April 24-27 Planning and Zoning Minutes by City of Boise

BOISE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ZONING CODE REWRITE HEARING MINUTES APRIL 24, 2023 I.

CALL TO ORDER PRESENT: ABSENT:

II.

Blanchard, Mohr, Schafer, Danley, Gillespie, Mooney, Finfrock Squyres, Stead

STAFF PRESENTATIONS AND NHA COMMENTS 1.

ZOA23-00001 / City of Boise Modern Zoning Code Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Boise City Code Title 11 and the adoption of a new Zoning Map. CPA23-00001 / City of Boise Modern Zoning Code A Comprehensive Plan Amendment with text changes will also accompany the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to ensure the comprehensive plan accurately reflects the new zoning districts.

RESULT:

III.

DISCUSSED ITEM TABLED TO APRIL 25, 2023 – PUBLIC TESTIMONY DAY ONE

ADJOUNMENT

This meeting will be open for in-person and virtual attendance to ensure compliance with the Idaho Open Meetings Law. The health and safety of all attendees is a top priority, so we urge those with symptoms, a positive COVID-19 test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 to stay home or wear a mask. Additionally, the meeting location is accessible for those with physical disabilities. Participants may request reasonable accommodations, such as a language interpreter, from the City of Boise to facilitate participation in the meeting. If you require assistance with accommodation, please contact us at CommunityEngagement@cityofboise.org or call (208) 972-8500.

1 1

CITY OF BOISE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

2 3

IN RE:

)

ZOA23-00001 / CITY OF BOISE

)

and

)

CPA23-00001 / CITY OF BOISE

)

Modern Zoning Code

)

_____________________________________

)

9 10

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDED PUBLIC HEARING

MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2023

12 13

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

BOB SCHAFER, CHAIR

CHRIS DANLEY, CO-CHAIR

CHRISTOPHER BLANCHARD

JENNIFER MOHR

MILT GILLESPIE

JOHN MOONEY

JANELLE FINFROCK

21 22

TRANSCRIBED BY:

VICTORIA HILLES, RPR

24 25 26

DAY 1

2 1

(Begin transcription at 0:05:10 of audio

file.)

3 4

INTRODUCTION CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

We'll go ahead and

jump right in.

CPA23-1 in the city of Boise.

Ordinance Amendment of Boise City Code Title 11 and

the adoption of the new zoning map and then a

Comprehensive Plan Amendment with text changes to

accompany the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.

11 12 13 14 15

Item No. 1 on our agenda, ZOA23-1 and This is a Zoning

And we'll hear from staff. PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Thank you.

I'm Tim Keane, Director of Planning and Development Services for the City of Boise. And I'll start by thanking everyone for

joining us tonight, whether you're here or online

and -- really, the whole week, the -- the continuation

of this important public discussion around these rules

for development in Boise.

everybody's continued commitment to what's best for

this city -- and especially, of course, to the

Planning and Zoning Commission this week for giving

your whole week to this effort.

24 25 26

So I really appreciate

And the Planning and Zoning Commission, as you probably know, are -- they're -- these are

3 1

volunteer members that spend so much time working on

difficult, sometimes complex, often emotional cases

every month.

incredible representation of public service in our

city.

They give their time for that.

It's an

My presentation tonight is going to be

somewhat in-depth because I did want to provide some

context for the entire week.

Also, what I'll present to you and -- and

Planning Commission Members, in particular, will maybe

be familiar with this because much of what I'm

presenting was in two correspondences we've had with

you over the past 30 days, the first one being our

report on this proposal that came to you on March 30th

and then the second being a memo that I sent to you on

April 13th, which essentially goes through things that

we're not dealing with in this Zoning Rewrite.

I'll get to those at the end of this presentation.

I do want to mention that we've got an

And

incredible group of staff here -- dedicated, talented

people that are here to help answer questions or

provide support to the community and the Commission as

we go through this week, Jessica Szelag, who leads the

planning team with Andrea Tuning; Lena Walker

[phonetic] and Deanna Dupuy, who had been the leaders

4 1

of this effort throughout its process, which has been

a long one, and I'll go into that in just a minute.

What I'll go through in this presentation

are these things: the application -- what it is,

exactly, that is before the Commission -- that

consists of two basic actions that the Commission will

be taking.

I want to get into, second, what the

proposal consists of, the Code itself, the Zoning Code

that's being proposed, and the -- the Plan Amendment

that we're proposing as well -- the Comprehensive Plan

Amendment, what it consists of and what the public

process has been that has gotten us to where we are

today.

The third thing is the -- kind of the

"Why" -- "Why are we doing this," the relationship of

the Zoning Code to the Comp Plan recommendations, the

Comp Plan being Blueprint Boise, which was adopted in

2011.

I do want to go through the alignment that

this has with our City goals in -- in a bit more

technical fashion, kind of the findings that we're

suggesting or recommending for approval -- and then,

finally, finish with some themes that we've heard

through the public process and, most recently, through

5 1

many of the submittals we've gotten and comments over

the past couple of months.

So first -- in terms of the applications

that are before the Commission this week, the first is

a Zoning Code Amendment, which would repeal and

replace the existing Zoning Ordinance in -- for the

City of Boise, which, as you know, dates to 1966.

And the second action is a Comprehensive

Plan Text Amendment to replace references to the

previous zoning districts.

it the basic structure of our current Ordinance, so we

have to replace that with the new zoning districts

that are within this new Zoning Code so that the

Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are consistent

with one another.

The Comp Plan has within

In terms of what this proposed Ordinance

consists of, here you see a list of those things that

are within the 600 or so pages of this Ordinance.

About half of this Ordinance relates directly to the

regulations that we have.

the use regulations, and the design and development

standards, about half of the Ordinances consist of

that.

24 25 26

So the zoning districts,

And then the remainder is around administration and procedures, definitions, and

6 1

adopted -- adopted specific plans for different parts

of the city that -- that are part of the Zoning

Ordinance.

many years, but we certainly want to respect that work

that's gone on in specific parts of the city that are

currently represented in the current Ordinance.

And those plans have been adopted over

The second thing that this consists of is

a -- a new zoning map.

that -- all properties in the city go from a zoning

district that they currently are zoned -- so we

have -- currently, in the city we have 23 different

zoning districts.

all properties in the city will get translated to a

new zoning district in this proposed Ordinance.

So there's a Conversion Map

In the new Code we have 17, and so

And then the -- the Comprehensive Plan

Text Amendment -- which are really minor; okay?

just to provide that consistency in terms of

nomenclature.

that consistent with the Comprehensive Plan -- and

also just replacing the term "Land Use Map"

with "Future Land Use Map" in the -- in the -- in the

Comprehensive Plan.

It's

And the districts in the new Code make

The longer view of this process started in

the fall of 2020.

I'll get to this in a minute -- there was an analysis

And early in the process -- and

7 1

of the existing Zoning Ordinance to see the degree to

which it was consistent with those Comprehensive Plan

recommendations.

beginning, again, in the fall of 2020, all of the

community outreach that was involved in each step of

this process, which included public discussion of

various types in the spring of 2020 related to Module

1 -- which is, really, the allowed uses in the

city -- and then a similar process into the winter and

spring of '22 related to Module 2, those development

and design standards.

You'll see throughout the process,

Then, in the summer of last year, we came

back to Modules 1 and 2, and the reason for this was

that, in Modules 1 and 2, we heard so much feedback

from the community that was -- we felt we couldn't

just put off making changes to the Ordinance until it

came to the Planning and Zoning Commission now.

wanted to go ahead and go back, make some refinements

based on the feedback we were getting from residents

of the city.

Modules -- in -- in the summer of last year, made some

significant changes to Modules 1 and 2.

So we did that and -- in

And then, in the fall of last year, we had

the entire Consolidated Draft Code that included the

final module, which has to do with approval processes

8 1

and procedures.

phases -- you know, they were called

"Modules," but -- going through, "What are the

specific uses in the city," in Phase 1; and then Phase

2, "What are the design and development standards that

we have;" and then, finally, Phase 3 was, "What kind

of processes do we use at the City to approve

development of -- of all types?"

So the entire process followed these

So here we are in the spring of 2023,

getting into the public-hearing process.

the assistance throughout the process from Clarion,

which is a -- the City in 2019 selected Clarion to be

a consultant to this process, and they were chosen

because they have a tremendous amount of experience in

this regard, drafting ordinances for communities

across the country over a long period of time.

We did have

So they have been instrumental

in -- in -- in drafting the Ordinance.

The Clarion

Group [phonetic] includes attorneys that are

specialists in land-use law and -- and zoning codes.

They helped prepare the Ordinance that you have before

you.

The first thing that they did was conduct

this evaluation of the existing Ordinance -- and just

a couple of things here from this list of things.

9 1

they were looking at our current Ordinance, relative

to, "Is this Ordinance capable of actually

implementing your Comprehensive Plan, which was

adopted in 2011?"

found is that it is not.

And what they, not surprisingly,

And just a couple of highlights from this

list.

determined that it's a poor fit with Boise's planning

goals -- and I'll get into that a bit more in just a

moment -- and that it was also poorly designed to

protect what makes Boise unique.

Lots of technical aspects of the existing Ordinance,

which is, in their evaluation, found to be not at all

consistent with what the community said it wants its

future to be in Blueprint Boise.

The evaluation of the current Ordinance

So -- and on and on.

In addition, there was an Advisory

Committee established, this group of 20 people that

met over 20 times over several years.

you know, discussed each of those phases along those

phases that I mentioned in the process, got into each

one of them in -- in -- in depth, and didn't -- was

not, you know, involved in exactly drafting the

Ordinance, but was constantly providing feedback and

good discussion among this group, which included a

variety of people that come from neighborhoods, but

And this group,

10 1

also the development community.

So it was a good,

diverse group of people to discuss, each step of the

way, how this process was unfolding and give guidance

to where we ended up with this Draft Ordinance before

you.

Throughout the process, it was -- as I

said, a variety of ways for people to be involved,

many community conversations which happened all over

the city; as I mentioned, over 20 meetings of the

Advisory Committee; surveys that were done; we did

multiple presentations to the City Council and, of

course, the Planning and Zoning Commission; lots of

individual, stakeholder meetings in addition to the

bigger kind of community conversations that happened

over this period.

So I guess the point of that is just to

reinforce and get back to my original -- my first

statement tonight, the importance of everybody's

commitment to this and -- regardless of where we ended

up in terms of your perspective on how we're proposing

to regulate development in the city.

the case that there was a huge community discussion

around this over a period of years, not something that

was come -- that was -- that we came to quickly.

was something that was a very deliberate process.

It is certainly

11 1

Here we are today in 2023.

And just to

get you into the adoption timeline, that started with

the release of the full draft at the end of February.

As I mentioned, we initially sent to the Planning and

Zoning Commission on March 30th that report -- it was

a fairly lengthy one -- some outline of which I'll go

through in these next few slides.

April 13th that memo that I mentioned earlier, that

did include a list of things that we're not addressing

in this Ordinance.

version of the Ordinance, just to address

type -- typos and grammatical errors in the Ordinance

that was released at the end of February.

We also sent on

It also included a red-line

Here we are at the Planning and Zoning

Commission hearings.

a similar set of hearings before the Boise City

Council in June, and then the Boise City Council will

vote on this.

This week in April we will have

And so the discussion around this,

the -- the welcoming of perspectives on -- on these

rules continue this week, and then they'll also

continue in the middle of June, which is when Council

will vote on the Ordinance and -- and determine an

effective date.

We'll have to determine, "What's the effective date of

You see that at the far right here.

12 1

this Ordinance," and that will have to be determined

when Council makes their vote in June.

Shifting now to this relationship between

what we're proposing and Blueprint Boise.

want to note that so much of what was in Blueprint

Boise, in terms of what it recommended, in terms of

how we achieve the goals and the vision that are

represented in Blueprint -- Blueprint Boise had to do

with a new Zoning Code or -- or substantial changes to

the Zoning Code which have not occurred.

And I just

You know, after Blueprint Boise was

adopted, there has been minor changes to the Zoning

Ordinance.

the 45 actions in Blueprint Boise, directed the City,

through its planning department, to amend the

Development Code.

substantial number of recommendations in your

Comprehensive Plan that you need Code changes, it's

speaking to -- you need a new Ordinance that is

consistent with these recommendations.

a few of those things.

The final bullet in this list, the 18 of

And when you have such a

I'll get into

Another indication of why you need a new

Zoning Ordinance, along the same lines of what I was

speaking to, but relative to the Planning and Zoning

Commission's work and the types of cases that you see

13 1

on an ongoing basis -- when you have a -- a lot of

variances being requested -- Number 1 -- 282 over five

years -- that comes down to five variances a month

over that period of time.

And you have so many planned unit

developments that -- which are essentially people

creating individual zoning districts -- 245

over -- over five years.

You've had a tremendous amount of effort

within this community to create individual zoning

districts through these PUDs because the existing

Ordinance just isn't working, which you all see so

much of, whether it's variances or planned unit

developments, or re-zonings, appeals, and so

forth -- and appeals coming from, not only neighbors,

but also applicants who appeal, as you know, that come

to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council

relative to appeals of decisions over that period of

time.

Getting into the recommendations of

Blueprint Boise and some specific -- the -- the kind

of headline issues in Boise, of course, the first

being housing -- we have Blueprint Boise and its

recommendations, which you see on this -- well, what

you see here is the Housing Needs Assessment, which

14 1

was done after Blueprint Boise to look at, "What is

the supply of housing that Boise needs in order to

deal with the demand that the city is seeing now.

the Housing Needs Assessment recommended that we

actually need 2,700 new housing units each year just

to keep up with demand.

We're not close to that.

And

Over the past

several years, we've issued between about 1,000 and

1,500 permits for new construction of -- of homes in

Boise.

Needs Assessment was saying that we needed.

So we're -- we're far below what the Housing

But it was also saying that we need a

broader variety of housing types, and this range

should include attached homes, duplexes, townhouses,

multi-family dwellings, the point being just that, you

know, we can't solve our housing problem with one

solution.

rate -- relate to all housing types.

something we've learned from other cities over the

past 10 years, that if you seek one solution, you're

probably not going to be that successful.

We need many solutions and solutions that And this is

So I think one thing you see in this

proposal is a variety of ways to deal with our housing

challenges, not in a way that we have to acquiesce to,

but quite the opposite, in -- in -- in a way that we

15 1

should be, you know, excited about in the sense that

we could have a greater diversity of housing.

so much a part of what Blueprint Boise recommended.

This is

Also, with regard to the new Code and what

we're seeking to accomplish with it, addressing issues

around being environmentally sensitive and addressing

issues related to climate -- a couple of

recommendations from Blueprint Boise here to highlight

development regulations.

regulations that will help us further the community's

sustainability objectives.

We need development

If our development regulations are not

consistent with what we seek to do, from a city -- as

a city and as a community, related to climate and

other issues around environmental sensitivity, then

we're not going to be very successful.

And, "The benefits of energy-efficient

buildings will be lost if the future occupants of

those buildings must drive 20" miles "to the nearest

grocery store and commute an hour each way to work."

This -- just getting to -- this is Blueprint Boise in

2011 -- this issue of -- if we continue to grow in a

manner that we spread across the landscape and people

have to drive further and further for their work or

for any services, we will not be successful, and we

16 1

will not be a City that is addressing issues around

climate or sustainability -- from Blueprint Boise.

And then, finally, here, as it relates to

the relationship between this new Code and Blue -- and

Blueprint Boise, when it comes to transportation

specifically -- you know, huge costs associated with

the extension of highways to -- to support, you know,

development further and further from the city -- a

relatively small investment if we can avoid doing that

and, rather, invest in the existing city and other

modes of transportation, with the bottom line from

Blueprint Boise being, "We must enable more

residents" -- "the ability to choose alternative modes

of travel."

Shifting now to the new -- our Modern

Zoning Code goals -- several of them here that I'll go

into a little bit more detail about, but again, a

variety of housing options is Number 1; a sustainable

development pattern, Number 2; transportation options

for more residents of the city; and supporting a

healthy community and environment.

creating a variety of option -- housing options -- as

I said earlier, one solution isn't enough.

every solution when it comes to housing.

25 26

For each of those,

We need

That includes a variety of housing in the

17 1

right places, housing that is appropriate at the

neighborhood scale in neighborhoods and housing that

isn't in the neighborhood; housing that is in a

denser, more urban place outside of neighborhoods,

which is the way this Ordinance has been -- has been

organized, that you have housing at a neighborhood

scale within your neighborhood, and those are very

traditional to Boise neighborhoods and most

neighborhoods in this country.

And then you have denser, taller buildings

outside of neighborhoods nearby, but -- but on

corridors, for instance, or downtown.

got -- it's important that we do that -- and

then -- and that we limit the impacts to vulnerable

residents.

So you've

We've added a piece in here that directly

speaks to those most vulnerable, and we were concerned

about that relative to this new Code because we are

permitting more density along corridors, for instance,

where you currently have commercial and multi-family

zoning so -- to provide some protections in this

Ordinance for our most vulnerable residents.

The predictable development pattern.

Again, this image here on the left is from planning

that's been done for State Street in Boise in

18 1

association with the big investment that we'll be

making in Bus Rapid Transit.

Vista and Fairview, though, are streets now that have

our best bus service, but...

State Street, along with

Direct development where there's planned

public investment.

This is so much an important part

what this Ordinance is proposing to do because we

know, again, from experience, that -- that the

financially-sustainable way to grow is one that we're

utilizing the existing infrastructure and services

that the city and its residents are now paying for,

rather than having to constantly invest our resources

in infrastructure outside of the City footprint and

further from the City and -- not only infrastructure,

but those services.

develop -- development pattern is also a

financially-sustainable development pattern.

And then transportation options.

This sustainable

Though,

if you care about traffic congestion, the most

important thing for us to concern ourselves with is

that we grow in a manner that more residents of this

city can drive less and -- and less far,

again -- proven 100 percent of the time, that if

we -- if we require more -- we require residents of

the city and more people that live here -- the

19 1

residents that live here now and newcomers to Boise to

drive to do everything, then we will not be

successful, and our frustration around congestion will

grow and grow.

So much of this has to do with doing what

we can through the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that we

have a development pattern that supports movement by

all people in all ways and implementation of the

Pathways Master Plan, for instance, and ensuring that

people have places to walk and ride their bikes to or

take a bus as close to their neighborhood or within

their neighborhood as possible.

when it comes to cities in this country -- and Boise

included -- related to transportation.

This is the challenge

And finally, as it relates to the

health -- healthy environment, what's most important

here is that our Development Ordinance reflects the

unique physical characteristics of Boise.

know, you think about 1966, when the current Ordinance

was drafted, the -- the -- obviously, the conditions

that cities were facing at that time were utterly

different -- completely and utterly different.

Here we are today.

And, you

We've learned a lot.

Things have changed over the past 60 years, and one of

the things we know is so important is that our

20 1

Development Code has to acknowledge this specific

physical place and how it's organized and specifically

how the city and the more urban aspects of the city

are organized, but also the importance of the river

and the mountains and the desert that we sit within.

The point is that there's a direct

relationship between the urban parts of what we're

seeking to accomplish and the intact landscape and

nature around us.

directly affects the -- the wild places that surround

Boise and are so much a part of what makes this part

of the country what it is.

The decision that we make as a City

I'm going to shift now into the Code Text

Amendment.

This has to do with the findings for

approval, so shifting to a kind of technical outline

here of what will be happening as the Planning and

Zoning Commission goes through its work this week and

then comes to some conclusion later in the week.

this is the nature of the action that will be taken

and the findings related to those.

So the question is, "Are the

proposals" -- "do they comply with and conform to the

Comprehensive Plan?"

proposed Zoning Code establishes a set of land-use and

design standards to implement the vision of Blueprint

And what we're saying is, "The

21 1

Boise and much of its goals, policies, and actions."

So this relates to the relationship, from a technical

standpoint, between what we're proposing as an

Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan.

And we're suggesting that we should find

that these -- this Ordinance directly relates to the

land-use, design standards and -- and vision of

Blueprint Boise, also that it provides for the zoning

goals to achieve a sustainable, efficient, and

responsible development pattern.

And as it relates to the Comprehensive

Plan Amendments, this gets back to, you know,

"What" -- "what are the actions that we're taking,"

"What are we required to" -- "to conclude from what's

being proposed?"

detail, but -- ensure that the Comprehensive Plan uses

language and terminology that's consistent with the

Development Code that we -- that we have.

And I won't go through these in

This has to do with the consistency

between the Code that we're proposing and the

Comprehensive Plan, again, common language and -- and

correct language and terminology in that it's

consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which we went

into in quite a bit of detail in that report you

received on -- on March 30th -- again, that there's

22 1

not inconsistencies between those goals of the

Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance, which we

say, "There" -- "that's true.

There are not."

In fact, we need this new Ordinance

to -- to specifically address inconsistencies in that

the proposed Code will not place an undue burden on

transportation or other public facilities in the city,

adversely impact the delivery of services, and so

forth.

And what we're suggesting through the

points that I made in this presentation and -- and

went more in-depth to -- in -- in the report that you

received -- that it is, in fact, that the Code that

we're proposing is bringing us into consistency with

Blueprint Boise and proposing a -- a development

pattern -- or the rules around a development pattern

that would be -- is -- is a solution to our

transportation, public-facility needs, how we deliver

services, and -- and so forth.

And then I want to get to, "What is the

action of the Planning and Zoning Commission

we" -- this week," and -- and the type of decision it

is.

of rules around development.

The point is that this is not a specific development

It's a legislative decision on a proposed new set It's a policy decision.

23 1

case like you'd see with a planned unit development or

a site plan that you might see.

into that kind of level of detail here.

We're not getting

What -- the Planning

Commission -- Planning and Zoning Commission makes a

recommendation to City Council on the -- on the repeal

and replacement of the existing Code and then the

Comprehensive Plan Amendments that bring -- that bring

the Comprehensive Plan into alignment with this new

Code.

Commission is recommending, "Yes," or, "No," to

Council, as to whether or not this -- these things are

appropriate.

And ultimately, the Planning and Zoning

So recommending to City Council -- of

course, as I said earlier, City Council will then have

their hearings in June -- in June and -- and will act

on this.

In your deliberation, though, of course,

you're going to hear lots of opinions about aspects of

this Ordinance.

issues as you've heard them this week -- as this goes

to City Council, identify those issues.

That" -- "here's things that came up frequently, and

we'd like you to consider it, Council, when you make

your decision -- 'Yes,' or, 'No' -- on this new Code

And certainly, to -- to identify

"Hey.

24 1

and Comprehensive Plan change."

We are recommending approval of both the

new -- the repeal or -- and replacement of -- repeal

of our current Ordinance, replacing it with this new

one, and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

Ultimately, when you get to motions, you will need one

for each.

I do want to mention some common themes

that you've seen.

has, since late March, been getting -- we've gotten

lots of community input via written comments since the

Ordinance -- the Final Draft was released at the end

of February.

been receiving that on a weekly basis for several

weeks.

been working through and -- and over a period of

weeks.

The Planning and Zoning Commission

The Planning and Zoning Commission has

It's been a huge volume of input that they've

And so these are probably themes that

you're familiar with, but we did -- did want to note

them as we start this public discussion again.

Ideas about the allowed-use and

allowed-form standards within the mixed-use zone.

this is broken down by zoning districts and use

regulations first, but I don't want to suggest that

there's one opinion on any of these.

There certainly

25 1 2

isn't. This is not a list of things that people

are upset about necessarily.

where there's various opinions about this issue of

allowed use/allowed form, which is an interesting

aspect of this Ordinance, one that we came to because

we were so concerned that we tried to draft an

Ordinance that includes a process that makes the

things we want and need easier to do and kind of puts

the community in a position of helping make sure the

Zoning Ordinance is -- is successful.

It's just a -- a list

The use-specific standards related to

duplexes, triplexes, and quadraplexes; neighborhood

cafes that you probably heard a lot about within

neighborhoods; and then drive-thru facilities in the

city, these, as I said, relate to the zoning districts

and use regulations.

And then on to the development and design

standards, the dimension -- dimensional standards

within -- for residential and, in particular, for

R-1C -- R-1C; right?

The incentives related to residential,

which have to do with affordability requirements, and

also ensuring that -- that where you're getting

additional density, you are meeting certain

26 1

sustainability standards -- lots of opinions about

that in -- in -- in many different directions.

Minor land divisions, which we -- we had

had administratively previously.

not an administrative approval on minor land

divisions.

And we're proposing

And then parking requirements, as you

know, lots of opinions about this, both within

neighborhoods, as it relates to single-family, duplex,

triplex, fourplex, but also even parking maximums for

commercial uses.

whether we're requiring too much or not enough

and -- and those kinds of things.

Lots of thoughts about parking and

And then, in terms of the third part of it

having to do with administration and procedures, the

noticing for Type 2 -- so in this Ordinance,

we're -- we're proposing that we have four types

of -- of approvals as it relates -- you know, organize

a -- Zoning Ordinances have a certain amount of

complexity to them.

parcels, 85 square miles.

There's a certain amount of

complexity built into it.

We're proposing these four

types as a way to somewhat simplify the process.

We're talking about thousands of

And within those types, Types 1 and 2 do

not have a public hearing, so that's why I mentioned

27 1

noticing for Type 2 applications on this list.

The interdepartmental-review committee,

which is a new proposal to help with coordination

among just -- not just City departments, but even

other agencies and opinions about that.

And then neighborhood-association

testimony.

the case of hearings, how much time neighborhood

associations are given.

This has to do -- at hearing -- when -- in

Then, in that memo -- I mentioned -- of

April 13th, we did mention the things that we were not

addressing in this Ordinance.

I -- we felt -- important to address them at the

beginning because I know -- certainly, for instance,

in the summer of last year when we were having lots of

public meetings about the new Code, there was quite a

bit of discussion about these things.

And these things

And in the memo that we sent to the

Planning Commission -- everyone has access to this on

the City's website, but it's dated April 13th -- we go

into why we're not addressing them.

substantially have to do with mostly legal issues.

Some of these things have been dealt with by the

City -- City -- wireless communications and short-term

rentals in particular -- fairly recently.

And they

These are

28 1

recent, big public discussions in the City.

We're not addressing shelters because

we've been through the big shelter discussion last

year and felt like that would warrant some separate

discussion later, after this Code is -- is adopted.

So that is the conclusion of my slides.

And I just want to acknowledge the -- the

importance of this deliberation that the Planning and

Zoning Commission is having this week and acknowledge

the importance of and helpfulness of all suggestions,

comments, whether in favor or against, have been

throughout this process and, most recently, sin

this -- since this final draft was adopted at the end

of February.

It's -- it's -- it's expected

and -- and -- and healthy for people within this

community to have -- have strong opinions about this.

It's not often that we or any city completely replaces

its development requirements.

us.

a -- it's a very healthy discussion that's been going

on, and I think we should approach this

and -- and -- as has been said by the Chair as he

convened this meeting -- as a healthy discussion.

We all are trying to get to the best

It's been 60 years for

Many places have started and given up.

So it's

29 1

solution.

of recommendations and a new Code that is very

reflective of this place and includes lots of

solutions for the big problems that we're all seeking

to address here, but -- but -- but it's this -- we're

not done yet.

We think we've gotten to a -- a collection

So -- so anyway.

Thank you for that time

to -- to provide some context for all this discussion

that will go on this week.

10 11

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: much.

Okay.

Tim, thank you very

Appreciate the overview.

Before we get started, too, I just want to

thank you and all of the staff for all of the efforts

thus far.

three-years-and-running process here.

we've heard from staff on occasion throughout that

process, so we appreciate all of the updates you've

given us over the years to see how this was playing

out, and we appreciate all that effort.

you guys all spent a lot of time putting this

together.

It's been a, you know, And, you know,

And we know

So we, too, I think, are looking forward

to a good discussion this week and hearing from all of

the interested parties, making sure that we're getting

Boise on the right -- right path, moving forward.

30 1

So again, appreciate that.

Before we get into the neighborhood

associations and their testimony, do we have any

questions for Tim, gang?

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

that -- is that it from the City?

have questions about, say, parking requirements and

just wanting to see a little bit more of that detail

and hear the City's thoughts on that, is now the time

to ask that question or later or -- or how would you

like to proceed with that?

CRYSTAL RAIN:

Commissioner Gillespie. So -- Crystal, so And so if I like

Mr. Chair, Commissioner

Gillespie, now would be the time to ask questions.

This is for questions.

17 18

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: Mr. Chairman --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

21 22

Okay.

Please. -- and Member -- you

know, other Commissioners. So I have a couple of areas I'm kind of

interested in hearing more about in more detail.

just want to lay them out in advance so you

guys -- you know, so we can get this synced up.

31 1 2

So I'm very interested in the parking question --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- and just the

policy -- you know, starting at a general level and

working down --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- like,

"What" -- "what are we trying to do here," and then

how we're trying to enable it in the Code.

interested in parking.

I'm very

The other thing I'm -- I'm really

interested in talking about is the changes to the

procedures --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- the -- the way we're

creating these new types and what the City's trying to

do with these different types, which -- which sort of

move away from the current -- I won't say, "One size

fits all," but we're trying to create more

differentiated approval tracks, and I'd like to hear

more about that.

So with that, I'm going to be quiet.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Okay.

Sounds good. Most people think so.

32 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

I have a feeling that

we're all going to be in -- I'm sure we have

overlap -- right? -- in -- well, we have questions,

you know.

think we should just -- kind of jump in and get going.

Maybe, Tim, you can start at the top here

with Milt's question about parking, maybe start that

discussion right here.

I think there's really -- you know, we -- I

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Yeah.

And we

would expect this.

Planning and Zoning Commission Members will have

questions as we move through the week, and -- and we

can start with this one.

14 15

I mean, of course, the -- the

I saw a slide up that -- that -- at least it was over there -- related to the --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yeah, I --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- parking --

Mr. Chairman --- part of it.

-- I just don't want to

get us sidetracked because if -- I mean, if they don't

have -- if it's not handy to do it, then

I -- you -- you know, we can deal --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yeah.

-- with it in another

33 1 2

way.

I'm not sure how this should work. PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Well, I'm -- no.

I'm happy to answer those questions and -- and provide

that context now.

into --

It might be helpful before you get

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah, I think so.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

You think so?

I think it's good to get at

least our initial questions out there.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

And then, like you said, Tim,

I think as we get more testimony tonight and in

subsequent evenings, we're going to have quite a bit,

I think, in rebuttal as we start to close up sort of

the themes that we're hearing throughout the week.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

18 19

[Unintelligible]. Okay.

All right.

Well, here's one slide to start with.

relates to parking.

And I'll say, from the beginning -- I -- I

started to get into -- in, I think, a previous slide,

as I listed parking as one of the issues we were

hearing so much about, this was an important issue

to -- to get into.

you know, Blueprint Boise and all the -- the goals

I'll -- I'll tell you that, from,

34 1

that we have as a City related to transportation and

land use specifically, we did feel updates to the

parking requirements were important ones to make.

And -- and -- you know, and I think we

started the process thinking that those changes would

maybe be more dramatic than -- than they ended up

being in the sense that we would have ended up

recommending the elimination of parking requirements

in more cases.

details around parking that's within this proposed

Ordinance, as it relates to multiple things.

But this is a slide that shows you the

But I'll say that where we ended up is

that we did reduce the parking requirements for an

individual home or small-scale residential -- so

duplex up to four units -- because, previously, it had

been two spaces -- off-street parking spaces per unit,

and we're proposing that it be one.

change in this proposed Ordinance.

So that's a

We do have parking maximums for some of

our commercial uses, as you can see here, typically

about 125 percent of what the minimum is.

are maximums within the commercial uses, but those

aren't related to the zones to provide some

distinction there.

zone, but -- but those parking maximums don't relate

So there

So you have, for instance, an MX-3

35 1

to the zone for, in that case, the MX-3.

actually relate to the use.

table, you'd see where it has a maximum for certain

commercial uses.

They

If you go through the use

So really, the reduction in required

off-street parking is really within those

smaller-scale residential, going from two off-street

spaces to one.

And then we do have some incentive-based

parking reductions that have to do with cases where

you're meeting a -- a -- in a -- affordable

requirements.

at specific income levels that -- in the mixed-use

zones.

we have that, but the -- across the board, it's just

in the small-scale residential.

So you're -- you're providing housing

Then you get reductions in parking.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

So -- so

Mr. Chairman.

Please. So -- Director Tim, so,

you know, we've all, us planning guys, read the Bible,

The -- The High Cost of Free Parking by Dr. Shoup.

And we all know who -- we're thinking about it, that

like roughly 30 percent -- 20 percent of the land area

in -- in the city is devoted to roads and parking,

that the average parking space is utilized like 10,

36 1

20 percent.

So is it the City's view that these

changes will -- will substantially reduce the amount

of sort of excess parking that we have created over

the last 50 years, or are these, you know, relatively

moderate changes compared to what some other folks are

trying to do?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Well, as you know,

the -- the -- there's been lots of cases in this

country now, where parking minimums have been

eliminated and even cases where there's more kind of

aggressive maximums being created for the very reason

you're saying.

cities and -- and not helpful in so many ways.

The parking spaces are deadening to

I would say, though, across the board,

there are helpful aspects of this when it comes to

that.

we're making to the smaller-scale residential, we

think, are very helpful.

those -- what might be called -- well, you know, the

small-scale residential in neighborhoods, make them

more possible.

You know, we -- we do the -- the changes that

And we'll enable some of

In the denser, mixed-use areas, I think,

what we'll see more of and what, I think, this

Ordinance would help accomplish is more of a -- a -- a

37 1

shift to less surface parking in -- in those areas.

You know, we have -- think about where the MX-3 is

proposed, which is Activity Centers, Vista, State, and

Fairview.

parking, you know, transitioning to other, you know,

structured parking and so forth.

We have such enormous fields of surface

I think the -- that would be the biggest

impact of this Ordinance in areas like that, but

I -- but I do think the changes we're making to the

smaller-scale residential will be hugely helpful in

terms of getting more of that possible within our

neighborhoods.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Please, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yeah.

Just to close

that -- the ideas on parking, could you talk about

just the very high cost of parking spaces for

development, what it does to the cost of --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

estate and affordability in our city.

Yeah.

-- all kinds of real

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

I think, you know,

the place to start with that is that we hear this

every time someone comes in to build anything, is that

the parking is -- is such a -- is such a determinant

38 1

of what's possible.

You know, every so often now, given

the -- especially the way the regulations are here in

most places, you know, you start with, "What can I

park?"

development standpoint?"

fit on the property," and that becomes such a

constraint around design of anything.

It's not, "What can I achieve from a

It's, "How many cars can I

And then the cost of that -- you can

imagine, at every scale, the cost of that is enormous,

but when you get to -- you know, when you get the

structured parking, you're talking about really

significant amounts -- 20, 30-plus-thousand dollars

per parking space, which really changes the potential

for any builder to -- to offer rents or prices that

are affordable.

housing in the city, the -- the cost of providing that

parking.

That so impacts the actual cost of

And even think about a small-scale

residential situation.

know, a third or a quarter of your property for

parking, even if you have, you know, available

on-street parking, for instance, or something else,

then you're really affecting what we can achieve from

a housing-affordability and diversity standpoint.

If you're using an -- a -- you

39 1

And then the second point was about the

approval processes.

little bit more, the -- as we were moving into the

third phase of this -- of this Ordinance, we certainly

recognized that -- again, learning from other

cities -- that if we don't address the process for

approval in this new Ordinance, then we're

not -- we're probably going to be very frustrated as a

community.

And just to speak to that a

And -- and I used to say this last summer

a lot, that the purpose of this Ordinance is not

really to determine how we want to organize our

arguments.

determine, "How do we create a set of regulations that

makes Blueprint Boise as successful as it can be?"

And that means, "How do we make what we want and need

easier to achieve?"

The -- the purpose of this Ordinance is to

So the reason for these four types related

directly to that.

technically kind of administrative

approvals -- they're not going to public

hearings -- are things that we feel like, if you look

at all of that material that I reviewed tonight from

Blueprint Boise that speaks to all these issues and

then -- and then -- Number 1.

So Types 1 and 2, which are

40 1

And Number 2, "How can we involve the

community in, again, making this Ordinance

successful?"

use/allowed form, which is a Type 2, versus allowed

use/alternative form, which is a Type 3 that does go

to hearing.

And so an example is the allowed

And so, for instance, on our -- in our

MX-3 areas, which are along those transit routes and

Activity Centers, these are places where -- imagine,

you know, where a redevelopment can be hugely

beneficial to the city in every way

imaginable -- that -- that if you're building densely

in those cases on those streets in MX-3s, then you're

a Type 2, which does not go to hearing.

And if you're building less dense in those

areas where we're -- I mean, this is not the whole

city.

Centers so it's -- but if you're building in these

important places where we really need density and

you're building less dense -- you're building not

dense enough -- then you're allowed use/alternative

form, which is a Type 3 and does go to hearing.

It's -- it's those three corridors and Activity

So I -- I mention that one specifically

because that's what kind of motivated us to these four

types is, "Let's identify the types of things that

41 1

were within the types of development and put it within

one of these project-type classifications, such that

we're making those things that we want simpler to

accomplish in Types 1 and 2 and even put the community

in a position to help this Ordinance and -- and -- and

each other be successful by putting in Type-3 things

that actually aren't in service to the Ordinance.

So this is something that is an -- I think

a -- a -- a -- an approach to approval processes that

is not one that's often been taken.

it's -- it's actually building on what we've seen in

other cities, cities seeking to achieve these kinds of

things through their processes, but I think this is

a -- a unique and exciting proposal for how to do

that.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Commissioner Gillespie.

questions about process?

Real -- real quick, Did that kind of answer your

Okay.

Thanks, Tim.

Commissioner Danley.

24 25 26

Okay.

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

And I think

Yeah, Mr. Chair.

On this line of parking -- real quick, though. Tim, Crystal, Andrea, and everybody else,

42 1

I just want to publicly state -- you know, I know a

lot of hard work has gone into this, and it's worth

saying out loud.

appreciates it to one degree or another.

how it goes, but ultimately a lot of work, and you

should be acknowledged for that work.

You know, we -- I think everybody We'll see

And then, quickly, to the public -- I

think 4,000-ish pages of comments, you know,

and -- and that's a lot.

That's a whole lot.

And so, just to the general public real

quick, thank you for chiming in, and I'm sure we'll

revisit that as we go through the next few days.

On the parking side, Tim, one of the

things we heard in -- in many of the letters -- I

think it was suggested by -- by several -- at least

that I read -- was we have, you know, this concept, as

you touched on, of parking minimums, parking maximums.

And I wouldn't -- wonder if you can touch on the

thought of simply doing away with both.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Well,

the -- the -- we have discussed this -- this -- you

know, and -- and I -- I would -- at least for me --

last summer there was a lot of discussion about the

parking requirements in this new Code and -- and the

way we presented it in public meetings -- and I know,

43 1

through most of last year -- was that the -- the

elimination of minimums, for instance, in this Code

doesn't mean that we'll -- there will be no parking.

What it means is that the public would not

be saying that you must build parking; right?

the -- so the -- the Zoning Code is not necessarily

the determinant as to whether there is parking or not.

Parking would be provided in most cases under any

circumstance.

City" -- and -- and by "the City" -- the public -- "do

we want to be requiring that?"

say that there was a lot of debate about that.

I mean,

The issue is, "Do we, as the

And -- and so I will

And to your point -- and -- and this is

where we ended up, is -- is the proposal that I

outlined just a moment -- in response to

Mr. Gillespie's question.

elimination of minimums is -- is -- is the right way

to go.

And -- and I think the

You know, I think -- if -- if you look at

cities and the enormous cost of parking and

the -- what is possible if you don't have those

minimum requirements, then -- then -- then that's the

direction the city should be headed in.

think where we ended up in terms of our

recommendations is where we felt the city could get

And I've -- I

44 1

now.

And -- and what was -- what was addressing

the variety of concerns that we heard from all specter

of opinions in the public process is where we ended

up.

we -- that we seek to eliminate parking minimums

through a public Code, and this is a step in that

direction.

But I think the -- our recommendation is that

With regard to maximums, you know, I think

maximums are really helpful in some cases -- you know,

maximums -- especially in cases where you're really

seeking to put your investment in public

transportation, for instance.

And -- and we ended up including maximums

that relate to specific uses that are commercial uses

primarily because they end up in places that tend to

be, in this Code, you know, more walkable places,

whether it's MX-3, MX-4, MX-5 -- all of

those -- MX-1 -- all places where you're going to get

a commercial-and-residential mixed use.

So we ended up with the maximums in those

places, which, I feel like, is a -- is a -- is a good

step for the City to take, especially in those cases

where we're really trying to put our investment in

alternative modes of transportation.

45 1

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

to continue, if I might.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

Mr. Chair, I'm just going

Please.

Just a few more.

Tim, you -- again, I'm just kind of

speaking to much of the testimony we saw in the

written record.

I wonder if you can touch on the

relationship between the utilization of on-street

parking and ACHD.

this Chamber, every time we have a proposal that says

it -- you know, maybe, "We're counting a couple of

stalls, on-street parking as it relates to satisfying

our Code," we always get back that same form letter

from ACHD saying, essentially, they're not going to

guarantee that that street will maintain that parking

in perpetuity -- no matter the type of street.

Every time we talk about that in

So I'm curious -- your -- your general

sense of the temperature with relation to ACHD and

that general policy of counting on-street parking

towards satisfying our requirements overall.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

I think the

temperature has gotten much better as it relates to

that, and -- and part of that, I think, does have to

do with this whole process, all of the discussion that

46 1

went on about on-street parking and its importance

during the Zoning Ordinance creation process, which

included ACHD and -- and I think the -- the -- so I

think the alignment between ACHD and the City has

gotten much better.

And ACHD was supportive, you know -- I

think -- can I say this: "supportive of this

Ordinance?"

from them?

Is that appropriate?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Did we get a letter

[Unintelligible]. Oh.

Oh, they're

neutral on this Ordinance.

Excuse me.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

[Unintelligible]. But -- but the

discussion around on-street parking has gotten much

better.

represented, and that was Victory Road on the Bench

I'll mention a specific case where that was

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Mm-hmm.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

-- where we

recently -- the Planning and Zoning Commission

reviewed a couple of developments on Victory there,

and we ended up with a -- a lot of agreement on

on-street parking in that case and -- and a very

47 1

healthy discussion with ACHD about on-street parking

in that case and the importance of it.

So -- so I think that discussion is in a

better place and -- and -- and we're seeing the fruits

of that, I think, in some of the things that you've

been seeing lately.

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

I'm good for now.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

underneath us for the week.

You're good now?

I think we're all getting our legs

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Mooney. Since we're at a -- a

lull.

So regarding parking -- for staff -- then,

for commercial activities and maximums -- for example,

we have some testimony from WinCo regarding, "Hey.

think we need more parking than you're allowing."

what's staff's thoughts on that?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Well, I mean,

we're recommending the Ordinance that's before you.

don't think we have any recommended changes to our

parking requirements, and -- and, you know, there are

uses like a grocery store or WinCo that -- that

48 1

require a lot of parking.

We think 125 percent of the

minimum is -- is -- is gracious for those uses.

And -- and, really, if you look at

big-parking-load tenants like that or users like that,

that -- there tends to be a -- a -- a fair amount of

unused parking at those places.

recommending what's before you.

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

11 12 13

parking.

So -- so we're

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Danley. I'm going to go to bike

How about we shift gears just a little bit? Well, that was a bad pun.

to let that out.

I didn't mean

Sorry.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

Or -- or a good one. So for the last several

years, as you know, we have been requiring of -- of

certain types of development -- most of them who had

set aside space for bike parking -- one thing I've

been hearing sort of through the grapevine is that,

you know, in many cases -- in some cases -- I don't

know how many, but -- that if you have a bicycle that

is of a certain value, that you're more inclined to

want to keep that bike inside your unit, versus, say,

in a parking area -- a dedicated parking area on the

ground floor.

49 1

So I'm curious if we have, at all, been

sort of following up on that policy over the last

bunch of years to see, "How is that going?"

it -- that set aside of bike parking going,

particularly in residential or multi-family,

that -- sort of higher-density projects?

used?

be tweaked?

on that.

How is

Is it being

Is it, you know, something that, maybe, should I'm -- I'm wondering if you could touch

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Do you want

to -- I'm going to ask Andrea to speak to this

in -- in part because, in the new Code, we did

substantially update our parking requirements,

which -- Andrea, perhaps you could speak to...

ANDREA TUNING:

Good evening, Commissioners.

Andrea Tuning, for the record.

As you read the Code, you're going to

notice a number of changes that occur with bicycle

parking.

really de-coupled the amount of bicycle parking that's

provided.

the fact that you would provide the number of bicycle

parking based on the number of vehicle spaces that are

required.

25 26

So the first change is -- is that we've

Previously -- you might be familiar with

So we believe that, not only is vehicular

50 1

parking a component, but also bicycle parking.

we have ultimately determined two different types of

bicycle parking.

parking that will be provided.

an employee in a commercial use, or it would be for a

resident in a -- in a multi-family, residential use.

And so

So you have your long-term bicycle So that might be for

Then we also have visitor parking, and

that's really for those patrons or visitors that might

be coming.

So we have examined it in that location. We've also taken a look at -- that there's

different types of parking.

barking -- parking stall for some individuals, but

then you have other individuals that might have a

bicycle with a trailer, might have a bicycle -- cargo

bike.

types of bicycles as well.

So you have a standard

So we have accommodated for each one of those

We have also taken a look at, "Where are

those bicycle-parking spaces provided?"

cases, they'll be provided near the main entrance to

the building so that they're clearly visible to any

visitors that might be coming for those short-term

spaces, and then we have requirements that a certain

amount of bicycle parking actually has to be secured

and covered for those long-term spaces.

25 26

So in most

And so we've really taken a -- a whole new

51 1

look at bicycle parking to make sure that we are

giving our citizens the option on how they're

commuting.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[Unintelligible] --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Commissioner Mooney.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

those standards on the slide here.

improvement in our -- in our parking -- in our

bicycle-parking requirements, which was a very

deliberate, intentional change that was made in this

Code and, in part, because, Commissioner Danley, of

what -- what we experienced with individual -- you

know, when -- when we were tying the bike-parking

requirements to the park -- the vehicle-parking

requirements and not being specific about where those

spaces needed to be, it was just -- you know,

the -- the results were very spotty.

[Unintelligible] --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

And you can see It's really a big

Mm-hmm. So in this new

Code you have a very deliberate set of new standards

around bike parking.

52 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

think you had a question.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Commissioner Mooney, I

Yeah.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mm-hmm. So with some of the public

feedback regarding that -- Director Keane

was -- that -- why isn't bicycle parking handled the

same as vehicle parking?

For example, for -- the example

that's -- that was offered is, in a multi-family

development, its assumption -- there's going to be

more -- more than one car required for more than one

bedroom, but the same assumption is not made for a

bicycle, and that was some prevailing public

commentary as well.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Right.

And then

so, here, what you have proposed is that we're getting

one long-term space and one short -- short-term space

per unit, which is a dramatic increase from where we

are today.

So in reference to that concern which we

share, you know, we've really, specifically isolated

the bike parking to require much more of it in -- in

any case in Boise.

25 26

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman.

53 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Commissioner Gillespie. Just to keep the ball

rolling.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Please.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

I'm interested in

discussing the terminology "allowed use" and "allowed

form."

to -- to -- or wait, am I supposed to pause, Crystal?

And I'm specifically going to come back

CRYSTAL RAIN:

[Unintelligible].

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

I'm good.

You know, this Commission

No?

and -- and -- and myself, in particular, can be a real

bear on setbacks and height restrictions, and sort of

the traditional tools in the Code that we have for

what I consider -- you know, the building-form

questions, the -- the actual spatial layout of

development.

Can you talk about how the new Code

addresses the -- the classic setback-and-height

restrictions of the old Code, how it deals with those

in a new context, a new Code, and -- and whether

it -- I think it's subsumed in the allowable-form

idea, and I just wanted you to talk about that a

little bit.

54 1

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Right.

The

allowed form, which is specifically related to these

different districts that we're creating and these MX

districts -- so you see it here, the allowed form --

then you -- and the -- the requirements

around -- around each based on the M -- the mixed-use

district you have.

And a reminder that the MX-3 is, as I

said, those transit corridors and Activity Centers.

The MX-4 is -- just for now at least -- just those few

locations on State Street, where we've already

identified the transit stops for the BRT.

downtown is the MX-5.

Use Neighborhood, so smaller scale, but kind of

neighborhood-based, pedestrian-oriented, designed

mixed use.

And then

And then, also, MX-1 is Mixed

And what the requirements are

around allowed form -- so in each case it has to do

with the height of -- of the building, so the density

of what you're building, and it has to do with the

parking and it has to do with the -- in some cases,

whether you're providing affordable housing or not.

But the -- what isn't seen here -- this is

just identifying, from a density standpoint, what's

allowed use/allowed form versus alternative form, but

55 1

what isn't seen here is the

develop -- design-and-development standards that are

throughout the Ordinance in that whole section.

What's directly addressed is the issues,

Commissioner Gillespie, you're speaking to, which is

this great concern that we have around, you know,

the -- the -- the -- kind of the pedestrian

orientation of the design in these -- these critical

places in the city, which are fundamentally a part of

those design-and-development standards.

into setback; that gets into landscape; that gets into

the ground-floor use of the building; that gets into

the nature of that ground-floor design, such that it's

an active ground floor and appropriate on a street

where people are walking; all of those things that are

so common in your discussions.

So that gets

And -- and, you know, I've heard it

described this way, that -- that this new Code

essentially creates the standards that we can now

apply to anyone that's building in those locations,

versus where we've been with the existing Code, which

is -- we have to do it every time separately, like

whether it's through a planned unit development or a

site plan that we're receiving, that we've -- we've

had to kind of wrestle it every time, and the new Code

56 1

is -- is our way to embed those requirements

throughout the Ordinance.

3 4

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: excuse me.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

7 8 9

It's -- Mr. Chairman,

Of course. It's just for

these -- the -- the red spots on the map; right? PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

design-and-development standards relate to every --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

12 13

Well, the

Everything, but the --- everywhere in

the city. COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- this

allowed-form/allowed-use discussion --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

one is this, yes.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

19 20 21

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mm-hmm.

Somehow I lost

track of that. PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

That's -- that's

right.

The allowed-form

That's right.

[Unintelligible].

Sorry.

On that same -- a little bit on that same

57 1

line of questioning, Tim, could you speak to,

generally, how this -- how staff got to the

recommended building heights for each of the zones?

And then -- and, you know, just -- we're

kind of getting in -- a little bit into the weeds, but

I notice, for example, like in the R-3 zone, I think,

the maximum building height is 50 feet, and

you -- you -- you identify a number of stories, but

then it sort of varies.

You know, I think, then, like an MX-3 or

4, the building height's actually low -- a little

lower than 50 feet, but it's still three stories.

you just talk -- can we get a big picture about

how --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Can

I think --

-- that was developed. I think there's

two fundamental ways that we came to the different

height requirements that are part of this Ordinance.

One -- one aspect of it was, "What are the types of

buildings that we're seeking to enable through this

Ordinance?"

So an easy example of that would be, for

instance, in those MX-3 areas.

type.

We -- we've seen it.

We know that building

You know, we know what

58 1

the ideal building type would be there, so let's

include the height that would be -- that would be

appropriate for that.

important way that we came to these recommendations.

So that's -- that's one

The second, I -- I think, as well, though,

is just feedback that we were receiving throughout the

process because, when you think about the

design-and-development standards, those were first

presented in that Module 2 that went out earlier.

don't have the dates in front of me, but -- early in

2022, even late 2021.

very same discussion, including heights, in the summer

of last year.

And then we came back to that

So the second piece of it -- in addition

to, "What type of buildings are we seeking to enable,"

the second piece was, "What kind of feedback are we

getting?

heights," and -- and that was an important part of

this as well.

What" -- "what are people saying about these

And an example of that, actually, is the

requirement in some of our -- in our R-1C, for

instance, that we have a -- a building height of three

stories or 40 feet.

24 25 26

That was a change last summer because we were getting feedback that, you know, we were going to

59 1

get four story or more, even maybe -- even more

four-and-a-half-story buildings and a 40-foot zone

requirement.

the intention had always been that we would not permit

taller than three-story buildings, but we felt it was

appropriate to be concerned that -- by going just to

40 feet, that we could end up with something taller

than that.

So we added the three stories because

So that's just an example of where we

ended up with some of the standards.

with the feedback we were getting from the community.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

It had to do

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Mooney. Regarding that feedback,

Director Keane, so -- though -- that concern about

building height in the R-1C is obviously throughout

our written testimony that we received.

to us about how the staff handled the transition from

the concern, "I'm in a single-family home in an R-1C

neighborhood.

at maybe something nearby that's going to be

uncomfortable."

It's single-story, and now I am looking

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

25 26

Can you talk

[Unintelligible]. Well, the specific

way that we address it in this Code is -- is through

60 1

this transition, you know, in cases where you're next

to a single-story building, that -- where you're

building a three-story building, for instance, that it

has to step back from that building, which has been

a -- a technique that has worked in -- in Boise.

We've had other cases where that's been

deployed and -- and included that in this Ordinance as

a way of addressing that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

[Unintelligible].

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Since we have a lull, I've

got another question.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Go for it.

And I'm trying to stay out

of the weeds, but -- so this question -- again,

regarding big picture and the encouragement of

density, especially along the corridors, and how it

relates to parking -- so I'm stepping back

and -- neighborhood transition -- so I -- sorry.

We're bouncing around.

approach to this.

21 22 23

So maybe we should rethink our

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

No, it's good.

You're good. COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

But -- so can you talk

about how staff is thinking about transit, chicken and

egg, "The automobile's going to be with us" --

61 1

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Right.

Yeah.

-- "Not everyone's going

to get on a bicycle," "People aren't comfortable,"

"They've got to go to the grocery store and" -- all

the reasons --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Sure.

-- we know, so -[Unintelligible].

-- how -- how the Code is

handling that concern, which is also -- also littered

throughout our -- our written testimony.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Yeah.

I think

it's a great question and one that -- this is such an

important question for Boise in general, and it came

up at all the -- most of the public discussion that we

had about this new Code, but it relates to the Code

and it relates to Blueprint Boise in a way.

it's about how we plan the city and then how

our -- our ordinances are related to that planning and

what our expectations are for the city and how it

grows.

I mean,

Imagine the city in -- in 20 -- in 1966,

when this current Ordinance was created.

have all these highways everywhere.

created the highway system that we have to support the

We didn't

We basically

62 1

development pattern that we built.

And so we know that -- now

that -- that -- and this is, again, a lesson from many

places -- that if we -- the most important thing we

do, as a City, as it relates to better bus service,

any investment we make in transit, and also the

investment we make in sidewalks so people can walk or

the pathways that we build in the city -- any

investment that we make in those things will be for

naught if we don't first have a development pattern

that is supportive of that transportation type.

So what I would say is, "This Ordinance is

essential to us building a better set of choices for

people in Boise, as it relates to how they get around,

including bus service."

landscape and then try to build a bus system to serve

it.

We don't spread across the

It doesn't work, ever.

We must build a city that is conducive to

people walking and riding bikes and things like this,

and then we can build that transportation system to

support it.

in this country over the past 50, 60 years because

every place that sprawled across the landscape and

then came in decades later to try to build a transit

system is failing when it comes to that.

This is as clear a lesson as we've gotten

63 1

We in Boise, if we can build a city around

something other than driving, which is our chance

right now, then -- then we have a chance to have

a -- a really good transit system.

important piece.

That's the most

You could argue it's more -- it's more

important than the funding because, as much funding as

we might get, if we don't put ourselves on the land in

a way that is supportive of that investment, then it's

not going to be successful.

So -- so I just think this Code -- and I

can't understate -- and you saw it in Blueprint Boise,

as it relates to the transportation

recommendations -- I don't have that slide in front of

me, but the Blueprint Boise recommendation was that we

have to build for transportation choices.

Code is now the specificity around, "How do you do

that?"

Well, here it is.

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

for one second.

can we continue?

25 26

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Danley, hang on.

Commissioner Blanchard has stepped away

And this

Do we need to pause for a minute, or

Staff, do we just take a break? CRYSTAL RAIN:

I believe we can continue.

64 1

have quorum.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

Great.

Commissioner Danley, please. Okay.

Tim, I just want to give you an

opportunity to address a -- I guess a question/comment

that was raised repeatedly throughout our -- our

packets, multiple packets, and I'm certain we'll hear

it again, and that is that the dimensions -- the

proposed dimensions in lot splits being different than

what they have been historically, that certain

elements -- or certain parts, rather, of the city of

Boise would see more change than others.

wondering if you could address some of those

particular concerns.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

And I'm

Well, I think

this -- does this relate directly to the R-1C, for

instance?

I think --

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

Mostly.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

-- it does.

And -- and so one thing about the R-1C, of

course, is that it is the largest of our neighborhood

zones at about 25 percent, I think, of the city

and -- and -- and a much higher percentage of our R-1

zones.

The R-1C, also, as it relates to affecting one

65 1

part of the city different than another -- is that the

R-1C is in most parts of our city one way or another.

It's geographically dispersed, R-1C.

But then the other thing about the R-1C,

of course, is that it tends to be older neighborhoods,

in -- in many cases, and it tends to be neighborhoods

that are -- are slightly more dense than the other R-1

districts that we have.

R-1A, and -- with the R-1A being the smallest area of

the city, but the largest lots at 20,000 square feet.

And then you go to R-1B, which is the suburban, and

then the traditional, which is the R-1C.

speaking mostly about the R-1C here.

So we have R-1C, R-1B, and

So we're

And -- and again, the changes that we're

proposing, we felt, given the geographic distribution

of R-1C, but then, also, the -- the more compact

nature of R-1C -- I mean, it is more compact.

tends to have a greater diversity of housing types.

We did feel like, in that district, it

would be helpful to, through this Code, find ways to

make that diversity of housing, which includes smaller

lot size -- we've gone to a smaller lot size than

R-1C.

24 25 26

That's what's being recommended. And then, also, the other changes related

to design and development requirements, making

66 1

those -- those more conducive to a greater diversity

of house types within that particular zone because it

is more compact, and it -- and it frequently has those

mix of housing types that -- we should seek to, in

this Code, create dimensional standards that -- that

enable more of -- of what that neighborhood has

traditionally had, and recognizing, of course, that it

is change.

So, you know, it -- it results in change.

We had a -- a meeting with the East End

Neighborhood Association last week, I guess it was,

and talked a lot about this, and -- and it's an

important discussion.

to be careful about allowing that greater diversity,

but doing it in a way that is -- that is reflective of

those neighborhoods.

with this proposal, but we think it's a -- an

appropriate thing to continue to discuss.

You know, we -- we -- we want

And we feel like we got there

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Mooney. I've got a question back

on process.

Is -- is the -- one of the great concerns

in the written testimony was the lack of neighborhood

notification, public feedback in Type 1 and 2s.

there -- is there room to -- you kind of mentioned

67 1

some Type 2s may be going into Type 3 and having a

public process for maybe applications that are allowed

use/allowed form, but that's kind of a transition

point.

So could -- could you talk about -- to how

the staff felt about -- is it a

staff -- staffing-resource issue that doesn't allow us

to be a little bit more open with the process or not?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

No,

it -- it -- there's no -- there's not a staffing issue

associated with anything that's recommended from a

process -- process standpoint.

Again, the -- the reason we're proposing

what we're proposing in terms of these types is that

we wanted to make the things that we feel we want.

If -- if what we feel we want is represented in

Blueprint Boise and -- and -- want and need -- that we

seek to -- through this approach and these types, we

make those things simpler to accomplish.

important action, we think, for the City.

That's an

The only change we really made -- we

didn't make any changes to the Type 3 -- 2 versus 3,

as it relates to allowed use/allowed form.

however, allow for an appeal of the Type 2s.

originally, in our proposal we did not have an appeal

We did, So

68 1

mechanism for Type 2s.

We added that appeal.

And now that appeal goes to the hearings

examiner.

process part of this Ordinance, where -- the City of

Boise used to have a hearing examiner and got rid of

it years ago.

So that's another important aspect of the

And other cities do have hearing

examiners.

We're proposing to bring that back.

And

the appeal that we added to Type 2s was through the

hearing examiner.

made.

So that was the only change that we

It's the only change we're recommending.

COMMISSIONER FINFROCK:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER FINFROCK:

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Finfrock. So I had a question

about -- in our public comment the Veterans Park

Neighborhood Association brought up the question as to

why the Draft Code doesn't incorporate a zoning

designation for permanent park space, and I'm

wondering if you could go into that a little bit.

20 21

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Well, where we

ended up with our -- what are those -- they're --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

[Unintelligible].

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

A-1 and A-2.

and A-2 are our Open Land or -- is that the name?

-- Open Space [sic] districts.

A-1

And -- and where we

69 1

ended up in this Code is to leave those as they are.

So we did not make any changes to the

designations for Open Land or Open Space and -- in

part because there's been a whole separate discussion

going on.

enacting an ordinance related to open space, and that

ordinance was adopted by City Council a few months

ago.

City Council made a decision regarding

So in the -- in the context of all that

discussion that was going on separately, publicly, and

Council action on it, we decided to leave the Open

Space districts as they are and not change anything

associated with them.

or A-2 was left as it is.

So any place that was zoned A-1

That actually even includes a place like

the ITD property on State Street, which is zoned one

of those A zones.

said, "In any case where you have an A designation, in

order to change that, there's going to have to be a

rezoning process," which, as you know, would go to

this Commission and then to City Council.

And we left it as it is and

COMMISSIONER FINFROCK:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

24 25 26

Mr. Chair.

Please, Commissioner

Finfrock. COMMISSIONER FINFROCK:

Okay.

So -- so for that

70 1

zoning, then, if it's an Ordinance -- can you

actually, first of all, go into the details of the

Ordinance.

just like any other process, where it would come

before us and then go on to City Council, but it could

be changed.

You said it still would have to go -- it's

So I think what the concern is right now

is that we have areas of Boise that are still, you

know, being developed, and we don't have that park

space necessarily designated.

that if we have a developer or anybody else who comes

in and develops that space or wants to build on it, we

lose our park space.

And so the concern is

So to buy into the increased density, I

think we have to somehow make sure that the space we

have designated for parks stay that way so that we

have a place to -- you know, that we can go to

and -- and the community can -- like -- like we've

emphasized here -- the community can meet.

So I think that's a big concern for -- for

some outlier areas of -- you know, outside of the

North End or -- or, you know, some of the areas that

have more park space.

24 25 26

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE: about that.

Well, two things

71 1

One is, as I said, the discussion that's

been going on and the Ordinance that City Council

adopted relative to open spaces in the city, which was

very recent.

has also been going through the process of -- of -- of

taking action -- and James could tell us for sure -- I

don't remember what the exact action was around park

spaces in the city -- to -- to protect those park

spaces through a --

And then the second is that City Council

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

deed restriction.

Deed restrictions. Yeah, through a

That's what it was.

So City Council, over a period of a few

months, went through and very deliberately placed a

deed restriction on any park in the city to limit its

use to park space.

happening in the city related to open spaces and

protecting those.

So we've got multiple things

So in this Ordinance, we -- as I said, we

decided to leave those A districts as they are because

protection efforts around parks have been going

through Council for months, and Council has been

deliver -- deliberating on it for months, and we

didn't want to get into the middle of that, Number 1.

Number 2, the other thing I would say that

72 1

is so important to this community relative to open

spaces, is that we have an Ordinance that doesn't

require that we spill into the landscape around us.

If -- if that happens, then -- then we will really

have failed.

And -- and much of this Ordinance effort

is around -- is around ensuring that this relationship

between the city and nature is maintained.

decision by the City, I would argue, with regard to

this new Ordinance, is a dramatic step in that

direction.

COMMISSIONER FINFROCK:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER FINFROCK:

15 16

And this

Mr. Chair.

Please. I had one more question

about the notification process. So there's -- I -- I read somewhere about

a project tracker, and I was just wondering if you

could go into details.

is -- is you can go in and maybe register your address

or something, and then it gives you a notification if

any new projects come through or -- can you maybe go

into a little bit more detail about that too.

Like now -- I think what it

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Yes.

We've been

talking about this since last fall, and the

development of this Community Development Tracker,

73 1

which I think is live -- actually, you can view this

now on the City's website.

And the point of the Development Tracker

was to give residents of the city much more visibility

into the development process, not just through the

clunky Accela [phonetic] system that we have that has

to do with building permits and so forth, but through

a much more accessible conduit, which is the Community

Development Tracker.

So you can click on any property or -- it

will be identified, where you've got properties in the

city where there's an ongoing entitlement or

development.

you'll have the ability to go in and -- and seek to

for instance, of -- of any development that pops up

within the neighborhood.

And -- and when we launch the Ordinance,

So -- so anyway.

This is an important

tool that we developed to give people more visibility

in general into what's going on in their neighborhood.

And it's been developed in conjunction with this new

Zoning Code to give people visibility and will be

aligned directly with the new Code and the new

districts and the new types and all that, that -- that

we're recommending in the Ordinance.

74 1

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Commissioner Mohr.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

I've got a fair amount of

dimensional-related questions.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Let's do it.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

And I would like to get into

7 8 9

the weeds a little bit, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I think that's great.

Let's

do it --

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Let's do it.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

-- if staff's up for it.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

So looking at the -- kind of

this table of dimensions on page 196 and 197

comparing -- and I'll start -- I guess I'll start with

some of the setbacks and then make my way down to the

heights.

But looking at the setbacks, I think the

first one that really strikes me is some of the

parking setbacks and, really, looking at some of those

M -- MX zones.

example, the front and the street-side setback in the

MX-1 zone is 20 feet, and then it jumps up for the

remaining MX zones, except for MX-H, to 10 feet.

24 25 26

So the parking setbacks on -- for

Can you kind of go through -- and I'm -- I'm guessing that it's related to the kind of

75 1

uses that are anticipated there, but can you kind of

go through, I guess, the reasoning behind that big

jump in those zones and -- and kind of -- some of the

detail about the parking setbacks between the

residential and then that [unintelligible].

6 7

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: what page was that?

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

196 and 197. In -- in the Draft

Code?

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Commissioner Jennifer,

Yes. Thank you.

[Unintelligible] the

general approach to parking setbacks.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

ANDREA TUNING:

Yeah.

[Unintelligible].

If you'll give us just one

second, we're going to go to, actually, those pages.

And hopefully, we can kind of walk you through each

one of those.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

ANDREA TUNING:

Perfect.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mohr, we do

have that on the -- the overhead.

kind of walk us through -- you had questions specific

to parking setbacks, so we have that up.

25 26

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Sure.

And if you could

So for -- and -- and

76 1

this is the -- the best example.

So for -- I'm

looking at the MX-1 zone.

a 20-foot parking setback, but in the MX-2 and 3, you

know, that -- that jumps up a little bit, while that

interior side, rear side, that remains the same, as

well as the front building setbacks are all the same.

And the question, I guess, is -- you know,

That front setback, that's

the -- the reasoning for that 20-foot setback in the

one zone, as opposed to the

uniformly-applied -- elsewhere.

ANDREA TUNING:

Perfect.

So if you look at the

MX-1 parking setback, it does require the 20 feet from

this -- from the property line.

Neighborhood zone, and so we want to create those

really walkable environments.

that, yes, the building is going to frame the public

right-of-way in the same location, but we want that

parking to be set back just a little bit more to make

people feel comfortable, convenient, and really

encourage them for that walkable, bikeable

environment.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

And so you might see

Mr. Chair.

And that makes total sense, why it would

be pushed up against I-84.

there.

MX-1 is our Mixed Use

So I 100-percent follow

77 1

The other questions are really related to

the building heights.

was answered a little -- or was touched on a little

bit earlier, related to anticipated uses.

at kind of this Zoning Conversion Map and comparing it

to some of the building heights anticipated, you know,

it jumps from -- what is it?

And I know that some of that

But looking

It's 50 feet maximum in the R-3 zone,

whereas that MX-1 zone -- I think the height is 45 in

MX-1 and MX-2, and then it jumps to 70 in 3, 4 -- in 3

and 4.

and then go back up a little bit -- and just the

reasoning for some of that because it does seem like

that R-3 is acting as a sort of buffer between some of

these zones that are actually a little bit shorter.

So it kind of seems to go down a little bit

ANDREA TUNING:

excellent question.

Commissioner Mohr, that's an

With building height, we have another -- a

number of questions, and I think the -- I'll start

with, "What's changed with building height?"

And so we are actually measuring building

height a little bit differently with the new Code.

previously, what was happening is -- is that we would

measure to the top of a building if it was a flat-roof

structure or we would measure to the midline of the

78 1

roof if it was a sloped roof.

confusing.

measuring from grade," "Are you measuring from

foundation cap," "Are you" -- there was a multitude of

different questions.

question surrounding that.

And it got very

People couldn't decide -- "Are you

And so we have always had a

And so we thought the most important thing

to do was to actually clarify that.

measure building height the same for each zone, and so

it will always be from grade to the highest point of

the building.

So now we will

There are some exceptions that can

certainly exceed that.

shaft or something to that nature that's not

increasing your buildable area, you can encroach into

that -- that building-height setback.

So if you have an elevator

Then we also took a look at, "What are the

building heights that we want," "What's the optimal

build" -- "optimal building height of what we're

looking for?"

neighborhood zones, those are really those walkable,

convenient locations that we want people to feel

really comfortable, and we want that building to frame

the street in that ideal way to really support that.

25 26

When we look at the mixed-use

So that's really going to support a

79 1

three-to-four-story building.

When we look at some of

those 70-foot height limits, that's what we're really

seeing in a lot of our multi-family zones.

that -- you're going to see that with a podium parking

with four structures on top of that.

We've heard time and time again that,

really, you know, in that case, that's the optimal

building form.

accommodating for that and really placing it in the

locations where they're most important so -- placing

our density, placing our people and all of those uses

that are so sought after -- we want those to be on our

major corridors, along those areas.

where you're going to see the fluctuation in height

here.

So we want to make sure that we're

And so that's

Also, when we look kind of at those

residential zones -- we also heard very distinctly

that every residential zone should have a character of

its own, and so we wanted to make sure that -- that we

stepped up.

neighborhood and have a -- a lower-density residential

zone -- that, as you moved closer to those corridors,

you would actually build height and transition into

those really optimal building forms that we're looking

for.

So if you are in the heart of a

80 1

You know, earlier, we also heard, "Hey.

What are" -- you know, "Why did you come to

the" -- "some of those density calculations that you

have, particularly in those residential zones?"

if we say, "We want to follow Blueprint Boise" -- if

you take a look at a lot of those land use

designations, it gives us a density range for each one

of those, and so that's why you're going to see some

of those densities that are attached.

And

So when we look at those neighborhood

densities or those neighborhood designations, we have

Large Lot, we have Suburban, we have the Compact or

the High-Density, and each one of those has a density

range.

as our structure and -- and really achieve those goals

that are put forth in that Blueprint Boise document.

And so we -- we've really tried to follow that

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Mr. -- Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Please, Commissioner Mohr.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

And just a -- I guess a

little bit of follow-up on -- on some of those.

I'm noticing, you know, there's a little

bit of disparity between the four-story in R-2, the

four-story not to exceed 45 feet, and then R-3, the

four-story not to exceed 50 feet.

the -- you know, there's some public comments about

And I think

81 1

how that -- all that's really doing is allowing

greater floor-to-floor heights.

But, I guess, can you kind of walk through

what the -- the reasoning for that -- it's -- it's so

minor -- but just that couple of feet, what -- what is

that doing besides just that step up?

ANDREA TUNING:

Well, we have looked at height.

And the ultimate goal is to really not stifle

development and not to stifle creativity or

innovation.

the same.

established throughout the city.

that height, we do have that ability to -- to vary

those types of things.

And we don't want every building to look

We don't want the same box to be And so by increasing

So when we talk about, "Yeah, you can go

four stories, but no greater than the 45 feet in

height," we're pretty confident that, in today's

economy, you're not paying for the additional lumber.

You're not going to pay for the additional heating

costs to -- to increase those floor plates any more

than what you need to -- to make it livable, optimal,

and usable for your tenant or your resident.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Got you.

Mm-hmm.

82 1

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

So on that note of

four -- four stories, you know, there's some spaces

that are four-story minimums.

that fourth story, like a cupola or something like

that?

Is there any minimum to

That doesn't count as a fourth story; does it? ANDREA TUNING:

Well, when we talk about the

allowed use/allowed form, we did talk about, you know,

how much of that building does need to be that fourth

story, and -- really establishing where that guideline

is.

those roadways, really framing those, creating that

urban setting, and then you -- again, giving us some

innovation and not stifling creativity.

We think that that four stories needs to be along

You might be able to decrease that down

because we also have those neighborhood-transition

setbacks that we talked about a little bit earlier,

that are going to be a key component, so -- really

identifying, "Where is that line?"

landed on the 50 percent.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

ANDREA TUNING:

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

ANDREA TUNING:

And I think we

Got you.

Yeah.

So it's --

50 percent?

-- not in our Code.

So that

would be a policy question, or if you felt that -- you

know, that we should clarify that.

83 1

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

I've got for now.

not --

Okay.

That's -- that's all

I've got some other questions, but

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

-- [unintelligible] related.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Andrea, actually --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Just -- just --

-- before you go --

clarification on that --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

-- one

Oh, go ahead, Tim. -- was that the

only place where we have the four-story minimum

relates to the allowed use/allowed form.

district that requires that.

it's -- it's -- it's only related to the approval

process.

There's no

I mean, you know,

Yeah.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

And then, I guess, Tim, to

follow up -- one thing that caught my eye in the MX-1

zone was the surface parking.

was that surface parking may be located -- no

surface-parking spaces may be located between the

building and any street adjacent to the property.

So I was thinking through if you had

25 26

a -- like a corner lot; right?

I think the statement

In that case, then,

84 1

you -- you'll have no parking between the building and

either street, as this Code is written; is that right?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

Correct.

Okay. Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Danley. Just a quick question.

All these height numbers are mostly

rounded numbers in fives and tens, except for one, and

I've got to know -- it's 78, so it's the MX-H.

did that come from?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Where

The reason for

that is because that's the -- the height within

the -- the hospital districts, and that had been

established previously.

Ordinance.

It's not called MX -- MX-H in the current

Ordinance.

It's a different --

It's in the current

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Yeah.

but it's -- that's where the 78 was.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- nomenclature,

Mm-hmm.

Good catch.

[Unintelligible]. Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Gillespie. Since we're jumping

85 1 2

around, back to procedure. Director Tim, can you talk about the

difference between a hearing-examiner hearing and a

hearing before this Body and -- and what you think the

strengths and weaknesses like --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

8 9

Yeah.

And why are we doing

that -- not that I mind, but I'm just curious. PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Well, the

difference is that the hearing-examiner hearing is

a -- pulling up a slide here, and that's -- thank

you -- related to the hearing examiner, as to what

that is exactly.

And the difference, though -- I

really -- I think the fundamental difference is that

the hearing-examiner hearing is more like a judicial

proceeding, in the sense that the hearing examiner, of

course, would take testimony from anyone that would

like to give it, but then is basing their decision

upon the Code itself.

of a judicial hearing, versus a public hearing that

you all convene, which often has a -- a relationship,

of course, to the Ordinance, but the parameters around

that discussion and what's -- what is presented as

relevant in terms of that hearing is much wider.

And so it's more in the nature

86 1

You know, it's -- it's a -- it's a -- just

conversation about, "What do you think," versus

the -- the content of the Code itself, which is what

the hearing-examiner hearing would stick to.

So -- and you all know these things.

mean, this is not uncommon, but -- but that's

the -- and we felt like it was important to -- to

reconstitute the hearing examiner just in part -- as

part of an overall kind of comprehensive effort to

improve procedure throughout our processes.

You know, like there's some things that

would be better to be dealt with in that kind of more

judicial setting and -- versus getting into longer

appeal processes that require a lot of time of

everybody and are less -- much less predictable.

So -- but again, only in the context of,

you know, "What are we trying to do with this Code?"

You know, it's not like we're taking the existing

regulations we have, which require so many variances

and all these planned unit developments, and

saying, "Hey.

this condition we have."

Let's insert a hearing examiner into

What we're saying is, in the context of

these new rules, which are intended to be much more

aligned with what the community's seeking, "Let's add

87 1

the hearing examiner to this."

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yeah. Mr. Chairman.

Mm-hmm. So -- so just to

clarify.

Any -- any kind of a permit where the

findings are subjective like -- is -- you know, some

of our findings are, "Is it in the general interest of

the City," or "It would not place an undue burden on

transportation," or, "It doesn't adversely impact

adjacent property and use," all those very sort of

subjective decisions that we have to wrestle with all

the time.

All those permits would not go through the

hearing examiner because he's just going to look at

those things that are very specific; is that fair to

characterize it --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

I think so.

mean, the -- you know, within this new Ordinance

-- again, back to this thing of, "We're not proposing

an Ordinance that would create all of these custom

zoning districts" --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

25 26

Right.

like planned unit developments."

-- "through things

We're proposing

88 1 2

standards that would apply across the city. So where we're having hearings before

Planning and Zoning and City Council around -- around,

you know, more general thoughts about

development -- has to do with, "Where are you not in

alignment with this Ordinance," or, "Where are you

proposing changes to the Ordinance or the Comp Plan

that were not contemplated in this new Ordinance?"

