HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Vitality Board written comments 12 04 24 December 4, 2024
Bozeman Economic Vitality Board Meeting
Affordable Housing Ordinance Update
Written Comments to the Board
From: Daniel Carly
To: Bozeman Public Comment;Brit Fontenot; David
Cc: Terry Cunningham;Joey Morrison;Jennifer Madgic;Dowi as Fischer;Emma Bode
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Economic Vitality Board meeting,Wed,Dec 4,2024
Date: Wednesday,December 4,2024 7:27:49 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. T __
Please place the following comment in the Economic Vitality Board (EVB) folder for their
Dec 4, 2024, meeting at 6 pm at City Hall, and please distribute to all EVB members. Thank
you.
Dec 4, 2024, 7:30am
To: Economic Vitality Board (EVB); Brit Fontenot, Director of Economic Development and
City Staff Liaison to the EVB; David Fine, Urban Renewal Program Manager; and
comments@bozeman.net for the public record
Subject: Dec 4, 2024, EVB meeting. Public comment on Action item F.1: Review Revised
Elements of the AHO
Part I: The Failure of the City's Affordable Housing Ordinance (existing and revised)
On balance, the City of Bozeman's (City) existing Affordable Housing Ordinance is a failure.
Moreover, the City's proposed revision of the AHO will also be a failure. Why? Because the
AHO, whether existing or revised, (1) does nothing but give away economically valuable
public resources—both natural and built—to private developers for little to no community
benefit and (2) contributes to the ongoing destruction of Bozeman's historical character and
sense of place in the downtown core (i.e., within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District, NCOD). Cases in point are the proposed The Guthrie development (versions 1 and
2), the proposed Block B development, the proposed Bozeman Yards development, and
even the proposed 7th and Aspen development.
Specifically (but not exhaustive):
• Neither of The Guthrie proposals will provide "affordable units" that will be affordable
to the majority of Bozeman's workforce; neither will provide sufficient on-site parking
near an elementary school; and neither will be compatible with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood, which is in the NCOD.
• The proposed Block B development will be built for the wealthy only (i.e., zero
"affordable units") and will result in the net loss of affordable housing because on-
site Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) will be destroyed and no
affordable housing will be simultaneously built off-site. And, there is no guarantee
that any affordable housing will ever be built off-site as part of the proposed land
swap deal. Also, the proposed Block B development will be a seven-story
monstrosity totally incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood,
which is in the NCOD.
https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/o ink ions/guest columnists/aIison-sweeney-
city-s=,experimental-ordinance-resu Its-in-a-net-loss-of-affordable-
housina/article_c8e600f8-a089-11 ef-ada9-b7461fdd1 ac6.html
• The proposed Bozeman Yards development will contain two—count'em—two
"affordable units" for sale at 120%AMI while the rest of the units will be luxury units
affordable to the wealthy only. Not to mention the proposed design is entirely
incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which is in the
NCOD.
• The proposed 7th and Aspen project pits affordable housing against Bozeman's
natural environment—a false choice—and will destroy nearly all of the existing
mature trees on the site, thus creating another affordable-housing heat island of
which the City can be proud. I note that neither the existing AHO nor the proposed
revision to the AHO includes a tree-equity requirement. So much for the City living
up to the goals of its Climate Plan 2020.
• The final—and perhaps most serious—failure of the existing and revised AHO is
that all AHO development projects are administrative-review only, which removes
final decision-making authority from the City Commission and violates the public's
MT-constitutional rights to participate and to know. The MT Constitution, Article II,
Section 8. Right of Participation reads, "The public has the right to expect
governmental agencies to afford such reasonable opportunity for citizen
participation in the operation of the agencies prior to the final decision as may be
provided by law." The MT Constitution, Article 11, Section 9. Right to Know reads,
"No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the
deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its
subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly
exceeds the merits of public disclosure."
The bottom line here is that the existing AHO is a failure—and the revised AHO will be a
failure, too—because developers have figured out how to "game"the AHO such that they
can and will build luxury and/or environmentally irresponsible developments while providing
almost no housing affordable to Bozeman's workforce (affordable housing = spending 30%
or less of a household's annual adjusted gross income on rent or mortgage). In the end, the
failure of the AHO—existing or revised—lies with the City Commission, which has ceded
complete decision-making authority to City staff rather than taking on this important
responsibility themselves.
