Madison Lockhorn
From: Tara Brandenburg-Weeks <brandenburg.tara@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 7:35 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] In support of zoning rewrite
Hi, My name is Tara Brandenburg‐Weeks. I read the Idaho's Statesmen article about the Zoning Rewrite and I just wanted to write that I enthusiastically support it!
As a homeowner in Boise's SE Boise Village, I hear a lot of noise from my "Not in my backyard" neighbors. I disagree with them. I believe Boise should be a place where young families can afford to live, where native Idahoans don't get priced out, and where public transportation is easy. The only way that can happen is through this coding rewrite.
Thank you for the work you're doing!
Sincerely,
Tara Brandenburg‐WeeksMadison Lockhorn
From: Tara Brandenburg-Weeks <brandenburg.tara@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 7:35 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] In support of zoning rewrite
Hi, My name is Tara Brandenburg‐Weeks. I read the Idaho's Statesmen article about the Zoning Rewrite and I just wanted to write that I enthusiastically support it!
As a homeowner in Boise's SE Boise Village, I hear a lot of noise from my "Not in my backyard" neighbors. I disagree with them. I believe Boise should be a place where young families can afford to live, where native Idahoans don't get priced out, and where public transportation is easy. The only way that can happen is through this coding rewrite.
Thank you for the work you're doing!
Sincerely,
Tara Brandenburg‐WeeksAndrea Tuning
From: Therrie Butz <therriepuckett@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 6:22 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Upzone
It’s rediculous to upzone any more than you already have our neighborhoods are being ruined with traffic, and dead ends are no longer safe streets as there’s so many people coming in that the kids are in jeopardy with all that traffic and speeding that goes on in 20 and 25 mph zones and up zoning‘s only gonna make it worse and and you’re just ruining a town that used to be neighborhood friendly I am totally against of zoning. I think you have already done enough of that and have ruined what we had and why we love Boise safe neighborhoods are now having to put in cameras and the elderly have to fear for their safety. All this for the almighty dollar of all the developers that are willing to stuff their pockets and ruin the life we had. Shame on you for your greediness
Sent from my iPhone
Andrea Tuning
From: Therrie Butz <therriepuckett@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 6:22 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Upzone
It’s rediculous to upzone any more than you already have our neighborhoods are being ruined with traffic, and dead ends are no longer safe streets as there’s so many people coming in that the kids are in jeopardy with all that traffic and speeding that goes on in 20 and 25 mph zones and up zoning‘s only gonna make it worse and and you’re just ruining a town that used to be neighborhood friendly I am totally against of zoning. I think you have already done enough of that and have ruined what we had and why we love Boise safe neighborhoods are now having to put in cameras and the elderly have to fear for their safety. All this for the almighty dollar of all the developers that are willing to stuff their pockets and ruin the life we had. Shame on you for your greediness
Sent from my iPhone
Madison Lockhorn
From: sonya.crum@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Sonya Crum <sonya.crum@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 6:46 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Vote Yes on the Zoning Code Rewrite
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for the Zoning Code Rewrite. The sustainability, affordability, and open space protections included in the new zoning code rewrite are exactly what Boise needs to plan for and address our rapidly growing city.
Sincerely,
Mrs Sonya Crum
4747 W Sage Glenn Ct Garden City, ID 83714‐1101 sonya.crum@primaryhealth.com
Madison Lockhorn
From: sonya.crum@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Sonya Crum <sonya.crum@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 6:46 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Vote Yes on the Zoning Code Rewrite
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for the Zoning Code Rewrite. The sustainability, affordability, and open space protections included in the new zoning code rewrite are exactly what Boise needs to plan for and address our rapidly growing city.
Sincerely,
Mrs Sonya Crum
4747 W Sage Glenn Ct Garden City, ID 83714‐1101 sonya.crum@primaryhealth.com
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 1:31 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: Comment from Lori Dicaire
Hello,
I received this comment from Lori Dicaire and wanted to make sure it was captured:
“I am pleased that the city heeded Planning Commissioner Blanchards call to action to protect tenants against another Arbor Village purging of our most vulnerable community members for profiteering redevelopment and decided to include something in the proposed zoning code.
However, the draft has some major flaws by...
1) limiting the action to requiring a conditional use permit for covered projects instead of guaranteeing mitigation for any displaced tenants in the form of mandated tenant relocation assistance, and
2) limiting this provision to only mixed-use zoning codes when there are 12 total zones where residential housing could exist not to mention that the vast majority of the mobile home parks (MHP) are in residential zoning.
Of the fifteen MHP’s in Boise city limits, every one has a residential zoning designation for their residential neighborhood – except for 2 in commercial designation, and of course Blue Valley that was inexplicably given an industrial zoning.
I have not analyzed assisted living or income restricted housing but I suspect the results would be the same.”
Nicki Olivier Hellenkamp (she/her) Mayor’s Housing Advisor Office of the Mayor Office:208-972-8523
nhellenkamp@cityofboise.org cityofboise.orgCreating a city for everyone.
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 1:31 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: Comment from Lori Dicaire
Hello,
I received this comment from Lori Dicaire and wanted to make sure it was captured:
“I am pleased that the city heeded Planning Commissioner Blanchards call to action to protect tenants against another Arbor Village purging of our most vulnerable community members for profiteering redevelopment and decided to include something in the proposed zoning code.
However, the draft has some major flaws by...
1) limiting the action to requiring a conditional use permit for covered projects instead of guaranteeing mitigation for any displaced tenants in the form of mandated tenant relocation assistance, and
2) limiting this provision to only mixed-use zoning codes when there are 12 total zones where residential housing could exist not to mention that the vast majority of the mobile home parks (MHP) are in residential zoning.
Of the fifteen MHP’s in Boise city limits, every one has a residential zoning designation for their residential neighborhood – except for 2 in commercial designation, and of course Blue Valley that was inexplicably given an industrial zoning.
I have not analyzed assisted living or income restricted housing but I suspect the results would be the same.”
Nicki Olivier Hellenkamp (she/her) Mayor’s Housing Advisor Office of the Mayor Office:208-972-8523
nhellenkamp@cityofboise.org cityofboise.orgCreating a city for everyone.
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 4:07 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
William Donovan
Email bonovan68@gmail.com
Address 2089 White Pine Lane
Comment
Four years ago I moved to Boise from St Louis in part because Boise was a town I could ride my bicycle safely to almost anywhere in town. I hope you will not allow wonderful Bo ise to become a high density unsafe metropolis like St Louis.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 4:07 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
William Donovan
Email bonovan68@gmail.com
Address 2089 White Pine Lane
Comment
Four years ago I moved to Boise from St Louis in part because Boise was a town I could ride my bicycle safely to almost anywhere in town. I hope you will not allow wonderful Bo ise to become a high density unsafe metropolis like St Louis.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 5:50 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Darcy Elgin
Email elgin.darcy@gmail.com
Address
813 N 22nd St, Boise, ID 83702
Comment
Historic Overlay District Expansion?? ‐ My house (813 N. 22nd St.) is presently zoned R‐2. It borders but is not a part of the Historic Overlay District. The new conversion map, however, states “Current and Proposed Overlay: Historic District.” Many neighboring properties that are not presently part of the historic district appear to have this new classification, as well. I do not understand why my house would now be incorporated into the historic district with these zoning changes.
I am flagging this in case it is in error. If it is not an error, I write to strongly oppose this. These houses have never been part of the Historic District, and I have seen no justification for a change in status. This change will only serve to complicate rather than promote efficient growth, the supposed purpose of these zoning changes. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 5:50 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Darcy Elgin
Email elgin.darcy@gmail.com
Address
813 N 22nd St, Boise, ID 83702
Comment
Historic Overlay District Expansion?? ‐ My house (813 N. 22nd St.) is presently zoned R‐2. It borders but is not a part of the Historic Overlay District. The new conversion map, however, states “Current and Proposed Overlay: Historic District.” Many neighboring properties that are not presently part of the historic district appear to have this new classification, as well. I do not understand why my house would now be incorporated into the historic district with these zoning changes.
I am flagging this in case it is in error. If it is not an error, I write to strongly oppose this. These houses have never been part of the Historic District, and I have seen no justification for a change in status. This change will only serve to complicate rather than promote efficient growth, the supposed purpose of these zoning changes. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 8:58 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Colten Elkin
Email colten.e.michael@gmail.com
Address
3360 N Lakeharbor Lane, Q 206
Comment
I'd love to see more Hyde Park‐style neighborhood eateries and more housing opportunities in all of Boise's neighborhoods. I strongly support property rights and believe that owners should have much more latitude in how they build on and use their land. I fully support this plan as written. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.
