HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-18 Public Comment - Gallik, Bremer & Molloy, P.C. - Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment OALLIK, BREMER & MOLLOY, D.C.
Attorneys at Law e
777 East Main Street, Suite 203 < (` V—L LA
PO Box 70
Bozeman, Montana 59771-0070
(406)404-1728
November 26, 2018
City Commission BY HAND'
City of Bozeman
121 North Rouse
Bozeman, Montana 59715
RE: Rainbow Creek Zone Map Aniendinent (Amended)
Honorable Members of the Bozeman City Commission:
This Firm represents a number of concerned residents who own and live on
property adjacent to the proposed Rainbow Creek Development. They do not
oppose the request for annexation. Instead, as their letter of protest makes clear,
they strongly oppose the proposed R-4 zoning (which received a recommendation
of approval from the Zoning Commission) which is a modest improvement over
the Applicant's first request of R-5, which was denied by the Zoning Commission
and tabled by the Applicant followed by this amended request for R-4zoning.
As explained below, the proposed R-4 zoning remains inconsistent with the
character of the existing neighborhood and surrounding land uses. The Bozeman
Uniform Development Code (BUDC), adopted in part to implement the city's
adopted growth policy, id. at § 38.100.040.A, supports this conclusion as none of
the appropriate existing land use patterns, or existing land use characteristics,
support R-4 for this property. Nor is it served by transit. See, BUDC, §
38.300.100.E at p. 139, Exhibit A ("Use of this zone [R-4] is appropriate for areas
adjacent to mixed-use districts, commercial districts, and/or served by transit to
accommodate a higher density of residents in close proximity to jobs and
services."). Moreover, those members of the community, most impacted by this
Application— the existing neighborhood -- have done an excellent job
1 The undersigned attempted to hand-deliver this letter on Friday,November 23, 2018.
City offices were closed for the Thanksgiving holiday.
1
summarizing why the Application is properly rejected. I incorporate their letters
by reference. Unfortunately, Staff continues its recommendation of approval,
notwithstanding the plain language of the very document it is charged with
applying. See, Staff Report, p. 1, y[ V
We ask that the City honor the existing BUDC and listen to those most
directly impacted by this Application— the current residents of the area, whose
objections are ground in their reasonable expectations with respect to and reliance
upon the existing land use documents governing this decision. Cf.. John Vincent,
Guest Columnist (`Bozeman's neighborhoods need seat at the table");
https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/guest_columnists/bozeman-s-
neighborhoods-need-seat-at-the-table/articlede3ee 116-fdd4-5619-974b-
4f6d2de66a35; see also, htmlhttps://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattles-
headlong-rush-to-upzone-tramples-neighborhood-input/. As explained in the
referenced articles, which are attached as Exhibits B & C, it is time for the City
"recognize that the real heart of Bozeman is its neighborhoods, all of them,
together, historic or not," and to be "accountable to all community interests, not
just a segment of developers."
While the impacted residents support a lower residential density designation
(R-1 or R-2) they oppose the R-4 request as it remains contrary to the BUDC.
Accordingly, we respectfully denial of the R-4 designation for this parcel.'
A. Background -- Rezoning and the Subject Property
"Beyond a doubt, the most frequently litigated zoning issue involves the
validity of rezoning decisions." Ziegler, 3 The Lavv of Zoning and Planning, (2018
ed.) § 38:1 at 38-2. "The policy considerations — and, derivatively, the legal
principles —governing rezoning can be usefully conceptualized as attempts to
reconcile the competing and conflicting goals of promoting, on the one hand,
desired stability, and, on the other hand, desired flexibility.
The Property at issue is 2.29 acres in size. It is located on Baxter Lane, a
minor arterial street, between Harper Puckett Road to the west, and Flanders Mill
2 The citations in this letter are to the Staff's Report to the Zoning Commission.
3 My Clients thank the Applicant and its representative for taking the time out of their busy
schedules,in the spirit of cooperation, following the Zoning Commission's initial hearing, where
it recommended denial, to meet with them. Unfortunately, the gap was simply too far to bridge.
2
Road and Riata Road to the east. Consistent with the existing low residential
density in the area, there is a single-family residence and a shop on the Property.
The existing land use around the subject property makes clear that the
zoning on the real property to the north and east is R-1 (residential low density);
R-S is to the north- east (residential suburban), with PLI to the south and R-3
(residential medium density) some distance away, to the southeast. The land to the
west of Harper Pucket is undeveloped, agricultural land, and thus undeveloped.
See, Staff Report, Executive Summary, p. 2. None of the zoning on the adjacent
properties are developed at medium density standards, but instead are primarily, if
not exclusively (depending on how far out you wish to measure) residential low to
moderate density). None of the properties allow for offices, let alone medical
offices, clinics and community centers as secondary uses, or conditional uses,
which are permitted, or conditionally permitted, in the high-density R-4 district.
Moreover, R-4 is not consistent with the zoning requirement that "Use of this zone
is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed-use districts, cornmercial districts,
and/or served by transit to accommodate a higher density of residents in close
proximity to jobs or services." BUDC, § 38.300.100.E at p. 139 (emphasis
added). In fact, as the staff report makes clear, "Large areas of single type housing
are discouraged." Staff Report, p. 1.7 (emphasis added).
Two (2) months ag Staff analyzed the Application and concluded R-5 was
appropriate. The majority of the Zoning Commission disagreed. It recommended
denial of the R-5 request. That proposal was not presented to this Commission, as
it was withdrawn and resubmitted with an R-4 proposal. The Applicant now seeks
R-4 zoning. Not surprisingly, the City Planner again agrees. The Zoning
Commission, by a 3-0 vote, recommended approval.
With the ultimate decision-making vested in this Commission, it is
important to remember, when reviewing the pending Application, the Staff Report,
the recommendation of the Zoning Commission, and the arguments against its
approval, the standards governing that review. Montana, by virtue of the decision
in Lowe v City of Missoula, 165 Mont. 38, 43, 525 P.2d 551, 554 (1974) (overrrrled
on. other grounds by Greens at Font Missoula, LLC v. City of Missoula, 271 Mont.
398, 897 P.2d 1078 (1995) was considered among the jurisdictions applying the
quasi-judicial treatment to rezonings. The Court stated in Lowe:
There is under Montana statutes and case law a sound distinction
between `zoning' and the act of `rezoning' or granting or refusing a
variance. The former constitutes a legislative act while the latter is
3
more of an administrative or quasi-judicial act in applying provisions
of existing ordinance and law. In such application the exercise of
sound discretion is limited by the provisions of the statute, including
such standards as are set forth therein.
