Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-25 Public Comment - R. Gorsuch - UDC Work Session on Natural ResourcesFrom:Royce Gorsuch To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC Work Session on Natural Resources Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 11:04:51 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 City Commissioners, Mayor, and Deputy Mayor- Thank you for including the upcoming work session on Natural Resources in the Unified Development Code(UDC). The Bozeman Tree Coalition (BTC) appreciates the effort the City Commission (Commission) is making tostrengthen existing environmental protection codes in the UDC, which in turn will support the community’s interestin protecting natural open spaces within City limits, conserving our existing urban forest, and becoming good land stewards asevidenced and supported by the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 (aka Growth Policy). The BTC responded to the public’s interest in stronger protections for the natural environment by critically reviewing allcodes in the current UDC draft for tree and/or vegetation-related content. The BTC then submitted a document to the City onMay 2, 2025, with suggestions for clearer language in codes that included vague or subjective language. The BTC workedclosely with a retired International Society of Arborists (ISA) Certified City Arborist, who has experience crafting municipalcodes for the care and maintenance of public trees and the protection of indigenous trees, to carefully craft realistic codelanguage that could be incorporated into the UDC update without creating a lot of extra work for City staff. Unfortunately, upon BTC’s close examination of the August 11, 2025, staff report for the Community Development Board(CDB), BTC found their comprehensive UDC suggestions were mischaracterized by staff, which resulted in inaccuraterepresentation of BTC’s work. During the public comment portion of the CDB meeting, BTC corrected the inaccurateportrayal. This is the same report attached to the Commission’s memorandum for August 19, 2025. The report hasbeen redated, but the text remains identical to the August 11, 2025, report. Consequently, it is imperative that BTC correct therecord again. On page 6 of the staff report, staff explains that “the city has had review process[es] and standards for all aspects of sitedevelopment in the city, including trees, for many years on new development.” To clarify, these existing review processes andstandards pertain to private treeson private property undergoing any new development review. These are the same topics andcodes on which BTC spent considerable hours researching and writing comments and specific suggested language. In their summary of BTC’s public comment on page 17, staff states, “The language suggested expands regulation to privatetrees on private property. The proposed edits are beyond the scope of the UDC update.” This statement is false. As BTCexplained to the CDB on August 11, 2025, none of BTC’s language to date suggests expanding regulation to private trees onprivate property not undergoing new development review. Because all BTC’s comments in the May 2, 2025, UDC Update document relate to existing codes and divisions in theUDC update draft, BTC’s comments fall squarely within the scope of the UDC Update. BTC’s work in the form of specific edits is further supported by (1) the public’s demonstrated preference to includeenvironmental topics in the UDC update and (2) the Commission’s acceptance of the public’s wishes and theCommission’s direction on specific environmental and tree-related codes in their UDC- Environmental work session. The BTC thanks Commissioner Madgic and CDB Chairperson Happell for their respective acceptance and acknowledgementof this same correction that BTC made to the CDB on Aug 11, 2025. Also, the BTC thanks the CDB for their in-depthdiscussion about natural resources; the direction from Commissioner Madgic to staff to look closely at the submissions byBTC, Gallatin Watershed Council, and Sacajawea Audubon; and the CDB’s interest for including an in-depth conversationabout private trees on private property not undergoing development review as part of the Urban Forestry Management Planupdate. Since spring 2022, the public has heard City staff, planners, and the Commission talk about how the tree-related codes arevague and unenforceable, and that if we want better environmental protection, the codes need to be stronger. In 2023, whenBTC first formed, a City planner told a BTC co-founder, “If the City wants to rigorously protect and retain open spaces andtrees, then we need a stronger ordinance.” With that perspective in mind, BTC rose to the challenge and responded with solid,well researched suggestions for enforceable UDC language. Staff also implies in the staff report that some environmental topics will be addressed in future plan updates instead of theUDC. However, we all know that most plans are not codes. Plans help inform the language of the municipal codes, whether ofthe UDC or other chapters. Bozeman has an existing Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) that helps guide the existing codes. BTC has suggested language to make these existing codes stronger. When the UFMP update is completed, additionalcode updates can take place, but the future UFMP should not preclude adjustments to the current UDC language in the meantime. The BTC trusts that the Commission has taken a close look at BTC’s suggested edits and hasattached them for yourconvenience to this letter. As previously noted, BTC’s suggested edits include many hours of consultation with a retired ISACertified City Arborist, and we are confident in the language we have suggested. BTC trusts you will find it useful in yourwork session, and BTC cofounders are interested in real time collaboration with City staff and Commission, should thatoption become available. Thank you.