Modern Zoning Code - Exhibit L - Public Comments Through March 22 by City of Boise

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 5:36 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Joshua Aaron Email rafkind@pacificu.edu Address 3303 N Tamarack Boise Idaho 83703 Comment With the severely restricted access the public will have to zoning policies and decisions once this upzone is enacted it is morally correct to take our input into account before the process is completed. Please please please, I have lived in Boise my whole life. Don’t change this beautiful city into an urban density nightmare. Stick to the Boise Blueprint that so many people invested so much time into. Push growth into our beautiful bordering rural communities and grow Idaho as a whole not just our population centers. Idaho has always done things a little different and a little better. This proposed upzone takes us the way of Phoenix, Los Angeles and other uninhabitable urban decaying cities. The Zoning Code Rewrite will eliminate Boise's power to negotiate with developers on a site‐specific basis. Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require 'Development Agreements' (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open‐ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site‐specific information and concerns from local residents. This is not a benefit that streamlines the process this is a loss of the public’s ability to contribute to their sense of place and their neighborhood. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:58 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Michael Aberg Email PilotAberg@gmail.com Address 1516 S Biggs St Comment Something else I would like to add is that we should consider increasing density limits along the Boise Pathways Plan. This would allow for that increase in traffic to be absorbed by some of the walking and biking paths. Focusing the increase in density around car‐centric metrics like arterials and connectors will only lead to a conflict with parking requirements and the increase in traffic. Not to mention the known negative health impacts of car exhaust, microplastics from tire wear and break dust, and constant noise exposure. We should not condemn any high density projects to life next to such a negative physical and mental health impact. One thing I am concerned about is that if the Zoning Code Rewrite does not take place, Boise will eventually suffer the fate of becoming an unaffordable resort or retirement town like McCall or Boulder. There is no way to control the number of people who move to Boise; but we can control whether or not we have the housing supply to support them without pricing out families who have been here for generations. If we do nothing, Boise's meteoric property value increase can only be expected to continue. Though the prices of the early 2010's are long gone, the Zoning Code Rewrite will hopefully slow down that increase by allowing us to build more homes, more densely. All of that said, I figured I would take a moment to talk about what makes Boise special to me, and how the Zoning Code Rewrite preserves those ideals. Boise has a unique commitment to open space and parks, a fortunate proximity to world class nature and outdoor recreation, and a wonderfully diverse and welcoming culture. What does not make Boise special to me is a commitment to single family houses, a commodity which can be found almost anywhere else in the United States, or excluding future residents because they weren't fortunate enough to get here at the right time. Thanks for your time and allowing me to be a part of this process, Michael Aberg If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 2:01 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Michael Aberg Email PilotAberg@gmail.com Address 1516 S Biggs St Comment The Zoning Code Rewrite is a sorely needed update to Boise's zoning code. Though it's not perfect, it's definitely better than what currently exists. Allowing for more mixed use developments like the beloved Stil / Push & Pour / Wyld Child at Latah and Alpine would be wonderful. By giving every neighborhood the chance to have a mixed use area within walking distance, hopefully we can reduce some traffic throughout the city (or at least vehicle miles driven!). Increasing density within neighborhoods is a welcome addition to the zoning code. Attaching affordability and environmental restrictions on increasing density runs the risk of discouraging denser development, but it at least ensures that any changes to a neighborhood will come with community benefits. One way to improve this would be to ensure that any remodeling of a current lot that increases the size of a single family home would also come with those environmental restrictions. Splitting lots ensures that new varieties of housing can be built, such as the "missing middle" that allowed my parents to begin earning equity in their homes by starting with a condominium, moving up to a townhouse, then into a single family home. This also allows future generations to not be trapped by the desires of the past. Not everyone wants a large lot with lots of yard maintenance these days. Something else I would like to add is that we should consider increasing density limits along the Boise Pathways Plan. This would allow for that increase in traffic to be absorbed by some of the walking and biking paths. Focusing the increase in density around car‐centric metrics like arterials and connectors will only lead to a conflict with parking requirements and the increase in traffic. Not to mention the known negative health impacts of car exhaust, microplastics from tire wear and break dust, and constant noise exposure. We should not condemn any high density projects to life next to such a negative physical and mental health impact. One thing I am concerned about is that if the Zoning Code Rewrite does not take place, Boise will eventually suffer the fate of becoming an unaffordable resort or retirement town like McCall or Boulder. There is no way to control the number of people who move to Boise; but we can control whether or not we have the housing supply to support them without pricing out families who have been here for generations. If we do nothing, Boise's meteoric property value increase can only be expected to continue. Though the prices of the early 2010's are long gone, the Zoning Code Rewrite will hopefully slow down that increase by allowing us to build more homes, more densely. All of that said, I figured I would take a moment to talk about what makes Boise special to me, and how the 1

Zoning Code Rewrite preserves those ideals. Boise has a unique commitment to open space and parks, a fortunate proximity to world class nature and outdoor recreation, and a wonderfully diverse and welcoming culture. What does not make Boise special to me is a commitment to single family houses, a commodity which can be found almost anywhere else in the United States, or excluding future residents because they weren't fortunate enough to get here at the right time. Thanks for your time and allowing me to be a part of this process, Michael Aberg If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

randialbrechtsen <randi.albrechtsen@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:58 AM CityCouncil; Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning rewrite

March 22, 2023 Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 pageZoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. 1

Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Randi Beth Albrechtsen 1209 E Washington St. Boise, ID 83712

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 4:36 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Danielle and Richard Alexander Email dani.rich.alex@gmail.com Address 3810 N Mountain View Drive Comment We live in a nice quiet, friendly neighborhood that has very little traffic. We do not want it to be rezoned to allow apartments or businesses. We have seen the increased traffic apartments bring to an area and believe that it they would severely affect our way of life and property value. Please do not rezone this area of Boise. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Ellen Anderson <mizeanderz@gmail.com> Friday, March 17, 2023 8:58 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite Ellen Anderson; BARAK ANDERSON (SPOUSE) [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

I am deeply disappointed in the way the city and P&Z is handling this matter. There is NOT transparency and fairness to our citizens when this short window of time is utilized to manipulate the system so that our community has less than adequate time to understand and respond. I then wonder what "powers that be" are at work here. Previously, I believed that I lived in a city where most city leaders were respectful of its members. Previously, I believed that there was a greater degree of fairness and transparency. How can the city kowtow to those who have the deepest pockets to work matters to their greatest advantage? Where is your skepticism about those who have the most to gain, financially, about such changes? THIS IS WRONG for our city and I do not believe that those who are manipulating this zoning code, are unaware of the implications. Our city does not want this type of development where foresight and understanding of what has happened in other cities is ignored. Please stop the rapidity of this process and listen to what the citizenry chooses, NOT what big money and development dictates. Sincerely, Ellen Anderson resident and small business owner

Bloom Montessori / 208 697-1234 1307 N 18th St. Boise Idaho 83702 located on indigenous land

bloommontessori.wordpress.com

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Sue Armstrong <suearm123@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:08 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

March 22, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboi se.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by today, March 22 – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

Sincerely,

Sue Armstrong 42 S Mesa Vista Dr Boise, ID 83705 208‐871‐1272 1

Sent from my iPad

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Mary Ann Arnold Email makdarnold@aol.com Address Boise, ID 83703 Comment Our thoughtful and informed preservation of local history is an imperative for our future generations. I support giving sufficient time for the review and understanding by the public of the proposed zoning changes. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 5:14 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Matt Arriaga Email marriaga77@outlook.com Address Boise, ID 83705 Comment This re‐zoning is approaching insanity. The vast majority of Boisean's do not approve of it and we have not been heard. What ever happened to the City of Trees? Are "green" projects composed mostly of concrete like a huge apartment complex? What happened to harm no neighborhood or resident? How does all this rezoning help the average Boise resident? Or is it really for the developers who are dumping money into campaigns? Or more tax money? Follow the money and we will find our answers. Please STAND up and do what's right for the residents of Boise and do not have your legacy be turning Boise into a concrete jungle. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:01 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Janet Aubuchon Email janetaubuchon1@gmail.com Address 832 E Pennsylvania Drive Boise ID 83706 Comment As a Boise resident I am extremely opposed the proposed Boise upzoning/code rewrite. This change to current zoning regulations will greatly and permanently damage the integrity, consistency and livability of Boise neighborhoods. The only beneficiaries to this looming disaster will be developers, who will be allowed to rampage unbridled in their pursuit of profit throughout our city with no meaningful controls. I cannot understand why the mayor and current city council would inflict this potential travesty upon the current residents of our existing neighborhoods. Apparently our mayor and council want to radically increase density to gain more federal dollars for her purposes, clearly not to improve the livability of Boise neighborhoods. This new code is not in the best interest of the current citizens of Boise and the residents of its diverse neighborhoods. If changes are to occur in density, it ought to take place in new, planned neighborhood developments not to existing neighborhoods. Negative impacts of the proposed zoning code: 1. Allows intrusive and incompatible uses such as apartments, boarding houses, retail sales, bars, cafes, and bed and breakfasts in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Eliminates requirements and opportunities for public hearings. 2. Increased demand from investors and developers will drive up property and home values, raising taxes and further challenging home affordability. 3. New code will encourage demolishing existing homes with taller, bigger, denser construction with less required parking. Trees and private open space will be lost. 4. By making higher density housing an allowed use by right, the code shuts out neighbors from the proceedings and from being meaningfully heard, circumvents the normal planning and zoning process, and reverses the city's decades‐long commitment to its neighborhoods. 5. My neighborhood was recently able to drive a crime‐ridden wide‐open crack house from our area through use and enforcement of Boise's existing zoning codes. With this new code we would not have that tool available to us to improve the safety and livability of our neighborhood. We would still have the crack house and the mayor would have her "density" goals. This is unacceptable. 6. Infrastructure such as schools, fire, police would become overburdened and require higher taxes from all of us to subsidize the demand. 1

I reject this code as it is currently proposed. The mayor has tried to ram it through. This new code is bad for Boise and all who love our city and wish to continue to have a peaceful and quality lifestyle. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 11:27 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Bailey Email baileycp0530@aol.com Address Boise, ID 83704 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:00 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Kathleen Barrett Email kathleenbarrett26@gmail.com Address 324 mobley drive Comment The Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Bill Basham <wfb711@earthlink.net> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:28 AM ZoningRewrite Holli Woodings [External] ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

TO: Members of the Boise City Council

RE: Boise zoning code rewrite as presented

1.) Needs to be acted upon only after the November election wherein the Council will be more representative of the citizenry at large, as opposed to one somewhat heavily weighted by mayoral appointees.

2.) Probable effects of reducing privacy and sunlight to existing properties (40+ foot allowable building heights)

3.) Will result in a significant increase in the use of on-street parking, which is a major problem in older neighborhood areas with somewhat narrower street systems.

4.) Removable of the requirement for ADUs to be allowable only with owner occupancy of the property is a highly undesirable circumstance, resulting in increased commercial rentals, which does not bode well for neighborhood continuity and stability.

Respectfully submitted, William Basham 2701 N. 26th St. Boise, Idaho, 83702

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 3:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Judy Batten Email judybatten5@yahoo.com Address 5623 S HOLLYHOCK PL Comment As a Boise resident I vehemently oppose the proposed Boise upzoning/code rewrite. This change to current zoning regulations will greatly and permanently damage the integrity, consistency and livability of Boise neighborhoods. The only beneficiaries to this disaster will be developers, who will be allowed to rampage unbridled in their pursuit of profit throughout our city with no meaningful controls. I cannot understand why the mayor and her city council would inflict this monster upon the residents of our city. She evidently wants to radically increase density to gain more federal dollars for her purposes, clearly not to improve the livability of Boise neighborhoods. This new code is not in the best interest of the citizens of Boise and the residents of its diverse neighborhoods. Negative impacts of the proposed zoning code: 1. Allows intrusive and incompatible uses such as apartments, boarding houses, retail sales, bars, cafes, and bed and breakfasts in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Eliminates requirements and opportunities for public hearings. 2. Increased demand from investors and developers will drive up property and home values, raising taxes and further challenging home affordability. 3. New code will encourage demolishing existing homes with taller, bigger, denser construction with less required parking. Trees and private open space will be lost. 4. By making higher density housing an allowed use by right, the code shuts out neighbors from the proceedings and from being meaningfully heard, circumvents the normal planning and zoning process, and reverses the city's decades‐long commitment to its neighborhoods. 5. My neighborhood was recently able to drive a crime‐ridden wide‐open crack house from our area through use and enforcement of Boise's existing zoning codes. With this new code we would not have that tool available to us to improve the safety and livability of our neighborhood. We would still have the crack house and the mayor would have her "density" goals. This is unacceptable. 6. Infrastructure such as schools, fire, police would become overburdened and require higher taxes from all of us to subsidize the demand.

I reject this code as it is currently proposed. The mayor has tried to ram it through. This new code is bad for Boise and all who love our city. I am not a robot

DATE: March 21, 2023 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, REF: ZOA23-00001; CPA23-0001

zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org

I OPPOSE THE THE BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE BECAUSE:  The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input and neighborhoods have been left in the dark about its impacts. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite.  A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council.  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 (and paying unbelievable taxes for) were stable. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and safety hazards for children, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.  Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods.  Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses.  Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto streets, often already crowded. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street.  The new code favors some neighborhoods over others. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. The rewrite benefits developers and investors, is detrimental to homeowners and future homeowners, adds more buildings, cars, noise, and congestion to already crowded neighborhoods. High density apartments (that will never be owned, only rented) should be pursued downtown or in already existing zones, not shoved into old neighborhoods without the proper support for increased concentration. Removing homes that are single-family owned to install multi-units that are owned by absentee investors is a sure disaster for existing neighborhoods as proved in many cities nationwide that have fallen to this kind of profit-driven zoning. Property taxes are so high here we should be seeing something other than the destruction of our neighborhoods for the prices paid. Sincerely, Kristen Baumchen 224 N Hot Springs Dr. 83712

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:00 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Alan Baun Email thebauns@msn.com Address 211 N Louisa St., Boise, Idaho. 83712 Comment As a former Ada County P&Z Commissioner, I approve the modifications to the current Boise P&Z Code. Change is difficult for many…but it is as perennial as the seasons. Assuming that the changes have met with the approval of all pertinent utilities and agencies with respect to adequate capacities and manageable impacts…the changes proposed do address population expansion needs for the city. They also afford additional latitude for existing property owners to increase the utilization of their properties while having negligible impact on most property values. No legislation is ever perfect, but the Code Changes are a good start and will be monitored and modified as needed over time…to insure Smart Growth for Boise. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 9:19 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Kevin Bayhouse Email kevinbayhouse@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83705 Comment To Whom it may concern, there was once a time that I approved of these mixed use type of land use plans to diversify the cityscapes and make them more balanced. But...I no longer feel that the end goal is to balance anything. I feel that the end goal is to cram as many people into as tiny a space as possible and limit markets and force people into living a virtual reality. I feel that there is a push to transition life into a pod‐like sphere to achieve some kind of ultra efficient lifestyle. Many of the people promoting these ideals are NOT themselves leading by example. They are very wealthy and command great attention in the media sphere. They live like kings among the serfs. They celebrate the Green future of downsizing while they grow their abundant bank accounts. They are hollow. I cannot in good conscience condone UpZoning people into Stack‐n‐Packs and demolishing their modest single family homes. If you want people to "own nothing....rent everything....and be happy"....just show them what prison is. It seems like that if efficiency is what is being sought....that would be the ultimate acquisition of it. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:53 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Steven D Benner Email sdbenner1@gmail.com Address 2808 S. Colorado Ave. Comment I fully support the proposed Boise Zoning Code, and believe it will accomplish the goals that have been set out including: • Bringing about efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, diverse and inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices. • Promoting the use of environmentally friendly development practices, encourages energy conservation and the use of renewable resources • Protecting the character of residential, business, cultural and institutional areas as well as natural areas. • Achieving an integrated approach to land use and transportation that provides safe and efficient transportation system for pedestrians, bicycles, buses and cars and trucks. • Promoting high quality urban development and • Protecting Boise’s historic resources Strategies that I believe will be effective in achieving these goals include: • Tying density incentives with requirements for affordability and sustainable design. • Tying reduced parking and increased height allowances with requirements for affordability and sustainable design. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 10:37 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Paula D Benson Email paulainboise@gmail.com Address 1564 E LENZ LN Comment The city needs to SLOW DOWN the process for review and approval. The timeframe allowed for citizens to understand a 611‐page document of technical speak is not realistic in the least. You all wrote it and maybe you understand what it all means but citizens DO NOT. The code is full of items that can negatively impact neighborhoods by allowing density without notification to impacted neighbors; both residential and commercial. Why are you in such a rush? The upcoming election is not an excuse to push this rezone onto the public. There is no Cliff Notes version to help people know what they are going to have to live by for the next 40 or 50 years. This is not democratic, in spite of what you believe your outreach to have been, nor is it fair to impose this type of process onto us as your voting public. The city is on the wrong side of history with this effort. The federal government suggests at least 60 days to 180 days for a complex document like this. What is your excuse for this short timeframe? Do not send this to P&Z and then onto the City Council within this timeframe. Mayor McLean, this could be your "library". I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Betty Bermensolo <bsolo6@msn.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:45 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Rewrite

Boise Planning & Zoning, City Council, Thankyou for this opportunity to comment . I am concerned about 2 aspects of this zoning rewrite. 1) There appears to be an opportunity for much more developer concessions(eg. Leave mature trees, more open space , transitional densities etc) to balance the density bonuses that the city is offering. What can the developer provide to ease into changes, compromise, trade offs in transition that will benefit existing neighbors. How can the city ensure that development pays for growth ? 2) Critical infrastructure certainty is not comprehensively and independently addressed . Do we have the water to allow the growth that is being requested with assurance that it will not deprive existing residents ? Please see that these elements are thoroughly addressed to ensure that all Boise newcomers are given the welcome they deserve. Betty Bermensolo SWACA Board

Sent from my iPhone

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 7:50 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name John Bertram Email jbertramstudio@gmail.com Address 83705 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 12:14 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Theodore and Kathy Blank Email tadblank@hotmail.com Address 2224 S Tawny Woods Place, Boise, Idaho 83706 Comment 1. The public review of the proposed new zoning code ordinance (NZCO) is inadequate and consideration of the NZCO should be withdrawn from the approval process until the citizens have much more time to understand it, evaluate its impact and approve or disapprove of it through a referendum or election cycle. Despite what the mayor implies we and our neighbors were completely unaware of this process and that lack of transparence is a common refrain among the Boise citizenry we have spoken with. 2. The objective of the NZCO enunciated by the mayor's office, ie to help the children and parents of Boise residents that can't find housing, is unsupported by any study that we know of and in any event is a subjective goal that is not necessarily embraced by the majority of citizens. Without a referendum or election cycle it is unknown whether the subjective desires of the mayor and Boise citizens align. 3. Even if the mayor is correct that under current zoning it is difficult for the children and parents of current residents to find housing, the implementation of a NZCO that benefits a group that currently is NOT EVEN A BOSIE HOMEOWNER over those of us that HAVE LIVED HERE YEARS, CONTRIBUTED WITH OUR TAXES, OUR TIME, and NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS is a terrible misdirection in support in favor of future homeowner over current homeowners that have made Boise the desirable place others wish to live. 4. Those citizens of Boise who have expended countless tax dollars and personal finances and time in improving their properties and neighborhoods did so with the objective reasonable expectation that those investments would be protected in the future in a similar way that they had been protected in the past. There is no justification in undoing those expectations based on a preference for potential future homeowners who have made no contribution to the city. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:44 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Derek Blomquist Email DerekBlomquist@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83702 Comment Please do not approve these Zoning code rewrites as they will damage important aspects of our daily life. Removing the owner occupancy for ADUs, why would you do that? Increasing their size too? This doesn't create affordable housing, it creates greedy out of state real estate investors to drive rents up. It decreases affordability by allowing development of new homes in historic districts taking away everything that is great about living here. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Andrea Tuning Monday, March 20, 2023 11:42 AM ZoningRewrite FW: Contact Form Submitted to PDS

From: PDS <PDS@cityofboise.org> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:47 AM To: Andrea Tuning <ATuning@cityofboise.org> Subject: FW: Contact Form Submitted to PDS

From: noreply@cityofboise.org <noreply@cityofboise.org> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 9:52 AM To: PDS <PDS@cityofboise.org> Subject: Contact Form Submitted to PDS

To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. City of Boise

CREATING A CITY FOR EVERYONE

CONTACT FORM SUBMITTED TO PDS From Joy Boswell Idoluvintage@gmail.com Phone Number: 7609545354 I am opposed to upzoning in Boise. If you favor upzoning, you should view this. It shows some of the reasons it is not well thought out. If you live in the historic district, you won't be affected by upzoning‐‐you are protected. But the loss of the tree canopy elsewhere is a real concern. The false promise of affordable housing is an even bigger concern. Take a look at what has happened with upzoning in Seattle. https://youtu.be/jEJ8tfplZcs

Contact Form Submitted On: https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/planning‐and‐development‐services/

To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. City of Boise Logo

208-608-7000 info@cityofboise.org 150 North Capitol Boulevard, Boise, ID 83702

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 7:06 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Joe Boswell Email jboswell2x@gmail.com Address 119 N 18TH STREET Boise 83702 Comment Please accept my comments as opposed to the upcoming rezone/upzone experiment in Boise. It concerns me that the negative aspects of density in a neighborhood will only affect the economically challenged areas of Boise–not the most affluent neighborhoods. Economic racism I believe is the term used for this type of zoning. If it’s good for Boise it should apply to all of Boise. It also concerns me that many on the council and mayor's office all live in an area that will feel no effect from this rezone. A rezone effort when all of Boise is represented would be fair. I also realize that one concept of density is getting citizens out of cars and on bikes or walking. But when I see mostly abandoned bus stops and bike lanes it gives me no confidence that car use will be reduced. I see the future of Boise as a town of density with no appetite for transportation other than by car. We will have density and congestion and no rational plan for how to manage it. Thank you! Joe Boswell I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name LEA BOWMAN Email leakbowman@gmail.com Address 2714 N TAMARACK DRIVE BOISE ID 83703 Comment Please think of Boise's values and its natural environment and reject this overwhelming plan to radically alter our city and change the very fabric of this place we love... obviously just to make a select few rich. It's sickening!! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:14 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Richard Bowman Jr Email rwbowmanjr@gmail.com Address 1900 North 28th Street Comment Both my wife Nancy Bowman and I do not support the rezone. Way too much density, only benefits developers. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:50 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jerry Brady Email jbrady2389@gmail.com Address 2042 E. Trolley Ct. Comment I support the new zoning proposals. My views were expressed in an op‐ed in the Statesman a few weeks back. I am unable to upload that file here but the gist of my arguments is that Boise must add housing at an accelerating rate, over 1,000 a year, primarily for those below or at AMI and must do so primarily along bus routes. That is the gist of the plan as I understand it. I also support expansion of housing in clusters around existing community or commercial centers. An example are the houses being built west of new coffee shop on 27th. The gist of the Don't Upzone Boise campaign plays on a fear that "my" neighborhood will change. For nearly everyone with an established, full‐lot, newer or historic home this is not true or likely. I saw two along Warm Springs this morning. Nothing is going to change! This is fundamentally about homes for 'working people," meaning civil servants, teachers, construction workers and those making an average wage. Driving them into Kuna, for example, is unnecessary, wasteful and a loss for Boise. It's a good plan, let's get it done. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Brian Email aiko810@msn.com Address 2204 W. Ona St Comment I think it is in poor taste that the city of Boise would allow a zoning rewrite that would allow greedy developers to build multi dwelling units next to residential single family homes in already developed neighborhoods. This is an attack on Boise residents who have lived in these neighborhoods and are already dealing with traffic, utility, parking, infrastructure and school issues. The City of Boise is looking to create a place where the only owners of property in these neighborhoods will be landlords and property development firms. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name SUE Email uhighsue@aol.com Address 83706 Comment March 21, 2023 I have several concerns about the Planning and Zoning proposal for Boise. I attended two Planning and Zoning Meetings. At the meeting at Les Bois JH in the library, the mayor approached me and asked if this was my first time at a meeting and asked me why I was there. When I said that I was not happy with some of the things going on (in a conversation voice) she just left. She did not ask my concerns. At that same meeting I asked about why so much building was going on. I mentioned if we did not build so many buildings that our population would not grow so quickly. Some gentleman from the audience yelled out “Well that is a very unpopular position.” I did not participate any more at the meeting. I thought they were input meetings not just go and agree with what is being done or proposed. I have not talked with anyone that wants Boise to grow as fast as it is now. There are many reasons to slow down growth. I then attended a second meeting with a friend as I was too intimated to go alone. At this meeting I mentioned water shortages and was told by the chairperson that if we grew in the city we did not have a problem with water as it did not use as much as growing in the foothills or desert??? I don’t understand this at all? Everyone needs water. I wonder why there are only 22 days and not 30 to express our thoughts? Why is Boise trying to be very dense? I think most people here want space so that is why they are here. We are becoming more dense than big cities like New York City. I was born in New York so know how dense that city was and is now. I have seen what was allowed to be built at Bannock and 15th. What a terrible addition to a beautiful older neighborhood. I wonder how the people on that street feel? Were they ignored if they did not like that tall building that did not fit in with the neighborhood? Another one is at Targee and Vista. How can these be approved in old neighborhoods that have always looked nice before? Parking is always a problem. With the new restrictions proposed on parking I can see the neighborhoods inundated with cars. If the apartments do not have enough parking for all the people who live there then they have no choice but to park on the streets wherever they find room. This is very unacceptable. I know the mayor wants everyone to use public transportation but it is not very usable in Boise. Not everyone wants to ride a bike to go where they need to go either. Not having enough parking causes worse air quality while people drive around trying to find parking places!! Residents should have a choice to have a car or not. 1

I hope this is taken seriously this time. Our quality of life has gone down hill in the last 3 years! I do not believe it did me any good to go to the Planning and Zoning meetings except to tell me what I should want and like. I would really like some answers. I have not heard one person that agrees with what the Planning and Zoning Commission is doing. Sue Brooks 3553 S Constitution Way Boise, ID 83706 If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:00 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Janet Burke Email janetburke117@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83706 Comment As a Boisean, I reject this Zoning Rewrite. You have not presented this information to the public in full transparency and further more this sort of reconstruction should be put on the ballot for "The People of Boise" to vote on. This is an extensive over reach for a City Council Panel. I request to seize and hold this "New Zoning Code" until you give the public further input. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

James Carpentier <James.Carpentier@signs.org> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 2:09 PM ZoningRewrite Timothy Keane; David Hickey; pking@nwsigncouncil.org; Rob@nwsigncouncil.org [External] Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Section 11-04-012 Signs, and existing sign regulations ISA-NWSC comments Bosie ID Draft Sign Code 3.22.23.pdf; Content Neutral Sign Codes report FINAL R.pdf; Street Graphics and the Law 5' monument sign copy height.pdf; EMC Resource - ISA 2014 Analysis of FHWA Study of CEVMS.pdf; Texas A & M Traffic Safety & EMCs.pdf; EMC Resource Recommended Night -Time Brightness Levels Revised 8-16.pdf

Boise Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Section 11‐04‐012 Signs, and existing sign regulations Dear Chairperson Schafer: I am contacting you on behalf of the Northwest Sign Council (NWSC) and the International Sign Association (ISA). Both organizations work with jurisdictions throughout the Northwest to assist in the creation of beneficial and enforceable sign regulations. We have several recommendations and cited references attached to this email, pertaining to your Zoning Code Rewrite (Section 11‐04‐012 Signs), as well as existing sign regulations, for your consideration. Most of these comments and recommendations focus on electronic message displays (EMD) and the important issue of content‐neutral sign regulations. Please forward this email and attached documents to the Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor McLean and City Council. We appreciate your consideration of these recommendations. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or for more information. Thanks James Carpentier, AICP Director, State & Local Government Affairs International Sign Association 480.773.3756 / james.carpentier@signs.org Signs.org / SignExpo.org

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

Sign Research Foundation 2022 Analysis Mark White, White & Smith, LLC

Photo by Joe Ravi CC-BY-SA 3.0

Published November 2022

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

WHAT ARE CONTENT-BASED REGULATIONS

WHAT LEGAL TEST APPLIES TO CONTENT-BASED

WHAT ARE CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES?

TIPS TO COMPLY WITH REED

REGULATING SPECIFIC SIGN TYPES

TEMPORARY, INCIDENTAL AND YARD SIGNS

POLITICAL SIGNS

SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS

HUMAN SIGNS/SIGN WALKERS

COMMERCIAL SIGNS

ARTWORK AND MURALS

ON- VS. OFF-PREMISE SIGNS

PUBLIC FORUM

REED’S TOP 10 TAKEAWAYS

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

Local governments throughout the United States regulate signs to promote aesthetics and traffic safety. These sign codes typically address the location, dimensions and physical design of signs. Sign regulations often classify signs based on what they say – i.e., their messages. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its seminal First Amendment decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert that, for all practical purposes, rendered message categories unconstitutional. The Reed decision opens a number of grey areas in drafting sign regulations that lower courts have attempted to sort out. One questionable area was resolved nearly seven years after Reed to address the issue of on- versus off-premise signs, in City of Austin vs. Reagan National Advertising. This article summarizes the state of the law, sorts through the practical issues in complying with content-neutrality, and offers pointers for local governments considering a sign code update.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

What are Content-Based Regulations? To comply with Reed, sign regulations should be “content-neutral” – in other words, agnostic about the sign’s message or who is expressing it. While content-neutrality is deceptively simple on its face, it raises practical issues in defining and implementing sign codes.

Content-Neutral Sign Regulation: When a sign is regulated without regard to the message or the speaker. Content-neutral sign codes regulate signs by their temporal (i.e., whether a sign is temporary or permanent), locational (for example, whether a sign is freestanding or attached, or is in a commercial or residential zoning district), or physical (for example, whether a sign is digital or static) characteristics. While the First Amendment has permitting and language precision implications for sign codes, the Reed decision deals with the issue of message control. Reed holds that “content-based” regulations are subject to “strict scrutiny” in the courts. A “content-based” regulation controls the topic of communication, and in some instances the speaker. For, example, in Reed the Town of Gilbert, Arizona established a sign category known as a “Temporary Directional Signs Relating to a Qualifying Event,” which were signs directing the public to a nonprofit group meeting (such as a church service at a school).

THE TEMPORARY DIRECTIONAL SIGN THAT STARTED IT ALL! When Pastor Clyde Reed wanted people to know where services for his Good News Community Church were located, he was relegated to using these kinds of small temporary directional signs to get the word out. The small church in Gilbert, Arizona, often rented different spaces in temporary locations, making visible and effective signage critical in directing the community. But the Town of Gilbert severely restricted the size, location, number and duration that temporary directional signs could be, especially compared to other signs with political and ideological messages. For example, political signs could be up to 32 square feet and displayed for up to 5 months, but Pastor Reed’s signs could only be up to 6 square feet and out for just 12 hours before the services, and taken down after 1 hour afterwards. Image Source: AZCentral.com (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/gilbert/2015/01/12/ gilbert-church-signs-supreme-court-arguments/21636837/)

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

A temporary directional sign was limited to 6 square feet in area, could stay up 12 hours before and one 1 hour after an event, and only 4 temporary directional signs were allowed on public or private property. By contrast, other temporary sign categories such as “political signs” – defined as temporary signs designed to influence the public elections – were allowed 16 square feet in residential and 32 square feet in commercial districts, could stay up 60 days before a primary and 15 after a general election. The only difference between temporary directional signs and political signs is the kind of message they display.

Homeowners Association 80 sq. ft. Political Sign 32 sq. ft.

Ideological Sign 20 sq. ft. Good News’ Church Invitation Sign 6 sq. ft.

Display Time Before

Event

UNLIMITED

Ideological Sign

4 1/2 MONTHS

Election

30 DAYS

HOA Event

16 HOURS

Real Estate Sale

12 HOURS

Religious Event

Display Time After UNLIMITED 15 DAYS 48 HOURS 36 HOURS 1 HOUR

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN Therefore, the regulations are content-based, i.e., they turn on the sign’s content (message), as opposed to its physical characteristics (such as whether it not it is erected on a freestanding pole or attached to a building). This is the case even if the regulations do not discriminate among viewpoints; simply controlling the type of message renders a regulation content-based even when it does not favor some viewpoints over others. A sign regulation is content-based if the message displayed on a sign has a regulatory impact. Generally, if the zoning administrator has to read the sign to determine what regulations apply, the regulation is likely contentbased – with the exception of the on-premise/off-premise distinction, as per Austin. Even if the regulation restricts or favors a category of speech for a benign reason (such as to allow churches to guide congregants to services in temporary locations), the regulation is still considered content-based. An innocuous justification cannot transform a content-based law into one that is content-neutral. In addition, the Reed decision intimated that content-neutral regulations that target or favor speakers is content-based if it impacts the message.

What Legal Test Applies to Content-Based Regulations? Content-based regulations are subject to “strict scrutiny” in the courts. This means several things: First, the regulation must serve a compelling government interest. A compelling interest is one that exceeds the substantial or legitimate interests supporting a conventional zoning regulation (such as a protecting property rights), and few interests are deemed compelling. Courts have held that aesthetics and traffic safety – the traditional interests that support sign regulations – are not sufficiently “compelling” to support content-based regulations. See Clark v. City of Williamsburg, 388 F.Supp. 1346 (D. Kan., 2019), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 2629, 209 L.Ed.2d 754 (2021) (citing Quinly v. City of Prairie Village, 446 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1243-44 (D. Kan. 2006); Outdoor Sys., Inc. v. City of Merriam, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1269 (D. Kan. 1999); Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250, 1268 (11th Cir. 2005). Second, the regulation must be narrowly tailored to that interest. If other sign categories burden those interests more but are less restricted because of what they say, the restriction is not narrowly tailored. For example, in Reed, the Town limited the number and size of temporary directional signs to control clutter, but political signs were unlimited in number and had significantly larger sign allowances. Therefore, political signs were allowed to intrude on the Town’s aesthetic interests to a greater extent than temporary directional signs based only on what they said. This was not narrowly tailored to the Town’s aesthetic interests. Finally, the regulation is presumed unconstitutional, and the local government has the burden to prove that it meets the first two tests.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN Therefore, content-based regulations, or facially-content-neutral regulations justified in relation to content, rarely survive a constitutional challenge when subject to strict scrutiny. As noted in Reed, few sign codes are free of content-based provisions under the Court’s content-neutrality standard, both for temporary signs and permanent signs. Every local jurisdiction that regulates signs in their community should review their ordinance and revise it in light of Reed, if necessary.

What are Content-Neutral Sign Codes? Content-neutral sign codes regulate signs by their temporal (i.e., whether a sign is temporary or permanent), locational (for example, whether a sign is freestanding or attached, or is in a commercial or residential zoning district), or physical (for example, whether a sign is digital or static) characteristics. In other words, a sign code that regulates only the “time, place, and manner” of signs is considered content-neutral. Content-neutral regulations are subject to intermediate, rather than strict, scrutiny. Courts also apply intermediate scrutiny to regulations that affect only commercial speech.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN Intermediate scrutiny requires that a sign regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest and leave ample alternative avenues of communication. Some lower courts have found that aesthetics and traffic safety are not “compelling” interests under the strict scrutiny standard. However, aesthetics and traffic safety typically meet the “substantial government interest” standard and courts are more deferential in assessing whether those regulations are tailored sufficiently to meet their stated objectives than they are when strict scrutiny applies.

Both the majority and concurring opinions in Reed summarized the types of regulations that are considered content-neutral. Content-Neutral Regulations Include:

1 3 5

MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE

MATERIALS

LIGHTING

MOVING PARTS

BANNING OR REGULATING SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISTINGUISHING FREESTANDING AND ATTACHED SIGNS

REGULATING SIGNS DIFFERENTLY BY ZONING DISTRICT

TIME RESTRICTIONS ON ADVERTISING A ONE-TIME EVENT

PORTABILITY

LOCATIONS

DISTINGUISHING FIXED VERSUS CHANGEABLE ELECTRONIC SIGNS

TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED PER FRONTAGE OR AREA

GOVERNMENTAL SIGNS

Keep in mind that the regulatory matters listed here are content-neutral only if they are not triggered by the sign’s message or user (a possible exception is government signs, which remains a grey area). For example, setting a maximum footcandle brightness for digital signs is, on its face, content-neutral. However, allowing digital signs only for gas prices or churches could be content-based.

Notably, the concurring opinion in Reed stated that regulating off-premise signs differently from on premise signs, a traditional element of local and state billboard regulation, is content-neutral. However, this did not preclude billboard operators from litigating against on-premise/off-premise distinctions in cities and states across the country over the next several years. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that issue (see discussion of OffPremise Sign Regulations, below).

Tips to Comply with Reed To comply with the principles announced in Reed, a sign code should establish three (3) broad sign categories based on their physical characteristics. These typically include freestanding signs, attached signs, and incidental signs.

Three Sign Categories Based on Physical Characteristics

FREESTANDING SIGNS

ATTACHED SIGNS

INCIDENTAL SIGNS

Signs that are not attached to any other structure, ie. pole signs and monument signs.

Signs that are attached to a building or structure, ie. wall signs, window signs and murals.

Smaller signs that are physically subordinate to the principal freestanding or attached signs on the site, ie. directional signs, historic markers, temporary signs. (The sign code can break temporary signs into a separate category).

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN To ensure that a sign code is content-neutral, a community should begin by removing all references to the content of sign types, or sign messages that trigger permitting or related sign regulations. For example, a community could replace project identification sign categories with regulations for a single monument or pole sign for properties in a commercial zoning district. This replaces a message trigger (i.e., whether the sign identifies the site) with the physical parameters of the monument or pole sign. A possible exception is sign categories that directly relate to public safety issues. The majority opinion in Reed stated that “[a] sign ordinance narrowly tailored to the challenges of protecting the safety of pedestrians, drivers, and passengers--such as warning signs marking hazards on private property, signs directing traffic, or street numbers associated with private houses-well might survive strict scrutiny.” By contrast, all provisions in a sign code that refer to number, area, structure, location and lighting of signs are content-neutral and unaffected by Reed if those categories do not relate to what the sign says. However, keep in mind that other First Amendment requirements apply. For example, a content-neutral regulation that inadvertently chokes off too much speech (see discussion of yard signs below), or that gives a zoning administrator unlimited discretion to deny or condition a sign permit, can intrude on First Amendment rights even if the regulations are facially neutral. Therefore, even if the regulations are content-neutral, a community should make sure that sign allowances are not overbroad and consider how sign permits are processed.

Sign codes should also include severability and substitution clauses.

A severability clause is common to most zoning and land development codes and simply provides that if any part of the code is invalidated in court, the rest of the code remains valid. This is important because there are many grey areas in sign regulations, and both the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts are still fleshing out the parameters of contentneutrality. A substitution clause simply allows a sign to substitute a noncommercial message on any sign that permits a commercial or another noncommercial message. For a truly content-neutral code, this may seem superfluous. However, this simply clarifies that a sign code regulates only the physical characteristics of the sign and not its message.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

Regulating Specific Sign Types While Reed’s principles are deceptively simple, there are unsettled issues in its application to specific sign types. These range from traditional temporary placards (such as political yard signs) to lighted projections on buildings. This section explores how the lower courts have treated various, common sign categories and how to address them in your sign codes.

Temporary, Incidental and Yard Signs Temporary signs are difficult to codify as they are traditionally identified by their message or function. For example, real estate signs relate to the sale of property, and political signs relate to an election. However, a community can regulate the time, place and manner of temporary signs if they are not called out by their message. For example, a sign code can regulate signs based on temporary materials (such as cloth, canvas, vinyl, cardboard, wallboard, or other temporary materials), or temporary types such as feather signs. In addition, the sign code can fold temporary signs into an overall allocation of incidental signs for a site, remaining agnostic about how those signs are used.

For temporary signs, the community should consider a flat time allocation, rather than one tied to specific events. For example, a city amended its sign code after Reed to cap the number of temporary signs on any property, with an allocation of 5 additional signs 45 days before and 14 days after an election. This allocation did not restrict the message of the additional signs. In an unreported federal district court opinion, the court ruled that this was impermissibly user-based even though it did not regulate the additional sign’s message (www.ricardopacheco.com et al. v. City of Baldwin Park, No. 16-CV-09167-CAS, 2017 WL 2962772 (C.D. CA. July 10, 2017)). The court suggested that the community could, for example, allow additional signs for a limited number of times per year not tied to specific events. “For example, the City could authorize five additional signs of up to 12 square feet for 60 days one time per year at the time of the speaker’s choosing.”

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN Instead of defining signs by message or function, the sign code should establish overall allocations for incidental or temporary signs. How those signs are used - whether to sell the property, advertise their favorite political candidate, or to express an opinion - is up to the property owner. For example, the City of Indianapolis established a set of standards for “noncommercial opinion signs.” After that was found to violate content-neutrality principles, the city replaced that with an overall allocation for yard signs. This was found consistent with content-neutrality requirements (Geft Outdoor LLC v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis (S.D. Ind. 2016)). As is mentioned above, however, the overall allocation of yard signs must allow a sufficient amount of speech even if it is content-neutral. Several federal court decisions have invalidated sign codes allowing only one or two yard signs as restricting too much speech, even when those restrictions are content-neutral (Willson v. City of Bel-Nor (E.D. Mo. 2020); Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County (4th Cir. 1993)). To avoid administrative and enforcement issues with having to identify whether a sign as “temporary” and enforcing time limits, communities can also fold temporary signs into an overall sign number allocation for incidental signs. If the community believes regulation of temporary signs is needed, it can require stickers that identify when the sign was placed to document compliance with any time restrictions. A common issue with sign regulations written before Reed is regulations that limit flags to those with government or institutional symbols. This is content-based (Willson v. City of Bel-Nor (E.D. Mo. 2020)), and any definition of flags should include only their physical description with no limitation to government or other symbols.

Political Signs Political signs fall into two major categories, including traditional handheld political message signs (picketing, panhandling, “save the turtles”) and campaign election signs. Sign codes are traditionally limited to the latter. Political signs are not only a content-based category, but political speech enjoys the highest level of protection in First Amendment case law. Therefore, sign regulation should never target political signs, but rather fold them into incidental and temporary sign allowances. For yard signs, it is advisable to allow additional incidental or temporary signs for a given number of days per year to allow for occasions (such as elections, holidays, or similar times) where additional signs are needed to accommodate speech.

1 The City later amended its sign regulations to a content-neutral allocation of the number and area of temporary signs, which was upheld on appeal. Baldwin Park Free Speech Coal. v. City of Baldwin Park, No. 20-55244 (9th Cir. 2021).

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN An emerging issue is state preemption of state preemption of political sign regulations. Several states, such as Arizona and Kansas, limit how local governments can regulate political signs during election season. This preemption does not extend to signs that display other forms of speech. How should a local government comply with state law without itself engaging in unconstitutional discrimination between types of speech? At least one federal court case has ruled that the exemption of government signs or signs exempt from state regulation is not content-based (Signs for Jesus v. Town of Pembroke (D.N.H. 2017)). Because local governments typically cannot supersede state law, that type of exemption is not itself content-based but rather a recognition that the local government is powerless to supersede state law. In the context of panhandling, a federal district court found that a local regulation that did not incorporate a content-based exemption for solicitations by municipal employees such as firefighters was not content-based even where the city announced an intention to enforce the regulations consistent with state law (Watkins v. City of Arlington (N.D. Tex. 2015)).

Special Event Signs Some sign codes include special regulations or allowances for signs at special events. If those regulations do not require the signs to advertise the special event or something occurring there, it is arguably content-neutral. However, it is unclear whether that would constitute a user preference. Under the current state of the law, it is likely not to constitute a user preference if a special event itself does not restrict expressive conduct. In Act Now to Stop War & End Racism Coal. v. Dist. of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2017), the court upheld a regulation allowing signs posted a public lamppost to remain for up to 180 days, but requiring signs for special events to be removed within 30 days. The court held the regulation was content-neutral because it only regulated where some speech may occur and did not distinguish between events by topic, and was narrowly tailored to the government’s interest in controlling clutter. Another court, however, found that an exemption for special and civic event signs (including grand openings) was content-based because one must assess the communicative content of the sign to determine whether the exemption applies (International Outdoor v. City of Troy (E.D. Mich. 2017)). More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (discussed below) distinguished regulations that regulated special event signs generally (which are content-neutral) and those that regulate specific kinds of special events (which are content-based).

Human Signs/Sign Walkers Some sign codes attempt to regulate signs carried by persons, i.e., the stereotypical costumed Statue of Liberty advertising a tax preparer. Regulating hand-held signs or costumes does not necessarily trigger content concerns, but raises difficulties in distinguishing things like costumes that advertise (e.g., the omnipresent Statue of Liberty) from those that do not (for example, a Statue of Liberty costume designed to send a political message). This also raises difficulties in defining costuming and hand-held signs in a way that meets First Amendment tests for language precision. A pre-Reed decision invalidated sign walker regulations based on the Central Hudson test (Kitsap County v. Mattress Outlet (Wash. 2005)), and at least one state statute (Arizona) addresses sign walkers. Many post-Reed cases address panhandling, which does not directly involve a sign display but could involve the same principles of content-neutrality.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

Commercial Signs It remains unclear whether strict scrutiny applies to sign regulations that affect only commercial signs. Sign regulations cannot preference commercial over noncommercial speech (Metromedia v. City of San Diego (U.S. 1981)). For regulations that affect only commercial speech, courts have traditionally applied a test announced in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n (1980) that asks (1) whether the speech concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading, (2) whether the government’s interest is substantial, (3) whether the restriction directly and materially serves the asserted interest, and (4) whether the restriction is no more extensive than necessary. While this does not require a compelling interest, the local government has the burden of proof, and bans on speech that target truthful, non-misleading commercial messages are unlikely to survive intermediate scrutiny. As is discussed below in the context of murals and billboards, communities are finding that limits on commercial signs may not survive judicial review if they wander beyond the sign’s physical parameters.

Artwork and Murals Is artwork a sign? Can cities distinguish art and murals from commercial signs? Artwork (including murals) is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Several cases have ruled that sign codes that either exempt (Central Radio v. City of Norfolk (4th Cir. 2016)) or regulate (Kersten v. City of Mandan, 389 F.Supp.3d 640 (D. N.D. 2019)) works of art or murals that did not display commercial messages are content-based. Before Reed, courts applied intermediate scrutiny to the regulation of commercial speech based on whether the message conveyed is tied solely to economic benefit of the business and serves no purpose beyond the commercial motive. In Kersten, the court ruled that design guidelines that prohibit murals with commercial messages but allow other murals that are not commercial is content-based and subject to strict scrutiny. See also Complete Angler, LLC v. City of Clearwater (M.D. Fla. 2009)(bait and tackle shop displaying aquatic mural was non-commercial speech, and exemptions for noncommercial works of art and holiday decorations were content-based). In Morris v. City of New Orleans (E.D. La. 2019), the city defined murals separately from signs and prohibited commercial advertising on them.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

A community who wants to regulate murals can consider the following options: •

Remove restrictions that exempt or target artwork, along with limits on commercial advertising. The regulations could consider a restriction on text, if the message is not restricted (for example, limiting the text to the artists’ signature).

•

Consider mural subcategories based on their physical characteristics, such as a “wall sign” or “painted wall sign.” An issue with this approach is that murals often occupy entire building walls, which exceed typical wall sign limits.

•

Consider a review process for murals, such as an arts commission review, that examines the artistic quality of the mural. This approach should involve clear standards, time limits, and an express prohibition on considering the mural’s content.

Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court invalidated the mural regulations, finding that “there is nothing in the record to suggest that commercial messages in artwork are more unsightly than noncommercial messages in artwork.” There is also an emerging issue as to whether artistic embellishments are protected. This could involve signs that are embedded in a building’s architectural features, or regulating a sign’s design elements (such as materials). In Burns v. Town of Palm Beach (11th Cir. 2021), the court rejected a First Amendment challenge to in architectural review commissions denial of a building permit to replace a traditional beachfront mansion with a much larger midcentury modern house. Over a strong dissent, the court declined to decide that architecture is expressive conduct. This leaves open common design controls for signs, such as requiring masonry or materials compatible with the principal building style for monument signs. However, if courts were to apply intermediate or strict scrutiny to those types of regulations, local governments would need to examine the basis and regulatory efficacy of sign design controls.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

On- vs. Off-Premise Signs: Off-premise signs advertise products not located on the same premise as the sign, or direct people to off-premise locations. It is common for local sign regulations and state billboard regulations to distinguish on- from offpremise signs. The federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (23 U. S. C. § 131) conditions highway funding on outdoor sign regulation, while exempting on-premise signs (i.e., “signs … advertising the sale or lease of property upon which they are located” and “signs, displays, and devices . . . advertising activities conducted on the property on which they are located”). At least two-thirds of state highway beautification regulations and tens of thousands of local sign codes either ban off-premise signs, or subject them to spacing, permitting, and size requirements. Those regulations do not apply to signs that advertise or communicate a business or activity that occurs on the same premise.2 In Reed, a concurring opinion characterized this type of regulation as contentneutral. This is consistent with Supreme Court precedent upholding off-premise sign regulation (Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981)).

Both these signs are digital and advertise the same company, but communities are allowed to regulate them differently based on where they are located, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Austin v. Reagan (2022).

Many communities, such as in Austin, TX, prohibit these kinds of digital off-premise signs, or billboards.

Many communities, such as in Austin, TX, allow these kinds of digital on-premise signs, or electronic message centers (EMCs), in the parlance of the on-premises sign industry.

Image Source: Daktronics In response to concerns that off-premise classifications were content-based, after Reed several states revised their outdoor advertising statutes or regulations to replace the premises category with a category for signs that are erected for compensation. See Colorado Rev. Stat. § 43-1-403(1)( “Advertising devices” include signs “for which compensation is directly or indirectly paid or earned in exchange for its erection or existence by any person or entity”); Kentucky Rev. Stat. § 177.830(5)(“advertising device” means a sign “[o]perated or owned by a person or entity who is earning compensation directly or indirectly from a third party or parties for the placement of a message on the device”); Tennessee Code Ann. § 54-21-102(18)(“[o]utdoor advertising device” is “a sign that is operated or owned by a person or entity that is earning compensation directly or indirectly from a third party or parties for the placement of a message on the sign”). A federal district court found the Colorado legislation content-neutral in StreetMediaGroup, LLC v. Stockinger, No. No. 1:20-cv-03602-RBJ (D. Colo. 2021), because the state transportation department “need not be aware of a sign’s content to determine whether compensation was received for its erection.”

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN The United State Supreme Court recently confirmed that off-premise sign regulations subject to intermediate, not strict, scrutiny. In City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising, 142 S.Ct. 1464 (U.S. 2022), the court considered a sign code that prohibited the digitization of off-premise signs. Plaintiffs claimed that off-premise sign categories are content-based because persons (especially regulators) have to read the signs to determine whether the message related to things occurring on-or-off the site. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that the distinction relates to the location of signs and is not inherently directed at the sign’s message. Essentially, the court held that the need to read the sign is directed to its location rather than its message. Therefore, off-premise sign regulations that do not preference commercial over non-commercial speech are subject to intermediate rather than strict scrutiny. While off-premise sign regulations are not presumed unconstitutional, they remain subject to First Amendment challenge. In drafting off-premise sign restrictions, local governments should consider the following:

1 2 3 4 3

Reed’s “Need to Read” Test Does Not Apply to Off-Premise Sign Regulations. Austin reasons that conventional off-premise sign categories require “examination of speech only in service of drawing neutral, location-based lines” rather than controlling the sign’s communicative content. However, central to its holding is that the off-premise category did not trigger a specific or substantive category of speech, such as political messages, ideological messages, or directional messages concerning specific events (Austin, at 8). Therefore, off-premise sign categories that regulate specific types of off-premise messages or users could implicate higher scrutiny and jeopardize the regulations in court (see paragraphs 3 and 5, below) because they affect the sign’s topic, idea or message. Billboards versus Off-Premise Signs. While many billboards are off-premise signs, the two concepts are distinct. A billboard is a physical category – typically, a large, freestanding panel sign. By comparison, an off-premise sign can occur in any configuration – including a billboard, a wall sign, or on digital copy. Communities can choose to regulate billboards as physical entities regardless of their message, removing the need to justify distinctions between off-premise commercial messages under intermediate scrutiny. For example, a sign code could define a “billboard” as a panel-type sign mounted on posts or steel frames (see, for example, Westminster, Colorado Sign Code § 11-11-16(D)), or as a freestanding smaller than typical bulletin specifications (672 square feet in area or 14 feet in height). Off-Premise Distinctions that Regulate Non-Commercial Messages May Trigger Strict Scrutiny. The Austin opinion assumed that the sign regulations at issue regulated only commercial speech. Because non-commercial speech receives a higher degree of protection under the First Amendment, regulations that implicate non-commercial messages (such as political campaign or religious messages) will trigger strict scrutiny. However, regulations that affect any offpremise message – whether or not those messages are commercial in nature – will trigger only intermediate scrutiny. Limiting Off-Premise Regulations to Commercial Messages is Subject to Intermediate Scrutiny. Both the majority opinion and dissent in Austin recognized that regulations targeting only commercial speech (i.e., advertising or directing customers to a business) are subject to intermediate, not strict, scrutiny (Austin at 10 [majority opinion], Thomas, dissenting, at 2, note 1).

Austin’s sign regulations, as described in the majority opinion, did not exempt noncommercial speech. Austin at 5, note 3.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

Off-Premise Regulations that Regulate Commercial Messages Differently may Fail Intermediate Scrutiny. It is one thing to regulate off-premise advertisements, and another to carve out special treatment for specific businesses. For example, some sign regulations have special permissions for off-premise real estate signs, hospital, or farms. Car dealerships, hospitals, bookstores, or other businesses do not qualify for those exemptions. What government interest justifies not allowing a car dealership to display a sign at an off-premise location while allow that permission for a homebuilder? Why would a general regulation or allowance for off-premise signs – coupled with size, spacing and design restrictions – not promote those interests as effectively? A local government with those categories would need to show how those distinctions are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.

Facially Content-Neutral Off-Premise Sign Regulations Trigger Strict Scrutiny if they have an Impermissible Purpose or Justification. The majority opinion in Austin stated that an impermissible purpose could sink a content-neutral off-premise sign regulation, but gave no examples. One example could include, for example, a regulation that allows for billboards only during election season – where the regulation allows for any form of off-site message, but is designed to favor a particular form of speech (see www.ricardopacheco.com, supra).

In drafting off-premise sign regulations, the most conservative approach legally is to regulate only commercial speech (which triggers only intermediate scrutiny), and at least to ensure that the regulations do not explicitly or implicitly favor commercial over non-commercial speech. In addition, regulating only the billboard structure with no off-premise sign restriction is a viable approach legally, but also potentially exposes more locations to off-premise advertising. However, the Austin decision clarifies that none of these approaches (without more) will trigger strict scrutiny.

Image Source: Watchfire

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

Public Forum Local governments retain wider discretion over the display of their own signs and those on their own property than they do for private signs on private property. However, free speech protections apply when the government opens public property to private expression. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of signs in the public forum. In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, No. 20–1800 (U.S., May 2, 2022), the City routinely allowed the display of flags on a flagpole at City Hall with no guidelines or control over who could display them or their content. The City denied the display of a religious flag based on concerns that it would violate the Establishment Clause by endorsing a set of religious beliefs. The City’s lack of involvement in selecting flags for display at that location meant that the display was private (not public) speech. Therefore, denying permission to display the flag amounted to viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Local governments should exercise clear control over signs in public spaces where only government speech is allowed, and adopt content-neutral rules for permitted private displays (other than exempt government signs, such as traffic directional signs) in the public forum.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

Reed’s Top 10 Takeaways The Reed decision changed the way communities and courts look at sign regulations, and its impact is still being felt (and litigated) across the nation. Local jurisdictions applying the contentneutrality principles of Reed to their sign code should consider the following:

While the facts in Reed involve temporary signs, content-neutrality is not limited to temporary signs. The First Amendment protections at issue in Reed apply to any form of communicative content - whether the sign is a cardboard election sign in a yard, a large monument sign at the entry to a shopping center, or a mural subject to design review.

If a regulation affects the topic or message conveyed, the regulation is content-based and likely subject to strict scrutiny. This applies whether the regulation appears in a sign code, a zoning ordinance, design guidelines, or some other regulation.

A sign code should identify all signs (permanent or temporary) by their structure or design (such as the sign’s materials, configuration, and presentation – i.e., whether or not it has changeable or digital copy, lighting, and similar visual features), rather than what they say.

Communities do not usually run into trouble simply because they regulate a sign’s dimensional standards or design features. Instead, sign codes trigger strict scrutiny when they create either: (1) exemptions for preferred categories of speech, or (2) target categories of speech for regulation through their sign code.

Communities who want to specifically regulate temporary signs can continue to do so, but should base their regulations on the signs structure type (such as feather signs, windblown signs, or cardboard placards mounted on a metal frame) and uniform event triggers (such as 5 to 10 temporary signs along a frontage for up to 30 days four times a year).

Traditionally, courts have given more deference regulation of commercial content through intermediate scrutiny. However, some lower courts have started to apply strict scrutiny to commercial content categories and it is fair to say that the state of the law is unclear.

Reed does not require signs to be bigger, cluttered, brighter, or otherwise an obstacle to a community’s aesthetic or traffic safety objectives. It simply advises communities to focus carefully on the physical characteristics of signs that they truly need to regulate, and to avoid interfering with a sign’s message.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN

To control clutter and driver distraction, sign codes can use allocation-based systems that allow persons and property owners to allocate messages as they see fit within the parameters established by the sign code’s dimensional standards.

There are other First Amendment requirements and constitutional issues to consider, such as overbreadth, vagueness, and how long it takes to issue a sign permit. Those are beyond the purview of this article but remain important considerations.

Distinctions between on- and off-premise signs are sufficient under Austin, if they do not involve other content-based categories (for example, allowing off-premise signs for some messages but not others).

Communities applying these content-neutral principles can develop and implement sign codes that promote community character, traffic safety, and economic development.

About the Author: Mark White is a senior partner with White & Smith, LLC – a multi-disciplinary law firm based in Kansas City and Charleston that specializes in zoning and sign code updates. White & Smith, LLC has led or participated in over 150 zoning and sign code updates in 36 states. Mr. White is a nationally-recognized expert on planning and law presents frequently on sign law and regulations at planning and law conferences, and has spearheaded numerous zoning and sign code updates. Mr. White has over forty publications appearing in books, law journals, and planning literature.

IS YOUR COMMUNITY EXPLORING SIGN CODE CHANGES? CONTACT

signhelp@signs.org FOR COMPLIMENTARY ANSWERS

PUBLISHED BY:

WWW.SIGNRESEARCH.ORG © Sign Research Foundation

Summary of FHWA Study Digital Sign Safety 28 January 2014

On 27 December 2013, the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released the results of a multiyear research study of driver visual behavior in the presence of digital billboards (CEVMS; “changeable electronic variable message signs” is the preferred FHWA term). This research had been long anticipated, but had been delayed for several years as the report’s release has been contested. Updates from FHWA and USDOT staff at key conferences (TRB, NAHBA, AASHTO R-O-W) have mentioned discussions on the language in the cover memo and an objection raised in the peer review of the raw data. In any event, the study (based on data collected in September 2009 -April 2010) has been released and the authors’ conclusions are consistent with the favorable outcome expected by members of the on-premise sign and outdoor advertising industries. Key Conclusions “The results of the study are consistent with research and theory on the control of gaze behavior in natural environments. The demands of the driving task tend to affect the driver’s self-regulation of gaze behavior.” (emphasis added; pg i) The study attempted to address three research questions:

(1) DO CEVMS ATTRACT DRIVERS’ ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE FORWARD ROADWAY AND OTHER DRIVING RELEVANT STIMULI? “On average, the drivers in this study devoted between 73 and 85 percent of their visual attention to the road ahead for both CEVMS and standard billboards. This range is consistent with earlier field research studies. In the present study, the presence of CEVMS did not appear to be related to a decrease in looking toward the road ahead.” (emphasis added; pg 2)

(2) DO GLANCES TO CEVMS OCCUR THAT WOULD SUGGEST A DECREASE IN SAFETY? “The results did not provide evidence indicating that CEVMS, as deployed and tested in the two selected cities, were associated with unacceptably long glances away from the road. When dwell times longer than the currently accepted threshold of 2,000 ms occurred, the road ahead was still in the driver’s field of view. This was the case for both CEVMS and standard billboards.” (emphasis added; pg 2)

(3) DO DRIVERS LOOK AT CEVMS MORE THAN STANDARD BILLBOARDS? “When a gaze was to an off-premise advertising sign, the drivers were generally more likely to gaze at a CEVMS than at a standard billboard.” (pg 3)

Overall: The present data suggest that the drivers in this study directed the majority of their visual attention to areas of the roadway that were relevant to the task at hand (e.g., the driving task). Furthermore, it is possible, and likely, that in the time that the drivers looked away from the forward roadway, they may have elected to glance at other objects in the surrounding environment (in the absence of billboards) that were not relevant to the driving task. When billboards were present, the drivers in this study sometimes looked at them, but not such that overall attention to the forward roadway decreased. (pg. 4) Details about the Study Itself The need for further study of CEVMS was highlighted in a 2007 FHWA memorandum (that declared digital billboards operating with a message change rate of 4-10 seconds did not violate earlier prohibitions against “flashing”). In 2009, FHWA conducted a literature review (FHWAHRT-09-018) to examine the overall body of research on the subject of safety effects of digital billboards. Following that literature review, this larger study began.

Small Green Dot = Tracked Eye Movement

The researchers (employees of SAIC) conducted field studies in Reading, PA and Richmond, VA. Using a specially equipped test vehicle, drivers followed two specified routes (1 freeway; 1 arterial roads). Each route took 25-35 minutes to drive and was 13-20 miles long. In Reading, 43 drivers ages 18-64 (median age 46-47) were recruited to participate, though only 31 produced useable data (14 night; 17 day). In Richmond, 41 drivers ages 18-64 (median ages 2528) were recruited to participate, though only 24 produced useable data (14 day; 10 night). The participants were not told the purpose of the drive; at the end, they were debriefed with questions about the presence of an in-car navigation system giving audible directions. Key Numbers from the Study  Drivers devote 73-85% of visual attention to the roadway  Average “fixation” duration to digital billboards were 379ms (335 for standard), “similar to the average fixation duration to the road ahead”  Longest fixation to a digital billboard was 1,335ms (1,284ms for standard), well below widely accepted threshold of 2,000ms resulting in higher crash risk.  Four (of 55) individuals had billboard dwell (aggregate of consecutive fixations on same object) times in excess of 2,000ms, but three were to standard billboards, and all were positioned close to forward view (drivers still could see road in peripheral vision).

RESEARCH

Night-time Brightness Level Recommendations for On-Premise Electronic Message Centers Updated August 2016

PRODUCED BY:

[Blank inside front cover]

ISA RESEARCH

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SIX STEPS: EMC BRIGHTNESS LEVELS WITH OPERATIONAL CONTROL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 WITHOUT OPERATIONAL CONTROL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

LEARN MORE ABOUT EMCS The International Sign Association offers an Electronic Message Center (EMC) Resource Center, with resources on: • EMCs and traffic safety • A framework for developing EMC sign code language • The differences between EMCs and digital billboards www.signs.org/local

ADDITIONAL SIGN CODE RESOURCES The International Sign Association has developed numerous tools to help communities develop better sign codes. All are housed at www.signs.org/local, including: • • • •

The Supreme Court ruling, Reed v. Town of Gilbert Model sign codes Best practices in regulating temporary and wayfinding signs The Economic Impact of On-Premise Signs

ISA’s advocacy team is available to provide complimentary assistance on sign codes and sign-related issues. Contact SignHelp@signs.org or 703.836.4012.

ISA RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTERS (EMCs) Electronic message centers, or EMCs, continue to grow in popularity for business and community use. You may have heard EMCs being referred to as changeable message displays or digital signs. EMCs are not digital billboards, which advertise a good or service that is located away from the sign. Rather, EMCs are digital signs that are located on the premises, and that advertise goods and services that are available at the location.

Electronic Message Center (EMC)/on-premise sign advertising a bank that is located on the same premises as the sign

Digital billboard/off-premise sign advertising an automobile business in another location

There is often confusion regarding on- and off-premise digital signs. However, EMCs and digital billboards have very distinct capabilities and purposes, each targets a specific audience and each has traditionally been treated under separate legal and regulatory regimes, a zoning practice which was noted in the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. the Town of Gilbert. For the purposes of this publication, we are focusing solely and exclusively on EMCs. EMCs that are too bright at night can be offensive and ineffective. Night-time EMC brightness is an issue where sign users, the sign industry, and local offices have a common goal: ensuring that EMCs are appropriately legible. We know the messages that these signs convey can be rendered unattractive and perhaps even unreadable if they are programmed too bright. That’s why many sign companies recommend to their customers that in order for these signs to be most effective, their brightness be set at such a level to be visible, readable and conspicuous.

2 © International Sign Association

ISA RESEARCH

The International Sign Association (ISA) retained noted lighting expert Dr. Ian Lewin of Lighting Sciences to help the industry develop scientificallyresearched, understandable recommendations for EMC brightness. Dr. Lewin was a past chair of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES), and was greatly respected within the lighting field. His work for ISA was conducted with the input of experts within the sign industry. As a result of his research, Dr. Lewin recommended two different brightness settings based on whether the EMC was located in an area of high or low ambient light. After ﬁeld testing and utilizing Dr. Lewin’s recommendations, it was determined that using the more conservative recommendation is appropriate in areas of both low and high ambient light. In order to simplify Dr. Lewin’s recommendations, and to take a more reasonable approach to ensure that EMCs are sufﬁciently visible but not overly bright, it is recommended that EMCs not exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient lighting conditions when measured at the recommended distance, based on the EMC size. The research and the recommendations contained in this report pertain only to EMCs, not traditionally internally illuminated signs, such as these channel letter and neon signs below. EMCs use a different lighting technology than most of these types of signs, and as such the scientific approach differs. Community leaders should understand that, while it is recommended that brightness measurements be taken perpendicular to the sign, sign viewers rarely see the sign at that same perpendicular approach. At any viewing point away from or off the forward angle, the apparent brightness will be reduced. In other words, the measurements will capture the recommended brightness levels, but, unless viewers are looking at the sign directly perpendicular, they will not perceive the brightness at the full level. We have provided recommended statutory language and tips to measure brightness with and without control of the EMC. If you need further assistance, feel free to contact ISA, signhelp@signs.org or at (703) 836-4012 to answer any of your EMC questions.

FOOTCANDLES VS. NITS: WHICH MEASUREMENT IS BETTER? This document recommends communities adopt illumination measurements in footcandles as compared to nits. Here are a few reasons why more than 200 localities and many state departments of transportation have adopted the footcandle measurement for EMCs: FOOTCANDLES NITS Measures illuminance Measures luminance Accounts for ambient light conditions Measures only the amount of brightness emitted Luxmeter measuring device $100 Luminance spectrometer (nit gun) - $1,000 “Twilight” measurement possible Does not allow adjustment based on ambient light Measures light impact and appearance Does not measure appearance Works with roadway lighting standards Difficult to measure accurately Easier to check and enforce Difficult to enforce * While the main advantage of using nits as compared to footcandles is that daytime measurement is possible, EMC brightness is typically more of an issue at night. © International Sign Association 3

ISA RESEARCH

CASE STUDY: Columbus, Ohio COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPECIFIC EMC ISSUE. . . . .

Columbus, Ohio 836,000 As Ohio’s largest city and state capitol, Columbus is the country’s 15th largest city. Crafting a reasonable, enforceable code that addresses complaints while preserving the ability for businesses to use what it termed automatic changeable copy signs.