165 Mont. at 43. On that basis, the Court held that a grant of rezoning is
invalid in the absence of facts and findings showing compliance with twelve
substantive standards set forth in what is now MCA § 76-2-304.
The Court retreated from this position in Schanz v. City of Billings, 182
Mont. 328, 597 P.2d 67 (1979) where it stated: A review of authorities reveals no
elemental distinction between the act of `zoning' and the act of `rezoning.' A
rezoning ordinance, like a zoning ordinance, is a legislative enactment, and is
entitled to presumptions of validity and reasonableness. . . . [W]e depart here from
the distinction expressed in Lowe between the acts of zoning and rezoning." 597
P.2d at 71. The Court stated, however, that Lowe retained continued validity
inasmuch as rezonings should still be reviewed for facts and findings showing
compliance with the substantive standards, and has been relied upon by the Court
in cases since that time, including Lake County First v. Polson City Council, 2009
MT. 322, 352 Mont. 489, 21.8 P.3d 816.
In Lake Coitnty First, Wal-Mart obtained an interest in property and sought
annexation into the City of Polson, along with a change in zoning. Id., 19. The
Court determined that "[t]he applicable standard of review is whether the
information upon which the [governing body] based its decision is so lacking in
fact and foundation that is it clearly unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of
discretion." Id, 133.
Coupled with the foregoing, this Commission must apply the plain language
of the BUDC to the Application. The BUDC is a separate, binding regulatory
ordinance. Lake County First, at 9148. It cannot insert language, ignore what is
plainly written or attempt, through fiat, to amend the language of the BUDC.
Moreover, as the BUDC states, in "[t]heir interpretation and application, the
provisions of this chapter are minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of
the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.... Wherever the
requirements of this chapter are at variance with the requirements of other lawfully
adopted rules or regulations, or wherever there is an internal conflict within this
chapter, the most restrictive requirements, or those imposing the higher standards
will govern." BUDC, § 38.100.050.A (emphasis added).
4
B. -4 Remains Inconsistent with the UDC, as Adopted.
The BUDC establishes individual zoning districts. BUDC, Ex. A, § 38.300,
pp. 134-140. "The purpose in having more than one residential district is to
provide opportunities for a variety of housing types and arrangements within the
community while providing a basic level of predictability." Id., § 38.300.100.
Each district, in conjunction with other standards incorporated in Article 3,
establish allowable uses of property, separates incompatible uses, and sets
standards for use of land." Id, § 38.300.010B (emphasis added). These standards,
the BUDC explains, "[p]rovides predictability and reasonable expectation in use of
land within particular zoning designations and sites." Id. This predictability
benefits present and future landowners of property, including the impacted
residents who oppose this Application, as their investment-backed expectations
included, when they purchased their homes, the reasonable expectation that the
City would follow its standards and policies, which "shall guide interpretation and
application of land use regulations within zones and designations...." Id., §
38.300.020B, p. 135.
The Applicant amended its request from R-5 (residential mixed-use high
density) zoning, which was rejected by the Zoning Commission, to R-4, residential
high density, which is now before this Commission. The BUDC explains the
intent and standards applicable to adoption of R-4 zoning as follows:
The intent of the R-4 residential high-density district is to provide for
high-density residential development through a pattern of housing
types within the city with associated service functions. The purpose is
accomplished by:
1. Providing for minimum lot sizes in developed areas
consistent with the established development patterns
while providing greater flexibility for clustering of lots
and mixing housing types in newly developed areas.
2. Providing for a variety of compatible housing types,
including single and multi-household dwellings to serve
the varying needs of the community's residents.
3. Allowing office use as a secondary use, measured by
percentage of total building area.
5
Use of this zone is appropriate' for areas adiacent to mixed-use
districts, commercial districts, and/or served by transit to
accommodate a higher density of residents in close proximity to jobs
and services.
Id. p. 139 (emphasis added).
Turning first to compliance with the City's growth policy, see pages 17-28
of Staff Report, staff again concludes (again) that simply because R-4 permits, in
part, residential uses, it is consistent with the growth policy designation for this
area. Id., p. 16. This is error. While staff discusses at great length, selected
policies of the UDC, it ignores the fundamental policy applicable to this request
(R-4):
Use of this zone is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed-use
districts, commercial districts, and/or served by transit to
accommodate a higher density of residents in close proximity to jobs
and services.
Id., § E (Emphasis added). Not a single designated district is adjacent to the
property at issue, nor is it is served by transit, which the regulation requires.
In response to this fundamental flaw, it is my understanding that someone
at the City contacted someone at Streamline and it (Streamline) may, at some
point in the future, put a bus line or stop in this area. This speculation, about
some possible future event, at some unknown point in time, ignores the plain
language of the applicable regulation, which requires that the area either be
adjacent to mixed use or commercial districts and/or "served by transit," not
"and/or [may be] served by transit." 5
"As in the case of statutes, zoning ordinances must be given their plain and
obvious meaning." Ziegler, 1 The Law of Zoning and Planning, § 5:11 at 5-23. In
4 If something is not "appropriate,"it is,by definition, "inappropriate." According to
Merriam-Webster,inappropriate means, "not appropriate; unsuitable." https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionar. /y inappropriate (emphasis added).
5 This same language, requiring service by transit when determining whether use of a
particular zone "is appropriate," is found in the majority of the UDC's discussion of Residential
Zoning District Intent and Purpose Statements. See, BUDC, Ex. A,pp. 138-140 (R-2,R-3, R-4,
R-5, &RMH)
6
Montana, it is fundamental, that this Commission, like a court interpreting a
statute, must apply the plain language of the regulation, not insert what has been
omitted or omit what has been inserted. MCA § 1-2-101; Supula v. Montana
DOJ, 278 Mont 421, 424, 925 P.2d 480, 481 (1996) ("When a statute is "plain,
unambiguous, direct and certain, the statute speaks for itself and there is nothing
left for the court to construe." See also MCA § 1-2-106 ("Construction of words
and phrases. [W]ords and phrases used in the statutes of Montana are construed
according to the context and the approved usage of the language . . . .").
As stated, the plain, unambiguous meaning of the governing policy at issue,
requires that the area in question be adjacent to mixed use or commercial districts
or "served by transit." There is nothing to construe. The regulation speaks for
itself. This Commission cannot insert words that are not there. Use of the R-4
zone is not, under the plain language of the regulation, appropriate for this parcel
as none of the designated districts are adjacent to the subject property, and the
property is not served by transit.
