Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard member comments - individual transmittalsTo: Chris Saunders & Tom Rogers From: Cathy Costakis, planning board member Re: edits to the Bozeman 2019 Community Plan (should we call it the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan?) In general, I think this version is much improved; thank you for all your hard work on this! Most of my edits are not substantive so I will just go through the small edits here and then fill in the grid you provided for my other comments. Page 1: I would not use the 00 on this page. I recommend just using the word Introduction (to be consistent with the table of contents). Paragraph 2—I would add something about our airport…isn’t it the busiest in Montana? In general, I do not feel we have enough pictures or graphs or sidebars in this document to break up the text and clarify things. So, I would put a great picture on the top of this page (instead of the 00) and that will necessitate putting some text on page 2 and so I would add a graphic of some sort or another picture at the bottom of page 2. We could even graphically depict population growth in Bozeman since 1990? Page 3: First paragraph. “…Basics, Themes, Land Use Map Implementation, Amendments + Review, … “ I would take out the word “and” after Implementation and make the Amendments + Review consistent with the table of contents. Page 5: First paragraph, last sentence. This is picky but I would break up the last sentence by putting a period after “where City services are available. Thoughtful development in the Planning Area is guided…” Page 6: Under Employment, last sentence. I don’t believe you should ever start a sentence with a number and if you need to you should always spell it out. So, I would spell out “Eighty percent…” This happens also in the second column (under Housing) second paragraph “Fifty-five percent of renters in Bozeman…” Next paragraph: “Forty-one percent of homes in Bozeman are single-detached,…” And in the last paragraph…”Seventy percent of Bozeman commuters drive alone…” Page 7: Second column: Comparison to Other Cities—I feel like we should name these cities right up front and state at least briefly that we feel these are comparable to Bozeman in some way and therefore were chosen. It just sounds like we picked these cities out of the air and we don’t even know what cities we are talking about until we see the chart on the next page. Or we could just put a reference to the chart? Also, I thought we were going to number the charts, graphs, figures, for easy reference? Since we have room on the page, should we state our reasons for choosing these particular communities thereby making the comparisons more relevant? I think the second sentence should be broken into two sentences and the word “more” added to the second sentence. “Each of the communities employment sectors were focused on education services, health care, and social assistance jobs. The main difference between the Montana and Colorado communities was that in Montana, a larger percentage of jobs were in the retail field and in Colorado there were more jobs under the professional…” Also, in the second sentence of this section “The percent of housing developments with 10 or more units…) Is it assumed that these are ATTACHED units without us having to make that clear? Page 10: Bullet 7, second sentence doesn’t seem to add much…am I missing something? It seems like this is pretty obvious and is covered in the next bullet? I would delete it. Page 11: Second column under Housing Affordability, fourth sentence. “The sale price of homes have has more than fully recovered from the 2008 recession for all housing types.” Page 12: second paragraph, second sentence. “This figure includes housing for employees, units needed…, provides housing choice,“ I don’t think this phrase fits here or makes sense? and it is addressed in the last paragraph anyway. In the last paragraph (and in the entire document) consider changing the word “citizens” to “residents”. I had a conversation with Buck Taylor of Community Health Partners about this not long ago that the use of the word citizen leaves out many people in our community that live here but don’t happen to be citizens of this country. Just a thought…you could do a search for the word throughout the document and change the ones where you really mean residents and not necessarily citizens. I am pretty sure that would be all of them. Page 14: Under Importance, second paragraph, first sentence: I would suggest changing this “There is strong public support for development and maintenance of old and new neighborhoods; these areas are sometimes defined as “complete communities”. I don’t think that sentence makes sense nor does the first part of the sentence relate to “complete communities”. I would suggest taking out the first sentence and just starting the paragraph like this: “Neighborhoods or communities that offer a mix of housing, needed services, and opportunities within close proximity of each other are considered “complete communities”. And then go on from there… Page 16: I am not sure why these goals and objectives are tabbed over but if we have room along the left edge of the page, I would add some photos to depict what we are talking about with the adjacent policy statements. I have some pics that would fit here if you would like for me to send them to you? i.e., Humble Homes, Valley West showing trail connections in neighborhood, ADUs, etc. But I am sure you have some too. Is there a reason why there are so few pictures? Maybe you are going to add them later and this is just about text? Page 17: N-3.2 can we just say “Establish standards…” Aren’t we all agreed we need more diverse housing types? N-4.2 I don’t think this is very clear as to what someone would do to comply with this policy statement…? Not really sure how I would change this because I am not positive what it is getting at. And…there needs to be a comma after “structure” Page 19: Can we add the Cannery District to this map? Page 24: Consider bolding “complete streets” and other terms that appear in the glossary of terms so that people know that they can look these items up in the glossary. Where is the glossary? Page 26: Last paragraph, second sentence consider replacing “citizens” with “residents” but again, I am not going to point out each incident…I would suggest doing a word search. Third sentence: Appropriately designed trails, sidewalks, crossings, and bike lanes, and transit networks help us move around…” Page 28: M-1.7 Is “trunk network” in the glossary? If so, can we bold it? “connecting high-frequency” high-frequency what? Transit? Page 29: Can we consider adding an objective/action item either here or in the neighborhoods section regarding the City’s Traffic Calming Project? Partnering with Public Works and neighborhoods to determine where traffic calming pilot projects are needed to determine if they would improve safety? Page 30: Comment: When I look at the chart on page 8 I notice that a major part of our economy is also “Accommodation and Food Service as well as Retail” These are relatively low-paying jobs and people have a hard time living here on those wages given our cost of living. I am not sure where this fits in this Theme but this is an important issue in our community. This Importance section makes it seem like we have a bunch of high-paying jobs and everyone is participating in this great “dynamism, diversity, and wealth”. I think that is a bit skewed. But maybe this isn’t the place? Small edit: last paragraph, second to the last sentence, I don’t think outdoor recreations should have an “s”. Page 33: Why is this on a separate page? Page 34: Third sentence under Importance—"Conflicting decisions and lack of trust between agencies can create complications and uncertainty, adversely affect our overall public health and safety, and drive up costs. Page 35: Would it be possible to add the Triangle Plan boundaries on this map? Page 37: RC-3.9 Can we include schools in this list? They appear in the Triangle Plan. RC-4.3 Is this supposed to be a stand-alone policy and not connected to the next sentence? If so, I would suggest that we make the next sentence its own policy…RC 4.4 “Update the Unified Development Code (UDC) to:” Or, if not, then add something that is related to human well-being and health to the bulleted points? Does that make sense? Page 44: Under 5. Regional Commercial and Services—fourth sentence, add “to”. Development within this category…pedestrian activity and provide ready-access within and adjacent to development. Page 45: Pictures under Industrial. Do we have any other examples that are not in the NE Neighborhood? Page 46: Correlation with Zoning “Applicable zoning categories…” The “A” is missing. Also, is there a way for us to at least have a chart with the zoning categories abbreviations spelled out with perhaps a brief explanation of them? Or at least where to find them? Also, why is R-S on this chart if it doesn’t correspond to anything? Sorry if that is a stupid question! Page 50: Consider putting the short-term action list in order by Theme and state that they are not listed in any order of priority. Page 51: Consider adding “Pedestrian-oriented street intersections per square mile” to the notes section of Intersection Density as a way to explain this metric (you can also keep what is already there about trails). Under Commute Mode Share…what are we measuring here? What do we want to increase? Walking, biking, transit commute trips? SOV commute trips? Page 52: Under Acres Wholly Surrounded but Unannexed…why did we use the term “reduce” as opposed to “decrease” like all the others? Page 56: Under Agriculture. I would still like to see some way that we can grow food (small, sustainable, urban ag) in the city limits. Just had to say this one more time! 😊😊 Page 57: Under Agricultural Water User Facilities, number 1. Third sentence there should be a comma after the word “demonstrated” before the word “provision” Under Local Services there is a missing period after the third bullet. Page 58: Under Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, number 1. Last sentence…do we use the term “Present Rural” anymore? Page 61: Under second column, When Does the City Initiate Zoning Changes…”, second bullet should start “Forty percent...” Page 63: First column under number 2 (a) “Reasonable provision of adequate light and air”, add “d” in and. Page 65: First column under “d”. 4th sentence “Parks and Open Lands” the “o” should be capitalized. Page 66: First column, second sentence. “When evaluating compliance with criteria,” add comma after criteria. Page 67: First column under number 1. “The public hearing are is advertised as…” OK…that’s it for the main plan. Sorry, they are mostly pretty picky edits!! Planning Board Memo From: Cathy Costakis and Jennifer Madgic Re: Community Plan Update to address urban agriculture The growing awareness of community and public health issues, the benefits of green space, the economic development potential of small-scale specialty farming enterprises, and fears about food security have combined to provide a groundswell of support for small-scale, sustainable urban agriculture efforts in many cities and counties across the country. (Urban Agriculture, APA) Urban agriculture is an umbrella term that describes a range of food-growing practices, from backyard gardens to urban farms. Home gardens are food-producing spaces on private, residential property (multifamily or single family) that are used primarily by the property’s residents or guests. Community gardens are smaller-scale urban agriculture sites (often serving a neighborhood) where individuals and families grow food primarily for personal consumption or donation. Urban farms are larger-scale, more intensive sites where food may be grown by an organization or private enterprise, and often include entrepreneurial opportunities such as growing food for sale. (Seeding the City, ChangeLab Solutions) Theme 1 Consider adding an objective under Goal N-2 N-2.5 Ensure that new development includes opportunities for urban agriculture, including rooftop and home gardens, community gardens, and urban farms, where appropriate. Theme 3 Consider adding “urban farms” to EPO-1.3 EPO-1.3 Inclusion of community gardens and urban farms as part of open spaces outside of watercourses and wetlands in subdivisions is encouraged where there are good soils. Theme 5 EE-2.3 Adopt zoning regulations that establish urban farms, including vertical farms, as a conditional [or permitted] use in appropriate locations. Urban farms are compatible with the [insert names (e.g., Commercial, Industrial)] land use designations shown on the Future Land Use Map. Other possible objectives to consider: • Amend [zoning and/or subdivision codes] to encourage [or require] all new housing units [or multifamily housing units] to contain designated yard, rooftop, or other shared space for residents to garden. • Amend [zoning and/or building codes] to encourage [or require] all [or some, such as multifamily residential, commercial, institutional, or public] new construction to incorporate green roofs and edible landscaping, vertical gardens, and encourage the use of existing roof space for community gardening. Examples of ordinances for urban agriculture and other resources Fort Collins, CO Urban Agriculture Code