As automatic changing copy signs—as Columbus refers to EMCs—grew in use, so did community complaints. By 2011, city planners began to edit the graphics codes to limit special effects. The goal was to continue to allow for a variety of commercial graphics, “but not at the expense of neighborhoods,” said Lisa Russell, the city’s Planner II who facilitated the code development project. The city had in place certain limits on automatic changing copy signs, aka EMCs, in the graphics code, limiting their use to commercial and manufacturing zoning districts and requiring that only half of the sign could be used for the changeable copy. But signs lacked brightness limits and a hold time. Russell led a team to draft the new code, which incorporated a brightness limit for both on-premise and off-premise signs. The testing method also is included in the code. It was the result of much scientific discussion. “I believe that the best answer is revealed if you have enough information,” Russell said. The committee included a community group leader who was an architect specializing in lighting and representatives from the sign and graphics industry. “When we started exploring brightness, it appeared the footcandle method was the way to go,” Russell said. “However, some group members wanted us to explore the luminance method. ISA believed so strongly that the luminance method was problematic that they brought a demonstration to us.” The demonstration included a field trip to visit a sign to show the impact of the two measurement methods. “They wanted to make sure that we didn’t go down the wrong path. They rented a lift and showed us that with the luminance method you’d have to get up in the lift, raise it and shine the nit gun at the sign. With the footcandle meter, you can stand on the ground.” Russell helped the group to see that the “members of the professional sign and graphics industry are not the same as end-users of signs, such as an owner of a carryout who wants to draw attention to his shop over others. We all had an interest in developing reasonable regulations instead of just banning these signs. We also did not want to take away the rights that businesses had to display electronic signs.” The new code has significantly lessened complaints about sign brightness. And when a complaint is received, the code enforcement officers have a verifiable process for determining whether the sign complies with the code.

4 © International Sign Association

ISA RESEARCH

CASE STUDY: Kitsap County, Washington COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPECIFIC EMC ISSUE. . . . .

Kitsap County, Washington 260,000 Across the Puget Sound from Seattle and bordered by rural communities on the west. It is the third most densely populated county in the state. Existing codes did not cover electronic signs.

As a “transition” county between rural Washington and the metropolitan city of Seattle, Kitsap County had the challenges of creating regulations for electronic signs that fit the county’s dual personalities. “The first step was to identify where these signs would be allowed,” said Darren Gurnee, a planner with the county. “We wanted to make sure these were restricted to areas of increased density and primarily non-residential use such as industrial zones and commercial zones within the urban growth area.” Previously, the county had allowed electronic signs “as a matter of interpretation,” Gurnee said. Crafting more defined electronic sign regulations would provide a measure of stability—and help business owners know what was allowed and where. An added bonus: Gurnee felt the signs would be more attractive than the block letters signs that had to be changed manually. While the county wanted to make it easier for businesses to convert existing static monument signs into electronic signs, it also wanted to ensure that the regulations were not written in a way that would allow billboards to convert. “We were able to craft our regulations in a way that required signs be brought into conformance before any change could be made,” Gurnee said. “Billboards were non-conforming, so that would not be an issue.” ISA provided Gurnee with industry standards—contained in this publication—and some background on the technology that today’s electronic signs offer, such as automatic dimming. It also incorporated some of the recommended language on animation, hold times and transitions. “The regulation is written in a way that it would be easy to enforce,” Gurnee said, and easy to understand, without the ambiguities contained in the previous method. The ending code created a perfect fit for both of the community’s personalities.

ISA RESEARCH

CASE STUDY: SPARKS, NEVADA COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPECIFIC EMC ISSUE. . . . .

Sparks, Nevada 93,500 A rapidly growing community, Sparks is located near Lake Tahoe, California, and Reno, Nevada, and is Nevada’s fifth largest city. Existing regulations were difficult to enforce and outdated.

Sparks, Nevada had existing regulations of electronic message centers—or electronic variable signs as the community deemed them. But “it wasn’t very explicit,” said senior planner Karen Melby. “The brightness standards were in lumens, which we didn’t even know how to measure.” The regulations were outdated as well—having been drafted in 2002. Technology had changed dramatically and the costs of EMCs had dropped, putting them in the range of more businesses’ budgets. “We felt we could see more coming and felt that we needed to get a handle on it.” As a first step, planners required that those seeking an EMC permit meet their standards before approval was granted, but nothing was written into the code. That method can create problems. So Melby led the city through the code revision process. She sought out industry expertise from both the planning community and the sign and graphics industry. For industry insight, she turned to ISA. ISA provided feedback on how other communities were regulating electronic message centers, and recommendations on what was working for these communities. One outside group felt strongly that the standards should be regulated in nits, not footcandles. They brought in an expert who opposed the proposed regulations. But Melby held strong on the issue of footcandles. “In my research, it seems like footcandle is what you can see with your eyes while a nit is pinpointing a spot on a sign. When you look at a sign, you’re looking at the whole thing, not just one small spot.” The city adopted the widely recognized standard of 0.3 footcandles above ambient light, using the distance measurements outlined in this publication. Melby took that table, determined the formula and wrote the formula into the code. The community allows smaller signs—those under 32 square feet—to include scrolling, while those larger do not. The result has been a city that has successfully navigated the balance between business interests and community aesthetics. “We’ve had very few complaints,” Melby said. “When we do get a complaint about a sign being too bright, we go out and measure it. When they bring it down to standards, we don’t get complaints.” Being able to use a simple light meter to measure brightness is far easier than simply guessing whether the sign is in compliance, Melby said. “The other method (measuring nits) was really based on opinion. What may seem bright to me may not seem bright to you. Now, we can say, ‘This is what the meter says.’” By having clear standards that are easier to enforce, both community and business win.

6 © International Sign Association

ISA RESEARCH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISA ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER NIGHT-TIME BRIGHTNESS RECOMMENDATIONS This summary has been developed with an understanding that EMCs that are unreasonably bright are not effective for the communities or end users. This intends to help communities and stakeholders develop brightness standards for on-premise EMCs. The summary comprises: 1) An overview of the importance of ensuring appropriate brightness, 2) Technology utilized to ensure appropriate brightness, and 3) Recommended brightness standards 1. Overview of the importance of ensuring appropriate night-time brightness. EMCs that are too bright at night can be offensive and ineffective. There are significant advantages to ensuring than an electronic display is not overly bright. These advantages include:

» Conservation of energy » Increased life expectancy of the electronic display components » Building goodwill with the community » Ensuring the legibility of the display It is in the best interest of all stakeholders to ensure that EMCs are sufficiently bright to ensure clear legibility, while at the same time avoiding a display that is overly bright.

3. Recommended night-time brightness standards. Dr. Lewin recommended the development of brightness criteria based on the Illuminating Engineering Society’s (IES) well-established standards pertaining to light trespass, IES Publication TM-11-00. The theory of light trespass is based on the concept of determining the amount of light that can spill over (or “trespass”) into an adjacent area without being offensive. In order to simplify Dr. Lewin’s recommendations, and to take a more reasonable approach to ensure that EMCs are sufficiently visible but not overly bright, it is recommended that EMCs not exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient lighting conditions when measured at the recommended distance, based on the EMC size. Email signhelp@signs.org to receive Dr. Lewin’s original research.

2. Technology utilized to ensure appropriate brightness. Most EMCs are designed to produce sufficient brightness to ensure clear legibility during daylight hours. However, daytime brightness settings are usually inappropriate for night-time viewing. The following general methods are used to dim an EMC for appropriate night-time viewing: 1. Manual Dimming. Using this method, the sign operator dims the display in response to changing ambient light conditions. 2. Scheduled Dimming. Sunset-sunrise tables allow an EMC to be programmed to dim at the same time that the sun sets and rises. This method is generally acceptable, but is more effective when used as a backup to automatic dimming controls capability, such as photocell technology. 3. Photocell Technology. An EMC that utilizes photocell technology can automatically dim as light conditions change. A photocell sensor alerts the display to adjust brightness according to ambient light conditions.

...it is recommended that EMCs not exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient lighting conditions when measured at the recommended distance, based on the EMC size.

ISA RESEARCH

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE

“

Electronic Message Center (EMC) Criteria: The night-time illumination of an EMC shall conform with the criteria set forth in this section. A. EMC Illumination Measurement Criteria: The illuminance of an EMC shall be measured with an illuminance meter set to measure footcandles accurate to at least two decimals. Illuminance shall be measured with the EMC off, and again with the EMC displaying a white image for a full color-capable EMC, or a solid message for a single-color EMC. All measurements shall be taken as close as practical to a perpendicular plane of the sign at the distance determined by the total square footage of the EMC as set forth in the accompanying Sign Area of a Sign versus Measurement Distance table. B. EMC Illumination Limits: The difference between the off and solid-message measurements using the EMC Measurement Criteria shall not exceed 0.3 footcandles at night.

C. Dimming Capabilities: All permitted EMCs shall be equipped with a sensor or other device that automatically determines the ambient illumination and programmed to automatically dim according to ambient light conditions, or that can be adjusted to comply with the 0.3 footcandle measurements. D. Definition of EMC: A sign that utilizes computer-generated messages or some other electronic means of changing copy. These signs include displays using incandescent lamps, LEDs, LCDs or a flipper matrix.

”

SIGN AREA VERSUS MEASUREMENT DISTANCE AREA OF SIGN sq. ft.

MEASUREMENT (ft.)

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 220 240 260 280 300

32 39 45 50 55 59 63 67 71 74 77 81 84 87 89 92 95 97 100 105 110 114 118 122 126 130 134 138 141 148 155 161 167 173

* For signs with an area in square feet other than those specifically listed in the table (i.e., 12 sq ft, 400 sq ft, etc), the measurement distance may be calculated with the following formula: Measurement Distance = Area of Sign Sq. Ft. x 100

8 © International Sign Association

ISA RESEARCH

HOW TO MEASURE THE NIGHT-TIME BRIGHTNESS OF AN EMC WITH OPERATIONAL CONTROL (Note: This method can be completed by one individual, but requires operational control to shutoff the EMC)

STEP 1

STEP 3

OBTAIN AN ILLUMINANCE METER.

DETERMINE THE MEASUREMENT DISTANCE.

Purchase or otherwise procure an illuminance meter. Most city/county traffic departments have an illuminance meter, which are also referred to as lux or footcandle meters (lux is the metric measure of illuminance; footcandles is the English measure of illuminance). The illuminance meter must have the ability to provide a reading up to two decimal places and must be set to read footcandles. It is preferred to have an illuminance meter with a screw-mount that allows the sensor to be mounted on a tripod. A tripod ensures that the highly sensitive sensor is held perfectly still; otherwise it may be difficult to obtain an accurate reading.

Using the total square footage found in Step 2, look up the measurement distance in the table provided in the Recommended Legislative Language on page 8, to determine the distance to measure the brightness of the EMC. The distance should be measured perpendicular to the EMC sign face. The use of a measuring wheel, laser finder or a smartphone app are the most convenient ways to measure the distance.

STEP 2 DETERMINE SQUARE FOOTAGE. Determine the square footage of the face of the electronic message sign (EMC) by multiplying the height and width of the EMC. This information may be available in a permit application, or can be determined by physically measuring the height and width of the EMC. Do not include the sign face square footage attributable to any additional static signs associated with the EMC (if applicable).

ISA RESEARCH

STEP 4

STEP 6

PREPARE THE DISPLAY FOR TESTING.

ENSURE THAT THE DISPLAY CAN ADJUST TO DIFFERENT AMBIENT CONDITIONS.

Ensure that the EMC is programmed to alternate between a solid white (or in the case of a monochrome display – the solid color of the display) message and a blank message. The community may require that the sign owner cooperate with testing by programming the EMC for testing upon written notice.

Inspect the sign to ensure that it incorporates a photocell or other technology to ensure that the display can adjust according to ambient lighting conditions.

STEP 5 USE AN ILLUMINANCE METER TO MEASURE THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE EMC. Mount the sensor of your illuminance meter to a tripod and orient the sensor directly towards the face of the EMC at the measurement distance determined in Step 2. Ensure that the illuminance meter is set to measure footcandles up to two decimal places. As the display alternates between a solid white message and an “off” message, note the range of values on the illuminance meter. If the difference between the readings is less than 0.3 footcandles, then the brightness of the display is in compliance. If not, the display will need to be adjusted to a lower brightness level using the manufacturer’s recommended procedures.

As the display alternates between a solid white message and an “off” message, note the range of values on the illuminance meter. If the difference between the readings is less than 0.3 footcandles, then the brightness of the display is in compliance.

10 © International Sign Association

ISA RESEARCH

HOW TO MEASURE THE NIGHT-TIME BRIGHTNESS OF AN EMC—WITHOUT CONTROL OF THE SIGN (Note: This method requires two individuals, but does not require operational control of the EMC.)

There will be instances where the EMC illumination needs to be evaluated to ensure that it does not exceed the brightness levels established in the municipal sign ordinance. If the municipality is unable to obtain access to the sign controls or attempting to take the measurement after business hours, this method should be followed. Unlike the six-step process described previously, this process measures the difference in brightness between the sign in operation and when the sign is completely blocked from the illuminance meter. This procedure is extremely simple and requires only an illuminance meter and a piece of painted cardboard cut to the proper size.

STEP 1

STEP 4 POSITION THE TESTERS. Based on the size of the digital display, the person conducting the test should position themselves as close to directly in front of the digital display as practical, at the appropriate distance (calculated in Step 3). A helper should position themselves about 7 ft. to 10 ft. in front of the light meter and hold up an opaque, black sheet of material that is roughly 12 in. high by 40 in. wide. (Regular cardboard painted matte black works well for this.) The sheet should be positioned so it blocks all light from the EMC, but still allows the remaining ambient light to register on the illuminance meter.

OBTAIN AN ILLUMINANCE METER. (See previous Step 1)

STEP 2 DETERMINE SQUARE FOOTAGE. (See previous Step 2)

STEP 3

This helper should use a cardboard sheet to block the EMC light from the footcandle meter. This will establish the baseline footcandle reading.

DETERMINE THE MEASUREMENT DISTANCE. (See previous Step 3 or use (Area of Sign in Sq. Ft. x 100))

After the cardboard block is held in place, a reading should be taken for the ambient light.

Landscape Lights

House Lights

Commercial Lights Street Lights

Traffic Lights

In this example, various light sources are impacting the photocell measuringLandscape 2.3 Lights Traffic Lights footcandles of ambient light.

House Lights

Commercial Lights Street Lights

This is the baseline for the measurement. Write it down.

ISA RESEARCH Landscape Lights

House Lights

Commercial Lights Street Lights

Traffic Lights

STEP 5 USE AN ILLUMINANCE METER. The illuminance meter should be held at a height of about 5 ft. (which is approximately eye level) and aimed directly at the EMC. The illuminance meter will account for surrounding sources of light or the absence thereof.

In this case our ambient light reading was 2.3 fc. The new light reading with the LED displaying a full white frame cannot read above 2.6 fc or 2.3 (ambient) + 0.3 (threshold). If a full white frame cannot be arranged, watch the meter to see if any ad exceeds 2.6 fc.

At this point, readings should be taken from the illuminance meter to establish a baseline illumination level. (ISA recommends that the illuminance meter is capable of levels to 2 decimal places 0.00). Once the baseline level is established, add 0.3 footcandles to the baseline level to calculate the max brightness limit. (For example: Baseline reading is 3.15 footcandles. The max brightness level is 3.45 footcandles.)

STEP 6 DETERMINE THE BRIGHTNESS LEVEL. Remove the opaque sheet from blocking the EMC. Watch the footcandle meter for 3 to 5 minutes to see if the max brightness level is exceeded by any of the images on the sign. If the readings do not exceed the max brightness levels, then the EMC illumination is in compliance. If any of readings consistently exceed the max brightness level, the lighting level is not in compliance. In this scenario, the municipality will need to inform the sign owner of noncompliance and take appropriate steps to ensure that the EMC be adjusted to a lower brightness level using the manufacturer’s recommended procedures.

If any of readings consistently exceed the max brightness level, the lighting level is not in compliance. 12 © International Sign Association

[Blank inside back cover]

1001 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 301 Alexandria, VA 22314 703.836.4012 Ph 703.836.8353 Fax www.signs.org

March 22, 2023 Boise Planning & Zoning Commission 150 N. Capitol Blvd Boise, ID 83702 Re: Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Section 11-04-012 Signs, and existing sign regulations Sent via email 3/22/23 Dear Chairperson Schafer: I am contacting you on behalf of the Northwest Sign Council (NWSC) and the International Sign Association (ISA). Both organizations work with jurisdictions throughout the Northwest to assist in the creation of beneficial and enforceable sign regulations. We have several recommendations pertaining to your Zoning Code Rewrite (Section 11-04-012 Signs), as well as existing sign regulations, for your consideration. Most of these comments and recommendations focus on electronic message displays (EMD) and the important issue of content-neutral sign regulations. Our recommendations are in bold italics. 1. 11-04-012.4 A. (6) pg. 310 Prohibited Signs “Works of art containing no form of advertising.” We recommend avoiding content regulation that restricts works of art to no form of advertising. Some content neutral options are in the attached reference “Content-Neutral Sign Codes After Reed and Austin.” * 2. 11-04-012.4 A.B.(2) pg. “Non-illuminated signs temporarily erected during construction to inform the public of the nature of the project that comply with the following standards:” We recommend avoiding content regulation of this nature that indicates the type of information to be displayed on the sign. We recommend time, place, and manner restrictions such as sign height, area, and type with no reference to content. See attached reference “Content-Neutral Sign Codes After Reed and Austin.” 3. 11-04-012.4 (7) (5) pg. 315 Electronic Message Displays This section applies to on-premises and off-premises signs. We recommend that the on-premises and off-premises regulations be in discrete sections for ease of administration. 4. 11-04-012.4 (7) (5) (b) i pg 315 Electronic Message Displays, Standards “Only one EMD is permitted per establishment. For establishments located in

a center, only one EMD is permitted for the center.” We recommend allowing two on-premises EMDs for a corner parcel, the same standard that applies to static signs. This will accommodate users such as Walgreen's, CVS and others that typically utilize two EMDs adjacent to each entrance. 5. 11-04-012.4 (7) (5) (b) iv. Pg. 315 Electronic Message Display Standards “Each message or frame shall be displayed for a minimum of 20 seconds.” We recommend maintaining the existing standard for hold time which is 8 seconds. We are unaware of any reasons causing the City to increase the existing hold time. This change in the hold time will create a disadvantage for new businesses or entities that install an on-premises EMD since they will be required to have a hold time that is more than twice as long as the existing EMDs which will have nonconforming rights to maintain an 8-second hold time. An 8-second hold time is common as it has been adopted by Idaho DOT, Pocatello, and Idaho Falls (6-second hold time). This hold time has shown to be safe according to attached studies, “Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between OnPremise Digital Signage and Traffic Safety”** and the “Summary of the FHWA Digital Sign Safety Study.” The Texas A&M study states that “the results of this study provide scientifically based data that indicate that the installation of digital on-premises signs does not lead to a statistically significant increase in crashes on major roads.” 6. 11-04-012.4 (7) (5) (b) iv. Pg. 315 Electronic Message Display Standards “The brightness or intensity of the EMD shall be factory set not to exceed 5,000 nits on clear days and 500 nits from dawn to dusk. The EMD shall also not exceed 50 percent of its maximum brightness on clear days and 10 percent of maximum brightness from dawn to dusk. Each display shall have a light sensing meter that will adjust the display brightness as the ambient light changes.” We recommend that Boise adopt Dr. Ian Lewin’s EMC night-time brightness levels*** (attached) for on-premises EMDs, which utilize a footcandle approach. The existing brightness standards are conflicting since the 5,000 nits during the day and 500 nits at night will have a different brightness from the 50% during the day and 10% at night. Dr. Lewin’s EMC night-time brightness levels have been adopted by hundreds of states and jurisdictions throughout the country, including Idaho Falls and Pocatello. The current nits standards are outdated and inconsistent. Dr. Lewin’s EMC night-time brightness levels are about 35% less bright that the standards in Boise’s existing code. In addition, Dr. Lewin’s EMC night-time brightness levels are straightforward to enforce while the current standards are very difficult if not impracticable to enforce.

7. 11-04-012.4. 8. F. pg. 319 Alternative Sign Plan “Separate building pads within centers and parks are allowed one monument style sign with a maximum height of six feet and a maximum background sign area of 32 square feet, but shall not exceed the standards in Table 11-04.19.”

We recommend maintaining the existing standard in the code for separate building pads in a Master Sign Plan for monument signs of 8 ft in height rather than 6 ft. This recommendation is due to the diminished visibility of the sign due to other vehicles. As stated in the attached portion of the APA publication Sign Graphics and the Law,**** “If a sign is situated at or below five feet above grade, other vehicles may block the driver's view, and the sign copy will not be legible.” We appreciate your consideration of these recommendations. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or for more information. James B. Carpentier AICP Director State & Local Government Affairs

cc: Boise City Council Tim Keane, Director Planning & Development Services *White, Mark, Content Neutral Sign Codes After Reed and Austin, Sign Research Foundation, Alexandria VA, Nov. 2022. **Hawkins, Gene, Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between On-Premise Digital Signage and Traffic Safety, Sign Research Foundation, Alexandria VA., Dec. 2012. ***International Sign Association, Night-time Brightness Level Recommendations for On-Premise Electronic Message Centers, Alexandria VA., Aug. 2016 ****Mandelker, Daniel, John Baker, Richard Crawford, Street Graphics and the Law, American Planning Association, Sept. 1, 2015.

STREET GRAPHICS AND THE LAW PAS 580, CHAPTER 4

Table 4.5 and Figure 4.6 provide examples of the use of this sign area equation based on different travel speeds and viewer reaction times.

SIGN HEIGHT: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR VEHICLE-ORIENTED ENVIRONMENTS

Pennsylvania State University .

Typical Low-Mounted Ground Sign

,ylvania

Single-Lane View Blocking

For signs providing roadside information in primarily vehicular-oriented environments, the height above grade of the sign or sign copy has a pronounced effect on an approaching motorist's ability to detect and read the message displayed. As is documented in the research publication, Sign Visibility,

;ity ._

.! -

Effects of Traffic Characteristics and Mounting Height (2003),

the simple presence of other vehicles on the road (i.e., in front, in an adjacent travel lane, or in travel lanes in the opposite direction) can potentially prevent a driver from detecting a sign. If a sign is situated at or below five feet above grade, other vehicles may block the driver's view, and the sign copy will not be legible (Figure 4.7). The aforementioned study used analytical algorithms reflecting known patterns of traffic flow and volume, in conjunction with computer-generated simulation software. The research resulted in predictions of the percentage of times that other vehicles blocked the view of an approaching motorist , thus preventing the driver from detecting a lowmounted sign (five feet or less above grade). The percent of blockage was computed as a function of the traffic flow rate, the position of the subject motorist in the traffic stream, and the position and setback of the sign. Oversize vehicles (such as trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles) were not included in the calculations even though their normal presence in the vehicular mix would have, undoubtedly, increased the percentages noted in the study. The researchers analyzed eight traffic scenarios, based on a four-lane undivided highway and either 35 or 45 miles per hour as the speed of travel. These conditions were chosen to simulate the general characteristics of roadways traversing commercial zones throughout the United States. The signs (assumed to be 10 feet wide) were located at either 10 or 20 feet from the edge of the roadway and on either the right- or left-hand side of the road. The findings clearly establish a quantifiable loss of visibility across the full range of sign placement as traffic flow rates increase. The charts, A through H, document the findings for traffic flow rates ranging from 200 to 1,200 vehicles per hour (Figure 4.8, pp. 36-39). Based on the research, the USSC minimum height standard for copy on signs placed on roads with character-

Two-Lane View Blocking

Visibility Solution: Maintain Sign Design Style; Raise Copy To Viewable Height

Figure 4.7 Sign-blocking scenarios (schematic)

istics as detailed in the charts is no less than five feet above grade. However, the USSC strongly recommends a minimum height standard for sign copy of no less than seven feet above grade in order to ensure adequate visibility and a reasonable viewer reaction time , considering the blocking potential of other vehicles on the road. The seven-feetabove-grade recommendation is the same as the Federal Highway Administration's standard, as promulgated in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, for the height above grade of official roadside directional and wayfinding signs utilized along urban roadways in the United States. As a related issue, the visibility requirement for ground or monument sign copy placement above seven feet above grade may run counter to community sign code regulation that (1) sets overall low maximum height limits, or (2) computes maximum square footage limits on sign size as the simple product of the total height times the total width of the

www.planning.org ASSOCIATION 35

AM ERICAN PLANNING

Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between On-Premise Digital Signage and Traffic Safety by H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor and Research Engineer Zachry Department of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University Pei-Fen Kuo Graduate Research Assistant Texas A&M Transportation Institute and Dominique Lord, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Research Engineer Zachry Department of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University

Sponsored by Signage Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 14392 Washington, DC 20044 Texas Engineering Extension Service The Texas A&M University System College Station, TX 77843

December 17, 2012

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The U.S. Government and the State of Texas do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors wish to recognize the Signage Foundation, Inc., for providing the funding for this research effort. The authors also wish to acknowledge the sign companies that provided proprietary information regarding the installation of the digital signs that were used to create the databases analyzed in this project. Although they are not recognized by name in order to protect the proprietary nature of the information, their contributions are greatly appreciated.

ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations shown below are used in this report. AADT ADT AASHTO AIC ANOVA BIC CEVMS CG DF EB EBB FHWA HSIS HSM LCD LED MS MSE MST RTM SAR SEM SFI SPF SS SSE SST TTI

Annual Average Daily Traffic Average Daily Traffic American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Akaike Information Criterion Analysis of Variance Bayesian Information Criterion Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs Control Group Degrees of Freedom Empirical Bayes Electronic Billboard Federal Highway Administration Highway Safety Information System Highway Safety Manual Liquid Crystal Display Light-Emitting Diode Mean of Sum of Squares Error Mean Square Treatment Mean Square Regression to the Mean Spatial Autoregressive Model Spatial Error Model Signage Foundation, Inc. Safety Performance Function Sum of Squares Sum of Squares for Error Total Sum of Squares Texas A&M Transportation Institute

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Research Approach ................................................................................................................... 1 Description of a Digital Sign .................................................................................................... 1 Research Activities and Report Organization ........................................................................... 2 Chapter 2: Background Information ............................................................................................... 3 On-Premise Digital Signs ......................................................................................................... 3 Off-Premise Digital Signs ......................................................................................................... 4 Safety Effects ...................................................................................................................... 4 Characteristics of the Evaluation Methods Used in Previous Studies ................................ 7 Chapter 3: Study Data ..................................................................................................................... 9 Crash Data ................................................................................................................................. 9 Sign Data ................................................................................................................................. 11 Data-Merging Procedure ......................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 4: Study Methodology ..................................................................................................... 16 A Before-After Study and a Cross-Sectional Study ............................................................... 16 The Before-After Study .................................................................................................... 16 Common Methods for Conducting a Before-After Study....................................................... 18 Naïve Method.................................................................................................................... 18 Control Group Method ...................................................................................................... 19 Empirical Bayes Method................................................................................................... 20 Calculation Procedures and Examples .................................................................................... 21 Chapter 5: Results ......................................................................................................................... 25 Individual and Combined Results ........................................................................................... 25 Results for Crashes Related to Multiple and Single Vehicles ................................................ 28 Results for Crashes Related to Different Types of Signs ....................................................... 29 Impact of Sign Hold Time ...................................................................................................... 32 Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 34 Chapter 7: References ................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix A: Step-By-Step Instructions for Students to Record Sign Data ................................. 39 Appendix B: Statistical Symbols .................................................................................................. 41

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Summary of study results ............................................................................................. viii Figure 2. The flow chart for data collection and merging procedure ........................................... 13 Figure 3. Example work table of site data collection.................................................................... 15 Figure 4. A comparison of sample sizes from similar studies ...................................................... 26 Figure 5. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (all crash types) ...................................................................................................... 27 Figure 6. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (multi-vehicle crashes) .......................................................................................... 28 Figure 7. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (single-vehicle crashes) ......................................................................................... 29 Figure 8. The histogram of digital signs for each sign dimension ................................................ 31 Figure 9. Example screenshot of Google Maps ............................................................................ 40 Figure 10. Example screenshot of Google Earth .......................................................................... 40

LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Safety effects of off-premise digital signs ........................................................................ 6 Table 2. HSIS crash coverage and roadway length by state ......................................................... 10 Table 3. Coefficients for multi and single-vehicle crash regression model .................................. 22 Table 4. Sign site sample size yield .............................................................................................. 26 Table 5. Results of statistical analysis of before-after crash condition......................................... 27 Table 6. The typical form of a one-way ANOVA table ............................................................... 30 Table 7. Analysis of variance table (color) ................................................................................... 31 Table 8. Analysis of variance table (sign dimension) ................................................................... 32 Table 9. Analysis of variance table (six business types) .............................................................. 32 Table 10. Analysis of variance table (two business types) ........................................................... 32 Table 11. Summary of sign hold times ......................................................................................... 33 Table 12. Example work table of site data collection procedure .................................................. 39

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The use of digital on-premise signs, which are typically business-related signs that have the ability to change the displayed message, has increased significantly in recent years. On-premise digital signs are located on the same property as the businesses they promote, and some part — or a significant part in some cases — of the sign contains a digital display that can be programmed to change the message at pre-set intervals. Because the use of these signs has increased, jurisdictions have used local sign codes or ordinances to regulate the manner in which digital messages are displayed. Jurisdictions typically justify these regulations by citing traffic safety impacts. However, no comprehensive and scientifically based research efforts have evaluated the relationship between on-premise digital signs and traffic safety. In this study, researchers collected large amounts of sign and crash data in order to conduct a robust statistical analysis of the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. The statistical tools used the latest safety analysis theory developed for analyzing the impacts of highway safety improvements. The research team acquired the crash data from the Highway Safety Information System, which is a comprehensive database of crash records from several states. One of the advantages of these data is that they also include information about roadway characteristics, such as the number of lanes, speed limit, and other factors. The research team then acquired information about the location of on-premise digital signs from two sign manufacturing companies. Through significant effort by the researchers, these two datasets were merged into a single dataset that represented potential study locations in California, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington. Of the initial set of over 3,000 possible sites, the research team was able to identify 135 sign locations that could be used for the safety analysis. Potential sites were eliminated from consideration due to any of the following factors:   

The sign location was not on a roadway that was included in the crash dataset; only major roads were represented in the crash data. The sign location provided by a sign manufacturing company could not be verified through online digital images of the location. Only signs installed in calendar years 2006 or 2007 could be included in order to have adequate amounts of crash data before and after the sign was installed.

The research team then used the empirical Bayes method to perform a before-after statistical analysis of the safety impacts of the on-premise digital signs. In a before-after study, the safety impact of a treatment (in this case, the installation of an on-premise digital sign) is defined by the change in crashes between the periods before and after the treatment was installed. However, simply comparing the crash frequencies (known as a naïve before-after analysis) is not adequate to account for factors such as regression to the mean (a statistical concept that explains why after data can be closer to the mean value than the before data) and to provide a means of controlling for external factors that can also cause a difference in crash frequencies. The empirical Bayes method represents the recommended procedure for evaluating the impacts of safety treatments because it overcomes the deficiencies of the naïve method. The safety impacts are represented by the safety index, which is indicated by the symbol . In simple terms, the safety index represents a ratio of safety in the after period compared to safety in the before period, although it is not as

vii

simple as dividing the crashes in the after period by the crashes in the before period. A safety index greater than 1.0 indicates an increase in crashes in the after period, and a value less than 1.0 indicates a reduction in crashes in the after period. However, because of the variability in the crash data, the analysis must have statistical validity. Statistical variability is established by defining the 95 percent confidence interval for the safety index, which is based on factors such as sample size and the variability of the data. If the 95 percent confidence interval includes the value of 1.0, then there is a 95 percent chance that there is no statistically significant change in crashes between the before and after periods. The results of the statistical analysis are presented in Figure 1. This figure shows that the safety index for all of the states was 1.0 with a 95 percent confidence interval that ranged from 0.93 to 1.07. This indicates that, for the 135 sites included in the analysis, there was no statistically significant change in crashes due to the installation of on-premise digital signs. The same can also be said about the results for each of the four states on an individual basis because the confidence interval for safety index for each state includes 1.0. The larger confidence intervals for some of the states are due to greater variability in the data and/or smaller sample sizes. The researchers also analyzed single-vehicle and multi-vehicle crashes and found the same result of no statistically significant change in crashes. Finally, the researchers performed an analysis of variance for the sign factors of color, size, and type of business and found no statistically significant differences in the mean safety index values for individual factors.

Figure 1. Summary of study results The results of this study provide scientifically based data that indicate that the installation of digital on-premise signs does not lead to a statistically significant increase in crashes on major roads.

viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

For many generations, most signs — including both traffic and business signs — were static. They displayed only one message that did not change with time. Advances in information display technologies in recent years have led to an increase in the use of many types of digital signs, particularly in the area of on-premise and off-premise business signs. On-premise digital signs provide the ability to communicate a wide variety of messages and to change the manner in which the message is presented over time. As such, these digital signs represent a significant advancement in communication technologies and the ability to deliver valuable marketing information to potential customers. However, some groups have raised questions related to the traffic safety aspects of business signs that change messages on a frequent basis. The traffic safety concerns are often related to issues of potential driver distraction from the roadway due to the dynamic nature of these signs. These safety concerns are sometimes addressed through local regulation of these types of signs, which may prohibit or limit the use of on-premise digital signs. These regulations tend to be developed at the local level and do not have a significant level of scientific, nationally based research supporting the regulations. The traffic safety concerns associated with on-premise digital signs have existed for some time, but there has been little research, particularly on a national level, that directly addresses the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. In part, this is due to the fact that the use of such signs has grown only in the last 5–10 years. The research described in this report was conducted to provide a scientifically based, national analysis of on-premise digital signs so that the traffic safety impacts of such signs can be better understood. RESEARCH APPROACH The basic research method used in this study is a before-after statistical analysis of the change in traffic crashes at locations where digital signs were installed. The research team used digital sign installation information provided by sign manufacturers to identify locations in selected states where digital signs had been installed in the 2006–2007 time frame (this time frame was selected to provide adequate numbers of crashes in both the before and after periods). The analysis locations were limited to California, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington because these states are part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety Information System (HSIS). The HSIS is a database of crash records that includes detailed information about the roadway and crashes, including such factors as the number of lanes, the speed limit, crash severity, and other factors. The researchers then mapped the sign sites to the crash datasets to identify locations with crashes. These locations were then analyzed to compare the crashes before installation of the digital sign to the crashes after installation of the sign using statistical analysis procedures. DESCRIPTION OF A DIGITAL SIGN For the purposes of this study, a digital sign is defined as a sign that uses an electrical display, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) or light-emitting diode (LED), to provide changeable

messages or graphics. There are several types of digital signs, including digital billboards, indoor video advertisements, and street-level advertisements (such as LED signs on bus shelters). For this study, the researchers focused only on on-premise digital signs, which are signs located on the same property as the business with which they are associated. The research effort did not include or address off-premise signs or billboards. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND REPORT ORGANIZATION There were five major activities associated with this research effort. The study began by reviewing and evaluating previous research on the safety aspects of digital signs and the statistical methods that other researchers have used to evaluate the safety aspects of signs. Chapter 2 describes the results of the review of background information. The researchers then began to collect information related to digital signs and crash data in the selected states. The sign information included the location and date of installation, and the crash data included the location and date. The researchers then devoted extensive effort to matching the locations and dates of the signs and crash datasets. Chapter 3 describes the sign and crash data and how the two datasets were merged together. Once this was accomplished, the next step was to develop a valid and scientifically based statistical analysis procedure to determine if there were any statistically significant changes in crashes after installation of digital signs. Chapter 4 describes the development of a statistical methodology, including a comparison of the advantages of the different options for conducting the statistical analysis. Finally, the research team used the results of the statistical analysis to define the key study findings, which are described in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 presents the conclusions and recommendations for the research study.

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This chapter provides a review of the literature related to on-premise digital signs and their impacts on traffic safety. The review also includes a summary of statistical methods that can be used for evaluating the safety effects for these types of signs. Although the majority of the work has been related to off-premise digital signs, key studies associated with off-premise signs are nonetheless briefly discussed here. It should be pointed out that compared to other types of roadway-related operational and design features, such as access point density on urban arterials or on-street parking designs, the number of documents that are related to either on- or offpremise signs is relatively small. On-premise signs are signs that are located on the same property as the activity described in the sign, while off-premise signs are located away from the activity identified in the sign. Offpremise signs are also known as third-party signs or outdoor advertising, and the most common example is a billboard. In general, off-premise signs have a larger visible area, which is attributed to the fact that these signs usually have greater surface areas and have higher mounting heights than on-premise signs. Furthermore, off-premise signs have a larger viewership because they are usually located adjacent to freeways and major highways with higher traffic volume. On the other hand, on-premise signs are installed on private property where a company conducts its business, and most are located along urban streets or local roadways. According to The Signage Sourcebook (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2003), the viewing opportunities for outdoor advertising (typically 333,350 cars per day) are much greater than those for an on-premise sign (30,000 cars per day). The literature review is divided into two sections. The first section summarizes studies related to on-premise digital signs. The second section presents the summary of two key studies associated with off-premise digital signs. ON-PREMISE DIGITAL SIGNS This section describes the characteristics of the studies that have examined the relationship between safety and on-premise digital signs. To the knowledge of the authors, only two studies have investigated this relationship. It should be pointed out that the safety relationships identified in these research documents were not based on crash data but more on opinions and hypotheses, which limits their value as a direct measure of on-premise sign safety. The first study was conducted by Mace (2001). This author performed a literature review and listed two hypotheses about how on-premise signs can influence crash risk. The first hypothesis states that on-premise business signs distract drivers’ attention from their primary driving tasks, resulting in higher crash risks. The second hypothesis asserts that on-premise business signs may mask the visibility of regulatory and warning road signs, which also can negatively influence crash risk. On the other hand, Mace (2001) noted positive effects associated with commercial signs. He reported that commercial signs could reduce unnecessary traffic exposure by providing adequate navigation information for drivers, such as providing restaurant information for hungry drivers.

However, only measuring the frequency and duration of drivers’ distraction may not represent the safety impacts of on-premise signs because a study published earlier showed that half of the objects that drivers see are not related to driving tasks (Hughes and Cole, 1986). In other words, besides on-premise signs, other roadside features may also distract drivers. The possible solution to minimize the negative effects of an on-premise sign, but still keep its positive effects, is to separate the sign’s content to primary (navigation) and secondary (commercial) information. Although, in the past, on-premise signs and off-premise signs were treated as distinct signage, they are becoming more homogeneous in terms of characteristics. In the second study, Wachtel (2009) mentioned that more roadside businesses, especially those with multiple users (e.g., shopping centers, auto malls, sports complexes, and entertainment places), now install largersized on-premise digital signs because of the lower cost and better performance of the LED display. Wachtel indicated that the largest digital advertising sign in the world is an on-premise sign in New York City. This sign is 90 ft tall and 65 ft wide, and is mounted on a 165-ft-tall steel post on the roof of the warehouse. The visible distance is over 2 miles. Wachtel also suggested that some on-premise signs affect traffic safety more than some off-premise digital signs because the locations and elevations of on-premise signs might be closer to the road users. In addition, the angles of on-premise signs may be out of the cone of vision and require extreme head movements to read. In summary, these two studies showed more research is needed for understanding the relationship between on-premise digital signs and crash risk. OFF-PREMISE DIGITAL SIGNS This section is divided into two parts. The first part describes two key studies that have examined the safety effects of off-premise digital signs. The second part covers methodologies that have been used for estimating these effects. Safety Effects There are two reports that provide reviews of the findings, methods, and key factors related to the safety effects of off-premise digital signs. The first systematic study related to the impacts of off-premise signs was conducted 11 years ago by Farbry et al. (2001). Their study reviewed earlier reports and analyses (including those about electronic billboards and tri-vision signs) and provided the foundation for the second study written by Molino et al. (2009). In the second report, Molino et al. (2009) reviewed 32 related studies, which included those initially reviewed by Farbry et al. (2001), and noted that the majority of studies reported a negative effect between digital billboards and traffic safety. Although the number of studies that showed harmful impacts is five times more than the number of studies that showed no harmful impacts, the authors suggested that this ratio may not be strong evidence to prove the negative effects linked to electronic billboards (EBBs). The individual studies considered by these researchers had very different study methods and statistical powers, which can have a significant effect on the quality and results of the research.

Another important finding in the Molino et al. (2009) report is that drivers usually have spare attention capacities, and they can be distracted from their driving tasks by roadside objects (such as EBBs). However, these distractions may be riskier when the driving demands increase, such as in fixed hazard areas (e.g., intersections, interchanges, and sharp curves), in transient risky conditions (e.g., adverse weather, vehicle path intrusions, and slow traffic), or when other important information is processed at the same time (e.g., an official traffic sign). In other words, not only will the sign’s internal characteristics (overall size, legend size, color, contrast, luminance level, etc.) affect crash risk, but so will external environmental factors (type of road, speed, weather conditions, time of day, etc.). Hence, Molino et al. list all possible key factors and suggest further studies to examine how they could influence safety. These factors are categorized into two groups: independent and dependent variables. The independent variables are separated by subject into five subgroups: billboard, roadway, vehicle, driver, and environment. It should be noted that the relationship between EBBs and on-premise signs is discussed in the environment subgroup, and dynamic factors of on-premise signs, such as change rate, motion, video, and sound, are listed as extremely important. The dependent variables are separated into vehicle behavior, driver/vehicle interaction, driver attention/distraction, and crash categories. Since there are hundreds of related key factors, the authors claimed that “No single experiment can provide the solution” and suggested future research programs to address the following topics: (1) determining when distraction caused by commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMSs) affects safe driving, (2) investigating the relationship between distraction and various CVEMS parameters, and (3) examining the relationship between distraction and safety surrogate measures, such as eye glance and traffic conflicts. Table 1 summarizes the literature review results from these two reports. This table shows that the results of crash studies are not consistent, and most studies have some important weaknesses, such as neglecting biases related to the regression to the mean (RTM) (discussed below) and siteselection effects (using the naïve method), low statistical power, and analysis results based on erroneous assumptions. It should be noted that only post-hoc crash studies are listed here because this study focuses on the change of crash rate caused by on-premise digital signs. As mentioned, Table 1 shows that the results related to the safety effects of off-premise signs are inconsistent. The inconsistencies can be fully or partly attributed to various study limitations. For instance, the studies in the Wachtel and Netherton report (1980) and Wisconsin Department of Transportation report (1994) both used a naïve before-after study methodology (methodology approaches are described in Chapter 4), and they did not account for the RTM bias, which may change their estimates of crash rate and safety effects of signs. The general idea of RTM is that when observations are characterized by very high (or low) values in a given time period and for a specific site (or several sites), it is anticipated that observations occurring in a subsequent time period are more likely to regress toward the long-term mean of a site (Hauer and Persaud, 1983). Also, these studies should provide the variance of estimators (that is the uncertainty associated with the estimator) for judging the statistical significance of their results. Moreover, grouping studies where the objectives or types of signs are different is not appropriate. For example, the goal of the report prepared by Tantala and Tantala (2007) was to study the safety impacts caused by converting traditional billboards to digital billboards, while other studies focused on the safety impacts after installation of new digital billboards. Those are two distinct effects that are examined and should not be grouped together to evaluate the safety effects of on-premise digital

signs. Wachtel (2009) also noted other limitations in Tantala and Tantala’s study, such as a lack of adequate before-after and comparison group data; no clear definition and reasonable calculation of the visual range and legibility range of EBBs; and no crash data related to adverse weather, impaired drivers, and interchanges. Table 1. Safety effects of off-premise digital signs Study

Methods

Data Type

Wachtel and Netherton (1980)

Naïve beforeafter study

Crash frequency

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (1994)

Smiley et al. (2005)

Naïve beforeafter study

Before-after study (empirical Bayes) Before-after study (control group)

Crash frequency, Average daily traffic (ADT)

Results

Sample Size

The crash reduction of target area was Tele-Spot Not 10% less than the overall reduction sign, Boston provided (after the installation of the signs) Crash rate (eastbound): all crashes increased 36%, sideswipe crashes increased 8%, and rear-end crashes increased 21% Crash rate (westbound): all crashes increased 21%, sideswipe crashes increased 35%, and rear-end crashes increased 35%

Downtown intersection sites: no Crash frequency, significant change in crash rate ADT, safety (all crashes increased 0.6%, performance injury crashes increased 43%, and function rear-end crashes increased 13%) Crash frequency, ADT, control group

Location

Rural sites: no significant change in crash rate based on most compared sites

Tantala and Naïve beforeTantala (2007) after study

Crash frequency, No significant change in crash rate control group, Tantala and No description ADT No significant change in crash rate Tantala (2009) of the method

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Toronto, Canada

Cuyahoga, Ohio

The second shortcoming in Tantala and Tantala (2007) is that they used a simple correlation analysis between sign density and crash rate to examine safety effects of billboards. Using this approach, they found that the correlation coefficients among the scenarios analyzed were very low (around 0.20), indicating that the installation of billboards did not increase the number of crashes. This may well be true, but they did not use the right analysis tool. For investigating the relationship between sign density and the number of crashes, it is more appropriate to develop one or several regression models since the safety analyst can have a better control over other factors that can influence the number and severity of crashes (Lord and Mannering, 2010). In a regression model, several independent variables can be included, which is better to estimate the variable of interest (such as the installation of digital signs). However, it should be pointed out that the before-after study, as performed in this study, still remains the best methodological approach for estimating the safety effects of an intervention. Among all studies in Table 1, Smiley et al. (2005) provides the more reliable results since they used a before-after method using a control group (CG) and empirical Bayes (EB) approach. The

only limitation is related to the small sample size. The authors of the study only evaluated three sites. Even with a small sample size, the EB method can still be successfully used to evaluate the safety effects of an intervention, as was done by Ye et al. (2011). Ye et al. (2011) used the EB method to estimate the safety impacts of gateway monument signs, which can be categorized as one type of off-premise sign. Gateway monuments are roadside structures used to introduce a city or town. These monuments usually have the name of the city or town and are located at the city limits. According to Wachtel et al. (2009) and Farbry, (2001), using crash data might not be a precise method because crashes usually have multiple causal events, which are difficult to extract from crash datasets. For example, they noted that sign internal variables (such as size, brightness, viewing angle, etc.) might play main roles in drivers’ distraction or ignoring of official traffic signs, while other external factors affect conflicts and crash risk. Although those reasons may be legitimate, utilizing crash data is still the best approach for evaluating the safety effects of interventions as well as those associated with operational and design features (Hauer 1997). As stated by Hauer, “It follows that, in the final account, to preserve the ordinary meaning of words, the concept of safety must be linked to accidents.” Furthermore, using crash data have other advantages: lower cost and fewer artificial errors. Firstly, the cost of conducting a before-after crash study is much lower than human-centered methods because the researchers do not need to purchase equipment and hire participants for conducting driving tests. Secondly, crash data are based on crash reports, which can provide a more accurate measure of safety than surrogate measures such as speed, driver behavior, or other measures. Only by conducting a before-after crash study can one provide results that combine multiple casual variables in the real world. Other methods cannot displace the above advantages, which explain why the research team selected the before-after methodology for estimating the safety effects of digital signs. Characteristics of the Evaluation Methods Used in Previous Studies This section describes the characteristics of other methods used in previous studies for examining the safety effects of off-premise digital signs. In addition to a crash before-after study approach, the most common study methods that have been used for examining the safety impacts of off-premise signs include eye fixations, traffic conflicts, headways and speeds, and public surveys. Most studies used one or more of the above methods to examine the impacts of offpremise signs (Molino et al., 2009). For instance, Smiley et al. (2005) used four different methods (eye fixation, conflict study, before-after crash study, and public survey) for examining a video sign located in Toronto. On the other hand, Lee et al. (2007) used eye fixations and a questionnaire for their study. It should be noted that the results from multiple measurements are usually inconsistent. Briefly, the eye fixation study method uses an eye-tracking system to record drivers’ eye movements. The results (e.g., eye glances and durations) can provide direct evidence of where drivers are looking while driving, leading to assumptions as to whether drivers are distracted when they are driving near or toward a sign (or at other roadside features). Traffic conflicts, often referred to as surrogate measures of safety, can be used for identifying risky driving behaviors, such as braking without good reason, inappropriate lateral lane displacement, and delays at the start of the green traffic signal phase. Headways and vehicle speed can be used to

assess distracted drivers since those drivers tend to have shorter headways and higher speed variances. Most details about experiment design, such as the participant number, study site size, driving route length, and experiment duration can be found in Appendix B of the report prepared by Molino et al. (2009). In the current study, the researchers focus the discussion on the before-after crash data study method for two reasons. First, Molino et al. (2009) did not provide a detailed experimental design for using crash data, and some studies were criticized for inappropriate methodology (Tantala and Tantala, 2007; 2009). Second, the costs associated with other experimental methods are significant and are greater than the resources that were allocated for the current research study. According to Molino et al. (2009), the budgetary costs to conduct research using other experimental methods vary between $0.4 million and $0.8 million for using on-road instrumented vehicles, $2 million and $4 million for conducting a naturalistic driving study, and $1 million and $3 million for using an unobtrusive observation approach.

CHAPTER 3: STUDY DATA

To conduct the safety analysis, the research team had to develop plans for collecting the necessary data, manipulating the data into a format that could be used for the safety analyses, and then conducting the statistical analysis to identify the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. The success of this project relied upon the ability to acquire two distinct sets of data and the robustness of the individual datasets. The two datasets needed for the analysis included (1) information regarding the location and installation dates for on-premise digital signs, and (2) data regarding crash histories on the roadways in the vicinity of the on-premise digital signs. The latter also included information about operational (e.g., traffic flow and speed limit) and geometric (e.g., functional class and lane width) design features located at and adjacent to the onpremise digital signs. From the beginning of the project, the research team expected to use the HSIS crash data for the crash history dataset. The real challenge of this project was identifying specific information about on-premise digital signs for the states represented in the HSIS, and the researchers encountered numerous challenges in acquiring this information. Once the data for both groups were acquired, the researchers had to overcome differences in the datasets so that the data could be merged into a single dataset for analysis. The activities associated with the acquisition of the crash data, acquisition of the sign data, and the merging of the two datasets are described in this chapter. CRASH DATA The HSIS is operated and maintained by the FHWA, and is widely used for safety research programs that provide input for public policy decisions. The HSIS is a multistate relational database that contains crash, roadway, and vehicle information. Crash information/files contain basic crash information, such as location (based on reference location or mile-point), time of day, lighting condition (e.g., daylight, dark and no lighting, dark and roadway lighting, etc.), weather conditions, crash severity, the number of related vehicles, and the type of crash (e.g., head-on, right angle, sideswipe, etc.). Each row in the spreadsheet file contains crash information for individual crashes and a unique ID number, and each column represents a variable. The roadway information/files provide traffic and geographic information for each roadway segment, such as annual average daily traffic (AADT), speed limit, beginning mile-point, end mile-point, number of lanes, lane and median width, shoulder width and type, rural or urban designation, and functional classification. The vehicle information/files contain driver and vehicle information, such as a crash identification number, driver gender, driver age, contributing factor (possible casual factor), vehicle type, and others. These individual file types can be linked together as a whole dataset. For example, crash files and road files can be linked by their location information (route number and mileage), or crash files and vehicle files can be linked together by their crash identification number. Currently, there are seven states that actively participate in the HSIS: California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington. However, the HSIS has an upper limit on the amount of data that can be requested by researchers (including the number of states, the request area, and total variables). To maximize the value of the crash data that they could request, the

research team held discussions with the research advisory panel to identify the states (from the list of seven HSIS participating states) where there would be higher concentrations of on-premise digital signs. Based on this input, the research team requested HSIS data for California, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington in order to get a maximum number of study sites. All crash datasets were downloaded from the HSIS website and stored in a spreadsheet format. The definitions for the variables in a state’s crash data were found in the HSIS guidebooks. It should be noted that each state has its own guidebook and data record format. In other words, one specific variable might be available for some states, but this variable may have different meanings or category types, or even be unavailable for other states. The inconsistent definitions among different states’ crash datasets can affect the quality of analysis and results when selecting specific variables for identifying target crashes (such as rear-end crash) needed for more advanced analysis. The differences between states also create challenges when trying to merge data into a single dataset for analysis. Although the HSIS dataset provides the most comprehensive crash data from different states, the HSIS has some limitations. First, the HSIS only includes crashes that occur on major roads, such as interstate highways, U.S. highways, and state highways. The HSIS dataset may not include crash-related data for secondary roads in rural areas or city streets in urban areas, including arterial streets that are major roads in a city but are not on the state highway system. Table 2 identifies the level of crash coverage and roadway length for each state selected for the analysis. Table 2. HSIS crash coverage and roadway length by state California

1. More than 500,000 crashes occur each year; HSIS includes about 38% of those crashes. 2. HSIS includes 15,500 miles of mainline (non-ramp) roadways.

North Carolina

1. About 230,000 crashes occur each year; HSIS includes 70% of those crashes. 2. Of the 77,000 miles of roadway on the North Carolina state system, approximately 62,000 miles are included in the database.

Ohio

1. About 380,000 crashes occur each year; HSIS includes 40% of those crashes. 2. In Ohio, about 116,000 miles of highway in total; HSIS includes approximately 19,500 miles of roadway.

Washington

1. 130,000 crashes occur each year; HSIS includes 37% of those crashes. 2. HSIS contains 7,000 miles of mainline (non-ramp) roadway.

Another limitation of the HSIS data is that the dataset is not continuously updated. The HSIS data represent the final crash datasets from each state after the state has processed the crash data. As a result, the HSIS dataset may not include the last several months or more of crash data from a state. Currently, the most updated HSIS crash data are through 2009 (California is updated to 2008), so the most recent one or two years of crashes are not included in the HSIS data. Also, the oldest HSIS crash data extend back only through 2004. Limiting crash data to the period from 2004 to 2009 was a significant consideration in this research project because the large growth of on-premise digital signs is relatively recent, having mostly grown since the mid- to late 2000s. The lack of data for the last two to three years created challenges with respect to developing a robust statistical analysis procedure. For a comparison of safety impacts of a treatment (such as installation of a digital sign) to be meaningful, both the before and after analysis periods need to be about equal and as long as possible. This meant that, to have two-year analysis periods (two years before and two years after) in the safety analysis, on-premise digital signs needed to be

installed in either 2006 or 2007. In order to focus the safety analysis on the long-term impacts of on-premise digital signs, the researchers did not include the calendar year of installation of a sign in the analysis. For example, if a sign was installed in 2006, the before period was calendar years 2004 and 2005, and the after period was calendar years 2007 and 2008. An additional limitation of the HSIS crash data is that the crash location within the HSIS is identified to the nearest 0.1 mile (528 ft) on the roadway. This required the safety analysis to be conducted for the tenth of a mile length of roadway that a sign was located within. The level of accuracy is the primary reason that 0.1 miles was chosen as the effective area of the sign. The researchers viewed the limitations mentioned above as minor and ones that had minimal impact on the study results. There are no comparable crash datasets available to researchers that could be used for a similar type of analysis of crashes. The only alternative available to the researchers would have been to try and obtain crash data from individual agencies where onpremise digital signs have been installed. Such an approach may have provided more specific data about individual signs and site characteristics, but would have resulted in an extremely small dataset. The researchers felt that such small sample sizes would not provide sufficient robustness for statistical analysis and that the approach using the HSIS data provided greater scientific validity and robustness, as discussed in the previous chapter. SIGN DATA With the acquisition of the HSIS data, the research team had information to analyze crashes but had no idea about where to conduct the analysis. Determining the location for the crash analysis required information regarding the location of on-premise digital signs. Furthermore, due to the date limitations of the HSIS data, only sign sites where the sign was installed in 2006 or 2007 could be used for the crash analysis. So the research team began the process of identifying locations in California, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington where on-premise digital signs had been installed on major roads in 2006 or 2007. Initial attempts to identify sign locations focused upon getting information from the Signage Foundation, Inc., (SFI) research advisory panel. However, the results did not provide a large enough sample size for a robust statistical analysis. The research team began to contact sign installation companies but encountered challenges in acquiring the large amount of data needed to conduct the research. The primary challenge associated with contacting sign installation companies (which are the same companies that market the signs to individual businesses) was the proprietary nature of the business information the research team was requesting. Another challenge was the large number of individual companies that needed to be contacted to develop a robust sample size. Because of the challenges of working with sign installation companies, the research team shifted the focus to sign-manufacturing companies. Eventually, the research team was able to work with two electronic sign-manufacturing companies to get a list of on-premise digital signs installed in any of the four study states during 2006 or 2007. Each of the two lists was converted into datasets for use in the research effort. The first dataset (dataset #1) contained 2,953 sign sites and 27 variables, which included the characteristics of signs and roads, such as sign order date, sign

address (road, county, and state), the nearest cross street and its distance from the sign, the nearby cross street with the highest volume and its distance from the subject intersection, and traffic volume on the subject road. The research team did not use the road information from dataset #1, relying instead upon the road data in the HSIS crash dataset. This ensured consistency in the approach with the different sign datasets. Also, the sign installation date was considered to be the sign order date plus two weeks. This assumption was based on input from the signmanufacturing company. Since the entire year that the sign was installed was excluded from the analysis, this was considered not to be a critical issue. The second dataset (dataset #2) had 63 site addresses and 10 variables. Unlike the first dataset, most variables in dataset #2 were related to product information, such as installation data, sales representative, product name, matrix, color, customer ID (address), and status of signs. For the analysis, these two datasets were combined as one for use in analyzing the crashes by individual state. The combined dataset was further refined by removing all sign locations that were not installed in either 2006 or 2007. The calendar year that a sign was installed was treated as the construction year, and the crashes that occurred in that year were removed from the analysis. The entire calendar year was removed from the analysis due to uncertainty over the actual installation date of the sign since the data provided only the order date for the sign. Removing the entire calendar year associated with installation also eliminated the novelty effect associated with implementing a new feature. The second variable, the sign installation address, was used to select related crashes by the sign’s location and default sign-effective areas. For example, the researchers defined the crashes located within 0.1 miles from the target signs as related crashes. In reality, the effective area could be larger or smaller depending upon the sign size. The procedure used for this analysis did not adjust the effective area based on sign size or other factors. Overall, significant effort was put into ensuring the accuracy of the sign datasets because the quality of the data had a huge impact on the precision and accuracy of the analysis. DATA-MERGING PROCEDURE The previous sections explain how the researchers obtained their study data (the sign dataset and the crash dataset) and the characteristics of each dataset. This section gives more details about the dataset-merging procedure. Several steps were involved in merging the crash and sign location datasets into a single dataset that could be used for statistical analysis. The early steps focused on confirming that the digital sign was still in place and near the road that it is related to. This was needed because a site could have an address on one road but have the sign facing traffic on another road bordering the site property. The later steps focused upon converting the street address of the sign location to a route and milepost value that could be used with the crash dataset. This complex effort was necessary due to the fact that the sign and crash datasets used different location methods. The sign dataset was based on the site address, while the crash database was based on route number and milepost. For example, a location in the sign dataset would record a location with “1234 North Highway 101, Anytown, WA 98584,” but the HSIS would show the same location as “route number = 23101” and “mile post = 335.72.” In order to define the related crashes that were adjusted to the target signs, the researchers needed to transfer sign locations into the HSIS location system. The basic steps are described below and illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The flow chart for data collection and merging procedure 1. For each record of the combined sign dataset (3,016 total records), the research team evaluated the location information (typically a street address) and the sign order date. Records with missing or incomplete location information or with assumed sign installation dates that were not in 2006 or 2007 were deleted from the dataset.

2. Research team members then verified the location of the sign using the site address in the sign dataset and taking the steps listed below. Figure 3 shows an example table that the researchers used for the above data collection, including screenshots of Google Maps and Google Earth (Google Earth, 2008). Columns 1–3 are the address information given by the sign companies. Columns 4–7 are determined through Google Maps, and Columns 8–11 are determined through Google Earth. a. The sign was located in Google Maps using the site address. b. Using the Street View feature of Google Maps, a member of the research team identified the sign on the site or deleted the record with a note that the on-premise digital sign could not be identified. There were some challenges associated with finding digital signs using the Street View pictures from Google Maps, including fuzzy pictures with low resolution, which made it difficult to evaluate some signs, and digital signs that were not obvious during the daytime (Street View provides only daytime pictures). c. The screen image of the subject sign was saved, and basic sign characteristics were identified and/or estimated. Examples include sign color, size, and business type. d. An initial determination was made as to whether the sign was located on a major road that would be part of the HSIS crash dataset. If the road was not expected to be a major road, the record was deleted from the dataset. 3. The sign location was entered into Google Earth to determine the county in which the sign was located and the mileage from the county border. This included identifying the county identification code in the appropriate HSIS manual for a given state. This provided the milepost location information needed to relate the sign location to the location information in the crash dataset. Defining the milepost information required doing the following: a. Identifying the neighboring county, which was used to determine in which direction the mileposts were increasing. b. If the county had mileposts restarting at zero at the county borders, determining in which direction they were increasing, based on the number of lanes at the borders. If the direction could not be determined, a general rule of increasing from west to east or south to north was used. c. Using the path tool in Google Earth to measure the distance from the county border to the sign. This distance and the beginning milepost at the county border established the milepost of the sign. An example (using the above procedure) can be founded in Appendix A. After target sign locations were transferred into the HSIS locating system, a statistics software package, “R,” was used to select the related crashes among the whole HSIS dataset.

Figure 3. Example work table of site data collection

CHAPTER 4: STUDY METHODOLOGY

Evaluating the effects of treatment on the number and severity of crashes is a very important topic in highway safety. For the last 30 years, various methods have been proposed for evaluating safety treatments (Abbess et al., 1981; Danielsson, 1986; Davis, 2000; Hauer, 1980a; Hauer, 1980b; Hauer et al., 1983; Maher and Mountain, 2009; Miranda-Moreno, 2006; Wright et al., 1988). The methods are classified under two categories: the before-after study and the crosssectional study. In a before-after study, the safety impacts of an improvement or treatment at a given location are determined by comparing the change in crashes before and after the improvement/treatment was installed. In a cross-sectional study, crashes or crash rates on two different facilities with similar characteristics except for the improvement of interest are compared. The before-after study is typically more desirable because it provides a more direct evaluation of the safety impacts. Although they have been used by some researchers (Noland, 2003; Tarko et al., 1998), cross-sectional studies are more difficult to conduct because different facilities are rarely identical in all features except the one of interest. Hence, the cross-sectional approach was not used in this research. The before-after type of study can be further divided into several types:    

naïve before-after study, before-after study with control group, before-after study using the EB method, and before-after study using the full Bayes approach.

The before-after study using the full Bayes approach is a more recent development in statistical safety analysis, developed and used by several noted safety researchers (Hauer and Persaud, 1983; Hauer et al., 1983; Hauer, 1997; Li et al., 2008; Persaud and Lyon, 2007). The advantages and disadvantages for each of the above before-after methods are described in more detail in this chapter. A BEFORE-AFTER STUDY AND A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY As mentioned previously, observational crash studies can be grouped into two types: the beforeafter study and the cross-sectional study. The selection of the study type is based on the availability of historical crash data, traffic volume, or the comparison group. The following sections provide details about the before-after methodology. The Before-After Study The before-after study is a commonly used method for measuring the safety effects of a single treatment or a combination of treatments in highway safety (Hauer, 1997). Short of a controlled and full randomized study design, this type of study is deemed superior to cross-sectional studies since many attributes linked to the converted sites where the treatment (or change) was implemented remain unchanged. Although not perfect, the before-after study approach offers a

better control for estimating the effects of a treatment. In fact, as the name suggests, it implies that a change actually occurred between the “before” and “after” conditions (Hauer, 2005). As described by Hauer (1997), the traditional before-after study can be accomplished using two tasks. The first task consists of predicting the expected number of target crashes for a specific entity (i.e., intersection, segment where an on-premise sign was installed, etc.) or series of entities in the after period, had the safety treatment not been implemented. In other words, the before-after approach described by Hauer compares the expected number of crashes in the after period with the treatment installed to the expected number of crashes in the after period had the treatment not been installed. The calculation for each expected number of crashes is based on numerous factors, including the actual number of crashes in the before condition, the actual number of crashes in the after period, and incorporation of site-specific and statistical considerations. The symbol  is used to represent the expected number of crashes in the after period (a summary of all statistical symbols used in this report are presented in Appendix B). The second task consists of estimating the number of target crashes (represented by the symbol  ) for the specific entity in the after period. The estimates of  and  are ̂ and ̂ (the caret or hat represents the estimate of an unknown value). Here, the term “after” means the time period after the implementation of a treatment; correspondingly, the term “before” refers to the time before the implementation of this treatment (an on-premise digital sign in this study). In most practical cases, either ̂ or ̂ can be applied to a composite series of locations (the sum of i’s below) where a similar treatment was implemented at each location. Hauer (1997) proposed a four-step process for estimating the safety effects of a treatment. The process is described as follows (see also Ye and Lord, 2009): 

Step 1: For i  1, 2, ..., n , estimate  (i ) and  (i ) . Then, compute the summation of the estimated and predicted values for each site i, such that ˆ   ˆ (i ) and ˆ   ˆ (i ) .



Step 2: For i  1, 2, ..., n , estimate the variance for each, Var{ˆ (i )} and Var{ˆ (i )} . For each single location, it is assumed that observed data (e.g., annual crash counts over a long time frame) are Poisson distributed and ˆ (i ) can be approximated by the observed value in the before period. On the other hand, the calculation of Var{ˆ (i )} will depend on the statistical methods adopted for the study (e.g., observed data in naïve studies, method of moments, regression models, or EB technique). Assuming that crash data in the before and after periods are mutually independent, then Var{ˆ}   Var{ˆ (i )} and

Var{ˆ}  Var{ˆ (i)} .



Step 3: Estimate the parameters  and  , where ˆ  ˆ  ˆ (again, referring to estimated values) is defined as the reduction (or increase) in the number of target crashes between the predicted and estimated values, and ˆ  ˆ / ˆ is the ratio between these two values. When θ is less than one, the treatment results in an improvement in traffic safety, and when it is larger than one, the treatment has a negative effect on traffic safety. The term  has also been referred to in the literature as the index of effectiveness (Persaud et al., 2001). Hauer (1997) suggests that when less than 500 crashes are used in the before-after study,  should be corrected to remove the bias caused by the small sample size using 17



the following adjustment factor: 1 /[1  Var{ˆ} / ˆ 2 ] . The total number of crashes was over 500, but the adjustment factor had to be applied when subsets of the data, such as single- or multi-vehicle crashes, were analyzed. Step 4: Estimate the variances Var {ˆ} and Var {ˆ} . These two variances are calculated using the following equations (note: Var {ˆ} is also adjusted for the small sample size):  Var {ˆ}  Var {ˆ}  Var {ˆ } (Eq. 1) ˆ 2 [(Var{ˆ} / ˆ2 )  (Var{ˆ} / ˆ 2 )] (Eq. 2)  Var{ˆ}  [1  (Var{ˆ} / ˆ 2 )]2

The four-step process provides a simple way for conducting before-after studies. Three common before-after methods will be introduced in the following sections. All three methods use the same four-step process. COMMON METHODS FOR CONDUCTING A BEFORE-AFTER STUDY Having selected the before-after study approach, the research team then needed to decide which specific before-after method would be the most appropriate for analyzing the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. This section of the report describes the methodologies and data needs associated with three before-after study types: naïve before-after studies, before-after studies with a CG, and the EB method. Naïve Method Among all the before-after methods, the naïve method is the simplest. The estimation of θ is simply equal to the ratio between the number of crashes in the after period and the number of crashes in the before period (which is used to predict the number of crashes in the after period if the treatment was not implemented). Equation 3 illustrates how the index of safety effectiveness is calculated. This method is very straightforward, but it is seldom used in the current safety study because it does not account for the RTM bias. Not including the RTM bias could overestimate the effects of the treatment or underestimate the safety impacts. The naïve method does not account for external factors that occur at the local or regional level, such as changes in weather patterns or economic conditions.

ˆ   Nij 2 ˆnaive   in1 tj 1 T ˆ   Nij1 n

i 1

(Eq. 3)

j 1

Where ˆ = the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the naïve method, naive

ˆ = the predicted number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period, ̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period, n = the sample size,

t = the time period,

N ijT1 = the observed response for site i (T = treatment group) and year j (in the before period), and T N ij 2 = the observed response for site i (T = treatment group) and year j (in the after period). The result can be adjusted when the traffic flow and time interval are different between the before and after periods. It is adjusted by modifying the predicted number of crashes as shown in Equation 4:

  rd rf i 1  j 1 NijT1 n

(Eq. 4)

Where rd = the ratio of the duration between the after and before periods, and rf = the ratio of the traffic flow between the after and before periods. Control Group Method The CG method can be used to help control for external factors. The number of crashes collected at the control sites is defined as µ (before) and ν (after). The adjusting factor, the ratio of ν to µ, is used to remove the effects caused by other external factors from π in the theorem. Equation 5 illustrates how to adjust the naïve estimate. It should be pointed out that the RTM could technically be removed if the characteristics of the control group are exactly the same as those of the treatment group. However, getting control group data with the exact same characteristics may not be possible in practice, as discussed in Kuo and Lord (2012). Collecting control group data usually adds extra cost and time compared to the naïve method since more data needs to be collected. n

ˆCG 

ˆ

ˆ ˆ  ˆ



 N i 1 j 1

T ij 2 t

i 1 j 1

(Eq. 5)

N ijC2

 N  N T ij1

C ij1

Where ˆCG = the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the control group method,

̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period, ˆ = the predicted number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period,

ˆ = the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the after period,

̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the before period, N ijT1 , N ijC1 = the observed responses for site i (T = treatment group and C = control group) and year j (in the before period), and T N ij 2 , N ijC2 = the observed responses for site i (T = treatment group and C = control group) and year j (in the after period).