In addition, a review of Bozeman's April 25, 2017 Transportation Master
Plan makes clear that it would be improper to rely upon the speculative statements
relied upon by Staff, in terms of future transit routes and stops. See, e.g,
https://mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/bozemantranplanstudy.pd
§ 2.3.2.3 ("Transit Facilities") at pp. 33-34, 45, 62, 73-79, 117-119. The Plan
notes multiple factors that impact the location of transit services, including costs.
See, id. at pp 116-119. (Transit Oriented Development"). "As the Bozeman area
grows, increased support (funding) for these services will be important . . . ." Id.,
p. 33. Funding for Streamline competes with numerous other community demands
and simply adding one (1) additional route "will cost about $258,000 per year."
Id., p. 34; see also, id, § 4.1.2 at pp. 73-79; ("Recommended MSN
Improvements").
Coupled with the foregoing issues, the "Residential" future land use
designation in the growth policy states, in part:
The dwelling unit density expected within this classification
varies between 6 and 32 dwellings per net acre. A higher density
may be considered in some locations and circumstances. A
variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired
density. Large areas of single type housing are discouraged.
Id. at p. 17 (emphasis added).
7
There is not a single word in that definition that implies or contemplates the
existence of offices or clinics in an area where residential land use is designated
Thus, it cannot be said that the R-4 designation is consistent with the adopted
growth policy, when the adopted growth policy, coupled with the zoning
classifications applicable to this property, applies to single family residential land
uses.
The R-4 district also looks to consistency of lot sizes in developed
areas that are consistent with the established development patterns. Id.,
Section E. 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the established development
patterns to the north and east.
Staff concedes the R-4 zoning is inconsistent with existing uses, id, p. 22,
but speculates, without any evidence, that "ate future development of the property
would be residential and fit with the character of the overall district, which is
residential." Id., p. 22. That is wishful thinking and what community plans are
intended to promote. Instead, it is arbitrary and capricious. It not only ignores
the adopted growth policy, but injects substantial uncertainty in the value of
adopted growth policies, and the reasonable expectation that all of us share in the
ability to rely upon the governing documents for land use decisions, as "anything
can happen" and potentially fit into whatever district is currently under
consideration.
In sum, the duly adopted BUDC, a regulatory document, applicable to this
Application makes clear that within the comprehensive plan adopted by this
community, certain zoning districts are "appropriate" and if not "appropriate," by
definition, "inappropriate," and therefore unsuitable. The standards set forth in the
BUDC for each district are minimum requirements. BUDC, § 38.100.050.A.
Neither Staff or this Commission can ignore or amend on the fly the plain language
of its adopted ordinance when applying the ordinance to the Application's request
for R-4 zoning, which does not satisfy the adopted standard for "appropriate" use
of this classification. As courts have recognized for many years, "[t]lne power to
amend is not arbitrary. It cannot be exercised merely because certain individuals
want it done or think it ought to be done." Kennedy v. Cite of Evanston, 181 N.E.
312, 313-314 (Ill. App. 1932).
C. Character of the District.
Staff also concludes that the R-4 designation is consistent with "the
character of the district." Again, we respectfully submit this is a result-oriented
8
conclusion -- essentially a "cut and paste" of its prior conclusion, with no
substantive analysis and a fair evaluation of the facts reject this conclusion.
Staff concedes that "[w]hile the property is immediately surrounded by
single-household residential development and the future . . . [and] Sports Park, "the
greater area surrounding the subject property is comprised of vacant and
developed parcels zoned medium and high density residential, including the
developing Flanders Mill subdivision. " Id., p. 23 (emphasis added). As stated
before, that statement can be said about any land use in the City of Bozeman.
Without any benchmark, Staff simply alludes to the "greater area of the subject
property." How large is the "larger vicinity" which can be considered? 300 feet?
1000 feet? One mule? It is undefined and because there are no standards
governing the exercise of that discretion, as evidenced by Staff having to look out
at least 1/2 a mile from the subject property to find vacant and developed properties
to support its conclusion.
In considering the character of the district, the R-4 district definition
provides at the standard: "Use of this zone [R-4] is appropriate for areas adjacent
to mixed-use districts, commercial districts, and/or served by transit to
accommodate a higher density of residents in close proximity to jobs and
services."). "Use of this zone [R-4] is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed-use
districts and/or served by transit to accommodate a higher density of residents in
close proximity to jobs and services." BUDC, p. 139 (emphasis added). Neither
of those standards exist in this case.
Another standard that exists in the law and helps define the character of the
district is MCA § 76-2-305, which governs protests from landowners impacted by
the proposed zoning change. Under that statute, only owners of property within
the affected area, or within 150 feet of the area affected by the proposal area are
allowed to protest, which in turn triggers additional procedural protections for
those impacted landowners. Under this standard, the character of the district is
properly defined as R-1.
In sum, the R-4 designation is inconsistent with the character of the district
and Staff's analysis finds no support in the applicable governing document and its
interpretation and application of the BUDC to this Application ignores the
requirement that ordinance imposes minimum standards. In fact, it is inconsistent
with the existing standards governing the "appropriate location" of R-4 districts
and the character of the area.
9
D. Spot Zoning/Spot Planning.
The Staff Report summarizes the general principals associated with spot
zoning analysis and cites to a Montana case outlining the framework of analysis.
Whether impermissible spot zoning has occurred presents a fact-specific inquiry
that varies from one case to the next. Plains Grains, LP, v. Boarcl of County
Commissioners, 2010 MT 155, 1158-66 , 357 Mont. 61, 238 P.3d 332 (discussing
standards applicable to spot zoning claims). The Staff Report, however, fails to
consider the basic underpinning of spot zoning claims, which applies in this case:
the owner of the land in question requests that his or her land be "u zoned" to
allow a higher density or more intensive use or development." Ziegler, § 41.2 at
41-3 (citing cases).
In this regard, it is important to note, as discussed earlier, that while there are
competing interests associated with zoning decisions, and zoning is by no means
static, having adopted a comprehensive plan and a unified Ordinance implanting
that plan, this Commission cannot simply ignore or amend through legislative fiat,
the existing standards which were adopted after notice, opportunity to be heard,
and input from the community this Commission serves, "[m]erely because certain
individuals want it done or thing it ought to be done."
