. Canyon Gate’s landscape plan includes the planting of just
approximately 100 saplings- mostly non-native and with an unknown future survival rate.
2. Support for improving sta;’s adherence to the existing tree protection codes.
Chuck Winn has stated many times that the sta] take their direction from the City
Commission. The BTC believes with redirected guidance from the City Commission that
many of the existing tree codes can be better followed with minimal adverse e]ects the
number of units in any given housing project. Addressing inadequacies in code text that
a]ect enforcement can also be improved if Tree Protection is included as a focal area in the
UDC update.
Examples of lack of enforcement:
1. The Guthrie: The Guthrie project by HomeBase falls within the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District. BMC 38.110.010.B. Guidelines for Historic Preservation and
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Chapter 2. E. Landscape Design which
includes under Guidelines, “1. Preserve and maintain mature trees and significant
vegetation within all corridors…Special consideration should be given to mature trees, 56
inches or greater in diameter…”
Contrary to this guideline, the Guthrie approval includes demolition of all existing trees
including one very large and stately looking Spruce close to the sidewalk on the east side of
the property. Not only is this a significant historic tree in the neighborhood, it provides
habitat and shelter for many bird species and small mammals. Its proximity to the
sidewalk, size, and “significant visual impact” make it a clear candidate for protection yet it
is now slated for demolition.
Example. 2. Canyon Gate: As a greenfield development, Canyon Gate was obligated to
adhere to the General Standards (38.410.010.B. Natural Environment.) under Division
38.410.- Community Design and Elements, which states, “The design and development of
all land uses must be properly related to topography, and must, to the extent possible,
preserve the natural terrain, natural drainage, existing topsoil, trees and other existing
vegetation.”
However, this guideline was not enforced in any capacity and Canyon Gate’s approval
allowed 1) re-grading of the entire property, 2) replacement of natural drainage with piped
drainage, scraping of all existing topsoil, and removal of all trees and other vegetation.
3. Add Trees to Article 6, Natural Resource Protection in BMC Chapter 38.
Currently Article 6 includes protections for Floodplain regulations and Wetland regulations.
However, while trees may not be a federally mandated protection, adding a section for Tree
Protections will help support the protection of Bozeman’s urban forest and will aid in the
enforcement of other tree protections in the BMC.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests for your support.
Marcia Kaveney
Daniel Carty
Founding members of the Bozeman Tree Coalition