https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/summary-proposed-changes.pdf?1526655917 Urban Ag License (Fort Collins decided to allow urban ag in all zones, they need to apply for a license but don’t have to go through development review) FAQ document for Fort Collins Interesting Work Session on Urban Agriculture Sommerville, MA Urban Agriculture Ordinance ABCs of Urban Agriculture (put out by the Mayor’s Office, City of Sommerville) Chicago Municipal Strategies to Support Local Food Systems: Including local food in comprehensive plans and urban agriculture ordinance toolkit (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning) Atlanta amended zoning ordinance to include urban gardens and market gardens: http://gogrowatlanta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FINAL-CERTIFIED-UA-Ordinance.pdf This document can answer some potential questions about the Atlanta ordinance: http://gogrowatlanta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014-04-01-Go-Grow-Atlanta-Urban- Agriculture-Fact-Sheet.pdf Austin urban ag resolution: http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Parks/communitygardens/resolution.pdf Seattle Urban Ag Ordinance: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/search/results?s1=&s3=&s4=123378&s2=&s5=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect2=T HESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CBORY&Sect6=HITOFF&d=ORDF&p=1&u=%2F%7Epublic%2Fcbory.htm& r=1&f=G Minneapolis Zoning and Urban Agriculture 1 PAS Memo — November/December 2014 Institutionalizing Urban Agriculture: Process, Progress, and Innovation By Brian Barth Urban agriculture has grown from a grassroots movement, consisting of local farmers and gardeners, to become a new institution in forward-thinking communities around the globe. Scores of cities in the U.S. have amended their zoning codes to better regulate and accommodate this emerging trend and city-led initiatives to promote urban food production are increasingly common. This is a movement still in its adolescence, but the degree of growth in the last 10 years warrants a look back to examine the progress to date and an attempt to distill the common approaches and pitfalls that will help guide the future conversation between cities and farms. In 2011, PAS Report Number 563, Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places, compiled the existing body of planning research and practice pertaining to urban agriculture into a single, thorough volume, including an analysis of what had been accomplished and thoughts on what further work was needed. Since then, the number of municipalities actively encouraging urban agriculture and the scope of their efforts has expanded considerably. This PAS Memo builds on that foundation and serves to update planners on the current status of this important area of specialization, while offering further insight into the best practices that have emerged to support urban food production and the broader social, economic, and environmental goals associated with it. In particular, this PAS Memo looks at the use of comprehensive urban agriculture zoning ordinances, the need to coordinate food system policy across multiple municipal departments and public agencies, public engagement strategies, and data collection methods to better measure and quantify the successes of the movement. After a brief review of the big-picture goals of urban agriculture, the following sections fill in some of the details needed for it to take its place as a new urban institution. Why Urban Agriculture? Even though the very notion of urban agriculture can seem like a contradiction, there are several commonly agreed-upon rationales for cities to produce more of the food they consume. To understand agriculture as a nascent urban institution and guide its future growth, it is important for planners to unpack these rationales and consider how they apply in the unique context of the communities they serve. Like any planning matter, the process and the outcomes will be driven by the unique needs and desires of each community. The motives of the urban agriculture movement and the benefits associated with it fall into three broad categories. These have been well defined elsewhere, but are briefly described here to give a context for the discussion that follows. Public Health Attributes The health value of fresh versus processed food is well documented by nutritionists and public health advocates. However, in many disinvested urban neighborhoods, there is little access to fresh food for those who want it. In these "food deserts" full-service grocers have disappeared, leaving corner stores and "quickie" marts as the primary source of food. Making more fresh food available by creating incentives for urban farms and farmer's markets is not a silver bullet — other social and economic November/December 2014 2 barriers also need to be addressed — but it has certainly sparked meaningful conversation on the subject within the communities where this has been attempted. An Economic Development Tool As with the benefits of urban agriculture to public health, there is room for debate on the question of urban agriculture as an economic development tool. Unfortunately there is a dearth of conclusive data on this point, but the idea has merit based on the anecdotal evidence thus far. New urban farms are unlikely to have the direct economic impacts of opening a large manufacturing center, for example, but there are other, less tangible economic benefits. At a minimum, urban agriculture fosters a healthy sense of place, which is of great importance in blighted areas where small farms and gardens can make productive use of vacant land, even if it is only a temporary use. There is no doubt that they stimulate the growth of the local and organic food sectors and provide "green collar" jobs — the question is to what degree in comparison with the public investment in the industry. Enhancing Urban Greenspace Parks and other open spaces have made well-quantified contributions to public health and real estate values in urban areas; where they are accessible to the public, farms and gardens have the potential to do the same. A key difference is the degree of engagement that these productive landscapes foster in the surrounding community. Every city has its cherished parks, yet a tiny community garden can galvanize neighborhood pride in a similar way without the need for procuring a large tract of land and spending large sums of taxpayer money to develop it. Gardening is a recreational activity that fits neatly within the broad purposes of parkland, and a network of productive landscapes on publicly accessible land is like a municipal library system for outdoor education and community enrichment. Randall's Island Farm is a one-acre urban farm on a 480-acre island between Harlem and the South Bronx that serves as one of the primary park spaces for the residents of New York City. Photo courtesy Randall's Island Park Alliance. While there are scores of planning initiatives across the country using urban agriculture-based programs to address these big-picture issues, their efficacy remains to be seen. As the movement continues in a growth phase, there are countless opportunities for planners to examine existing programs, consider the likely challenges, and discern optimal approaches for facilitating the goals of their own community. The time is ripe to substantiate the claims of urban agriculture as a broad-based participatory planning model and link its objectives with quantifiable results. PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 3 Challenges and Best Practices Planners are faced with the task of coordinating the integration of productive landscapes in urban areas in a way that mitigates potential conflicts with aesthetic values, environmental functions, economic vitality, and social cohesion. The following sections outline some of the challenges that have arisen in the process and offer examples of the best practices that have recently evolved in response. Planning the Details of Urban Food Systems While it is safe to say that most municipalities have officially endorsed the ideals of urban agriculture, many are still in the throes of fleshing out the details of how to both encourage and regulate it. For example, Atlanta set a goal in 2010 to bring local food within 10 minutes of 75 percent of all residents by 2020 as part of its citywide sustainability plan, but has since had to come to terms with a number of existing policy barriers that stand in the way. Urban agriculture was not addressed in Atlanta's existing zoning ordinance, meaning that growers couldn't apply for a business license because their operations were not covered under the list of permitted uses for any zoning district. In response, a zoning amendment (which passed this summer) was developed in collaboration with several local stakeholder groups. It provides a clear framework for both "urban gardens" and "market gardens," stipulating where each is permitted outright or with a special use permit and what rules these operations will be governed by. This pattern has played out in scores of other cities across the country. Just as the details of other components of green infrastructure have been fleshed out in recent decades — via tree canopy ordinances and stormwater management regulations, for example — the norms of urban agriculture are slowly becoming established, though much is still up for debate. Conventional planning tools of geospatial analysis, zoning regulations, design standards, and fiscal incentives are as applicable to urban agriculture as they are to any other land use, but they require a detailed understanding of the needs of urban farmers and the physical, economic, social, and environmental dimensions of urban farms to apply them successfully. Greensgrow Farm in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia has evolved to host a CSA, farmstead, plant nursery, and community kitchen while creating jobs, improving local food access, and reclaiming once- abandoned land. Photo by David Barrie (CC BY 2.0). In working out the intricate arrangements between chicken coops, vegetable plots, greenhouses, residences, business, and schools — which are increasingly sharing the same block — planners need a working knowledge of the habits of chickens, the practices of vegetable cultivation, and the design of PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 4 greenhouses in order to orchestrate harmony among them and preserve the best interest of all parties involved. The following list is by no means exhaustive, but provides a sampling of the questions planners are faced with as urban agriculture becomes a status quo land use and the way that various communities have chosen to respond. How many and what types of livestock to allow? There is an astonishing range of policies concerning urban livestock, though the general trend is toward greater tolerance and flexibility. At the same time, there is an increasing trend toward regulating how livestock are kept — e.g., dimensions for chicken coops, flyway barriers for beehives, requirements for odor abatement — and many municipalities have implemented permitting programs to ensure compliance. In some communities, livestock of any type are still banned, while others have flung the door wide open. Seattle is one of the most lenient, allowing eight chickens on any size lot (with a provision for additional birds at a rate of one per 1,000 square feet on lots greater than 10,000 square feet) and even welcoming full-size farm animals (goats, sheep, cows, and horses) on lots above 20,000 square feet. Only with swine does the city draw the line, allowing only miniature potbelly pigs that are kept as pets. Austin, Texas, also expanded the type and quantity of livestock allowed under its newly adopted urban agriculture zoning ordinance and addressed the difficult question of on-site chicken slaughter: chickens may be slaughtered for personal consumption in any zone, but slaughter for commercial purposes is allowed only outside of residential areas and is restricted to 10 birds per week per acre of land. Where and under what circumstances should the sale of produce be allowed? Whether or not produce may be sold on site is typically a major dividing line as urban agriculture plans and policies are mapped out. Often, the pattern is to prohibit sales in residential zones and allow them in commercial zones. Exact terminology varies, but a spectrum between private gardens, community gardens, and commercial growing operations is widely recognized. On-site sales are generally assumed in the latter category, but approaches for the first two vary widely. Where sales are allowed in residential areas, they are typically restricted to preserve neighborhood character. St. Paul, Minnesota, for example, allows sales only three times per year. In Somerville, Massachusetts, however, sales are permitted up to three times per week, but capped at 25 times per year. In almost every example, farmstands and signage are limited in size and must be stored out of sight when not in use. How is the issue of contaminated soil addressed? The broader issue of brownfields and urban agriculture is complex and deserves greater discussion than there is space for here. Growing food in soils contaminated with heavy metals, lead in particular, has drawn the greatest scrutiny as these can be