Those are the things that would come to

you and the City Council, not the day-to-day activity

of working through, "Is someone meeting the" -- "the

requirements of this Code?"

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

So I -- Mr. Chairman.

Mm-hmm.

So I guess, in a -- you

know, looking at -- thinking about it in more detail,

I do see that the -- the hearing examiner is -- is

looking at variances.

guess I'll try and state this as a question, not a

statement, but -- gosh.

and tough and subjective and are kind of, you know,

one-off and highly situational.

And sometimes variances -- so I

Variances can be very tricky

And I will frankly tell you that this Body

and -- in general, variances aren't dealt with

absolutely uniformly across the city because each

89 1

particular is so different.

how what you just said fits into the fact that the

hearing examiner is going to get the variances.

So -- so I'm wondering

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Well, I mean,

the -- yeah.

instance, you have to meet the four tests of a

variance.

And like you said, that -- there's a lot of

latitude.

I mean, there's some latitude

in -- in -- in how you interpret those four tests, as

it relates to any individual variance case.

As you know, with variances, for

But, you know, it is often the case -- it

is typically the case, that in a -- in a city or a

town, any municipality, that -- as it relates to

variances, you have a quasi-judicial process outside

of the Planning and Zoning and City Council process,

which is more -- call it "political" -- than -- than a

quasi-judicial process.

that variances in cities and towns are

held -- are -- are -- are handled in that more kind of

administrative fashion -- fashion.

unusual.

It is frequently the case

This is not

Call it a "hearing examiner."

a -- a -- a -- you know, some kind of "appeal body,"

but -- but that is -- so while there is some room in

there with those -- for instance, in a variance

Call it

90 1

case -- which is not all that we're talking about

here.

variances.

they'll hear very few variances.

The hearing examiner's not just hearing

As a matter of fact, we're expecting that

The -- the cases that the hearing examiner

would most hear would be appeals of approvals that

we're giving, for instance, or -- that's probably

the -- the -- the biggest workload is -- for Type 2s,

for instance, where we're getting appeals, whether

it's from the applicant or -- or someone else, that's

probably the most significant volume of work for the

hearing examiner.

And so to be able to have that work

focused on, "What are these brand-new requirements

that you've created in the city around what you want

built" -- let's focus on that and have those decisions

based on that, versus essentially relitigating the

Zoning Ordinance every time someone proposes to do

something and coming back to this Body and City

Council.

That would be -- in my opinion, that would

be a -- that would be a shame that -- that we keep

going through this after we've spent years creating a

set of rules around a deliberate way for the city to

go grow in a way that it addresses these big goals.

91 1

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Please, Milt.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yeah.

I'm just going to

suggest, since this is a legislative hearing,

that -- we get a lot of variances out of -- all over

the city -- the North End, the East End, West -- all

over, and I don't think this Code, as I've read it, is

going to cut down -- it might, but it's, you know, "My

neighbor built a garden on my property, and now he

wants to put a greenhouse over it."

that stuff; right?

I mean, it's all

So we're still going to get a lot of

variance requests coming through the system, is my

general thinking, and they're tough.

they're -- they're surprisingly hard.

Sometimes we

spend an hour on some guy's, you know, toolshed.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

So I'll just leave that

out there for you.

22 23

Let's not get into

that.

20 21

Yep, regularly.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Chew on that the rest of the

week.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

[Unintelligible].

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Mr. Chair.

92 1 2

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Hang on.

One second,

Commissioner Mooney.

We are about five minutes to 6:00.

planning on a dinner break at 6:00.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We are

Yay.

So just to remain -- remind

everybody of that.

I think we probably can continue with

questions after dinner, if that's where we're at.

you all still have some more questions for staff, I

think that's absolutely fine.

12 13

Is that where we're at?

We still have

some questions we'd like to ask staff?

Okay.

Well, I think we'll do one more with

Okay.

All right.

Commissioner Mooney, and then we'll break for dinner.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

20 21

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mm-hmm. So another process

question. So since the -- we -- we may -- we know we

have made some mistakes in the past.

Blueprint Boise was published in 2011, and we didn't

accomplish the action plan.

25 26

For example,

So how do we, as a City, hold our feet to

93 1

the fire going forward?

Since we know that -- if City

Council enacts this and it becomes law and codified,

that -- that we will have made mistakes, how do we

hold our feet to the fire and come back and fix those?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Yeah.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Do we have the staff

7 8

resources to do that? PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Very important

point.

And we think this is a critical aspect of

this, which is -- you know, again, it's not typical

that a city creates a whole new set of rules around

development.

And -- and these rules relate to very

small things.

It -- they relate to very big things,

but, as you say, there are going to be things that

we -- that we want to do differently.

We -- we've made a great effort in, we

think, preparing a set of regulations that are very

commensurate with where we want the City to go, but

there's going to be details that we're going to want

to keep working on.

that we come back no later than 12 months after

adoption of this Ordinance with a complete report on

how it's going and recommendations for fine tuning.

You have to think about this.

25 26

So we think it's very important

It's -- it -- once -- the first time in 60 years.

And

94 1

we, as a community, I would argue, have to become

experts in this kind of growth -- right? -- growing

within ourselves, using the existing resources and

infrastructure and services that we have.

We became

experts in sprawling across the landscape.

We're

great at it now.

became experts in it.

We weren't great at it in 1966.

Right now, we'll have to become experts in

a different kind of smaller-scale -- in some cases, at

the neighborhood level -- but -- larger-scale stuff on

our corridors, we're going to have to become experts

in it, and that's everybody.

build, that is neighborhoods, that is the city.

That's people that

And so we think this is going to be a

frequent -- frequent report out and continued fine

tuning as we move forward and have been discussing

ourselves, "What's the report that we're going to do

in 12 months if this is adopted," because we know

we're -- we're going to see things in that time,

having worked with it for a year, that we'd like to

come back and discuss as amendments.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

All right.

Thanks, staff.

Okay.

Good there?

All right.

Thanks, John.

Thanks, Tim.

95 1 2

We're going to take a 30-minute dinner break, and so we'll be back at 6:30.

Okay.

Welcome back, everybody.

I think most everybody's with us.

So, Crystal, I think we still had a few

out -- a few more questions for staff.

pick up where we left off there, and I'll open it up

here to the Commission.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Commissioner Mohr.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

So I guess I'll -- I'll

We can just

start.

One of the -- and this is for the staff.

One of the items that I kind of noticed

was missing from the Ordinance was tiny houses.

know there's a little bit of study going on right now

with tiny houses, but is that something that you could

kind of speak on, maybe the process and-- is the City

thinking about integrating those, or -- or what's

the -- the thinking on those?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

And I

Well,

you -- you're -- Commissioner, you are correct that

the city has a tiny-house initiative going on right

now, though it's not part of the Zoning Ordinance.

Although, the -- the -- what they learn from that will

96 1

be helpful in terms of the Zoning Ordinance and all of

our development regulations and processes.

But a couple of things I would say about

this Ordinance, though, that relates to smaller

residential structures -- one is -- of course, it does

have the accessory-dwelling-unit component to it, a

couple of adjustments to those requirements are in

this Code.

And then the other thing is that there are

aspects of this Ordinance that deal with, you know,

individual dwellings, but -- but of -- of -- of a

greater variety of types.

directly to a tiny house, it does address issues in

our R-1 districts related to where you can do multiple

units on a -- on a lot.

So while it doesn't speak

So one would imagine that smaller

residential dwellings -- some could call them "tiny

houses" -- could be an aspect of that.

19 20

Now, if you're speaking of like mobile, tiny houses, it doesn't get into that at all.

But, also, the -- what we've

called "strategic infill," but one of the incentives

related to housing as it relates to certain conditions

when you're on a corridor, arterial, a vacant lot, or

you're reusing the existing structure where you get

97 1

additional units, that would certainly lend itself to

arrangements of dwellings where modest houses

would -- would be integral to that.

But -- so there are aspects of it that

kind of touch on much more modestly-sized residential

structures, but you are correct that there isn't

anything in here that relates to like mobile, tiny

houses and these kinds of things.

And I think any effort related to that

would -- one aspect of that could -- could be that it

would be helpful to take what the City learns from its

pilot initiative.

amendment to the Ordinance is needed based on that,

then so be it.

here that relates to these more modestly-sized houses.

And if it's determined that some

But -- but I do think there's a lot in

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Perfect.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Commissioner Mohr,

[unintelligible] continue?

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

related to tiny houses.

21 22

I do have a couple other questions, but it's just bouncing around.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

25 26

I don't have anything

then, too.

You're bouncing around.

Maybe -- maybe I'll jump in here,

98 1

Tim, could you talk a little bit about the

ADU and how -- and how that has changed with this Code

update?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

I think we have a

slide on this one as well that Deanna can pull up, but

there are changes here.

most conversation are, Number 1, that an ADU currently

is limited to 700 square feet, and in this Ordinance

we're proposing that it be 900 square feet.

The ones that have gotten the

In addition, we are -- there -- included

in this Code is a provision that, in the case of

a -- having an accessory dwelling unit that -- where,

currently, it's required that the owner live on the

property -- that we allow for the owner to not live on

the property if one of the units -- the primary

structure or the ADU -- is affordable at a designated

income level.

18 19 20

And what is that income level?

Is it

6 -- 60 percent of area median income. For your information separately, we do

have a slide, I know, that relates to what 60 percent

of AMI means from an income standpoint --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

25 26

Mm-hmm. -- and what that

means in terms of rent, but those are the two changes

99 1

to the ADU requirements.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

Okay.

Thanks. Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Blanchard. Director Keane, I had a

question about the ADU, as well.

It -- I'm sure it probably is a best

practice that -- or across the country, what we find

mostly is that the main residence is owner-occupied

and that ADUs -- and that most of the code generally

follows that the main residence needs to be

owner-occupied.

My question there is that -- are -- is

there any instance of people just getting around that?

I mean, it seems, to me, like it -- I mean, we see so

many times that there's -- homes are owned by trusts

or LLCs.

this.

that?

I mean, there's a lot of ways to get around

Is there any evidence that people are doing

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Well, there is

because, you know, we're -- we get Code Compliance

requests around this question, as you know and anyone

might suspect.

cases where there's concern about -- about accessory

dwellings and the circumstances around them.

There -- we're -- is a fair number of

So this

100 1

is something that the City does have experience with.

And therefore, one would believe it is a problem at

times, and we do get concerns about it.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

And, Tim, on that note too.

The owner-occupied -- the standard

ADU -- right? -- is owner-occupied with the

owner-occupied requirement.

There was some public comment in our

packets about the -- that requirement being deed

restricted.

sunsetting at some point after, you know, 25 years,

for example -- right? -- after the structure is built,

can you speak to that at all?

And if the City considered that

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

the affordability aspect of it?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

As it relates to

The owner -- the requirement

that, if it's not the affordable, it's the

owner-occupied option, so the base option -- right? --

19 20 21 22 23

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Oh, okay.

you. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

-- that one of the units

is -- yeah. PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

No.

There -- there isn't a sunset to it.

that --

Got

You -- the --

101 1 2

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: not.

Oh, I know.

I know there's

Did -- did the City consider that? PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

No, I -- that

wasn't a discussion that we had about -- because

the -- the idea is, under the current Code or the base

option, that the owner-occupied requirement would be

in perpetuity, you know --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

-- that -- that

would have to be the case at any time in order for you

to be eligible for the ADU, unless, you know, it meets

that -- that affordability requirement.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Commissioner Mohr.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

I guess on the topic of

ADUs.

So I see the square footage has been

increased to 8 -- to 900 square feet, and two-bedroom

is the max.

not the requirements?

Is one bathroom still the max, or is that

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

bathrooms is not regulated --

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

The number of

Okay. -- in the Code.

102 1

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

7 8

Mr. Chair.

Did I beat you --

Mr. Chair.

You do your --- Chris?

-- homework, Commissioner

Danley. Commissioner Mooney. COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Director Keane, could you

talk to the staff's thoughts on the clean-energy

pieces of the Code, incentives, and how all that is,

big-picture-wise?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Sure.

And -- and

I -- we probably have a slide on that as well that we

can pull up.

But in -- in discussions around the

incentives that we have, we -- we did like the idea of

organizing the Ordinance around these incentives so

that we have cases where, in order to get additional

units -- dwelling units -- you have to meet these

requirements, and those include the affordability

requirements.

But also -- and I'm -- I'm speaking to

what you're -- but also some requirements around

energy and water.

Ordinance says that you -- in order to get the

And so the -- as drafted, the

103 1

additional unit, you have to meet both the

affordability requirement and the sustainability

requirement.

So we worked with our pub -- Public Works

Department on what those requirements should be.

Obviously, they're experts in these issues,

as -- as -- as -- as great a resource as -- as exists,

really, in cities.

requirements that are included in the Ordinance, which

include that the unit has to be all electric.

11 12

And so they came up with these

I -- were you speaking to the energy aspects of it specifically -- I'm sorry --

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

15 16

No, the --- or just in

general, the -- yeah. COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

-- yeah, the -- well, I

was speaking to the energy aspects, and -- and kind of

the follow-on to that is -- is -- obviously, there's

opposition to that from Intermountain Gas and other

providers, and how is the City approaching that?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Yeah.

Well,

the -- we do require that those -- in order to meet

the sustainability standard, that -- that

they -- the -- the unit be all electric.

that the -- the unit consume 15-percent less energy or

The -- also,

104 1

meet Building Code -- or Green Building Code

requirements and that the unit consume 15-percent less

water.

So we feel like it's appropriate in this

Ordinance to add requirements in cases where you're

getting an incentive.

that we've heard with some about this, but -- but in

these cases, we don't have the base requirement that

units in the city be all electric.

cases where, through the incentive -- you're getting

additional dwelling units -- that we require it.

And I understand the concern

It's only in these

So we felt very comfortable with that in

terms of that concern because it isn't a base

requirement in the city.

can choose the -- elect -- you know, the -- what

you -- what you please.

you -- if you decide, as an option, to take advantage

of this incentive, then we felt it was appropriate to

include these additional requirements.

20 21

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

And in the city you -- you

It's just when -- if

Okay, Commissioner Danley.

You're up.

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

Okay.

Thanks.

Tim, we had a lot of comments about

the review process, the time -- the timing of review.

And in some instances, people being general,

105 1

saying, "We don't have enough time," in other

instances, specific claims to this 180-day Federal

requirement and -- and so forth.

can talk to that.

I'm wondering if you

How does the --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

7 8 9

How does staff feel about

those claims? PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

The -- the time --

in terms of time to deliberate on this Ordinance?

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

I -- yeah, and I saw those as well.

Oh, okay.

Yes. Okay.

Well,

The -- the -- the -- the first thing is,

of course, we're not -- this isn't a development

review around a specific development.

a -- it's a set of policies that the City will -- will

or will not adopt.

It's -- it's

So I think that some of the reference to,

for instance, Federal standards around public notice

had to do with the cases where you have a

specific -- and not that -- not that those pertain to

us, but -- but, in those cases, that -- that they

pertain to an individual development proposal.

this case, you're talking about a policy decision of

the City -- Number 1.

106 1

Number 2, I would suggest that we have had

much, much more than 180 days to consider what's being

presented to you tonight.

the -- as we've gone through this process, through

these phases, modules, there have been versions of

this Ordinance to review at each -- each step.

Now, the -- it certainly changed.

When you think about it,

I mean,

when we got to Modules 1 and 2 and revisited those

last summer, that was a change, but in association

with that, we also released an Ordinance that

reflected those changes.

Then when we got to September of last

year, we released an Ordinance that included all

phases of -- of this proposal.

you have before you tonight, but much of the substance

of what we're now considering was included in draft

ordinances along the way in this process, including in

September of last year, which included the entire

Ordinance.

It wasn't exactly as

So, yes, when it was released in February,

that did include changes that weren't in the version

that was released in -- in February -- in September,

but this was not starting from scratch.

24 25 26

This -- this was, "Let's go through a long, public process, talk about the implications of

107 1

all of these ordinances, whether it relates to parking

or the R-1 districts" -- that -- why -- that's why we

made big changes last summer, based on feedback that

we were getting from the ordinances that had

previously been introduced.

So I -- I just -- I think that -- what we

would say to that is that this has been a very

intentionally inclusive process that's included

versions of this Ordinance all along the way.

then, up until this -- this official public-hearing

process, we have followed every rule that we are

required to follow as it relates to public notice,

release of information, all of that.

And

So once -- even after that long process of

various reviews, once we got down to the -- this

process, which is the Planning Commission and City

Council's official hearings and deliberation on the

ordinances, we have, since then, followed every rule

in terms of that process and will continue to.

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Danley. I'm wondering if I could

ask a few questions.

as circulation/transportation-kind-of-based questions.

25 26

And I'm just going to couch them

In our Code we have the existing and

108 1

proposed -- the -- the gateway streets.

I know our

Comprehensive Plan has a handful of them listed.

have a few more with respect to cell -- cellphone

lattice tower treatment, but also lighting and that

sort of thing.

I'm wondering if -- if there was any

discussion on additional gateway treatments and

identification of additional streets beyond this list.

And the reason I ask, "Is it" -- it tends

to -- it -- it -- Capitol, Vista, and then we have a

whole bunch of the west part of our city that is not

included in here.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

15 16

The gateways.

So I'm wondering where that

conversation was. ANDREA TUNING:

Commissioner Danley, you are

correct in -- the gateway streets are identified in

our Comp Plan.

really tried to follow what the Comprehensive Plan had

identified.

So through the Zoning Code Rewrite, we

So we know that, in the future, we will

update the Comprehensive Plan periodically, as each

city does.

gateway streets actually are.

25 26

At that time, we may expand what those

In those cases, the standards that you're

109 1

referring to, which might apply to streetscape

standards -- it might apply to where wireless

facilities would be located.

applicable at that time.

Then those would be

But at this point, we did believe that the

Zoning Code was actually separate from the Comp Plan.

So any Comp Plan amendments that you're seeing as part

of this application are simply to ensure -- they're

not any substantive changes.

sure that we have consistency throughout those two

documents.

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

They're just to make

Okay.

If -- if I can --

Yeah, please. So -- and, of course.

thought I had it.

There's TDM strategies in here with

respect to parking reductions.

going to just, again, kind of begin the circulation

discussion, but -- oh, I can't find it, where I would

of -- of course, when I need it -- but you know where

it is.

It's -- it is -- I'm

So we have -- we have a list of

travel-demand-management strategies that outline to

the applicant -- if they embark on any of these, then

a parking reduction can be further had.

110 1

My question is how are those -- how -- how

are those maintained?

applicant is following those agreed-upon TDM

strategies, whichever ones that they choose?

ANDREA TUNING:

How do we ensure that the

When we evaluate those,

ultimately through their approval process, we can

certainly insert that they do an annual review or a

five-year review.

option on how long we are evaluating that over a

period of time.

And so that really gives us the

But also, you know, those parking

reductions are approved based on them continuing

those.

continue those, they would either have to seek a new

parking reduction, meaning different findings or

different avenues to achieve that parking reduction,

or they're having to -- to continue to show that they

have achieved those goals that they promised to do.

So if, for some reason, they were not able to

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

[Unintelligible].

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Yeah.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Commissioner Mohr.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

I think, on the kind of

25 26

Okay.

That's it for now.

circulation thought -- kind of -- consistently

111 1

throughout Code, I think, there's a lot of references

to the American Accessibility Act [sic], and a lot of

it's memorialized very specifically.

And while that doesn't change often -- you

know, obviously it's a Code that is subject to being

updated.

specifically, as opposed to as part of, you know, like

a Building Code standard or -- or something like that,

as part of the building process -- or the -- with a

separate permitting process?

Is there reasoning behind including that

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Well, we're

required to have it, though, in both the Zoning

Ordinance and the Building Code.

That's -- that's a requirement that -- that we have to

include in both ordinances.

So, yeah.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Mr. -- Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mm-hmm.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

So, say something like part

of the -- I guess, specifically the projection into

the path of egress -- or the path of walking is -- is

one -- or "path of travel" is one that's peppered

pretty consistently throughout.

Say, for -- for some reason, that's

updated.

location throughout -- okay.

That would have to be updated in every

112 1

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

my -- here's my thinking here, team.

Here's

Great questions.

Staff, great job answering questions.

We've had a bunch of

neighborhood-association representatives waiting

patiently here for us this evening, so I think we're

going to move on to those folks.

When we get through all their

presentations, we are going to have some time for some

Q and A afterwards.

outstanding questions, we can pick them up at that

time.

So I think, if we have any more

Does that sound good?

Okay.

Perfect.

Thanks again, staff.

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

All right.

Okay.

So neighborhood

associations, we have the full list for the city here.

It looks like we have about, oh, 11 or 12 folks that

signed up.

alphabetically.

going to get five minutes to present.

We'll run through that list Every neighborhood association's

Again, once all of the neighborhood

associations have presented, we'll open up to

questions by us to any of the neighborhood

113 1

associations.

So if you can do your presentation, give

us your five minutes, sit back down, then we may have

questions for you afterwards, but, you know, you'll

want to hang around.

We'd appreciate that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Commissioner Schafer.

Oh, yeah. We might want to -- we

might want to check in online to see if there's

anybody else.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

For the folks online, if you're

an -- if you're representing a neighborhood

association this evening, we will move to you folks

after we do the in-person folks here.

to you shortly.

So we will get

Again, we're going to go alphabetically

here, starting with Barber Valley.

So I have Rob

Stark signed up for Barber Valley.

After Mr. Stark,

we'll have Boise Heights, which I have Jeff Fereday

and Kay Hummel signed up.

And then after Boise Heights, we'll have

the Centennial Neighborhood Association, which I have

as "present," but I don't have any names down.

25 26

Okay.

So, Mr. Stark, do you want to start

114 1

us off here?

2 3 4 5 6 7

Please start with your name and address. ROB STARK: President.

Rob Stark.

[Unintelligible].

[Unintelligible] it's not on.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Oh, the microphone is not on.

Sorry. ROB STARK:

Rob Stark.

Vice President.

Valley Neighborhood Association.

Springs.

10 11 12

Vice

Barber

6865 East Warm

Chairman, Commissioners, I hope you're all well rested. While the majority of the Barber Valley

will not be affected by the Rewrite, due to being

covered by the specific plans, BVNA agrees that the

Zoning Code is long overdue for an update.

last 60 years, best practices and community needs and

lifestyles have changed significantly.

In the

In our Board's discussions, there were

issues that some of us felt strongly about, such as

reduction of required parking or naturally-occurring

affordable housing being replaced by higher-density,

upscale projects.

to focus on administrative aspects.

going to hear plenty about the other issues from other

NAs and the public.

But in the end, our Board decided We're sure you're

115 1

One of our concerns is to codify

that -- if direction is given to an applicant by the

City, especially by P&Z or Council, that those

directions or expectations carry the same weight as a

condition of approval and are followed up on by City

staff long before the final-plat hearing.

final-plat stage is too late of a deadline, as

construction often commences before the final-map

hearing.

The

Our neighborhood has been negatively

impacted in the past because no one from the City

followed up on Council direction until it was too late

and the developer had already proceeded too far to

comply with the direction.

need to be in the form of written conditions of

approval that can be accomplished early in the process

before construction commences.

Direction and expectations

BVNA also wants to make sure that the City

has adequate resources to revisit, adapt, and evolve

the new Code when unintended consequences, errors, or

better practices arise.

and make amendments easily executed without a huge

staff impact, with full transparency to the public,

instead of letting the Code sit for another 60 years.

In BVNA's experience, it practically takes

Make the process to identify

116 1

an act of Congress to amend SP-01, as circumstances

and best practices change.

Code should automatically be reviewed and amended on a

regular timetable.

We would suggest the new

Our biggest concerns relate to

communications between the City and the NAs and

citizens.

proposed time for neighborhood associations to speak

at public hearings is being reduced.

the NAs should continue to have the same amount of

time as the applicant to address P&Z and Council.

We are concerned and disappointed that the

We believe that

Many applications and issues are

complicated and need time to be properly addressed by

the neighborhood associations.

set of neighborhoods, and the neighborhood

associations have vital knowledge about those

neighborhoods that -- it's next to impossible for P&Z

Commissioners and Council to always be aware of.

the same vein, we want to make sure that City

residents continue to have sufficient time and

opportunity to voice their position on applications.

Boise has a diverse

We're also deeply concerned about

expanding administrative approvals without

communication by the City to NAs and the public.

There needs to always be outreach to the neighborhood

117 1

associations and nearby residents for all

applications, and pre-application neighborhood

meetings should be required for all applications.

BVNA has serious concerns about

applications getting approved without any

neighborhood-association or resident input.

rub is that, to appeal an administrative

approval, the appellant will be required to pay a fee

to file an appeal for something they never had a

chance to oppose before approval.

waiving appeal fees for the neighborhood associations.

The real

Please consider

Thanks for your time and consideration.

We understand this is a very complicated

project, and you're going to be hearing a lot of other

voices this week.

We're thankful for the opportunity to be

able to address the community.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Boise Heights and

then Centennial and then the Central Foothills with

Joanie Fauci.

22 23 24 25 26

JEFF FEREDAY:

Mr. Chairman, Members of the

Commission, excuse me. My name is Jeff Fereday.

I work -- live

at 420 East Crestline Drive in Boise, Boise Heights.

118 1

I'm representing Boise Heights Neighborhood

Association today.

We are -- Kay Hummel will be testifying

after me, so I'll be -- just be using a bit of

the -- a bit of the time.

But my point has to do with the

obligations of developers under a CUP or a planned

unit development or similar land-use approval, where

they have the requirement to build, in -- in the case

that I'm focusing on, pathways and pedestrian

connections.

We are encouraging the City to include, in

these conditional uses, a requirement that the

developer construct, up front, the required trails and

pathways and other bicycle-and-pedestrian ways that

connect residents with open space, with their

neighbors, with schools, with other neighborhoods, and

with commercial centers.

Blueprint Boise, as you know,

prioritizes, "accessibility of parks, open space, and

basic services," and specifies that neighborhoods

should be pedestrian-oriented.

believe, maximize options for walking and biking.

Great communities, we

I applaud the Rewrite's repeated focus on

the creation of path connections throughout our city.

119 1

However, our experience is -- so far is that a

requirement for pedestrian-and-bicycle connections may

be in a CUP, but often, it is not actually provided or

built as houses go up.

these requirements just sort of fade away, never are

actually implemented at all.

Sometimes, it appears that

In our neighborhood's case, an important

pedestrian-and-bike connection is required in a 1999

CUP.

with only one minor, unbuilt portion of that project,

which has no -- as far as we know, has no plans for

even construction or, let alone, build-out -- has been

completed.

It hasn't been built a quarter-century later and

The Idaho press on April 21st had this to

say about a related situation.

Dry Creek Ranch's developer, is under no legal

obligation to finish the trail system until they are

done building out the project.

also say the developer hasn't wanted to move on a

trail until" he's "ready to build out the far reaches

of the planned community, which will take years to

finish."

"Boise Hunter Homes,

County planning staff

The situation described in -- in

avenue -- Avimor involved connections between the

Avimor trails and the Dry Creek development, and

120 1

that -- the lack of that trail may well have

come -- have contributed to a teenage-cyclist death

recently, when he was forced to enter Highway 55

because a trail connection hadn't been built.

5 6 7

We could wait another 30 years, I suppose, for that connection.

This is not right.

Streets and sidewalks are required at the

outset before houses can go in.

easier to build and provide critical connections to

open space and other places people want to go.

can set the tone for the development.

Pathways are far

They

We recommend in our written comments that

pedestrian-access trails be constructed within six

months after street-and-sidewalk work begins, putting

them in place before homeowners begin purchasing lots.

Avimor has done this, I -- I believe, very much to its

economic advantage.

Our neighborhood is asking that the Zoning

Code contain language to require up-front delivery of

these connections.

We have provided language to you.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

KAY HUMMEL:

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners.

I'm Kay Hummel.

I ask your forbearance on the five minutes

420 East Crestline.

121 1

because we did send you seven pages on April 13th.

I'm sure you've all read them, but I just want to do a

couple highlights, not read them verbatim, because we

have a long-time experience with neighborhood

notifications and the technical requirements in

foothill building and with the WUI -- the urban fire

zone [sic] -- overlay zone, and we're glad it's

continuing.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

KAY HUMMEL:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

KAY HUMMEL:

Let's keep it quick.

I will be very brief. Thank you.

I want you to also know I served

six years on the Boise City Foothills Committee

[phonetic] in the '90s and, later, two years on the

Technical Advisory Committee Standards [phonetic] with

Public Works.

validity, and seven people worked on this document.

And I will sum it up by urging you to adopt what's in

here and also note how important the Wildland Urban

Overlay Zone [sic] is.

So what went into our comments has

Let 's not kid ourselves.

Boise is ripe

for a Boulder-Colorado-December-30th fire or a

Paradise-California one.

Boise Heights, where we live between two big, open

spaces.

We are so mindful of this in

We are a certified Firewise committee, and it

122 1

is constant work.

I also want you to know that our neighbors

have personally put out fires before Boise Fire

Department personnel could get there.

with our teenage sons in 2007 that threatened our

elderly neighbor and might have caught my house on

fire.

I put one out

Lastly, I will conclude with the

importance of our final two pages here on the Code

enforcement and the lack of teeth in it, especially

concerning overgrown grasses and abatement for that.

The current Code in -- our 20-plus years of

experience are that there's no teeth in the Code.

know there's a lot of difference between an abandoned

car and Code Compliance and -- but we're talking life

safety here in the entire WUI.

We know one person died in the tragic 2005

fire out on Amity Road, and we know half the year with

the dry, persistent drought -- drought conditions, we

are at risk and so is every resident along the Boise

front and off the desert.

So we ask you to look carefully at what

we've suggested, and we hope you will adopt them in

your deliberations on Thursday.

25 26

Thank you for your service.

123 1

And also, I want to say that I grew up

with Title 11, the 1966 version, because my great

uncle and my grandfather wrote most of it, and then my

father later chaired the Commission.

second nature, what I've been hearing, but I've also

put in time for my neighborhood.

So it's kind of

And we thank you very much for your

service, and I know my forbearers would applaud much

of what is proposed.

the three years the staff have put into it.

Thank you so much.

12 13 14

And we appreciate the time and

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate

it. Okay.

Up next, we have the Centennial

Neighborhood Association followed by Central Foothills

and then Downtown Boise.

LARRY ICE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LARRY ICE:

Hi. Hey there.

I'm Larry Ice.

I'm going to be

speaking for the Centennial Neighborhood Association.

14048 West Talon Creek Drive.

And first of all, I need to recognize the

work that everybody's doing here.

burden for both the Commission and, especially -- the

planners have been doing this for years.

I know it's a big

124 1

The Centennial Neighborhood Association

found much to like in the new, modern Code.

And a

couple items we found problematic -- and it's some of

the items that have been mentioned earlier today.

Our basic position is that we think this

is a time for the City to set aside the items most of

us support and maybe readdress some of the items that

are causing the most contention with the public and

really look into that and see what we can do about it.

The Code that is being proposed is going to affect the

city for decades, and I think dissenting opinions

should be considered.

Parking, we've talked about this before.

It comes up at all the outreach.

affects everyone, but those without other options are

impacted the most.

city where -- so many others, where commercial

endeavors fail because of lack of parking.

find themselves driving around in circles, looking for

parking spaces.

The lack of parking

We don't want to end up like a

Motorists

Parking disputes sometimes devolve into

violence.

their cars by positive actions and attractive

alternatives, rather than negative actions and

unrealistic options.

We would encourage people to get out of

The Treasure Valley doesn't have

125 1 2

a viable public-transportation system now. We understand the chicken-and-the-egg

approach, but those moving into housing without

parking are going to need a fully-viable

public-transportation system on Day 1 and viable means

throughout the entire Treasure Valley, not just on the

transportation corridors.

It means that 24/7, all-weather,

affordable, quick, safe, and sustainable -- at what

cost and for how long will the taxpayers support an

unused, ineffective public-transportation system

before they begin to trim off the edges by cutting

routes, operating hours, and trip frequency?

We do not support a subsidized or

rent-controlled development in Boise's

prime-real-estate areas, where the City has the

opportunity to actually grow the city tax base and

reduce taxpayer liability.

And those areas aren't things like the

transportation corridor.

areas downtown, along the Greenbelt, bordering parks

or foothill access.

will and should pay a premium to live next to.

We support the form-based Code over

25 26

land-based Code.

We're talking about prime

These are places that residents

We're happy to see that.

126 1

We do not support fixed-use deed

restrictions.

If the project ultimately fails, it

might need to be repurposed without trying to change

that deed mid-step.

We support streamlined approval.

We do not support efforts to suppress

public comment.

There are pieces in the modern Code

designed to limit public participation.

We also note the ongoing practice of

reducing time for comments from the neighborhood

associations.

been curated throughout the neighborhood.

like that would be a -- a message that would be

time-efficient.

Well, we're providing comment that's It seems

Public comment provides benefits, it

encourages the developer to present quality projects,

not just bare minimums.

the boxes legally, public comment has resulted in

voluntary project refinement and improvements that

makes it more palatable to neighbors and

increases -- or decreases tensions within the

neighborhood.

Even when a project ticks all

Affordable housing is a worthy goal and

it's needed, but that should not be the prominent goal

of the Zoning Code.

Following the examples of cities

127 1

that have failed in this effort will only lead to

failure here.

We have the unique opportunity to create a

Code that will encourage affordable housing, while

also encouraging vibrant, quality development that

protects and enhances what we love about Boise, that

creates a city for all of us.

We ask that the City step back and

reevaluate some of those items that seem unpopular

with the public.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Central Foothills

followed by Downtown Boise, which -- I have Bruce

Mastorovich -- and then the East End Neighborhood

Association, Cindy Montoto.

16 17

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

Mr. Chair, a point of

clarification.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

Are we to hold our

questions until the end of everybody's

presentations --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

25 26

the plan here.

Yeah. -- or -- okay.

Yeah, that's the -- that's

128 1

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

JOANIE FAUCI:

hearing these comments.

5 6

Okay.

Please.

Thank you, Commissioners for

My name is Joanie Fauci.

2944 North

Hillway Drive, Boise, 83702.

I've been following Zoning Code -- the

Zoning Code Rewrite since the beginning.

attended meetings and commented at each phase.

not totally opposed to the Rewrite, but I do have some

concerns.

I've I'm

Ever since I became engaged in Boise

development and preservation issues, I have learned a

lot, but I still don't understand a lot.

been involved and aware of issues since the late

1980s, when Hulls Gulch first started being protected.

I think I've

Since then I've moved from the North End

to the Central Foothills, where I've held several

roles in our neighborhood association over the years.

I'm speaking tonight as representing the Board of the

Central Foothills Neighborhood Association.

I've done my share of testifying and

writing letters, but I still have to scratch my head a

lot.

There always seems to be exceptions and deals made,

Most development proposals are not cut and dry.

129 1

also known as "development agreements."

Rewrite, this -- it still seems to be the case.

Within this

It seems part of the intent of the new

Code is to streamline development options, which would

allow proposals to go through with little oversight.

We don't agree with this, but we also see the need for

streamlining as the city grows.

The City can't continue to have hearings

on every development, but within this Draft Code,

there are places that mention variances or waivers,

so, still, nothing will be cut and dry.

developers will continue to have the option to push

through whatever they want.

The

We don't know what will or will not be

grandfathered in -- non-conforming houses, lots, et

cetera.

association question a project that only goes through

the single hearing examiner or a fair hearing?

19 20 21

How will an individual or a neighborhood

Does Blueprint Boise or any neighborhood plan still have any value? There are many areas that are still vague.

This Rewrite is not finished, and there are issues

that -- not -- have not been addressed well.

instance, anti-displacement language and

anti-demolition language.

For

130 1

And there's -- there are items that should

be included, for instance, how much green space a lot

is required to maintain since Boise wants to maintain

recognition as the City of Trees and plant X amount of

trees in X amount of years.

We need more Code Compliance officers and

enforcement to go with it.

are especially interested in outside lighting and

vegetation violations.

We in the foothills areas

We also think some of the items need to be

adjusted.

mandated and not just suggested, and affordable

housing should not be a number above 100-percent area

median income, but something less than 100 percent,

say 80 percent.

Affordable-housing incentives should be

The rules for residential parking should

have a minimum requirement of one parking spot per

bedroom.

have covered, secured bicycle parking, one

long-term -- as I learned tonight -- per bedroom, and

electric-vehicle charging stations.

All apartment buildings going forward should

All amenities, such as trails, should be

required to be completed at the beginning of the

project.

25 26

Over the years, as I've listened in at the

131 1

meetings and hearings, I was always appalled at

projects that got approved, mainly because the City

was afraid of being sued by the developer because the

Code allowed the developer or owner the opportunity to

build what they were proposing.

and Zoning Commissioners or City Council were opposed

to a project, they felt forced to approve these

projects if Code allowed it.

to change that.

Even if the Planning

Here's our opportunity

There should be mention of several places

within this new Code that says something to the effect

of, "A real-estate investment is not a guaranteed

moneymaker, just like the stock market is not."

developer has the right to develop land and make as

much money as possible.

to deny any project.

within this new Code should be removed.

The City reserves the right

All references to "by right"

There are other things we do like in the

Draft Rewrite.

wildfire-resistant-vegetation requirements for the WUI

overlay.

allowances.

efficiency and water quality and water quantity are

also nicely represented.

beginning, we're not opposed to all of the Rewrite.

We like the

We like all the bicycle-and-pedestrian We hope for more mass transit.

Energy

So as I stated at the

132 1

We also want to thank the staff for all

the outreach and meetings they've had, even through a

pandemic.

Recently, the newsgroup BoiseDev surveyed

neighbor -- neighborhood associations for their

comments on this.

THE CLERK:

JOANIE FAUCI:

9 10

Time. Hopefully the Commissioners have

seen the article. We would like to express our support on

most of the points made by the Centennial, Collister,

North End, West End, and West Valley Neighborhood

Associations and also, tonight, Kay Hummel's points

about the wildfire WUI risk.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

JOANIE FAUCI:

17 18

Can you --

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, the Board of the Central Foothills Neighborhood Association.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Up next, we have the Downtown

Neighborhood Association, the East End Neighborhood

Association, and then the North End Neighborhood

Association.

24 25 26

BRUCE MASTOROVICH: Mastorovich.

My name is Bruce

I live at 450 West Grove Street.

133 1

I'm going to mostly stay kind of neutral

today.

We're in the process of kind of rebooting our

neighborhood association.

passionate people here and online.

and wants to get involved, come find me.

website, boisedna.org.

I know there's a lot of So if anybody sees We've got a

I am going to push back on something I

just heard a moment ago, which is that downtown

shouldn't have affordability.

is one of the best places to live in the city if you

can't afford a car or -- or if you can't drive due to

disability.

should have affordable housing too.

important.

Like downtown, I think,

And people in that situation, I think, I think it's very

You know, not everyone downtown is a

millionaire.

There's older buildings.

kind of across the street -- you can see through the

window -- that has some of those affordable units.

think they're a great addition to the city.

There's a lot of reasons to live there. We have a newer development

Like I said, though, we're rebooting our

organization right now.

downtown because we do have so many renters that kind

of come and go, so a lot of the people that were

involved in previous years have stepped away.

It's kind of challenging with

134 1

We'll have some flyers out pretty soon and

a meeting in about a month.

some statements from there to present to City Council

in June.

I'm hoping we can get

And that's it.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thanks.

BRUCE MASTOROVICH:

Thanks.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

North End and then South Cole.

CINDY MONTOTO:

Okay.

Great.

Up next, East End and

Mr. Chairman, Members of the

Commission, my name's Cindy Montoto.

I live at 718

East McKinley Street here in Boise.

I am the Vice

President of the East End Neighborhood Association,

and I'm the authorized Board representative to speak

to you this evening.

After I present our Board position, I may

leave the in-person hearing, but will be available via

Zoom for any possible questions.

EENA is providing public comment for the

benefit of our neighborhood so East End residents can

clearly know our Board's position on the Zoning Code

Rewrite.

24 25 26

During our monthly meeting on March 28th, 2023, the EENA Board approved a motion to request

135 1

additional time and information necessary for

reviewing the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption

Draft.

necessary to present the draft and lay the groundwork

for exceptional progress within our city.

The Board appreciates the time and energy

However, due to both its substantial

length and the significant changes from previous

drafts, we have the following requests in -- in

accordance with the adopted East End Neighborhood Plan

and the inclusionary nature of its

neighborhood-planning principle.

One, the additional draft, given the

significant changes between the October 2022 and

February 2023 drafts, the clear lack of effects, if

any, to the city's historic preservational guidelines,

and the adopted East End Neighborhood Plan and the

omission of changes to the review-and-decision

procedure, the EENA Board requests that the City

provide an additional Zoning Code Rewrite draft for

public review that provides increased clarity to these

areas of concern.

These draft changes should require

additional documentation regarding the change log, as

is -- as is customary.

these changes be highlighted and summarized between

The Board recommends that

136 1

all drafts -- and versioning.

requests that all additional drafts and their

publication date and version number on each

page -- oh, include them.

Likewise, our Board

Sorry.

And next, this 180-day review period.

Having only just been able to perform Step 2 of the

neighborhood meeting due to a lack of accordance with

the Boise City Code of Ordinances, Title 11,

"Development Code," 11-03-04, "Specific Procedures,"

11-03.2 -- or .3, "Rezone Procedure," on March 29th,

given the length of the prospective draft, the Board

requests an additional period of 180 days from that

date in order to sufficiently review a document of

this magnitude.

adequate public participation at a neighborhood level.

This time is necessary to allow

The -- we also request that this hearing

process be postponed -- given additional, sufficient

public-review period.

current hearing.

This requires rescheduling this

We also request additional materials in

order to increase transparency in this development

process.

made on previous drafts from public and private

entities alike and how the Planning and Zoning

Commission has and will include these changes to

We request the documentation of the comments

137 1

address these concerns in subsequent -- subsequent

drafts.

Excuse me.

The Board thanks you for these

considerations, as we strive to -- to create a more

inclusive rezoning process, and thereby, a more

inclusive city.

We are encouraged by the City Council's

vision for responsible development, and EENA will work

tirelessly to uphold our responsibilities, both to

represent our neighbors and facilitate growth

alongside our elected officials.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

15 16 17 18

Okay.

Thank you.

The North End's next, then South Cole, and then Veterans Park. ERIK HAGEN:

Good evening, Chairman Schafer and

fellow Commission -- Commissioners.

Thank you for having us here.

This is special.

I'd like -- I'd

especially like to thank the staff -- City staff that

have spent three years on this.

maybe half a dozen of the meetings, and I can't even

imagine getting through 4,000 pages of e-mails.

So thank you for that.

And I've been to

138 1 2

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Did

you -- give us your address and name.

ERIK HAGEN:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ERIK HAGEN:

Sorry, Mr. Hagen.

Yeah.

Sorry. Thank you.

Erik Hagen.

809 North 18th Street,

Boise, Idaho.

I'm an architect, and I've -- I'm licensed

in several states, and I've worked with dozens of

jurisdictions and zoning codes.

been done in 1966, is -- is overdue for an update.

And this one, having

So -- even so, it's -- it's been our

experience that the current Zoning Code is lacking in

some areas, as we've been reviewing some of the

projects that have come through our neighborhood in

the last few years.

It's provided for varied uses, higher

density, variances, planned unit developments,

[unintelligible] or -- buildings that are out of

character or too large for their adjacent neighbors.

That's what the current Zoning Code is already

allowing.

And we see this new Zoning Code as helping

kind of direct that in a little bit more organized

fashion.

improve upon and get current and move into the future

We're excited for this opportunity to

139 1

with this Zoning Code.

Even so, we have our concerns, which

you've gotten a couple of our letters on, and I will

try not to repeat the information that's in there.

is at these hearings, where our neighbors really see

that we are seen and heard -- so it's important for us

to be here as well.

information there, but maybe extrapolate upon it a

little bit more.

So I'll try not to repeat the

We've heard so much about the notification

of the change of use.

the changes -- or some of the additions that the City

is thinking of adding, like allowing the homeowner to

opt into receiving messages through the Development

Tracker.

to that one.

It's been nice to see some of

That's an awesome addition.

I look forward

Even so, it seems that a couple of the

notifications are going to be limited.

neighborhood association of 10,000 or so people, we

have contact information for maybe 700, so it makes it

really difficult for us to be able to -- to notify the

neighbors of projects going on in their neighborhood.

And that's one of the biggest e-mails I get -- or

notifications I get from our neighborhood, is people

that find out -- usually when the trucks show up to

As a

140 1

start doing construction.

And that's even with the notification

process, they're missing this stuff.

So it's really

important to be able to get the notifications out to

the people.

Maybe the applicant does it, but that -- that's just

one of the -- the very many reasons that we need to be

able to do it because we just -- as a volunteer

organization, we just do not have the ability to do

it, let alone do we have the resources or the

information to do that.

And I think there's other ways to do it.

We're talking about sustainable design,

sustainable development, and we couldn't find -- I

think there's one thing I saw in the Code about

incentivizing adaptive reuse, which is really the most

sustainable you can be with a building, is reuse an

existing building, and there needs to be more

incentivization to that.

I'll just remind Director Keane that we

still want to have a historic survey of the

neighborhood, a new one, because that one we have

is -- is really, really old.

Even so, the Codes are a changing

target -- or a moving target and always subject to

change.

I imagine I have heard tonight that, through

141 1

amendments, we may be able to make changes moving

forward.

going to be another 70 years -- or -- my math is bad;

isn't it?

So I really hope that that means it's not

Brain math. Anyways.

We look forward to your

recommendation of the Zoning Code Rewrite, and we look

forward to hearing your -- your list of conditions and

considerations, or at least the discussion of these

considerations.

Thank you for the time.

And I do not envy the task ahead of you

guys.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

15 16

Thank you.

Up next, South Cole and then

Veterans Park and then West Downtown. ESTEE LAFRENZ:

My name is Estee Lafrenz, and I

am the president of South Cole Neighborhood

Association.

Mountain Drive in Boise, Idaho for 22 years.

this city.

community that feels marginalized by City government,

most of them in fear or apathetic that anything can be

done to stop this.

24 25 26

I have lived in my home at 7604 Thunder

It is my home.

I love

And I speak for a

This Zoning Code Rewrite has succeeded in dividing our beautiful city, pitting neighborhoods

142 1

against neighborhoods, using intimidation tactics

between the haves and the have-nots.

say that calling it a "Modern Zoning Code" and

creating, "A City for Everyone," are simply slogans

and propaganda.

It is fair to

The City has routinely updated the Zoning

Code in sections when it makes sense to do so.

completely revamp the Code like a blanket over the

entire city, except for the rich-end areas and the

historic districts, will leave unknowing residents

shocked when modest, single-family homes are

demolished by developers to place 45-foot, quad-plex

developments next door to them.

The proposed Zoning Code does nothing to

protect our established neighborhoods.

The Zoning

Code Rewrite is fatally flawed.

affordable housing because the incentives to do so are

optional, not mandatory.

check to developers and those associated with them.

It will not ensure

This is like writing a blank

I am asking for the P&Z to reject the

up-zone Code and allow for proper time to discuss

placing these developments in select areas that make

sense to do so, not destroy the charm and character of

our residential neighborhoods.

25 26

I am asking for more enforceable guidance

143 1

and requirements for developers to build affordable

housing.

space per unit from 350 to 200 feet because we are

displacing trees in the City of Trees, destroying the

charm and character of our neighborhoods.

sense to do this in urban and downtown areas, not

within the neighborhoods.

I am asking not to reduce the private, open

It makes

We also feel that, to implement

environmental goals, there needs to be more clear

guidance on electric-vehicle parking.

will become by-right in certain residential zones.

Retail, sales, and cafes selling alcohol have the

potential to destabilize residential neighborhoods

with noise, traffic, and additional parking.

Some land uses

The removal and changes of notification to

neighbors and neighborhood associations causes

confusion and uncertainty within a community.

by-right developments are a rubber stamp for

developers without proper oversight.

This needs more time.

These

And as CNA feels

that the vote by City Council should be postponed

until we have a duly-elected City Council based on the

2021 requirements to elect City Council

representatives by districts within the city and not

by a Council with one-third of the people appointed by

144 1

the Mayor -- currently, two of the six City Council

Members have been appointed by Mayor McLean and, as

such, may not represent the voters within all of

Boise's geographic districts.

It stands to reason that approval of the

City's Zoning Codes and building laws should be

postponed until after the November 2023 election.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

11 12

Thank you.

Up next, Veterans Park and then

West Downtown and then West End. KATY DECKER:

Good evening.

My name's Katy

Decker.

I'm here on behalf of Veterans Park

Neighborhood Association.

the cuff tonight, so I hopefully I'll hit everything.

I'm actually speaking off

My address is 5001 West Wymosa Street.

I want to start by giving an illustration

of my neighborhood as, perhaps, one most affected by

the Zoning Code.

Street bisects our neighborhood.

includes a proposal to rezone properties within a -- I

believe a quarter of a mile -- eighth of a mile of

a -- of an MX-3 to R-2.

40 percent of the residential zones in my neighborhood

will be R-2 after the rezone.

We are along State Street, and State The Zoning Code

So as a result, approximately

145 1

The R-2 zone, specifically -- I believe

Chairman Schafer may have mentioned it, but the

response was addressed to R-1C.

R-2 zones, specifically, currently have a

minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and, after the

rezone, will have 2,500.

will automatically be eligible for redevelopment into

two homes.

R-1, they would be split into even more than two.

we're looking at over 40 percent of our neighborhood

automatically rezoned.

So every R-2 lot in the city

Because some of those lots are currently So

In addition, obviously, State Street

itself will redevelop and increase density, and this

isn't something that we oppose.

density, but you've seen here -- density along

residential corridors.

concern as the height increases.

I'm for increased

There's typically an increased

Right now, the C-3 height limit is

45 feet, and the newest draft of the up -- of the

rezone increases it to 70 feet by right, which is

55-percent increase.

includes a "Neighborhood Transition" section, but that

provides stepdown building heights only for the R-1

zones.

25 26

In addition, it has -- it -- it

As we've seen, the MX-3 includes a rezone

146 1

to R-2, so none of the residential neighborhoods along

State Street will benefit from that building-height

stepdown.

adjacent to it, so I anticipate that being unpopular

as the 70-foot buildings go in.

It will go straight from 70 feet to the R-2

In addition, as you've heard me speak to

before, our neighborhood is largely low-income and

largely renter, something on the order of 50 percent

for each -- my concern with the rezone is that, as

others have mentioned, affordability isn't mandated.

I've heard the City testify that we cannot mandate

affordability, but we can provide these new

entitlements only if affordability is met.

takings.

It's not a

Right now, we allow 45 feet of height

along State Street.

If you want to allow 70, require

that affordability.

Don't make it an option.

see a way that our city can provide housing for

50 percent of its below-median-income residents if

only some small portion of developers choose to apply

the affordability incentives and build 25-percent

affordability.

I don't

I also want to note that the -- the

market -- the real-estate market will react to the

market-rate buildable allowances.

So land values

147 1

along this corridor are likely to escalate based on

what market-rate rents can be obtained.

affordability incentives applied, I assume we'll hear

developers saying that they can't afford to build

affordable units as that land value increases.

control that by allowing the new

intelligent -- entitlements only with affordability

bonuses, I think that would be a net benefit.

So even with

If we

I do notice that the parking minimums are

the only incentive applied for -- which you would

then -- for which you would implement affordability to

gain.

have concerns -- tying this only to affordability, as

many of the working-class jobs in our neighborhood

comprise multiple job sites or requirements to bring

tools or late hours that are poorly served by transit.

I'm not opposed to decreased parking, but I do

I also want to use my remaining time to

discuss the change in the CUP language, which, to me,

is one of the largest issues with this Zoning Code.

Currently, the CUP language requires that

development not impact the surrounding properties.

The revised language in the Code before you weakens

this restriction in many key ways.

24 25 26

It applies only to adjacent properties instead of the surrounding area, it provides an

148 1

undefined qualifier of material impacts, and it allows

avoidance of mitigation of these impacts with the

criteria of "practicable," which -- I'm sure you

know -- is code for "financially feasible."

provides an undefined public-benefit calculation,

which --

THE CLERK:

KATY DECKER:

Time. -- makes this incredibly

subjective as a Code.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

KELLEY TAGG:

Sorry.

Oh, thanks.

So I'm Kelley Tagg.

Street.

Association.

It also

Thank you.

Up next, West Downtown. Hello. It feels like an odd height.

1820 West Jefferson

And I am from the West Downtown Neighborhood I am the president of the association.

The West Downtown Neighborhood Association

is a tiny, little association that's wedged between

Downtown Boise and the West End.

State Street to the north and the connecter to the

south, and from 16th to 9th and -- and then we have a

jog over to 23rd and to the -- to the connecter.

we include like Ennis Furniture and the Pathways

We are bordered by

149 1

Community House [sic].

and sushi joint, that's all included in there too.

And the new police substation

And on April 12th, our Board had our

quarterly spring meeting, and we -- this was the topic

that we discussed.

clear that our neighborhood association, our Board, as

well as residents of the association, have been

actively following the Zoning Code Rewrite,

participating in the neighborhood-communication

meetings, filling out surveys, and so forth.

I -- but I do want to make it

So really, the meeting was about, "What do

we want to say to you?"

And really, the biggest

concern that came up -- and Katy already talked about

it -- was we would -- we would like to add language

into the "Neighborhood Transition Standards," and

that's 11-04-03.5, which is page 206 if anybody's

following that.

And the "Applicability" to the

"Neighborhood Transition Standards," it specifically

says that would apply to "development or

redevelopment" -- to -- "after the Effective Date on

lots located in the R-2" -- 3 and -- "R-3 zoning

districts, or any Mixed Use, Industrial, or Open Land

zoning district that have a side or rear

lot" -- "property line abutting a lot in the R-1A," B,

150 1

"or R-1C."

and "R-3" to that as well.

And we would like to add the words "R-2"

As Katy just mentioned, our neighborhood

association, we do have MX-3 zoning along State

Street.

two other neighborhood associations to implement PC

zoning along that strip.

couple of years ago, and that did include setbacks.

And we worked really hard with the City and

That was just enacted a

You know, overall, our neighborhood

association and our Board Members support the Zoning

Rewrite.

living proof of what it looks like when you allow

different types of development.

triplexes, fourplexes, and so forth.

And we -- you know, we're -- we're already

We have duplexes,

And most structures in our neighborhood

are not at the maximum height of 50 feet that is

allowed in R-3.

neighborhoods that align -- the MX-3 transportation

corridors are similar in that.

And it -- you know, other R-2 and R-3

We are stable neighborhoods.

We've been

around for a long time.

hasn't changed that much in 100 years, though we have

had homes that have been repurposed from, you know,

larger kind of Mid-Century-Modern or Victorian homes

into apartments and so forth.

Our neighborhood really

You know, we've already

151 1

been naturally having this transition over time.

we do feel that our neighborhood should be considered,

as far as the neighborhood transition.

And then I also wanted to comment about a

couple of other things.

that, you know, places that are the nicer places in

the neighborhood, where people should be able to pay a

premium to live in them -- this -- I -- I want to

bring this up because this is something our

neighborhood association talks about a lot.

Someone mentioned earlier

We have Section-8-housing apartments

across the street from million-dollar homes.

people that live in, you know, ADUs and smaller units

next to, you know, larger homes.

diversity in our neighborhood, and we don't feel -- we

feel very strongly that the nicer parts of the city

should not be, you know, set aside or only accessible

to people who can afford to live in -- in them.

That's one of the reasons why we support the Zoning

Rewrite.

We have

And we love the

And since I have a little bit of time,

there was one other thing we wanted to talk about, and

that's the neighborhood notification for

Level-2-zoning-approval [sic] projects.

to see, in addition to notification going to the

We would like

152 1

neighborhood association and notices going through the

project tracker -- that actual letters be sent to the

neighbors that are directly impacted by the project.

An example of this is -- one of our

neighbors was going to build a garage and an ADU, and

it involved a cutout in his driveway and so forth.

And the neighbors -- we received a notification, and

it allowed us to have a conversation with him.

were some concerns because, in our neighborhood, we

don't have cutouts with driveways.

the streets and so forth.

There

Children play on

Lots of pedestrian traffic.

And as a result of the conversation, the

neighbor agreed to change his plan, and he accesses

his ADU and new garage through the alley like all of

the other -- other folks in our neighborhood do.

that gave us an opportunity to have that conversation

instead of hurt -- hurt feelings later on.

So thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

21 22 23 24 25 26

Thank you.

And the last one we had signed up

was the West End Neighborhood Association. LAUREN PENNISI:

Kind of -- can I just raise

this thing up? My name is Lauren Pennisi, and I live at 2411 West Pleasanton Avenue.

I'm here speaking

153 1

to -- for the West End Neighborhood Association.

a Board Member at large.

I'm

I have four areas of the Zoning Code

Rewrite that I wanted to focus on today.

allowed uses in the R-2 zone.

First is the

So the West End Neighborhood does have

primarily R-2 zones, and the change in the lot size

and in the height allowance would severely affect our

neighborhood.

100, so 5,000 square feet.

size would be 2,500 square feet.

developers to buy a house, tear it down, split the

lot, and put up two houses?

does that -- how does that work?

So most of our lots are set at 50 by Now the new minimum lot So does that incent

How does -- you know, how

And the same is true of joining lots.

That's another option.

up in one of the community meetings, is that a -- a

property with a home that has aged out could be torn

down, two lots joined together, and put up a new,

modern, multi-family-housing structure.

concern.

And in fact, that was brought

That's a

Our neighborhood is -- is an older

neighborhood.

had a historic survey.

things about our neighborhood that are unique, that

It does have historic homes on it.

So these are some of the

154 1

make it distinctive, and that's part of what this

Zoning Code is -- is trying to do, is preserve those

unique characteristics.

the allowed use in an R-2 is to change the lot size,

change the height allowances, and those sorts of

things?

But how does that happen if

The other thing about our -- our

neighborhood that I mentioned briefly is that it is

historic.

you are, but our -- our neighborhood was documented by

a local historian.

local book about Boise -- we even have a historic

trail through our neighborhood -- about some of our

unique buildings and homes and -- and that sort of

thing.

And -- and you may not be aware or maybe

They've -- they've documented in a

And in addition to all that, we have a

lovely, mature tree canopy, which we'd like to

preserve.

developments, like the one at 27th Street Crossing,

all the trees were cut down, with

the -- except -- well, with the exception of two

mature trees.

neighborhood as well.

24 25 26

But with some of these newer building

So that is a concern in our

The second thing I wanted to talk about is the diminished public participation in the process.

155 1

So our neighborhood association, we've gotten those

little, green postcards.

We do respond.

Planning and Zoning or City Council whenever it is

appropriate to comment on some of these projects.

we do the -- participate in -- excuse me -- in the

developer meetings as well.

of those opportunities, and we'd like to see that

preserved.

We do see the signs posted.

We have been appearing before the

And

We take advantage of all

I was happy to hear about the online

track -- Project Code Tracker [sic].

take advantage of all those different

options -- electronic, paper, and then the visual sign

posted -- because not everybody communicates online.

Not everyone is using online technology.

It's great to

So the other -- the third thing that I

wanted to talk about is design standards.

in -- the Modern Zoning Code flier, it talks about

preserving the character of our neighborhoods.

this is one thing that we've had a problem with, with

past projects that have come up because there -- it's

very difficult to coordinate between the Planning and

Zoning and then the Design Review, the way the process

exists today.

to improve in the future.

And I -- I didn't see how that's going

156 1

So as I said, our neighborhood has very

distinctive, very -- we've got Art-Deco houses, we've

got Victorian, we've got -- you name it; we got it.

So how do we preserve that?

complement what already exists?

How do we have developers

So that -- that -- that would be important

in our neighborhood, how we have a Modern Zoning Code

that does add character and -- and talk -- and speak

to that.

The only -- the other -- let's see.

am I?

I'm on four.

results and the future.

Okay.

Where

Fourth thing, the past

So the Housing Bonus Ordinance was passed,

and that was supposed to help alleviate some of

this -- the housing problems that -- in the city.

did it really achieve the results?

But

I mean, I saw an article in BoiseDev.

Only four projects took advantage of that.

know that this Zoning Code Rewrite is going to meet

some of the goals that -- you know, and they're very,

you know, worth-while goals to -- to -- for the

Zoning --

THE CLERK:

LAUREN PENNISI:

25 26

How do we

Time. -- Rewrite.

But I was happy to hear Commissioner

157 1

Mooney talk about, "How do we monitor," "How do we

course-correct if there are problems," because there

always are unintended consequences, processes that

don't work.

process -- and Director Keane addressed that as well.

Have a 12-month review, audit, communicate

So to have some sort of review

because we absolutely -- well, in our -- especially

in -- our neighborhood and, it sounds like, all the

others would be very interested in hearing and keeping

involved with the results.

Thank you very much

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Okay.

So that was all the folks that signed up

Thanks, everybody.

ahead of time.

Is there anybody else here

representing a neighborhood association that did not

Okay.

And then we have a -- it looks like one

20 21

That looks good there.

person online. All right, Mr. Pickett.

JIM PICKETT:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

24 25 26

Yes. Hi there.

Are you representing a neighborhood association?

158 1

JIM PICKETT:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

3 4 5

I am. Okay.

with? JIM PICKETT:

I am with Depot Bench Neighborhood

Association.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

your name and address, please.

And which one are you

JIM PICKETT:

Okay.

Sure.

Jim Pickett.

If you can start with

Yep. I live at 3501 Windsor

Drive.

I'm the treasurer -- current treasurer of the

Depot Bench Neighborhood Association, but I've been

involved with the neighborhood association for

15 years in a variety of positions, including past

president.

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, first of all,

thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening.

I'm going to make two points and -- which

has -- mostly have been made by other -- my esteemed

neighborhood-association colleagues.

comments, and the other one is on building height in

the MX-3 zone.

One is on public

I've testified in -- in front of Planning

and Zoning several times.

didn't always agree with the neighborhood's thoughts,

I believe that we were -- we were heard, and I believe

And while the Commissioners

159 1

that we may have swayed further decisions or started

some conversations that moved the needle to our

viewpoint for subsequent projects.

While I see where Dr. -- or Director Keane

is coming from, moving away from providing those

opportunities, making it streamline, the application

process, since the rules may be more clearly defined

for Type-2 projects, we agree with our colleagues from

Barber Valley and many of the other neighborhood

associations that spoke this evening and feel it's a

step backwards to not involve the public in the

process, regardless of application type.

Since this is a new zoning plan, I'm sure

there will be lots of questions and perhaps some

disagreements and misunderstandings as to what's in

the Code and how each party reads the words and

interprets what those words really mean.

to be a way to have the community included in the

discussions in these instances.

There needs

There seems like there could be some

balance point that could be initially implemented over

the first few years that would allow all sides to

become comfortable with the changes to these Type-2

projects.

Type-1 and Type-2 projects, it seems like there needs

As Commissioner Mooney mentioned, in the

160 1

to be some option for public notification for concerns

to be heard.

The Development-Tracker side is a great

step in that direction, but as others have mentioned,

projects -- thinking about going to that site or

registering and then -- or visiting that site on a

frequent basis is a big ask for a lot of people

because, although everybody in this room is concerned

about Planning and Zoning, it's not an

everyday -- it's not an everyday, top-of-mind item for

most of the community.

We're also concerned about the height

requirement in the MX-3 zone at 70 feet.

State Street corridor mentioned by both the Veterans

Park and West Downtown neighborhood associations, on

the Vista Avenue corridor, we currently have a lot of

C-2 zones adjacent to R-1 zones.

As with the

The new zoning requirement does have a

tradition -- transition zone of R-2 between these two

zones, but it seems, to me, that, currently, there

would -- could be a 70-foot structure built next to

what is currently a one-story home that is in an

R -- what is currently an R-1 zone.

step -- the step-downs in height outlined, the 70-foot

part of the structure seems like it could -- to me, it

Even with the

161 1

could be only 40 feet from a one-story, residential

building.

It would be nice to see a scale drawing of

what it would really look like on a typical Vista

cross-section on the diagram and page 206 of the

"Transition Standards" section of the Code so that

Commissioners and others could see the true effect of

this situation.

Thank you again for your time today and

listening to our concerns.

time this evening.

12 13

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I appreciate everybody's

Thank you, Mr. Pickett.

Up next, it looks like we have

Mr. Llewellyn from the Northwest Neighborhood

Association.

RICHARD LLEWELLYN:

Great.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We can.

Hello there.

RICHARD LLEWELLYN:

Can you hear me?

Hi.

First, a point of order.

I'd like to

check that we, as neighborhood-association

representatives, will still be able to testify as

individuals; is that correct?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

That is correct.

RICHARD LLEWELLYN:

Great.

162 1

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mm-hmm.

RICHARD LLEWELLYN:

So Richard Llewellyn.

Hill Road.

Neighborhood Association.

9170

I am representing the Northwest

First of all, I have the advantage of

hearing everybody else, all those great comments.

we would like to agree with comments from Barber

Valley, regarding the permitting process; Crestline

and Central Foothills, with the pathways and fire; the

East End, regarding this process and the need for

versioning; and South Cole, with respect to the need

for geographic representation and how the Rewrite may

result in very different levels of impact for

different areas of the city; and with the Veterans

Park Neighborhood, for the need to tame the land

market to prevent just land-value increase with

increased entitlements, and especially the changes in

the CUP that were pointed out; and with West Downtown,

regarding the transition zones from MX-3; and the West

End, regarding to -- how -- how to fix mistakes that

will be here.

So this weekend I saw something that I've

never seen before, and that was two vehicles -- a

pickup and a sedan -- make a high-speed U-turn on

163 1

State Street between Bogart and Duncan, replete with

smoking tires and squealing sounds.

they -- they did this quick U-turn, and then they

pulled into their new apartment complex there at 9000

West State Street.

And then

And the reason they do that where the

speed limit here is 55 is because it's just a

right-in/right-out onto State Street from their new

apartment complex.

that, it's a -- it's a -- it's a -- kind of an extreme

move, but if they manage it, they can save 5 or

10 minutes because they won't have to, say, go onto

Bogart, find a place to turn around, come back out,

wait for another light, et cetera.

And if they -- if they manage

So this last fall, we approved another

230 units along State Street that will end up, as it

is written now, with another right-in/right-out onto

the 55-mile-per-hour traffic of State Street.

Commission, ACHD, the neighborhood, we all agree that

we needed a new traffic -- traffic light there.

Unfortunately, I didn't make it through City Council.

But the point is -- is you heard from our

This

neighborhood, and you've heard this multiple

times -- for -- the need for infrastructure,

especially on State Street, as we convert pastures in

164 1

our neighborhood to four-story apartments.

Today, that opportunity to give you this

public input -- and it's often situations that we know

about, especially as we do multiple, concurrent

developments, which, you know, are not captured well

with statistics or traffic counts.

to tell you that infrastructure is lacking, and you

often listen to us.

We have the chance

But one of our major concerns in our

neighborhood -- and it's part of being, you know, a

newly-annexed area and being in a different section of

State Street, where it's 55 miles per hour, but it's

also a highway.

have any bus stops, even though we call it

"best-in-class transit," and we're zoning it

accordingly.

and then we have 2 miles without a bus stop, almost 2

miles.

HOV lanes are not allowed.

We don't

We only have one bus stop on one end,

And so one of our major concerns is, right

now, the legal checkpoint for needed infrastructure is

the rezone.

of -- grant all these entitlements and this becomes

MX-3, how can we, then, assure that we're going to get

the needed infrastructure?

roadway-related.

If we give all this away, in the sense

And it's not just

It can be pathways.

It can be bus

165 1

stops.

things.

It can be connections between those two

And as you know -- you know, there's this

whole problem with ACHD, and ACHD is saying, "It's a

problem with the City."

now is it just doesn't work, and it doesn't matter who

we're blaming.

work.

And it -- the problem right

For us, as a neighborhood, it doesn't

A few years ago, you know, ACHD kind of

did their own major change, but without nearly so much

thought or planning, when they decided to waive the

waivers; right?

waiver for a level-of-service failure.

They'll just

say, "We don't deal with that anymore.

That's Boise's

problem."

well because we still hear from our public officials

occasionally, "Traffic-related issues aren't our

problem.

So now they no longer will grant a

But Boise hasn't really digested that as

Those are ACHD's problem."

So in a sense, what we're doing here in

our neighborhood, when it comes to State Street and

transit-oriented development, is building this on a

house of sand.

We really need to understand who

has -- really?

That -- that's time?

24 25 26

Okay.

Well, I haven't -- I haven't gotten

to most of my points.

And that's, I guess, yeah, a

166 1

big deal with only having five minutes, but all right.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Can you -- if you can

just -- maybe give us a quick --

RICHARD LLEWELLYN:

Sure.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

-- wrap-up

Thank you.

[unintelligible] --

RICHARD LLEWELLYN:

Yeah.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

-- extreme there.

So just

-- that.

Thank you.

[unintelligible] --

RICHARD LLEWELLYN:

Yeah.

Thank you for --

Okay.

I -- I will just give you one

sentence from the other pair -- each other paragraph.

So we have what I just talked about.

We need to make sure that there's planned

infrastructure because we -- is actually phased

to -- the actual actualization of the infrastructure

is phased to the -- to -- to the building because we

can have things planned for years and never get to

them.

a rezone, then we may even be losing the legal ability

to -- to ensure it.

front.

And again, if we're removing this checkpoint of

So we need to deal with this up

We have issues about water and how the

water -- plan for adequate water is -- addresses -- in

our city, it's kind of -- or our neighborhood -- it

167 1

kind of conflates quantity with quality.

can put more written comments to City Council

with -- with regards to that.

4 5

Quite a few other points, but I'll stop now.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

8 9 10

I guess I

Okay.

Thank you,

Mr. Llewellyn. Okay.

Is there anyone else online that's

representing a neighborhood association?

Okay.

It doesn't look like it.

Do we want to take a quick -- quick break,

or do we want to just jump into questions of our

neighborhood associations?

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

And City.

What's that?

associations and City.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

but if Chris wants a break...

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Neighborhood

And City, yeah.

Okay.

I'm good to keep going,

Let's do a -- we'll do

a -- we'll do a quick five-minute -- quick

five-minute.

25 26

(Recess taken from 3:25:36 to 2:25:56 of

168 1

audio file.)

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Well, thank you, everyone,

for representing your neighborhood associations and

providing your testimony tonight.

everybody's promptness and their commentary.

I appreciate

So we'll go ahead and just open this up

now for any questions by the Commission to you all and

to City staff after we're done getting our gum.

9 10

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

Mr. Chair, I'll kick it

off because I don't have any food in my mouth --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay, Commissioner Blanchard.

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

-- if I may.

Several people addressed this, I think.

Is the East End Neighborhood Association

representative online?

16 17 18 19

Is that Ms. Montoto? CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

now, yeah. And here -- staff's bringing her on.

CINDY MONTOTO:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CINDY MONTOTO:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

25 26

I believe she's online

Hi.

Can you all hear me?

We can, yes.

Wonderful. Go ahead, Chris. Cindy, I wanted to ask

you really quick -- thank you so much for -- all the

169 1

neighborhood association -- associations who showed

up, thank you very much.

I was really, really dismayed when I read

the BoiseDev reporting that -- I mean, I think there's

only half of the neighborhood associations who even

bothered to look at this.

And, I mean, as Director Keane noted, this

is like a twice-in-a-century like rewrite of the

Zoning Code; right?

the biggest rewrite of Boise law in a long -- ever --

I mean, this is -- this is like

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Yeah.

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

-- right?

And it's

like -- and half the neighborhood associations didn't

even bother to look at it so --

15 16

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

...getting him all

riled up.

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

20 21

Right.

Easy.

So --

Easy.

-- we have some

rebuilding to do, people. COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

Okay.

So, Ms. Montoto,

my question is -- you guys -- you and your

neighborhood association have specifically asked for,

basically, a 180-day stay on this.

25 26

And I'm -- I'm very much swayed by what

170 1

Director Keane put forth, which is -- you know, after

one year's time, we've really got to -- we've really

got to take stock of what we've done here, whatever

ends up happening with this Code; right?

And it's -- so I guess my question is, "Do

you feel that" -- "that this" -- "that this" -- that

just sitting idly by for the next six months and

hoping, without trying any of what's in the Code,

and -- just hoping that we can all just somehow

magically get it right in the next six months -- that

we're going to produce better results that way than we

would if we just let this thing run its course for a

mere six months past what you're proposing, as

Director Keane has suggested, where we can actually

put the Code into operation and see what happens

and -- and -- and then go from there?

And I think several of the other

neighborhood associations have said a similar thing

like, "Well, let's wait until the

Council's" -- the -- Estee Lafrenz said, "Well, let's

wait until the Council Members are in."

And so again, I guess my question is, you

know, "What" -- "to what end?"

run this experiment and see what happens?

give us real-time, on-the-ground feedback to see how

Like shouldn't we just That would

171 1

this thing works out.

my question.

3 4

CINDY MONTOTO:

I just -- I -- that -- that's

Yeah.

Thank you, Commissioner

Blanchard, for your question.

I -- I think that -- it's not so much

a, "Let's just not do anything for the next six months

and just sit on our hands and wait and see."

it's -- there's still work that needs to be done;

right?

I think

There's still untangling that needs to happen.

And I -- my -- my personal -- my personal

thought on the -- waiting until the new Council is in

and ready to go -- I -- I do think that that

may -- that that would help, and it's -- it's ironic

and interesting that it's kind of aligning that way,

where -- where we're at in this process.

And, really, what -- what EENA and, I

think, a lot of other neighborhood associations and

just the general public would like to see is

that -- we need a track-changes version from the

earlier draft so that people don't have to go through

and reread the 620-plus pages to know what these

changes are.

the changes are, what the -- what has been done, and

perhaps that's something that over -- if there is a

180-day stay put in place, that's something that can

They can look, they can see what -- what

172 1

be done.

But -- but to your point, no.

I -- I -- that's absolutely not what we are -- are

asking for here, in terms of just not doing anything

and sitting on our hands.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Real quick, Milt.

8 9 10

Okay.

Chris, you good there with -- okay. Great. COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

So I have a -- a -- an

information request from the City on an issue that

several people brought up.

to Andrea and her people.

So I'm shooting this over

So we were just talking about the -- the

reclassification of certain R-1B and R-1C parcels to

R-2, based on their adjacency to an MX zone and

certain other criteria.

the -- the transition-map language.

This is laid out in

Can you please provide -- is it possible,

during this hearing cycle -- so the next two or

three days -- how many R-1B parcels are going to get

flipped to R-2?

how much space is that?

going to get flipped to R-2, and -- and how much space

is that?

And what's their -- how -- you know, And how many R-1C parcels are

And how many -- if we know, how many

173 1

dwelling units are getting affected by that, what

these folks call the "automatic conversion to R-2?"

I'm just interested in understanding the scale of that

pro -- problem.

And the other question I would have,

Andrea, is -- there's been an argument that -- that

that will fall disproportionately on certain parts of

the city.

best-in-class zoning corridor -- they're not

everywhere, but I'd like to understand better exactly

where -- by sort of percentage -- proportionally, this

is occurring.

I imagine that's true because that

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Commissioner

Gillespie, first of all, we can absolutely get that

information over the course -- we'll have it tomorrow

so -- so you have it tomorrow evening.

definitely -- we don't have it available right at the

moment, but we can have it for you tomorrow.

We can

I will say, just to provide the context

for this, what's being proposed is that, along those

MX-3 transit corridors -- again, Vista, which was

spoken to in the Depot Bench comments; and then State,

spoken to in the Veterans Park comments; and then

Fairview, which didn't come up -- but those three

corridors -- one of the proposals in this Ordinance is

174 1

to rezone the property fronting on those corridors to

the MX-3, which is the taller 70 feet and so forth,

and then, right behind that, rezone to the R-2, which

you're speaking to, which, in -- in this Code, takes

you to 50 feet in those areas, and then you get down

to the R-1 zone beyond that.

So the purpose of that -- this

isn't -- the purpose of that was to say, "We want the

density along the corridor.

it in" -- "in" -- "in concert with our plans for

transportation."

This is helpful.

We need

Right behind that, rather than falling

down right away to the single-family or the R-1, have

that transition of R-2 so you're going from 70, to 50,

to lower heights as you get into the R-1 districts

behind it.

So -- so you're now asking, "What" -- "how

many properties and how many residences are affected

by the R-2," which we can have for you tomorrow.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mm-hmm.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mm-hmm.

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. -- please, Milt.

Yeah.

Because -- because, you know, the -- the buzzword of

the opposition is "up-zone," and I -- I think this may

175 1

be, you know, a major source of that comment if,

by "up-zone," we mean moving from R-1 to R-2.

like to understand that better.

And I'd

And I -- and I'd also like to

understand -- is there an opportunity to rezone these

parcels to R-2, but not adopt every single aspect of

the new R-2 zone?

So for example, we could say, "We're going

to rezone all of these to R-2, but we're not going to

let them, you know, divide these lots into

2,500-square-foot parcels like they could otherwise in

an R-2, but we will let the height" -- "the new height

exception go through."