I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 8:58 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Colten Elkin
Email colten.e.michael@gmail.com
Address
3360 N Lakeharbor Lane, Q 206
Comment
I'd love to see more Hyde Park‐style neighborhood eateries and more housing opportunities in all of Boise's neighborhoods. I strongly support property rights and believe that owners should have much more latitude in how they build on and use their land. I fully support this plan as written. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.
I am not a robot
Madison Lockhorn
From: Samantha Flaim <samflaim75@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 4:43 PM
To: Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite
Subject: [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.
Sincerely,
Samantha Flaim
Boise, ID 83703
Madison Lockhorn
From: Samantha Flaim <samflaim75@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 4:43 PM
To: Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite
Subject: [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.
Sincerely,
Samantha Flaim
Boise, ID 83703
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 12:31 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Susan Gemperle‐Abdo
Email susangabdo@gmail.com
Address
801 E Crestline Dr
Comment
The city code concerning ADU's 11‐03‐03 . In this section "(6) At the time of application for an accessory unit, the applicant shall provide proof of owner occupancy of the premises." This should be changed so a nonowner‐occupied house can have long‐term housing as an ADU added to the premise.. With the housing shortage, it seems like it would be very beneficial for a rental home to be able to add an ADU for additional housing. Code can be added to ensure nonowner occupied housing that adds an ADU can only be used for Long Term rental which will help the housing shortage issue and create more affordable and smaller sqft housing. This change would also prevent nonowners‐occupied housing to turn an ADU in to a short‐term/air BNB rental. I realize that much of the concern form folks was air BNB rentals.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 12:31 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Susan Gemperle‐Abdo
Email susangabdo@gmail.com
Address
801 E Crestline Dr
Comment
The city code concerning ADU's 11‐03‐03 . In this section "(6) At the time of application for an accessory unit, the applicant shall provide proof of owner occupancy of the premises." This should be changed so a nonowner‐occupied house can have long‐term housing as an ADU added to the premise.. With the housing shortage, it seems like it would be very beneficial for a rental home to be able to add an ADU for additional housing. Code can be added to ensure nonowner occupied housing that adds an ADU can only be used for Long Term rental which will help the housing shortage issue and create more affordable and smaller sqft housing. This change would also prevent nonowners‐occupied housing to turn an ADU in to a short‐term/air BNB rental. I realize that much of the concern form folks was air BNB rentals.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
Andrea Tuning
From: rngravesid@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 7:13 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
What are you people thinking?
I am concerned about the density and upzoning that is proposed in the rewrite of the current zoning ordinance. The increased density and the loss our current design standards are going to ruin our Boise neighborhoods just as the mostly non‐descript development that has been allowed to occur in downtown. We had the opportunity to do it right, we could have beautiful building instead of these unsightly apartments that have been allowed to be built by out of state developers. These people are going to rip down our charming buildings and neighborhoods, build ugly buildings, sell the buildings to an out of state investment group, take the money out of Boise and do the same thing in the next “hot” market. These developers, for the most part, are not helping to improve the quality of life in Ada County or Idaho, they just want to make a buck and move on. You don’t see any of them supporting any of the local non‐profits or educational institutions.
I am also concerned about the loss of the opportunity to receive notice of these developments and the opportunity to comment on density and design review.
We are losing what Boise is, we don’t need to provide housing for everyone who wants to live here, if we do, we are going to look like the paved areas of Los Angeles.
Don’t change Idaho or Boise, let Boise and Idaho change you!
Ron Graves
Andrea Tuning
From: rngravesid@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 7:13 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
What are you people thinking?
I am concerned about the density and upzoning that is proposed in the rewrite of the current zoning ordinance. The increased density and the loss our current design standards are going to ruin our Boise neighborhoods just as the mostly non‐descript development that has been allowed to occur in downtown. We had the opportunity to do it right, we could have beautiful building instead of these unsightly apartments that have been allowed to be built by out of state developers. These people are going to rip down our charming buildings and neighborhoods, build ugly buildings, sell the buildings to an out of state investment group, take the money out of Boise and do the same thing in the next “hot” market. These developers, for the most part, are not helping to improve the quality of life in Ada County or Idaho, they just want to make a buck and move on. You don’t see any of them supporting any of the local non‐profits or educational institutions.
I am also concerned about the loss of the opportunity to receive notice of these developments and the opportunity to comment on density and design review.
We are losing what Boise is, we don’t need to provide housing for everyone who wants to live here, if we do, we are going to look like the paved areas of Los Angeles.
Don’t change Idaho or Boise, let Boise and Idaho change you!
Ron Graves
Andrea Tuning
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:43 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name john hale
Email jahale02@gmail.com
Address 1805 n tenth
Comment
I am in support of rewriting the Zoning Code to reflect the contemporary and future needs of Boiseans. However, as drafted today, the Code still favors the automobile too heavily, and encourages low density sprawl.
I strongly advocate for the following additional changes:
1) Affordable housing – do more to incent development of afford able housing by allowing zero‐parked housing, especially in R3 zones close to public transit options or the downtown. The current draft falls well short.
2) Mass transit and Boise core housing – promote 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).
3) Approval Process ‐ Please consider further streamlining the process by disallowing or shortening objections to projects that fully comply with code. Developers make investment decisions based on risk. The “risk” that a fully compliant project could be denied based on community input presents an undue and uncontrollable risk.
4) Neighborhood Associations ‐ Neighborhood input is critical t o the development of quality housing. However, the City of Boise currently gives an imbalanced power position to Neighborhood Associations.
• The associations are allowed to make unsupported statements in testimony, with no burden of proof on assertions
• The associations receive non‐public input opportunities to co uncil members that are not disclose, and are not made available to developers
• The associations are given more testimony time than the developers in public meetings, and are given the last word without opportunity for rebuttal by the developer
These Associations quite often do not represent the best interests of their constituents:
• The boards are not required to poll their constituents to inform the board’s position on projects. 5‐10 board members, many of whom are elderly and have served for many years, can stake a position that affects all of their constituents without ever asking for input.
• The City does not require sufficient governance guidance to the associations.
• The City does not audit compliance with current association practices and/or compliance with existing by laws.
5) ADUs – This housing product is the fastest solution to ease the affordable housing crisis. These should be
allowed non‐owner occupied applicants. There should be no onsite parking requirement, as this is a “back door” method for neighborhood associations to oppose ADUs.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
Andrea Tuning
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:43 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name john hale
Email jahale02@gmail.com
Address 1805 n tenth
Comment
I am in support of rewriting the Zoning Code to reflect the contemporary and future needs of Boiseans. However, as drafted today, the Code still favors the automobile too heavily, and encourages low density sprawl.
I strongly advocate for the following additional changes:
1) Affordable housing – do more to incent development of afford able housing by allowing zero‐parked housing, especially in R3 zones close to public transit options or the downtown. The current draft falls well short.
2) Mass transit and Boise core housing – promote 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).
3) Approval Process ‐ Please consider further streamlining the process by disallowing or shortening objections to projects that fully comply with code. Developers make investment decisions based on risk. The “risk” that a fully compliant project could be denied based on community input presents an undue and uncontrollable risk.
4) Neighborhood Associations ‐ Neighborhood input is critical t o the development of quality housing. However, the City of Boise currently gives an imbalanced power position to Neighborhood Associations.
• The associations are allowed to make unsupported statements in testimony, with no burden of proof on assertions
• The associations receive non‐public input opportunities to co uncil members that are not disclose, and are not made available to developers
• The associations are given more testimony time than the developers in public meetings, and are given the last word without opportunity for rebuttal by the developer
These Associations quite often do not represent the best interests of their constituents:
• The boards are not required to poll their constituents to inform the board’s position on projects. 5‐10 board members, many of whom are elderly and have served for many years, can stake a position that affects all of their constituents without ever asking for input.
• The City does not require sufficient governance guidance to the associations.
• The City does not audit compliance with current association practices and/or compliance with existing by laws.
5) ADUs – This housing product is the fastest solution to ease the affordable housing crisis. These should be
allowed non‐owner occupied applicants. There should be no onsite parking requirement, as this is a “back door” method for neighborhood associations to oppose ADUs.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: wingbeats <wingbeats@mailbox.org>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:30 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Thoughts on zoning code rewrite
Good Afternoon,
My name is Diego Hilleary, I am 33 years old, and I've lived and rented all around Boise for 7 years. I work in IT at Idaho Housing and Finance Association, and I've experienced the housing struggles of Boise both firsthand and witnessed it among low‐income folks my organization is trying to help.