concentrated in plant tissues and transferred to people upon consumption. To date, there are no universally agreed on standards for the safe threshold of these substances in soils used for crops, but some cities have chosen to incorporate safety guidelines for contaminated soils in the process of urban agriculture planning. Somerville addresses the issue by requiring any commercial growing operation to have its soil tested for lead and for growers to display the results at the point of sale. The city does not legally restrict the sale of produce based on the test results, leaving consumers to make their own choices, but does recommend growing edible crops only in soils with 300 or fewer parts per million (ppm) of lead. St. Paul uses a more conservative standard of 100 ppm of lead and prohibits the sale of produce if contamination exceeds this level. In any case, growers can circumvent this challenge by importing clean topsoil and growing in raised beds with a barrier installed between the growing medium and the contaminated soil. What are other potential hazards of increased agricultural production in urban areas and how can these be managed? As with agriculture in a rural context, degraded waterways resulting from soil erosion, agricultural chemicals, and animal wastes is a significant environmental concern. Compost piles and the storage of livestock feed can attract vermin, and swarming bees and escaped animals are safety risks that must be considered. When it comes to apiaries, some cities go so far as to stipulate that water must be provided for beehives at all times, based on the fact that thirsty bees are apt to take over a neighbor's pool or birdbath, leading to potential conflicts. One general strategy is to require a site plan and/or management plan for urban farming operations as part of a permitting process. Pesticide use and soil disturbance are typically covered by existing state and local statutes, but some cities have created additional requirements for the special context of urban agriculture. For farms and gardens over 4,000 square feet, for example, Seattle requires an operations plan disclosing any intended application of agricultural chemicals, the area of land that will be disturbed, the type of farm equipment that will be used, and provisions for erosion and sediment control. These are reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the planning director before a permit is granted. In St. Paul, the recent urban agriculture zoning update carefully states that when an agricultural use has been PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 5 discontinued, the property must be restored to grass or other groundcover to control erosion, dust, and mud for both aesthetic and environmental reasons. Lafayette Greens in downtown Detroit, a garden showcasing what agriculture can look like in an urban context. Photo Beth Hagenbuch/Ken Weikal Landscape Architecture. One reasonable goal for the planning community in the near future is to develop something akin to a "model" urban agriculture code, such as those which already exist for many other branches of land use policy. This would provide a degree of uniformity in in how cities regulate urban agriculture activities and reduce the burden of drafting amendments to existing codes, thus enabling a greater number of communities to reduce barriers and streamline the process of institutionalizing urban agriculture on the whole. Each community could then customize the code to suit local contexts and cultural attitudes in each subject area. Coordinated Planning Process Early efforts to update municipal policies in response to the growing public interest in food production were typically incremental in nature and were often a reaction to a problem, such as complaints about messy front-yard vegetable gardens and malodorous compost systems or residents protesting fines for keeping chickens. In trying to keep up with the demand for greater flexibility in using urban land to grow food, new ordinances often came about in a patchwork manner depending on the needs of the community — a provision for farmer's markets one year, a change in regulations on livestock the next. Since 2010, however, a number of the most progressive North American cities began to draft comprehensive urban agriculture zoning revisions to address the challenge of integrating agricultural land use in a holistic manner. Unlike the iterative approach, comprehensive changes require a detailed understanding of the numerous and varied implications of urban food production referenced in the previous section as a basis for designing policies that suit the needs and character of the community, but they have also demanded a high degree of internal communication among the numerous departments and public agencies involved. Planning and development, parks and recreation, and animal control services are directly implicated by urban agriculture, for example, and boards of health are always necessary players as they govern anything produced for human consumption. Housing authorities, economic development agencies, and offices of sustainability — which have become new municipal institutions themselves in recent years — also have roles to play. In addition to the cities mentioned above, San Francisco; Portland, Oregon; Cleveland; Minneapolis; Oklahoma City; Kansas City, Missouri; Boston; and Madison, Wisconsin, are leading examples of cities PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 6 where urban agriculture has matured to the point of being codified in land-use law as comprehensive zoning amendments. These pioneering communities have developed coherent regulatory frameworks that embrace and promote urban agriculture while continuing to ensure public health, safety, and welfare. Coordination with state-level urban agriculture initiatives and advocating for more supportive enabling legislation are also important strategies. In 2013, the California state legislature passed a law to enable local governments to establish urban agriculture incentive zones, an approach that may hold promise in other regions, as well. Under the California law, landowners receive a property tax reduction in exchange for committing the land to agricultural use for a five-year period. During this time, the property would be assessed based on the average real estate value of irrigated cropland in the state, which is approximately $12,000 per acre. The states of Washington and Minnesota have long-standing statutes preventing any local law that restricts the sale of fruit, vegetables, eggs, or other fresh produce directly by those that grow it, saying there is no need for any type of special license to do so, as long as it doesn't involve processed foods, meat, dairy, or other regulated products. This helps to explain the lenient political climate around urban agriculture in places like Seattle and the Minneapolis-St. Paul region and reflects the strength of local food systems in these states as a whole. Out of concern that families struggling to put food on the table could be punished for growing their own, legislators in Georgia drafted a law, known as the Right To Grow Act, to prevent any local jurisdiction from enacting laws that limit the right of individuals to raise food for personal consumption. The legislation was defeated in 2012, but it provides a precedent for the type of state-level legislation that can help smooth the process for urban agriculture's expansion at the local level and ensure that unjust social outcomes do not arise from well-intended nuisance laws. Communication and Outreach Public health, economic development, and urban greenery aside, urban agriculture owes its popularity to its power to bring people together over an exceedingly positive, wholesome, and simple activity — growing healthy food. Planners can harness this potential by encouraging urban agriculture as a part of community identity. It is important to emphasize in outreach campaigns that urban farms are intended to fill gaps in the urban fabric and enliven neighborhoods — not replacing conventional development, but complementing it. However, planners are faced with two opposing challenges in this regard as urban agriculture expands. The first is to address concerns over the potential for negative outcomes associated with urban farms and gardens, such as the loss of aesthetic values and neighborhood character, loss of real estate values, nuisances (unpleasant sights, sounds, and smells) and general concerns that it doesn't always represent the "highest and best" use of land. The second has to do with communicating the intent of plans and policies designed to encourage urban food production and regulate the circumstances under which it occurs. There are many examples of public engagement initiatives to this end, which often carry a marketing slant. Sacramento has officially rebranded itself as America's farm-to-fork capital, for example, a development that came several years after its laws against front-yard food gardens were reversed. Seattle declared 2010 as the "Year of Urban Agriculture," launching its new zoning code and food system plans with a barrage of festive events and community outreach. And Chicago has designated three of its most impoverished wards as Green Healthy Neighborhoods, where a series of programs centered on local food production have been initiated in an effort to revitalize these South Side districts. PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 7 A rendering of an urban farm from Chicago's Green Healthy Neighborhood plan, as viewed from the recently completed ERA (Englewood Re-Making America) trail. Image courtesy City of Chicago/Camiros. Zoning documents are largely geared toward the development community and are difficult to decipher for the average homeowner or aspiring urban farmer. For this reason, cities like Seattle, Oklahoma City, and Boston have all published brochures to explain their recently enacted zoning amendments in plain, everyday language. Somerville's ABC's of Urban Agriculture Somerville, Massachusetts, a small, densely populated city in the Boston metro area, provides a prime example of coupling a policy change with a strong outreach effort to foster greater public participation in, and maximize the benefits of, urban agriculture, while minimizing potential conflicts. In 2011, Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone convened representatives from several city departments and local community groups to examine all city ordinances that pertained to urban agriculture as an extension of the Shape Up Somerville initiative, an ongoing series of programs aimed at reducing childhood obesity and improving public health in general. The resulting body of urban agriculture rules, permits, and guidelines is a textbook example of a comprehensive, rather than incremental, approach to the issue. However, the city went far beyond distributing brochures to communicate the new rules and the vision they embodied, establishing a demonstration farm, educational campaigns, and a user-friendly guidebook — The ABCs of Urban Agriculture — to disseminate the information. The document tells prospective growers exactly which scenarios will require a permit (with forms provided at the back of the booklet), delivering all the relevant information in an intuitive, step-by-step manner, aided by explanatory graphics. Urban agriculture best practices and educational resources are included at every step, and the document is thoroughly cross-referenced to ensure that users connect the dots to every relevant piece of information. PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 8 Somerville's user-friendly guide to urban agriculture (left), and a glimpse of the South Street Farm, the city's urban agriculture demonstration site. Images courtesy City of Somerville. Through this process, Somerville has demonstrated that having a positive city-led urban agriculture project with high PR value is what galvanizes multilateral support in the community — and among stakeholders inside of local government — to embrace the issue and transcend the challenges that inevitably arise. Data Collection As planning is largely an "upstream" activity — meaning its efforts take years, if not decades, to precipitate — it is important to implement monitoring strategies that gauge the progress of any planning initiative over time. Without this feedback, continuity is threatened and many well-intentioned plans never become fully realized. Urban agriculture is currently at a crossroads where much has been initiated and enough time has passed for the results to begin showing themselves. The job now is to measure the results and assimilate this data to steer the future course of the movement. In general, the process of institutionalization supports data collection because there is typically a record of any "official" act. For example, cities that require permits for keeping livestock or selling produce will know how many of each animal is being kept and the number of commercial growing operations within city limits. Many projections can be made from this baseline data, including the potential economic impacts of urban farming and the potential threat to urban waterways resulting from runoff contaminated with animal wastes. The Design Trust's Urban Agriculture Data Collection Toolkit The Design Trust for Public Space in New York City has a pilot program