Part 11. A three-step plan for the City to (1) provide affordable housing for Bozeman's
workforce, (2) protect the historical character and sense of place of Bozeman's
downtown core within the NCOD, and (3) help conserve Bozeman's finite water
supply (as a bonus!).
If all three of the following steps were implemented simultaneously, the result would be to
(1) provide a substantial amount of affordable housing for Bozeman's workforce, (2) protect
the historical character and sense of place of Bozeman's downtown core within the NCOD,
and (3) help conserve the City's finite water supply (as a bonus). Here is how the three-step
plan would work:
Step 1. Repeal and re-write the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) such that it
would no longer apply within the NCOD but instead would apply only to new
greenfield development, where it could, e.g., be integrated judiciously into new
developments of any size. In a re-written AHO, the City would require that affordable
housing units be equitably distributed among buildings and among units within buildings.
Step 2. Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ)within the NCOD
only, thus encouraging Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing to be kept and allowing
new, neighborhood friendly affordable housing to be built as part of redevelopment and infill
projects. https://www.voutube.com/watch?v=rOXJozSO—mw
Step 3. Amend subsection "D" of BMC 38.410.130 -Water Adequacy to require 33%
affordable housing in all residential developments of three or more units.
In late May, 2024, the Bozeman City Attorney approved the form and content of
amendments proposed to subsection "D" of BMC 38.410.130 -Water Adequacy as part of
the Bozeman WaterAdequacy municipal citizen's ballot initiative, which was submitted by
the local grassroots working group, Water Adequacy for Residential Development (WARD).
Shortly after this ballot initiative had been approved for signature-gathering by the City
Attorney and Gallatin County, the WARD working group voluntarily withdrew it because the
City Attorney imposed a signature requirement of 25% of Bozeman's registered voters
rather than a 15% signature requirement (15% was later deemed the correct number for the
Bozeman Plastics Ordinance). Likely, the form and content of the proposed amended code
are still approvable by the City Attorney, and thus the proposed amended code could be
adopted by the City itself rather than being re-submitted by the WARD working group and
run as a city-wide, municipal citizens' ballot initiative.
Briefly, the proposed amended code—which is quoted below—stipulates that (1) all
residential developments of three or more units may only be allowed to issue a payment to
the city of cash-in-lieu of water rights if the development contains 33% or more of affordable
housing. Moreover, the proposed amended code (2) does not allow developers to pay for or
otherwise contribute to offsite water efficiency and conservation measures because doing
so would be a loophole to stipulation (1). The proposed amended code reads as follows, as
excerpted from the full Bozeman WaterAdequacy ballot initiative (unchanged text is
existing code, cross-outs are deletions, and underlines are additions):
"Sec. 38.410.130. -Water adequacy
D. The city will determine the estimated increase in annual municipal water demand
attributable to the development. The applicant must offset the estimated increase in annual
municipal water demand attributable to the development through one or more of the
following means:
2. Implementation of onsite water efficiency and conservation measures that
reduce the estimated annual municipal water demand attributable to the development by
one
or more of the following methods:
3. A Ppayment to the city of cash-in-lieu of water rights for that portion of the estimated
annual
municipal water demand attributable to the development that is not offset under
subsections
D.1 and D.2.
a. Residential developments of three or more units may only-be allowed to issue a payment
to
the city of cash-in-lieu of water rights if the development contains 33% or more of affordable
housing deed-restricted for 75 years or more for sale at 100% AMI or for rent at 60% AM 1.
The affordable units must be of the same quality and size as those sold or rented at market
rate.'
Part III. Conclusion
If Steps 1, 2, and 3 were all implemented simultaneously, the result would be to (1) provide
a substantial amount of affordable housing for Bozeman's workforce, (2) protect the
historical character and sense of place of Bozeman's downtown core within the NCOD, and
(3) help conserve the City's finite water supply.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Daniel Carty
213 N. 3rd Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715
cc: Mayor Terry Cunningham, Deputy Mayor Joey Morrison, and Commissioners Jennifer
Madgic, Douglas Fischer, and Emma Bode.
P.S. I have cc'd all of the Commissioners because the City's website does not specify
which Commissioner is the liaison to the EVB.