So just think about -- is there a way to

make that transition work differently, or are there

some choices, or is it better just to say, "No, don't

mess with the" -- "don't create like an R-2A?"

this rule only would apply to R-2A, and R-2A would

keep the 5,000-square-foot requirement of the existing

R-2, but allow for the new height -- like do you see

what I mean?

And

Like --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Mm-hmm.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- fiddling around with

basically the height of the building and the number of

the buildings on these parcels.

176 1

Like I'd be interested -- as I'm thinking

about it like, Okay.

If every single one of them is able to do a land

division and be at 2,500 square feet, versus where

they are now, how many new R-2 parcels get created if

that makes sense; right?

like to know the number.

So all these parcels go to R-2.

And it -- it -- I'd just

So in Katy's case, is it -- there's 100

new R-2 zones, but because of their current size, they

could all of a sudden become 300, or is it 140?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

14 15 16

Yes.

I don't know -Yeah.

We'll -- we'll -- we'll -COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- because I can't -- I

can't scale that -- that stuff.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

I understand.

And

we can give you the -- the -- the numbers that you're

seeking.

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Blanchard. Just to follow

on -- because I was going to ask Ms. Decker that same

thing.

25 26

Are -- are you -- does that -- is -- what

177 1

Director Keane is saying, does that comport with your

understanding, Katy?

I guess, maybe, pop up.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah, if you don't mind.

KATY DECKER:

Could you repeat the

Yes.

question.

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

So I -- this has been

one of my questions from the outset.

So you said that you think

41 percent -- my question was -- 40 percent of your

R-1s under the new -- under this new Code are -- we

are physically rezoning them to R-2, or are you saying

by virtue of the fact that --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yes.

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

-- the lot --

KATY DECKER:

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

18 19 20

I think I understand. -- the lot-size

change -- they will be -COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

[Unintelligible] they

could be 40 percent.

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

KATY DECKER:

our neighborhood.

addition to the R-2s that will happen by a rezone, we

expect that to be approximately 40 percent of the

Well --

So -- so we have existing R-2 in And for our existing R-2, in

178 1

neighborhood.

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

KATY DECKER:

Okay.

From when we've looked at the

Code -- I -- I believe, citywide, it's on the order of

1,000, 1,100 properties would be rezoned to R-2, and

that translates to something like 4,000 direct

neighbors.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

KATY DECKER:

Yeah.

But I think that part of

the -- the concern that was being missed in that

discussion was that there's no step down between MX-3,

70 feet, and R-2, 45 feet.

homes, those homes that redevelop to 45 feet

high -- that's still a 35-foot wall above the property

behind them.

So those -- those existing

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Oh, I -- yeah.

That's

not true. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Yeah.

Tim, you --

Thank you.

And if I could, really quick --

Got you.

Tim? Okay.

[Unintelligible].

Did you have anything there,

179 1

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yeah.

Just a point of

clarification.

in an R-1A, R-1B, so 70, 40 isn't -- it's -- it's not,

on its face, an unreasonable gradient as you step down

from MX-3, to R-2, to one of the R-1 zones.

6 7

I mean, you can build a 35-foot house

I -- I'm just -- I just want to know like -- what's --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

[Unintelligible].

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- the maximum

potential of new R-2 zones we're going to create, and

how are they distributed?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

[Unintelligible]. And just to --

Please, Chris.

Yeah.

-- your point, Milt, if

I may.

I have the same concern with the language

that we hear here because the word "up-zone" has gone

through meaning changes.

by -- by the profession that up-zoning was -- we're

taking R-1, and we are now making it R-2 -- okay.

That's an up-zone -- or we are taking R-1, and we are

turning it to commercial.

24 25 26

It was always understood

That's an up-zone.

And then there was this fuzzy period of history where journalists quit defining even what they

180 1

mean by "up-zone" and the planning community even

adopted that, too, and wouldn't say what they mean.

And then, all of a sudden, the NIMBY community grabbed

a hold of "up-zone" and literally flipped it on its

head, literally flipped it on its head.

So now, when

we -- what -- what -- what -- we're going to hear 200

people tomorrow say, "Don't up-zone Boise."

they say, "up-zone," what they -- what they mean

is -- no.

No.

And when

No.

What they mean is, "If you are increasing

density, that's up-zoning," and that is not up-zoning.

So it's literally the opposite.

redefining the minimum.

density, you are redefining the maximum.

literally the opposite.

So up-zoning is

And when you are increasing It's

So what's going to happen tomorrow, is

that we're -- we're going to get gaslit up here all

night because they've literally turned the word on its

head.

So that -- this -- this goes to -- your

point is, "What" -- "what parcels are we actually

up-zoning?

What's going from R-1 to R-2?"

important.

That's important because I -- the argument

of, "Well, you're increasing density in R-1 because

That's

181 1

you're going from 5,000 square foot to

3,500" -- that's not up-zoning.

not up-zoning whatsoever.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

That is -- that is

Okay. But going from R-1 to

R-2 is?

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

definition of up-zoning, yes.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

So I just wanted --

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

And so that --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

And that's all I

That is the absolute

can --

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

Yes.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- see in this text.

That is a -- a legit up-zone.

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Commissioner Blanchard. COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Mr. -Woo-hoo.

All right.

Go, Katy.

Well done.

Let's keep the positive energy in

the --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Correct.

Thank you for that,

Right.

Yeah.

Woo-hoo.

-- room in here; okay?

182 1

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Mr. Chair.

Yeah, Commissioner Mooney. So I have a question --

Back on track. I think I have a question

for Kay, Boise Heights, regarding enforcement

because -- really great written testimony in our

package.

So I want you to -- give you an

opportunity to talk some more about that, the WUI

and -- and then maybe follow up with staff after that.

12 13 14 15

And -- and are we really resourced to do what we're -- what you're proposing? KAY HUMMEL: the question.

16 17

Commissioner Mooney, thank you for

Kay Hummel.

Boise Heights Neighborhood

Association.

We don't think you are.

I spoke with

Michael [phonetic], who's the lead -- during the last

break -- compliance officer, apparently, right now at

the City.

stretched soup to nuts; right?

[unintelligible] downtown, now the new downtown

noise -- whatever that's going to be.

25 26

And he has six co-workers, and they're Daycare,

But we just believe in life-safety issues

183 1

like urban -- or WUI wildfire potential and -- also

out in Amity, which is part of the WUI -- that the

standards for enforcement need real consequences.

it -- we don't see it in the Code.

forth.

And

We went back and

Michael also reminded me that they -- some

in the City believe that possibly State legislation

inhibits this, and you have to go to a judge and get a

misdemeanor offense, which is -- the page numbers I

gave you go back and forth between that.

We just really think that, in life-safety

issues with non-abated wildfire vegetation over 12

inches covering vacant lots in some of these older

neighborhoods or on the fringes of a new -- newer

neighborhood like Harris Ranch North, if the adjacent

landowner is not taking care of their issue, the City

should not be handicapped in dealing with it right

away.

with the current folks to make that happen.

And we'd love to see you get with legal and

We encourage the higher -- this is a

matter we will take to Council for their budgeted

option.

Code Enforcement folks.

us, it's needed because there are non-compliant

landowners.

It's not something you guys can do, hire more But it seems pretty clear to

There's other great, good landowners that

184 1

take care of their issues, but we've seen it with

three different owners abutting us in our

neighborhood, not just a single one.

And we'd love to see the Code Enforcement

officers, as we described to you -- what they're -- my

A, B, C -- what happens here on page six, have that

not be so delayed and have your Code Enforcement folks

able to act more quickly and have the teeth behind

them in the form of daily fines for noncompliance.

We looked at other places -- I think

Pittsburgh and maybe Arizona -- and the standard seems

to be $300 per day -- per day of noncompliance.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Thank you.

So then, for staff, I guess the question

is -- is, "What" -- "what are your thoughts on that?"

I mean, we didn't flesh this out really deeply in the

Draft Code about enforcement -- you know, wildfire's a

huge issue.

teeth in this? CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ANDREA TUNING:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ANDREA TUNING:

Great.

And -- and how are we going to put some

Okay.

No?

Ta-da. Yep.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Andrea Tuning, for the record.

185 1

Kay Hummel and I have had an opportunity

to really talk about enforcement and -- and how we can

really achieve what we're doing.

City has changed significantly in the way we approach

enforcement.

"Zoning Enforcement Team" that focused on zoning

enforcement, and so they were subject-matter experts.

And over time, the

We originally had what we called just a

Over time, they decided that they would

relocate those individuals to do additional things.

And Kay actually alluded to -- now they are doing

abandoned vehicles.

and approvals.

Code enforcement as well.

multitude of different items, and so we've kind of

lost that subject-matter expert.

They're doing childcare licensing

They're also expected to know Zoning And so there's this

So Kay and I have really talked about, you

know, "How could the City evaluate that" -- and

understanding, too, that there are limited resources.

There are actually seven enforcement officers that

enforce every issue throughout the City, including

those licensing.

City-resource issue, but -- making sure that we do

have those sub -- subject-matter experts that can

address specific life-safety issues like Wildland

Urban Interface, vegetation, those types of things.

So it is -- not only is it a

186 1

And so it really is a policy question.

And so, you know, if you do have concerns,

that's certainly one of those things that you can

recommend to City Council -- is -- you know, ensuring

that we have those resources and that we can make sure

that we have the subject-matter experts that are

necessary.

KAY HUMMEL:

May I add one comment further,

Commissioner Schafer?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

KAY HUMMEL:

Yes, please.

We also were aware, talking with a

couple other neighborhoods, that they had that

concern.

has encountered it.

And I think Ms. Fauci from Central Foothills

The -- the bottom line here is -- is that

there should be subject-matter experts in life safety

and for the WUI.

think.

That's a real simple division, I

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

KAY HUMMEL:

Mm-hmm.

And you could outline it in the

Comp Plan, the new goals there, because there is a

whole section on the WUI there.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

KAY HUMMEL:

25 26

Whatever.

Mm-hmm.

I think it's 5-11 or 11-5.

I get my Code versus my Comp Plan mixed up.

187 1 2

So I think you can set the tone and actual wording for it in both documents this week.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

KAY HUMMEL:

Mm-hmm.

And for -- the last point I would

make is that the worst case of non-compliance happened

right next to my home three years ago in the summer of

'20, and it went on for weeks and weeks and weeks.

And we appreciated the officer who did his

best, but he was hamstrung by a really non-compliant

landowner.

you guys just work it out and talk to that person?"

Well, we really can't.

love to just have a cup of coffee and work it out, but

you can't.

And a Fire Department person said, "Can't

And some -- you know, we'd

And a different neighbor down the street

from me couldn't get it handled with the abutting HOA,

who has a responsibility to take -- take care of their

drain pond in perpetuity.

19 20

So that's where we suggest there's real financial incentive to follow the law.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

KAY HUMMEL:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Okay.

So thank you. You bet.

Any other questions, gang?

188 1

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

Commissioner Danley,

please.

4 5

Mr. Chairman.

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

A couple different things

here.

A common theme, it seemed, at least among

some of the testimony we heard was, "Infrastructure up

front or, at the very least, in a timely manner."

it sounds as though, from some of the testimony, in

certain instances, neither has taken place -- and so,

obviously, trying to get the language right in this

Rewrite to make sure that that -- that ends and we get

these things implemented.

And

So I guess the -- it's a general question

of staff in this instance -- is -- how -- how can we

best handle that? Do you feel that the Rewrite

language does get us to a better place with

develop -- with requiring and getting the

infrastructure that services the rest of the

neighborhood around the applications' development, or

do we need to tighten it up somehow?

general thoughts.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

I mean, your

A few things,

Commissioner Danley.

the challenges that were presented tonight relative to

First, I might say that -- that

189 1

the installation of infrastructure or the provision of

services or the enforcement of Codes is -- is a

frustration that I -- we shouldn't act like won't

exist ever.

are probably bigger challenges than anyone would like.

I mean, these are things in any city --

We do, however, I think, take a step

forward here.

think, in the way the current Ordinance works and,

therefore, how we operate, is that, when you have so

many different zoning districts -- and that's what the

result of planned unit developments are.

One of the challenges that we have, I

When you have so -- because you -- these

are all custom zoning districts.

zoning districts.

several times tonight, "by-right development," that

this Ordinance allows "by-right development."

does.

The current Ordinance does.

does.

There are certain rights that people have to

build that are by right.

this Ordinance.

They're not base

The -- the words were mentioned

Yes, it

Any ordinance

That's not a new idea in

It's in every ordinance.

But when you create all these planned unit

developments -- I mentioned 283 -- 38 over five

years -- that's just over the last five years.

have all these individual zoning districts

that -- therefore, you have to have -- talk about

You

190 1

subject-matter experts.

enforcing 238 individual, separate zoning districts.

And I'm telling you, that's hard, to maintain

the -- the enforcement and the follow-through on so

many customized zoning districts.

You've got to have someone

So I think a major step forward with this

Ordinance is to establish standards that apply

uniformly across all development.

enforcing those things.

So we're -- we're

I do think infrastructure's a big part of

this, though, and -- and -- and we've agreed

that -- that the adequate infrastructure within the

city is so fundamental to the city growing in a way

that people embrace because you're -- as you're

growing, you're getting the improvements that you, as

a resident of the city need to -- to do the things

that we're talking about, to walk down the street,

rather than have to drive all the time, and

walk -- walk down the street in a safe way.

But I think the -- the -- and -- and, you

know, the capital improvements in the city has -- has

been mentioned several times tonight, and most of that

has been around streets, but there's other capital

improvements that are necessary to ensure that

people's quality of life is improving as the city

191 1

grows.

And the reality of that, in terms of this

Ordinance, really is that the step this Ordinance is

taking is to say, "Let's invest in that infrastructure

within our existing footprint.

we're going to have frustrations.

Let's" -- I mean,

The cost of this is -- is still large,

just to service the existing footprint of the city.

You know what our needs are in terms of just sidewalks

in the city.

where we want to concentrate our resources."

not going to continue to extend ourselves further and

further, which is not a decision other cities have

made, and that's a decision we're suggesting we make,

and we build within ourselves.

But it's a big step to say, "That's We are

And as frustrating as capital improvements

or street improvements might be at times, at least

we're headed in the right direction, which is, "Let's

invest in the existing infrastructure and not continue

extending ourselves."

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

25 26

Erik, North End.

Yeah.

[Unintelligible].

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Mooney, yeah. I've got a question for

192 1

You made a comment about sustainability,

and the greatest thing we can do is reuse existing

buildings.

incentives to improve residential neighborhoods, get

the missing middle that most of this Code is trying to

satisfy.

And so -- so I'm thinking of the

Where in the Code would you suggest that

be, and what -- what are you seeing?

that look like?

ERIK HAGEN:

11 12 13

What -- what's

Oh, joy.

Thank you, Commissioner Mooney, Chairman Schafer. How -- how many pages?

in the Zoning Code, 600?

I don't know.

How many pages are

Where would we put that? Probably somewhere

around -- near substandard lots, which -- I'm not sure

if that's actually still in the Code or not, but

it's -- especially in the North End, you know, so many

people move there because of the historic houses and

the historic nature of the neighborhood.

And it's -- one of the things -- things

that we hear from our constituents in that

neighborhood, is, when a house gets torn down and it

gets replaced with a big mansion that's two to three

times larger than what was there before, there's a lot

193 1

of hemming and hawing and -- and complaints that go

on.

So the City does have sustainable-design

guidelines.

make those a requirement for some developments if

people want to do stuff.

They are voluntary.

Maybe it's time to

I did read -- read an article.

Last year,

I believe, Director Keane had mentioned something

about adding that as an incentive in the Code

somewhere, so perhaps he has an idea too.

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Thank you for that

question.

And to speak to something Erik mentioned

first -- which I think is important -- is that we are

seeing demolitions in the city right now, and the vast

majority of those are demolitions of existing modest

houses to be replaced by much larger single houses.

That -- that is -- so I -- I mention that

just to say, "This Ordinance doesn't create demolition

of existing houses."

phenomenon that happens.

that will probably accelerate, that existing modest,

single-family homes get replaced with much more

expensive, larger, single-family homes.

all the time.

That -- that -- that is a Unfortunately, I'm afraid

It happens

194 1

A couple of things that we incorporated

into the -- already the Draft that you have, that

speak to this.

incentives, which is Incentive 2 related to

affordability, the strategic infill -- and this came

up last summer, when we were hearing from people on

this very topic, which was, "We'd like to" -- "okay.

A mix of housing types is nice, but what about

demolition of existing homes, if -- if that somehow

results in that?"

One is that -- in one of our

So within that incentive, you'll see that

we say, "You have to be on a collector or an

arterial," Number 1, and then that the -- the property

has to be vacant, the structure has to be 25-percent

or less of the value of the property, or you reuse the

structure in -- in the -- in the -- in the

development.

So the -- the point was specifically, in

that case, to create an incentive around -- or not an

incentive.

vacant property or it's -- you're reusing the existing

structure.

It's a requirement that either it's a

And then the -- the last piece I'll

mention about this because it's come up in this

question a few times tonight, is that the requirement

195 1

that we added to this Code, which doesn't currently

exist in these areas where we're providing for

additional height or density -- and that -- and that's

those MX zones, that -- what has been mentioned

several times tonight about, for instance, going to

70 feet in the MX-3.

We added a provision that, if, on those

properties where you're building, you have had, within

the last three years, assisted living, a nursing home,

a mobile-home park, federally-designated affordable

housing, or even naturally-occurring affordable

housing at 60-percent or less of AMI, then you have to

get a conditional use permit at the -- at the Planning

and Zoning Commission, so a protection around loss of

existing affordable housing or the -- the -- the

concern around vulnerable people being subject to

displacement as a result of any increase in

density -- to create that protection which currently

doesn't exist.

You all have dealt with this before, of

course, most recently in the Arbor Village case, where

it happened just because of rezoning.

that into the existing Ordinance.

We've built

We would -- we would -- I mean, the -- the

protection of existing structures is a very important

196 1

issue.

Ordinance -- we -- we will absolutely be open to ideas

that do that.

And any way we can help do that in this

Reusing existing structures, as Erik said,

is the most sustainable thing you do.

incorporate it into our incentives, but we do have

this reality of, "How do you do both?"

do you" -- "how do you" -- and -- and -- and we have

this phenomenon of more expensive housing coming for

single families through demolition that we've been

seeing in Boise, and it -- and it will probably pick

up.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thanks, Tim.

Thanks, Erik.

Commissioner Mohr.

17 18

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

We've tried to

You know, "How

I have a follow-up on that

one, actually.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Oh, yeah.

I'm sorry.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

But --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Sorry.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

-- it might be all right.

It's mainly for Mr. Keane.

So the -- there is -- that one place that

you mentioned in the R-1B and R-1C districts in that

197 1

kind of Incentive Category -- Category 2, that

includes, "A lot on which" the "existing structure

will be incorporated into the project."

But is there any consideration for that

being part of -- say, for Incentive 1?

be listed under like the "Energy"

Confer -- "Conservation" category as an option,

or -- honestly, most of these under the "Energy

Conservation" category -- as an option -- because I

think the biggest issue that I have with Incentive 1

is it's an "and" statement and not an "or."

have to be on that collector/arterial roadway and the

existing building -- "and" as opposed to "or."

Maybe it could

So you

And, you know, having that energy -- being

in that "Energy Conservation" or being in that

"Sustainability/Resilience" category as well kind of

gives --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

20 21 22

-- a little bit more

flexibility to have -PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

That's a good

point.

Yeah.

with Incentive 1.

Yeah.

-- those in there. Mm-hmm.

Yeah,

That -- that's a good idea.

198 1

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Gillespie. It -- just -- I'd like

to remind the Commission or ask the Commission -- we

can do this Q and A kind of whenever we want to.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We can, indeed.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

So it's not like we

have to empty the barrel -- or the -- the, you

know --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

them right now.

The chamber? The chamber -- all of

Whatever it is. Yeah.

Close enough.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

every evening, we can do Q and A --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yeah. But -- so at the end of

Mm-hmm. -- because this isn't a

permit.

get questions.

You can work on it tomorrow too, if

you wanted to.

I'm just -- just saying.

So -- so we -- you don't have to struggle to

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I do believe what Milt is

saying is, if we're good with questions, we can call

it a night.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

questions [unintelligible].

[Unintelligible] more

199 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

Do you have a comment?

That's right.

Yeah.

JOANIE FAUCI:

That's right.

Please come on up.

Yes.

Joanie Fauci.

I -- I thought you said, potentially, the

neighborhood associations could ask again at the end

too.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

JOANIE FAUCI:

Central Foothills again.

Well, I don't -- staff.

Well, I know.

This is just a comment about the WUI fire

stuff.

the Code, but, in terms of neighbors not keeping their

vegetation down and stuff, maybe somehow we could get

the Boise Fire Department more involved.

And I don't know how you could work it into

What they do currently with Firewise and

all that, it works great for the people who

participate, but the ones that never come to the

events where the firemen come and tell us all this

stuff, they're the ones that need more nudging along

to clean up their vegetation.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

JOANIE FAUCI:

Mm-hmm.

And another area that could maybe

be helpful in this is with the Parks and Rec because a

lot of us have open space adjacent to our homes.

And

200 1

if Parks and Rec could maybe change the vegetation

or -- like how farmers make that swath to -- along the

highways to keep the --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

JOANIE FAUCI:

Mm-hmm.

-- fire -- wildfires

from -- maybe we could do some other thing like that

as well.

this or not.

And I don't know if that can get worked into

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

JOANIE FAUCI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

14 15

Okay.

Thank you. Great.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman.

Okay.

Yeah, Commissioner

Danley. CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

I just -- just like a

real-quick question, I -- I think.

So -- but we

haven't really talked much about the neighborhood-cafe

concept.

testimony, written and this evening.

And I know that was mentioned quite a bit in

So just a real-quick point of

clarification.

make sure.

beer in a neighborhood cafe.

that's -- that's the requirement of a liquor license;

right?

I think I know the answer, but just to

The comment that was made about selling As far as I'm aware,

That's not just an arbitrary decision.

You

201 1

can sell as much coffee as you want, but, you know,

beer and alcohol's a different deal.

3 4

ANDREA TUNING:

Good evening, again.

For the record, Andrea Tuning.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ANDREA TUNING:

Andrea, again.

So the neighborhood cafe, it was

ultimately for any of the small retail or cafe uses.

When you start to get into alcohol sales, you're

either getting a beer-and-wine license --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ANDREA TUNING:

Right.

-- or a liquor license.

And if you notice, you'll see use-specific

standards under neighborhood cafes, and it ultimately

says that if you are serving alcoholic beverages,

there are some restrictions that go with that.

those use-specific standards are really key, so making

sure that you're providing your parking, making sure

that if you have an outdoor-seating area, that's

limited to however many square feet is -- it's in

ratio to whatever the indoor space is.

And so

It accommodates for whether or not you are

selling liquor licenses or alcohol sales.

doing alcohol, you are required to provide food with

that, so it's not only a bar.

beverage together, coupled -- and then, also,

If you are

It has to be food and

202 1

restrictions on timing.

So...

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Thank you. If I could just

speak to that -- I -- the use-specific standards

related to neighborhood-scale retail, which require

that they be no more than 2,000 square feet, that's

the first thing.

think, of this Ordinance because we did want to allow

more service, you know, at the neighborhood scale,

closer to people's homes.

This is an important provision, I

So it's 2,000-square-feet maximum floor

area.

The -- the standard related to alcohol sales

just says that you must also serve food.

outdoor-seating area is limited to no more than

30 percent of the gross floor area of the -- of the

business.

floor area of the business that you could use for

outdoor seating.

The

So it's -- you get up to 30 percent of the

You can't have a drive-thru, of course.

Hours are 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and the parking is

one space per 1,000 square feet of area, with a

maximum of four parking spaces, so, you know,

small-scale parking there.

all those facts were on the table here.

25 26

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I just wanted to make sure

Thanks, Tim.

203 1

Okay.

I think we're wrapping up on

questions for the evening.

towards adjournment here tonight.

4 5

So I think we'll move

We're going to be back again tomorrow night at 5 o'clock for testimony -- public testimony.

Does that sound good, everybody?

Okay.

Just real quick.

Great. Again, I wanted to thank

you all for coming out tonight, and you folks that are

online, as well, that testified.

the input.

a good discussion.

helped us vet out some of the issues

that we're finding in this -- in this Code.

15 16

It was -- it was enlightening, and it was And I think that you definitely

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Okay.

So we don't need to defer or do a continuance of this meeting?

out and pick up?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

question of staff, Milt.

-- before you

say, "Adjourned."

Tim -- hold on one

second --

Truly, we appreciate

We can just like walk

I even already asked that

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

You did?

204 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

it mean in the -- in the notes --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

said we have to defer?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I did.

The notes.

No.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

What the hell.

They stopped -They're probably still

arguing about --

Staff

I thought we had two lawyers present.

I don't know.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- for the meeting that

just overrode those notes.

Well, what the hell did

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

They stopped listening hours

ago. COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- what the word

"defer" means.

All right.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Carry on. Okay.

All right.

Again, thank you, all, very much.

We are adjourned, and we'll be back

tomorrow at five o'clock.

(End transcription at 4:07:32 of audio

file.)

25 26

-o0o-

205 1

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 3 4 5 6 7

I, VICTORIA HILLES, RPR, Registered Professional Reporter, certify: That the audio recording of the proceedings was transcribed by me or under my direction. That the foregoing is a true and correct

transcription of all testimony given, to the best of

my ability.

I further certify that I am not a relative or

employee of any attorney or party, nor am I

financially interested in the action.

13 14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I set my hand and seal this 15th day of May, 2023.

15 16 17 18 19

_____________________________

VICTORIA HILLES, RPR

Notary Public

Post Office Box 2636

Boise, Idaho 83701-2636

24 25

My commission expires December 3, 2026

BOISE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ZONING CODE REWRITE HEARING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2023 I.

CALL TO ORDER PRESENT: ABSENT:

II.

Blanchard, Mohr, Schafer, Danley, Gillespie, Mooney, Finfrock Squyres, Stead

STAFF PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY 1.

RESULT:

III.

DISCUSSED ITEM TABLED TO APRIL 26, 2023 – PUBLIC TESTIMONY DAY TWO

ADJOURNMENT

1 1

CITY OF BOISE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

2 3

IN RE:

)

ZOA23-00001 / CITY OF BOISE

)

and

)

CPA23-00001 / CITY OF BOISE

)

Modern Zoning Code

)

_____________________________________

)

9 10

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDED PUBLIC HEARING

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2023

12 13

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

BOB SCHAFER, CHAIR

CHRIS DANLEY, CO-CHAIR

CHRISTOPHER BLANCHARD

JENNIFER MOHR

MILT GILLESPIE

JOHN MOONEY

JANELLE FINFROCK

21 22

TRANSCRIBED BY:

VICTORIA HILLES, RPR

24 25 26

DAY 2

2 1

(Begin transcription at 0:04:40 of audio

file.)

3 4

INTRODUCTION CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

All right.

So we left off

last night -- we had some pretty good

questions -- questions and discussion with the

neighborhood associations.

information from that discussion last night.

Staff has some follow-up

So, Tim, do you just want to kick us off?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Thank you,

Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission.

you for the time you give to this city and the

residents of this city by serving on the Planning and

Zoning Commission.

Again, thank

A reminder to everybody that the Planning

and Zoning Commission is a volunteer service, and they

spend every month getting into very emotional and

personal issues dealing with property and development

in the city grid.

And also, to everybody that's here tonight

and throughout this process that's shared opinions of

all kinds, everybody, in my experience, throughout

this process that's come to our meetings, including

last night and I'm sure tonight, is just expressing

genuine concern for the future of Boise.

And we're

3 1

trying to get this right and -- and do the best we

can.

So appreciate everybody's commitment to this.

I wanted to follow up on -- start with a

specific question from last night that Commissioner

Gillespie initially raised and we had some discussion

about, and that is the -- the proposal within this

Ordinance to convert some properties to R-2.

Just a reminder to those that weren't

here.

to rezone selectively, in the city, properties that

are in places where we feel like density would be very

helpful.

the city -- State Street, Vista, and Fairview -- where

we have our best bus service today, where we're

investing, as a community, in improved public

transportation.

Among the recommendations of this Ordinance is

And so that comes down to three corridors in

And so in those places, we've wanted to,

through this process, create the zoning that would

allow what we need, that denser development,

pedestrian design, to happen.

corridors, and it also is applied to what are called

"Activity Centers."

So that's those three

The term "Activity Center" comes from our

Comprehensive Plan, which is

called -- called "Blueprint Boise."

Blueprint Boise

4 1

identified these Activity Centers, which are kind of

low -- low density in the sense that -- one-story

commercial with lots of surface parking, that's what

it tends to be.

the cinemas or the area around the mall and places

like that.

Think of Overland Drive [sic] near

So Activity Centers, this MX-3, is the

zone that we're proposing for just those areas.

it's -- it's a relatively small amount of the city,

but it's an important part of the city, that it get

denser and -- and -- and so that's the proposal.

Well, the R-2 aspect of it is along those

three corridors: State, Vista, and Fairview.

We've

also proposed to rezone the properties that are

adjacent to those, fronting those streets, to what's

called "R-2."

these, the ones fronting on those streets, a little

bit taller, a little bit denser.

So that makes the properties behind

And the thinking behind that is

that -- rather than have an abrupt transition from the

taller, denser buildings on State, Vista, Fairview,

let's kind of have a stepdown and then go to the R-2

and then ultimately to the R-1.

24 25 26

And the question last night was, "How many properties are impacted by that?"

So I'm going to go

5 1

through each of those corridors really quickly and

tell you about that.

So citywide -- well, first of all, in the

upper right here you can see what amount of the city

is zoned R-2, and currently 5 percent of the city is

zoned R-2.

with this new Ordinance, that would go to 5.7 percent

of the city, so a modest increase in R-2 in the city.

What we're proposing -- then you get into

the chart, and what we're proposing is, for the whole

city, a total of 257 acres gets converted from what is

now R-1 to R-2.

then 1,021 parcels are associated with that citywide.

And with the proposal that's associated

So it's a citywide 257 acres, and

So you can see what that is as a

percentage of the whole city.

right here what that conversion is, as a -- as a

percentage of the total residential parcels in the

city.

acres and parcels.

You can also see on the

So that -- you can see that as a percentage of

So the highest number there, citywide, is

1.3 percent of the total parcels -- residential

parcels in the city get converted as -- in association

with this rezoning.

So we went neighborhood by neighborhood to look at

acreage, parcels, what's converted, what percentage

And then you can see it by area.

6 1

that is of -- of that neighborhood and -- and so

forth.

So you can see it in the North End,

Sunset.

We were speaking about Veterans Park last

night.

What you'll see is the total in Veterans

Park -- percentage of acres -- is 3.1 percent, and

then as much as 6 percent when you get to the -- the

percentage of residential parcels, both in terms of

acreage -- acreage and parcels.

neighborhood here, and that's along the State Street

corridor.

But you can see it by

When we get to Vista -- the area that has

the most acreage anywhere in the city is the

properties fronting Vista and within the

neighborhood -- the Depot Bench, and then you see the

Vista Neighborhood there as well.

But even in the case of the Depot Bench,

which has the highest number of acres and number of

parcels, the highest percentage here, again, is

converted as residential parcels, just residential

parcels.

That percentage that's converted to R-2 is

8 percent, max, so that's the -- the maximum amount in

any neighborhood.

here as well, those numbers for each of the

And then you can see on Fairview

7 1

neighborhoods that's impacted along Fairview.

all -- all numbers are relatively small.

Again,

I'll say that you -- you -- you might

conclude, "That doesn't seem like a dramatic change,"

"These are very small percentages," and so forth.

will say it's -- as small as it might be, we also

think it's very important because the goal here was to

enact an ordinance that puts in place kind of an

ideal, land-use-and-development scenario.

We weren't -- I mean, the -- the rules

around Conversion Map -- the Conversion Map and how we

rezone things -- we weren't seeking to create a -- a

medium condition.

what's -- the ideal condition.

in close proximity to those streets where we have the

best transit, we should take advantage of that and try

to move beyond just the frontage.

We were trying to get to And we do think that,

Now, I'll say there was a lot of

discussion of that in the CAC throughout our process,

the Citizens' Advisory Committee [sic], because the

way that -- that we determine this number of parcels

that are affected is that it's an eighth of a mile

from the center line of those streets.

an eighth of a mile from the center line of those

streets, but you're not those MX-3 parcels fronting on

So if you're

8 1

the street, then that's where we -- that's the rule in

terms of, then, conversion to R-2 from R-1.

And -- and, you know, when you look at

transit planning typically, a quarter of a mile is

the -- is the kind of standard when it comes to

what's -- the kind of area that you're seeking to get

denser around a transit stop tends to be a five-minute

walk.

tends to be a quarter mile.

eighth of a mile here.

of surgical change here.

What's an easy walk for most people?

And so it

We're talking about an

So this is a -- a very -- kind

And -- and the discussion among the CAC

was, "Should it be more," really.

the quarter mile," and that kind of thing.

I think the important aspect of this -- because -- the

discussion yesterday, to some degree, was about, "How

many properties are impacted by this," and now you

have those numbers.

about, "What are we trying to achieve" -- I

think -- "as a city?"

"Should we go to But -- but

But really, it's -- it's -- it's

And this is our one opportunity, again, in

60 years to try to put in place a new pattern that

supports a different kind of transportation investment

we're making, and this R-2 conversion is an important

part of that, as part of this MX-3, transit-corridor,

9 1

Activity Center proposal that is within this

Ordinance.

So that's one thing.

So with that, I might just stop there for

a second before I move on to another item and see if

there's any questions about these numbers.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Gillespie. So as you will

appreciate, Director Keane, over the -- over the night

I thought of a whole bunch more analytical tasks

we -- but be that as it may -- so -- so we're going to

create 1,021 R-2 parcels out of existing R-1B and R-1C

parcels.

the -- the increased number of housing units that that

action creates.

And I'll bet you someone over there knows

And I'll bet you it's on the

order -- between six and eight units per parcel in

terms of extra density that that change creates.

bet you were talking 5 to 8,000 potential -- just

purely potential additional housing units.

math seem generally correct?

24 25 26

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE: the 5 and 6,000 --

So I

Does that

I'm not sure about

10 1

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

But you're -- we're

going -- I think that we go from -- what? -- 8 to 12

or 8 to 16?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Well, here's one

way to think about it, to your -- the -- the issue

you're trying to get to, which is -- what -- what

number of units or dwellings, what density we would

achieve through this conversion.

So within the R-2 district, the lot size

is 2,000 square feet, and this is kind of where you

were going last night, which is, "What then" -- "if

it's rezoned to R-2, what then could we subdivide

these parcels to create?

parcels?"

2,000 square feet.

What's the maximum number of

The -- the lot size within that zone is

So if you look at the amount of

acreage -- and you can look at the amount of acreage

associated with the conversion within any one of these

neighborhoods.

that you'll see here -- and this is very theoretical

because, as you know, as you see in the cases that you

are presented with every month, when it comes to a

subdivision, the specifics of the site really matter

in terms of what you can actually achieve.

25 26

And you'll see what I -- the range

We haven't done that analysis here across

11 1

all these parcels, of course, and that would take a

tremendous amount of time -- not during this hearing

week, but -- but -- but -- but if you just take the

2,000 square feet and say, "Okay.

condition across these acres.

you achieving?"

these neighborhoods is between about 200 and -- the

max being 1,000, in the cases of the Depot Bench.

that's purely the math associated with

2,000-square-foot lots.

We've got a perfect

What number of lots are

And the range that you get across

And

And if you -- if you rezone these and

those were maximized based on that zoning -- between

200 lots and 1,000, with the most being in that

46 acres that are created on the Depot Bench.

One thing about the Depot Bench, too, and

the Bench in general along Vista, is that those blocks

lay out pretty nicely for this in the sense that

there's a good grid of streets.

lays out well, versus a State Street where the -- the

grid is -- once you get past the North End, it's less

regular, you know, so it -- it doesn't work out as

well.

the -- the Bench ended up being impacted more.

just the nature of those blocks there.

25 26

You know, it just

So I think that's one of the reasons that

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman.

It's

12 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Please, Milt. Yeah.

And I guess the

reason I'm talking about this is -- you know, at the

end of the day, everything has costs and benefits.

There's a cost to doing this.

disruption of the nearby parcels and -- and, you know,

just this fact -- going from R-1 to R-2.

is the additional density we create along these

corridors.

The cost is the

The benefit

So it would be nice to have some estimates

of the additional number of potential dwelling units

that this exercise -- that this piece of the exercise

creates because, I'm guessing, it's a fairly

substantial portion of the total housing enabled by

the whole shooting match, by the whole thing; right?

So I'd kind of like to -- if you guys can

kind of give us a -- not now, but before we wrap up,

if you can sort of give me a feel for -- are we

talking 10,000 new units enabled by doing this or 5 or

2 or 1?

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Any other questions on

24 25 26

Okay.

this topic, guys? All right.

Okay.

Mm-hmm.

13 1

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

The second topic

is related to the -- the public involvement related to

these different types.

last night about the four types that are part of this

new Ordinance in -- in seeking to, Number 1, create

some simplification of the Ordinance as it relates to

process, and Number 2, to make what we want and need

easier to accomplish and put the community -- and get

the community involved through our processes and

helping make sure this Ordinance is successful.

We talked at different times

Here are the four types again.

just wanted to note, within each of those four types,

what the -- what the notice is related to those.

so you have the Development Tracker, of course, in

every case, but in the case of the Type 1 and the

Type 2s, the neighborhood associations are, in fact,

as they are today, notified of those cases.

And we

And

And then, once you move beyond those

Type 2s -- and you get into cases that, by State law,

really, are -- are required to have a public hearing,

so conditional use permits, annexations, rezonings,

variances -- what else? -- planned-unit developments,

those kinds of things.

But it also includes, in the Type 3, the cases that go

to the Historic Preservation Commission and the Design

Then you get into a hearing.

14 1 2

Review Commission. One of the ways that -- the reasons that

we organized it this way was just to be cognizant

of -- that we're sending cases to the body that is

most appropriate to send them to.

the Planning and Zoning Commission is here to hear

cases of land use and -- and kind of land-use policy

and -- and regulatory policy.

So for instance,

The Design Review Commission, of course,

is here on architecture-and-design-related issues.

The Historic Preservation exists

to -- Commission -- to consider cases that are related

to preservation of historic properties in the city.

So -- so this is -- I -- I also want to

mention -- go back to a lot of the discussion last

night related to how long the community has been

involved in this process and had time to review what's

before you this week -- and just -- in part because I

want to mention one thing about when -- when the

ordinances were released.

But I think one thing to remind the

Commission about and the community about is that, last

summer, we made some really significant changes to

what was proposed.

25 26

When you think about this longer process

15 1

that's been going on for years, there were discussions

about Modules 1 and 2, Phases 1 and 2, that go back to

late 2021, early 2022.

of -- there was a lot of people within the community

that were not happy about what was being proposed.

And that resulted in significant changes to this

Ordinance.

And there was a lot

That -- at the time, originally, in

Modules 1 and 2, we were proposing to consolidate the

three R-1 districts into two, so eliminate the -- the

20,000-square-foot R-1 district and make them two.

We -- we did not do that in this Draft.

We -- we also tied our

incentives -- we -- we changed the Ordinance to tie

increases in density in those R-1 districts to

affordability.

happened at that time.

the MX districts.

That was a significant change that At that time, we created all

They didn't even exist at the time.

And because of the feedback around, "Hey.

This is just" -- "there's" -- "one size fits all," a

whole new set of standards came out, and a whole new

set of public hearings were held in the summer of last

year around neighborhood zoning and the mixed-use

districts, and really, really significant changes came

out of that.

16 1

I mentioned last night that, then,

the -- the original draft of the entire Ordinance came

out in September.

came out was October 11th of last year.

October 11th -- 11th of last year, we released the

full draft of the Ordinance so people could start

reviewing that.

part of that draft.

That was wrong.

The actual date it On

And these four types here were all

The -- in the -- in the summer and fall of

last year, when we got into this third phase around

process, we talked about these four types immediately

and what the purpose of creating the four types -- and

how we wanted to involve people in approval, such that

they were helping make this successful.

discussion started late summer last year, into the

third phase, which all was part of that October 11th

release.

That

There were issues around -- okay.

Then we

released the actual Ordinance that's before you at the

end of February.

in releasing that, said, "We want to meet with any

neighborhood that wants to to go through the

deal" -- "details of this."

take us up on that as recently as within the last two

weeks.

I will also say about that, that we,

We had some neighborhoods

17 1

We had -- for instance, we had a very

detailed, long conversation with the East End

Neighborhood over every detail of -- of what was

impacting the R-1 districts that -- that are part of

not only R-1, but R-2 -- I'm -- I'm sorry -- R-1 and

R-2 because much of the East End is R-2.

But anyway.

We went through this in great

detail.

I guess the point, really, is the public

involvement in this shaped what you have before you.

And much of it was in place -- all the basic structure

of it was in place on October 11th of last year.

And then, even the details that came out

at the end of February, we spent time -- we've had a

few cases where we've met with neighborhoods, where

they didn't understand the details.

understanding them.

them or not," which is -- which is why we're here;

right?

to agree with it, but we make a decision and move

forward as a city.

The issue wasn't

The issue was, "Do we agree with

Like we have a proposal.

Not everyone's going

And then the last thing I wanted to

mention -- oh, it's not on here, actually -- is

because affordability came up several times last

night, and I jumped through it in my initial opening

slides related to inclusionary zoning.

18 1

The City is not permitted by State law to

do inclusionary zoning.

memo that you received on -- on April 13th, where we

went through some things that, from a legal

standpoint, either we weren't dealing with in this

Ordinance, or we felt you needed some background

to -- to understand what the implications, from a

legal standpoint, were.

To be clear, this was in the

And -- and getting that legal advice early

on -- it was that we can't do inclusionary zoning in

this -- in this state.

Ordinance has been structured around density

incentives that require affordability.

mention it because several times last night it

was, "Why don't we just require affordability?"

And we can't do that.

So the -- that is why this

And so I

We have to

structure the Ordinance such that, when you're getting

something, we're -- we're tying that -- that

additional density to the affordability part.

course, in this Ordinance, we also have those

requirements around water and energy conservation.

That's also part of those incentives.

That is the conclusion of my response to

the hot topics last night.

questions if you have any or sit down.

And of

I'm happy to answer

19 1

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

3 4

Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Tim.

Yeah, Commissioner Gillespie. COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

I'd just like to thank

you, Director, and a few of the other folks over there

I know, who -- who did that work, probably starting

early this morning.

So I appreciate it very much.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

And then Commissioner

Danley, did you have a question?

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

Yep.

I -- real quick.

Tim, I got to say, "Something you said

yesterday right off the bat hit me pretty" -- "pretty

hard."

for you to touch on it one more time.

And I think it would be worth a quick minute

Doing the math, 527 is the number of

variances and PUDs, in total, over the last five

years.

seven years, that means I'm -- I don't

know -- 7 -- 800 of those -- right?

just -- what you said about the PUD, in particular,

and it essentially being a symptom of a -- of a broken

system --

I know, for me, sitting up here for about

And -- and I'm

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

[Unintelligible].

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

Yeah.

25 26

Right?

That -- that particularly struck

20 1

me -- and -- as well as the number of decisions.

And

just adding them up, we're hitting somewhere in the

neighborhood of about six or seven every single

hearing -- right? -- a variance or a PUD.

Can you touch on that one more time, just

your -- your general sentiment about the relationship

between so many PUD applications and our existing Code

and then how this Code sort of --

PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

CO-CHAIRMAN DANLEY:

11 12

Yeah.

-- in your opinion, fixes

or addresses those. PLANNING DIRECTOR TIM KEANE:

Right.

And -- and

this came up in the context of a slide, where we were

showing one of the ways that you measure how broken

your Ordinance is.

that the City did with our consultant Clarion at the

beginning of this process.

And this came up in the diagnostic

But what you found is that we have so many

cases that come before this Commission and,

ultimately, Council in many cases that are planned

unit developments.

And you've got to remember.

When you're

doing so many planned unit developments, it means that

you're creating individual zoning districts all over

the city because each planned unit development is a

21 1

zoning district in and of itself.

And -- and that is necessary because the

Code that you have doesn't have any clear direction

for anyone.

as to what we're trying to accomplish as a city so, so

many times, we're having to, then, create new

districts just in association with a single

development, which requires so much time and effort

and -- and kind of compromise among everybody involved

in those properties, in the -- that -- that you've

really got to start from scratch and -- and say, "What

are you trying to do here?

trying to build?"

So we have an ordinance that isn't clear

What's the city you're

So I think the -- the point of this -- and

I heard someone mention this in another public

meeting -- is that, really, what -- one of the great,

valuable things of this is that we're -- we're getting

what we want out of development.

And I know we hear people have different

perspectives on -- on what the city needs, but -- but

the point is we've got to come to consensus on what

we, as a community, feel are the important aspects of

each development, no matter the scale, and require

that of everyone, not require a customized zoning

every time someone needs to build something.

22 1

And so that is one of the values of this

process and why we've been saying since the fall that

the point of this is to create a Code that allows us

to achieve what we want, not a Code that just creates

ways to argue with each other.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

this end?

Okay.

Any questions from

Are you guys good?

Okay.

All right.

Tim, thanks for the update and the -- and

your comment -- comments there.

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION

N/A

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

We'll go ahead,

then -- we're going to open this hearing up for public

testimony on this item.

So again, folks, we had people sign up in

advance about the list here.

We're going to run

through that list.

those who signed up first, to the folks that signed up

here tonight just in the lobby outside of Chambers

here.

I'll call names, starting from

The podium is up here.

when your name is called and -- and give your

testimony.

Please come on up

Again, please start with your name and

23 1

address, for the record.

And as Commissioner Gillespie's indicating

over here to my right, three minutes is your testimony

time.

that signed up in advance, plus some of the other

folks that signed up.

going to be here for a few hours if everybody uses

their three minutes.

We have -- I think I mentioned we have 75 folks

So if you do the math, we're

And I'll be honest with you.

The part I

like least about this job is cutting folks off at

three minutes.

watch the time -- it'll be up here on the screen to

your right.

person.

So if you can do us all a solid and

And then we will move on to the next

Okay.

So with that, up first I have Allen

McLeod followed by Byron Folwell and then Robert

Frazier.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

If you guys -- when

your name's called, if -- if the people on deck and in

the -- in the -- in the box want to come on down and

just sit in the front, then we can cycle faster

through the process.

ALLEN McLEOD:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ALLEN McLEOD:

I'm good to go? Go for it.

Hello, everyone.

24 1

My name's Allen McLeod.

I live in the

Collister Neighborhood at 4613 West Castlebar Drive,

and I'm here to voice my support for the Modern Zoning

Code.

As an occupant of the city, I would like

to see an increased density and more mixed-use,

walkable, pedestrian-friendly areas.

Code is a step in the right direction to allowing

those kind of environments, and it will also provide

the, say, flexibility to change over time as areas

need to adapt to current needs, rather than dividing

the city into single-use areas, as it has been for

decades.

I believe this

I also believe for Boise to be financially

secure in the coming years, that it needs to be able

to support its local infrastructure.

continues to sprawl as it has, it will become

impossible at a certain point to maintain the

roadways, sewers, bridges, and other City-managed

infrastructure that all of us are depending on.

I think the focus must be placed on

If Boise

efficient land use, efficiency as measured in dollars

per acre.

efficiency is to increase density, reduce emphasis on

parking, and to make use of our existing

And I believe a good way to boost that

25 1

infrastructure.

give Boise a chance to make use of those assets and be

in a good position going forward, certainly better

than the existing Zoning Code would allow us to be.

I believe the Modern Zoning Code will

If I were to ask for any changes, it will

have been to push further and reduce lot sizes more

and increase density in areas and to eliminate the

parking minimums in all of the mixed-use areas.

However, I realize you're trying to strike a balance,

and I can appreciate all the work that Tim and his

team have been doing on this project.

My main ask would be that we go forward

with something that is good, and I believe what you

have is good.

debated to death, trying to perfect every single page

and sentence.

I don't want this to get hung up and

I'd like to just thank everyone who's been

involved in this project for all the work.

project manager, I know that a lot of effort goes into

all of this, and I hope to see it come to fruition.

Thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

24 25 26

As a

Thank you.

Up next, Byron Folwell and then

Robert Frazier and then Mike DiVittorio. BYRON FOLWELL:

Byron Folwell.

23 North

26 1

Roosevelt Street.

Chairman, Commissioners, thank you for

this -- your service to this community and for your

being here tonight to hear testimony, some of it

conflicting, and for doing the hard work of

deliberating and recommending the new Zoning Code.

I am in support of the Modern Zoning Code

with the acknowledgment that we still have work to do

as a community before we see an abundance of housing

in Boise.

I'm here as an architect and with

Neighbors For Boise, a local group advocating for more

and better homes in Boise.

half years I've had the privilege to serve on the

Citizen Advisory Committee for this new Code.

that time, I focused on neighborhood-scale,

multi-family homes, also known as missing-middle

housing.

Over the last three and a

During

As an architect and a Boise homeowner, I

know that neighborhood-scale, multi-family homes

belong in every Boise neighborhood.

for a wide variety of people.

haven't been building enough of them has everything to

do with the way our current Code was written.

25 26

They're livable

And the reason that we

Our current Code -- in our current Code

27 1

there exists tools of segregation that were

specifically designed to separate us by income, by

class, by status.

today, as some Boiseans picket and protest against the

inclusion of multi-family homes in their

neighborhoods.

The effects of that can be seen

Single-family, exclusionary zoning has

done so much harm to the way that we live together as

a city, but it has also delivered to us an

affordability crisis that will take a long time to

recover from.

housing choice that Boiseans -- Boiseans deserve.

People need a variety of housing choices in order to

find their right size -- right-sized home in a

neighborhood that they love near school, work, and

play.

We need a Code that will deliver the

Not everyone needs or wants a

single-family home.

not only to survive, but to thrive, and that is what I

want for every Boisean.

People need right-sized homes,

Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, ADUs,

neighborhood-scale, zero-parked, multi-family,

cottage-court, cottage villages, condos, townhomes,

cooperative living, boardinghouses, courtyard

apartments -- all of these are homes, homes for

28 1

people, and they belong in every neighborhood.

I'll leave you with this:

Our old Code

separated us from each other.

lets us live together in neighborhoods throughout

Boise.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

8 9 10 11 12 13

Give us a Code that

Thank you.

Up next, Robert Frazier, then Mike DiVittorio, then Patrick Spoutz. ROBERT FRAZIER:

Commissioners, thank you for a

chance to speak to this. My name's Robert Frazier, and I live in the West Bench neighborhood.

There are dozens of reasons why I believe

that this is a great move for our city, but I want to

outline the top five reasons to support this Zoning

Code Rewrite.

The first is lower red tape for ordinary

uses of private property.

permission to use our houses in ways that support our

families and provide housing, and the Rewrite gives us

more uses by right and limits the process for

neighbors to comment by simplifying the process to

administrative approvals.

25 26

We shouldn't have to ask

Great neighborhoods come through mixed-use

29 1

development, and we, unfortunately, in the last Code

written 60 years ago, did not support walkable

neighborhoods, local markets, office space, and light

commercial in residential areas to the detriment of

our city.

and uses in existing neighborhoods through mixed-use

development, neighborhood cafes, and bodegas built to

make walkable, intimate businesses that support the

way that we live our lives.

We want to see diverse types of buildings

Third, higher density creates affordable

housing.

And currently, under the existing Code, the

single-family-home lots allow duplexes by right.

Under the Rewrite, fourplexes will be

allowed, with half the units being long-term

affordable housing.

increasing density that preserves neighborhoods

through limits and affordability.

neighborhoods change slowly as neighbors and

homeowners choose to leverage their single-family

homes for duplexes and fourplexes that will fit the

modern market.

This is a great first step in

We will see

Higher-density development is encouraged

along the best transit lines, and I think that this is

an important piece of the new zoning.

high -- the highest density is not going to make sense

We believe the

30 1

in close proximity to single-family homes with limited

parking and public transit, and the Rewrite has done a

great job of putting the highest density along State

Street, Vista, and Fairview that have bus routes that

go every 15 minutes.

And fifth, small-scale retail and cafes in

neighborhoods create very livable, beautiful

neighborhoods.

neighborhoods in our city.

allow very diverse business and residential uses that

make them unique and interesting, walkable

neighborhoods.

The best parts are the oldest The North and East End

We want to thank this Administration, the

previous Administration and the current Council, and

this Commission for your work and passion to spend

precious, political capital to start the work of

modernizing our Zoning Code for a city that exists

today, rather than a world that no longer exists from

60 years ago.

My children are fifth-generation Boiseans,

fourth-generation West Bench natives.

bought a house in Winstead Park for $25,000 in 1952.

My parents bought a house at Maple Grove and Ustick

for 50,000 in 1980, and I bought a house off Mountain

View in 2016 for $242,000, and it's now worth

My grandparents

31 1 2

$550,000. At this rate, by the time my oldest

daughter turns 30, the house on the West Bench will be

north of $6 million.

increase in value over time is to build the kind of

housing that we need for the -- with the affordability

mechanisms --

THE CLERK:

ROBERT FRAZIER:

The only way to combat that

Time. -- in place, otherwise my

children will be driving from Malheur County to visit

their grandparents.

12 13

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Can we get your address real quick.

ROBERT FRAZIER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

16 17 18 19

Mr. Frazier, thank you.

3613 North Cabarton. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Up next, Mike DiVittorio and then Patrick Spoutz and then Benjamin Zamzow. MIKE DiVITTORIO:

I should have

some -- hopefully some slides coming up.

Good evening.

I live at 925 Parkhill Court in Boise.

residential infill developer who builds holds

and holds for lease single-family homes, duplexes, and

triplexes in Boise's established neighborhoods.

an avid biker, and I'm involved in the leadership of

My name's Mike DiVittorio. I'm a

I'm

32 1

Urban Land Institute here in Idaho.

I'd like to start out by saying, "Thank

you," to the staff for this three-plus-year

process -- it's been painstaking -- and to the

community and then to you for your work in making our

city a great place to live.

I'd like to voice support for the Zoning

Code Rewrite.

It's not perfect, but it's definitely a

step in the right direction.

incremental progress, allowing our city to accommodate

the inevitable growth we'll continue to experience.

It represents

At the very top of the list of reasons to

consider additional changes to the rewrite of the Code

is the issue of housing affordability.

P& -- P&Z Members and Members of Council to consider

removing parking-minimum requirements in all

residential zones.

I urge

I also recommend denser zoning -- or

up-zoning along transit corridors and near to Activity

Centers, so more like within a quarter mile of these

transit corridors -- corridors instead of an eighth of

a mile.

the -- the density that's allowed in the new Code.

24 25 26

We're just not going to get there with

So the second slide I have really talks to the cost of automobiles.

So as a developer --

33 1 2

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Excuse me, Mr. DiVittorio,

can you grab your -- the clicker.

Yeah, there you go.

There you go.

MIKE DiVITTORIO:

Okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thanks.

MIKE DiVITTORIO:

So as a developer, what I'll

tell you, is I need to program at least 20 percent of

my site for parking backup space if I do surface

parking.

structured parking, that's about $40,000 per space.

If I don't do surface parking and I do

If you translate those car costs into a

monthly increase in rent to my tenants who may not

have a car or may not be able to afford a car, that's

about $250 a month.

which is probably about $500 a month, if you look at

sort of the average car, plus gas, maintenance,

insurance -- you're at 750 bucks.

because of the park -- minimum-parking requirements,

people to opt into that model.

So add that to the cost of a car,

And we're forcing,

In addition to those hard costs, there are

indirect and hidden costs.

is more complicated.

are not usable at all because of backup space and

alley-load requirements.

fewer -- fewer housing choices, a lower mix of

The site cost -- site plan

You're going to see sites that

You're going to see

34 1

one-bedrooms and studios.

You're going to see traffic

injection -- congestion, and you're going to see those

who cannot afford or do not want to rely on a personal

automobile as a -- forced into that model.

short, let's remove the parking requirements for all

residential zones.

I could go on, but my time's up.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

online.

12 13 14

Thank you very much.

Crystal, I see Patrick Spoutz is

Is he available?

and then Nina Schaeffer followed by Hilary Vaughn. PATRICK SPOUTZ:

Thank you.

My name is Patrick Spoutz.

I live at 753

West Sandstone Court, Boise, 83702.

17 18

Great.

After Mr. Spoutz, we have Benjamin Zamzow

15 16

So in

And thank you, Commission, for this hearing.

And thank you to all the City staff for

all the hard work they put into making us get as far

as we have so far.

I would like to speak in strong support of

the Zoning Code.

Citizens' Advisory Committee like Byron was as well

and was able to witness the process at work as this

I was a proud member of the

35 1

Code has been molded -- proposed Code has been molded

over the last several years.

increased density and reduced parking minimums in the

city.

I'm also a supporter of

And like some of our other speakers so far

today, if I would change anything, it would be to be a

little bit bolder.

with the big, positive changes we're making, with

changes in parking, increased density in moderate

ways, and mixed-use areas, that it might not be

enough.

I kind of worry that with -- even

Yesterday, Richmond, Virginia got rid of

parking minimums entirely, and it seems like every

week another city somewhere around our size is taking

that step.

Still, I applaud the bold

changes -- relatively-bold changes we're making today.

I'm glad to see it move forward, and I'm excited to

see the process play out and hope that we implement

the Code, more or less, as written.

Thank you so much.

Good-bye.

23 24 25 26

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Benjamin Zamzow. BEN ZAMZOW:

Ben Zamzow.

350 North 9th Street,

36 1 2 3

Boise. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, thank you for your time this evening.

I've had the opportunity to serve on the

Citizens' Advisory Committee for the last two and a

half years, and I support the rewrite of the current

Zoning Code.

As you'll continue to hear this week, the

proposed draft is far from perfect, and I'll touch on

a couple of those imperfections in a moment.

the most foundational level, I believe that people

will continue to move to Boise over the next few

decades, both for quality of life and for the growing

employment opportunities, including the

15-billion-dollar -- with a 'B' -- planned Micron

investment in our economy and the local ripple effects

that it will have throughout our community.

But at

Even if you think that there's nothing

wrong with Boise today, continued population growth

that exceeds the amount and diversity of housing stock

that we can build under the current Code will cause

problems for all of us.

up, and more affordable housing stock will be

demolished in favor of new, larger, single-family

homes, as allowed in the current Code.

Housing prices will be bid

37 1

This will push our lower-income and

service workers further out of town, which adds to

congestion, pollution, and rising payroll costs for

all of our businesses to compensate these employees

for the time, parking, and hassle to commute and work

in Boise.

out of the profits of our community businesses or get

passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices

or both.

These rising payroll costs will either come

The proposed Zoning Code attempts to give

the City and developers more tools in their toolbox to

address the needs of a growing city.

My focus on the CAC has been on the

proposed mixed-use zones.

opportunities for neighborhood retail by way of the

new MX-1 zone and the neighborhood cafes, and I

support that the new Code allows for more density,

taller height limits along our corridors, and a mix of

retail, office, and residential uses within the zones.

This density, over time, particularly along these

transit lines, may ultimately lead to a more robust

mass -- mass-transit system one day.

I support the increased

However, I have concerns regarding the

four-story minimum height in the MX-3 zone.

the minimum height.

That's

There are many, many properties

38 1

within the MX-3 zone that are not physically or

economically ready for four-story, mixed-use

development today.

I believe that P&Z will see a major influx

of applications for exceptions to this minimum height,

which will clog the overall development-application

pipelines.

development should be allowed in the new Code, but not

required to this extent.

I believe that dense -- dense, mixed-use

Next, form restrictions on drive-thru

buildings have been loosened from prior drafts, which

I do appreciate, but I still believe they're too

strict.

And lastly, the Code's tighter parking

maximums, particularly in that MX-3 zone, require more

urban, dense development than may be feasible today or

in the near future.

development should be allowed in the new Code, but

again, not required.

I believe that limited parking

I'd like to commend Mr. Tim Keane,

Ms. Andrea Tuning, and the rest of the staff for their

tireless efforts on the Zoning Code Rewrite.

Thank you for the opportunity to

24 25 26

participate and for consideration of my feedback. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Great.

Thank you.

39 1

Nina Schaeffer.

Okay.

Jason White.

Scott Schoenherr.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

7 8 9 10 11

Hilary Vaughn.

Okay.

Keep going.

All right.

Then we have Kara -- KaraLeigh Troyer, I think, is online. She's next, Crystal. CRYSTAL RAIN:

Mr. Chair, she should be able to

un-mute at this time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Hi there, Ms. Troyer.

KARALEIGH TROYER:

Hello.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Can you hear us?

KARALEIGH TROYER:

Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We can, yes.

Hello.

KARALEIGH TROYER:

[Unintelligible].

Hello.

So my name is KaraLeigh Troyer, and I live

at 2660 West Boise Avenue, and I'm here to speak in

support of the Zoning Code rewrite.

In the past four years here, I have been a

student on campus at Boise State University, and I

wanted to speak from the student perspective of having

a lot of friends move out of Boise to get more

40 1

affordable housing and then have to drive into Boise

every day to go to their classes.

this -- this just causes them to have to waste more

money on gas and other expenses when they could be

living closer to campus.

And then

And the amount of students that I've seen

that have to do this are those that are supporting

themselves throughout college and working their way

through it.

able to support these students and support the jobs

that will be created from them living here.

12 13

So that's all. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

14 15 16

19 20 21

Okay.

Thank you.

Up next, Kathryn McConnell followed by Andrew Herndon and then Kyle Hillman. KATHRYN McCONNELL:

17 18

And I think that we need a city that is

Hi there.

Thank you so much for having us here tonight. My name's Kathryn McConnell.

I live at

515 East Logan Street, and I'm 31 years old. I want to start by thanking the Department

of Planning staff for your many years of work to

update our City Zoning Code, as well as the Planning

and Zoning Commission's work to carefully consider the

proposed changes.

41 1

I strongly support the Zoning Code update

in its current form primarily because it will help

facilitate the construction of more housing.

Increasing Boise's housing stock is an essential

element of keeping Boise a city that young

people -- so those of us in our 30s, 20s, Boise

residents who are kids now -- for making this a city

that we can actually build a life in.

I was born just down the road over at

Luke's.

I grew up here in Boise.

I graduated out of

the Boise public-school system, and I'm enormously

grateful that, after moving away for college, I was

able to come back and afford to build a -- a -- buy a

home here.

But I want to emphasize that so many young

people in the city that I know cannot afford to buy or

even to rent in Boise.

a huge generational divide in who can afford to live

and buy a home here.

the same opportunities that long-term homeowners have

had in the past to build household wealth through

homeownership.

I see a huge wealth divide and

Young people today do not have

The Zoning Code updates are an important

step towards growing the housing stock that we

critically need for a broad range of residents from

42 1

different generations to be able to establish

financially-stable lives here.

I appreciated, especially, hearing

yesterday from Director Keane that it's the Planning

Department's clear intention to evaluate the Code as

it's rolled out and to make needed changes as we go.

From my perspective, none of the concerns

that I've heard raised about the Code are substantial

enough to outweigh our city's pressing need for more

housing stock right now.

move forward with the rezone in its current form and

then to make any needed adjustments in the future.

And I'd much prefer that we

Finally, I want to briefly comment on the

role that neighborhood associations have played in

this public-comment process.

neighborhood association, the East End Neighborhood

Association, make an argument that they represented

all East End neighbors.

Yesterday, I heard my

However, to the best of my knowledge, my

neighborhood association did not attempt to solicit

any neighbor feedback when developing the testimony

that it gave.

neighbors attempted to engage with their neighborhood

association around the Zoning Code update, our views

were generally disregarded and not reflected at all in

And when myself and several other

43 1 2

our neighborhood association's testimony. So I -- I have no idea whether the way our

neighborhood association conducts its business is

similar or different from other neighborhood

associations, but at least from the standpoint of the

East End, I'd really caution the Commission from

assuming that a neighborhood association generally

represents the views of all neighbors.

So thank you again for your time.

I'm really excited about the future that

the Zoning Code update is building, and especially

opportunities that, I think, it will create for

Boise's younger residents.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

16 17 18

Thank you.

Andrew Herndon and then Kyle Hillman and Michael Aberg. ANDREW HERNDON:

Hi.

My name is Andrew Herndon.

I live at 406 South 4th Street, which is an apartment

building downtown.

I want to start by saying, "Thank you,

all, for your service on this Commission and for your

time on this proposal."

24 25 26

I strongly support the modernization of Boise 's Zoning Code.

I think it does a lot of things

44 1

to help create all sorts of housing for all sorts of

different families, generally.

that are in the reformed Zoning Code are thoughtfully

created, and they make sense for this city.

I appreciate the incentives and

I think the solutions

compromises that went into place to make sure that

there wouldn't be run away gentrification or

displacement of existing locals, which is an important

consideration when trying to manage the growth of a

city like this.

I do have some concerns about deed

restrictions on third-and-fourth-unit housing to make

them affordable.

very powerful and are a useful tool, but as it was

mentioned yesterday, I think, it would be a very good

idea to have some provision for a sunsetting of those

deed restrictions just so you don't accidently create

a permanent, two-tier system of land use.

I think that deed restrictions are

I think, also, one of the neighborhood

associations mentioned yesterday a mechanism to cancel

a deed restriction if development doesn't actually go

through, and I support that idea as well.

it's a good idea.

24 25 26

I think

So I -- as I said before, I live downtown in a rental apartment with my partner.

We moved to

45 1

Boise last year after he, who was born and raised

here, finished his medical training in Portland and

joined a practice here.

We chose Boise because his parents live

here, and we had -- we had an initial home search that

we found was surprisingly pretty difficult in that

there were not a lot of units that were acceptable or

correct at price points that made sense.

We even had the listing agents that worked

in some of the rental buildings downtown suggest that

we'd get a better value if we moved to Meridian,

which -- with all due respect to our neighbors to the

west, we didn't want to move to Meridian.

to move to Boise.

We wanted

For -- fortunately, we were able to find

something that worked downtown, but it highlighted

that there really is a scarcity of options.

pretty easy.

And we're

We're two adults and a cat.

If you have children, if you're trying to

have children, if you're living alone, if you're any

sort of other family structure, the number of options

can be very, very limited, and I think that

that's -- that is a problem that will cause people to

choose not to live in -- in Boise, not even to live in

Meridian or Nampa, and sometimes to just leave the

46 1

metro area entirely.

And that can break up families

that have been here for generations and that can

deprive us of needed talent that we need to bring in.

I think that this -- generally, as a -- as

a process, this Zoning Code reform will help to

address that.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Kyle Hillman and then Michael Aberg -- or Aberg and then Walker Grimshaw. KYLE HILLMAN:

Hello.

I'm Kyle Hillman.

I live

at 311 South Pearl Street in Boise, Idaho. I graduated with a master's degree from

Utah State University in 2019.

I landed a wonderful

career opportunity in Boise in 2020.

forward to it because I had heard great things about

Boise -- culture, music, outdoors, basically

everything I was looking for in a city.

I was looking

And just like the last speaker, once we

started looking for a place to live, it did not take

long to realize the scarcity and high cost of housing

in Boise proper.

interviewing for a competitive job offer while

simultaneously trying to win an -- an auction, and

that really is how it felt.

Finding a rental felt like

47 1

It -- we -- we -- we couldn't find one

in -- in Boise.

complex on two of the busiest roads in Ada County,

which is not what I was looking for.

We ended up in a Meridian townhome

I had graduated with a master's degree and

landed a great job here, and I was stuck in a place

that made me unhappy.

value set.

and culture, and feeling stuck in that location

negatively affected my mental health for those two

years.

I didn't -- it didn't match my

I -- I value bikeability, walkability, art

After two significant pay raises and a

significant breakup, I was able to afford my own

rental near downtown Boise.

the pipe dream of home -- homeownership in Boise,

which is pretty sad, considering my good education and

good job.

I've basically given up

I'm an account manager for various

industries between Twin Falls and Payette, managing

their water-treatment programs, and I believe I add

value to those industries that keep people employed in

our area.

believe people will keep moving here.

There is a huge demand for Boise, and I

I believe the current zoning laws are

creating a housing scarcity, which, by the simple

48 1

concept of high demand and low supply, has created an

unaffordable, competitive housing situation in Boise.

Boise is nationally famous for its upside-down

income-to-housing-cost ratio, and the status quo will

drive top talent away from Boise, not bring them in.

I'm also interested in real-estate

investment on a small scale, like a fourplex that I

could buy and live in one unit, but that is incredibly

unapproachable in Boise currently.

It feels like housing scarcity has created

an exclusive, good-ole-boys club for rental ownership

and real-estate investment in this -- in this valley.

Eliminating rent -- land restrictions that make it so

that only single-family-only housing is -- is -- is

the option will also make Boise greener and combat

urban sprawl.

less pollution, less road congestion, and less traffic

accidents.

19 20 21 22 23

Less people being forced to drive means

So if it wasn't clear, I do support revising the Zoning Code in Boise. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Michael Aberg, Walker Grimshaw, and then Erik Kingston.

MICHAEL ABERG:

South Biggs Street.

Thank you.

Hello.

Michael Aberg.

1516

I come -- I come before you to

49 1

add my support to the Modern Zoning Code Rewrite.

You've already heard a lot tonight, and

you're set to hear a lot more throughout the week.

And I would like to start by pointing out the voices

that you actually won't hear throughout this process:

testimony from people who are busy working, previous

Boise residents who have been priced out and pushed

out into the exurbs by the meteoric cost-of-living

increase and -- though I wrote down -- "by and large,

young people," even though we've largely been

testifying so far.

Though I am not the Lorax, and I cannot

claim to speak for them, I think it's important to

consider that everyone who will speak tonight and

tomorrow are people fortunate enough to have time off

work, time to dedicate to looking into the Zoning

Code, and those whose idea of a good time is showing

up for five hours on a Tuesday evening to speak about

City zoning.

My best friend is an excellent example of

this.

a nurse at one of the major hospitals in the region,

and his income puts him at roughly the 80-percent-AMI

bracket.

teachers, janitors, baristas, et cetera -- who are

He can't be here to testify tonight, but he is

These are the people -- like nurses,

50 1

rapidly being pushed out of the city by the

affordability crisis caused by our low-density,

current Zoning Code.

He had dreams of someday buying a property

in Boise, but now he's planning on leaving the state

entirely because he just cannot make up the -- the

cost difference to purchase a property here, and he

has no desire to commute in from the exurbs and join

the traffic in the morning on 84.

That's where this Zoning Code Rewrite can

help.

built, removing some of the arbitrary limits like

parking minimums, frontage requirements, lot sizes, et

cetera, we can hopefully establish a lower rung on the

property-ownership ladder and decrease the barrier to

entry.

By allowing a wider variety of housing to be

For example, when my parents first bought

their property, it was a condominium.

When my oldest

brother was born, they bought a townhouse.

bought a more modest home when my middle brother was

born, and then they bought the house I grew up in.

Many of our neighborhoods are severely

Then they

lacking in this variety of housing, while some of our

most cherished neighborhoods have it peacefully

co-existing within them the whole time.

Drive-up

51 1

Harrison Boulevard, and you'll see a duplex,

cottage-court apartment, and an apartment complex

along one of the most desirable streets in the city.

That's not even to speak of some of the

joy of some of our neighborhood restaurants.

this morning, I had breakfast at Addie's at southeast

Boise village.

Just

And I think about the breakaway success of

The STIL, Push & Pour, and Wyld Child on Latah and

Alpine, destinations within our neighborhoods worth

walking and biking to that can potentially cut down on

inner-neighborhood traffic and build a sense of

community.

more of that kind of local-scale development so that

we don't have to always trek to the North End to get a

taste of urbanism.

I think all of our neighborhoods could use

Something I heard yesterday that resonated

with me is the concept of coming back in a year's time

for a wellness check if this passes.

reminder that this is a process and not an end game.

What is amended can be amended again.

It's a good

But what's clear is that the status quo is

not working and that our best neighborhoods are those

that were established before our current Zoning Code

existed.

52 1 2

Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Walker Grimshaw.

Okay.

Crystal.

6 7

And then Erik Kingston is online,

And then after that, Kelley Tagg. WALKER GRIMSHAW:

Hello.

My name is Walker

Grimshaw, and I live at 917 North 10th Street.

I am

32 years old.

living here as an adult.

support for the Zoning Code update, acknowledging,

also, that it is not perfect.

I grew up in Boise, and I have loved I'm here to express my full

Like most others in this room, I have not

read the 600-page document, but have instead gathered

information mostly from local journalism and tuning

into yesterday's Commission meeting.

limitation on my own knowledge of the Code update,

I'll speak more broadly about the type of city I would

like Boise to become and allow the planners and other

members of the public to speak to individual details.

Because of the

I want a Boise that's affordable,

bikeable, walkable, and sustainable and recognizes

that these are all intertwined.

emphasizes affordability for its residents throughout

the city.

I want a Boise that

This means not only allowing higher-density

53 1

housing and infill development, but also requirements

for affordable housing and new developments.

It is my understanding that the

development of fourplexes will require that two of the

units be rented to low-income residents, and I applaud

the city for this, especially in the face of State

legislation that prohibits inclusionary zoning.

would encourage the City to move further in this

direction with even stronger incentives than those

already in the Code update.

I want a Boise that is bikeable and

walkable, not just in the high-income parts of the

city, but everywhere.

areas allow more people to walk, bike, and hopefully

use public transit to get to work, to school, and to

play in the parks and foothills that we all hold so

dear.

Higher-density and mixed-use

Again, the higher density is only one

piece of the puzzle that needs to be complemented by

more separated bike paths, sidewalks, and bike parking

instead of vehicle parking.

I want a Boise that is environmentally

sustainable.

address -- addressed, in part, by increasing density

and making the city bikeable and walkable.

That encompasses a lot and is

54 1

And I appreciated yesterday's discussion

of how to improve reuse and adaptation of existing

structures, rather than the demolition and rebuilding

we are seeing so much across the city now.

I ask that the City require water-smart

construction and landscaping and incentivize

xeriscaping.

ever drier, but you wouldn't know it from the green

lawns throughout the Treasure Valley.

We live in the arid west that is growing

Lastly, I was happy to hear yesterday that

the City plans to revisit the Code a year after it is

adopted to fix some of its imperfections and continue

to improve the Code for the benefit of all residents.

Acknowledging the time and effort it has

taken to develop this Code -- this Code Rewrite, I

would encourage the City to put policies in place to

update the Zoning Code on a regular basis so we

continue to design and adapt for the future we want to

see instead of going another 60 years working with

outdated ordinances.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Staff, he's online.

Okay.

Thank you.

Erik Kingston.

And then Kelley Tagg and then

55 1

Daniel Malarkey.

ERIK KINGSTON:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Hello.

ERIK KINGSTON:

6 7

Okay.

Is this thing on?

Yeah, we can hear you.

Fantastic.

My name's Erik Kingston.

I live at 1010

East Jefferson in the East End.

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, thank

you -- and the planning staff -- for your dedication

and thoughtful engagement.

lift, and it's really -- it's long overdue.

say the current restrictive density limits are

depriving me and others of the benefits of living in a

diverse and welcoming community.

this -- that's why we need to adopt this Modern Zoning

Code that gives us more flexibility.

This has been a heavy I would

So I think

I recommend adopting it without delay.

It's not perfect, but let's test drive it, see how it

handles.

Edsel we've been driving.

I think it's going to be better than the

I'm a long-time East End resident, but

EENA's testimony yesterday did not reflect my views.

My perspective reflects a quarter-century of running a

statewide housing hotline and helping individuals in

communities adapt -- anticipate and adapt to change.

56 1

I look at housing as it effects community health and

stability, economic opportunity, land use, and fair

housing.

Second Language," at the Northwest Community

Development Institute.

I also teach a class I call "Housing is a

Here are a few things I've learned along

the way.

Housing is where jobs go to sleep at night.

These jobs are held by the people we rely on every

day, but whose voices aren't represented in public

hearings.

community they serve.

Here's how we make them feel welcome in the

First, raise wages indefinitely to

subsidize real-estate speculation, exclusionary

zoning, and housing monopolies.

This fuels inflation.

Two, raise taxes to subsidize employer

profits and consumer costs through vouchers and other

resources to keep rents low.

Three, distribute housing diversity and

density throughout all neighborhoods to increase the

return on land, labor, infrastructure, and resources.

And four, support creative, local housing

developers that are accountable to our community and

keep tenant wages and incomes circulating in our

economy.

25 26

When neighbors consistently reject density

57 1

and diversity -- which is one way to expand housing

choices -- that means big landlords can push rents up

and tenants out.

celebrated a housing shortage that lets them keep

rents high.

"continuing development will increase the supply of

housing and competition for

residents" -- [unintelligible] -- "great for their

bottom line."

In their SEC filing Invitation Homes

They also warned their shareholders that

Small developers operate on slim margins

and can't overcome NIMBY-driven delays and costs.

This lets big, out-of-state developers with more

capacity and lawyers to dominate our housing market.

We need folks like my neighbor, Gregg

Ostrow, who enjoys the challenge of solving wicked

design puzzles.

of any developer building in Boise.

them to think that we suffer from premature

capitulation.

We should demand that same creativity We don't want

Finally, Fair Housing law requires Boise

to take meaningful actions to address various fair

housing choices like exclusionary zoning.

zoning restricts diverse housing types,

disproportionately impacts marginalized communities,

and perpetuates economic segregation.