under way to collect data on a wide range of metrics that together attempt to quantify the collective value and benefits of urban agriculture in the metro area. The toolkit is one of several related programs under the Design Trust's Five Borough Farm initiative, a multi-year project to arm the urban agriculture movement in New York with the tools needed to improve its ranking on the city's political agenda. In collaboration with policy experts, data analysts, and public-relations specialists, the Design Trust convened a group of 25 growers last year to develop a list of indicators of urban agriculture's contribution to the social, economic, and environmental well-being of the city. Sixteen quantifiable indicators were selected and the practical methods for collecting the data were determined. The indicators go beyond production statistics, venturing to put numbers to less tangible effects, such as changes in a community's attitudes toward its neighborhood, as well as incidental impacts, like gallons of rainwater harvested and pounds of green waste diverted from city landfills. After refining the indicators and collection methods in 2013, a website portal called The Barn was launched PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 9 this spring that allows growers to log their data throughout the growing season. The site is designed to produce charts, graphs, and other infographics that growers can use to track their progress. The idea is that the data will give greater validity to the movement overall and assist individual operations in procuring financial support and political endorsement. The system of urban agriculture metrics devised by the Design Trust for Public Space in New York (click to enlarge). Image courtesy Design Trust for Public Space. The next stage of the project, currently under development, is known as The Mill. While the information stored in The Barn is accessible only to those that upload it, The Mill will aggregate the data for each indicator and allow funding organizations, policymakers, and the general public to make custom queries in the database. Thought the information from each grower will be anonymous, the database will be geographically referenced and the software will produce instant map-based infographics based on search queries. Action Steps for Planners After understanding the relevance of urban agriculture to planning issues — and the path by which it has moved through the municipal agenda in the cities bold enough to pursue it — there are a number of points that rise to the surface as guideposts for planners to follow. It is hoped that these can serve as a protocol for planning professionals everywhere as they navigate the often complex relationship between cities and the historically rural activities of agriculture.  Engage stakeholders. Encouraging broad-based coalitions to coordinate the development of urban agriculture is essential to its success. There is a need for interagency cooperation, consultation with regional planning bodies and lawmakers at the state level, and coordination among municipal departments, as well as public-private collaboration between local governments, developers, and community groups.  Conduct GIS analysis. Geo-spatial technology is a valuable tool for structuring urban agriculture initiatives. By overlaying suitable parcels, relevant demographic data, food access, proximity to PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 10 complimentary infrastructure, etc., optimal locations for urban agriculture sites can be determined and strategies to leverage municipal investments and incentives can be devised.  Visualize optimal outcomes. Development standards that encourage design excellence can be created through consultation with stakeholder groups. Seek to determine how urban agriculture should look, feel, and function at a minimum level that will prevent unintended outcomes, while simultaneously establishing a vision for its greatest potential.  Encourage a skilled workforce. Farming in the city involves entrepreneurial, agricultural, land development, and landscape maintenance skills, but traditional training in these areas is generally insufficient. Vocational schools, "green corps" programs, and organizations that assist chronically unemployed individuals can all be enlisted to help.  Consider incentives and subsidies. Property tax incentives and increased development rights are the two possible opportunities to encourage urban agriculture in targeted areas. Cities that use a points system to reward developers for sustainable design can incorporate urban agriculture into these incentives, as well.  Cultivate urban agricultural literacy. School garden programs are well-established in many areas, but disseminating local food and gardening guides can help to educate adults. This also applies to planners and other professionals charged with stewarding the development of urban food systems.  Design a data collection system. Beyond measuring food production, job creation, and direct economic benefits, consider tracking environmental benefits and other indirect social and environmental impacts.  Treat as a place-making asset. Develop strategies to make urban agriculture a part of a community's "brand identity." This involves discerning the key aspects of a commonly held vision for the local food system and using these to create a marketing campaign that can encompass any program under the umbrella of local food. Conclusion In looking back at the zoning amendments, food system plans, and related initiatives that have come out in recent years, it is easy to feel that the work has been done, that food production has landed a permanent place in in the concept of American urbanism. Yet for all the examples of cities leaping forward to enlist urban agriculture in the fight against food insecurity, degraded urban ecosystems, and blighted neighborhoods, there are just as many or more that still draw the line at front-yard vegetable gardens, chicken coops, bee hives, and the sale of produce. Their reactiveness to the idea is understandable in that food production activities in urban areas represent potential risks to public safety, the character of neighborhoods, and real estate values. However, this could be said of any number of activities that are already a part of urban life. The purpose of planning, and of zoning in particular, is to work out a system of land use where conflicts are minimized and the greater public good is maximized. In this light, it is hard to imagine valid reasons to prohibit reasonable agricultural uses of urban land. The cities profiled in this article have assumed some risk in advancing the experiment of urban agriculture and are rich resources for those still finding their way. The evidence thus far shows that the best results come when a city embraces the concept, streamlines regulations across the spectrum of the urban food system, and says: We want urban agriculture to be here and be part of what makes our community prosper. PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 11 Urban agriculture can make productive use of underutilized urban space, such as this rooftop in New York City. Photo by Rob Stephenson. About the Author Brian Barth is a freelance writer with a background in urban planning, landscape design, and sustainable agriculture. He holds a master's degree in Environmental Planning and Design from the University of Georgia and is a co-founder of Urban Agriculture, Inc., a full-service planning, design, and project management firm based in Atlanta. References and Resources Atlanta (Georgia), City of. 2014. Ordinance 14-0-1092: An Ordinance to Amend Various Sections of the Atlanta Zoning Ordinance for the Purpose of Defining Urban Gardens and Market Gardens as a Permitted Use; To Provide Where and Under What Conditions Such Uses Shall be Permitted; And for Other Purposes. Available at http://gogrowatlanta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FINAL-CERTIFIED-UA-Ordinance.pdf. Austin (Texas), City of. 2013. Ordinance No. 20131121-105: An Ordinance Amending City Code Chapters 25-2 and 25-10 Relating to Urban Farms. Available at www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=205937. Austin (Texas), City of, Department of Parks and Recreation. 2014. "Sustainable Urban Agriculture." Available at http://austintexas.gov/department/sustainable-urban-agriculture. Boston), City of. 2012. Article 89 Made Easy: Urban Agriculture Zoning for the City of Boston. Draft. Available at www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/4b74929b-920e-4984- b1cd-500ea06f1bc0. California State Legislature. 2011. AB 551: Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones. Available at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB551. Chicago, City of, Department of Planning and Development. 2014. "Green Healthy Neighborhoods." Available at www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/green-healthy- neighborhoods.html. Design Trust for Public Space. Available at http://designtrust.org/. ________. 2014. "Five Borough Farm." Available at www.fiveboroughfarm.org/. PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 12 ________. 2014. "Five Borough Farm Indicator Guide." Available at www.fiveboroughfarm.org/impact/indicator-guide/. Design Trust for Public Space and Farming Concrete. 2014. "Farming Concrete Barn: Data Collection Toolkit." Available at www.farmingconcrete.org/barn/data-collection-toolkit/. Georgia General Assembly. 2012. HB 853: Georgia Right to Grow Act. Available at www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/20112012/HB/853. Georgia Organics. 2014. "Help Atlanta Grow." Available at http://gogrowatlanta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014-04-01-Go-Grow-Atlanta- Urban-Agriculture-Fact-Sheet.pdf. Hodgson, Kimberley, Marcia Caton Campbell, and Martin Bailkey. 2011. Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places. PAS Report no. 563. Chicago: American Planning Association. Available at www.planning.org/pas/reports/subscriber/archive/. Oklahoma City, City of. 2014. "Guide to the Urban Agriculture Ordinance." Available at www.okc.gov/sustain/graphics/OKC_Urban_Ag_Brochure.pdf. Sacramento (California), City of, Convention and Visitor's Bureau. 2014. "Farm-to-Fork." Available at www.farmtofork.com/. Sacramento Citizens for Sustainable Landscapes. 2012. "Urban Garden Code ... Changing the Front Yard Landscape Code in Sacramento, California." Available at www.sacgardens.org/aboutCode.html. St. Paul (Minnesota), City of, Department of Parks and Recreation. 2014. "Healthy and Local Food." Available at www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=4811. ________. 2014. "Urban Food Production." Available at www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=4814. Seattle, City of. 2010. "City of Seattle Launches '2010: Year of Urban Agriculture.'" Council News Release, February 3. Available at www.seattle.gov/council/newsdetail.asp?ID=10500. ________. 2010. Ordinance No. 123378: To Support Urban Agriculture, to Modify Restrictions on Greenhouses and Solariums and on the Keeping of Domestic Fowl, to Clarify and Modify Definitions for Key Terms Related to Urban Agriculture and to Make Technical Corrections. Available at http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s3=116907&s4=&s2=&s5=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect2=THESON&Sect3= PLURON&Sect5=CBORY&Sect6=HITOFF&d=ORDF&p=1&u=%2F~ public%2Fcbory.htm&r=1&f=G. Seattle, City of, Department of Planning and Development. 2010. "Tip 244: Urban Agriculture." Seattle Permits. November 17. Available at www.seattle.gov/dpd/publications/cam/cam244.pdf. Somerville (Massachusetts), City of. 2012. Board of Health Regulations for Urban Agriculture in Somerville. Available at www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/All-Three.pdf. ________. 2012. Ordinance No. 2012-06: An Ordinance Amending the Somerville Zoning Ordinance to Encourage Urban Agriculture in Somerville Adding Definitions, and Amending the Table of Uses and the Footnotes to the Table of Uses to Allow Farms as Accessory Residential Uses, and to Allow Community Gardens, Community Farms and Farming on Municipal Land. Available at www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/Ord%202012-06%20_Zoning-Urban%20Agriculture_.pdf. ________. 2014. "Mayor's Urban Agriculture Initiative." Available at www.somervillema.gov/departments/ospcd/parks-and-open-space/urban-agriculture-initiaitive. Somerville (Massachusetts), City of, Department of Health. 2014. "Shape Up Somerville." Available at www.somervillema.gov/departments/health/sus. PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 13 Somerville (Massachusetts), City of, Mayor's Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development. 2012. The ABC's of Urban Agriculture. Available at www.somervillema.gov/sites/default/files/SomervillesABCs-Of-UrbanAgriculture.pdf. Varlamoff, Susan. 