To: Economic Vitality Board (EVB); Brit Fontenot, Director of Economic Development and
City Staff Liaison to the EVB; and David Fine, Urban Renewal Program Manager
Subject: Dec 4, 2024, EVB meeting,Action item F.1: Review Revised Elements of the AHO
Dear EVB Board members, Mr. Fontenot, and Mr. Fine,
I am writing today to let you know I agree the Affordable Housing Ordinance is not working
as intended. I worry that the revised ordinance will also fall short of bringing us the results
that we want. Unfortunately, I think it has resulted in the City"giving away the store"for not
enough benefit to the community. Instead,the AHO is contributing to the ongoing
destruction of Bozeman's historical character and sense of place. If the following projects
fit the criteria outlined in the AHO,then they are good examples of how we are missing the
mark.
1. 7th and Aspen:
While this project may provide 96 affordable units,theywill be cutting down ALL but one
tree on the property(-22).This includes mature and historically important trees and shrubs
whose elimination not only displaces all the wildlife that use them (birds, insects, and
small mammals that the BCP2020 claims to desire) but will also contribute to affordable
housing heat islands.The most historic trees could have been spared if the design included
8 fewer units or if these 8 units were later incorporated into the Phase 3 site plan. Site
Review Criteria calls for designing around important existing vegetation, but this developer
was not held to those criteria.This must come from staff during the design review process.
Additionally, in 30 years these units will lose their affordability designation and be returned
to the market rate pool.This is not a tong-term affordable housing gain for the community.
2) Block B development:
This development has NO affordable units and results in the loss of 23 existing Naturally
Occurring Affordable Housing(NOAH) units.The proposed land swap in exchange for
additional height will give the city a small lot 2 miles from the site which may never be built
on; a"gift"with an expensive job attached to it. Furthermore, a 7 story"cruise ship"design
that utilizes no transitions to the adjacent structures clearly does not fit the current
neighborhood.This project has no long-term affordable housing gain for the community.
3)The Bozeman Yards:The proposed Bozeman Yards is planning only two"attainable"units
at(120%AMI)while the rest of the units wilt be luxury units in what was once the most
affordable neighborhood of all.The project's narrative claims compatibility in design with
the surrounding neighborhood but it's impossible to understand whythey claim this-it
Looks completely out of place and will dominate the skyline above the surrounding height
restricted area.Additionally, it proposes, as a selling point,to build out an unneeded street
(Aspen) only to be paid back by the City for doing so,white simultaneously proposing to
block one of the more actively used north/south local streets(Ida). Having lived there for
decades, I can tell you this will push all the current north/south traffic on Ida back to
Wallace and add to the dysfunction at Wallace and Peach.This project also contains no
apparent long-term affordable housing gain for the community.
I think the AHO should be"repealed and replaced"not revised, and with more participation
from the public.The open house turned town hall at the Fire Station is a good example of an
interactive meeting and I believe the question-and-answer period could have, and should
have, continued for longer. I thought it was one of the most effective City meetings I have
been to in a long while.
I would suggest the following changes as a partial list to consider for a replacement AHO:
1. Utilize maximum floor heights rather than minimum so that buildings with more floors
will fill a shorter mass. Use feet to define height rather than number of floors. Or use—
"whichever is lesser"when establishing maximum heights rather than the"greater".
2. If affordable housing is being eliminated,then require the same number of units or more
to be included in the new structure.
3. Fulfill the City's climate plans goals by strengthening and implementing the tree
protection codes in the Site Review Criteria. Don't give waivers to the Concept phase.
Contract with an independent ecologist to review sites for existing trees as welt as
wetlands.
4. Require all new residential buildings that include market rate housing to include ground
floor or underground parking before any parking requirements are relaxed.
5. Require projects in the NCOD to have transitional zones related to the existing buildings
surrounding them rather than the zones surrounding them. I.e. No more than two stories
taller than the building next to them with a 10-15 foot recess on all sides adjacent to shorter
buildings.
6.Support the reinstatement of parkland requirements B3 and 62M to help prevent
affordable housing heat islands with no Cash-in-lieu of parks allowed.
7. Require affordability to last for 75 years or in perpetuity.
While considering incentives for the AHO, it's imperative to not degrade what we already
have such as our existing affordable housing(NOAH)and our mature urban forest. If a
developer turns away from good planning, so be it.Another will surface with a better
product.And as long as wealthy people want a piece of Bozeman,then luxury condos will
be continue to be built regardless of incentives.We are all in this together and need to
remember we are not beholden to the incoming developers and future residents, but rather
to ourselves and need to work together to grow in a tolerable and sustainable way.
