The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-28-26 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - BTC Comments for UFMP work session_ City Comm. mtng 7_28_26From:BozemanTreeCoalition To:Bozeman Public Comment; Bozeman City Commission; Alison Sweeney; Alex Nordquest; Mitchell Overton;Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode; Joey Morrison Subject:[EXTERNAL]BTC Comments for UFMP work session: City Comm. mtng 7/28/26 Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:53:02 AM Attachments:2026.Jul.28. BTC- UFMP. CC 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. Hello-Please share the attached letter with the city commissioners, the public comments folder, and the Urban Forest Management Plan folder for today's Tuesday, July 28th city commissionmeeting. Please also forward the attached letter to Mitch Overton, and Alex Nordquest if the email addresses above are no longer current. Thank you,Marcia Kaveney for BTC To: Mitch Overton, Bozeman Parks and Recreation Department Alex Nordquest, Forestry Division City Commissioners Sweeney, Bode, Madgic Deputy Mayor Fischer Mayor Morrison Re: 2026 Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) Draft July 28, 2026 The Bozeman Tree Coalition (BTC) is writing today to share perspectives and reflections on the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) update process and results to date. We appreciate the work that has been done by the consultant team, city staT, and Urban Parks and Forestry (UPF) board members and the opportunities to give input on the UFMP draft. In the interest of brevity, BTC oTers the following bullet points for the commission, parks and forestry staT, and consultant team to consider as they move forward with the UFMP update. 1.) There is a great deal of emphasis being placed on planting new trees to increase canopy coverage goals in UFMP discussions. BTC strongly encourages the working group to place equal importance on retaining existing trees during new development and develop or recommend specific improvements in the UDC. Consultants include policy recommendations as part of their project management plan, and the public expects this from the UFMP update. BTC recommends utilizing Bend, Oregon’s 2023 updated tree regulations as a model from which to glean ideas. It exempts properties less than an acre which will alleviate concerns from small property owners and has many options that can be utilized by developers to retain or mitigate for 25% canopy retention. It is also very clearly written and easily understood. BOZEMANTREECOALITION@GMAIL.COM Please see these links for more details. https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2025/11/4/is-bend-protecting-enough- of-its-urban-forest https://bendoregon.gov/departments/community-development/urban-forestry/when-to- remove-a-tree/#docaccess- T7fcbdbec0267dee6814a243f2ecfb858db69cacc71e0a72331d94ca3c10a5c https://bendoregon.gov/resources/city-codes-policies-ordinances-and-resolutions/tree- regulation-code/ 2. BTC argues that it is crucial that the 2026 UFMP contain strong direction for tree regulations in order to provide the needed direction from the City Commission to the city’s planning department to be able to follow through with code revisions, as stated by staT many times during the UDC update. 3. The Heritage Tree program appears to be at risk of being dropped. It was recommended in the 2016 UFMP with the following direction, “Create a heritage tree program to increase awareness for legacy trees” but has not been completed yet. It was removed from the Historic Preservation Landmark Program and moved to the UFMP update. BTC urges the city commission to follow through on a heritage tree program outline. Additionally, BTC also urges the city commission to ask for implementation of a “priority tree” protection program such as Bend, OR uses to protect large trees over 20 inches in diameter in conjunction with a heritage tree program. 4. BTC was pleased to see the staT survey resulted in staT interest to “identify areas for code enforcement and responsible parties” and to, “clarify strategy for private tree management, including existing homeowners and new development” as well as interest in tree retention in the public survey results. BTC would support exemptions for properties less than one acre that have residences on them, and to focus tree retention and enforcement strategies on new development or redevelopments of greater than one acre. Future development policy should prevent large overall net losses of tree canopy. 5. BTC strongly recommends updating policy to require the planning department to track tree removals of trees over 6 inches in diameter. This information is currently required in development applications but is lacks a publicly accessible location for which the accumulated tree losses can be recorded and monitored by the forestry department and the community. 6. BTC believes the public opinion was split on City involvement with private trees because private trees were not further delineated into diTerent categories such as small or large properties, and whether the properties were undergoing development review. Further delineating may have resulted in more useful feedback. 7. Public Engagement. One commonality among “engagement” definitions is “active involvement”. BTC is listed as one of seven external stakeholder groups: “Bozeman Tree Coalition: An active group concerned about urban trees. Their participation at public meetings and UPF board work sessions is welcomed.” To date, BTC is not aware of any of the external stakeholders participating beyond the public survey and general public comment periods. BTC suggests that listening to presentations and observing work sessions is passive, not active, involvement. Furthermore, input from the public is not usually included as part of board or commission work sessions, although BTC was pleasantly surprised and appreciative that input was taken at the recent UPF meeting on July 25, 2026. BTC encourages the city staT and consultants to invite the external stakeholders to participate in interactive settings that go beyond preparation of 3-minute comments. Specifically, BTC would like to be invited to join future policy and code related discussions and can oTer code revision recommendations based on previous UDC work. In conclusion, BTC urges the consultants, Parks and Forestry staT, and city commission to follow through with the initial agreed upon work management plan which includes, but is not limited to, the formulation of a Heritage Tree program, assessment of trees impacted by construction, review and improvement of tree regulation codes and policies, review of current and proposed incentives and enforcement procedures, and implementation of stakeholder discussions. Thank you for considering our comments, The Bozeman Tree Coalition