Empirical Bayes Method The EB method is recommended in the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and approved for use by the FHWA (AASHTO, 2010). The HSM is a recent document that defines standardized procedures for conducting safety analyses of highway safety improvements. The EB method combines short-term observed crash numbers with crash prediction model data in order to get a more accurate estimation of long-term crash mean. The EB method is used to refine the predicted value by combining information from the site under investigation and the information from sites that have the same characteristics, such as range of traffic flow, number of lanes, lane width, etc. As an illustration, Hauer et al. (2002) use a fictional “Mr. Smith” to illustrate use of the EB method: Mr. Smith is a new driver in a city. He has no crash records during his first year of driving. Based on past crash histories for the city, a new driver in that city has 0.08 accidents per year. Based only on Mr. Smith’s record, it is not reasonable to say that he will have zero accidents or have 0.08 accidents for the next year (based on the average of all new drivers but disregarding Smith’s accident record). A reasonable estimate should be a mixture of these two values. Therefore, when estimating the safety of a specific road segment, the accident counts for this segment and the typical accident frequency of such roads are used together. The index of safety effectiveness is illustrated in Equation 6. With the EB method, the analyst first estimates a regression model or safety performance function (SPF) using the data collected with the control group. Then, the model is applied to the sites where the treatment was implemented to get a preliminary predicted value for the after period. The EB method is then used to refine the estimate to account for the RTM bias and the external factors. It is possible for the EB method to be biased if the characteristics of the treatment and control groups are not the same (Lord and Kuo, 2012).

ˆ   Nij 2 ˆEB   ni 1 t j 1 T ˆ   M ij 1 n

i 1

(Eq. 6)

j 1

Where ˆEB = the estimate of safety effectiveness based on the EB method; ˆ = the predicted number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period; ̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period; M ij1 = the expected responses for site i for the EB method, t

ˆ )  (1  W)  ( N ) ; Mij1  W  (  ij1 1 j1

W = the weight for sites for the EB method, W 

1 ; ˆ 1  1  ˆ

̂1 = the estimate for the average number of crashes of all sites in the before period; and ̂ = the estimate of the dispersion parameter. 20

̂1 and ̂ can be estimated using two different approaches (Hauer, 1997). They can be estimated based on a regression model or the method of moment. Both are calculated using data collected as part of the control group. For this research, the average number of crashes and dispersion parameter were estimated using a regression model. CALCULATION PROCEDURES AND EXAMPLES The EB before-after method was applied to this study with the regression models or SPFs selected from the HSM (AASHTO, 2010), which includes road types from two to five lanes. As for sites located on wider roads (six lanes and eight lanes, which are not covered in the HSM), the researchers used the SPFs from a Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) study (Bonneson and Pratt, 2009). The number of crashes in each year during the before period (  i ) was estimated using the regression model shown in Equation 7:  i  exp(a  bLn( AADTi )  Ln( Li ))

(Eq. 7)

Where  i = the estimator for the average number of crashes per year for site i,

a, b = the coefficients in the regression model, AADTi = the average daily traffic volume for site i, Li = the road length for site i, and Ln = natural logarithm. Table 3 shows the regression coefficients (a, b) used in Equation 7 for multi- and single-vehicle crashes. One of the sign sites in Ohio provides an example of the detailed calculation of M i , EB . This site is on an urban 4-lane divided highway segment in Allen County. As shown in Table 3, its intercept is -12.34 for multi-vehicle crashes and -5.05 for single-vehicle crashes, while the coefficients for the AADT are 1.36 and 0.47, respectively. For the analysis used in this report, a multi-vehicle crash is one involving two or more vehicles in the same collision. Using the EB method, the analysis procedure to get the expected number of crashes in the before period has the following steps: 1. Identify the route number and milepost by the site’s address. More specifically, the address of the example site is “1234 ABC St, Name of City, Allen County, OH.” Follow the data analysis procedures discussed in Chapter 3 to identify that the route number is 657676309 and the milepost is 7.58.

Table 3. Coefficients for multi and single-vehicle crash regression model Crash Type

Multivehicle

Singlevehicle

Road Type*

Regression Coefficients

Dispersion Parameter (α)

Intercept (a)

AADT (b)

−15.22

1.68

0.84

−12.4

1.41

0.66

−11.63

1.33

1.01

−12.34

1.36

1.32

−9.7

1.17

0.81

−5.47

0.56

0.81

−5.74

0.54

1.37

−7.99

0.81

0.91

−5.05

0.47

0.86

5T −4.82 0.54 0.52 Note: *U = undivided road, T = road with two-way left turn lane, D = divided road.

2. Based on the route number and milepost obtained above, use R statistical software to select the related crashes and road files from the HSIS dataset, which includes (1) the observed crashes near the target sign site, (2) the observed crashes in the control group sites (10 sites, which are adjusted to the target sign site on the same road), and (3) the target road file, such as traffic volume, the number of lanes, and median type. For example, the number of observed crashes at the example site is 1 in 2004, and the crash counts of the related 10 control group sites are 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, and 1. The AADT of the site is 19,753 (vehicles/day), and it has four lanes. 3. Use Equation 9 to predict the crash number of the example site: ˆ  2004  exp( a  b ( Ln ( AADT ))  Ln ( L ) ˆ   exp( 12.34  1.36  Ln(19753)  Ln(0.2))  0.61 2004,multi

ˆ  2004,single  exp( 5.05  0.47  Ln (19753)  Ln (0.2))  0.13 ˆ ˆ ˆ  2004   2004,multi   2004,single  0.74 (crashes/year)

The estimated crash counts of the site and its control group sites are 0.74 and 6.64, respectively (the estimated multi-and single crash counts of its control group are 5.36 and 1.28). 4. Due to using the SPFs from the HSM instead of the local SPFs from any existing studies conducted in the same study area, it is necessary to multiply the results by a calibration factor to adjust the prediction value (refer to Appendix A in the HSM for more details). The calibration factor of single-vehicle crashes at the example site in 2004 is 3.13, which is equal to the ratio of observed crashes in the control group divided by the predicted crash number in the control group (3.13 = (1×4+0×6)/1.28). By multiplying the above calibration factor, the final crash number estimation for the example site in 2004 should be 0.42 (=0.13×3.13). A calibration factor was calculated for each site and each year included in the study.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 to get the final prediction crash number for the example site for each year in the before period. By doing so, the estimated multi- and single-vehicle crash counts of the site in 2005 are 4.65 and 0.21, respectively. Using the summary of this prediction crash number and dispersion parameter (obtained from Table 3) results in the weights (W) for this site for the multi- and single-vehicle crashes, which are 0.07 and 0.65, respectively: 1 W ˆ  ˆ 1  1

1 1   0.07, 1  (5.43  4.65) 1.32 1  10.08 1.32 1 1   0.65 Wsingle  1  (0.42  0.21)  0.86 1  0.63  0.86 6. Because traffic volume and other explanatory variables may change between the before and after periods, the researchers used one factor to account for this difference. The crash counts of the example site in 2007 and 2008 can be estimated by repeating steps 3 and 4. The estimated multi- and single-vehicle crash counts of the site in the after period are 0.84 and 0.67, respectively. Factors are estimated by: ˆ ˆ r after  before Wmulti 

ri ,multi  (12.76 / 3) / (10.08 / 2)  0.84 ri,single  (0.63 / 3) (0.63 / 2)  0.67

Also, if the time periods (Y) of the before and after periods are different, one factor is needed to adjusted it. Here, the before and after period are both two years: ti  Yi , after Yi ,before  3 / 2  1.5

7. Using the EB method, the expected total number of crashes that would occur during the after period had the on-premise digital sign not been installed was 2.63: t  ˆ )  (1  W)  ( N )   r  t Mi,EB   W  (  1 ij1 i i j1   Mi,multi,EB   0.07 10.08  (1  0.07)  0  0.84 1.5  1.14

Mi,single,EB   0.65  0.63  (1  0.65)  3  0.67 1.5  1.49 Mi,all,EB  1.14  1.49  2.63 8. The variance of the EB estimate at the example site is calculated by: Var(M1,EB )  (1  W)  M1, EB  ri  ti Var(M1,multi,EB )  (1  0.07) 1.14  0.84  1.5  1.31 Var(M1,single,EB )  (1  0.65) 1.49  0.67  1.5  0.54 Var(M1,all,EB )  1.31  0.54  1.85 9. The safety index of the example site is:

9 ˆ   Nij 2  3.43 ˆEB   ni 1 t j 1 T  ˆ   M ij 1 2.63 n

i 1

j 1

10. The 95 percent confidence interval of the example site is given as. ˆ  Z 0.25 Var  M1, EB   3.43  1.96  1.85    0.76, 6.10 The same method was applied to other locations using the appropriate SPFs. The next chapter provides the final results of the completed safety analysis.

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS

The previous chapter explained why the research team chose to use the EB analysis procedure and provided an example of how the EB analysis was conducted. The first section of this chapter provides the results of the before-after study for each state and all the states combined. The second section provides more details about how digital on-premise signs impact traffic safety for multi-vehicle and single-vehicle crashes. The third section provides a description of an analysis of variance of the means of the safety index (θ) among the different sign characteristics such as sign color, sign size, and type of business. INDIVIDUAL AND COMBINED RESULTS As described in Chapter 3, the research team acquired the sign dataset from sign manufacturers. However, many signs were excluded from the analysis because of missing information in the dataset provided by the sign manufacturers or limitations in the HSIS crash dataset. The researchers retained only sign sites satisfying the following conditions: 1. the sign was located in Washington, North Carolina, Ohio, or California; 2. the sign was installed in 2006 or 2007 in order to have adequate time in both the before and after analysis periods to compare crash histories; and 3. the sign was located on a major road because the HSIS crash dataset usually does not include crashes that are located on minor roads or private driveways. Table 4 shows the progression in sample sizes based on sites meeting the conditions identified above. For example, the original dataset for Washington included 413 site addresses that might have an on‐premise digital sign. In order to make sure there was an adequate before‐after crash data period for further analysis, the researchers had to filter these site addresses. The first filter excluded sites where the sign was not installed in 2006 or 2007, which was needed so that there was adequate time before and after the sign was installed to perform the safety analysis. About 40 percent of the Washington sites (159 sites) met this criterion. Then, the research team used the Street View function in Google Maps to double-check whether a digital sign was present at the given addresses and whether the sign was on a major road since the HSIS crash dataset only included crashes on major roads. Only 33 sites fit this criterion. The result was that in Washington, the research team was able to use about 33 of the 400 original sites, giving an 8.0 percent yield on the raw data. Chapter 3 mentions that the main advantage of this study is the large sample size of data and advanced statistical methods that provide more accurate results than in similar studies. Figure 4 shows the sample size of this study in relation to other published papers and reports. This study has 135 sites from four states, a number much higher than the sample size of other similar studies. Hence, the results of this study are more robust and accurate.

Table 4. Sign site sample size yield Number of Sites

California

North Carolina

Ohio

Washington

All States

Included in original list from sign manufacturers

249

372

413

1,120

Sign installation time between 2006–2007

178

159

458

Digital signs & located on major roads

153

With HSIS crash data (all crashes)

135

7.0%

13.3%

16.9%

8.0%

12.1%

With HSIS crash data (multiple-vehicle crashes)

131

With HSIS crash data (single-vehicle crashes)

134

Data yield rate

Figure 4. A comparison of sample sizes from similar studies Table 5 presents the before-after results from the EB and the naïve statistical analysis methods. The naïve method results are provided only for comparison purposes as the naïve analysis method does not provide as meaningful results as the EB method. The results are also presented graphically in Figure 5. A safety effectiveness index (θ) of 1.0 indicates that there was no change in crashes between the before and after conditions. An index greater than 1.00 indicates that there was an increase in crash frequency in the after condition, while a value less than 1.00 indicates a decrease in crash frequency. The upper and lower bounds indicate the limits of statistical significance. If the value for  is between the upper and lower bounds, then the change in crashes is not statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level. A larger sample size usually leads to a smaller difference between the upper and lower bounds, but this may not always be the case since it is also governed by the variability observed in the data.

Table 5. Results of statistical analysis of before-after crash condition EB Method State

Naïve Method

Lower Bound



Upper Bound

Lower Bound



Upper Bound

California

0.00

1.25

2.53

0.28

0.85

1.41

North Carolina

0.87

1.14

1.41

0.88

1.13

1.39

Ohio

0.89

0.97

1.05

0.95

1.05

1.15

Washington

0.88

1.01

1.15

0.79

0.90

1.01

All states* 0.93 1.00 1.07 0.93 Notes: *“All states” represents the combined data of the four states. Naïve method values provided for comparison purposes only.

1.00

1.07

Figure 5. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (all crash types) The overall results show that there is no statistically significant increase in crash frequency after installing the on‐premise digital sign because the safety effectiveness index (θ) for the entire dataset (all states) is 1.00, and the 95 percent confidence interval is 0.93–1.07 (which includes the index value of 1.00). The results for individual states are similar: no statistically significant safety impacts were observed after the installation of digital signs. In addition, one can see the width of the 95 percent confidence interval is largest for the California data. This is due to the variability of the California data and the small size of the sample set (only 6 sites). Comparing the width of the confidence intervals, from the widest to narrowest, the order is California > North Carolina > Washington > Ohio > All States.

RESULTS FOR CRASHES RELATED TO MULTIPLE AND SINGLE VEHICLES The next analysis effort evaluated the possible safety impacts of on-premise digital signs on different types of crashes. There are several common methods to group crashes into different categories, such as the number of related vehicles, the injury levels, the collision types, and so on. Such groupings may provide some insight into the safety impacts of specific crash types, but the estimated impacts might not be precise because of a smaller sample size. The additional analysis separated crashes into two subgroups: single- and multi-vehicle crashes. All calculations and notations were the same as used previously. By using the EB method to analyze crash data related to multiple vehicles, the researchers determined that the safety effectiveness index is equal to 1.00 for all states, and the 95 percent confidence interval varies between 0.96 and 1.21. Because the confidence interval of the safety effectiveness includes 1.00, there is no statistically significant change in crash frequency after installing the on-premise digital sign. Figure 6 graphically illustrates the results for multi-vehicle crashes. The 95 percent confidence intervals are slightly larger in this figure than in Figure 5.

Figure 6. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (multi-vehicle crashes) The results for single-vehicle crashes are presented in Figure 7. The overall results are the similar: there are no statistically significant safety impacts from digital signs, except for California. The California results for single-vehicle crashes indicate a statistically significant decrease in crash frequency in the after period. Although the before-after results of California show a decrease in the after period, it does not affect the overall result because the low sample

size (6 sites) makes it more difficult to establish statistical significance in the analysis results. It is also worth noting that the North Carolina data has the largest confidence interval, due to the variability in the North Carolina single-vehicle crash data.

Figure 7. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (single-vehicle crashes) RESULTS FOR CRASHES RELATED TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF SIGNS The research team also conducted an analysis to investigate the impacts of specific on-premise digital sign characteristics on the safety impacts of those signs. Specific sign characteristics that the research team evaluated included color (single or multi-color), size (small, medium, or large), and type of business. The research team used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis method to evaluate whether the means of the safety index (θ) among the different characteristics of signs are equal. An ANOVA is one of the most common statistical methods used to compare two or more means in the analysis of experimental data. In short, ANOVA provides a statistical test of whether or not the means of multiple groups are all equal, while a t-test is suitable only for the two-group case because doing multiple two-sample t-tests would increase the risk of a Type I error (for datasets containing more than 30 observations). In addition, when there are only two means to compare, the t-test and the ANOVA are equivalent. As a result, the research team chose the oneway ANOVA as the study tool to simplify the methodology, although some digital sign characteristics, such as sign color, have only two subgroups (i.e., single color and multi-color).

The theory of an ANOVA test is to separate the total variation in the data into a portion due to random error (sum of squares for error [SSE]) and portions due to the treatment (total sum of squares [SST]). Table 6 shows the typical form of a one-way ANOVA table. If the calculated F value (= treatment mean square [MST] / error mean square [MSE]) is significantly larger than F (k-1, N-k), the null hypothesis is rejected. F (k-1, N-k) is the critical value when the means of each group are equal. Most statistic software will also provide the corresponding p-value for researchers making their decisions in different confidence intervals. Table 6. The typical form of a one-way ANOVA table Source

Treatments

SST

k-1

SST / (k-1)

MST/MSE

Error

SSE

N-k

SSE / (N-k)

P(>F)

Total (corrected) SS N-1 Notes: SS = sum of squares, DF = degrees of freedom, MS = mean of sum of squares, F = F-distribution (because the test statistic is the ratio of two scaled sums of squares, each of which follows a scaled chisquared distribution), P(>F) = the p-value when the F value (= MST/MSE) is larger than F (k-1, N-k), k = number of treatments, and N = total number of cases.

There are three data assumptions for applying the ANOVA method: 1. Independence: The study data are independently, identically, and normally distributed. 2. Normality: The distributions of the data or the residuals are normal. This assumption is true when the sample size is larger than 30. 3. Homogeneity of variability: Equality of variances — the variance of data between groups — should be the same. If the above conditions do not exist, the ANOVA results may not be reliable. However, if the sample size of each group is similar, one can usually ignore independence and homogeneity problems. Or statisticians may transform data (such as into the logarithmic form) to satisfy these assumptions of the ANOVA. Based on the existing sign dataset, the research team focused on three digital sign characteristics: color (single color or multi-color), sign dimension (small, medium, or large), and business type (restaurants, pharmacies and retail stores, hotels, gas stations, auto shops, or others). The definitions of sign dimension level are based on the balance principle (making the sample size of each group equal). Figure 8 shows the distribution of signs as a function of different dimensions, and the research team defined signs with an area less than 10 ft2 as small signs. The medium sign size had an area of at least 10 ft2 but no more than 15 ft2, and the large sign size had an area greater than 15 ft2. The sign size represents the area of the electronic display, not the overall size of the complete sign. It was estimated from the Street View image in Google Maps and may not be an accurate assessment of the sign dimensions.

Figure 8. The histogram of digital signs for each sign dimension Using the ANOVA method to analyze crash data related to specific design characteristics of the sign led to the conclusion that there is no statistically significant difference among the population means of the safety effectiveness index. The following descriptions provide more detail for each of the digital sign characteristics: 



Color: According to images obtained from the Street View feature of Google Maps, 89 signs are single-color signs, and 37 signs are multi-colored signs. Table 7 shows the ANOVA results. The test statistic (F value) is 2.07, and its p-value is 0.1527. Because the probability is larger than the critical value (0.05 for 95 percent confidence interval), the null hypothesis of equal population means cannot be rejected. In other words, the ANOVA table shows no significant difference between the mean of safety index (θEB = crash mean in the before period/crash mean in the after period) among signs having a single color or multiple colors. ` Table 7. Analysis of variance table (color) Df

Sum Sq

Mean Sq

F value

Pr(>F)

Group

4.464

4.4640

2.0704

0.1527

Residuals

124

267.352

2.1561

Sign dimensions: In the final sign dataset, 36 signs have a sign area less than 10 ft2, 56 signs have a sign area 10–15 ft2, and 34 signs have a sign area greater than 15 ft2. In Table 8, the F value is 0.7767, and its p-value is 0.4622. Because the probability is larger

than the critical value (0.05 for 95 percent confidence interval), the null hypothesis of equal population means cannot be rejected. Accordingly, researchers conclude that there is no (statistically) significant difference among the population means. Table 8. Analysis of variance table (sign dimension)



Sum Sq

Mean Sq

F value

Pr(>F)

Group

3.39

1.6950

0.7767

0.4622

Residuals

123

268.43

2.1823

Business type: In the final sign dataset, 7 signs are for restaurants, 18 for pharmacies and retail stores, 3 for hotels, 3 for gas stations, 7 for auto shops, and 84 for other business types. Based on Table 9, the F value is 0.5401, and its p-value is 0.7455. As with the above types, the null hypothesis of equal population means cannot be rejected because the p-value is much larger than the critical value (0.05). The sample size of some business type groups is less than 30, so the research team combined all categories of business types with less than 20 samples into one large group, the “other” category. The resulting ANOVA analysis (Table 10) provides similar results: there is no significant difference among the population means. Table 9. Analysis of variance table (six business types) Df

Sum Sq

Mean Sq

F value

Pr(>F)

Group

5.983

1.1966

0.5401

0.7455

Residuals

120

265.833

2.2153

Table 10. Analysis of variance table (two business types) Df

Sum Sq

Mean Sq

F value

Pr(>F)

Group

0.728

0.7289

0.333

0.5649

Residuals

123

271.088

2.18619

IMPACT OF SIGN HOLD TIME As an additional effort for this research effort, the research team worked with members of the SFI advisory panel to identify the potential impact of hold time on the relationship between onpremise digital signs and traffic safety. One of the advantages of digital signs is the ability to change the displayed message. The minimum length of time that a message must be displayed is often an element of local sign codes because some believe that frequent changing of sign messages can increase driver distraction and lead to increased crashes. Because the researchers were working with a large number of individual sites and crash records for the after period that spanned two years, it was not possible within the available resources of this project to determine what message(s) were displayed at the time of a crash or the hold time used at a particular site at the time of a crash. As a surrogate for including hold times as part of the individual site characteristics, the research team acquired information for the hold time regulations in the jurisdictions where the signs were 32

located. The 135 sign sites were located in 108 jurisdictions. A member of the SFI advisory panel contacted these jurisdictions and was able to identify hold time regulations for 66 of them. The hold time regulations of these 66 jurisdictions are summarized in Table 11. Input from the advisory panel indicated that when a jurisdiction has no statutory language regarding digital sign hold times, it most often means that sign users are able to program their sign to change messages as often as they see fit. In some cases, it could mean that the state standard for digital signs applies, which ranges from 6 to 8 seconds in the four states included in the analysis. Table 11. Summary of sign hold times Minimum Hold Time

Number of Jurisdictions

2–6 seconds

7–10 seconds

20 seconds

1–60 minutes

24 hours

Variance required*

No specific restriction

Total 66 * Hold times were established by variance on a case-by-case basis.

CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

While there have been significant amounts of research devoted to the safety impacts of geometric design features and other aspects of the publicly owned transportation infrastructure, the same cannot be said about research on the safety impacts of privately owned signs that are directed to users of public roads. This research effort focused on addressing the safety impacts of onpremise digital signs. Previous research by others has documented the safety effects of on- and off-premise digital signs and their potential influence on crash risk to some extent. However, the results of recent crash studies are not consistent, and most studies have some important weaknesses, such as neglecting biases related to the regression-to-the-mean effects, low statistical power, and analysis results based on erroneous assumptions. In addition, Molino et al. (2009) report that the results from these studies are not comparable because of their different study methods, statistical powers, and cares of execution, which affected the quality of the research. The research effort described in this report examined the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs using a large sample size of data and advanced statistical methods that provide more accurate results than previous studies. With the help of sign data provided by sign-manufacturing companies and crash data obtained from the Federal Highway Administration Highway Safety Information System, the research team obtained extensive datasets for signs and crashes in four states. The research team began the safety analysis with 1,120 potential study sites, but only 135 sites were usable due to limitations related to the individual signs or the related crash data. Although the yield of usable data was only 11.3 percent, the final sample size of 135 sites was much higher than the sample size of other published papers and reports related to on- and offpremise signs, indicating the results of this research are more robust and accurate. The research team used the empirical Bayes (EB) statistical analysis method, which is the method recommended in the Highway Safety Manual, to conduct the safety analysis described in this report. The Highway Safety Manual is a recently published document that is recognized within the transportation profession as the authoritative document for analyzing the safety impacts of various transportation improvements or treatments. The EB analysis procedure uses a before-after approach, with the before and after values modified to address local safety characteristics, regression to the mean, and other factors. The EB method reports the safety impacts through the use of a safety index indicator (represented by ). A value greater than 1 indicates an increase in crashes, and a value less than 1 indicates a decrease in crashes from the before to the after period. However, for the results to be statistically significant, the  value must be outside the limits of the 95 percentile confidence interval. For the entire sample size of 135 sites, the results from the EB method show that there is no statistically significant change in crash frequency associated with installing on‐premise digital signs because the safety effectiveness index (θ) is determined to be 1.00, and the 95 percent confidence interval is equal to 0.93 to 1.07 (which includes 1.00, indicating no statistically significant change). The research team also conducted the analysis for each of the four individual states and obtained the same results: there are no statistically significant safety impacts from

installing on-premise digital signs. In addition, the researchers analyzed the safety impacts related to both single- and multi-vehicle crashes. The results for these analyses were also the same: there is no statistically significant increase in crashes associated with the installation of onpremise digital signs. Chapter 5 includes plots that illustrate the safety index values and confidence intervals for all of these results. As a final analysis, the research team performed an ANOVA to evaluate whether the means of the safety index (θ) varied as a function of sign factors (color, size, and type of business). The color analysis evaluated whether there was a difference in the means of the safety index for single- and multi-colored signs, and the results did not find a difference. The size analysis divided the signs in the study into three categories (<10 ft2, 10–15 ft2, and >15 ft2), and the results did not find a difference. Signs were also categorized by the type of business (restaurants, pharmacies and retail stores, hotels, gas stations, auto shops, and others). Once again, there were no differences in the means. Overall, the ANOVA analysis did not identify any factor that led to an increase or decrease in traffic safety for the subcategories evaluated in the ANOVA. Based on the analysis performed for this research effort, the authors are able to conclude that there is no statistically significant evidence that the installation of on-premise signs at the locations evaluated in this research led to an increase in crashes.

CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES AASHTO. 2010. Highway Safety Manual. Washington, D.C. Abbess, C., D. Jarett, and C.C. Wright. 1981. Accidents at Blackspots; Estimating the Effectiveness of Remedial Treatment with Special Reference to the ‘Regression-to-Mean’ Effect. Traffic Engineering and Control, pp. 535–542. Bonneson, J.A., and M.P. Pratt. 2009. Roadway Safety Design Workbook. Research Report 0-4703-P2. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas. Danielsson, S. 1986. A Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating the Effect of a Countermeasure in the Presence of Regression Effects. Accident Analysis and Prevention 18 (1), pp. 13–23. Davis, G.A. 2000. Accident Reduction Factors and Causal Inference in Traffic Safety Studies: A Review. Accident Analysis and Prevention 32 (1), pp. 95–109. Farbry, J., K. Wochinger, T. Shafer, N. Owens, and A. Nedzesky. 2001. Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction. Report No. FHWA-RD-01-071. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Google Earth. 2008. Available at http://www.google.com/earth/index.html [Accessed 31 August 2011]. Hauer, E. 1980a. Bias-by-Selection: Overestimation of the Effectiveness of Safety Countermeasures Caused by the Process of Selection for Treatment. Accident Analysis and Prevention 12 (2), pp. 113–117. Hauer, E. 1980b. Selection for Treatment as a Source of Bias in Before-and-After Studies. Traffic Engineering and Control 21 (8), pp. 419–421. Hauer, E. 1997. Observational Before-After Studies in Road Safety. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford. Hauer, E. 2005. The Road Ahead. Journal of Transportation Engineering 131(5), Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., pp. 333–339. Hauer, E., and B. Persaud. 1983. Common Bias in Before-and-After Accident Comparisons and Its Elimination. Transportation Research Record 905, pp. 164–174. Hauer, E., D.W. Harwood, F.M. Council, and M.S. Griffith. 2002. The Empirical Bayes Method for Estimating Safety: A Tutorial. Transportation Research Record 1784, pp. 126–131. Hauer, E., P. Byer, and H. Joksch. 1983. Bias-by-Selection: The Accuracy of an Unbiased Estimator. Accident Analysis and Prevention 15 (5), pp. 323–328. Hughes, P.K., and B.L. Cole. 1986. What Attracts Attention When Driving? Ergonomics 29 (3), pp. 377–391. Kuo, P.-F., and D. Lord. 2012. Accounting for Site-Selection Bias in Before-After Studies for Continuous Distributions: Characteristics and Application Using Speed Data. Paper 12-2070, 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Lee, S.E., M.J. McElheny, and R. Gibbons. 2007. Driving Performance and Digital Billboards. Center for Automotive Safety Research, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blackburg, Virginia. Li, W., A. Carriquiry, M. Pawlovich, and T. Welch. 2008. The Choice of Statistical Models in Road Safety Countermeasure Effectiveness Studies in Iowa. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (4), pp. 1531–1542.

Lord, D., and P.-F. Kuo. 2012. Examining the Effects of Site Selection Criteria for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Traffic Safety Improvement Countermeasures. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42, pp. 52–63. Lord, D., and F. Mannering. 2010. The Statistical Analysis of Crash-Frequency Data: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Alternatives. Transportation Research - Part A 44 (5), pp. 291-305. Mace, D. 2001. Chapter 2: On-Premise Signs and Traffic Safety. In Context-Sensitive Signage Design, American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois. Maher, M., and L. Mountain. 2009. The Sensitivity of Estimates of Regression to the Mean. Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (4), pp. 861–868. Miranda-Moreno, L.F. 2006. Statistical Models and Methods for Identifying Hazardous Locations for Safety Improvements. Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo. Molino, J.A., J. Wachtel, J.E. Farbry, M.B. Hermosillo, and T.M. Granda. 2009. The Effects of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) on Driver Attention and Distraction: An Update. Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-018. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Noland, R.B. 2003. Traffic Fatalities and Injuries: The Effect of Changes in Infrastructure and Other Trends. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (4), pp. 599–611. Persaud, B., and C. Lyon. 2007. Empirical Bayes Before-After Safety Studies: Lessons Learned from Two Decades of Experience and Future Directions. Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (3), pp. 546–555. Persaud, B.N., R. Retting, P. Garder, and D. Lord. 2001. Observational Before-After Study of U.S. Roundabout Conversions Using the Empirical Bayes Method. Transportation Research Record 1751, pp. 1–8. Quddus, M.A. 2008. Modeling Area-Wide Count Outcomes with Spatial Correlation and Heterogeneity: An Analysis of London Crash Data. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (4), pp. 1486–1497. Smiley, A., B. Persaud, G. Bahar, C. Mollett, C. Lyon, T. Smahel, and W.L. Kelman. 2005. Traffic Safety Evaluation of Video Advertising Signs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1937, pp. 105–112. Tantala, A.M., Sr., and M.W. Tantala. 2007. A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, Washington, D.C. Tantala, A.M., Sr., and M.W. Tantala. 2009. An Update of a Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, Washington, D.C. Tarko, A., S. Eranky, and K. Sinha. 1998. Methodological Considerations in the Development and Use of Crash Reduction Factors. Preprint Paper (unpublished) at 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. U.S. Small Business Administration. 2003. The Signage Sourcebook: A Signage Handbook. U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, D.C., and the Signage Foundation for Communication Excellence, Inc., Sherwood, Oregon. Wachtel, J. 2009. Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs. Final Report under NCHRP Project 20-7 (256). Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

Wachtel, J., and R. Netherton. 1980. Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage. Report No. FHWARD-80-051. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 1994. Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study: Impacts of an Advertising Variable Message Sign on Freeway Traffic. Internal Report (unpublished). District 2, Freeway Operations Unit. Wright, C., C. Abbess, and D. Jarrett. 1988. Estimating the Regression-to-Mean Effect Associated with Road Accident Black Spot Treatment: Towards a More Realistic Approach. Accident Analysis and Prevention 20, pp. 199–214. Ye, Z., and D. Lord. 2009. Estimating the Variance in Before-After Studies. Journal of Safety Research 40 (4), pp. 257–263. Ye, Z., D. Veneziano, and D. Lord. 2011. Safety Impact of Gateway Monuments. Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (1), pp. 290–300

APPENDIX A: STEP-BY-STEP INSTRUCTIONS FOR STUDENTS TO RECORD SIGN DATA

1. Open one SFI sign dataset (e.g., “Washington_2006-2007.xls”). This dataset includes about 150 signs located in the state of Washington during 2006–2007. 2. Input the address information (such as Primary Street Address, City, ZIP Code, County Name, and State) of each sign in Google Maps and use the Street View function to identify the target signs. Please see this link, http://maps.google.com/help/maps/starthere/index.html#streetview&utm_campaign=en& utm_medium=et&utm_source=en-et-na-us-gns-svn&utm_term=gallery, for a demo about how to use the Street View. If you did not find any on-premise digital signs near this site, please make a note in Table 12. Check the characteristics of each sign (including colors, dimensions, and business types) and fill out Table 12. Then, use the “Print Screen” button to copy each sign’s picture, and paste it in this document (such as Figure 9). The different business types are classified as (1) Restaurant, (2) Pharmacy and Retail Store, (3) Hotel, (4) Gas Station, (5) Auto Shop, and (6) Other. Table 12. Example work table of site data collection procedure Google Maps Google Earth Installation Color Address Dimension Business County Route MileDate Picture (Single/ Distance (Estimated) Type ID # post Multi.) 79016 19330 N US 2006/9/15 Fig 2 S 3 ft × 6 ft 6 Mason 101 19.3 335.72 HIGHWAY (23) 101 Shelton 98584 Mason County, WA Sign ID

Note

3. Then, use Google Earth to determine the county and route number, and to measure the distance between the closet county boundaries and sign location along the route (recorded in the distance column). The corresponding ID for county and route number is based on the HSIS data manual (file name: guidebook_WA[1].pdf). Then, estimate the milepost value of the sign by the distance and the milepost of the route in the boundaries (based on the HSIS road file, such as wa04road.xls). Take Figure 10; for example, the end mile point of Highway 101 in the county boundary is 355.18, and the distance between the sign and the county boundary is 19.3; so, the milepost of our sign is 335.72. Generally, the milepost value increases from south to north and from west to east. However, the best way to check it is to compare the value of the milepost of adjusted counties. For example, the milepost of US 101 in Mason County is 313.96~355.18, and the milepost of US 101 in Thurston County (located south of Mason) is 355.18~365.56. So, it is known that the mileposts increase from north to south in Mason County. The above variables will be used in the R software to select target crashes from HSIS crash datasets. 4. Write down any questions or comments in the note column. Feel free to ask us if you have any questions.

Figure 9. Example screenshot of Google Maps

Figure 10. Example screenshot of Google Earth

APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL SYMBOLS

The following statistical symbols are used throughout this report.

 = the safety effectiveness, 0

1 (can be theoretically higher, but not in this study).

n = the sample size.  = the dispersion parameter (of the negative binomial model). t = the time period. ˆCS = the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the CS method. ˆ = the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the naïve method. naive

ˆ

= the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the control group method.

ˆEB = the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the EB method.

̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period. ˆ = the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the before period.

ˆ = the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the after period.

̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the before period. N ijT1 , N ijC1 = the observed responses for site i (T = treatment group and C = control group) and year j (in the before period). T N ij 2 , N ijC2 = the observed responses for site i (T = treatment group and C = control group) and year j (in the after period). M ij1 = the expected responses for site i for the EB method, t

ˆ )  (1  W)  ( N ) Mij1  W  (  ij1 1 j1

W = the weight for sites for the EB method, W 

1 . ˆ 1  1  ˆ

̂1 = the estimate for the average crash rate of all sites in the before period. ̂ = the estimate of the dispersion parameter (from the negative binomial model).

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:23 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name James B Carpentier Email james.carpentier@signs.org Address 1001 N Fairfax St, Suite 301, Alexandria, VA 22314 Comment Please see attached documents. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/6f55d0eb‐6054‐41c0‐af9a‐ 7121dfefe2a1/street_graphics_and_the_law_5__monument__sign_copy_height.pdf I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 1:50 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Susanne Carroll Email Susie.johnson1976@gmail.com Address 1903 E WARM SPRINGS AVE Boise, Idaho 83712 Comment I am in favor of the zoning changes. I believe it is important for property owners have choice related to the land they own. Infill and greater density increases opportunities which leads to prosperity for many. There are already too many barriers to building projects. I personally, as a single woman created a new subdivision on Warm Springs Ave and it was the most difficult thing I have ever done. If the new zoning rules help others fulfill their dreams, I support it fully. I don't believe unsupportive neighbors should have much say. Let owners move forward with projects. Fewer barriers, less expense, more housing. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:35 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Denise Caruzzi Email dcaruzzi@gmail.com Address 1102 N 19th Street Comment Thank you for all the work, and efforts at public comment you have expended for updating the zoning code. Please accept my endorsement of up‐zoning and the creation of denser, more affordable housing in Boise's central corridors. My reservation is that currently affordable housing (and its tenants) must be protected. The code must include additional requirements in the case of demolition and rebuilding of existing housing. (Any expedited processes MUST ensure our community is better for the wide variety of residents who comprise our multi‐generational, multi‐racial, multi‐socioeconomic, and multi‐ability residents.) Thank you for progress AND for equity. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:55 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Ester Ceja Email run_1@hotmail.com Address 3901 N. Cambria Way, Boise, ID 83703 Comment Good afternoon! As someone who has been involved in this process I support the majority of the zoning rewrite. However, I continue to have concerns with the city not increasing the zoning in the Sycamore area of the Collister Neighborhood. It doesn't make sense to propose Transit Oriented Development (TOD) on State and Collister and within 1/8 of a mile go from the highest density to the lowest density in the city. This doesn't make sense. Let's not pick and choose how you zone areas. I agree we need to be mindful of our neighborhood character, but we are a changing city and we need to be innovative in the manner in which we create a walkable and livable community for ALL of our residents. We need to make sure to distance industrial zoning from residential zoning. We need to create walkable neighborhoods with services within walking/biking distance. We need a diversity of housing options (townhouses, apartments, small homes, condos) at AFFORDABLE rates THROUGHOUT THE CITY. Drive‐thru's were added back into the recent draft in certain zones, which is not acceptable. We need to move away from allowing drive‐thru's in neighborhoods, they do not contribute to walkable neighborhoods. The draft is not perfect, but we need to start somewhere. We need to find a balance between neighbors and developers. Lastly, public involvement on neighborhood projects is key, but neighbors and developers must work together to address concerns. We need I will certainly have more input to provide during the public hearing. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Andrea Tuning Monday, March 20, 2023 11:41 AM ZoningRewrite FW: CSIM from Mayor's Office re zoning code

From: Trish Charlton <trishcharlton@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:43:36 AM (UTC‐07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada) To: Info <info@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Re: Help Shape Our Neighborhoods and Zoning Rewrite My husband and I are Idaho natives who have lived in various Idaho cities throughout our lifetime. We made a very conscious decision after college to remain in Idaho as we desired to raise our family in the same safe and supportive communities that we enjoyed as children. That has been an excellent choice for us until the last few years in Boise. A while back I received a post card saying you would "love to hear from us on how the city can support and enhance our neighborhood". I wanted to write then and call you out on how insincere and hypocritical that felt to the people who fought so hard to keep IFS out of a neighborhood, but I didn't. Now, however, as I read information about some of the proposed changes in your zoning rewrite, I feel compelled to write and voice my opinion. First, the time frame allowed for citizens to review such an important document before finalizing it seems very inadequate. It sends a message that the city is attempting to rush this through before anyone has the opportunity to actually assess how the proposed changes might affect their neighborhood. I see that one of the changes is that the city would be able to approve changes without requiring a CUP hearing. This is very alarming to me as this is the only avenue available to taxpaying citizens to attempt to protect their existing neighborhoods. A recent example of this is the P & Z decision to deny IFS the requested variance. Many people took time off work, cancelled appointments, and missed other engagements to voice their concerns about the incompatibility of placing a low barrier shelter in a neighborhood. They were able to express their very valid concerns about the inherent dangers and problems that accompany IFS, and P & Z listened and agreed. The city, however, chose to blatantly ignore both the neighborhoods concerns and the recommendation of P & Z .... the city's own agency for determining whether or not a variance should be granted. Giving the city control over several variance issues rather than P & Z is taking away the only voice citizens currently have to try and protect their neighborhoods. We have already seen several examples of how the city responds when following the rules and codes it created doesn't suit its purpose, so you can understand why this action in particular raises a big red flag. This is the first time in my entire life that I have felt the need to keep a watchful eye on local elected officials. I am not an activist or a trouble maker; rather, I am a law abiding citizen who desires to protect our city for future generations. Neighborhoods are not just real estate. They are places where lives are lived, children are raised, and lifetime memories are made, and law abiding, taxpaying citizens deserve support and protection from their local governments in their endeavor to keep the character and integrity of their neighborhoods in tact. Please reconsider your time frame on this extremely important issue to allow more time for people to understand and give feedback on how the proposed changes might impact their neighborhoods going forward. Trish Charlton

Suezann Yorita

PDS Receptionist Planning and Development Services Office: (208)608-7066 syorita@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org

Creating a city for everyone.

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 12:17 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Trish Charlton Email trishcharlton@outlook.com Address 2736 N. Lakeharbor Ln Comment I find it both disturbing and inappropriate that such a short amount of time has been allotted for citizens to review the proposed rezoning document. This is a far reaching and important issue that will impact the city of Boise for years to come, and a reasonable amount of time for review by interested parties needs to be allowed. Certain updates, changes, and clarifications to the current code are definitely needed and will be beneficial going forward, but other proposed changes will permanently affect the current character and livability of existing neighborhoods. For this important reason, the process should not be rushed through so quickly. Taxpayers deserve a reasonable time frame for review and feedback on something that could affect them so dramatically in the future. Thank you for your consideration of this request and for the work you do on behalf of our city. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 5:52 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jennifer Christensen Email jchristensen406@gmail.com Address 1703 S. Ridge Point Pl Comment I oppose the proposed upzoning in Boise. 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. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. We moved to Boise because of its "livability" And we have watched that change over the last few years as every spare inch of land is being built on with apartments! I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:29 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Annette Christensen Email archristensen208@gmail.com Address Eagle, ID 83616 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 7:48 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Brad D Claiborn Email bradcl@hotmail.com Address 3605 N MOUNTAIN VIEW DR Comment Since the public has not been given adequate time to study, analyze, and comment on the Zoning Code Rewrite, I urge you to extend the timeline so that we have at least 90 days to do so properly given the magnitude of the proposed changes. I understand that Federal guidelines allow for up to 180 days for such to be accomplished. Please extend the timeline. Thank you. Brad & Patrice Claiborn (34 years in our home and neighborhood.) I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:55 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Virgel Clark Email bobc012001@yahoo.com Address 2259 S White Pine Place, Boise, ID 83706 Comment As a Boise resident I vehemently oppose the proposed Boise upzoning/code rewrite. This change to current zoning regulations will greatly and permanently damage the integrity, consistency and livability of Boise neighborhoods. The only beneficiaries to this disaster will be developers, who will be allowed to rampage unbridled in their pursuit of profit throughout our city with no meaningful controls. I cannot understand why the mayor and her city council would inflict this monster upon the residents of our city. She evidently wants to radically increase density to gain more federal dollars for her purposes, clearly not to improve the livability of Boise neighborhoods. This new code is not in the best interest of the citizens of Boise and the residents of its diverse neighborhoods. Negative impacts of the proposed zoning code: 1. Allows intrusive and incompatible uses such as apartments, boarding houses, retail sales, bars, cafes, and bed and breakfasts in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Eliminates requirements and opportunities for public hearings. 2. Increased demand from investors and developers will drive up property and home values, raising taxes and further challenging home affordability. 3. New code will encourage demolishing existing homes with taller, bigger, denser construction with less required parking. Trees and private open space will be lost. 4. By making higher density housing an allowed use by right, the code shuts out neighbors from the proceedings and from being meaningfully heard, circumvents the normal planning and zoning process, and reverses the city's decades‐long commitment to its neighborhoods. 5. My neighborhood was recently able to drive a crime‐ridden wide‐open crack house from our area through use and enforcement of Boise's existing zoning codes. With this new code we would not have that tool available to us to improve the safety and livability of our neighborhood. We would still have the crack house and the mayor would have her "density" goals. This is unacceptable. 6. Infrastructure such as schools, fire, police would become overburdened and require higher taxes from all of us to subsidize the demand.

I reject this code as it is currently proposed. The mayor has tried to ram it through. This new code is bad for Boise and all who love our city. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:31 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Harry and Bee Clark Email beeandhari@gmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83702 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, We are asking you to delay sending proposed zoning update to Planning and Zoning and on to the City Council, and give your citizens more time to review this complex document. At 611 pages giving only 21 days for review is a travesty and not an honest move on your part. There is so much change in this document that is just unworkable, and will have the opposite effect of what is needed. More housing is definitely needed but such brutal tactics as no notification of neighbors and no public comment is going to cause a firestorm of protest even for projects that many of us know are needed. Please reconsider and give your public adequate time to review and comment. Asking for the cooperation of your constituents instead of hitting them with a sledgehammer might prove to be a more productive method. Thank you, Harry and Bee Clark If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Tannya Cluff <tcluff@insurancepros.org> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:40 PM ZoningRewrite [External] comments for zoning rewrite

I’d like to state that short term rental and ADU’s should still require the owner to living in one of the units. Also like to comment that more emphasis or focus should be put on basements. Tannya Cluff 10800 W Smoke Ranch Dr. Boise ID 83709 tcluff@outlook.com 208.861.3880

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 1:14 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Philip Coebergh Email pjcoebergh@gmail.com Address 705 N. Bacon Drive Comment Instead of modern as you say on your website it looks draconian to me. And impossible for the average person with 19 plus years of education to understand. It looks like you want to squeeze in more people into already crowded areas and to get single family homes removed to put in four plexes with no parking. People won't walk to a neighborhood store to pay $6 for a loaf of bread that costs $3 at Winco. People don't want to have a convenience store next door in what should be a residential area. I could go on and on but it won't be heard. I suggest you throw all you have done out and start something new with the plan to make it understandable to non‐experts. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 1:17 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Mike Coffey Email coffandbelle@msn.com Address Boise, Idaho 83712 Comment The so called rewrite seems to be rushing towards approval without the vast majority of our citizens even aware of the effort. More time is needed to sift through this cumbersome document prior to moving forward. I’m opposed to the current rewrite due the most certain devastating affects to our single Family neighborhoods. Changing permissible lot size splits, density and building heights to R‐1C and R‐2 zones should not be part of Boise’s vision. Your affordability reasonings don’t make sense to me. Parking and traffic on narrow existing single family neighborhoods is already at the limits. Adding a 3 story 4plex on a 3,500 sq. ft. lot will be a huge burden on quiet R‐1C neighborhoods. Let’s not rush into this “Re‐Write” without extended due process. I’ll also send my comments to the Mayor and City Council. Looking forward to your thoughtful review. Thank you, Mike Coffey, East Boise, Riverview Drive. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 4:15 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Cort Conley Email conleycort@gmail.com Address 2609 N 29th. Boise, Idaho 83703 Comment After reading the relevant sections of the elephantine so‐called "Up‐zone," one needn't be a Jane Jacobs or Lewis Mumford to comprehend its height and density and parking proposals represent a sumptuous platter for developers and realtors, of which Boise already has a surfeit. Nothing in this tome will improve livability for current residents. In fact, the "Up‐zone" is a smorgasbord of obsolescent, bankrupt notions of urban planning. Kindly extend the comment period by at least six months. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 2:04 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Thomas Conn Email xsvpd@mac.com Address 1100 N. Harrison Blvd Boise, Idaho 83702 Comment We concerned people who live in Boise do not want this scam the mayor and her backers want to do to our city. Take your ideas, backers money and leave Idaho. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

THOMAS CONN <xsvpd@mac.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:00 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning

This want to do this rezoning is horrifying, ridiculous, stupid beyond all imagination. People that want to do this should be kicked out of town. It’s just insanely indecent, Boise is Boise, IDAHO, it’s not Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland. Leave Boise alone what the heck do you think we moved here for, because it was beautiful. Now you carpet baggers, and then pocket scum Scum are doing hell‐bent your best to destroy it. If I was the king of idaho I put you all in jail and I throw away the key. You all author be ashamed of yourself, your money, hungry money hungry bastards. If you don’t like my verbiage, go back where you came from , because your wanted destruction of this city is not wanted by the real people who’ve been living here forever and love the place. Shame on you, mayor, and shame on all your CoHearts, who want to destroy the place like you do. Sent from my iPad

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:30 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Lawrence Conn Email lrconn@me.com Address Boise, ID 83702 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I live in a historic home, but it is not in a neighborhood protected by histroric designation. The new zoning code would directly affect me and my immediate neighbors. A delay of some months to allow a thorough review of the proposed changes will be time well spent. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:22 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Marilyn Cosho Email Address Boise, ID 83702 Comment Please give more time for the public to understand the final draft of the Zoning Code before it is sent for approval to Planning & Zoning and then to the City Council. I am not a robot

March 17, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: From what I have read, Upzoning isn’t right for Boise and I think you are doing a disservice to the citizens and giving free reign to the developers! This will have a MAJOR impact on the city and it’s residents and should not be taken lightly. Very little Publicity about this Zoning Code Rewrite has been put out to the public. I have not seen any news reports on this subject. It’s as though you don’t want any feedback from your constituents. The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611-page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, David Crawforth 3120 W Hillcrest Ln

Boise, ID 83705

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:31 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jim Culpepper Email pmjc79@msn.com Address 2719 N Lake Harbor Ln Comment As a long time resident of Boise, we are concerned with the growth. This re‐zoning project is very important to the livability of our city. We don't want our city to become another Portland or Seattle! I'm sure you have a lot of very smart people working on it and we thank all of you for your efforts! But with the length of the summary, the deadline to review it is way too short. I would like more time and I'm sure many other concerned citizens would like the same. It's not much to ask for on this important issue. I'm sure there will be public forums for discussions before the final plan is approved. Again, thank you and the team for your time and energy that went into this plan. We look forward to giving our comments. Sincerely, Jim Culpepper If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

wecutshall@gmail.com Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:26 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZCR comments

Ref: ZOA23‐00001 CPA2300001

I just learned today that today is the last day to submit public comments to be included in the project report. 611 pages in 21 days? Serious public officials don’t pull stunts like that. To say the least, this does not help your credibility. In the ridiculously inadequate window you have allowed, I have found several areas of serious concern. I only have me to briefly touch on one: Your proposed off‐street parking reduc ons WILL cause unsafe condi ons on neighborhood streets. My neighborhood knows well the problems that inadequate off‐street parking cause. We opposed a rezone to commercial at the end of my street on the grounds of lack of zoning‐required off‐street parking. Per ACHD, our street is sub‐standard because of its narrow width and has no sidewalks. Time has proven the neighborhood correct and experts at P&Z wrong. A er at least 2 accidents, and dangerously over‐parked and illegally parked intersec on (cars parked on both side our narrow street; barely room for one car to pass; no firetruck would even a empt passage), it is clear that the “experts” at P&Z ‐and later the City Council on appeal‐ failed my neighborhood. Do NOT reduce zoning‐required off‐street parking. You “hope” ZCR will mean fewer cars and trucks on the roads. Un l there is a credible urban transit system, your “hope” is just a pipe dream – and neighborhoods – especially older neighborhoods like mine will pay a steep price. Other flaws in your plan: No me to elaborate. 

The problem with short‐term rentals is bad now and will explode under your plan.



Property taxes, assessed values will rise because of ZCR. Please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming they won’t.



ADUs are a problem now in my neighborhood. You must ghten the restric ons on them. For one, owner‐occupancy must be mandatory – no excep ons.



Your limits on no ﬁca on requirements must change. No ﬁca on requirements must be neighborhood‐wide.



In your slick marke ng campaign, you say your plan speaks to and reﬂects the “values” of Boiseans. Nice try. In poll a er poll, what people want most is homeownership. Not to live in an apartment, an 8‐bedroom duplex, next to a group home. Your plan does nothing to incen vize homeownership.

Clearly ZCR as it exists now is NOT ready for prime me. 1

William Cutshall

March 21, 2023 Greetings, I am writing to express my overall support of the City of Boise’s rewrite of the current zoning code, re: ZOA23-001 & CPA23-0001. I have been a resident of Boise for 23+ years and like most residents I have seen the city grow and change, as cities are a living and dynamic entity. Managing the increased growth, especially that of the last 20-30 years, and the corresponding change that accompanies growth is critical. I’ve noted the frustrations revolving growth, some of which are due to the current code, which along with being dated, has been amended numerous times. My own concerns regarding growth are issues the zoning code doesn’t address specifically, issues like sustainability and future planning for climate impacts, traffic, traffic again, adequate roads, the need to increase public transit as well as safe pedestrian and bicycle routes, housing affordability and availability, accessibility, water limitations, impact fees on builders and whatever else. However, the zoning code can serve as a catalyst to lay the foundation to mitigate the issues that accompany growth. Addressing these issues is why I support the revised zoning code currently being proposed as it can serve as a catalyst to address and solve some of these problems. I support focusing the growth along the current busy corridors, I like the idea of increasing Mixed Use areas to facilitate more community interaction with local businesses (in fact Bown Crossing is one of my favorite areas), the designs standards have the potential to improve the areas where land use is changing, enhancing tree canopy and open space benefits all, safer pedestrian and bike access is needed and it appears as if the proposed draft zoning code will encourage more affordable housing even though defining affordable is tricky. That said there are some issues I’m concerned with. As background, I have been involved in land management for years, primarily involving Federal lands or proposals which involved the integration of people i.e., visitor and community use, as well as enhancing and preserving cultural and natural resources, with a focus on sustainable outcomes. I became interested in what was happening in the city, so I attended Energize sessions (in person and hybrid) and when the opportunity to apply for the Citizens Advisory Committee for the rewrite occurred, I applied and was selected. For the record I do not agree with the some of the negative comments/perceptions of the CAC members being voiced by some in the community. I am not a developer; I had/have no vested interested in this process, other than the seeing a need for a long-term zoning strategy to be written and implemented as its 20+ years overdue.

I share this, because as a former CAC member, since September 2020 I attended the CAC meetings routinely, as well as attending most of the public meetings held via zoom or in person by the city. Seeking to understand other perspectives, on the flip side of the city’s process I have attended numerous non-government sponsored meetings, via zoom or FB either live or recorded of independent groups, such as the Homeless Coalition, Vanishing Boise, Boise Renters United, Reject Boise Upzone and various others as well as attending many of my Neighborhood Association meetings. As a result of my overall involvement, my three key concerns that will impact the future implementation of this plan, as well as three suggestions are: First: Clarification in simpler language needs to be stated in response to the statements revolving around the loss of private homes, forcing people out of their homes, and forcing changes in neighborhoods. I’ve flipped the sections of the document back and forth, and I am unable to locate such statements, perhaps they are misinterpretations. These concerns need to be addressed directly and in simpler language to clarify actual intent. Second: Please do not extend the comment period. How long can we kick the can (i.e., the needs of a fast-growing city) down the road? What happens If we don’t update the current code? We’ll face continual spawl, deficient infrastructure and more frustration. Please finalize the document and begin implementation as soon as legally feasible. Third: In its entirety, this is a good plan. Plans are dynamic. The zoning code will never satisfy everyone. Never. There has been some discussion about addressing the plan in parts. Piecemealing a plan isn’t a plan, as it doesn’t address a long-term strategy. The concern for what happens if this plan is implemented and what if part X or part Y fails, then we’re stuck with it is out there. At the January Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting I noted that I didn't expect the plan to be perfect and then asked how do we fix or modify glitches discovered once it's implemented. Paraphrasing the response: The city will make modifications throughout time to refine and address those glitches. Citizens need to understand that glitches can be modified. In conclusion, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a good plan. It may not be perfect, yet plans are dynamic. Please move forward with the plan once the newest rounds of comments are received, reviewed and the plan modified if necessary. Thank you. Sincerely, Roberta D’Amico Citizen Volunteer 3109 S Crossfield Way Boise, Idaho 83706

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 15, 2023 2:15 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Brian and Kristin Daigle Email B22Daigle@aol.com Address Boise, ID 83709 Comment The new zoning ordinance under proposal should not be passed for several reasons: Removes Affordable Housing, Shuts Out Neighbors, Existing Homes Will Be Demolished, Allows Intrusive and Incompatible Uses, Increases Investor Activity, Upzoning has been shown to drive up property values, property taxes, and rents. Schools, fire, police, and other infrastructure become overburdened by the increased demand from upzoning. Please reject this ordinance rewrite proposal for the sake of quality of life in this city that's already being eroded. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

darsulli (null)f <darsulli@aol.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:55 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Please don't Upzone Boise.

No preference to long time tax paying residents seems a poor way to run a city. The beauty and soul of our city will be gone. The once vigorous remodeling and improvements will end. No one wants a 4 story apartment next door. City gardens will vanish . The foxes and nesting hawks will leave the area. Please consider not pushing ahead with changes that will be so devastating to Boise the way we know it. Sent from my iPhone

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Jackie Davidson <jackiedavidsonidaho@protonmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:29 PM ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant [External] Public Comment on ZOA23-00001 & DPA23-00001 Planning and Zoning Rewrite

Gentlemen/women: I have been doing research on this rewrite. The latest rewrite only came out 22 days ago. At over 600 pages, it is unrealistic that the public can analyze this document in such a short time. Even given until April 24-27, it is unrealistic to expect the public to be able to analyze this document. I am hereby requesting that the public testimony time be put into the future. I would recommend a time period of at least until September 2023. We will be electing Boise City Council members and a mayor. I am in Boise City Council District 2. There is currently no elected representative for my district. I would not be represented by someone who is appointed. This is a very important issue and I would like to be able to communicate with my elected representative. With that in mind, I would recommend that the consideration of this rewrite be postponed until after the mayor and city council are solidified. Idaho has long been known as a rural, conservative state. I have lived here in Boise for 41 years. I have appreciated the low density of Boise. In the last few years there have been drastic changes to our city. The idea of density of atrocious. It will put a burden on the infrastructure and utilities. The bench has nice neighborhoods. Though old, these neighborhoods meet the American way of life. A single residence with a yard. These are homes that are owned by the resident. Taking these single residents out and putting in 3 level 4-plexes or 10-plexes will destroy these neighborhoods. It will take home ownership away. The residents will be renters with no pride of ownership. Also, there will be limited parking. I have seen the results of these types of rental units and the roads are packed with cars. My neighborhood has limited cars that are parked on the street. If Boise City develops rental apartments, the cars parked on the street will cause road congestion and a sore sight. One only needs to look at what is happening on 27th and Stewart in Boise to see the consequences of these density apartments. The only one that wins with these Planning and Zoning rewrites is the developer. With this in mind, it would be my hope that you will postpone this rewrite until after the Mayoral and City Council election is completed. Also, the rewrite should make sure that the neighborhoods are retained with home ownership. Thank you for your time. Jackie Davidson Precinct Committeewoman 1614 8107 W. Canterbury Ct. Boise, ID 83704

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:42 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Alexis Davis Email alexhouseofdavis@gmail.com Address 1320 E Warm Springs Ave Comment Boise owes its beauty, peacefulness and livability in large part to thousands of citizens over the course of 150 years who in good faith have vigilantly watched over and intelligently helped city leadership determine how land should best be used and not used. Please be careful in the rush to create quantity and volume that you do not silence those voices. They're not reactionary, they're not unreasonable‐‐Boise neighbors citywide are some of the most intelligent, caring, diligent, balanced, welcoming and civil people you can find anywhere in America. Keep them at the table. Give them just a smidge more power than developers and growth projections data, and the outcomes everyone has to live with for the next hundred fifty years will be superior. Thank you for your hard work on this code. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:32 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Gary Davis Email gary.davis@populasfurniture.com Address Boise ID 83712 Comment I am against any zoning rewrites that place multi‐family housing or dense condominiums in any of the neighborhoods that are part of Historic Districts. I feel this development is not compatible with current and past use of the neighborhoods. Furthermore Among my unresolved concerns with the Boise Idaho Zoning Code Rewrite are the following: ‐ Reduced notification requirements for changes in our historic district ‐ High density construction that is inconsistent with historic building practices ‐ Increased demolition of existing homes that are part of our historic district I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:51 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Ann Marie DeBolt Email annmdebolt@gmail.com Address 2032 South Crystal Way Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is to be expected, but poorly designed growth is and will negatively impact Boise citizens. We don't deserve this. We are already being massively impacted by out‐of‐control growth. The current infrastructure simply cannot handle what is already happening. I believe that you need to increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the federally suggested timeframe of 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. I urge that you don't send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:58 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Lisa Denmark Email Largedenmark@gmail.com Address 1510 N 22nd St Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. Thank you. Respectfully, Lisa Denmark I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 4:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Diane Email gmpdesigns@hotmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment DON'T UPZONE BOISE! I am retired and on a fixed income. Upzoning Boise will drive property values up, and increase my already outrageous property taxes. Thank you for doing the right thing and rejecting this upzone. Diane If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Intermountain Fair Housing Council Concilio de Vivienda Justa 4696 W. Overland Road, Suite 140 Boise, Idaho 83705 Phone: (208)383-0695 Toll Free: (800)717-0695 Fax: (208) 383-0715 Email: contact@ifhcidaho.org www.ifhcidaho.org

March 22, 2023 Chairman Bob Scheffer and Chairman Meredith Stead Planning and Zoning Commission City of Boise, Planning Department 150 Capital Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Chairman Schaeffer, Chairman Stead, and members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: The Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC), is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to ensure open and inclusive housing for all persons without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, a source of income, or disability. The IFHC attempts to eradicate discrimination through, education on the fair housing laws, housing information and referral, housing counseling, and assistance with mediating and or filing fair housing complaints, among other things. The IFHC also provides education and outreach on fair housing laws and practices to housing providers and others. Please accept this letter today in our capacity to offer comment on the proposed new Zoning Code. BOISE’S RACIST HOUSING ORIGINS Zoning originated across America a century ago as a legal basis for racial exclusion, so it is important that today we use zoning as a proactive tool that contributes to providing equitable, affordable and accessible housing across Boise. Here in Boise although there were likely not any explicit federal Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) official redlining maps that we can point to, nevertheless banks still denied people of color access to credit and insurance, the primary purpose of redlining maps. We also know that the concept of redlining encompassed a broad spectrum of discriminatory practices that resulted in the systematic denial of housing services to people of color and that lesser-known redlining happened in Boise via….. • Urban renewal/eminent domain – a dark period in the 1960s and 70s where many cities including Boise, backed by federal money, demolished hundreds of communities of color in

the name of “urban renewal” (in Boise much of it was done under the guise of building a “downtown mall”) • Highway and railroad construction (both went through Boise’s River Street neighborhood) • Intentional neglect/disinvestment in livability amenities like grocery stores, parks, roads, sidewalks, water/sewer, and other public infrastructure, along with the creation of dangers environments via abandoned and neglected buildings. • Racist patterns and practices by real estate agents, appraisers, & property developers via blockbusting, exclusionary zoning, racist covenants via CC&Rs, and other techniques. • Discriminatory zoning laws, most notably in Boise putting incompatible industrial zoning next to communities of color. BSU History professor Dr. Jill Gill had this to say about it: River District - Boise’s "Black Neighborhood" - was “zoned for noise and warehouse and industrial, whereas white neighborhoods were zoned to protect them”. Intentionally harmful policy and public disinvestment created these disparities; it will take intentionally reparative policy and active public investment to reverse them. We would be remise if we didn’t mention the nefarious ways that zoning can be utilized is still happening today: Blue Valley Mobile Home Park – an affordable residential community inexplicably zoned industrial while the City forces incompatible industrial zoning around it via its planned “Gateway” industrial park. In addition, the type of accelerated growth and development Boise is experiencing now causes a growing divide between rich and poor, white and non-white in our city: increasing rents, lower vacancy rates, longer waiting lists for subsidized housing, increasing levels of homelessness, and sdimmense re-development pressure that leads to the demolitioning of our most affordable neighborhoods. With this foundation established, the remainder of our comments will center on issues of how to remedy housing inequities… LAND LIFT AND INCLUSIONARY ZONING It is important to make the distinction between adding new housing and adding housing affordable to Boiseans. Because fundamentally if the new zoning code incentivizes a building boom of high-end, luxury housing, then it is in fact simply a displacement accelerant policy instead. The City must recognize that public investment in infrastructure and housing and zoning policy changes in urban and regional areas generate enormous value, which can and should be shared widely with all Boiseans. We understand that the proposed Zoning Code contains 5 “affordability incentives” - to entice developers with additional density (and or cost savings) if they include a small percentage of incomerestricted units. However, IFHC maintains that these incentives are too limited to have any real effect on affordability and inclusivity, while it also neglects to capture the massive windfall in value and profits of the upzone. Among other things, the zoning code rewrite is a blanket city-wide upzone which provides significant new entitlements to a landowner or speculator. If this is a policy choice the City is making in an attempt to get more housing density to satisfy the intense growth pressures, then the City must also

recognize that the public deserves to capture a portion of that value to truly ensure an equitable city for everyone. Most cities that undertake a blanket upzone, do so IN ORDER TO CAPTURE THE VALUE for the production of affordable housing, also called inclusionary zoning. Seattle called theirs “The Grand Bargain” or Mandatory Housing Affordability, New York’s is Mandatory Inclusionary Housing, and Portland’s is called the Inclusionary Zoning Program. Even noted former supply-sider “just build more” density advocates have backed off the narrative that simply building housing without affordability mandates will lower instead of actually increase housing prices: "If you want to get the rights to create height and density, we are going to make a trade. In order for you to go up, you’re going to make affordable housing. We will trade density for good things a developer will do in order to get the density and height they want, they’ve got to build affordable housing and more inclusive community.”1—Richard Florida, nationally-known urbanist (who was brought to Boise several times to keynote events) "Upzoning is far from the progressive policy tool it has been sold to be. It mainly leads to building highend housing in desirable locations."2 —Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, Professor of Economic Geography at the London School of Economics “If city authorities are going to create many millions of dollars’ worth of new value by the stroke of the pen, adding new density in the hopes of creating more affordable housing, they have the power, the right, and indeed the obligation to – not to just upzone in the hopes of producing affordability – but to insist on it.”3—Patrick Condon, University of British Columbia Urban Planning professor According to https://inclusionaryhousing.org more than 900 jurisdictions across 25 states currently have inclusionary housing programs. IFHC maintains that the City could use its “police and public health and welfare” powers and its considerable legal department to defend any legal challenges to affordability and fair housing mandates. ANTI-DISPLACEMENT MEASURES AND TENANT PROTECTIONS The zoning code should foster economic stability and opportunities for longtime residents and to protect the most vulnerable residents from displacement. In a built-up urban environment, there is finite vacant land so the consequence of new development means re-development and the removal of the existing supply of lower-density housing. Housing that’s older, non-debt-supported and affordable will give way to new, more expensive housing, and as new 1

https://youtu.be/Pc1Ds0G32wo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-09/-build-more-housing-is-no-match-for-inequality

https://www.planningreport.com/2022/03/07/patrick-condon-should-cities-now-mandate-affordability-inclusionaryzoning

units that replaced this lost housing, they’re priced considerable higher than even what a low-income or even average wage earner could afford. As property values and rent prices steadily rise, community members are often pushed out of their own neighborhoods and unable to access the new economic, environmental, and health benefits brought to the community. The consequences of displacement are severe and can shake the stable factors of their lives, from employment and shelter to social determinants of health and social environment, it can uproot people from their jobs, disrupts children’s education, increases homelessness, and fosters institutionalization in shelters, hospitals, jail, and congregate settings. Displacement can also trigger the loss of community anchors such as neighbors, churches, and small businesses, which constitute the fabric of an area, culminating in the erasure of community history, culture, and opportunities. This is particularly harmful for older adults as mortality rates for the elderly increase due to displacement as people are forced to live in crowded housing to share the cost burden, which exposes them to less sanitary conditions and greater prevalence of infections and diseases. Studies have shown that displaced residents face exacerbated food insecurity, while those most vulnerable to displacement are more likely to have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and higher cancer rates. And ultimately, studies have revealed that displacement affects mental health, also called “root shock” which can include depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. IFHC opposes unleashing the forces of the private financial markets by simply promoting more density through upzoning without ALSO including fair housing protective measures for our most vulnerable – renters and low-income homeowners (disproportionately affected are seniors and federally protected classes – disabled community members, families with children, people of color, etc.). Boise should ONLY upzone in tandem with implementing anti-displacement measures and tenant protections. In Idaho, tenants are not protected from drastic rent increases, lack access to legal counsel in eviction proceedings, may face no-cause evictions, and are not protected from retaliation by landlords when asserting their limited rights. Plus, the limited supply of affordable housing forces tenants to live in homes in disrepair and of poor quality by allowing landlords to refrain from upgrading units, making necessary repairs, and ensuring the space is healthy, safe, and stable. The lack of renter protections and supports create a market dynamic that condones aggressive landlord practices that displace those with lower incomes, less wealth, and fewer options. Additionally, low-income homeowners are often met with a rise in property taxes caused by increased demand and rising property values but are unable to pay them due to lack of generational wealth and low and/or fixed income. We believe that without protective measures in place FIRST, the upzone will actually exacerbate the already crisis-level problems of higher housing costs, more inequality, displacement, and homelessness in our community. Here is just a sampling of the many policy protections that the City should enact before an upzone: • Incorporate a Manufactured Home Zone that will cut down on speculation of mobile home parks (MHP) and make it more difficult to redevelop MHP. • Legalize Tiny House's on wheels as mobile ADUs - they just passed one in Portland so we can borrow their language.