Current

58 1 2

The most significant impacts involve children.

THE CLERK:

Time.

ERIK KINGSTON:

It's in all our interests to

have kids grow up in stable homes in mixed-income

areas of opportunity.

kids have higher rates of upward mobility as adults,

leading to lifetime benefits such as increased

earnings, better health outcomes, and lower rates of

incarceration, and that's a win for all of us.

11 12

The research is clear.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you, Mr. -- thank you,

Mr. Kingston.

That's your time.

We appreciate it.

Up next, Kelley Tagg.

Okay.

17 18 19 20 21

next.

Staff, I see Daniel Malarkey is

I think he's online. And then Christian Moore, Gregg Ostrow,

and Ben Burnham. DANIEL MALARKEY:

Very good.

Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We can, yes.

24 25 26

These

DANIEL MALARKEY:

Hi there.

Excellent.

Yes.

My name is Daniel Malarkey.

I live on the

59 1

Depot Bench at 3416 Meadow Drive.

been a member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee.

am part of Neighbors For Boise as well.

senior fellow at the Sightline Institute, which is a

regional think tank providing analysis on housing,

economic, and environmental policy in the Pacific

Northwest.

I'm proud to have I

I'm also a

And I want to begin by thanking Tim,

Andrea, and, really, the entire staff for all the work

they have done over the last three years, engaging,

you know, on -- on -- on what is a -- what is an often

complex issue and -- and really doing so with a real

regard for all the voices that are -- are part of our

community here in Boise.

I think that the main point that I want to

make is that I am -- I support the -- the Modern

Zoning Code and encourage you to recommend it to the

Council.

And that is -- even though there are some

things, you know, I -- I am in the school that

wishes -- wishes it went further.

modest, incremental reform.

direction.

some of the prior speakers, that, you know, I would

like it better if there were no parking requirements.

I would say it is a

It's a step in the right

But I think, as you've already heard from

60 1

And I would prefer that we -- you know, that the

minimum lot sizes were even less, as they are

in -- in -- in other cities.

So I think -- it's important for, I think,

the -- for you all to know that this is a -- a modest

step.

between a pure NIMBY, like, "Let's not change

anything," and what, I would say, would be the most

aggressive kind of abundant-housing policies that one

might take and -- where -- we can find examples in

other cities where they have -- have -- have decided

to go further.

I think it sort of splits the difference

And so I -- but I think it's worth

passing.

supply of housing of all types for our city.

that would be a great change.

I think it will absolutely help increase the I think

I have some concerns it won't -- we'll end

up wanting to remove some of the -- the constraints

that are -- that remain in the existing Code, but

knowing that we'll have a chance to revisit that in a

year and really look at, you know, "How much

productivity have we gotten out of the" -- "these

changes," and, "Do we need to further, you know,

remove the constraints that we're" -- "that

are" -- "are still embedded in the system?"

61 1

But I thank you for your time and support

and -- and -- and careful consideration of -- of this

proposal and hope you will recommend it to Council.

Thank you very, very much.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Christian Moore.

Gregg Ostrow.

Ben Burnham and then Gary Zimmerman.

BEN BURNHAM:

Fairmont Street, Boise.

Hey.

I'm Ben Burnham.

4305 West

Also, I'm a new Planning Commission

podcast fan, so thanks for doing that.

learn a lot.

learned a lot from it, so thanks for doing it.

I am not a planning person, but I've

So I'll start by -- just a little bit of

who I am.

have stated.

also on my neighborhood association.

I truly do

I'm also in my 30s, as some other folks I live in the Central Bench, and I'm

And then for work I supervise custodians

all the way up to entry-level professionals, generally

folks that are not from the Treasure Valley, and

that's just due to a lack of folks that have been

qualified here.

they apply to the testimony that I'd like to give

today in support of the Modern Zoning Code.

And so I say those things because

62 1

The first aspect of this is -- that I'd

like to support is earlier neighborhood participation

and faster project approval.

neighborhood association, I've been to several

neighborhood meetings.

anyone that enjoys like a chill evening.

So being on my

I would not recommend that to

And so part of that that I like, with the

change, is that it would be -- we'd move that up in

the process so that the neighborhood could come along

and be heard and so that, ideally, they're bought in

as we welcome new neighbors to our neighborhoods.

A lot of times, these projects are coming

to us at a time where they're basically settled or

they appear to be settled, and that's really difficult

for people who've lived in those neighborhoods for a

long period of time.

better direction, as the City's mentioned in several

of their prior planning meetings, would be a

great -- a great step forward.

And so I think that, along with

But I also agree to what Tim stated

earlier that every single project does not need to be

a battle, and that's kind of how it's being treated

right now, and it's really, really difficult to go

through those.

25 26

At my first neighborhood-association

63 1

meeting, there was anti-immigrant sentiment given

about a possible affordable-housing project.

learned it was a market-rate project, which meant it

was too expensive, and it was gentrification.

that to say that a lot of the folks opposing it are

just using whatever the particular thing is at these

neighborhood meetings to oppose it without actually,

necessarily putting the thought into why.

change.

Then we

So all

It's

The next thing is that I supervise

low-wage workers, and these are full-time people.

so, again, some folks that I've mentioned having to

move to the suburbs and exurbs -- that is exactly

what's happening.

full-time.

These are the folks who allow the place that I work at

to operate.

And

My folks start at $15 an hour,

They cannot afford to live in Boise.

That's not cool. And then we also have young professionals.

These are folks with master's degrees, not that

education means anything in that regard, but they also

cannot afford to purchase a house in Boise.

really struggle to live somewhere bikeable, walkable,

which, again, a lot of folks have noted, is what a lot

of folks in our generation are looking for.

25 26

And they

The other item is my housing journey, and

64 1

this will probably be my last point.

fortunate to buy a house in the Central Bench area

right before everything went real bad in 2019.

because of that -- I did not grow up wanting to live

the suburban, single-family-home lifestyle.

options to purchase anything within walking/biking

distance from work and downtown.

But I was

And

I had no

And that's what, I think, this will do the

best of, is provide folks like me, other people that

are in kind of their starting stage of life --

THE CLERK:

BEN BURNHAM:

Time. -- and make that available to

them.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

16 17

Thank you.

Gary Zimmerman and then Ethan Mansfield, Grant Burgoyne, and Jay Rasgorshek -- Rasgorshek.

GARY ZIMMERMAN:

believe I have some slides.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

GARY ZIMMERMAN:

I believe I have some -- I

Thank you.

And just use the arrows on this?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

GARY ZIMMERMAN:

25 26

Okay.

Yep.

Okay.

Mm-hmm. Well, thank you so much

for taking the time to hear everybody today and all

65 1

the hours you're going to be putting into this and

allowing me to testify.

3 4

My name is Gary Zimmerman. Plum Street.

I live at 4375

That's in the up-zone.

Although the Zoning Code Rewrite claims

its purpose is to protect the character of residential

areas, a study of the over-600-page document clearly

shows that the permitted uses will destroy that

character in those areas, along with one's quiet

enjoyment of their own property.

double whammy of up-zoning, plus further zoning

permissiveness impacting thousands of owners and their

neighbors.

The new Code deals a

I know we heard that wasn't a dramatic

change, but for those in that up-zone, it's an

extremely dramatic change.

could be subdivided into tiny, 2,500-square-foot lots

with 40-foot-high buildings next to your

single-family, single-story home, or perhaps a

neighborhood cafe serving alcohol next to your

children, or possibly a boardinghouse, food truck, or

even a prison-release halfway house.

Now your up-zone neighbors

And if a CUP is required, the new laws

allow the City to just say, "It's for a greater public

benefit," to get approval.

The new Code rationalizes

66 1

this up-zoning if it's within an eighth mile of a

City-defined best-in-class transit route, but this is,

of course, an arbitrary -- an arbitrary definition.

The City's decision on what properties are

included in the up-zone is inconsistent and apparently

ad hoc.

the right.

This can be clearly seen in the picture on

For example, in the area of State and

Alamosa, where -- on the southwest side of State,

there are numerous R-1 properties within the blue,

one-eighth-mile zone, but just one is a purple,

up-zone property, while on the northeast side of

State, there are three properties that are starred

there that are included, but only partially are -- in

that eighth-mile zone, and then numerous properties

that are fully within it, but aren't up-zoned.

The City rationalizes this by saying they

were following streets, but that seems a little

misleading, as it wasn't done on the other side.

While the entire R-1-to-R-2 up-zone should be shelved,

at a minimum, the three starred properties should be

removed from it.

Certainly, numerous other up-zoned owners

and their neighbors are not aware of these potential,

negative impacts to their properties and neighborhood.

67 1

After all, how could they be, as the City has

obfuscated these impacts by creating an over-600-page

document and refusing to create a difference document?

And while the City extols the quantity of

public outreach, it really only has consisted of

scripted-interaction sessions and marketing and trash

bills and the like.

Why didn't the City specifically reach out to property

owners and neighbors who would be directly impacted by

the up-zone?

Why the lack of transparency?

THE CLERK:

GARY ZIMMERMAN:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Folks.

Thank you.

Ethan Mansfield, Grant Burgoyne, and then

Time. Thank you. Thank you.

Folks, please.

Please.

Jay Rasgorshek.

Okay.

Rob Tiedemann.

GRANT BURGOYNE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

GRANT BURGOYNE:

Grant Burgoyne? Yep, please.

Good morning [sic],

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission.

Grant Burgoyne.

My name is

I reside at 2203 Mountain View Drive.

I want to thank you for this opportunity

to provide you with my thoughts about this proposed

68 1 2

Zoning Code. First of all, I want to say that, you

know, I have concerns about the Code, but I also agree

with many of the comments that were made so far by

people who support it.

And one of the things you, I think, have

to do is decide -- and I think the Council,

eventually, will have to decide how much work you want

to do to get it right versus just kind of weighing it

and saying, "Well, maybe it's 51 percent what I want,

so we'll just do it."

What happens with legislation is -- as

with the last Zoning Code, which has been effect -- in

effect for some 60 years, is it'll get passed, and

it'll last for 60 years.

take the time to get the Code right.

So it's really important to

And all of the comments -- whether people

are for or against this Code, all of the comments

should be carefully weighed in terms of getting the

Code right and getting it as right as we can now.

We're human.

right -- everybody recognizes that -- but -- but we

can do -- we can do somewhat better, I think.

24 25 26

We aren't going to get it 100-percent

So here are my major concerns.

The

proposed Code strips away notice and due-process

69 1

rights on the Type 1 and Type 2s that were carefully

strengthened over many years by past City Councils to

protect Boiseans.

I think that's a mistake.

I think there's

some things called Idaho values and Boise values, and

among those are, "You tell your neighbors what's going

on."

property, you walk next door and you knock on the door

and you say, "You know, I'm thinking of doing this.

What do you think?"

this town with each other, and that's the way the City

should do business with its citizens.

If you're going to do something to your

That's the way we do business in

Density increases must be carefully

planned and calculated with maximum City and

neighborhood involvement to ensure that they are in

balance with quality-of-life issues.

What works on State Street won't

necessarily work on Fairview, won't necessarily work

on Vista, or elsewhere.

involved with these decisions.

It's difficult.

always will be.

The community has to be

It's hard.

It's time-consuming.

It always has been.

The proposed Code is not an environmental

document in itself, though I agree it's not

inconsistent with other environmentally-specific

70 1

policies and actions.

transportation -- absolutely critical, absolutely

important.

The idea of shifting how we do

But we have to recognize that, if this is

going to take 60 years, that's too long.

awful lot we have to do in transportation that goes

beyond what we're talking about in this Code, and

we've got to do it tomorrow, not 10 years from now.

We can't just sit back --

THE CLERK:

GRANT BURGOYNE:

There's an

Time. -- and wait for development to

solve the problem.

So I have a few other thoughts.

of time, but those were the things that I thought were

important to get across, is that this is a difficult

project that's got a lot of issues.

think we should be afraid to step back and say, "Let's

rethink."

be done at this level.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Jay Rasgorshek.

Okay.

Rob Tiedemann.

What's that?

25 26

I'm out

And I -- I don't

That's been done at other levels.

It can

Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Rob Tiedemann.

[Unintelligible].

71 1 2 3 4 5

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

[Unintelligible].

And then Hannah Tew and then Alexis Pick -- Pickering. ROB TIEDEMANN:

Good evening.

My name is Rob Tiedemann.

I live and

work -- and work at 217 North Walnut Street in

beautiful Boise, Idaho.

Last night there was much discussion about

parking, housing densities, building heights, and

participation in the public process.

wish to speak for the trees.

This evening, I

Because you have read testimony provided

by the public, I know you have seen my two letters

related to the Draft City of Boise Zoning Code Rewrite

dated March 31st and June 22nd, 2022.

testimony, I took you deep into the weeds of the

intent, purpose, and language of the Boise River

System Ordinance.

and give you perspective.

With that

Tonight, I wish to take a step back

I am a restoration ecologist.

My work is

largely to put back together the broken pieces and

parts of natural landscapes, especially rivers and

their floodplains.

authors of the Boise River System Ordinance, written

over a period of 18 months and passed as ordinance in

I'm also one of the principle

72 1

1993.

It is a durable document that remains useful to

present time.

The people of Boise like Nicky Paulson

[phonetic] from the League of Women Voters, Barbara

Sparrow [phonetic] from the Southeast Neighborhood

Association, and Carl Gemhard [phonetic], a civil

engineer, advocated for passage of the Ordinance at

public hearings at that time.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, touted by then

Mayor Dirk Kempthorne.

It was praised by the

And because of its requirement for a

200-foot setback from the water line of the river at a

flow of 6,500 cubic feet per second, it's largely

responsible for the corridor's space at Spring Meadow

Phase 1 and 2 and Wood Duck Island subdivisions in the

Harris Ranch community.

My purpose in speaking with you tonight is

to ask you to ensure that the intent, purpose, and

language of the ordinance is faith -- faithfully

transposed into the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite.

is perhaps best done by referencing the original

ordinance in the new and requiring it to be followed,

with the amendments mentioned in my two letters of

testimony, to make it current and part of the Modern

Zoning Code for the City of Boise.

This

73 1

I am available at your convenience to

answer questions related to the intent of the original

ordinance and eager to answer technical -- technical

questions related to public health and safety and the

ecology of the river.

6 7

Thank you for your service. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Up next, Hannah Tew and then Alexis

Pickering followed by John Segar and then Grant

Walden.

11 12 13

HANNAH TEW:

Hi.

My name's Hannah Tew.

And thank you for all the work that's been done and for the chance to speak to all of you.

I know that some people may feel like I'm

too young to be up here because I don't own a home, so

this doesn't really affect me.

strongly the need to -- to come up here and talk about

how this really does affect the young people in the

area and those who are going to be the future.

It's true.

And I feel really

I don't own a house.

I do

live -- I forgot to mention my address -- at 333 South

Elm Street in Boise, so in the East End technically.

And I can't own a house because it's really, really,

really -- really unaffordable to live here.

25 26

I work with refugees, and I -- if any of

74 1

you are familiar with what's going on in our city,

housing for affordable -- affordability is incredibly

hard.

family helped our soldiers in Afghanistan, and she

helped the military there, and her family worked as

interpreters there.

I worked with a woman recently, who -- her

And as -- she sat across the table crying

about the fact that they were never going to be able

to afford to live in this area that -- they had family

move here years before, and now they moved here this

year.

She said, "Why can't anyone do something about

this?"

This is an opportunity now to do something

about it.

It is not realistic for many people to

live in this area, despite the great things that make

this place home for many of those people.

you're like, "Well, immigrants shouldn't be coming

here anyways, so it doesn't matter.

their family served in Afghanistan in this way.

just don't want those people in my backyard."

And maybe

I don't care that I

Well, I have a friend who -- born and

raised here in Boise, who recently moved because,

despite the fact that she can afford rent here,

she -- she can afford rent, but she knows she'll never

be able to buy a house here.

75 1

So she said, "Why would I start my family

in the city of Boise?

who's engaged and getting married, why would I start

my life here, when I could move to somewhere that

values how affordable it is and makes it possible for

me to raise a family in a space that I can afford to

do so without driving 30, 40 minutes for me to get to

work?"

9 10

As a young graduate, as someone

I just want to close with saying that I'm in full support of this.

Policy is not perfect.

And I love the cute homes that I wish I

could afford to live in in the East End.

great and so wonderful.

read the -- the policy in the 600-page document, that

I am correct in -- in seeing that there is opportunity

for people to be involved in all stages of this

process.

They are so

And I hope that -- when I

I love those areas, but I love the people

that I get to work with more.

important than the houses that I think are cute, that

I know are people's property and their livelihood and

they love it.

do something for the people who actually live here.

But I think it's more important that we

Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Those people are more

Woo.

76 1

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Woah.

Thank you.

Okay.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Don't do that.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Dinner time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Not till 7:00. Oh, shoot.

You get dinner at 7:00, Milt. I'm --

Do you want to take a quick

break?

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

No.

Okay. No.

All right. Keep going --

Okay. -- slave driver.

Just -- all right.

I know you're hungry.

All right.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

24 25 26

the opposite. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

It's not that.

It's

77 1

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

And now we know.

And now -- yeah.

That's a

little bit more than we needed to know right there.

6 7

[Unintelligible].

All right.

We've got Alexis Pickering

online.

ALEXIS PICKERING:

Hi, everyone.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Hi there.

ALEXIS PICKERING:

Good evening, Mr. Chair and

Commissioners.

I'm Alexis Pickering.

West Bayhill Street in Boise.

I live at 7772

It's also bedtime for my 11-month-old, so

you might hear him in the background, so apologies in

advance.

But I wanted to say, "Thank you for your

dedication and commitment to this process and the

opportunity to testify."

Commissioners, I see how Boise's existing Zoning Code

impacts the work that ACHD does and our shared vision

of making sure that Boise is a walkable, livable place

for all of our residents.

As one of your proud ACHD

And as a Boisean who cares deeply about my

neighbors and the future livability of Boise for my

little guy, I urge you guys to support the Zoning Code

78 1

Rewrite.

We face an enormous housing crisis, and the

people of the city past did work to [unintelligible]

it.

And the one thing in particular that I

wanted to talk about is the --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Sorry.

ALEXIS PICKERING:

-- [unintelligible] --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Alexis, sorry.

We've lost

you there.

Can you --

ALEXIS PICKERING:

Okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

There we go.

ALEXIS PICKERING:

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

So I just want to say -- one example of

the common-sense solution of the Zoning Rewrite is the

pre-application meeting and just how necessary that is

for all of these -- sorry, guys.

Hold on one second.

20 21

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We've got hungry seniors, and

we've got --

ALEXIS PICKERING:

[Unintelligible].

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

-- [unintelligible] -- tired

24 25 26

babies. ALEXIS PICKERING:

And now everyone's being held

79 1

up by this guy.

Sorry, guys.

I just want to say that that

pre-application meeting is way overdue.

seen complications with -- [unintelligible] -- ACHD

staff and the City and developers getting caught in

the cross hairs, and we're not all on the same page.

And just that one solution will make so

It -- we've

many things easier and reduce cost and complexity that

we're seeing in the existing Zoning Rewrite.

hope you support it for a lot of different reasons,

but just that one, in and of itself, is a really big

deal.

So thank you, all.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

All right.

Okay.

Segar. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Up next, John Segar -- or

So I

[Unintelligible].

Okay.

And then Grant Walden,

Jana Wickham, and Benjamin Donovan Chafetz -- Chafetz. JOHN SEGAR:

Hi.

My name's -- my name's John

Segar.

long-term -- long-time resident of Boise -- lived here

over 22 years now -- and I'm coming out in support of

this plan.

I live at 3109 South Crossfield Way.

I'm a

80 1 2

I've cut out a bunch of what I'd say because everybody's had great comments.

I think the important part, for me, is

that this has been a great process for people.

Everybody who's had -- who wanted to come and -- has

had ample opportunity to comment in here.

have been rolling in.

Comments

Zoning, by definition, is tradeoffs, and

there's tons of tradeoffs here.

of this -- of these -- this plan is happy -- is

totally happy with it.

Everybody made compromises, and I appreciate all the

hard work that went into that.

kind of, to me, what Boise is all about.

Nobody on either side

Nobody got what they want.

And that is truly,

I guess the -- the message that I want to

leave you with is that I've been here for over

20 years.

I am not happy with where we are right now like most

people aren't, and we're there, in large part, because

of our zoning process that's broken and needs to be

fixed.

I've seen how broken our zoning system is.

I'm a retired firefighter.

The way I kind

of think about this is -- I've had lots of

opportunities in my career where I look up and I see a

big problem, a fire, and say, "How in the world are we

81 1

going to deal with that?"

Well, the process we do is very simple.

You come up with a plan.

perfect plan, but it has to be a plan.

up with it, you get input, you put together a plan,

and then you go do it because if you try to get to a

perfect plan, you're just sitting there, looking up at

the fire, watching it get bigger and bigger and

bigger.

and you never get it done.

It doesn't have to be a

The problems keep getting bigger and bigger,

You guys are really close now.

perfect, but this is a great plan.

forward.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

16 17

20 21 22

It's not

I hope you move it

Thank you.

Grant Walden and then Jana or Jana Wickham.

18 19

And you come

Benjamin Donovan Chafetz and then Janet Burke. GRANT WALDEN:

Grant Walden.

Mountain View Drive in Boise.

3310 North

I moved here in 1989.

The phrase you hear when you move to Boise

is, "Don't change Idaho; have Idaho change you."

approved, this rezone of Boise will permanently change

Idaho and Boise.

82 1

Boise has approximately 235,000 residents

and 100 [sic] residential units.

With this zoning

change, these numbers will go up.

Is that a good

thing?

I don't know. Do we need to keep up with the other

cities in Idaho?

to do.

It seems like that's what they want

I live in a mature, built-out neighborhood

in west Boise.

quarters to a lot.

this Code, allowing 25-foot-wide lots that will change

neighborhoods forever.

could go from one unit to four.

It's one thing to add a mother-in-law It's a way different thing with

With this new zoning, one lot

In my neighborhood -- I don't think

there's enough utilities of water, sewer, electricity,

internet available in these older neighborhoods to

support these things.

quality of life and every neighbor -- worse.

These changes will make my

With this new density, with the rezone,

City services like police, fire, parks are only going

to go up, and that's going to make my taxes go up for

me and my neighbors with, really, no benefit.

Another thing, when -- with this rezone is

you're going to be creating neighborhood strife by

pitting neighborhood -- neighbor against neighbor,

83 1

punishing those who created a nice city by jamming

small homes next to large lots, creating disharmony.

That is not what Boise is.

We like quiet, beautiful, safe, tree-lined

neighborhoods, especially those on the Bench, south

Boise, and northwest Boise.

protects the North End and will ruin a lot of other

beautiful neighborhoods.

This Ordinance really

Atlanta is a failed city.

Let's not turn

Boise into Atlanta.

I ask that you vote to deny this

rezone and leave -- leave Boise like it is.

don't change Boise; have Boise change you.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

15 16 17

Okay.

Remember,

Thank you.

Jana Wickham, Benjamin Donovan Chafetz, Janet Burke, and Kathy Corless. JANA WICKHAM:

Hi.

My name is Jana Wickham.

live on Prince Street in northwest Boise.

native Idahoan.

in Boise.

I am a retired realtor from Carmel and Pebble Beach in

California.

I am a

I was born in Twin Falls and grew up

I graduated from Borah High School in 1966.

I am now retired in my hometown of Boise. I oppose the rezoning of Boise for the

following reasons.

Idaho residents consider purchasing property in Ada

Number 1, it's illegal.

When

84 1

County, they consider and rely on the general plan of

zoning codes in place at the time.

between the homeowner and Boise City Council.

unilaterally change a contract between two parties is

illegal in standard law.

Loss of capital.

It is a contract To

When vacant land zoned

residential is suddenly rezoned to commercial or high

density, a loss occurs to the surrounding

neighborhoods, lower appreciation and value of their

property, higher-density traffic, higher noise volume,

loss of neighborhood quiet.

And in the rezoning there is no

representation for the residents who oppose the rezone

at the time.

hearing or vote.

There is no requirement for a public

There are remedies.

I propose that a vote

should be required to be taken from the homeowners

within a radius of 10 miles around the property for

every proposed rezone or a general vote required from

the public.

21 22 23

Anyway.

I appreciate all the effort

you've put into this, but I oppose the new rezoning. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

Benjamin Donovan Chafetz.

Okay.

Janet Burke and Kathy Corless and

85 1 2 3

then Jackie Davidson. JANET BURKE:

My name's Janet.

713 West

Elwood Drive.

4 5

Hi.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify against the Modern Zoning Code.

I'm here today as an Idahoan for over

30 years, representing myself and my husband, who was

born and raised an Idahoan.

Enders for the last 17 years, up until the last three

years or so.

We've been content East

We've witnessed our city in serious

decline, fighting to keep Boise Boise, locking the

city down, making people wear masks, ruining the

morale and stigma of our police officers, and now this

one last attempt to try to control the people of Boise

by changing the Planning and Zoning Code that has

worked for decades.

If this was such a good plan for the

people, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops, but

instead you decide to try to slide it through without

clarity.

611-page Modern Zoning Code manual that AI may have

copied or created for you.

colors of dystopia.

or environment that Boise has to offer.

I wonder if you really even understand the

We've seen your true

That doesn't match the character

86 1

Understand our position because we

certainly understand yours.

spending the -- the City's money on frivolous BS and

start spending money on what really matters, the heart

of Boise.

necessity to change the current Code.

We would like you to stop

You need to prove to the people the dire

Justify the stats of people dying to move

to Boise with no place to live.

people shoving their way in with no place to live.

Maybe you can't do that because people can't afford to

move here because of the debt-to-income ratio.

Show me forecasts of

The Modern Zoning Code is not the solution

for Boise's homeless or the people in poverty

desperately looking for housing.

solution, your corporate investors and developers

would already be housing them as we speak.

all down and start with the basics.

those in need.

And if this was a

Tear it

Take care of

It's a safe assumption to go the easier

route and follow humble, original Boiseans.

noble and prosperous thing the City of Trees once had,

community and unity.

Boise can go on being free -- at liberty to make

choices for themselves.

Thank you.

Do the

Admit your self-preservation so

Remember your oath.

87 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Folks.

Okay.

Thank you.

Folks, we've got to -- we've got

to stop the clapping, please; okay?

Thank you.

Kathy Corless.

Okay.

Jackie -- Jackie Davidson.

Okay.

Roger Baumchen -- Baumchen.

Okay.

And then Kristen Baumchen, Janel

Holt, and Trisa Vincent.

ROGER BAUMCHEN:

a retired building official.

Nampa for 17 years, so I'm pretty familiar with codes.

I was checking you guys out on this thing.

My name is Roger Baumchen.

I'm

I worked for the City of

What we did is we moved here six years

ago, retired from -- from there, and -- and we moved

to the East End at 224 North Hot Springs Drive.

we're just off of Warm Springs there by the M & W

Market.

We have a lot of things that people want,

where we live.

single-family dwelling.

single-family dwellings.

It's a -- it's a wonderful, All our neighbors are

We can walk to the market, we -- easy to

walk around -- down to the Greenbelt, to the golf

course.

I can go into the park, to -- to the

88 1

Botanical Garden, ride our bikes into town.

lovely place, and I feel like it's a great place to

be, and we're really happy to be here.

It's a

But I was looking at the -- the zoning,

and I see it's -- I feel like it's being -- it's

targeting the R-1C, and that's what our subdivision

is.

lots already of all -- you know, from the R-1A, R-1B,

R-1C -- and we really -- really, it's tough to think

that -- as close as we are to our neighbors now, that

we could be diminished and subdivided.

The R-1C has a -- you know, it has the smallest

At the moment, you know, the R-1As, you

know, they're the wealthier, bigger lots.

They -- they get -- they get 20,000 square foot as a

minimum lot.

get 3,500, according -- the last time I saw the

changes that are going to be made.

three -- that's -- that's pretty small.

RB -- 1Bs [sic] get 9,000.

The R-1Cs

So that's

And also, what they've done is they've

raised the maximum height.

single-story home, and I remodeled it and -- and

then -- and added on.

everyone in -- on my block is a one-story house.

they -- and most houses are -- are -- on our blocks,

are about 16 to 18 feet to the height of our -- so we

Now, we have a

I kept it at one-story because And

89 1

have neighbors -- all very copacetic.

So the new Code says that, in R-1C, we

could have three-story buildings 40 feet high.

that means old Joe [phonetic], who lives next to

me -- he's 92 years old -- when he dies, he could sell

it to a -- to an investor or a developer.

use the incentive clauses and put in a couple

fourplexes that are 40 feet tall right next to -- in

our backyard, where we have -- we have a hot tub, we

have a nice place -- patio to enjoy our evenings

and lifestyle that we have.

They could

So I feel like, even though you guys have

some really good ideas with developing maybe new areas

and making it -- finding affordable housing for people

and all that -- to come into an existing neighborhood,

where we've been there for 75 years, and to --

THE CLERK:

Time.

ROGER BAUMCHEN:

We haven't been there 75 years.

The neighborhood has been -- and has enjoyed that

zoning, that -- to suddenly change it, it's a bit

harsh.

is -- maybe we could exempt some neighborhoods.

And so what we'd really like to see

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ROGER BAUMCHEN:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Maybe the East End could be -I'm sorry.

You're over your

90 1

time.

ROGER BAUMCHEN:

That would be great.

Thanks.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

KRISTEN BAUMCHEN:

Hello.

My name is Kristen

Baumchen, and I live at 224 Hot Springs Drive.

And I want to thank you for your service

and for your time here this evening, listening to all

of us.

Yeah.

I live in a newer East End

neighborhood, which is 75 years old.

Our lots are

small, the neighborhood is full, and the streets are

lined with parked cars every night.

I understand that Planning and Zoning has

devoted much time to this rezone process, but I admit

I did not hear about it until I received an insert in

our power bill, which referenced this upcoming rezone.

The photos in the insert were lovely.

was open space, two little girls playing in the park,

cute, little cottages.

The zone change would easily allow a five-unit,

40-foot-tall complex in our old neighborhood, with

less than half the necessary parking.

cars.

parking isn't there.

And then I learned this:

We all have

We're not giving them up just because the

91 1

Your website, Planning and Zoning, says

this "Modern Code will protect the character of our

unique neighborhoods and create opportunities for

small businesses, pathways and homes at Boise

prices" -- I don't know what that means -- "across our

city" so that "our kids can return home to start their

lives in" places "they grew up."

But this rezone proposal smacks with

pro-development for the benefit of developers and

investors.

neighborhoods, and our kids can return only if they

are willing to be long-term renters in some multiplex

owned by who-knows-who.

It does not benefit our unique

Our neighborhood associations are not in

favor of the rezone in its current form.

being asked if our associations weren't supporting

the -- the proposals with these rewrites?

Who was

The Mayor has recently appointed two City

Council members.

of Boise.

elected members should have the power to determine the

people's fate, and changing the face of our old and

established neighborhoods is affecting our fate.

drastic zone change that has the potential to create

such upheaval should be decided by the people or at

These were not elected by the people

This is not citizen representation.

Only

This

92 1

least the representatives of the people.

These rezones would be lovely in new areas

developed in Boise.

There are some great ideas in

making the neighborhoods walker-and-bike-friendly with

shops close by, but shoving multi-unit giants into old

and established, single-family neighborhoods just

sounds bad.

So many neighborhoods in the Bench are

excellent examples of what this rezone will create:

lovely, old homes in between giant, gray boxes

providing a place for 20 or so people who are paying

uncontrolled rent to somebody.

parking.

14 15

I am opposed to the rezone, as it affects these established neighborhoods.

16 17

Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

18 19 20

At least they have

Thank you.

Janel Holt, Trisa Vincent, and then Scott Pietsch. JANEL HOLT:

Pietsch.

Good evening.

Thank you for your public service and for

taking our comments this evening.

My name is Janel Holt.

25 26

I live at 616

North Bacon Drive, and I'm an Idaho native.

I would

93 1

like to address the issue of affordable housing.

The up-zone has been highly marketed as a

solution to the affordable-housing crisis in Boise.

Promoting it in this way is, at best, naive and, at

worst, just plain false.

majority, 77 percent, of residents in need of

affordable housing are those who earn 80 percent of

the median income for Boiseans.

Statistics show that the

The up-zone will not result in affordable

housing for this group.

R-1C, will only provide a small number of dwellings

for those making 120 percent of Boise's median income.

A 240-foot[sic] studio in my R-1C neighborhood rents

for $1,100 a month.

There is no way that new development will be

affordable to those who need it in a neighborhood like

mine.

The largest-targeted group,

That's 240 square feet, $1,100.

Pitching the up-zone as a solution to

affordable -- affordable housing is nothing more than

marketing spin.

will not address the deeper issues that

have -- creating -- that -- that have created this

housing crisis here and elsewhere in the country and

the world.

25 26

Making changes to a Code anywhere

If high-density housing resulted in

94 1

affordable -- affordability, apartments in Boise would

now be affordable, and we all know they are not.

construction is naturally more expensive to rent than

existing apartments, yet another reason that this plan

will not result in affordable places for people to

live.

New

The up-zone creates losers based on home

address.

and developers who have no connection to the

neighborhoods they exploit.

The big winners are the absentee investors

I ask you to save Boise's established

neighborhoods and reject this up-zone, especially in

light of the fact that our City Council does not

democratically represent Boise citizens.

15 16

Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

17 18 19 20

Trisa Vincent, Scott Pietsch, and then Erin Pietsch and then Mike McNamara. TRISA VINCENT: Vincent.

21 22 23

Thank you.

Hello.

My name is Trisa

I live on 1116 East Hays. I want to thank you for letting me speak

tonight. I am against the proposed Zoning Code

Rewrite for a number of reasons.

an issue, congestion, and also the undemocratic

Parking is already

95 1

process that is being used to make this change.

the one I wanted -- the one I want to talk about today

is the negative impact this up-zoning will have on our

tree canopy and open, green spaces in our

neighborhoods.

But

Our trees for which the city is named

absorb CO2, provide natural habitat for many animals,

and mitigate climate stress.

hotter and hotter summer temperatures, and we need our

established, large trees to combat extreme

temperatures and add to community health.

We're experiencing

The new Code, which, I believe, requires

two saplings to be planted per development, will not

compare to the impact that an established, 50-year-old

tree would have on our environment.

What are the guidelines as to how many

trees and which trees could be removed in this

process?

temperature, lower -- lower -- and lower diversity in

habitat due to the loss of trees.

This development and growth will raise the

This short-sighted land -- land grab, most

likely perpetrated by out-of-state investors,

prioritizes profit over people and growth and

development over quality of life for not only this

generation, but also our children's and

96 1

grandchildren's.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

break.

Thank you.

We're getting close to our dinner

We're going to do Scott Pietsch and then --

MELISSA McNAMARA:

They're not here.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Not here.

Sorry.

MELISSA McNAMARA:

Okay.

Who are you? Well, somehow Michael

[phonetic] McNamara's name got on here, but -- I'm his

wife --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Oh, okay.

MELISSA McNAMARA:

-- and we all know that all

wives talk for their husbands.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

MELISSA McNAMARA:

Hello.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

-- Mrs. McNamara, if you

Indeed.

We do know that.

A lot.

Yeah.

So --

could start with your name and address, please.

MELISSA McNAMARA:

It is --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

MELISSA McNAMARA:

My name is Melissa [phonetic]

25 26

McNamara.

1422 East State Street.

I am an Idaho

97 1

native, and I'm here to express some of my concerns

regarding the Zoning Code Rewrite.

New development standards will destabilize

existing neighborhoods.

Reducing lot sizes in R-1C

and R-2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill

much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing

them and breaking faith with neighbors, who believed

the neighborhoods they were buying into were stable.

Many of these areas are in parts of the

city designated as "stable neighborhoods" in Blueprint

Boise.

will radically change the character of neighborhoods,

reducing privacy, sunlight, and vegetation, including

our beloved trees for which Boise is so well known.

Raising the height limit in residential zones

Increasing housing density in the

neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion,

traffic, on-street parking, and create safety hazards

for children and individuals with accessibility

limitations.

should be written to protect neighbors, rather than to

destabilize their neighborhoods.

Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code

Even in my East End neighborhood, which is

in the historic district, the Rewrite -- Rewrite can

encourage higher-density units with modern designs to

replace a demolished, non-contributing home.

This

98 1

will negatively impact existing homes and will damage

the historic character of neighborhoods like mine.

Please consider us tax-paying citizens,

who want our homes and our neighborhoods to retain the

charm and value that led us to live here in the first

place.

7 8

Thank you for your time and for your public service.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay, folks.

We're going to break for dinner for half

an hour, staff; correct?

13 14

Thank you.

Okay.

So we'll -- we will be back at

7:30.

Thank you.

(Recess taken from 1:58:08 to 1:58:19 of

audio file.)

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay, folks.

We'll continue

with our signup list in the order we've been

proceeding in.

21 22 23

Nice job keeping to our three-minute time. Well done.

Let's keep that up. But just real quick, I've got to address

the cheering and the clapping.

a stop to that, please, both for and against.

We really need to put We're

99 1

really here to take in comments and listen

under -- and understand, but the -- the clapping and

the cheering really has to stop.

We do have security keeping an eye on

things.

meeting and have to remove folks; okay?

want to do that.

8 9

All right.

And we don't

With that, we'll get back into

our list here.

10 11

So if that continues, we will stop the

Let's see.

Up first, Susan Gemperle-Abdo;

right?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

[Unintelligible].

Yep, please.

And then Roberta D'Amico and Don Essig.

SUSAN GEMPERLE-ABDO:

Gemperle-Abdo.

Boise.

Hi.

I'm Susan

I live at 801 East Crestline Drive in

And I want to thank you, Commissioners and

the Planning staff, for all your time, effort, and

life energy that has gone into this.

job.

This is a huge

I also want to say, "I'm in favor of the

new Zoning Code."

anomaly because I'm an older person that's in favor.

It's -- my perception was that it was mostly young

I might be a little bit of an

100 1

people that were in favor and older people that were

opposed to much of the Code.

I'm going to comment today on a section

for -- in the "Wildland Urban Interface Overlay,"

which no one has really talked about yet.

Specifically, it's Page 123 of the Draft Code.

I currently reside in the Boise Heights

Neighborhood Association, in the WUI, and we've been a

certified Firewise neighborhood since 2018.

summer through fall, all neighborhoods in the WUI,

they fear the -- the -- and -- wildfire threat.

don't want to be a Paradise, California.

Overlay District Draft Code is definitely a positive

step forward in the Code.

some improvements.

Every

The WUI

However, there could be

One area of fencing -- it states that a

solid, 6-foot fence is required in backyard open

spaces where it's undeveloped.

should be removed.

This section of Code

First of all, foothills homes mostly don't

even have fences, or they have metal fences that you

can see through.

these -- these areas is so we could have a symbiotic

relationship with nature and with pets.

25 26

The reason that we moved to

Having a 6-foot, solid fence does several

101 1

things.

disrupts views and the symbiotic relationship that the

neighborhood has with nature, and it also creates an

unsightly city backdrop.

imagine, in 20 years, a sea of dilapidated fences.

we ask that that be removed.

It impedes the natural wildlife movement, it

Imagine a sea of fences, and So

Also, any fencing installed in the WUI

area should be noncombustible fencing, definitely not

a solid fence and definitely not a wood fence.

The other thing is lighting.

Adding a

section concerning outdoor lighting and the WUI

Overlay district would be -- really improve the Code.

A section on much stricter dark-sky lighting for both

homes and street lights would really improve the Code

and should be added.

wildlife health, as well as preserving that little bit

of dark sky that we still have in Boise.

This is particularly needed for

Our neighborhood had a situation with a

developer where he installed historic

street -- street-type lamps.

lights shining down --

THE CLERK:

SUSAN GEMPERLE-ABDO:

And so anyways.

that to the -- to the Code.

Well, they were like car

Time. -- and up on neighbors. I ask that you and -- add

102 1

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Roberta D'Amico and then Don Essig

Mitchell Lee and Annie Black.

ROBERTA D'AMICO:

Thank you.

I hope you have cushy chairs

up there.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

ROBERTA D'AMICO:

[Unintelligible].

All right.

Good evening and

hello, Commissioner -- Chairman Schafer and Commission

Members.

3109 South Crossfield Way.

20 years.

My name is Roberta D'Amico.

My address is

I've lived there for over

Thank you for your service on the

Commission and the -- all the time that's being taken

this week for our comments.

There was a lot of good discussion last

night about the challenges we face in Boise, and

that's the reason I support the Zoning Code Rewrite.

Tonight, I'll focus briefly on three things: housing,

sustainability, and the need to address zoning now.

Housing.

We need more housing for our

essential workers within the city that is affordable,

available, and within a reasonable distance to their

work site.

25 26

About three years ago, I had a health

103 1

challenge which involved regular medical visits and

rehab for a long while.

When you're a regular, you

get to know the staff.

I was astounded as to how many

of the staff were visiting -- i.e. contractors -- from

out of state, living in hotels to fill the staffing

need.

here, yet they could not afford to.

I would learn from them that they want to live

We need more housing at various price

points for our essential workers, whether they are

hospital staff, in education, law enforcement,

fire -- basically every single essential worker, from

the barista to the bartender or whoever, many of which

I know would like to be here this evening.

It's crazy for people to commute for miles

or live out of state to perform jobs in Boise.

Zoning Rewrite is not the silver bullet for the

housing need, yet it will help us meet this need.

Sustainability.

The

As an advocate for

environmental sustainability, reducing length of

commutes is essential.

congestion, more pollution, and likely more vehicle,

pedestrian, and bike accidents.

with existing roads and infrastructure, and the

Rewrite facilitates this.

25 26

More sprawl means more traffic

We need to connect

We need to address the Zoning Code now.

104 1

was a member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee for

the Rewrite.

identified well before we started in the fall of 2020.

It's been a long process, intensive times, with lots

of committee meetings, as well as public meetings,

which I quietly attended to listen -- to listen to my

neighbors in Boise.

The need to rewrite the Code was

I also want to shout out to the staff of

Planning and Zoning, "It was intense."

them.

So kudos to

The idea of extending the comment period

concerns me because we need to update the Code.

fact, it's probably 20 or 30 years overdue.

happens if we don't update the Code?

sprawl, more infrastructure issues, and even more

frustration amongst our residents.

What

We'll face more

Last night, Director Keane noted that

modifications can be made in the future.

been referenced as well [unintelligible] -- the

Commissioner -- one of you -- forgive me -- as to who

said it -- asked a neighborhood association

representative about running the experiment.

I think it's

At the last Citizens' Advisory meeting, I

asked a similar question to the tune of, "How do we

modify what I call 'glitches' or wellness checks?"

105 1

can fix the glitches --

THE CLERK:

ROBERTA D'AMICO:

-- only if we implement the

plan.

5 6

Time.

With that, I'll close.

I support the

Code.

I thank you very much.

It's not a perfect plan, but we need to do

it.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Don Essig, Mitchell Lee, Annie Black,

Daniel Hutchison.

DON ESSIG:

Good evening.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I'm Don Essig.

I reside at 615 East

Crestline Drive in the Boise Heights neighborhood.

A rewrite of the City of Boise Zoning Code

is long overdue.

modernize the Code and commend the City's Planning

staff for the three-year-long effort to engage the

public.

haven't taken full advantage of the opportunities, but

they've been there.

25 26

I applaud the current effort to

In my opinion, it's been outstanding.

The current Code is not perfect, and there

106 1

are a few areas I will speak to in more detail in a

little bit, but a new Code need not be perfect or

please everyone to be a major step forward.

here tonight to urge you to take that step forward

now, not later.

Three areas for improvement.

So I'm

You heard

from Susan.

Interface -- the current Code requires a 6-foot, solid

fence in the Wildland Urban Interface.

ridiculous if you ask me.

will impede wildlife movement, and if it's made of

wood, it will present a fire hazard.

should not be a requirement of the Code in the

Wildland Urban Interface.

Fencing in the Wildland Urban

That's

A 6-foot-high, solid fence

Outdoor lighting.

Such fences

The outdoor lighting

should be energy efficient, preserve dark skies, and

not light up your neighbor's bedroom.

current Code is admirable in capturing these

principles.

to incentivize motion-sensing lights to maximize both

energy savings and dark-sky preservation.

CUP conditions.

I think the

However, I believe the Code could do more

Trails and other public

amenities in new developments should be required to be

built at the time the first residents are there for

their use.

Early residents should not have to wait

107 1

for build-out to enjoy such benefits.

or even decades as a developer chooses to drag their

feet is unconscionable.

Waiting years

In my neighborhood, we have a CUP

condition that's been hanging around for 25 years to

build a trail that still is not there.

that CUP conditions be required to be met sooner, not

later, after the last house is built or maybe not at

all.

So I'm asking

The new Code must be clear and direct

about this.

I suggest adding language that requires

all CUP conditions to be met in time for the first

resident.

actually saved a life recently with a -- a story I

think you've heard from -- earlier in testimony

yesterday.

Such a practice in Dry Creek Ranch may have

But even if not, it's what residents

deserve.

They should come to that community, and

the amenities that they were promised should be there,

even for the first resident.

One last parting comment.

Enforcement.

The Code must be enforceable and enforced, otherwise

it's merely words on paper and good intentions that

may turn into, well, a quarter-century wait for a CUP

condition.

108 1

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Mitchell Lee.

Annie Black and then Daniel Hutchison and

Dave Morris.

ANNIE BLACK:

Members of the Commission.

reside at 610 North Walnut Street.

Wow.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, My name is Annie Black.

This is a huge thing to try to

consume as a resident who cares a lot about neighbors,

neighborhoods, character, density.

support the ideas of infill, affordability, and

sustainability.

thing was rolling along in a way that made -- would

probably make a lot of sense to me.

I do actually

And for that reason, I thought this

I apologize for not getting involved in

the details earlier, but I decided that, when the

whole thing came out, I'd just double-check my

thinking and go -- and I did that by going to my local

neighborhood association meeting.

There, I started to learn how complex this

is and how likely it is that this essentially is my

notification that my neighbor can do all kinds of

things that either he or she could have done

yesterday, and I didn't know it in the current Code,

109 1

or perhaps new things that weren't -- aren't allowed

in the current Code.

So I thought, I'll go to work and try to

figure this out.

Well, I can't find summary tables on

what was current and what's, maybe, in a past draft

and what's in an existing draft on some really basic

things.

Now, for the intention of my testimony,

which is not to ignore the importance of many other

districts, I'm focused on R-1C because it's what I'm

most familiar with, but I don't know how to understand

current, to October, to February on things like

lot -- and -- and then that -- in

addition -- I'll -- I'll get into specifics of what I

don't entirely understand.

But in addition, I don't know where to

find a really good summary of, "Hey.

residential lot is.

This is why they're different."

This is what a

This is what a small lot is.

I know that staff has worked extremely

hard, and I know I've -- they've done a ton of

outreach, so perhaps it's my fault, but if I come to

the game late, I can't find a -- a fairly easy

document to go through.

25 26

Maybe -- I mean, I did go through the

110 1

30-page staff summary, but it doesn't really address

what's going to happen either next door to me or next

door to my old, best friend in a totally different

neighborhood that I lived in 10 years ago.

So I was -- I wanted to just tell you

that, from my perspective, to the extent I've been

able to figure some of this out, the devil really is

in the details.

I'll bring to bear that, I think, are relevant

for -- oh, I'm almost out of time.

And the -- just a few details that

So I think they're really most relevant

for those of us who are shockingly confused at this

point.

relationship to open space?

What about floor area ratio and its

I think I can do a single-dwelling home

with no attention to any of that and perhaps even now

a duplex just because it's -- apparently, it was

struck.

couple really, really expensive houses on -- which has

nothing to do with affordability.

opposite.

And in that case, I could actually build a

So I'm very concerned about that. I'll also tell you, "I'm really" --

THE CLERK:

ANNIE BLACK:

25 26

It's actually the

Time. -- "concerned about transitions."

So I'll try to put together testimony for

111 1

Council, but I don't think there's a good way for us

to understand what's going on with transitions.

There's something about small lots, but not about

regular lots.

5 6

So that's where I stand. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

7 8

Great.

Thank you.

Daniel Hutchison, Dave Morris, Diana Lachiondo.

DANIEL HUTCHISON:

Dan -- Daniel Hutchison.

North Jantoni Drive here in Boise, Idaho.

Boise resident for approximately 40 years.

Good evening.

My name is

I live -- reside at 102 I've been a

Over the last 50-some years, I've had the

opportunity to work professionally on the Federal

level, writing, reviewing, and responding to public

comment on land-use plans, environmental statements,

and Federal regulations.

Based on my experience in what worked well

on the public, review-and-comment period, a project of

this complexity would have required a minimum of

180 days for public comment and understanding if the

public was provided adequate, detailed information on

the development of the plan.

results in many years of litigation and fights over

the outcome, as nobody involved in the process is

Anything less than that

112 1 2

satisfied with the outcome. Now, for tonight's purposes, I find that

three minutes to make a presentation on such a

poorly-written, 160 -- or 611-page document is totally

inadequate to provide for any sort of meaningful input

in the process.

delay any further discussion and divert it to public

input and public coordination until after the new City

Council is seated in January.

I'm requesting that the Commission

The public has been extensively excluded

from this process, even though we've heard many

comments on how much the public has been involved.

But when a document is released 56 days ago, a few

hours before the first day of March, and is portrayed

as a February release of the document, it's fairly

insulting to the -- the community.

Normally, I would follow the established

protocols that I used for 50 years of making a

well-thought-out comment, being respectful of the

audience, but you -- you folks opened the door to a

more critical, honest evaluation or critique of this

process when you just buried or discounted this public

input last night, prior to hearing or sitting to

listen to any of it.

25 26

I want you to know that I find it

113 1

extremely insulting to use derogatory terms

like "Newby" [sic], or whatever other derogatory terms

used for us, in your private conversations, and those

should not be used within public discourse.

I'm very disgusted with the happy talk

that is being used to disguise the true meaning or

true outcome of this planning effort.

say that this is -- of all the documents I saw in over

50 years of working on public documents, this is the

least -- or the poorest document I've ever seen.

I do have to

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Dave Morris.

Diana Lachiondo and then Elizabeth Norton

15 16

Okay.

Thank you.

and Lori Dicaire -- Dicaire -- Dicaire. DIANA LACHIONDO:

Commissioners.

with you today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and

I appreciate the opportunity to be

My name is Diana Lachiondo.

I was born

and raised here in Boise, and I'm a fourth-generation

Idahoan.

would be happy to give it to your staff.

I prefer not to state my home address, but

Thank you.

I'm pleased to be here in support of an

25 26

updated, modern Zoning Code.

I'd like to discuss this

114 1

from a couple different angles.

about the math.

So first, let's talk

As someone who's sat in your seat -- not

exactly here in Boise, but up on the dais in local

government for both budgetary purposes and

planning-and-zoning hearings -- it's important to

understand the interplay of these two issues.

This Zoning Code has been updated

mindfully with the support and consultation of City

staff who understand municipal economics.

going to get to why that's important in a minute

because it hasn't always been the case.

And I'm

Thoughtful density has the potential to

lower the operational and capital costs for fire

protection, streets and highways, parks and

recreation, sewer, solid-waste management, and water.

Zoning for walkable, bikeable, relatively-dense

neighborhoods means that the tax base is there to pay

for the amenities and necessities that Boiseans want

and need.

makes for better communities.

Not only is this fiscally responsible -- it

I'd like to share my own background as an

example.

moved out to a new development on the corner of Maple

Grove and Franklin.

So in 1980, the year I was born, my parents

This was before the mall came in

115 1

in 1988.

And if you really want to give your street

cred in Boise, talk about west Boise before the mall.

We -- they were told by the developer that

parks and bike infrastructure would be coming soon.

As a child and teen, there really wasn't much to do in

our area.

even when the mall came in, the lack of focus on bike

and pedestrian infrastructure meant that my parents

never allowed us to go there, except by car.

There was no nearby park or library, and

In fact, the only neighborhood commercial,

if you can call it that, was the nearby Maverik gas

station, which I believe is now a tobacco shop, and we

had to cross four lanes of busy traffic to get there.

Simply put, our neighborhood was not zoned for any

kind of walkable, bikeable infrastructure that I, now

living in a different area of the city, want for my

kids.

So let's flash forward.

When I left for

college in 1998, no regional park had been built in

that area.

develop Molenaar Park until 2017.

doing the math, that is 37 years after my parents

moved there.

24 25 26

In fact, the City couldn't afford to So for those of you

The -- the zoning that existed when that area was developed in west Boise simply couldn't

116 1

develop the infrastructure that Boiseans are telling

you they want and need, parks, bikeways, et cetera.

I share this story because this modern,

updated Zoning Code that -- solves for both of those

issues.

a premium on connectivity, it will ensure that

neighborhoods are more connected to amenities and that

local governments have adequate funding to support

them.

By allowing for moderate density and placing

THE CLERK:

Time.

DIANA LACHIONDO:

Finally, I'd like to thank you

for your time and service on the Commission.

unsung and thankless role and a volunteer one.

appreciate your willingness to dive into these issues.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

DaWuan Miller, and Larry Alder.

No one?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thanks.

[Unintelligible].

Okay. [Unintelligible].

Yeah.

I thought -- yeah.

Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Up next, Elizabeth Norton, Lori Dicaire,

It is an

[Unintelligible].

Okay.

There she is.

117 1 2 3

Okay.

Sorry.

LORI DICAIRE:

[Unintelligible].

Lori Dicaire.

7154 West State

Street.

The goal of a new Zoning Code should be

that the new Code leverages the explosive growth we

are experiencing as more -- economically -- a more

equitable, environmental, sustainable, and

economically-prosperous city.

The Zoning Code, as written, falls short

on every measure.

market by promoting more density through up-zoning

without guardrails will only lead to more

displacement, higher housing costs, more inequality,

and vast human suffering in our community.

Simply unleashing the forces of the

There is no acknowledgment of the huge

windfall of value to speculators and investors of the

significant up-zone contained within the proposed

Zoning Code.

private-equity-backed, corporate developers' influx

into Boise to buy up homes for redevelopment and

conversion to rental properties.

The up-zone green-lights large,

That is fact.

If the City was approaching this process

from a preposition of equity, it would insist on

partially capturing this increase in value for

affordable-housing construction and public amenities

118 1

that scale.

The City should recognize that land lift

occurs when land is rezoned for more density.

Demanding developers include

income-restricted units and -- all buildings are a

certain size -- to be able to even approach the vision

of a mixed-income community, charge a land-lift fee.

Instead, at the 11th hour, the City threw

some totally voluntary incentives for affordability.

Despite what the -- you have heard tonight, there are

no affordability mandates, which means that not even

one unit of income-restricted housing will get built.

We don't have to just conjecture that the

development industry will be unwilling to sacrifice

profits voluntarily to help the city with its

affordability crisis.

City's experience with the Housing Bonus Ordinance,

passed in December 2020, even with a wholly-inadequate

affordability standard set at 100-percent AMI, we know

that only -- over three years, only four developments

even utilized it, and two are the City itself.

We already know -- given the

Our current takeaways from the City's

experiment with voluntarily -- voluntary affordability

incentives is not good.

trade their extreme profit opportunity.

an affordability solution if there is little to no

Developers aren't willing to It's not even

119 1

participation by developers.

The devil is in the details.

higher than 80-percent AMI is fake affordability, as

the City's own Housing Needs Assessment [sic] states

that 0-to-60-percent AMI is the market most

underserved by the profit-driven, market-priced

development industry.

Anything

And those are the people who are being

displaced at the highest rate.

It is this population

that needs the intervention of the municipality to get

anything affordable for them built.

This is not it.

The City's affordability incentives are

incredibly too little and too limited while the City

makes a move to trade away the ability to negotiate on

a case-by-case basis, with each developer asking for

an up-zone CUP variance, et cetera, for something in

the public good like real affordability or a public

trail.

long-term loss this will be, as the Zoning Code

Rewrite genie won't ever be able to put -- be put in

the back -- back in the bottle.

Forever -- we should at least recognize what a

And developers will sue for takings if

future City leaders even wanted to scale it back.

as usual, the City is selling itself and its legal

authority and, by extension, desperate Boiseans

And

120 1

clamoring for real affordability [unintelligible].

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

then Christina Bruce-Bennion.

Thank you.

DaWuan Miller, Larry Alder, and

DaWUAN MILLER:

Good evening, Commissioners.

name is DaWuan Miller.

for Lamar Advertising of Boise.

Our address is 2250

Empire Way, Boise, Idaho 83709.

I'm here to add some

verbal testimony to our written testimony that was

previously submitted and part of the record.

I'm the real-estate manager

Our primary concern with the Zoning Code

Rewrite is with Section 11-4-12.9 dealing with

off-premises signs.

discussion tonight, but, nevertheless, it has a big

impact to our business, our local advertisers, and

clients.

I know that's not a hot topic of

Most concerning is the section related to

the proposed changes to dwell times for Electronic

Message Displays, EMDs, or digital signs, as I will

refer to them.

to change the minimum dwell time for digital signs

from 8 seconds to 20 seconds.

The Planning Department has proposed

We're asking you to keep the current dwell

time as it stands for digital signs, at eight seconds,

121 1

which is the industry standard and matches the Idaho

State Code and all other cities in the state of Idaho,

where we maintain and operate our digital signs.

We do not see the need for this proposed

change, as our digital signs closely resemble our

static-sign faces, with the exception that our digital

displays utilize LED technology and a sophisticated

copy change from one ad to the next.

are up to six different advertisers sharing the

digital display at one time.

Typically, there

We did put together a brief video of two

of our digital signs located here in Boise so that you

could see exactly what our digital signs look like

operating in the real world during the daytime and at

night.

Please forgive me for the pixelation in

that daytime video.

If any of you have ever taken

video with the TV screen in the background, you know

it doesn't really look like that in real life.

As you can clearly see, our digital signs

are not scrolling, flashing, or animated in any way.

It is no brighter than the static billboards in the

background.

24 25 26

We feel that this proposed change to the dwell time is unnecessary and will only hurt our local

122 1

advertisers and the charitable organizations that

Lamar supports.

provided in our written testimony, we're asking you to

keep the City's minimum dwell time of EMDs or

Electronic Message Displays at the current rate of

eight seconds.

For these reasons and the reasons

Thank you, all, for your time, your

attention, and for your consideration of our concerns

this evening.

We do appreciate it.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

DaWUAN MILLER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you. Next, Larry Alder.

And then Christina Bruce-Bennion

and then Christi Warhurst.

LARRY ALDER:

Good evening, Commissioners.

Thank you for your time and your service.

My name is Larry Alder.

Lamar Outdoor Advertising of Idaho at 2250 Empire Way

here in Boise.

I am the general manager of

In my 24 years as general manager in this

market, our intention has always been to work with

municipalities that we operate our business in.

has been no exception.

that -- not only were we not asked to be involved in

the conversation about the Zoning Rewrite as it

Boise

So it is concerning

123 1

relates to digital technologies -- there wasn't anyone

from our industry that was included or involved in the

process.

First and foremost, on-premises signs and

off-premises signs, digital or static, have suffered

designations within the Boise City Code.

aspect of both sign types are operated completely

differently from one another and have far different

capabilities.

distinctly different sign types and should not be

regulated or governed by the same rules.

The digital

Digital or static, they are two

For this reason, we oppose the following

proposed change to Section 11-04-12.9, dealing with

the off-premises signs, specifically digitals or EMDs.

The dwell time changing from 8 seconds to 20 seconds

is -- is not -- is unnecessary.

As you can see from the video, these are

not scrolling, texting, flashing, animated

billboard -- digital billboards.

That is a subtle copy change from one ad to the next.

It's a static image.

There are 41 states that allow and

regulate EMDs throughout the country.

dwell time is eight seconds, further supporting our

position.

is the norm.

The average

The eight seconds is not only adequate, but The proposed dwell time of 20 seconds

124 1

will not only limit opportunities for local businesses

to advertise.

to support local, charitable -- charitable

organizations throughout the valley.

It will significantly limit our ability

Commissioners, I appreciate your

consideration and the concern -- of the concerns that

we have regarding the proposed changes to the

electronic message, digital displays, or billboards.

If adopted, these changes will not only

significantly -- significantly impact our business,

but they will also impact numerous local businesses

and many charitable organizations that we help promote

and support with our digital technology in the city of

Boise.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

All right.

Thank you. Christina -- Christina

Bruce-Bennion.

Okay.

Christi Warhurst.

Okay.

Wendy Matson, Steve Dunlap, or

21 22 23 24 25 26

Barbara Gordon. Okay.

Oh --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

[Unintelligible] Dunlap

[unintelligible]. There's Barbara.

[Unintelligible]

125 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We've got Barbara.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

BARBARA GORDON:

Barbara Gordon.

All right.

Barbara Gordon.

Just a minute.

[Unintelligible].

Okay.

77 -- whoops.

7750 West Preece Drive

83704. As we heard last night, we are going to

see more demolition on par -- on parcels.

it's because the new Code inadequately considered an

important foundation in Blueprint Boise, and that is

the vision of a community of stable neighborhoods and

vibrant, mixed-use Activity Centers.

Perhaps

It states that this principle is equally

as important as environmental stewardship and a

strong, diverse economy, so stable neighborhoods are

very important in Blueprint Boise.

speaks to the protection of established neighborhoods

and lists infill design principles to be used along

mixed use and corridors.

This Comp Plan

The new Code is vague and lacks specific

language that would better protect and transition into

established neighborhoods along mixed use and

corridors, and it gives incentives to MX-3 parcels in

some neighborhoods that can get a 50-percent parking

126 1

reduction, leaving over 40 cars from a single project

looking for on-street parking.

This parking reduction should be reduced,

and the affordable -- and the affordability incentive

for AMI of 80 percent also reduced to meet the new

Code's goal of affordable housing.

Also, I ask that the rezoning of L-O to

MX-3 be on the basis of an L-O parcel being within a

quarter-mile radius of a regional Activity Center,

rather than the one-half-mile radius it was changed to

in the current draft of this Code.

It would still be twice the distance

required for the community Activity Centers.

would give neighborhoods such as ours some protection

against the Wall Street investors who think nothing of

bulldozing homes and building -- and letting parcels

sit for three years.

This

I live in a 1960s pocket neighborhood with

over 65 parcels.

including a Habitat For Humanity development.

R-1B neighborhood surrounds parcels zoned L-O, which

front on Emerald Road [sic].

We do enjoy a mix of housing types, The

The L-O parcels are within -- one-half

mile from the Boise Towne Square Mall, which triggers

the L-O parcels for rezone to MX-3.

So these will

127 1

become 70-foot structures abutting an R-1B parcel

half -- that is half that height, rather than the

lower height of MX-1 parcels.

There is much good in the draft.

I am

asking for improvements in areas of transition and

incentives.

The West Bench does not have a geographic

City Council representative until after the November

election, and so I ask that a vote on this draft --

THE CLERK:

BARBARA GORDON:

Time. -- be postponed until after

that election.

And thank you for your service.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Wendy Matson.

And then --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Thank you.

We'll circle back real quick.

She rescheduled for

tomorrow night.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

All right.

Thanks.

And then Steve Dunlap.

Okay.

And then after Mr. Dunlap, Robert

Overstreet, Tim Hennessey, and then Bonnie -- Bonnie

Hardey.

128 1 2

STEVE DUNLAP:

I'm Steve Dunlap.

2342 East

Independence Drive here in Boise.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to

urge the City to delay voting on the Zoning Code

Rewrite.

Since I became interested and involved in

the ZCR, I've talked to neighbors, and I've been

surprised how few of them know about it, and even more

concerning -- is that none of the neighbors I talked

with really had any idea what sort of changes were

coming our way because of it.

tiny sample, but they suggest that there needs to be a

lot more outreach to assure that the people in Boise

are informed enough to give informed consent for this

change.

My conversations were a

I understand that a number of cities are

ahead of us in the adoption of higher-density zoning.

Has it worked?

dramatic increase in affordable housing?

searched for articles or data celebrating the success

of increased affordable housing, and I haven't found

any so far.

Have Boise-sized cities realized a I've

There will definitely be costs in the form

of disrupted neighborhoods and lives associated with

this change in order to pursue the benefit of more

129 1

affordable housing.

the results in other cities show that the change was

worth it.

Let's delay the decision until

In addition to informed consent and

confidence in success, we need to be fairly

represented.

Mayor and all City Council positions.

make the decision until the newly-elected Mayor and

City Council Members are seated, and the citizens of

Boise are all represented by people they elected.

In seven months, we will vote for the

There's no rush.

Let's wait to

I understand the current

plan is to decide whether to adopt this plan in just a

few weeks.

a very long time.

people will be displaced from their current homes.

Affordable housing results are not certain.

This change will have dramatic effects for Neighborhoods will be changed, and

This decision can wait until more people

have enough information to give informed consent, this

decision can wait until we are sure that the promised

increase in affordable housing will occur and that it

will justify the disruption caused to existing

citizens and neighborhoods, and the decision really

must wait until it can be made by duly-elected

representatives from each new City-Council district.

25 26

Thank you very much.

130 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

3 4

Thank you.

Robert Overstreet and then Tim

Hennessey, Bonnie Hardey, and Juliana Playter. ROBERT OVERSTREET:

Thank you for the time

tonight, and thank you for your service.

My name's Robert Overstreet.

I reside at

604 South Granite Way in the East End.

raised in Boise, and I'm older than the current Code.

However, that does not mean we need to replace it.

I was born and

The up-zone Ordinance is not -- the

up-zone Ordinance is being sold to the public as an

affordability driver.

driver.

quality of life in existing neighborhoods to

deteriorate.

affordability, but it's a smoke screen for

neighborhood destruction.

It is not an affordability

It's designed to get densities higher and the

The up-zone is designed to sell

How is this possible?

What is affordable?

In Boise, for a

family of four, affordability equates to a median

income of $70,000 with a projected rent of $2,188.

That's defined as affordable.

to 57 percent of Boiseans today.

in Boise is approximately $68,000.

salary trackers at ZipRecruiter, 57 percent of all

jobs fall below this amount.

That is not affordable The average income According to

131 1

Now, we all know that no developer is

going to rent a unit for a penny under the maximum

that he can legally do, thus the up-zone Ordinance

leaves 57 percent of Boiseans without affordability

options.

That begs the question, "Why do we do the

change?"

Is it because the City's more concerned with

density and diversity than affordable housing?

certainly appears so.

is a term that has no meaning under the up-zone

Ordinance.

The term "affordable housing"

So how is this affordability incentive to

be enforced, and will rents really be affordable?

According to the up-zone Ordinance, it will only look

at rent.

apartment has to be income-protected.

not specify whether this must be a certain size,

number of bedrooms, or a studio, whether it can be

accessible only by a poor door, or what fees and

deposits a landlord can charge.

In a four-apartment building, only one The Code does

Basic economics will dictate that a

below-market rate -- which is what this will

be -- will have a large renter interest in that

apartment.

gets the apartment?

So how is a landlord going to choose who The up-zone Ordinance does not

132 1

require the lowest-income person and the -- and the

rent that he or she can pay, rather it just specifies

a rent rate.

So who will the landlord choose?

I would think, as a potential landlord

myself, that I would charge an extremely large,

nonrefundable, move-in deposit.

inspection fees, out-of-compliance fees, parking rent,

pet rents, which will add significantly to the costs.

Because you tie it to rent and not fees, it is not

affordable.

11 12

I would charge

But the up-zone Ordinance is silent on which of these will allot --

THE CLERK:

Time.

ROBERT OVERSTREET:

-- on what kind of fees

the -- the landlord will be able to charge.

It's not affordable.

It's a smoke screen.

It will not do what you are trying to sell to the

public.

19 20

Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

21 22 23 24 25 26

Thank you.

Tim Hennessey and then Bonnie Hardey, Juliana Playter, and then Angela Banning. TIM HENNESSEY: Hennessey.

Hello.

My name is Tim

I live at North 17th Street in Boise. Thank you for allowing me to speak

133 1

tonight.

this very heavy-lift assignment that you have in front

of you.

I appreciate all your time and effort with

I am support -- I am in support of a

rewrite of this Code.

in sore need of an update, so I am in favor of that.

I am also in support of the City's desire to

facilitate the creation of additional attainable

housing in the city of Boise for sure.

sorely needed.

tonight.

I think it's outdated.

It is

I think it's

That's clear from other speakers

But I think we can do better than

expecting the citizens of Boise to read a 611-page

document to become informed of what this rewrite

means.

or -- a red-line to the original would have been very

helpful, but it was not to be found.

sure, we can do better than that.

An executive summary, I couldn't find one,

So I think, for

My biggest concern with the proposal is

the attempt to put this additional density into the

long-established neighborhoods of this city that do

not have the infrastructure to support such density.

One example comes to mind: public schools.

No one has said the word tonight.

appropriately for this influx of humans.

They are not sized Do we really

134 1

want our kids taking classes in modular buildings

sitting in the playground?

going to happen, 100 percent.

Because that's what's

Lastly, the proposal to reduce the

off-street parking requirement from two to one is a

surefire way to diminish the character of the beloved

neighborhoods that this city has.

I think we can do better.

be smarter at focusing to try to put the additional

density into the areas of the city that have the

infrastructure like downtown or focus that additional

density in the places where we can create the

infrastructure appropriately.

I think we can

Thank you very much for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Bonnie Hardey.

Okay.

Juliana Playter, then Angela

18 19

Thanks.

Banning, Sherry Gorrell, and Denise Zimmerman. JULIANA PLAYTER:

Hello.

[Unintelligible].

I'm Juliana Playter.

I live at 1617 North

5th Street in Boise.

love Boise, and I do not want the up-zoning to happen

in our beautiful Boise.

zone -- zone -- boy -- Boise Zoning Code as written.

I've been here since 2004.

I oppose the boy

135 1

I'm here to ask you to rewrite the

Wireless Ordinance Code.

Under -- having a cell

tower -- it's really important, to me, to address

this.

20 feet, as permitted now, devalues the home -- value

of the home up to 20 percent or higher.

should be any closer than 2,500 feet from any home.

Having a cell tower in your yard as close as

No cell tower

Other cities across the country have

amended their codes to keep towers out of

neighborhoods.

Afib and have had heart-ablation surgery because of

these towers.

We've witnessed our friends go into

Ada County did the right thing and stopped

two towers from being built next to homes last year.

Other cities like Eagle, Dalton Gardens, Mountain

Home, Ammon, Idaho have said, "No," to 5G wireless

towers.

networks.

They are building their own fast, fiber-optic

This is a safe, fast, and reliable system. Under the old Code, we at least had the

ability, under the conditional-use process, to object

to a tower going up in our front yards.

rewrite took this away.

sustainable city, then stop these towers from being

installed.

25 26

This new

If we want a green and

When the City changed the Wireless Code,

136 1

you were under the assumption that you were preempted

from determining where small cell towers used for

internet service could be located.

Further, even telecommunication towers can be stopped

if there is no gap in coverage for making phone calls,

as evidenced by the three towers that had been denied

in Idaho in the last year because there was no

substantial gap in coverage.

This is not true.

You have been provided with a

state-of-the-art Zoning Ordinance that has been

implemented in Dalton Gardens, Idaho, and you have

been provided with Eagle, Idaho's Ordinance

and -- does not -- that does not allow any 5G small

cells at all.

Ordinance since you now have new -- this new

information.

We ask that you revise the Wireless

Cell towers cause harm and should be at

least, again, 2,500 feet from homes, not 20 feet.

Cell towers decrease property values.

service, fiber optics to the premises is aesthetically

pleasing, having significantly higher data speeds, and

is safe.

For internet

These small cells are very dangerous and

can be used to spy on its citizens and do cause

significant harm.

Further, these towers destroy bees,

137 1

birds, and trees.

They cause harm to humans and

should not be in neighborhoods.

having a green and sustainable city.

The towers go against

Thank you again for your service.

Bye-bye.

6 7 8 9

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thanks.

Angela Banning and then Sherry Gorrell, Denise Zimmerman, and Jerry Michael Brady. ANGELA BANNING:

You guys are a little older

than what I'm used to addressing, so [unintelligible]

change your whole team.

I'm all for affordable housing.

I am not

for the density that the rezoning will bring.

those that believe that rezoning will enable

affordable housing, it's not a reality.

And for

I live -- I moved to the Dallas/Fort-Worth

area in 1984, and that's -- if anybody's been there,

Dallas and Fort Worth, Irving, Arlington, Grand

Prairie, everything was separate, and it was a drive

to get places because there was nothing in between.

I watched those two cities merge, and

cities all grow the same way.

housing gets expensive.

think it's about 50 miles out from Dallas.

it's now unaffordable.

People move in and

And so -- so now, you've -- I Frisco,

Everything is unaffordable.

138 1

No matter how many houses you put in Boise, it will

not lower the cost of living unless you do government

housing.

I was missing the dog -- I am missing the

dog's birthday party for this.

granddaughter asked what I was going to do, and I told

her -- I said, "You know, I'm very concerned that they

are thinking about, you know, putting a lot more

people in Boise and, you know, it's not that big."

And my nine-year-old

And she says, "There's going to be a

problem."

People get frustrated.

That's my words.

They get angry.

And, you know, right now, we don't have a lot of the

problems and issues that other towns do or other

cities do, but I do know people that have been chased

down on the freeway just to be honked at and flipped

off because with density comes more anger issues.

But in that same instance, we do need

And she said, "People will fight."

affordable housing, but poor -- putting more houses on

smaller lots of land is not the answer.

have a conundrum.

don't think -- you don't -- we have a problem.

I don't envy you that, but if you

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

25 26

So you do

I'm sorry, Ms. Banning.

Could we get your address too.

139 1

ANGELA BANNING:

Yes.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ANGELA BANNING:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ANGELA BANNING:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

803 North 23rd Street. Great.

Thanks.

Thank you. Okay.

Okay.

Sherry Gorrell

and then Denise Zimmerman, Jerry Michael Brady, and

David Allan.

SHERRY GORRELL:

Hello.

My name is Sherry

Gorrell, and I live at 716 West Franklin Street,

Number 1, Boise.

Boise is growing.

How large do we allow

it to become?

only in Boise, but in most cities around the country

during the Pandemic?

growing populations within every other city, and there

are also these Boise -- or these modern zoning codes

being written in other cities.

Why did housing prices explode, not

I am suspicious that there are

My suggestions are -- Number 1.

The City

of Boise needs to be transparent with our community

members and not allow Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Ag,

Big Rock, and the Federal Government -- big money

influencers -- to change the landscape of Boise based

on their agenda.

25 26

You will own nothing, and you will be

140 1

happy.

You will basically rent, and you will ride

your bike.

here is going to cause rents to decrease.

I don't agree that what we're proposing

Number 2.

We need to honor the integrity

of individual neighborhoods.

single-family homes to be quietly torn down and

replaced with overly-tall, expensive fourplexes.

There are so many other options such as allowing

people to add apartments above their garages or in

their sunny basements, or tiny houses in their

backyards.

from creating the extra housing, not some out-of-state

developer.

We cannot allow

Then the people can benefit financially

Number 3.

We need to feel and be safe in

our city.

Wireless Ordinance Code and continue to build fast,

fiber-optic -- optic networks under ground.

We need to update the Telecommunications or

We do not want to have dangerous,

radiation-pulsating, 5G, small-and-large cell towers

20 feet from our homes.

defoliate trees, and kill bees.

City of Trees to become the city of 5G towers and

high-density apartments.

24 25 26

These cause harm to people, We do not want our

We need to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink.

We continue to hear the

141 1

term "climate change" when our skies are being

plummeted day by day with criss-cross chem trails,

also referred to as geoengineering or weather

modification.

I notice very few people want to look at

me when I say that.

nobody's questioning it.

not be allowed in our skies over our beautiful city.

9 10

It's happening almost daily, and These toxic chemicals should

By the way, I was born and raised in Boise.

I've lived here all my life.

The best team is a diverse team with

different viewpoints.

Council do not hold diverse viewpoints, nor do they

truly represent the citizens of Boise --

THE CLERK:

SHERRY GORRELL:

Our current Mayor and City

Time. -- as new members were

handpicked by the Mayor.

finalize the official Zoning Code Rewrite until after

the Mayor and City Council elections.

Boise Modern Zoning Code as written, and I do

think --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

SHERRY GORRELL:

We need to wait to vote and

I do oppose the

Okay.

-- we need an executive summary

and involvement of more community members.

found out about this.

I just

142 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

SHERRY GORRELL:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Denise Zimmerman and then

Michael -- Jerry Michael Brady, David Allan, and Peter

Torma.

7 8

DENISE ZIMMERMAN:

Denise Zimmerman.

4375 Plum

Street.

The second goal of the Zoning Code Rewrite

talks about providing "coordinated and efficient

development that encourages affordable and fair

housing."

residential dwelling for which the household pays no

more than 30 percent of their gross income for housing

costs, including utilities, and where the annual

household income does not exceed 80 percent of the

Area Median Income or AMI.

"Affordable housing" is defined as a

According to Boise's Housing Needs

Analysis in 2020, it is believed that Boise needs

around 2,773 additional homes every year.

of those homes or 204 -- 2,145 new homes are needed

per year for households earning 80 percent or less of

AMI.