I'm writing in to urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to vo te for the zoning code rewrite. I feel Boise is restrained by the old zoning code that was created in a different era, and I want to remind everyone that Boise is a city. Cities are meant to grow and change as vibrant centers of diverse human art and culture, and that can't happen if we're only allowed to build miles and miles of high‐income suburbs that all look the same.
I feel for those who liked Boise small, but we must look at reality. Young people like me want to come and work and pour money into Boise's economy, but we're hamstrung by a lack of housing. The only way to help us is to build denser, build higher, and build with intelligence. Idaho isn't wanting for rural and agricultural land ‐ we're utterly surrounded by in in the rest of the state. But I think Boise is an opportunity to be a vibrant oasis, where folks can come and land a great job and support their families ‐ all we're lacking is the starter housing to support us. We need the flexibility. We need more housing. And we can't let those fearing change hold us back.
I am one of those young people dreaming of owning a home, but the huge suburbs being built with huge square footage are not made for me. I don't want to vacuum that huge house, let alone drive all the way to one, even if I could afford it. I want to walk and bike to work, I want to walk to a coffee shop or bike to lunch at a cafe. I don't want to be stuck sitting in traffic for two hours a day.
One of my favorite parts of the code rewrite, aside from the greater density and housing type diversity, is the removal of lawn buffers. Turf takes so much water and is a terrible anti‐ecological monoculture, so I highly welcome the city maintaining less of it.
Growth in Boise is happening. There is no stopping it. Thus, a zoning code rewrite that allows for greater density and height, with a focus on affordability and future sustainability, will be the smartest way to handle said growth. Cities are the most alive when they're allowed to grow and evolve. Keep Boise vibrant, keep Boise flexible, and keep Boise affordable!
Thank you for your time in reading all this. I wish the Commission the best of luck and the most polite and kind of comments from everyone else. Please let me know if there are any questions or if I was unclear.
Cheers, Diego Hilleary
EDM Administrator at Idaho Housing and Finance 970‐379‐7437
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From: wingbeats <wingbeats@mailbox.org>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:30 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Thoughts on zoning code rewrite
Good Afternoon,
My name is Diego Hilleary, I am 33 years old, and I've lived and rented all around Boise for 7 years. I work in IT at Idaho Housing and Finance Association, and I've experienced the housing struggles of Boise both firsthand and witnessed it among low‐income folks my organization is trying to help.
I'm writing in to urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to vo te for the zoning code rewrite. I feel Boise is restrained by the old zoning code that was created in a different era, and I want to remind everyone that Boise is a city. Cities are meant to grow and change as vibrant centers of diverse human art and culture, and that can't happen if we're only allowed to build miles and miles of high‐income suburbs that all look the same.
I feel for those who liked Boise small, but we must look at reality. Young people like me want to come and work and pour money into Boise's economy, but we're hamstrung by a lack of housing. The only way to help us is to build denser, build higher, and build with intelligence. Idaho isn't wanting for rural and agricultural land ‐ we're utterly surrounded by in in the rest of the state. But I think Boise is an opportunity to be a vibrant oasis, where folks can come and land a great job and support their families ‐ all we're lacking is the starter housing to support us. We need the flexibility. We need more housing. And we can't let those fearing change hold us back.
I am one of those young people dreaming of owning a home, but the huge suburbs being built with huge square footage are not made for me. I don't want to vacuum that huge house, let alone drive all the way to one, even if I could afford it. I want to walk and bike to work, I want to walk to a coffee shop or bike to lunch at a cafe. I don't want to be stuck sitting in traffic for two hours a day.
One of my favorite parts of the code rewrite, aside from the greater density and housing type diversity, is the removal of lawn buffers. Turf takes so much water and is a terrible anti‐ecological monoculture, so I highly welcome the city maintaining less of it.
Growth in Boise is happening. There is no stopping it. Thus, a zoning code rewrite that allows for greater density and height, with a focus on affordability and future sustainability, will be the smartest way to handle said growth. Cities are the most alive when they're allowed to grow and evolve. Keep Boise vibrant, keep Boise flexible, and keep Boise affordable!
Thank you for your time in reading all this. I wish the Commission the best of luck and the most polite and kind of comments from everyone else. Please let me know if there are any questions or if I was unclear.
Cheers, Diego Hilleary
EDM Administrator at Idaho Housing and Finance 970‐379‐7437
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From: J Hull <katamanto@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 4:59 AM
To: Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite
Subject: [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 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, to 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,
Jody Hull 7916 W Queen Ct Boise ID 83704From: J Hull <katamanto@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 4:59 AM
To: Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite
Subject: [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 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, to 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,
Jody Hull 7916 W Queen Ct Boise ID 83704Madison Lockhorn
From: craig hurst <craigmhurst@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:29 PM
To: Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Zoning overreach!!! Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission:
I was unaware of these proposed zoning changes. The short amount of time and lack of public input shows ridiculous overreach of this council, and to allow little public comment because it doesn't follow your own personal or public agenda is unacceptable. Do not allow this to proceed without more public input and do not write policies that create a blanket change for so many different zoning and multi use areas!!!!! There is plenty of space in this beautiful valley for additional projects Lets keep Boise different and keep Boise amazing. Use your political power for Boise area success.
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, Craig Hurst
214 S Pond Street
Madison Lockhorn
From: craig hurst <craigmhurst@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:29 PM
To: Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Zoning overreach!!! Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission:
I was unaware of these proposed zoning changes. The short amount of time and lack of public input shows ridiculous overreach of this council, and to allow little public comment because it doesn't follow your own personal or public agenda is unacceptable. Do not allow this to proceed without more public input and do not write policies that create a blanket change for so many different zoning and multi use areas!!!!! There is plenty of space in this beautiful valley for additional projects Lets keep Boise different and keep Boise amazing. Use your political power for Boise area success.
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, Craig Hurst
214 S Pond Street
Madison Lockhorn
From:
Dave Kangas <davekangas@msn.com>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:30 AM
To: ZoningRewrite; Andrea Tuning
Subject: [External] Impessionns/ Housing Needs Analysis/ Lot splits/targeted impacts- comment for the ZCR
When I first read through and understood the ramifications of the revised Modules 1 and 2, I felt it was all about production. Production to produce as many units as possible, as quickly as possible, without regard to the people living in the areas most affected by its proposals. I could see even then that "Strategic Infill" (now under incentives) was specifically targeting areas on the Bench and West Boise with the lot widths over 55 feet rule. When the "Neighborhood Collector" criteria was combined with the MX3 incentive extending into neighborhood ¼ mile from any MX3 lot, it effectively covered the entirety of the Bench, West Boise with a blanket of incentivized redevelopment (more on this later). It is quite a rude awakening to realize that your home and neighborhood are viewed only as land to generate production. It is not a lifelong home, or a neighborhood of people- tenants and home owners of all incomes and demographics but a commodity in which to maximize profit. The Housing Needs Analysis confirms the intent. Boise's "Modern Zoning Code" marketing efforts have packaged it in a way to sooth the masses and sell a product.
Throughout this discussion, note I will refrain from the over active use of labels, racial and economic segregation, but instead focus on the issue, the details, the facts not the hyperbole or justification the purported "professionals" use to sooth their egos as they push people from their homes and forever change the neighborhoods in which they are living. I am confident enough in my arguments, data and view point to stick with the issue.
Housing Needs Analysis From day one after this was released, I felt this was about gaining a higher percentage of the Ada County building permit pool. The "need" for 27,000 housing in the next ten years exceeded that of the previous 20 years. A simple sold search on the MLS showed 20,134 residential new construction sales since 1/1/2000 and an additional 4192 residential income sales for 24,626 ttl new construction sales since 1/1/2000. COMPASS uses building permits vs sales and their data does not go back past 2010 that I could see. However, a quick calculation using COMPASS's 2021 Development Report data shows a total of 11968 building permits since 2014 for an average of 1496 annually. I started with 2014 since that is when post-recession production really started to pick up. 1496 units a year is significant difference from 2773 the Needs Analysis states but does not prove. The Needs Analysis never actually shows how it reached that number, it just states it time and again to convince you it is true. At one point it states Ada County exceeded demand by 768 units while Boise underperformed by 4146 units, which made zero sense to me. When looking at percentages I could see that from 2014 on Boise averaged about 26% of the Ada County building permits, while Meridian averaged 39% which has always been a sore spot for Boise leaders. The stated division in the Needs Analysis between Boise and Meridian is 41.4% for Boise, which for me shows the intent to gain a higher market share. Draw your own conclusions, but I can see no proof as to what the Needs Analysis asserts. Furthermore, from my understanding of Boise development patterns, home sales and ages I knew that the average needed density increase of 26% across all neighborhood would be targeted toward a specific area- The Bench and West Boise for sure and probably SE Boise too.