If a general zoning ordinance is passed and persons buy
property in a certain district, they have a right to rely upon the rule of
law that the classification made in the general ordinance will not be
changed unless the change is required for the public good . . . . The
power to amend is not arbitrary. It cannot be exercised merely
because certain individuals want it done or think it ought to be done.
Kennedy v. City of Evanston, 1.81 N.E. 312, 313-314 (Ill. App. 1932).
1. The Proposed Use is Significantly Different From The
Prevailing Uses of Land in the Ai-ea.
Closely related to actual conformance with a comprehensive plan is the issue
of compatibility of the newly zoned parcel with surrounding uses. Compatibility is
important not only because it enhances rational planning, but because of the
detrimental effect an incompatible use may have on neighbors. Ziegler, § 41:8.
"An amendment which reclassifies a small parcel to allow a use which is
inconsistent with its neighborhood is likely to be overturned." Id. at 41-33-34
(citing cases). The BUDC recognizes this principle.
10
Staff concedes that the prevailing land uses immediately to the north and
east of the subject property are residential, low density. To the south is land
designated as PLI, which will be a sports field or park. To reach the types of
residential density requested by the R-4 zoning, Staff was forced to look one-half a
mile away, where it found R-3 and R-4 zoning.
In addition to significantly higher density, another important difference from
the prevailing land uses "in the area," is that the R-4 zoning, while primarily
residential, allows uses described as "associated service functions" (i.e., "allowing
office use as a secondary use"). BUDC, at p. 139. This combination of uses is not
presently in existence in the adjacent, low density neighborhoods, which are
strictly residential.
2. Size and Ntcfnbef• of Rezoned Parcels.
"The size of the rezoned parcel is a significant factor in nearly all spot
zoning cases. The reclassification of a small area of land bounded by property
burdened with greater restrictions is not likely to advance the purposes of a
comprehensive plan." Ziegler, § 41:6 at 41-30; Plains Grains, 163.
Staff does not directly address this issue, stating primarily that the area
around the property is surrounded by the city on three (3) sides by the City, "but
the entire area is proposed for the same district designation." That may be true, but
it is substantially different from the land designations around it.
The facts are that we have one (1) parcel of property, 2.3 acres in size. The
land to the north, south and east of this single, small parcel, is burdened by
substantially greater restrictions than the Applicant seeks with this parcel. To the
south is a park, with no development allowed. To the north we have residential
development at low densities, and no office development within at least one-half
mile of the subject property.
3. The Change Is In The Nature of Special Legislation Designed To
Benefit One Landowner at the Expense of the Surrounding
Landowners.
"The number of landowners affected by the proposed rezone must be
analyzed in concert with the third factor—whether the proposed zone change
constitutes `special legislation." Plains Grains, 9164. "The number of landowners
11
affected relates directly to whether the zoning constitutes special legislation
designed to benefit one person. This inquiry should focus on the benefits of the
proposed rezone to surrounding landowners, not the benefits — financial or
otherwise- that would accrue from the proposed development." Id,( emphasis
added).
Staff again couched its discussion in the context of the need for additional
housing in the community. While such a need exists, that is not the proper focus of
the analysis. Plains Gr•ains, 164. Instead, the analysis must focus on the benefits
of the proposed rezone to surrounding landowners, not the benefits, financial or
otherwise, what would accrue from the proposed development." M. (emphasis
added). Viewed in its proper light—impact on the surrounding landowners --
because of the high density, coupled with potential use of a portion of the area for
offices, which is not otherwise allowed in the immediate area, the Applicant is the
primary beneficiary of the zone map change. There is no discernible benefit to
that accrues to the neighbors with R-4 zoning.
CONCLUSION.
The attached articles, from former Mayor Vincent and the Seattle Times,
make clear that issues associated with upzoning, affordability, livability and equity
in land use decisions are challenging. Hopefully we can learn from other
communities facing similar issues. To that end, it appears that a common fatality
in community efforts to balance these interests is to minimize, or disregard,
existing land policy documents or interpret them in such a way as to minimize
existing neighborhoods, and how the residents of those neighborhoods most
impacted by land use decisions, interpret the same policies.
The community interests most impacted by this Application — the existing
neighborhood -- understand the challenges facing the City, including affordability
and livability. With all due respect to Staff and the Zoning Commission, the R-4
designation if approved, disregards the existing plan and ordinance adopted to
implement the plan and misapplies the spot zoning analysis. Such as result is
arbitrary and capricious and weakens the required predictability associated with
planning.
The neighborhood simply asks that the City, like the authors of the attached
article asked the leaders of that community, to "[b]e accountable to all community
interests, not just a segment of developers." M. That can only be accomplished by
12
following the existing land use policies. Applying the plain language of the
applicable policies compels a decision rejecting the R-4 request.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of November, 2018.
GALLI REMER & MOLLOY, P.C.
Brian K. Gallik
Attachments A, B and C
C: Client
Planning Office & City Attorney
Madison Engineering
13
ARTICLE 3. ZONING DISTRICTS & LAND USES
Contents:
38.300 Zones, Maps & Designations
38.310 Permitted Uses
38.320 Form & intensity standards
38.330 Zone specific provisions
38.340 Overlay district provisions
38.350 General land use standards & requirements
38.360 Index of supplemental use criteria
38.370 Wireless facilities
38.380 Affordable housing
38.300 Zones, Maps & Designations
FOOTNOTE(S):
--- (6) ---
State Law reference— Municipal zoning, MCA 76-2-301 et seq.
Part I: Zoning Districts & Zoning Map 1:71
Sec. 38.300.010. - Purpose.
Individual zoning districts are adopted for the purposes described in section 38.100.040. Furthermore:
A. A variety of districts is established to provide locations for the many uses needed within a healthy
and dynamic community.
B. Each district, in conjunction with other standards incorporated in this chapter, establishes allowable
uses of property, separates incompatible uses, and sets certain standards for use of land.
C. This provides predictability and reasonable expectation in use of land within particular zoning
designations and sites.
D. The zoning provisions implement the community goals and objectives that are contained in the city's
adopted growth policy.
E. Zoning districts and the zoning map communicate the City's expectation for land use in each
particular district.
Sec. 38.300.020. - Use districts designated, zoning map adopted.
A. The city is divided into zones, or districts, as shown on the official zoning map which, together with
all explanatory matter thereon, is adopted by this reference and declared to be a part of this
chapter.