• • • • • • •

•

• • • • •

• • •

• • • •

Enact Mandatory Tenant Relocation package if a building is demolitioned and redeveloped Provide free/low cost just public transportation tied to reductions of required parking Provide rental/voucher assistance directly to tenants to avoid Landlords who refuse “government assistance” Limit, regulate, or penalize real estate investors, flippers, and out of state buyers Use city resources to litigate inclusionary zoning up to the Idaho Supreme Court on behalf of all cities in Idaho suffering with affordability issues. Use adjusted AMI for income-restricted determination since it has been significantly driven up recent gentrification of wealthier newcomers displacing low-income Boiseans Adopt a “development without displacement” community-based planning process instead of developer/speculator driven process that shuts Boiseans out of being involved in the growth of their own City (while displacing many of the economically vulnerable residents) Provide MORE community-member-involvement in the planning process not less (no more “by-right” development) as part of the City’s duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Enact Right to Counsel laws for tenants in eviction court Enact the right to just-cause evictions End “Source of Income” discrimination Enact Portland’s rent control workaround: a rent increase over a certain percentage triggers the landlord being required to pay for the tenant’s relocation Enact Portland’s recently passed package of tenant protections: “Fair Access in Renting” tightens up the rental application review process by prioritizing applications by the order they were received, rather than by landlord preference, requires landlords to hold an open application period of at least 72 hours before applications are processed, gives priority for accessible dwelling units to applicants who are mobility disabled, landlords cannot require applicants to have a monthly income more than twice the amount of rent, security deposits must be no more than the price of one month’s rent, and landlords are subject to a more stringent process of accounting for any funds they withhold from the deposit after a tenant moves out, limits how criminal and credit history can be used in the screening process. https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/201911/30.01.086by189580amendmentsexhibita.pdf Get involved in financing Resident-Owned Communities. Create a centralized background check process for renters Create an office of rental housing within the City and require a rental unit registration, business license, and annual inspections to prevent slumlords while also allowing the city to track rental housing inventory Track evictions and identify bad actor landlords and have enforcement against those who repeatedly violate basic rental habitability standards and other flagrant violations Adopt a “Tenant Bill of Rights” as promoted by Mayor McLean in her campaign Pass an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against renters with eviction histories and criminal records Establish more fee and security deposit regulations

•

Enact a Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Agreement (TOPA) provide tenants (or city or nonprofit) with advance notice that the landlord is planning to sell and provide a right of first refusal to purchase the building • And other policies that help create inclusive communities. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING Under 42 USC Section 3608 of the Title VIII of Civil Rights Act, known as the Fair Housing Act, cities have a duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing which requires cities and towns that receive federal money for any housing or urban development related purpose to examine whether there are any barriers to fair housing, housing patterns or practices that promote bias based on any protected class under the Fair Housing Act, and most importantly to create a plan for rectifying fair housing barriers. Specifically, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, creating accessible communities and housing, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. IFHC maintains that AAFH extends to environmental justice (including future climate disasters that disproportionally affect people in protected classes), visitability, universal design, public participation, as well as homeownership and generational wealth opportunities. In order to address many of the concerns around equity and inclusion as outlined in this letter, Boise would be wise to take the same path as Boston to incorporate an “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” requirements within its zoning code, and by doing so, codify the city's moral and legal responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing. The zoning amendment, one part of the overall effort to address discriminatory housing practices, requires developers in Boston to take substantial steps to stem displacement and provide further access to housing to those historically discriminated against. Through the analysis and intervention measures that the amendment requires, Boston more effectively guards against displacement while also creating affordable housing in areas that have historically excluded people of color, particularly Black Americans. Under the plan, developers are required to complete both the “Accessibility Checklist”, which considers impacts of people with disabilities, in addition to another AFFH Assessment, guided by a displacement analysis and historical exclusion data. Please refer to the 25-Page ordinance here: https://bpda.app.box.com/s/r59pn90sdmj5kfh5lm7kmr4rstnye9l6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Nationally and locally, there is a strong relationship between discriminatory land use practices and hazardous environmental exposures like physical or chemical hazards (air, noise & light pollution, lead, pesticides, and mold), Superfund sites, landfills and sewage, industrial development, as well as the disproportionate impacts of climate change. HUD offers several guides on environmental and health justice in housing: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ https://www.hud.gov/climate/environmental_justice As we re-write the development rule book, we must ensure that all communities have equal protection from environmental and health hazards while also investing in reversing disparities in health outcomes

and economic opportunity. We are concerned with the implications of the industrial zoning categories within the City's proposed new zoning code. Specifically, the proposed code would collapse 4 industrial zoning designations into just 3, making much of industrial zoning "by-right" uses (meaning that there will be no public hearing or discretionary review - they will just entitle developers without any public process), and by "streamlining" the language, it removes legal protections from the approval conditions - which removes the permitting conditions that protect human health, safety, and welfare as well as the environment. Blue Valley Mobile Home Park is the unfortunate "poster child" for this right now as it is facing a proposed heavily polluting industry next to the neighborhood of 200 affordable homes - which includes a significant population of those in protected classes - disabled (34%) and Hispanics (11%), and other low-income and vulnerable residents. Changes proposed in the City of Boise's new zoning code would not only remove specific and varying categories of industrial development based on the uses and amount and types of pollution they would generate, but also the buffers between residential housing and incompatible polluting industrial uses. This will undoubtedly have a disparate impact on people who are historically discriminated against the worst: low income, people of color, disabled, and families with children. It is no coincidence that industrial zoning is already sited in neighborhoods that house the most lowincome and BIPOC: primarily Bench neighborhoods and Southeast, surrounding Blue Valley – exacerbating historical environmental injustices and disproportionate impacts burdening low-income and/or minority communities. In addition, we know that in other states there would be an environmental regulatory apparatus that would monitor and further regulate these polluting industries; but here in Idaho, the legislature has severely limited the jurisdiction of these agencies, so the burden instead falls to municipalities without specific expertise or access to scientific data. PUBLIC PROCESSES IFHC has concerns about the move towards eliminating public hearings and making much of development by-right. It is a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to land use policy that fails to recognize or incorporate local flexibility, decision-making, and community input. Community organizers have used zoning and the public process around it as tools to fight gentrification, by either trying to stop projects that would demolition or pollute their homes, to obtain the first ever tenant relocation package for those slated to be displaced, or by using rezoning to incentivize income-restricted housing units in new construction. Although the zoning code has very specific consideration for impact on floodplains and hillsides for example, it has no regard for the impact of development on human beings. By removing public hearings from much of the zoning process, it may save the planning and zoning commissioners and city council from having to hear hours of testimony of people opposing specific development in their neighborhoods, but it also denies renters – those most directly impacted - ANY forum to have a say over their homes, neighborhoods, and lives.

CONCLUSION IFHC believes that conversations around housing and affordability needs to be radically shifted. We need to center the voices of the people who need housing instead of investors and landlords who profit from that need. We believe that it is time that those struggling to build a world with dignified, affordable housing for all set the terms of this conversation. IFHC supports policies that foster inclusive development; stabilizes communities of color and lowincome communities; addresses housing affordability and price increases; and ensures housing supply meets the actual existing need not future projections or people who don’t live here yet. If our concern really is “A Home for Everyone”, our local government should intervene to slow growth down, rather than stoking the flames of rapid growth and institute affordable and fair housing overlays. And what growth does occur should be preceded with mechanisms that prevent removal of existing, lower-priced units, substantial protections for those most impacted and historically discriminated against – renters and low-income households, with mandates not just incentives to get real attainable affordability. Sincerely, /s/ Zoe Ann Olson, IFHC Executive Director /s/ Lori Dicaire, IFHC Investigator

March 23, 2023

Re: ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001

Dear Chairman Schaeffer and Stead, and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Under the city’s proposed new zoning code (aka upzone), developers will be allowed to significantly rachet up the permitted density, scale back parking requirements, reduced setbacks, be allowed to build significantly taller buildings in established neighborhoods, and worst of all: for all intents and purposes, eliminates the opportunity for existing Boise residents to shape the growth of our own neighborhoods while overriding years of collaborative planning between city leadership and residents via their neighborhood associations. Whenever a question of zoning comes up, the issue is not usually approached from the standpoint of what the residents need, its driven by what the speculators and investors desire, which then informs what the city needs to keep up with the growth Ponzi scheme: more rooftop revenue to keep up with the rapid pace of intensified high-density growth and sprawl. In Boise today, controversies about zoning are fundamentally about how the city and its neighborhoods should grow and change. The acrimony between residents and development is what is the best path and vision to accommodate growth in the city. The goal of a new zoning code should be that the new code leverages the explosive growth we are experiencing to enable a more equitable, environmentally sustainable, and economically prosperous city. However, in my examination the proposed zoning code as written falls short on every measure.

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM There is no acknowledgement of the huge windfall of value to speculators and investors of the significant upzone contained within the proposed zoning code. The upzone green-lights large, private equity-backed corporate developers’ influx into Boise to buy up homes for redevelopment and conversion to rental properties. That is FACT. If this city was approaching this process from a position of equity, they would insist on partially capturing this increase in value for affordable housing construction and public amenities at scale. The city should recognize the "Land Lift" that occurs when land is rezoned for more density (its value rises based on the new entitlement) by doing the following: 1.) Demanding developers include income-restricted units in all buildings over a certain size to even be able to approach the vision of a mixed income community. Without it, the city is causing displacement of our most vulnerable (people of color, disabled, fixed income seniors, single mothers, young people) and perpetuating segregation - making Boise wealthier and whiter in the process.

In Seattle, their upzone was labeled "The Grand Bargain" since the city recognized it was giving away massive new entitlements to developers via the upzone and as a result, negotiated in exchange mandated affordability on behalf of the public good (and an in-lieu fee for nonapartment developers and a linkage fee for commercial developments creating an affordable housing fund for the city). And, If the city believes that developers/the growth industry would push back on mandated affordability, the city should allocate as much money as it spent on taking Martin vs. Boise – an effort to criminalize victims of our housing affordability crisis - all the way to the Supreme Court in its defense. 2) Charge a "Land Lift Fee" (sometimes called an impact or linkage fee or Community Amenity Contribution - CAC) to harness it for social benefit for all residents.1 Instead, it looks like at the 11th hour the city threw some totally voluntary incentives for "affordability" in the code that may not mean even one unit of income-restricted housing gets built. We don’t have to just conjecture that the development industry will be unwilling to sacrifice profits to voluntary help the city with its housing dilemma…. we already know what will happen given the city’s experience with the "Housing Bonus Ordinance" passed in December 2020. Even with the wholly inadequate "affordability" standards set at 100% AMI, based on this Boisedev article2 we know that over 3 years that only 4 developments even utilized it - and 2 were the city itself! Our current takeaways from the city’s experiment with voluntary “affordability incentives” is not good: • •

•

Developers aren't willing to trade their extreme profit opportunity for the added hassle of helping the city with its affordable housing problem. It’s not really even an affordability “solution” if there is little to no participation by developers. It is very likely that not even ONE new income-restricted housing unit could get built under this scheme. The devil is in the details. Anything higher than 80% AMI is fake affordability. As the city’s own Housing Needs Assessment states, the 0-60% is the market most underserved by the profit-driven market-priced development industry and are being displaced at the highest rate. It is this population that needs the intervention of the municipality to get anything affordable to them built. Even the city’s attempt to fill the gap with its own land trust model housing (Adare, Franklin and Arthur Street projects) has a very low percentage of income-restricted housing units versus market-based in service to those most in need. Also, AMI is a very flawed method to measure the need since the AMI is constantly driven up by wealthier in-migrants and displacement of the poor.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/02/01/Vancouvers-Big-Promising-Affordable-Housing-Step/ https://saanich.ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=431&meta_id=26317 2

https://boisedev.com/news/2022/05/24/only-four-projects-take-advantage-of-boises-housingbonus-ordinance-a-little-over-a-year-since-approval/

I share all of this information to provide the context with which I consider the city's affordability incentives incredibly TOO LITTLE AND TOO LIMITED. While the city makes moves to trade away the ability to negotiate on a case-by-case basis with each developer asking for a upzone/CUP/variance/etc for something in the public good (REAL affordability, a public trail, etc) FOREVER, we should at least recognize what a long term loss that will be as this "zoning code rewrite" genie won't ever be able to be put back in the bottle (and developers will sue for a takings if future city leaders even wanted to scale it back). And as usual, the city is selling itself and its legal authority - and by extension, desperate Boiseans clamoring for real affordability, short.

WHO ARE WE BUILDING FOR? The difference between "affordable housing," as a real estate term of art, and "a house I can afford" from a civilian's perspective is significant. The city’s definition of “affordable housing” is far beyond the grasp of the city’s lower-income communities who earn far less than the minimum incomes necessary to qualify for a unit under this plan. The portion of the population that can pony up $1,495 - $1,870 a month for these new “affordable” apartments does not help those most in need of housing: those defined as lowincome and extremely low-income people via HUD (single mothers, people living on Boise salaries – baristas, CNAs, teachers, etc., seniors and people on fixed income, etc.) aka those most precariously housed because of skyrocketing rents. Their growing ranks could never afford the shiny new construction apartments that will replace the buildings where they used to live. The cities use of 80% to 120% of AMI for its various definitions of “affordable” is deeply problematic since 80% is on the upper end of what is defined as low income, and by any standard measure of affordability,100% and 120% are not even included in affordability calculations – this is what the market is supposed to service. According to the cities’ own income guidelines posted on their website, this means it is targeted for incomes of $47,150 @ 80% or $61,257 @100% for one person and $67,350 @80% and $87,500 for a family of four @100%. The cities website doesn’t include 120% numbers. This is very problematic for several reasons: 1) AMI includes homeowners who make enough money that they qualify for mortgages and are not even in the rental market. 2) Boise’s AMI has been driven up significantly in the last few years both by the displacement of poor people by the explosive growth pressures, skyrocketing rents, and shrinking available of housing affordable on Boise wages; coupled with wealthy in-migrants bringing out of state wages or equity from home sales in higher-priced markets, 3) Boise is a tale of two cities with a bi-modal distribution of incomes: locals living on Idaho wages making $35,000 - $50,000 - and more well-heeled people making on average $100,000 a year. The $100,000 a year demographic is already well-served with development industry’s constant production of market-rate new-construction apartments, townhouses, and single family homes. If Boise is to use its’ leverage, it should be for the housing that the market is NOT otherwise producing – for those at 60% AMI and below. We understand that as policy makers, that you are attempting to incentivize rental housing, but in a city where market-rate rentals are

now already range from $1,200 to $2,600 or more a month, we ask who will be suffering the unintended collateral damage by essentially incentivizing the status quo?? 4.) It further untethers the cost of housing from actual local wages which will lead to a crisis situation approaching places like Sun Valley or Jackson Hole where only wealthy primarily white people can afford to thrive – and everyone else is living in substandard housing or sleeping in their car – harming those people and the businesses that rely on them for labor force.

TARGETS LOW-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS FOR REDEVELOPMENT This targeted upzone puts lower-income neighborhoods in the crosshairs. No one if going to come in and buy a quarter million-dollar home to tear it down and put up an apartment complex or six-plex. It will happen in lower-income, historically disinvested neighborhoods where the bulk of our naturally affordable housing currently exists and where people are already experiencing the economic violence of gentrification and displacement. Since the upzone is inviting mass re-development of properties within the city, that means that there will be lots of DISPLACEMENT of both low-income homeowners and renters. The city has an obligation to recognize this will occur and put in guardrails on the upzone that protect these valuable members of our community – and essential workers - from displacement. The zoning code as written provides no analysis of the impact of redevelopment, no acknowledgement that this will happen, and no method to mitigate the impact such as enacting…. 1) robust program of tenant protections 2) mandatory tenant relocation assistance program 3) anti-displacement measures (rental assistance, stabilization foreclosure assistance, tenant right to counsel, "just cause" evictions) 4) Adopt of a no-net-loss of affordable units for any redevelopment proposals 5) COPA/TOPA- tenant or community, or municipality “Opportunity To Purchase” program – a right of first refusal to buy threatened naturally occurring affordable housing before it goes on the open market. HOMOGENIZED ONE-SIZE-FITS ALL DEVELOPMENT Upzones intentionally disregard those impacted: neighborhoods, tenants, low-income homeowners and the embodied expertise of those with lived experience or on the ground neighborhood knowledge and instead just favor developers, bureaucratic planners looking at GPS maps from their air conditioned offices, and the developers’ highly paid guns. The challenges to increase affordability via housing density citywide are huge and nuanced, requiring a commitment to be neighborhood specific and inclusive, not homogenized as onesize-fits-all unsupported declarations. As we strategize how best to grow, let’s do so respectfully and inclusively. City leaders must recognize that top-down policies, absent public involvement, ignore the unique specific issues and opportunities anchored within our community members and cherished neighborhoods. FLAWED PROCESS

The upzone process was from the start driven by real estate interests and urban density advocates – both of which are too frequently are blind to public values lost through redevelopment and displacement. While we need more housing, we also need our history, our places, and our long-time community members. The city is advancing this proposal without performing one vulnerable community impact study to see how it will disproportionally affect those already living precariously. Instead it used marketing and branding language that supports their predetermined outcome, brushing aside critical economic, infrastructure, civil rights, and human issues. PROPER ROLE OF CITY There is a significant difference between housing that working-class households can afford and what is called “Affordable Housing.” It is important that our efforts reimagine housing solutions to include public and community-owned housing, tenant protections and empowerment, and that we stop looking for solutions in the profit-driven, speculative real estate market. There’s no reason for the city to be engaged in planned gentrification—the market is doing that on its own. The entire city is already attractive to investors. The role of city government should be to regulate an out of control predatory market, build at the bottom since the max-ROI developers don’t, and enact and enforce strong guardrails to ensure that development/re-development doesn’t equal displacement for the thousands of Boiseans who are essentially being priced out of their own town through no fault of their own.

BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD There has been minimal genuine public engagement on this enormous policy change. The final 611-page law came out on February 28th and is cutting off public comments for the Planning & Zoning Commission Project Report only 22 days later - by Wednesday, March 22! It was introduced in early October and the council is trying to get it passed in less than 4 months! Besides an online feedback form, the city has not held one public engagement or neighborhood outreach event now that the code is not a constant moving target and is in its “final” form. The city needs to create an inclusive process that incorporates (and doesn’t just inform) nonindustry stakeholders: tenants unions, neighborhood associations, affordable housing providers, social service providers, and BIPOC groups. The city points to places like Minneapolis, Portland, and Austin as examples of the density they are trying to achieve. All these cities first enacted robust tenant protection, analyzed and modeled how zoning changes would impact vulnerable, lower-income families and existing affordable housing stock, and put strong demolition ordinances in place to protect its critical naturally affordable housing stock. The city should engage vulnerable populations (seniors, disabled, renters) and communities of color who are especially vulnerable (to displacement, gentrification, income inequality, homelessness) while looking holistically at solving the deep disparities that exist in our city. We should not consider enacting such major changes unless we first model the real-world effects. And finally, a blanket upzone of land uses in Boise will yield enormous sums of money and windfall profits for investors and others that stand to gain financially from the growth industry. For comparison sake, in Austin, their entire zoning code overhaul was projected to cost $8.5

million - while unlocking $30 billion in real estate development! Anyone voting on this proposal should disclose any campaign contributions, investments, familial relationships, and/or conflicts of interest; and if any exist, they recuse themselves from voting on this ordinance.

IN CONCLUSION If the city’s concern is really serious about affordable housing, they should instead intervene to slow growth down or at least properly manage it, rather than simply stoking the flames of still more rapid growth through upzones. And what growth does occur should be preceded with mechanisms that prevent removal of existing, lower-priced units and that promote in-fill over demolition. And when this cannot be done, let’s require developers to replace one-for-one what they remove, at comparable price. More proactively, our city should acquire and purchase existing, lower-priced rentals before they are lost to the wrecking ball or before speculation drives rents above low-income thresholds, and transferring these buildings to nonprofit ownership, cooperatives and land trusts. Slowing growth down or at least placing a premium on removal of existing low-cost units (by requiring 1 for 1 replacement at comparable price) will help reduce these speculative pressures on existing units and give public entities more time to do acquire them. Simply unleashing the forces of the market by promoting more density through upzoning will only lead to more displacement, higher housing costs, more inequality and vast human suffering in our community. The size and detail of the new 611-page law requires that Boiseans have sufficient time to understand its implications. Any adoption actions should wait until there is true geographic representation on City Council before enacting a massive measure that effectively rezones much of the city in one fell swoop occurs.

Lori Dicaire (208) 866-9701

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:46 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Mike diVittorio Email mike@idahomc.com Address 925 Parkhill Ct Boise, ID 83702 Comment I am in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite because it is an improvement on the old zoning code written more than 60 years ago when the automobile was at the center of American life. I would also advocate for the following additional changes: 1) Affordable housing. Plan for more people, not more automobiles by allowing developers to build zero‐parked housing, especially in R3 zones close to public transit options or the downtown. The new code does not provide enough solution space for developers to build affordable housing. In particular, developing high density housing with onsite parking is very costly (up to $50,000 per parking spot). Consider removing minimum onsite parking mandates on housing and allowing for the same space to be programmed for housing to support those who can't afford or choose not to use the personal automobile as their primary mode of transportation. 2) accommodate for higher density with no onsite parking requirements for residential housing along transit corridors and close to activity centers. Three blocks surrounding these critical pathways and community centers should be zoned R‐3 with no or minimal parking requirements to support affordable housing and alternative transit options (bike, walk, scoot, bus). More of the city should be also be zoned R2, especially close to transit corridors and activity centers. Like the R3 zone, the R2 should allow carry no or minimal parking requirements. 3) Process: I appreciate the streamlining of the approval process which will simplify and shorten the time and expense associated with the entitlement and approval processes. Further simplification with less neighborhood input would be even better by reducing or eliminating the public hearing process for projects that comply with the zoning code and are recommended by city staff 4) Neighborhood Associations: Consider creating uniform bylaws for Neighborhood Associations, provide them training and ensure these associations and their leadership truly represent the interests of their neighborhood (renters and owners alike) and comply with all fair housing and anti‐discrimination laws. 5) ADUs: – These should be allowed not only for owner occupants, but also for investor/owners who are more likely to invest in this type of housing type. There should be no requirement for parking for the production of new ADUs. Thank you! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 4:06 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Kayla Dodson Email civickayla17@gmail.com Address 705 Bacon Dr, Boise, ID 83712 Comment I appreciate that Boise needs more affordable housing and I certainly do not want all the wonderful open space we enjoy turned into housing developments and shopping malls. It is a challenge to create the best plan for continued growth. Thank you for the thoughts and efforts so far. A few things about the plan concern me. One concern is neighbors not having any input in tall buildings that might be built near their homes. 40 feet is very tall if you have a one story house. Another thing is will our mature trees be at risk as developers squeeze every possible building on limited lots? Finally, have you ever tried to drive a car through the North End in the evening when all the people are home and the streets are packed with parked cars? Parking off the street should be a requirement for ALL new homes and apartments. I know we are trying to decrease our car use but I don’t believe that’s really going to happen here. Thank you for your continued work to make the new zoning laws work for our community. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:56 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Brock domain Email brock.doma@gmail.com Address Boise Idaho 83705 Comment The fact that upzoning is being discussed is crazy. How about we start with a infrastructure plan, at least 100 million to address the concerns and problems we already face. Boise is already very dense place to live when you take in to account the very little thought going to traffic, basic congestion. Up zoning will only bring in big business, massive construction and greedy rental companies. these companies are going to gut communities, tear down single family homes and destroy the open space and parkland that makes boise what it is. The area surrounding boise is vast to the east and south there is more than enough room for expansion and higher density house away from the city center. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

rdonaly <rdonaly@centurylink.net> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:12 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Application no.ZOA23-00001 &CPA23-00001

I am opposed to the Boise Zoning Rewrite. The loosening of requirements in all residential zones will destroy residential areas and create "urban blight " as we see in cities across America. This plan will exclude buyers who don't earn higher incomes. No provisions are made protect existing residential zones. Do not foist high density blight on our city. Ron Donaly 1212 E. Hays Sent from my Galaxy

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:09 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Vonna H Donovan Email vonna.is@gmail.com Address 5514 West Lake River Lane Comment I feel your short timeline to review the proposed Zoning Code rewrite is unacceptable to expect citizens to review, research and make informed decisions on such a short notice and there needs to be more communication about the impacts proposed. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 3:51 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Mary Email mary‐and‐paul@hotmail.com Address 1420 east Jefferson street boise Comment Dear city Council, These are the reasons that the new code is bothering me as a 30 year resident of Boise. How about the fact that nonstop construction noise and dust for five years has made my neighborhood almost unlivable? How is constant construction, noise and dirt making Boise a more beautiful livable city? I dislike the way downtown Boise looks now. Cranes and tall buildings at every turn and i yearn for the Boise I moved to in 1993. None of the buildings have made the city more livable or provided any affordable housing for citizens. You are giving Boise away to developers and selling it off to the highest out of state bidders at the expense of us, citizens that make up the community and pay taxes. I also don’t like that new projects would not have to go through a public hearing process. Especially the height limit. It seems too high and would ruin a neighborhood. There are at least 1000 short term rentals in Boise that could be made into longer term housing and only about 20 of those short term rentals even bothered to register with the city. I think the code should include some kind of a policy limiting the amount of short term rentals in neighborhoods. Thanks, Mary Dragone I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Mary Dragone <maryhatsdragone@gmail.com> Sunday, March 19, 2023 4:05 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning code

Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 pageZoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. 1

Sincerely, Mary Dragone Sent from my iPhone

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

shelbydrilling@yahoo.com Sunday, March 19, 2023 12:51 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Shelby Drilling 30 year Homeowner Sunrise Rim Neighborhood

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 10:38 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Douglas Drinka Email ddrinka@gmail.com Address 3808 N Hawthorne Dr, Boise, ID 83703 Comment Planning and Zoning Commissioners, I would like to express my support for the Zoning Code Rewrite as proposed. I had the opportunity to engage throughout the community feedback lifecycle, and I have been consistently impressed with the degree that Boise staff have engaged with the community, received feedback, and created significant adjustments to the drafts in response. In particular, our neighborhood's concern about the R‐1A large lot zoning being removed, and how that would impact the semi‐rural nature of areas such as the Sycamore Overlay, were received with gracious consideration, and eventually responded to by a change in direction for that zone. The vision to keep a diversity of established neighborhoods intact, without thrusting large scale density and development on them, aligns with my vision and hopes for our neighborhood. At the same time, I'm excited by the opportunities for additional affordable housing created by the incentive structure which would allow greater density, but only paired with affordability. Though I would have liked to see the code go further and require affordability for more aspects of development, I understand that a tightrope is being walked with regard to a realistic, actionable set of policies that work for developers, renters, home owners, and city planners. To me the balance reached is appropriate. Finally, I am excited by the prospects offered by the MX‐4 zoning in the transit node in my neighborhood. If the eventual shape of development in that area is anything like the renderings CCDC has created to cast vision for the space, I think it will be a great fit for our neighborhood, and be an avenue for greater density matched with affordability and accessibility, creating additional value for existing homeowners, attraction to new residents, and amenities to everyone in the area. I request that you deliver a recommendation to City Council to adopt the proposed code as written. Doug Drinka I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 8:48 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Nicholas Dumont Email Gsxr_fast@hotmail.com Address 4104 n mountain view drive Comment This is absolutely ridiculous. The mayor in this town doesn't care one bit when it comes to keeping our neiborhoods the way they have been for years. Packing all of these apartments into small areas has done nothing for boise except create eyesores and massive traffic where there wasn't much traffic before. The only thing these laws are doing is lining the pockets of developers who dont care about our beautiful city. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Edith Easterbrook <ediebrook@msn.com> Saturday, March 18, 2023 5:40 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Edie Easterbrook 1709 S. Butler Street Boise, ID 83705

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:11 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Tony Edmondson Email tojo@ruralnetwork.net Address 598 Pioneer Road Weiser, Idaho 83672 Comment While we do not live in Boise, as the state Capitol for all Idahoans, I care about the quality of cultural and historic resources in your community. As a former County Commissioner, City Councilman, Chairman of the Board of the Idaho State Historical Society, and current a Weiser City Planning & Zoning Commissioner, I'm asking that you extend the public comment period for an additional 5 months. Not only is one month insufficient time for an average citizen to digests a 601 page document prepared by professionals, I suspect there's been inadequate time for the majority of citizens to even know the proposed changes are under consideration. We moved to Idaho 42 years ago from an urban area that much like Boise at the time, was undergoing urban renewal demolition and a wholesale basis. I well recall the vacant lots in downtown Boise when we arrived here. More disturbingly, I well recall the zoning in the historic downtown area of our former community, that in some ways parallels what's being proposed now for Boise, 50 years later. How is that possible? I can show you any number of examples of how that played out and what it does to historic residential neighborhoods. No matter how laudable low income housing goals might be, they shouldn't come at the expense of historic neighborhoods which are often also the enclaves of the most economically challenged. Empty residential lots on blocks which remain mostly intact, should be developed with structures that replicate and respect the traditional values of those neighborhoods. Multistory, high density housing should not be integrated adjacent to one or two story single family homes. This would never be allowed in the foothills or any of the more affluent residential neighborhoods and our older, historic neighborhoods should be given equal respect. Please, what's the rush to pass this proposal? Give it some time and go the extra mile to make sure the public is well educated about the consequences of this proposal and has time to comment. Thank you! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

March 22, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611-page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

Sincerely,

Dave and Denise Eikanger 107 N. Jantoni Dr Boise, ID 83712

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 3:01 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jessica Elizabeth Elkin Email jessica.e.elkin@gmail.com Address 5000 W Wymosa St Comment I am in support of the zoning code rewrite, however, I do not feel that the short time frame to comment on the new ordinance is sufficient. Even as a self‐described fast reader, there is no way I can adequately read and understand 611 pages in 22 days without the review being my full‐time job. Please provide more time for public comment. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Clay Elkin <clay.elkin@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:50 PM ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean; Patrick Bageant; Jimmy Hallyburton; Luci Willits; Elaine Clegg [External] Zoning re-write comments: ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. I have commented on many of the zoning code re‐write modules, and have still had a very difficult time following the changes. At this point, it seems like a strategic 'hidden ball game' that City leadership is playing to keep the public from being able to understand and comment appropriately. When I do comment, the items that are a priority to me and MANY other Boise residents are swept under the rug. Please know that this zoning code change will significantly impact Boise's future. The unacceptable upzoning, the increase in by right zoning to prevent public input, the lack of enforceable CUP's, and the clear language that takes public and nearby property owner voices away are all reasons to oppose this zoning code re‐write. It is also noteworthy that this is trying to be quickly pushed through prior to an election this fall where Boise citizens will FINALLY be represented geographically. It is unacceptable for this zoning code to get pushed through before the election. 1

It will be spoken about and questions will be asked at every single political event during the election cycle if this leadership team votes to approve and passes this zoning code re‐write. It is not transparent, it is not best for public input or public safety, and it is not best for the future of Boise, regardless of how anyone tries to spin it. Thank you for your time, ‐‐ Clay Elkin Clay.Elkin@gmail.com 317 590 0630

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:14 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Robert Elliott Email Relliott249@gmail.com Address 1037 W Hale st. Comment I am in favor of this zoning code rewrite, because I believe it will help make this city more affordable, and more liveable in general. It is also the fiscally conservative thing to do, because the current zoning laws encourage very expensive sprawling development that makes all of our other infrastructure more expensive. For these reasons, and more, I am in favor of the zoning code rewrite. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:50 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Angela Enlow Email angelaenlow@gmail.com Address 1307 South Hervey Street Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:59 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Erika Email ebudriunas@gmail.com Address 12888 N Schicks ridge rd Boise, ID 83714 Comment Hello. My family does not want any tall buildings in or near our neighborhood. We want to keep Boise neighborhoods quaint and safe. Adding tall buildings will change the landscape and character of Boise. Please do not add tall buildings to our neighborhood. Thank you! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:13 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Andrew C Erstad Email acerstad@erstadarchitects.com Address 310 N 5th Street Comment The City of Boise along with a very diverse group of community advocates have engaged in the process of updating and rewriting our Zoning Code as we march into the future. The effort was arduous and comprehensive, with multiple perspectives that challenged direction, generating lively discussions and fairly balanced outcomes. While there still remains concern, the foundation of the new ordinance I believe is solid and well thought out. I strongly urge passage of this new Zoning Ordinance. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:01 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Bonnie Y Farber Burry Email burrbs@windermere.com Address 1318 Eastman Boise 83702 Comment The issues at hand are far too complex and dire to push this through so quickly. Please allow more time for public input. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 10, 2023 9:35 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Mary Feeny Email feenymary@gmail.com Address 4305 W Edgemont Street, Boise, Idaho 83706 Comment Zoning “In the next 10 years, if Boise radically overhauls its zoning, Boiseans will no longer recognize their city.” The Opinion piece by Fred Fritchman in the 3/10/2023 Statesman, describes what could happen in Boise if zoning in established neighborhoods is radically changed. Why is the public shut out from the public hearing process and an opportunity to express valid concerns and opposition to the zoning changes? How is it that a few are allowed to decide for the many what they (the few) think is best? Zoning overreach is repugnant and unacceptable. Sincerely, Mary Feeny I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:53 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Rory Felton Email roryfelton@gmail.com Address 2909 W Clark St, Boise, ID 83705 Comment Dear City, As a member of the Depoe Bench community, I think it would permanently ruin the neighborhood to allow buildings 5 stories tall to be build inside and next to quaint single‐family home residential that has been around for 60+ years. Specfically the recommendation to allow 5 story tall buildings near Vista Ave and around the street will destroy the community neighborhood of the Depoe Bench. The neighborhood currently comprises midcenutry and classic single‐family homes. Building a 5 story apartment building right in and next to the neighborhood does not make sense. This will increase through traffic on our residential streets. In our little block alone are over 20+ children under 15. We do not want more cars coming through our neighborhood. These types of buildings belong downtown, not in our quaint and quiet neighborhoods. Please do not approve the Vista ave. recommendations through the Bench. They are undesired changes for our community. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Keslie felton Email kesliefelton@gmail.com Address Boise Idaho 83755 Comment My family does not want tall buildings near or in our neighborhood. Keep the neighborhoods in Boise quaint and safe for our families. NO TALL BUILDINGS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS!!! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 15, 2023 7:35 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Claire Fenton Email cfenton57@gmail.com Address 3891 N Woody Ln Comment I'm very much in favor of high density housing that allows for a range of housing/pricing options within a single neighborhood. I am also in favor of small retail within residential areas to promote walking/cycling for conveniences rather than driving. I'm in favor of encouraging less car ownership and providing affordable & efficient public transportation. Other countries allow for zero set backs when building in residential areas to allow for maximum footprint in small areas. I am in favor of preserving mature trees wherever possible and would like to see accommodations in code to protect mature trees. I would like the City of Boise to consider "green corridors" and multiple "green spaces" so that while allowing for higher density living, we don't eliminate necessary natural green space for our vital eco system to not only survive, but thrive. This is imperative to holistic wellbeing. It doesn't have to be on the ground, it can be on roofs or vertical landscaping on walls. People also thrive when natural green space is within walking distance. Thank you for your consideration. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 10:05 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Claudia Fernsworth Email fernsworth13@gmail.com Address 8088 W Pocono Lane Comment In the democracy that is the state of Idaho, the citizens of Boise need more time to consider the amazingly complex and rule changing zoning code rewrite. Please extend the voting timeline at least until a new city council is seated. Thank you for your time I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

David Finley <wyokath@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 9:36 PM Mayor McLean CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

I object to this rewrite of the city's zoning code, as it applies to the historic north end. This code rewrite will undo the careful planning that has guided redevelopment in the north end for the past quarter century. It will allow high density development, destroying the character and value of the north end. I strongly oppose this rewrite. Sincerely, David Finley 1510 N 21st Street.

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Kaori Finn <kaorifinn@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:11 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Opposition to Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 2:17 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Scott Fischer Email scottfischer@att.net Address 1618 N. 17th Street Comment This document is enormous and will take a lot of time for me to review. Since i have a full time job already, this had to be done after work and weekends. It did not and does not work for giving my input. and since this is my town and you work for me, after all, you will give me more time. Thank you I am not a robot

Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old non-disclosure agreement

9/9/22, 8:58 AM

Business

Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old nondisclosure agreement By: Don Day - BoiseDev Editor & Founder September 8, 2022

For months, the City of Boise wouldn’t confirm or deny to BoiseDev that it was holding discussions with Micron Technology about an expansion of its Boise campus. At one point, former City of Boise spokesperson Justin Corr did say the city had sent Boise Mayor Lauren McLean on a “business attraction mission,” but said a non-disclosure agreement prevented the city from talking about it. It turns out, the City of Boise is bound to an NDA it signed with the technology giant in 2004. Micron announced last week that it would build a $15billion new fabrication plant in Boise. The company would again make computer chips in the US, incentivized by the federal government and State of https://boisedev.com/2022/09/08/boise-negotiated-with-micron-on-expansion-under-an-18-year-old-non-disclosure-agreement/

Page 1 of 4

Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old non-disclosure agreement

9/9/22, 8:58 AM

Idaho. BoiseDev reported the company was also engaging with city officials, including the mayor, as early as last fall.

2004 agreement BoiseDev obtained the document in a public records request this week. It outlines that the city can take information from Micron but not disclose it to the public. The agreement went into effect in May of 2004. Former Boise Mayor Dave Bieter signed it, as well as the city’s directors of planning and development and fire, as well as the city attorney at the time. Jay Hawkins, then the VP of Operations for Micron signed it for the company. BoiseDev reached out to Bieter to understand why the city signed a non-disclosure agreement with Micron that didn’t expire. We provided the former mayor a copy of the public record. “The City of Boise signed an agreement in 2004 with Micron Technology relating solely to inspections of buildings and facilities,” Bieter said. “It was signed by the fire chief at the time, Renn Ross, the planning director, and me. It only ensures that any information learned during inspections is not given to any other https://boisedev.com/2022/09/08/boise-negotiated-with-micron-on-expansion-under-an-18-year-old-non-disclosure-agreement/

Page 2 of 4

Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old non-disclosure agreement

9/9/22, 8:58 AM

parties. It does not relate to economic development, investments in facilities, or any other issues, as is made plain in the language of the agreement. “ The NDA outlines an array of information the company could share with the city that would be protected, including “marketing or business plans.”

City of Boise spokesperson Maria Weeg said she checked with the current city attorney and economic director on the use of the 2004 NDA to negotiate on Micron’s current expansion. “We can’t speak to the intention of the NDA, none of us were around in 2004,” Weeg said. “For the last three and a half years, we have been following the express terms of the NDA. It gives Micron the say on what we can and cannot release.” Weeg noted city attorney Jayme Sullivan started under Bieter 3.5 years ago. McLean was sworn into office just about 2.5 years ago. She said the city’s legal interpretation of the document said it had to ask Micron for permission on what it could and could not release related to the economic development. A Micron official told BoiseDev in August that the process of selecting a site for the new facility “runs best when we are careful about confidentially.”

https://boisedev.com/2022/09/08/boise-negotiated-with-micron-on-expansion-under-an-18-year-old-non-disclosure-agreement/

Page 3 of 4

Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old non-disclosure agreement

9/9/22, 8:58 AM

Correction: Weeg said the city has been following the terms of the NDA for the last three and a half years, but a miscommunication led us to adjust this to two and a half years, which has been updated.

https://boisedev.com/2022/09/08/boise-negotiated-with-micron-on-expansion-under-an-18-year-old-non-disclosure-agreement/

Page 4 of 4

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Andrea Tuning Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:05 PM ZoningRewrite FW: [External] Comments on Zoning Code Re-Write- City Has Produced a Terrible Chaos-Based Code Micron Secret Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old non-disclosure agreement.pdf

From: katie fite <katiemesa@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:11 PM To: Andrea Tuning <ATuning@cityofboise.org> Cc: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>; Jimmy Hallyburton <jhallyburton@cityofboise.org>; Patrick Bageant <pbageant@cityofboise.org>; Holli Woodings <hwoodings@cityofboise.org>; Luci Willits <lwillits@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Comments on Zoning Code Re‐Write‐ City Has Produced a Terrible Chaos‐Based Code

Hello, Here are summary concerns regarding the extraordinarily complex and damaging anti‐democratic Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan changes city leaders are trying to impose on Boise residents and neighborhoods. The “code” is now at 600+ pages and there are 300+ pages of Comp. plan changes ‐ totaling over 100 pages. At the outset of a code revision process, Boise residents were told this effort was to simplify the code. I took one of the City’s early “surveys”. That survey was specifically tailored to get the public to say the existing code was too “complicated”. Now, the end result of this canned consultant‐ driven top‐down code re‐write process is a ridiculously complex “code’ that in many ways is equivalent to not having any code at all to regulate orderly development and protect public health, safety and well‐being. Instead what has been produced is a chaotic consultant top down nearly anything‐goes scheme that will de‐stabilize and destroy Boise neighborhoods, green space, quality of life and existing affordable housing as the chaos‐based code drives high end development/gentrification ‐ and results in the demolition of single family and other smaller homes. It also sets it sets up a corrupt closed door system that will result in developers pushing city staff behind closed doors to allow often harmful projects to be rubber‐stamped. This proposed Terrible Code revision is based on: Tyranny. It’s tyrannical for Boise leaders to try to impose a Zoning Code that cuts the public out of development decisions for our Boise neighborhoods. The ZCR’s intensive development scheme 1

will bring high levels of noise and disturbance ‐ disrupting sleep and residents working from home, and interfering with family time and studying. ZCR building heights will block sunlight from homes. The ZCR will greatly shrink undeveloped open space on lots and result in large‐scale loss of soothing healthful green space. High density development in neighborhood streets will create dangerous traffic, increase air pollution, etc. Crucial decisions development that could ultimately could drive us out of our homes or apartments will be made behind closed doors at city hall ‐ with the public's voice silenced. Transparency lost. The ZCR will put decision making processes behind a veil of secrecy. Developers will push projects on planners with no public hearings, increasing potential for corruption. Projects will be set in stone and the public’s only recourse will be expensive Appeals. Yet it is the people who live in the neighborhood who best understand site conditions, what are neighborhood concerns for basic safety and local traffic, how a development will actually impact the area, etc. Teardowns multiplying. Existing affordable housing will be hauled to the landfill as trash, and replaced by new structures with a significant carbon footprint. How not to get to Net Zero … Trees cut down. The City of Trees will become the City of Stumps and harsh bleak Concrete ‐ like the desolate concrete‐scapes CCDC is so adept at producing in downtown URDs. Imagine the harshness of a whole city that looks and feels as barren as the “Central addition” and other recent CCDC endeavors. Temperatures rising. The urban heat island effect will shoot up as green space vanishes. It is critical to understand that much of the City’s claimed tree planting and climate “mitigation” currently relies on smoke and mirrors carbon scamming ‐ for example ‐ planting tiny trees dozens of miles away and claiming that is beneficial to Boise residents. Trauma. The social fabric of our community will get ripped apart as predatory speculators swoop in ‐ turning Boise into a city of transitory renters, where regular people can’t afford a home, and renters live in fear of rents skyrocketing and fees of all kinds. Terrorized. How renters feel when landlords keep raising rents and they must endlessly have to move to survive. How seniors feel when they can no longer stay in their home as tax assessments climb and gentrification engulfs neighborhoods. Taking. Taking from all those who helped build the Boise community over the 60 years that the existing code has served us well. Taking from those who invested their life savings to buy a house in a pleasant place or raise a family in a healthy setting. Taking from neighborhood groups who spent thousands of collective hours crafting neighborhood plans. Taxes going through the roof. Escalating property values as gentrification eats up neighborhoods will force seniors and workers to sell and flee to somewhere more affordable. 2

Traffic ‐ Jammed! Many Boise streets are already bottlenecked, and our public transportation system is minimal and has already fallen far, far behind needs. The ZCR tries to jam parking and other models from Cities that have reasonable public transportation ‐ and drop them down on Boise. Transnational corporations and Wall street speculators running roughshod with this chaos‐based development ‐ and Transferring wealth away from our community. High density apartments and rentals may be owned by corporations from Mumbai or Malyaisa. Money will flow out of Boise. Civic values will suffer as Boise is converted to a city of often transient renters at the mercy of rapacious property managers and distant owners. The “Modern” Code Is A Myth‐Based Misnomer ‐ the Entire Scheme Is Critically Lacking in Basic Hard Look Rational and Scientific Analysis How will this chaos‐based “development on steroids” code affect urban green space? How much will it reduce green and unbuilt space? How much will it reduce Boise urban tree canopy? How much will the ZCR increase the Urban Heat Island effect? How much embodied carbon will be lost in tear‐downs? How much space will there be at the dump to deal with resulting demolitions? What are the carbon costs of the foreseeable amount of new development the code is likely to result in? What will the climate change/greenhouse gas footprint of all the concrete and built space be as Bench and other neighborhoods are transformed into densely built apartments/condos? How much less healthy (both mentally and physically) will this densification and concrete‐i‐ fication of the city make Boise residents? What is the projected ratio of homeowners to renters predicted? How and where will the ZCR run counter to each of Boise's existing Neighborhood Plans ‐ which collectively represent many thousands of hours of volunteer citizen effort and have resulted in civic pride in Boise neighborhoods? How much more polluted will the Boise River be with runoff from hardened and built surfaces? How much worse will air quality be? Is it really “equitable” to locate high density lower income housing right on top off busy streets? How will the ZCR impact Boise’s urban wildlife species and animal populations? 3

Please provide estimates of the above issues/questions/concerns for for 10, 25, and 50 years in the future. Another critical question that must be addressed is: How much more vulnerable will Boise residents be to changed economy situations if the City is transformed into one where housing is dominated by Wall Street speculators apartment owners? Further, the ZCR conversion of more and more of the city to rental units will take place in IDAHO ‐ a state where the legislature is often antagonistic to cities and where renters will have minimal legal protections. the ZCR really sets up a worst‐case scenario for both homeowners and renters. ANY effort to revise the Code should come from a careful hard look and studies of individual neighborhood needs ‐ and be based on the desires and health and safety needs of an area’s residents. Instead, the ZCR is a based on Top Down chaos‐based closed door dealmaking ‐ in essence it is a form of lawlessness ‐ an anti‐code code. I am also very concerned that this effort is in some part driven by factors such as the City leaders secret deal‐making with Micron ‐ and make no mistake ‐ there will be a large amount of NEW toxic air pollution from a Chip making facility. These facilities are notorious for using huge amounts of water and generating pollution See Attached. Note that Idaho has less‐than rigorous air quality controls and oversight ‐ making the combined effects of expanded Micron pollution PLUS densification loss of green space and increased air pollution from unbridled densification and growth causing even more of a serious health concern. I request that the City hold a stand alone public vote on adoption vs. denial of the ZCR. It is our existing code that has made Boise a good place to live. Why do politicians now want to tear up the framework that has resulted in Boise being billed as "the most livable city”??? Why are city leaders and the mayor trying to wreck Boise based on a disproven scheme of “trickle‐ down” housing? instead of making housing more affordable in other cities where efforts like this have been tried, the changes have instead resulted in gentrification and ever‐escalating housing costs. Please enter these concerns into the record for the ZCR please, and please, please, abandon this highly flawed effort. Sincerely, Katie Fite 1006 N. 5th St. Boise, ID 83702 4

BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE LETTER OF SUPPORT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

March 21, 2023

Thank you for taking the time to read through this letter as well as the myriad responses this code rewrite process has inspired. I respect your time, and endeavor to be brief in summarizing my comments on the new zoning code. Since code issues are inevitably entwined with larger concepts and policies, I welcome follow up questions and discourse. I am unequivocally in support of Boise’s modern zoning as written and plan to testify in support. One area of focus I had during my term as a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) is the destigmatization of neighborhood-scale multi-family housing types like duplexes, small multiplexes, ADUs, and cottage courts. I specifically focused on these housing types because they can offer the kind of naturally-occurring affordability that our community needs, even without the need for deed restrictions and affordability requirements. These housing types can be found in Boise’s most desirable neighborhoods, and are incredibly popular places to live. They provide value-added density, while maintaining neighborhood character. Historically, these housing types were built and converted in the decades prior to our current zoning code—without controversy—successfully addressing the housing needs of the day. A very Boise-esque way to provide more housing while saving some of our most cherished buildings. We can innovate and replicate great development methods like this under our modern code. However, there remain elements of the proposed code that I believe unnecessarily inhibit the kind of housing types our community wants and needs. I have outlined some recommendations to address these issues below: Administrative approval for neighborhood-scale multi-family conversions / adaptive reuse. Consider duplexes and triplexes that are contained within the envelope of a single family-sized structure create no additional impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Duplexes with ADUs on site, and other small multi-family configurations that may be converted from existing single-family housing stock have the best chance at providing naturally-occurring affordable housing, due to the size of units, and the integration of existing infrastructure, without the need for deed restrictions or other entitlements. Consider allowing the same administrative approval process as a single family home or remodel / addition for these conversions. Projects like these are not attractive to large developers and corporate landlords due to land & construction costs, but are ideal for homeowners looking to house relatives, friends and fellow Boiseans.

Byron W. Folwell, Architect LLC. www.byronfolwell.com bfolwell@gmail.com (208) 409-9050

BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE LETTER OF SUPPORT (con’t) Reduce / eliminate minimum lot sizes in R zones. Lot sizes of 1,000 sqft. have been shown to provide effective naturally-occurring affordability in other cities. Many of these qualifying lots would be a one-time split and thus, qualify as infill. Form-based requirements will ensure that the new home integrates into the neighborhood, and these lots will provide entry-level homes for ownership. Consider long-term deed restrictions tied to affordability requirements as the community benefit, and consider how this will benefit land-trust projects. Remove the 3-year demolition waiting period from strategic infill. Consider all of the ways that this requirement may be circumvented (see Boise’s Historic Preservation districts), and instead consider that affordability & sustainability requirements are significant and valuable community benefits on their own. (See, also, ‘Voluntary Upzoning’ recommendation, as these are related). Many existing structures are unsafe, unhealthy, and poorly-insulated, and should be replaced with new, energy-efficient construction to reduce our city’s carbon footprint. Voluntary upzoning by current property owners. Consider allowing current property owners to voluntarily upzone their qualifying parcel to the next incremental zone (R-1B to R-1C, R-1C to R-2, etc.). Current Boiseans will benefit from this opportunity to participate in providing additional housing on their property, and parcels can be pre-qualified based on adjacency to transit, pathways, and higher density zones. Consider requiring a 2-year waiting period to mitigate displacement, and encourage proper planning. Zero-parking multifamily Consider removing parking requirements for qualifying multifamily housing projects near transit, pathway, and commercial centers. Boiseans who choose to live car-free shouldn’t be required to subsidize the parking conveniences for others, and as a city, we should be providing housing choices for those who wish to live a sustainable life. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions or comments. Thank you, again, for your valuable service to our community. Sincerely,

Byron W. Folwell, AIA

Byron W. Folwell, Architect LLC. www.byronfolwell.com bfolwell@gmail.com (208) 409-9050

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:20 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Byron Folwell Email bfolwell@gmail.com Address 23 N. Roosevelt St. Comment See attached comments. Fully in support of the proposed modern zoning code. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/085821bc‐6904‐4fca‐8d90‐ d438c3d22ecf/bwf_zcr_letter.pdf I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:34 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Pamela A. Fraser Email mfraser8156@gmail.com Address 1005 N. Balsam St. Comment Some thoughts:My neighbors and I deserve a say in what is placed in our neighborhood. The notification process was too hard‐won to abandon. If developers want to build here,they can tolerate our process.Increased density may be necessary, but some imagination would be nice. ADUs are dandy. Infill is being used fairly well. Do not replace affordable housing with anymore high‐end crap. We will eventually will run out of WATER. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:22 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Sheri Freemuth Email freemuths@gmail.com Address 1303 N 24th St Boise ID 83702 Comment As a property owner and resident of Boise since 1987, I appreciate the opportunity to review the current draft of the zoning code. I am pleased to see many complex issues addressed in this draft and respect the extensive staff work that supported the citizen group(s) and outreach efforts necessary to compile this 600‐page document. However, I am concerned that insufficient attention was paid to the neighborhoods that comprise Boise. Much like the natural resources that define our city, the traditional residential neighborhoods, historic commercial districts, older schools, and churches, make Boise unique and authentic. They contribute to our economic development strategies and quality of life. Idaho Code 67‐6511 states that “…zoning districts shall be in accordance with the policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan.” I believe the proposed code is not consistent with 2 essential themes established in Blueprint Boise. Theme #3 A COMMUNITY OF STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND VIBRANT MIXED‐USE ACTIVITY CENTERS calls for the following: protect stable neighborhoods and emphasize the importance of high‐quality urban design in the built environment. To meet these objectives, I encourage you to consider rethinking the changes to the following development standards in single family zones to retain CURRENT CODE lot coverage, height and open space standards. I would also recommend that you revisit options for maximizing retention of existing buildings by offering EXCEPTIONS to lot coverage, height and open space IF preservation is part of the equation (which is not possible if every development is allowed 100% coverage, 40’ height and reduced open space). While I respect the work of CVI, their expertise is not the urban form. As Blueprint Boise compels you to protect the city’s historic resources (also under Theme #3), I encourage you to spend additional time discussing the ramifications of these amendments to Boise’s older and historic resources with Preservation Idaho and look to recent studies by Main Street America https://www.mainstreet.org/blogs/national‐main‐street‐ center/2022/05/11/main‐spotlight‐a‐new‐report‐on‐the‐state‐of‐housin. Discussions with city planners/preservation staff in PNW cities like Portland and Seattle may also yield insight into the complicated mix required to retain character defining neighborhoods while seeking higher density. Visits to other booming cities, Portland and Nashville TN come to mind, will demonstrate how authentic neighborhoods suffer with the intrusion of large mass structures, that add numbers of units, displace residents, without addressing affordability. Blueprint Boise Theme #1 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDHIP calls for Boise to promote the use of environmentally friendly development practices. As Boise continues her commitment to taking action to address climate change, “harnessing innovation, and the passion of the next generation” (City website), I recommend a closer look at the provisions to ensure that demolition of existing older and historic buildings is discouraged. Construction is among the leading activities contributing the largest carbon footprint. Boise should be a leader in establishing an enforceable demolition review process and an engaged adaptive reuse program 1

https://www.archdaily.com/979371/the‐most‐sustainable‐building‐is‐the‐one‐that‐is‐already‐built‐multi‐ purpose‐and‐healthy‐spaces This code rewrite should have a focus on what happens when this ordinance is adopted, and construction waste grows exponentially. Provisions for salvage plans as part of the demolition permit, establishing an architectural salvage repository (not unlike Boise's other recycling innovations but on a much larger scale) to serve those remaining historic building owners on maintenance and repair, are two suggested additions to the proposed code. Please consider these and other comments as you prepare a revised document for continued community discussion. Thank you for your consideration. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

CommunityEngagement Friday, March 17, 2023 8:49 AM CSIM; ZoningRewrite FW: [External] New Zoning Code

From: Pete Friedman <pfaicp@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:09 PM To: CommunityEngagement <CommunityEngagement@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] New Zoning Code I think it great that the city will have a presence at Treefort to provide information on the new code. As I travel around the city I notice a well organized campaign in opposition to the code. The city did an admirable job of community engagement during the code development. However, I feel there could have been a more robust effort to tell the story to those who are not close by to the issue. The signs around town will cause confusion at best. With the little time left before the hearing it would be useful to have the city’s narrative out there also. Thanks for all you do. Pete Friedman

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:11 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Margie Friend Email magillainfriend@yahoo.com Address 689 n bacon dr boise id 83712 Comment Please postpone the voting for rezoning. I have become more knowledgable in recent weeks and attended one of the mayor's meetings. This will impact Boise negatively as it is written. Delay. Wait for more comment and discussion. I feel this is being rushed to keep citizens out of the loop. The ideogical flowery speeches are just that..but have no logic or plan. This seems likely to be more about following the money to an election. I am not a robot

Richard Fritzley Kathleen Fritzley 3807 N Hawthorne Drive Boise, ID 83703 20 March 2023 Boise Planning & Zoning Boise City Council Subject: Public comment regarding the new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001). We are wri ng to vigorously voice our objec on to the new zoning code ordinance as currently proposed. Our comments are not comprehensive as the amount of me allowed for reviewing this document is woefully inadequate given the size, depth and complexity of the rewrite. This seems to reflect the desire of the current Boise city administra on to ram this through as quickly as they possibly can before the next city elec ons with full representa on by district. As we live in the Sycamore Overlay, we are going to make only a few comments regarding how our local neighborhood will be nega vely impacted, and how the views of the vast majority of residents of the Sycamore Overlay are being ignored and run over. We have lived in the Collister Neighborhood since 1989, first on 39th Street, then Collister Drive and for the past 21 years at our current residence on N Hawthorne Drive. We waited pa ently for over a decade for the opportunity to buy a property in the Sycamore Overlay as it provides the type of living opportunity we desire. The proposed zoning ordinance will ul mately totally change the character of the Sycamore Overlay and destroy the features that current residents not only value, but cherish. When the new P&Z director met with residents of the Sycamore Overlay last year, he stated that he agreed that this special neighborhood should not be changed. This was obviously a false statement as the zoning ordinance as proposed will dras cally change the very nature of the Sycamore Overlay, ul mately destroying it. The charm and a rac veness of the overlay is captured by three key features, each of which is required to keep the charm, a rac veness and value of the overlay. Those three features are: (1) large lots, (2) agricultural uses; and (3) single-family residences (w/accessory dwelling units allowed under certain condi ons). While keeping the large lots and agricultural uses, the zoning ordinance fails to protect the third essen al element of the neighborhood of single-family residences. It does this by trea ng the Sycamore Overlay like any other R-1A zoning area which will allow up to a fourplex to be built on the vast majority of the lots. Allowing this in the overlay goes totally against what the new P&Z director stated. The new ordinance may prevent lots from being subdivided and keep the agricultural uses, but it is a dis nc on without a difference when it allows mul family units as large as a fourplex. The nega ve impact this will have on the Sycamore Overlay’s current property owners cannot be overstated. For example, being an open area very close to the foothills, we have an abundance of wildlife in the Sycamore Overlay. We o en have mul ple deer in our back yard, up to as many as 18 at once just this past year. our next-door neighbor and I both have very open backyards with gardens and grass that a ract deer to feed. My neighbor is elderly (well past 80), and the house is very old. Should this property be purchased by someone with no respect for the neighborhood, weI can easily see a fourplex

being built on the property. This will have mul ple impacts. First it will immediately devalue all the surrounding proper es which in essence is an uncompensated taking from the neighboring property owners. Second, it will more than quadruple the traffic to that property on a street with no sidewalks and is a major area for people walking their dogs, not just residents from the Sycamore Overlay, but the surrounding neighborhood. Third, it will destroy the a rac veness of the property for wildlife that currently use it, as a fourplex will u lize most of the current open space for the building footprint, driveways, and parking space. Fourth, it will permanently remove open space that has been u lized for the protected agricultural use that the Sycamore Overlay allows, never to be available again for urban gardening, maintaining livestock and other similar ac vi es. Fi h, a fourplex in place where a singlefamily home once stood will increase density excessively out of balance with the defining characteris cs of the neighborhood. We are not talking about a single, isolated, large lot in an otherwise small lot, densely populated neighborhood. We are talking about destroying one of the most unique areas in Boise. We will lose trees. We will lose open space. It will nega vely impact wildlife. It will increase traffic on streets where walking with pets is a way of life. We will lose the charm, character, livability, and a rac veness of one of the most viable neighborhoods in Boise. There are alterna ves. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have been allowed previously but have needed approval. This should not change but condi ons allowing them could be less restric ve. However, as wri en the proposed code is too loose and the types of ADUs allowed are too broad. Addi onally, the zoning code should not be using incen ves for “affordable” units to drive density. Either a property is appropriate for the zoned density, or it is not. Whether units are “affordable” or not should have nothing to do with whether the density is appropriate or not. Finally, the city certainly should not be using its supposed clean energy agenda to drive up energy costs for renters or owners by allowing only electricity or geothermal as energy sources. This in itself makes the cost of occupying the unit less affordable. Given adequate me to fully review the proposed ordinance I’m sure we would have many more comments. Please reject this code, start over, and listen to ci zens of the community, not community organizers and non-profits with an agenda.

Richard Fritzley CAPT, CEC, UNS (Ret)

Kathleen Fritzley

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Cathie Galdos <cgaldos1020@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 1, 2023 11:04 AM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001,CPA23-00001

Boise Working Together has done a yeoman's labor to read the 560‐page ZCR document, point out problems with the proposed zoning code re‐write, and suggest solutions. Commentary from developer groups, who stand to gain billions, and from city admin, especially Tim Keane, whose re‐write failed in Atlanta, is just "narrative;" the code itself is where "the rubber meets the road." This ZCR, as written, will change the face of Boise as we've known it, without adding to housing affordability or protecting open space. It will impact quality of life for every single person who lives here, some more than others, as certain neighborhoods are targeted for complete density up‐zones in an effort to promote redevelopment. It promises the biggest transfer of wealth in memory at the stroke of a pen. It single‐handedly will change the stats on home‐ ownership, one of Boise's most stabilizing features It dooms an ever‐widening number of people to a lifetime of renting, rather than equity‐building, as investor/developers rush in to scoop up property. It will widen the gap between have and have‐nots in a city that, up to now, has been fairly egalitarian. It changes zoning for open space. It increases by‐right uses of property that formerly were precluded, or at least had to go through an approval process that included public hearings, so adverse impacts to neighboring properties could be examined and challenged, if necessary. This ZCR bypasses public input for projects involving application/approval, including controversial or contested projects. It disguises the nature of some controversial projects it is giving by‐right status, like low‐barrier homeless shelters, with terminology. The ZCR itself, the biggest change to Boise in at least 50 years, is about to become law on the vote of only seven people, two of whom will be by mayoral appointment, not election. That is not democracy in action; it is autocracy. Other cities have gone through this process. Some woke up before it was too late, others didn't. Lawsuits and overturns ensued, in some cases. We, the people, ARE Boise; the biggest gift we can give to our neighbors, ourselves, our children, and our city is to allow more time to get this right, then to put it on a general ballot for vote. We need more opportunity to get educated on this subject, and not just a "narrative‐driven" presentation like the Shelter Better Taskforce. We need to see the matters brought up in the Boise Working Together document addressed with actual changes to the proposed code; not just more "narrative." Trust in city admin is near an all‐time low for good reason. We, Boise, have a right to weigh in on matters of such critical importance that will forever impact life in this city. This re‐ write being steamrolled to approval has effectively cut us out of the process. It is time to hit the "Pause" button, do a better job of educating the public and addressing unintended consequences, then put it on a general ballot; the true test of any proposal. Please vote down the ZCR; it is fatally flawed. Here is the link to Boise Working Together analysis of the ZCR https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid027PmTqZAEiJCPKU3oLYcDbYkhbSEApS9PHckniD139HDdQkQ2bAy V22W3dh7fhdhjl&id=126578778115549&mibextid=Nif5oz Thanks for the time, attention, and diligence you will undoubtedly put into this. Catherine Galdos

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:44 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Becky Email beckygaspar@yahoo.com Address 925 Parkhill Ct Comment I support the zoning code rewrite because it fosters the creation of walkable, bikeable and affordable neighborhoods and will create more affordable housing locally thereby supporting diversity. I don’t want to see Boise become Phoenix , Sacramento, San Jose, or Los Angeles. “I am in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite because it improves the existing code that was based on lifestyles of more than a half century ago. I also advocate for the following additional changes: 1) Affordable housing. Plan for more people, not more automobiles by allowing zero‐parked housing, especially in R3 zones close to public transit options or downtown. The new code does not provide enough solution space for developers to build affordable housing. In particular, developing high density housing with onsite parking is very costly (up to $50,000 per parking spot). This will support those who can't afford or choose not to use the personal automobile as their primary mode of transportation. 2) accommodate for higher density with no onsite parking requirements for residential housing along transit corridors and close to activity centers. Three blocks surrounding these critical pathways and community centers should be zoned R‐3 with no or minimal parking requirements to support affordable housing and alternative transit options (bike, walk, scoot, bus). More of the city should be also be zoned R2, especially close to transit corridors and activity centers. the R2 should carry no or minimal parking requirements. 3) Process: remove community input when applications meet code requirements. 4) Neighborhood Associations: develop uniform bylaws for Neighborhood Associations, provide leadership training and ensure these associations and their leadership truly represent the interests of their neighborhood (renters and owners alike) and comply with all fair housing and anti‐discrimination laws. 5. Auxiliary Dwelling Units: – These should be allowed not only for owner occupants, but also for for renters/investors to improve supply and affordability.. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

kdg1996 <kdg1996@protonmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:42 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfor@cityofboise.org; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

March 21, 2023 Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Kristi L Gee

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:47 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Richard and Barbara Geile Email rtgeile@gmail.com Address 2510 W. Bannock St. Comment We are concerned about the reduction of public input opportunities in the development process such as no longer requiring neighborhood meetings and public comment during city meetings such as Planning and Zoning meetings and Design Review meetings. We are also concerned with the proposed changes related to density and building characteristics, such as height and setback. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/0c4ffa55‐038d‐4a82‐a80b‐ 4abe058b9497/geile_‐_comments_on_boise_city_code_rewrite_2023‐03‐22.docx I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 1:54 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Karen Getusky Email getusky@gmail.com Address 3312 N Tamarack Dr Comment I think the incentive program in this very large plan document is a mistake. It is complex, unmanageable and unenforceable. It allows exceptions to zone density that will likely begin damage to existing older neighborhoods that P&Z claims they want to protect. Initially, the code rewrite was supposed to simplify processes. This enormous document is taking a lot of time to comprehend. It looks like neighborhoods and individuals will have even less opportunities to prevent undesirable changes in their area. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:29 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Nancy Giddens Email nancy.giddens1133@gmail.com Address 1133 Washington St. Boise ID 83712 Comment Please slow down this process. Residents need to be fully informed of the impact if this change. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:26 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Michelle Girgis Email mngirgis@gmail.com Address Boise ID 83706 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:04 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Barbara Gordon Email gordbarb@isu.edu Address 2723 N Lakeharbor Lane. Boise, ID 83703 Comment I am writing to request more time to review the proposed changes. I have pending questions such as how the changes relate to HOA CCnRs. Our 21‐home CCnR only permits single family homes on a specific size of acreage. I am trying to understand if a developer could purchase one of the homes and build an apartment building on single‐family home lot. I need more time to read through the original copy of the proposed changes. What I have heard is that developers will pretty much have free reign and the voice of tax payers will be silenced. I am hoping that is not true. I am also trying to figure out if Boise's goal is to turn into a city of apartment buildings, which concerns me because we selected Boise because of the size of the city. Bottom line: It's a long document with a lot of jargon and I need more time to get through it. I appreciate your understanding that those of us without city planning degrees cannot process as quickly as the experts! I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:29 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Suzanne Gore Email 4suzannegore@gmail.com Address 1001 S Owhyee St. Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment While I support affordable housing, I have significant concerns about the implications of the proposed new Zoning Code on historic buildings and neighborhoods and on the potential for demolition of historic buildings that provide affordable housing and support sustainability. I am also concerned about ample notifications in existing neighborhoods where infill is proposed. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

amber grant <ambergrant76@yahoo.com> Friday, March 17, 2023 11:31 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite ambergrant76@yahoo.com [External] Zoning Code Rewrite

March 17, 2023

Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. I encourage you to put yourselves in local resident and homeowners shoes and the impact it will place upon all of us if we Upzone irresponsibly and without all considerations. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

Sincerely,

Amber Grant

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:28 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jan E Gurr Email Janegurr@aol.com Address 5510 Round‐up St Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. I am asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Andrea Tuning Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:44 AM ZoningRewrite FW: [External] Comments on Rezoning

From: Gary Hanes <ghanes1965@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:18 PM To: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org> Cc: Andrea Tuning <ATuning@cityofboise.org>; Deanna Dupuy <ddupuy@cityofboise.org>; Timothy Keane <tkeane@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Comments on Rezoning Please provide these comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The rezoning comment page on the City website has a character limit that this comment exceeds. I am writing to support the City of Boise rezoning proposal. Several years of my 25‐year career at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) were devoted to working on local regulatory reform through the Joint Venture for Affordable Housing. HUD is still drawing on the information gathered from successes around the nation and makes some of this information available through its Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse. Regulatory reform has typically been the focus of Republican administrations. But near the end of Obama’s term, he issued an Executive Order 13777 addressing the need to dial back local regulations to increase housing affordability and production. The last word on the subject came from the Trump administration through a report issued by Ben Carson, his Secretary of HUD. So, remarkably, there is bipartisan, conservative‐liberal agreement on this point. In my own work in the Southwestern states (including California), neighborhood opposition to affordable housing surfaced as the most malignant and effective roadblocks. Typically, this is known as NIMBY – Not In My Backyard but it has many names. My all‐time favorite was BANANA – Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. Unfortunately, this was too often bolstered by weak political support for affordable housing and housing production – NIMTOO or Not In My Term of Office! We know where that has gotten us. Nationally, we’re millions of new housing units short of what is needed and nearly every state is suffering from a shortage. Idaho and Boise are uniquely affected by recent emigration trends and growth, erasing any affordability advantage that it once enjoyed. This week the Idaho Asset Building Network announced that the state is short 28,000 units of housing and more than 9,000 units in Ada County alone. Thankfully, the City of Boise through this proposed rezoning is taking steps to reverse this trend here and should offer a more inviting environment to those who would add an ADU to their backyard or a developer that would not otherwise be inclined to take the financial risk of developing housing where neighborhood opposition would be a certainty. This should increase the production of housing, shrink the shortage, and result in a more affordable housing market. By offering entitlements to development, this will help mute the voices of opposition in many cases and reduce the administrative process of bringing housing development from the drawing boards to an onsite reality. 1

The State of Idaho has done much to eliminate affordable housing options that are routinely available to municipalities in neighboring states. Idaho has provided exactly $0 of its own funding for affordable housing and has only reluctantly reallocated recent federal funding for this purpose. Even Ada County has been miserly in its support. The Idaho legislature reaches even deeper to frustrate affordable housing development by eliminating inclusionary zoning, adopting regressive property tax policy for affordable housing, and frustrating mechanisms to raise funds for affordable housing that are available in all surrounding states (taxing ourselves for affordable housing, real estate transfer fees, etc.). Given the unfavorable affordable housing environment created by the State of Idaho, the City of Boise is working with the options left to it. It is looking inward for answers and the City of Boise controls zoning. Zoning can be a powerful impediment or an incentive. I believe the proposed rezoning has reached a good balance. Because the City of Boise is a HUD Entitlement Community and receives Community Development Block Grant and HOME funding directly, it must adopt a Consolidated Plan. This ConPlan requires that the City evaluate the regulatory barriers that exist to block or impede affordable housing and to take corrective actions. The proposed rezoning does this and indicates that the City of Boise is leaning into the challenge rather than shrinking from it…the opposite of NIMTOO! Another attractive goal of the rezoning is that it is intended to curtail (or, at least slow) the sprawl of the City into neighboring agricultural lands. At last year’s Idaho Smart Growth Symposium, a representative of the agricultural community pleaded with the Treasure Valley cities and counties to curtail encroachment on agricultural lands. The rezoning makes development more attractive within the current city boundaries. This not only moderates the expansion of expensive infrastructure and maintenance of roads, water, sewer, power, police, and fire service, etc. but the increasing density along travel corridors makes transit a more feasible option. This will reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. Economic development is sometimes a forgotten benefit of having an adequate supply of housing that is affordable to the people that work in the available jobs. Last year was the first time in my knowledge that Idaho employers appealed to the State of Idaho to do more about affordable housing. While our legislators only had to reluctantly reallocate COVID‐related federal funding to housing, they did it. But this was a one‐time infusion. Boise‐area employers have realized the unmet housing need affects their recruiting and retention. Our two regional medical centers, BSU, and even Micron have felt the pinch that the lack of housing has on their operations. The rezoning will provide a wider range of housing cost options and underpin a strong economy in Boise. I urge you to approve the proposed rezoning in its most recent form as it will keep Boise vibrant and affordable. Gary Hanes 992 E Riverpark Lane Boise, ID 83706

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Melissa Hanson <melissacabriolet@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:53 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Proposed zoning code ordinance ZOA23-0001 and CPA23-001

Dear Zoning Committee Members, Thank you all for your hard work on planning to improve the zoning code in Boise. I appreciate how challenging it is and that your intent is to make the city better for everyone. I’ve been following the modern code rewrite for awhile and reading as much as I can about it. I have to tell you, it is very confusing. Worse than that, I feel it is the most divisive issue I have encountered during my 16 years living here. Since I strongly believe in the importance of transparency and community, I really must agree with Mr. Fritchman’s advice in his recent Idaho Statesman opinion piece. Please, please, slow down, encourage more opportunities for education and discussion, and above all, please don’t make any final decisions until after the newly elected city council with geographic district representation is seated next January. To do so any earlier would look very suspicious, and the opposite of transparent. Again, many thanks for all you have done and for taking public comment seriously. Sincerely, Melissa Hanson 1714 W Franklin St. Boise, ID 83702

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Andy Hoffman <andrewphoffman@gmail.com> Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:50 AM CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean Andy Hoffman [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission:

The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home.