Some Data- I always felt the 55 wide lot rule was meant to target car centric built homes of the 50's, 60's and 70's. These homes were developed at a time when land was plentiful, the car was coming on strong and attached garages vs alley loads the norm. Home designs were largely ranch style single level homes, split entry or tri-levels with a lower level partially below ground. I want to emphasize this trend of lower built heights throughout this time period, which I'll refer to later. I also felt and believe that lot size up to the 1950 or so tended to be platted on 50-foot-wide lots 100-125 ft deep with alleys, which would exclude a significant portion of them from the 55-foot-wide incentive.
I ran a couple sold searches to highlight lots eligible for lot splits- closed since 1/1/2014, .16 acres to .50 acres (excludes r1a,r1b large lots) no CC&R's or Historic Districts. Frankly I was surprised at the numbers, but it reinforced my feelings about targeting. The first one included homes built before 1950. The second for homes built from 1951 to 1980. I felt the homes built after 1980 were newer and more expensive to exclude from potential redevelopment and many would be in subdivisions with HOA's and CCR's.
These two reports indicate what areas we can expect lot splits or subdividing to take place based on past sales. It also shows how we are targeting the lowest median sales price areas for redevelopment to achieve "affordability" which makes no sense to me. I have yet to see new construction to come in less expensive than those units being replaced. Not to mention the displacement of those current residents who will have few options locally and mostly be forced to leave Boise.
In these next 2 reports I pulled out sales of single level, single level with below ground and single w/bonus rooms. I wanted to see these numbers to address the compatibility and height transistion issues associated with the new code annd its incentives‐ 40 feet high, up to three stories.
From these 2 reports you can see that 82% of the homes sold since 2014 built before 1950 that qualify for subdividing or lot splits are single levels. And 79% of the build built from 1951 to 1980 are single levels. This is important when considerinng transitions and how new development relates to the "built environment", "protects stable enighborhoods", "predictable developmennt patterns". I am certainn there those who shout how these home needs to be replaced with more units, but not if there is ZERO connsideration given to those currently living there and are forced to live with Frankenstein developments that just don't blend in or transition to neighboring homes. While the current code does allow for transitions for lots under 3500 sq ft, we have not found any for lots splits created over 3500 sq ft. Nor any for incentives.
Incentives I have yet to find annyone living in an affected area who supports the idea that up to 12 units per lot, 40 ft high, up to 3 stories is good idea or welcome. This incentive began as only within 300 ft of a Neighborhood Collector on lots over 55 ft wide in R1c. It has now expanded to all collectors and arterials in ALL ZONES. Thank you for listening Boise.
MX3 ‐ When I questioned the need to expand the above inceentive ¼ from any MX3 lot I was told we needed to support transit. What transit? Everone I have talked to about transit, loves the idea, but hates the execution, the time, the inconvenience. From what I read, if you want to build transit, you have to build the service FIRST. I am sure there are those that will disagree. People don't ride transit because they don't want to walk ¼ mile, they don't ride beacause the service sucks. We also live in state that will never fund transit, to the degree necessary to promote better service levels. In fact, with the new legislature, they are already attacking simple funding for bicycle annd pedestrian paths. Targeting surrounding neighborhoods for redevelopment before we have redevleped our corridors or before we have a source of consistent funding is putting the cart before the horse, a long ways before the horse, a horse that is just an idea.
Renting vs home ownership I am surprised, greatly disheartened that an argument over the benfits of home ownership over renting needs to be made. Home ownership has never been easy. It is about choices, long term goals, building for the future. The first home purchase is as dauntinng today as it has ever been. The Upzone is designed to massively increase production of rental units across a specifc, targeted landscape and people surprised that there is resistance? Of course the area, that these units will be placed are largely outside of protected overlays annd subdivisions. I and many others question the long term viability of a large Boise relegated to rental properties. Certainly they look great now, but over time, is that really the path Boise wants to take? Too bad there aren't incentives built in to the ZCR to promote single family homes, townnhomes, even condominiums, but they are soley focused on rental units. This is also problematic given the current aggressive corporate property management techniques being employed today. Why would we promote, subjegate more people to those issues. Last time I checked close to 75% of Jessie Tree's budget was for emergency rental assistance caused by excessive property management fees annd rent increases. Tell me agin the virtue of renting over buying?
Displacement We see this issue come up time and again. Apartments, assisted living, trailer courts, multi family residences being remodeled or demolished annd replaced with market rate housing. The ZCR does not provide for adequeate protections to address these issues. Why would allow large scale dispalcment without requirements a to replace current low incomes at the same numbers? I have an issue with the City of Boise prmoting large scale displacment, some or many who will end up on City low income rolls, subsidzied by the taxpayers. The devlopers make a killing. Low income families and seniors are pushed into turmoil. The taxpayer gets to pick up the tab, which in Boise is getting quite expensive. While I fully support Boise's efforts to develop low inncome housing, I do question the inntenisty and size of s ome projects. I question just how much are Boise taxpayers responnsible for when no other city in the region is helping. Just how high do Boise residents want their property taxes to go?
Summary From the beginning of this process I have voiced my opinion that the Code should be rewritten passed as a simple rewrite. That would be a victory and all the money, time and effort would bne rewarded. THEN, take on all the land use issues by priority and currennt economic and development trends. Using data from a report generated at the height of the Covid pandemic is not sound policy. Trying to create and pass an aggressive land use upzone that does not address localized neighborhood development trends, will just build resistance and opposition. Recently, I reviewed a number of websites from ann RFP for 12 Missing Middle/rewrite consultants. Inn reviewing a number of those websites, I do not see one promoting 40 ft 3 story
buildings next to single levels. Instead the majority of their websites shows compatible designs across the landscape. I also saw in more than one of those websites comments on not being too aggressive as it will build opposition. This rewriteis suppose d to guide Boise for the next 50 years, not just into the next 5‐10 years.
The Urban environment I am consitently frustrated with the idea that people think we can build ourselves into affordability. Boise is onnnnne of the most popular places ini the country and one of the fastest. It has always been more expensive than surrounding areas‐ always. Instead, we should recognize that housing in our large, populat cities is always going to be expesnive‐ always. Urban land is expensive, adding entitlements makes it more expensive. No large, growing popular city can claim affordability unless it subsidized. Patrick Condon and planner from Vancouver, BC who once promoted density as the path to affordability has had to change course. Vancouver apparently has increased density six‐fold and is now the most expensive city in Canada. Is that what Boise is striving for? it seems so to me and growing number of others.
Dave Kangas
1715 W Canal St Boise, ID 83705
208‐841‐0580
davekangas@msn.com
Madison Lockhorn
From:
Dave Kangas <davekangas@msn.com>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:30 AM
To: ZoningRewrite; Andrea Tuning
Subject: [External] Impessionns/ Housing Needs Analysis/ Lot splits/targeted impacts- comment for the ZCR
When I first read through and understood the ramifications of the revised Modules 1 and 2, I felt it was all about production. Production to produce as many units as possible, as quickly as possible, without regard to the people living in the areas most affected by its proposals. I could see even then that "Strategic Infill" (now under incentives) was specifically targeting areas on the Bench and West Boise with the lot widths over 55 feet rule. When the "Neighborhood Collector" criteria was combined with the MX3 incentive extending into neighborhood ¼ mile from any MX3 lot, it effectively covered the entirety of the Bench, West Boise with a blanket of incentivized redevelopment (more on this later). It is quite a rude awakening to realize that your home and neighborhood are viewed only as land to generate production. It is not a lifelong home, or a neighborhood of people- tenants and home owners of all incomes and demographics but a commodity in which to maximize profit. The Housing Needs Analysis confirms the intent. Boise's "Modern Zoning Code" marketing efforts have packaged it in a way to sooth the masses and sell a product.
Throughout this discussion, note I will refrain from the over active use of labels, racial and economic segregation, but instead focus on the issue, the details, the facts not the hyperbole or justification the purported "professionals" use to sooth their egos as they push people from their homes and forever change the neighborhoods in which they are living. I am confident enough in my arguments, data and view point to stick with the issue.