24 25 26

77 percent

As I talk about the affordable units that could be provided by this rewrite, remember,

143 1

affordable units are only provided by developers

and -- and builders wishing to receive an incentive.

They are not required.

whenever the Area Median Income goes up, whether your

income goes up or not.

And rental costs will go up

In Residential R-1 zones of

medium-to-large-sized lots, the rewrite provides

incentives to developers who provide up to two

affordable units in buildings of 3 to 12 dwellings.

In residential, compact, and urban zones

and mixed-use zones, the rewrite has incentives for

developers that make 25 percent of their units

affordable to households making up to 60 percent of

AMI.

Downtown zone, nor within most of the many Boise acres

that aren't located close to a major roadway or

mixed-use zones.

will not receive incentives.

There are no incentives for affordability in the

Single-family homes on their own lot

Let's say that Boise gets the 2,773

additional homes and that, at best, 25 percent or 693

are actually affordable.

says we need 2,145 affordable homes.

the 693 potential affordable homes this rewrite could

provide.

encouraging the needed affordable housing.

The Boise Needs Analysis This far exceeds

This rewrite does not come close to

144 1

Also, all of the incentives for affordable

units are only provided in residential zones that are

close to a major roadway, close to a mixed-use zone,

or are actually located in a mixed-use zone.

not fair housing.

This is

What it does is segregate low-income

households into less-desirable areas, crowded areas

with excess noisy -- noise, less clean air, less

space, less green area, less sunshine, and no privacy

amongst commercial, office, and institutional

businesses.

important goal.

THE CLERK:

DENISE ZIMMERMAN:

This rewrite does not meet this very

Time.

this rewrite.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

18 19

Do not -- I do not support

Thank you.

Jerry Michael Brady and then David

Allan, Peter Torma, and then Geoffrey Wardle. JERRY BRADY:

My name is Jerry Brady.

I live at

2042 East Trolley Court in east Boise, and I'm here to

speak in support of the Zoning Code on behalf of LEAP

Housing.

LEAP is a nonprofit that works on

affordable housing.

Its goal is to build 1,000 affordable houses, to

It's young.

It's innovative.

145 1

build, protect, or -- or to refurnish 1,000 houses by

2026.

We think we're -- we're about halfway there.

Right now, we are building 25 homes for

people earning 60 percent of the median income or

less.

impossible.

interests, but we're getting it done.

difficult this is.

How difficult it is, I can't tell you.

It's

In this environment, there's these But how

And how long is this taking, and what's

the prospect?

goal, 1,000 or more, but these are just a drop in the

bucket, really, against the total problem.

Our goal is 1,000; the City has another

So I -- I want to sort of drop my thoughts

of what I would have said, except to this point:

rising tide lifts all boats; right?

as an analogy with water.

houses.

whole lot of houses before poor people finally occupy

what's left.

You can see that

It's kind of true with

You've only -- you've got to keep building a

We have a bad situation right now.

know that this Housing Code has produced a bad

situation.

We're not building enough homes.

over-discovered.

we're thinking about this thing about 10 or 22 years

We're not building affordable homes.

Too bad.

We've been

We got here -- you know,

146 1

late, but here we are.

It seems, to us, that the -- that

the -- the choice is to pass this and keep working at

it because, otherwise, we're not going to get

anywhere.

six months.

that.

I don't -- I don't agree with postponing

There'll be another six months after

So I want to just focus -- finish with one

more point.

the East End, and in the last month or so there's just

been a rush of people remodeling, cleaning up.

There's just -- it's full of contractors, and so I

asked them, all the people working there, "Where do

you live?"

I live just below the Botanical Garden in

Melba.

Homedale.

Nampa.

Meridian.

Kuna.

husband and I can't afford" -- "they're kicking us out

because the rent's too high."

people to live where they work, where they go to

school, where they shop.

a crazy, crazy, crazy system.

One lived on Federal Way, and she said, "My

We've got to also allow

We're not doing that.

It's

I -- I -- I don't envy you, trying to sort

this thing out, but the old system that we're

working -- now is not working.

affordable -- our only idea is from -- from the point

And for the

147 1

of view -- lift all boats.

you can.

The plan --

THE CLERK:

JERRY BRADY:

Build as many houses as

Time. -- of building along major

highways is -- is a good one.

And -- and I leave it to that.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

David Allan.

Okay.

Peter Torma.

He's online, yep.

And then Geoffrey Wardle, Ben Ovard, and

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Mr. Chair, I need to

be --

Okay.

Ryan McGoldrick.

14 15

Thank you.

Sorry. There's going to be just

one moment before I can elevate him to speak. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Got you.

Do you want us to jump to Mr. Wardle?

Okay.

22 23

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

[unintelligible] take a break [unintelligible] --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman, after

Yeah. -- [unintelligible].

148 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

We'll get through

Mr. -- we'll get through Mr. Wardle and Mr. Torma

online.

Is that right?

Yep.

GEOFFREY WARDLE:

Geoffrey Wardle.

Boise, Suite 310.

He's online?

And then we'll take a little break. Commissioners, my name is

My address is 251 East Front here in

In 1973, I started coming to Planning and

Zoning and City Council meetings here in the city of

Boise with my father, who was the then planning

director.

spend at least one day a month here with you over the

last 50 years.

and we would be able to reduce the need for you to be

here, and that is a goal that this Zoning Ordinance

accomplishes.

And little did I know that I would probably

Ideally, I wouldn't need to be here,

It does not deprive the public of a say.

It does not deprive the public of due process.

incentivizes the conduct that we, as a community, have

said we want to pursue.

Now, our firm provided you with comments.

We are a land-use and development firm.

us.

and more people needing my help to do the right thing,

People hire

Unfortunately, in recent years, I'm finding more

149 1

to build ADUs, to build affordable units that are deed

restricted.

and money.

It takes a lot of time, effort, energy,

Now, this is not a new process.

In fact,

the process we are in the homestretch of now began

more than 13 years ago when we adopted Blueprint

Boise, which was a fundamental -- a fundamental change

in our Comprehensive Plan in this community.

from the reactive, "Check the box," to a Comprehensive

Plan that set forth a vision.

of density.

forth a vision of mixed-use development.

We went

It set forth a vision

It set forth a vision of housing.

It set

Now, I listened to staff's presentation

last night, and I appreciated their observations on

PUDs and conditional use permits for things that are

largely dimensional.

And as you know, I've been in front of you

on a lot of applications where we are here solely

talking about the heights of parapets to be able to

make them structurally fit.

your time.

It's not a good use of staff time.

That is not a good use of

It's not a good use of the citizens' time.

This Code, I believe, fully implements the

path that we set for this community when we said, "We

want Blueprint Boise."

150 1

And you know I'm in front of you

regularly, and we talk a lot about the Comprehensive

Plan.

years, that I have come to embrace Blueprint Boise

because I recognize the value of it.

I think, too, that you would know, over the

The decisions that you're hearing

criticized, though, as being rushed were decisions

that we made as a community.

Rewrite didn't just start -- let's not ignore the fact

that it was the prior administration under Mayor

Bieter, four-plus years ago, that started the rewrite

of this Code.

And this Zoning Code

We will have fewer PUD applications.

will have fewer CUP applications, and it's not because

we're depriving the public of a say.

we're building what you told us to under Blueprint

Boise.

It's because

And I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

PETER TORMA:

Staff, are we good with Mr. Torma

online?

Thank you.

Torma.

Yeah.

Hello.

My name's Peter

I live at 2213 South Ormond, Boise.

I just

151 1

have some comments on the plan.

Specifically, I think the most important

part of the plan is the "Purpose" section.

guys list out seven -- seven things there that, I

feel, need to be measurable -- some way that you can

determine success.

threshold and then some sort of response.

And you

There needs to be some sort of

So, for instance, there's -- you know,

we're supposed to "promote the public health, safety,

and general welfare of present and future residents."

How do you measure that, and what happens if we're not

attaining that through this plan?

tweak the plan later in the future, then it just

becomes an opinion.

If we wait and then

You need to set these goals today before

the plan is signed and moved forward so then there's a

toolbox that you guys can adjust the plan to.

maybe you have multiple ways in which you address a

public-health-and-safety issue, instead of just

waiting to tweak the plan in the future.

I think this is extremely important

because a plan isn't as good if you can't implement

it.

changes, then you're just going to be doing the same

thing again 60 years from now and thinking, We missed

And then -- if you can't implement it with

152 1

it.

Another thing that's confusing, to me, in

the "Purpose" section is just some of the words in

there.

say, "We're promoting 'diverse, inclusive

communities.'"

I don't even know why that's needed in

this document.

I mean, don't we already have that in

Boise?

I don't understand why you would need to

"Equitable transportation system for

pedestrians," bikes -- "bicyclists, transit and

vehicles."

our -- when we have built our city on roads for cars,

not for the other things.

I don't think it's equitable when

There also needs to be an emphasis in this

plan of having businesses be responsible to help Boise

grow.

says, "Hey.

to help solve the problem through solar panels,

through providing housing for the employees that are

needed?"

I don't see anything in this plan that How is a Micron or another business going

The -- we're pushing all the

responsibility onto the -- the existing subdivisions,

and -- and I feel like the business owners have a

responsibility to help Boise grow.

nothing in here that says they're going to do that.

And there's

153 1

And until they are, then it's just going to

continually be a problem, over and over and over.

I also don't feel like there's been enough

analysis of the cumulative impacts of all of this

plan.

how does it all tie together?

Environmental Impact Statement document or anything,

but I think there could be some of that at least

brought forward and tied together.

There's talks about each individual one, but And, yes, it's not an

And I think, lastly -- the last thing I'd

like to say is, "I think this plan should be voted on

by the newly-elected Commission, versus wanting to do

it in a hurry."

years.

it's not going to change the results and the problems

of affordable housing and these sorts of things, the

issues that you're trying to solve.

There is no hurry.

It has taken four

Another couple weeks, another couple months,

I say, "You get the plan done right the

first time, versus trying to go back and fix it,"

because that's kind of what we're doing right now.

We're trying to fix a bad plan.

So that's what I got.

I appreciate your time.

And I understand you have a difficult job

25 26

Thank you.

here, and thanks for all your hard work.

154 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

All right.

Okay.

Thanks.

With that, we'll take a quick,

five-minute break.

(Recess taken from 3:08:55 to 3:08:56 of

audio file.)

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

All right.

We are planning

to wrap up -- recess during -- at 10 o'clock tonight.

That's a little over an hour from now.

going to have, probably, a few names left on our list,

so we're going to have to probably move this into

tomorrow.

We're still

At 10 o'clock, recess until tomorrow.

just wanted to prep everybody.

going to get through all the names tonight.

15 16

We're probably not

So with that, we'll just keep on going with our process here.

Up next, Ben Ovard and then Ryan

McGoldrick, Nina Pienaar, and Dane Hoskins.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

BEN OVARD:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

[Unintelligible].

Any takers?

I'm here. Mr. Chair.

Oh, online.

Thank you, staff.

Thank you.

Online.

155 1

BEN OVARD:

Can you hear me?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mr. Ovard, can you hear us?

BEN OVARD:

Yes.

Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Can you -- yeah.

[Unintelligible].

can hear you, but you're really quiet.

volume.

8 9

BEN OVARD:

Yeah.

Maybe hit your

Is this better?

I'll just get closer.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

We -- we

BEN OVARD:

Okay.

Yeah, much better.

My name's Ben Ovard.

I'm at

619 Whitehall Street, and I'm speaking in support of

the Zoning Code Rewrite.

I graduated college three years ago with a

degree in computer science.

well-paying job as a software engineer, I can no

longer afford to live in the city that I grew up in,

that I was born and raised in, as well as -- many of

my friends and family have been priced out and have

had to -- to move further and further out of the city,

to Nampa, to Mountain Home, to Twin Falls, as well

as -- you know, a lot of my friends are living in

apartments with roommates because they -- despite, you

know, us being in our mid-to-late 20s, they still

And despite a -- a

156 1

can't afford their own apartment.

move back in with their parents.

Some have had to

My sister and brother-in-law and their

family had to move out to the outskirts of Nampa

because they could no longer afford to live in Boise.

So they now commute -- commute an hour from -- from

Nampa into downtown Boise for work.

And, you know, it's simply -- you know, we

did everything right.

grades, we got good jobs, and yet we still can't

afford to live in the city that we grew up in because

there's a lack -- a shortage of housing.

We went to college, we got good

I support the -- the Zoning Code Rewrite

because we need more housing so that locals don't

continue to get priced out.

one of the most unaffordable housing markets in

America for wages compared to housing costs, so we

need more housing of all types, and -- and the Zoning

Code Rewrite will create that.

Boise was recently ranked

I've heard a lot of people talking about

the city's character, the neighborhood's character.

would say that the city's character does not come from

the physical buildings, but rather from the people

that live there, and -- and we're losing a lot of

those people.

157 1

People are so focused on the houses we

might lose -- that might get torn down.

They don't

see the -- the people that we're losing every single

day from our lack of housing in the city.

So thank you for your time.

And that's all I have to say.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Ryan McGoldrick.

Thank you.

Okay.

11 12

Thanks.

Ryan McGoldrick.

And then Nina Pienaar and then Dane

Hoskins and then Matthew Arriaga. RYAN McGOLDRICK:

My name is Ryan McGoldrick,

and my address is 2212 North 19th Street, and I'm here

on behalf of Conservation Voters for Idaho in support

of the proposed Modern Zoning Code.

First, I'd like to start off by thanking

the -- the City of Boise staff for the extensive

public outreach they conducted to develop the proposed

Zoning Code over the last three years.

Director Keane shared this yesterday, but

I think it's worth repeating:

conversations across the city, 23 Citizens' Advisory

Committee meetings, 5 surveys with 7,000 responses, 35

stakeholder meetings, 7 presentations to City Council,

12 commission or committee meetings, multiple rounds

There were 29 community

158 1

of mailers that went out to residents, and staff

attended many local events to educate folks that were

just showing up to events.

I know they also -- at most of those

things that I attended, they were asking folks like,

"If you have someone that we're" -- "you don't think

we're reaching, like please suggest ways we can reach

out to them."

looking for suggestions.

meetings.

They asked multiple times.

They were

They were setting up new

So for a lot of the folks that are

suggesting that it wasn't an extensive-enough process,

I would ask like, "What" -- "what are their

suggestions for better ways to do the outreach," and

that's something that I don't think I -- I really

heard a lot of, is -- like what is the -- what input

would you like to see before we got to a point where

you're -- you're satisfied with the public outreach?

I mean, I know there's always more we can

do, and we would love to be able to reach every single

resident.

But as someone who -- we do public

outreach.

That's what -- a lot of what CVI does, and

it is incredibly difficult to reach folks.

things that we actually did before developing

our -- our suggestions and our proposals for this was

One of the

159 1

going out and starting -- doing door knocking.

So we went, over the last few weeks, and

knocked on about 500 doors of folks.

time intensive.

reached about -- talked to maybe like 100 to 150

folks.

Again, that's like weeks of work for us to do

that.

That's not something that the City of Boise

staff can be expected to like go out and do.

That's extremely

It takes a lot of work, and we

So some of the things we heard over the

past few weeks was -- whether folks were supportive or

not, one thing we heard a lot was that Boise residents

want homes that are affordable at price points that

they and their families can afford.

walkable communities with trees and access to parks

and open spaces, and Boise residents want to ensure

that we are using our resources efficiently, whether

that resource is land, water, or energy.

They want

And so, with that, we found that this

was -- followed the best -- the best practices and the

best things to -- to reach those goals, and that's why

we submitted a letter in support from Conservation

Voters for Idaho, from CATCH, Idaho Conservation

League, Neighbors For Boise, Idaho Chapter Sierra

Club, the Boise Bike Project Board of Directors, Idaho

Walk Bike Alliance, Golden Eagle Audubon Society, and

160 1

the Canals Connect Communities Coalition.

all groups working in conservation, working in

housing, working in transportation.

These are

And we're doing this work, and

we're -- we're seeing that this is the -- these are

the best practices, and this is what we need to do to

achieve the -- the goals that we want to have.

The last thing I'd end with is that I

think -- plus the three years, I think it's important

to remember that the public outreach didn't --

THE CLERK:

Time.

RYAN McGOLDRICK:

-- start with just the Zoning

Code Rewrite.

this is following up on that.

three years of extensive outreach.

years before that of additional outreach for Blueprint

Boise.

18 19

It started with Blueprint Boise, so So this is not just This also includes

So with that, I will thank -- excuse me -- thank you for all you do.

And thank you to the staff, again.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Nina Pienaar's online and then Dane

Hoskins, Matthew Arriaga, Chandler Hadraba, and Katie

Fite.

25 26

NINA PIENAAR:

Good evening.

161 1

Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

NINA PIENAAR:

4 5 6 7

We can.

Great.

Hello.

I -- I would like

to -- oh, sorry. My name is Nina Pienaar.

I live at 1516

North 21st Street, Boise, Idaho. I would like to express my strong support

for the new, modern Code.

represent a significant step forward, implementing

sustainable and equitable development practices, as

well as creating a more liveable and vibrant city for

all residents.

The proposed changes

One of the key benefits of this new Code

is its emphasis on mixed-use development.

By allowing

a wider range of uses in each area, we can create more

walkable and bikeable communities that offer a greater

variety of services and amenities.

will encourage more transit-friendly neighborhoods,

while also -- also fostering economic development and

growth -- job growth.

This, in turn,

I work for the Boise Bicycle Project, and

we see firsthand how important a bicycle can be to so

many families in the valley.

to have the effect we hope for it to have, every

family needs to have access to safe places to ride and

But for their bicycles

162 1

a network that makes daily trips by bike possible.

And the new -- the new Code can make that a reality

with higher densities and mixed-use development.

I'm also pleased to see that the new Code

includes stronger protections for affordable housing.

As our city grows, we must make sure that everyone can

find a safe place, an affordable place to live, and

also ensuring that Boise remains a diverse and

inclusive city.

I appreciate the City's efforts to make

the planning process more accessible and transparent,

which means more residents are able to engage in the

planning process and have a greater say in how their

neighborhoods are developed.

Overall, I believe that the new Zoning

Code has the potential to significantly improve the

quality of life for all Boise residents by promoting

sustainable, equitable, and livable development

practices.

work towards making our city a better place to live.

And lastly, I'd just like to say, "Thank

I urge you to support the Zoning Code and

you so much for all the hard work you and your

Planning team have put into the Zoning Code."

it's a huge lift.

25 26

Thank you so much.

I know

163 1 2

I actually have Dane Hoskins sitting next to me.

Is -- would it be easier to just have him --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

NINA PIENAAR:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

-- stay on the same line? That'd be -- that'd be great,

yes.

Thank you.

NINA PIENAAR:

Awesome.

Here he is.

DANE HOSKINS:

Good evening, everybody.

name's Dane Hoskins.

Boise.

support of the Zoning Code Rewrite.

Also, 1516 North 21st Street,

And I would also like to speak briefly in

As many have testified already, I have

also seen and experienced the dire need for additional

housing.

any means or a complete solution, but it is

a -- definitely a valuable step in the right direction

and one component of a larger housing ecosystem to

build the units that we need.

This Zoning Code Rewrite is not a panacea by

I really only wish to know that the

increased diversity of units will allow me and my

family to remain kind of a resident of Boise over the

long term.

24 25 26

The only other note I'd really like to add to this evening is we've started to get results from

164 1

other zoning code rewrites in other cities -- I was

just reading about Minneapolis this week -- that have

lowered costs for renters while raising property

values for surrounding neighbors.

like this can be a win-win for the community.

Land-use changes

That is all I have to say.

Thank you very much for your time,

everyone.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Chandler Hadraba and Katie Fite.

Matthew Arriaga and then

MATT ARRIAGA:

name's Matt Arriaga.

off Vista, probably about a couple hundred feet away

from the new -- 48-acre, seven-story, new development.

Good evening.

Hi, everyone.

I live at 1617 Sunrise Rim, just

I'm a mediator.

I work settling

commercial lawsuits.

including mostly insurance, but commercial -- this

is -- I never wanted to be an attorney, but this has

lawsuits written all over it.

I've settled thousands of them,

So a couple things pointed out to me

whenever there's decisions being made is, "Go back to

the basics."

"Create a city for everyone," "embracing our community

in the decision-making process."

So the City of Boise on the website:

Okay.

We're in that

165 1

process right now, but there's -- the transparency,

there's some question marks on that.

you've -- you've heard that.

"Innovating and investing to protect our

environment."

too, and I'll get into that in a sec.

"For the Greatest Good."

I think

I've got question marks on that one

I'll get into

that in a second and the other one, also.

As a public official -- or some of you are

appointed -- the relationship, trust, values, actions,

honesty are most important.

Once that trust is lost,

it almost never comes back.

Does that matter?

such significant, permanent decisions being made,

shouldn't everyone be present?

With

I know we have a couple that are

appointed, a couple others who aren't represented, and

then 611 pages -- that is very hard to decipher.

Maybe you guys understand it, but I question the

secrecy, the rush.

but it's been 60 years.

not going to change anything.

I know it's been in the process, Another six months, a year is Let's make it right.

As a full-time med -- mediator, when I

settle lawsuits, all parties and decision-makers need

to be present to even move forward, yet we enact

zoning changes when all parties aren't even present,

166 1

which is the situation we're in now.

sense?

Does that make

If it's really about affordable housing,

which -- everyone's already kind of beat that up a

little bit -- it'd be required or agreed to.

Why is

the actual affordable housing not required?

Why can't

there be some middle ground, instead of being able to

tear down these single-family homes like mine

and -- building, you know, a quadplex or bigger

buildings -- four -- four units, four stories high

right next to us?

Do we ever wonder why Idaho has issues

with Californians and Salt Lake City developers?

Well, we're seeing it right now.

the biggest taxpayers in Boise are those developers.

Was it green?

This is -- some of

Well, there was two trees

on the new development, so I guess it's green.

Does it help nature?

Well, we covered the

land with concrete, and now it's protected, and that's

good.

All right.

Water?

Okay.

We -- we have

water run off our concrete, and now that's going into

the -- into our irrigation, obviously, and drains, and

then we get taxed more for the infrastructure.

25 26

What's your legacy?

Well, I helped

167 1

build -- developers build the most densely-populated

area in Idaho, covering up nature, open lots, tearing

down single-family homes, blocking others' views,

sunlight, kind of like a national cattle processer,

where cattle live in a very small area.

But we do the same.

people.

want it to be?

Is that what Idaho's about?

THE CLERK:

MATT ARRIAGA:

We just do it with Is this what you

Time. If only we could make a decision.

Oh, wait.

We're here, where we can punt,

push it off a little bit for the next six months or

so.

14 15 16

Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Chandler Hadraba.

CHANDLER HADRABA:

Yep.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yep.

19 20

I appreciate it.

Okay.

And then Katie Fite's next. CHANDLER HADRABA:

My name's Chandler Hadraba.

I live in the Collister Neighborhood, and I am the

Republican Vice Chair for Legislative District 16, and

I also have successfully litigated environmental law

against every major municipality in the state of

California and the state -- and the State itself.

168 1

The city of Santa Monica has a "Rights of

Nature" document, which, I think, is really important

and seems to be in line with what you're doing, and

whereby entities that normally don't have standing do.

And I return back to the excellent

testimony given here before by another gentleman, and

I asked the question, "What about the trees?"

many trees are going to be murdered by this

high-density plan that you're putting forth?

How

Every sketch, everything I've seen, it's

concrete.

trees.

will slam, you know, green grass and -- and elderly

trees, the benefit to being a sponge when we have rain

and runoff is -- is immeasurable.

It's big buildings.

It's the death of

It's the death of green space.

While people

And, you know, with the rain -- historic

rains that we've had this year, the stress to our

existing infrastructure is just going to get even

worse, and you're going to further exacerbate it.

And my real worry is, if you look at

somewhere like Chicago, the metro area there has had

such a problem with growth and development and runoff

that what happens is the sewers back up and poop flows

down the street, so I hope we don't have that problem

here.

169 1

But what they had to do to solve it was to

build -- it was called "Deep Tunnel," and it was a

10-foot-diameter, 30-foot-long tunnel that could hold

up to a billion gallons of water to be waylaid before

being treated.

have the same problem here?

homeowners, who's going to get stuck paying for this

bill?

So once again, how are we not going to And other than the

You should take more time on it, and I

really -- like once again, the two trees that someone

talked about -- look, I've got two 50-year-old oaks in

my backyard, and the -- the shade and the benefits to

birds and wildlife in my neighborhood -- and there's a

big space behind there, and I'm looking at my

neighborhood.

That's -- the land that's right behind my house is

perfect for this.

Big -- these buildings are going up.

But the problem is, when they put it in,

those two big trees that I have that go out of my yard

and into my neighbor's yards, that they like, that

they appreciate, that the birds love, that the

squirrels love -- that new land owner could say, "Cut

your trees down," and it'll be gone.

24 25 26

So please don't -- give us more time. live in District 2.

My representative was appointed.

170 1

I want it to be Grant Burgoyne, but he's not there.

And I'd like the chance to vote for him this fall.

please let my voice be heard and give us a chance and

delay it tonight.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

KATIE FITE:

North 5th, Boise.

Thank you.

Katie Fite.

Hello.

Katie Fite.

1006

Why I urge the Planning and Zoning

Commission to reject the up-zone: tyranny.

top-down tyranny for Boise leaders to impose a Code

rewrite, cutting the public's voice out of the

development decisions that will profoundly alter our

Boise neighborhoods.

Transparency will be lost.

It's

Developers

will push projects on City staff with no public

hearings, increasing potential for corruption.

Projects will be set in stone, and the public's only

recourse will be expensive appeals.

development decisions that could drive us out of our

homes or apartments will be made behind closed doors

at City Hall.

25 26

Teardowns will multiply.

Crucial

Existing

171 1

affordable housing will be hauled away as trash to the

landfill and replaced by new, larger structures with a

carbon-pollution footprint -- how not to get to net

zero.

Tree-canopy cover will be chopped down.

The City of Trees will become the city of stumps,

harsh concrete, and an unhealthy environment.

Temperatures will shoot up.

effect will rise as green space vanishes.

Trauma.

The urban-heat-island

The social fabric of our

community will -- will be ripped apart as predatory

speculators swoop in, turning Boise into a city of

transitory renters, where regular folks can't afford a

home, and workers live in fear of rents

skyrocketing -- skyrocketing and impending

homelessness.

Terrorized, how renters will feel when

landlords keep raising rents and they

endless -- endlessly have to move to survive, how

seniors will feel when they can no longer stay in

their home as tax assessments climb and gentrification

engulfs them, taking away a good place to live from

all those who helped build this community over the

60 years that the existing Code -- and various

modifications have served us well -- taking from those

172 1

who invested their life savings to buy a house in a

pleasant place, taking from neighborhood groups who

spent thousands of collective hours crafting plans for

livable neighborhoods.

Taxes will go through the roof.

Seniors

and workers -- workers will be forced to flee to

somewhere more affordable.

Traffic jammed.

Streets are already

clogged, as our weak public-transportation system

falls further and further behind.

Transfer of wealth will take place.

High-density apartments and Airbnbs will be owned by

Wall Street speculators and transnational

corporations.

values will suffer.

Money will flow out of Boise.

Civic

Trickle-down housing has failed to produce

affordability wherever it's been tried.

This complex,

confusing, 600-plus-page Code change and

Comprehensive-Plan revision will foster a Wild

West -- Wild-West-growth mentality and chaotic

development.

our city 's future, converting Boise to a city of

renters at the mercy of landlords.

Robber-baron-style developers will chart

Any large-scale Zoning Code change

could -- should come up from the people and be

173 1

conducted through close study of and consultation with

individual neighborhoods.

top-down, using expensive consultants who spoon fed

boiler-plate, growth-industry schemes resisted in

other cities to a Committee weighted with development

interests handpicked by the Mayor.

7 8

It should not be imposed

Any change of this magnitude must be put on the --

THE CLERK:

Time.

KATIE FITE:

-- ballot for a public vote.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

We are through all of

the folks that previously signed up, and now we are

down to the list of folks that signed up this evening,

and a few of you have already spoken.

We'll start at the top of that list.

Douglas Drink -- Drinko -- Drinka.

DOUG DRINKA:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

And then -- sorry -- Larry -- oh,

Okay.

We got those guys.

it's Lamar.

23 24 25 26

Drinka. Drinka.

Thank you.

And then George Haaland and then Ian McLaughlin. DOUG DRINKA:

Chairman Schafer, Members of the

174 1

Commission, my name's Doug [phonetic] Drinka.

3808 North Hawthorne Drive, and I'm president of the

Collister Neighborhood Association, but I'm not

speaking on behalf of the neighborhood today.

I'm at

I want to state -- start by thanking the

Planning and Development staff.

provided a multitude of education and feedback

opportunities over the past few years.

You guys have

You've shown your commitment to charting

the path for the shape of the city for the next

20 years.

listened to our feedback, engaged with it, and

actually made changes in -- in response to that

feedback.

this process.

And I'm especially thankful for the way you

I've felt very heard and valued through

Yesterday, we heard a plan of action

coming together.

Staff will create a set of metrics

to measure the success of the Modern Code.

the Code in place, even if it's not quite perfect.

We'll come back a year later, review the metrics, make

some changes, continue this iterative process into the

future.

This won't work.

We'll put

Here's why.

Municipalities must tread carefully to

avoid triggering a government taking when changing

zoning laws.

Once an entitlement is offered, it can't

175 1

be canceled later.

Code drafts, staff may have liked to require

additional affordability or sustainability

requirements.

requirements, instead they had to come in the form of

new incentives.

For example, in the current Modern

They can't just create those

If a parcel is up-zoned, it can't be

down-zoned by the City.

it can't just be removed or modified.

this right the first time.

If an incentive is offered, We have to get

In the proposed draft, City staff have

tried to strike a balance between the pace of

development and the right kinds of development, using

incentives.

confidence that the incentives would even be widely

used.

Last year, City staff had a low level of

This year, the housing market looks

completely different from last year.

balance struck now today, that that will be viable for

the next 20 years, is minuscule.

adjust that balance towards more affordability or more

sustainability in the future.

The chances the

There's no way to

We've sold the farm.

We can never say, "If you want 12 units

per acre in R-1C, you'll need half of those to be

affordable."

Instead, forever, 12 units will be

176 1

allowed.

left.

There's no carrot left.

There's no stick

We need a solution that adapts without

creating entitlements.

slowly, to adjust density and make sure it's

care -- carefully attached with changes to the

affordability structure that might come down the pike

in the next 5, 10, 15 years, instead of making changes

all at once.

So one option is to move

I would love for consideration of

something like an incentive program, instead of

by-right grants of additional density, where, each

year, the Commission could review the housing metrics,

make predictions for the coming year, create a pool of

incentives available to the -- to developers.

when the pool is exhausted, no incentives of that type

are available until the next year.

And

I know that this idea is really

complicated, but we've got really smart people in

Boise.

We could do something complicated like this that makes

it adaptable and adjustable, not just for --

Partner with the BSU Center for Public Policy.

THE CLERK:

DOUG DRINKA:

Thanks.

Time. -- for Year 2, 3, or 20.

177 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

We can -- we can talk about that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Yeah.

GEORGE HAALAND:

My name's George Haaland.

Hi.

Yeah.

I live at 4705 West Denton, up on the Bench in Morris

Hill.

And I'd just like to start off by saying,

"I totally support the update," as the -- I think

Commissioner Gillespie said at the beginning and a

bunch of people have alluded to, there's this

disruption and change, and I think that's kind of the

nature of the entire conversation.

change, and all we know is it's going to keep

changing.

All we know is

And a lot of the issues

that -- affordability, infrastructure, schools, all of

this stuff we've been dealing with has been a

direct -- not directly correlated to the old Code, but

it's heavily influenced the path we've been on.

And maybe I've missed it, but it just

seems like there's no one that said, "I support the

old Code" -- "old Code because it's working so well."

So I think it's time we actually try something new and

try to get innovative.

we've got, to say, "All right.

It's kind of the only shot Let's try something

178 1

new."

I just want to touch on a couple

affordability pieces.

suite expanded in any way we can.

I -- I would like to see that

I think the country, the economy looks at

affordability in kind of a biopic way.

income, and then you've got to be able to afford

30 percent of that.

who is currently looking for a place to live, I leave

my house at the end of the month.

applications out right now.

It's your

I think there's -- as a renter,

I have about six

I think a huge piece to renting is

stability.

any -- I don't know if it's legal or not, but -- to

add three-year-lease options.

density if you're providing more stability within your

developments.

constantly washing out year after year.

I would like to see a -- if there's

And you get more

That way, you have renters who aren't

And then a thing not many people talk

about is, when you get to the end of your lease, a lot

of times, you get trapped between -- paying double

rent.

right away and then two grand for the next one.

It -- so it becomes incrementally more expensive over

time.

So I pay $1,500 for the house I'm moving out of

179 1

The house I'm currently living in is the

first house I've lived in for two years since I lived

at home with my parents.

young people renting.

that gets five years to just hang out and stay in

their spot.

That is the trend for all

It's very rare you see someone

Another option would be a rent-to-own

structure as a -- as some sort of a density bonus.

need more homeownership.

seems.

That's a huge issue, it

And then the last thing I would touch on

is -- I think it's a -- like the fireman said, when

you just watch a fire, coming up with the perfect

plan, the fire gets huge.

Personally, I think delaying this issue

for that will -- that will enhance -- it will

be -- inherently become more political if we allow the

entire city to start running on this as their

number-one political issue.

sudden, we are stuck with an old Code, and things keep

getting more unaffordable.

And then, all of a

I lived in Austin, Texas.

Their Code fell

apart, and they haven't been able to fix any of their

problems because they weren't even allowed to try the

new problem -- try a new solution.

180 1 2

So thank you, guys, for everything you've done, and I hope we get it done.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

5 6

Thank you.

Ian McLaughlin and then Grant

Walden, Eric Morrison, and Bill Basham. IAN McLAUGHLIN:

McLaughlin.

West Bench.

Good evening.

I'm Ian

I live at 5206 North Sunderland in the

I want to start by thanking the Planning

and Zoning staff.

Advisory Committee, I know all the hard work, late

night -- or -- well, late nights, careful examination,

and outreach that they did, and I want to thank them

for that.

As a member of the Citizens'

I want to also thank you, Commissioners,

for being here tonight and listening to me talk.

I'm not a native Boisean.

I moved here in

2019 with my wife.

you all are very familiar with, mostly because it's an

amazing place to live.

outdoors, and the people here are really, truly nice.

We fell in love with the city, as

You've got connection to the

We -- like I said, we fell in love with

the city.

a little bit, loved having bikeability, loved having

access to different amenities.

We lived a little bit in the southeast for

Ultimately, we started

181 1

looking for a house.

We got extremely lucky, and we would not

have been able to afford a house if it was not for a

little thing called "the Pandemic" and a brief pause

in the rise of housing costs.

our neighborhood.

great.

So we have come to love

We love our neighbors.

They're

We have access to parks. One thing the West Bench kind of lacks is,

I would say, walkability.

the new Zoning -- or proposed Zoning Code would

address is walkability to amenities, cafes,

restaurants, things like that, which I would love to

see in our neighborhood.

And I think one thing that

One cool thing about our neighborhood

is -- we have a mix of housing.

We have duplexes

right next to single-family homes, and it works great.

I think, you know, we keep hearing, "Oh,

well, why don't we just delay it another six months?

Why don't we just delay it another six months?"

think that's a slippery slope.

And I

Ultimately, I think we're going to run

into the same issues that are happening regionally,

issues that we're seeing in Ketchum, Idaho; Sun

Valley; McCall, where people that, you know, help our

city run smoothly -- service workers, police officers,

182 1

teachers, people in healthcare -- those people won't

be able to afford a house here, and that's a problem.

So I support and view the new Zoning Code

as an ordinance essential to coping with the changes

that we're facing as a city.

we should choose to prepare for the future that we

want and a city that we can be proud of.

And I think, as a city,

Thank you very much for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thanks.

Okay.

Grant Walden.

Okay.

Eric Morrison.

Okay.

And then after Mr. Morrison, Bill

Basham, Robert Overstreet, and then Kristen

Overstreet.

ERIC MORRISON:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the

Planning and Zoning Commission, thank you for the

opportunity to speak today.

My name is Eric Morrison.

I live at 1307

South Denver Avenue in an old garage converted into a

one-bedroom apartment in an alley.

I'm a proud Boisean and a resident and

founder of Alley Homes, a company focused on providing

affordable ADUs or accessory dwelling units.

favor of the Zoning Code Rewrite, particularly in

easing the size limits and removing the deed

I am in

183 1

restriction.

So I did submit this entire testimony

verbatim already via e-mail, so I'm going to go a

little bit off script and add a couple of notes that I

didn't mention before.

So I am a highly-sensitive person, and we

are many.

That's not people that like to cry a lot.

What it means is that we sense more information from

the environment, sounds and smells and that sort of

thing.

And we're 20 percent of the population.

And my first three years that I lived here

in Boise were in just big, large, blocky apartment

buildings, and I will tell you that those are

absolutely miserable for sensitive people, and that's

mostly because developers don't insulate properly

between the walls, but that's a whole tangent I won't

go on.

So it means a lot that I found my little

alley ADU.

and it's improved my quality of life dramatically.

And so I'm very passionate about this issue of making

sure that ADUs stay affordable, accessible, and

that -- I had a consultation with an ADU developer in

Portland, and he made a very important point, which is

that cities that he's worked with that limit the size

It's been a godsend, it's been amazing,

184 1

of the total ADU that can be built on a property and

that also implement these deed restrictions -- that

greatly hinders a city's ability to proliferate ADUs,

which is good for homeowners and for in-laws and for

people like me.

So there is one other point.

completely going in a different direction, but I -- I

wanted to bring this up.

This is

There's been some conspiracy theories

going around tonight.

conspiracy, that's artificial intelligence.

here.

Tesla has almost solved it.

Arizona.

vehicles in the near future, probably 5 to 10 years

from now.

One thing that's not a It is

And robo-taxis, that is, self-driving cars, Waymo has solved it in

And so people are not going to own as many

And so I bring this up because parking has

come up a lot, and I think that it's something

important to consider.

think into the future, that we can be innovative and

look forward -- look ahead.

I believe that Boiseans can

And the fact that many, many people are

not going to own personal vehicles in the future

should have some bearing on, you know, these sort of

parking requirements.

So it's just something I wanted

185 1

to bring up.

And, yeah.

I -- I thank you for your time and

consideration.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

Bill Basham, Robert Overstreet,

Kristen -- Kristen Overstreet, Paula Schappacher.

8 9

That's about it.

Yeah, I saw that. PAULA SCHAPPACHER:

I'd like to testify against

the current plan of zoning -- changing the zoning in

Boise.

My name is Paula Schappacher, and I live

at 922 East Curling Drive in Boise.

I'm a 79-year,

fourth-generation North Ender, and I thought that I

would be carried out feet first from the North End,

and that's what I wanted.

But about four and a half years ago, when

the City Council passed the accessory dwelling units

and I saw what was happening in our neighborhood with

the traffic up and down the alleys and people buying

single-family houses and turning them into triplexes

and so forth, I left and moved to the -- to the

Highlands.

I am -- I do have a reason to care about it.

25 26

I still own property in the North End, so

I've lived -- in the past, I've lived

186 1

temporarily in large cities on both the east and the

west coasts, and they are a mess, an absolute mess.

And I've heard a lot about the influx of people into

Boise, et cetera.

for that.

Well, you know, I blame the City

Boise City Chamber of Commerce, the State,

et cetera beat the bushes for people to come here and

companies to come here.

Angeles at the time, and there were ads in the Los

Angeles Times about, "Get your insurance

money" -- because of some of the catastrophes that had

happened there -- "and move to Boise."

My sister was living in Los

And it happened, and we kept saying to

ourselves, "Why did they not see what was going to

happen?"

trying to" -- "to get people to move here see that

it's not all a positive thing?"

said, "Everybody that has something to say about

growth in the Boise area needs to go live in a big

city."

"Why doesn't Boise and the people who are

And we

Go live there and see how horrible it is.

And I have children who have lived in

Portland and Seattle and have moved out because of

what horrible places they are.

Portland, where there are hardly any setbacks between

houses, and they've got commercial properties right

The inner city of

187 1

next to -- to residential properties, there's no

parking.

There's crime.

There's people all over

the place that -- that maybe you didn't want in your

neighborhoods.

and these are progressive and modern cities.

that term as far as always positive -- is not so.

Seattle -- downtown Seattle is a mess, So using

My son is the financial administrator of

five of the downtown blocks of Seattle that the

University of Washington owns.

never recover."

there.

You -- you know, and he knows, and he gets a list --

You can't get businesses to move down

Tourists don't want to go down there.

THE CLERK:

PAULA SCHAPPACHER:

16 17 18

He says, "It will

Time. -- every week of the violent

crimes that are going on in -- in Seattle. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mrs. Schappacher, I'm sorry.

Your time is up.

PAULA SCHAPPACHER:

Oh, it is.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

PAULA SCHAPPACHER:

Okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

PAULA SCHAPPACHER:

But anyway.

That's fine.

I just -- I

know this is an emotional -- an emotional plea, but I

feel like Boise is going down the tubes.

188 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Leanne Moselle and then Andrew

Okay.

And then Jerry Brady.

I think he talked, yeah.

Thank you.

Yep, you guys are paying attention.

You can be in line.

Okay.

Thank you.

Chumich.

LEANNE MOSELLE:

Good evening.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LEANNE MOSELLE:

[Unintelligible].

I thank you, Commissioner

and -- excuse me, Chair -- Mr. Chairman and

Commissioners, for allowing me the opportunity to

voice my opposition for this up-zone that is before us

today.

My name is Leanne Moselle.

I live in the

Hillcrest neighborhood of Boise, and I am currently on

the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association, as well

as -- the Legislative District 17 Secretary for

our -- our Ada County GOP.

I -- I -- I would like to first

address -- I believe it was Commissioner Blanchard

last night that mentioned that some of the

neighborhood associations weren't represented last

night or voicing their opinion.

189 1

I -- I think it was you, sir.

And I just wanted to let you know that, as

a neighborhood association, a lot of them have voted

to be nonpolitical or apolitical.

representing them today, but that is the reason a lot

of them didn't come and voice their concerns regarding

this tonight.

just -- they've decided to, you know, keep themselves

out of these things.

I'm not here

So it's not a lack of caring.

It's

Normally, I'm more of a facts-over-feeling

kind of person, but there -- there was a lot of facts

tonight, and I haven't had a chance to go through the

611 pages of confusing verbiage that I read or tried

to read, so I'm going to kind of push towards

feelings.

I was a little frustrated by how the

process rolled out.

seemed to be part of NGOs and different parts of

organizations that have worked directly with you guys,

that got to speak in the beginning of all of this,

and -- you know, and a lot of the opposition was left

out of the beginning of this process.

There was a lot of people that

I'm -- I moved to Boise in 1990 when I was

a young adult.

and not -- not because there was a lack of

It was difficult then to find housing,

190 1

housing -- be -- be -- because life is hard and

adulting is hard and you don't always get what you

want.

You know, I -- I think Boise's been a

place where it's based on families and, you know, I

feel like we're taking away the ability to have

two-parent families if all we're going to be offering

is one parking space in a lot of this new housing.

And, you know, especially in

multi-generational -- I -- I -- I took care of my

mother until she recently died, and I have a son that

lives at home with me, who's 30.

it's -- it's -- you know, sometimes, you -- you kind

of have to, you know, pull together as a family

and -- and live like they used to, back when I grew

up, to make it work.

And, you know,

I'm a single mom, and I -- I -- I make it

work.

I live in Boise.

I don't -- I don't -- I -- I

don't -- I don't have income above the poverty line.

I also believe that, you know, Boise's a

dog-friendly city too, and it needs to be.

then -- and having all these apartments isn't very dog

friendly as well.

24 25 26

And

And, you know, probably the most concerning, to me, is the rapid rise of the inflation

191 1

in food prices.

And having a home without a yard

can -- or -- or with a yard can offer food security.

During the Great Depression, a quarter-acre lot could

feed a family of six and made the difference between

life and death.

You know, and -- and with the way things

are changing and food and the availability of food in

this --

THE CLERK:

Time.

LEANNE MOSELLE:

-- day and age, I think that,

you know, putting people in apartments and not having

the ability to grow your own food or -- or have, you

know, backyard livestock is also a -- a big mistake.

So I -- I -- I would like to make sure to

point that out as well.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LEANNE MOSELLE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LEANNE MOSELLE:

Okay.

I thank you -Thank you.

-- for your time, and I

appreciate everything you guys have done to try to get

this done.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Close enough?

Okay.

Thank you.

Andrew Chumich.

192 1

ANDREW CHUMICH:

Hi.

Yeah.

My name is Andrew Chumich, and I live

at 1500 North 10th Street, Apartment 4.

eight-unit apartment complex, and the details may be

shocking to some of you.

I live in an

For the entire eight units, there's only

one designated parking spot.

Additionally, next door,

in the middle of the block is a commercial business, a

yoga studio, in an R-1C zone.

has two parking spots.

The yoga studio only

Walking around the entire 1.5-acre block,

I find 11 single-family homes, 10 apartment units, and

3 ADUs.

what the proposed Zoning Code allows in R-1C.

That's about 16 units per acre, above even

You might be asking yourself, "How could

anybody live in such conditions?"

simple.

and two healthy legs.

benefits.

My answer is

I don't own a car, instead I own two bikes This choice has all sorts of

The average cost of car ownership in Idaho

is about $500 a month, which I can stash away for

retirement or recklessly spend at local businesses.

If I pass by somebody I know while walking or riding,

I can easily stop and say, "Hi."

government doesn't have to spend hundreds of millions

Additionally, the

193 1

of dollars widening roads, highways, and intersections

for me to get around.

So when Blueprint Boise states its goal as

building a "sustainable community," where "integrated

economic, social, and environmental systems are

structured to support healthy, productive, and

meaningful lives for its residents," I think to

myself, I already live that kind of life.

But on occasion, I have to venture away

from my neighborhood, into the parts of Boise built

under the current Zoning Code, places where a life

like mine is impossible to live.

residential uses are spread so far apart that every

adult member of the household needs a car.

expensive.

Commercial and

How

To accommodate all the cars, the

government feels compelled to add new lanes and police

officers to patrol them, also expensive.

property taxes keep going up.

No wonder

The roads are so wide that the tree canopy

can't provide shade, making the hot, summer months

miserable for anybody traveling outside of an

air-conditioned car.

children can rarely walk or bike to school.

far away and way too dangerous.

Because of all these things, It's too

194 1

Our elected leaders and City staff

recognize the contradictions between the stated goals

of Blueprint Boise and reality.

Code has failed us.

current Code are economically fragile, environmentally

damaging, and socially isolated.

updated Code is the result of an honest attempt at

reconciling its problems.

The current Zoning

The neighborhoods built under the

I believe this

Smaller lot sizes, by-right commercial

uses, and reduced parking minimums are long overdue.

In fact, these were the norm when our most valuable

and still most economically-productive neighborhoods

were built.

14 15 16

I encourage the Committee to approve this proposed Zoning Code update. Thank you for your time and all the hard

work put into this proposal.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Wayne Richey.

Mm-hmm.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

24 25 26

Okay.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Yep. [Unintelligible].

Yep.

Okay.

And then, Scott and Erin Pietsch, I know we called you earlier.

I think you were gone.

195 1

Yep.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

them, are coming back tomorrow.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Okay. [Unintelligible].

That's right. [Unintelligible].

And then Jamie -You can stay there

[unintelligible].

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Please, sir.

WAYNE RICHEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

WAYNE RICHEY:

The Pietschs, the two of

-- Somma. [Unintelligible].

Yeah.

Great.

Have I gotten in tonight? You made it.

My name's Wayne Richey.

I live

at 4137 Mountain View.

This Code rewrite has a lot of red flags,

and the more you look into it, the more red flags you

find.

My pet peeve, personally, is parking.

One

parking spot per family unit -- not

apartment -- household -- a family

[unintelligible] -- for each household is ridiculous.

196 1

I -- I would bet that every one of you have more than

one parking spot at your home.

2020 Census.

23 percent of Boise has one

car or less.

Code is focusing on one-fourth of our community and

ignoring three-fourths of it.

realistic.

75 percent have two cars or more.

This

That's just not

My kids have moved back home.

They have

cars.

I have friends that have parents move back in

with them.

One-car-per-household required parking is simply not

realistic.

Most people have to have roommates now.

Mr. Keane will tell you that we have way

too much parking.

Everybody is going to ride bicycles from now on and

take buses.

bicycle to the store; okay?

made up of only 30-years-olds -- year-olds; okay?

We don't need this much parking.

I'm 62 years old.

Anyway.

I do not ride a

And, yeah, Boise is not

Other red flags.

Public

hearings.

didn't like that.

sitter -- Citizens' Advisory Committee was all made up

of developers and architects and realtors.

They

weren't real people.

That's a

red flag.

I noticed all the neighborhood associations The scissor -- the

They were developers.

197 1

The City Council not representing all of

Boise, that's a red flag.

Council and the Mayor live in the North End because of

the historical -- and the lot sizes.

affect them.

in my backyard," by the Mayor and the City Council.

7 8

And most of the City

This won't

This was a -- this was a perfect, "Not

Four-story buildings in residential areas. That's a red flag.

So we can't build ourselves out of this.

We just can't.

but there is an inexhaustible supply of people wanting

to move here.

accommodate all the new people.

there.

We all understand supply and demand,

You can't build that much to try to The math just isn't

And if I can address the elephant in the

room and -- this is what, I believe, is on everybody's

mind.

that have to live here the rest of their lives?

Are we working for the developers or the people

Everything we talked about -- are

you -- and -- and there's a lot that caters to

developers, a lot.

developers, or is that what's best for our future;

okay?

these topics because I think that's what --

25 26

Is that what's best for

Ask yourself that at the end of every one of

THE CLERK:

Time.

198 1

WAYNE RICHEY:

-- it comes down to.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

And Jamie

Sum -- sorry -- Summer -- Summers.

Somma.

And then he is the last one on the

Thank you.

signups.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

JAMIE SOMMA:

Okay, Chair and Commission.

name's Jamie Somma.

4247 East Arborvitae Court.

Woo-hoo.

Okay. [Unintelligible].

Right?

I'm a fourth-generation Texan.

My culture

taught me that that's a point of pride.

It taught me

that a person's value comes from their precedence in

arriving.

a very dangerous human instinct.

how we treat one another.

My study of history teaches me that that's It has no place in

My faith teaches me that each person has

intrinsic value and dignity and that that should be

how we value one another.

it's my calling to -- to love my God by loving my

neighbor.

My faith teaches me that

It teaches me to value people over my

199 1

preferences.

It teaches me to be quick to listen,

slow to speak, and slow to anger.

And I appreciate all of the time and

patience that you all and the planning staff have

given to listening to input.

So while I -- I -- there's -- there's been

a lot of things that, I think, have brought up fear

for people.

the perfect love casts out fear and that fear has no

place in critical decisions about how we treat one

another.

And my -- my -- my faith teaches me that

And so while I empathize with many of the

issues that people have raised on both sides of -- of

the for and against the -- the rewrite -- I empathize

with a number of the reasons that people have given,

I'm -- I'm coming out in favor of the Zoning Code

Rewrite.

As I currently understand it -- and I am

limited and don't understand all the issues, but as I

currently understand it -- the -- the Zoning Code

Rewrite, as I understand it, is something that will

help remove barriers, remove costs, remove bureaucracy

to allow more of the kinds of -- diversity of housing

that we need in our communities for everyone, of all

ages, of all origins.

200 1

And so, while I may disagree with some of

the reasons that the people against the -- the -- the

rewrite have given, I'm not going to denigrate them.

I'm not going to demonize them.

important that we listen and understand

everybody -- everybody's concerns.

I think it's

I'll just close by saying that I moved

here from Austin in 2019.

I saw Austin over a 30-year

time period.

as kind of like Austin 30, 40 years ago.

has not addressed the underlying zoning --

I love what I see in Boise.

THE CLERK:

JAMIE SOMMA:

I see Boise And Austin

Time. -- issues, and it has resulted in

sprawl.

lot of things that people have cited about killing

character -- sprawl will kill the character of a city.

17 18

And I will tell you, more than -- more than a

So thank you for your time and the work you do.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay, folks.

All right.

22 23 24 25 26

Okay.

Thank you.

Open -- yeah.

An open mic,

yeah. We've made it through the signup list, yeah, so we -- we'll start -- yep. JACKIE DAVIDSON:

Yep.

I actually missed my call

201 1

[unintelligible].

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Oh, okay.

That's great.

Come on up.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

And then --

JACKIE DAVIDSON:

[Unintelligible].

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

-- we're going to go through

The podium's free. Open mic.

Open mic now, yep.

the -- the folks here in person, and then we have a

few more folks online too.

get to you by 10 o'clock here tonight.

We'll see if we -- we can

Please.

JACKIE DAVIDSON:

Thank you so much.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mm-hmm.

JACKIE DAVIDSON:

Hi, Chairman, Committee

Members.

Community Member from Precinct 1614 in District 16,

and I'm here to speak in opposition of the Zoning

Adoption Draft.

My name is Jackie Davidson.

I'm a Precinct

And Idaho has really been known as a

rural, family-type -- centered state that's full of

trees and family living.

for 42 years.

area, and I appreciate the density of -- the low

density of Boise.

And the -- I've lived here

I'm a homeowner in the southwest Bench

I have pride in my yard.

My -- and

202 1

my neighbors do as well.

And in the last few years, there have

been a -- some drastic changes in my neighborhood.

There's been a townhome complex, an apartment complex

built by my house, and -- to tell you the truth, I

have difficulty getting out of my street onto the

road.

that -- you know, I -- I think that this density

thing, it's going to put a burden on the

infrastructure and the utilities.

It's -- it's become very traffic intense.

You know, the Bench has a really nice -- a

lot of nice neighborhoods.

old, these neighborhoods are the American way of life.

And they're single residences, they have grass in the

front, they have grass in the back, and, you know,

they -- it's -- it's the pride of ownership that these

people have -- that we have in our neighborhood.

You know, though they're

And so when we -- you know, when I look at

the -- on page 16 of the Code Adoption Draft, and it

shows a developer can take a 5,000 -square-foot lot

and turn it into four townhomes in 3,500

square -- square feet -- you know, that takes that

homeownership away.

with no pride of ownership.

25 26

The residents will be renters

Where are the yards with the trees?

203 1

Oh -- oh, yes.

There's one tree and a little piece

of -- of yard in the front and cement and asphalt in

the backyard.

change?

How does that work with the climate

Also, there's limited parking, and I've

seen the results of these type of rental units, and

the roads are packed with cars.

limited cars that are parked on the street.

Boise develops rental apartments, townhomes, the cars

will be parked on the streets, will cause road

congestion and a sore sight.

My neighborhood has And if

You know, you only need to look at the

corner of 27th and Stewart to see what kind of result

of that will take -- also -- and many people have said

this, that the -- we're electing the Boise City

Council this fall.

And so I'd really appreciate it if you

guys would wait and -- and because I don't really have

any representative -- representation in my district

right now.

go to the appointed person.

elected official.

that the consideration of this rewrite is postponed

until the May -- Mayor and City Council are

solidified.

I don't have -- you know, I can't -- can't I want to go to an

And so, you know, I'd recommend

204 1

So the only one that wins with this is the

developers, in my opinion.

So please don't destroy

our city with this rewrite.

I would recommend that we

stay with the current zoning, that we retain

homeownership, yards, and trees.

Trees, and we are Idaho.

Thank you --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

JACKIE DAVIDSON:

-- for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Come on up, please.

13 14

DAVE FUJII:

This is the City of

Thank you.

Anyone else here in person?

Let's see.

So I should have a slide set.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Oh.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

DAVE FUJII:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mm-hmm.

DAVE FUJII:

My name is Dave Fujii.

There you go, yep.

There it is.

Hi.

represent the Lake Harbor Master Association, and I

live at 5269 West Silverlake Lane.

There -- there's a lot to like in this

Zoning Code Rewrite, and Tim Keane over there

has -- and his team have done a -- a great job

in -- in a lot of ways.

205 1

So we don't want to throw the baby out

with the bath water, but I think what you want to hear

tonight is, "What is the bath water?"

I -- I'd like to focus on a pivotal part

of the proposed zoning rewrite, and it's the decision

criteria that -- that -- that directs a huge amount of

this body's work in considering CUPs.

So next slide.

So on the next slide...

10 11

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

[Unintelligible].

Oh, you have the clicker.

DAVE FUJII:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

DAVE FUJII:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

DAVE FUJII:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Next slide.

DAVE FUJII:

Cool.

Oh, I have the clicker. I'm sorry.

Oh. That's right.

There you go.

Okay.

So here's the existing requirement, which

you know by heart:

"The proposed" -- "the proposed

use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will

not adversely affect other property of the vicinity."

It's simple.

The intent is well understood.

But here's the proposed requirement:

application will not create any material negative

"The

206 1

impacts on adjacent properties; or any material

negative impacts have been mitigated to the maximum

extent practical" -- "practical" -- "practicable and

the public benefits of the application outweigh any

material negative impacts that cannot be mitigated."

I -- I want to tease apart some things.

"Adjacent properties," versus "other properties of the

vicinity."

consideration most of the properties for impact.

This -- this change eliminates from

Mixed-use neighborhoods have a diversity

of property uses.

protecting -- shouldn't we be protecting the quality

of life within and the character of a neighborhood,

and not just the next-door properties, which may or

may not be adversely affected by a development?

Shouldn't we

Let's talk about "material."

This is an

undefined qualifier, which will likely lead to

dismissal of very real, but hard-to-quantify concerns.

"Practicable ."

This means "affordable."

It potentially gives a developer the excuse, "Yes,

we're going to negatively impact the area because the

tactics to reduce our impact are something we cannot

afford."

established area with grace be born by the newcomer,

or if the costs to "do things right" are too high,

Shouldn't the full cost of entering an

207 1

shouldn't a different site be selected?

"Public benefit," versus "negative

impact."

This consideration pits adverse impact of an

area against the very subjective phrase of "public

benefit" and is sure to be detrimental to

neighborhoods and, in general, the existing area.

This body's decision on CUP21-26 was the

right call.

You upheld both the letter and the spirit

of the Code and provided protection for this

established neighborhood.

THE CLERK:

Time.

DAVE FUJII:

You were directed to act this way

because of this criteria.

So please place the value on protecting

our neighborhoods by retaining the existing Code -- or

the existing criteria.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

DAVE KANGAS:

All right.

Thank you.

Commissioners, my name is Dave

Kangas.

speaking to you tonight as president of Boise Working

Together and leader of the opposition of the

Boise -- Reject Boise Upzone.

25 26

I reside at 1715 West Canal Street, and I'm

A little bit about Reject Boise Upzone is

208 1

that our Board consists of Richard Llewellyn, who's

out in northwest Boise, who's on the Citizens'

Advisory Committee and really is involved with policy

and the infrastructure that's been lacking out there;

Erika Schofield, who's really about public

safety -- she's our brain.

computer -- Lori Dicaire, she is low-income

affordability; Katy Decker, Veterans Park, who has

been more involved with IFS than with us, but she is

on our Board; Katie Fite, who testified tonight, who's

really about environment and from the North End; Chris

Runnion [phonetic] from the East End's really about

the impact of the infill developments and lot splits

from the East End; Ed McCloskey [phonetic]; Fred

Fritchman from southeast Boise, who have been heavily

impacted by R-2 development, especially dorm-style

duplexes; myself from the Vista Neighborhood

Association that -- in the last two years, we have

seen an approval of approximately 1,500 building

permits.

property, I've seen more development in the last 2

years than we have in the previous 20 -- and we

also -- Estee Lafrenz, who's president of South Cole

Neighborhood Association, who's addressing the far

reaches -- the issues out there.

She is just a

And even if we threw out the Simunich

209 1

What I wanted to point out with that

is -- is each of those areas, each of those people

representing different neighborhoods, all have

different issues with the growth and development that

has been happening, and that is how complicated it is

to try to write a Zoning Code that encompasses all of

Boise with the different varieties that we have.

From the beginning, when Tim -- when we

first met with Tim Keane after his arrival, I had

suggested that it'd be really wise to just do eight

planning districts, recommending the neighborhood

planning areas.

from everybody, and you probably would have achieved

the goals that they are trying to achieve and probably

with less rebellion than what's happened.

That way, you would've got buy-in

We have consistently met for over -- every

Friday for -- consistently in the last six months

since IFS, but we were meeting before then too.

have taken time.

at the whole thing, and we've had to readjust and look

at this thing three different times because of the

changes that have come out.

So we

We've -- a pretty comprehensive look

Now, personally, my objection that caused

me to just say, "No, I am not standing up for this,"

is when the revisions came out midsummer of last

210 1

year -- that came out -- was strategic infill, the new

MX corridors.

coupled with the lot-size reductions and the potential

lot splits, the streamlining of all the applications,

I just realized that --

THE CLERK:

DAVE KANGAS:

And when I looked at those issues,

Time. -- this is about production, pure

and simple.

Somehow, some way, the City wants to

achieve 27,000 units in 10 years, which exceeds what

they've done in 21 -- in 21 years, and that's going to

be done with infill on an occupied environment.

built-out.

It's not spreading out --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

DAVE KANGAS:

all that energy in. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

DAVE KANGAS:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: time is up.

DAVE KANGAS:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Mr. Kangas, I'm sorry.

Your -- your time -- your

I'm sorry. Okay.

We're bringing

That is not being addressed.

Mm-hmm.

-- urban sprawl.

It's

Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in person

tonight that would like to speak? Okay.

The podium is free.

We have a few folks with hands up

211 1

online.

2 3

I'm going to go through those folks, Crystal.

4 5

We'll start with David DeHaas and then Ed McCloskey -- oh, sorry -- and Don May.

6 7

Okay. DAVID DeHAAS:

8 9

This is David DeHaas. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

10 11

Can you hear me?

Hi there.

We can hear you.

Go ahead, please. DAVID DeHAAS:

Oh, thank you.

My name's David DeHaas.

1116 South Vista,

Boise, Idaho.

neighborhoods with R-1C homes, these old

neighborhoods, but also as a representative of

Idahoans for Safe Technology.

I come now as a citizen in the

I ask that more time be given to the

public to fully understand all the changes of this

Zoning Code update.

streamlining process, which means less ability for

neighbors to be able to respond to new projects.

I do not agree with the

In 2021, me and members of Idahoans for

Safe Technology came before you on the Wireless Code

Rewrite.

attorneys believed that you're preempted from being

At that time, the Council, staff, and

212 1

able to determine if and where cell towers could be

located.

You're not preempted at all.

Since that time, Ada County Commissioners

have denied two cell towers being placed in or

near -- near homes.

north have also denied a cell tower.

Kootenai County Commissioners up

Dalton Gardens, Idaho passed a Wireless

Ordinance that only allows towers if they can prove a

substantial gap in coverage -- or providing drop-call

records.

Eagle, Idaho, they will not allow internet towers,

these 5G small cells, to be put in their cities.

provided Director Keane, last fall -- the copy of the

Dalton Gardens Ordinance as a model for this

administration to follow.

That's for telecommunication towers.

Our issue is that new 5G small cells cause

a horrendous problem to our health, to the bees, to

birds, animals, and humans.

this body.

provides internet service.

We have testified before

This technology is not needed, as it only

I've been on a -- been with no less than

seven experts on a radio show, who clearly

delineated -- cell towers being placed as close as

20 feet from homes is an existential threat to

humanity.

213 1

Despite talks about following the Boise

Blueprint [sic], the towers alone obliterated the

Boise Blueprint goal to have a healthy and sustainable

city.

towers kill the birds, bees, and humans and defoliates

the trees, and they're huge energy hogs.

First of all, the high frequencies from 5G

Further, on August 13th, 2021, the D.C.

Court of Appeals found the FCC to be arbitrary,

capricious, and negligent, as it never provided the

safety studies -- that these towers are safe.

You've had a physicist testify before this

body that -- he has shared with you -- these towers

can be used as weapons.

Right now, I can point to neighborhoods

where your neighbors are suffering from AFib,

glioblastoma brain cancer, memory loss, brain fog,

canities.

backlogged 18 months to schedule heart ablation

surgery to those with AFib from these towers.

problem did not exist two years ago.

then, and we are warning you again.

St. Luke's has told us that they are now

This

We warned you

The big reason you took away the right for

citizens to contest these towers is that the staff

stated they didn't have the time to listen to

citizens' complaints.

And since this body wrongly

214 1

believed that you were preempted from denying cell

towers, you took away the conditional-use-permit

process, whereby citizens can object to these towers.

It seems you are doing this again in some parts of

this Code for housing.

Because of the reasons mentioned above and

the fact that fiber-optic cable is the safer and

faster way to deliver high-speed internet service to

our homes and cities in Idaho, we ask that you follow

the lead of Eagle, Idaho and Dalton Gardens and others

like Ammon, Idaho; Mountain Home; et cetera and keep

cell towers out of residential neighborhoods and away

from schools by rewriting the "Wireless" section of

this Code.

that.

It needs to be revisited.

I strongly urge

Further, looking at it as a real-estate

person -- my background, years ago, was real estate.

THE CLERK:

Time.

DAVID DeHAAS:

I -- I find that the parking

requirements are not appropriate.

do -- decrease parking requirements is just not right.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

24 25 26

Okay.

To -- to

Thank you.

Staff, we have Don May next, the last one with his hand -- his hand's up.

215 1

DON MAY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

DON MAY:

4 5

Okay.

Yeah.

Can -- can you hear me okay? Yeah, we can hear you.

Great.

My name is Don May.

3108 West

Stewart Avenue in Boise's West End.

6 7

Great.

First, thank you, all, very much for your service.

You will not find a stronger advocate for

building affordable housing than me.

support the proposed affordable-housing regulations,

including increased density, increased building

heights, decreased lot sizes, parking reductions, and

neighborhood cafes.

far enough.

I strongly

In fact, I believe they do not go

I also strongly support the intentions

behind the incentive rules regarding the fourplexes,

which require that -- which require that two of the

fourplex units be rented to low-income renters.

Unfortunately, as I'll show you, they are

not grounded in reality.

support even a single unit being built at

below-market-rate rents, much less two units.

Therefore, no fourplexes will actually get built with

these rules.

25 26

Today's market simply cannot

As much as I'd love to build a fourplex

216 1

under these rules, it just doesn't come anywhere close

to making economic sense for me.

know of a single homeowner or small investor who is

planning to build one.

the coal mine, warning you that this provision of

Code, while it has great intentions, is doomed to

failure.

In fact, I do not

I am your proverbial canary in

I've had my finger on the costs of

building throughout the Treasure Valley for the past

10 years.

per square foot -- which I challenge you to build for

today -- you can build a unit for 131,000, adding

40,000 for horizontal costs and 60,000 for land costs.

It results in a per-cost unit of 231,000.

For a small, 870-square-foot unit at $150

Using management, maintenance, insurance,

and property-tax fees of 33 percent of your rent and

an interest rate of just 6 percent -- which, again, I

challenge you to find -- the cost to build and

maintain a unit and, therefore, the minimum rent per

unit required to just break even is $2,064.

According to RentCafe.com, today's average

rent for an 870-square-foot apartment in Boise is

$1,612.

loss of $452 per unit, per month, even when using my

extra-low-cost assumptions.

Subtracting 2,064 from 1,612 results in a

217 1

The bottom line -- it barely makes

economic sense to build fourplexes and rent them at

market-rate rents right now and certainly doesn't make

sense at below-market-rate rents.

I highly encourage you to do your due

diligence and show other Boise-based developers my

costs.

any good, particularly those struggling to afford

housing, if you pass legislation that will have

literally zero impact on housing being built.

These numbers are real.

It doesn't do anyone

So please remove the requirement that

fourplexes need to be built with low-income rents or

requirements, instead allow homeowners to actually

build fourplexes by renting all units at market-based

rents.

housing-inventory supply to the market and have a

positive impact on affordable housing for renters who

desperately need it.

Only then will you actually add much-needed,

It's supply and demand 101.

More actual

housing supply, even at market rents, always moderates

or lowers housing costs.

THE CLERK:

DON MAY:

24 25 26

That is a real-world --

Time.

-- solution to the affordable-housing

crisis that will actually help. Thank you so much for your time.

218 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

All right.

Thank you. Well, it is 10 o'clock.

We made it through all of our signups and a few

additional folks.

tomorrow at 5 o'clock.

that time.

7 8

We are going to recess until We'll see you all back here at

Thanks, everybody, for your attendance tonight and your testimony.

(End transcription at 4:21:26 of audio

file.)

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

-o0o-

219 1

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 3 4 5 6 7

I, VICTORIA HILLES, RPR, Registered Professional Reporter, certify: That the audio recording of the proceedings was transcribed by me or under my direction. That the foregoing is a true and correct

transcription of all testimony given, to the best of

my ability.

I further certify that I am not a relative or

employee of any attorney or party, nor am I

financially interested in the action.

13 14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I set my hand and seal this 15th day of May, 2023.

15 16 17 18 19

_____________________________

VICTORIA HILLES, RPR

Notary Public

Post Office Box 2636

Boise, Idaho 83701-2636

24 25

My commission expires December 3, 2026

BOISE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ZONING CODE REWRITE HEARING MINUTES APRIL 26, 2023 I.

CALL TO ORDER PRESENT: ABSENT:

II.

Blanchard, Mohr, Schafer, Danley, Gillespie, Mooney, Finfrock Squyres, Stead

STAFF AND AGENCY PRESENTATIONS, PUBLIC TESTIMONY 1.

RESULT:

III.

DISCUSSED, PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED ITEM TABLED TO APRIL 27, 2023 – DELIBERATION OF FINDINGS

ADJOURNMENT

1 1

BEFORE THE CITY OF BOISE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

2 3

IN RE:

)

ZOA23-00001 / CITY OF BOISE

)

CPA23-00001 / CITY OF BOISE

)

Modern Zoning Code

)

____________________________________)

DAY 3

8 9

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDED PUBLIC HEARING

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2023

11 12

BEFORE:

BOB SCHAFER, CHAIRMAN

CHRIS DANLEY, CO-CHAIR

CHRISTOPHER BLANCHARD, COMMISSIONER

JANELLE FINFROCK, COMMISSIONER

MILT GILLESPIE, COMMISSIONER

JENNIFER MOHR, COMMISSIONER

JOHN MOONEY, COMMISSIONER

20 21

TRANSCRIBED BY:

JEFF LaMAR, C.S.R. No. 640

Notary Public

24 25 26

2 1

(Beginning of video file.)

CRYSTAL RAIN:

Good evening, everyone.

Welcome

to the Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission public

hearing.

We have a few extra opening remarks, and

then the Chair will go into further detail on how we

will proceed this evening and the rest of the week.

This Commission is made up of citizen

volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the

City Council.

conditional-use permits, variances, and appeals, and

recommendations to the City Council on subdivisions,

rezones, annexations, as well as code and Comprehensive

Plan amendments, as in the case of this week's agenda

item.

They make final decisions on

Each hearing this week will be held in a

hybrid format.

hearing virtually has been automatically muted and

cannot speak.

virtually raise your hand, and you'll be called upon

and unmuted.

however, this is not part of the record and should only

be used if technical difficulties arise.

24 25 26

Everyone from the public entering the

Once time for testimony has begun,

There is a chat function in Zoom,

Our schedule this week is a little different than usual in that the procedure for our

3 1

public hearing will be stretched out over multiple

days.

from the planning team to follow up on some of the

questions from yesterday.

continue with public testimony, starting with those who

signed up in advance, then anyone else who signed up

here in person, and then anyone else who raises their

hand virtually.

telephone, you can type in star 9 to raise your hand.

Each member of the public is allowed up to

Today we will begin with a brief presentation

And then after that we'll

If you're attending through your

three minutes for testimony.

We are strict with this

time, as it is limited in code.

continue through tonight and tomorrow, if needed.

if at any point we have no more folks signed up to

testify, the public hearing portion will be closed,

staff will be given time for rebuttal, and the

Commission will deliberate and render a recommendation.

Public testimony will But

Finally, please expect a few quick breaks

for proceeding, as well as a half-hour dinner break at

7:00 p.m. this evening, as we have a long night ahead

of us.

22 23 24 25 26

Mr. Chair, you have the floor. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you, Crystal.

Good evening, everybody. being here this evening.

Thank you for

4 1

A couple of points here before we start out

tonight:

Our main goal tonight is to have a fair

hearing, a hearing where all voices are heard with

courtesy and respect.

to follow.

So a few simple rules for us all

When you testify tonight, you come up here

to the podium, you'll have three minutes when you get

to the podium.

address when you begin your testifying.

And please start with your name and

As people are testifying, please do not

call out, cheer, clap, heckle, that sort of thing from

the audience.

speaker.

speak, and we want to hear your thoughts and your

comments.

Please also do not interrupt the

Everyone here tonight will get a chance to

Second, when you're speaking, please

address your comments up here to us, the Commission.

Please don't direct your comments to staff or to

anybody in the audience.

If we receive comments with raised voices

or profanities, we'll stop your time and push you to

the end of the line for the evening.

If you ask a question during your

testimony, that's totally fine.

Commission cannot answer questions while you're

However, the

5 1

testifying.

address questions as we deliberate here later tonight

or tomorrow.

We are here to listen, and then we will

Of course, we have a lot of interest in

this item tonight, so we want to make it clear that we

have read any written comments that have been

submitted.

to reiterate anything that you've submitted via written

testimony.

everyone's comments, but we're certainly also looking

for new input and comments when you testify.

So if you testify, there's really no need

We're certainly interested in hearing

We're planning to close the hearing tonight

around 10:00, maybe a little later, if needed.

get much later than that, it gets hard for us all to

pay attention, as we all get tired, including you all.

Again, as Crystal mentioned, we're going to

hear from City staff to start us out this evening, and

then we'll open up again the public testimony and

proceed from there.

Let's see.

If we

And then we are planning on a

dinner break at about 7:00 for a half an hour.

then we'll pick up any remaining testimony after that,

and then move into rebuttal and deliberations, if time

allows.

25 26

And

With that, we will go ahead and call the

6 1 2

roll for the evening, please. THE CLERK:

Stead?

Schafer?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

THE CLERK:

Here.

Squyres?

Blanchard?

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

Here.

THE CLERK:

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

THE CLERK:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

THE CLERK:

COMMISSIONER FINFROCK:

THE CLERK:

CO-CHAIR DANLEY:

Here.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mooney?

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

THE CLERK:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mohr? Here.

Gillespie? Here.

Finfrock? Here.

Danley?

Here.

Seven present, two absent. Okay.

Thank you.

We're going to go ahead and just hand it

right off here to Mr. Tim Keane, our director, for a

few comments and a little update after last night's

testimony.

24 25 26

TIM KEANE:

Chair, Members of the Commission,

thank you again for your third night on the new zoning

7 1

ordinance, and everybody that's here tonight and has

been here all week to participate in such an important

discussion about how we regulate development in the

city.

getting this right, and regardless of your opinion,

your concern for the City and that we do things well

here in Boise.

Appreciate everybody's genuine interest in

So thank you all for this.

Two things I thought I'd speak to you

tonight.

The first, if you'd like, is to perhaps

finish the discussion that we started last night about

the R-2 district, which a reminder that along these few

corridors, Vista, Fairview and State Street where we're

proposing MX-3, which is a new district, for these

transit corridors to get us a little more density

there, which we think we want and need.

Right behind that MX-3, the frontage on

those streets, we're proposing to rezone properties

within an eighth of a mile of the centerline of each of

those streets to R-2.

if they're R-1, which is a single-family district, they

would go to R-2, which is a little bit higher density.

So those properties are now --

The idea being you step down from the

denser stuff on the street to the R-2, and then down to

the single family.

aspect of this, because it is, again, trying to get the

We think it's a very important

8 1

people we will be having in the city in places where

it's helpful and near transit, because transit is so

integral to the city being successful.

So we got into this discussion about how

much of it there is.

chart I was showing last night that for each of those

corridors, it's a very small percentage of the lots

within each of those neighborhoods that get rezoned

from the R-1 to the R-2.

And you'll remember from the

I mean we're talking a few percentages.

You know, I think the highest we had maybe was

8 percent within an individual neighborhood going from

R-1 to R-2.

Very small percentages. But where we ended up was what -- if you

look at the whole city across all those corridors, how

much land are we talking about and how many potential

lots are we speaking of, which would translate to

dwelling units.

So you'll remember from last night it's 257

total acres across the whole city that would get

rezoned from R-1 to R-2.

the R-2 is a minimum of 2500 square feet.

257 acres.

The lot size in

So this is a -- you know, and we talked

about this last night.

we haven't gone in and actually done a subdivision plan

It's very speculative, because

9 1

for those properties.

speculative.

this.

So it's -- just a reminder, it's

I wouldn't hang your hat completely on

But just to give you a sense of scale, if

that was -- that entire 100 percent of that area,

257 acres, was subdivided to 2500-square-foot lots,

that would get you right at about 4400 lots.

Now, all of those lots would have to go

through a public process, by the way, to get approved,

because in this new code you have to have subdivisions

approved through the Planning and Zoning Commission.

But that is the top end of that.

I also mention that we know from analysis

of transit systems and cities and development that in

order to make high frequency bus service work well,

whether it's a high frequency service of a bus service

like you have today, or even into BRT, which we're

proposing on State Street, you need 20 to 25 units per

acre.

And that's been proven.

What we find, if you take that 257 acres,

you transfer that to the R-2, we're at about 17 units

per acre.

those things you might say we might keep monitoring.

But that's just a comparison.

where we -- where it's helpful and needed, and this was

So we're not quite there.

This is one of

Again, we want things

10 1

an important aspect of that.

The second thing I'll speak on, and then

I'll finish and we can get to the public comment, is

just because we had so much discussion last night about

the code relative to maybe coming back in a year and

monitoring how we're doing after 12 months with this

new code.

And I want to speak to that just to say

that and I mentioned this when we started this, and I

presented on Monday evening, but just for those maybe

that didn't hear, I had this in a slide that I

presented on Monday, but we are -- we are

wholeheartedly recommending this ordinance.

it's -- we're recommending it without hesitation.

You know,

The goal with this ordinance through this

long public process over three years -- you could argue

it was longer if you add Blueprint Boise, but certainly

just during the ordinance production process, this long

public process, the goal was to get to an ideal

condition.

ideal.

came from that process, we think we're in a very, very

good place as a City.

24 25 26

And we think the structure of this is

As a result of the public input and ideas that

And a couple things about that, the structure being what we think it needs to be:

So with

11 1

regard to neighborhoods, we kept all the R-1 districts.

There was a debate about that in the process.

or so ago we were talking about consolidating the R-1

districts into fewer of them so everyone would have

smaller lot sizes.

And we think that's the right decision for the city.

Let's respect the different neighborhoods we have.

neighborhood structure we think is right.

A year

We didn't go in that direction.

The

We also found multiple ways to within

neighborhoods enable a diversity of housing types that

are appropriate within a neighborhood.

old neighborhoods in Boise as a clue, how do you allow

duplexes or a four-unit building or a small apartment

building or courtyard cottages or, you know, an

apartment over the garage or a small apartment in your

back yard or these kinds of things.

Taking again,

And we found multiple ways to within that

structure of neighborhoods permit that to happen.

think that's ideal.

With

the mixed-use districts, the downtown district ended up

being what it needs to be, we think.

that to places that are important, like the Shoreline.

That's the right way to go.

And we extended

The MX-5 is very important.

MX-3 is in the

right places.

It's in those activity centers identified in Blueprint

It's on those high-frequency bus lines.

12 1

Boise.

This isn't a compromise or, you know, we're

not, you know, just okay with it.

we need as a city.

The structure is right.

the right location.

The R-2 aspect of that along the

MX-3, we added a transit-oriented district MX district,

which we're just applying to a few locations on State

Street.

in transit, hopefully we'll need that transit-oriented

district in other places.

We think that's what MX-3 is in

But eventually as the city grows and we invest

But it's in this ordinance.

We have the M-1 district, which is --

people talk so much about trying to have smaller scale,

nonresidential, and neighborhoods.

or what's happening on Latah, places in the city where

you can walk to and things.

Plus the neighborhood cafes that we added to this.

Take the Hyde Park

That MX-1 is so important.

So even beyond the MX-1, just an individual

kind of house-sized cafe or something in more

neighborhoods, which we have some of, had more of in

the past, that's in this ordinance.

The affordability and sustainability

incentives that we included.

that.

the ideas that people gave us, the concerns about

affordability associated with this variety of housing

We like where we ended in

We think from this three-year public process,

13 1

types, where we ended up with incentives we think is

perfect.

ingredients we need within this ordinance.

It's not a

compromise or a -- you know, a half measure.

It is --

the ordinance itself is what we need.

So the structure is right.

We have the

What I'm speaking of when I talk about

monitoring, ongoing monitoring, 12 months from now

coming back and looking at is the details.

affordability incentives working?

we need to calibrate those differently?

structure.

to ensuring that those incentives are creating

affordable housing?

Are those

If not, why?

We've got the structure.

How do

Not change the

But how do we get

How about the parking requirements?

There's been so much discussion.

we should require no parking, and then we heard we

should need vast amounts more of parking.

ended up, I would say is a moderate proposal for

changes in that and reductions.

20 21

Last night we heard

So where we

But how is that 12 months from now?

that working properly?

Even the process part of it.

about ensuring that people are involved in making this

ordinance successful, make the things that we want

easier to build.

How is that working?

We've talked

Are those four

14 1

types properly aligned?

different types?

Do we need to move some into

But the structure is there.

So I just

wanted to clarify as we go into our third night of

hearings, after all that discussion last night about

this ordinance and -- and how we got to this ordinance

over a long period of time with so much public input,

and I think it does a lot of service to the people that

were involved in this process to say thank you, you got

it right, and not keep relitigating every aspect of it.

And I'll tell you last summer when we got

to this new structure, there was a lot of happiness, I

have to admit, with how we shifted.

place that we think is an ideal one.

And we got to a

So as we enter this night of public

hearings, and perhaps we'll finish with hearings

tonight, we just wanted to mention that, go back to

what I mentioned on Monday, this is not, we don't

think, a half measure.

for the city and hope that even with all the opinions

and the ideas about details, which are terribly

important, we know we'll have to keep monitoring those.

We think it's a great direction

So Mr. Chair, those were just the two

things I wanted to mention as we get started tonight.

If there's anything else, happy to go into other areas.

15 1 2

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Great.

Thank you,

Tim, for that.

Any questions for Tim at the moment, team?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Tim.

Appreciate it.

Before we move on, a couple other little

housekeeping items.

Valley Regional Transit.

to address the Commission and the public.

We have Elaine Clegg is here from She's asked for a few minutes

So please come on up, Ms. Clegg.

ELAINE CLEGG:

here.

podium.

Thank you.

It's great to be

It's interesting to be on this side of the

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ELAINE CLEGG:

We'll be gentle.

But enjoying it, I have to say.

Thanks for letting me testify tonight.

I'm

sorry I wouldn't be here on Monday.

I was out of town.

So it's really -- I really appreciate the opportunity.

First say that I'm not here speaking

personally, although I certainly support this new

zoning code.

Valley Regional Transit, and our support of that code

as well.

24 25 26

What I'm here to speak about tonight is

We're excited as an organization that the code recognizes the really important tie between

16 1

transportation and land use, and that if you get the

land use right, there's a real opportunity for transit

to work much better and be more convenient.

So just first off, just want to make sure

that you know that generally that's what we think of

this code.

There's a couple of specific things, and

I've given you all written documents, so you have those

where you, that we'd like to ask be adjusted.

very, very small changes.

it even more transit supportive if you make these

changes.

They're

But we think it would make

So in 1101-03 the purpose, in general, says

"Achieve an integrated approach to land use and

transportation to provide a safe, efficient, equitable

transportation system for pedestrians, bicyclists,

transit, and vehicles."

And in light of that, there are a list of

exceptions for public services, but transit isn't

listed specifically in those exceptions.

that transit be listed there.

transit infrastructure, but if you think that you need

examples, you could add such as bus stops or

ADA-compliant transit platforms.

opportunity for where those might be inserted if you're

So we'd ask

It could be as simple as

And I've given you

17 1

interested.

We're really excited about the

intensification of activities along transit corridors.

The code lists both existing and potential, and

suggests that when service is started is when the code

would begin asking for transit-supportive

infrastructure and amenities on corridors.

And we're suggesting that rather than wait

for that service to actually start, if the City is

amenable, that you should start asking for those things

when new transit services in our five-year work plan is

anticipated on a corridor.

The purpose for that is that by the time

those things are built and the transit is there, then

we're not trying to play catch-up to it.

happy to work with staff on what the appropriate

language is and where that should go, but we think it's

important to include that.

So more than

There's also a section that talks about

amenities that might be used to get parking reductions

and other things, or that might be required in general.

And again, we just thought it might be stronger if

transit infrastructure were listed as included in those

kinds of amenities that might be considered.

25 26

So specifically -- sorry, I already covered

18 1

the No. 3, so I skipped my -- I skipped ahead to No. 3

and asked for the transit services that are programmed

in our five-year work plan.

And then finally, in the MX-4, MX-5 and

MX-U zones, in addition to anticipating when transit

might become available, the City also expects to

receive applications that will receive reduced parking

requirements if certain things are done, and in support

of transit.

We ask that in those sections that prior to

submitting application, certainly after pre-app, but

prior to submitting application, that the applicant be

required to come and meet with the VRT and understand

before their application goes in the kinds of things

that we would need so that the application process

would just be smoother.

That would happen not only on applications

in those zones, but also on the Capitol Boulevard

overlay district, where specifically transit bus stops

are called out.

to us before application so we can work with them

before those applications go in.

that would be just a lot smoother process for everyone.

24 25 26

We ask that any development there come

We think, again, that

And then finally, the City anticipates doing some transportation demand management

19 1

requirements in return for parking reductions.

just want to note that there's a couple of things about

that section we think could be stronger.

could add two additional things to the list, no. 17 and

18, that would be website links to car sharing, ride

hailing, and other on-demand services, and also

providing emergency ride home services.

And we

First, you

We're also concerned that the way it reads

today it looks like just a grab bag of things that

doesn't have any priority.

that some things are more effective than others in

transportation demand management, and suggest maybe not

as part of this code or maybe as part of this code, but

certainly somewhere that the City prioritize those

transportation demand management strategies so that you

know which ones, so that you wouldn't just accept all

the low-hanging fruit and say "Oh, that's good enough,"

but you'd require at least some of the more difficult

things that will produce more results.

And we know from experience

And then finally, we'd note that Valley

Regional Transit as well as Commuter Ride already offer

transportation demand services.

now to expand ours.

with us as they work on this section and how they will

implement it and how they'll enforce it, and hope to

VRT is looking right

And just ask that the City work

20 1

build a partnership with both us and Commuter Ride to

ease the burden on staff, frankly, and I think maybe

ultimately have better transportation demand services.

The last thing that's in here that I didn't

mention is perhaps requiring recommendations on

transportation demand services and TIS's, if those are

demanded of certain things.

burden on staff and kind of broadens what the

possibilities might be.

Again, it just eases the

And just thank you so much for the

opportunity to come tonight, since I couldn't come

Monday.

And also by the way, thank you.

from experience what a commitment this is, especially

in a week like this when you're here every night.

thank you for that as well.

17 18 19 20 21

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Of course, yeah.

I know

Thank you,

Elaine. Commission, any questions for Elaine while we've got her up right now? Mr. Danley, no pressure.

CO-CHAIR DANLEY:

I don't.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Please, Milt, yeah.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

Mr. Chairman.

21 1 2

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

It's a lot for me to

take in on the dais; right?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah, sure.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

And, you know, it all

makes sense to me.

I'm always hesitant to get involved

in intergovernmental coordination issues, because a lot

of times there's stuff we don't know about how these

different entities work together.

reasonable to me.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

It all sounds

Uh-huh. So I don't have any

detailed questions, other than, you know, my sense is

we -- we direct staff before it goes to Council to try

and work with VRT and incorporate what we can.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

Agree.

Yeah.

I think that's probably the overarching message I got

from Elaine --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

communication moving forward.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

-- is just proactive, good

Reasonable.

Right.

I think we would all

be supportive of, of course, up here.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

25 26

Yes.

I think, Chris --

and you might comment, at first blush the TDM issues

22 1

are the most impactful and kind of the most important

part of this memo, and how to get those done right.

And I think what Elaine is suggesting is

that VRT be involved early and majorly in doing those

TDM assessment.

those work to -- I mean I don't know.

good to me.

And I just don't know enough about how

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ELAINE CLEGG:

CO-CHAIR DANLEY:

Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mr. Danley.

CO-CHAIR DANLEY:

Yeah, to the TDM point

Yeah.

I mean it sounds

Agreed.

Thank you.

briefly.

Yeah, what we don't want is for a developer

to come along, pick the simplest thing, and have a big

parking reduction and it not be an effective program.

That's not the point.

That's not the spirit.

I do have one question.

ELAINE CLEGG:

CO-CHAIR DANLEY:

21 22

Only one? In 49 parts.

No, I'm just

kidding. And it's also a question, I guess, of Tim.

But I could call you "Director Clegg" now.

to call you "Director Clegg."

25 26

I'm going

So we have these three routes, the best in

23 1

class, State Street, Vista, and Fairview.

there's a whole bunch of other routes.

Overland, Franklin, at least -- and there's Emerald.

There's a ton more that we know.

Obviously,

Broadway,

And so I'm curious the general train of

thought of not necessarily, you know, this sort of the

conversion that's being discussed that was -- that led

off this evening to all of them, I understand that.

But Broadway is also a gateway corridor, as an example.

Overland is a major arterial and a parallel route to

the interstate; right?

Franklin as well.

And so I'm just curious, how -- why didn't

those make it into the final draft?

that you might have, Director.

15 16

ELAINE CLEGG:

Do you want me to take it first,

or you?

17 18

And any thoughts

TIM KEANE:

You go.

Go ahead.

I can answer

that. ELAINE CLEGG:

Okay.

I'll -- I'll take it on

first, and I'll allow Tim to bat cleanup.

I would say this:

Right now we've made the

commitment in both the transportation action plan that

the City wrote themselves and in the VRT Valley Connect

2.0 and in our transportation development plan, which

is essentially our five-year work plan, that those

24 1

three routes will receive the highest and best use

first.

Having said that, my vision, and in the

next few years I hope that we'll realize this in the

planning processes, is that we identify really a core

network in the city of Boise that's necessary to get

people to all of the major destinations in the city.

I don't know exactly what the goal will be

yet, but something like, you know, 70 percent of the

population can get to 70 percent of the destinations.

And so as we do that work, I expect that

we'll identify a network that we may not serve yet,

because we don't have the funding, but we anticipate

and plan to serve and needs to be served so that it

will be successful, and that having -- anticipating

transit on those corridors would make them

transit-ready and able to better provide the service

when we get to the point where we do have the funding.

So that's why I'm suggesting our five-year

work plan, because I anticipate as we develop that

network that we'll be putting those in the work plan.

Having said that, there's also some smaller

routes, and I don't know yet exactly what's going to

happen to all of those.

planning process that identifies better service, even

But again, I anticipate a

25 1

on those smaller routes, in terms of maybe making them

neighborhood circulators that run more often rather

than running all of them downtown, if we know there's a

good network to connect to, for instance, or at least

interlining them so that they can get to more

destinations and -- and move more frequently.

So underneath that, again, I'd anticipate

that the City would support transit-ready kinds of

strategies on those and maybe a little lower intensity

than you might see on those bigger corridors.

But right now I think the call is right.

We have those three corridors that we know are going to

be frequent service, we know are going to be there.

But I would ask that the City anticipate our planning

and work with us on that.

TIM KEANE:

And I'll just add,

Commissioner Danley, that when we started discussing

the MX-3 and the importance of it last summer, that

discussion that you just raised is one that we had in

the community last summer, and we talked specifically

about Broadway and Overland.

And where we came to was that -- again,

back to the structure of this ordinance being correct,

is we're adding the MX-3 for specifically those

corridors, those transit corridors.

We decided to just

26 1

stick with the three because that's where we have the

best service now, recognizing, and even in discussions

publicly last summer, saying it could be that we extend

that to other places eventually when -- when we feel

like we've gotten the service where it needs to be in

these first three, and we can move to other corridors.

But I'll also mention that along Broadway

and Overland, we also have activity centers.

mentioned transit corridors and activity centers.

we have activity centers on Broadway and Overland that

get MX-3 zoning.

So an example is on Overland out in that

area that's very commercial, so out kind of where the

84 and all that comes together, there's an activity

center there, which is a great bus route, and we've

already got interest in redeveloping what are vast

surface parking lots today into places with people and

housing and things.

So we don't completely miss them.

them to those activity centers.

was the best place to land right now.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

25 26

We get

And we felt like that

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mooney, yeah.

Please.

I think I've got a

question for both directors regarding public space and

27 1

the roads and ACHD.

One of the big frustrations that we often

have is with the traffic impact studies and how -- how

we digest that, and how the TIS is clearly

auto-centric, and we haven't graduated beyond that.

So I'm curious as to your thoughts on, do

we need to do anything different in the code with the

TIS?

a question for both directors.

Or is it addressed properly?

ELAINE CLEGG:

Commissioner Mooney.

And I guess that's

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair,

I would -- I would start by saying I -- I

share your frustration with traffic impact studies.

think they often tell us the worst of what might happen

in the future regarding cars, and they don't anticipate

anything in terms of pedestrians or bicyclists or

transit use, and they don't talk about the trade-offs

that you might achieve in car use if you are able to

achieve more in the others.

So to the extent that the traffic-impact

study industry has progressed enough to be able to do

those kinds of studies that would show those trade-offs

and anticipate other than car movement, I think it

would behoove the City to investigate those and begin

moving that direction.

28 1

Having said that, I don't know that the

industry is quite there yet.

that at least today if there is a traffic-impact study

requested that that at least address transit in terms

of the infrastructure that might be needed and

transportation demand management trade-offs that could

be achieved or should be achieved as part of it, as a

starting point.

TIM KEANE:

And so I am suggesting

And, Commissioner Mooney, I'll just

mention that we do not require transportation-impact

statements presently.

comes through ACHD.

That is a requirement that is --

But we do -- and we talked about this

throughout this process of the zoning ordinance in the

context of the kinds of findings that we have relative

to development, and how important it is for us to shift

from this sole concentration on vehicle speed and

vehicle operation at intersections to one that is

mostly focused on pedestrian and non-vehicle travel,

but addresses all modes of transportation.

So in the implementation of this, while we

don't require a TIS, we'll be asking people to address

other modes of transportation as the primary concern of

the City.

25 26

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

All right.

Ms. Clegg,

29 1

thank you very much.

input.

3 4

ELAINE CLEGG: appreciate it.

Good to see you.

Appreciate your

Thank you again.

Really

Take care.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

You too.

All right.

Before we get back into

testimony, Commissioner Gillespie did us all a favor

and put a few thoughts down based on the testimony we

received last night.

10 11 12

So, Milt, would you like to share some of your thoughts? COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

So late last night and

this morning I went through my nine pages of notes.

think there's 90 people who testified.

synthesize it down to a short list, and then I tried to

sort the list of issues by importance and impact and

how often we heard it.

And I tried to

It's just a way that I'm organizing my

thoughts and questions, and to sort of make sure that

at the end of the day either in Q&A on the record or in

our deliberations or in our recommendations that we

get -- we address all the things that we heard all

these good folks talk about.

24 25 26

So I was just going to pass my list out and read it into the record so that everybody's aware.

30 1

It's just one person, my way of organizing everything.

So here's Milt's list of new zoning code issues in

order of importance and impact.

4 5

No. 1, R-1C dimension changes, lot size, street frontage, allowed density.

6 7

No. 2, automatic R-2 changes in MX adjacent parcels along State, Vista, and Fairview.

No. 3, parking minimum reductions.

No. 4, multiunit and ADA rules for the R

zones.

No. 5, CUP approval criteria changes.

No. 6, MX zone height minimums of four

stories.

14 15

No. 7, CUP conditions met before construction not after.

16 17

No. 8, affordability definitions, incentives, and effectiveness.

18 19

Kind of a code enforcement.

No. 9, the question of infrastructure but for density, the chicken or egg issue.

The No. 10, notification and approval of

procedural changes for Type I and Type II permits,

implementation of the hearing examiner model, and in

particular I'm concerned about no appeal for variance

decisions.

25 26

Or maybe I didn't see it. No. 11, fence requirements for WUI parcels

31 1

abutting open space.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

No. 12, it 5G and wireless tower siting criteria. No. 13, the procedure and timing of this process for adopting this new zoning code. No. 14, electronic signs well timed, 20 versus 8 seconds. And I just added a 15th one, and I haven't

sorted it by importance, it's just 15 because I just

heard it, which is dealing with the VRT memo dated

April 20, 2023.

Just a way to organize maybe our comments

and questions and thoughts.

And you can totally

disregard it because it's worth what you paid for it.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you very much for that.

Okay.

here in the audience tonight.

week we heard from staff.

presentation.

presentation and Q&A.

All right, Milt.

Great.

Just a couple reminders to you all So on Monday night this

We heard a staff

It took about an hour between their

And then we heard from a handful of the

neighborhood associations.

association was contacted within the city.

from, I think, about a dozen on Monday night, maybe 13.

So every neighborhood We heard

32 1

Is that right?

So that's what happened on Monday.

And then last night we did a quick Q&A with

staff to tie up a few loose ends from Monday.

And then

we spent the bulk of last night in public testimony

hearing from folks just like you all.

we are now.

now.

So that's where

We'll pick up public testimony again right

We have the online sign-up list.

going to run through that top to bottom to start us all

out.

well, which I don't have at the moment, but that's

totally fine.

I believe we had a sign-up in the hallway as

There it is.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Perfect.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

[Unintelligible.]

Yes. And by online sign-up,

you mean people who might be here who signed up online.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

signed up online who might be online?

Online ahead of time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We're

As well as people who

Correct. Okay.

Correct.

Thank you.

That's right.

So I

33 1

will call names on this list.

terrific.

The podium's right here.

terrific.

We'll get you set up online to speak to the

audience.

And that's what staff is here to help us

with.

If you're here, If you're online,

If you testified last night, you cannot

testify again.

Okay?

that up front.

You all get -- for those of you that

did not testify, welcome.

minutes.

your name and address.

with the time.

have to cut you off.

of this job.

So I need to be very clear about

Welcome.

You'll get three

When you begin testimony, please start with We're going to be pretty rigid

So when you get to three minutes, I And that's my least favorite part

So the clock will be up here to your right.

It will tell you where you're at on your time.

keep an eye on that, if you don't mind.

Please

Again, if you -- if we have any cheering,

clapping, applause, jeers, that sort of thing, we're

going to have to shut it down.

listen to everybody, foe, in support and against the

zoning code rewrite.

and your comments.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

25 26

Okay?

We're here to

We want to get all your thoughts

So let's keep it civil, please.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

With that, we will kick us

34 1

off.

We're going to start -- we had a few names from

last night that we called who did not testify.

we're going to run through that list first.

we'll start with the fresh names after that.

And then

So starting out first Nina Schaeffer, who I

believe is online.

And then we have Hillary Vaughn,

Jason White, and Scott Schoenherr.

All right, Crystal.

Ms. Schaeffer, can you hear us?

NINA SCHAEFFER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

NINA SCHAEFFER:

Thank you.

Yes, I can. Hi there.

Hi.

Thank you so much.

And I

apologize for missing my slot yesterday.

mixed up in my calendar, so I appreciate the time to do

so again.

16 17

It got all

My name is Nina Schaeffer, and I live at 117 South Dot Street.

I am here to express my strong support for

the Modern Zoning Code.

Boise.

out in the Depot Bench.

community through being involved with my neighborhood

associations, through nonprofits and volunteer

experiences.

25 26

I was born and raised in

I am an alumni from Boise State and a renter I try to remain active in my

My family all lives in and around Boise,

35 1

and right now my partner and I are entering the market

to buy our first home.

some insights that I've seen.

And I know this isn't

absolute data on the market.

But yesterday as we were

looking, I saw nine townhomes under $350,000 and three

houses under the same price range.

And I wanted to share some --

Of those houses, two of them had a lot of

repair that needed -- that they were -- that was

needed.

last three years the friends that I've had that has

purchased homes for the first time, they've all been

townhomes.

And then on that, I would also add that in the

I share this to show how I think the Modern

Zoning Code will allow for opportunities for first-time

home buyers that want to live here and be involved with

their community.

generations and current young professionals can settle

here and continue to serve our community.

It's so important that future

And I do believe that our future

generations and millennials now aren't adverse to the

idea of multifamily housing, living in duplexes,

townhomes, and are really interested in any space that

can bring them in within the community and, of course,

help them build their life in our Boise neighborhoods.

25 26

I also wanted to just give kudos to the

36 1

City for their engagement process.

the works for three years.

night, it was something that came up with the previous

administration.

received from the City over the last few years, and I

even received physical information in our trash bills

on it, which I thought was really awesome.

This has been in

As someone mentioned last

It was in all the e-mails that I

I've seen a lot of news over the year that

other cities across North America, updating their

zoning code in similar ways, and a lot of them have

passed them through a simple hearing process, maybe two

or three meetings.

it's important to call out how hard the planning team

has worked to provide as many opportunities as they

could.

Easily within a year.

And I really

Anyone in community engagement knows it's

really hard to get everyone.

was really obvious, and I was really -- I really

appreciate the staff for putting in all that work.

And I think that effort

To end, I just wanted to say I was tuning

in last night after I was a little late to my slot, but

I think it's really exciting to see the younger folks

expressing their support for the Modern Zoning Code

rewrite.

at public hearings, and I think it's exciting to see

It's not the typical crowd that we often see

37 1

that this is something that is exciting our next

generation and current young professionals --

THE CLERK:

NINA SCHAEFFER:

the Modern Zoning Code.

Time. -- to get out there and support

Thank you so much.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Okay.

Hillary Vaughn.

Okay.

Jason White.

Scott Schoenherr.

Okay.

Staff, I'm kind of not paying attention

Kelly Tagg.

online too much, so just grab me if I'm missing

somebody.

Christian Moore.

Gregg Ostrow.

And then after Mr. Ostrow, Ethan Mansfield,

Okay.

Jay Rasgorshek, Jana Wickham, Kathy Corless.

GREGG OSTROW:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

GREGG OSTROW:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

GREGG OSTROW:

My name's Gregg Ostrow.

25 26

My slides, please. [Unintelligible.]

I got two slides.

Hi.

[Unintelligible.]

live at 201 East Louisa Street.

38 1 2

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Maybe back up a little bit

from the mic.

GREGG OSTROW:

Okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

GREGG OSTROW:

There you go.

Like you -- I think you've seen

some of my work -- I am a volunteer.

I've not been

paid a nickel for the work I've done.

Hundreds of

hours on the R-1C zone.

designed this morning.

And I'm bringing you what I've

I have started a project on my property on

201 East Louisa Street.

It is a townhome.

I can

legally split my lot into two.

I can demo my house

because I'm in incentive one.

I have no demo

limitation in incentive one.

I have no floor area

ratio of 55 percent.

So I have a 1393 square foot basement, 1393

square foot first floor, 478 square foot second floor,

and then a bathroom on the sun deck with a hot tub and

a big screen TV.

So when the 55 percent FAR was taken off in

the last draft, it doubled my size that I could put on

my property.

transition off, you basically doubled my ability to

double the size of my building.

25 26

Okay.

When you took the height

I want to let you know that today I can do

39 1

a duplex with an ABU on my property.

triplex with a conditional-use permit.

you, what are we -- what am I -- what are we gaining?

Okay.

I can do a So I'm asking

We didn't go in and -- there's been

no science.

illustrating this thing is myself.

shout out to the City staff with limited time and

limited resources to be able to put something like this

together.

The only person that I know of that's been I'm going to give a

My credentials are I graduated 1984 from

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo magna cum laude.

California in 1987.

in 1996.

Licensed in

Moved to Idaho, licensed in Idaho

What are we gaining?

Taller, larger, more

expensive units.

Now, once again, my bandwidth is the

R-1C zone.

And this hundred hours, I still have

questions, I still have confusion.

I've been doing

these things for almost 40 years.

Okay?

blame staff.

Okay?

And I don't

So I stand here in front of you humbled,

confused, but not defeated.

anyone, anytime, regardless of their view on the

rewrite to review and analyze the rewrite without

prejudice.

25 26

I am willing to meet with

Unfortunately, nobody wants to talk about

40 1

the details of this.

this project that you see in front of you which is

going to be bitchin, is probably going to be submitted

to the City the day after this thing is approved.

So --

THE CLERK:

GREGG OSTROW:

Time. -- I want to thank you, and I

Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

11 12

want to tell you, come on, we can do better.

9 10

It wants to be pushed off.

Okay.

Thank you.

Ethan Mansfield, Jay Rasgorshek, Jana Wickham, Benjamin Donovan Chafetz. ETHAN MANSFIELD:

So I'm going to cede my time

to Brian Huffaker, who's the president of Hawkins

Companies.

Can you guys hear me?

Okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

Sorry we just had --

ETHAN MANSFIELD:

I'm going do seed my time to

Brian Huffaker, president of Hawkins Companies.

He has

to get to dinner and didn't sign up in advance.

I'll just go later.

BRIAN HUFFAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

BRIAN HUFFAKER:

25 26

Nice guy. Yeah.

Thank you, Ethan.

Brian Huffaker, CEO of Hawkins Companies,

41 1

855 West Broad Street here in Boise.

Hawkins Companies has been over 45 years

developing commercial properties, developing 13 million

square feet, and actively managing 4 million square

feet across 28 different states.

good and bad of zoning regulations across the country.

We are in general support of the objectives

So we've seen the

of the changes in trying to achieve higher densities,

more visually appearing -- appealing standards, and

even more [unintelligible] process.

there are some standards that we believe are

detrimental to the businesses and to the public.

But we feel that

The zoning regulations are not advantageous

or disadvantageous to developers, but rather they have

the longest-lasting impact to the businesses who have

to occupy those properties and comply with those

standards.

And if those businesses cannot accommodate

the demands of their customers, they will not be

profitable to provide employment and to provide the tax

basis needed with the City.

We oppose any of the reduction or

limitation on the parking standards.

Monday night about WinCo having a fair amount of unused

parking is a little short-sided.

The discussion

And it's not WinCo

42 1

itself.

It's really any retail business. Pick any business.

Their parking must

accommodate the peak demands of their customers during

their peak periods, whether that's evenings, weekends,

or the make-it-or-break-it season of the holiday

season.

You take away the business' ability to

service the volume of customers, and they -- and it

results in struggling businesses, maybe failing

businesses that then have to terminate employees and

have no sales to provide sales tax.

We oppose the requirements for drive-thru

facilities to be located in an enclosed driving -- in

an enclosed space.

course, to the business and to the customers.

with what purpose?

methods can be used to achieve the same aesthetic

result at a much more reasonable method.

It does drive up the cost, of But to

We believe alternative screening

We oppose restricting any parking or

drive-thru lane between buildings and the street, as

not every commercial street in the city needs to be

like downtown.

We'd also oppose the excessive short-term

bicycle parking as illustrated on slide 50 on Monday's

presentation.

But that might have been a typo.

43 1

In closing, it feels as though the code is

trying to force people out of cars and under the

premise that everyone will walk to their destinations.

That is not the reality of nearly all residents, nor

will it ever be the majority of all residents.

These standards -- our goal is to ensure

that the businesses of the community can be successful

in providing goods and services to their customers,

hire employees, and contribute to the tax base.

just ask that you consider the significant impacts that

are being imposed upon the businesses and employers and

find a better balance.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Yeah, Milt. I have some questions.

Okay. So I'm sorry, what was

your name?

BRIAN HUFFAKER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

little bit confused.

hypothetical.

Brian Huffaker. Mr. Huffaker, so I'm a

So let's just walk through a

44 1

So you want to build a commercial building,

and you're concerned that you can't put enough parking

into the project because there's no minimums?

minimums are just -- you can always put more if you

want, up to the maximum.

Are you --

BRIAN HUFFAKER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

concerned about the maximums?

BRIAN HUFFAKER:

10 11 12

maximums.

The

Sure. So are you really

More concerned with the

There are some concerns on the minimum side.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: build them.

Put more on.

Why?

Don't -- don't

You can choose.

BRIAN HUFFAKER:

Yeah, no, I -- you're right.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

You know, if -- it says

you can have a zero-parking apartment building.

doesn't say you must.

on -- it's a free market for parking.

You can put as much parking

BRIAN HUFFAKER:

Sure.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

You get to choose how

much parking you want to sell with your building.

Minimums and maximums are just constraints on your free

choice.

And so I'm not quite sure --

BRIAN HUFFAKER:

Sure.

Chairman, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

-- why you'd want them.

BRIAN HUFFAKER:

I would -- I would agree

Yeah.

45 1

that you are correct in that the minimums probably

don't matter as -- as much.

demand will be, if a business wants to use street

parking, so be it.

Right?

That's what the

So the concern is more on the maximum side.

Some of those reductions, a small restaurant that can

only have a maximum of two parking spaces might not

even cover the employee parking.

more referring to.

10 11 12 13

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: Mr. Chairman.

Okay.

Thank you,

I appreciate it.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: Mr. Huffaker.

It's that that I was

Okay.

Thank you,

Appreciate it.

BRIAN HUFFAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Jana Wickham.

Benjamin Donovan Chafetz.

Kathy Corless.

Scott Pietsch or Erin Pietsch,

Thank you. Okay.

Jay Rasgorshek.

P-i-e-t-s-c-h.

Okay.

Mitchell Lee.

Dave Morris, who I think is online, staff.

DAVE MORRIS:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

You are.

DAVE MORRIS:

Hey, thank you so much.

Hello.

Hi.

Am I live? Hello. My

46 1

name's Dave Morris.

And I have lived and worked in the Treasure

Valley for ten years, eight of those in Boise's North

End.

ago.

My family and I moved from Michigan ten years

We're not wealthy by any means, but we are

a dual-income family.

My wife works in health care.

I -- I've spent most of my career in nonprofit work.

Were we not a dual-income family, there's no way we

would be able to afford to live just about anywhere in

the city any longer, and certainly not where we do now.

And in fact, as attractive as living in

Boise would be, you know, as part of the calculus,

housing costs would prohibit us from deciding to move

here.

I guess I should also say that where my

wife works, she works for one of the large hospitals in

the area, you know, affordability and available housing

is one of the key obstacles, barriers, to their --

their recruitment efforts.

But we're fine.

My family and I are fine.

And what concerns me is the growing number of people

who are no longer able to afford to live in this city.

24 25 26

I've been an organizational leader for quite a long time, at times responsible for very large

47 1

staff teams.

And during the past five years

especially, I lost good people who could no longer

afford to live anywhere near their workplace.

You know, my son graduates from college in

a few weeks with a technical degree that makes him very

employable.

he's already determined that it's not feasible for him

to do so.

And he would love to return to Boise, but

And I -- I see that the proposed code

rewrite will allow for greater density in a market

that's desperately lacking housing stock.

provide measurable income-based affordability

requirements.

accessible to more than just those who are fortunate

enough to be here already or wealthy enough to afford

one of the increasingly limited number of homes in the

city.

18 19

It will

And I want to live in a community that's

So I wholeheartedly support the code rewrite, and I want to thank you for this platform.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

And then Christina Bruce-Bennion, who I

23 24 25 26

And thank you.

Elizabeth Norton.

believe is online, staff. And then Christi Warhurst and Wendy Matson. ELIZABETH NORTON:

Hi.

Thank you for having me.

48 1

My name is Beth Norton.

I live at 617

South 13th Street, and I'm here to testify in support

of this zoning code update.

Just as a warning, I am a comedian, so I'm

not going to be able to offer any real technical input

here.

income for local venues, and I create opportunities for

performing arts and contribute to the culture scene.

But I also -- I produce shows, so I generate

I also work full time at a nonprofit, and I

volunteer at least once per year for the Idaho Trails

Association doing hard, manual labor to continue to

provide access to the outdoors for Idahoans.

I say all this just to -- just to paint the

picture of all of the things that I contribute to Idaho

and to my city and I work really hard at, and none of

which pay very well or sometimes at all.

And the only reason why I've been able to

stay in Boise and weather the pandemic and this housing

boom is because four years ago I lucked into an

affordable rental.

now, and I feel like it's important to just speak for

myself and my neighbors in light of a lot of testimony

that's gone on and a lot of bias that I hear about

myself and the people that I live around.

25 26

I live in a mixed zoning area right

I live in a four-story apartment building

49 1

surrounded by businesses, senior apartments, and

single-family homes.

neighborhood and a street that has become a temporary

home for people living in motor homes and trailers and

their cars.

There's a homeless shelter in my

I know this might terrify some people here,

and that this is their worst-case scenario and what

they're afraid of, but this might surprise you to hear

it's actually just fine.

other live, and the only thing that I really find in my

neighborhood that is truly atrocious is the giant

blacktop parking lot that is used only once per week

for the Boise Farmers Market and contributes to the

amplification of sound off 15th and 16th Streets and

the highway.

We all live and we let each

My neighbors are mostly elderly people on

fixed incomes.

they nearly all have at least one small dog.

like any other neighborhood.

cats through our windows.

we even have a bench in our mailbox area where we put

things that we don't need or want.

to knit sweaters for a year should I learn how.

24 25 26

Many have physical limitations, and We are

We admire each other's

We say hello in passing, and

I have enough yarn

I -- in the interest of time, skip through some of this stuff.

50 1

When somebody looks unwell or they need

help, we help each other.

I once helped my distraught

neighbor find his wallet.

It was in his jacket pocket.

Sometimes people squabble over picking up dog poop, but

generally are pretty good, and never in fact once have

I stepped in dog doo in my mixed zoning,

affordable-housing-heavy neighborhood.

Not everybody wants to live sequestered off

from their neighbors.

community with other people.

we need that choice.

code provides the opportunity for people who are

actively seeking that kind of living and for people who

need it not just in an affordability way but in a

mental health way.

Some of us want to live in Some of us need that, and

So I would argue that this zoning

For those who say that this might change

the character of their neighborhoods, I would say good.

It sounds like they need it.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

Christina Bruce-Bennion is next.

She's

online, staff. And then Christi Warhurst, Wendy Matson, Bonnie Hardey, David Allan. CHRISTINA BRUCE-BENNION:

Hi.

Can you hear me?

51 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We can.

CHRISTINA BRUCE-BENNION:

Hello.

Hi.

My name is

Christina Bruce-Bennion, and I'm a long-time resident

of the Treasure Valley and currently the executive

director at the Wassmuth Center for Human Rights.

my address is 5608 North Cattail Way.

And

And just would like to thank everyone who's

been putting so much work and thought into this.

am just -- yeah, so thank you for taking time to give

us all an opportunity to speak.

And I

The work that we do at the Wassmuth Center

is really focused on human rights education.

the ultimate goal of our work is to foster communities

that are committed to creating a sense of belonging for

all residents.

fundamental to feeling like you belong somewhere and

are really critical elements in the health and

well-being of an individual or a family.

However,

Housing access and choice are

However, many housing zoning policies have

historically worked against creating belonging by

intentionally creating separation and what we call

othering, so that's kind of where we're creating

distance and sort of identifying others we may not want

in our neighborhood through practices like red-lining

and exclusionary language in housing deeds that we are

52 1

still working to rectify decades later.

Here in Boise, for example, in the past the

River District was created through red-lining and then

eventually largely demolished to make way for

commercial and other development, a double whammy for

families living in that area.

The long-term consequences of denying

people access to stable housing options can be

generational in terms of wealth, equity, and belonging.

Even though we now have many legal

protections against overdiscrimination in housing, we

still see efforts to exclude people from housing and

neighborhoods, whether they are new Americans, families

with children, seniors, LGBTQ, unhoused, low income, or

others.

These efforts can intentionally or

unintentionally be supported by zoning codes.

need codes that are more inclusive and aim to increase

housing options for a wider swath of residents.

So we

Boise has a great opportunity at this time

to use every tool it has available to create a vibrant,

affordable, inclusive city, in part through its housing

zoning policies.

that's different than inclusionary policies.

that clarification last night.

And I do remember hearing last night I heard

53 1

I personally like to imagine a city where

neighborhoods include a variety of people, businesses,

and affordable, needed housing solutions.

of neighborhoods break down barriers and build a

community of belonging.

kind of inflection point right now.

These types

And I think Boise is at this

So I just basically want to express my

support, and I think that this new zoning code or the

proposed zoning code could go a long ways to mitigating

some of the policies and practices of the past that

have led to neighborhoods and parts of the city that,

you know, are separated from others.

13 14

So thank you very much for your time, and good luck with the rest of the process.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Okay.

And then Wendy Matson, Bonnie Hardey, David

Christi Warhurst.

Allan, and Kristen Overstreet.

CHRISTI WARHURST:

Hello, Chairman and

Committee.

21 22

Okay.

I actually am against this.

And I live in

3718 North Pepperwood Drive.

I'm a homeowner, and I've been here all my

life.

home, and I really enjoy my neighborhood.

And I don't live in an apartment.

I own my We're spread

54 1

apart.

And I get along with my neighbors.

have to be in an apartment building.

And I don't

But first, I am currently not represented,

and I actually agree with a lot of the people that are

against this, so I don't want to rehash that.

currently not represented in my District 2 area.

7 8

But I am

Now as a City councilman has been

appointed, one of which I did not vote for.

Second, there is a mayoral and City Council

election that will be this November.

Why can't we wait

until after that election when the Boise community will

have the opportunity to vote for their representative?

Third, I actually had a pretty

thought-out -- and I did a submission before -- was it

March 20th or whatever?

but I watched the meeting on Monday on the Zoom.

of the commissioners talked about the word upzone.

And I was going to say that, One

He described how the word used to mean --

he described how the word used to mean where you went

from one zone to the next, and through the years the

word "upzone" has been spliced and has lost its

meaning.

Then he described how this is not an

upzone.

implying it's a decrease, even though there will be

It's a larger lot going smaller, essentially

55 1

more density.

He additionally commented that committee --

that the committee will be gas-lit by 200 people on

upzone -- on upzoning on Tuesday.

The origins of

gaslighting is from an old movie.

It is a subjective

experience of having one's reality repeatedly

questioned by another.

Upzone, code modernization, Boise

Blueprint, Code Next, why would someone accuse an

entire group that may disagree with this as

gaslighters.

High density is high density.

That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

And then Bonnie Hardey, David Allan,

Thank you.

Wendy Matson.

Kristen Overstreet, Bill Basham.

WENDY MATSON:

at 302 North Garden Street.

20 21

Hello.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

WENDY MATSON:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

25 26

comfortable.

Okay. Make it a little more

There you go.

WENDY MATSON:

I live

You could pull that down if

you'd like.

I'm Wendy Matson.

I'm short for my height.

56 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

WENDY MATSON:

here in Boise on the Bench.

here since '87 -- well, '74, most of my life.

Yeah.

I live at 302 North Garden Street A long time.

I am against this.

I've been

I would like a delay

for the vote.

if it allows current City Council to vote and three

districts aren't represented.

And two members were appointed by the mayor.

seems undemocratic to me.

I believe it's an undemocratic process

And that's one of mine. That

Also, this would displace seniors,

long-term residents, and low-income people like me.

And my home is my life.

It's my sacred space.

And also, increasing density is denuding

the city of Boise, the city of trees, of our trees and

open spaces.

17 18

I'm really against it because of that.

Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Bonnie Hardey.

David Allan.

Kristen Overstreet.

And Bill Basham.

Okay.

And then Shellen Rodriguez, Chris Runyan.

25 26

All right.

BRUCE MASTOROVICH:

Hi.

Bruce Mastorovich.

My name's Bruce

57 1

Mastorovich.

I live at 450 West Grove Street.

I'm a little concerned about some of the --

like what we just heard with the sort of delay

conversation.

the situation when we say that people didn't get to

vote on this.

I think it's not exactly representing

We heard from Elaine Clegg a minute ago,

who was one of the councilmembers who was replaced, but

she was in support of the code.

councilmember has a similar position, that is

representing that district.

So if the new

And I just think kind of this delay tactic

we've seen a lot kind of across the country the last

few years.

be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice, and we got

told that he was a lame duck and we had to wait a year.

And I don't think that really went very well.

We saw 2016, Barack Obama was supposed to

The other thing I want to circle back to is

transit and kind of traffic -- traffic more so.

think increasing density in town is a good idea, and I

think it's not going to have the same impact on our

most critical traffic, which is rush hour, that we do

see already kind of coming from the surrounding towns.

Those people, if they live in Boise,

they're not going to drive as far so they're not

58 1

contributing as much on that level.

And they're not

all heading west in the morning.

heading east in the evening.

They might be going east.

they're driving in the opposite direction of the

traffic jam.

They're not all

They might be going west.

They -- a lot of times

So I think the study that you guys talked

about earlier would be very interesting, but I don't

think there's really a need to delay for that.

That's all.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thanks. Thank you.

Shellen Rodriguez.

And then Chris Runyan and then Evan

Stewart.

SHELLAN RODRIGUEZ:

Thank you for having me.

Good evening, Mr. Chair.

Shellen Rodriguez with SMR Development.

Do you need my address?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We do.

SHELLAN RODRIGUEZ:

Address is 520 -- my office

21 22

is at 520 West Idaho. And I have the privilege and -- to live

over in the East End, which I feel really fortunate to

be able to do.

that today if I moved to Boise, and my family wouldn't.

And I certainly would not be able to do

59 1

But with that said, I just very quickly, I

was on the Citizens Advisory Committee.

So I did quick

math, and you've heard from a lot of us.

You know,

over a hundred hours in meetings, not to mention the

studying up that I know we've all done.

So this has been really a thoughtful

process.

And there was 30 of us.

We took public

comment.

They were all on Zoom.

I can commend staff

to the utmost degree and how much they took from me,

both by way of comments in that -- in those settings,

by way of e-mails, and just general discussion.

So this doesn't -- this doesn't come from

nowhere; right?

lot of thought, a lot of drafts, a lot of revisions.

So I just want to set that stage for a minute.

This comes from a place of very -- a

I will also say that I'm absolutely in

support of your approval in moving this forward.

And

hopefully City Council would approve the new zoning

code.

But as an affordable housing developer and

consultant, I just want to point out that this is not

perfect.

believe a perfect zoning code exists.

very critical to not let, you know, perfect get in the

way of much, much better than what we currently have.

This zoning code is not perfect, and I don't So I think it's

60 1

From an affordable-housing perspective,

there are incentives.

comments in ways -- if you were to choose to make some

revisions, I made a couple things or I listed a couple

of things that you could consider.

I have sent some written

But for the purpose of my testimony now, I

just want to point out when I hear about how the

structure of the code is thought out, is well thought

out, I concur, and how we need to revisit it at certain

times, I concur.

But I want to point out that this is hard

and this is -- zoning is not a silver bullet to

creating affordable housing in our community.

certainly an important factor, and it must get out of

the way of developers to create affordability.

won't do it alone.

It is

But it

So in -- in month 12 and there's not a

bunch of affordable housing, it doesn't mean that

people aren't thinking about it and considering it.

And I want just a quick perspective:

ordinance, which was one of the largest incentives that

I think the City of Boise has done in quite some time

to create affordability, I believe -- and the staff can

certainly correct me -- was put into place in early

2020.

The housing bonus

61 1

I was part of a team of developers who just

opened the first 48 units that were newly constructed

using that housing bonus ordinance here in February of

2023.

could go.

build multifamily, affordable housing, and that was not

using public funds, in a meaningful way, I should say.

So I just want to put that in perspective,

So three years later, and we went as fast as we Three years later is what it took us to

and I hope that you can --

THE CLERK:

SHELLAN RODRIGUEZ:

-- support this code.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Okay.

And then Evan Stewart, Tiffany Perrigo, and

Time.

Chris Runyan.

Julianne Donnelly Tzul.

CHRIS RUNYAN:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CHRIS RUNYAN:

19 20 21

Thank you. Uh-huh.

Thank you, Commission Members,

for listening to my concerns about the code. My name is Chris Runyan.

I live at 606

Brookdale Drive in the East End.

I do not support the proposed code due to

the lack of details about the impacts of lowering the

minimum lot size in R-1C zones.

sizes will increase the number of lots that can be

Smaller minimum lot

62 1

split into two.

The unfortunate but obvious truth about

this is that for established cities like Boise, this

means already affordable homes and rentals will be the

first to be demolished and trucked off to the landfill.

Now on to some specifics.

The current

minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet.

An earlier

draft was 4,000, and now we're at 3,500.

question:

size?

lots that can be split?

Obvious

Why did the City keep decreasing the lot

And how will it change the number of existing

In my neighborhood of 226 homes located off

Warm Springs, the total number of lots increases from

14 percent to 94 percent.

increase.

That's an almost 600 percent

In the South End neighborhood of 834 homes

it went from 33 percent to 95 percent.

almost 4,000 parcels so far using the Ada County

assessor's GIS map, and these results can be reasonably

assumed for any R-1C residential neighborhood with lot

sizes 7,000 square feet or larger.

I've looked at

If one were to scale this out across the

city, we are talking about massive changes in the

number of lots that can be split.

Commission ask the City for data on this change?

Shouldn't the The

63 1

City of Boise's website says the new code will protect

the character of the neighborhood and will protect the

character of unique neighborhoods.

Recently Mr. Keane stated if -- these --

this zone proposes increases in density that are very

appropriate to Boise.

this is what the Commission and the average Boiseans

are hearing from the City, no wonder no one is

concerned.

This isn't dramatic changes.

Like Commissioner Gillespie's question on

Monday about the number of parcels upzoned along

corridors, I urge the Commission to ask the City about

the change in the number of lots that can be split.

the City can't answer this question, it means they

don't know the outcome of what they're proposing.

Without this information, the Commission

cannot make an informed decision on how much demolition

is expected to take place.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

What I have up there on the screen is a

picture of my neighborhood.

red lots on the left, those are the lots that can be

split today.

those will be available to be split when the code

passes.

It shows those -- those

The one on the right, all those red lots,

And that needs to be disclosed to Boise

64 1

residents.

That is not a dramatic -- this is what,

Director Keane, you considered this not a dramatic

change.

I would argue that it is.

5 6

And so I just urge you guys to really ask for that data.

I think it's easy to get.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

THE CLERK:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mr. Chairman.

Time. Question.

Milt, be careful with

questions, because we got to get through all this

testimony.

night.

Okay?

And we didn't ask any questions last

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

16 17 18

that moving forward.

Go ahead.

So I want to be mindful of

Okay?

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Which I'm sorry, your

name is?

CHRIS RUNYAN:

Chris Runyan.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Runyan, so when you

calculated the red ones, did you take into account the

required street frontage?

square feet, and if it was bigger than 7,000 you

colored it red?

25 26

CHRIS RUNYAN:

No.

Or did you just look at the

The minimum street length is

65 1

25 feet, so I made sure all those parcels were at least

50 feet.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHRIS RUNYAN:

almost 4,000 parcels.

Great.

Thank you.

And I did that analysis for Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

Up next, Evan Stewart, Tiffany

Perrigo, then Julianne Donnelly Tzul, and Morgan

DeCarl.

EVAN STEWART:

My name's Evan Stewart.

at 2930 North 38th Street.

I live

And I'm in support of the code.

a nonprofit based in Boise that serves people at risk

of eviction and homelessness by providing resources,

case management services, and emergency rental

assistance.

I work at

Recently we've seen a significant rise in

eviction filings throughout the Treasure Valley at

approximately 3,000 over the past few years, over

90 percent of those filings due to the inability to

keep up with high rental payments.

Also the local rental market has seen a

40 percent rent increase within the last few years,

which is nearly double the national average with

limited housing supply or affordable options and more

66 1

and more people struggling living paycheck to paycheck

who work hard to pay their bills and rent on time.

My agency's volume of people applying for

housing assistance has increased by 555 percent.

we hear on a daily basis from people is they can't

afford their rent.

and are on the brink of homelessness or they cannot

find anything affordable in the area.

What

They had an unexpected emergency

Currently we're in the midst of a housing

crisis in the Treasure Valley.

change.

in the right direction.

for more diversity for housing options and choices and,

you know, more affordable options for people that feel

like they're getting priced out of the city.

Something needs to

I think this new zoning code measure is a step I believe that it will allow

I hope that the Commission does approve the

measure, the code, as I believe this is a necessary

change to help out our community and to continue to

make Boise a great and welcoming place for all people.

So thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

And then Julianne Donnelly Tzul and Morgan

24 25 26

Thank you.

Tiffany Perrigo.

DeCarl. TIFFANY PERRIGO:

Hello.

That is how you

67 1

pronounce my last name, so thank you.

it right.

3 4 5

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: every ten.

Yeah.

Nobody ever gets

I get one -- I get one out of

Thank you.

TIFFANY PERRIGO:

So I am Tiffany.

I'm a

graduate student at Boise State and an eviction court

case manager at Jesse Tree.

I have done an extensive amount of research

related to affordable housing and housing availability.

I have also lived experience interacting with community

members who are desperately trying to find new housing

after rental increases caused them to no longer be able

to afford their current living situation.

14 15

Sorry, I'm also pregnant.

I feel like I

ran up here.

While lack of affordable housing and

housing in general is not a unique issue to Boise, we

are seeing sky-high prices for one-bedroom rentals in

Boise, making it nearly impossible for individuals, let

alone families, to have the most basic human need of

housing.

I myself can attest to the need for

affordable housing.

Treasure Valley, and most of his family lives not ten

minutes from where we are right now.

My husband grew up here in the

We both work and

68 1

go to school in Boise, but have no choice but to

commute all the way from Nampa, as we can't afford the

housing prices here.

My husband is a disabled vet holding a

pretty high disability rating, meaning he receives a

monthly benefit.

with decent salaries.

of three, almost four, the cost of childcare,

transportation, food, and other necessary bills related

to living, it would be a burden for us to move to

Boise.

And in addition, we both have jobs However, due to being a family

I am in full support of the proposed Modern

Zoning Code, as it would allow more options for people

who want to live and work in Boise.

being a city to warmly open its arms to others, and

this is no different.

Boise is built on

By continuing to come together to ensure

families and kiddos have a warm bed to sleep in and

call their own would be a big testament to the

character of the city, and allowing additional housing

and affordable housing would only enrich the lives of

the communities around it.

Thank you so much.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

Julianne -- Julianne Donnelly Tzul.

69 1

Okay.

2 3 4 5

And then Morgan DeCarl, Ester Ceja, and Denise Caruzzi. JULIANNE DONNELLY TZUL: the opportunity to speak.

It's Tzul.

The "T" is silent.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

JULIANNE DONNELLY TZUL:

Thank you. No worries.

I strongly support the revisions to the

zoning code.

density of housing.

to come by.

13 14

Thank you very much for

Our community really needs a greater Affordability is very, very hard

And I'm going to share an anecdote and then a couple more comments, and then wrap.

Anecdote:

I live at 1809 South Senator

Street near Grace Jordan Elementary.

own the home, have owned the home for nine years now.

I could not afford the same home if I were to try and

buy it now.

home that I would qualify for within city limits.

I recent -- and I

It would be impossible for me to find a

I want to tell you a short story of a new

neighbor of ours.

ago, very industrious, left every morning, came back

every evening, was very quiet, kept to themselves, was

a single, middle-aged woman, maybe 55 years old or so.

This individual moved in a few weeks

70 1

She was living in an RV parked on our street.

I cannot believe that anyone would choose

to live in an RV except out of desperation because

there simply aren't other affordable places to live.

No one should be forced to do that.

I also want to share that I think it's very

important to preserve the economic diversity of our

city.

when they have a variety of people, a variety of life

experiences woven into their experiences.

create greater density is going to push out people who

can't afford the prices that are going nowhere but up.

I would also share that I also am a manager

Our schools are better.

Our children learn more

To not

of a local nonprofit with over 80 employees.

the employees report how difficult it is to afford

staying here in Boise.

attracting new talent to our area.

retaining existing, excellent talent that we could lose

because they simply can't afford to stay.

Most of

So we're not talking just about We're talking about

Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Online, staff?

Okay.

And then Denise Caruzzi, Mike Wood, and

Thank you.

Morgan DeCarl.

No?

Ester Ceja.

71 1

Jennifer Dempsey.

ESTER CEJA:

Put my glasses on.

Good evening, Members of the Commission.

My name is Ester Ceja, and I reside at 3901 North

Cambria Way, Boise, 83703.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide

comment.

I have to say this is the first time I've

been here to provide official comment during P&Z since

the start of COVID.

So it's nice to be back.

As a long-time Boise resident, I have had

the opportunity to live in the Collister, the East End,

Southeast Boise, and Vista neighborhoods.

ever lived in an apartment, duplexes, a converted

300-square-foot garage, and townhouses.

I have only

I have watched Boise, really the entire

Treasure Valley, grow dramatically, more so in the last

ten years.

grows through the zoning update.

proposed ordinance is not perfect, it is a great start.

We have an opportunity to change how Boise And while the

We have heard testimony from neighborhood

associations and members of the public about waiting to

get it right.

never be right, because someone or some group is going

to fight whatever comes before you and the Council.

In my nearly 20 years of attending P&Z

Well, folks, the reality is it will

72 1

Commission meetings and City Council meetings, I can't

think of a meeting I have been to where a development

was supported by all neighbors.

4 5

And, Commissioner Gillespie, you've been here a long time.

I don't know if you can.

The time is now to move forward with this

update.

I support the proposed draft, with the

exception of a proposed -- of the proposed R-1A

property -- properties north of State Street between

Sycamore and 39th Street.

neighborhood, also known as the Sycamore Overlay.

There are two additional properties to the north of

Catalpa that are zoned in that manner.

That's part of the Collister

The original version of the zoning update

reflected a change to the current zone in that area.

It went up one.

their opposition to the zoning change, so it was left

as low density in the proposed code before you.

The residents in the area expressed

I have concerns with this approach for the

following reason.

guys have probably read them, because I submitted

additional comments.

And I had other concerns, but you

If you look at the conversion map, the City

is proposing MX-4 at the Collister shopping center

area.

MX-4 is one of the highest densities.

And if

73 1

you know anything about transit-oriented development,

you have high density, and then your density as it

moves out kind of is a gradual lower, it lowers from

high to eventually low density.

And what we have here is MX-4, and within

one-eighth of a mile or about one-eighth of a mile, you

have the lowest density, residential density available

in the city.

expressed my concern with that to the director,

Director Keane.

It doesn't make sense.

And I have

The changes in zoning should be applied

across the city evenly.

The City shouldn't be

exempting specific parcels of neighborhoods.

THE CLERK:

Time.

ESTER CEJA:

I'm sorry, specific parcels or

neighborhoods from zoning.

And one last thing:

I was a member of the

Advisory Committee, and I heard some comments about it

was a bunch of developers -- sorry, I'm not a planner,

I'm not an architect, I'm not a real estate agent, or a

developer.

22 23

I'm just a long-time resident that cares. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

All right.

And then Mike Wood, Jennifer Dempsey, and

Denise Caruzzi.

74 1 2 3

Tony Torres. DENISE CARUZZI:

My name is

Denise Caruzzi, and I live at 1102 North 19th.

4 5

Good evening.

Chairman and Commissioners, thank you very much for the time and the process tonight.

I strongly support your recommendation on

this revision to Boise Zoning Code.

the many opportunities I had to attend community

meetings, I might be a little slow, perhaps I didn't

need multiple meetings, the answers to my many

questions and the ongoing revisions that reflect some

of my concerns.

I truly appreciate

Because of the time the City has invested

in citizen participation, I will call it the single

most democratic process I've been involved in in my

lifetime.

politicized but based on a vision for our citizen

inputs and staff's research, best practice, and the

professional standards that can best achieve them.

The code we're discussing should not be

Yes, upzone Boise.

Stable, healthy cities

must provide a variety of housing options that meet the

needs of all our residents, including seniors, artists,

students, young professionals, families, and those with

limited abilities for access.

25 26

The diversity of people in generations make

75 1

us richer, and social interaction creates safer,

healthier, and more stable neighborhoods.

economic stability services and employment viability

depend on adequate housing.

The City's

On a personal note, although I feel very

fortunate to have a comfortable home, my daughter and

her family cannot afford to live in Boise.

graduate grandchildren certainly cannot afford

market-priced housing.

experienced professionals, are also unable to find

affordable housing.

My recent

Many of my clients, who are

We cannot risk limiting our city to people

who are already here and comfortable.

housing is and has always been exclusionary and limited

to a few.

Single-family

We must do better. I appreciate this code as a single step and

look forward to monitoring and adapting it as we go

along, as they all have to.

I also hope for more in the future, that it

will prompt more abundant housing sales, as well as

rentals, more investment and incentives and

affordability at all levels of need, more tenant

protections, more activity centers, green space, public

spaces, fewer cars, and more interaction.

25 26

My vision of Boise is vibrant, diverse,

76 1

active, and interactive.

does not accommodate the cross-sector of our community.

Clear trends promise this will get even worse.

status quo is not an option.

long overdue, and it will take time to make the impact

we so badly need.

grandchildren.

8 9

Our housing gap is huge and

The

This change is already

I'm hopeful for our children and

And I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Mike Wood.

Jennifer Dempsey, Tony Torres, and Michelle

12 13

Larson. COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

If your name is called,

you're welcome to come down and have a seat in the

front row and just help us roll through this as

efficiently as we can.

JENNIFER DEMPSEY:

Good evening.

I think -- I

think I'm up.

at 3120 West Teton Street in the Depot Bench

neighborhood.

My name is Jennifer Dempsey, and I live

We ended up here over a decade ago kind of

by mistake.

demographically and otherwise, we decided to stay.

24 25 26

And because of its diversity

I support the zoning rewrite because personally I want to see more walkable neighborhoods

77 1

where the community cannot only walk to work, but also

grocery shop, grab a coffee or lunch without getting in

a car.

I -- I moved from a place where I was

commuting a large part of my day.

or ride my bike to work.

lanes in pedestrian areas.

Now in Boise, I walk

I'd like to see more bike

And given that activity, I actually believe

I'm a better person as a result of it.

game-changer for me.

provides opportunities for those who wish to drive, as

does Idaho in general.

to live in that environment, that option should be

available as well.

And it's been a

I think that the zoning rewrite

And I think for those who want

I support the zoning rewrite because

affordability matters.

Long-term affordable housing

ensures a rich, diverse, and inclusive community.

someone who owns a single-family home and am fortunate

enough to have afforded it at the time.

And I welcome this zoning code change.

welcome the opportunity to embrace a more diverse

community that looks different from me.

Real quickly, I grew up in Tempe, Arizona,

which is a suburb of Phoenix.

since I've lived there.

I am

It's been a long time

I don't want to date myself,

78 1

but Boise reminds me of the Tempe I grew up in.

My parents still live there, and Tempe has

made vast, impressive advances in the availability of

light rail, the availability of local transit, and

wide, wide bike lanes.

My parents, who are now 80 years old and

are having difficulty driving, can access all the

activities and places they want to because of the type

of diverse transportation options that are available

and the bus that they can take from one place to

another.

I do not think this is a zoning change that

only is for the benefit of the young.

will allow those who are elderly and might have

difficulty getting from one place to the next to still

enjoy those activities they like to.

is a good first step.

Thank you.

I do think it

So I think this

And I'm hopeful that it passes.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Mike Wood.

Tony Torres, Michelle Larson, and then

Okay.

Jennifer Stevens.

TONY TORRES:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

TONY TORRES:

Can you hear me okay? Yeah, uh-huh.

Okay.

Thank you,

79 1

Mr. Commissioner, Commissioners, Boise planning staff,

and Director Keane for your hard work on this.

appreciate it and know others do as well.

I've spent the last two years volunteering

and working at Jesse Tree, and I've helped hundreds of

people in Ada County apply for emergency rental

assistance through the Boise City Ada County Housing

Authority's emergency rental assistance program.

also witnessed hundreds more seek help through Jesse

Tree as well.

speaking for myself and not Jesse Tree.

I've

But I do want to emphasize I am here

My experience has made clear to me that we

have a housing crisis here that needs to be addressed,

and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.

Too many people are unable to afford housing and too

many people are at risk of homelessness or having to

move out of the city that we all love and care deeply

about.

Affordable housing is a complicated and

difficult nut to crack.

with it every day.

enough to meet the demand beyond -- is beyond the reach

of local and state governments alone, and only the

federal government really has the resources in

governments to directly fund and build it.

And you know this.

You deal

We know it works, but building

80 1

The resources that are available are

expensive and complex and confusing and do not do

enough.

The next best thing to do is what this

zoning code attempts to do.

It's designed to increase

housing supply significantly over time and use

incentives and regulations to get -- to get some of

that housing to be affordable.

if we want our children to be able to afford to live

here.

It's a necessary step

I want to add that if you are a homeowner

in a single-family home, this new code does not give

anyone the power to take your home from you.

own your home, it applies only to new construction and

not existing homes, unless you choose to sell your

property.

choose to give it up.

If you

So you will not lose your home unless you

I'm with those who wish the rewrite was a

little bit bolder.

I would have liked to see the

elimination of parking minimums, like many others have

said.

can get around easily on foot, by bike, or by bus.

The best parts of Boise are the ones that you

I wish we had leaned into that more, but I

realize politics and policy are the art of the

possible.

This proposed rewrite is a reasonable

81 1

compromise that provides modest improvement and creates

a vision of the type of city we want to be instead of

having our community dictated by a plan that was

written before most of us were born for a different

city, in a different country, in a different world that

was filled with different people.

I urge you to vote to approve the code

without delay so we can get started in building that

vision, and especially so we can begin to address the

housing crisis as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Michelle Larson, Jennifer Stevens, Nora

Carpenter, Gary Hanes.

MICHELLE LARSON:

Larson.

in West Boise.

Not quite, but almost.

Hi.

My name is Michelle

I live at 4658 North Zimri Place, way, way out I can throw a rock and I hit Meridian.

My children had to buy houses in Meridian

because the housing ten years ago was already a little

out of their reach.

I'm looking to downsize.

where we're going to live.

24 25 26

They are all looking to move, and So we're really considering

My choices right now are Star, Kuna, Black -- what's that -- Black Canyon, that roadway out

82 1

there.

And I don't want to move there.

move -- I want to stay within the Boise city limits.

I want to

My younger daughter works downtown.

She's

looking for a townhome.

company.

use public transportation, or ride her bike to work in

the summers.

She works at a high-tech

She wants to be able to access the Greenbelt,

My other daughter, both her and her husband

are Ada County employees.

not so great.

looking at also trying to move from Meridian to Boise.

Big challenge for us.

and we all want to stay here.

Great benefits.

Pay, maybe

So they have two children.

And they're

But we're all looking right now,

So I work near Veterans and State Street.

I'm a failed retiree.

week.

office, there are two low-income houses.

may be familiar with Collister United Methodist and the

LEAP Housing homes that went in there.

people that live there, because I park in the lot with

them.

I work for free about 40 hours a

Didn't plan on that.

And in my back yard of my Some of you

I know the

And every day I see the children who now

have houses, where they didn't have them before.

they actually own the house.

The land is in a land trust for 50 years, or 75, I

And

They don't own the land.

83 1

believe.

I also after seeing this and being part of

a Christian organization that's helping on housing here

in the Valley and Houseyourneighbor.org have chosen to

invest a significant part of my retirement in

low-income housing.

I now hold the mortgages for seven people

who are at 60 percent of the poverty level, along with

LEAP charities, and through them, to help them own

houses and build generational wealth.

My name's on the wall.

got here.

It is so cool.

I just went there just before I

It's so exciting. But I'm so proud of what you guys have

done.

Thank you.

And I think that you have the right

attitude and you're doing the right thing.

My daughter wants a townhome.

her buy one in Boise.

City on 36th if we don't find something.

Really, I know.

Please, help

She's going to live in Garden

Really.

36th and Adams.

But they're really cool apartments, townhomes down

there.

Neighborhood -- not Neighbors United.

But I'm sorry,

Bud, I just forgot your neighborhood.

Thank you.

NeighborWorks.

looking at one of his -- his townhouses there too.

One of them was built by Bud Compher and

I get them all mixed up.

So she's

84 1

So thank you.

You're incentivizing low-income units.

thing to do.

4 5 6

thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Jennifer Stevens, Nora Carpenter, Gary Hanes, Stephanie Day.

9 10

It's the right

As a mom, a grandmother, and a Christian, I

7 8

You simplified the code.

Former Commissioner Stevens, it's nice to see you.

JENNIFER STEVENS:

It's great to see you guys.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Welcome.

JENNIFER STEVENS:

Mr. Chair, Members of the

Commission, my name's Jennifer Stevens.

I reside at

318 East Highland View Drive in Boise.

Thank you so

much for the opportunity to comment.

I'm here today as the director of the Boise

Department of Arts and History, a nearly lifelong

Boisean, a former member and Chair of the Boise

Historical Preservation Commission from 2003 to 2008,

and a former member and Chair of the esteemed

Commission in front of me tonight.

my comments and my support for the Modern Zoning Code.

24 25 26

I'm here to offer

As some of you know, I'm a historian by training, specializing in the history of cities and the

85 1

urban environment.

worried about growth.

local histories, oral histories, and many other places.

Since the 1970s Boiseans have It's evident in the newspapers,

Since that time a few watershed moments

stand out when Boise's leaders made brave and

consequential decisions.

Plan, and the Historic Preservation ordinance.

three difficult and highly controversial decisions

resulted in the Boise we all love today.

The Foothills Plan, the River These

The zoning code that's before you this week

is another watershed moment.

commissions I sat through many hearings for projects

that have collectively contributed to the sprawling

development pattern that we see today.

During my time on the two

The zoning code before you will not

single-handedly solve the housing crisis in front of

us.

However, it is a significant foundation we must

lay.

Providing housing within our existing city

boundaries is critical for helping to stop sprawl,

protect our environment, and create a development

pattern that offers housing choices for every resident.

There are many parts of the code I could

point to, but I'm going to address just a couple of

those, because, well, three minutes.

25 26

Oh, goodness.

First, the change of minimum lot size to

86 1

3500 square feet has some people concerned about the

historic districts.

could be subdivided under the new zoning code could

also be subdivided under today's code as well due to

the underlying lots of record.

have historic guidelines and the Commission and the

public process as we do today under the new code as

well.

Many of the existing lots that

We will continue to

Second, the incentives provided for

adaptive reuse are an important piece of the puzzle,

allowing owners to divide the interior of an existing

building into multiple units without providing

additional parking.

people complain we don't have enough parking.

after all, are we housing cars or are we housing

people?

Over the years I've heard a lot of But

I hope we err on the side of people.

The

creative class in our economy is finding it more and

more difficult to afford living here, and I expect them

to benefit from this part of the proposed code.

results from this part of the code will in fact take

time, the proposal reflects solutions similar to those

that were deployed during or last major housing crisis

in the 1930s and 1940s when many such large structures

throughout our historic districts and elsewhere were

While

87 1

divided into apartments.

These structures continue today to provide

important housing choices and help neighborhoods house

many different types of people with different income

levels and occupations.

Creatives will also benefit from the

ability to run a small business from their residence in

the new code and will benefit from the set-aside for

affordable housing choices that's built into this code.

This code goes a long way toward curbing

sprawl by channeling the growth where it should go to

create a sustainable and predictable development

pattern.

people want them to or not.

People are going to come to Boise, whether

THE CLERK:

Time.

JENNIFER STEVENS:

And when they come, I want

them to set settle here in Boise, not in the adjacent

communities.

along collectors and arterials will result in densities

that can support public transportation, is good for our

environment, good for giving choices to our new

residents, and good for the economy so we have the

population to support restaurants, retail

establishments, and professional services that are

within our city boundaries.

Building within our existing footprint

88 1 2 3

Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Nora Carpenter, Gary Hanes, Stephanie Day,

and then Rory Felton.

NORA CARPENTER:

Thank you, Ms. Stevens.

Good evening and thank you.

My name is Nora Carpenter.

here in Boise.

nearly 40 years.

in support of the Modern Zoning Code.

1310 Ranch Road

I've been a resident of this city for And I am here this evening to speak

I support it for a wide variety of reasons,

many have been articulated this evening.

But two for

me stand out.

it respects the healthy lifestyle, which I appreciate

and for which our city is known.

It's family and workforce friendly, and

In my professional career I worked

extensively with hardworking, low-wage-earning

individuals and families in Boise.

housing, as you have heard already, the lack of options

within our community was and continues to be their

number one greatest crisis and fear.

expressed on a daily basis.

Lack of affordable

I heard this

Ensuring the opportunity for housing across

a wide range of price points is critical to workforce

stability and economic vitality.

businesses, businesses need employees, and employees

Our community needs

89 1

need homes they can afford.

I appreciate that this plan makes room for

a continuum of housing price points.

there are affordable homes for all of our workers and

all of our residents, whether they are just starting

out, whether they are working two jobs, are mature in

their career, or like me, minding their pennies in our

golden years.

We're better when

My support of this proposal is also

grounded in data.

states that in Ada County, and specifically in the city

of Boise, the budget-appropriate housing options are

the foundation of good health, educational success, and

financial stability for all of us.

United Way's ALICE data clearly

ALICE data also points out that in Idaho,

and including Boise city, far too many of our kids live

in households that housing is just unaffordable.

fact, in Ada County and Boise city, we have some of the

highest percentage of children living in housing

price-burdened households in the entire state.

These youngsters are more likely to have

health issues and to struggle in school, and that's not

acceptable.

24 25 26

This code can help. Boise has always prided itself on being

family and child friendly.

This proposal creates

90 1

pathways to sustain this.

Finally, I appreciate the consideration and

thought for the health and vibrancy of our community as

an aspect of this proposal.

neighborhood serve as a place where myself and

neighbors can get out, enjoy walking, strolling,

riding, chatting, and socializing safely and easily is

good for everyone.

Having our immediate

I support this proposal and the

forward-looking opportunities it envisions.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Gary Hanes, Stephanie Day, Rory Felton, and Teri Gardner. GARY HANES:

I'm Gary Hanes.

I live at 992 East

Riverpark Lane, 83706. My pronouns are retired, baby-boomer, and

Idaho native.

When I reached adulthood, I had a job

and could afford great housing in one of the nation's

highest cost housing areas.

but my income has always supported by housing needs.

The generations that follow mine have not

I've never been wealthy,

been so fortunate.

that some find controversial in their neighborhood.

Three stories.

I also live in the kind of housing

And I spent much of my professional

91 1

life addressing regulatory barriers that increase

housing costs.

I previously submitted written comments

concerning the new code, but I wanted to come here and

testify in person as my way of paying it forward to the

upcoming generations in hopes of improving their

prospects for housing that they can afford in Boise.

Some would have -- some would have us

suspend our understanding of supply and demand.

have suggested a complete moratorium to building as an

answer to Boise's housing crunch.

work in California, and it won't work here.

Others

That solution didn't

There's also the suggestion that delaying

adoption of the zoning code is -- delaying the adoption

of the zoning code is the right approach.

To me, this is simply another insult to the

people who need housing, and would further restrain

production and increase costs.

that you will approve the new zoning code as proposed,

evaluate it after a year or so, modify it if it's

needed, but put it to work for Boise now.

22 23 24 25 26

Therefore, I'm hoping

Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Rory -- sorry, Stephanie Day, and then Rory Felton and Teri Gardner.

92 1

STEPHANIE DAY:

Stephanie Day.

My -- I work at

503 South Americana Boulevard, downtown Boise.

live out at 9560 West Mossywood Drive, because I can't

afford to live in town.

And I

And I just want to say thank you so much,

Commissioners, for this space, and thank you so much to

the City staff who have put so much work into this

process.

more aggressive than it actually is, but I appreciate

that there's a process of like compromise and

understanding that not everybody lives on the extremes

of things and that finding a balance in the middle is

helpful.

and that so many people have been included in it, and

really appreciate all the people that have put so much

work into it.

I really appreciate it.

I wish that it was

So thankful that this process is happening

So I want to give a perspective.

Professionally and personally, I have worked the last

16 years on ending homelessness in the Treasure Valley.

I work for a nonprofit called CATCH, which is a local

nonprofit that's dedicated to ending homelessness.

And the reason that this is something that

we support, the Modern Zoning Code, is because it will

allow for lots of different types of housing, which

will trickle down to create more affordable housing

93 1

opportunities.

There's been a lot of research the last

couple of years that has pointed to vacancy rates and

absolute rent rates as the drivers of homelessness

numbers.

housing bust, our numbers locally have doubled in Ada

County of people that are experiencing homelessness,

which is very concerning to us.

rent rates and vacancy rates.

And we have seen since COVID, since the

All of that driven by

And while we appreciate the parts of the

code that take into consideration incentives for people

developing specifically affordable housing and the

protections for potential housing that could be

displaced, you can't build 100 percent affordable

housing because it just won't pencil to do that.

building in these incentives and ways to kind of mix

your housing uses is really helpful.

But

All development helps.

You do need to have

an intentional affordable housing focus too.

really appreciate that being built into the code, as

well as the other factors.

So we

And just a few facts for you.

couple of years, we house the housing crisis hotline

where everybody in Ada County that experiences a

housing crisis calls to figure out how they can get

The last

94 1

assistance.

And one thing that has really changed

since COVID is a bunch of people calling in because

they've been renting for six or seven years and their

rental was being sold over the last couple of years,

and they could not find anywhere else to go that they

could afford.

And we have some official affordable

housing that HUD sponsors, but there was a lot of

unofficial affordable house that disappeared over the

last couple of years because people that owned their

rentals were selling them because they were worth two

or three times what they were when they bought them

originally.

So that means the mortgages are two or

three times what they were before, and that means the

rents are much greater than they were.

have enough official affordable housing, and we've kind

of lost a ton of the unofficial affordable housing that

we had as a community.

a revision of the code and are fully in support of

this.

22 23 24 25 26

So we didn't

And we are in desperate need of

So thank you so much. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: Let's see. Charlie Woodruff.

Thank you.

Rory Felton, Teri Gardner, and

95 1

RORY FELTON:

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you,

everyone, for your work.

everyone here has the best interest of our city at

heart.

And I do believe that

I'm here to express my opposition to the

proposed zoning changes along the Vista corridor and

into the Depot Bench community, of which I'm a member.

Oh, I'm at 2909 West Clark Street, and my

small business is at 2417 North Bank, so really close

to each other in Depot Bench.

As a concerned citizen, parents, small

business owner, and resident of the Bench, I believe

that these changes would have detrimental effects on

the character, affordability, safety, soul, and quality

of life in our community.

Firstly, the proposed zoning changes around

the Vista corridor and into my community specifically,

my neighborhood, prioritizes high-density development

without sufficient consideration for the existing

community fabric.

While I understand the need to accommodate

population growth and promote economic development, it

is crucial to strike a balance between these goals and

preserving the unique character of our neighborhoods.

The Depot Bench area is known for their historic charm,

96 1

midcentury homes, of which I'm -- I own one and spent a

lot of money developing over the past couple years,

rebuilding, you know, redevelopment, and family

friendly environment and access to green spaces.

The current zoning would compromise these

attributes and undermine the sense of community that

makes our neighborhood special.

mature, and established single-family home community

where 18 children under the age of 15 can run free

within our streets, it would permanently change our

wonderful and established community, forcing

unnecessary density that would only benefit developers,

not homeowners, lower-income residents, or taxpayers.

These proposed changes to the Depot Bench

could drive families and small businesses out of Boise

and into the surrounding cities.

In our wonderful,

Secondly, it seems like the proposed

changes to the Depot Bench area have not been

considered for the North End and East End areas as

well, and it seems like it's a little bit not

considered in an equity fashion.

I would like to -- you know, another, I

guess, proposal would be these R-2 adjacent areas that

are being applied to the Depot Bench, perhaps they can

be applied to every single community within Boise as an

97 1

equitable way to distribute these changes.

I urge the Council to reconsider the

proposed zoning changes and work with the Depot Bench

community to develop a more balanced approach.

crucial to involve local stakeholders in their

decision-making process and ensure that any changes

align with the community's vision for its future.

It is

I thank you all for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

We're going to do Teri Gardner and

Charlie Woodruff, and then we're going to be about

seven o'clock at that point, and we're going to break

for a half hour for dinner.

TERI GARDNER:

So thank you for your time and

all the work that you guys have put into this.

My name is Teri Gardner.

I live at

211 West Elwood Drive, Boise.

My biggest concern about the whole --

CRYSTAL RAIN:

Pardon me, Mr. Chair.

TERI GARDNER:

Sorry.

CRYSTAL RAIN:

Ma'am, could you speak into the

microphone.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

TERI GARDNER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I'm sorry, yes.

I'm so sorry. You could just pull it down.

98 1

There you go.

TERI GARDNER:

Okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

TERI GARDNER:

Sorry.

So anyways, my biggest concern is

about the appointees and all of that.

need to have people represented, a vote needs to

happen.

I think that we

And I think that that should be a priority. Rewriting the zone in existing

neighborhoods causes more strain on the current

infrastructure.

responsibility for that, they can put in fourplex,

12-plex, whatever they are, and pretty soon you have

too many people in the schools, too much -- sewage

needs to be upgraded, all of those things.

departments, all of that.

taxpayers living in the community that would end up

paying for the infrastructure.

Developers not having any

New fire

And that would fall on the

And I feel that a lot of people in my age

group, they can't afford more taxes, you know.

anyways, those are big concerns.

I think there's a real -- it's kind of

weird, this word "affordability" has been really

mind-blowing because I don't feel that "affordability"

has a definition.

years back, and affordable housing isn't a thing.

I've lived somewhere else a few

99 1

It's capitalism.

They're going to sell

their houses and their stuff for market value.

neighbor has a very tiny house, just bought it a couple

years ago, remodeled it, and it sits there on -- it's

been sitting there rented -- or unrented for a long

time.

The same thing around the corner.

months a house sat there unrented.

sale, pending.

here.

Nine

It's now up for

So I mean people can't afford what is

People that live here and exist here now,

they have no affordability.

up with all of this.

into cars.

They move away.

And our wages didn't keep

So where do they go?

They go into RVs.

They go

They go into tents.

I mean we need to be dealing with our

issues now, not for people that are coming here at some

point in the future.

Go out to Lake Hazel.

Lots and lots of

houses out there just sitting empty.

feel like it needs to be something that we're dealing

with for the people that live here in the city.

Let's see.

I mean I really

One of the things that I was

thinking about, too, in my neighborhood.

I have a

strip of townhouses.

Where are

There's no parking.

100 1

they parking?

They're on the street.

And pretty soon if you continue doing that,

house gets torn down, three or four or six townhouses

go in there, pretty soon you have really crowded

streets.

the street to get around the cars.

feels like --

Nobody is -- I mean kids are walking out into

THE CLERK:

TERI GARDNER:

I mean just really

Time. -- the impact and the existing

neighborhoods would be highly compromised.

My feeling is building out is a better plan

to have those developers participate in funding that

infrastructure rather than putting the burden --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

TERI GARDNER:

19 20 21

-- on those existing

neighborhoods.

17 18

You --

So thank you so much.

I appreciate your

help. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

And Charlie Woodruff. CHARLIE WOODRUFF:

Thank you, Commissioners.

And it's always great to be the last one before dinner

between -- at least it's not happy hour.

24 25 26

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the proposed zoning

101 1

code.

My name is Carl Woodruff.

Washington Street, Boise, Idaho 83712.

I live at 1315 East

I am here to support -- express my support

for the zoning code rewrite.

And while it may not be

perfect, it is a significant step in the right

direction to help us address our housing issues, make

progress towards our climate goals, and improve our

already great quality of life.

The proposed code sets an important base or

framework for our community to grow in ways that do the

least amount of harm.

In my professional life I spend quite a bit

of time working in Phoenix, Vegas, Denver, and Salt

Lake City.

dealing with a tremendous amount of sprawl, as many of

us know, and as a result of their single use zoning and

development pattern built around suburbia and cars.

Boise has the opportunity to make better

choices at this point in our growth, and we know that

that growth will continue.

accommodate growth here we already have infrastructure

and services -- where we already have infrastructure

and services, rather than see massive sprawling

developments, for instance like Spring Rock proposed

near Kuna, or where people have to drive more and new

These cities are much larger and are

I want to see us

102 1

infrastructure is more expensive to build.

The biggest positive impact I see for this

code is in requiring the type of density we need along

important transit corridors like State Street,

Fairview, and Vista Ave.

the code and the knowledge of the real estate market

that I have, the changes we'll see in the R-1C and R-2

neighborhoods will be gradual over time due to the real

estate market and other factors.

construction is extremely high.

And from my understanding of

The cost of

I do encourage staff and Commission Members

to consider carefully whether or not the code as

written may unintentionally cause smaller,

single-family homes to be demolished and replaced with

very large single-family homes in R-1C districts, as

that does not achieve what we want to see.

Unless you're living under a rock, we know

that there are important -- there are significant

deficit of housing units for us here to meet the

current demand.

not too late to do something about it.

As many people have expressed, it's

Yes, housing supply is directly related to

housing affordability, and we need all types of housing

to meet our needs, including truly affordable,

subsidized housing, workforce housing, and market-rate

103 1

housing.

All of these are part of the puzzle.

This code rewrite gives us more tools and

flexibility to create more types of housing in areas

that we want it to be built.

I appreciate the City's efforts to

incorporate sustainability standards into the code, and

I work with production builders in our region who have

been achieving very high levels of energy efficiency

and near net zero ready homes, and would love to see

more adoption of those practices here in Boise.

I'm also supportive of including the

allowed uses of neighborhood cafes, bodegas and

live-work units in this code update.

live near Roosevelt Market and know many of my

neighbors and friends and family from across the city

would love to have these types of services located in

their neighborhoods where they can walk to without

using their car.

19 20

I'm excited to see more diversity of housing with my own neighborhood --

THE CLERK:

CHARLIE WOODRUFF:

23 24 25 26

I'm very lucky to

triplexes.

Time. -- including duplexes,

And this code moves us in that direction. All of these things combined will help us

create housing opportunities where our existing

104 1

infrastructure, parks and services are located.

2 3

And for all of these reasons, I urge you to pass the zoning code rewrite.

Thanks for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

break for dinner.

Thank you.

We'll be back at about 7:30 after we

Thank you.

(Dinner recess.)

10 11

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: again.

Okay, folks.

We'll get going

Welcome back.

Staff, ready to roll?

Okay.

We will continue on here with

testimony.

First is Fred Fritchman and then Melissa Pratt, Kym

Pratt, Brad Nielsen, and Richard Fritzley.

We're going to pick up where we left off.

FRED FRITCHMAN:

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Fred Fritchman, and I live at 1321 Denver

Avenue.

In the past 20 years I've served on

City-sponsored committees that wrote new infill codes

for houses and duplexes on substandard lots and in

established neighborhoods.

upzones R-2 areas with many new entitlements, reduced

lot size, unlimited density, and a height limit of

The zoning code rewrite

105 1

45 feet are not compatible with the built environment

of our established R-2 areas.

The new code calls for larger development

to transition down, but unlike the standards we wrote

15 years ago, these goals are subjective and will

provide no assurance to neighbors.

areas are treasures of livable density.

Many of our R-2

My R-2 neighborhood near Boise State has

seen scores of dwelling units built for hundreds of new

residents in the past 20 years at a livable scale.

Densities of 10 to 16 dwelling units per acre are the

norm.

Areas like this already accommodate

so-called missing middle housing at a scale that

preserves what neighbors bought into.

not have to live in fear of what can be built next to

them because those in power decided more units trumped

their peace of mind.

Residents should

These neighborhoods are where people raise

their families and invest their fortunes.

bare ground to be exploited for the highest profit and

the greatest property tax revenue.

They are not

As you know, many Boiseans have pushed back

hard against the ZCR, many more likely know nothing

about it.

The code has been a moving target, and the

106 1

final draft just came out on February 28th.

I'm disappointed that the City has provided

no executive summary to citizens detailing the changes.

Here's what most people will see:

month's sewer and trash bill talking about the rewrite.

Here's a picture showing a one-and-a-half story cottage

court, a couple jogging through a park, some kids with

a dog.

Here's a picture of a guy on a bike in The

Grove.

Where's the picture of the 45-foot tall

apartment building looming over the little, one-story

house?

The flyer from this

Blueprint Boise specifically identifies

compatible infill as a goal, but these new standards do

not support that goal.

code rewrite was to bring the code into alignment with

the plan.

And I thought the point of the

Boiseans who study the new code closely

found dozens of issues that will result in negative

consequences if enacted.

loopholes until they can be fixed.

be paused for a thorough, open, public vetting with the

citizens of Boise.

do a test run to see what doesn't work.

Developers will exploit these This rewrite should

The stakes are simply too high to

We need to spend the time to get it right

the first time because our neighbors will have to live

107 1

next door to the consequences if we don't.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

Melissa Pratt and then Kym Pratt,

Brad Nielsen, Richard Fritzley and Lea Bowman.

MELISSA PRATT:

Good evening.

Melissa Pratt.

Avenue, Boise, Idaho.

the way this is set up.

My name is

I live at 1409 East Warm Springs And I'm not yet a supporter of

As past president of the Warm Springs

Historic District Association, you know that I love

history.

now.

what we have now is not really enough.

I've lived in Warm Springs for about 30 years

We have some historic overlay protections, but

Even with testifying and trying to protect

this very small part of Boise's history, I have a

brand-new house on my left and a brand-new house on my

right.

I'm confused about how the new code will

affect historic neighborhoods, and I would love to have

a meeting where specific differences from past codes

are compared with this new code in regards to these

historic districts.

noncontributing houses, for example?

you're removing our ability to protect Boise's history.

How does this affect I worry that

108 1

I am in full agreement with the letter from

the East End Neighborhood Association sent to you

asking for further time.

I'd invite to you reach out to our historic

group, the Warm Springs Historic District Association,

and include -- meet with us for a devil's in the detail

kind of thing.

see if we really feel really, truly comfortable.

That's my first issue.

Let's take a look at it, drill it down,

The next is that I know it said this will

bring affordable housing to the area.

if you've ever taken a call from a little, old lady who

is living on $997 a month.

And I had to tell them, "You know, can't cover you in

Boise.

while you couldn't even cover it in Caldwell.

But in a prior job, I did.

You need to move to Caldwell."

And I don't know

And after a

It's just a sad situation and we have, you

know, young families, we have disabled people.

really like to understand the specifics of how much is

this going to help people?

really talking about?

math?

seen it.

24 25 26

So I'd

How many units are you

Has anybody really done the

It's possible it's been done, and I just haven't

I worry about the developers who will likely bring in upscale units, because that makes more

109 1

money for them, and it will displace the older, more

affordable living options that are now there.

woefully short on affordable housing units.

like to understand how this really will ensure this new

code will actually lead to the affordable housing.

We are

I'd really

Finally, I know there were a lot of

last-minute changes, and I just think if Gregg Ostrow,

an almost 40-year veteran of architecture doesn't

understand it, I don't know how you're expected to

understand it, and I don't know how I am expected to

understand it.

I think that further meetings need to be

done with what the final was to really lay it out for

this neighborhood, this is what it could mean for that

neighborhood, this is what it could mean.

there's been a lot of work, and I'm sure it was well

done, but somehow you need to dumb it down so we can

truly understand what you're asking for.

I know

So I look forward to seeing some support in

getting further education, and I'd ask for the City to

provide that.

So thank you very much for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

25 26

Thank you.

Kym Pratt, Brad Nielsen, Richard

Fritzley, Lea Bowman, and Matthew Oman.

110 1

KYM PRATT:

and Commissioners.

Pratt, 1409 East Warm Springs, Boise, Idaho, other half

of the lovely wife that just spoke.

Excuse me.

Good evening, Chairman

Appreciate the opportunity.

Kym

In support of everything she's saying.

few things to add to that.

opportunity to speak to some of these issues now, in

particular the issues that we have, I'll echo what she

said and take it a little further, the historic side of

life, as it has been in particular for us in the Warm

Springs Historic District.

"Historic."

We do appreciate the

Emphasis on the word

We've been in the same building many times

over, gosh -- I don't know -- the last 10, 15 years,

any and every issue you can think of, fighting, maybe a

better word is proactively managing, all the things

that have happened.

right, a new homeowner left.

in the world that's historic.

As she mentioned, a new homeowner I don't know how that --

We do not want some large home next to us

that we have no control over when and how it comes, and

what that does to not only our lifestyle but the love

of historic homes, and our investment to be quite

frank.

25 26

We've lived there now about 28 years.

111 1

was a five-year plan to come to Boise.

And we try to

be quite active with all this.

gentleman's statement to open this up that perhaps

since the summertime this has all been discussed.

I can appreciate the

Not to get too personal, but my situation

personally is that I'm recovering from a rare cancer,

and I haven't been grassroots from that summertime, if

that was really going on.

speak tonight, I hear both sides.

most democratic process ever.

wonderful.

However, as I hear everybody Some say, "Gosh, the

You're great.

You're

I support this."

And I heard an awful lot, and I heard

there's an awful lot last night, saying just the

opposite.

guy, I think there might be an issue with that too.

So as a retired advertising, marketing sales

I'm in full support of affordable housing.

I can't disagree whatsoever with the need for that.

But perhaps we need to have even more grassroots

involvement in some of these situations.

that's advertising and promotional or more grassroots

involvement from various sources that do get us all

involved from the get-go, in particular when there are

last-minute revisions made, as my wife pointed out

apparently was the case just February.

25 26

And maybe

Developers, you know, kind of make -- that

112 1

word makes me a little nervous because it's about

money.

transparent, we're always democratic, and that we do

the right thing for all sections of our community and

of our great city.

And I want to make sure that we are always

I appreciate you listening.

can't tell, I'm not necessarily in favor of this, but

I'm not necessarily as opposed to it as I thought I was

by coming because I'm learning more even this evening.

10 11

And if you

A 620-page piece is a little hard to digest.

THE CLERK:

Time.

KYM PRATT:

But thank you for your attention

this evening, and appreciate the idea of delaying this.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Brad Nielsen.

Thank you. And then Richard Fritzley,

Lea Bowman, Matthew Oman, and Vivian Lockary.

BRAD NIELSEN:

and professional --

CRYSTAL RAIN:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

BRAD NIELSEN:

-- very professional --

CRYSTAL RAIN:

Could you speak into the mic,

24 25 26

First of all, Andrea and the gals

Mr. Chair. Yeah.

please, sir. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

113 1

BRAD NIELSEN:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

your name and address, please.

4 5 6 7 8

BRAD NIELSEN:

Is it on? And if you could start with

Brad Nielsen.

10030 West

Tanglewood. I didn't want to waste my time on saying thank you to these people. But anyway, Andrea and the gals were very

kind to me through the process, and Tim, very

professional people.

I was on the committee.

wasn't really excited about coming in here today, but I

watched two days of this, and it angered me that home

ownership has become villainized.

I am one of the zoning rewrite -I thought my tour was over.

I've heard, you know, we're bigots, we're

racists, we're elitist, we're selfish, we're NIMBIES,

NUMBIES, whatever that is.

we're villains because we were born here.

I'm not going to apologize for owning a house.

worked my ass off for it.

and my rent -- one's a rental.

maybe 2010 prices.

now is greed.

24 25 26

And -- and as of tonight, You know, I

I happen to own two houses, And I'm only charging

What I think the problem is right

I am in structural design. distracted from my own notes.

I'm getting

But anyway, I just

114 1

designed a four or three-level apartment building down

on Hillcrest, and it's not being built.

year ago.

there's endless rentals out there.

the shortage is at.

I did that a

I just scrolled through Craigslist, and I'm not sure where

What I -- what I've heard this last couple

days is I don't think anybody's opposed to having

housing density even.

lived in my -- I've lived in Boise my whole life.

was born off of Fairview.

Boise was.

doesn't exist anymore.

and it's just the way life is.

It's just how we do it.

I grew up here.

I know that it's disappearing.

I've I

I know what Boise

It's something different now,

One of my problems was the process, what

got us here.

ITD, ACHD, the bus system, I tried to get everybody to

the table.

know, the zoning.

account on what we make our decisions on.

to -- the infrastructure needs to be here before we --

we indensify, whatever you want to call that.

I'm running out of time.

I tried to get

There's other players here, other than, you And we need to take them into They need

But mainly my light -- or height -- or my

problems with it is the height, up against residential.

I think that's a privacy problem.

within residential is also a privacy problem.

And I think business You

115 1

know, noise.

My worst-case scenario that I see is a

restaurant in a neighborhood, serves beer --

THE CLERK:

Time.

BRAD NIELSEN:

-- music late into the night.

That's a problem for me.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

BRAD NIELSEN:

So there's a saying -Mr. --

-- the end of it is, weak men

create weak times.

I think we need to spend some time

and get representation from the districts too.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Richard Fritzley.

Okay.

Lea Bowman, then Matthew Oman,

Okay.

Online?

No.

Vivian Lockary, Kevin Kless, and Renee Sandmeyer.

LEA BOWMAN:

Veterans Park neighborhood.

Thank you.

I'm Lea Bowman.

I live in the

And as most people here probably feel, I'm

very anxious to be standing in front of a powerful

Board talking about what I love about Boise.

Thank you.

But I think I'm here because I care about

this city very deeply, and I want to stand up for

Boise's values for what we love here.

one of my biggest hangups with this rezone is the fact

that it will remove a lot of the democratic process and

the ability of citizens to speak up for what -- for

And I -- I think

116 1 2

their neighborhoods, for their quality of life. I found myself with my anxiety.

You've

seen me pacing.

myself doing is trying to look out the windows and look

for a sight of the foothills.

I've just been kind of tonight noticing that I'm

looking for the comfort that the natural world brings

to us living in a city.

And one of the things I've found

It's been something that

And it's hard to find in this building.

You can go in the Bogus Room back there, and you've got

a little glimpse of the foothills, which is nice.

Part of the upzone, with all this increased

density, is going to, I do think -- many people have

spoke to this, for better and for worse, it's going to

fundamentally change Boise.

increase population within the city.

increase use of our natural spaces, our Greenbelt, our

foothills, our parks.

The density is going to It's going to

And as much as we all love and honor those

spaces, when we reduce citizen input -- when I think

about who should have the most say in Boise around

development, it should be the people who live here.

shouldn't be developers.

I'm concerned that this upzone sort of

blanket statements that developers have more -- and

117 1

investors, outside investors, have more power than the

citizens to direct the course of our city.

why I'm here tonight.

but it's our civic duty, I think, to be able to come

and speak to issues that directly impact our

neighborhoods and our quality of life.

So that's

I'm scared to be standing here,

And as a citizen of Boise, I feel I speak

for the values of conservation, access to the outdoors,

safety, community.

concerned about their bottom line.

Whereas developers are frankly

There's been a lot of talk tonight about

affordability in our market.

that no one in this room will argue with.

assume that developers give a damn about that I think

is a farce.

at hand through this rezone is the most critical thing

we can do to make this work.

18 19

But to

So I think keeping citizens' input close

Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

20 21

That's an obvious issue

Thank you.

Let's swing back to Richard Fritzley, who's online. Then Matthew Oman, Vivian Lockary, Kevin

Kless, Renee Sandmeyer.

RICHARD FRITZLEY:

Can you hear me this time?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We can.

Hello.

118 1

RICHARD FRITZLEY:

is Richard Fritzley.

Hawthorne Drive.

Okay.

Good evening.

My name

My address is 3807 North

Other than active duty in the military

service and graduate school, I lived in Idaho my entire

life.

return to Idaho, and we resided in various parts of the

Collister neighborhood ever since.

familiar with housing affordability issues.

In 1988 my wife and I jumped at the chance to

We are more than

During our married life we've experienced

living in the high rent and high purchase cost housing

areas, while having a very low income, having to drive

long distances to get to work, mortgage interest rates

exceeding 21 percent.

at 12 percent, and we felt lucky getting the

fixer-upper we did.

expenses.

Our first mortgage in 1982 was

We sold the house to cover medical

In graduate school I was a lead member of a

team with the Center for Real Estate Studies at Indiana

University to develop the first housing affordability

index covering an entire state and its major population

centers and regions.

appraisal to undergraduates and adjunct professor.

Since our first house purchase, we have

25 26

I've also taught real estate

gone through a series of fixer-uppers and now live in a

119 1

very lovely home in the Sycamore Overlay.

always be my fixer-upper, as I build it myself and am

perpetually in a state of trying to improve it.

spent ten years looking for property in the Sycamore

Overlay.

flood irrigation for lawns and gardens, private well,

abundant wildlife.

We love it.

It will

Large lots, room for animals,

Recently I've had as many as 18 deer in my

garden.

One of the bucks even left me a gift this year

with a four-point antler in the yard.

on the fox and the coyotes, but at least the coyotes

kill the feral cats, which the City animal control will

not do.

I'm not too keen

It's a self-sufficient paradise, and it's

close to work and medical facilities our family needs.

It's a haven for walkers within the overlay and nearby

blocks.

Overlay.

In summary, life is great in the Sycamore

So why is the City trying to screw it up?

City staff, I think even the new planning director,

visited the neighborhood and agreed that the Sycamore

Overlay should be preserved.

Yesterday the Collister Neighborhood

Association president, supposedly speaking for himself,

stated, "We have been deeply heard and considered."

120 1

This is nonsense and totally untrue.

While the new zoning scheme does not allow

our lots to be subdivided, it does allow for up to a

fourplex unit to be built on a lot.

distinction without a difference, and is certainly not

being deeply heard and considered.

worse, and is unacceptable.

This is a

In fact, it is

As I said, we spent a decade planning our

property, chosen for all the wonderful attributes I

mentioned.

four units -- four families with four times the traffic

on one side of you where there was previously one.

Those attributes did not include having

We are not anti renter.

of renters in the area, and we have been renters

ourselves.

there ourselves.

overlay is a mix of small and large homes.

There are plenty

We are not anti low income.

We have been

We're not against smaller homes.

The

What I am against is being gaslighted and

forced into a zoning experiment.

"experiment" are intentionally used because that is the

exact words used by two members of this Commission

Monday evening.

by this zoning scheme.

24 25 26

"Gaslight" and

And that is what is being done to us

We have spent 42 years of marriage working to achieve the life we have now.

It's offensive that

121 1

the City thinks it's equitable to significantly

increase density in long-established neighborhoods.

are one of thousands in the city with that will suffer

significant negative impacts by this thoughtless,

one-size-fits-all density increase, excepting, of

course, North End and historic districts.

I'm sure there's good in the other parts of

the rewrite that are needed.

I wouldn't know since

inadequate time was allowed for review.

focused on my back yard.

THE CLERK:

RICHARD FRITZLEY:

So yes, I

Time. You term again,

Commissioners, because that is what people want to do

when they are attacked.

property rights of many citizens of the city.

Yes, this is an attack of

This Commission needs to reject this

proposal, send it back to the drawing board, and

reconsider it after digesting the true citizen input

you receive not [unintelligible] --

20 21 22

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: Mr. Fritzley.

Okay.

That's your time.

Matthew Oman and Vivian Lockary.

MATTHEW OMAN:

live in 2714 North Tamarack.

25 26

Thank you,

Hello.

My name's Matt Oman.

I'm against the upzone for many reasons.

122 1

grew up here in Boise.

violation of certain ideals, certain profound ideals

that have led to the creation of a really great city.

I have a tremendous amount of civic pride because of

the way that the City has prioritized conservation.

see that in this state.

And I see that the upzone is in

We have the largest wilderness area in the

lower 48, the Frank Church Wilderness area, and that

was established in order to give people something, give

something -- give people something.

very high-minded ideals.

And it spoke to

What they are, in my mind, are universal

and binding human ideals that are -- that we have in

the city right now, which is integrated green space.

So we talk about Boise growing and becoming a big city

someday, and I ask myself what kind of big city will it

be?

green space, conservation, and -- or will it become a

place like everywhere else, like other places where

there's been development where these zoning codes have

been installed?

Will it be the type of city that has prioritized

And I talk to people every day, I see

people that -- through my work and different things

that have come from these other cities, and they've

experienced, you know, negative -- you know, their

123 1

day-to-day life isn't what Boise provides.

And they're

very excited, they're happy to be here, because there's

safe city streets, there's clean air, there's a river,

there's park space, there's available green space to

spend time.

believe, moving forward to establish that and

prioritize that.

code provides for that.

And that is crucially important, I

And I don't believe that this zoning

If someone has a lot and they divide it as

much as they want, they pave over that available green

space, which affects the overall community.

speaking against that.

And so I'm

But -- and I want to make sure that I'm

understood, too, because I think that when we talk

about preventing urban sprawl, if we -- if we build

densely here, that's not going to stop any sprawl.

What's happening now is both areas are

being consumed by development.

people what a city looks like, the city of the future

looks like with integrated green space I think is a

priority.

preservation of the environment, is going to become

more important.

24 25 26

Making a stand, showing

As we move forward conservation,

This is just the first interaction with this.

There will be more to come as -- as we see that

124 1

the City's -- the direction that the City's taking with

development is, I see, in my mind, an attack on the

lifestyle that's been developed here.

lifestyle comes and it was developed through, like I

said, values that are -- that showed a great deal of

wisdom.

And that

And during COVID we saw an increase in

influx of people that wanted to live here because of

the lifestyle.

environments because of the lack of green space that

Boise provides.

They were literally fleeing urban

Vote down this upzone.

Thank you for your time.

THE CLERK:

Time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Sandmeyer, Rosemary McClenahan.

Vivian Lockary, Kevin Kless, Renee

Well done.

VIVIAN LOCKARY:

Commissioners.

19th Street.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and

My name's Vivian Lockary.

2211 North

I've been a Boise resident for 30 years.

I don't support this proposed zoning

ordinance.

uses allowed for administrative approval, things like

triplexes, fourplexes, the neighborhood retail sales

and cafes, which include establishments that can serve

It seems to me that it expands the type of

125 1

alcohol.

I'm not opposed to density, to the process

that we've gone through.

I know it's taken a lot of

time, a lot of hours, a lot of collaboration.

appreciate all the work that went into it.

And I

But what this means by -- by just allowing

administrative approval is all the public involvement

process has been removed.

permit -- permitting with public notification and

public hearings, all that is required is the -- is an

administrative nod in the favor of developers.

So as this Commission, most of you

So the conditional-use

remember, that's exactly what the Boise mayor and City

Council did when they changed the wireless

communications section of the city code over a year

ago.

even more submitted written testimony.

received a petition from Idahoans for Safe Technology

with over a thousand signatures, all in opposition to

their draft, which was stripping the wireless ordinance

of these protective clauses of the public involvement

process.

Dozens of residents showed up at public hearings, The City even

And this Commission -- and I -- and I'm

grateful for this, recommended not to eliminate the

conditional-use permit and other existing public

126 1

involvement processes from the wireless ordinance.

The

mayor and City Council simply chose to ignore it all.

So it seems to me that the proposed zoning

ordinance will encourage the demolition of existing

homes and just seem to redistribute ownership to large

investors, to those who can afford to do this type of

development.

displace residents, increase property values, make it

even harder for Boise residents to become homeowners.

And -- and that just by its nature will

We've heard from a lot of people my age

that have children.

afford to live here, much -- or even entertain renting

here.

homeowners, will increase as well.

The next generation can't even

Property taxes, already a growing burden for

I think this draft severely weakens or

eliminates some of the criteria that is -- we need to

protect property rights and do all the other things --

THE CLERK:

VIVIAN LOCKARY:

Idaho's Land-Use Planning Act.

time.

Time. -- that are required under

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

25 26

And I appreciate your

Thank you.

Kevin Kless, Renee Sandmeyer,

Rosemary McClenahan, Anthony Hauser, and James Kaufman.

127 1

KEVIN KLESS:

My name's Kevin Kless.

I'm a

former captain in the United States Air Force where I

served at the National Airspace Intelligence Center.

was also at the Air Force Operational Test Evaluation

Center where I was chief of operations of test and

evaluation of various advanced electromagnetic sensors

and combat telecommunication systems.

master's in physics.

National Academies of Science where I'm under the Air

Force Studies Board.

I hold a

I have a fellowship at the

And I want to mention that recently, as of

last August, the Federal Court, Circuit One, has

ordered the FCC to re-evaluate its wireless safety

protocols.

harmful effects of evolving 5G, 6G, and then future 7G

technologies, not only just human health, but also in

nature and animal life.

So the evidence is overwhelming of the

So I encourage you to check out -- do a

search query on Idahoansforsafetechnology.org.

You can

find all of the links to the evidence there.

need that as a resource, I encourage anyone listening

to check that out.

So if you

If somebody brought a black box and put it

on a tower next to my residence, I would -- I'd demand

the right to be notified.

Number one, I believe also

128 1

that the public needs readily available access to, one,

the full schematics of this mysterious black box

whether it is on a telephone pole tower or cable;

number two, the power output and frequencies it emits;

and three -- three, also its known operators, whether

commercial, private, whoever; and four, what security

protocols are in place.

protocols, encryption is not right in place, these

things with the flick of a switch can become weapons

systems overnight.

If the right security

The idea that any Joe Schmo corporation or

any other entity can place an unknown wireless system

within Boise that can transmit unknown electromagnetic

frequencies at different power ranges with only a quick

rubber stamp and no public notification or hearing I

find personally terrifying.

We want notification.

Therefore, I implore this honorable Council

to delay or amend this new zoning code until these

health and safety issues are addressed.

20 21 22

Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Renee Sandmeyer, Rosemary McClenahan,

Anthony Hauser, James Kaufman.

RENEE SANDMEYER:

[Unintelligible.]

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

[Unintelligible] staff,

129 1

please.

2 3

Yes, thank you.

RENEE SANDMEYER:

[Unintelligible] upload those

photos, and I was just [unintelligible].

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

RENEE SANDMEYER:

Thank you.

CRYSTAL RAIN:

Mr. Chair, you need to -- if you

want to take it, you, I think, need to vote on that.

Right?

9 10

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We have to vote on it if we

should take it?

CRYSTAL RAIN:

If you -- it's your discretion.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

testifant what the pictures are and --

Yes, Commissioner Gillespie.

RENEE SANDMEYER:

Oh.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

Offered, Chairman.

You might ask the

Give me a little reference.

accepted any materials to date.

RENEE SANDMEYER:

Oh, sure.

We haven't

Yeah.

You know, I

just realized that some people were smart enough to

upload a slide, and I couldn't do that.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Gotcha.

RENEE SANDMEYER:

So I do have photos that just

25 26

depict part of my testimony here.

Gotcha.

You're welcome to

130 1 2

look at them or not. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

If you don't mind,

we'll just go ahead and carry on, then, because of your

testimony.

RENEE SANDMEYER:

Perfect.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

RENEE SANDMEYER:

My name's Renee Sandmeyer.

live at 1705 West Canal Street in the Vista

neighborhood.

I oppose this rezoning proposal for several

reasons.

on one reason I can most objectively outline.

But to keep my testimony concise, I'll focus

It's the negative impact to biking and

walking safety and traffic congestion within existing

neighborhoods.

neighborhood as having the boundaries of Vista, the

New York Canal, the railroad tracks, and Malad Street.

I define my immediate existing

I counted, there are 710 individual

dwellings within these boundaries now, with 506 lots

containing single-family homes.

add 1,216 dwellings within this boundary on what many

call the old Simunich property.

approval.

Soon the City plans to

This is pre-rezoning

The new rezone approval appears it could

approve up to four dwellings per existing lot in my

131 1

neighborhood, meaning my neighborhood density could

increase fivefold from what it is now.

fivefold.

That's

My neighborhood has three main entrances

and exits.

is controlled on Vista Avenue.

I'm highly skeptical of the assumption that most or

many of these new residents will be motor vehicle

aversive.

Two are uncontrolled on Federal Way.

One

People love their cars.

To illustrate this point I've taken the

7:00 a.m. City bus downtown to work, probably for

15-plus years.

inflation's effect on downtown parking fees, and even

when gas crest at $5.00 per gallon, the ridership

remained steady.

get on and off that bus, that includes me, by the time

we get downtown.

Despite the increase in population,

On average there are four riders that

That's four riders.

My disabled brother-in-law loves to walk to

the Starbucks on Federal Way to get the special treat.

Doing this requires us to cross the railroad tracks on

Victory Road.

incline/decline.

abruptly on either side of the white line, causing

walkers and bikers to walk on the road.

you know, when cars are approaching you, they can't see

The crossing has a steep There are no sidewalks.

It drops

To avoid --

132 1

you.

This is a very dangerous situation.

risk, I end up driving, as do others.

Canal Street has a bikeway.

To avoid the

It's nice.

But it abruptly ends at Federal Way.

increase in developments along Federal Way over the

past three to five years, I can no longer safely bike

or walk across Federal Way to enjoy that Greenbelt, let

alone make a left-hand turn out of my neighborhood onto

Federal Way.

accidents at this intersection.

Due to the

Weekly I see the remnants of vehicular

Increasing the density to neighborhoods

will only compound all these hazards.

there are dozens of other neighborhoods in Boise with

similar shortcomings and tales of neglect.

I'm certain

I implore you to fix what is broken before

you approve this rezone proposal for our city and

prevent it from pushing such an abrupt increase in

density --

THE CLERK:

Time.

RENEE SANDMEYER:

-- into our existing

neighborhoods.

This rezoning proposal is too extreme,

and it is dismissive of current residents.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

RENEE SANDMEYER:

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Rosemary McClenahan,

133 1

Anthony Hauser, James Kaufman, and then Abigail Morgan

I believe is online, and then Tara Wolfson.

3 4

ROSEMARY McCLENAHAN:

My name is Rosemary

McClenahan, and I live at 3300 North Hawthorne Drive.

I'm opposed to the Boise Zoning Code

rewrite and support the concerns of Boise Working

Together's letter in your packet.

winners and losers in our city.

The ZCR picks

Areas with CCRs, HOA's, and historic

district designations will feel little, if any, impact

from the proposed ZCR.

rewrite will target property of senior citizens and

those with low and modest incomes for redevelopment.

Single-family homes will be replaced by

Basic economics tells us the

high-density apartments and multiuse structures.

The

ZCR moves housing options away from starter homes where

residents can begin building equity towards rentals.

A six-story, 130-unit apartment building

recently proposed on Ash and River Street in downtown

Boise illustrates the challenges of building new,

affordable housing.

demolished to make way for this structure.

Four affordable fourplexes will be

Developers proposed 13 affordable units at

100 percent of AMI, which translates to $70,000 for a

two-person household.

Is this really affordable for a

134 1

single working parent and a child in Boise?

At the recent City Council hearing the

developer told the Council that if they require adding

two more affordable units at 60 percent of AMI, the

owner would just reapply after the ZCR was approved and

likely not require any affordable units.

Demolishing existing affordable housing

does not lead to new affordable units taking their

place.

requires in new buildings range from zero to 25 percent

and have varying AMI criteria.

units.

The percentages of affordable units the ZCR

Some also require a 50-year affordability

commitment.

the next 50 years?

That's not a lot of

Who will be monitoring eligibility over

The upzone leaves some of Boise's

residential zoning designations in place, but changes

many standards.

R-1C goes from 5,000 to 3,500 square feet.

uses changes from single-family units to the potential

of additional triplexes or fourplexes.

The requirement

for owner occupancy goes away for ADUs.

These changes

violate the understanding most neighbors had when they

bought their homes.

25 26

For example, the minimum lot size of Allowed

I'm also very concerned about the proposed

135 1

administrative procedures which reduce neighborhood

notifications, comment opportunities, public hearings,

and appeal processes.

impact residents' input.

attorneys to pursue appeals.

6 7

This can reduce or eliminate City and developers have Neighborhoods don't.

I respectfully request that you deny this zoning code rewrite.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Tony Hauser, James Kaufman.

And then, staff, it looks like we have a

bunch of folks coming up that are online.

Okay.

TONY HAUSER:

Hi there.

See that?

My name is Tony Hauser.

I live at 1705 North 22nd Street in North End of Boise.

I have been a Boise resident for 25 years, and I am

proud to call the city my home.

I do support the zoning code update in the

proposed draft.

would think that we should consider as a proposal, and

that is to ask the staff, Commissioners, and City

Councilmembers to consider the removal of minimum

parking requirements for residential development.

And the question is why?

25 26

issues.

I do have one additional thing that I

Well, three major

Number one, it's better for the climate.

136 1

we can have less cars, especially for a city like Boise

where we're prone to have inversions, which then lead

to substandard air quality, it -- anything we can do to

reduce cars I think is a very important thing.

The other thing is that it would provide

more affordability to renters.

parking, it adds to the cost of development.

it reduces congestion, and it would be much better to

deal with this proactively now while we're making the

zoning code changes rather than trying to have to

figure it out down the road.

When you have to build And also

You look at a city like San Diego, where I

think four or five years ago they used to require if

you had two or more bedrooms, you had to have a minimum

of two parking spots.

zero and maximum is one.

reduce the amount of congestion and cars on the road,

and I think that would be very beneficial for us.

Now they're saying minimum is They're actually trying to

You know, there's other cities.

Bend just

removed minimum parking requirements.

Corvallis

removed minimum parking requirements.

South Bend,

Indiana.

dozens of other cities.

It's not confined just to the West.

And

Ironically, even Sandpoint, Idaho, which is

a very small town, they did remove some minimum parking

137 1

requirements for their downtown area.

universal thing where the trend is to reduce parking.

And I think there's value to that.

So this is a

People still need to get from one place to

another.

So I think if developers build places with no

parking, that's where you get creativity of, you know,

the innovative approaches.

better bicycle storage so bikes don't get stolen.

have them completely enclosed.

things like scooters, you know, greater mass transit

adoption, which, you know, kind of still Boise is

working on that.

Car sharing, bike sharing, You

Increased carpooling,

And so, you know, because Boise has created

this very walkable and bikeable town, I think we should

do our best to take the cars off.

Boise, I think there are numerous areas where

construction can be done without parking.

think that development should be encouraged.

Within the city of

You know, I

One intriguing option would be to link that

zero parking minimum with affordable housing.

now I think there's a proposal that's 50 percent off.

If you give 100 percent off for parking but have the

requirement of affordable housing, you're really

killing two birds with one stone.

getting affordable housing, and you're taking cars off

Right

At that point you're

138 1

the road.

And to me that's -- you're marrying two

very, I think, important things that we should consider

as the zoning code changes.

know, any increased affordability with less cars is a

huge win for Boise.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thanks.

James Kaufman.

Okay.

Okay, staff, it looks like a

bunch -- kind of funny.

here.

12 13

And I think that, you

We got like five people online

So Abigail Morgan and then Tara Wolfson and then Phillip Chaffee, Camryn Lafrenz, and David King.

ABIGAIL MORGAN:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ABIGAIL MORGAN:

Hi.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Perfect.

Hello. Thank you.

I appreciate this opportunity very much and

that the Commission is going through this robust

process.

20 21 22

My name is Abigail Morgan.

I live at

1022 North 21st Street. And while I am stabilized and in a safe

environment at this time, that has not always been the

case while living in Boise.

and very insecure housing conditions in the recent

I experienced homelessness

139 1

past, which really limited my ability to contribute

meaningfully to this beautiful community.

Similar to many earlier comments, I believe

that we need accessible affordable housing and

strategic density of a variety of income levels to be

intentionally built into the fabric of our Boise

community.

this.

through the process.

I hope that future zoning code supports

And I'm really excited to see that it has gone

Additionally, I hope that the code is able

to reflect the intentionality in transit and offer a

more safe mobility beyond just access to cars.

able to support our bikers, walkers, and other modes of

transit will make us safer, more well-connected, and

healthier Boise.

I, again, appreciate this process.

Being

And

thank you for your time tonight.

much of your personal hours over to this process.

so I'm really, really grateful that the City has done

such a wonderful job with this.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

And then Phillip Chaffee and Camryn

24 25 26

I know you are giving

Thank you.

Tara Wolfson.

Lafrenz. TARA WOLFSON:

Okay.

Sorry about that.

And

140 1

Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

TARA WOLFSON:

Yes, we can.

Great.

Good evening,

Commissioners.

2202 North 18th Street.

in support of the Modern Zoning Code.

Hello.

My name is Tara Wolfson, and I live at And I'm online today to speak

I've lived in Boise since 2000.

And I live

a pretty idyllic life here.

I can walk to work, rarely

battle any traffic, and have great social cohesion and

diverse friends.

worry about housing prices and want others to have the

same opportunities I had.

make it so.

But I worry about sprawl a lot.

We have to do something to

I applaud the committee and City for taking

this step to find fair, practical, and creative ways to

increase our housing opportunities, including workforce

and low-income housing to diversify our neighborhoods

to make our city even more livable and modern, and also

to recognize that we can't keep doing things the way we

have been doing them on a heating planet.

We need less cars in the Boise Valley.

need resilient, modern housing.

about this city and its residents, and I can see that

this has been a thoughtful, studied process.

that you, Commissioners, also care about our city, and

Most of all I care

I believe

141 1

that's why I'm urging you to approve the code

modernization effort.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

And then Camryn Lafrenz and then David King

Thank you.

Phil Chaffee.

I believe are all online, staff.

PHIL CHAFFEE:

Hello.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yes.

PHIL CHAFFEE:

My name is Phil Chaffee.

Hi.

Can you hear me?

live at 2155 North Wilmington Drive in Boise.

want to testify in strong support of the zoning code

rewrite.

And I

I was born and raised here in Boise.

And

my wife and I were fortunate to buy a house in the fall

of 2012 before Boise became one of the least affordable

housing markets in the entire country.

when we bought our house that our property would not be

taxed -- would be taxed to support public services

provided by the City.

We understood

At no time have we ever been assured, nor

would we expect, an availability of subsidized curbside

parking of vehicles.

any expectation, that our neighborhood would remain

unchanged in perpetuity.

We were never guaranteed, nor had

142 1

While I would prefer to [unintelligible]

all parking minimum requirements to allow more

residential density throughout the city, I applaud the

work done by the Planning and Zoning Commission to find

a middle ground between those who purchased their homes

when housing was cheap and those who are desperate to

find a place to live in a community that allows

work-play balance.

I'm encouraged that this plan will ease

restrictions and allow small, commercial developments

like cafes to enjoy a more Hyde Park-like feel

throughout the city.

As an underwriter of real estate loans in

the Pacific Northwest, I have seen firsthand impact

that increased supply of units have had on applying

downward pressure on lease and rent rates.

this code does encourage additional housing supply for

our market, which should slow the rise in rent rates

across the city, and allow for more natural

development, which would be a major step towards

addressing our current housing emergency.

I believe

While I agree with some opponents of the

zoning change that ideally would add additional deed

restrictions for affordable housing in exchange for

allowed increased density slash height allowances, I

143 1

understand based on your statements there are legal

complications with this approach.

perfection to be an enemy of improvement from our

current zoning standards.

I would hate for the

Looking across our nation, we find the

least affordable cities are often those with

[unintelligible] development as we have -- as we have

had here in Boise.

positive effort to try and help Boise enjoy a more

human-centered development, and ultimately avoid the

development mistakes of places like Los Angeles and

San Francisco Bay.

I see the proposed changes and some

Finally, I'd like to thank you and the City

of Boise for their efforts and to inform the citizens

of Boise that this zoning code rewrite was happening.

I've seen news coverage, read stories in newspapers,

and received e-mails, saw notices along pathways, and

even saw a printout of the code in my little library.

Thank you for your efforts in making this

an inclusive process and for your time here tonight.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

And then David King and then Bethany

25 26

Thank you.

Camryn Lafrenz.

Martinez and Ellen Campfield Nelson.

144 1

CAMRYN LAFRENZ:

Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

your volume a little --

CAMRYN LAFRENZ:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CAMRYN LAFRENZ:

Yeah, we can.

You might try

Okay. -- up a little bit.

Hello.

My name is Camryn

Lafrenz.

at Treasure Valley Math and Science Center here in

Boise, Idaho.

I live at 11213 Camas Street.

I'm a student

I've been worried about the effects that

this zoning code rewrite will have on my future and the

future of my generation.

goal is to use 100 percent clean energy sources by

2045.

I've seen that Idaho Power's

When I talked to an Idaho Power

representative, he told me that with the influx of

people that are coming to my home city of Boise, that

we may not be able to reach our goal in time.

Approximately 53 percent of the electricity that we are

currently using is nonrenewable.

continue to go up if we densify our city too much and

strain our power grid beyond its capacity.

That number will

I'm concerned about the effects of climate

change on my generation and the impacts it will have on

this community.

This certainly won't allow us to

145 1

achieve Mayor McLean's climate change goal to reach

carbon neutral by 2050.

Moreover, densification may lead to the

loss of natural ecosystems in the city, which can have

far-reaching effects on the environment and the

well-being of its inhabitants.

strike a balance between urban development and

environmental conservation to ensure that both humans

and other organisms can coexist in a healthy and

sustainable manner.

It is essential to

If you reduce the open space requirements,

we lose space for trees and grass that are crucial

carbon sinks.

the future, we should require certain things from

developers.

number of trees based on the area of each building.

they can't plant them at that location, then they

should pay the City a fee to plant them at an

undeveloped park.

To help us with sustainable goals for

They should be required to plant a certain If

They should install solar panels on new

buildings or pay Idaho Power for clean, renewable

energy sources to be purchased.

create higher traffic counts, then developers should

help Ada County to build the proper size roads and bike

lanes for their buildings so they don't have to create

If a building will

146 1 2

worse traffic conditions. There should be guidelines in the code for

you to reject a development and traffic counts if

traffics counts will cause problems.

we consider the long-term implications of our decisions

and take a comprehensive approach to urban planning.

It is vital that

We need to prioritize the well-being of the

environment and future generations alongside economic

development growth.

making informed decisions that we can create a thriving

and sustainable community for all.

It is only by working together and

Thank you for allowing me to speak on this

subject tonight.

I hope you will consider my words

when making your decision.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Online, yeah.

And then after David -- sorry.

DAVID KING:

Thank you.

David King.

Good evening, Commissioners.

And

thank you for your hard work and all your hard work

going -- and everything you do.

I'm David King.

I live at 10064 Mill Creek

Drive in Boise.

Neighborhood Association.

Boise Parks Association, president of Friends of

I am on the board of the South Cole I'm the chairman of the

147 1

Murgoitio Park, and I'm a Rescue Mission volunteer.

And I can say firsthand that sobriety and mental health

care are what are necessary to address homelessness,

certainly not more construction of more units.

First, I would like -- and I oppose the

zoning code rewrite.

fundamental unfairness of the zoning code rewrite.

I'd like to address the

The rewrite divides Boise into the haves

and the have nots.

There are sections of town that are

exempt from this upzone, and those are the wealthy and

politically powerful areas.

would imagine that the elected and appointed officials,

and those who fund their campaigns, are

disproportionately unaffected by the upzone, while

those in Boise who are economically disadvantaged bear

all the burden.

All the elected -- or I

Next, City Council districts, and in

particular those who are impacted the most by the

upzone, are represented by appointed members when an

election is only months away.

Next, this modifies certain permitting

processes so that more changes in uses of property will

be permitted without any review and opportunity for

public comment, but it doesn't address any of the most

glaring issues in the way that the City of Boise

148 1

conducts planning and approval of projects, like the

fact that one City department can initiate a project to

planning on behalf of an unnamed party here.

It's impossible to think that when the

airport or the Parks and Recreation submit something to

Boise, the planning department, that colleagues who are

just enjoying coffee together in the break room are

going to get a thorough review of their projects.

That's not something that they dare address in this

rewrite.

Lastly, it would take artificial

intelligence to predict what this zoning code rewrite

will do in the future.

has fewer uses than the current zoning code.

is the complete opposite of reality.

Every year there are --

The new list of permitted uses And this

THE CLERK:

Time.

DAVID KING:

-- more uses of property than the

year before.

are items on this list that must be --

21 22 23 24 25 26

And there are items -- excuse me, there

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Sorry, Mr. King.

That was

your time. Okay.

Up next Bethany Martinez, Ellen

Campfield Nelson, and then Terry Wilson. BETHANY MARTINEZ:

Okay.

Hello.

My name is

149 1

Bethany Martinez.

And I'm here to express my support for the Modern

Zoning Code rewrite with some reservations.

I live at 1134 West River Street.

I have a unique perspective because on

February 14th my current residence was approved to be

rezoned and demolished to make way for a four-story

apartment building on Ash and River.

I was pleased to see that the new code

provides some protection for tenants such as myself,

including 120-day notice of planned demolition, and

financial reimbursement of two months' rent, which

we -- the latter we did not receive.

I was also pleased to see that the property

owner must replace demolished rental units with an

equal number of affordable housing units for households

at 80 percent AMI, and that those replacement units

must remain affordable for a minimum of 20 years.

However, my fear arises from the provision

in the code that allow property owners to apply for

waivers to the affordable housing requirements in

certain circumstances, such as if compliance would

cause an undue financial burden.

This concern stems from what I heard

Councilmembers saying when they approved the decision

to rezone my current residence.

For background, the

150 1

current dwelling has 16 units.

zoning rewrite, the developer would have had to include

16 affordable units at 80 percent AMI.

approved, however, was 13 units at 100 percent AMI.

So under this modern

What was

And when Councilmember Bageant approved the

decision, he said, and I quote, "On the affordable

units issue, it is best to replace what we have with

something that serves the same purpose.

than a year the developer can come back and do this a

as a matter of right under the new zoning code without

any affordable units."

But in less

Councilmember Clegg then agreed and said,

"I think this application provides more than we will

get nine months from now."

15 16 17

That's very concerning to hear them say this about this Modern Zoning Code. Then on April 5th a City Council meeting

was held to amend the rezone and include 15 affordable

units instead of 13.

City Council had two options:

on February 14th and get 13 affordable units; or delay

the project until the new zoning code is in place and

likely not get any affordable units.

24 25 26

When the developer spoke, he said One, keep their decision

This showed development's hand for how they plan to act under this new zoning code.

This concerns

151 1

me, as I am moving this week actually down the road

three blocks away and likely will face a similar issue

in the near future.

Councilmember Woodings' statement at the

end of the April 5th meeting regarding preserving

existing affordable housing is appreciated.

loophole of undue financial burden must not let the

developers avoid providing affordable housing.

But the

This is something I urge you all to look

at, since our own Councilmembers didn't appear

confident that this --

THE CLERK:

BETHANY MARTINEZ:

Time. -- modern zoning would ensure

that.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Ellen Campfield Nelson.

CRYSTAL RAIN:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ELLEN CAMPFIELD NELSON:

Mr. Chair, she's online. Thank you. Thank you very much,

Commissioners.

My name's Ellen Campfield Nelson.

at 323 West Resseguie Street.

Bannock Street in downtown Boise.

owner.

I live

I work at 802 West I'm a small business

I've lived here for about 15 years, and I'm a

152 1

certified professional planner with about 20 years

experience.

with a lot of neighborhoods in Boise and with the City

itself over the years on neighborhood plans, open space

and recreation plans, and other related efforts.

I've also been privileged to work on --

And I'm just here speaking, you know, on

behalf of myself and not any of those efforts.

But I

mention it only because I've had the honor of listening

to neighbors as they work through their own processes

of what they want their neighborhoods to look like.

And it's my belief that what I have heard

over and over again in those meetings generally trends

toward and is reflected in the code that you are

reviewing and will be asked to approve.

So to be clear, I support -- strongly

support the Modern Zoning Code, not only because I

think it is great for Boise, but I think it is

reflective of what many Boiseans that I have personally

talked to and listened to would like to see for their

city.

You've heard lots of great testimony, so I

will just -- I just want to make a couple points.

is that this is a complicated process that many cities

undertake and fail at.

are at this point in this process.

One

And it's very exciting that we

153 1

And I just want to thank the City's

planners and public servants and all of you for

carrying the water for so long and having a very

thorough process that has resulted in what I think is a

values-based code that maintains the Boise we love and

helps create the Boise that we want.

I also just want to urge you to continue to

do what I think all civic leaders in this time need to

do in meeting a time that we're in a very serious

housing crisis and other kinds of planning climate

issue crises, and just be brave in your decisions.

In my 20 years of planning there are common

arguments that are brought up to keep communities kind

of locked in this endless cycle of kind of an

auto-centric housing monoculture that is not very

equitable as we see in what surrounds us in other

cities and states.

And those arguments focus on neighborhood

character, on parking and traffic, on taxes, and on

being too kind to developers and not listening to

neighbors.

have not proven out, and they have not shown the

market, which a lot of people will point to, as the

thing that is going to -- or should be helping us plan

and design our cities, has not done a good job at

And time and again those arguments really

154 1

giving us the kinds of things that we need --

THE CLERK:

ELLEN CAMPFIELD NELSON:

Time. -- in our communities.

So I just urge you to be brave, and I

appreciate you taking all of this testimony, including

mine.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Terry Wilson.

Mike Stefancic.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Okay.

You're up next,

please.

12 13

Thank you.

And then Ed McLuskie, who, staff, I believe is online. And then Angela Wood and Lauren Pennisi, who's also online, and then Bud Compher. MIKE STEFANCIC:

Thank you.

Good evening, and thanks for letting me have this opportunity to share my perspective. I live on the Bench at 1630 South Rand in the Borah neighborhood. I believe this code zoning rewrite will

create a more vibrant community and economic

opportunity, ease our need for cars, and ease the

housing crisis that we're all facing here.

impact the well-being, the people, and the fabric of

And it will

155 1

our community.

So I'm in full support.

I've lived in various cities around the

country and around the world, from suburban sprawl to

dense, vibrant neighborhoods.

experiences, and having lived here in Boise for 13

years, I know that this update of the zoning code will

make this city a better place for all.

And from those

The things that I've seen and I've

experienced in more dense neighborhoods has been more

positive.

automobiles, being able to walk to a neighborhood

store, a corner market, to get my necessities, the

resources that I'm fortunate enough to have access to.

And I reduce my reliance on having to use a

car in many of those situations that I live and reduce

the financial burden that that brings upon having to

rely on a vehicle.

neighborhood, I believe, will help create this

opportunity, I think, for more people, and also provide

opportunities for small businesses to be more closer to

some of their constituents or their individuals they're

marketing their product to.

It has eased my reliance on using

And so having a more dense

Having more housing options for people who

want to live in Boise will also strengthen the ability

for businesses to attract a workforce to that, to fill

156 1

many of the vacancies that we see all around our

community.

of increasing wages, but attracting some more of that

workforce will help fill in and help many of the

services that we rely on.

And some of that has some positive impacts

And creating this more dense neighborhood

will also allow us to protect the foothills from

sprawl.

seeing that sprawl expand, remove wetlands and nature

area to accommodate housing because of some of the

zoning code, limited our access to nature.

Having lived in suburban Chicago-land area and

And we are very fortunate here in Boise to

be able to easily get to the foothills, to get out into

the desert, and to do those.

when we get to the edge of town, and I know if we're

not able to change the zoning code, that will end up

sprawling further and further, and it will be houses as

far as we can see.

And I look out in that

I also want to be part of the solution here

and -- and offer housing options for new residents here

to Boise, too, as well.

cannot add an accessory dwelling unit to my property.

But in the new rewrite I will be able to do that if I

choose to do that and make that investment and be able

to support more individuals looking for affordable

In the current zoning policy I

157 1

housing, which I hope to be able to provide for more

people.

So thank you for doing this hard and

difficult work and this process.

this opportunity.

I really appreciate

So thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Ed McLuskie.

Pennisi, and Bud Compher.

ED McLUSKIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Hello.

ED McLUSKIE:

Ed McLuskie, BSU professor

And then Angela Wood, Lauren

Can you hear me?

Hi.

Yeah.

emeritus, and Fulbright scholar residing at 1919 Verna

Lane, Boise.

I have three themes:

Upzoning, public

engagement, and the 180-day-plus delay.

a wholesale denunciation meant to make irrelevant 200

upzone critics, a rebuke spiced with an ironic

projection of ghosting painted on them, then a mini

lecture claimed to define upzoning, while a wider

epistemic professional community doesn't buy it.

Monday gave us

So I give you the World Bank's definition.

Upzoning changes zoning requirements to allow higher

value, more dense use by increasing FARs, functional

area requirements.

zones, as much to rezones, like R-2s moved from 35 to

Thus upzoning applies to existing

158 1

45 feet.

Zoning downward, say R-2 back to 35 feet,

reduces FARs, a downzoning that some cities have done

with regrets for having upzoned.

Key World Bank quote, "As with density

bonuses, upzoning is a financing tool to incentivize

developers in the private sector to capture gains by

increasing allowable density."

So upzoning is about all increased density

plans, but it is fundamentally about financial

capitalization.

from a well-funded industry whose strategies and

tactics aim to manage and control public demands for

recognition and participation.

Public engagement is a misleading term

Using outsourced consulting enterprises, PR

and commercial groups to that end, this coalesced

industry tries to legitimize claims to public

participation.

already weakened public spheres.

But it does the opposite, and with

Public concerns fold into largely unaltered

outcomes, like the U.S. industry in general, specious

claims about communication, dialogue, deliberation and

transparency prevail, skewed toward control and

management of the public.

25 26

Its data gathering misses too much, while

159 1

posing engagement as though public stamps of approval

had occurred.

analyze the uses and abuses of managed public

engagement, I unpacked this in a refereed journal

article to be published late summer.

With international scholars known to

You asked what would be done with 180-day

delay or more.

Any rewrite deserves better sourced,

less myopic research, with no gun jumping conclusions

demonizing those N/As that didn't get the memo to

respond.

offer alternatives.

Create that time to respond thoroughly and to

Finally, without the City Council fully and

duly elected, a vote recommending this rewrite will

undemocratically ghost the public, further eroding

public trust and legitimacy.

recommending this rewrite for now.

what our citizens criticize about this upzone.

wisdom and expertise are vital to the health of this

community.

Don't break democracy by Thoughtfully review Their

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

No.

Lauren Pennisi is online, and then Bud

25 26

Compher.

Thank you.

Angela Wood.

Okay.

160 1

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman.

Sure. When we transition off

the online list to the in-person sign-up from the

front, can we take a break, please?

6 7

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

10 11

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

We're right here.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LAUREN PENNISI:

Sorry.

Good.

Yeah.

Hello.

Can you hear me? We can.

Hi there.

Hello. I need to share my

screen. Is that possible? CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

One second.

LAUREN PENNISI:

CRYSTAL RAIN:

Great.

Hi there.

Lauren

Pennisi and then Bud Compher, and then we're on break. COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

How many more do we

have?

That is my

plan.

8 9

That is the plan.

Staff, can we get there?

Okay.

Two, panelist.

Lauren, you should be able to

share your screen now.

161 1

LAUREN PENNISI:

I want to talk about the West

End neighborhood, in particular about two streets.

Idaho here and Bannock, between 19th and 27th.

4 5

As I mentioned when I testified for the West --

6 7

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

hate to interrupt, but we can't see your screen.

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Ms. Pennisi, I'm sorry.

You can't? We cannot.

Okay. Should be a share screen, a

green share screen button at the bottom of your screen.

LAUREN PENNISI:

day long.

Sorry.

Okay.

Hang on.

You'd think I'd know this.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I do Zoom all

Okay.

Hold on.

Sympathize.

Perhaps we can give her a minute or two to

get her tech going and we can move to Mr. Compher here

in person while she gets her tech set.

She's got it.

21 22

LAUREN PENNISI:

Okay.

Can you see my screen

now?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LAUREN PENNISI:

All right.

Sorry.

We can.

Okay.

I think so.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I wanted to talk about two

162 1

streets in particular in the West End neighborhood

between 19th and 27th, Idaho and Bannock.

[unintelligible] right here.

[unintelligible] and then this is [unintelligible]

here.

These

These are zoned R-3.

And

So my concern and what I wanted to point

out is the West End does have a rich history.

It's

been documented not only with the -- by the City, but

also the Idaho State Preservation Society or

Organization.

And the [unintelligible] Bannock are -- a

little over 70 percent of them are [unintelligible] to

be a national district.

code --

And the R-3 zone in the zoning

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I'm sorry.

Ms. Pennisi, I'm

sorry.

you.

and if you could just maybe do an oral testimony.

19 20 21

We're having some technical difficulty hearing

So maybe if you -- if you stop your screen-share

LAUREN PENNISI: wanted to show.

Okay.

I had others that I

[Unintelligible.]

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Staff, I think we're going to

have to maybe bring her back later.

pause and then see if we can't get her back.

24 25 26

LAUREN PENNISI:

Maybe if we can

[Unintelligible] zone do.

Can you hear me?

163 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I'm sorry, Ms. Pennisi.

We're really having a hard time hearing you.

what we'll do is we're going to pause and then maybe

have you call you back in.

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay. And then we'll pick you up

after we break.

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mr. Compher, I think you're up.

Okay.

BUD COMPHER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

BUD COMPHER:

14 15

Commissioners.

Okay.

Great.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

Good evening, Chairman and fellow

Thank you for your time tonight.

My name is Bud Compher, Jr.

825 Middleton.

NeighborWorks Boise.

Americana Terrace in Boise.

I think

I reside at

I'm here representing as the CEO of And our address here is 3380 West

So NeighborWorks is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit,

community-minded, affordable housing developer who

served the Treasure Valley for the past 41 years.

provide an array of housing services from home buyer

education, down payment assistance through our

nonprofit lending arm.

25 26

But tonight I'd like to speak to you on

164 1

behalf of our affordable housing services, where we

help families obtain, retain, and maintain their home.

I'm here to show support of the updated building zoning

codes.

The updated codes before you tonight help

set a blueprint for smart growth and the opportunity

for us to grow wisely.

housing to be more easily developed to meet the needs

of our growing communities.

to speak to two areas as it pertains to housing

surrounds transit-oriented and for transportation, and

then secondly, affordability that happens naturally

through density.

This approach will allow for

And specifically I'd like

First, how our community and how housing

addresses transportation, an item difficult for a

57-year-old existing zoning plan to address.

sprawl development not only costs more for cities to

develop and to keep up with, but also eats away at

farmland and the foothills, which we all need and

enjoy.

Urban

The updated plans responsibly support the

future goals for city alignment and the

transit-oriented housing, specifically corridors used

by our community and the employment centers.

vision fits well with what NeighborWorks built this

The

165 1

last -- within our mission for the last ten years.

We've developed single-family home

ownership within what we call our pocket neighborhood

concept.

provide high quality, obtainable housing, which grew

out of a desire for many to live close to where they

live, work, play, or worship.

The purpose of our pocket neighborhoods is to

Our pocket neighborhoods work to respect

housing diversity and, within the communities that

we're building in, respect the architecture around us.

This integrated approach to the way we develop our land

improves public transit, reduction in commute times by

building close to transit-oriented corridors, and

enhances walkability, increases the social interaction

for our residents.

Secondly, tying density incentives to

requirements for affordable and sustainable housing.

While this plan will not meet every need, it does

provide a framework for -- that encourages affordable

housing, which is a huge step forward.

know, the community-needs assessment that was released

identified -- spoiler alert -- housing is the number

one need.

As you all

And all of us today grew up -- for the

most, I should say, most of us today woke up into a

166 1

house.

Woke up in a home, had a home, and we will go

home to a home this evening in a home.

jobs go to sleep at night.

THE CLERK:

BUD COMPHER:

Homes are where

Time. And I'm here to just strongly

support your recommendation for this moving forward to

the City Council.

Thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

(Recess.)

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

We'll take a five-minute break.

Staff, I think -- do we have

Lauren Pennisi back online?

CRYSTAL RAIN:

gave her the phone number.

16 17

It looks like maybe we do.

Mr. Chair, yes.

She's online.

And then, Lauren, if you can hear me, I don't know if I can share your pictures quickly enough.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

CRYSTAL RAIN:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

So... Well, we saw -- we saw the

image earlier.

just get her testimony, I think that would be good.

So if we can just get her on orally and

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

25 26

[Unintelligible.]

Ms. Pennisi, can you hear us?

Ms. Pennisi, I'm sorry, we cannot hear you if you're

167 1

speaking.

Can you hear us?

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

7 8 9

Sorry.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, we can.

Yes. Okay.

LAUREN PENNISI: [Unintelligible].

Can you hear me?

Okay.

No.

You're still just breaking up.

bandwidth right now.

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Do I have to restate my name?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Go ahead, please.

Lost you.

Can you hear me?

I'm sorry, Ms. Pennisi. I'm hoping we have the

Okay. Okay.

[Unintelligible.] Staff, are we going to try --

I think we need to -- yeah, thank you. Ms. Pennisi, I'm sorry. We can't hear you.

We're going to

have to move on.

So I'll maybe see

if you can't work with staff here on the side and see

if we can't get that corrected.

Okay.

She was the last one that signed up

ahead of time on our list.

signed up here in person this evening.

Jim Kaufman.

Now we're to folks who

168 1

Okay.

Daniel Drake.

Okay.

And then Gerri Graves, Jodi

Peterson.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Gerri.

And then Jodi

Peterson and then Karen Folk-Hemsalk.

DANNY DRAKE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

DANNY DRAKE:

Gerri.

I'm next; right? Yeah, go for it, please.

Hi there.

Danny Drake, Interfaith

Sanctuary.

I guess I don't really know what to say

because I've been a resident here and a taxpayer for 12

years.

working trying to get advancements, trying to get

enough money to get a place that's affordable, or

whatever that looks like.

And I've been kind of chasing the same fight,

And really I guess I just want to say that

I'm for the zoning -- this whole thing, contingent on,

you know, like follow-up really and just transparency

where we can see where it's going and how it's

affecting our community.

time, and kind of tired, you know.

And I've been here a long

And I would love to see housing for

everybody, because I think housing is a right and

luxury -- luxury is a privilege after housing, you

169 1

know, is established as a right.

I got to say.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

10 11

in the record.

Jodi, when you come up,

Yeah. -- we have an address

Thanks.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Gerri Graves and then Jodi

Peterson and Karen, and then Betty Bermensolo.

Did she?

GERRI GRAVES:

All right. From short to tall.

Gerri Graves.

representing the community.

Thank you.

could you give the address of Interfaith just so --

So that's really all

My name's

I'm one of the homes community, and I'm

So I -- I've been listening to what

everybody said, and I think I'm going to go a different

route with this, because I don't want do reiterate what

everybody's been saying.

I grew up here; right?

I support this

Modern Zoning Code for the very reason many of us do.

I'm not going to rehash what's already been said.

Instead I'm going to, like I said, approach this a

different way.

25 26

I grew up here.

Just outside of downtown

170 1

there were horse and cattle pastures, a dirt road

through the middle of Meridian.

My uncle was a

co-owner of Merrill's Egg Farm.

We used to ride our

horses out back at his house.

house on Manitou Street.

kids here.

do.

I lived in a haunted

Went to school here.

Had my

They give back to the community just like I

So we knew with everything that's been --

you know, that we had when we were growing up here, we

knew that there was going to be an influx of people

that were going to come, because we couldn't keep it a

secret forever.

the will and the room to welcome everybody.

But I knew that we had the heart and

And I'm surprised I'm not hearing more of

that.

fixed -- I don't have an income right now.

I'll have one soon.

disability and my social security, and now all of a

sudden I'm without a home because there is nothing here

that's affordable, especially when you're coming out

of -- I was co-parenting with my ex.

to Oregon, and I was left without any savings.

I really wanted to be was a mom.

24 25 26

And it feels -- I'm disabled, so I'm on a Hopefully

But I've paid into my taxes and my

And so he moved And all

And so once my kids graduated, I didn't have an income.

I didn't have a savings to rely on.

171 1

And then my body fell apart.

And had we had more

adequate housing, I think I would be okay.

not.

things like, you know, stay warm in the winter and find

some air conditioning in the summer, while my body's

falling apart, meeting all these doctors' appointments

and taking all this medication.

And I'm

Now I'm -- now I'm having to run around and do

I just think there's room enough for

everybody here.

here.

know why all of a sudden we want to close the

floodgates and act like people have a right to keep

everyone else out, because we weren't that way.

that's clear back in '70s, you know, late '60s, early

'70s.

everybody.

We always thought that way growing up

We welcomed everybody with open arms.

I don't

And

So we were here quite a while, and we welcomed

So I wish -- the only thing I want to ask

is maybe give me the same.

can't afford the rent here anymore, and I'd sure like

to have a roof over my head.

THE CLERK:

GERRI GRAVES:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

JODI PETERSON:

25 26

Welcome me, too, because I

Time. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, Commissioners.

I'll give you the address for Interfaith.

First

It's

172 1

1620 West River Street.

I'm the executive director of Interfaith Sanctuary, and

I actually am going to speak on behalf of our

population that we serve.

1620 West River Street as my address as well, if that's

okay.

I'm Jodi Peterson-Stigers.

So I'm going to use

I wanted to share with you, there was an

author who came to town.

His name was Greg Coburn.

And he wrote a book that is called Homelessness is a

Housing Problem.

of a game of musical chairs.

invited to this party, and there's ten chairs.

host turns on the music.

and everyone's running around the chairs, the host

takes one of the chairs away.

And the book opens up with an analogy And there's ten people And the

And as the music's playing

And when he stops the music, everyone

scrambles to get to a chair, but there's only nine

chairs and there's ten people, and one of those people

is on crutches.

wasn't a chair for him.

because there wasn't enough chairs.

But it's not his fault.

There just

He is a man without a chair

And what Greg Coburn was trying to show us

is that as you walk through our city, he was like this

is amazing.

homelessness issue here, yet.

Visually you cannot really see a But you guys are set up

173 1

to be next.

Seattle because you don't have vacancy and your home

prices and your rentals are so high.

your housing up.

housing.

You're the next Portland.

You're the next

You have to get

You have to have all kinds of

And you have time. But like we're on the cusp.

We're like

just about to go over the edge.

We're watching the

increase in the homeless count.

We're seeing the

families, 7,000 kids now homeless in the state of

Idaho.

this rewrite's going the right way.

Like the numbers are going the wrong way.

But

Because what it does is it's creating

access.

It's building all different kinds of houses

for all different kinds of people, which is what

neighborhoods are supposed to be about anyways.

creating diversity.

walk to their coffee shop in all different parts, not

just Hyde Park.

everyone wants to live that way, though.

And you know what?

It's

It's allowing people to be able to

Not just the Lusk District.

shelter, they want a home.

shelter.

They go to work.

Those --

The guests at my

They want to get out of my

They're doing everything they possibly can.

Gerri's trying to get disability.

She's

been trying to find a lawyer who can take her.

She's

174 1

disabled, and the system's broken.

hotel shelter when she used to live in a house in Hyde

Park.

writer.

She's a sewer.

And she lives in a

She's so talented.

She's a

And Karen, they all -- they all work.

They

all do all these things, and yet like day after day

we're trying to find the access for them because it's

not their fault.

their fault.

But they're being treated like it's

But this rewrite, it opens up the doors.

It equalizes.

It gives equity.

It's inclusive.

allows diversity in all neighborhoods, which is how

we're supposed to live anyways.

So I guess you can tell I'm a huge

enthusiast when it comes to this rewrite, and I

absolutely support it.

hard work, and the City staff for doing this work.

We're on the right track, I know it.

Thank you.

And I thank you for all the

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Hemsalk.

Thank you.

Karen Folk-Hemsalk.

Sorry.

Okay.

KAREN FOLK-HEMSALK:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

My eyes are tired.

KAREN FOLK-HEMSALK:

Good evening.

It's hard.

175 1

Can you hear me okay?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

KAREN FOLK-HEMSALK:

Yeah. My address is also

Interfaith Sanctuary, 1620 West River Street.

And I'm just going to be short and sweet.

I'm 78.

whichever you prefer, for three years.

looking in three different states, and for two years

I've been looking in Boise.

security income.

volunteer work.

I've been homeless for -- or unhoused, I've been

And I'm on a fixed social

I'm not disabled.

I am doing

I think of all the cities that I've lived

in, including a wonderful city in Norway where

everything worked, where you didn't need a car, where

everybody knew each other, where the schools were

fantastic, where jobs were plentiful.

when I say I've lived in a lot of different cities.

really have.

eyes.

That's -- yeah.

And trust me I

But that's opened my

I think you're -- as Jodi said, the world

and Boise are on the cusp of what's going to come.

you can't plan soon enough for it.

And

And I appreciate you giving me this chance

to speak my mind, my truth, and I really hope that this

comes through.

It's a really good modernization

176 1 2 3 4

approach.

It needs to happen. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Betty Bermensolo.

CRYSTAL RAIN:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

7 8

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Yeah.

And I -- yes.

then Lauren is next. So, Ms. Pennisi, can you hear us?

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

LAUREN PENNISI:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

LAUREN PENNISI:

Oh, good.

And

Hello. Hello there.

Hello. We can hear you. Okay.

Lauren

Pennisi, 2411 West Pleasanton Ave.

What I was starting to show you was the

proposed ZCR map for two streets in my neighborhood,

which is the West End, between 19th and 27th Streets.

Those two blocks are zoned R-3.

code rewrite, it allows those two streets to now be

high density, which means they can have 43-and-a-half

units per acre, with a maximum height of 45 feet.

And with the zoning

And this is important because there is a

property on 2502 Bannock -- and this is the picture I

wanted to show.

developer, out-of-state developer bought a few years

It's a single-family home that a

177 1

ago, and at that time under the old code he was allowed

to build up to 12 units and scaled back to five.

Now, with this zoning code rewrite, he's

going to be allowed to build possibly -- it's a half --

I think it's about a half an acre.

he's going to be able to build up to potentially 20

units at 45 feet high?

character or the uniqueness of our neighborhood?

So does that mean

And how does that preserve the

So I think there's a discrepancy with how

that -- those two streets in particular are zoned.

you look at how north of State Street is zoned and the

pattern of R-2 and R-1C, how that is, our neighborhood

is -- has the same history, has the same character, but

yet is zoned completely different.

like those two streets are R-3.

It's R-2, and then

And I think that that needs to be looked at

because it's a -- it doesn't follow the pattern that I

think has been established and discussed about how we

want to zone off of main arteries and have the step

down.

historic homes that have been documented.

a little over 70 percent of the homes on those two

particulars streets, between 19th and 27th, are

eligible for National Registry, including the house at

2502 Bannock, not to mention how that's going to look

Not to mention on those two streets there are About 70 --

178 1

next to -- if it's a 45-foot, you can do the math, next

to single-family homes that are either one,

one-and-a-half story, or at most two story.

that really disrupts and doesn't add to the

neighborhood.

So I think

I think it detracts.

And there's another property on Jefferson

that kind of shows -- and that was another picture I

wanted to show, that shows a three-story, multifamily

complex next to a single-family home.

stories are right up against --

THE CLERK:

LAUREN PENNISI:

The first two

Time. -- the single-family home.

the third story has the wedding caking effect.

can still see that it towers over the single-family

home.

especially on those two streets, not to mention --

17 18 19 20

But you

And that's what's going to happen in the R-3,

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: Ms. Pennisi.

Okay.

Thank you,

Appreciate that.

Okay.

Back to the folks in person.

think it's -- is it Bonnie Krupp?

Okay.

MATT CLARK:

Matt Clark.

No.

And then Hank Wiebe.

We're hoping to split our time, if

that's okay.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah, okay.

MATT CLARK:

So my name is Matt Clark.

And

Hi.

179 1

live on Euclid Avenue in Southeast Boise.

I apologize that I was not able to submit a

written statement, but I hope that the Commission will

give my comments full consideration.

I support the City's efforts to modernize

our zoning code.

I believe that the process conducted

for the last three years has been transparent,

deliberate, and guided by genuine efforts to find

solutions that work for Boise.

Any suggestions to slow down the process or

wait until the election are just talking points crafted

by people who want to obstruct the change.

the proposed code's efforts to increase housing

production in the right places, create incentives for

building income-restricted housing, and stabilize

neighborhoods by increasing housing choices within

their existing bounds.