The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage.

Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits.

Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22.

Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. 1

Sincerely, Andrew Hoffman 1805 N Liberty St, Boise

To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.

Virus-free.www.avg.com

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Stan Hoffman <stanhoffman@mindspring.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:21 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Comment on the proposed zoning code rewrite

I oppose the the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite, Revised March 18, 2023 for the following reason: The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input as a top‐down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No prototypes showing “worst case” scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been shown to the public so they may ascertain the impact on their homes. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 1000 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to exactly what has changed from the current code. A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. One‐third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected, deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite a few short months before the November election. Only duly elected representatives should decide what to do about the ZCR. Proceeding to a decision with mayoral appointees is anti‐democratic in principle, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Moreover, the final ZCR draft was only recently released. As citizens begin to learn and rush to learn how their neighborhoods will be affected by such a ZCR, the need is clear: this radical zoning change for the entire city requires a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021) while “affordability” incentives in Boiseʹs largest zone (R1‐C) only provide a small number of homes for those making 120% AMI (Area Median Income). By increasing density allowances, the new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it. The result will be gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market‐rate or above‐ market‐rate multi‐units. Reducing the minimum lot size in R‐2 and R‐1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High‐density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty‐year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. 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. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and 1

vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on‐street parking, and safety hazards for children and individuals with accessibility limitations. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Boise’s R‐2 zone has been re‐conceived as a higher‐density apartment zone similar to today’s R‐3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four‐story buildings and no limit on density. These areas are currently single‐family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Medium‐density neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University ‐‐ also bear a high‐density burden in vehicles, noise, and short‐ term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems. Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R‐1 to R‐2 with 45‐foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher‐density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step‐down height standards to the existing neighborhoods. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner‐occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner‐occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de‐facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de‐incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short‐term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single‐family houses. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. It essentially allows for building a second house in the backyard of an existing home. Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner‐occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability? The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of cottage developments and other higher‐density diverse housing (e.g. halves of duplexes, condos rather than apartments, etc.) to encourage owner‐occupied housing and more resilient neighborhoods. The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts. Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non‐contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods. The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example: • Industrial uses in the I‐1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.” 2

• Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance. • In the R‐1B, R‐1C, R‐2, R‐3, MX‐1, and MX‐2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions. The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” (Italics added) Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side‐by‐side with existing single‐family homes in R‐ 1C and R‐2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. The proposed notification requirements need to be revised. The draft Boise City Zoning Code limits the requirements of notification for changes in the use of single‐family/household property to the adjacent property owner and occupants, including properties across the street and alleys. Following the Planning Director’s decision, the notice for appeal is only provided to residents within 300 feet of the proposed change of use. Change of use from single‐family/household use to duplex, triplex, fourplex, or accessory dwelling units concern the entire neighborhood, not just those nearby. Notification requirements must be neighborhood‐wide and include opportunities for comment and appeal prior to the Planning Director’s decision. Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on‐site to on‐the‐street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single‐family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off‐street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning‐required off‐ street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on‐street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships. Only when a serious urban transit system is actually in place will it be realistic to plan for reductions in traffic instead of merely hoping for fewer cars and trucks on the road and parking on neighborhood streets.

The highly urban form the new code promotes will reduce non‐built space. This will create significant tree and green space loss, and minimal permeable areas. Other likely results will include reduced wildlife habitat, reduced vegetation to absorb CO2, lower temperatures and buffer climate stress. Public and scientific recognition of the importance of urban greenspace has increased greatly in recent decades. Current parcel zoning and development changes that City bodies are granting already erode greenspace and urban forest canopy in our Boise neighborhoods. As written, the ZCR will accelerate these greenspace losses and rob the public of our right to comment on greenspace‐altering development in the heart of our neighborhoods. The Zoning Code Rewrite will eliminate Boiseʹs power to negotiate with developers on a site‐specific basis. Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require ʹDevelopment Agreementsʹ (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open‐ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site‐specific information and concerns from local residents. The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single‐family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boiseʹs at‐risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades and affect outcomes at election time. The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R‐2 or R‐1C zones.

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 12:10 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name janel holt Email janelholt63@gmail.com Address 616 N Bacon Drive Comment I strongly oppose the Zoning Code Rewrite. The public time frame for comments is too short for a document of 611 pages. The Rewrite robs homeowners of a voice in how their neighborhoods (and property values) are determined. Through vague wording and many loopholes available to developers, the City is trying to steal the esthetic and financial value of Boise's lasting neighborhoods. Let's put citizens over profit, manage taxpayer's money better, and give people a voice in this MAJOR change that Boise leadership is proposing! I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 3:44 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name John Hormaechea Email hoigbasco@outlook.com Address Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment Although no impacts for my family's immediate area, I do know people close to vista where there will be impact. Have those in the zone R‐2 change been alerted via flyer or other mechanism not electronic? It’s not clear those impacted have been communicated with. If the city has been “…working with residents over the last two years to make edits to the conversion map…” I would like more time to be sure they have received communication. Please extend the review 60 more days into May 2023. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:41 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Michael Hormaechea Email michael@hdllcboise.com Address 1101 W. River Street, Suite 300 Boise, Idaho 83702 Comment I am in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite because it is a significant improvement on the old zoning code and much better suited to deal with the issues of today. I would add the following recommendations for your consideration. Plan for more people, not more automobiles, by allowing developers to evaluate and build zero‐parked housing, especially in R3 zones close to public transit options or the downtown. Developing medium and high‐density housing with onsite parking is very costly. Consider removing minimum onsite parking mandates on housing and allowing for the same space to be programmed for housing to support those who can't afford or choose not to use the personal automobile as their primary mode of transportation. Consider the same accommodation regarding onsite parking requirements for higher density residential housing along transit corridors and close to activity centers. Three blocks surrounding these critical pathways and community centers should be zoned R‐3 with no or minimal parking requirements to support affordable housing and alternative transit options (bike, walk, scoot, bus). Like the R3 zone, the R2 should carry minimal (if any) parking requirements in areas with similar proximity to transit corridors and activity centers. These changes will allow the private sector to find solutions to create more affordable housing in areas supported by improved public transit options. I fully support the streamlining of the approval process which will reduce costs and improve speed to market. Getting more, less expensive housing product built is the fundamental solution to reaching the City's housing attainability goals. Please consider and adopt all possible simplification efforts such that more housing in desired areas gets built faster. I appreciate the considerable effort the City has put into this code rewrite. I have followed closely the public and private engagement with stakeholders over these past several years. I urge you to pass this code rewrite and begin the next chapter of managing growth in Boise. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 3:15 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Douglas Hughes Email Hughesdouglas63@gmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83712 Comment I am writing in response to the announcement of the city release of the final zoning code, or a modern zoning code that has been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a formal recommendation and then onto Boise City Council for final approval. I am bothered by the fact that there has been very little publication of a document that will affect so many people of our community. We all assume that we know what the zoning is in our neighborhood. We feel secure in that stability of a written document. Now I am hearing that the zoning titles are staying the same, but the definitions are changing or expanding to something completely different. Your words from the website state: Together with the community, the City of Boise has developed a modern zoning code to make sure the future design and development of our city protects the character we love and creates more dynamic, walkable space for everyone. The first statement of together with the community seems to be totally lacking in this process. I have heard nothing on the news or radio about this new modern zoning code. Since it is so innovative, I would think that the city council would be holding large press conferences or releases to the public. Yet, I see a limited time to review the 611 page document. I see the document dated Feb 2023, but did not see it available until March 2023. I also note that I have only a month and a half to review the document before public comment and meetings are to be held. And yet my only real information is coming from my neighborhood association. This leads me to assume that you really do not want community input. Again, from the city website: A modern code will protect the character of our unique neighborhoods and create opportunities for small businesses, pathways and homes at Boise prices across our city. From what I have seen of these new developments, it does nothing to protect the character or unique neighborhoods that we love. The new buildings are built up against the sidewalks and fill up every square inch of property with building or concrete for parking, leaving no green space of which the city is so proud to have. The new buildings tower over the single residential home next to it. So instead of having double wide trailer courts, we now have triple or quadruple trailer stacks without trees or grass. How does that preserve our unique neighborhoods? And the statement at Boise prices across our city is really nothing to brag about. The prices are already so high that we see a constant stream of cars coming into town at the beginning of the day and again in the evening. People work here but cannot afford to live here. Time to slowdown and give us time to really review what you are presenting to us before you finalize a document that will have long term effects on our city. I am not a robot 1

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:58 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Austin Hurd Email austin.wade.hurd@gmail.com Address 7195 Bluebird Drive, Boise, ID, 83714 Comment I am writing in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite. It is a great start to addressing the city's issues of a lack of housing, increasing congestion, derelict neighborhoods, and encroachment on the Foothills and the Boise River. I believe no neighborhood should experience radical change, but no neighborhood can be exempt from change, and I think the ZCR achieves that. The ZCR allows every neighborhood to change a little bit, and because of that there will be a more even spread of investment across all neighborhoods instead of a flood of investment in any one neighborhood. The Strategic Infill requirements are a great example of balancing increasing housing and neighborhood change. Allowing neighborhood cafés and retail with limited hours and conditions for interior lots is a great example of balancing great neighborhoods and neighborhood change. Ensuring neighborhood transitions between transit orientated development and neighborhoods is a great balancing between decreasing congestion and neighborhood change. Would I like for all residential lots to be rezoned to MX‐1 or above, yes, but maybe that's too much of a change so the current changes will have to do. Thank you for doing an amazing job collecting community input, finding balanced solutions, and so much more. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 6:03 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Daniel J. Hutchison Email pilothutch1@gmail.com Address 102 North Jantoni Dr. Boise, Idaho 83712 Comment DELAY CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION DRAFT OF THE CITY’S ZONING CODE UPDATE: After reviewing the Adoption Draft of the City’s Zoning Code Update, my conclusion is to demand that all further consideration of this very poorly written document be stopped until after a newly elected district‐based City Council is seated in January of 2024. Also, all work on the zoning document, and promotional efforts by the Boise City‐Staff or City‐ hired consultants must also be suspended until firm direction is provided by the newly elected City Council with adequate public involvement. This is very critical! INADEQUATE REVIEW TIME: The very limited, and insulting, 22 days allowed for public review of a 611 page, poorly written document, fully demonstrates the cold‐hearted disregard for the citizens of Boise the current mayor, City Council, and staff have. The draft the document would place into city code the displacement of the diverse middle‐ and lower‐income population from the ability to live and prosper in owner occupied homes. This discrimination is further shown as the proposed code provides preferential treatment for the extreme upper economic population of Boise and the out‐of‐state developers. The Adoption Draft City Zoning Code would come at very high economic and social cost to the average citizen of Boise. Under the proposed development, funds would poor out of Boise into the hands of the out of state investors. The high‐density inappropriate growth would not benefit Boise by circulating investments within the community. Citizen of Boise would be displaced from their homes and offered high density rental homes with ever increasing rents paid to the out‐ of‐state developers. As your planned increase in housing costs drive out some citizens from their homes and city, the diversity of the community will drastically decrease. Yet you lie that you want “affordable housing”? LACK OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: The writing of the Adoption Draft of the City’s Zoning Code Update has occurred without widespread public input as a top‐down effort, favoring input from out‐of‐state developers. The neighborhoods have been left in the dark about its true impacts and true goals. The lofty goals set in the purpose of the code (11‐01‐03) all sound great. However, is only takes a short reading of the actual content to see that this section is all misleading lies and are inserted as a smoke screen to distract the citizens from the actual goals of the Adoption Draft. If the purpose section clearly stated the Purpose of the Adoption Draft City Zoning Code Update is to: destabilize residential neighborhoods; eliminate single‐family owner‐occupied housing; allow out‐of‐state developers to profit on the destruction of neighborhoods; increase crime; increase domestic abuse; reduce safety and security for the children; and contribute to economic hardship and mental challenges for the citizens of Boise, the stated purpose would at least be honest and match the actual policies in the terrible document. Totally inadequate space to write comments. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:30 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Maureen Email ingrammaureen46@gmail.com Address 7705 W Mooserun Ct. Comment Why the rush to approve this revised code when the general standard for comment period is 180 days? This tactic reveals more about the revised code than you intended, and is an abuse of the trust that your office requires. You took an oath to uphold the rules, laws, and Constitution of the state of Idaho. This is an egregious disregard for your oath. Honor the oath, and do this the right way ‐ it is your duty. Extend the comment period, please! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

DATE: March 21, 2023 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, REF: ZOA23-00001; CPA23-0001

zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:53 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Lari Jane Email ljrumpp@me.com Address Boise, I’d, 83705 Comment Please respect Preservation Idaho! Thank you. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:24 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jennifer Email jenniferjw729@gmail.com Address Comment I want to request that the public be given more time to study the impacts of the zoning plan presently on its way to the planning and zoning board. Without that time, Boiseans may not be able to recognize and identify long term adverse impacts. Thank you! I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Kristen Jensen <jmkristen@msn.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:11 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

March 22, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: Although this letter is largely a form letter, it accurately reflects my thoughts and views regarding the proposed zoning code changes in Boise. Bottom line: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611-page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. All of which will have a negative impact on safety and property values. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

Respectfully,

Kristen Jensen 3775 N Sawgrass Way Boise, ID 83704

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:59 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name William Email jjerrems@gmail.com Address 83712 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. Thank you for your consideration, Jerry Jerrems I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:44 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Tom Jewell Email ctjewell5@msn.com Address Boise Idaho 83706 Comment The zoning rewrite is a bad idea.It has been rushed, with very little citizen support, an ill conceived in general.It must be sacked and start over after the november elections If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name LeeAnn Johnson Berry Email lberry4@mac.com Address 3290 W Catalina Ln Comment I live on the bench. Please do NOT add any more skinny houses to our neighborhoods. Do not remove the old houses to put skinny houses in. It looks trashy. I'd rather we didn't encourage growth of our population in Boise. Let people move to those cities like Meridian/Nampa and Caldwell where there is already a lack of character and put skinny houses in. I used to live in Portland and they took areas like Overland/Vista/Orchard/Latah and made them artistic, walkable/vibrant places to live. Let's go in that direction. Remember, developers are looking for the next place to make money. They don't live in my neighborhood but they will gladly make money ruining it. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:13 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Roberta L Johnson Email bobbie6217@gmail.com Address 2948 E HEARTLEAF LN Comment Please extend the timeframe for review of the Zoning Code update from 3 weeks to 180 days (federal timeframe). If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:59 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Karen Jonnard Email karenjonnard@gmail.com Address 621 S 17th St, Boise, ID 83702 Comment Dear Mayor McLean and City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern, such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and Boise deserves better. The ask now is that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ Thank you for all that you do to make this a city for everyone. With more time and a fully “staffed” City Council, hoping as many Boiseans as possible have an opportunity to participate and share their voice in shaping Boise’s future! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B

Boise Working Together P.O. Box 7082 Boise, Idaho 83707 March 22, 2023 Boise Planning and Zoning Commission Boise City Hall 150 North Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners, The Board of Boise Working Together has unanimously voted to oppose the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) in its final draft form released on February 28 of this year. We do not oppose changes to Boise’s zoning code overall, but the ZCR fails broadly as it increases land use impacts while substantially limiting public input. Excluding meaningful public input harms local government process and transparency, and squanders local, site-specific knowledge over Boise’s eighty square-mile expanse. Boise community leaders have long called for encoding more of Blueprint Boise into our Zoning Code, but the ZCR fails to make headway in incorporating the cherished quality of life policies into enforceable code. Failure to encode Blueprint Boise’s policies in the ZCR now while entitling higher land use impacts may forfeit our ability to achieve these public goals in the future, as once private property is entitled, restricting its use may be challenged as a legal taking. For a great many reasons too numerous to list here, the ZCR as currently written will dramatically and suddenly transform Boise’s landscape in ways that will adversely affect the lives of our residents, most of whom will be taken completely by surprise by the scope of change. The way this code is written it targets areas of Boise, populated by those least able to object, with the least remaining housing options available to them. The following are a number of specific reasons for our opposition as specified by input and inclusion from all board members. The process of writing this code has not obtained the widespread public input and awareness as advertised. Many, many neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes, most have no idea what is coming. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No prototypes or housing examples showing “worst case” scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been publicized to the viewing public. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 1000 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to ascertain what has changed from the last version let alone the current code. 1

Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B

A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. Due to unforeseen circumstances one-third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected. Currently three out of six council districts are not represented. Deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite now, a few short months before the November election is not sound policy and clearly designed to circumvent this important electoral process. The ZCR will forever change how Boise grows and evolves, it is only prudent for it to be enacted by a City Council representing each district of Boise and following the will of the voters they will represent. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will not help the supply of “affordable housing”. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021). Proposed “affordability” incentives will have minimal effect on increasing that supply. However, the numerous incentives to entice redevelopment in Boise older neighborhoods, will significantly increase displacement of Boise’s at-risk populations. It will also cause the removal of Boise’s last remaining naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), without a comprehensive displacement policy to mitigate those societal issues. The replacement market rate housing will also be significantly more expensive than the housing it replaces. Any incentives offered will not come close to replacing the low-income housing lost. There are numerous examples of this- Arbor Village, 11 th and Ash, 11 th and lee, Travis Apartments, Ridenbaugh Apartments, even Targee and Vista. Is this the community we have we become?

Reducing the minimum lot size in R-2 and R-1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High-density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty-year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Significantly reducing lot sizes R1C and R2 zones will encourage demolition of current homes in stable neighborhoods. In some cases, our models show the potential for lot split increases of up to 95% vs 30% by current standards. This defies Blue Print Boise standards of protecting stable neighborhoods. Additionally, the increased height limits ignore compatibility standards. These height standards weren’t an issue before, but with new pressures to redevelop with new uses, new densities, this will be a new issue to overcome. Vast areas across the Boise Bench and West Boise are built with single level homes, split entry and tri-level homes with low pitched roofs. The tallest home in the Vista neighborhood is a full two story with a shallow pitched roof and is only 21 ft at the peak. That is a vast difference from the proposed 40 ft height in R1C. Very few homes are full two-story homes in the targeted area, as opposed to the architecture styles in the North end. This aspect of the current built environment- architecturally, economically, aesthetically is not given adequate thought in this final draft. If it works in the “North End” it should work everywhere, seems to be only standard to achieve. Boise’s R-2 zone has been re-conceived as a higher-density apartment zone similar to today’s R-3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four-story buildings and no 2

Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B

limit on density. These areas are currently single-family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Medium-density neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University -- also bear a high-density burden in vehicles, noise, and short-term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems. There is a noticeable lack of examples in what a dwelling will look like on a 1500 sq ft lot, 5 stories high (R3) or for R2 on a 2500 sq ft lot 4 stories high. Instead, each of these districts seem to jump beyond what they were originally designed for- transitions from R1C neighborhoods to commercial uses. R2 and R3 are architecturally pushed into high density apartments vs medium density townhome style dwellings. Just pushing these limits does not mean sound, quality architecture and design is automatically achieved. Boise City Council recently approved an RFP for 12 Missing Middle/Zoning Rewrite consultants, not one of their websites illustrates the issues in design and compatibility these increased standards create. Instead, more is always the path pursued, regardless if it actually makes any sense or not. Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R-1 to R-2 with 45-foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods of mostly single level homes. Additionally, reaching ¼ mile into surrounding neighborhoods from any MX3 zone will also create havoc in these neighborhoods. The 55 ft wide lot rule in these areas seems to ensure that that the nicest areas are the ones targeted for redevelopment vs the areas that do need it. The 55 ft rule also excludes the majority of housing and neighborhoods designed and built prior to 1950. Prior to 1950 most lots(not all) were configured with a 50 ft wide lot and alley access, equating to 5000 sq ft lot standard. From the 50’s onward, lot and home styles were more car centric, with attached garages, necessitating shallower wider lots. Home styles also changed significantly moving aware from narrow bungalow style homes, to ranch style mid-century modern, which is specifically designed to have a lower height footprint. Mid-century modern styles which are a very favorable design trend in style and consumer demand, seem to be ignored and discredited with this rewrite. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. This increase in size, combined with the minimum open space reduction to 200 sq ft and increased redevelopment across our neighborhoods will drastically reduce our tree canopy and open space, essentially negating any perceived environmental advantage gained with density. Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner-occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability? The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of pocket neighborhoods and town homes and 3

Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B

condos rather than apartments. The pressure to build rental units vs homes to own will only exacerbate pricing issues in housing to own, far into the future. If we do not build homes to own now, the remaining homes to own will become far more expensive and increase gentrification and economic segregation in Boise, something the ZCR is supposed to reduce not exacerbate. The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts. Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non-contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods. The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example: • Industrial uses in the I-1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.” • Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance. • In the R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, MX-1, and MX-2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions. The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” (Italics added) Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side-by-side with existing singlefamily homes in R-1C and R-2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. While there seems to be a desire for this in our neighborhoods, the details are lacking. This should be a conditional use permit, requiring notification and acceptance by surrounding property owners, who have to live next to them, in front of them and beside them. It should not be a “by right” issue where one entity can intrude into neighborhood, removing local control over how a neighborhood evolves.

Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B

The proposed notification requirements need to be revised. The draft Boise City Zoning Code limits the requirements of notification for changes in the use of single-family/household property to the adjacent property owner and occupants, including properties across the street and alleys. Following the Planning Director’s decision, the notice for appeal is only provided to residents within 300 feet of the proposed change of use. Change of use from single-family/household use to duplex, triplex, fourplex, or accessory dwelling units concern the entire neighborhood, not just those nearby. Notification requirements must be neighborhood-wide and include opportunities for comment and appeal prior to the Planning Director’s decision. This is especially true, when duplexes are not required to adhere to any minimum lot area requirements, which is just ridiculous.

Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single-family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off-street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on-street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships. Only when a serious urban transit system is actually in place will it be realistic to plan for reductions in traffic instead of merely hoping for fewer cars and trucks on the road and parking on neighborhood streets. People today do not ride transit, because it takes too long, not because they don’t live close to it. The highly urban form the new code promotes will reduce non-built space. This will create significant tree and green space loss, and minimal permeable areas. Minimum open space requirement have been cut in half to 200 sqft while increasing lot coverage standards. Other likely results will include reduced wildlife habitat, reduced vegetation to absorb CO2, lower temperatures and buffer climate stress. Public and scientific recognition of the importance of urban greenspace has increased greatly in recent decades. Current parcel zoning and development changes that City bodies are granting already erode greenspace and urban forest canopy in our Boise neighborhoods. As written, the ZCR will accelerate these greenspace losses and rob the public of our right to comment on greenspace-altering development in the heart of our neighborhoods. Mature trees do not receive adequate protection by the City of Boise. A home or an apartment complex can be built in a relatively short time. A mature tree requires a generation to grow and evolve.

Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B

The Zoning Code Rewrite will eliminate Boise's power to negotiate with developers on a site-specific basis. Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require 'Development Agreements' (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open-ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site-specific information and concerns from local residents. The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boise's at-risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades. The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R-2 or R-1C zones. The Housing needs analysis is already outdated and questionable in its conclusions. There has not been any analysis of the conclusions made by the Housing Needs Analysis. Which was created in 2021 at the height of the Covid related surge and societal turmoil(riots). The first page of the Atlanta White Paper, summarizing Atlanta Neighborhoods objection to a very similar rewrite in Atlanta, highlight the need to NOT make long term strategic decisions based on a short-term surge or trend. The Nation, the Treasure Vally is currently in a housing and economic recession whose length and severity is unknown. Using data created in a short-term surge is not a sound policy- strategically or economically. Additionally, analysis of the Housing Needs data has not been done or proven out, just taken as “gospel”. The 2021 COMPASS development and permitting report indicates that Boise permits have averaged a little over 1600 units per year from 2014-2021. That number is only 26% of total permits in Ada County for the same time period. The Housing Needs increase to 2773 units per year and 42% of the Ada County permits is very questionable and no data is given to prove those assertions. This is the report that is driving every aspect of the rewrite, why has it not been challenged or analyzed for accuracy and veracity? Transit? A significant commitment is being made when long-term funding is still an issue. Development and increased densities along the key transit corridors- Vista, Fairview and State St is necessary. Many of Boise’s corridors are in need of significant investment/redevelopment as well. But are we ready as a community to sacrifice neighborhood integrity along these same corridors when our state legislature does not recognize or support funding for transit? Should we be forcing residents to 6

Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B

decide NOW, to support transit or support their homes and neighborhoods when transit viability, in Idaho, is questionable? The need is recognized, the long-term funding sources are not. The proposed incentives within ¼ mile of Mixed-Use parcels and within our neighborhoods along corridors and arterials is quite extensive and invasive. Is it all necessary, right now or is it something that should be added later as corridors redevelop and transit funding is secured, if it ever is (the reality in Idaho). Thank you for your attention in this matter of vital concern to our city and all of its residents and neighborhoods for generations to come. It is so vitally important to take the time necessary to get it right the first time. Economic and current housing recession warrant the extra time. Examples from Atlanta, Austin, California and other cities also warrant the extra time. The local political environment and conditions of representation do as well. Boise’s residents, despite efforts to notify and inform them, do not have an understanding of what this ordinance does and will do to their neighborhoods. Or what specific details hidden in this 611-page code take away. We have taken three years to get to this point, why rush it now? Let’s make sure this is what the whole community wants and will accept. The all-encompassing impacts of this ordinance economically, socially, environmentally and physically require active, open debate and discussion which has just begun. S Sincerely,

Dave Kangas, President Boise Working Together

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 12:08 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jay Karamales Email DryCreekHistory@gmail.com Address Boise ID 83714 Comment Greetings Mayor McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth can be good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. I relocated from Fairfax County, Virginia, 12 years ago because of the same mistakes in unbridled growth and little concern for historical continuity I see Boise and Ada County making today. I would like to help our community avoid those mistakes. I am asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Please do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Scott Ki <senorllave@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:09 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001, CPA23-00001

Scott Ki, 1408 N 15th Street, Boise, ID 83702 Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning Committee, and City Staff, We have very serious concerns with the current version of the City of Boise's upzone plan. We ask first that the City postpone this process to allow more time for public comment on the current draft which exceeds 600 pages and is written unnecessarily in very dense technical language. Overall, the lack of meaningful opportunities to provide public comment on the upzone plan as well as the inability for public comment within the plan itself are contrary to the fundamental building blocks of a functioning democracy, namely transparency and accountability. If this upzone plan passes, there will be no opportunity for neighbors to comment on buildings that may reach 40 feet into the sky and block sunlight from homes and backyards, or to comment on structures that may be occupied by a fourplex, neighborhood cafe, or cellphone towers, among other uses, which would significantly alter the nature of existing residential communities and damage their quality of life. I ask everyone involved in this upzone a simple request: provide one successful example of such a plan that has worked in the United States and did not lead to the further degradation of affordable housing and residential neighborhoods, did not increase noise and air pollution, did not place strains on water, traffic and other infrastructure, and did not significantly reduce parks and greenspace. Many have asked this question before during the City's process, but we have never been provided an adequate answer, perhaps because there are no successful models? We hear that we need more housing to address the lack of supply and increased demand in Boise so that homes can be made affordable for the backbone of our city – seniors, teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, and other service professionals that we depend on to create and sustain a great quality of life. Unfortunately, supply and demand is just one part of a complicated equation that involves investor cash flows and deep pockets from many who don't even live in Boise. More housing is great if you can implement price controls and focus on owner‐occupied developments. Otherwise, Boise is open to any investor in any corner of the world who can buy and hold multiple properties and wait for prices to go up and write out the blank check that the City will provide them if this zoning code passes. Let's face it developers and investors want to maximize profits, that's what they do. They're not in this industry to provide affordable housing and restrict their return on investment if they don't have to. Finally, we are not NIMBY's. My wife and I are parties of record in support of TRICA which is right behind us in the alley and The Franklin House. The folks who run these establishments live in the area and provide the neighborhood a unique charm. I'll also say that many who are opposed to the upzone are also not NIMBY's, but we all do worry about the future of a city that has already grown too fast and driven many who made up the special fabric of our neighborhoods out of town or out of state. For all these reasons, I ask you to postpone the upzone process or to reject the plan as it's currently written. Thank you. 1

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 3, 2023 10:42 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Patricia King Email pati_sue@live.com Address 1111 S Berkeley St, Boise Comment I think the majority of the zoning code rewrite is geared toward developers and investors who have the most to gain from the changes. Our downtown corridor of older, more affordable homes will be razed to make way for "affordable" (multi‐family, high rise apartment complexes, skinny houses, ie., incompatible housing) ‐ which STILL isn't affordable for local residents as well as mixed use developments parked next door to existing houses. Our streets, utilities, city services can't manage the traffic increases that will come with these "improvements" to zoning codes. Living in a mid‐century neighborhood, I am frustrated by what is allowable already in heights on additions and remodels around me. Don't allow the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction simply to make Boise attractive to urban developers with zero stake in our community. These Boise "upzones" miss any affordability mandates, anti‐displacement measures, nor any tenant protections ‐ crucial safeguards to ensure we are truly getting the type of housing that makes for a diverse, mixed‐income community moving forward. And, by broadly "upzoning", the city has tied their own hands in terms of developer concessions, the only way to get those who line their pockets to give some of their windfalls to the community they impact! I was a licensed residential Realtor for over sixteen years. Since 2005 this community has been in upheaval, displacing thousands of local residents ‐ workers who serve Boise's economy ‐ west to Canyon County to live and raise their families. No longer is this a Boise issue. While Boise properties have consistently grown unaffordable, the entire Treasure Valley metro area has as well. Even in a significant market downturn, housing is still not affordable for average earning households, and these zoning changes will actually compound the problem! This is short‐sighted and poorly timed in the extreme. The zoning code rewrite needs to be further studied with MUCH MORE input from local residents, groups and agencies. We only have one chance to get this right and we've only to look to Seattle to see what a nightmare over‐development can become: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEJ8tfplZcs&t=301s Sincerely, Patricia King I am not a robot

BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE LETTER OF SUPPORT March 22, 2023

To Whom it May Concern: We, the undersigned board members of the Idaho Access Project, respectfully submit general comments and observations on the recent release of the City of Boise’s Zoning Code Rewrite. We applaud the City’s efforts to create much-needed density to remedy historic barriers to housing equity, and the stated purpose of the Code outlined in 11-01-03—specifically the following high-priority items: 1. Promote the health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents 2. Bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents. 5. Achieve an integrated approach to land use and transportation to provide a safe, efficient, equitable transportation system for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and vehicles. What’s missing in this Statement of Purpose is an express emphasis on ‘mobility, safety, connectivity and accessibility for persons of all abilities in the design and development of housing and community infrastructure that supports welcoming, diverse and stable neighborhoods.’ We encourage elevating this concept in the final version. We also strongly recommend the City create incentives for new residential construction that reflects basic principles of visitability. Every new inaccessible residential unit placed in service represents a ‘disability tax’ on homebuyers or renters with a mobility-related disability—and their family members. See Inclusive Design Gets Customers in the Door for more information on why this simple change in design and construction standards can create stronger neighborhoods and community, increased independence, social capital, and economic opportunity for current and future residents. While not addressing detailed technical aspects of the rewrite, the comments below focus more broadly on the aspirational nature of the code updates, the historic nature of the housing crisis and its impact on protected classes and essential workers, and potential fair housing implications inherent in the unmet demand for housing types and price points that meet the needs of all Boiseans. One often stated goal of Zoning Code Re-write is to create options for increased housing diversity and density within all neighborhoods, including zones typically reserved for detached single-family residential development. This primarily low-density residential development form is by nature exclusionary, resource intensive, and an inefficient use of land and public infrastructure. Like historic redlining, detached single-family residential development patterns have the effect of discrimination based on protected classes like race, disability, familial status, gender (since all women and particularly women of color earn less than white males for comparable employment). Why diverse and distributed density—with conditions that create lasting community and social benefits—are necessary:

• • • •

•

The lack of affordable housing in every neighborhood restricts housing choice and equity for people of diverse abilities, needs and incomes. This in turn limits access to the essential community assets and social capital required to pursue economic, educational and employment opportunities. Boise residents with disabilities are often shut out of higher-cost R-1 neighborhoods, as are caregivers all residents depend on for child or elder care, in-home care, rehabilitative care that makes productive, independent living possible for Boiseans. A shortage of local reliable caregivers often results in a family member—almost always a woman—to reduce working hours or leave the workforce, which eliminates a source of household income and has a disparate impact based on gender. The lack of affordability also affects others we identify as the essential workers who serve our community. When those workers are forced to commute long distances or live in overcrowded or substandard housing, that represents a forced subsidy to employers who don’t pay a living wage, and consumers accustomed to low prices for goods and services. Increased housing costs are a significant trigger for wage increases, which contribute to overall inflation. Housing shortages and cost burdens also undermine the recruitment and retention efforts of local employers, forcing some businesses to cut back hours of operation or eliminate services. These ripple effects impact everyone. The shortage of affordable housing has led to high rates of housing displacement, first-time homelessness and social instability that externalizes cost burdens to community resources and taxpayers. Excluding density from R-1 zoning further concentrates density in already dense neighborhoods and areas of disinvestment. This in turn concentrates poverty in those neighborhoods and puts Boise at risk of complaints for failure to affirmatively further fair housing, a requirement of the Fair Housing Act. This failure could ultimately put the city’s federal housing and community development funding at risk. We understand that the City of Boise is working in good faith to preserve and expand housing choice as required under fair housing law, and that some barriers to density and affordability are beyond the direct control of local government. These include limits imposed by the Idaho Legislature, the rapid increase in speculative investment in Boise’s housing stock by outside interests, and the perennial opposition from unelected vocal groups fighting all development and change—whether that involves density, sprawl or repurposing of publicly-owned land for housing, which leaves no options for expanded housing capacity. Unfortunately, we also understand that subsequent fair housing complaints related to the absence of fair housing choice will most likely target the city, while ignoring the primary barriers named above.

As the City moves forward, we encourage a continued and expanded emphasis on inclusive planning and design. We look forward to a continued productive partnership with City officials and staff to create a Boise where everyone has a chance to thrive and prosper. Respectfully, Idaho Access Project Dianna Willis | Dana Gover | Jeremy Maxand | Erik Kingston | Carol Baron

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Erik Kingston, PCED for the Idaho Access Project Email erik.kingston@gmail.com Address 1010 E Jefferson Comment Please see attached support for the Zoning Code Rewrite If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/a4e4cbde‐e753‐4ef4‐a698‐ ac431163fd7f/zoning_code_rewrite_idaho_access_project.doc I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:50 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Elizabeth (Betsy) Klene Email betsyklene@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83712! Comment This is crucial to the future of Boise and keeping it a growing city and keeping its charm I am not a robot

March 22, 2023 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 I oppose the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite for the following reasons: The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input as a top-down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes. The city has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No prototypes showing “worst case” scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been shown to the public so they may ascertain the impact on their homes. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 1000 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to exactly what has changed from the current code. I have specific concerns about the Boise Code Rewrite that include: •

The zoning code rewrite has chosen a city-wide approach to find solutions to their problems. In doing so, city-wide rezoning will affect all of the functioning neighborhoods in the city. These are the neighborhoods that have contributed to Boise being a desirable city to call home. Has the city assessed what the rezoning impacts will be on functioning neighborhoods? Not all neighborhoods will benefit from rezoning, adding density and reducing parking.

•

The zoning rewrite team did not use projected population numbers. Without estimating what our future population is going t be it is impossible to determine if drinking water, sewer capability, trash disposal etc. will be sustainable. The zoning rewrite team said that the new codes are “sustainable” but when asked what is the goal was for a sustainable population in Boise, they said that’s a good question, the team has discussed trying to develop a population number. We live in a desert that is hot in the summer. There is a limit of water, sewer and trash the City of Boise can provide.

•

The incentives to cut parking areas for the addition of solar or other amenities seems to be a poor choice. The tenants will park in front of the neighbor’s house creating additional problems. Perhaps it would be better if those units were required to rent to tenants that don’t have cars.

•

The zoning rewrite has not addressed conservation of existing cooling corridors or zones for the City’s heat accumulation. The year 2022 was the hottest summer on record in Boise. Adding more concrete and density increases the amount of heat the city retains. What is the city rezone doing to protect the areas that naturally cool the Boise. Conserving trees and open spaces are an economical way to use natural cooling in our region. Has the zoning rewrite addressed areas that are presently considered cooling zones. Once development takes over the only choice is to plant more trees, but it will be costly and may not work until 30 years after planting. The rezone will have direct impacts on functioning neighborhoods. It is reasonable to assess and review what these impacts will be on every neighborhood before the rezoning approved. 1

I also have the following concerns with the Zoning Code Rewrite: A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. One-third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected, deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite a few short months before the November election. Only duly elected representatives should decide what to do about the ZCR. Proceeding to a decision with mayoral appointees is anti-democratic in principle, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Moreover, the final ZCR draft was only recently released. As citizens begin to learn and rush to learn how their neighborhoods will be affected by such a ZCR, the need is clear: this radical zoning change for the entire city requires a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR. The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boise's at-risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades and affect outcomes at election time. 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. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and safety hazards for children and individuals with accessibility limitations. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. It essentially allows for building a second house in the backyard of an existing home. Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner-occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability? The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of cottage developments and other higher-density diverse housing (e.g. halves of duplexes, condos rather than apartments, etc.) to encourage owner-occupied housing and more resilient neighborhoods. 2

The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts. Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non-contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods. Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single-family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off-street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on-street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships. Only when a serious urban transit system is actually in place will it be realistic to plan for reductions in traffic instead of merely hoping for fewer cars and trucks on the road and parking on neighborhood streets. The highly urban form the new code promotes will reduce non-built space. This will create significant tree and green space loss, and minimal permeable areas. Other likely results will include reduced wildlife habitat, reduced vegetation to absorb CO2, lower temperatures and buffer climate stress. Public and scientific recognition of the importance of urban greenspace has increased greatly in recent decades. Current parcel zoning and development changes that City bodies are granting already erode greenspace and urban forest canopy in our Boise neighborhoods. As written, the ZCR will accelerate these greenspace losses and rob the public of our right to comment on greenspace-altering development in the heart of our neighborhoods. The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example: • Industrial uses in the I-1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.” • Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance. • In the R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, MX-1, and MX-2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions. The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of 3

the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” (Italics added) Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side-by-side with existing singlefamily homes in R-1C and R-2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. The proposed notification requirements need to be revised. The draft Boise City Zoning Code limits the requirements of notification for changes in the use of single-family/household property to the adjacent property owner and occupants, including properties across the street and alleys. Following the Planning Director’s decision, the notice for appeal is only provided to residents within 300 feet of the proposed change of use. Change of use from single-family/household use to duplex, triplex, fourplex, or accessory dwelling units concern the entire neighborhood, not just those nearby. Notification requirements must be neighborhood-wide and include opportunities for comment and appeal prior to the Planning Director’s decision. The Zoning Code Rewrite will eliminate Boise's power to negotiate with developers on a site-specific basis. Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require 'Development Agreements' (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open-ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site-specific information and concerns from local residents. The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boise's at-risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades and affect outcomes at election time. The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R-2 or R-1C zones. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median 4

income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021) while “affordability” incentives in Boise's largest zone (R1-C) only provide a small number of homes for those making 120% AMI (Area Median Income). By increasing density allowances, the new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it. The result will be gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market-rate or above-market-rate multi-units. Reducing the minimum lot size in R-2 and R-1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High-density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty-year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. Boise’s R-2 zone has been re-conceived as a higher-density apartment zone similar to today’s R-3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four-story buildings and no limit on density. These areas are currently single-family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Mediumdensity neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University -- also bear a high-density burden in vehicles, noise, and short-term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems. Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R-1 to R-2 with 45-foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods.

Sincerely David Kordiyak Boise, Idaho

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Shelly <32firefly@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:07 PM ZoningRewrite [External] comments on zoning rewrite City planning and zoning commission.docx

Please see attached comments Thank you David Kordiyak

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:51 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Don Kostelec Email don.kostelec@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83706 Comment "The purpose of this act shall be to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state of Idaho." That statement is contained in the Purpose section of the Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act. Health. Safety. General Welfare. Those words are what the City uses in its Development Code Purpose: "To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents, and to bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents." I support the proposed zoning code changes that allow greater density in all residential zones because it will promote improved health, safer streets, and the general welfare for existing and future Boiseans. The proposed zoning code also brings Boise's policies in line with Idaho's and the City's purpose statement. Existing policies have not led to affordable and fair housing in Boise. It is clear here, as researched and proven elsewhere nationwide, that the predominance of single‐family zoning has not led to adequate housing options for people across all income spectrums and housing types. Instead, it is a contributing factor in making Boise less affordable. The current Boise zoning map shows the limited amount of land that allows for multi‐family housing. This policy‐ based restriction has created more intense redevelopment pressure on the already‐limited number of parcels where multi‐family or higher density is allowed or located. This has led to displacement of people who were living in what is often less dense, but still multi‐family units on those properties. The proposed zoning code designating more acreage within the City to allow for greater density, by right, can alleviate these redevelopment pressures on the limited number of existing sites, reducing the pressures on those properties and lead to less displacement. LEVELS OF APPROVAL For zones designated for residential uses I support Type 1 and Type 2 policies denoted in Table 11‐05.02: Permit and Approval Validity, with the exception of "Dwelling, Multiple Family" in R‐1B, and R‐1C. While I feel redevelopment up to a density of fourplexes is suitable in existing single family zones, the redevelopment of properties above that threshold should prompt a Type 3 Approval. PARKING I support parking reduction requirements for all new development. It will help Boise achieve its goals for 1

providing more housing and freedom of transportation choice. It will make streets safer, which aligns with the City's Vision Zero policy. The US Transportation Research Board found, "On‐street parking has the effect of reducing street width, which fosters slower vehicular speeds and reduced accident rates." It can reduce speeds up to 10 mph when parking is utilized on both sides. This is due to the friction created by parking that is more heavily utilized on residential streets than what we see in most single‐family residential areas of Boise. For example, a single‐family home on a 1/4‐acre lot on the Bench typically has 2 garage spaces, 2 driveway spaces, and anywhere between 3 and 6 on‐ street spaces on its frontage. This glut of on‐street parking is why motorists feel they can speed on our residential streets. Further, no one living on a public street has an exclusive right to the on‐street parking in front of their house. TRACKING AFFORDABILITY Is allowing greater density an end‐all solution for affordability? Probably not. It is, however, one tool Boise can control. Therefore, I support a comprehensive, statistically‐valid analysis on how the new zoning code influences affordability 5 years after it goes into effect, in consideration of other externalities that impact affordability but over which the City has no control. This will help Boise test and adjust its policies to ensure outcomes can improve housing affordability and availability. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Kris <krisbiz@digitalstations.org> Monday, March 20, 2023 11:30 AM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-0001

Writing to provide feedback on ZOA23‐00001 and CPA23‐0001 At a recent neighborhood water board meeting, I asked the 40+ people in the room who had heard of the Planning and Zoning proposed changed. These are active, engaged neighbors and yet none had heard of what was being proposed. A few had seen the “don’t up zone Boise” signs but didn’t understand the issues. While I personally tried to investigate the proposed changes, it has been difficult. I am unable to find a document with “track changes” or one that has a table of contents listing the changes or such. Is there a table that lists “old” and “new” side by side for comparison? When new developments build to the maximum of the lot and there are reduced green space requirements, we lose tree canopy, wildlife habitat and increase noise. None of these are good for our city and yet proposed greenspace requirements are reduced. Developers will likely put in small ornamental trees and not large shade trees. When you allow residential buildings to be 45 tall, this blocks sunlight into neighboring homes. A max height of 35 tall should be implemented instead. Lot size has been reduced to 3500 feet. Please increase to 4000. In SW Boise there are no city parks within a 15 minute walk of my house nor plans to build any (the acreage on Overland previously dedicated as park space was sold by the city). Increased housing without safe walking paths, parks or dedicated bike paths are not helpful. We do not feel safe walking 2 feet away from five lanes of cars driving 40+ mph. The idea that you can cram in more housing and people will walk to shops is ludicrous. It is when we have quiet streets, are out walking dogs and biking with kids that we see neighbors outside working in their yard, we stop to chat. This is what makes a good neighborhood. Streets crowded with cars and maxed out with housing change the whole feel of the neighborhood and that’s not the type of city that is good for communities. Please provide more examples of what is changing, do more to educate people and reconsider the proposed changes. Then wait until we all have an elected representative, not one assigned by the mayor, before voting on such major changes. Thank you, 1

Kris

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:19 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name kristal Email kristallin@live.com Address Boise, ID 83705 Comment Hi, we love our neighborhood and our city. My family does not want any tall buildings in or near our neighborhood. We want to keep Boise neighborhoods quaint and safe. No tall buildings in our neighborhoods please! Thank you! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 12:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Allyn McCain Krueger Email allynkrueger@msn.com Address 1321 E Warm SPrings Ave Comment The public need a fair amount of time to understand this long and complicated proposal!! PLEASE allow more time for public to peruse the zoning code and understand how it will affect them. PLEASE go back, and allow weeks, not days before the proposed code is sent to P and Z for their approval. I feel this is a rush job and it's very uncomfortable ‐ WHY?? I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 6:43 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Kylei D. Email m.nightmoonstudio@gmail.com Address Boise Idaho 83704 Comment By upzoning Mountain View Drive, you will allow a very safe, established neighborhood to be infiltrated with possible apartment buildings/duplexes. This makes me, my family, and my neighbors feel like our neighborhood livelihood is being threatened. Mountain View Drive has already had an influx of crime with the population increase in our city. We do not want that to increase even more, which is exactly what this plan will do. Please help us save our neighborhood and do not allow this to happen. We love our neighborhood and want to keep it that way. You all know in your hearts what is right, please help us. I am not a robot

March 22, 2023 Boise Planning and Zoning Commission Boise City Hall 150 North Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 RE: Comments on Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Dear P&Z Commissioners, I am concerned that the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) is being fast-tracked without thorough review and consideration. The final draft was published and posted on the City’s website on February 27, 2023. As such, only 23 days have been allowed to read and understand 611 pages of the draft ZCR document. Why is a complete overhaul of Boise’s zoning code being fast-tracked, without consideration for public understanding and participation? The current zoning code has previously been, and can continue to be, amended to fix specific codes that need to be adjusted. Since Idaho law now requires cities with a population exceeding 100,000 to elect their city council members from geographic districts, it should be required that this new sweeping overhaul of the Boise zoning code should be understood and approved only by a city council that is duly elected in our city. Currently, two of the six city council members will be 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. There are several items within the new draft zoning code that are concerning and have not been addressed, although they were raised during draft public meetings, held by the City. Some land uses 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. The removal and changes of notification to neighbors and neighborhood associations, causes confusion and uncertainty within a community. These by right developments are a rubber stamp for developers without proper oversight. The reduction of dwelling unit open space, from 375 sf to 200 sf, is also very concerning. For a City that calls themselves the City of Trees, this amount of green space is sadly small. By reducing green space in urban areas, we contribute to the heat island effect and reduce carbon sequestration potential. The ability to split single family lots in the R1-C zone into four units will increase density, but seems to benefit developer’s income potential the most. I’m not convinced that splitting lots in residential neighborhoods will benefit residents in our community. It will likely destabilize single family home areas. Please consider extending the timeline for review and approval of the zoning code rewrite, so that these and other public concerns can be adequately addressed. Thank you, Estee Lafrenz

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Andrea Tuning Friday, March 10, 2023 9:20 AM ZoningRewrite; suelake007@gmail.com zoninginfo RE: [External] ZCR

Good morning Susan! Thank you for your comments, I am forwarding them onto the zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org email to be considered on the public record by our elected and appointed officials. If you have any future comments, please direct them to zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org. Thank you for you thoughts! Andrea Tuning

Comprehensive Planner Planning and Development Services Office: (208)608-7078 atuning@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org

Creating a city for everyone. We are in the process of rewriting our zoning code. Please visit our website to get involved and receive updates. From: susan lake <suelake007@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 8:25 AM To: zoninginfo <zoninginfo@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] ZCR

Dear City Council, I have read an abbreviated version of the ZCR and want to give my opinion. Many people residing in Boise came here for its family friendly environment and the smalltown community atmosphere. The natives feel betrayed and unheard. BOISE is changing fast and not in a good direction. These policies promoted by those that do not live here and are not vested here, will result in Urban Sprawl, more crime and for those that pay the majority of taxes a loss of what they invested in. Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely, 1

Susan Lake

March 20, 2023 Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council 150 North Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Mayor McLean and City Council Members, As way of introduction, the Lake Harbor Master Association (LHMA) is a mixed use development of small and medium businesses, and residential in the form of condos, apartment complexes, and single family homes in which 646 families reside. We feel that only a council fully elected geographically can make a decision that truly reflects the interests of all Boiseans on a matter of such far-reaching significance to our city and its various neighborhoods. Accordingly, we request that any city council vote on final adoption of the new Boise zoning code not be made until council elections by geographic district occur this November and a new city council is seated in January 2024. The schedule for approval of the ZCR shows it coming before council in June. At that time, of our six city council members, two—fully one third—will have been appointed by the mayor rather than elected by the voters of their districts. The ZCR as currently drafted treats certain neighborhoods of the city differently than others based on their locations. The LHMA believes that those citizens whose properties will be impacted permanently— and often dramatically—by the proposed zoning changes deserve direct geographic representation before decisions affecting their homes, livelihoods, and happiness are made. Our city is in a state of transition, not only through growth but in governance. While council representation by district was popular with some and opposed by others, it is now state law. This November will mark the first time some citizens of Boise will be able to elect a council member specifically representing their area and its issues. Only through geographic representation can we validate that the ZCR truly reflects the will of the people of Boise. Therefore, we urge you to ensure voters have the representation they deserve before you make a decision affecting them and our city for decades to come. Sincerely,

Jim Harris, President Dave Fujii, Vice President Kelly Hogan, Treasurer Lake Harbor Master Association

Full Service Property Management Specialists 251 E Front Street, Suite 203 • Boise, Idaho 83702 (208) 342-7368 • Fax (208) 342-7325 • www.veritymgt.com

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:54 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jack and Mary Ann Lawford Email m.lawford@lawfordmedia.com Address 5199 Paiute Circle, Boise, ID 83709 Comment 1) I feel that this should not be voted on by Council/Mayor until AFTER the Nov Elections 2) Taking away Neighbor/Neighborhood notifications on permits /plans is WRONG. Neighborhoods deserve to know and to have a say in what is going on. 3) Too many "Allowed Uses" in all zones. and too little clarity as to what exactly is allowed / restrictions etc. 4) I feel this is a plan written so vaguely and without specifics for each zone that you could put virtually anything anywhere. 5) City seems to be purposely misleading the public on this by calling it cute names like "Modern Zoning" when it is really a total disruption of neighborhood across Boise. 6) Most people do NOT want apartments / multi fam / businesses in their neighborhoods. It is a very loud vocal few who are pushing for this high density. People move to a neighborhood because of it's attributes and the govt should not be destroying those values and attributes. 7) The so called 15 min city is just a pipe dream ... it has NOT been put into practice anywhere in the US. It is an Experiment and we do NOT want to be experimented on. 8) Requirements for fewer parking spaces in homes / apts is ridiculous. Just because you want people to drive less does not mean that they will want to or be able to ... it's just not reality. Sooo when there are fewer parking places for people, they park in neighborhoods which causes tension between neighbors. 9) We think the whole thing is a big hot mess waiting to happen... it's not what people want .... you are hiding the actual "features" that will affect people most.... and you give just 22 days to read and comment. 10) Very bad government ... leading to distrust and dislike of government. You cannot just PUSH things on people ... remember the Library ? This is 1000 times worse. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:15 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Sandra Lease Email sandy.lease@gnail.com Address 2011 E Roanoke Dr Comment While I am in agreement that Boise needs to have more dense housing, I am concerned about unintended consequences of the new zoning rules. I ask that we slow down the process and out off voting on these new rules. I’d like to hear more about the potential impact to the character of older neighborhoods, particularly those with historical significance. I a concerned that, without further input and understanding ot the potential visual impact, our neighborhoods will lose the charm that makes Boise so special. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Val Lee <2live4ever7@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:18 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Please do not pass new zoning

Idahoans need to vote on any new zoning laws, no one who had not been voted into office should attempt to change our laws. We desire no changes! We are a country by and for the people.

Thank you, Valerie Lee 83643

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:23 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Lois Lenzi Email lois.lenzi@gmail.com Address 244 S. Villa PL. Boise. ID 83712 Comment What are you doing? There is plenty of open spaces on the Bench and off Overland and Orchard that can be "renovated for density". Not the East End or North End or Central area by Morris Hill... Let's fill up these empty apartments before any more high rise apartments are built. I have lived in Berkeley,Seattle, Boston, Cambridge and New Port, RI and Newton, Mass before moving back to Boise in 1976. I lived in the East End in 1995 till I went away to college but I came back...I love Boise and helped start the East End Neighborhood Association...I will fight this absurd move. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 9:03 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Lynne Levine Email lynnelevine@gmail.com Address 909 W Fort Street 83702 Comment It is unacceptable for you and the upstanding citizens and tax payers of Boise that you to offer a mere month to review such an extensive and detailed document of land use proposals and updates. As residents of Boise, you owe us the courtesy of a thoughtful and considerate timeline to read and understand the major proposals that you are suggesting to our beautiful city. I realize that corporate interest and development $$’s are influencing your decisions to move fast, but how short sighted of you!! It’s embarrassing and shameful that you are neglecting and disregarding the thought and intellect of your citizens. I am asking that you extend the review time and public comments on the newly proposed land use zoning code. Not allowing a more extended time would be dishonorable to the fine folks of Boise. I am not a robot

The following are largely general statements that could be made by the March 22 deadline for inclusion in the Project Report. They are made with protest that the three weeks provided to read, analyze, and comment on the 611 page final draft of the Zoning Code Rewrite is simply too little, even for a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the rewrite. There are major changes between the final draft and the draft released last October, but unfortunately, the final draft contains no heuristic to highlight changes either from existing code, or the last drafts. Earlier drafts contained such heuristics (eg color coding letters to denote new allowed uses), which was extremely helpful. As such, the comments below may not accurately portray the entire document, as document search functions do not always find all entries in the document. First, to note some beneficial changes in this final draft: Trucking terminals – a buffer of 500’ is now required between any residential use (regardless of zoning status) and a new trucking terminal. 500 feet is dramatically better than current code, and would have protected residents in situations like those of the Blue Valley Manufactured Home Community. Generally noise and air pollution decays exponentially with distance – though prevailing wind patterns may complicate the protective qualities of the buffer. However – the distinction between warehouses (both large and small) and trucking terminals is ambiguous in the provided definitions. It must be clarified that any warehouse that also serves as a trucking terminal must also meet the use-specific standards (eg the buffer) – without that clarification, applicants may argue that the use is a ‘warehouse’ even when substantial environmental impacts occur from a subsidiary use as a trucking terminal. Fulfillment Centers – it is well known that current zoning codes are outdated regarding the distinction between traditional warehouses, and large fulfillment centers, leading to environmental justice failures as these fulfillment centers bring high levels of vehicular exhaust, dust, noise, and heat often into neighborhoods with lower incomes (see for example https://grist.org/buildings/a-warehouse-by-any-other-name/). The final draft shows Fulfillment Centers as being only allowed in the Heavy Industrial Zone (I2), which is a critical step in modernizing the zoning code. However – there are two critical caveats to addressing the modern problem of Fulfillment Centers: 1) I cannot find any definition of ‘Fulfillment Center’ – the search function only finds it on two pages (143 – the Table of Allowed Uses, and 257, Parking Requirements). Without a definition, large Fulfillment Centers will likely be classified by an applicant as large Warehouses which is the problem with an outdated zoning code as discussed in the article above. 2) The Allowed Use is given as A*/C* (Conditional Use Permit May Be Required In Some Circumstances Per Use Specific Standards). A major change in the Findings for Approval for a Conditional Use Permit may nullify the current meaning of a CUP. This will be discussed more below, but it may negate the public protections that can result

from successfully mitigating adverse impacts. This is an issue for many other uses – see for example landfills and protecting existing affordable housing along corridors. State Street Multimodal Path – it is excellent to have the requirement for the 12’ multimodal path in the Zoning Ordinance, and critical for any realistic implementation of Transit Oriented Development, especially in NW Boise where bus stops are at 2 mile intervals along the ‘Best in Class’ Transit Line. Protections for Existing Affordable Housing in MX-3, MX-4, MX-5 – the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for uses that would alter existing affordable housing, manufactured homes, or assisted living and similar convalescent care sites, reflects a very important step forward in tempering the conversion of these uses to market rate housing that is unaffordable to the majority of those that rent. However, it is unclear how the requirement for a CUP will offer protections to current tenants or owner-occupiers of manufactured homes: 1. During the hearings regarding the InterFaith Sanctuary relocation, the view expressed by the applicant was that any adverse impact considered for conditioning by a Conditional Use Permits must affect neighboring properties, and not the guests, tenants, or others that live or work onsite. I don’t recollect a clear decision from the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding this argument. Because the CUP here is clearly intended to allow for conditioning or mitigating onsite impacts, it is inevitable that the use of a CUP to protect existing occupants will be challenged. 2. As noted above and discussed below, changes in the CUP Findings for Approval may further complicate the value of a CUP.

Requirement for an Assured Water Supply – the intent is appropriate and positive for any modernization of our Zoning Code in our arid valley subject to drought and climate change. It is, probably necessarily, a complex process. I have concerns regarding the impacts of the Exemption to local available groundwater – for example, when agricultural uses are replaced by housing or commercial, the initial use of water will generally decrease dramatically, enabling the exemption. However, good agricultural practices beneficially recharge the local aquifer, which is essential to maintaining groundwater that is both ecologically critical in drains, seeps, and other areas that serve as vestiges of the natural Boise River ecosystem before flood control, and as water for the majority of private wells. 1) In the Treasure Valley, irrigation provides the great majority of groundwater recharge: seepage directly from canals is responsible for 48% of the input to area aquifers, while total infiltration from irrigation and precipitation from farmlands provides an additional 46% (see Sukow J. Expansion of Treasure Valley Hydrologic Project groundwater model: Boise, Idaho. 2012; 34. and Bartolino JR. Hydrogeologic framework of the Treasure Valley and surrounding area, Idaho and Oregon. US Geological Survey; 2019. Available: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20195138)

2) Generally this code rewrite, unlike our Comprehensive Plan (for example, ES3.5: AQUIFER RECHARGE), ignores the importance of this aquifer and traditional source of drinking water. In the future the shallow, locally recharged aquifer may be essential as i) a hedge against private ownership of municipal water systems, ii) as a source of water for naturally occurring trees and other vegetation that mitigates the Urban Heat Island, and iii) as public water storage with recharge effectively under city administration. I, and all of my immediate neighbors, rely on domestic wells tapping this traditional water source.

Preventing Bird Collisions – this is good and essential for a city intending to modernize its code and build higher along a cherished riparian corridor. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the mitigation of reflective surfaces, but I trust comments from the Golden Eagle Chapter of the Audubon Society, and others, were meaningfully incorporated. However, I am aware that bird collision deaths are one of the leading causes of bird mortality in the United States, and that, on a square footage basis, the taller the building, the exponentially greater bird mortality. I greatly miss bird species that were common in the area when I grew up – I think of western meadowlark and long-billed curlew especially – which is reflective of the loss of ⅓ of bird populations generally across the United States due to habitat destruction and other causes of mortality. This trend is accelerating.

The Loss of Development Agreements There are certainly other positive changes embedded in the Rewrite, but in the interest of time I will now discuss what I believe to be the fundamental challenge of such an ambitious Zoning Code Rewrite – the loss of the ability for the City, and through the City, the public, to make site specific adjustments, mitigations, or accommodations to maintain or further the public good. These adjustments may uphold policies of the Comprehensive Plan that are not currently codified by ordinance, gain a percentage of affordable units in large projects as feasible per current market conditions, or, for example, require the installation of a traffic signal, pedestrian crossing, or bus stop. Today, the primary power for Idaho municipalities to accomplish these site specific adjustments is through the Development Agreement, an open ended right to negotiate upon granting an upzone. By upzoning thousands of parcels in one simultaneous action, the Zoning Code Rewrite, just to maintain parity with current municipal power, must foresee and propose methods to mitigate on each and all of these parcels, without the benefit of local knowledge brought forth by public comment. We typically hear consternation from the City of Boise that its powers to act on the public behalf are severely and repeatedly restricted by the State of Idaho. The Development Agreement can,

when applicants wish to gain more profitable entitlements, constrain development toward the public benefit. Even where the Zoning Code Rewrite makes progress in codifying policies of the Comprehensive Plan, or other beneficial policy, the City of Boise may still risk losing the ability to enforce these policies. For example, currently proposed legislation may nullify the proposed building code reforms for greater energy efficiency. In large projects that today would require a rezone, at least, the ability to enforce that public good would be retained through Development Agreements. Incentives for affordable housing may also be attacked, and if struck from the code, we will also lose the power to negotiate for this public benefit once units are entitled. The City should consider making the density entitlements that are expressed in the rewrite with affordability and environmental incentives to be conditional on the ability of the City to enforce these policies. If the State takes away the power of the City to enforce, the entitlements should revert to what is currently allowed, much in the same manner as zoning reverts upon failure to uphold a Development Agreement.

Lack of Data All review bodies, and the public, should be provided with local data that would clarify the relationship between the entitlement process and the construction of housing, especially more affordable housing. Much of the rationale for the rewrite is that it will produce more, and more affordable housing. However, the Citizen Advisory Committee was not presented with these data despite repeated requests, so that any local relationship between the entitlement process and the lack of housing construction remains anecdotal. Locally, and anecdotally, only a small fraction of housing is delayed, and even a smaller fraction stopped, by the entitlement process, while many thousands of housing units have been entitled, often for years, without being constructed. The onus is to show that a significant bottleneck for housing supply exists at the permitting rather than construction level. Other data that is essential to making an informed decision is the extent and type of Development Agreements employed during the individual rezone process.