Housing Needs Analysis From day one after this was released, I felt this was about gaining a higher percentage of the Ada County building permit pool. The "need" for 27,000 housing in the next ten years exceeded that of the previous 20 years. A simple sold search on the MLS showed 20,134 residential new construction sales since 1/1/2000 and an additional 4192 residential income sales for 24,626 ttl new construction sales since 1/1/2000. COMPASS uses building permits vs sales and their data does not go back past 2010 that I could see. However, a quick calculation using COMPASS's 2021 Development Report data shows a total of 11968 building permits since 2014 for an average of 1496 annually. I started with 2014 since that is when post-recession production really started to pick up. 1496 units a year is significant difference from 2773 the Needs Analysis states but does not prove. The Needs Analysis never actually shows how it reached that number, it just states it time and again to convince you it is true. At one point it states Ada County exceeded demand by 768 units while Boise underperformed by 4146 units, which made zero sense to me. When looking at percentages I could see that from 2014 on Boise averaged about 26% of the Ada County building permits, while Meridian averaged 39% which has always been a sore spot for Boise leaders. The stated division in the Needs Analysis between Boise and Meridian is 41.4% for Boise, which for me shows the intent to gain a higher market share. Draw your own conclusions, but I can see no proof as to what the Needs Analysis asserts. Furthermore, from my understanding of Boise development patterns, home sales and ages I knew that the average needed density increase of 26% across all neighborhood would be targeted toward a specific area- The Bench and West Boise for sure and probably SE Boise too.
Some Data- I always felt the 55 wide lot rule was meant to target car centric built homes of the 50's, 60's and 70's. These homes were developed at a time when land was plentiful, the car was coming on strong and attached garages vs alley loads the norm. Home designs were largely ranch style single level homes, split entry or tri-levels with a lower level partially below ground. I want to emphasize this trend of lower built heights throughout this time period, which I'll refer to later. I also felt and believe that lot size up to the 1950 or so tended to be platted on 50-foot-wide lots 100-125 ft deep with alleys, which would exclude a significant portion of them from the 55-foot-wide incentive.
I ran a couple sold searches to highlight lots eligible for lot splits- closed since 1/1/2014, .16 acres to .50 acres (excludes r1a,r1b large lots) no CC&R's or Historic Districts. Frankly I was surprised at the numbers, but it reinforced my feelings about targeting. The first one included homes built before 1950. The second for homes built from 1951 to 1980. I felt the homes built after 1980 were newer and more expensive to exclude from potential redevelopment and many would be in subdivisions with HOA's and CCR's.
These two reports indicate what areas we can expect lot splits or subdividing to take place based on past sales. It also shows how we are targeting the lowest median sales price areas for redevelopment to achieve "affordability" which makes no sense to me. I have yet to see new construction to come in less expensive than those units being replaced. Not to mention the displacement of those current residents who will have few options locally and mostly be forced to leave Boise.
In these next 2 reports I pulled out sales of single level, single level with below ground and single w/bonus rooms. I wanted to see these numbers to address the compatibility and height transistion issues associated with the new code annd its incentives‐ 40 feet high, up to three stories.
From these 2 reports you can see that 82% of the homes sold since 2014 built before 1950 that qualify for subdividing or lot splits are single levels. And 79% of the build built from 1951 to 1980 are single levels. This is important when considerinng transitions and how new development relates to the "built environment", "protects stable enighborhoods", "predictable developmennt patterns". I am certainn there those who shout how these home needs to be replaced with more units, but not if there is ZERO connsideration given to those currently living there and are forced to live with Frankenstein developments that just don't blend in or transition to neighboring homes. While the current code does allow for transitions for lots under 3500 sq ft, we have not found any for lots splits created over 3500 sq ft. Nor any for incentives.
Incentives I have yet to find annyone living in an affected area who supports the idea that up to 12 units per lot, 40 ft high, up to 3 stories is good idea or welcome. This incentive began as only within 300 ft of a Neighborhood Collector on lots over 55 ft wide in R1c. It has now expanded to all collectors and arterials in ALL ZONES. Thank you for listening Boise.
MX3 ‐ When I questioned the need to expand the above inceentive ¼ from any MX3 lot I was told we needed to support transit. What transit? Everone I have talked to about transit, loves the idea, but hates the execution, the time, the inconvenience. From what I read, if you want to build transit, you have to build the service FIRST. I am sure there are those that will disagree. People don't ride transit because they don't want to walk ¼ mile, they don't ride beacause the service sucks. We also live in state that will never fund transit, to the degree necessary to promote better service levels. In fact, with the new legislature, they are already attacking simple funding for bicycle annd pedestrian paths. Targeting surrounding neighborhoods for redevelopment before we have redevleped our corridors or before we have a source of consistent funding is putting the cart before the horse, a long ways before the horse, a horse that is just an idea.
Renting vs home ownership I am surprised, greatly disheartened that an argument over the benfits of home ownership over renting needs to be made. Home ownership has never been easy. It is about choices, long term goals, building for the future. The first home purchase is as dauntinng today as it has ever been. The Upzone is designed to massively increase production of rental units across a specifc, targeted landscape and people surprised that there is resistance? Of course the area, that these units will be placed are largely outside of protected overlays annd subdivisions. I and many others question the long term viability of a large Boise relegated to rental properties. Certainly they look great now, but over time, is that really the path Boise wants to take? Too bad there aren't incentives built in to the ZCR to promote single family homes, townnhomes, even condominiums, but they are soley focused on rental units. This is also problematic given the current aggressive corporate property management techniques being employed today. Why would we promote, subjegate more people to those issues. Last time I checked close to 75% of Jessie Tree's budget was for emergency rental assistance caused by excessive property management fees annd rent increases. Tell me agin the virtue of renting over buying?
Displacement We see this issue come up time and again. Apartments, assisted living, trailer courts, multi family residences being remodeled or demolished annd replaced with market rate housing. The ZCR does not provide for adequeate protections to address these issues. Why would allow large scale dispalcment without requirements a to replace current low incomes at the same numbers? I have an issue with the City of Boise prmoting large scale displacment, some or many who will end up on City low income rolls, subsidzied by the taxpayers. The devlopers make a killing. Low income families and seniors are pushed into turmoil. The taxpayer gets to pick up the tab, which in Boise is getting quite expensive. While I fully support Boise's efforts to develop low inncome housing, I do question the inntenisty and size of s ome projects. I question just how much are Boise taxpayers responnsible for when no other city in the region is helping. Just how high do Boise residents want their property taxes to go?
Summary From the beginning of this process I have voiced my opinion that the Code should be rewritten passed as a simple rewrite. That would be a victory and all the money, time and effort would bne rewarded. THEN, take on all the land use issues by priority and currennt economic and development trends. Using data from a report generated at the height of the Covid pandemic is not sound policy. Trying to create and pass an aggressive land use upzone that does not address localized neighborhood development trends, will just build resistance and opposition. Recently, I reviewed a number of websites from ann RFP for 12 Missing Middle/rewrite consultants. Inn reviewing a number of those websites, I do not see one promoting 40 ft 3 story
buildings next to single levels. Instead the majority of their websites shows compatible designs across the landscape. I also saw in more than one of those websites comments on not being too aggressive as it will build opposition. This rewriteis suppose d to guide Boise for the next 50 years, not just into the next 5‐10 years.
The Urban environment I am consitently frustrated with the idea that people think we can build ourselves into affordability. Boise is onnnnne of the most popular places ini the country and one of the fastest. It has always been more expensive than surrounding areas‐ always. Instead, we should recognize that housing in our large, populat cities is always going to be expesnive‐ always. Urban land is expensive, adding entitlements makes it more expensive. No large, growing popular city can claim affordability unless it subsidized. Patrick Condon and planner from Vancouver, BC who once promoted density as the path to affordability has had to change course. Vancouver apparently has increased density six‐fold and is now the most expensive city in Canada. Is that what Boise is striving for? it seems so to me and growing number of others.
Dave Kangas
1715 W Canal St Boise, ID 83705
208‐841‐0580
davekangas@msn.com
Madison Lockhorn
From: Dave Kangas <davekangas@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 3:30 PM
To: ZoningRewrite; Andrea Tuning
Subject: [External] Re: Impessionns/ Housing Needs Analysis/ Lot splits/targeted impacts- comment for the ZCR
This comment below, was not meant or directed at anyonne associated with the City of Boise planning staff or other. It was to be included in an online post, where at lot of "labels" are being used. Please accept my apologies for including it in this communication. It should not have been there.
"Throughout this discussion, note I will refrain from the over active use of labels, racial and economic segregation, but instead focus on the issue, the details, the facts not the hyperbole or justification the purported "professionals" use to sooth their egos as they push people from their homes and forever change the neighborhoods in which they are living. I am confident enough in my arguments, data and view point to stick with the issue."