BOZEMAN UDC RE-ORGANIZATION - FINAL 134
March 9,2018 UDC update 3-31-2018
B. The purpose statements for each zone and map designation set forth in part 2 of this division shall
be used to guide the application of the zones and designations to all lands in the city. The purpose
statements also shall guide interpretation and application of land use regulations within the zones
and designations, and any changes to the range of permitted uses within each zone through
amendments to this title. For the purpose of this chapter, the city is divided and classified into the
following use districts:
R-S Residential Suburban District
R-1 Residential Single-Household Low Density District
R-2 Residential Two-Household Medium Density District
R-3 !Residential Medium Density District
R-4 Residential High Density District
R-S Residential Mixed-Use High Density District
R-O Residential-Office District
RMH Residential Manufactured Home Community District
B-1 Neighborhood Business District
B-2 Community Business District
B-2M Community Business District- Mixed
B-3 Downtown Business District
UMU Urban Mixed-Use District
M-1 Light Manufacturing District
M-2 Manufacturing and Industrial District
B-P Business Park District
PLI Public Lands and Institutions District
NEHMU Northeast Historic Mixed-Use District
NC Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
CO Casino Overlay District
REMU Residential Emphasis Mixed-use District
C. Placement of any given zoning district on an area depicted on the zoning map indicates a judgment
on the part of the city that the range of uses allowed within that district are generally acceptable in
that location. It is not a guarantee of approval for any given use prior to the completion of the
appropriate review procedure and compliance with all of the applicable requirements and
development standards of this chapter and other applicable policies, laws and ordinances. It is also
BOZEMAN UDC RE-ORGANIZATION - FINAL 135
March 9,2018 UDC update 3-31-2018
not a guarantee of immediate infrastructure availability or a commitment on the part of the city to
bear the cost of extending services.
Sec. 38.300.030. - Official map availability, certification and authority; changes. (38.07.020)
A. The official maps must be available in the community development department and must bear a
certificate with the signature of the mayor attested by the city clerk and the date of adoption of the
ordinance codified in this chapter.
B. This certificate should read as follows:
This is to certify that this is an Official Zoning Map referred to in section of Ordinance No.
of the City of Bozeman, Montana.
Mayor
Attested
Date of Adoption
C. Regardless of the existence of purported copies of the official zoning maps, which may from time to
time be made or published, the official zoning maps kept in the community development department
must be the final authority as to the current zoning status of!and and water areas,buildings and
other structures in the city.
Sec. 38.300.040. - Official map replacement conditions. (38.07.030)
A. In the event that the official zoning maps become damaged, destroyed, lost or difficult to interpret
because of the nature or number of changes or additions thereto, the city commission may adopt
and certify new official zoning maps which must supersede the prior official zoning maps. The new
official zoning maps may correct drafting or other errors or omissions in the prior map, but no such
corrections shall have the effect of amending the original official zoning maps or any subsequent
amendment thereof.
B. If any changes to the map are made by amendment of this chapter in accordance with division
38.260 of this chapter, such changes must be made to the official zoning maps and signed, dated and
certified upon the map or upon the material attached thereto. Interpretations per 38.300.050 and
revisions to the map to accommodate annexations and other changes necessitating interpretation
must be reflected.
C. The new official zoning maps must be identified by signature of the mayor attested by the city clerk.
The certificate should read as follows:
This is to certify that this Official Zoning Map supersedes and replaces the Official Zoning Map adopted as part of Ordinance
No. of the City of Bozeman, Montana.
Mayor._
Attested
Date of Adoption
Sec. 38.300.050. - Boundary interpretation guidelines. (38.07.040)
A. Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of districts as shown on the official zoning map, the
boundaries must be interpreted as following the nearest logical line to that shown:
1. Boundaries indicated as approximately following the centerline of streets, highways or alleys
must be construed to follow such centerlines;
BOZEMAN UDC RE-ORGANIZATION - FINAL 136
March 9, 2018 UDC update 3-31-2018
2. Boundaries indicated as approximately following platted lot lines must be construed as following
such lot lines;
3. Boundaries indicated as approximately following city limits must be construed as following such
city limits;
4. Boundaries indicated as following railroad lines must be construed to be midway between the
main track or rails;
S. Boundaries indicated as following the centerline of streams, rivers, canals or ditches must be
construed to follow such centerlines; and
6. Boundaries indicated as parallel to or extensions of features indicated on the official zoning map
must be determined by the scale of the map.
7. When a parcel subject to two or more districts is subdivided and the district boundary is near a
new parcel boundary the district must be construed to follow the new boundary.
B. Where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance with those shown on the
official zoning map, or where other circumstances or controversy arise over district boundaries, the
community development director must interpret the district boundary. Such interpretation is
subject to appeal as set forth in division 38.250 in this chapter.
C. Where district boundaries divide a lot or parcel into two or more districts, the following rule
applies:
For the purpose of determining permitted uses and development form and intensity, the community
development director may allow minor adjustments (up to 10 percent increase or decrease in area,
not to exceed one acre, of either zone on the applicable lot) to the zoning boundary. The criteria
for making such a determination must include an evaluation of site topography, proximity of non-
compatible uses adjacent to the subject property, and overall function and integration of the
development with the community.
Sec. 38.300.060. - Zoning of annexed territory. (38.07.060)
A. All territory which may hereafter be annexed to the city must, in conjunction with the annexation,
be the subject of a zone map amendment in order to be designated and assigned to a city zoning
district.
B. Areas of annexed public right-of-way must be considered to be zoned according to the provisions of
section 38.300.040.A. The city commission must determine the appropriate zoning for any and all
areas to be annexed to the city but must request a recommendation from the zoning commission
and must take into consideration the city growth policy. Any ordinance adopting such zoning
amendment must not take effect prior to the effective date of such annexation.
BOZEMAN UDC RE-ORGANIZATION - FINAL 137
March 9,2018 UDC update 3-31-2018
2. Boundaries indicated as approximately following platted lot lines must be construed as following
such lot lines;
3. Boundaries indicated as approximately following city limits must be construed as following such
city limits;
4. Boundaries indicated as following railroad lines must be construed to be midway between the
main track or rails;
5. Boundaries indicated as following the centerline of streams, rivers, canals or ditches must be
construed to follow such centerlines; and
6. Boundaries indicated as parallel to or extensions of features indicated on the official zoning map
must be determined by the scale of the map.
7. When a parcel subject to two or more districts is subdivided and the district boundary is near a
new parcel boundary the district must be construed to follow the new boundary.
B. Where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance with those shown on the
official zoning map, or where other circumstances or controversy arise over district boundaries, the
community development director must interpret the district boundary. Such interpretation is
subject to appeal as set forth in division 38.250 in this chapter.