Changes to the Conditional Use Permit Decision-Making Process As noted above, the CUP has inserted crucial wording in the final draft that was not discussed in the Citizen Advisory Committee, or highlighted in any way:

iv. The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;

While, on the face of it, this clause increases the ability of the City to work in the public benefit, it may well eliminate the ability of the CUP to act as intended – to condition a use with site-specific mitigation if possible, and if not, to deny the permit. Inserting a ‘public benefit’ clause here that entirely changes the intent of a CUP, and opens the process to vast ambiguity and challenge. Almost any project can be claimed to be a benefit to the public, and the decision whether the public benefit outweighs ‘material negative impacts’ will place an extraordinary responsibility on review bodies. At one extreme this clause could reduce the CUP process to a simple restating of summary boilerplate, much as City of Boise Planning Staff currently states projects comply with the Comprehensive Plan in the required Reasons for the Decision. As noted above, this rewrite relies heavily on the CUP as a means to achieve desired policy. By altering the essence of the CUP – that adverse impacts must be mitigated in order to gain approval – we may have given false assurance that harms will be addressed in the public hearing process. For example, landfills are not currently allowed in the City of Boise, but, in the final draft, are allowed as Conditional Uses in I-2 zones. It is not hard to imagine that either the applicant, or Planning Staff, would assert the public benefit of landfills – after all, we as the public generate solid waste, and currently landfilling is the ‘solution’ for most of this waste. The argument might continue – without landfills, or even this proposed landfill, additional harm such as the dumping of waste may occur. On the other hand, the adverse impacts of landfills are well known, and even without this clause, the duty of the review body is difficult. On experts will the City rely upon to determine whether adverse impacts can be mitigated? After all, at the very least, the Ada County Regional Landfill describes landfills as inherently stinky: “Landfills smell. It is their nature. There are a variety of smells at a landfill but most often, the reputation of a landfill is that it stinks.” https://adacounty.id.gov/landfill/landfill-operations/odor-control/). More critically, however, landfills receive hazardous substances mixed into residential waste even when these are banned. Landfills receive, store, and sometimes release substances that are not currently registered as hazardous, but are likely to attain that status in the future. If these are recalcitrant to degradation and are able to escape either in air or water (eg the remaining 13,986 types of ‘forever chemicals’ or PFAS that are still unregulated), then the landfill may become legally hazardous, eg a Superfund site. Because Idaho does not impose any additional requirements beyond federal standards for hazardous waste, other states may take advantage of our lax policy and ship waste they consider hazardous to Boise (see https://calmatters.org/environment/2023/01/california-toxic-waste-dumped-arizona-utah/).

It may already be impossible for the review body to ensure that the additional standards are met for landfills. Additional Standards for both I1 and I2 are appropriate and a much needed safeguard to protect residents and the environment. The second standard (‘All operations shall be free of odor, dust, smoke, cinders, gas, fumes, noise, vibrations, refuse matter, water-carried waste, or other emissions.’) is shared by both I1 and I2, while the first standard that either bans (I1) or conditions (I2) uses ‘that generate, use, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous substances.’ The public, the Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council would greatly benefit from knowing that landfills are not currently allowed in City limits, so that they could consider the impact of this change, but the Zoning Code Rewrite does not provide this information in the final draft. Finally, it may be helpful to consider the history of the novel inclusion of landfills in the final draft from the perspective of a Citizen Advisory Committee member. I noticed, with the help of the color coded font, that ‘sanitary landfills’ were added to the Table of Allowed Uses in the first draft. At that time landfills were allowed uses in both light and heavy industrial zones (I-1 and I-2). Having experienced the Ada County Landfill being sited near my family property as a child, I am intimately familiar with their associated adverse impacts, and raised the issue to the Committee. I was pleased to learn that my concerns had been considered, and that the new use of landfills would be removed. However, for reasons not given to the Committee, landfills retained a new allowance as a Conditional Use in heavy industrial districts (I-2). Certainly this is a vast, and appreciated, improvement over landfills being a new Allowed Use in both I-1 and I-2, but, especially given the changes to the Conditional Use Permit decision making process, any application for a landfill will create difficult choices to the review body. But perhaps more importantly, the underlying rationale for bringing landfills into Boise City limits has remained entirely hidden from the public. In general, the zoning code rewrite encapsulates a multitude of decisions that were made out of sight even from the Citizen Advisory Committee, and may not have been noticed during the short time frame after release of the final draft. I believe that Planning and Zoning should defer the decision on the Rewrite until the public, and the Committee, can more fully grasp the rationales, and the consequences, both intended and unintended, of such a significant rewriting of the laws that govern land use in the City of Boise. Even if we agree that generally allowing more intensive impacts within the City, how we proceed to achieve this will have long lasting repercussions. Sincerely, Richard Llewellyn PhD Biochemistry

(208) 419-7527

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

retrogirl <retrokaran@gmail.com> Saturday, March 18, 2023 6:37 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Extend the timeline to review upzoning, please

March 18, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Karan and Andrew Lockhart

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 2:57 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name John Lodman Email johnlodman@gmail.com Address 5051 NORTH VILLA RIDGE WAY Comment 11‐03‐03.2.B.8 requires owner occupancy of either the primary structure or accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in order to obtain an ADU building permit. Encumbrance of the property title by deed restriction is required. This provision is impractical, unworkable and possibly illegal. Consider the following scenarios‐ Scenario 1‐ property with ADU is left to heirs in estate. are the heirs left to either occupy the property or sell? the answer is yes under the current and proposed code. Does the City really intend to enforce this provision on the heirs? if so, how? Scenario 2‐ corporate or state owned entities wish to better utilize owed properties by adding ADUs. are these entities unable to obtain permits? the answer is yes under the current and proposed code. This scenario is real‐ BSU has about 30 properties it considers "underutilized" and may want to consider ADUs (source: Drew Alexander, BSU VP of Capital Planning and Space Management) Scenario 3‐ corporate entity wants to develop an ADU and agrees to the deed restriction. The owner LLC simply adds the tenant as a "member" of the LLC with expiring ownership rights. The LLC can still lease to the tenant even as a very fractional owner "member". In any case, under Title 28 Chapter 12 of Idaho code the leasehold may be adequate to consider the tenant an "owner" for the duration of the leasehold. The creation of two classes of owners‐ owner/occupant and owner/investor‐ is likely illegal. Nowhere else in the development code is this found. Sooner or later, this provision will be challenged in court and I expect that the city will lose. Even the heirs under scenario 1 may have standing as the deed restriction will artificially limit the resale market. Planning staff justifies the distinction because development of an ADU is a "privilege"! A privilege for me to use my property exactly as my neighbor uses her's! I recognize that the Code has an exception to this requirement under 11‐04‐03.7 with a commitment for 50 years of sub‐market rent. This commitment is is entirely too long and frankly, this is another unenforceable provision in the Code. How does the City plan to enforce this if the developer agrees? If the city wants to limit short term rentals by this provision then consider an alternative deed restriction on short term rentals. We would agree to this on the entire property, primary structure and ADU. Such a provision would do more to preserve neighborhoods than the owner occupancy deed restriction. Please remove these provisions from the Code. Thank you. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:58 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Nancy Lokmor Email nlokmor@gmail.com Address 111 Jantoni Dr., Boise ID 83712 Comment I am writing to request/beg the City Council delay the vote on the rewrite of the zoning code. As a resident of the East end I was only made aware of the 611 page ZCR a few weeks ago. I have a lot of questions and concerns on how this will affect not just my neighborhood but the entire city of Boise. Trying to wade through a document of that size is an unfair burden on most residents. The email I rec'd from the Mayor's office announcing these changes, barely touches on how our residents will be impacted. Please don't bulldoze over our concerns by denying us a fair say in this enormous code rewrite. Nancy Lokmor If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Michael LoPera <michael_lopera@yahoo.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:18 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

3/21/2023 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐ change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. Sincerely, Michael LoPera 4364 S Trailridge Ave Boise, ID 83716

DATE: March 21, 2023 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org REF: ZOA23-00001; CPA23-0001 Mayor Lauren McLean Council Members Holli Woodings, Luci Willits, Jimmy Hallyburton, and Patrick Bageant mayormclean@cityofboise.org hwoodings@cityofboise.org lwillits@cityofboise.org jhallyburton@cityofboise.org pbageant@cityofboise.org I OPPOSE THE BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE BECAUSE:  The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input and neighborhoods have been left in the dark about its impacts. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite.  A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council.  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 (and paying unbelievable taxes for) were stable. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and safety hazards for children, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.  Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods.  Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses.  Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto streets, often already crowded. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street.  The new code favors some neighborhoods over others. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. The rewrite benefits developers and investors, is detrimental to homeowners and future homeowners, adds more buildings, cars, noise, and congestion to already crowded neighborhoods. High density apartments (that will never be owned, only rented) should be pursued downtown or in already existing zones, not shoved into old neighborhoods without the proper support for increased concentration. Removing homes that are single-family owned to install multi-units that are owned by absentee investors is a sure disaster for existing neighborhoods as proved in many cities nationwide that have fallen to this kind of profit-driven zoning. Property taxes are so high here we should be seeing something other than the destruction of our neighborhoods for the prices paid.

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:29 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Kathi Lyons Email lyonskathi@gmail.com Address 3582 N Hyacinth Ln. Boise Idaho 83703 Comment Please Reject Boise Upzoning If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:44 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name cathleen macdonald Email cathleenmacdonald@hotmail.com Address 2123 W. Sunrise Rim Rd Comment Rezoning single family suburban neighborhoods into dense housing draws in builders who can outbid those wanting to be homeowners. Corporate builders are buying up homes, demolishing them, and turning the lots into multiple rental units as corporate builders outbid those wanting to be homeowners. There is enough land on the main thoroughfares & abutting industry for dense apartment housing so there is no need to rezone suburban neighborhoods to accomplish your goal of denser housing. The rewrite as written invades and upends the lovely suburban neighborhoods here on the bench. Build Boise Better by postponing the approval of your zoning rewrite and rewrite the rewrite with consideration given to existing homeowners. Save our lovely Bench neighborhoods before its too late by limiting rezoning to appropriate locations. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

James Maguire <rjunk.cl@outlook.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:59 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. The City released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. For those who are just now reading the proposed code it is an insurmountable task. The earlier structured ‘public process’ meetings are no substitute for meaningful review and comment of the over six hundred pages of code. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite WILL lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, splitting of existing lots in established neighborhoods and the significant expansion of city offices to track compliance with affordability measures proposed in the code. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 180 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, 1

James Maguire

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

James Maguire <jmaguire818@outlook.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:17 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input as a top-down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been shown to the public so they may ascertain the impact on their homes and neighborhoods. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 600 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to exactly what has changed from the current code. A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. One-third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected, deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite a few short months before the November election. Only duly elected representatives should decide what to do about the ZCR. Proceeding to a decision with mayoral appointees is anti-democratic in principle, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Moreover, the final ZCR draft was only recently released. As citizens begin to learn and rush to learn how their neighborhoods will be affected by such a ZCR, the need is clear: thie complete re-writing of the zoning code for the entire city requires a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021) while “affordability” incentives in Boise's largest zone (R1-C) only provide a small number of homes for those making 120% AMI (Area Median Income). By increasing density allowances, the new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it. The result will be gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market-rate or above-market-rate multi-units. Reducing the minimum lot size in R-2 and R-1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High-density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty-year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. 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 1

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. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and safety hazards for children and individuals with accessibility limitations. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Boise’s R-2 zone has been re-conceived as a higher-density apartment zone similar to today’s R-3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four-story buildings and no limit on density. These areas are currently single-family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Mediumdensity neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University -- also bear a highdensity burden in vehicles, noise, and short-term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems. Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R-1 to R-2 with 45foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. It essentially allows for building a second house in the backyard of an existing home. Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner-occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability? The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of cottage developments and other higher-density diverse housing (e.g. halves of duplexes, condos rather than apartments, etc.) to encourage owner-occupied housing and more resilient neighborhoods.

The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts. Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non-contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods. The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example: • Industrial uses in the I-1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.” • Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance. • In the R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, MX-1, and MX-2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions. The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” (Italics added) Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side-by-side with existing single-family homes in R-1C and R-2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single-family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off-street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the 3

street. It has been shown that on-street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships.

The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. “Creative housing design” is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of building in R-2 or R-1C zones. Any action by Planning and Zoning Commission must be delayed at lease 90 to 180 days to allow adequate review and comment by the public. Sincerely,

James Maguire Boise ID 83702 Sincerely

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Michele Maines <dadspeaches@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:54 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

March 22, 2023 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed 1

changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Michele Maines Michele Maines The naming of the intolerable is itself the hope.

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Kristiann Mannion <mannion2141@msn.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:14 PM ZoningRewrite Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

I am writing to comment on the proposed “up zone” of Boise. I want to address the concerns that directly impact me and my neighborhood, First of all, I want to reiterate that I am a long standing resident of the city, having moved here in 2002 from Nampa. I have owned two homes in the city. The first was in a very protected neighborhood in the foothills where changes in the city only had an indirect impact. Unfortunately, I had to downsize. My second residence, where I currently live, is in a neighborhood that is already being changed in a deleterious way by rezoning and density development and will, undoubtedly, be more seriously harmed if the proposed changes are enacted through up zoning. At least now I have the opportunity to comment on proposed development; with up zoning I, along with my neighbors, will no longer have rights to contribute to the discussion of land use adjacent to our homes. When I purchased my home in a mostly fifteen year old neighborhood, I had a reasonable expectation that the neighborhood I bought into was protected by current zoning and a tradition of semi rural living, enjoyed by families of modest means, retirees, and individuals like myself downsizing into an unpretentious, yet pleasant, subdivision. My experience in the past nine years is that my neighborhood is being rapidly destabilized by changes brought about by rezoning. Within a short period of time, I have suffered the building of two apartment complexes in immediate proximity to my home, made possible by rezoning. Now I am coping with the soon to be developed parcels 1/10th of a mile from my front yard, planned for hundreds of units; and another parcel just across the street from me, with developers waiting for changes in zoning that will allow minimal lot sizes and multiple units on what was, before he property was sold, a single home with pasture for horses. I can only anticipate that nothing good will come from this growth surrounding my home. I know that my lifestyle, which includes road cycling, walks in the neighborhood, and enjoyment of the foothills will be irrevocably changed by more traffic, destruction of wildlife habitat, and the social impact of a transient population and absentee landlords that have no investment in contributing to the overall wellbeing of the surrounding neighborhood. The character of my neighborhood has changed Where once there were single family homes on modest lots, with a few acres still devoted to farming and livestock, there are now multiple story, high density units, and unsightly open parking lots. I see overflow street parking adjacent to my street, and increased traffic and violation of posted speed limits along the corridors that feed State Street from the north. I concur with the opinion that 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. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, onstreet parking, and safety hazards for children and individuals with accessibility limitations. I know for certain that my well being, because I live in a high impact area, is jeopardized. Changes in my neighborhood are due to recent changes in zoning. I can only foresee that future development made easier by codified up zoning in my area, and throughout Boise, will forever change how many residents experience this city. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Respectfully submitted, Kristiann Mannion 8783 West Sloan Street 1

83714

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Ethan Mansfield <mansfield.ethan@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 1, 2023 4:25 PM ZoningRewrite Deanna Dupuy [External] Get Rid of Table of Allowed Uses?

All, This is an excerpt from an email conversation between Deanna and me. TL;DR Get rid of the table of allowed uses, or at least allow all residential typologies in every zone. Why not retain flexibility in land use and not give preference to any use types?

Deanna, Thank you for clarifying. Yeah, they totally can [achieve design articulations by going 4-stories and over in an MX-3 zone] , you are correct. And I don’t think you’ll get any pushback from well‐financed multi‐ family developers about that. I am mainly thinking about if a developer wanted to accommodate neighborhood concerns of being too tall in one spot (even though not required to step down by code). It would be very nice to be able to accommodate a 3 story building on some locations on certain sites – even if it is abutting R‐2 or R‐3 in the back ‐‐ while stepping up to 6 stories along the major corridor. But I suppose the intent is to not have to pay attention to those concerns in certain zones anymore! Although, allowing shorter buildings without an Alternative Form PZC permit would allow for bigger sites with multiple buildings to have more diverse building typologies across the site (which is required by the multi‐family use standards). For example, adding a 3‐story townhome product along the back of the site toward the neighborhood might just be … nice. I just get sad seeing us change from being inflexible with our current code toward very dense/tall projects, to being inflexible toward non‐dense/non‐tall project in our current code. Another issue I am concerned about is the disallowance of single‐family homes anywhere above R‐2. I am (obviously) not opposed to allowing unlimited density in this zone, or the allowance of multiple building forms. What I am concerned about is existing neighborhoods that you are turning into non‐conforming uses. I can’t believe I am saying this, but Dave Kangas and the gang are not wrong when they argue that you are making single‐family detached homes illegal here. Here is the main issue: Banks and other lenders have a very low tolerance for risk, and so essentially, when you are trying to get a loan for a non‐conforming product, one question that gets asked (or got asked to me a lot at the City is), what can be built if this structure burns down? Can it be replaced? Does the original structure conform to the current development regulations? If these answers are not in line with their risk tolerance, they may not loan money to the project (people looking to purchase a single‐family home). Some lenders literally cannot lend on non‐conforming uses. I used to get calls all the time at the City, normally about duplexes or tri‐plexes asking, “can this thing be rebuilt if it burns down” and we’d have to tell them, “no, it can’t.” Owners could apply for grandfather rights, but the City would have to issue a letter for each non‐conforming property in the R‐3 zone, and still, it’s ambiguous whether a new single‐family home could be rebuilt on a lot in an R‐3 neighborhood… ever. Unless the rules around non‐conforming uses has been clarified. It may also make it difficult to insure and affects appraisals as well. This means that even selling an existing home to someone who cannot pay cash might be impossible. So, the City is incentivizing the total reconfiguration of R‐3 neighborhoods. That’s the entirety of West Downtown and several blocks of VERY well‐established areas north of Main and Fairview. Don’t get me wrong. I hope that, in time, these neighborhoods are allowed to move toward denser, more urban forms. They should be allowed to move that way to reflect the urbanization of Boise. The whole City should. What I don’t get is, why does the City have to expedite that with such zeal? What is the harm to me, you, the City, the taxpayers to allow all residential typologies in all zones? It doesn’t mean that we don’t let neighborhoods or corridors get more intense over time. They naturally will, as services become available, as fun bakeries and coffee shops move in. We NEED to let that happen. It just means that buyers and sellers get choices. I 1

just have a hard time understanding what the issue with that is. (if we do end up leaving it as is, I recommend removing the reference to “detached” in the R‐3 Lot Area.)

To eliminate both of these very real issues, I would recommend a more flexible approach that would allow developers flexibility to work with neighbors and the current rental market to deliver what makes sense within the community. Maybe we build so many apartments in 30 years that prices stagnate (i.e. people no longer want to pay to live in apartments) and renters/buyers want townhomes? Trust me, I’m fully supportive of the height and density allowances, and the implicit recognition that we need more housing to accommodate growth. I’m just going to go on the record and say that the best way to deliver the right amount of housing, with the right product mix that is desired by the community (i.e. people looking to buy/rent houses), in the right places, would be just to be flexible. Allow all residential typologies in every zone. Better yet, get rid of the table of allowed uses and regulate real impacts, not perceived ones. Use form based codes. Let the City grow organically. That has not recently been tried before – we have subsidized sprawl for almost 100 years – and now we are trying to subsidize very dense development. (For multi‐family developers this is the greatest thing since sliced bread!) But what did we get when we actually planned Cities pre‐zoning – mapped out streets, utilities, service routes, etc. and didn’t subsidize anything? We got Downtown Boise, the north end, the east end, etc. We all LOVE those places. Why? Because they are organic. Anyway, I know you’ve heard it from me before, but figured I’d just keep the thought reoccurring. Cheers, Ethan ‐‐

Ethan Mansfield 208-921-4686

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 11:18 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Cay Marquart Email mnimages@hotmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83712 Comment I have been to a few zoning meetings, and I was very impressed with the information which was given. The committee and city officials have done a very comprehensive, thorough, and professional study of what we need to do to increase affordable housing options and reduce the restrictions for developing these options. I worked with LEAP Housing to develop Windy Court. We have a total of eight affordable homes made of shipping containers‐‐ rooftop solar, Xerophytic plants, and gardens. There is some attention given to environmental concerns in the new zoning ordinance, but I would like to see more‐‐ such as not allowing blue grass to be planted in any new housing development. Overall, the new proposed zoning codes are good and are long overdue. There is no way you are going to please everyone. I urge you to move ahead and not allow the "bullies" to stop you. Thanks to everyone who spent thousands of hours in the research and development of these new codes. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:14 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name J.L. Martens Email Grafreek@aol.com Address Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment As a resident of the Boise Bench, I am appalled by what this Zoning Code Rewrite aka Upzoning would do to the character and charm of our neighborhood in the name of greed disguised as progress and psuedo charity. It strips all protective laws from the people in a most Unconstitutional manner where ones property could be seized for "the greater good" communist agenda and is a step into the abyss of a Smart City, which removes all control from the citizens of the city. I am totally AGAINST this new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23‐0001 & CPA23‐0001). If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Bethany Martinez <bethanymartinez714@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:56 PM ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant [External] Public Comment on Zoning Code Rewrite - ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

Good Afternoon, My name is Bethany Martinez and I am writing concerning the zoning code rewrite. I am opposed to this rewrite mainly for the reason of it allowing developers to build without any checks and balances. I am a current tenant at 1134 W. River street, the property that was just approved to be rezoned under the CAR22-0034. I am not against the rezone of this property but as a tenant the public hearings were invaluable to me to learn about the fate of the apartment I was living in. Without those hearings I wouldn't have learned the timelines of when my home was going to be demolished and nor do I believe the developers would have reached out to us about the tenant relocation package. To me these city council meetings are a way to ensure that tenants are semi-protected from big developers trying to meet their bottom line of profits. I also believe it will at the very least slow down the gentrification of this neighborhood and the diminishing of truly affordable housing. Here is a little background of my experience as a tenant whose apartments were bought out by a developer that DID have to answer to city council via public hearings: In June we received notice that our local landlord had sold our apartments to a developer. I knew that would mean either our rent was going to increase exponentially (we currently pay $1200/month) or they would be tearing down our homes.This was a very stressful time too because as I'm sure you know in Idaho, renters have very few rights. I knew all the developers are entitled to do is give us 30 days notice. At the beginning of August 2022 we received mail about a new development and our new "neighbors" upon looking at the location we realized those "neighbors" would live where we currently live. The meeting to discuss the proposed rezone application with only the developers and not city council was set for mid August. We were out of town so could not attend but we heard from our neighbor who did attend that the plan was to start construction March-June 2023. That was the last we heard from the developers/property managers until the public hearings. Every month until those public hearings signs appeared I feared and awaited the day we would get the 30 day eviction notice. I was unfortunately unable to make any of the public hearings in person because I always worked during them but I was able to watch online and in January I learned that they weren't planning on demolishing our home in a few months like we thought but that we actually had a year before needing to worry about a new place. It was also at this public hearing that I learned that they were proposing a tenant relocation package - it was the first we had heard about it, even though in the meeting the developer stated he "had already been in contact with most of the residents", which didn't feel true. Unfortunately, 3-4 tenants had already moved out to much more expensive places in worse locations, if we would have received communication earlier that could have been avoided. The public hearings saved us though and held the developers to a higher standard of communicating with us. It was also how I found out who the developer was and how to contact them, which I did. The contractor responded right away about the timeline for demolishing this property but the developer took two weeks and a follow-up email to reach back out to me regarding more information on the tenant relocation package. Also this may just be a coincidence but when I didn't receive a call from the developer I did write an email making public testimony to the city council regarding the CAR22-0034. I got a response the next day from Jesi Lile and then 2 hours after receiving Jesi's email I got a call from the developer. I truly believe I was able to get such responses from the developer because the Boise City Council and Planning and Zoning commission were there to protect me and ensure that at the very least I get the communication I deserve when my affordable home is being torn down. I worry that if you go through with this rezone local residents won't get this bare minimum. This is a way to hold big developers accountable to the very least and to ensure that these projects are actually right for Boise. Also these new apartments that they are building are not affordable, even their "affordable" housing is not truly affordable. If this rezone goes through they will demolish and gentrify our neighborhoods so that nothing is truly affordable. For example, the place my partner and I currently live in is $1200/month for 972sqft and it is 2 bed/1bath, it is naturally occurring affordable housing. Even with the 13 affordable units the CAR22-0034 is proposing we would still have a 45% increase in our rent to $1700 for likely a 50% decrease in the size based off the other units we have seen from this same developer. And to add insult to injury based on our income, my partner and I don't even qualify for this "affordable housing" that we can't even 1

afford. If we wanted to rent at the new Riverline apartments this same developer is currently building behind our home we would have to pay $1990-$2100/month for the same square footage we currently have. Luckily, we have found 2 places that are 2-3 blocks from our current home. They are located on 14th and river and 13th and river. One is at the River terraces apartments and they are offering a 2 bed/1bath and 900sqft for 1150/month. The other place is right off 14th and river and is another local landlord offering a 2bed/2bath 900sqft for 1350/month. These places we very recently open for occupancy and both are naturally occurring affordable rent. However, both of these places are also located in that rezone area. I fear that when we move to one of these we will be dealing with this exact same situation. But if the zoning code rewrite goes through we won't be protected from the developers like we once were with the city council. Even though the city council approved the rezone of our current place it at least afforded us with the communication and time we deserve so that we can find other affordable housing that have yet to be gentrified. But if you allow this gentrification unchecked there won't be any truly affordable housing left in this area. I hope you take this into consideration and I thank you for your time. -Bethany

Bethany Martinez, RN Returned Peace Corps Volunteer - Ukraine Boise State University '14, Idaho State University '20

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 9:06 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Bruce Mastorovich Email b.mastorovich@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83702 Comment Please pass the zoning code rewrite and allow for more flexibility in construction and development where possible. Please do not water it down. In the current draft, I am a little worried that the restrictions imposed on building new fourplexes or small apartments are more severe than for building a new single‐family home or large apartment complex. I think the no demolitions clause and the number of rent restricted units required for a fourplex to be built on a small lot (50%!) will keep local residents from investing in their communities in ways that most Boiseans might actually find beneficial. Thousands of Boiseans are saving for retirement and the bulk of their retirement plans are typically a single‐ family home plus some money in the stock market. What if we allow citizens to also invest in our community? Triplexes and fourplexes could be great attainable additions to a person's long term financial plan. Locals could build 4 units, live in one, and rent the others. However, for people with working class incomes, the finances at least have to break even on the additional units or a bank will never fund a loan for these types of projects. I am worried that applying the 80% AMI requirements to small apartment projects is prohibitive for the average Boisean that wants to secure their future while providing a little much needed housing in the community. Please relax the requirements for building small apartment projects when one unit will be owner occupied. At least allow the owner occupant to count the unit they occupy towards these affordability requirements. Thank you. Please pass this rewrite and allow density in Boise. I love what we are doing with the new mixed‐use zones and small neighborhood businesses! I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Rosemary McClenahan <rmcc162@gmail.com> Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:58 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed city‐wide zone code rewrite. I believe that a decision of this magnitude should be made by duly elected representatives who are accountable to the voters, rather than appointed members of the city council. It is anti‐democratic to proceed with the Zoning Code Rewrite with mayoral appointees, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Moreover, the final ZCR draft was only recently released, and citizens are still rushing to learn how their neighborhoods will be affected by such a ZCR. Therefore, this radical zoning change for the entire city requires a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR. One of my main concerns is that the proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of corridors like Fairview, State, and Vista from R‐1 to R‐2 with 45‐foot height limits and no limit on density. This would destabilize modestly scaled interior neighborhoods and make neighborhoods near those corridors unrecognizable. Instead, higher‐density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step‐down height standards to the existing neighborhoods. The ZCR exacerbates problems that are already prevalent in high‐density neighborhoods such as vehicles, noise, and short‐term occupancies. Furthermore, the proposed code would allow intrusive uses without public notice requirements. Retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side‐by‐side with existing single‐family homes in R‐1C and R‐2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. The proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on‐site to on‐the‐street. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off‐street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning‐ required off‐street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on‐street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships. I urge the P&Z Commissioners to consider these concerns and take appropriate action. I believe that this proposed Zoning Code Rewrite would be detrimental to the well‐being of Boise's neighborhoods and residents. Therefore, I strongly oppose the proposed city‐wide zone code rewrite and urge it be rejected. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rosemary McClenahan 1

Hawthorne Dr Boise, Idaho

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:38 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name fariss mcgee Email farissmcgee@gmail.com Address 1505 West Wickshire Court Eagle, ID 83616 Comment I would like more time to review the proposed plan. Could you give the public a little more time? If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

March 21, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

Sincerely, Malcohm and Jill McGregor

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

zoninginfo Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:59 AM ZoningRewrite FW: [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 &amp; CPA23-00001

From: Rosemary McClenahan <rmcc162@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:59 PM To: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>; CityCouncil <CityCouncil@cityofboise.org>; Timothy Keane <tkeane@cityofboise.org>; zoninginfo <zoninginfo@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 &amp; CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which is an almost complete replacement of the laws that for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it iis imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, John and Rosemary McClenahan Boise, Idaho 1

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Ed McLuskie <emclusk@boisestate.edu> Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:46 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001 SENA letter to the City Requesting Delayed Vote on Zoning Code Rewrite.pdf

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, You are asked to make a recommendation on a massive, city‐changing zoning code. Given the recent fact that the city council, to whom you make recommendations, is no longer a fully duly‐elected body, the principle of democratic representation is reduced by one‐third due to two vacancies filled by appointment instead of election. This puts a cloud over already contested processes. To proceed with ZOA23‐00001 and CPA23‐00001 is inappropriate and, if carried out, becomes further cause for public dismay and division over the massive zoning rewrite. No amount of public input at this stage can justify making recommendations to a partially unelected city council, however well‐intentioned or well‐considered appointments to that body may be. In the interest of a fully democratic process, now is not the time to act on ZOA23‐00001 and CPA23‐00001 except to place the matter on hold until after the city council is the fully elected and seated governance body it is supposed to be. Doing so has the added benefit of the city’s first city council elections by districts next November, thereby enhancing democratic representation, as Idaho’s law intends. Finally, I note that the SouthEast Neighborhood Association, in a letter to the mayor and city council, has formally requested this postponement as well. I attach that letter for your information. Sincerely, Ed McLuskie, PhD 1919 W Verna Lane Boise, ID 83706 Guest Editor, 2022‐23, Javnost‐The Public Special Issue: Critical Research on the Management of Public Engagement Guest Lecturer, 2022, Academy of Arts & Sciences, Slovenia: “Distancing Publics through Managed Engagement"

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:11 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Hannah Email hannahjanemcneely@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83704 Comment We do not want any tall buildings in our neighborhood. We want to keep Boise neighborhoods quaint and safe. Thank you! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:35 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Kevin McNeill Email mcneillkp@yahoo.com Address 1620 E Silverspot Lane Comment Please give us more time to consider the ramifications of the proposed code change, so we can input our opinion that more protection is needed for our historic neighborhoods. Limit the damage greedy developers can do to our fine city!!! Thank you for your consideration. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 1:09 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Teresa Meinburg Email Tkmein@gmail.com Address 1618 W Elder Ct Comment Hi I am requesting a longer period of time for public comments on the final draft of the Zoning Code rewrite. Twenty two days is not enough time to review and respond to the final updates. It is very complex document and difficult for me and my neighbors to navigate, yet it will impact us greatly. Sincerely Teresa Meinburg I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:38 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jake Melder Email melder.jacob@gmail.com Address Meridian, ID 83642 Comment I want to commend the City of Boise on its efforts to update the zoning code to modern standards. I support this proposed zoning code rewrite. As a young professional who has lived in the Boise area for a decade and been unable to find affordable house to buy for three years, this update offers the promise of a beautiful city where people of all incomes can live safely, build a career, and raise a family. I support the simplification of the code and removing the exclusivity of single family homes throughout the city. This is a Boise solution to an Idaho problem. I wish Boise's surrounding cities, the Legislature, and Executive Agencies were as thoughtful in their own planning efforts. My generation has been advocating for more dense, multi‐use urban options where you can live, work, and play without the need to depend on a personal car to get you from place to place. This rezone unleashes the free market to build such places in Boise while preserving the character of the city we love. I applaud the City's deliberate methods of creating this rezone, its outstanding public engagement, and the tweaks adjusted along the way. While I wish we would have had a completed document earlier, I think the final product is better for the additional effort that went into it. Thank you to the many hands and voices that contributed to this effort. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 9:11 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Robert B. Miller Email journalist1938@gmail.com Address 3860 W. Glendale #101 Boise, ID 83703 Comment I am in strong opposition to Boise's zoning code rewrite. I wish to be designated "a person of record" to be heard on all formal opportunities to submit written and oral testimony. I join with Boise neighborhood associations in registering my opposition to the proposed "upzone of our city zoning code. This outrageous plan eliminates affordable housing, allows for the demo;ition of existing homes and allows intrusive and incompatible use that will serve to damage our quality of life. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:48 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Charles Miller Email millerchaz@gmail.com Address 5835 S Rock Rose Pl Comment I am fully in support of the changes proposed and suggest only that the code should be even more aggressive about reducing or abolishing parking minimums. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 10:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Terri and Jon Miller Email tmiller3330@gmail.com Address 3330 N. Mountain View Drive Boise Idaho 83704 Comment Eight days is not near enough time to review the 611 pages on a possible change in zoning that could allow a substantial jncrease in the amount of buildings in residential neighborhoods! What is the rush? Why are our citizens being given more time? I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:23 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Maria Minicucci Email idmini@protonmail.com Address Boise ID 83702 Comment 1. Mr. Keane supports greasing the skids if developers' proposals match "what we want." Mr. Keane should answer who "we" is? The benevolent City? The Wizard of Oz couldn't have said it better. 2. If the City were dedicated to increasing density, it would not allow any more single family houses to be built outside of existing neighborhoods. All new development be multifamily of at least 3 stories in height. Existing neighborhoods should not be "upzoned" to feed the developer‐induced addiction that permeates City Hall. We existing residents (who have poured our blood, sweat and tears, not to mention our life's savings into our homes and neighborhoods) implore the powers that be: Just Say No to Gentrification. 3. Speaking of gentrification, I could not find that word or any of its derivations anywhere in the new Code. Burying our head in the sand in much easier than doing the tough developer‐unfriendly work of protecting existing neighborhoods. 4. The removal of citizen involvement is a travesty. It's bad enough as it is, with developers huddling with City staff and officials for years before the neighborhood even gets wind of a proposal. Then we get 3 minutes to plead with the City to follow its own Code, Rules, and Policies. I don't know that it matters, since variances are handed out like candy. For instance, the Alturas Heights "PUD" was granted 64 variances ‐ all in one city block across the street from a historic district. The developer said all the right buzzwords and crammed it into the box provided to him by the City. With the new Code, developers won't have to even go through the motions with the neighborhood. NENA was neutered long ago ‐ NAs should not be relied up to provide the voice of the people. Decisions that irrevocably impact neighborhoods should not be left to unelected staff and bureaucrats who are not accountable to the public. 5. The language protecting historic buildings and sites must be made definitive. "Encourage" is a meaningless word in Code. If the City is serious about protecting our heritage it would use words like "required," "must," "shall," etc. Too often the City wrings its hands when a historic building ends up in the landfill because of course there is no Code that forbids its demolition. As someone who physically stopped the demolition of the Ghost Trolley when it was still in Julia Davis Park, we can and must do more to ensure the preservation of our historic buildings and sites. Not everyone can throw themselves down in front of large machinery. The City must put teeth into its historic preservation code and provide ample opportunity for the preservation community to contribute its expertise and assistance. 5. Finally, I would like to ask the Mayor and Council to provide information on the last time urban planners were correct. The profession has bounced around from Robert Moses bulldozing neighborhoods with federal funding to Urban Renewal to New Urbanism to Upzoning. Grids are good, grids are bad, oops grids are good again. Sidewalks good, sidewalks old fashioned, sidewalks good. Strip malls good, strip malls bad, strip malls good. Downtowns good, downtowns bad, downtowns are the only place for public investment. Relining good, relining definitely bad. Participatory planning good, participatory planning is bad, very bad. All the while, residents are tossed in the waves of the latest paradigm of the "experts." Enough already. 1

6. Windows must be required to be bird‐friendly. It's not hard and its not expensive. 7. Light pollution must be eliminated. New buildings are a great place to start. I also propose that we also eliminate street lights. There is no evidence anywhere that they impact safety. They are not needed ‐ after all, we hurdle through the desert at 80 mph without any street lights. An illuminated night environment is not good for any living thing. The City of Boise must do its part to rein in this type of pollution. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:27 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name James Moison Email james.moison@gmail.com Address 3604 N. Mountain View Dr. Comment This "up‐zone" proposal is a maniacal idea to pad the pockets of developers. It will totally degrade the neighborhoods we have worked so hard to preserve. Traffic is already a problem and this will only make it worse. I am sure my neighbors on this street would fight this given the opportunity. Of course the city is trying to push this through quietly and not ask the constituents that put them in office their opinion. Typical example of poor democracy in our city. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:54 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Ashley Molloy Email alb8710@gmail.com Address 4103 W. Pasadena Dr. Boise, ID 83705 Comment 1.) Lot coverage: the new zoning code should have lot coverage requirements, especially for R1‐C and R1‐B areas. The previous requirement that lot coverage should not exceed 55% was reasonable. When a city is so built up and has no space for lawns, trees, gardens, or plants it will increase the heat of an area and have negative effects on wildlife. I do not want to live in a concrete jungle. We are the City of Trees and not having a lot coverage amount will move against climate goals. 2.) Historic Preservation: The City must act to preserve its historic buildings and a preservation plan is needed to outline the City's goals. This should have been completed PRIOR to the zoning code rewrite. 3.) Internal Departmental Review: The internal review by the City should always include the City's Historic Preservation Planner who can identify significant resources that are not currently protected in a local district. They can recommend rehabilitation (which also meets the climate goals of the City) and utilize the Federal Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation. 4.) I don't mind adding density, but what I do not support is tearing down perfectly good housing stock to build a triplex. There should be more to preserve existing buildings, as that would help meet the City's climate goals (not sending things to the landfill). Cities and counties in Minnesota have required salvage on buildings built before a particular year (e.g. 1970). This has lead to people choosing to use the existing building stock to meet their project goals. https://www.hennepin.us/climate‐action/what‐hennepin‐is‐doing/building‐materials 5.) Why not require all new construction to include solar panels to meet the City's climate goals. Especially for new commercial construction. If we can require setbacks, we should be able to require solar panels. 6.) Timeframe to review a 600+ page document. A substantial document of this size can not be reviewed and commented on effectively in 30‐days. You asked us to reference pieces and parts of the document to comment on, however your timeframe does not allow for that, hence the format of my comments being very generalized. In general the zoning code is not quite ready for adoption. I think there needs to be a few more critical things addressed prior to its adoption. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Alexandra Monjar <alexandra.monjar@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:33 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Comments on proposed zoning code

To whom it may concern, I am writing in support of the City of Boise's new proposed zoning code. I believe this is a strong step forward and support its adoption. And, I encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to consider incorporating even more modern best‐practices and zoning innovation to enhance Boise's future sustainability, economic resilience, diversity, and variety of housing choice and price points. Such actions could include: 1. Moving further towards a true form based code. Remove or simplify the use table and remove unnecessary use regulations attached to missing middle housing options like cottage courts, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Housing with a form similar to single family should be allowed the same design flexibility as single family homes. 2. Removing parking minimums throughout the city. Allow private development to determine what is necessary based on market and financial demands and not arbitrary assignments less likely to adapt to new technologies and smarter mobility options. 3. Reduce or remove density maximums and minimum lot sizes of the R1‐C zone. Density will be naturally managed by the form of the building that can fit on any given lot cThese minimums are still larger than the dimensions of many lots within the city's most walkable neighborhoods, and density will be naturally managed by the form of the building that can fit on any given lot considering the other parameters that will still apply. 4. Expanding the area included in zones that allow higher density housing. This rewrite continues the exclusionary practice of restricting density to a very low level throughout the majority of the city. Allowing small apartment buildings to be built in every neighborhood will better promote diverse inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices. 5. Removing owner occupancy requirements for renting ADUs. This requirement could keep livable units from being rented simply because an owner is not present on the property. It's better to allow homes to be rented than to keep them empty due to the tenancy status of the household in the main unit. 6. Reducing the affordability term for incentivized triplexes and fourplexes. If the goal is to add more affordable housing, incentives should be sufficiently attractive to encourage the desired development. A term of 50 years is burdensome and could limit resale value which is a critical consideration for most homeowners and developers. A term of 10 years would be much more manageable and aligns more closely with the average time a household lives in one home (approx. 8 years) and the term for which a developer might underwrite a small project (10 years). Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations and your work to ensure Boise provides a home for current and future neighbors. Sincerely, Alexandra Monjar 1

2222 W Kootenai St, Boise, ID 83705

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

John Mosby <jdmosby@acm.org> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:20 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, John Mosby 1316 E Franklin St Boise, ID 83712 1

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:09 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Leanne Moselle Email leannemoselle@gmail.com Address 2936 S GARDEN ST Boise, ID 83705 Comment As a resident of Boise and a participating member of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Assn, I am appalled by what this Zoning Code Rewrite aka Upzoning would do to the character and charm of our neighborhood in the name of greed disguised as progress and psuedo charity. It strips all protective laws from the people in a most Unconstitutional manner where ones property could be seized for "the greater good" communist agenda and is a step into the abyss of a Smart City, which removes all control from the citizens of the city. I am totally AGAINST this new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23‐0001 & CPA23‐0001). If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:10 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Carlie Mount Email carliemount@gmail.com Address 3805 E copper point dr Meridian Idaho 83642 Comment Submit public comment to express that you don’t want tall buildings next to our neighborhood If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 8:53 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Debbie Muggli Email debmuggli@comcast.net Address 19247 N Eaglestone Pl , Boise 83714 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ Debbie Muggli I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Michael M <msmuth@icloud.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 6:40 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 6:51 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name peggy neer Email dpneer@aol.com Address 695 e holly st apt 202 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ SUBMIT A COMMENT TO THE CITY I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 3:22 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Sylvia Nierling Email slvnrlng972@gmail.com Address 2318 W Sunset Ave Comment Please let us participate in our communities! Thank you! I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:04 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Hayley Noble Email hayleynoble09@gmail.com Address 45 Mesa Vista Dr. Boise, ID 83705 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, I'm writing to express concerns over the new zoning code being proposed. The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐ density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. As an advocate for historic preservation, my concerns revolve around the historic properties of Boise and future development that may threated our treasured buildings. Many historic neighborhoods do not have any existing legal protections, and there are zoning changes that will encourage demolition of current homes in order to subdivide the lots and/or build multiple units on that same lot. Some of these changes WILL NOT require any notification to current residents nearby and, depending on lot size or the purchase of multiple lots, could result in up to 12‐unit buildings being built in residential neighborhoods next door to single‐story, single‐family homes. Please allow more time for the zoning code update to be reviewed and concerns to be heard. Thank you, Hayley Noble If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 8:09 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Pam Nokkentved Email pnokkentved@gmail.com Address 2812 Grandee Boise, Idaho 83704 Comment Please stop enabling destruction of Boise Our long time culture and values are wrapped up in our history and our beautiful historical structures. Trying to turn Boise into a huge city with multi living spaces is intruding on the basic character of our residential neighborhoods just for financial gain and rapid growth. It is the quality of life I grew up with here that makes Boise special. The precious trees, clean River and, spectacular views of the mountains, nice yards and other spaces for children to play that represent the best quality of life and make Boise different than many cities. These qualities will be threatened by taller buildings that do not blend with surrounding buildings. Develop new subdivisions further out from older developed neighborhoods where taller structures are grouped together and lifestyles are more compatible. We have seen too much destruction of our lovely city already. STOP supporting and enabling developers and rich investors from taking over rental facilities. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:11 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Tiffany Oakes Email Oakesfamily7@hotmail.com Address 6031 francis pl, Boise, id 83714 Comment I am really excited about the new ordinance! Please be sure to include lower or middle income hlusing for large families! We would love to live in a walkable bikable neighborhood here in Boise someday! Being car dependant is a huge burden on our family. I hope Boise can make this happen! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 1:30 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name David E. Ogden Email dogden4066@msn.com Address Boise, Idaho, 83706 Comment I and my wife are opposed to short time frame allowed for review of this complicated and far reaching zoning rewrite. As it stands and what we understand now is that the law provides for upcoding of any and all residential properties. We understand the effect can be to allow developers to build multi‐family dwellings (duplex, 4 plex, apartment complexes. etc. on land currently zoned only for single family dwellings. This will change the quality of those areas by increasing population density, more traffic, less provision for parking cars, changing people in rentals so people won't know their neighbors as well. In short destroy suburban neighborhoods as we now know them. The law should include a provision for a vote by all neighborhood residents for approval of any changes to single family dwellings within the area for their neighborhood. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 4:57 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Lynn Oliver Email lynnkoliver@hotmail.com Address 4252 S. Rimview Way Boise ID 83716 Comment March 20, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I have reviewed the proposed zoning code revisions and believe the public needs substantially more notice and time for review and comment on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite. I currently live in a neighborhood with R1C designation in SE Boise that was built in the late 80s/early 90’s. The smallest lots are 0.16 acres and some are as large as 0.25 acres in size. As I read the new code I believe it is possible for every single lot in are 297 homeowner’s association to be subdivided and have two homes where there was once one. This is a major change and I don’t believe you have adequately notified the public of the scope and scale of the proposed changes. We enjoy living in an older residential area with large lots and room between are neighbors. When we moved to Boise 10 years ago we specifically looked for older neighborhoods of this character and excluded the densely space Harris Ranch type subdivisions. Instead of encouraging affordable housing this backdoor method to higher density will have existing homes being demolished and will completely change the character of are neighborhoods. This is only going to lead to increased property taxes further pushing residents out of Boise. Please better inform the public of the proposed changes and extend the comment period up to 90 days. Thank you, Lynn Oliver 4252 S. Rimview Way Boise, ID 83716 I am not a robot 1

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Lynn Oliver <lynnkoliver@hotmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:00 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite Lynn Oliver [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

March 20, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise. org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I have reviewed the proposed zoning code revisions and believe the public needs substantially more notice and time for review and comment on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite. I currently live in a neighborhood with R1C designation in SE Boise that was built in the late 80s/early 90’s. The smallest lots are 0.16 acres and some are as large as 0.25 acres in size. As I read the new code I believe it is possible for every single lot in are 297 homeowner’s association to be subdivided and have two homes where there was once one. This is a major change and I don’t believe you have adequately notified the public of the scope and scale of the proposed changes. We enjoy living in an older residential area with large lots and room between are neighbors. When we moved to Boise 10 years ago we specifically looked for older neighborhoods of this character and excluded the densely space Harris Ranch type subdivisions. Instead of encouraging affordable housing this backdoor method to higher density will have existing homes being demolished and will completely change the character of are neighborhoods. This is only going to lead to increased property taxes further pushing residents out of Boise. Please better inform the public of the proposed changes and extend the comment period up to 90 days. Thank you, Lynn Oliver 4252 S. Rimview Way Boise, ID 83716

Sent from Mail for Windows

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Nicole <n_puopolo@yahoo.com> Friday, March 10, 2023 6:56 AM ZoningRewrite [External] NO TO ZONING REWRITE

I am a homeowner & lifelong Boise resident. I am NOT in support of the proposed zoning changes. Nicole Olsen Sent from my iPhone

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Zoe Ann Olson <zolson@ifhcidaho.org> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:32 AM ZoningRewrite Lori Dicaire; Monica Fabbi [External] We Oppose The Proposed Zoning Code: ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001)

Dear Zoning Rewrite Commission:

The Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC), is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to ensure open and inclusive housing for all persons without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, a source of income, or disability. The IFHC attempts to eradicate discrimination through, education on the fair housing laws, housing information and referral, housing counseling, and assistance with mediating and or filing fair housing complaints, among other things. The IFHC also provides education and outreach on fair housing laws and practices to housing providers and others. First, we must object to the short period in which to respond an over 600 page document. This short comment period violates due process and equal protection especially for people with disabilities and people who are LEP. Second, the new mandate further disenfranchises the public from input in the decision‐making process in regard to any land use/zoning decision furthering depriving them of due process and equal protection. This is directly adverse to the City's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing of allowing diverse and inclusive participation to create diverse and inclusive communities under 42 U.S.C. 3608. Third, as we have learned from Richard Rothstein in his book The Color of Law that it has been and still is the government with its private partners that has segregated, discriminated, displaced, gentrified and like to communities through zoning and land use decisions. https://www.segregatedbydesign.com/. We can't undo systemic and historical racism/discrimination without understanding our history and designing inclusive overlays in our land use decisions, designs, and participation. https://www.allianceforhousingjustice.org/post/27‐ways‐racism‐and‐white‐supremacy‐ impact‐housing. Fourth, the zoning rewrite must include a fair, affordable, sustainable, accessible housing overlays in which housing choice and just housing density exists in every neighborhood, not born most heavily by neighborhoods that are already dense/poor/unsafe/etc. and not without doing impact and equity assessments on humans, affordable/accessible housing loss, the environment and animals. The City needs to take Boston's lead and implement these overlays along with Planned Development Agreements to ensure fair Housing compliance: https://www.boston.gov/departments/fair‐ housing‐and‐equity/boston‐fair‐housing‐regulations. See also: https://www.mapc.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2017/09/Fair_Housing_and_Equity_Assessment.pdf and https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/fil e/2020/03/Docket%20%230232.PDF. 1

Lastly, we work at a housing nonprofit. We know residents and renters are suffering from the lack of affordable, accessible, sustainable housing. We have helped address over 20 mass evictions in the past year. We oppose the zoning rewrite without a fair housing overlay and protections. We need fair, affordable, accessible, sustainable housing overlays with inclusive public participation and input. Sincerely, Zoe Ann Olson Executive Director Intermountain Fair Housing Council

Get Outlook for iOS

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:24 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Matt Oman Email m.oman02@gmail.com Address 2714 N Tamarack Drive Boise ID 83703 Comment Reject the rezone and keep Boise green! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 8:38 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Gregg Ostrow Email geo@greggostrow.com Address 201 E. Louisa St. Boise, ID. 83712 Comment Good Morning, I have some commentary supported with graphics on the removal of the lot coverage, height transition, and open requirements for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex. I do not see where I can add an attachment. Lot Coverage and Height Transition need to be put back in the Modern Zoning Code. It is also concerning that these major changes came with the February Adoption Draft. I am not a robot

Item: Section 11-03-04.2 G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Edits from the October 2022 Draft ZCR in the February 2023 Adoption Draft ZCR include: 1. Removal of the 55% lot coverage requirement (Floor Area Ratios) 2. Removal of the height transition adjacent to single-story residences (The draft did add an additional setback at the 3rd floor when adjacent to a single-story residence) 1. Decreasing the open space requirement from 375 sf. to 200 sf.

Information and Commentary provided by Gregg Ostrow, AIA

208-866-3168

Commentary Removal of the Lot Coverage and Height Transition in the last draft is very concerning. They are in the current zoning code and were included in the July 2022 Draft and October 2022 Drafts There has been no time for discussion on the changes, and the impacts are considerable. It is difficult to understand how such a large changes could occur this late in the process. Lot Coverage Removal The removal provides considerable increases in the unit size. A duplex on my property, which is 60 ft. X 120 ft. with an alley in the R1-C zone increases from 1,966 sf. to 4,467 sf. (See supporting data and graphics). As you will see, the building footprint takes up almost the entire property. The argument for the removal is to provide diversity and density. You will provide diversity in the form of larger units, but without any extra density. You can get the same number of units with the lot coverage. Height Transition Removal Current zoning and the July 2022 and October 2022 had height limitations when adjacent structures were single story in height. This limited the structures adjacent to single-family homes to 2 stories. With the height transition removed, a 3-story structure is allowed. Both 2 and 3 story structures can be 40 ft. tall. Once again, this adds diversity in the form of larger units and taller ceilings, but not density. Reduction of open space from 375 sf. to 200 sf. Current zoning and the July 2022 and October 2022 drafts had open space requirements of 375 sf. with one 15 ft. required dimension and 30% permeability. Of the 3 changes, this concerns me the least. One concern I do have is you cannot plant very many trees in 200 sf.

Recommendations Lot Coverage Put either the Lot Coverage or Height Transition back in. You can exempt basements from the lot coverage if you want more area. I would also stagger the lot coverage for as follows: ▪ Duplex – 55% ( 2- 1,960 sf. units not including garage and basement) ▪ Triplex – 60% (3 – 1,440 sf. units not including garage and basement) ▪ Fourplex – 65% (4 – 1,170 sf. units not including garage and basement) As currently written, the Adoption Draft is encouraging the demolition of good existing single-family homes to obtain density and diversity. This can be achieved without demolishing the existing homes. I live in a structurally sound single-story 1,600 sf. home in the East End that has a “clinker-brick” exterior. With Adaptive Reuse in the current Adoption Draft, I can add 10% floor area, split the house into a duplex and add an Accessory Dwelling Unit for a total of 3 units. The Zoning Code could encourage Adaptive Reuse by allowing me to add a 2 – unit accessory dwelling unit bringing my property up to 4 units. I could also keep my house and have 3-units. Basements should be encouraged since most of them require minimal or no heating and cooling. Designed properly, they can be nice living spaces. Demolition should be discouraged by adding additional requirements. An example of this is that all tear-off demolition projects go through a neighbor notification process. According to the Boise 2021 Housing Report, existing neighborhoods need to increase by 26%, not 400%.

Height Transition

Removing both the Height Transition and Lot Coverage will allow 3-story units next to single-story houses. This is very contentious for the existing residences. Although not required, shutting solar access to existing residences does not seem fair when you can achieve the same goals with a 2 or 2-1/2 story structures. The questions you must asked are: 1. “Do we even care about the impact on current residences?” 2. “Have we studied what type and size of housing is best to create the missing “MiddleHousing?” 3. “Do we need to pass the ZCR before the election in November or we will never get it passed?” 4. “Do we just pass the ZCR now and fix it later?” 5. “Do taller buildings create more density, diversity, affordability, sustainability, and resiliency?”

My recommendation is to put the height transition back in to allow 2-1/2 story structures adjacent to existing single-story structures.

Open Space

Reducing the Open Space requirement creates larger floor plates and reduces opportunities to maintain or plant trees. The supporting data and graphics will reflect this impact. My recommendation is to go back to the 375-sf. open space requirement or at a minimum. add a 10 ft. minimum dimension to the 200-sf. requirement for the open space to be usable and allow for trees to be planted. I understand the need for the City to rewrite the zoning code in response to current growth and cost of housing. But I am not sure demolition of good homes and constructing large units meets the goal. Density by itself does not create affordability. Thoughtful density can. Increase height limits do not increase density. I agree that it creates diversity with larger and taller units. But is it the diversity the city is looking for? “Do the details of the rewrite matter at this time?” We can always fix it later. Do we have any responsibility to the existing homeowners?” Or do we just say, “Boise is changing, and you need to change with it?”

Thanks Gregg D. Ostrow, AIA

201 E. Louisa St. Boise, ID. 83712

208-866-3168

Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Comparison Chart Current Code

October 2023 ZCR Draft

February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft

Lot Coverage

55%

Height Transition

If less than 1-1/2 story homes exist on both sides of the lot, the requirements shall meet the ordinance for a 1-1/2 story construction

If less than 1-1/2 story homes exist on both sides of the lot, the requirements shall meet the requirements of Residential small lots

Height limit is 40 ft. 3rd floor setback increased when adjacent to single story residence

Open Space

375 sf. per unit with one 15ft. min. dimension and 30% permeable

200 sf. per unit to be usable and 25% permeable

55%

No lot coverage requirement

Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Lot Coverage: Based on a 60 ft. X 120 ft. R1-C lot with an alley in the East End October 2023 ZCR Draft

February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft

DUPLEX (See analysis) (2)- 1.966 sf. units

(2)- 1,966 sf. units

(2)- 4,467 sf. units

TRIPLEX (WITH INCENTIVE) See analysis Not allowed

(3) – 1,311 sf. units

FOURPLEX (WITH INCENTIVE) See analysis Not allowed

(3) – 2,250 sf. to 3,182 sf units

(4) – 983 sf. units

(4) – 1, 725 sf. to 1,830 sf units

Current Code Allowed Unit Size

Neighbor Notification

Yes

Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Height Transition: Based on a 60 ft. wide R1-C property

Current Code

EXISTING

NEW

EXISTING

EXISTING EXISTING

NEW NEW

EXISTING EXISTING

EXISTING

NEW

EXISTING

October 2023 ZCR Draft

February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft

Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height

DUPLEX ANALYSIS

SAME REQUIREMENTS 4,467 SF. UNIT – 3 STORIES

No Lot Coverage requirement

ZCR – OCT. 22

CURRENT CODE SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS

ZCR = FEB. 23

3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans

Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height

TRIPLEX ANALYSIS

Not allowed

No Lot Coverage requirement

CURRENT CODE

ZCR – OCT. 22

ZCR = FEB. 23

3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans

Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height

FOURPLEX ANALYSIS

Not allowed

55% LOT COVERAGE

No Lot Coverage requirement

CURRENT CODE

ZCR – OCT. 22

ZCR = FEB. 23

3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans

Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height

Zoning Code Rewrite Summary By Gregg D. Ostrow, AIA March 20, 2023 Since last July, when the first Zoning Code Rewrite Draft was made public, I have spent countless hours looking at the detail of the code and its effect on the R1-C zone. I am supportive of the goals of the rewrite, but I do not feel the latest Adoption Draft supports many of these goals. I have put together supporting data on the details of the rewrite on the R1-C zone that I hope you will look at. The supporting data provides in-depth information, graphics, table comparisons, questions, and recommendations. I submitted many of the same commentary after the October 2002 draft. Unfortunately, they were not implemented. I was shocked to see that the Adoption Draft went the opposite way with the removal of Lot Coverage and Height Transition removed from the duplex, triplex, and fourplex, creating new concerns at the last minute. I hope it will be different this time. Allowed Use in R1-C •

I support the Allowed Uses being proposed but I have concerns on how the uses are integrated into the R1-C neighborhoods.

•

The rewrite is long and complicated, and I worry that late changes in the Adoption Draft were made without proper analysis of the result.

•

My hope is that the city recognizes that some of the details of the rewrite will go under further review with possible code amendments as a result.

R1-C Lot and Building Standards •

I am supportive of the Lot and Building Standard changes, but I am very concerned about the removal of the Lot Coverage and Height Transition requirements in the Use Specific Standards for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes.

•

The additional 3rd floor setback for structures adjacent to single-story homes is good, but the Use Specific Standards for side yard articulation for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes conflicts with it.

Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex (See Item 1 for supporting data) •

The Feb. 2023 Adoption Draft removed lot coverage and height transition that was in the current code and both the previous rewrite drafts. This will allow for larger and taller units in existing neighborhoods creating diversity, but not density.

•

Based on my research of other city’s rewrites, the inclusion of large and tall units has raised property values, removed smaller affordable homes, and priced more people out of the neighborhood.

•

My recommendation is to put the Lot Coverage and Height Transition standards back in the Use Specific Standards for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes creating a better building mass transition and hopefully more affordable units.

Neighborhood Cafes and Retail Sales, Neighborhood

Page 2 2

•

The inclusion of small cafes and retail shops is a great idea, but the process needs to be looked at. Most of us would love a Roosevelt Market or Bodega within walking distance of our homes.

•

The proposed rewrite allows for no neighbor notification when a café or retail shop is proposed on a corner lot and a Conditional Use Permit is required for these uses on an interior lot.

•

I do not understand the reasoning behind differentiating the corner lot from the interior lot. The impact on neighbors will be the same.

•

The new Development Tracker is a great tool, but it does not replace the current neighbor notification process. If someone gets lucky enough to look to go on to the Tracker at the right time to comment, what is the city’s response to the comments? Will this person receive notice of the approval and have a chance to appeal the decision?

•

The solution here is to require a Conditional Use Permit for these uses on all lots in the R1-C zone. In the 27 years I have been practicing as an architect in Boise, I have processed numerous Conditional Use Permits. If the project being proposed is a good fit, the process is simple. If the project is not a good fit, the process can be cumbersome. But isn’t this why Conditional Use Permits were created?

•

Another option is to create a separate permit for Neighborhood Cafes and Retail Sales, Neighborhood that allows neighbor notification and input but does not need to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval.

•

Like the Bed and Breakfast, these uses should be required to adaptively reuse the existing structure and signage needs to be

restricted like the Dwelling, Live-Work. We need to encourage adaptive reuse. Adaptive Reuse of Existing Homes in R1-C (See Item 2 for supporting data) •

With the Adoption Draft’s latest changes, I can demolish my house and garage in the East End and construct a duplex with unit sizes over 4,000 sf. I cannot add a unit over 700 sf. (proposed to be 900 sf.) since it will be considered an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The same goes for triplexes and fourplexes. I could keep my house and still provide 2, 3, or 4 units, but current language of the rewrite limits my options for this.

•

The problem is the “plex” definition requires that the units have common walls.

•

The solution is to change duplex, triplex, and fourplex to 2-Units, 3Unit, and 4-Units removing the common wall language. Doing this will increase flexibility for adaptive reuse of existing homes creating the diversity and density I feel the 2021 Housing Needs Assessment recommended.

•

The ADU as we know today becomes obsolete with the new code. If you are going to keep the ADU and increase the allowable area of an ADU to 900 sf., then allow a 3-bedroom unit to increase diversity. I am sure there are plenty of renters with families looking for affordable 3-bedroom units. There are also many homes in the R1-C zones today that are under 900 sf.

•

I must respectfully disagree with the 2021 Housing Needs Assessment that promotes demolition to gain density. You can get the same density with smaller affordable units through adaptive reuse and additions. Demolition does not support the city’s desire to become a “Green” city.

•

How about a standard that requires the owner to provide a minimum of 4 units if demolition is proposed. In addition, all demolition proposals should require neighbor and neighborhood association notification with time to comment.

Incentives

Page 3 3

•

The addition of incentives to increase density is a great idea. I was told that Tim Keane said he was “Not going to just give away density”. I feel the incentives will push people toward maintaining or adaptively reusing existing homes, which is a good thing.

•

I would entertain adding a 3-bedroom unit or (2) smaller units on my property if they were allowed, but I cannot since the units would be labeled as an ADU and I am restricted to one.

•

Dwelling, Cottage Village should be added as a use that can quality for an Incentive in R1-C. Without the incentive, I can construct 2 cottages on my property. With the incentive, I can go up to 4 cottages.

Use Specific Standards (See Item 3 for supporting data) •

There are some inconsistencies with the Use Specific Standards. I am also confused about some of the standards. Considering the scale of the rewrite, I can understand how some details could have been overlooked.

•

The side yard setback for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are different than the requirements for townhomes and Live-Work units.

•

I was told by city staff that side yard facing front doors were not allowed next to adjacent properties due to the requirement for “Liked-Yards”, although I was unable to find this requirement in the Adoption Draft.

•

My recommendation is to align the side yard setbacks for “plexes” townhomes, and Live-Work units and have the city needs to clarify the “Liked-Yards” requirements.

Neighbor and Neighborhood Association Notification •

Currently the code requires neighbor notification for duplexes and ADU’s in the R1-C zone. The rewrite has removed notifications for all Allowed Use – Allowed Form projects. These include all the allowed uses as follows: o o o o o o o o

Page 4 4

Duplex Triplex Fourplex Single-Family Attached (Townhomes) Cottage Village Bed and Breakfast Neighborhood Café Retail Sales, Neighborhood

•

I have struggled with the removal of notification since the first rewrite draft came out in July 2022 and feel the city needs to reevaluate their stance on this. If I am going to demo my singlestory 1,600 sf. house and construct (2) – 40 ft. tall – 4,000+ sf. units, should I believe as a good neighbor I should notify my neighbors.

•

Although the city’s current neighbor notification can be cumbersome, it has resulted in better projects. I was told that no other cities in the Treasure Valley have these notification requirements so why should we? But do we want to be like other cities? There was a reason that neighbor notification was implemented in Boise. Do we know the answer?

Item 1: Section 11-03-04.2 G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Changes from the October 2022 Draft ZCR in the February 2023 Adoption Draft ZCR include: 1. Removal of the 55% lot coverage requirement (Floor Area Ratios) 2. Removal of the height transition adjacent to single-story residences (The draft did add an additional setback at the 3rd floor when adjacent to a single-story residence) 1. Decreasing the open space requirement from 375 sf. to 200 sf.

Information and Commentary provided by Gregg Ostrow, AIA

208-866-3168

Commentary Removal of the Lot Coverage and Height Transition in the last draft is very concerning. They are in the current zoning code and were included in the July 2022 Draft and October 2022 Drafts There has been no time for discussion on the changes, and the impacts are considerable. It is difficult to understand how such a large changes could occur this late in the process. Lot Coverage Removal The removal provides considerable increases in the unit size. A duplex on my property, which is 60 ft. X 120 ft. with an alley in the R1-C zone increases from 1,311 sf. to 4,467 sf. (See supporting data and graphics). As you will see, the building footprint takes up almost the entire property. The argument for the removal is to provide diversity and density. You will provide diversity in the form of larger units, but without any extra density. You can get the same number of units with the lot coverage. Height Transition Removal Current zoning and the July 2022 and October 2022 had height limitations when adjacent structures were single story in height. This limited the structures adjacent to single-family homes to 2 stories. With the height transition removed, a 3-story structure is allowed. Both 2 and 3 story structures can be 40 ft. tall. Once again, this adds diversity in the form of larger units and taller ceilings, but not density. Reduction of open space from 375 sf. to 200 sf. Current zoning and the July 2022 and October 2022 drafts had open space requirements of 375 sf. with one 15 ft. required dimension and 30% permeability. Of the 3 changes, this concerns me the least. One concern I do have is you cannot plant very many trees in 200 sf.

Recommendations Lot Coverage Put either the Lot Coverage or Height Transition back in. You can exempt basements (which typically are exempted) from the lot coverage if you want more area. I would also stagger the lot coverage for as follows: ▪ Duplex – 55% ( 2- 1,960 sf. units not including garage and basement) ▪ Triplex – 60% (3 – 1,440 sf. units not including garage and basement) ▪ Fourplex – 65% (4 – 1,170 sf. units not including garage and basement) As currently written, the Adoption Draft is encouraging the demolition of good existing single-family homes to obtain density and diversity. This can be achieved without demolishing the existing homes. I live in a structurally sound single-story 1,600 sf. home in the East End that has a “clinker-brick” exterior. With Adaptive Reuse in the current Adoption Draft, I can add 10% floor area, split the house into a duplex and add an Accessory Dwelling Unit for a total of 3 units. The Zoning Code could encourage Adaptive Reuse by allowing me to add a 2 – unit accessory dwelling unit bringing my property up to 4 units. If allowed, I could also keep my house and have 3-units. Basements should be encouraged since most of them require minimal or no heating and cooling. Designed properly, they can be nice living spaces. Demolition should be discouraged by adding additional requirements. An example of this is that all tear-off demolition projects go through a demolition permit process requiring neighbor notification process. According to the Boise 2021 Housing Report, existing neighborhoods need to increase by 26%, not 400%.

Height Transition

1. “Do we even care about the impact on current residences?” 2. “Have we studied what type and size of housing is best to create the missing “Middle-Housing?” 3. “Do we need to pass the ZCR before the election in November or we will never get it passed?” 4. “Do we just pass the ZCR now and fix it later?”

5. “Do taller buildings create more density, diversity, affordability, sustainability, and resiliency?” My recommendation is to put the height transition back in to allow a 30 ft. max. height - 2-1/2 story structures adjacent to existing single-story structures. This will also prevent the “big box” structures next to single-family homes that typically have pitched roofs.

Open Space

Reducing the Open Space requirement creates larger floor plates and reduces opportunities to maintain or plant trees. The supporting data and graphics will reflect this impact. In the effort to promote Adaptive Reuse, my recommendation is to go back to the 375-sf. open space when the existing residence is demolished. The 200-sf. requirement for the open space should be allowed if the existing house is incorporated in the design. I understand the need for the City to rewrite the zoning code in response to current growth and cost of housing. But I am not sure demolition of good homes and constructing large units meets that goal. Density by itself does not create affordability. Thoughtful density can. Increase height limits do not increase density. I agree that it creates diversity with larger and taller units. But is this the diversity the city is looking for? “Do the details of the rewrite matter at this time?” We can always fix it later. Do we have any responsibility to the existing homeowners?” Or do we just say, “Boise is changing, and you need to change with it?”