Thank you for considering my comments for your AHO discussion.
Marcia Kaveney
From: Patty McGown
To: Bozeman Public Comment;Takami Clark;Chuck Winn
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Do you hear what I hear??
Date: Thursday,December 5,2024 8:00:42 AM
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the organization.Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Commissioners and City planners and et.al.
I live at 222 S 13 Ave (Jandt neighborhood) adjacent to the Chequamegon (shwa-ma-gain)
retirement community and a 2 acre field and a trailer park on Babcock. And several other
affordable housing developments from decades past. I mention them because like the Jandt
neighborhood, they are examples of what affordable housing looks like. Don't get me wrong,
the property values and rents of these places have gone up in the past 10 years, but they are
providing housing that is affordable for the current Bozeman growth situation. If upzoning is
approved and the shallow and deep incentives continue to be part of Bozeman zoning, these
naturally occurring affordable housing(NOAH) options will be swallowed up by the
development and real estate "monster"that has already gluttonized on the rampant and
unaffordable developments that have been built, and/or are being approved and built currently
in Bozeman.
Fact: There are over 1,100 apartments listed for rent on apartments.com in Bozeman right
now. That is density! And unfortunately ,these apts are not"affordable" and the rents are not
"trickling down"to affordable based on density, or magically becoming affordable by the
generosity of developers. Increasing housing Density does not create affordability. Please
adopt this as a mantra.
We've ALL been sold a myth.
Density does not create affordability. "Trickle down affordability" in housing is a myth. Just
like "trickle down economics" is a myth.
Recently, I heard that employees in Big Sky pay their employers for housing, and for the
commuting, and for food, and that after they pay these costs (rent,travel, food)to their
employers after working a full-time for 2 weeks, that their pay check was $63. What the
heck??? Can you imagine living on $63?
This is the effect of trickle down. The only truth to it is the first 5 letters. T-R-I-C-M! It's a
trick! And that's not even what I wanted to write about but serves as an example that"trickle
down" anything, does not work.
The concept of"trickle down"unfortunately only serves to make the top tier richer and the
middle and bottom tiers pay the price, and become poorer, and eventually, as currently seen in
Bozeman, homeless. And now, being homeless, is a crime. And more of the city budget will
be needed to "fight"this "homelessness" crime. It's a sad and avoidable downward spiral that
we (Bozeman) are in currently. Avoidable by not destroying NOAH through restricting
density in the UDC and promoting affordability by keeping neighborhoods intact and
incentivizing ADU's or making an existing home into a duplex or triplex.
The affordability problem is so much bigger than the Gallatin Valley. The affordability
problem is nation wide. But the "development solution"that promotes density, over keeping
neighborhoods intact, does not create affordability. It actually totally ruins the essence of the
community.
Ironically,the reason folks want to move to community neighborhoods, and now, what is
being proposed in the UDC is destined to fail to provide the needed affordable housing,
(because there are already 1,185 overpriced rentals in Bozeman as I type this)just like in all
the other cities where density was touted as the affordability solution.
Additionally, for Bozeman to be a"walkable"city, as pro-density infill development advocate
Mark Egge pontificates, then in the new development code it must be a mandated to install
walking paths between every building and around every development and in every subdivision
and in every neighborhood. Walkability isn't an accident, it's a planned concept that requires a
proactive planning process to include connected paths throughout the community. It must be
required in the UDC.
And parking. Every adult has a car! Some have 2 or 3. Using parking as a negotiation tool for
affordability is ludicrous. Please learn from other cities who gave up parking to development
and it was a mistake. Same for building heights.
And trees and water and natural resource features need to be protected in the UDC and not cut
down, scraped off or annihilated. These natural features are the most vulnerable to rampant
development. Protect them as you would a small child. They are very, very important for
climate change and desirability when it comes to wanting to live in a place. It's a no brainer.
And the fact that over 200 people completed the relatively poorly written historic preservation
survey is a phenomenal result. Hearing the Mayor disrespect those survey results at the
November commission meeting was a slap in the face. Please do not be so flippant with
remarks that incriminate you with your biases. It's very disheartening and only supports the
belief in the community that the commissioners are not listening to the tax paying and voting
residents, but to paid consultants and developers.