Dave Kangas ‐ Realtor
208.841‐0580 | dave@callisongroup.com
Callison Group Real Estate Dave.Callisonhomes.com
For personal communications, not related to real estate: davekangas@msn.com
From: Dave Kangas
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:30 AM
To: City of Boise Planning Department <zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org>; Andrea Tuning <atuning@cityofboise.org>
Subject: Impessionns/ Housing Needs Analysis/ Lot splits/targeted impacts‐ comment for the ZCR
When I first read through and understood the ramifications of the revised Modules 1 and 2, I felt it was all about production. Production to produce as many units as possible, as quickly as possible, without regard to the people living in the areas most affected by its proposals. I could see even then that "Strategic Infill" (now under incentives) was specifically targeting areas on the Bench and West Boise with the lot widths over 55 feet rule. When the "Neighborhood Collector" criteria was combined with the MX3 incentive extending into neighborhood ¼ mile from any MX3 lot, it effectively covered the entirety of the Bench, West Boise with a blanket of incentivized redevelopment (more on this later). It is quite a rude awakening to realize that your home and neighborhood are viewed only as land to generate production. It is not a lifelong home, or a neighborhood of people- tenants and home owners of all incomes and demographics but a commodity in which to maximize profit. The Housing Needs Analysis confirms the intent. Boise's "Modern Zoning Code" marketing efforts have packaged it in a way to sooth the masses and sell a product.
Throughout this discussion, note I will refrain from the over active use of labels, racial and economic segregation, but instead focus on the issue, the details, the facts not the hyperbole or justification the purported "professionals" use to sooth their egos as they push people from their homes and forever
change the neighborhoods in which they are living. I am confident enough in my arguments, data and view point to stick with the issue.
Housing Needs Analysis From day one after this was released, I felt this was about gaining a higher percentage of the Ada County building permit pool. The "need" for 27,000 housing in the next ten years exceeded that of the previous 20 years. A simple sold search on the MLS showed 20,134 residential new construction sales since 1/1/2000 and an additional 4192 residential income sales for 24,626 ttl new construction sales since 1/1/2000. COMPASS uses building permits vs sales and their data does not go back past 2010 that I could see. However, a quick calculation using COMPASS's 2021 Development Report data shows a total of 11968 building permits since 2014 for an average of 1496 annually. I started with 2014 since that is when post-recession production really started to pick up. 1496 units a year is significant difference from 2773 the Needs Analysis states but does not prove. The Needs Analysis never actually shows how it reached that number, it just states it time and again to convince you it is true. At one point it states Ada County exceeded demand by 768 units while Boise underperformed by 4146 units, which made zero sense to me. When looking at percentages I could see that from 2014 on Boise averaged about 26% of the Ada County building permits, while Meridian averaged 39% which has always been a sore spot for Boise leaders. The stated division in the Needs Analysis between Boise and Meridian is 41.4% for Boise, which for me shows the intent to gain a higher market share. Draw your own conclusions, but I can see no proof as to what the Needs Analysis asserts. Furthermore, from my understanding of Boise development patterns, home sales and ages I knew that the average needed density increase of 26% across all neighborhood would be targeted toward a specific area- The Bench and West Boise for sure and probably SE Boise too.
Some Data- I always felt the 55 wide lot rule was meant to target car centric built homes of the 50's, 60's and 70's. These homes were developed at a time when land was plentiful, the car was coming on strong and attached garages vs alley loads the norm. Home designs were largely ranch style single level homes, split entry or tri-levels with a lower level partially below ground. I want to emphasize this trend of lower built heights throughout this time period, which I'll refer to later. I also felt and believe that lot size up to the 1950 or so tended to be platted on 50-foot-wide lots 100-125 ft deep with alleys, which would exclude a significant portion of them from the 55-foot-wide incentive.
I ran a couple sold searches to highlight lots eligible for lot splits- closed since 1/1/2014, .16 acres to .50 acres (excludes r1a,r1b large lots) no CC&R's or Historic Districts. Frankly I was surprised at the numbers, but it reinforced my feelings about targeting. The first one included homes built before 1950. The second for homes built from 1951 to 1980. I felt the homes built after 1980 were newer and more expensive to exclude from potential redevelopment and many would be in subdivisions with HOA's and CCR's.
These two reports indicate what areas we can expect lot splits or subdividing to take place based on past sales. It also shows how we are targeting the lowest median sales price areas for redevelopment to achieve "affordability" which makes no sense to me. I have yet to see new construction to come in less expensive than those units being replaced. Not to mention the displacement of those current residents who will have few options locally and mostly be forced to leave Boise.
In these next 2 reports I pulled out sales of single level, single level with below ground and single w/bonus rooms. I wanted to see these numbers to address the compatibility and height transistion issues associated with the new code annd its incentives‐ 40 feet high, up to three stories.
From these 2 reports you can see that 82% of the homes sold since 2014 built before 1950 that qualify for subdividing or lot splits are single levels. And 79% of the build built from 1951 to 1980 are single levels. This is important when considerinng transitions and how new development relates to the "built environment", "protects stable enighborhoods", "predictable developmennt patterns". I am certainn there those who shout how these home needs to be replaced with more units, but not if there is ZERO connsideration given to those currently living there and are forced to live with Frankenstein developments that just don't blend in or transition to neighboring homes. While the current code does allow for transitions for lots under 3500 sq ft, we have not found any for lots splits created over 3500 sq ft. Nor any for incentives.
Incentives I have yet to find annyone living in an affected area who supports the idea that up to 12 units per lot, 40 ft high, up to 3 stories is good idea or welcome. This incentive began as only within 300 ft of a Neighborhood Collector on lots over 55 ft wide in R1c. It has now expanded to all collectors and arterials in ALL ZONES. Thank you for listening Boise.
MX3 ‐ When I questioned the need to expand the above inceentive ¼ from any MX3 lot I was told we needed to support transit. What transit? Everone I have talked to about transit, loves the idea, but hates the execution, the time, the inconvenience. From what I read, if you want to build transit, you have to build the service FIRST. I am sure there are those that will disagree. People don't ride transit because they don't want to walk ¼ mile, they don't ride beacause the service sucks. We also live in state that will never fund transit, to the degree necessary to promote better service levels. In fact, with the new legislature, they are already attacking simple funding for bicycle annd pedestrian paths. Targeting surrounding neighborhoods for redevelopment before we have redevleped our corridors or before we have a source of consistent funding is putting the cart before the horse, a long ways before the horse, a horse that is just an idea.
Renting vs home ownership I am surprised, greatly disheartened that an argument over the benfits of home ownership over renting needs to be made. Home ownership has never been easy. It is about choices, long term goals, building for the future. The first home purchase is as dauntinng today as it has ever been. The Upzone is designed to massively increase production of rental units across a specifc, targeted landscape and people surprised that there is resistance? Of course the area, that these units will be placed are largely outside of protected overlays annd subdivisions. I and many others question the long term viability of a large Boise relegated to rental properties. Certainly they look great now, but over time, is that really the path Boise wants to take? Too bad there aren't incentives built in to the ZCR to promote single family homes, townnhomes, even condominiums, but they are soley focused on rental units. This is also problematic given the current aggressive corporate property management techniques being employed today. Why would we promote, subjegate more people to those issues. Last time I checked close to 75% of Jessie Tree's budget was for emergency rental assistance caused by excessive property management fees annd rent increases. Tell me agin the virtue of renting over buying?
Displacement We see this issue come up time and again. Apartments, assisted living, trailer courts, multi family residences being remodeled or demolished annd replaced with market rate housing. The ZCR does not provide for adequeate protections to address these issues. Why would allow large scale dispalcment without requirements a to replace current low incomes at the same numbers? I have an issue with the City of Boise prmoting large scale displacment, some or many who will end up on City low income rolls, subsidzied by the taxpayers. The devlopers make a killing. Low income families and seniors are pushed into turmoil. The taxpayer gets to pick up the tab, which in Boise is getting quite expensive. While I fully support Boise's efforts to develop low inncome housing, I do question the inntenisty and size of s ome projects. I question just how much are Boise taxpayers responnsible for when no other city in the region is helping. Just how high do Boise residents want their property taxes to go?