2012. "Urban Agriculture Movement — A Healthy Trend for Atlanta." Saporta Report, January 22. Available at http://saportareport.com/blog/2012/01/urban-agriculture- movement-a-healthy-trend-for-atlanta/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Brownfields and Urban Agriculture: Interim Guidelines for Safe Gardening Practices. Summer. Available at www.epa.gov/brownfields/urbanag/pdf/bf_urban_ag.pdf. Copyright © American Planning Association 2014. All rights reserved. PAS Memo (ISSN 2169-1908) is published by the American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1200, Chicago, IL 60601. PAS MEMO — NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 American Planning Association | planning.org 1 Community Plan Draft 5 (17 March 2020) – Comments from Mark Egge Overall: I’m very pleased with the current status of this plan. When implemented, I believe this plan will go a long ways toward furthering our community goals. I’d be willing to sign-off on it “as is” and send to City Commission for their consideration, but I believe it would be improved by the few changes described below (mostly pertaining to the changes made since the previous draft). --- Cover Page: 2019 2020 Community Plan. There’s an issue with the cover photo that causes it to print incorrectly on Apple computers. Pp. III: Add Individual Themes to Table of Contents (e.g. which page does the transportation theme begin on?) Pp. 1: “recreational center that attracts hundreds of thousands annually.” (The region attracts millions (literally) of visitors annually. We rent 600,000 hotel rooms per year.) Replace Gallatin County population growth chart with Bozeman growth chart. E.g. from our TMP: Pp. 5: • The use of hypens, en dash and em dashes is somewhat inconsistent throughout the document. E.g. “20 years- until 2040” should be “20 years—until 2040.” Please refer to this great reference on hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes (when and how to use each): https://typographyforlawyers.com/hyphens-and-dashes.html • Map should show other complimentary planning areas (Belgrade, etc.) for context, like the map on page 35 • Under public outreach, (per Jerry’s requests) can we indicate the approximate number of participants at each stage, if known? Pp. 8 Benchmarking Tables: During discussion on 12/3/19 we discussed a benchmarking table with data pertaining to affordability, density, and growth. I suggest removing Median 2 age (not particularly pertinent to a land use plan, in my opinion) and the breakout of housing stock (this would be more appropriate in our housing plan). Please add Median Housing Price, Population Density, and recent growth rates. Compared with our peer cities, our housing is expensive, our density is low, and our growth rate is high. City Median Household Income (ACS, 2018) Median Housing Price (Zillow 2019) Median House Price to Median Income Ratio Population (ACS, 2018) City Land Area (Sq. Miles) Pop. / Sq. Mile Growth % 2010 – 2018 (ACS, 2018) Annualized Growth Rate (2010 – 2018) Bend, OR $63,468 $443,400 7.0 97,590 33.0 2956 27.3% 3.1% Billings, MT $57,172 $243,700 4.3 109,550 43.4 2524 5.0% 0.6% Boudler, CO $66,117 $793,578 12.0 107,353 24.8 4322 9.9% 1.2% Bozeman, MT $51,896 $440,200 8.5 48,532 19.1 2538 30.1% 3.4% Fort Collins, CO $62,132 $393,500 6.3 167,830 55.8 3007 15.9% 0.2% Meridian, ID $68,131 $326,400 4.8 106,804 29.7 3594 38.8% 4.5% Missoula, MT $45,010 $308,800 6.9 74,428 28.9 2575 11.4% 1.4% Sources: (ACS, 2018) U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates. (Zillow 2019) Zillow.com, Accessed December 1, 2019. City Land Area: Wikipedia Pp. 16 (City of Neighborhoods) N-2.4 “Evaluate design standards. Encourage development in appropriate districts of buildings that are Buildings are to be capable of serving an initial residential purpose and be readily converted to commercial uses…” Need to be clear that this describes REMU, B-1, etc. not residential areas. Pp.19 Areas of Activity Map: Missing: Cannery District, Misco Mill District. Unclear: what’s the Story Mill District (the defunct Stockyard Café?)? What businesses characterize the Fowler District or Cottonwood District? Is the Midtown District appropriately located? These areas aren’t necessarily oval shaped. Pp. 20. DCD-1.6 Consider replacing “Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing parking…” with “Evaluate parking management strategies such as improved user information, pricing, expanded pick-up and drop-off zones, enhanced transit, bicycle and pedestrian access, and other methods of reducing parking as a part of the overall transportation system and as a land use, acknowledging that demand for parking will still result in new supply being built.” Pp. 23 Parks & Open Space Map. Many of the trails shown on this map are inaccurate. Trails shown should extend beyond city boundaries. Mark will provide a link to a current trails Feature Layer from GVLT. Pp. 26 Photo. How ‘bout a better photo than a street without bike lanes, sidewalks, or transit service? May I suggest: 3 (Sacajawea Middle School, September 25, 2019. Download full resolution photo from: http://r1ght.com/bikephoto (CC BY 4.0 License No Attribution Required) Pp. 27 Accessibility and Mobility Map. The indicated “bicycle facilities” do not reflect current conditions. Map should include transit corridors. See maps on Page 4, below. Pp. 28: M-1.7 should read: “Develop a trunk network of high-frequency, priority transit service connecting major commercial nodes and coinciding with increased density.” Pp. 45: 6. Industrial. The Northeast Neighborhood—where all of these photos are taken—is now designated Community Commercial. We need some photos of actual industrial use (e.g. photonics, Kenyon Noble’s yards, etc.). 4 Future AAA Bicycle Network (Based on TMP) 1 Chris Saunders From:Mark Egge <mark@eateggs.com> Sent:Sunday, April 12, 2020 5:09 PM To:Tom Rogers Cc:Chris Saunders Subject:Re: Bozeman Community Plan Attachments:Egge Community Plan Draft 5 Comments.docx Tom— I appreciate you helping recall this to mind and preparing the plan to move forward as we all, in the coming weeks, begin to transition our focus from the current crisis back to the community's future growth. I've added my responses in orange below. I am available to meet May 5th, in person or via web conference, as the circumstances dictate. 1. Is the Plan ready for public hearing and action by the Board?  If yes, then what top three things would you like to see focused on by the Board as the discussion proceeds?  If no, then what top three things do you see as necessary to improve to be ready for Board action? Yes, in the mindset of not letting perfect become the enemy of the good, I believe the Plan is ready for public hearing and action by the board. I have previously provided (and attached again to this email) some specific comments. More broadly, my top three areas for focused attention: 1. The illustrative maps (not the FLUM) in the document would benefit from review and revision by the board. I would appreciate a review of the entire map series in the document. In particular, I'd like to see the Accessibility and Mobility Map include future transit corridors (which were included with a previous version of the document), and perhaps some of the major bicycle corridors from our Transportation Master Plan. 2. Metrics. I'd like to see the metrics more tightly integrated into the document, e.g. integrated into each vision theme section, after the "importance" section and before the goals / objectives / actions (rather than cordoned off to an appendix- like section at the back of the plan). If it's not possible to include current scores with the current draft then the metrics are too numerous and too complicated and we need to reduce and simplify. I'm happy to volunteer some of my time with 2 Strategic Services to identify data sources, computation methodologies, and baseline scores for the draft metrics. 3. The plan does not currently establish a logical plan and timeline for how the increases in density it describes will be implemented. Under the current plan, downtown growth is substantially limited to the existing B-3 zoning district, and there's nothing in the plan that lays groundwork for how the neighborhoods immediately surrounding downtown will change over time to provide a transition zone. Gradual and targeted upzong is essential to (and implicit in) many of the plan's goals, but not specifically addressed. I think it may be too late at this point to address this failing, but I'd like to note it for the record. Substantive changes cannot be made at his time but there is a lot we can do in the interim. We have greater latitude determining what constitutes a material change because the current draft was extensively revised and full public notice is required before the next meeting to consider the Plan. If you are able to provide comments on the draft during this interim we may be able to make the edits and have a revised version before the first public meeting on the Plan. We created a simple matrix in an effort to help you organize your thoughts and provide us needed feedback on the status of the draft. Based on your responses we’ll complete the matrix for tabulating the results. Acceptable Minor edits needed Substantive edits needed Rewrite and replace Layout & format x Themes x Goals x Objectives x Map x Organization x Illustrations, photos, & graphics x Explanatory text (e.g. intro of each theme) x -- Mark Egge 3 (406) 548-4488 he / him / his 1 Chris Saunders From:Henry Happel <henryhhappel@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:40 PM To:Tom Rogers Cc:Chris Saunders; Martin Matsen; Chris Mehl Subject:Re: Bozeman Community Plan Tom— I think the substance of version 6 of the Community Plan has been rather thoroughly vetted by the Planning Board and I am reasonably happy with its substance. However, I do think that, with some guidance from Community Development, the Board needs to have a discussion concerning whether and to what extent the Plan should be revised in light of the pandemic and its likely medium-term impact on the community. That impact is going to become clearer the further we get away from April, 2020. I’m not at all sure that that is a reason to further delay consideration of the Plan, but that may be a topic wrapped within the topic. Version 6 still suffers from a large number of editing deficiencies, some of which substantially detract from the Plan's readability and it’s intelligibility, and some of which just make us all look bad. You have seen my hand-written mark-up of Version 6. It would be a waste of time to have the entire Board try to edit the Plan. I reiterate my request that, as a courtesy, you and/or whomever at Community Development have a virtual sit down with me and perhaps another Planning Board member and see if we can’t come to some agreement about non-substantive editing changes. Those could then be incorporated in a Version 7 that could go to the entire Board. For the sake of clarity, my completion of the matrix in your email below would indicate that every category needs minor edits. Best, Hap On Apr 9, 2020, at 9:36 AM, Tom Rogers <TRogers@BOZEMAN.NET> wrote: Dear Board,     I hope this notes finds you and your family well.     While we are in this extended hiatus from finalizing the draft Community Plan perhaps we can take this  opportunity to make changes and edits you desire to increase our efficiency when we reconvene.     Please respond to the following question by Monday morning.     1. Is the Plan ready for public hearing and action by the Board?      If yes, then what top three things would you like to see focused on by the Board as the  discussion proceeds?   If no, then what top three things do you see as necessary to improve to be ready for Board  action?  2    Substantive changes cannot be made at his time but there is a lot we can do in the interim. We have  greater latitude determining what constitutes a material change because the current draft was  extensively revised and full public notice is required before the next meeting to consider the Plan. If you  are able to provide comments on the draft during this interim we may be able to make the edits and  have a revised version before the first public meeting on the Plan.     We created a simple matrix in an effort to help you organize your thoughts and provide us needed  feedback on the status of the draft. Based on your responses we’ll complete the matrix for tabulating  the results.        Acceptable  Minor edits  needed  Substantive edits  needed  Rewrite and  replace  Layout & format              Themes              Goals              Objectives          Map              Organization              Illustrations,  photos, &  graphics              Explanatory text  (e.g. intro of each  theme)                 The City Commission held their first public meeting since physical separation requirements were  enacted. In general the process went as planned. We are looking into hosting a Planning Board meeting  if the stay at home directive continues into May. If some restrictions are lifted and we are able, willing,  and believe everyone’s health can be insured, we may hold a meeting on Tuesday, May 5.     The most current version was sent to your attention in the meeting packets in early March. The  document is dated March 17, 2020. The draft PLAN can be downloaded on our web site.     Please respond to Chris Saunders or myself. We will compile the results and get them back to you by the  end of next week. Thank you and if you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to  contact us.     Tom     Tom Rogers | Senior Planner | AICP  City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT  trogers@bozeman.net | 406.582.2268     The update to the Bozeman Community Plan is underway. Help shape the future  at www.bozeman.net/communityplan.     The Department of Community Development is revising its operations until further notice to address COVID‐19. We appreciate  your patience and are working hard to keep as much stability of operations as possible. There may be delays in responding to  inquiries. We continue to receive and review development applications. Some application types may see delays in review due  to suspension of public meetings.     3 City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II,  Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated.  As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and  will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential  information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under  law. Happel Comments 4-13-2020 Page 1: The City of Bozeman is set in an expansive valley, surrounded by several towering mountain ranges, and intersected by blue ribbon waterways. Over the last 150 years, Bozeman has grown from a small town supported by agriculture to one of the most livable micropolitan areas in the United States. Desirable amenities attributes, such as immediate access to year-round recreation, high-quality education system, and a growing high-tech culture, and thoughtful and forward thinking City policies have all contributed to increasingly high rates of development, employment, and population growth, employment and development. ; all managed by thoughtful and forward thinking City policies. Bozeman now has a population of approximately 50,000 people, which is up from 22,660 people in the year 1990. It is the fourth largest city in Montana. Bozeman The City is home to Montana State University with research and contract expenditures from state, private and federal sources totaling $138.8 million in 2018-2019.; It is a growing regional healthcare hub,; serves as the major trading center for much of western Montana,; has a sophisticated and growing high tech industry,; and is a renowned summer and winter recreational center that attracts thousands of visitors annually. Bozeman’s high rate of growth and changing economics, the rapid development in surrounding Gallatin County, and the state lawstatute mandating that communities keep their community plans be kept up to date, all make it necessary for Bozeman to draft a new Community Plan. Without guided growth and development, the community’s identity and overall quality of life could be diminished by congestion and pollution. The City has had five community plans dating back to 1958, the most recent being its 2009 plan. Each plan builds upon the others, reflecting the community’s vision and needs at a given point in time. This Community Plan (the Plan) is a fundamental policy document guiding further growth and community development in Bozeman. The purpose of the Plan is to guide the City’s community planning and to evaluate and prioritize the City’s actions moving forward. The Plan reflects the community’s shared values and priorities. The Plan is the City’s long-range growth policy (or comprehensive plan) that meets the statutory requirements per MCASection 76-1-601 Montana Code Annotated. It sets forth Bozeman’s future growth policy for land use and development. The purpose of the Plan is to guide the City’s community planning and to evaluate and prioritize the City’s actions moving forward. This Plan helps guide citizens, City staff, and elected officials’ decisions. The Plan brings land use policy into larger community discussions. Its measure of success is continuation of the Bozeman tradition – a flourishing, safe, and vibrant place to reside, visit, build a business, and raise a family. The City, as an institution, will undertake many actions to implement the Plan as well as track the progress of the Plan’s implementation through established indicators. These indicators will help determine the objectives that are working, where they can be improved, and the objectives that need to be reevaluated. The citizens and businesses in the City, through their aspirations and hard work, will carry out the Plan. The Plan brings land use policy into larger community discussions Happel Comments 4-13-2020 Page 30 IMPORTANCE Bozeman’s economy is diverse and expanding, with a mix of businesses and industries centered on technology, healthcare, education, recreation, and tourism, and regional services. This is one of the City’s great strengths. Bozeman has access to cutting edge education and research at opportunities from Montana State University. With an enrollment of nearly 16,000 20,000 students, the University hosts ten colleges that includes subjects such as Engineering, Agriculture, Business, and Nursing. Graduates have created offshoot industries that foster competencies in several national industries, including businesses in opto-electronics, biofilm, and outdoor gear and other industries. The City’s commitment to broadband availability through its Economic Development Division has improved availability of national-level broadband speeds in key areas of the City, making state of the art communications and information distant consultants available locally. Additionally, immediate and short-distance proximity to various outdoor recreation opportunities provides significant daily mental and physical health benefits to both citizens and employers, making Bozeman one of the most desirable innovation centers in the country. Bozeman’s growing economy makes possible its increasing dynamism, diversity, and wealth. Each of the major sectors of our economy – education, technology, outdoor recreations, tourism, health care, and regional services – benefits from and reinforces the others. The growing economy provides resources the money that enables the City to pursue its priorities. Page 49 IMPORTANCE The Plan is intended to be a living document used daily by the City. Successful implementation of the Plan requires monitoring. Monitoring determines how well the City’s initial objectives are working, where they can be improved, and what is not working. Monitoring will take place at specified intervals based on information availability. Measuring the Plan’s efficacy (or outcomes) is a main tenant of the Plan. and; therefore, successful implementation of the Plan requires monitoring. A series of indicators have been identified for each Theme, in order to track progress and setbacks. For example, one indicator under the neighborhoods-based Theme addresses housing stock diversity, looks by looking at square footages, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and the taxable value of homes. A diverse housing stock is indicative of a City that is more accessible and affordable to those of all incomes. The implementation effort will largely be accomplished through a consolidated list of action items listed below and referred to in more detail in Chapter 2 as objectives and actions. Implementation will work in coordination with the City’s Strategic Plan, Capital Improvements Program, and other relevant plans and documents guiding the City. Some of the actions may already be underway while others will are estimated to occur in the future. Successful implementation of this plan will require dedication, engagement, and hard work from the community. Happel Comments 4-13-2020 Page 50 MONITORING AND UPDATES Tracking and monitoring the Plan’s intent is critical. Each Theme has one or more identified indicators, which use data to measure success towards the goal. Each indicator listed below identifies a source— from where the data should be drawn, description, frequency—defines how often the data is available, and set forth notes describing key considerations. The development of indicators requires the City to establish where we are now in relation to each indicator. This provides a baseline from which to track changes over time. Indicators were selected to be replicable, effective, and where possible, of a similar scope and nature as for indicators for with peer cities. A target, or where we want to go, will be established for each indicator. In some cases the process of setting a target will itself require substantial effort. The targets listed below are to give a general indication of intended trends; further refinement will follow. If an indicator shows over time that the City is getting farther from, rather than closer to, the intended target, it may be necessary to modify targets, policies, or standards. The process for revising the growth policy is described in Chapter 5. Development of specific targets for each indicator should be completed within a year of Plan adoption. After that first year, an annual report on the status of each indicator should be provided to the community. Page 54 AMENDMENT PROCESS The Bozeman Community Plan was formed on the basis of significant community outreach efforts and the input of many persons and groups. Alterations, whether the result of a review as triggered above or another reason, to the growth policy must provide a significant opportunity for public participation and understanding of the proposed changes. Amendments to the growth policy must meet the same statutory standards as the original adoption. Therefore, prior to the adoption of any amendment to the Plan, a public process must be provided. A fundamental requirement for public participation is time for individuals to become aware of proposed amendments and to study the proposed changes. A minimum active public review period of three months is to be expected. This Plan has been prepared to balance a wide variety of interests. Changes to the Plan must continue the balance of needs and interests. This Plan has been prepared to be internally consistent. Internal consistency meets one of the fundamental purposes of community planning— Page 55 AMENDMENT CRITERIA When an amendment to either the text of the Plan or the future land use map is requested it must be reviewed against the following criteria: Happel Comments 4-13-2020 1. The proposed amendment must cure a deficiency in the growth policy or improve the growth policy to better respond to the needs of the general community; 2. The proposed amendment does must not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either between the goals and the maps or between different goals and objectives; 3. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy; and 4. The proposed amendment may must not adversely affect the community as a whole or any significant portion thereof by including: a. Significantly altering land use patterns and principles in a manner contrary to those established by this Plan, b. Requiring unmitigated improvements to streets, water, sewer, or other public facilities or services, thereby impacting development of other lands, c. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated impacts on facilities and services, or d. Negatively affecting the livability of the amendment area or surrounding areas; or the health and safety of the citizens. Page 1: The city of Bozeman is set in an expansive valley, surrounded by mountain ranges and intersected by blue ribbon waterways. Over the last 150 years, Bozeman has grown from a small town supported by agriculture to one of the most livable micropolitan areas in United States. Desirable attributes such as immediate access to year-round recreation, high-quality schools, a growing high-tech culture, and thoughtful and forward-thinking city policies have all contributed to strong population growth, high employment and rapid development. Bozeman now has a population of approximately 50,000 people, which is up from 22,660 people in the year 1990. It is the fourth largest city in Montana. Bozeman is home to Montana State University, the largest university in the State with a total enrollment of over 17,000 students. It is a growing regional healthcare hub, serves as the major trading center for much of western Montana, has a sophisticated and growing high-tech industry, and is a renowned summer and winter recreational center that attracts many thousands of visitors annually. Bozeman's high rate of growth and changing economics, the rapid development in surrounding Gallatin County, and state law mandating that community plans be kept up-to-date, all make it necessary for Bozeman to adopt a new community plan. Without guided growth and development, the community’s identity and overall quality of life could be diminished by congestion and pollution. The City has had five community plans dating back to 1958, the most recent being it's 2009 plan. Each plan builds upon the others, reflecting the community’s vision and needs over time. This community plan (the Plan) is a fundamental policy document guiding further growth and community development in Bozeman. It sets forth Bozeman's future growth policy for land-use and development. The purpose of the Plan is to guide the City’s community planning and to evaluate and prioritize the City’s actions moving forward. It reflects the community’s shared values and priorities. The Plan is the City’s long-range growth policy that meets the statutory requirements of Section 76-1-601 of the Montana Code Annotated. This Plan helps guide citizens, City staff, and elected officials’ decisions. It brings land use policy into larger community discussions on many issues addressed by the City. It's measure of success is continuation of the Bozeman tradition— a flourishing, safe, and a vibrant place to reside, build a business, and raise a family. The City, as an institution, will undertake many actions to implement the Plan as well as track the progress of the Plan’s implementation through established indicators. These indicators will help determine the objectives that are working, where they can be improved, and the objectives that need to be reevaluated. The citizens and businesses in the City, through their aspirations and hard work, will carry out the Plan. Page 3: 01 BASICS outlines the organization of the plan, describes the Planning Area and the Planning Period, provides an overview of the public outreach process, summarizes existing conditions, and describes the relationship of the Plan to other City planning documents. Finally, the Plan describes the basic planning principles employed in developing the Plan. Recommendations are discussed within the context of the issues most important to Bozeman citizens. 02 THEMES set forth community desired outcomes and the Plan goals and objectives to achieve these outcomes. The Themes include framework maps that show key opportunity areas related to each Theme. ….. 05 AMENDMENTS + REVIEW contains information concerning amendment of the Plan, and the principles involved in the City’s subdivision and zoning review processes. 1 Chris Saunders From:Henry H.Happel <hap@fastmail.fm> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:26 PM To:Jerry Pape Cc:Tom Rogers Subject:Response to your April 28 Email Jerry— This is in response to your email below. You seem to be hung up over the use of the word “Indicators” rather than “Metrics.” I agree that “Indicators” is a somewhat softer term. However, the devil is in the details and the details are on pages 51 and 52 of the draft Plan. Most of the Indicators on those pages could just as well be described as Metrics. A few, however, could probably not. “Housing cost burden“ is clearly a metric. “Greenhouse gas emissions“ is a softer target, and probably more properly described as an indicator. I can’t say that I see any substantive difference in the label that is used. I think what you and we ought to focus on is the details in the table on pages 51 and 52 of the Plan. If you think there are revisions here that should be made, say so. But I don’t think a broad-based attack lacking any detail is helpful. With regard to the location of the indicators/metrics table in the Plan, I think it is right where it belongs. The Plan can’t talk about the metrics to be employed to measure achievement of goals before it describes what these goals are. You criticize the “Indicators “ for lacking either current levels or future targets. I think that is at least partially inaccurate. The “Current Status“ column is meant to be populated with current level information. The “Target“ column at present indicates direction of movement, not specific numerical targets. The text of the Plan states that: “A target, or where we want to go, will be established for each indicator. In some cases the process of setting a target will itself require substantial effort. The targets listed below are to give a general indication of intended trend…Development of specific targets for each indicator should be completed within a year of Plan adoption." If you have in mind specific numerical targets for any Indicators that should be included in the Plan now, you should propose these and also the date by which you believe those targets should be achieved. I think your statement that the Plan suffers from “the absence of any mention [of the] affordability crisis and its redress,“ is also not accurate. The discussion occurs on pages 11 and 12 of the Plan. You could more accurately argue that the Plan does not discuss housing affordability in detail. The reason for that is because the City has a separate Housing Action Plan that is referenced in this document, and to which it is intended that citizens make reference for details concerning the City's intended actions on this front. The Planning Board has agreed that this is the appropriate way to deal with this issue in the Plan. Skilled workforce shortage is a subset of this same issue. 2 You’re right that there is no mention of the pandemic or the financial impact of the pandemic in the Plan, but the latest draft of the Plan was prepared in pre-pandemic days. I think the question of whether and how the Plan should address the pandemic and its financial impact is something that the Board will need to address. Finally, you argue that the Plan is a “justifier“ for the subsequent legislative codification of the UDC. The UDC has already been codified. I think what you are arguing is that the Plan may limit changes to the UDC that you think would be appropriate. If you want to make that argument, again I think you need to be more specific. What changes would you like to see made to the UDC? What specific provisions of the Plan do you see impeding those changes? Best, Hap p.s. Tom— Since Jerry sent his April 28 email to all Board members, please include a copy of this email in the board papers for next Tuesday’s Board meeting. On Apr 28, 2020, at 1:06 PM, Jerry Pape <jerry@triplecreek.com> wrote: All, This is now the only mention of the word "metrics" in the primary GP document. 1. Further develop reasonable and relevant metrics for community development within the City’s Planning Area to determine whether the intent of this Plan is being accomplished. I wonder what happened to all the pages and pages of work we did. Well, all those sessions where we went back and forth about what metrics to use became a table of "Indicators" about 50 pages later. Nothing like a little word play to obfuscate a good, well understood word like "metrics". <jjlpmcomgmmoacla.png> More importantly, I suspect that the diminished mention of this critical concept will limit the impact of a critical concept on future planning, UDC and scope of operations for our beloved little town. Surely, "indicators" that reference "Increase" or "Decrease" as targets mean little without a current value or a future target value. Yet, it appears that some of you are willing to go forward without current "indicator" levels or targets. How then, I ask will the document function? The document contains a passage that says we will develop these concepts within a 3 year. Certainly such a commitment was not upheld for the "Design Guidelines" for Departures in the UDC more than 2 years ago...so I have considerable doubt. If the current draft is substantially where we go with this document by handing it to Mehl two meetings from now, each of you will have been complicit/cowed into producing an inefficacious document that reads pretty and affirms the current UDC of "Preserve the Bozmean Feel" elites. I remind each you - we owe it to the citizens, as their fiduciaries*, to prepare, present, and submit a cogent, executable, document that serves everyone, not just the blessed few--and this document does not do that--it serves the grand plan of a small number of architects and to a greater of lesser extent each of our personal scopes, and, to the extent that we have been willing to generalize, our constituency only so far as it avoids intrusion upon our own view of Bozmean as the Last Best Place. If nothing else consider these document deficiencies:  The absence of any mention affordability crisis and its redress  The absence of any mention of skilled workforce shortage  The absence of any mention of COVID or the coming COVID Financial Crisis Each deficiency stands as an indictment of the inadequacy of our work, both severally and collectively, with regard to this near-to-final document. The argument that some have made, that taking any longer to improve this document is a disservice, is itself a disservice -- imagine looking at this document and the UDC from the bottom of the coming COVID Financial Crisis--will you feel it was really well done then? We need to correct the deficiencies and run some high-level functional test with this document to envision how it will be pointed back to--as it was when Mr. Rogers indicated to me that the demonization of the two-car front loaded duplex (TFLD) townhome was achieved by the prior Growth Policy's mandate of "walkability". Recall that the TFLD is simply too ugly to walk past, destroys walkability, and, again according to Tom, impairs "citizen engagement with the built environment" -- pretend you're me and insert your own stream of colorful language here... The document we are working on is known as a "justifier" for the subsequent legislative codification of the UDC--it is our job to make certain that it is just. Jerry Pape, Accountability Auditor - Bozmean City Planning Board A P.S. for P.S. From Black's Law: What is FIDUCIARY? The term is derived from the Roman law, and means (as a noun) a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee,in respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires. Thus, a person Is a fiduciary who is invested with rights and powers to be 4 exercised for the benefit of another person. Svanoe v. Jurgens, 144 111.507, 33 N. E. 955; Stoll v. King, 8 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 299.As an adjective it means of the nature of a trust; having the characteristics of a atrust; analogous to a trust; relating to or founded upon a trust or confidence. 1 Chris Saunders From:Jerry Pape <jpape@espt.com> Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:25 PM To:Chris Mehl; Lacie Kloosterhof; Cathy Costakis (costakisce@gmail.com); Chris Saunders; George Thompson'; hap@happels.org; Jennifer Madgic; Joan Roe; Mark Egge; Tom Rogers; rrudnic@gmail.com; paul_spitler@yahoo.com; rrudnic@gmail.com Subject:Jerry Pape - What we should be doing with the Growth Policy.... Planning Board et al, [Further Distribution Permitted--apologies in advance if you get two] In light of the current state of world affairs, we must, with great haste, move away from trivial and frivolous considerations and put our focus squarely on the matter at hand--any and all possible local mitigations of a global economic collapse. Please recall my prior insistence that our Growth Policy should contain an Appendix F with contents focused on responding to a situation wherein the metrics (actual growth) did not add up to the targets (growth minima required by existing fiscal obligations, maintenance and reserves). My anticipation had been to prevent the well- documented impediments that the last (no)Growth Policy/UDO produced in the the last recovery. I have repeatedly stated that it is our obligation to prepare for likely future conditions, via our long-term planning, only to be repeatedly contradicted by Mr. Mehl with phrases like "Recession, what do you mean, we're booming!". I speak to you today as both an Economic Development Professional (and Founding Director of the Federally- chartered Northern Rocky Mountain Economic Development District) and a business professional with experience and credentials across multiple industries that vastly exceed those of Mr. Mehl. My advisors and I have seen clear signs of a correction on the near-horizon for at least a year and BBER's 2020 Economic Outlook Seminar, earlier this year, showed future growth, but made it very clear that that growth was slowing. My hope had been that with a correction of 5-10%, few in Gallatin County, particularly Bozeman, would even notice. At 15-20% even Bozeman would notice, hence my proposal that we plan for 20% and hope for less. I certainly did not plan for the dire situation we, and the whole world are in now, but as a friend of mine sagely opined "even if the problem doesn't involve tanks, there are always tanks in the problem". The lesson to be learned here, is that wise people realize that you can only plan for about 80% of what life will throw at you, but the reward for doing so with alacrity is that a well-planned approach will generally provide the agility to absorb the 20% you simply cannot plan for. I advocate that we should have been, and now must, with all due haste, plan for future challenges. We the Planning Board are the Bozeman citizens state-sanctioned with the fiduciary responsibility for "Future Planning", the Growth Policy, and the Uniform Development Code. Right now, we are working on a Growth Policy that, historically, has been purely aspirational and has:  No metrics  No targets  No Plan B  No inherent self-modification/dynamic adaptability  No acknowledgement of current conditions or extant problems 2 While we have made small headway with the idea of metrics, it should be manifestly clear, in our current Covid-19 crisis, that the rest of this list of deficiencies MUST BE ADDRESSED NOW, in this version of the Growth Policy prior to moving it out of the Planning Board to the City Commission, if we are to be in any way prepared for the next unanticipated catastrophe. Here's a little historical justification--years ago, as we were sliding into the bottom of the prior Recession, the Bozeman City Commission had, months earlier, adopted an Econ Dev plan, but had taken no further action. To address this lack of action, I founded the Bozeman Economic Working Group with two other citizens and eventually grew the group to over 30 people meeting at the C'Mon Inn. We thereby compelled the city, under Mayor Becker, to create an Ombudsperson and an Economic Development Official. Unfortunately, these are two very different jobs that were given, at that time, to only one person--Brit Fontenot (who I might add