Please listen!
Patty McGown
222 S 13th Ave
406-600-1349
Call me anytime to chat
From: Mary Lou Osman
To: Bozeman Public Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL]AHO
Date: Saturday,December 7,2024 8:52:07 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.
Commissioners, I know that Alison sent the video about Nimby-Yimby to you and I hope you
took the 20 minutes to watch it. The video explains just what we know to be true. We as a
community are not benefitting from the luxury developments all over town. Meanwhile the
developer-landlord is doing what he sets out to do: make as much profit as possible and use
Bozeman's AHO incentives for yet more profit. Will 2 units at 120%of AMI make any
difference? It's a drop in the bucket and we need more than that. I know you want to find
ways to benefit our community but the current AHO is not effective and simply creates greater
profits for developers. There has to be a better way than giving them millions in tax breaks.
Millions!!!!! Thank you for the work that you do for our town, Mary Lou Osman
From: Kenneth Silvestri
To: Bozeman Public Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Repeal Affordable Housing Ordinance
Date: Tuesday,November 26,2024 6:11:07 PM
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.
The affordable housing ordinance is a gift for developers that resulted from a knee-jerk
reaction to state interventions in local decision-making for housing policy. In exchange for
zoning concessions, this ordinance provides little to no impact on affordable housing by
allowing developers to manipulate what counts as "affordable housing" to maximize their
profits, i.e. the Guthrie proposal that offered dormitory style short-term rentals for the
developer's transient workforce.
At the same time,these zoning concessions have acute negative adverse impacts on the
surrounding neighborhoods and the quality of life for people that live in them with reduced
parking and increased height that dwarfs existing homes in ways that forces them to eventually
sell to escape the onslaught of forced "redevelopment." The negatives outweigh the
positives with this misguided supply-side approach to housing.
Please consider replacing this with affordable housing overlays and a public housing authority
that actually provides affordable housing without severely disrupting the quality of life of
those living near it.
Ken Silvestri
5785 Saxon Way, Unit A
Bozeman, MT 59718
From: Natsuki Nakamura
To: Bozeman Public Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
Date: Tuesday,December 17,2024 7:41:05 AM
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the organization.Do not click links or open attachments unless you
col
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please share this public comment with the Economic Vitality Board, the Community
Development Board, and the City Commission.
I have observed in various discussions a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of NOAH
(Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing).
Preserving NOAH is about keeping relatively affordable housing available for rent, not about
the current sale price. With how housing prices have skyrocketed recently, a house may be
valued at$I million+ on Zillow, but as a rental, the multiple decently sized bedrooms might be
rented out to some working folks or students that each pay less than $800 a month. Or that
house may have been converted to a duplex, or have an ADU or basement unit available for
rent, which the owner can rent out relatively affordably.
I live in apartments that are more than 50 years old. Because the owners have long paid off the
building, my rent is relatively low and stable from year to year because the owners are able to
keep rents at a rate that covers the cost of maintenance. The rent charged doesn't need to
recoup the costs of construction or land acquisition, like a new complex would when setting
rent prices.
When older apartments or a house that was available as a rental is demolished and replaced by
something new- new apartments or perhaps condos for sale -the new units will undoubtedly
be more expensive to make up for the cost of that new construction, design,permitting, risk of
investment, etc. When thinking about preserving NOAH,our community does not mean
preserving a neighborhood in amber that only keeps it affordable for people who already
bought into it. It is about keeping and growing the wide variety of existing relatively
affordable units we have on the rental market and with residents actually living in them,rather
than losing that housing to demolition to be replaced (several years later)by new and more
expensive units. The most affordable housing is the one that we already have.
Some of the affordable housing options in our city are certainly unsafe or unsanitary,
whenever a landlord or corporation is negligent or predatory. But instead of always
demolishing existing housing, perhaps we should empower our city and residents and invest in
something like a Housing Authority that has investigatory powers to improve such conditions.
As an engaged resident on this issue, it is frustrating when neighbors with legitimate concerns
about new proposed developments are disparaged as being selfish or out of touch. If we
continue to lose NOAH, we will continue to build, build, build ourselves deeper into this
housing crisis.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Natsuki