Summary From the beginning of this process I have voiced my opinion that the Code should be rewritten passed as a simple rewrite. That would be a victory and all the money, time and effort would bne rewarded. THEN, take on all the land use issues by priority and currennt economic and development trends. Using data from a report generated at the height of the Covid pandemic is not sound policy. Trying to create and pass an aggressive land use upzone that does not address localized neighborhood development trends, will just build resistance and opposition. Recently, I reviewed a number of websites from ann RFP for 12 Missing Middle/rewrite consultants. Inn reviewing a number of those websites, I do not see one promoting 40 ft 3 story
buildings next to single levels. Instead the majority of their websites shows compatible designs across the landscape. I also saw in more than one of those websites comments on not being too aggressive as it will build opposition. This rewriteis suppose d to guide Boise for the next 50 years, not just into the next 5‐10 years.
The Urban environment I am consitently frustrated with the idea that people think we can build ourselves into affordability. Boise is onnnnne of the most popular places ini the country and one of the fastest. It has always been more expensive than surrounding areas‐ always. Instead, we should recognize that housing in our large, populat cities is always going to be expesnive‐ always. Urban land is expensive, adding entitlements makes it more expensive. No large, growing popular city can claim affordability unless it subsidized. Patrick Condon and planner from Vancouver, BC who once promoted density as the path to affordability has had to change course. Vancouver apparently has increased density six‐fold and is now the most expensive city in Canada. Is that what Boise is striving for? it seems so to me and growing number of others.
Dave Kangas
1715 W Canal St Boise, ID 83705
208‐841‐0580
davekangas@msn.com
Madison Lockhorn
From: Dave Kangas <davekangas@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 3:30 PM
To: ZoningRewrite; Andrea Tuning
Subject: [External] Re: Impessionns/ Housing Needs Analysis/ Lot splits/targeted impacts- comment for the ZCR
This comment below, was not meant or directed at anyonne associated with the City of Boise planning staff or other. It was to be included in an online post, where at lot of "labels" are being used. Please accept my apologies for including it in this communication. It should not have been there.
"Throughout this discussion, note I will refrain from the over active use of labels, racial and economic segregation, but instead focus on the issue, the details, the facts not the hyperbole or justification the purported "professionals" use to sooth their egos as they push people from their homes and forever change the neighborhoods in which they are living. I am confident enough in my arguments, data and view point to stick with the issue."
Dave Kangas ‐ Realtor
208.841‐0580 | dave@callisongroup.com
Callison Group Real Estate Dave.Callisonhomes.com
For personal communications, not related to real estate: davekangas@msn.com
From: Dave Kangas
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:30 AM
To: City of Boise Planning Department <zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org>; Andrea Tuning <atuning@cityofboise.org>
Subject: Impessionns/ Housing Needs Analysis/ Lot splits/targeted impacts‐ comment for the ZCR
When I first read through and understood the ramifications of the revised Modules 1 and 2, I felt it was all about production. Production to produce as many units as possible, as quickly as possible, without regard to the people living in the areas most affected by its proposals. I could see even then that "Strategic Infill" (now under incentives) was specifically targeting areas on the Bench and West Boise with the lot widths over 55 feet rule. When the "Neighborhood Collector" criteria was combined with the MX3 incentive extending into neighborhood ¼ mile from any MX3 lot, it effectively covered the entirety of the Bench, West Boise with a blanket of incentivized redevelopment (more on this later). It is quite a rude awakening to realize that your home and neighborhood are viewed only as land to generate production. It is not a lifelong home, or a neighborhood of people- tenants and home owners of all incomes and demographics but a commodity in which to maximize profit. The Housing Needs Analysis confirms the intent. Boise's "Modern Zoning Code" marketing efforts have packaged it in a way to sooth the masses and sell a product.
Throughout this discussion, note I will refrain from the over active use of labels, racial and economic segregation, but instead focus on the issue, the details, the facts not the hyperbole or justification the purported "professionals" use to sooth their egos as they push people from their homes and forever
change the neighborhoods in which they are living. I am confident enough in my arguments, data and view point to stick with the issue.
Housing Needs Analysis From day one after this was released, I felt this was about gaining a higher percentage of the Ada County building permit pool. The "need" for 27,000 housing in the next ten years exceeded that of the previous 20 years. A simple sold search on the MLS showed 20,134 residential new construction sales since 1/1/2000 and an additional 4192 residential income sales for 24,626 ttl new construction sales since 1/1/2000. COMPASS uses building permits vs sales and their data does not go back past 2010 that I could see. However, a quick calculation using COMPASS's 2021 Development Report data shows a total of 11968 building permits since 2014 for an average of 1496 annually. I started with 2014 since that is when post-recession production really started to pick up. 1496 units a year is significant difference from 2773 the Needs Analysis states but does not prove. The Needs Analysis never actually shows how it reached that number, it just states it time and again to convince you it is true. At one point it states Ada County exceeded demand by 768 units while Boise underperformed by 4146 units, which made zero sense to me. When looking at percentages I could see that from 2014 on Boise averaged about 26% of the Ada County building permits, while Meridian averaged 39% which has always been a sore spot for Boise leaders. The stated division in the Needs Analysis between Boise and Meridian is 41.4% for Boise, which for me shows the intent to gain a higher market share. Draw your own conclusions, but I can see no proof as to what the Needs Analysis asserts. Furthermore, from my understanding of Boise development patterns, home sales and ages I knew that the average needed density increase of 26% across all neighborhood would be targeted toward a specific area- The Bench and West Boise for sure and probably SE Boise too.
Some Data- I always felt the 55 wide lot rule was meant to target car centric built homes of the 50's, 60's and 70's. These homes were developed at a time when land was plentiful, the car was coming on strong and attached garages vs alley loads the norm. Home designs were largely ranch style single level homes, split entry or tri-levels with a lower level partially below ground. I want to emphasize this trend of lower built heights throughout this time period, which I'll refer to later. I also felt and believe that lot size up to the 1950 or so tended to be platted on 50-foot-wide lots 100-125 ft deep with alleys, which would exclude a significant portion of them from the 55-foot-wide incentive.
I ran a couple sold searches to highlight lots eligible for lot splits- closed since 1/1/2014, .16 acres to .50 acres (excludes r1a,r1b large lots) no CC&R's or Historic Districts. Frankly I was surprised at the numbers, but it reinforced my feelings about targeting. The first one included homes built before 1950. The second for homes built from 1951 to 1980. I felt the homes built after 1980 were newer and more expensive to exclude from potential redevelopment and many would be in subdivisions with HOA's and CCR's.
These two reports indicate what areas we can expect lot splits or subdividing to take place based on past sales. It also shows how we are targeting the lowest median sales price areas for redevelopment to achieve "affordability" which makes no sense to me. I have yet to see new construction to come in less expensive than those units being replaced. Not to mention the displacement of those current residents who will have few options locally and mostly be forced to leave Boise.
In these next 2 reports I pulled out sales of single level, single level with below ground and single w/bonus rooms. I wanted to see these numbers to address the compatibility and height transistion issues associated with the new code annd its incentives‐ 40 feet high, up to three stories.
From these 2 reports you can see that 82% of the homes sold since 2014 built before 1950 that qualify for subdividing or lot splits are single levels. And 79% of the build built from 1951 to 1980 are single levels. This is important when considerinng transitions and how new development relates to the "built environment", "protects stable enighborhoods", "predictable developmennt patterns". I am certainn there those who shout how these home needs to be replaced with more units, but not if there is ZERO connsideration given to those currently living there and are forced to live with Frankenstein developments that just don't blend in or transition to neighboring homes. While the current code does allow for transitions for lots under 3500 sq ft, we have not found any for lots splits created over 3500 sq ft. Nor any for incentives.
Incentives I have yet to find annyone living in an affected area who supports the idea that up to 12 units per lot, 40 ft high, up to 3 stories is good idea or welcome. This incentive began as only within 300 ft of a Neighborhood Collector on lots over 55 ft wide in R1c. It has now expanded to all collectors and arterials in ALL ZONES. Thank you for listening Boise.
MX3 ‐ When I questioned the need to expand the above inceentive ¼ from any MX3 lot I was told we needed to support transit. What transit? Everone I have talked to about transit, loves the idea, but hates the execution, the time, the inconvenience. From what I read, if you want to build transit, you have to build the service FIRST. I am sure there are those that will disagree. People don't ride transit because they don't want to walk ¼ mile, they don't ride beacause the service sucks. We also live in state that will never fund transit, to the degree necessary to promote better service levels. In fact, with the new legislature, they are already attacking simple funding for bicycle annd pedestrian paths. Targeting surrounding neighborhoods for redevelopment before we have redevleped our corridors or before we have a source of consistent funding is putting the cart before the horse, a long ways before the horse, a horse that is just an idea.