Thanks Gregg D. Ostrow, AIA

201 E. Louisa St. Boise, ID. 83712

208-866-3168

Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Comparison Chart Current Code

October 2023 ZCR Draft

February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft

Lot Coverage

55%

Height Transition

If less than 1-1/2 story homes exist on both sides of the lot, the requirements shall meet the ordinance for a 1-1/2 story construction

If less than 1-1/2 story homes exist on both sides of the lot, the requirements shall meet the requirements of Residential small lots

Height limit is 40 ft. 3rd floor setback increased when adjacent to single story residence

Open Space

375 sf. per unit with one 15ft. min. dimension and 30% permeable

200 sf. per unit to be usable and 25% permeable

55%

No lot coverage requirement

February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft

DUPLEX (See analysis) (2)- 1.966 sf. units

(2)- 1,966 sf. units

(2)- 4,467 sf. units

TRIPLEX (WITH INCENTIVE) See analysis Not allowed

(3) – 1,311 sf. units

FOURPLEX (WITH INCENTIVE) See analysis Not allowed

(3) – 2,250 sf. to 3,182 sf units

(4) – 983 sf. units

(4) – 1, 725 sf. to 1,830 sf units

Current Code Allowed Unit Size

Neighbor Notification

Yes

Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex

Height Transition: Based on a 60 ft. wide R1-C property

Current Code

EXISTING

NEW

EXISTING

EXISTING EXISTING

NEW NEW

EXISTING EXISTING

EXISTING

NEW

EXISTING

October 2023 ZCR Draft

February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft

Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height

DUPLEX ANALYSIS

SAME REQUIREMENTS 4,467 SF. UNIT – 3 STORIES

No Lot Coverage requirement

ZCR – OCT. 22

CURRENT CODE SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS

ZCR = FEB. 23

3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans

Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height

TRIPLEX ANALYSIS

Not allowed

No Lot Coverage requirement

CURRENT CODE

ZCR – OCT. 22

ZCR = FEB. 23

3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans

Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height

FOURPLEX ANALYSIS

375 SF. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT WITH (1) 15 FT. DIMENSION

Not allowed

55% LOT COVERAGE

No Lot Coverage requirement

CURRENT CODE

ZCR – OCT. 22

ZCR = FEB. 23

3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans

Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height

Item 2: Adaptive Reuse of Existing Homes in the R1-C zone

The Adoption Draft promotes demolition. On my property in the East End, I can demolish my house and garage and construct a duplex with units over 4,000 sf. But I cannot add a unit over 700 sf. (proposed to be 900 sf.) unit since it will be considered an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The same goes for triplexes and fourplexes. I can keep my house and still provide 2, 3, or 4 units if the rewrite would allow it. But currently it limits me. See sheets 3 thru 6. The problem is the “plex” definition requires that the units have common walls. The solution is to change duplex, triplex, and fourplex to 2-Units, 3-Unit, and 4-Units removing the common wall language. In addition, the ADU needs to be redefined to match the rewrite. The ADU as we know today becomes obsolete with the new code. If you are going to keep the ADU and increase the allowable area of an ADU to 900 sf., then allow a 3-bedroom unit to increase diversity and provide housing for families.

It does not make sense to “rewrite” the code and use some of the same terminology and definitions.

Information and Commentary provided by Gregg Ostrow, AIA

208-866-3168

2 60 FT. X 120 FT. R1-C PROPERTY WITH ALLEY Qualifies for Incentive 1 Does not qualify for Incentive 2 due to 25% improvement to land value requirement and entire property is not within 300 ft. of Warm Springs Ave.

DENSITY INCREASE OPTIONS

ALLEY

Maintain house/garage and add: 1 – 2- BR ADU 2 – 1 BR ADU’s (not allowed) 1 – 3 BR unit (not allowed)

EXISTING 528 SF. ACCESSORY GARAGE

Remodel house into a duplex and add an ADU: Allowed under current code and Rewrite Drafts

EXISTING 1,600 SF. SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE

Remove house/garage and construct: Duplex with (2) – 2,000 sf. units (2) – 4,467 sf. units Dwelling-Single-Family Attached (Townhomes) with (2)– 4,552 sf. units Triplex with (3) – 1,300 sf. units – requires Incentive 1 (3) – 2,250 to 3,182 sf units Fourplex with (4) – 1,000 sf. units – requires Incentive 1 (4) – 1,725 to 1,830 sf. units Cottage Housing with (2)– 1,000 sf. units Live Work with (2) – 4,000 sf. units (Live Work never had a lot coverage ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE UNITS WITH NO requirement) UNIT SIZES BASED ON 55% LOT COVERAGE

LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT

Based on definition of a “plex”, I can demolish my house and garage and build a (2) – 4,467 sf. units, but I cannot add a unit over the ADU size to the back of my property off the alley.

2-Unit Site Options

ADD 600 SF. ADU (ALLOWED)

SPLIT HOUSE INTO 2-UNITS WITH SMALL ADDITION (ALLOWED)

ADD SECOND UNIT OVER ADU SIZE (NOT ALLOWED)

DEMO HOUSE AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT DUPLEX (ALLOWED)

Based on definition of a “plex”, I can demolish my house and garage and build a (3) – 2.412 sf. to 3,162 sf. units, but I cannot add (2) Units to the back of my property off the alley.

3-Unit Site Options

SPLIT HOUSE INTO 2-UNITS AND ADD AN ADU (ALLOWED)

SPLIT HOUSE INTO 2-UNITS AND ADD CONTIGUOUS 1-UNIT (Requires Incentive 1) ALLOWED

ADD 2-UNITS TO REAR OF PROPERTY (Requires Incentive 1) NOT ALLOWED

DEMO HOUSE AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT TRIPLEX (Requires Incentive 1) ALLOWED

4-Unit Site Options

SPLIT HOUSE INTO 2-UNITS AND ADD 2-UNITS (Requires Incentive 1) NOT ALLOWED

Based on definition of a “plex”, I can demolish my house and garage and build a (4) – 1,725 - 1.830 sf. units, but I cannot add split my house into a duplex and add (2) Units to the back of my property off the alley.

DEMO HOUSE AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT FOURPLEX (Requires Incentive 1) ALLOWED

Item 3: Inconsistent and/or confusing Use Specific Standards in the R1-C zone Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes have different Use Specific Standards than Dwelling, Single-Family Attached (Townhomes) and Dwelling, Live-Work. The only difference between a “plex” and a townhouse is the addition of a property line between the townhouse units. See sheet 2. Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes have additional side yard setback requirements than Townhomes. See sheets 3, 4, and 5. I was told by city staff that front doors facing the side yard of adjacent properties was not allowed due to “Liked-Yards” although I was not able to find this requirement in the Adoption Draft. See sheet 6. My recommendation is to align the Use Specific Standards for “plexes”, townhomes, and Live-Work units with Lot Coverage and Height Transition standards put back in. In addition, the city should clarify if side facing entrances are allowed next to adjacent properties side yards.

Information and Commentary provided by Gregg Ostrow, AIA

208-866-3168

???

2 What is the difference between a duplex, triplex, fourplex and single-family attached units (townhomes)? Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes have different Use Specific Standards than Single-Family Attached (Townhomes)

Duplexes are units under same ownership. But what if you change them to condominiums later?

Townhomes have a property separating the units into separate properties

???

3 What is the side yard setback for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex on an interior lot?

Sidewall articulation and setbacks for Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex

All other uses including: Townhomes Live-Work Multifamily, etc.

???

What is the yard setback for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex on an interior lot? Showing 13 ft. Floor to Floor/Roof

There is no restriction mentioned for bay windows, pop-outs, or architectural features

Code does not prevent a 2-story 40 ft. structure

Setbacks for Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex regardless of adjacent structure story

Setback for all other uses including single-family detached, townhomes, and Live-Work

??? There is no restriction for bay windows, pop-outs, or architectural features

What is the yard setback for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex on an interior lot?

Setbacks for Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex regardless of adjacent structure story

Setback for all other uses including single-family detached, townhomes, and Live-Work

???

6 Can I orient a duplex, triplex, or fourplex parallel to the street? It is unclear if units oriented parallel to the street with entrances facing the side yard to the street are allowed

Allowed

Not Allowed?

Item 3: Allowable Height in the R1-C zone

Someone at the City thought by adding 5 ft. to the current R1-C 35 ft. maximum height limit would provide for more density. This is incorrect. You can still get 3 stories with the current maximum height. See graphics on Sheet 2. What you get are taller structures in predominantly single-story neighborhoods where current house owners are very concerned about loosing solar access. I understand that solar access does not have to be provided by the City, but as an architect, I must respectfully disagree. Especially with the city’s goal of becoming a “green” city. I feel the 3-story maximum was added in the last draft due to the city being told you could do a 4-story structure within he 40 ft. height limit. This appears to be a quick-fix decision without a detailed study of the result. My recommendation to the city is to allow a maximum height limit of 35 ft. to the top of a flat roof and 40 ft. to the top of pitched roof structures. I am having a hard time supporting the extra 5 ft. for a flat roof structure when it does not add density and encourages “box” structures.

Information and Commentary provided by Gregg Ostrow, AIA

208-866-3168

Current zoning 35 ft. Height Limit

3-Story Flat Roof – 11’-8” Floor to Floor

2-1/2-Story Steep Pitched Roof

2-1/2-StoryLow Pitched Roof

3-Story Low Pitched Shed Roof

2-1/2-Story Steep Pitched Roof

2-1/2-StoryLow Pitched Roof

3-Story Low Pitched Shed Roof

Rewrite Proposed 40 ft. Height Limit

3-Story Flat Roof – 13’-4” Floor to Floor

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:16 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jim Otradosky Email jim@basomo.net Address 1384 W. Villa Norte St. Boise, ID 83702 Comment Good afternoon. I am writing to note my support of the proposed rewrite of the Boise City Zoning Ordinance. This rewrite is overdue and needed to support a modern city not tied to the automobile. While not perfect, it is a significant improvement that will allow homeowners, design professionals and developers more flexibility in providing the city with innovative projects that promote walkability and preserve our quality of life as our city continues to grow. I would request consideration in providing more flexibility in parking requirements along transit corridors as well as ADUs when not associated with an owner occupied dwelling. I appreciate the efforts of City staff and volunteers that moved this effort forward and look forward to its implementation. Thank you. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 1:15 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Mary Overstreet Email maryodesign@yahoo.com Address Boise, ID 83709 Comment Please consider these modifications to the zoning code as they have been thoughtfully created by professionals that care about the opportunities for affordable housing in the treasure valley. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:54 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Nora Peters Email nlp81@hotmail.com Address 2023 Travertine Way Comment Stop this bill. Boise is not Portland! I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:47 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Mark Phillips Email gmarkphillips@gmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment Please don't upzone Boise! Upzoning Boise will destroy the unique character of our neighborhoods and drive housing costs up for EVERYONE, including families that are currently struggling to make ends meet and elderly residents living on fixed incomes. If you upzone Boise, property values will rise and so will property taxes and rents, as Vancouver's professor / planner Patrick Condon told community leaders at the Livable California Teleconference on Feb 6, 2021. "We have incrementally quadrupled the density of Vancouver, but we haven't seen any decrease in per square foot costs. That evidence is indisputable. We can conclude there is a problem beyond restrictive zoning. No amount of opening zoning or allowing for development will cause prices to go down. We've seen no evidence of that at all. It's not the NIMBY's that are the problem ‐ it's the global increase in land value in urban areas that is the problem." ~Patrick Condon, professor at the University of British Columbia School of Architecture, landscape architect, author, and former city planner. (Source) https://www.livablecalifornia.org/vancouver‐smartest‐planner‐prof‐patrick‐condon‐calls‐california‐upzoning‐a‐ costly‐mistake‐2‐6‐21/ Upzoning Boise will negatively impact EVERYONE who lives here, regardless of whether they own their home or rent. Thank you for doing the right thing and rejecting the proposed Boise upzone. Sincerely, Mark Phillips ~I am a 25‐year Boise resident and 45 year Idaho resident. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Ken Pidjeon <COMMO23@msn.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 2:45 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001

I request the following comments be entered into the record for ZOA23‐0001 & CPA23‐0001.

Dwelling Unit Density Boise currently allows between 15 to 45 dwelling units per acre, sometimes more, and under the proposed Zoning Code those numbers remain but, in some cases, unlimited density is allowed. Contrast Boise with all five boroughs that comprise New York City ‐ the most densely populated city in the nation. According to the 2020 Census, New York City, overall, has approximately 19 dwelling units per acre. If one looks only at New York County (Manhattan) there are about 63 dwelling units per acre. Either way, Boise’s currently allowed maximum density and proposed maximum density is at least twice that of New York City overall and about two thirds the density of Manhattan. After New York City, San Francisco is the second most densely populated city in the United States. So why is Boise attempting to surpass both New York City and San Francisco in density? Do Boise residents really want to live in the most densely populated city in America? As a 45 plus year Boise resident, who grew up in Philadelphia proper, I don’t think so. It is time to make both rational and realistic decisions about population density. 45 dwelling units per acre is neither rational nor realistic. The same goes for unlimited density. Perhaps a dwelling unit per acre number in the 10 to 12 per acre range would be sufficient. Dwelling units per acre in that range are more than double the 2020 Census reported dwelling unit density for Boise and they are more than sufficient to support a transit system per St. Paul, MN Metropolitan Council guidelines. Thank you for considering these comments. Kenneth L Pidjeon 1829 W Canal St Boise, ID 83705‐4819

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Ken Pidjeon <COMMO23@msn.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:18 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001

I request the following comments be entered into the record for ZOA23‐0001 & CPA23‐0001.

Transit Density The claim that Boise needs increased dwelling unit density to support transit ridership is completely bogus. As the former Assistant General Manager of Boise Urban Stages (BUS) during the late 1970s, I believe I have both the experience and the expertise to make that statement. BUS was the predecessor to Valley Regional Transit (VRT). Also, since I have attended most of the VRT Board and Executive Board meetings over the past 15 or so years, I believe I am fairly current on VRT operations and transit industry matters generally. On a per capita basis, BUS carried twice as many passengers as the current VRT Boise system. This is according to VRT’s own publicly available information and my personal records. Route structure and the number of buses in service are approximately the same for both systems. So, if BUS could carry twice as many passengers per capita as the current VRT Boise system, with a dwelling unit density much less than the current one, why does Boise believe higher dwelling unit densities will increase transit ridership? The existing allowable dwelling unit densities certainly haven’t increased transit ridership. While I agree there is some correlation between dwelling unit density and transit ridership, I also would argue that the quality of transit service provided has a significantly greater affect on transit ridership than dwelling unit density alone. You can have thousands of people within a quarter mile of a transit line but if transit system service is perceived to be poor those folks aren’t going to ride the system unless they have no other choice. I suggest the current and proposed dwelling unit densities have not and will not impact transit ridership to any significant degree. The existing and proposed dwelling unit densities, especially the unlimited one, greatly exceed those considered minimal by transit planners for a “successful” bus system. The proposed densities are, literally, more than New York City (all five boroughs) ones and are more suitable to subway and commuter rail services ‐ just like those found in New York City ‐ than bus or bus rapid transit (BRT) services. Please do not use the excuse Boise needs even more density to support transit services. That’s simply not true. BUS carried twice as many passengers, on a per capita basis, than the current VRT Boise operation does and BUS carried those passengers on a significantly less dwelling unit density than the current one. Please use dwelling unit density numbers in the 10 to 12 range rather current and proposed density numbers (15 to 45) that far exceed New York City density numbers (17 dwelling units per acre overall). Dwelling units 1

per acre in the 10 to 12 range are more than double the 1980 Census reported dwelling unit density for Boise and are more than sufficient to support transit services. Thank you for considering these comments. Kenneth L Pidjeon 1829 W Canal St Boise, ID 83705‐4819

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:27 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jennifer Pisano Email jenniferpisano84@gmail.com Address 311 E Parkway Dr Boise, ID 83706 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:32 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Lisa Pisano Email lisakpisano@gmail.com Address Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens for generations to come and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:50 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name PAULA L PISCA Email ppisca@hotmail.com Address 4010 W. VICTORY RD. 83642 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Diane Plastino Graves Email plastinograves@gmail.com Address 1126 Brightwater Lane Comment 1. The UpZoning proposal should not be addressed by the Council until additional public hearings have been held. The timeframe for comments is too short. 2. The Mayor's stated policy is that Boise should provide availability of housing for anyone that wishes to move here. I have not heard of any other municipality claiming that policy statement. And for good reason: It is unrealistic and is not the job of a city to provide access to housing for tens of thousands of people that may ultimately move here. 3. Building four‐plexes and larger buildings in established single‐family neighborhoods will add an unplanned‐for strain on services, parking, use of parks and green areas, and will damage the character of these older neighborhoods people moved into ‐‐because of that character. While that may not be of importance to you, it is of great importance to those of us living in long‐established neighborhoods. Which brings me to my last and most important point: 4. The proposed policy lacks transparency and due process. To disallow public hearings and public comments in any form to major individual building projects and other changes in individual neighborhoods and in the City as a whole is unacceptable. "To make things easier" for the City by passing this Upzoning does not recommend or justify the Upzoning effort to anyone. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:48 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Susan J. Pohl Email susanpohlboise@gmail.com Address 1752 S. Berkeley Lane, Boise, ID 83705 Comment I am aware that zoning codes are being rewritten. I agree that this is reasonable and a good idea; however, I need more information about what exactly the changes are and how they might impact current neighborhoods. Please inform the general public of specifics. Thank you. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:06 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Kristen Pooley Email k‐pooley@outlook.com Address 1521 E GRIFFON ST, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 Comment I submitted an additional document with thoughts and recommendations. Thank you for your time If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/af4a02c1‐4309‐42ae‐8681‐ 8613dcac4449/code_rewrite_commentary.docx I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 7:09 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Beth Popham Email bpop95136@yahoo.com Address 2727 n Lakeharbor lane Comment As an informed and concerned citizen, I unfortunately I don’t have time to review the new 611 page doc & digest or research information presented in the time requested. Citizens need time to review and research information to make informed decisions. These new zoning rules will not help our citizens only support out of state investors with their own agendas. The city must have and maintain affordable housing somehow or we will continue to have homeless people and it lit continuously increase without opportunity for those who only make minimum wage or work less than 40 hrs a week and live paycheck to paycheck. Thank you for your consideration, Beth Popham I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 12:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Rick Poplack Email rickpoplack@gmail.com Address 5684 W Drawbridge Drive Comment I want to comment about provisions of the proposed code rewrite which impacts the destruction of historic structures. I just learned about the demolition provisions last week from Preservation Idaho and way too little time exists for me to peruse the entire 611 page document. Along with others, I would request further time to sort through this huge document to examine it closely for concerns which we may have. I live in what the city terms the Collister neighborhood near Pierce Park Lane. From 1977 to 1993 I owned a river rock home on about 2 acres located on Castle Drive about a block and a half east of the James Castle house. I spent 16 years rehabilitating this house, and acreage and I was told by the State Historical Society that the structure qualified for the National Registry of Historical Places. I never applied for a designation because I was divorced and I moved from the house to a Castle Hills house five blocks north of my previous property. But given the thousands of hours which I spent restoring the house I have maintained a keen interest in its preservation. This house is the only river rock house in the city which is still maintained as a residence. Although the present occupants still reside there, it has been sold three times since I left. Because it is still on about two acreages it clearly has development potential as one of the last acreages left between Collister street and Pierce Park Lane. As I read the code rewrite, pages 390 and 391 pertain to the demolition of historic structures. Perhaps there are other pages which appertain, but I don't have time to locate them. The restrictions on demolition do not require that notice be given to the neighborhood before demolition consideration is made by the city, nor does it appear to apply to historic structures outside of historic districts. This is a great fault of the rewrite. Scattered throughout the city are historic structures which are outside of historic districts. The city owns one on Cole Road with a large acreage. One historic structure still exists on Pierce Park Lane and my old house exists on Castle Drive. Other such structures exist in the Collister Neighborhood and I am sure that they exist all over the city. A friend owns such a house near the Broadway Albertson's store. The city's code rewrite does not appear to protect any structure outside of an historic district even if the developer could not meet three of the five requirements in subsection (d)(1) on page 390, which, in the case of my 1928 river rock house, he could not. As best as I can tell, this protection disability applies to every historic structure outside of an historic district. Without a sufficient notice requirement, and without a requirement that individual historic structures throughout the city have the same demolition requirement apply to them as will apply to structures in historic districts, the code rewrite is extremely deficient. It needs modification and the preservation community needs more time to vet such an enormous document. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:49 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Melissa Pratt Email melissa.pratt27@gmail.com Address Boise Idaho 83712 Comment I am NOT in support of the new zoning proposals. I do not like the rush you’ve put on citizens to read 600 pages and understand it. I am a strong proponent of protecting historic districts. I think we can all work together but this is not the way. Voting NO on those that support it, I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:57 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Naomi Psalm Email naomipsalm@gmail.com Address 2804 W LEMHI ST Comment I am against upzoning Boise, because it drives up property values and thus property taxes and also destroys the unique quality and character of neighborhoods. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Ernest Puopolo <erniepuopolo@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:53 PM CityCouncil [External] New Zoning laws

I object to most of the proposed changes. You want to create a different Boise than the majority of us want. This need for lower income housing will. Not be met with current proposals. I have checked the new apts being built in Boise and all the one and two bedroom Apts are renting for $1200 to $1600. What makes you thing that pricing will change w the proposed zoning? Ernie Puopolo Sent from my iPhone

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:19 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Kris Query Email chimchimchickenbuns@gmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment Why the rush? Please give us 180 days to review and protect historic homes. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:22 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jen Quick Email wildebarg@gmail.com Address 2943 E Heartleaf Ln Comment I am against the proposed Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. If passed, this could mean redevelopment of Boise’s most affordable neighborhoods. We cannot let existing affordable housing be torn down in the name of building more housing. Demolishing homes just to create higher density housing does not make sense and it is a huge step in the wrong direction. This would mean splitting lots to create bigger, taller, more dense construction and it would detract from a normal neighborhood community as it would remove trees, nature and private open spaces. In addition, it would set a community up for higher crime. Another grave concern is that higher property taxes would become the norm as increased demand from developers and investors comes with higher density housing. Many Boise homeowners have found it increasingly difficult the past few years to afford the skyrocketing property taxes and some are now even losing their homes. Higher property taxes would be disastrous to Boise home owners. It makes no sense to push people out of their existing homes due to rezoning (demolishing) neighborhoods and increasing property taxes. This would surely happen if the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite takes place. While developers indeed would profit from this, the PEOPLE in these areas do not. Neighborhoods belong to us and are a place where we live and gather together. Our sacred spaces. They should be run by the us, the people, not corporations. I understand that affordable housing is a necessity for Boise, however, we must retain the housing we have. I am for true affordable housing and effective anti‐displacement programs and new development must not overburden infrastructure. We must retain our existing neighborhoods instead being lead down this very dystopian path. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

DATE: March 21, 2023 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, REF: ZOA23-00001; CPA23-0001

zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:32 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Roberto Rangel Email robert4jc1@gmail.com Address 8993 W Craydon Pl, Boise 83704 Comment I am opposed to the comprehensive zoning plan update for several reasons: 1. The public comment period for a plan that is over 600 pages long is less than 30 days. Federal guidelines for public comment recommend 30‐50 days, and for longer more complex proposals, even longer. This is not the way to promote “transparency” in Boise City government. 2. I am opposed to limiting public input by transferring sole approval for certain projects to a “ministerial” decision maker. 3. I am opposed to the higher density, limited parking spaces and ban on natural gas as “incentives” for builders to turn Boise into a concrete jungle. 4. I am opposed to any consideration by the current city council, which does not represent 50% of voters who are unrepresented because of the way elections were held in 2022. Any complex and controversial proposals should be put off until after the November 2023 elections when ALL Bosiens will have an advocate on the Cuty Council that represents their district and specific wishes. 5. I am opposed to the zoning re‐write in its entirety as it will push residents out of single family residences and in to rent paying apartments for life. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Pat Records <patrecords@icloud.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:45 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

I am opposed to the Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite. I have lived in Boise for 70 plus years. I’m witnessing a continued reduction of affordable housing in many areas of the city. Developers are tearing down affordable housing and replacing with higher valued properties. An example is the current development at Ave. H and Logan Street. The previous affordable structures are being replaced with high density units that are not affordable. This code rewrite will only accelerate this type of activity and will continue to deteriorate existing neighborhoods. Please reject this rewrite until after the city elections Regards Patrick & Sandy Records

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 11:02 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Derek Redford Email derek@j2recovery.com Address Boise, Idaho 83706 Comment Opposed to planning and zoning changes which will change our suburban neighborhoods. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 8:12 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Karim Refaey Email karim_refaey@shamrockfoods.com Address 6816 W Morton Dr Comment Please do NOT approve the UPZONE proposal. This is not what we (my wife Kaya and I) would like to see in Boise and our neighborhood. The fact that this is being even considered is a surprise to us. I am FOR growth, but done properly. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Karim Refaey <Karim_Refaey@shamrockfoods.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 8:25 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite Kaya M. Refaey; bevancho81@gmail.com [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Upzone Reject.docx

March 20, 2023

Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Karim Refaey Kaya Refaey

Karim Refaey | Business Resource Manager & Restaurant Consultant 1495 N Hickory Ave, Meridian, Idaho 83642

C 208.860.9548 | karim_refaey@shamrockfoods.com

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 5:47 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Ahmad Rezaii Email ahmad.rezaii@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83705 Comment I want to voice my strong opposition to the proposed zoning code rewrite. The zoning rewrite would allow buildings that are incompatible with existing neighborhoods without any consideration for existing residents. At least with the current system, neighbors can have some input on what kind of development gets filled into their neighborhoods. The new code encourages the destruction of neighborhoods and existing housing so that developers may increase their profits by avoiding the variance process entirely, all while driving home prices up through bidding wars. Upzoning is not a solution to affordable housing, there is nothing in the zoning rewrite that enforce lower rents or home prices on the whole. The truth is that upzoning will drive prices up because new construction is about 600‐750k in Boise, where existing homes that will be demolished are 300‐400k. Sure, that is great for developers who can sell three 700k houses where one 300k house stood, but it's not good for our city or its residents, not for wildlife, and not for livability. For these reasons and many more, I vehemently object to the proposed zoning code rewrite as it allows for too much density at the cost of evicting neighbors and the demolishing existing neighborhoods to replace them with ugly, expensive structures that are owned by corporations, not residents. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 3:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Steve Rinehart Email steverine@gmail.com Address 1709 W Irene Comment 1: Calling this whole proposal a "modern zoning code" is offensive. So, I guess those of us who question the process or the project are by definition against modernizing the code? 2: Granting approval to development projects "by right" instead of by public process shuts out the neighbors and other community members. These are the people who live here and should have the "right" written into law, not the developers/builders/real estate people who are looking to make more money on a fast track. 3: B&Bs and similar lodging businesses in neighborhoods should be subject to review and comment by neighbors and neighborhood associations, and approval by a government agency. My experience is that having a B&B on the block only helps the owners and the guests, not the neighborhood. 4: The principle behind higher density housing along transit corridors only makes sense when or if there is public transit in the corridors or nearby. Anyone who thinks that will happen in any meaningful, sustainable way in Boise is dreaming. So, all this really amounts to is a way to shoe‐horn more apartment buildings into existing neighborhoods that have the misfortune of being within a short distance of State, Vista or the other designated corridors. 5: Despite all the feel‐good talk about "affordable housing," this will take Boise in the opposite direction. Lower value, less attractive, less dense housing is already being torn down to building expensive apartments. The changes in this "modern" zoning proposal will only accelerate that process. 6: Parking reductions make sense only to bike‐riding urban planners and to builders trying to save money or get design breaks. Anyone else, any regular person driving to work or school or grocery shopping, will tell you there is never enough parking. So, under this "modern code" if you build an "affordable" property (for many, not even close to affording), you get by with fewer parking spots. Here's some news: lower‐income people drive like everyone else; they need cars for the same reasons. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:51 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Scott Robertson Email robertsr26@gmail.com Address 605 W Rossi St. Comment I support the zoning code rewrite as it is a much needed modernization of an outdated code. I believe relaxed parking requirements in favor of increased density in urban areas is necessary. I also believe that ADUs should be permitted in a similar fashion, with relaxed or no parking requirements. Finally, anything that can be done to speed the approval process with the city should be considered. Developers are more likely to commit to investment if they know a project can be considered for approval in less than 9 months start to finish ‐ time is money and a shorter approval process provides surety to the investors. Why not increase fees to accommodate more staffing? If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:51 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:09 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Barbara Robinson Email barb7780@hotmail.com Address 1630 S Londoner Ave. Comment A native Idahoan, I have lived in Boise for 75 years and have enjoyed the lifstyle that this city offers. I am absolutely opposed to the proposed zoning changes. I have always been skeptical of conditional use permits because most people move into a zoned area thinking it will be compatible with the kind of neighborhood they want to live in. And then, a developer, often from out of state, applies and usually gets a conditional use permit. However, in that case at least the neighbors have a chance to voice their opinion to the city council. I fear this upzone will erase any public input. An example of this occurred on my street. A single‐family residence was purchased for a 14 unit development. He took out the house, cut down an 80 year old sequoia tree, in addition to all the other trees, and now it is a weed filled eyesore that the California developer has apparently no interest in finishing. I fear he is waiting for the upzone so he can build even more units or higher ones. The mayor made the deciding vote to cut the tree down and approve the project. I will NOT be voting for her again. I don't want to say goodbye to the city I love because of development that hurts more people than it helps. In addition, the code rewrite has been vague, secretive, and totally in favor of developers. VOTE NO. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Barbara Robinson <barb7780@hotmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:17 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I have lived in Boise almost 80 years and am concerned about the upzone for a number of reasons. The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments. Gary Garrett; 1580 S Londoner Ave. Boise ID 83706 1

Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B

Dave Kangas, President Boise Working Together

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

CityCouncil Thursday, March 23, 2023 1:54 PM ZoningRewrite dianeronayne@gmail.com Fw: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite

From: Diane Ronayne <dianeronayne@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:51 PM To: Patrick Bageant <pbageant@cityofboise.org>; Luci Willits <lwillits@cityofboise.org>; Jimmy Hallyburton <jhallyburton@cityofboise.org>; Amanda Brown <ABrown@cityofboise.org>; Holli Woodings <holliwoodings@gmail.com>; Lauren McLean <LMcLean@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Dear Mayor and Council Members: I'm writing to ask you to allow additional time for public input on the ZCR. There's no reason to rush the public comment period. Our citizens deserve to have time to understand and respond to this fundamental change in how their neighborhoods and community spaces will be affected by new developments. I agree with Preservation Idaho that a 180‐day comment period beginning when you set it would be more fruitful. People I've spoken to recently have only begun to pay attention. When they do, they are concerned about the effects this code would have on established neighborhoods. It encourages the demolition of older but still serviceable buildings that provide affordable housing and allow their owners (often senior citizens) to remain living independently. I once served on P&Z, in the mid‐'90s, when Boise was only the 4th‐fastest‐growing city in the country. Our motto then was "managed growth," and for many years our zoning code accomplished this. I hope the city doesn't lose its management power. Please allow citizens to weigh in on this critical issue. Thank you, Diane "Falling short of perfection is a process that just never stops." - William Shawn, Editor, The New Yorker

Diane Ronayne dianeronayne@gmail.com 208‐336‐2128; cell 208‐685‐9807

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:53 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Diane Ronayne Email dianeronayne@gmail.com Address 746 N Santa Paula Ct, Boise ID 83712 Comment I oppose the Zoning Code Rewrite. It does not support Blueprint Boise; in fact, it would undermine the city’s visions stated therein for “a community of stable neighborhoods,” “a community that values its history,” “a predictable development pattern,” and “environmental stewardship.” Attached are comments submitted today by Boise Working Together, which I support and agree with. Thank you. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/118a7870‐6266‐492e‐912d‐ fc98624f2e7a/3‐22‐23_ronayne_comments_zcr.docx /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/308698b3‐a0cb‐4cd2‐9846‐ 71d7a23af897/3‐22‐23_bwt_comments_to_p_z.pdf I am not a robot

Diane Ronayne 746 N Santa Paula Ct Boise ID 83712 March 22, 2023 Boise Planning and Zoning Commission 150 N. Capitol Blvd. Boise, ID 83702 Dear Commissioners: I oppose the Zoning Code Rewrite as released on Feb. 28, 2023. It does not support Blueprint Boise; in fact, if enacted it would undermine the city’s visions stated therein for “a community of stable neighborhoods,” “a community that values its history,” “a predictable development pattern,” and “environmental stewardship.” Attached are comments submitted today by Boise Working Together, which I support and agree with. I am especially concerned about the effect this code would have on historic buildings and neighborhoods. It encourages demolition of older but still serviceable buildings that provide affordable housing and allow owners (often senior citizens) to remain living independently. In addition to this letter, I am writing to the City Council and Mayor to request additional time for public input on this critical document. There is no reason to rush the public comment period. Our citizens deserve to have time to understand and respond to this fundamental change in how their neighborhoods and community space will be affected by new developments. Thank you for your service. I, too, once served on P&Z, at a time when Boise was only the 4thfastest-growing city in the country. Our motto then, in the mid-‘90s, was “managed growth.” The zoning code revision before you basically allows unmanaged growth and forbids citizen input on most of it. This isn’t right, and I think Boise can do better. Please help us by rejecting this zoning code revision.

Diane Ronayne dianeronayne@gmail.com Enc.

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Frankie <fannrosera@gmail.com> Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:26 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Boise Zoning Code Rewrite -- ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

Dear Boise City Council, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the process of writing the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). The code has been developed without widespread public input as a top-down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes, and the City has yet to directly inform the public of how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the ZCR. As citizens rush to learn how their neighborhoods will be affected by the ZCR, the need for a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR is clear. One-third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected, deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite a few short months before the November election. Only duly elected representatives should decide what to do about the ZCR. Proceeding to a decision with mayoral appointees is anti-democratic in principle, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Furthermore, if implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. The new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it, resulting in gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market-rate or above-market-rate multi-units. High-density housing does not lead to affordability. The proposed fifty-year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. Reducing the minimum lot size in R-2 and R-1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. 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. Boise’s R-2 zone has been re-conceived as a higher-density apartment zone similar to today’s R-3 zone, which will change the character of neighborhoods, reduce privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of corridors from R-1 to R-2 with 45-foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods. Lastly, the removal of owner occupancy for homes with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses. Increasing the allowable size of an ADU from 700 to 900 square feet will also reduce livable green space. I implore you to reconsider the Zoning Code Rewrite and work on developing a code that will protect neighbors rather than destabilize their neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, 1

Frances (Frankie) A. Rosera 3660 North 39th Street Boise, ID 83703 (208) 371‐9508

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Frankie <fannrosera@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:50 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22.

Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Frances (Frankie) A. Rosera 3660 North 39th Street Boise, ID 83703 (208) 371-9508

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Kat Runyan <kat.runyan@yahoo.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:46 PM ZoningRewrite [External] comments on ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

To whom it may concern, Please delay the vote to pass the zoning code rewrite. First, until there is a fair and equal geographic representation of the city by city council in November this is unethical to pass this rewrite. Second, I don't even understand everything that is being proposed and do not know ANYONE in my neighborhood that even knows what's going on with this rewrite or knows about it. Third, and most personally, we would never have bought our home knowing that some person elected only for a few years had the ability to completely turn our neighborhood upside down and drastically change everything that we love about it. We intended to retire here. This would completely change that. This does not have current Boise families in mind it only has people who don't live here and the potential money they could bring in. If that means nothing then delay for the complete unethical way this has been undertaken up to this point-as in the biggest rewrite in 60 years and no one knows about it! If this is so great, then let the citizens vote on it, otherwise this is just more political shadiness that will continue to destabilize any trust the public has in government. Thank you for listening, Kathleen Runyan 606 Brookdale Dr Boise ID 83712

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

C Runyan <chris.runyan01@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 6:37 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Comments - ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

First, thank you for your public service. As you know, trust in government is a fragile thing. Similar to losing trust in the banking system (i.e. Silicon Valley Bank for example), once citizens lose trust it can be very difficult to regain. Boise’s city government is not immune to this as highlighted recently when the public became aware that accountability of the former Boise Police Chief occurred not when the incident took place but rather only after local news media reported on the story.

Recommending that the City Council pass the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) is only going to increase the distrust many Boise residents currently have of city government, I am just stating a fact. Almost the entire public outreach of the ZCR was completed during the Covid pandemic, a time when most residents were scrambling to keep their daily lives in order, let alone had time to engage with the city on a massive zoning code rewrite. During this time, the public was only given small sections of the code intermittently (i.e. Module 1 – Districts and Allowed Uses, Module 2 – Design and Development Standards, Model 3 – Process and Procedures) and it wasn’t until February 22 that the city released a final copy of the 611‐page code. Twenty‐two (22) days later, the comment period for the P&Z project report ended. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that the city is trying to rush this code through before the public is fully engaged and aware of what it truly means for their neighborhood. How could the city reasonably assume that the average Boiseans (let alone P&Z) could 1) review the entire 611‐page document and 2) identify changes between the October and February drafts prior to the April hearing? The public needs more time and the city needs to provide actual examples of how the ZCR is different from the current code.

The proposed ZCR does not align with what the public has been told. It will not provide the “affordable” housing as defined by the average Boisean. It will not deter urban sprawl as it secures no agricultural land in exchange for higher density allowed in Boise. The ZCR increased density is not modest and at an appropriate scale, the number of lots in my R1‐C neighborhood of 212 homes that could now be split will go from 14% to 94%! This means the ZCR will encourage significant demolition of existing affordable homes to make way for less affordable homes. It will usher in the commercialization of our residential neighborhoods by allowing outside investors to purchase residential homes to be turned into retail sales stores, Cafes that serve alcohol, short‐term rentals and “bed and breakfasts”, and live/work units. All without public notice! The public understands who will benefit the most by the ZCR and it's not the current Boise residents.

I urge P&Z to take a step back and not recommend approval of the ZCR to the City Council at this time. Please give the public more time to understand the ZCR and ensure that the public's voice is really heard by delaying the vote until the next City Council is elected by geographic district (it's only 6 months from now!). If the ZCR is truly a good code for Boise 1

as the city advertises, then it can/will pass then. Doing it prior to this is just a political strategy and doesn’t put current Boise residents as first priority.

Sincerely,

Chris Runyan 606 Brookdale Drive Boise, ID 83712

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

(null) (null) <fallon07@yahoo.com> Friday, March 10, 2023 9:35 AM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

This rewrite takes the power from the people, it feels like a direct response to the huge opposition to interfaith sanctuary moving to state st. I’m sure won’t risk the citizens of Boise fighting for their rights and wasting your time again. Leave these and all important decisions with the people who you work for, the tax paying citizens. Aaron Ruse‐Sullivan

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Renee Sandmeyer <reneesandmeyer@gmail.com> Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:12 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I have followed the rezone process from the city for about a year now. I have anxiously anticipated the 2/28/23 final draft release so that I could study it and fully understand how the previous drafts might have changed. All I can tell at this point is there are 611 pages to devour and comment upon by 3/22/23! That is just 3 weeks! Are you kidding me? This sounds eerily similar to the last giant omnibus bill forced through congress in December 2022. After rushing to pass that bill, we are daily discovering the harmful nuggets that were hidden within its massive volumes. What is hiding in your final draft you don't want us to know about before the commenting period prematurely ends? If I didn't know better I would assume the city was trying to "pull a fast one". I understand there are Federal guidelines calling for up to 180 days of public comment for rule impacts having a large impact. From the previous draft for rezoning, I know the rezone design was asking for HUGE changes for most current Boise residents. I, and other concerned residents, need more time to fully devour and understand how your latest draft has changed in order to provide meaningful and informed comments. I don't know what's in this proposal, therefore I can't know how it impacts me and my neighbors. I prefer not to speak on a topic until I'm informed. Give me the time to become informed. Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. Sincerely, Renee Sandmeyer 1705 W.Canal St. Boise, ID 83705

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Renee Sandmeyer <reneesandmeyer@gmail.com> Saturday, March 18, 2023 8:30 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Rezoning opposition input

At a recent listening session at the Bown Crossing Library the Mayor self disclosed her quest for home‐ownership when she first came to Boise. This was a heartfelt tale. Personally I understand how vital that mission was to her and I want that goal to be obtained by others. My husband and I worked incredibly hard on middle income salaries to save and pay off our home. After 30 years of money and sweat we've transformed our home into the perfect "forever home" for our family, the one we envisioned it could be when we first moved in. Home ownership brings stability, pride and camaraderie to a neighborhood and a city. All of the current developments promoted by the city steer away from home ownership and toward leasing. Outrageously high home prices and rising interest rates deter new home ownership. Astronomical property tax increases are pushing current home owners out as well. I have explored how upzoning has transformed cities like Austin and Portland, I have discovered how large multiplex developments next to single family homes have resulted in increased home values and taxes, dissatisfaction, turmoil and eventual exodus of long term residents. Upzoning has brought about massive negative changes that inevitably destroy the homeowner's once coveted humble and quiet neighborhoods. Where will these people go and how will they afford to get there? Please consider the current homeowner in your quest for upzoning. We matter too. Currently my portion of the Vista neighborhood is plagued with numerous walking, biking and bus access dangers. Adding the proposed 1216 homes (Simunich property development) to the current 710 will nearly‐triple the dwellings in my immediate neighborhood (RR tracks to Vista, Malad to the NY Canal). Adequate time to comprehend the 2/28/23 revisions to the Rezoning proposal has not been allotted. Therefore, referencing the last draft from October 2023, the Rezoning allowances the city is pursuing will exponentially worsen the current unacceptable scenario, discouraging alternative transportation. I only represent one neighborhood. Unique negative impacts will occur citywide. Current neighborhoods need to be upgraded to safe and practical commute routes prior to enacting a huge increase in density. with deep concerns, Renee Sandmeyer 1705 W. Canal St. Boise, ID 83705

3/22/2023 Boise City Planning and Development Services Attn: Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff PO Box 500 Boise, ID 83701 RE: ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Amendment of Boise City Code Title 11 Boise City Planning and Zoning, YESCO Outdoor Media is in receipt of a notification of a pending amendment to Boise City Code as referenced above. In regard to specific regulation changes of digital billboards proposed in the draft amendment, YESCO Outdoor Media would like to take the opportunity to voice concern as well as provide reasoning for those concerns. First, on the subject of hold time, the city is proposing a 20 second minimum display time per frame or advertisement. This is unusually long compared to many other cities and counties throughout the US. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA), of which YESCO Outdoor Media is a member, recommends an eight second hold time as an industry standard based on data compiled over years of traffic studies. From those studies, a dwell time of eight seconds has proven to be a nonfactor on traffic safety and has largely been adopted throughout the nation. YESCO currently operates a number of digital billboards in and around the Boise area, all of which prescribe to this recommended eight second dwell time for each ad. Not only is it the industry standard, but advertising clients currently pay and set up advertising campaigns with the expectation that their ad will rotate according to that eight second interval. A slight change to this will likely cause needless loss in advertising dollars to YESCO and require extensive contract adjustments to both our local and national clients. As such YESCO respectfully request that an eight second frame or dwell time be adopted by the city. The second item we would like to address relates to the proposed brightness requirements. While we agree that regulating the brightness of any digital sign is appropriate and encouraged, a few simple adjustments may make regulating and implementing those requirements more practical. Simply put, nits measure the brightness of a light at the source and cannot measure with much effect the impact that light has on surrounding areas. OAAA members use footcandle measurement vs nits as footcandles measure the impact a light

YESCO Outdoor Media 866-779-8357 » Phone 1605 S Gramercy Road Salt Lake City, Utah 84104

yesco.com

source has on surrounding area and accounts for ambient light. This is especially important when considering the impact a digital sign has around its location through various lighting conditions. 0.3 footcandles is the standard that has been set, measured from set distances depending on the size of the sign. This number was carefully selected after extensive research aimed at finding an appropriate balance of brightness in digital signage. When contemplating using nits vs footcandles, it is a case of good vs best. It has been the experience of YESCO and many in the sign industry, that footcandles are the best unit to measure light impact. We strongly recommend including the 0.3 footcandle measurement as the standard for Boise rather than nits and percent of a signs maximum brightness as proposed. A signs max brightness level changes with time, making it a constant moving scale of what the proposed 50 percent number actually is. Over time a sign relegated to only 50 percent brightness will only get darker causing an undue burden on sign owners that is easily mitigated by relying on brightness measurements instead. A copy of a OAAA sheet explaining this in more detail is included for your reference. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns as it relates to your proposed ordinance. We anxiously await the final draft and its approval. Please feel free to reach out with any questions that you may have. All the best, Braden Saunders Director of Real Estate YESCO Outdoor Media 801-464-6428

YESCO Outdoor Media 866-779-8357 » Phone 1605 S Gramercy Road Salt Lake City, Utah 84104

yesco.com

Explanation of OAAA Recommended Brightness Guidelines There are at least two ways to evaluate the brightness of a LED digital display. A preferred method uses a footcandle meter to determine the amount of light that reaches various points in front of the digital display. A second method uses a luminance meter (frequently called a nit gun) to determine the amount of light emitted by a light source.

Explanation of Footcandles vs. Nits

A brightness standard measured in nits (candelas/square meter) typically contains a maximum value for daytime and nighttime. The footcandle standard has only one value but is measured from different distances based on display size. An LED sign generates luminance at the source (measured in nits), but this raw source is not what the human eye sees from a distance. The human eye sees illuminance (measured in foot candles) from a point at a certain distance from the LED sign. Illuminance is greatly affected by ambient light and surrounding conditions. As such, it is usually preferred by regulators.

Q: What is the definition of Luminance 1?

lu⋅mi⋅nance/ˈlumənəns/ [loo-muh-nuhns]–noun 1. The state or quality of being luminous. 2. Also called luminosity, the quality or condition of radiating or reflecting light: the blinding luminance of the sun. 3. Optics - The quantitative measure of brightness of a light source or an illuminated surface, equal to luminous flux per unit solid angle emitted per unit projected area of the source or surface.

Q: What is the definition of Illuminance?

/iˈlumənəns/ Compare irradiance E v, Sometimes called: illumination the luminous flux incident on unit area of a surface. It is measured in lux 2

Q: What is a foot candle? n. (Abbr. fc or ft-c) [foot-kan-dl] noun Optics. A unit of illuminance or illumination, equivalent to the illumination produced by a source of one candle at a distance of one foot and equal to one lumen incident per square foot. Abbreviation: FC 3 Also: A unit of illuminance on a surface that is everywhere one foot from a point source of one candle 4 1 Dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/luminance?s=t

2 Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illuminance?s=ts 3 Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foot+candle?s=t 4 TheFreeDictionary.com http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Footcandle

04/2017

Q: What is a nit?

noun Physics. a unit of luminous intensity equal to one candela per square meter. Abbreviation: nt 5 -A unit of illuminative brightness equal to one candle per square meter, measured perpendicular to the rays of the source. 6

5 Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nits?s=t 6 TheFreeDictionary.com http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nit 7 Nit gun readings are most accurate when the readings are taken directly perpendicular from the light source.

As a result, the best place to take Nit gun readings is from a elevated height perpendicular to the digital display. If this is not possible, moving back from the digital display 350' to 500' on the center line will minimize the loss of accuracy. However, the distance away from the digital display cannot cause the nit gun measurement circle to fall outside the lighted digital billboard face.

04/2017

-Source: Dr. Ian Lewin, Ph.D. Lighting Sciences, Inc. Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional Billboards.

Why use Foot candles over Nits as a unit of measurement? -

Foot candles measure the variance from ambient light. This assures a government that the sign will not be too bright for conditions. At different parts of a day the ambient lighting can be significantly different with clouds or fog. Conversely, the same can be true about nighttime conditions when an adjacent commercial lot turns on or off their parking lot lighting. Regulation using Nits merely sets a maximum and minimum level for day and night time conditions. Using the foot candle standard will not allow the sign to be too bright under a variety of conditions. (See Figure A2)

Nits measure the brightness of the light at its source, without regard to ambient light. Establishing a lighting standard that ignores the brightness of the area (ambient light) allows the digital billboard to be too bright in dark environments and too dim in highly illuminated areas. In other words, fixed nit standards can allow the digital to operate at significantly higher luminance than is needed over the course of a 24 hour period.

Nits: To measure nits you need to be directly perpendicular to the sign to measure, and get an accurate measurement. This is factored horizontally and vertically. There is a little bit of leeway on angle. Nits are directional in nature and billboard signs are usually aimed directly at the middle of the roadway. This in many cases puts the person performing the measurement in the travel lanes. In addition, due to the height of the average digital billboard a truck with a man-lift may be required. There is no specified distance you must be away from the sign to measure. (See Figure A2)

Footcandles: With the footcandle standard you should be as perpendicular to the face as you can, but you do not have to be, to get a valid, accurate measurement. Footcandles can be measured multi directionally. You can take measurements at an angle to the sign face and receive valid measurements. The distance from which to measure is set at 250 ft away from the sign face for 14 x 48 size. This gives a regulator more options on places to stand. This makes the footcandle standard superior in ease of implementation. But even if we assumed they are both different, but similar in this regard, other more important factors tip the scales.

• • • • -

The footcandle standard is more restrictive in terms of lighting allowed, in a variety of conditions. As such, is usually preferred by regulators once they are educated on the differences. The industry footcandle standard is tied to a required light sensor and dimming software. Footcandles measure what the driver sees through their windshield in terms of light, where his car is. Nits measure the light emanating from the sign face, typically a few hundred feet away. Not necessarily what the driver is seeing.

It also can benefit a government to use foot-candles instead of Nits as Nit guns are very expensive (estimated cost $3,000.00). Light meters can cost as little as $250.00.

There are 3 necessary components to insure a digital billboard will never be too bright for conditions. 1. Maximum brightness limits incorporating a footcandle standard 2. An ambient light sensor installed on the sign structure 3. Dimming software The ambient light level of a digital billboard will not vary significantly from that of a traditional billboard display and, in many cases it will be less. The light output levels will be set to be appropriate for the surroundings. 04/2017

OAAA recognized/member companies utilize a photocell on digital billboards so that the display will easily be seen by motorists under changing light conditions. Sophisticated dimming software constantly changes the brightness of the display in response to changing ambient lighting conditions. This insures a digital billboard will never be too bright for conditions. The range of brightness varies greatly between daytime and nighttime conditions. In bright daylight, the unit must have higher intensity in order to be seen. During darkness conditions, the brightness can be set low and still be easily seen by motorists.

Why was 0.3 Footcandles chosen as the limit?

The 0.3 footcandle maximum illuminance level was carefully derived from a report completed by a former president of the IESNA. 8 The recommended technique is based on accepted IESNA practice for “light trespass.” The Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) commissioned Dr. Ian Lewin, in 2008 a principal at Lighting Sciences, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ, to recommend criteria for brightness levels on digital billboards 9. The standards are designed to minimize the risk of glare or unreasonable driver distraction. Footcandle measurements are commonly used throughout the United States. Footcandle measures are widely used in the lighting industry, photography, film, television, conservation lighting, and construction related engineering and building code regulations10. In addition, footcandles are frequently cited in OSHA regulations. The OAAA believes that these lighting standards reflect the best practices of the Out of Home Industry.

8 IESNA – Illuminating Engineering Society of North America 9 Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional Billboards, by Dr. Ian Lewin Ph.D., FIES, L.C. Lighting

Sciences, Inc., 7826 East Evans Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

10 wikipedia.org/wiki/Footcandles

04/2017

Appendix OAAA Recommended Brightness Guidelines Criteria #1 - Lighting Standards – Measurements: The industry recommended criteria follows the lighting standards established by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The OAAA and member companies voluntarily adhere to the following guidance. Recommended regulatory criteria: Lighting levels should not exceed 0.3 foot candles (over ambient levels) as measured using a foot candle meter at a pre-set distance. Pre-set distances to measure the foot candles impact vary with the expected viewing distances of each size sign. Measurements should be taken as close to perpendicular to the face as practical. Measurement distance criteria: Nominal Face Size 12’ x 24’ 10’6 x 36’ 14’ x 48’ 20’ x 60’

Distance to Measure From 150’ 200’ 250’ 350’

Each display must have a light sensing device that will adjust the brightness as ambient light conditions change. Criteria #2 - Alternate Regulatory Criteria The brightness of light emitted from a changeable message sign should not exceed 0.3 foot candles over ambient light levels measured at a distance of one hundred fifty feet (150') feet for those sign faces less than or equal to three hundred square feet (300 sq. ft.), measured at a distance of two hundred feet (200 ft.), for those sign faces greater than three hundred square feet (300 sq. ft.) but less than or equal to three hundred eighty-five square feet (385 sq. ft.), measured at a distance of two hundred fifty feet (250 ft.), for those sign faces greater than three hundred eighty-five square feet (385 sq. ft.) and less than or equal to six hundred eighty square feet (680 sq. ft.), measured at a distance of three hundred fifty feet (350 ft.) for those sign faces greater than six hundred eighty square feet (680 sq. ft.) Or use Alternate Table: Sign Face Size 681-1200 square feet 385-680 square feet 300-385 square feet 200-300 square feet

Distance of Measurement 350 feet 250 feet 200 feet 150 feet

Each display must have a light sensing device that will adjust the brightness as ambient light conditions change.

04/2017

Criteria #3 - Optional Regulatory Addendum - (If standardized distances cannot be achieved in compliance with MUTCD roadside work, or if the site conditions will not allow measurements from the previous distances.) In the event it is found not to be practical to measure a digital billboard at the set distances prescribed above, a measurer may opt to measure the sign at any of the alternative measuring distances described in the applicable table set forth below. In the event the sign measurer chooses to measure the sign using an alternative measuring distance, the prescribed footcandle level above ambient light shall not exceed the prescribed level, to be determined based on the alternative measuring distances set forth in the following tables (A), (B), (C), and (D), as applicable: (A) For changeable message signs less than or equal to 300 square feet: Alternative Measuring Distance 100 125 150 200 250 275 300 325 350 400

Prescribed Foot Candle Level 0.68 0.43 0.3 0.17 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04

(B) For changeable message signs greater than 300 square feet but less than or equal to 385 square feet: Alternative Measuring Distance 100 125 150 200 250 275 300 325 350 400

04/2017

Prescribed Foot Candle Level 1.2 0.77 0.53 0.3 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.1 0.08

(C) For changeable message signs greater than 385 square feet but less than or equal to 680 square feet: Alternative Measuring Distance 100 125 150 200 250 275 300 325 350 400

Prescribed Foot Candle Level 1.88 1.2 0.83 0.47 0.3 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12

(D) For changeable Message Sign greater than 680 square feet: Alternative Measuring Distance: Prescribed Foot Candle Level: Alternative Measuring Distance 100 125 150 200 250 275 300 325 350 400 425 450 500

04/2017

Prescribed Foot Candle Level 3.675 2.35 1.63 0.92 0.59 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.3 0.23 0.2 0.18 0.15

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 4:45 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Rochelle Schaetten Email rochelle1031@yahoo.com Address 3700 N Mountain View Dr. Boise, ID 83704 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. I have attended every session held at the Library! at Cole and I have many more questions. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Cynthia Schember <cynthia_schember@hotmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:06 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Not Satisfied with Zoning Code Rewrite Process

March 20, 2023

To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org

Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission:

The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22.

Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

Sincerely,

Jacob Kammer Cynthia Schember

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 7:38 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Sally Schmelzer Email lighthousesally2417@gmail.com Address P O Box 15934 Boise ID 83715 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Sally Schmelzer <lighthousesally2417@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:27 PM ZoningRewrite [External] No to zoning law

Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611-page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher-density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ Sally Schmelzer

Sent from my iPhone

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Robin Schoenemann <rnschoenemann@yahoo.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:49 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com> Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:58 PM Andrea Tuning ZoningRewrite; Timothy Keane [External] A citizen request

Hello Andrea, I would like to know if you can provide the public with either a version of this recent release of the zoning rewrite that has new sections either circled in red or highlighted, or some way to make it easier for a citizen to be able to determine what has been added since the October 2022 version? Or even a list saying which pages have new content? I am asking because it is really challenging to start again with a document that is not marked up with red edits, or strikeouts, to figure out what has changed since the October 2022 version. And to do this with 611 pages in 22 days, in time to provide comments for the Project Report. Throughout this process the citizens have not been provided with a marked up copy each time a new version (module) has been released, so someone like myself has to try to compare content between different drafts using two computer screens. This has been an unfair burden on the public's ability to understand this document. Is there anything the Planning Dept. can please provide to help the public with this 5th version of material that is now before us? Sincerely, Erika

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 12:41 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Erika Schofield Email Address Comment 1. Twenty two days from the release of this draft to read, understand, and comment on 600+ pages is an unreasonable expectation. For the most impactful ordinance to our city, a minimum of 60 days should be available for the comment deadline for the Project Report. 2. Any vote on this ordinance should not take place until fair and equal representation of the people has occurred with all council members elected by districts and sworn in next year. 3. Provide an Executive Summary of changes made from the current ordinances, as this document contains more than one ordinance. 4. Provide real modeling examples of the type of buildings that this will allow in the zone changes, including most extreme to least extreme density, height, etc.. The public has asked for this numerous times, the meeting record shows the city saying they are working on this, and still nothing has been presented. 5. Pause and reconsider the turmoil this is causing for Boise citizens. A phased implementation would be a much more palatable approach. I am not a robot

December 14, 2022

TO: Planning & Development Services

FOR: Public Comments For Draft Module 3 – Zoning Code Rewrite

FROM: Boise Working Together Board of Directors – Dave Kangas, Estee Lafrenz, Fred Fritchman, Gloria Myhre, Chris Runyon, Erika Schofield, Katie Fite, Richard Llewellyn, Ed McLuskie, Katy Decker The following comments are to clarify and improve sub–sections one and three in Section 11–01 in order for an average person to be able to easily understand the full scope and intent of this chapter. Section 11–01–01(1). Title Chapter 11 contains more than the Local Land Use Planning Act (I.C. 67–65), as it contains provisions from other sections of Idaho law, as shown in Section 11–01–01(2) for Authority. Giving this chapter the title name of “Boise Zoning Code” does not accurately reflect the other provisions of law that are included in this chapter, nor does this title reflect the separate ordinances within the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) that are not required to be part of a zoning ordinance; development agreement (I.C. § 67–6511A), subdivision ordinance (I.C. § 67–6513), and hearing examiner (I.C. § 67–6520). Requested Action: We respectfully request that this chapter be renamed, with the following suggested name or a similar name that accurately reflects all of the content in this chapter:

This Chapter 11–01 shall be known as the “Boise Unified Land and Zoning Code” and is referred to in this chapter as the “Code.” (add ordinance number and date)

Section 11–01–01(2). Authority The Idaho Constitution contains a broad, self-executing grant of police power to municipalities, which is to an extent a grant of constitutional home rule powers. We respectfully request that this constitutional principle be included in this chapter, as has been done by other Idaho cities in their code (see attached examples). In addition, there are other provisions of Idaho law that are part of this chapter but are not listed in the Authority section. Requested Action: We respectfully request each of the laws below be included with the suggested text of:

This chapter is adopted pursuant to authority granted by Article 12, Section 2 of the Idaho Constitution; Title 50, Chapter 3 Municipal Corporations – Powers; Title 50, Chapter 2, sections 222–224 – Annexation; Title 50, Chapter 13 Plats and Vacations; Title 67, Chapter 46 Preservation of Historic Sites; and Title 67, Chapter 65 Local Land Use Planning. Requested Action: Please remove the specific reference to section 67–6520 in this section, which is for the hearing examiner. Although this is a new position being added to the procedures section, it is not necessary to highlight it here, as it is part of Title 67, Chapter 65.

Section 11–01–03. Purpose The current version of Chapter 11 has a single, brief paragraph to describe the Purpose. This has been insufficient in describing what is carried out in this chapter because it does not accurately reflect the content, which includes other Idaho laws for annexation, subdivision of land, and historic preservation. The proposed rewrite has expanded the Purpose statement with a list of seven (7) items but it remains inadequate against the full content of this chapter, and this becomes very apparent when comparing Boise to other Idaho city codes.

To create a complete Purpose statement that accurately represents all of the purposes of the LLUPA that are to be satisfied, and the other Idaho statutes contained in this chapter, we have researched and reviewed the codes from several neighboring cities (Meridian, Caldwell, and Nampa) as well as other Idaho cities (Pocatello and Twin Falls). Each of these other codes use plain language that covers the full spectrum of the LLUPA and the other laws they are addressing so that an average person can easily understand what is to be carried out in the code.

We have carefully considered these other codes in crafting broad purpose statements for each of the purposes in the LLUPA and in relation to the other relevant laws, and have cross–checked these statements with the content in Chapter 11. For the seven (7) items in this draft, we have proposed revisions to some of the wording and in certain cases, separated out the content to make it easier to comprehend. We have also added statements to make certain the full content in this chapter and the laws that support it are clearly represented, and the importance of property rights in relation to zoning is given its rightful emphasis.

Requested Action: We respectfully request that each of the purpose statements shown in the far right column of the following table be included in Section 11-01–03.

The Purpose for Chapter 11 as shown in the current Boise City Code To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents, and to bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents. Proposed Purpose List In Module 3

1. Promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents.

PUBLIC COMMENT: “Present” and “future” are unnecessary words. 2. Bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents.

LLUPA Purposes & Other Laws

Complete Purpose List

§ 67–6502. The purpose of this act shall be to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state of Idaho as follows:

Preserve and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.

(a)To protect property rights while making accommodations for other necessary types of development such as low-cost housing and mobile home parks.

NEED TO ADD Protect property rights and ensure the most appropriate use of land to protect property value.

(b) To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to

Provide a process for annexation and for regulating the subdivision of land to ensure orderly growth and

PUBLIC COMMENT: Too many subjects in this single statement by mixing annex law with economic promotion, and housing law; needs to be separated for clarity.

Need to address issue of protect property rights and values, which includes the use and quiet enjoyment of land and the economic benefit/prosperity it can provide — quiet enjoyment is specifically stated in the Variance section.

3. Preserve and enhance natural resources, promote the use of environmentally–friendly development practices, and promote energy conservation and alternative energy production. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sustainable and renewable purposes are not prohibited in the LLUPA, and can be included via Idaho Constitution A12, S2. 4. Protect the character of stable residential, institutional, business, employment, and natural areas. PUBLIC COMMENT: The word “stable” is not defined, and is subjective and vague.

Protect character is a direct connection to protecting property value through compatible/suitable uses by classify and regulate with zoning, and by harmonious development (mass, density, etc.) — harmonious is stated in the Design Review duties. 5. Promote an integrated approach to land use and transportation planning to provide a safe and efficient transportation system for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicles.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Wording is weak and targets “the planning” of this topic, rather than the actual outcome.

the people at reasonable cost.

(f) To encourage urban and urban-type development within incorporated cities. (l) To allow local school districts to participate in the community planning and development process so as to address public school needs and impacts on an ongoing basis.

Annex. Law § 50–222 to 224 Can annex lands… to assure the orderly development of Idaho's cities in order to allow efficient and economically viable provision of tax-supported and fee- supported municipal services…

Plats & Vacations Law § 50–13 Addresses order and coordination with subdivision, easements, etc. (d) To ensure that the important environmental features of the state and localities are protected. (j) To protect fish, wildlife and recreation resources.

LLUPA § 67–6511 and § 67–6518 for adopt standards.

67–6511 / The zoning districts shall be in accordance with the policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan. This is noted in Blueprint Boise on p. 1–5 for Relationship to the Boise City Zoning Ordinance. 67–6535/ Requires the decision to be based on standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the city or county. LLUPA § 67–6518 adopt standards for streets, bicycleways, pedestrian walkways, etc.

development.

Provide coordinated and efficient development to ensure adequate public facilities and services are available and provided at reasonable cost. NEED TO ADD Allow local public school districts to participate in planning and development to address ongoing school needs and impacts.

Ensure a strong economy through growth and development that supports a full range of economic opportunities. Support housing affordability, accommodate the federal Fair Housing Act, and create diverse, inclusive neighborhoods with a variety of housing choices for residents.

Support environmental protection and resilience through the use of sustainable development practices, alternative energy production, and water and energy conservation. Protect and enhance natural and recreation resources, environmental features, and fish and wildlife.

Protect the character of all existing and planned neighborhoods, districts, and areas through compatible development. NEED TO ADD Establish zoning districts by classifying and regulating the location and use of property and structures in accordance with the policies in the adopted comprehensive plan.

Provide standards to regulate orderly growth and development, reduce adverse impacts, and ensure the harmonious development thereof. Promote integration of land use with transportation planning to provide a safe and efficient infrastructure system, which supports a variety of modes of transportation for all abilities.

Does not address ADA issues and confuses person/activity (pedestrians) with objects (bicycles and vehicles). 6. Emphasize the importance of high– quality urban design in the built environment. PUBLIC COMMENT: “Emphasizing the importance” does not reinforce the commentary regarding mandating some of the Design Standards stated at top of p. 198. 7. Protect the City’s historic resources and support the development of public spaces that promote community gatherings and cultural events.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Historic preservation needs its own statement.

The comprehensive plan (Blueprint Boise) should be represented in an allencompassing statement, rather than a specific emphasis on one element in this plan.

Additional purposes of the LLUPA that are part of Chapter 11 and need to be specified.

LLUPA § 67–6518 adopt standards for building design, yards, lighting, etc.

Emphasize and ensure high–quality design in the built environment.

Historic relates to LLUPA purpose (d) about protect environmental features.

Promote historic preservation in the public interest.

Historic Preservation § 67-4601 . . . the historical, archeological, architectural and cultural heritage of the state is among the most important environmental assets of the state and hereby declared to be the public policy and in the public interest to engage in a comprehensive program of historic preservation, undertaken at all levels of the government. 67–6507 / The PZC is to implement the comprehensive plan.

(e) To encourage the protection of prime agricultural, forestry and mining lands and land uses for production of food, fiber and minerals, as well as the economic benefits they provide to the community. -----------------------------(g) To avoid undue concentration of population and overcrowding of land.

(k) To avoid undue water and air pollution. -------------------------------(h) To ensure that the development on land is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land. (i) To protect life and property in areas subject to natural hazards and disasters.

Implement the adopted comprehensive plan and protect the plan against departures.

NEED TO ADD Encourage local agriculture to help meet environmental protection goals and provide economic benefits for the community. ------------------------------Avoid undue concentration of population, the overcrowding of land, and undue water and air pollution.

-----------------------------------Ensure that the development on land is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land, and protect life and property in areas subject to natural hazards and disasters.

One other LLUPA purpose (m) To protect public airports as essential community facilities that provide safe transportation alternatives and contribute to the economy of the state. - this purpose is covered in the “Other Laws” section on page 4.