I support

At the end of the day, what matters is that

there are enough homes for my friends, my siblings, my

coworkers, and the other essential people that make

Boise function.

If neighborhoods are missing important

options like duplexes, fourplexes, or apartments, that

neighborhood is then exclusive.

creates a segregated city, not density.

Exclusion is what

180 1

I support the proposed code's effort to

present sprawl and focus on directing development where

we have planned public investment.

a sprawling city that will forever be inefficient and

expensive to serve with transit, or we can build a

compact city that sets us up to be transit-ready and

makes it easier for people to choose to drive less and

drive less far.

Thank you.

ISABEL CHARLES:

We can either build

Thank you.

I also want to speak quickly in support of

modernizing the zoning code, just on two main points.

First of all, I think that it does a really

great job of preventing sprawl into the foothills.

think many people here really appreciate the nature

that Boise has to offer and wants to preserve the

foothills and the area surrounding it.

reason, I support modernizing the zoning code.

And secondarily, I think that the

modernized zoning code will help diversify our city and

create a Boise that is livable, not for just one

demographic profile, but rather people who represent my

age group, other age groups, and different backgrounds.

24 25 26

And for that

And something that I would like to see in my city is people who aren't just like me.

And I think

181 1

that the Modern Zoning Code can help support that.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Great.

ISABEL CHARLES:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Thank you. Before you depart, can we

get your name and address too.

ISABEL CHARLES:

Thank you.

Isabel Charles, and I live on

Euclid Avenue.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

And then John Gannon and Richard Llewelyn.

HANK WIEBE:

Thank you.

Hank Wiebe.

Native to Boise.

2255 Ormond, Boise.

Lived here my whole life.

Seen a lot of change.

the current code.

60 years, and it's made Boise awesome.

I want to give a shout out to

It certainly has carried the torch.

So a lot of language around the idea that

it sucks, and I don't think that's been the truth,

because otherwise we wouldn't be where we're at.

19 20

So three minutes, three points:

Streets,

blueprint, and some fairy dust.

So streets.

The code, 600 pages, doesn't

have anything that addresses the uniqueness of streets

in Boise.

unique.

sidewalks, curbs, or gutters.

And I live on just such a street, pretty

It's paved 25 feet wide.

It's without

There are open

182 1

irrigation ditches, large trees.

all like it this way.

[Unintelligible] a lot to my street are large, and the

plan would basically wreck the street as it's presently

set up with the neighborhood feel.

could accommodate a 12-plex.

City planners.

And my neighbors, we

It's kind of a country feel.

And several lots

And I verified this with

So expecting parking to spill out onto this

street is a bit of insanity, as I can imagine.

It's

only 25 feet wide.

you can't see you'd really be able to park on the

street.

You need 12 feet for one lane.

This is going to cause tremendous problems

for trash, safety, and it's probably going to amplify

some tension and hostility with neighbors.

put some humor into all of this, we're all probably

maybe going to get some fentanyl from Portland.

The blueprint:

And just to

Tim's presentation on

Monday, the slides.

which for me sort of meant that the ones that he gave

must be really important.

should go check those out again.

Slides are great, not too many,

And so I think you guys

One in particular, why are we amending the

current zoning code?

had on that slide in the blueprint.

And I found the language that he So what sucks for

183 1

me is that the rest of the paragraph wasn't included

that he pulled that out of from the blueprint.

And I'm kind of wondering, Well, why not

include all of it?

work as a whole, not in parts and pieces.

kind of brought me to drawing everyone's attention to

see the state statute Title 67, Chapter 65, local

land-use planning; right?

I mean the document's supposed to And so that

Got to use the whole thing.

Our community accepted and adopted what's

written in the blueprint.

Well, because what's written

in it.

it, and not just the parts and pieces that are

convenient for an upzone.

part that got excluded that caught my attention.

And as such, you're obligated to include all of

So I thought I'd read the

"The City will review and update existing

regulations to ensure new housing types are consistent

with the community, the community character.

neighborhood provide -- providing for design

characteristics that fit into existing neighborhoods."

For each

So back to my street at 25 feet --

THE CLERK:

Time.

HANK WIEBE:

-- feet kind of can't see how we're

going to do that.

24 25 26

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: out of time.

Mr. Wiebe, I'm sorry, we're

184 1 2

HANK WIEBE: Sorry.

3 4

You don't get any fairy dust.

Sorry. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

John Gannon.

Then

Richard Llewelyn and then Ethan Mansfield.

JOHN GANNON:

Thank you for allowing this time

to testify, and I really like the way that this

meeting's been run.

We've got a great chairman --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Oh, thank you.

JOHN GANNON:

as the rest of you are too.

-- who's really doing a good job, I wanted to mention that.

You know, I think as we've been here, the

testimony has shown different views, understandings,

interpretations of this 600-page, 200,000-word plan.

This is supposed to be one of the biggest decisions

this City's made in 60 years.

But there hasn't been the direct contact

and the explanatory information that I think people

need.

no FAQs, which are frequently asked questions.

would be wonderful to have that on there with maybe 30

or 40 of the questions that have been asked here and

discussed and the answers.

The website has no executive summary.

There's no explanation.

There are It

Simple, you know,

a one-page or two-page explanation, if you live in an

R-1C, this is what can happen.

This is what happens if

185 1

you're 300 feet near a collector.

No explanation even

of what a collector arterial is.

And I know everybody

involved in this knows all that stuff.

But I can tell you out there, they don't.

I've been -- I've had a number of people ask me

questions, and I can't answer them.

ACHD remodeled or redesigned Kootenai street.

at least three general public meetings at our Red Rock

Christian Church.

Direct contact. They had

I think about 75 people attended.

And the reason is is that they sent

individual cards to the entire neighborhood.

Those of

us -- you didn't have to live on Kootenai to get the

cards.

And people responded.

In addition, Cassia Street -- Cassia Street

went through the same thing.

And there were cards

sent.

a card.

they had the same -- same format.

happened.

I live a quarter mile from Cassia Street.

"We're going to upgrade Cassia Street."

I got And

And it's all

Kootenai's almost finished. Even Veolia, who needed some prodding

from -- of which I'm proud to be a part of, now

notifies customers with reader boards and mailers when

they're doing their cleanout and sending us brown

water.

system.

And they advised of their work to improve the

186 1

So I really didn't know a lot about this.

I still don't, even after listening to two or three

days of hearings.

Planning Department on Tuesday and talked to a planner.

But I -- so I went down to the

And the first planner that was sent out

wasn't familiar enough with the -- with the project --

with the plan to give me that information.

she's a great person.

different phase.

So -- and

But she's in a different --

So then the second planner came out, and

wonderful.

helpful.

She gave all kinds of answers and very

And I'm out of time on that. The other -- the only other thing I wanted

to mention was the entire plan, I would like to see

some path to ownership.

manufactured housing.

owner-occupied condos in particular.

THE CLERK:

JOHN GANNON:

20 21

RV parks.

There's nothing about

There's nothing about condos,

Time. And there's one other one.

We don't have RV parks in Boise anymore. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

COMMISSIONER DANLEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

RVs.

Thank you.

Did he not?

I'm sorry.

Mr. Gannon, I

187 1

apologize.

I don't know if you gave your address.

JOHN GANNON:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I didn't. Mr. Danley here caught

me on that one.

JOHN GANNON:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Yeah.

1104 Johnson Street.

Great.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Mr. Llewelyn, you're next.

Then Ethan Mansfield and then Marisa Keith.

10 11

RICHARD LLEWELYN:

Richard Llewelyn.

9170 Hill

Road.

My three-year experience on the Citizens

Advisory Committee for the zoning code rewrite led to

three reasons that I joined Reject Boise Upzone.

first is that despite multiple requests we were never

given access to a public interest attorney that could

help us understand the Idaho strategies for affordable

housing or upholding the quality of life policies in

Blueprint Boise.

The

Instead the final draft contained a radical

rewrite of the conditional-use criteria that requires

reinterpretation of the entire document.

necessary mitigation for adverse impacts are severely

limited, how will you evaluate the impact of a new

allowance for landfills in the city or Amazon

Now that

188 1

fulfillment centers masquerading as warehouses?

The second reason is that repeated requests

for data on whether curtailing the public process, say

cutting neighborhood association testimony in half to

five minutes, addresses any material bottleneck to the

shortage of housing.

housing units that have already been entitled, often

for years, but not constructed, or once built sit empty

for a year while the owner times the market?

How does this compare to the many

This happened with 22 townhomes on Rose

Street in 2020.

in 2017 from a pasture for missing middle home

ownership opportunities eventually were packaged and

sold as rentals.

hasn't even started.

A fraction of the development rezoned

Construction on the remaining 100

Without data, we end up relying on

ideology.

are ignorant and a nuisance and should be pushed as far

away from meaningful decision-making as possible.

The prevailing ideology is that local people

This leads to the third reason I joined

Reject Boise Upzone.

neighborhood plans could be strengthened or weakened by

the rewrite.

neighborhood plans represent the closest expression of

the people in our Comp Plan written in concert with the

Over the years I asked how our

I never received any response.

And yet,

189 1

City at high cost and labor.

and often a result of compromise.

Every clause is vetted,

Our neighborhood came to accept

transit-oriented development along State Street and

emphasized the need for safety infrastructure,

pathways, and waterway protections.

The people you call NIMBIES may share many

of your ideals that have learned that bureaucracies

often fail.

discussing the contaminant PFAS, and so left our

elected leaders in the dark about dangers of

discharging treated wastewater into our canals.

NIMBIES corrected that.

For example, DEQ staff was prevented from

People that will be directly affected are

not always right, but we are willing to dig deep

because our lives depend on it.

forward.

plan and district policy of Blueprint Boise with public

participation.

There is a path

Analyze compliance with each neighborhood

Quickly passing this code will mean that a

battle will become a political and legal war, which

only opportunists will win.

side of history, the side of strengthening democracy,

rather than weakening it.

25 26

Thank you.

I'll be fighting on the

I hope that you will too.

190 1

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Ethan Mansfield.

then Christi Warhurst.

ETHAN MANSFIELD:

And then Marisa Keith and

Great.

Thanks, Commissioners.

I just want to first point out that I'm

going to be speaking on behalf of myself, not on behalf

of Hawkins this evening.

clear.

I just wanted to make that

I also would like to reject the upzone of

the Frank Church Wilderness.

I don't think that's

appropriate.

You guys might have missed

the discussion about how this was going to destroy the

Frank Church earlier.

I don't know.

And I would also like to support the repeal

of the Boise downzone, which is what I think we're

recommending approval of tonight.

So I'd also like to commend -- my name's

Ethan Mansfield.

Idaho.

4409 West Albion Street, Boise,

And I'd like to first commend staff for

working through this monumental undertaking.

that they've been thinking about it day in and day out

for the past year at least.

tremendous job.

allows for more of the things we want, and I'm very

I know

And overall they've done a

They've created a code that generally

191 1

supportive of this new code.

I have a few suggestions and thoughts about

how we could make it more effective at promoting good

development without stifling innovative, creative

development.

closer to creating neighborhoods that we had before the

zoning code in the first place, which, let's face it,

are literally the most valuable neighborhoods in the

city.

of these places.

I think that my suggestions will bring us

And like Jodi pointed out earlier, we need more

So the problem with the old, existing code

is not that it was reflective of the zeitgeist of the

1960s when it was implemented.

the values of that time when it was created, and that's

what policy generally does.

The old code reflected

And that's fine.

The problem with the old code is that as

the zeitgeist changed over time, the zoning code did

not.

things that we now widely understand have created

problems.

overregulating land use.

And we continued to subsidize the development of

And that is the fundamental issue of

Preferences and technologies change, codes

do not, at least fundamentally.

now to change that with this code.

should liberalize parking requirements and the table of

We have an opportunity That's why we

192 1

allowed uses.

That's why we should make land

subdivision easier, that's why we should make it easier

to build all types of housing, because we don't know

exactly what types of housing people will want in 40

years.

We don't know whether people will travel by

scooter, horse, ride share, giant truck, bus, or e-bike

in 40 years.

easy to develop vibrant communities.

Let's make a durable code that makes it

Developers, both large and small, are

community builders.

If people don't or won't buy it or

rent it, developers won't build it.

If we allow for

good development, it will get built.

And the proposed

code generally allows this good development.

But I'm going to quickly highlight two

items that are easy to change that will have very

far-reaching, positive effects in terms of land

development in my 30 seconds that I have left.

19 20

First, please consider keeping the minor land division.

Crystal, is it possible to bring up my

little deal in my next -- in my last six seconds?

So I -- I want to talk about this

development.

you have small lot allowances, large lot allowances,

This -- it doesn't really matter whether

193 1

what the minimum lot size is.

half to divide the land, you won't get small-scale

developers doing it.

eliminating minor land division.

consider keeping it.

development, missing middle development, which is

exactly what we want, a reality.

And that's what we've done by Please, please

It will make small-scale

THE CLERK:

ETHAN MANSFIELD:

If it takes a year and a

Time. And then please deregulate

parking.

Thank you.

Both mins and maxes.

Thanks.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Marisa Keith.

and Karen Scriver and Robert Elliott.

MARISA KEITH:

at 3279 South Cloverdale.

Thank you. And then Christi Warhurst

My name's Marisa Keith.

I was a member of the Citywide Advisory

Committee.

started, I was a social worker.

ended, I was working for two nonprofits.

One that advocates for the Boise River.

24 25 26

And I'm

Sorry.

I'm tired.

And when the rewrite When the rewrite Still do.

And I would like to ask that you please add the Boise River ordinance to your short list for

194 1

tonight.

2 3

And the other as a coordinator for safe after school programs.

So over the three years of the rewrite, I

attended most of the advisory meetings, a majority of

the community meetings held by the City.

process, I wish that two things had gone differently,

and one was that the public had shown up more for the

community conversations and the open houses that the

City had held for modules one, two, and three.

As for the

And the other one was that the City had

held at least a few of those events after the final

draft had been released so that people could have more

opportunity to ask questions.

So I live in the area of impact.

The

answer to the housing crisis is not to sprawl further

out into the desert.

the last four years our neighbors to our right, left,

and behind have all had people living in RVs behind

their houses hidden from the County so they're not

found out.

Let me tell you that.

But over

Another person living in an RV used to park

at night to the north of my house in a subdivision that

was under construction.

And the current code not only promotes sprawl, but it

The need for housing is huge.

195 1

does nothing to incentivize the type of growth that we

want to see.

So I know the City's opinion is that they

can't mandate affordable housing.

And I would like to

see this zoning code take more of a firm stance and

make not affordable -- not including affordable housing

unprofitable.

think that it could go further.

It -- it's on the right track, but I

I would also like to explore or have the

City explore if they can incentivize a first right of

refusal with most new projects to allow tenants first

and then the City second a chance to buy the property

if it goes up for sale.

If we could identify current affordable

housing and compel those landlords into signing a

first-right-of-refusal contract, that would be all the

better so when the market changes -- and it will at

some point -- it may be feasible for the City to

capture more affordable housing and preserve it from

the next wave of growth.

Time extensions have also been a problem

out where we live.

for years without being finished.

extensions should be few and far between.

25 26

Half-finished subdivisions that sit I think that time

The other thing would be a citywide

196 1

demolition-by-neglect ordinance so that developers

cannot let -- buy up houses, abandon them, and then

drug use, squatters, and all sorts of great things go

in next door.

I also am not in favor of tearing down

existing houses.

I would like to make it difficult to

tear them down and easy to do adaptive reuse and --

THE CLERK:

MARISA KEITH:

Time. -- incorporate them into new

developments.

So thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

14 15

Thank you.

Christi Warhurst.

And then Karen

Scriver and then Robert Elliott. KAREN SCRIVER:

Good evening.

My name is Karen

Scriver.

I live in Veterans Park Neighborhood at

4035 West Garnet Street.

Neighborhood Association board, but I'm speaking for

myself.

I'm on the Veterans Park

I live on my grandmother's homestead from

1920, and share that property with my brother's house.

My grandmother sold the City of Boise the land for

Lander Street treatment plant in the 1950s.

born in 1888 and was a visionary on land use.

the one who did multiple land splits whereby she and

She was She was

197 1

her husband built and had many duplexes built back in

the '40s through the '70s.

I don't know when the City changed the

zoning for my neighborhood to R-2, but I don't remember

being told that was happening.

there then.

Maybe I did not live

When I was born, my parents lived in the

duplex my grandmother owned next to her house.

There

are many duplexes, triplexes, and multiplexes in my

neighborhood.

are 12 on my street alone, and many are owned by

investors, along with four Habitat for Humanity duplex

homes.

which creates few problems, mostly code issues.

There are more than single homes.

There

I believe most of all the plexes are rented,

I used to live in Eagle in a large home in

a beautiful subdivision, but I chose to move back to my

grandmother's property because it was my heritage and I

wanted to be closer to my brother.

area with older narrow streets and no sidewalks.

walk my dogs a couple of times a day, and I have to

move to the side of the road to avoid getting hit by

the school buses flying by and the many renters

speeding along.

It is in an older I

My point in telling you all this is that my

R-2 zone full of affordable, multifamily housing works

198 1

pretty well as it stands thanks to my grandmother.

it will not work with additional 40-foot -- 45-foot

apartment units being added to an already very

inclusive older neighborhood.

that, and it will be even more dangerous if you don't

allow sufficient parking spots whereby the street

becomes the de facto.

But

The roads won't support

The City already determined that sidewalks

cannot be added to our neighborhood through one of

their neighborhood improvement programs.

pedestrian hit in our neighborhood last fall in a

hit-and-run and we barely have room to put our garbage

cans on the street with all these plexes.

We had a

Narrow streets with no sidewalks is a

consistent problem in Veterans Park Neighborhood.

you look to transition the neighborhood from the C-1

zones to the R-2, I would strongly consider that you

look at all that.

And

I feel like the zoning changes are

aggressive toward low-income, less affluent, older

neighborhoods.

zoning changes, you need to -- if you really want to

solve this, you need to look across the city, and not

protect everybody else and impact all of us that live

in these other places.

I think that as you look at these

199 1

The other thing I would like to say is that

I do not think people all understand this.

City's tried, but I think there's a great lack of

education about the impacts on these changes.

I think the

And I would also like to say that I don't

have a city-elected councilmember representing my

district.

and I ask that you defer the decision on the zoning

code --

I do not support some of the code changes,

THE CLERK:

CHRISTI WARHURST:

Time. -- until after the City

Council elections.

Thank you for your time and your service.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Okay.

And then Mr. Elliott's the last person on

Robert Elliott.

our sign-up, so if there's anybody else that didn't

don't think there is at this point --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

22 23

Maybe one or two.

Okay.

Great. Right after Mr. Elliott, please come on up

and then you can -- go ahead.

ROBERT ELLIOTT:

[Unintelligible.]

Hi.

My name is Robert Elliott.

200 1

And I'm at 1037 West Hill Street right by the

university.

And that house is a 400 square foot ADU.

And for reference, it's about the size of two parking

spots.

And I live in that ADU with my girlfriend.

Now, some, I've heard, might describe my

house as substandard and inadequate.

But we really

love it.

can walk and bike to everything that we need to get to.

Now, I was very fortunate to live in a part

of town in a neighborhood where this type of house was

legal to build.

shut out of the opportunity to buy or build a house

like mine, since my house is illegal in most types of

the city under the current zoning code.

And we love that it's close enough that we

But I understand that many people are

However, even under -- even though my house

was legal to build in my neighborhood, there were very

restrictive parking minimum requirements, so much so

that more square footage had to be set aside for

parking minimums than there was for the actual house

and living space.

useful, as somebody who bikes and walks everywhere.

And I found that parking very

Overall I strongly support the Modern

Zoning Code, as I believe it was a step in the right

direction and will allow for more housing to be

201 1

developed in a sustainable and affordable way.

If I were to make suggestions, it would be

to make this zoning rewrite more aggressive.

all, I think it should abolish all parking minimums or

even set parking maximums.

house is the size of about two parking spots.

think of all of the housing you could build in the

concrete deserts that we have for parking lots right

now.

First of

As I mentioned earlier, my And just

And I think that it could be a little bit

more aggressive with going after HOAs and CC&Rs.

think that's a giant loophole that's preventing this

zoning code rewrite from being as effective as it

could.

Thanks.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

ERICA SCHOLFIELD:

Let me just test this first

so I know what I'm doing.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

ERICA SCHOLFIELD:

Good evening.

21 22

Erica

Scholfield, 7363 West Limelight Court. This is my sixth year of testimony on

public safety and advocating for decisions based on

data and adopted standards.

further and further behind on its core responsibility

The City is falling

202 1

of public safety in regards to keeping up with growth

and -- that it has aggressively pursued.

The hard data:

Extensive research showed

decades of development approvals in the Northwest

planning areas, starting with the [unintelligible]

Subdivision in 1988 that were based on the promise to

build planned fire stations.

promises have gone by.

35 years of empty

Now we have a fire station planned for

Bogart Lane.

might not actually be able to be staffed.

are short 117 additional firefighters for our current

population.

But even if this station is built, it Right now we

In 2015 the City records for the police

department showed the need for 34 additional

firefighters.

By 2018 that number increased to 54.

By November 2021 we were short nearly 70

positions.

And now the most recent data shows we have

an immediate staffing need of 129 additional officers

for our current population.

For those listening in, if you are hearing

these numbers for the first time and this is disturbing

to you, it should be, because this is your

taxpayer-funded protection and safety that is being

203 1

placed at higher risk every day.

safety of our first responders.

And it is also the

The recent public safety plan acknowledges

the burden being imposed on these two departments

through its strategic -- through its strategies to

address burnout from being overworked, the risk of

suicide, as well as the need for trauma recovery.

We are most likely not going to hear

testimony from our first responders because this might

put their job security in jeopardy.

anticipate we may hear comments from upper management

that attempts to minimize the issues, but the data

speaks for itself.

But I fully

No rationale or excuses can dispute this.

Public safety services are already stretched too thin.

We are now at more than seven minutes for our response,

while the policy in the Comprehensive Plan and the

response standard used in the methodology for

collecting fire impact fees is a four-minute response.

Boise's elected officials have failed to

build up the strategic assets necessary to accommodate

the additional growth they now wish to pursue that may

have been possible in 2018 when this started, when

public staffing needs were lower.

25 26

But that is no longer the case.

We simply

204 1

don't have the carrying capacity to handle an increased

demand generated by rezoning for higher density.

won't for several more years at best.

And the messaging coming from Mayor McLean

claiming this rewrite for our code will improve public

safety is smoke and mirrors for those who are easily

fooled and not aware of this data.

substantial evidence to support a recommendation of

denial, because this will place a further undue burden

on our first responders and adversely continue to

impact public safety.

to avoid this data.

This data provides

It's irresponsible and reckless

Based on the decision this body made for

the IFS shelter, I have confidence you will continue to

demonstrate the decisions impacting public safety are

of the utmost importance.

under the bus again, they can face the consequences of

this fall's election.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

If the Council throws you

Thank you.

Anybody else in person that would like to testify? Ms. Keith, you were going to represent your neighborhood association; correct? Okay.

We're going to finish up the public

testimony, we'll close that, and then do your

205 1

neighborhood presentation.

2 3

Yes, please.

Come on up.

The podium's

free.

And then after -- it looks like we only

probably have one more person in chambers, and then

we'll have a couple folks online who have their hands

up.

We'll go to online folks next.

Please.

FRANKIE ROSARY:

10 11

My name is Frankie Rosary.

And

I live at 3660 North 39th Street. And one thing that I haven't heard

mentioned a lot, and I've lived in Boise for 70 years,

is the weather.

older people.

And there's no way that public transportation is going

to work for all of these people.

And we have a large population of

And we have people that are handicapped.

There's going to be days in the winter that

are below zero, snow everywhere, ice.

be days in the summer that are above 100.

imagine telling some of these people to go stand at a

bus stop or to pay for transportation to get somewhere.

So that's my two cents' worth.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

There's going to And I can't

Thank you.

Anyone else in person?

206 1

All right.

Staff, we'll go to folks online.

Going, going, gone.

like we have a few hands up.

Pam Roamer up first.

Ms. Roamer, can you hear us?

PAM ROAMER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Ms. Roamer.

Can you hear me?

PAM ROAMER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

15 16

PAM ROAMER:

Okay.

Yeah, we have you.

One moment.

Does that help? CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah, a little bit.

Yeah,

please go ahead. PAM ROAMER:

17 18

I can hear you.

you can maybe turn up your mic a little bit.

13 14

We cannot hear you,

I'm not sure if you can hear us.

It looks

Okay.

Whoops, wrong way.

My name is Pam Roamer.

I live on West

Tottenham Lane in Boise, Idaho.

Thank you for your service and for the

opportunity to contribute my comments and to ask

questions.

Hold on.

Oh, sorry.

I was displaced over a year ago for a

high-density luxury project by out-of-state developers.

I see continued displacement, as stated.

207 1

[unintelligible] this new code.

Another comment I would like to make is

that I did attend a presentation by Tim Keane.

And I

heard it said that they want to bring in wells in the

neighborhoods, and that they also stated that this

zoning code will not solve the problem of affordable

housing, and especially homelessness.

homelessness to be solved by the government if we don't

[unintelligible].

They expect

I feel I will be pushed out from Boise, as

it sounds like my personal transportation will be taken

from me, and there will be no affordable place to live.

I agree with the last speaker when they

said that the weather and taking the bus, it takes me

three buses, an hour and ten minutes, when it takes me

only 15 minutes by car.

18 minutes for a transfer.

that's not going to be comfortable.

And at one stop I have to wait And if it's cold or hot,

I like slogan of "A city for everyone," but

it feels like it could become a segregated city divided

by income.

flourish if they're just a neighborhood cafe, because

if they only have four parking spots, can anybody

outside of the neighborhood visit them and try them

out?

I don't see how the businesses will

208 1

And it sounds like the choice for

developers to either reduce parking and include some

affordable units or not sounds iffy for building an

affordable housing supply.

those affordable units not have access to the parking

since it's been reduced?

And I was wondering, would

And I think communication is important.

Public input needs to continue, as it is a way to hear

other views, know what is unique in a neighborhood that

needs to be preserved, share concerns, and be involved

in project improvements.

Okay.

I also would like to see a cutaway

of what the building transitions would look like.

70 feet on down to the R-2 and then R-1 seems like it

could be a tunnel, maybe even a wind tunnel, especially

along those suggested corridors of State, Vista, and

Clearview -- and Fairview is one of the places where I

have to wait to transfer.

19 20 21

I also would like to know the number of how the neighborhoods could change with the zone changes. And I am wondering what will be the process

to tweaking the code later in a year if it's adopted.

Will public input be allowed?

implement those changes, or is it going to be a long

process like this seems to be taking?

Would it be easy to

209 1

I do agree we need to have some zoning

changes, but not at the expense of the people who live

here.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

6 7

Thank you.

Staff, are we just going to run down in order here?

So I have Ariel McLuskie and then Julie

Hulvey and then Joel Ryman.

Okay.

Ms. McLuskie, can you hear us?

Ms. McLuskie?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

There.

Yeah.

15 16 17

Staff, maybe we can move down to

See if we can't work out Ms. McLuskie.

Ms. Hulvey, can you hear us?

JULIE HULVEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

JULIE HULVEY:

21 22 23

I can hear you, yes. Yes.

Okay.

Hello.

I would like to share my

screen, if that's going to be a possibility. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I believe so.

Just one

second.

JULIE HULVEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

It appears you're muted.

Ms. McLuskie, can you hear us?

Okay. Julie Hulvey.

It appears --

I guess I join as a panelist? I'm sorry.

I didn't -- okay.

210 1

Staff, we're good?

Okay.

Ms. Hulvey, you should be able to

share your screen now.

JULIE HULVEY:

Although I don't see a button.

There, I see the button.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

7 8 9 10 11 12

go.

Should be -- yeah, there you

Great. JULIE HULVEY:

I'm Julie Hulvey.

I live at

3707 Nez Perce Street. I have a few thoughts, and then I'll share a few slides. I feel like that the zoning code rewrite is

really missing the mark in a lot of ways.

about exclusionary zoning and how it's impacted our

cities and hurt people over time.

People talk

And then we look at this zoning code

rewrite, and there are exclusions for overlays and

certain neighborhoods that are wealthy.

And has anybody kind of thought to define

that stuff as some kind of an exclusionary zoning where

a lot of the development and infill is happening in the

poorer neighborhoods?

effects of building some things if they were really

high-end things up in the foothills where we've already

got some roads, and then people would move out of their

I think there would be some

211 1

maybe modest apartments and people could start moving

up.

I hear people talking that this is not a

perfect plan.

anything that's not close to perfect.

the right people have had the input.

And I don't think we should pass I don't think

I thought the data provided by Chris -- was

it Doniger [phonetic] or Duniger [phonetic], the maps

of showing how the splits would multiply in his

neighborhood were very informative.

to have seen the City supply something like that, and

especially after you guys asked for it last night.

And I would like

By the time you do the upzone, which it is,

because it's an increase in density, a downsizing of

the lot, narrower setbacks, and all those things, you

don't have an increase.

increase.

You have an exponential

So our Blueprint Boise says the goals and

to further Boise's commitment to becoming sustainable

are to enhance resources, promote environmentally

friendly development, promote energy conservation,

preserve opportunities for urban agriculture.

do that without a yard.

the community on their role of a sustainable future,

monitor progress.

Come on,

Inform and educate members of

212 1

Well, I don't see any evidence in your plan

that any of those things are going to be supported.

Environmental stewardship?

foothills.

5 6

A predictable development pattern?

No.

Certainly not for homeowners.

7 8

No, except for the

Stable neighborhoods?

No, certainly not

for homeowners.

Being connected?

Community that values culture, education, No.

You're trying.

arts and history?

The history is in this

community, are in these homes on the Bench -- well, I'm

partial.

I live there.

Meanwhile --

THE CLERK:

Time.

JULIE HULVEY:

-- a good book I read, Four Lost

Cities.

not.

globe in cities.

island effect where temperatures rise several degrees

higher than in greener areas.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

23 24 25 26

I don't know if you can see it here.

Probably

It says heat waves are increasing across the

your time.

They're magnified by the urban heat

Ms. Hulvey, I'm sorry, that's

You're over time.

Thank you.

Staff, we'll go to Joel Ryman now. JOEL RYMAN:

All right.

Okay.

Am I bringing this

213 1 2 3

thing home? CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

You might be it.

You might

be last.

JOEL RYMAN:

Let's finish this.

Okay.

Let's do it.

Just thanks, you guys.

All right.

It's been,

honestly, a good experience to hear from every side.

Just inspired.

My name's Joel.

And I live at 8601 West

Casa Grande Court.

And I just consider it a privilege

to get to do this.

So thanks for listening.

I'll state at the front I'm in favor of the

rezone.

largely just speak to one.

I'll list out a few reasons why but will

I like the strategy behind the density

along the transit corridors.

I like the included

requirements for affordable units.

possibility for more neighborhood cafes where there can

be neighborly connection, crossover.

favor of more diverse housing options.

I like the

I'm greatly in

But mostly, I'm excited about the avenues

the code permits for, you know, ordinary citizens like

myself to use my assets, be it financial or social, to

engage our housing problems with solutions.

to take all of us engaged citizens collaborating

It's going

214 1

together to move the needle on the housing crisis.

I just see this code as a step in that direction.

And

My wife and I run a little nonprofit where

we work primarily with youth.

And so we've -- we've

seen firsthand the effects of the just housing crisis

and displacement.

envisioned to see Boise become the most welcoming city

on the planet.

live into it, be it to refuges who are looking for a

safe place to live, to Californians who need a change

of scene, or Idahoans who simply have loved their city

but can't afford it anymore.

And we just have this desire

And it's an ideal that we would love to

The question's not whether people will

come, but how will they be greeted and will they be

greeted with our no vacancy signs in our hotel rooms,

our increasingly expensive housing rates, rental rates,

or will they be welcomed by citizens collaborating in

one giant act of creative hospitality?

19 20 21

I see the rezone mostly as something that will aid us in our endeavor to love our neighbor. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay, staff.

24 25 26

Ms. McLuskie back.

Okay.

Thank you. We're going to try and get Okay.

Do you know if she's trying to call in

215 1

or --

2 3

CRYSTAL RAIN:

Mr. Chair, it looks like another

McLuskie just signed in, so maybe that one will work.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ARIEL McLUSKIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ARIEL McLUSKIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ARIEL McLUSKIE:

Okay.

Hello. Yes.

Okay.

Are you there? Hello. Sorry about all that.

No problem.

My name is Ariel McLuskie.

live at 1919 Verna Lane.

And with great disappointment the City

approved our neighborhood's activity center on the

corner of Boise Avenue and Protest Road for two mega

rent-a-bed LLCs, both with out-of-state owners, and

both structures are massive compared to the homes they

abut.

And like other developments off Broadway,

we're permitted to remove all the trees, even those

older than our oldest residents.

So it makes me always wonder, you know, are

we going to be a city of mature trees or just twigs.

And additionally, my area's high residential density

has car parks in what other neighborhoods call front

yards.

maximum height which loom over established homes and

And the new residential structures, all at a

216 1

their minimum setbacks, make for narrow dark places for

little nature to grow.

Clearly my area of Boise is already being

densified for profit and not people and not Mother

Nature.

this area is the nature, and we're just paving it over.

And to call out particularly, you know, the

And that's part of what everyone loves about

proposed title of this Chapter 11, and the purpose

section requires serious review and revision.

see written comments from Boise Working Together on

pages 1621 through 1630 and the project report that

supports this concern and the need to more accurately

name this a unified development code.

Please

Also, the hearing examiner needs to be a

staff member, not a contractor, as stated in Idaho

statute.

page 32.

And please review Exhibit O starting on

With our shared [unintelligible] in mind,

please pause and allow the November 2023 vote for

public representation.

And remember to save treetops for rooftops

before all of our futures fade but our legacy, the

heart remembers.

And I really hope you'll take this to heart.

happening in our area is an example of what could

And I just thank you for your aid. What's

217 1

happen citywide.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll do one more check.

few other names online.

to testify?

Anybody else that would like

Please raise your hand.

Okay.

Ms. Wood, can you hear us?

We've got Angela Wood, staff.

ANGELA WOOD:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

ANGELA WOOD:

12 13

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Uh-huh.

Thank you for taking my testimony.

Am I able to talk for the next moment or so?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

please give us your address too.

We have a

ANGELA WOOD:

Yep.

Okay.

You have three minutes,

Thank you.

I operate Buildsmith.

And our mailing

address is P.O. Box 1422, Boise, Idaho 83701.

And I will be brief.

I have been following

along with the efforts to build a both inclusive and

far-reaching and impactful new code.

a recovering city planner having left City of Boise in

2007 after having worked on Harris Ranch master plan,

and then leading toward a career still in real estate

development and construction, but in the Intermountain

I consider myself

218 1

Northwest.

So oftentimes I've worked within

jurisdictions that have rewritten their code and have

made incremental improvements all along.

surprising that City of Boise hasn't taken this effort

on in many decades.

the reactions that we've gathered all throughout the

city.

And it's

But it also makes sense because of

So it's been interesting to watch.

And in conclusion, I'm very much in favor

of adopting a new code, viewing that incrementalism is

sometimes progress.

perfect, we shouldn't compromise something that so many

people have put in huge effort to support, knowing that

it will help our city improve and change and embrace

hopefully that aspirational words of achieving a city

for all.

And even though it may not be

So in summary, I'm in support of the change

and commend staff and all of the outreach that's

occurred.

and his whole team have made.

time tonight.

I'm super impressed by the efforts that Tim

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

public testimony.

And I thank you for the

Thank you, Ms. Wood.

I believe that does it for our

219 1

Thank you, everybody.

Before we move on, we have a representative

from the Southwest Ada County Alliance here, the

neighborhood association.

on Monday for the neighborhood association

presentations, so we're going to give Ms. Keith here

five minutes for that neighborhood presentation.

8 9

MARISA KEITH:

They were unable to make it

I'll try to keep it less than

five minutes.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

MARISA KEITH:

That sounds great.

Marisa Keith, 3279 South

Cloverdale Road.

I'm the president of the Southwest

Ada County Alliance Neighborhood Association, which is

the best and safest place to walk in Boise, because

they proclaim it, and it happens, is what I heard.

So the contents of this testimony were

reviewed and approved by our board at a meeting.

does not represent all opinions that live within our

neighborhood association, because there's over 40,000

people there.

Okay.

So water:

So we have lots of people

in Southwest Boise, both in city and in the area of

impact, that are having wells go dry.

due to changes in land use, which can be good and bad.

Farmland obviously uses flood irrigation, which uses

Mostly this is

220 1

much more water than residential.

However, it also

does not allow the water to then percolate down back

into the aquifer.

And so as the area of impact in Southwest

Boise has developed, we've seen lower and lower water

levels.

supply on page 295.

would like to see that eliminated, because we think

that all new developments that fall under the

applicability area should be required to show that

there's an adequate supply of water, not only for their

use but for the community.

So there is an exemption for the assured water It's a director exemption, and we

The affordable housing issue:

going to say, if you are annexing out of the area of

impact into the City of Boise, it should be a

privilege, and the City should require affordable

housing because you can.

I'm just

You can say no.

With that, if you -- we would like staff,

when annexations occur, or possibly rezones, to look at

negotiating improvements, off-site improvements even,

or to fill sidewalk gaps and get pedestrian

infrastructure within Southwest Boise.

increase of land use -- or with the increase of land

price, when something is annexed into the City of

Boise, there should be money to do that.

With the

221 1

In our letter we discussed the open space

for multifamily.

increase, so should the required amount of open space.

And we would also like to see the sentence which is

found in the other types of housing, that a percentage

of permeable ground surface with landscaping be added.

We just think that as stories

Bike parking is my favorite part.

So we

had a request that the multi-dwelling bike parking be

the same ratio as how off-street car parking is

determined.

bedroom.

by unit.

So right now car parking is determined by

Bike -- long-term bike parking is determined

And so if you have a three-bedroom unit,

you still only have one long-term bike parking.

issue with that is if you have a mom, dad, two kids,

and everybody has a bike, well, somebody's going to

have to park outside, even if other people in the unit

do not -- or in the development do not even have bikes.

The

Theft of bikes in the -- in apartment

complexes is a huge issue for our Safe Routes to School

kids.

So we would like to see an increase in that. And bike parking at schools should be

covered, because they are there for like eight hours,

six hours, whatever.

25 26

The other issue is drive-thrus.

So our NA

222 1

within the area of impact were under the County code.

They have no distance requirements between drive-thrus

and residential.

buffer.

Boise currently has a 200-foot

So in the area of impact, we are seeing

drive-thrus placed close to residential.

only causes issues with light and idling cars and

speakers well into the night, it also can cause a

domino effect, because nobody really wants to live next

to a drive-thru or a McDonald's that's open until

midnight or whatever.

And this not

So we would like to see that this new code

keep the requirements or the additional requirements

that are going into place for drive-thrus and also have

that 200-foot buffer.

So a year or so ago this buffer prevented a

drive-thru from going in next to the Fred Meyer's out

on Overland and Five Mile, because on two sides of that

drive-thru they were less than 200 feet from

residential.

also prevented that drive-thru and the drive-thru lanes

from going right next to the Tot Lot that that same

developer put in.

And because that buffer was in place, it

And so we would actually like to see that

200-foot buffer expanded to include schools, public or

223 1

private parks, and daycares.

2 3 4 5

So we would like to thank you for your time and your commitment and for staff as well. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Keith.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

All right.

Back to the

Commission.

Now we've wrapped up all the public

testimony, wrapped up our neighborhood association

presentations.

We've been at it for three nights.

We are at 10:18 on Wednesday evening.

So I'm kind of thinking right now we maybe

do a quick rebuttal with staff while we have the whole

squad here, if that sounds good to you all, and then we

can pick it up tomorrow with maybe some final Q&A by

the Commission and then deliberate.

How does everybody feel about that?

I'm getting thumbs up from the --

REBUTTAL

19 20

TIM KEANE:

Okay.

And I'll be -- I'll be -- I'll try

to make this painless for the Commission members --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

TIM KEANE:

Okay.

-- here on your third night.

I'll

try to go through this quickly and hit on some things

that came up tonight.

25 26

I want to start, though, of course, by a

224 1

comment that several people made tonight, which is that

this body is not making a decision right now as to

whether the city should grow or not.

You know, we are part of a growing region,

a growing city.

continue to grow as a region and city.

The question

really just is how we're going to grow.

And we can be

intentional about that.

The trajectory likely is that we'll

And Boise's opportunity really as a city is

to avoid the mistakes of so many cities in this

country.

the past 50, 60 years, you've done the exact same thing

in every case.

growth here, can avoid those things.

If you become a big city in this country over

And we, because of where we are in our

And we think that this code is part of that

solution.

It certainly doesn't solve every problem,

but it's an important step to solve those big problems

that we're seeking to address here in Boise that are so

much a part of Blueprint Boise.

The -- as I said, when we started today, we

are without hesitation wholeheartedly recommending this

code.

of it are correct, and what we know we'll need to do

as -- if it's adopted by Council is we'll have to come

back and monitor it on an ongoing basis.

We think the structure is right.

The elements

But that's

225 1

really the details of it.

As I said, are the affordability and

sustainability incentives being successful?

kinds of things.

calibrated properly?

You know, is the process working

as we wanted it to?

But not changing the structure.

We think all of the elements here are the right ones

for Boise.

Those

Are the parking requirements

They're not okay.

They're actually ideal.

With regard to housing affordability, I

think it's important to remember zoning's role in this.

And a couple folks tonight were kind of alluding to

this in terms of my comments, and I just wanted to make

it clear that zoning doesn't solve, as everyone has

said, from every perspective, solve every housing

affordability issue.

What it should do, though, is it should

allow the private market to provide more housing for

people that are of modest means.

mean 80 percent or so of area median income, 80 to 120,

something like that, depending on whether it's rental

or owner-occupied.

And that tends to

If you get lower than 80 percent, that's

funding -- that's housing that the public has money in

or land in.

50 or 30, which is so important in this community,

You have to go -- to get to 60 percent or

226 1

you're going to spend public money on it.

And the City, for the first time in its

history, is doing that.

Mayor McLean and City Council

are for the first time spending public money to address

permanent support of housing and those lower income

levels.

But zoning's got to pull its weight.

Zoning should get to 80 percent, to 120 percent.

that's the way this has been calibrated.

cities in this country that are spending public money

to get housing at 80 to 100 percent of area median

income.

that.

That's a shame.

And

There are

This is our chance to not do

So when it comes to housing affordability,

that's the zoning's role.

has been organized with a combination of let's give

some zoning to get denser and in the right places, you

know, but also tie some affordability to it as it

relates to incentives within our neighborhood.

And that's why this thing

So we think it has the right components to

get to this housing affordability issue as zoning

ordinance -- zoning ordinances should do.

to be tied directly to transportation.

24 25 26

And that has

A lot of discussion about transportation tonight relative to driving and not good enough transit

227 1

right now, and it's been said so many times as we move

into this opportunity that Boise is, we just have to --

it's a public service announcement, as I say, that we

really have to design the city and through this code

ensure that more people don't have to drive so much.

That we have choices.

Everyone that can that has the means will

drive, clearly.

distances, that's the purpose of this.

solve this congestion problem.

But if they can drive less and shorter That's how you

Not to mention we need better service for

those that can't, that must rely on public

transportation and walking and so forth.

the chance in this.

saying how do we get around right now.

And that's

It's not looking backwards or

Just like in the '60s when this was

happening, we didn't have a massive system of highways.

We built that to support low density across the

landscape.

opposite direction.

that direction.

Well, now we have this chance to go in the And this is an important step in

And finally, the financial -- the

financially responsible decision, a lot of discussion

about services, the cost of services, whether it's

public safety or utilities or things like libraries and

228 1

parks and so forth, the cost of the services and the

infrastructure, and we know that what's happened in the

last generation is we buy investing in low density

sprawl, we spread ourselves way too thin to a point

where we can't afford to continue to expand that way,

and the public can't afford it.

And so by building on our existing streets,

in our existing neighborhoods, we're building where we

have infrastructure, where we have services.

we'll need more, you know, people, we'll need more --

the ability to grow, but we're -- at least we're doing

it within our existing footprint where we've already

got the basic structure set.

Of course

A couple of specific things regarding

trees.

it's been mentioned several times today, there's a

whole aspect of this ordinance, which is around trees

in Boise, which includes for the first time

requirements to plant Class III trees, which are the

biggest canopy trees, around the perimeter of a parking

lot, within the parking lot, within commercial

developments.

We didn't speak to this in our opening, but

That didn't exist before.

We had smaller trees that were being

planted, so you don't get the canopy.

closely with the forester and the parks department

We worked

229 1

about how can we tweak the tree standards to ensure

better mitigation in cases where we lose trees and make

sure this ordinance allows for some flexibility so you

can save trees.

this ordinance around trees.

So there's a whole emphasis within

Regarding transitions and step-downs,

there's multiple ways that this ordinance addresses

that issue.

stepping down to get to that height.

actually I think it's four sections we were going over

today that address in cases where you have a multiunit

building the fact that it has to step down next to your

neighbor who's a one-story building.

If you've got a one-story structure, the And there's

And so there's multiple places within the

ordinance that address that, not just the intentional

aspects of this that we incorporated like the MX-3 to

MX-2 to R-1, which is important.

But there's other measures that address this transition

so you don't get these abrupt changes between taller

buildings and shorter neighbors.

That's part of it.

So, you know, we got to be careful about

those things.

We have to be careful about

displacement.

That's why in this ordinance we added

something that doesn't exist in the current ordinance.

And this would apply to the MX zones where if you now

230 1

or in the past three years have a property that's had

assisted-living, a nursing home, a mobile home park,

federally-designated affordable housing, or just even

naturally-occurring affordable housing for people

making 60 percent or less of area median income, now or

in the last three years, you have to come to this body

and discuss it with us, a conditional-use permit.

We wanted to create that protection to say

people that are vulnerable to displacement require a

public hearing in those cases, so that in providing

that additional density in a place like State or

Fairview or Vista where we're going to MX-3 or an

activity center, we include that protection in this

ordinance.

And then -- and really I think so the --

just to kind of finish, the big issues that are so

important to this community being financially

responsible, addressing issues around climate and

nature, transportation, how we are successful in our

transportation investments in this community.

an enormous one to make in transit.

affordability issue.

How do we make sure that's successful?

things that were brought up tonight that were the main

themes I just want to reiterate are so incorporated

We have

The housing

What's the zoning's role in that? All of these

231 1

into this.

And it's expected and -- and helpful and

healthy for people to have different opinions about

this, as we've heard tonight.

three-year process around this public discussion, which

so many people, including many tonight, were

participants in.

But this has been a

And so we feel very strongly that this is

an amazing public achievement for the community that we

should move forward with.

recommending it.

And that's why we're

And I'll also say, even as it relates to

digesting something like this, because zoning

ordinances are pretty complex.

longer than this one.

mentioned several times, 611 pages, the actual

regulations themselves are about half of that.

The one we have is

This ordinance that's been

But it's somewhat complex.

That's why we

did it in three phases.

module three so that we could digest this a piece at a

time.

didn't know about it, that's -- everybody is busy.

that's understandable.

24 25 26

Module one, module two, and

And I understand people come to it late, they So

But just to say -- just to give note to this process and everybody that's been a participant in

232 1

it, and really the extraordinary thing that came from

it, that I think people should be proud of because it

does get to those issues that Boise so cares about and

are so much a part of Blueprint Boise.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

So with that, Mr. Chair, we could take Q&A or do what you all would like. Leave would be another option. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Tim, thank you very

much for the closing remarks there. We'll call that rebuttal, I think, provide a better term. My thought here, fellow Commissioners, is

that we'll recess tonight.

closed the public hearing component of this process.

We've just had Tim's rebuttal.

I think tomorrow we'll

arrive at five o'clock again.

We can maybe begin with

a little discussion and I think maybe some final Q&A

with staff before we really enter into deliberations

and our final motion and any considerations that we

give to Council.

Okay?

Thanks again, staff.

Thank you again everybody that attended.

We are recessed until tomorrow at

25 26

five o'clock.

To reiterate, we have

Well done.

233 1

Goodnight.

(End of video file.)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

-oOo-

234 1

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 3 4 5 6

I, JEFF LaMAR, CSR No. 640, Certified Shorthand Reporter, certify: That the audio recording of the proceedings was transcribed by me or under my direction.

That the foregoing is a true and correct

transcription of all testimony given, to the best of my

ability.

I further certify that I am not a relative or

employee of any attorney or party, nor am I financially

interested in the action.

13 14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I set my hand and seal this 15th day of May, 2023.

15 16 17 18 19 20

____________________________

JEFF LaMAR, CSR NO. 640

Notary Public

Post Office Box 2636

Boise, Idaho 83701-2636

My commission expires December 30, 2023

BOISE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ZONING CODE REWRITE HEARING MINUTES APRIL 27, 2023 I.

CALL TO ORDER PRESENT: ABSENT:

II.

Blanchard, Mohr, Schafer, Danley, Gillespie, Mooney, Finfrock Squyres, Stead

FINAL DELIBERATION AND VOTE 1.

MOTION: RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT:

III.

RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH ADDITION OF RED LINE DOCUMENT APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Milt Gillespie, Commissioner Chris Danley, Co-Chair Blanchard, Mohr, Schafer, Danley, Gillespie, Mooney, Finfrock Ashley Squyres, Meredith Stead ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

1 1

BEFORE THE CITY OF BOISE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

)

IN RE:

)

ZOA23-00001 / CITY OF BOISE

)

CPA23-00001 / CITY OF BOISE

)

Modern Zoning Code

)

______________________________________)

Day 4

8 9

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORDED PUBLIC HEARING

THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2023

11 12

BEFORE:

ROB SCHAFER, CHAIRMAN

CHRIS DANLEY, CO-CHAIR

CHRISTOPHER BLANCHARD, COMMISSIONER

JANELLE FINFROCK, COMMISSIONER

MILT GILLESPIE, COMMISSIONER

JENNIFER MOHR, COMMISSIONER

JOHN MOONEY, COMMISSIONER

20 21

TRANSCRIBED BY:

22 23

MARY (RAINEY) STOCKTON, CSR No. 746

24 25 26

Notary Public

2 1 2

(Beginning of video file.) CRYSTAL RAIN:

Good evening, everyone, and

welcome to the Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission

Public Hearing.

5 6

Just a couple things before we start out with tonight's proceedings.

Everyone from the public entering the hearing

virtually has been automatically muted and cannot speak.

There is a Chat function in Zoom.

This is not

part of the record and should only be used if technical

difficulties arise.

Last night the Commission closed the public

testimony portion of the hearing; so today we'll begin

with a brief recap from the planning team before the

Commission moves into deliberation to render a

recommendation.

Mr. Chair, you have the floor.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Good evening, everybody.

Thanks, Crystal. We are citizen

volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the

City Council.

It will be a little bit of a unique order

tonight in that we're not really hearing any items

specifically.

25 26

We're going to open up some Q & A to Staff

3 1

based on our previous last three nights of testimony and

then we will deliberate and move into some decisions and

recommendations for City Council.

4 5

So, with that, I'm going to go ahead and just have the Clerk please call the roll.

THE CLERK:

Schafer?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

THE CLERK:

Blanchard?

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

THE CLERK:

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

THE CLERK:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

THE CLERK:

COMMISSIONER FINFROCK:

THE CLERK:

CO-CHAIR DANLEY:

THE CLERK:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

THE CLERK:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

As Crystal mentioned in her opening statement,

25 26

Stead?

Here.

Squyres.

Here.

Mohr. Here.

Gillespie. Here.

Finfrock. Here.

Danley. Here.

Mooney. Here.

Seven present; two absent. Thank you very much.

we're going to hear from Staff here to begin; and then

4 1

we'll open up for Q & A by the Commission.

MS. SZELAG:

I'll be brief, just about two

minutes.

Planning Director for the Planning Division of PDS.

Tim's unable to make it today; so I'll be

My name is Jessica Szelag.

I'm the Deputy

filling in for him.

I wanted to start just by thanking all of you

for your time and commitment to the City and to this

process.

testimony, I'm considering this application and it's

greatly appreciated.

12 13 14

Spending the last couple days of hearing

So, for today, we're going to move into Q & A of Staff. After questions, as the Chair mentioned, the

Commission will move into deliberation and a

recommendation to Council.

17 18

Today's the fourth day of hearing for the Modern Zoning Code Application.

We began on Monday with a Staff presentation

and questions from the Commissioners; and then we moved

into testimony and heard from 13 neighborhood

associations.

Tuesday and Wednesday there were further

clarification and questions of Staff.

members of the public provide testimony.

And we had 139

5 1

We were able to move into Staff rebuttal last

night, which closed the public testimony portion of the

hearing.

4 5

So, for tonight, questions for Staff, I'd like to introduce you to the team.

We have Deanna Dupuy, Andrea Tuning, and Lena

Walker and myself that will be available for questions.

Everyone has microphones today.

ask questions, we might just need a few seconds if we

need to get up a slide, if needed, to answer the

questions.

12 13 14

And as you

When the Commission moves into deliberation, we do have two applications in front of you to consider. So, the first is ZOA23-0001.

This is a Zoning

Code Amendment to Repeal and Replace Chapter 11 of the

Current Code.

And we also have CPA-230001.

Plan Text Amendment to Replace References to the

Previous Zoning Districts with the New Proposed Zoning

Districts.

Comprehensive

We also have redline changes to the documents

that were noted in the April 13th memo to the

Commission, which addressed typos, spelling,

clarifications, and corrections.

25 26

We are recommending approval of both

6 1

applications with the additions of the redline

corrections.

3 4

We need tonight, at the end, this body to make two motions to City Council to conclude the hearing.

5 6

With that, I can take questions or sit on down and questions for all the Staff.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

Thank you, Jessica.

Just real quick before we get to questions, I just want

to remind -- we have a few new faces in the audience

tonight.

So, tonight -- just so everybody understands

the process moving forward, tonight we'll make

recommendations to Council.

And then City Council will, again, go through

this process in June.

So, you do have additional

opportunity to provide public comment to City Council

before there are hearings in June.

be very clear about that.

it for testimony this week, you can do that for Council

in June.

So, I just wanted to

If you weren't able to make

Okay?

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman?

Commissioner Gillespie. With your permission,

I'd like to ask the Deputy Director and City Staff about

our idea of doing a cleanup or down and then a trailing

7 1

resolution listing changes and concerns.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yeah.

MS. SZELAG:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

MS. SZELAG:

Jessica Szelag.

Szelag.

Z as in Zebra.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

And then

May I just call you

Jessica, please?

MS. SZELAG:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

MS. SZELAG:

Velag? (Pronouncing)

lag, like tag.

9 10

Would you say your

name again?

Please.

way.

Yes. So, Jessica --

That's my husband's fault, by the

I got his last name.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Last night and today

or -- well, really, last night, we were trying to figure

out like how procedurally to handle the rest of this

evening.

And I think several of us would like to

explore just making straight up or down, without

amendment, motions for the two items; the ZOA and the

CPA.

And then doing a third motion to create a

trailing resolution to the City Staff and Council that

lists our concerns and suggested changes.

8 1 2

So, it's not a binding resolution but we can't really do anything binding on this anyway.

So, it includes our recommendations.

And that

way, we're on record as saying, you know, what we're

either concerned about or where we would suggest more

data would be helpful or where we flat out have changes

to the document.

It was assent to many of us that getting into

trying to amend our recommendation in the document

begins to pull apart like a Jangid tower and we didn't

want to do that.

So, I was wondering if you and Andrea and

Crystal and James and everybody are okay with that

procedure and idea.

MS. SZELAG:

Yeah.

And my recommendation

would be, too, to just make the cleanest recommendation,

like you said.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

MS. SZELAG:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But then to also remind you all

that this is a legislative decision and action.

you don't have to be in consensus --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

MS. SZELAG:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

25 26

right.

And so

Right.

-- on all of the -The resolutions,

9 1 2

MS. SZELAG:

-- different considerations that

you have.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

MS. SZELAG:

Yeah.

So, to organize it however you'd

like, but --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

MS. SZELAG:

moving in three separate steps --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Right.

-- I think that the proposal of

We're thinking on the

trailing resolution that each one of us could contribute

the points that we're interested in so it will build up

a list that we all agree with; and then we can kind of

all vote to say:

Yeah, that's what we think.

So that we don't get into debating, you know,

what we want to add; because, otherwise, it will take a

super long time.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

We were just a

little concerned if it was -- you know, traditionally,

when we have amendments to conditions, you know, it gets

really messy and complicated and cumbersome.

And I think we're in a position right now

where I think we all have a lot of thoughts and

considerations; not so much redlining exact comment

changes in the document.

think of a big picture method to give you all of those

So, we were just trying to

10 1

ideas.

Now, obviously we're being recorded; so

there's another method, right, that people are going to

hear all of our thoughts.

MS. SZELAG:

of the record.

record.

Council.

9 10

Yeah.

All of this will be a part

Your comments will be a part of the

And that full record is what goes on to City

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Great.

So, I think we're

good then, Milt, if we --

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

I'd like to do --

Yes, please. So, last night or the

night before, I passed out a list of my kind of running

list.

If you're using it, here are some things you

might add that I heard.

chill out for a minute.

If you're not, then you can

So, the last one on the old list was the

electronic sign dwell-time 20 versus 8.

issue.

This is Dewan's

And I added -- I've added four more issues. One is the VRT memo dated April 20, 2023.

seems like we should talk about that and try and deal

with that.

That was Elaine Clegg.

11 1

The next was the elimination of minor land

divisions.

pushes -- as far as I can tell, it pushes like all these

R1C splits into the subdivision process, which is a lot

longer and goes to Council.

how simple like one to two lot lots splits were.

think we should talk to the City about that and what

that means.

That's an interesting question because it

So, it's a major change in I

The 17th issue I have is creating an executive

summary, including a before-and-after table for the

public as soon as possible to get that out there.

think we heard a lot of people talk about that.

that's a very reasonable request.

I think

And the last one I just heard from my friend,

Betty Berman-Solo, who sadly did not testify is she

wants us to think about -- and we heard this from the

Southwest Data County Alliance, Marisa -- about the

water pressure out there in Southwest Boise in those

private wells.

not sure there's a lot we can do about it in this code,

but I think we should at least discuss it.

So, that's all I got.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I think we ought to talk about it.

Okay.

I'm

Thank you, Milt.

think maybe we'll just jump in real quick with some of

the low-hanging fruit and maybe -- I don't know if

12 1

that's Andrea or Jessica -- but let's talk about the

electronic sign dwelling time just real quick.

seems to be fairly straightforward.

4 5

That

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yeah.

Why did we

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Why did we change

move it?

Yeah.

it?

I mean, the testimony we received, right, is that

the industry standard seems to be 8 seconds.

code moves it to 20 seconds.

little background?

MS. TUNING:

This new

Can you guys give us a

Commissioners, for the record,

Andrea Tuning with Planning and Development Staff.

We can give you a brief synopsis of that.

the industry standard is 8 seconds.

standards across the country, they do range from

anywhere from "there is no requirement" to being

"completely prohibited."

approximately, at 8 seconds.

If you evaluate

A lot of them do fall,

The City has received some comments in regard

to brightness of the signs.

well as the distraction that takes place with the

changing of that.

20 seconds.

24 25 26

So,

So, we evaluated that; as

That is why we recommended the

Of course, 8 seconds is what we have currently today.

And I don't know that that would be the end of

13 1

the world.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Please, Milt.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Yes.

Andrea, did we have

any scientific or accident data or any data that showed

that going from 8 seconds to 20 or longer than 8 had

any, you know, measurable benefit?

MS. TUNING:

As a follow-up to Commissioner

Gillespie, we did look at national data; nothing at the

local level.

So, we do know that if there is a static sign,

that provides less distraction; and would, ultimately,

have the least amount of results.

Unfortunately, there isn't anything that we

have locally that we could evaluate just at common

knowledge that as changes do occur there is some

distraction.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you.

other low-hanging fruit that we want --

Okay.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

sign 12 time issues.

list we should leave it at 20.

Electronic

I mean, I'm going to put on my

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIED SPEAKER:

This one:

Any

That's where I'm at.

Okay. I agree on that one,

14 1

Milt.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIED SPEAKER:

Okay. There's not enough data

otherwise.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I was just thinking that

might be another nice, easy one to get moving.

10 11

Can we talk about 11,

fence requirements WUI parcels abutting open spaces?

8 9

Okay.

Yes.

The WUI fence requirements discussion we

heard about wood fencing abutting open space.

UNIDENTIED SPEAKER:

us one brief second to get our slide.

the wildland urban interface.

to reduce the risks that are attached to humans and

animals and where they converge.

Yes.

If you'll just give So, we do have

It is ultimately intended

It is extremely important as a part of that we

coordinated with our fire department, Idaho Fish and

Game as well as a number of residents.

that, there was a minor error.

comments in regard to fencing and ultimately currently

it does require a perimeter solid fence to detour deer

and elk.

24 25 26

And as part of

So, you did hear

We would like to, as we move forward, make some potential modifications to that and there are

15 1

really a couple of components to that.

Recognizing that fencing should not be

required; however, there are some design standards that,

if fencing is utilized, insuring that it is

noncombustible.

And then the last one is insuring that we have

some type of solid fencing or screening around large

animal feed.

That was actually a comment that came from

Idaho Fish and Game asking for the deterrent to exist.

And we think that that is a suitable

recommendation.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

That's great.

The

only thing I might add to that thought process is that

there's something in the code that indicates not to

include -- fences shall not include, like, sharp

protrusions at the top that might impale wildlife as

they try to jump over said fence.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Or my kids.

Or Milt's kids, who,

apparently, can jump quite high.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Damn right.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Any other discussion

23 24 25 26

I got

hops.

on that topic?

Okay.

16 1

And, of course, gang, you know, we're starting

with the list that Milt graciously put together a couple

of nights ago.

4 5

Anything else we can add or subtract if you all have, of course --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Mr. Chair?

Please. Can we add, I think,

the Southwest ADA Alliance also asked about the 200 feet

buffer on the drive-through.

And I looked up the revised code today and I

believe it's still the same but I just need a

confirmation of that.

200 feet on that.

there is a current 200 feet buffer in the new revised

code.

17 18 19 20

I think we're actually requiring

I just wanted to verify.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

I think

That's one, if you can

just give us a second, we'll look that one up. COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Mr. Chair, while they're

doing that, I got a question about the process.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Sure thing.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

The hanging fruit that

we're talking about now in question, I had a list of

questions that I was going to ask of Staff and then

based on those answers, I was going to either "X" them

17 1

off or propose them back to the Commission for inclusion

on this list.

3 4

So, that's kind of what I was thinking.

I'm

feeling a little out of sync with how we're doing this.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah, that's great.

think there's really not a specific order here tonight.

So, I think it's fire-away at this point, John, and then

we'll get to a point where we're all pretty satisfied

with our questions and then we can really start to hone

in on changes.

11 12

Okay?

MS. TUNING:

Do you want us to respond to

the --

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

MS. TUNING:

15 16

Yeah.

Again, for the record, Andrea

Tuning. So, if you do take a look at what we have for

existing as well as proposed, there are some design

setbacks that talk about where you are when you are

adjacent to a residential use.

So, in our existing code in the C1D, we do

require a 200-foot setback from the residential user

zone when there's a drive-through window or a lane.

We ultimately do have a setback in all of the

other zones, which is 10 feet.

today, as well.

And that continues

18 1

So, if you note, the drive-through lanes shall

be set back at least 10 feet from each residential

zoning district or residential use.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Mr. Chair?

Yeah, Commissioner Mooney. So, regarding the

drive-ups in Ms. Sebakas' testimony from last night, are

they speaking of County or -- I mean, I was kind of

confused about her perspective because she was speaking

of County properties and not necessarily in the City, I

thought.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

Well, if memory

serves, I believe I recall that application a year or

two ago.

was within her district, but it was within City limits.

Yeah.

It was out off of Overland, I believe.

So, it

And it was -- if I'm referencing the right

project, it was near on Overland near the Fred Meyer out

there at Five Mile.

subdivision like a commercial subdivision, but there was

residential adjacent to it.

CO-CHAIR DANLEY:

Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Mr. Danley.

CO-CHAIR DANLEY:

The way that I'm

25 26

And there was a -- it was within a

interpreting this -- and please correct me if I'm

19 1

wrong -- it seems to me like we are making a decision

here.

3 4

And the decision is we want the drive-through to be behind the building and not street side.

But that comes at the potential expense of if

there's residential located behind the parcel, then to

achieve that objective, we're willing to go down to

10 feet to the nearest residential lot.

And when we're -- if that is not -- so, if

that's not allowed, if we're not going to try to do

that, then it looks like there's some language where it

still could end up being street side, but I think our

overall objective is what I first suggested.

Trying to get drive-throughs away from the

street interaction space that we know, pedestrian around

all that, but that may come at the expense of this

10 feet to the residential, which is a shift from our

existing code.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Commissioner Danley,

that is correct.

existing as well as the proposed code that does require

either a wall or a landscaping that will provide some

sound abatement and will also provide some visual

screening.

things, noises that are occurring, that we do have the

We do have policies in both the

So, if we have headlights, those types of

20 1

ability to provide that buffer between that residential

and commercial interaction.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Commissioner Mohr.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

I think on top of that in

all the -- I think it's the MX-2 Zone, it is required to

be mostly enclosed.

that's reading.

I'm a little bit confused about how

So, the way I'm reading that is it's covered

and then it's got a solid wall that comes down in front

of it.

But the two end walls, the cars come in and

then they go out, those don't have real doors or

anything on them.

just be that kind of full solid canopy; is that correct?

They're just opened.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

So, it would

Commissioner Mohr, that

is correct.

We just want it to be architecturally integrated into

the larger structure.

addition.

building.

22 23 24 25 26

So, we would allow the two ends to be open.

So, not a pergola, not just an

That it's an actual component of the

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE: going.

Okay.

Let's keep

We've got a lot to do tonight, kids. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

(cross-talk)

There's a lot of --

21 1

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Why don't I talk to a

juicy one, which is the CUP conditions and the change in

those CUP conditions.

pull that up.

in that we're trying to narrow the meaning of adverse

impact.

So, I'm going to let you guys

I think that's a pretty important change

Could you all talk about -- the City talk

about why you wanted to do that and what you think the

net effect will be?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

While they're pulling that

up, I'm going to check in with you all.

we resolved the drive-through question enough?

have additional --

UNIDENTIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

homework here.

Do we feel like

I would do Q & A on that.

I'm trying to do my

Might need to circle back on it, maybe?

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

was okay with it because where it's closer to

residences, it's enclosed.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

I'm okay with it.

Yeah. And where I think

it's not, it's way far away.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

the back and it generally is discouraging of

Or do we

Yeah. And it moves it to

22 1

drive-throughs, which I think is the clear direction of

the comp plan and the strategy to do that.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

MS. TUNING:

All right.

Commissioners, so we

did evaluate all of our findings very closely.

6 7

Okay.

We wanted to insure that we were getting exactly what we needed to become a vibrant City.

So, as you can see, the existing conditional

use findings do have seven different findings; some of

them are not applicable to all; but the majority of them

are.

12 13

So, the first five are applicable to every conditional use permit.

So, often we heard, throughout the public

testimony, specifically in regard to the fourth one:

The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions

posed will not adversely impact -- sorry -- adversely

affect other property of the vicinity.

So, when we look at how that compares to our

proposed codes, ultimately, we wanted to insure that we

were getting the best that we could.

So, the proposed use will not create any

material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding

area; and any material negative impacts will be

mitigated to the maximum extent practicable or the

23 1

public benefits of the proposed use outweigh any

material negative impacts of the proposed use that

cannot be mitigated.

4 5

And, ultimately, that takes a close look at levels of service and how those are happening.

Oftentimes, within the City of Boise, we have

a level of service "F" on a specific roadway.

entitlement is oftentimes there so we can't eliminate

any type of impact, but we certainly can mitigate for

that.

The

We can insure that we have continuous

pedestrian facilities.

We can provide for alternative

and active modes of transportation so we can provide for

walkability, bikeability and all of the components that

make our City truly vibrant in everything that we are

looking for and healthy.

Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Thank you, Andrea.

you define "surrounding area"?

MS. TUNING:

Chair and Commissioner Gillespie.

If I can chime in on this, Mr.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

MS. TUNING:

24 25 26

How do

Yes, Andrea.

So, the next slide, if we could

go to that one, as well.

Maybe that's not it.

Sorry.

So, in the existing code, it says "vicinity."

24 1 2

In the proposed code, it says "surrounding area."

Neither one are defined, but the word "choice"

is intending to imply the same thing.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

MS. TUNING:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

MS. TUNING:

Intent is the same?

Uh-huh. Okay.

And then if I could speak to two

other items.

On the proposed code, a suggestion we might

have for consideration is adding an "and" right next to

that last "or."

So, that there's either no material impact in

the surrounding area or any material negative impact

will be mitigated and/or the public benefit of the

proposed use outweigh any material negative impacts.

And then, additionally, that term "the maximum

extent practicable," there is a definition in the code

that's provided that we could put up, too.

some questions about that.

means.

There were

That explains what that

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

I think -- Janelle, did you have something?

Okay. Mr. Chair?

Hang on one second, Chris.

25 1

COMMISSIONER FINFROCK:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

3 4

I didn't.

Okay.

Please go ahead and

proceed. COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

I see your point.

just wonder, we already defined the distance in our code

-- in our proposed code for notifying.

So, I'm curious if maybe we should -- can

potentially align those.

saying it's important enough for us to notify people --

300, in some cases, farther away -- of a pending

decision, then I wonder if the alignment for a CUP would

be something similar so that it helps us in the future,

and Council in the future, when considering this very

element of the ultimate approval or not.

15 16 17

Because if we're basically

I don't know if that's the exact distance, but just, you know, maybe something to think about. CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

Great question.

And, you know, I guess is it worded to give some

flexibility to Staff to make that determination about

what -- what is -- how big is the area that's being

impacted by the proposed project?

COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD:

Right? And recognizing that

we can't require off-site improvements for certain

pieces, too.

far; but awareness of and decisions for, you know, is a

How do we -- the mitigation can only go so

26 1

little bit different.

2 3

So, I do think, though, having some sort of a definition of "distance" would be helpful.

4 5

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: input there?

6 7

Staff, do you have any

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Commissioner Schafer,

you could certainly recommend that.

We did not because with every application we

try and look at things context-specific.

oftentimes, we are adjacent to different types of

things; whether you might be next to a park, a school,

perhaps.

are very, very different than immediately adjacent and a

similar use.

15 16

So,

You have a street that separates you.

Those

So, we evaluate that on a case-by-case basis, which we find to be the best evaluation technique.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Okay.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Thanks. Mr. Chair?

Commissioner Gillespie. As someone who's had

many an abstract discussion with James about adverse

impact, I'm sympathetic to the idea of trying to narrow

it down.

24 25 26

I wonder if this doesn't go a step too far in -- I'm looking at that and I'm thinking:

Why do we

27 1

need all that bid on the public benefit, the "or."

2 3

I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that that's ever come up in a CUP discussion.

So, for example -- you know, an example is

Dave Kangas will know about -- right -- when we're

putting a bigger development, a bigger building in The

Bench and there's a concern about the adverse impact of

the traffic on the roads, we don't argue -- we don't

really ever argue:

by the public benefit of creating more dwelling units --

right -- we talk about that, in fact, the volume on the

roads isn't that extensive or, you know, it's just not

material.

14 15 16

Well, that adverse impact is offset

So, we do kind of bring in materiality with the simple definition we use now. But I've never -- I can't recall if we've ever

made like a public benefit trade-off argument.

So, I'm wondering why we need that.

MR. SMITH:

Good evening, Commissioners.

the record, James Smith, Deputy City Attorney.

you for the question, Commissioner Gillespie.

For

Thank

And as we've discussed these kind of things at

length, just as a bit of perspective -- and I want to be

careful not to speak too far on this in terms of the

plannings intent on this --

28 1

But as we see, sitting behind you there, we

see the Commission, this august body, wrestling with

this question, you know, at length about what is an

adverse impact and what is the type of development that

you're supposed to approve on a conditional use permit.

So, when the proposed code says "public

benefit," the intent is actually to raise the bar in the

sense that if you're finding material impacts that is

significant impacts that you're not able to mitigate, it

asks you to weigh those against -- and so public

benefits may be, you know, used loosely there in the

sense of:

serving?

What are the comp plan goals that you're

And what are the -- you know, how will this

development impact the neighborhood and the City

perhaps, and we would hope usually, for the better.

So...

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman?

Commissioner Gillespie. So, is it your

perspective that this new language is, in a sense, more

restrictive in that it puts a higher bar on the CUP than

the old language?

24 25 26

MR. SMITH:

That's the intent.

And in line

with Deputy Director Szelag's point, to swap that word

29 1

for "and" in the sense of you're going to make one of

two findings in this proposed standard.

Either you don't see material impacts.

look at it and:

externalities -- right --

You

Sure, every development has

Or -- "or" you do see some and you've

mitigated them to the extent that you can from there at

the deas and from the conditions that you can see your

way clear to imposing.

And then even if there's something left, what

it asks you to do is find that this project is designed

or the use is scaled or the use, in some way, is serving

all the things that City Council, through the comp plan,

is asking you to insure.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Mr. Chairman?

Yeah, please, Milt. So, I'm -- if that's

the way to understand it, then I like the new CUP

wording.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE:

Agreed. That's my view on

that.

Okay.

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Commissioner Mohr.

Next turn for someone now.

30 1

COMMISSIONER MOHR:

I think on the CUP -- and

this kind of ties in -- but on the CUP findings, a lot

of the comments that we received was about now waiting

for build-out to see the benefits and see some of these

kind of requirements that we might set, whether it's a

trail or something like that.

So, my mind automatically goes to a

construction site where it's all fenced off and, you

know, you don't want people walking through that site

while they're trying to build something.

dangerous.

It's

And it can be really a real hazard.

So, I 100 percent understand why we wouldn't

want to require somebody to do that because you are

bringing people into a potentially dangerous area by

doing that.

16 17

But I was curious what thoughts the City had on requiring some of those benefits up front.

18 19 20

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER: question.

Yeah, that's a great

That's a great question. I think in the testimony, too, we had some

specific examples -- specific examples mentioned about,

for example, trails in the foothills -- right -- the

subdivision's being built, the roads and the sidewalks

are constructed; but the lots maybe aren't built out yet

and yet the trails aren't built because the houses

31 1

aren't built.

2 3

So, is there some input there from Staff on that question?

Is that kind of what you meant, too, Jennifer?

UNIDENTIED SPEAKER:

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

For those of you listening

at home, that's note number 7.

(Cross-talk)

MS. TUNING:

For the record, Andrea Tuning.

We have given this quite a bit of thought.

we think that -- again, we evaluate things on a

case-by-case basis.

And really

So, when we're talking about an amenity that

might be adjacent to a construction site, it's certainly

not appropriate to have people going to or through that

area for safety purposes.

Now, there is a different perspective that

when it is a larger community serving an amenity that

might be a trail or something like that that may be a

way.

So, we did not include that as part of this.

We believed that discretion should be utilized on that

case-by-case basis and allow the determining body to

appropriate whatever is the appropriate way for us to

handle that.

32 1

So, it could be through a phasing project or

insuring that the trailhead is secured before first

occupancy is given.

And just because everything does have such a

unique circumstance, we thought we would leave that

leeway to the deciding body.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks, Andrea.

9 10

Okay.

Commissioner Mooney, I know you had a couple of questions.

Do you want to jump in or...

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Yeah.

I've got some

questions, but I don't want to get in the weeds so...

But I'll open up one.

CHAIRMAN SCHAFER:

This is the time to do it.

COMMISSIONER MOONEY:

Tree canopies.

So, on

153 -- so just as a reference on our new code -- the use

standards for -- this is a question, I guess, for anyone

in Staff.

Use standards for duplex, triplex, 4-plex; a

lot of testimony about floor area ratios not there

anymore.

for the City.

And I'm trying to understand what that means

If we remove the FAR and minimum open space

seems to be reduced in some areas, from what the

testimony -- we heard a bit of it -- then do we lose

33 1

tree canopy or what's the risk?

What's the City's thoughts on that?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Chairman Schafer

and Commissioner Mooney.

5 6

Sure.

So, a couple of things I think that the -- the recommendation around the floor area ratio. So, one point of clarification around that is

that, as you probably know, for a single-family home,

single-family detached dwelling, there is no requirement

for lot coverage or floor area ratio.

One of the goals with examining our design

standards was, again, making that clarification between

sort of single-family dwellings and multiple-family

dwellings.

standards somewhat closer in alignment and so that's

part of the thinking behind that.

17 18

So, bringing those single family and duplex

In terms of the tree canopy, I mean, we heard a lot of great testimony on this.

One of the things that is to be considered is

the clarification in our code and the strengthening of

language around really requiring those detached

sidewalks with an 8-foot landscape strip for street

trees so that when an application is coming in or a

project is coming in, we're giving trees along the

sidewalk and we're giving Class 3 trees, wherever

34 1

possible.

not dependent on the site developing or redeveloping in

the future, but it's kind of permanently in place as

part of that canopy.

Excuse me.