C. Where district boundaries divide a lot or parcel into two or more districts, the following rule
applies:
For the purpose of determining permitted uses and development form and intensity, the community
development director may allow minor adjustments (up to 10 percent increase or decrease in area,
not to exceed one acre, of either zone on the applicable lot) to the zoning boundary. The criteria
for making such a determination must include an evaluation of site topography, proximity of non-
compatible uses adjacent to the subject property, and overall function and integration of the
development with the community.
Sec. 38.300.060. - Zoning of annexed territory. (38.07.060)
A. All territory which may hereafter be annexed to the city must, in conjunction with the annexation,
be the subject of a zone map amendment in order to be designated and assigned to a city zoning
district.
B. Areas of annexed public right-of-way must be considered to be zoned according to the provisions of
section 38.300.040.A. The city commission must determine the appropriate zoning for any and all
areas to be annexed to the city but must request a recommendation from the zoning commission
and must take into consideration the city growth policy. Any ordinance adopting such zoning
amendment must not take effect prior to the effective date of such annexation.
BOZEMAN UDC RE-ORGANIZATION - FINAL 137
March 9,2018 UDC update 3-31-2018
Part 2: Zoning District Intent & Purpose Statements
Sec. 38.300.100. — Residential zoning districts - intent and purpose. P8.08.010)
The intent and purpose of the residential zoning districts is to establish areas within the city that are
primarily residential in character and to set forth certain minimum standards for development within
those areas. The residential districts also allow complementary non-residential uses. The purpose in
having more than one residential district is to provide opportunities for a variety of housing types and
arrangements within the community while providing a basic level of predictability. There is a
presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be compatible with each other when the
standards of this chapter are met and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. The
presumption of compatibility may be overcome by a showing of specific evidence through the
development review process that proves a development to be non-compliant with applicable standards.
Additional requirements for development apply within overlay districts. All development is subject to
section 38.100.050. Residential density is correlated with many community goals and objectives that are
contained in the city's adopted growth policy, as well as many standards and purposes of this chapter.
Table 38.320.020 sets standards for minimum densities in residential districts which will advance these
goals, objectives, and purposes.
A. Residential suburban district (R-S).
The intent and purpose of the R-S residential suburban district is to commemorate and preserve
existing RS zoning only. These purposes are accomplished by:
1. Subdivision and site plan developments in this district are subject to the provisions of division
38.430 of this chapter, pertaining to planned unit development, and shall be developed in
compliance with the adopted city growth policy.
2. Allowing permitted uses in circumstances where environmental constraints limit the desirable
density.
3. Providing for a minimum lot size in developed areas consistent with the established development
patterns while providing greater flexibility for clustering lots and housing types in newly
developed areas.
4. This district is not available for newly created subdivisions, undeveloped land, or any land
annexed into the city on or after January I, 2018.
B. Residential low density district (R-11).
The intent of the R-I residential low density district is to provide for primarily single-household
residential development and related uses within the city at urban densities. These purposes are
accomplished by:
1. Providing for a minimum lot size in developed areas consistent with the established development
patterns while providing greater flexibility for clustering lots and housing types in newly
developed areas.
2. Providing for such community facilities and services as will serve the area's residents while
respecting the residential character and quality of the area.
C. Residential moderate density district (R-2).
The intent of the R-2 residential moderate density district is to provide for one- and two-household
residential development at urban densities within the city in areas that present few or no
development constraints. These purposes are accomplished by:
BOZEMAN UDC RE-ORGANIZATION - FINAL 138
March 9,2018 UDC update 3-31-2018
. Providing for minimum lot sizes in developed areas consistent with the established development
patterns while providing greater flexibility for clustering lots and housing types in newly
developed areas.
2. Providing for community facilities to serve such development while respecting the residential
quality and nature of the area.
Use of this zone is appropriate for areas with moderate access to parks, community services and/or
transit.
D. Residential medium density district (R-3).
The intent of the R-3 residential medium density district is to provide for the development of one-
to five-household residential structures near service facilities within the city. This purpose is
accomplished by:
1. Providing for minimum lot sizes in developed areas consistent with the established development
patterns while providing greater flexibility for clustering lots and mixing housing types in newly
developed areas.
2. Providing for a variety of housing types, including single household dwellings, two to four
household dwellings, and townhouses to serve the varied needs of households of different size,
aaae and character, while rerducinaa the adverse effect of nonresidential iicec.
Use of this zone is appropriate for areas with good access to parks, community services and/or
transit.
E. Residential high density district (R-4).
The intent of the R-4 residential high density district is to provide for high-density residential
development through a variety of housing types within the city with associated service functions.
This purpose is accomplished by:
I. Providing for minimum lot sizes in developed areas consistent with the established development
patterns while providing greater flexibility for clustering lots and mixing housing types in newly
developed areas.
2. Providing for a variety of compatible housing types, including single and multi-household
dwellings to serve the varying needs of the community's residents.
3. Allowing office use as a secondary use, measured by percentage of total building area.
Use of this zone is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed-use districts, commercial districts,
and/or served by transit to accommodate a higher density of residents in close proximity to jobs
and services.
F. Residential mixed-use high density district (R-5).
The intent of the R-5 residential mixed-use high density district is to provide for high-density
residential development through a variety of compatible housing types and residentially supportive
commercial uses in a geographically compact, walkable area to serve the varying needs of the
community's residents. These purposes are accomplished by:
1. Providing for a mixture of housing types, including single and multi-household dwellings to serve
the varying needs of the community's residents.
2. Allowing offices and small scale retail and restaurants as secondary uses provided special
standards are met.
Use of this zone is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed-use districts and/or served by transit to
accommodate a higher density of residents in close proximity to jobs and services.
BOZEMAN UDC RE-ORGANIZATION - FINAL 139
March 9, 2018 UDC update 3-31-2018
G. Residential-office district (R-O).
The intent of the R-O residential-office district is to provide for and encourage the development of
multi-household and apartment development and compatible professional offices and businesses that
would blend well with adjacent land uses. These purposes are accomplished by:
1. Providing for a mixture of housing types, including single and multi-household dwellings to serve
the varying needs of the community's residents.
Use of this zone is appropriate for areas characterized by office or multi-household development;
and/or areas along arterial corridors or transitional areas between residential neighborhoods
and commercial areas.
H. Residential manufactured home community district (RMH).
The intent of the RMH residential manufactured home community district is to provide for
manufactured home community development and directly related complementary uses at a density
and character compatible with adjacent development. Use of this zone is appropriate for existing
mobile home parks and areas adjacent to commercial or mixed-use districts and/or served by
transit.