MERIDIAN, IDAHO — SUBDIVISION & ZONING COMBINED

CALDWELL, IDAHO — ZONING ORDINANCE

CALDWELL, IDAHO — SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE

NAMPA, IDAHO — SUBDIVISIONS

NAMPA, IDAHO — COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE

POCATELLO, IDAHO — ZONING ORDINANCE

POCATELLO, IDAHO — SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ORDINANCE

TWIN FALLS, IDAHO — SUBDIVISION & ZONING COMBINED

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:29 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name David Scott Email ddlscott@aol.com Address Boise, Idaho 83716 Comment I am requesting that the city increase the time to review the zoning plan. Three weeks is not enough time. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:34 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Scott Email scottenlow76@gmail.com Address 83705 Comment Please extend the time for public comment and review of the new Zoning proposal. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 10, 2023 8:34 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Bonnie Email scudder.bonnie@gmail.com Address 266 S Mobley Ln Comment Please say no to upzoning. Accommodate new housing by reutilizing buildings that have sat empty for years. Explore buildings in strip malls that are vacant. Developing housing in these spaces would be equivalent to multilevel apartment buildings with retail space below. Horizontally instead of vertically. I am thinking of the old KMart store next to Albertsons on Park Center Blvd. Seems like that building has been mostly vacant since Gordman's left in 2017. Please don’t allow development to crowd out our existing neighborhoods. Please preserve our neighborhoods. Thank you, Bonnie Scudder I am not a robot

March 8, 2023 Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council 150 North Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Mayor McLean and City Council Members, The Board of the SouthEast Neighborhood Association (SENA) has voted to request that any city council vote on final adoption of the new Boise zoning code, known familiarly as the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR), not be made until council elections by geographic district occur this November and a new city council is seated in January 2024. Debate on this subject was spirited at our February meeting, but by a vote of ten to four, the board said that only a council fully elected geographically can make a decision that truly reflects the interests of all Boiseans on a matter of such far-reaching significance to our city and its various neighborhoods. The schedule for approval of the ZCR shows it coming before council in June. At that time, of our six city council members, two—fully one third—will have been appointed by the mayor rather than elected by the voters of their districts. The ZCR as currently drafted treats certain neighborhoods of the city differently than others based on their locations. SENA believes that those citizens whose properties will be impacted permanently—and often dramatically—by the proposed zoning changes deserve direct geographic representation before decisions affecting their homes, livelihoods, and happiness are made. Our city is in a state of transition, not only through growth but in governance. While council representation by district was popular with some and opposed by others, it is now state law. This November will mark the first time some citizens of Boise will be able to elect a council member specifically representing their area and its issues. Only through geographic representation can we know if the ZCR truly reflects the will of the people of Boise. Therefore, we urge you to ensure voters have the representation they deserve before you make a decision affecting them and our city for decades to come. Sincerely, Mark French, President SouthEast Neighborhood Association

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:40 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Judy Shannon Email judeshannon@gmail.com Address 101 N 10th St, #206, Boise, ID 83702 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I have personally had a very bad experience due to a failure of the coding zone to notify neighbors regarding development in the neighborhood. I live in a condo overlooking an alley downtown. Three trees were removed from the across the alley and replaced by an incredibly ugly and noisy giant generator. This is the view from my living room now. I had no chance to object . Please allow additional time for public input. Thank you, Judy Shannon If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 6:58 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Tim Shaub Email timshaub@gmail.com Address 205 N Hillview Drive Comment Our family is totally opposed to the UpZone code! It will destroy neighborhoods and have too high of density for our beautiful city of Boise. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:16 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jackie Shellworth Email shellworth1@msn.com Address Boise, Id 83702 Comment I definitely need more information on how this plan will effect the North End. Please give more time and information for the regular residents who work and live here. The North End is now burgeoning with development and the increase in numbers of people are adding various problems and stresses to our our living environment. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:04 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jackie Shellworth Email shellworth1@msn.com Address 1814 Edgecliff Boise, Id 83702 Comment The community has not had a chance to hear and understand your plans. How can we comment when all the details have not been provided. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dave Shurtleff <dsboise@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:48 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zononginfo@cityofboise.org; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Rewrite

March 22, 2023 Dear Mayor, City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission I recognize the difficulty of the task of preserving inviolate the very livable characteristics of a growing city like Boise. Apparently the proposed rewrite protects to some degree the R‐1, Historic and special overlay districts (like the Sycamore overlay neighborhood) from smaller lots, higher density and four story apartments next to single family houses. Those who can't afford those districts and choose to live in single family and duplex areas such as south of State Street, Northwest, South Boise, the bench, etc.which are still "close in" could see their neighborhoods destroyed by the rules of this code rewrite. The changes proposed for the sake of density have the potential of making Boise like other cities with their problems of crime and displacement (Portland and Seattle examples come to mind). These we must guard against by protecting what we are and what we have as a city. The massive 611 page Zoning Code rewrite has the appearance of completely destroying the character that makes Boise such a beautiful, friendly place to live. Given the short timeline I, like most, have not had time for a detailed review of this massive document. Given that federal guidelines call for 180 days of public review and comment for rule changes of such enormous impact, I respectfully request 180 days for review be granted. Thank you for your consideration, David Shurtleff 2609 North 36 Street Boise, Idaho. 83703

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 10:24 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name adelia simplot Email adeliasimplot@hotmail.com Address 1119 E. Warm Springs Avenue Comment Boise has always been known for its family homes. Stop this unnecessary destruction of neighborhoods. and go back to keeping Boise safe and clean. Adelia Simplot I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Carole Skinner Email carole.skinner@gmail.com Address 353 S. Haines St. Comment I feel that Boise residents have not had enough time to scrutinize the proposed zoning changes, please pause. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Bonnie Smith <rbasmith@aol.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:20 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

March 21, 2023

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Bonnie Smith rbasmith@aol.com

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Deanna Smith <ctdesmithsmith@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:53 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite public comments

To the Planning and Zoning Commission, As you will or may have heard from a number of other city residents my comments I send today will be brief and without much detail as two weeks is an inadequate amount of time to prepare detailed, thoughtful comments. I do want to voice my general support for the effort this code rewrite makes towards growing a smarter, denser city however I feel this code could and should go further, especially in terms of compatibility through form with existing places, particularly those with historic values. I also would like to see the various incentives for affordable and sustainable housing as well an other structures be strengthened by: ‐ even greater energy efficiency through discouraging large homes ‐ anything over 2500 sq ft should be burdened with addtiional sustainable energy practices ‐ not allowing the removal of trees ‐ not allowing demolition of existing structures but rather remodeling and repurposing all structures unless truly unviable from an engineering perspective. It is possible for development to be successful and sustainable. And it is time Boise realize that those who will say they cannot “afford to do _______,” really just don’t know how to build differently. If we want to make Boise sustainable and resilient we no longer can afford to take baby steps. There are developers that can and will build smaller, highly efficient structures that are more affordable. We simply need to create a code that invites those willing to be creative and take on the challenge to build Boise’s future. I will provide more specifics in testimony at the hearing as by then I will have had enough time to identify where’s specifically in the code these opportunities lay. Thanks for your service to our City. Deanna Smith

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 12:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name John C Socia Email johnsocia@gmail.com Address 1092 VINE ST Comment This zoning proposal leaves out the people it most affects those already living in the rezoned neighborhoods. Boise planning and zoning have not even followed the previous reports such as the 2007 State st corridor plan. This rezoning plan will make all of Boise look like 23rd and Stewart congested living, congested transportation routes, infrastructure overload on water and energy ending in a more polluted Treasure Valley. I stand firmly against these destructive new Zoning proposals, they can only lead to a reduced quality life, more crime and homelessness. Don't pass these zoning revisions think about the repercussions over the long term. I've been here long enough to remember when the mayor tried to destroy downtown Boise and build a mall. These zoning proposals are along those same epic failed ideas as a downtown. We've already been there once with Dick Eardley now stop the foolishness with these zoning proposals I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Shawn Socia <shawn.socia@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 1:59 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] extend the deadline

Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Shawn Socia

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:16 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Shawn Socia Email shawn.socia@gmail.com Address 1092 Vine St Comment I have seen huge apartment buildings being built in traditional neighborhoods that loom over pre‐existing holes, Shadowing yards and areas that make it impossible to garden...I mean grow food in your yard. They also limit privacy in ones own yard or home and are being built in areas that do not have the infrastructure to handle the influx of so many inhabitants. This destroys a neighborhood. I am all for smart growth, but that is not what I am seeing. Considering the very poor present state of public transportation in Boise, perhaps it would behoove us to upgrade that system so it is a viable form of transportation to get to work, shop, etc. Thats not happening now. Also, building close to the river is poor idea as it puts too much pressure on such a valuable and sensitive and increasingly endangered resource. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Helen Cheryl <hcspeegle@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:00 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning code rewrite

March 20,2023

To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 pageZoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. 1

Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Helen Speegle

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 9:32 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Patrick Spoutz Email PSPOUTZ@GMAIL.COM Address 753 W Sandstone Ct Comment City of Boise, On behalf of the group, "Neighbors for Boise," I want to voice our strong support for the zoning rewrite. This modern zoning code protects what is special about Boise while also allowing for the city to grow and change in thoughtful ways. We agree with the Mayor that Boise should be a place with a home for everyone. There are many specific features of the code that we are excited about. We are excited about the new mixed use zones. We believe that reducing the parking minimums for many projects will allow residents, property owners, and developers to better match the amount of parking needed. We think that the incentive structures will produce more deeply affordable, deed‐restricted, housing than we've had before. We strongly support the new document as written and look forward to the ways it will shape our city in the years to come. ‐Patrick Spoutz Neighbors for Boise I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 12:01 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Catherine Stanley Email coprfox@yahoo.com Address Nampa, Idaho 83687 Comment Having trouble writing your public comment? We have provided a template below to get you started: “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:26 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Angie Steele Email Angiem404@gmail.com Address 2901 N Norman Drive Comment I have major concerns with the new re‐write of the P&Z regulations. The lot coverage increase, reduced setbacks and height of buildings in historic districts. The proposed does not make it clear what will happen to historic properties that outside of a historic district. I do like that a design review council is added, I have long thought this is a huge missing piece of our planning. Sadly, Boise has suffered GREATLY from the wrecking ball. Large historic neighborhoods and amazing buildings are long gone. What we have left is a finite resource and is precious. This structures are enriching and help tie us to our forefathers. Truly any building built prior to 1970 should be considered a piece of Boise history and great thought should be given to any alterations. My other great concern is the lack of involvement from citizens in the process. I do want Boise to move forward with expansion, but we only have one shot to get this right. Please consider the above and please provide additional time to review this 600 page document. Our future is in your hands. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 1:37 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Stefanie Email TruthDuneSky@icloud.com Address 7083 W Stadium St Eagle Idaho 83616 Comment Boise needs more aesthetically pleasing architecture. It’s starting to get there but overall it’s been boring and unimpressive. And more sidewalks. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:58 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name John Stevens Email Jrstevens3@gmail.com Address 318 E. Highland View Dr., Comment I am in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite. It should aim to be an improvement on the outdated zoning code written more than 60 years ago when the automobile was at the center of American life. Please consider in the commercial portion of the new code, to somehow incorporate and allow for drive‐thru businesses. Many commercial businesses require drive‐thrus (especially post‐Covid), and there should be reasonable ways to allow for this in the new code. Thank you for being proactive in this zoning update. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

T Stewart <tlsgath@hotmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:19 PM Mayor McLean CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Todd Stewart P.S. Independent Boise Native. Sent from Mail for Windows

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:27 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Autumn Street Email autumnbeto@gmail.com Address 1415 W Fort Street Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. Historic districts are of particular concern to me as a proud resident of one of the very few historic areas in town, and I do not feel that the new code offers adequate protections for designated historic districts. I am asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. Your job as elected representatives is to REPRESENT the people you serve, not dictate your own beliefs, priorities, and vision for the future of our city. Thank you. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Matt Stubbs <mkstubbs@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:16 PM Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 &amp; CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I'm writing to express my concern about the proposed changes and rewrites to the Boise Zoning Code. The process of rewriting this code has occurred without widespread public input as a top‐down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes nor would they likely approve if they had time to review and consider the impact of what is being proposed. Moreover, the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which is an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home, will not help to achieve the desired result. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021) while “affordability” incentives in Boise's largest zone (R1‐C) only provide a small number of homes for those making 120% AMI (Area Median Income). By increasing density allowances, the new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it. The result will be gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market‐rate or above‐market‐rate multi‐units. Reducing the minimum lot size in R‐2 and R‐1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High‐density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty‐year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Frankly, I do not want to see any of the proposed changes go into effect, but regardless, residents must be given more time to understand what is being proposed.

Please reject this new proposal or at a minimum give citizens the opportunity to understand what is being proposed and to make their voices heard. Sincerely, Matt Stubbs

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Rita Sturiale <collector_girl@hotmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:14 PM ZoningRewrite [External] New zoning code ordinance

Please, please, please give more time for the public to understand the final draft of the Zoning Code before it is sent for approval to Planning & Zoning and then to the City Council. We mustn't allow the existing neighborhood atmosphere, which we all cherish and love to be permanently changed and damaged by encouraging and allowing multi units in a single family home area. What are you thinking?? Look around at other cities and it doesn't take long to see the big disadvantage of packing in more and more people per square mile. The denser the population, the more crime, more trash, more conflict. Please remember why so many people like Boise and realize it’s a standard worth keeping. Rita Sturiale

Sent from Mail for Windows

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:11 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Rita Sturiale Email collector_girl@hotmail.com Address 621 N 18th St Comment Please, please, please give more time for the public to understand the final draft of the Zoning Code before it is sent for approval to Planning & Zoning and then to the City Council. We mustn't allow the existing neighborhood atmosphere, which we all cherish and love to be permanently changed and damaged by encouraging and allowing multi units in a single family home area. What are you thinking?? Look around at other cities and it doesn't take long to see the big disadvantage of packing in more and more people per square mile. The denser the population, the more crime, more trash, more conflict. Please remember why so many people like Boise and realize it’s a standard worth keeping! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:54 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Vicki Sullivan Email vicktee@gmail.com Address 3601 S. Shortleaf Ave Boise ID 83716 Comment I am not in favor of the proposed zoning changes. It is too large in scope and seems as though it is being rushed through before there is ample time for the public to understand the scope of the changes. It appears that our historic and traditional neighborhoods could be at risk. There are zoning changes that will encourage demolition of current homes in order to subdivide the lots and/or build multiple units on that same lot. Some of these changes WILL NOT require any notification to current residents nearby and, depending on lot size or the purchase of multiple lots, could result in up to 12‐unit buildings being built in residential neighborhoods next door to single‐story, single‐family homes. Yes, there has been a huge influx of people moving to Boise and there is a need for affordable housing. I think the growth will continue but at a slower pace. It's very important to grow and develop a beautiful city for all to enjoy , let's slow down this poorly developed zoning change and consider zoning changes as requested by the residents of the City of Boise instead of allowing developers to ravage our beautiful city. Sincerely, Vicki Sullivan I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

tsull61342@aol.com Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:38 AM ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend.. Nonetheless, that is all the time they well have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, T. J. Sullivan M.D.

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Dan Sutton <dsutton704@gmail.com> Sunday, March 19, 2023 12:58 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 5:46 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Ann Swanson Email swansonalc@gmail.com Address 7111 McMullen St., Boise, ID 83709 Comment Historic neighborhoods and their crazy inconsistencies add character and a unique spirit to every city. To force them into a modern mold kills the essence and unique signature of a city. Please preserve our historic neighborhoods as they are with their quirky scale, set‐back and materials. We already have enough in‐fill and dense housing. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Jennifer Szwec <JenniferMiller99@hotmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:03 AM CityCouncil [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Reject 3.22.23.docx

To whom it may concern, Please see my attached letter. Thanks, Jennifer Szwec

March 22, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen, Jennifer Szwec of Ada County, Boise, Idaho

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:57 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Diane Lori Talboy Email loritalboy@gmail.com Address 1414 East Warm Springs Avenue 83712 Comment Dear Mayor, I have recently heard that the City of Boise is planning to re‐ write zoning codes. I ask that you increase the timeframe for review from three weeks to 180 days. You must allow the residents of this beautiful city an opportunity to voice their concerns, and give input. Please do not send this draft to Planning and Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion from the very people it will impact. Kind regards, Lori Talboy I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:40 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Joan Tandrow Email jotanmail@yahoo.com Address Boise, ID 83713 Comment Dear Mayor McLean and Boise City Council, we've lived in Boise for 17 years, and "so far so good," but we're worried about the lovely historic homes disappearing without a long enough timeframe for info to be publicized. Please, slow down the process so that everyone affected will understand the outcomes! Yes, growth is good, but it needs to be designed so that we all see good things happening, not a rush to high density that negatively affects all Boise citizens. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 6:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name LYNN M THAYER Email lynnth@msn.com Address 13398 W Fig St Comment Regarding zoning changes....please proceed carefully, allowing more public input. I'm particularly concerned about 'automatic' approvals to remove existing buildings without public hearing. And I think there should notification of neighbors about new builiding permits issued in close proximity to current neighbors that have significant impact on those in close proximity. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

david thelen <awedjazz@pacbell.net> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:40 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; tkeake@cityofboise.org; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org

March 20, 2023 Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: Please note: Our personal experience of betrayal in this hastily rushed rezoning process is noted in the last paragraph of this email. The city should not treat disabled, fixed income, elderly citizens in the way you are attempting to do to us. Letting an administrator act without meaningful input at the time of a propsal to develop and require a zoning change then, denies us the right to protect our neighborhoods. Your proposed massive rezoning effort is aimed at the elderly people in established neighborhoods. Why pick on the elderly and, in my case, the disabled like this? Your proposed rezoning is not needed and denies existing citizens’ rights to have input while denying them the right to select the stable neighborhood they chose to live in. The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released 1

in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Furthermore, we recently bought a home here in Boise. As part of our due diligence before buying I called the City Planning Department and asked if there was anything that is pending or contemplated about changing the property status, including things that would affect the value of the property in terms of development, assessments or anything else. The planner told me words to the effect that nothing was pending or contemplated. I just recently found out that this rushed, massive zoning changes was part of planning in the city since 2019. I feel lied too and deliberately misled. As a disabled elderly person on a fixed income, it is not right to do this to us. We need a voice in potential changes to our neighborhood whereas you are reducing that for no good reason. Sincerely, David And Jocelyn Thelen Sent from my iPad

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:39 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Paige Thomas Email tuffentiny@gmail.com Address Boise Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for the review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe of closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made to protect Boise's citizens. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then to City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

christine thomas <bonitacreativespace@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 6:01 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite; Timothy Keane [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611‐page Zoning Code Rewrite, which is an almost complete replacement of the laws that for the last half‐century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline ‐ the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. The City only released its final version of the Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023. of 2022. The document does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens like ourselves that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. This Zoning Rewrite seems to qualify for that. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes ‐ rules that range from new allowances for alcohol‐serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, to tall apartment buildings next to single‐ family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Neighbors being informed, and welcomed into a conversation with developers, both parties communicating, and or compromising regarding the changes that directly affect the homes in the project area are essential. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23. it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Christine & Jeffrey Thomas Boise, ID

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:37 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Sarah Thompson Email sarahlynnt@hotmail.com Address Boise, Id 83705 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed Zoning Code update, which spans 611 pages. The proposed code contains many elements that are of great concern to me, including the removal of notification for neighbors regarding many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. While growth is undoubtedly good for Boise, poorly designed growth will have negative impacts on citizens, and we deserve better. We urge you to reconsider the proposed document's current timeline, set at just three weeks. Instead, we suggest increasing the timeframe to the Federally suggested timeframe of closer to 180 days. This extended period will allow for further discussion and modifications that will protect the citizens of Boise. Please do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then to the City Council without further discussion. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 4:44 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Marshall Thompson Email marshall.thompson@veolia.com Address Boise, ID 83709 Comment Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, City Staff, and Elected Officials, Thank you for giving Veolia Water Idaho the opportunity to review and comment on the soon‐to‐be‐finalized planning and zoning update. We are filing this letter to have our input included in the staff report to the Planning and Zoning Commission. We plan to send additional information before April 20 after taking more time to digest the many implications this rewrite might have. I can say wholeheartedly, we support the city’s initiatives to promote water conservation, a core value shared by Veolia and its employees. We have many unanswered questions on the modern zoning code’s section 11‐04‐010 Assured Water Supply. While Veolia is the state's largest drinking water utility, we are not the only provider operating within Boise’s city limits. Safe drinking water is provided to the community from a variety of systems and developments of all sizes. Any of these operations could meet requirements to be a “designated water provider” under the city’s new planning and zoning definition. We are also curious as to how section 11‐04‐010 would be administered and enforced, and how that overlaps with the authority of Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and other established state agencies. The proposed ordinance raises concerns regarding Idaho Code section 42‐201(7) which delegates exclusive authority over the appropriation of the public surface and ground waters of the state to the Idaho Department of Water Resources. It states that “no other agency, department, county, city, municipal corporation or other instrumentality or political subdivision of the state shall enact any rule or ordinance or take any other action to prohibit, restrict or regulate the appropriation of the public surface or ground waters of the state, and any such action shall be null and void.” Our customers must come first as we evaluate the proposed changes to code. It is imperative that any potential conflicts of interest in regulatory authority and increases to service costs are settled before any new rules have the potential to adversely affect Treasure Valley residents. We look forward to working with you to address these outstanding questions. 1

Sincerely, Marshall Thompson V.P. & General Manager Veolia Water Idaho If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/87a4735a‐7839‐4405‐b362‐ 84fa27eaeb82/veoliacomments.pdf I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

tracythompson.idaho@gmail.com Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:51 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Boise Zoning Code

To whom it may concern, I believe this is a very important issue and requires a deeper look. Remember the decisions of today impact tomorrow, and should be well thought out for a posi ve future.

Tracy Thompson | Associate Broker Windermere Powerhouse Group 208‐867‐3595 | tracythompson@windermere.com tracyt.withwre.com

Help prevent wire fraud. It’s critical that you call your escrow team prior to wiring funds to verbally confirm wire instructions. This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it by unauthorized persons, is strictly prohibited.

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Mary Toews <mestoews@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 3:57 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Up-Zoning

Dear City Council and Mayor, I am totally opposed to the upzoning proposal that will be reviewed this week. There has not been enough time for the public to respond to the issues it represents. Please extend the timeline for comment by at least 90 days. Sincerely, Mary Toews 208-866-4478

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Mary Toews <mestoews@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 3:51 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External]

TODAY’S DATE To: Zoning code Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely,

Mary Toews 208-866-4478

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Rick Toews <arlovinski@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:57 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

The City of Boise has drafted a ‘rewrite of the zoning code’ citywide, and have allowed citizen’s very little time for its review. In the opposition’s view, the proposed draft promotes higher density which severely reverses the decades long commitment to its neighborhoods, removes affordable housing, allows existing homes to be demolished, leading to taller, denser construction even in designated historic zones, allows intrusive and incompatible uses, such as apartment buildings, and generally increases investor activity. Many rightfully believe the drafted proposal is entirely unfair to the cities public. The residents voices, as a whole, have been left out. Do you think the city has the right to make big changes to the neighborhood in which you live, without your knowledge or input? I don’t think it should. Allow public comments! Allow a larger review window for public review! Thank You, East Ender Rick Toews Sent from my iPad

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 2:25 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Tony Torres Email cyricvt@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83705 Comment It is very important that the zoning code update passes. Boise needs more housing to keep up with the demand and to increase affordability. This zoning code rewrite proposal does a great job of providing that while also incorporating the concerns of opponents. In addition, improving access for bike/ped and public transportation users is an important goal and this plan helps to achieve that by improving the ability of all Boiseans to get around the city. With the housing shortage, affordability crisis, climate change, and traffic issues all facing our city, Boise needs to pass a new zoning code that prepares us for the future we are facing and doesn't keep us stuck in the 1960s when this city, this state, this country, and this world were far different places. I urge you to pass this zoning code ordinance so that we can begin addressing these very real problems that our city faces. It is essential to do so if we really do want to be and to create a city for everyone and not just those who already have housing because they were lucky enough to buy it when prices were lower. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:58 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Annabelle Travis Email annabelle11_3@yahoo.com Address 1068 E. Greenwood Circle, Boise,ID 83706 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ Sincerely, Annabelle Travis If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:19 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Suzanne M Troje Email cybersuze@gmail.com Address 1408 N. 15th Street Comment To Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning Committee, and City Staff: I am extremely concerned with the lack of transparency and accountability inherent in the development and publication of the "Final Adoption Draft" of the plan to upzone Boise. I am not a professional planner or developer but as an interested and concerned Boise citizen I have been following the development of the new Zoning Code (ZOA23‐0001). I have participated in discussions and provided written comments. To date there has been little clarity with respect to the disposition of the public comments received and whether and how they have been incorporated in the "Adoption Draft" which has only recently been issued with comments due by March 22. I have not seen any summaries on the City's website. My letter to Director Keane requesting any such summaries, should they exist, be made available to assist the public in formulating a reaction to the current draft has gone unanswered. This type of assistance from the government would be useful for the citizens of Boise and provide some accountability for the disposition of comments already received, and could spare staff from hearing a repeat of comments and concerns if they have already been addressed. The assumption that the City can determine the type and number of houses Boise needs is deeply flawed, lacks context and the consideration of necessary infrastructure. More discussion is needed, and more needs to be done to assist Boiseans who already invested in the community and/or are, or will be, falling through its cracks. Please do not adopt this Code without further discussion and accountability. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Teresa Troy <teresatroy24@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:12 PM ZoningRewrite [External] zoning code ordinance (ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001)

To whom it may concern, I am writing in regard to the proposed Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. I am a 65 year old woman who was raised in the North End of Boise. I moved to Seattle when I was in my 20's but moved back to Boise to raise a family and my children and grandchildren also reside here. One reason I love this town is because it has personality and character and our residents have pride in their neighborhoods. This is what sets us apart from most other large cities. I don't want to see 3 story apartments in a neighborhood with homes for individual families. I feel that airbnb's hurt established neighborhoods and first time home buyers. I am so disappointed that (I am guessing because of the money to be made by developers and investors) this zoning ordinance is being rushed before Boiseans have an opportunity to give input. I understand this code will circumvent the normal planning and zoning process. I believe the final decision should not be made until we have an opportunity to elect our City Council members by geographic district and a new Council has been seated. Sincerely, Teresa Troy 10127 W. Springdale Ct. Boise, ID 83704

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:43 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Peter W Van Dorne Email peterv@tpchousing.com Address 4106 N. Whitehead Street Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Kathy Velasquez Email kathy.velasquez@icloud.com Address 7129 W Snohomish St Comment “Hello. My family does not want any tall buildings in or near our neighborhood. We want to keep Boise neighborhoods quaint and safe. No tall buildings in our neighborhoods! Thank you” If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 15, 2023 2:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Julie Vick Email vickjules@gmail.com Address 4748 Willow Lane Comment As it relates to the new planning and zoning codes, I object to eliminating public hearings as part of the approval process for development in our neighborhoods. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:26 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Grant Walden Email Grantwalden@hotmail.com Address 3310 N MOUNTAIN VIEW DR Comment When people move to Idaho, The comment is Don't Change Idaho, Have Idaho Change you. This whole process is to change Idaho. What will happen to Neighhoods like Harrison Boulevard, Warm Sprinds, and Mountain View Drive? With your new codes try 3,500 sq foot lots, 25 foot. wide lots. Please Protect Neighhoods, Protect the people that have lived here for 15 , 20 or more years. This whole new code is to add more people to the city, NOT protect the present Citizens. Please reject this process. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 15, 2023 4:16 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jane Wallace Email janers.wallace@gmail.com Address 4512 W Kootenai St, Boise, ID 83705 Comment I can understand out a growing city needs more density. But I have 2 suggestions. First, require every project to include playground equipment for young children, to enable families to take kids out for some close and quick exercise. Second, please require some percentage of units to be condos or townhouses. Citizens need to be able to own homes and pay them off before retirement. Moving toward a renter economy puts future retiring seniors at risk. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:20 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Joan Wallace Email joanlesliewallace@gmail.com Address 4023 N Delmonte Dr, Boise, ID 83704 Comment I live in the West Bench neighborhood. I am concerned about the new zoning code ordinance and the impact it could have on neighborhoods that lack a historic designation. I think we need to slow down the approval of this change for a number of reasons. We need more time for review of this 600 page document. I have tried to find an expert on this document who could provide analysis and have been unable to do so. While I recognize the need to review and revise our outdated code, I believe we need to wait until after the election in November to ensure that all neighborhoods have a voice. I live in one of the city districts without a representative. There are several other districts in the same position. Most of our current city council members live in the north end and lack an in depth understanding of the issues we have in West Boise. Please allow the time necessary to ensure we end up with a plan that works for all of our neighborhoods. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 12:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Nancy Ward Email nancyward722@gmail.com Address 864 E HEARTHSTONE DR Comment Please reject the upzoning proposal for the city of Boise. If upzoning were to be implemented it would have a particularly detrimental effect on older neighborhoods. Congestion on the narrow north end streets is already an issue. Creating more density will only make the problem worse and affect those who currently own homes there. To create a situation in which multi‐story apartments can be constructed next to existing one or two story residences will severely impact property values. Reduction in the minimum lot size will further erode neighborhoods. Why has this recently become an issue? Why do we need to create this change? The upzoning concept has come from outside, not from those who live and own properties in the heart of Boise. For the sake of the character and soul of Boise, please DO NOT approve and implement upzoning. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Barbara <bawarfield@aol.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:43 PM Mayor McLean; citycounil@cityofboise.org; Timothy Keane; ZoningRewrite; zoninginfo [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

March 21, 2023

Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. Sincerely, YOUR NAME YOUR ADDRESS

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 10, 2023 12:06 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Christi Warhurst Email burstdesignsllc@gmail.com Address 3718 N Pepperwood Dr Comment Please do not move forward until after this years election. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 12:30 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Christi Warhurst Email burstdesignsllc@gmail.com Address 3718 N Pepperwood Dr Comment Dear Madam Mayor Council Members and Planning and Zoning Committee, I am against this new zoning re‐write. I have seen the Don’t Upzone Boise signs, and quit honestly, have not seen anything from the city of Boise regarding the proposed zoning re‐write. I’ve followed along for about 3 weeks now and the proposed zoning code changes is like 600 pages long. Also, we have two current Council members that stepped down and the Mayor is appointing two new ones. These appointed Councilmen will not be elected by the people. Also, current districts 2, 3 and 4 do not have representation since the new districting of Boise city. I live in a mid‐century modern neighborhood and this really concerns me regarding aesthetics of my neighborhood. This style is very trendy and many of my neighbors have gone all out with the theme. I cannot see, how a lot, in an established neighborhood could really think a midcentury modern home would look appealing next to a 20th century modern style home that are being built now. Not to mention, an investor or developer can buy a single family lot, knock down the house and then build a tri‐plex on it OR, buy two lots and knock those houses down and build a 12 unit building right next to an old style home. This is a really large scale feet and seems as though it is being rushed through before there is ample time for the public to understand the scope of the changes. Let alone before the Mayoral and Councilman election in November. It blows my mind that a small group of concerned citizens have gotten the word out better than the city. Are you getting the word out to EVERYONE or a select few that agrees with this? I think the growth will continue but at a slower pace. It's very important to grow and develop a beautiful city for ALL to enjoy, let's slow down this poorly developed zoning change and consider zoning changes as requested by the residents of the City of Boise. The natives of Boise should not be priced out or taxed out of their homes and witness their neighborhoods turn into a sea of infill homes and large apartments without any unique architectural style like I have been seeing lately. Sincerely, Christi Warhurst I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Norman Weinstein <nweinstein25@gmail.com> Sunday, March 19, 2023 5:13 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code

March 19, 2023

Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Norman Weinstein

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name William Weppner Email weppnerw@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83702 Comment I appreciate the fact that the City of Boise is updating the P&Z code with climate change in mind. As a primary care physician and health services researcher, I am concerned about the health harms of climate change on our community, and will continue to advocate or creative and purposeful solutions that help community health and individual health at the same time ("co‐benefits"). Access to safe paths for biking and walking to recreate and commute is a perfect example. In addition, seeking solutions that address drivers of climate change with impacts such as carbon capture through shade providing trees will be increasingly important as we grapple with longer and more deadly heatwaves. I would encourage consideration of safe gray water systems, water conservation measures and energy efficient design for new homes and buildings. Finally, applying a filter to make sure such projects don't widen existing gaps between people who have sociodemographic characteristics that put them at increased risk from climate change (e.g. extremes of age, lower SES status, residence in areas that have limited shade/access to safe paths/parks, neighborhoods adjacent to industry or transportation that puts them at risk) will also be important. If not already being used, consider using the Justice 40 GIS system (https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/#3/33.47/‐97.5) to better understand what communities might be at increased risk, better support appropriate apportionment of resources, and align this with federal efforts. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Bryan Wewers <bryanbronco@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:16 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 &amp; CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I am very concerned about the Zoning Code Rewrite being proposed. Without having much time to review all 611 pages of the proposed ZCR, I feel that this is being pushed through without adequate input and approval of your constituents. I am also concerned about the lack of public input that will be allowed if it is approved as proposed. Individuals have purchased property knowing the zoning designations surrounding them, and this ZCR will allow it to be changed without public hearings and public testimony. I also understand that this will expedite the approval process for developers and I question what assurances or benefits are we getting from developers in return. There are no assurances that their developments will be compatible to a neighborhood or for that matter affordable. Has there been any consideration of increasing the Development Impact Fee to offset some of the increased costs for development? When was the last time developers saw an increase in the Development Impact Fee? I was a member of the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee for the City of Boise several years ago and know what impact development have on our city's parks, fire and police. At that time development fees were well below the national average and Boise was considered a bargain. I hope fees have been increased to a more equitable level, but if not that is a consideration that should be considered with or without the impact of ZCR. Growth (development) should pay for itself and not on the back of existing citizens. I agree with the form letter comments provided below and respectfully request that you consider the publics input on this very important issue that can have a dramatic negative impact on our community and our trust in our elected officials. 1. The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. 2. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. 3. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the 1

week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Public input should be welcomed and considered in your decisions. Sincerely, Bryan Wewers bryanbronco@gmail.com 208‐861‐6143

WHITE-LEASURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

March 9, 2023 Mr. Tim Keane Planning Director City of Boise Via email to tkeane@cityofboise.org RE: City of Boise Zoning Code Rewrite version February 2023 Dear Tim, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me along with the other members of the ACHD Developer Advisory Committee on January 12, 2023. I appreciate the immense amount time and energy that you and your staff have committed to the Zoning Code Rewrite. This is quite the colossal task. I have had the opportunity during my career to develop mainly retail oriented projects throughout the communities in Idaho and throughout the northwest, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and California. From large greenfield, 30 acre shopping centers, down to single tenant infill developments. So, I have seen a wide variety of city codes, from simple and intuitive to complex, tedious and confusing. Having grown up here in Boise, it is exciting to see where this community can go while appreciating the progress from busted up downtown sidewalks and downtown railyard that were here when I was a kid. Knowing full well that you are getting input from every angle, I feel it is best to stay in my lane and focus mainly on the commercial/retail/mixed use area. I am concerned that the Zoning code rewrite has a bit of a one size fits all feel to it as it relates to the “MX” zoning conversion from our current “C” zones. My main concerns relate to parking, setbacks, mandatory multi-story buildings and drive throughs as seen through the eyes of a retail user; having dealt with many of them over the years. Reflecting on the struggles that we all faced during the pandemic, I believe we should take a bit of a pause on adding too many boxes to check in the rubric of how detailed the various specifics of site and building designs should be. I think we could simplify a lot of the requirements into guidelines and allow the architects, builders, and engineers to be creative with their site and building layouts. I believe the requirement of multistory development for new projects in MX zones is a serious mistake that will hamper growth in the near term. Allowing for higher density is great for the future of our city but it should not be a requirement in the here and now. The market will evolve to allow for more density in different areas and at different times. The rewrite should allow for this not mandate it. We simply don’t know what we don’t know about the future and allowing for development to occur to support future needs and demands should be at the root of this rewrite. One theme of the rewrite that I would like to comment on is the push for affordability. I don’t believe that anything in the rewrite will help affordability based upon the increase in requirements of sites and buildings, sidewalks, bicycle racks, windows and accompanying bird safety devices, etc. And not to mention the additional staff that the city will need to hire to keep up with applications, variations, and conditional uses. Please consider simplifying the code to allow for more autonomy for the public to develop and use their properties the way they see fit and minimize the amount of input needed from city staff. The following are my comments to specific portions of the rewrite, I decided to use two columns in order to fit the snipped portions of the code I am referring to for ease of reference.

If it is unlawful to be out of compliance with the code and there is no allowance for nuisances, who then decides what is attractive and public nuisance?

Not inconsistent seems like a double negative, may need to be looked at. This seems like the code could be undermined by bureaucratic policies being adopted without public debate or input.

Consider giving more time for compliance given the time and expense it takes formulating a concept and preparation to get to the submittal point and the time it takes to get through the permitting process.

Please remove all maximum setbacks this is very impractical for development. Look around at all the properties that this will be overlayed upon and see how many would be in compliance with a maximum 20’ setback, it is staggeringly low. Why are we trying to buck the way that properties have been developed since the beginning of time. Allowing for denser growth should be the goal but not inhibiting the current way in which properties are used today and in the near future.

This should be removed; it is a security risk placing parking behind the buildings where the parking can’t be seen by passing law enforcement or concerned citizen, as well as the inconvenience of not have the parking at the storefront which faces the street.

Please remove maximum setbacks this is very impractical for development. Look around at all the properties that this will be overlayed upon and see how many would be in compliance with a maximum 20’ setback, it is staggeringly low. Why are we trying to buck the way that properties have been developed since the beginning of time. Allowing for denser growth should be the goal but not inhibiting the current way in which properties are used today and in the near future.

Please remove maximum setbacks this is very impractical for development. Look around at all of the properties that this will be overlayed upon and see how many would be in compliance with a maximum 20’ setback, it is staggeringly low. That being said why are we trying to buck the way that properties have been developed since the beginning of time. Allowing for denser growth should be the goal but not inhibiting the current way in which properties are used today and in the near future.

Shouldn’t we be trying to simplify the code to allow for properties to be developed with less box checking by the planners? This seems like an over reach to try and figure out how to check all of the boxes when simply having properties connect pedestrians to right of ways should be the goal and let the owners figure out how to get there rather than wasting planners time checking all the fine details that try to apply

ideas in text to real world applications. 10” sidewalks seem to be a bit more than necessary and an undue expense for that much extra material.

This should be removed; it is a security risk placing parking behind the buildings where the parking can’t be seen by by passing law enforcement or concerned citizen, as well as the inconvenience of and also inconvenient to not have the parking at the storefront which faces the street.

Please remove this, allow for development as the owner sees fit to allow them to place the building where they want, with an entrance that fits their building. What if people inside the building don’t want their activities viewed? Allow for the desired density but make it available for transition from now until then.

I have seen the intermodal type zoning in other municipalities that are much more advanced in their density cycle and I understand the need for it but wonder if there is a less heavy handed way to go about this that allows for current development but reserves the ability into the future. I also think automotive uses make sense in these areas as the personal vehicle may be a part of overall solution, ie carpooling. Is this even legal to outlaw private property from competing with public property for parking? Screening parking is a security risk as people using the parking stalls at night cannot be seen by passing traffic that may be able to react if a crime is being committed.

It seems to me that given most of the intense commercial properties are being converted from C-2 to MX-3 most of the intensive vehicle uses should be allowed in MX-3. Considering EV charging is allowed everywhere I think we need to allow for the chance that people continue to drive internal combustion engines for a while into the future and allow for them to be refueled and repaired and the inevitable evolution of the service station.

Consider removing the hours of operation, or possibly a closing time if noise is the concern, or at a minimum, an earlier operating time of maybe 5am to allow the businesses to accommodate early customers.

Placing the drive through lanes and windows behind the building is very poor design and unsafe. It is far more efficient and safe to have the drive through aisle go around the building leaving parking and pedestrian traffic to the interior side of the building separating the two. Five feet in a planting strip does not seem like much but in infill sites every inch matters at times. The Drive through lanes generally have a curb around them so the safety concern should be minimized as an inattentive fast food goer would run up against the curb first. Below are two examples showing the difference between the two Chick-Fil-A’s on Broadway and on Franklin

Please remove the restrictions as they relate to residential use, residential zoning is fine but the use could overstep the entitlement of the commercial zoning and put undo burdens on the businesses.

These are very different parcels to begin with, one rather square the other a long rectangle. But we can see with the Broadway location that there is a conflict where the pedestrians walking from their parked cars have to walk through the drive through aisle. Additionally the drive through aisle conflicts with parking stalls and drive aisles at all times whereas the Franklin location would only see parking and drive aisle conflict only when extremely busy in the drive through and less than half of its stalls at those times. I don’t understand why the city is trying to discourage and limit drive through businesses from existing. Look at the number of restaurants that closed during the madness of the pandemic and then look at how many of those that closed had drive throughs. Very few drive through restaurants closed during this time and in fact, actually thrived due to the fact that dining rooms were forced to close. Restaurants with drive throughs employ more people as they do more business than standard restaurants. Many fast food restaurants are young people’s first jobs and teach hard work, scheduling, and accountability, why are we doing away with them? The City should not be allowed to limit the hours of operation! The businesses need to be open when the customer demand is there.

Please don’t limit the number of pumps, the business can make up its own business decision regarding the demand of the market, the dispensers are not cheap and will not be installed unless there is a market for it. Placing everything behind buildings is anit business; the pumps need to be seen from the public streets to indicate to the consumer that there is fuel for sale there. Besides the security and safety standpoint that a police officer driving by cannot see into the business to see if there is a crime being committed.

There should be no maximum building setback. Every site is unique and needs to be able to be developed to fit the needs and desires of the community, business, and owner.

and is substantially more expensive and does not take into account whether or not the specific market will support this type of development. This will also take away the opportunity to own and develop real estate for the vast majority of people given the complexity and cost. We will end up with only large conglomerats owning all of the commercial real estate in town. Also once again mandating no parking in the front of the building is overeaching for planning and should be removed.

I personally don’t care about gated communities but I believe this should be up to the market to determine if they want gates or not; considering elderly folks may want the extra sense of security.

I believe I understand this, all new developments and redevelopments in the MX zones are to have a multi story height requirement. Allowing for and encouraging multistory development is great but to require it is absolutely uneconomic. This should be drafted to allow or encourage future density but not jumping through hoops for variances to build single story buildings. This will actually stifle development as multistory development requires more land area

Regarding alley access for MX zoning this should not be applicable as alleys are far too narrow for two way traffic and would cause more congestion gettting in and out of the property. Regarding circular driveways, why is the city getting this deep into the weeds on people’s private properties. Assuming this is a residential application it generally shouldn’t matter if there are dual curb cuts on a residential street.

on neighboring parcels that get their parking poached due to the limited number of stalls. Office, Multi Family, and Retail all suffer from not being able to park and access the real estate. Allow the person investing in the building to decide what their future needs will be.

And to add insult to injury to the parking undersupply, 20% of the spaces need to go towards EV cars, which according to the Energy department (https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962) There were 3,500 EVs in June of 2022 in the entire state of Idaho. This is an overreach and should be removed altogether. 10% of the total project cost is a ridiculously high number as it relates to a project and has zero return for it. If the city wants to add some incentive for EV stations go ahead but there is no reason this should be a green subsidy forced onto a private land owner. The talk throughout the Code Rewrite about making things more affordable, this is far from it.

Parking maximums should be removed altogether, has anyone on staff interviewed any end user of retail and restaurant type users on their parking needs. The cap on dental clinic probably doesn’t even cover the number of employees. This is irresponsible to limit a businesses ability to serve customers because they have nowhere to park. This can also put undo burden

An additional 10% doesn’t even come close to helping the debacle that is being proposed.

The number of bicycle parking requirements are far overreaching to begin with, but, asking to accommodate cargo bikes and trailer bikes is an overeach.

Can this be limited and exempt up to a threshold so that IDWR, Veolia Water, and planners are not inundated with approval letters for every new project on undeveloped land?

I believe more thought should be put into the formula for calculating how much signage is allowed for larger shopping centers to allow for more area and more than 1 EMD if it’s a larger cetner. Also 20 seconds is much too long for multiple users on a site, it should be much shorter but not so short that it is distracting to vehicular transporters. Surely there is some science on this subject.

Things like this do not make anything more affordable, and has anyone talked to Idaho Power about how they feel about landscaping growing close to their transformers?

I think the distance from predominantly single family is very subjective and should be removed, if the property is zoned it needs to have a clear direction of entitlement of allowed use. I think the distance from predominantly single family is very subjective and should be removed, if the property is zoned it needs to have a clear direction of entitlement of allowed use. Here in the definitions of drive through facility it states the issue I previously talked about with the Chick-Fil-A aerials with having the parking and drive through aisle on the same side of the building, it is poor design and not safe. Remove the requirement to not have any paved surfaces on the frontage of MX lots.

Shouldn’t materials be stored in yards that are required?

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns for the future of Boise. I would enjoy the opportunity to get together again with you and your team to discuss possible solutions. Best regards,

Jason White Cc

Boise City Council (via email) Attn: Mayor Mclean lmclean@cityofboise.org Attn: Council Member Woodings hwoodings@cityofboise.org Attn: Council Member Bageant pbageant@cityofboise.org Attn: Council Member Hallyburton jhallyburton@cityofboise.org Attn: Council Member Willits lwillits@cityofboise.org

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 11:49 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jana Dea Wickham Email janaallan48@gmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83714 Comment If the City Council is going to re‐write the general plan, I vote that the City Council be disbanded and all zoning issues be submitted to the public for a vote. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 5:03 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Jeffrey Wilhelm Email jwilhelm@boisestate.edu Address 219 North Mobley Drive Comment I am writing in reference to applications ZOA23‐00001 and CPA23‐00001. I very much object to the very limited time given to the review of this project, particularly given the significant effects it will have on the complexion and livability of Boise. My understanding is that the time given to public comment and review has been greatly reduced in this case. The document is very long and difficult to read, and as an English professor, i must say that it is opaque and poorly written ‐ leading me to wonder if the writers do not want it to be understood. For example, The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R‐2 or R‐1C zones. It's distressing enough to live in the state of Idaho, where policies make war on our families and on diversity and where my own vote and voice counts for nothing in statewide elections. But Boise has also felt different to me . . . this ZCR, at least as I understand it in the very limited time given to me ‐ feels like it is being authoritatively imposed on me without any consideration for my concerns, values, hopes and commitments. I have grave concerns about intrusive uses, the rights of homeowners of modest means, the rights of the voters to be consulted and heard, and about who will benefit (developers?) and who will lose (those living in traditional neighborhoods). If this proposal is justifiable, then give it time to be discussed and justified. In Areopagitica, John Milton wrote that "truth was never bested by a bad argument, unless all arguments were not heard." Please do not shut down our democratic right to engage in dialogue about the issues that effect our everyday lives! I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 2:36 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Laura Williams Email lauraaprilwilliams@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83706 Comment I'm writing in general support of the zoning code changes. I don't have time to dig through the hundreds of pages of proposed new code changes, but I know that the experts who have prepared it are doing it in the best interests of the city. I support increasing mixed use neighborhood hubs and increasing density in the right places which will increase housing supply. These changes are what will continue to make Boise a great place to live. We need a diversity of housing types to support housing attainability, and increasing density in infill neighborhoods will allow more of our citizens to easily get around by walking or on bike/scooter/etc... without causing vehicle congestion. I would love to see more small coffee shops, restaurants, grocery bodegas, etc around our neighborhood hubs. Thank you for the work you have all done to bring us into the current century for zoning! I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:50 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Barbara Winston‐Powell Email natash1016@aol.com Address 1010 N 17th St. Comment Mayor McLean & City Councilors: I am concerned with the Zoning Code Rewrite for a plethora of reasons. It will cause serious issues throughout the neighborhoods of Boise. Citizens will not be notified of allowed usages, height limitation for new structures will be removed from duplex, triplex, & fourplexes, and lot coverage limiting the size will be removed from duplex, triplex, and fourplex allowing units over 4,000sq. ft. What will become of our lovely neighborhoods? I have seen first hand what up‐zoning has done in larger cities. Historic bungalows have been torn down to make room for massive, unattractive structures that overshadow the neighboring homes. These are a few of the reasons I do not support the up‐zoning code rewrite. It will be a sad day in Boise if this up‐zoning code is approved. The charm of Boise will be lost. While there is a need for more affordable housing, this is not the answer. It seems to favor developers and not homeowners and renters. Yes renters!! Will affordable apartments even be built? Will a larger percentage of apartments be set aside for affordable housing? Right now streets in established neighborhoods are crowded with cars. Boise does not have the infrastructure to support the new code. In the last five years there has been a huge uptick in traffic. The solution of biking and using the city bus does not work for every citizen. Established, older neighborhoods already have parking issues. Where are all of these people going to park? This up‐zone code rewrite will damage this lovely city. A vast number of Boiseans are not supportive of the code, another vast number of Boiseans have no idea about it! Before this code is decided on, City Hall must do more to share all 600 pages about the code. Explain how this rewrite will impact neighborhoods: the negatives ‐ traffic, noise, & the feeling of being squeezed, as well as the positives ‐ affordable homes for all. Boiseans need more time to read through the code, be included in more discussions, and have questions answered. Be transparent. Too much is at large to rush the code rewrite decision. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, B. W. Powell If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 5:01 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Dinu Mistry Wolf Email dgmw5@hotmail.com Address 825 E Warm Springs Ave Comment Please extend the deadline for consideration of the new recommendations. This large document contains changes that will impact Historic neighborhoods like the one I live in. I understand that we must allow for growth, but we must work together to grow in such a way that we do not destroy the very things that have made Boise the desirable city that it is. Please allow more time for citizen input so we can build a livable Boise. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 8:18 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Megan Wong Dock Email meganwongdock@gmail.com Address 701 Bacon Drive Comment Hello, I strongly oppose any upzoning and code changes that the city is trying to push forward. Our little single family neighborhoods are what make this city so appealing. It would be detrimental to the quality of life for those of us in these neighborhoods to have a giant 4 story building peering down in our yards. In addition to this the public needs more time to read the documents you have presented. A minimum of 60 days. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Laura Woodall <lauranwoodall@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:55 AM CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean [External] Reject Boise Upzoning

Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Laura Woodall 520 S Sierra Dr Boise ID 83705

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Sean Yingling Email syingling@gmail.com Address 1433 E Warm Springs Avenue, Boise, ID 83712 Comment The Warm Springs Historic District Association understands the need for updating City of Boise zoning policies. We believe that this must be done in a way that preserves our historic heritage and our grand neighborhood of Warm Springs. Among our unresolved concerns with the Boise Idaho Zoning Code Rewrite are the following: ‐ Reduced notification requirements for changes in our historic district ‐ High density construction that is inconsistent with historic building practices ‐ Increased demolition of existing homes that are part of our historic district Our board requests that an additional 60 days be made available for public review and comment on the latest version of this 600 page document. Please help address our concerns so that we can support this zoning policy update effort. Motion passed 9‐0 on 03/22/2023 by the The Warm Springs Historic District Association board Thank you, Sean Yingling, WSHDA President If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 8:19 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Michael S. Young Email youngtractorbeam@gmail.com Address 416 W. O'Farrell Street Comment 22 days is an inadequate period of time to review this over 600 page document. This whole process seems rushed and a lot like an agressive PR campaign. The public notification efforts in this whole process seem lacking and less than above board and transparent. The City of Boise makes a lot of PR type claims about the Zoning Code Rewrite with few specifics to back up their statements. They say the've been listening to Boiseans for "3 years" on the "City of Boise" zoning‐code‐rewrite website. Other than a 20 person committee that was formed to provide input, they give few details (like dates they met with citizens) about this process in which they created the code rewrite that they are now sending to Planning and Zoning for a hearing. Sending this full color promo PR flyer with our City Utility bill, also seems pretty manipulative. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 2:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Richard M Young Email bkrafchuk8@gmail.com Address 3321 W Tucker Rd, Boise, Id 83703 Comment The proposed new zoning code for Boise is flawed and unfair. Boise has much to recommend it and increasing density, allowing bigger, higher construction while not protecting historic districts will certainly make our city less desirable! The list of flaws in this code rewrite is lengthy and allowing a comment period of only 22 days for public comment is unconscionable for such an impactful and complicated document. What is the hurry?!! I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Jeff Young <jyoung@yesco.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:18 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Input on Sign Ordinance: ZOA23-00001, and CPA23-00001

Good afternoon, My name is Jeff Young. We own and operate Young Electric Sign Company (known as YESCO). We have recently celebrated our 100th year of being in business and we have been in Boise for many decades. We have served thousands of customers in Boise and want to issue our support for the input given to you by James Carpentier of the International Sign Association. Here are some points I'd like to make:       

Many of the small businesses and large businesses we support are struggling through this post Covid economy. Virtually all the businesses we know are struggling to obtain the necessary materials and goods to satisfy their customers Every business we talk to are having trouble finding qualified workers ‐ and have had to adjust services, products, and working hours. We are all very concerned about the potential of foreign conflict, and instability in the banking industry. We are all experiencing significant pressure with inflation. This is the worst possible time to apply more restrictions to the business community. We should be working to do whatever we can to support the local economy and HELP businesses, not HINDER them.

Additional thoughts: 

 

  

Most of the concerns people have about electronic signs relate to brightness. If you were to adopt the .3 footcandle rule, and not adopt the conflicting brightness rules using NITs, it would make this code significantly easier to enforce. Hundreds of communities have adopted the .3 footcandle approach. There is no reason at all to force hold times of 20 seconds. MANY if not MOST of the communities we serve allow full animation for on premise signs. Everyone in the country supports 8 seconds for billboards. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute has established rules for safe driving which emphasizes the safety threshold of TWO seconds. In other words, a driver shouldn't be looking away from the road for more than two seconds. Distracted driving is defined as a driver looking away from the road for more than two seconds. A federal study studied glance times at signs. While electronic signs had more views (got more attention) no glances in that study exceeded 2 seconds. It makes no sense to us and it will make no sense to virtually all our customers to restrict the number of electronic signs to one sign. Our customers invest in this technology, because it works ‐ and they need every tool to reach out and attract customers.

We look forward to spending more time in person discussing these important points, with hopes we can show our support for our economy and local businesses in Boise. Respectfully, Jeff Young 1

To help pr priv acy , M prev ented download from the In

Jeffrey S. Young 2401 South Foothill Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84109 801‐464‐4600 PHONE 801‐493‐7324 DIRECT #YESCO100

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Andrea Tuning Friday, March 10, 2023 2:33 PM ZoningRewrite; dszamzow@gmail.com FW: CSIM re Opposes Modern Zoning Code

Thank you for your comments, I am forwarding them onto the zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org email to be considered on the public record by our elected and appointed officials. If you have any future comments, please direct them to zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org. Thank you for your thoughts! From: Doug Zamzow <dszamzow@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 7:51 PM To: CommunityEngagement <CommunityEngagement@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Re: A modern zoning code for a resilient Boise I hate these zoning codes ‐ not good for long time residents. Get it together for US Boisiens! Not Happy Resident since 1951.

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

zarbdja@aol.com Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:47 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

March 21, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo @cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor McLean, City Council Members, and Planning and Zoning Commission: As a 42 year resident of this beautiful and unique "City of Trees," I finally feel enough frustration and angst to express concern to those of you in a decision making space about the Zone Code Rewrite Project. Please listen with your heart and ears to truly hear us... the public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which (as has been quickly explained to me) is an almost complete replacement of the codes that established Boise as a highly desirable place to live. I resent not having adequate time to peruse and comment thoughtfully on the code rewrite. I need more time to investigate and digest the impacts (large and small) contained within the document. Reportedly, only three weeks has been allowed by the City of Boise to submit comments that will used to inform the Project Report. As I understand it, the Project Report will contain staff analysis and be given to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In this incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative and ethically just that the public be able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens who have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. A timeline which feels as if it is limiting input (intentionally or unintentionally). Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – for example, rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for 1

tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. This is a daunting consideration. One that begs thoughtful consideration. Given the enormity of the decision ,and importance of the Project review document coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over a weekend. Under the current situation/timeline, that is all the time they will have for those public comments; ones that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline for public comment by no fewer than 90 days and preferably 180 days suggested by Federal guidelines. Sincerely, Dr. Julia A. Zarbnisky 3603 Mountain View Dr. Boise, ID 83704

My name is Gary Zimmerman and my family’s property is directly and negatively impacted by the proposed changes in the Zoning Code Rewrite. Below are my initial comments regarding the ZCR (ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001). When first hearing about the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) a couple of years ago, I was hopeful that it would be beneficial to our neighborhood, our neighbors and our property. I was also hopeful that the City’s efforts to explain the ZCR to its residents would clearly explain what has changed, what the potential negatives and positives are of those changes, and why each of those changes are being sought. But instead, the City crafted far reaching changes with significant negative impacts for numerous property owners, and then went on what effectively was just a marketing campaign to push those changes through. A marketing campaign complete with scripted sessions with little room for honest, meaningful dialog; ads in our trash bills; and emails from the mayor. And now using all of this “window dressing” to say there was great resident participation. Not true. When new drafts were released, there was never a published list of what changed and why it changed relative to the prior Zoning Code and the prior draft. In fact, the City explicitly said in one of the drafts that it wouldn’t provide “differences”. Without this it is completely impractical for residents to understand the changes in a new Zoning Code and an updated Comprehensive Plan. Instead of just a marketing campaign, the city should be transparent about key changes that are beneficial to city planners and developers, but that they knew would likely be quite controversial outside of that small group. The City knows that when properties are bought, that those buying them rely upon the zoning to guide them in their purchase. The debacle the ZCR is creating is obviously damaging the value my family places in our property and the neighborhood. At a minimum, the City should individually talk with property owners who they know (or should know) have a high potential for negative impact from the changes in the ZCR. Avoiding these types of honest and frank discussions only goes to support one of Clarion’s early findings which was that the City has a trust problem – and that the City’s actions are further eroding trust. The best way to handle this complex of a change is to have the citizens involved in a voting capacity. First to determine how a zoning code rewrite will be done, and then to get alignment and visibility on key changes (sort of like school district residents voting to spend more for their schools). Requested Actions: • Please work with the public to have the ZCR be by the people for the people. Do this by being more transparent, and by reaching out to those who would be most impacted (work with Neighborhood Associations to do this). • Hold city-wide votes over the procedure for the ZCR and for its key changes. • Consider ways to implement over time to adjust for issues and the unanticipated. With this ZCR, what we now have in front of us is a revised Zoning Code that: • Strips power from the City’s residents • Punishes numerous Boise residents twice: first by upzoning their property (and more importantly that of their neighbors), and then expands what is allowed in that new zone. • Has rules for areas of upzone, but implements them arbitrarily

Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023

Page 1

•

Incents overbuilding (and in fact the Planning Director once said regarding overbuilding, for example, along the State Street Corridor, that he thought it was a good thing).

11-01-03.4 of the latest draft has one of the purposes of the Zoning Code to be: “Protect the character of residential, institutional, business, employment, and natural areas” Yet, I see our family’s property, and our neighborhood, not being protected at all. In fact, our neighbors could become Neighborhood Café’s that serve alcohol! Or maybe a prison release halfway house, or perhaps a transit facility. That isn’t protecting the residential character of our current R-1C zoning! And, the current 5,000 sq.ft. minimum R-1C lot will become just 2,500 sq.ft. as it is upzoned to R-2 and not only that, as upzoned to R-2 there is no longer any density maximum! And our new R-2 neighbors can be 45 feet tall and 4 stories high!! This isn’t protecting the residential character of our residential neighborhood either. Then consider the new MX-3 zone along State Street directly abutting the now upzoned R-1C (to R-2) single family, mostly single level homes. These wonderful neighbors of ours may now find themselves with a 70-foot-high building next to them. And with only a 5-foot setback! This is because R-1A/B/C properties up-zoned to R-2 no longer are protected at all by the latest draft’s provisions for Neighborhood Transition Standards” (section 11-04-03.5) because they have now been made R-2. Stop this madness! Requested Actions: • Apply “Neighborhood Transition Standards” to not only adjacent to R-1A/B/C zones but also adjacent to previously zoned R-1A/B/C properties which the ZCR upzones to R-2. • Ensure these Neighborhood Transition Standards have the practical effect of limiting height increase between Mixed Use, Industrial, and Open Land zoned properties, and the R-1A/B/C and newly upzoned R-2, to a maximum one-story step-up between properties. Meaning a single level home on a residential lot cannot have a 3 or 4 story building built next to it. And a 2-story home cannot have a 4-story building next to it, etc.

And to explain the upzone from R-1C to R-2 the City said in a previous draft that only R-1A/B/C properties “Within 1/8 mile of centerline from a Best-in- Class Transit Route” would be included in the proposed upzone to R-2. But the proposed ZCR isn’t even abiding by this. For example, our R-1C lot only partially touches that 1/8 mile designation as does two of our adjacent neighbors. Yet, the City is forcing all of these into R-2. And, without a specific hearing for these errors and inconsistencies. This arbitrary application of the 1/8 mile zone for up-zoning can be seen clearly in the following graphic which shows how the SW side of State only applies the up-zone to properties fully within the 1/8 mile zone, but that those on the NE side are arbitrarily added to the up-zone while others that are fully within the zone are not included.

Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023

Page 2

Requested Action: While not upzoning any R-1 properties to R-2 is a preferred path forward, please, at a minimum, remove the three starred properties in the above graphic from the R-2 up-zone. Also consistently implement all upzones whether R-1 to R-2, or upzones to MX-3 or MX-4, etc. These inconsistencies have already been called to the attention of the Planning Director.

And while not fitting the traditional definition of a taking, the City surely understands that they are taking intrinsic value residents derive from the current character of their neighborhood by upzoning properties. In turn they are encouraging uses which today would be considered incompatible and not allowed. Over time, this will ultimately force our family and our neighbors out of our properties as developers decide to displace the actual “traditional residential” uses with everything from recovery residences to food trucks to mausoleums. This will result in many lower income residents being displaced.

So, the latest draft, which doesn’t even follow the City’s own rationale and guide for upzoning residential properties to R-2, now seeks to give a double whammy to those residents who shouldn’t even be upzoned by forcing them into a denser and more permissive zone, and by then making that zone itself still denser, taller, and more permissive!

Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023

Page 3

Although many of these new permitted uses in residential zones, that developers may be salivating over, require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), it should be obvious that the City has made it very easy for CUPs to be approved. They can simply claim the approvals are for the public benefit. And, the latest draft even twists what a Conditional Use is by saying (emphasis added): “Conditional Use Permit application is evaluated as to its potential to have a positive effect on adjacent properties and surrounding areas, among other factors, and may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the findings of the decision-making body” This description is misleading at best as it is clear the uses are conditional because they are likely to have negative impacts and incompatibilities with properties in the vicinity. And while its admirable for a conditional use to strive to have a positive impact upon surrounding properties, it is totally unclear how this is measured, other than by showing a negative impact. Requested Action: Change the language in 11-03-01(3)(C) to transparently describe that a Conditional Use Permit is about whether negative impacts may be mitigated and by what conditions, if any.

Once a resident’s neighbors are upzoned to R-2 per the proposed ZCR, in addition to most R-1C uses, their property may now, as R-2, be developed into the following uses that are not permitted in even the new more permissive versions of R-1A/B/C, either as allowed by right or by conditional use: Previous R-1C neighbors who are now R-2 can by right, with simple administrative approval and little ability for public input, create the following: • • • • • • • •

A 45’ high, 4 story apartment building Accessory food truck Neighborhood Café serving alcohol Sidewalk Café Boarding House Park & Ride Facility Transit Facility Retail Sales less than 2,000 sq.ft.

And with a Conditional Use permit the following: • Adult or Child Day Care Center of 13-25 persons • Mortuary or Mausoleum • Assisted Living Facility • Continuing Care Retirement Facility • Convalescent or Nursing Home • Fraternity or Sorority House • Recovery Residence (which broadly could include mental health facility, drug recovery, prison release, domestic violence shelter, etc.).

Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023

Page 4

Most, if not all of these uses, would be deemed by residents as inconsistent with neighborhood character and negatively impactful to their use and enjoyment of their property. As highlighted before, this latest draft says, as a purpose, this new code is to “Protect the character of residential, institutional, business, employment, and natural areas” It is hard to see how having a frat house, a prison release halfway house, or neighborhood café serving alcohol, would preserve the character of previously R-1C zoned residential areas, or any other residential area. Nor how 45-foot-high apartments on small 2,500 sq. ft. lots will protect the residential character either. And as mentioned, this latest draft makes it very easy for these Conditional Uses, or modifications to them, to be approved. It consolidates power in only a few people within the City, while limiting the Public’s ability to be heard, and to challenge what is built around them. In reading Chapter 11-05 on procedures in the latest draft, it is striking just how much power the City has in making these decisions on Conditional Uses. In 11-05-05.3(C)(3)(a), which discusses requirements for approving a CUP, softens previous language requiring compatibility with existing uses in the general neighborhood, and instead uses vague language that would be hard to disprove such as “the location is uniquely suited to accommodate the proposed use”. I fear that Applicant’s will simply say this is the case, and if the City wants the project to be approved, they will simply agree! Additionally, language which used to be fairly straightforward that a use will not adversely impact other property in the vicinity is now very watered down (emphasis added): “The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweigh any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” This allows a use that has large negative impacts on properties in the surrounding area to be approved by mitigating those impacts only to “the maximum extent practicable” (which can include consideration of economic impact to the Applicant of mitigating impacts), or by the City simply saying the “public benefits” of the use are bigger than some neighbors or a neighborhood, etc., being impacted. And guess who gets to decide what is “public benefit” in these cases, the Planning Director. This is a clear abuse of power. Requested Action: Restore the language in current code criteria for approving a CUP.

Also, in the latest draft it is completely up to the Planning Director to determine what is a Minor Modification or Major Modification to a CUP. The Planning Director can unilaterally decide that a very impactful change to a CUP is a minor modification, and that determination cannot be appealed. See 1105-04.7(B)(1)(b)(i)(A)(vi) which allows the Planning Director to unilaterally determine what constitutes a Minor Modification, and 11-05-04.7(B)(1)(c)(iii) which further states that the Planning Director’s decision

Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023

Page 5

on what is a Minor Modification is not appealable. And, of course, according to 11-05-04.7(B)(1)(a)(iii) the Planning Director also gets to decide approval. And I am further concerned that the ZCR still doesn’t address that a CUP Applicant can go to Design Review and submit plans that should be considered a Major Expansion without that aspect of the CUP ever being considered simply because the Applicant themselves did not raise to Planning and Zoning (or other appropriate body) that they were increasing the footprint, etc., to that degree. Requested Action: • There needs to be greater oversight of the Planning Director’s decision-making authority. Perhaps by allowing appeals to council of determination of Major vs Minor Modification (and its approval). • Design Review must not be used as an adhoc way to push through Major Expansions. It must be Planning and Zoning’s and the Director’s duty to catch those situations and have them go through the Major Expansion process. And failure to do so, should be appealable in all procedures (such as Design Review) to PZC and/or City Council.

As previously mentioned, public input has been severely limited. Previously the Neighborhood Association would typically have the same amount of time as the Applicant to present at a Hearing, but now that is potentially limited to only 5 minutes! Requested Action: Restore Neighborhood Association presentation time at a hearing to be at least as long as the Applicant’s presentation time at the same hearing.

With all these issues, I am extremely concerned that the City’s push to adopt the ZCR bypasses the rights of residents to have a reasonable and fair process which explicitly involves each of the impacted citizens including their chance for an independent hearing on zoning changes to their properties. The City is neither being transparent nor fully honest with its residents in their push for approval and their assertion of level of meaningful public involvement. Further the ZCR creates dramatic and potentially damaging changes for thousands of residents, without those changes being explicitly and clearly raised to the potentially impacted parties. When residents, such as myself and family, purchase property, we do so taking in good faith that the property’s zoning and that of neighboring properties defines how those properties can be used. And, in doing so, determine that it will be a reasonable fit for one’s quiet enjoyment. This ZCR destroys that faith and trust, along with residents expectations for quiet enjoyment of their properties Please, please stop the clock on this process and take real, meaningful steps to make this a Zoning Code by the People and for the People. Allow the citizens to vote on key process for changing the Code as well as key provisions that new Code will change. Further look to how Code changes can be implemented over time such that the City and its residents can better adjust and adapt as issues are discovered. Thank you.

Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023

Page 6

Best Regards, Gary Zimmerman Plum St, Boise, ID 83703

Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023

Page 7

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Gary Zimmerman <gary@z.to> Tuesday, March 14, 2023 4:04 PM zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Comments on Zoning Code Rewrite (ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001) ZCR Zimmerman Comments on Adoption Draft 14mar2023.pdf

Dear Planning and Zoning, Attached are my comments on the latest adoption draft of the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001). I appreciate your time in reviewing these comments as well as the many other you are likely to receive. Best Regards, Gary Zimmerman Plum St, Boise

March 21, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The goals of this document reads as if this rewrite will improve the life of everyone who lives in Boise and anyone who wants to live in Boise. Goal 2. Bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents; As long has Boise still includes areas divided into with large areas of small lots and even larger areas of large lots, they are not promoting diverse inclusive communities. Boise will still be segregated into the “large lot” people and the “small lot” people. A modern zoning code should not continue to cause segregation by promoting the old-time idea of living in a neighborhood where all your neighbors have single family homes on the same size lots, with the same green lawn and are all of the same financial status. These are not diverse, inclusive communities. The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611-page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written

testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

Sincerely,

Denise Zimmerman

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:47 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Denise B Zimmerman Email dez_1958@yahoo.com Address 4375 W PLUM ST Comment The goals of this document reads as if this rewrite will improve the life of everyone who lives in Boise and anyone who wants to live in Boise. Goal 2. Bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents; As long has Boise still includes areas divided into with large areas of small lots and even larger areas of large lots, they are not promoting diverse inclusive communities. Boise will still be segregated into the “large lot” people and the “small lot” people. A modern zoning code should not continue to cause segregation by promoting the old‐time idea of living in a neighborhood where all your neighbors have single family homes on the same size lots, with the same green lawn and are all of the same financial status. These are not diverse, inclusive communities. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/7e8d1405‐ecd6‐4438‐8201‐ 2aa4f7fe75a8/zimmermanzoningcomments.pdf I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:50 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted: Name Larry Zitelli Email Address Comment March 21, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. 1

Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

Sincerely,

Larry Zitelli If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Larry Zitelli <zitellillc@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:50 AM ZoningRewrite Re: Automatic reply: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite

I believe that our appointed and elected public servants are just that. Public servants that are paid to work for the public. However, do most of our elected and appointed public servants put the official label" on themselves while working for investors and developers? That is what I see from their decisions.

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 2:49 PM ZoningRewrite <ZoningRewrite@cityofboise.org> wrote: Thank you for emailing the City of Boise about the new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23‐0001 & CPA23‐0001). Your message has been added to the public record for our appointed and elected officials to review. For more information visit cityofboise.org/zoning‐code‐rewrite

Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:

Larry Zitelli <zitellillc@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:49 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite