HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-24 Public Comment - N. Nakamura - AHO can't rely on parking reductionsFrom:Natsuki Nakamura
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]AHO can"t rely on parking reductions
Date:Tuesday, November 26, 2024 10:19:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commission,
Thanks to the City staff who gave time and made themselves available for questions during
the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) Open House. I wasn't able to stay for most of it, sowill write in some of my comments.
My major concern is about the AHO relying on reduced parking requirements as a bargaining
chip to get affordable housing. As someone who wants to live in a more bikeable and walkablecommunity, and have lived in other places where I did not need to have a car, I would love to
see Bozeman move away from planning around cars. However, simply not having parkingspaces available doesn't mean that people will not own cars if we still live in an area built
around cars. It just means that it will be more difficult and more expensive for folks who stillneed a car.
So I think there is an important conversation needed about how much parking we want as a
community. I agree that some parking mandates may be too high and therefore encouragingfuture development to be overly car-centric, but there is still a desire and need for some
parking (eg. we do not have sufficient public transit infrastructure for people to reliably getaround especially in the winter; there is a need for handicap parking spaces; Bozeman is
famously 15 minutes by car away from beautiful Montana, etc). I don't think we can requirezero parking without a thoughtful transition away from cars and just hope that new
development still provides the parking needed out of the goodness of their heart and at the costof their checkbook.
Fortunately, we as a community are about to embark on a robust conversation about how we
want our City to look and develop through the UDC update. I am optimistic that, if we are ableto get proper public participation in the UDC engagement process, we can figure out as a
community and as neighborhoods how much parking we need to ensure that our city is safe,accessible, and fosters non-car transportation options. I am optimistic that we as a community
can figure out what amount of reduced parking mandates make sense.
If the City and Commission can agree with my optimism in this regard, ideally the UDCupdate will better match parking requirements with parking needs. So then back to my concern
on relying on reducing parking requirements to bargain for affordable housing. If we do thework of figuring out the amount of parking a community thinks they need, but then allow new
development with significantly less parking, should we be surprised if the surroundingneighbors are unhappy with the new development coming in, even if it includes a handful of
affordable units? There is of course a need and value for having more affordable housing inour community, but the existence of affordable vs unaffordable units does not necessarily
mean less need for parking. (Personally, as someone who works in the service industry outsideof a 9 to 5 schedule, I am unfortunately more reliant on my car to be able to get to and from
work than someone who might make twice as much as I do working remotely from their
home.) Unless a neighborhood agrees that substantially reduced parking available is a goodexchange for some affordable units, I believe that this trade does not set up a project for
success.
Lastly, I'd like to flag the possibility of changes coming down from Helena in a futurelegislative session. The Governor's Housing Task Force has recommended getting rid of
parking mandates entirely (championed by a member of our own Community DevelopmentBoard). If the State adopts this recommendation, they could prohibit local municipalities from
having parking mandates, or cap parking mandates at a level lower than we offer throughincentives. If that happens, the primary bargaining chip we have to try to incentivize
affordable housing will be gone and we will be left in a situation similar to 2021 when we lostthe tool of inclusionary zoning.
I have many issues with the Affordable Housing Ordinance incentives, which is why I was
hoping the Commission would repeal it or at least pause new applications utilizing them, butregardless of that, I hope the Commission will acknowledge the shortfalls of relying on
reducing parking requirements to try to incentivize the affordable housing we need in ourcommunity. I believe strongly that we as a community are willing to work towards solutions to
house our neighbors, but I don't think offering reduced parking (especially if we successfullyfigure out how to reduce parking across the board) is going to make our community more
affordable.
Thank you for your consideration and thanks again to City Staff for their efforts to engagewith the community.
Best,
Natsuki