Sec. 38.300.1 10. - Commercial and mixed-use zoning districts - intent and purpose. (38.10.010)
The intent and purposes of the commercial zoning districts are to establish areas within the city that are
primarily commercial in character and to set forth certain minimum standards for development within
those areas. The purpose in having more than one commercial district is to provide opportunities for a
variety of employment and community service opportunities within the community, while providing
predictability. There is a rebuttable presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be
compatible with each other both within the individual districts and to adjoining zoning districts when the
standards of this chapter are met and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied.
Additional requirements for development apply within overlay districts.
A. Neighborhood business district (13-1).
The intent of the B-1 neighborhood business district is to provide for smaller scale retail and service
activities frequently required by neighborhood residents on a day to day basis, as well as residential
development as a secondary purpose, while still maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential land
uses. Design standards emphasizing pedestrian oriented design are important elements of this district.
Use of this zone is appropriate for areas functioning as a center for surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
B. Community business district (13-2).
The intent of the B-2 community business district is to provide for a broad range of mutually supportive
retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one or more sides by limited access
arterial streets. Multi-household dwellings, townhouses, and apartments are allowed as a secondary use
due to their complementary nature and ability to enhance the walkability of these districts. Design
standards emphasizing pedestrian oriented design are important elements of this district. Use of this
zone is appropriate for arterial corridors, commercial nodes, and/or areas served by transit.
BOZEMAN UDC RE-ORGANIZATION - FINAL 140
March 9, 2018 UDC update 3-31-2018
elderly,and children who donated to the rallies.It is pretty clear that she detests
Welcome Kit drive to provide refugee President Trump. Bozeman
Bozemans neighborhoods need seat at the table
Bozema A 27 year-old is your neighborhood.Yes, ordinance but should include eliminated.Residents would
Neighborhood Conservation Main Street is a special place, zoning map amendments, no longer have to check at
Overlay District(NCOD)is neighborhood,and impor- conditional use permits,mas- the city planning department
getting a lot of attention as it tant economic driver.Still, ter plan changes,subdivision to find out what was going
goes through a Ion&overdue its just one of our neighbor- or site plan reviews and any on.Instead,they would be
update.Bozemads historic hoods.All our neighbor- major alterations or additions actively and fully engaged
neighborhoods and build- hoods need protection and to existing buildings totaling from the get go through their
ings do need more and better good planning.All need and 10,000 square feet or more. neighborhood associations.
protection.But as Kelly Pohl deserve a seat at the table and 6.The developer would Still,all existing city noti-
correctly notes in her Nov a real say in their future. be required to provide a fication requirements could
11 Chronicle letter to the So,how to do that?Pass map,visual description,site remain in place and the city
editor("City needs balanced a Neighborhood Empower- plan,intended use(s),sizes, could move ahead on the
approach with growth")".... ment and Conservation heights,density,elevations, neighborhood notification/
not all buildings or neighbor- Ordinance,(NECO).Here's impacts and any proposed alert system its considering.
hoods.....are historic." what one could look mitigation of im- Nothing wrong with either.
So,what to do about that? like: pacts at the required But what neighborhoods
First,as a former Boze- 1.Through j_ public meeting. really need area t notifica-
man citycommissioner and resident input and 7.Public com-
ments,questions tions and alerts.They need a
ayor,I believe current facilitation as- q legally guaranteed seat at the
efforts to plan and accom- sistance from the r and discussion g y
modate Bozeman's growth, city,neighborhood would follow the table and a real say in their
however well intentioned, boundaries-would applicant's presenta- future.
Ern-
will fall short of protecting be established to tion. The Neighborhood Em-
e aracter inte rity,and include all Bozeman 8.The proposal powerment Conservation
va ' of both eaustin and neighborhoods. )ONN ViNCENT would then go to Ordinance can work and
eve o m net h orho Os. 2.Each neighbor- the city planning could actually help improve
is is not to question hood would form Guest columnist department,along and expedite projects because
those efforts,whether it's the an association and with an association neighbors and developers
NCOD polling and update, receive funding from the report with public and devel- would have the opportu-
1 the city's'A Seat at the Table" city for qualified and verified oper comments,suggestions nity to work through their
outreach initiative and several meeting expenses and public and recommendations fully concerns,questions and
others.But it is to say they notices.No paid positions or noted. differences,as well as con-
will not,in my opinion, travel. 9.The city planning de- sider ideas for improvements,
individually or collectively, 3.All association meeting- partment would then review before project plans reached
go far enough to assure that swould be publicly noticed the application and forward the city planning department
Bozeman's nei on and conducted under Mon- its findings and recommen- and commission.
are o a e uatel _protected tangs open meetings laws. dations to the city commis- I encourage the city com-
an ,lus as important,have a' 4.Developers proposing a Sion,along with the associa- mission to take a good hard
s re say m w at happens both_ project within or immediately tions report. look at creating a NECO and
in and miinedia-te y adjacent adjacent to an neighborhood 10.The city commission I urge residents who think
of—tfiiem, association boundary would then notices and holds a it's a good idea to encourage
is-there is a way to do be required to mail notice to public hearing and makes a
that.But first we have to put property owners within 500 final decision. them to do so.
aside the mindset that Main feet of the project and then The bottom line?While the (Important legal distinc-
ta-
Street,downtown Bozeman, present their proposal in a city commission would retain tion;Neighborhood meetiassocngs,
e is the"heart of Bozemad'and noticed public meeting to the its full authority to accept, tions would hold meetings,
recognize that the real heart association,before submitting 'deny or conditionally approve not hearings.)
of Bozeman is it's neighbor- their application to the city a developer's neighborhood
hoods,all of them,together, planning department. project,the oft heard com- John Vincent is a former
historic or not.Home is 5.Qualifying projects plaint that public notice was Bozeman city commissioner
where the heart is and home would be stipulated in the inadequate would virtually be and mayor.
EXHIBIT
11/23/2018 Seattle's rush to upzone tramples neighborhood input I The Seattle Times
Cyber Sale! Save go% on a digital subscription for 12 weeks. Subscribe now
,P Search
fa..
Seattle's rush to upzone tramples jtieighborhood input
f >�
Originally published September 11,M8 at 2:22 pm Updoted September 11,2018 nt 3.59 pm
..
'�
fhiA 7
6, r-
e t
IQ -41
i
An older single-family home between newer, multi-family homes in Seattle (AP Photo /Elaine T'ho 2017)
EXHIBIT
a C
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattles-headlonq-rush-to-UDzone-tramples-neiahborhood-input/ ,�a
11/23/2018 Seattle's rush to upzone tramples neighborhood input I The Seattle Times
In its "grand bargain" to accommodate big developers, the city ignores its
obligation to serve the current residents of Seattle who have paid and continue to
pay taxes to build and maintain our communities.
By I )avid Ward and Maria Batayola
Special to The Times
We appreciate The Seattle Times' ongoing coverage of Seattle's Mandatory Housing
Affordability program. As leaders of the administrative appeal challenging the
adequacy of the program's environmental impact statement, we feel it's our civic duty to
tell more of the story about the "grand bargain" between the city and big developers and
how it impacts the city's decision making. In short, the Mandatory Housing
https://wnwwi.seatUetimes.com/opinion/seattles-headlong-rush-to-upzone-tramples-neighborhood-input/ 2/8
11/23/2018 . Seattle's rush to upzone tramples neighborhood input I The Seattle Times
Affordability program does not deliver on the city's own stated values of housing
affordability, livability and equity.
Affordability
The MHA program will displace poor and low-income people it is intended to help.
Increasing the zoned density inside and outside the urban villages in low, medium, and
high-income neighborhoods will drive up land costs, resulting in higher housing and
rental costs, and higher property taxes. Many Seattle residents will no longer be able to
stay in their affordable homes. Half of the tax returns filed in Seattle are for incomes
under $50,000 a year, and many seniors who own their Homes are on fixed incomes.
More importantly, the MHA goal to build 6,000 low-income housing units is inadequate,
when 6o,000 low-income units are necessary to address the need. The new construction
that the MHA upzones will encourage often destroy naturally affordable older
buildings, both rental and owned. There are now half as many units available for
families of three making under $45,00o as there were in 2012, according to a McKinsey
report.
Most Read Opinion Stories
Trump's excuses for Saudi Arabia are reprehensible I Editorial
Save American families: Ban the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos I OP-Ed
Senate should drop investigation into rape allegation against Joe Fain I Editorial
Why I fly the flag upside down I My Take
Ivanka Trump's email scandal has a familiar moral I Timothy L. O'Brien / Syndicated
columnist
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattles-headlong-rush-to-upzone-tramples-neighborhood-inpuU 3/8
11/23/2018 Seattle's rush to upzone tramples neighborhood input I The Seattle Times
Also, under MHA, developers are more likely to take the option to pay in-lieu fees rather
than build affordable housing on-site. Failure to include truly `Sinclusionary" housing
— in new buildings — will accelerate Seattle's economic and racial re-segregation.
Solution: The city should adopt policies recommended in the Sohitions to Seattle's
Housing Erner,aency repot � to invest more money directly in affordable housing. The city
has considerable bonding capacity.
Livability
Seattle is one of the nation's most livable cities because of its neighborhoods. MHA
proposes to upzone broad areas of the city (allowing greater building Height and bulk)
without regard to adopted community neighborhood plans. These plans were developed
by the city in close cooperation with neighborhood residents, businesses and
landowners. They are part of the city's A Plan for Managing Growth 2015 -2035 Seattle
Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood plans establish a community's sense of identity,
desired development, character, gathering places, open and green spaces. Such
livability components are critical for the physical, social and mental well-being of its
residents, particularly children and elders,
Solution: Rather than disregard the neighborhood plans, the city should follow them,
or update there if desired by neighborhoods. The previous neighborhood planning
process made Seattle internationally famous because the city supported residents in
guiding changes that directly impacted their lives. The city should again be accountable
to all community interests, not just a segment of developers.
Equity
AD''ERl l S l"
https://www.seattletimes-com/opinion/seattles-headlong-rush-to-upzone-tramples-neighborhood-input/ 4/8
11/23/2018 Seattle's rush to upzone tramples neigF}hhborhood inputfJI The Seattle Times
it
A.
- -
City policies require that city actions be accountable to race and social-justice issues.
The city acknowledged that MHA should be subjected to a race and social-justice
review, and appointed an interdepartmental team to conduct a review of the MHA EIS.
The reviews by the city departments found that the racial-equity analysis in the EIS was
"not considered," "was incomplete" and "was inadequate." The final EIS did not
include or directly respond to the reviews by the race and social-justice
interdepartmental team.
Solution: To address the significant disparate impact problems raised by the race and
social-justice review, the city should create an authentic partnership with people of
color and affordable and low-income housing advocates, planners and developers.
Our Seattle Coalition for Affordability, Livability and Equity (SCALE) represents 29
neighborhoods and organizations that are appealing the EIS. In addition to the above
issues, the appeal cites significant errors and omissions in the EIS in terms of the
impact to the tree canopy, transportation, parks and open space, infrastructure, historic
assets and other considerations. The claimed effectiveness of proposed mitigation
measures in the EIS are often inconsistent with the city's own information.
In its "grand bargain" to accommodate big developers, the city ignores its obligation to
serve the current residents of Seattle who have paid and continue to pay taxes to build
and maintain our communities. Besides this injustice, it is maddening to have to pay
costly legal fees to get the attention of our elected leaders to redirect these bad housing
and land-use policies.
In a July column, Seattle Times editorial columnist Brier Dudley wrote, "Seattle should
get a better deal from big developers before sticking it to neighborhoods." ["Seattle's
affordable-housing bargain will be `grand' when developers foot the bill."]
We agree: No one should be sticking anything to anybody. Seattle's grand-bargain-
driven Mandatory Housing Affordability program is a bad deal. Let's work together to
create good housing and land-use policies that work for all.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattles-headlong-rush-to-upzone-tramples-neighborhood-input/ rip
11/23/2018 Seattle's rush to upzone tramples neighborhood input I The Seattle Times
David Ward is president of Seattle Coalition for Affordability, Livability and Equity
(SCALE), which represents 29 neighborhoods and organizations.
Maria Batayola is vice president of Seattle Coalition for Affordability, Livability and
Equity (SCALE), which represents 29 neighborhoods and organizations.
LiJ View 238 Commei its
i
Recommended in
Y �
Michelle Obama's Boeing 757's crash- Salmonella Inmate's last words;
mother, Marian landing in Guyana contamination in `Is it supposed to
Robinson, gave... injures 6... turkey is feel like that?'
widespread...
Around the Web
hfcps://w ww.seattletimes-com/opinion/seattles-headlong-rush-to-upzone-tramples-neighborhood-input/ 6/8