performed admirably in that difficult time). Why was this Working Group necessary and what does it have to do with Planning? It was because the existing Growth Policy (aka the (No)Growth Policy of Jacobson, Kirchhoff et al) and its attendant UDO were greatly hampering recovery from the Recession. Mr. Fontenot had to resolve a slew of impediments because the Growth Policy, and by turns the UDO, would not be revised for years to come. These impedimentary conditions required both the intervention of the Ombudsperson and a constant flow of "exception/adaptation requests" to City Planning and often the City Commission. Years later the only real improvement, the "Departure" or Administrative (vs Legislative) Variance, arose as a possible mitigation in the UDC, but sadly this concept was grossly incomplete (missing at least 40 pages of examples) when Mr. Mehl forced the Planning Board to finalize the UDC. Enough history, let's get to today's facts. We live in a town that has never planned for any sort of crisis. Former City Manager Kukulski was a famous Pollyanna who possessed (quite literally) no proactive capability. To further support this claim, less than a year ago, I asked then City Manger Surratt on the stairs of City Hall, "How prepared is the city for a 20% economic correction?". She responded with "Not at all...Not........at.........all". By contrast, Gallatin County Finance Director Blackman said the county could probably handle a 15-20% economic hit. Know this, the economic consequences of Covid-19 will be impossible to survive unscathed. Without the skill and talent of the Interim City Manager Dennis Taylor, Fire Chief Josh Waldo and County Health Officer Matt Kelley (of course, with profound thanks to their unnamed staffs), we would have no actionable Incident Command System (ICS) capable of responding to the Covid-19 crisis. What then do I expect, in the face of global crisis, from a municipal city planning board and by turns from the city commissioners? I expect a Growth Policy and an antecedent UDC that has:  Metrics -- we can't get them all, but some is better than none (adapted demographics, and usage vectors): o How many lots are left? o How much water is left? o How many open salaried positions are there? o What are the 5 year moving average deltas? o Etc  Targets -- clear indications of city operating cost minima (likely from a stripped down budget) o We need at least this much money to pay staff o We need at least this much money to maintain X,Y, and Z 3 o Etc  Inherent self-modification/dynamic adaptability -- based on metric/target trigger conditions o If current metrics are not within a reasonable % of associated targets then switch to Plan B using an re-evaluation timeline of between 6 months and 1 year.  Plan B -- a written commitment to and general guidelines for impediment mitigation and an alternative approach designed to improve approach to targets, with a timeline equal to the evaluation timeline above  Summary acknowledgement of current conditions (affordable housing) or extant problems (Covid-19) at the time of plan issuance and aggregation of such data on an annual basis as part of metrics above. Above all I expect a living policy that can adapt to adverse conditions through the attributes stated above. We must make this policy for functionality, transparency, and honesty with consideration of the needs of every single citizen and the anticipation of every future citizen--and we must see these citizens as worthy investors willing to take risk in our community, no matter how small their venture. A static, conditions-ignorant Growth Policy is a curse for the Working Class and a panacea for the Wealth Class that has long been deliberately controlled by a tiny faction of city staff and city commissioners. This faction would trap the rest of Bozeman's citizens to suffocate under inadequate, self-serving ideas and policies that violate the intent of MCA and hold the personal Quality Of Living for a select few far above the right to a quality life for everyone else. It is time to call a spade a shovel--"Preserve the Bozeman Feel" was a campaign concept designed, in the words of one city official, to "saran-wrap" the town, and thereby preserve the Quality of Living for the Wealth Class and the rest of the citizens be damned--that's where Mr. Mehl's "push to get it done" and the idea for reversing the order for UDC and Growth Policy revisions came from. By revising the UDC first, it allowed them to over- complicate the planning and development processes and stealthily wrap the town in airless policies, under the guise of Quality of Living for all and that's just mean--Bozmean. Jerry Pape 1 Chris Saunders From:Jerry Pape <jerry@triplecreek.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:06 PM To:hap@happels.org; Chris Saunders; Tom Rogers; Jennifer Madgic; George Thompson; Cathy Costakis (costakisce@gmail.com); Mark Egge; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; Terry Cunningham; Michael Wallner; paul_spitler@yahoo.com; I-Ho Pomeroy Subject:Bozmean Growth Policy Accountability Audit All, This is now the only mention of the word "metrics" in the primary GP document. 1. Further develop reasonable and relevant metrics for community development within the City’s Planning Area to determine whether the intent of this Plan is being accomplished. I wonder what happened to all the pages and pages of work we did. Well, all those sessions where we went back and forth about what metrics to use became a table of "Indicators" about 50 pages later. Nothing like a little word play to obfuscate a good, well understood word like "metrics". More importantly, I suspect that the diminished mention of this critical concept will limit the impact of a critical concept on future planning, UDC and scope of operations for our beloved little town. Surely, "indicators" that 2 reference "Increase" or "Decrease" as targets mean little without a current value or a future target value. Yet, it appears that some of you are willing to go forward without current "indicator" levels or targets. How then, I ask will the document function? The document contains a passage that says we will develop these concepts within a year. Certainly such a commitment was not upheld for the "Design Guidelines" for Departures in the UDC more than 2 years ago...so I have considerable doubt. If the current draft is substantially where we go with this document by handing it to Mehl two meetings from now, each of you will have been complicit/cowed into producing an inefficacious document that reads pretty and affirms the current UDC of "Preserve the Bozmean Feel" elites. I remind each you - we owe it to the citizens, as their fiduciaries*, to prepare, present, and submit a cogent, executable, document that serves everyone, not just the blessed few--and this document does not do that--it serves the grand plan of a small number of architects and to a greater of lesser extent each of our personal scopes, and, to the extent that we have been willing to generalize, our constituency only so far as it avoids intrusion upon our own view of Bozmean as the Last Best Place. If nothing else consider these document deficiencies:  The absence of any mention affordability crisis and its redress  The absence of any mention of skilled workforce shortage  The absence of any mention of COVID or the coming COVID Financial Crisis Each deficiency stands as an indictment of the inadequacy of our work, both severally and collectively, with regard to this near-to-final document. The argument that some have made, that taking any longer to improve this document is a disservice, is itself a disservice -- imagine looking at this document and the UDC from the bottom of the coming COVID Financial Crisis--will you feel it was really well done then? We need to correct the deficiencies and run some high-level functional test with this document to envision how it will be pointed back to--as it was when Mr. Rogers indicated to me that the demonization of the two-car front loaded duplex (TFLD) townhome was achieved by the prior Growth Policy's mandate of "walkability". Recall that the TFLD is simply too ugly to walk past, destroys walkability, and, again according to Tom, impairs "citizen engagement with the built environment" -- pretend you're me and insert your own stream of colorful language here... The document we are working on is known as a "justifier" for the subsequent legislative codification of the UDC--it is our job to make certain that it is just. Jerry Pape, Accountability Auditor - Bozmean City Planning Board A P.S. for P.S. From Black's Law: What is FIDUCIARY? The term is derived from the Roman law, and means (as a noun) a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee,in respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires. Thus, a person Is a fiduciary who is 3 invested with rights and powers to be exercised for the benefit of another person. Svanoe v. Jurgens, 144 111.507, 33 N. E. 955; Stoll v. King, 8 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 299.As an adjective it means of the nature of a trust; having the characteristics of a atrust; analogous to a trust; relating to or founded upon a trust or confidence. Page #Comment Response 16-37 Are the GOA's priotritized, should they be?Question for discussion 16 Goal N-2, phrased oddly and means nothing to a lay-person.Rephrase 16-37 There are several repeated GOA's there are better ways to do this than repeating. Revise to eliminate duplication 17 Goals 3.6 and 3.7 are passive, I believe we should use stronger language. Rephrase ex. "require" instead of "incentivize" 17 4.1 is very vague, what are these civic actions, how do you measure them to show progress? Elaborate or rewrite 20 2.5, 2.6, and 2.10 could easily be combined into 1 goal Combine 21 3.1 - What other goals are we talking about?Elaborate or rewrite 21 3.2 and 3.3 are speaking to the same issue Combine 24 1.3 - I like the inclusion of community gardens but it has nothing to do with natural features being discussed Include in a better location 25 EPO section 3 should include a GOA adressing refuse and recycling.Include a new GOA 25 3.6 - Should specifically mention infiltration in place, LID features, green streets, etc. so that it is clear they should be included in code. Revise the GOA 25 4.5 would be more appropriate in EPO-1 Move 28 1.3 - I think mode share is a better measure of multimodal travel Consider revising 28 1.6 - I believe putting much effort into AV's right now is premature and an ineffective use of staff time. I can elaborate on the issues if needed but simply put the technology can't function in this area on the majority of roads due to issues such as unpaved roads, no lane markings, lack of sensors, and insufficient network capacity. Remove AV's from the GOA 29 1.12 - Should include consideration for parking maximums and no parking requirements as opposed to just changing minimums. Revise GOA 29 2.5 and 1.4 say/do the same thing Combine 40 I noted the sentence that each land use can be implemented by multiple zoning districts. I don't have much familiarity with the zoning here but this should be simplified. We should strive to have 1 or 2 flexible zonings to implement a land use instead of multiple more restrictive/specific zonings. There are GOA's adressing this and its really outside this plan but I think its noteworthy. 41 "Higher density residential areas are encouraged, but not required, …..." If this is truly important we should require it. Question for discussion 51 A City of Neighborhoods - Housing stock diversity: How are we measuring diversity? Question for discussion 51 A City Bolstered by Downtown and Complementary Districts - Development vs Redevelopment: Target is to increase redevelopment but I'm not sure that is the right measure. If redevelopment equates to removing smaller more affordable housing and replacing with larger less affordable housing then this target makes other issues worse and is a failure. How are we reinsuring that redevelopment is equating to increased density or affordability? Question for discussion 51 A City Bolstered by Downtown and Complementary Districts - Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, how do we expect to measure that? Question for discussion 51 A City Bolstered by Downtown and Complementary Districts - Vehicle Miles Traveled: Target is to reduce VMT which is an unattainable and unrealistic goal. We can't continue to grow outward and reduce how far we travel. Reasses 52 A City that Prioritizes Accessibility and Mobility Choices - Transit Accessibility: Target is to increase % of jobs within a dstance of a route. This is outside our control, Streamlines survey response could be that residents want less routes and increased frequency and with that change we have instantly failed. Reasses General The implementation section is very lacking in detail. We should include information like who is assigned/working on the goals, we should have the current status of all these items otherwise we are in year 2 before we can assess change, we should note if there are associated costs with each task Significantly beef up the implementation section. General Can we use this plan to drive the housing plan to be more aggressive Include a specific % target or a specific increase General What are our current height limitations, do they old us back?Objective to revise these requirements