Renting vs home ownership I am surprised, greatly disheartened that an argument over the benfits of home ownership over renting needs to be made. Home ownership has never been easy. It is about choices, long term goals, building for the future. The first home purchase is as dauntinng today as it has ever been. The Upzone is designed to massively increase production of rental units across a specifc, targeted landscape and people surprised that there is resistance? Of course the area, that these units will be placed are largely outside of protected overlays annd subdivisions. I and many others question the long term viability of a large Boise relegated to rental properties. Certainly they look great now, but over time, is that really the path Boise wants to take? Too bad there aren't incentives built in to the ZCR to promote single family homes, townnhomes, even condominiums, but they are soley focused on rental units. This is also problematic given the current aggressive corporate property management techniques being employed today. Why would we promote, subjegate more people to those issues. Last time I checked close to 75% of Jessie Tree's budget was for emergency rental assistance caused by excessive property management fees annd rent increases. Tell me agin the virtue of renting over buying?
Displacement We see this issue come up time and again. Apartments, assisted living, trailer courts, multi family residences being remodeled or demolished annd replaced with market rate housing. The ZCR does not provide for adequeate protections to address these issues. Why would allow large scale dispalcment without requirements a to replace current low incomes at the same numbers? I have an issue with the City of Boise prmoting large scale displacment, some or many who will end up on City low income rolls, subsidzied by the taxpayers. The devlopers make a killing. Low income families and seniors are pushed into turmoil. The taxpayer gets to pick up the tab, which in Boise is getting quite expensive. While I fully support Boise's efforts to develop low inncome housing, I do question the inntenisty and size of s ome projects. I question just how much are Boise taxpayers responnsible for when no other city in the region is helping. Just how high do Boise residents want their property taxes to go?
Summary From the beginning of this process I have voiced my opinion that the Code should be rewritten passed as a simple rewrite. That would be a victory and all the money, time and effort would bne rewarded. THEN, take on all the land use issues by priority and currennt economic and development trends. Using data from a report generated at the height of the Covid pandemic is not sound policy. Trying to create and pass an aggressive land use upzone that does not address localized neighborhood development trends, will just build resistance and opposition. Recently, I reviewed a number of websites from ann RFP for 12 Missing Middle/rewrite consultants. Inn reviewing a number of those websites, I do not see one promoting 40 ft 3 story
buildings next to single levels. Instead the majority of their websites shows compatible designs across the landscape. I also saw in more than one of those websites comments on not being too aggressive as it will build opposition. This rewriteis suppose d to guide Boise for the next 50 years, not just into the next 5‐10 years.
The Urban environment I am consitently frustrated with the idea that people think we can build ourselves into affordability. Boise is onnnnne of the most popular places ini the country and one of the fastest. It has always been more expensive than surrounding areas‐ always. Instead, we should recognize that housing in our large, populat cities is always going to be expesnive‐ always. Urban land is expensive, adding entitlements makes it more expensive. No large, growing popular city can claim affordability unless it subsidized. Patrick Condon and planner from Vancouver, BC who once promoted density as the path to affordability has had to change course. Vancouver apparently has increased density six‐fold and is now the most expensive city in Canada. Is that what Boise is striving for? it seems so to me and growing number of others.
Dave Kangas
1715 W Canal St Boise, ID 83705
208‐841‐0580
davekangas@msn.com
Madison Lockhorn
From: djkreiner2@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of dennis kreiner <djkreiner2 @everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:55 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Vote Yes on the Zoning Code Rewrite
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for the Zoning Code Rewrite. The sustainability, affordability, and open space protections included in the new zoning code rewrite are exactly what Boise needs to plan for and address our rapidly growing city.
Sincerely,
Mr. dennis kreiner
2307 Arrow St Carpentersville, IL 60110‐1201 djkreiner2@comcast.net
Madison Lockhorn
From: djkreiner2@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of dennis kreiner <djkreiner2 @everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:55 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Vote Yes on the Zoning Code Rewrite
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for the Zoning Code Rewrite. The sustainability, affordability, and open space protections included in the new zoning code rewrite are exactly what Boise needs to plan for and address our rapidly growing city.
Sincerely,
Mr. dennis kreiner
2307 Arrow St Carpentersville, IL 60110‐1201 djkreiner2@comcast.net
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 11:29 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Ethan Mansfield
Email mansfield.ethan@gmail.com
Address
4409 W Albion St. Boise, ID 83705
Comment
Dear Staff, Commissioners, and Council members,
I've written several other letters, so I will keep this one brief. In short, I support the implementation of the new zoning code. I would like to see parking minimums and maximus abolished and I would like to remove the table of allowed uses and replace it with dimensional requirements and design guidelines, which (let's be honest with ourselves) are really what create a community's flavor and vibe in the first place. If anything, liberalizing the allowed land uses will only create more interesting, vibrant communities. That's what we are shooting for with "mixed‐use" in the first place. We used to have mixed‐use communities organically. We outlawed it and are now forcing the mixed‐use idea back into land‐use planning. But why can't we just let it happen naturally? Why are we so afraid of letting Cities grow up like they used to ‐‐ if prices (which express demand) are any indication, places that developed before the implementation of the zoning code are extremely valuable. Why a) did we outlaw them in the first place, and b) now try to control the specific uses and amount of parking allowed in them?
It is precisely because we tried to plan uses from the top down that we have created communities that are not walkable, do not have services, etc. etc. Instead of merely changing the regulatory environment slightly, let's examine the conditions that created the organic development of cities and their dynamism, and shoot for that instead. Then, we can regulate specific impacts instead of preventing dynamic growth all together.
Cheers,
Ethan
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.
I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 11:29 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Ethan Mansfield
Email mansfield.ethan@gmail.com
Address
4409 W Albion St. Boise, ID 83705
Comment
Dear Staff, Commissioners, and Council members,
I've written several other letters, so I will keep this one brief. In short, I support the implementation of the new zoning code. I would like to see parking minimums and maximus abolished and I would like to remove the table of allowed uses and replace it with dimensional requirements and design guidelines, which (let's be honest with ourselves) are really what create a community's flavor and vibe in the first place. If anything, liberalizing the allowed land uses will only create more interesting, vibrant communities. That's what we are shooting for with "mixed‐use" in the first place. We used to have mixed‐use communities organically. We outlawed it and are now forcing the mixed‐use idea back into land‐use planning. But why can't we just let it happen naturally? Why are we so afraid of letting Cities grow up like they used to ‐‐ if prices (which express demand) are any indication, places that developed before the implementation of the zoning code are extremely valuable. Why a) did we outlaw them in the first place, and b) now try to control the specific uses and amount of parking allowed in them?
It is precisely because we tried to plan uses from the top down that we have created communities that are not walkable, do not have services, etc. etc. Instead of merely changing the regulatory environment slightly, let's examine the conditions that created the organic development of cities and their dynamism, and shoot for that instead. Then, we can regulate specific impacts instead of preventing dynamic growth all together.
Cheers,
Ethan
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.
I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 12:09 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Ethan Mansfield
Email mansfield.ethan@gmail.com
Address
4409 W Albion Street
Comment
Hi, it's me again.
I think that City objectives could be achieved equally well if single‐family homes WITH ADUs were allowed in the R‐3 zone. Let's face it ‐ there is no functional difference between ADUs and duplex dwellings other than the forms. Both provide an additional unit of housing. In the name of "preserving neighborhood character", we've placed size and owner occupancy requirements on ADUs, but it really should not matter whether the units are attached or detached, renter or owner occupied.
If that statement "people are people and units are units" is true, then the inclusion of required ADUs should not impact the development of R‐3 neighborhoods at all ‐ it's functionally the same as a duplex.
There are plenty of neighborhoods that should be R‐3 that are not, and plenty of neighborhoods that are not ready to be 100% NOT single‐family homes that are zoned R‐3. Again, we wouldn't have this conundrum if we just let places grow organically, but here we are! :)
Cheers,
Ethan
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 12:09 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Ethan Mansfield
Email mansfield.ethan@gmail.com
Address
4409 W Albion Street
Comment
Hi, it's me again.
I think that City objectives could be achieved equally well if single‐family homes WITH ADUs were allowed in the R‐3 zone. Let's face it ‐ there is no functional difference between ADUs and duplex dwellings other than the forms. Both provide an additional unit of housing. In the name of "preserving neighborhood character", we've placed size and owner occupancy requirements on ADUs, but it really should not matter whether the units are attached or detached, renter or owner occupied.
If that statement "people are people and units are units" is true, then the inclusion of required ADUs should not impact the development of R‐3 neighborhoods at all ‐ it's functionally the same as a duplex.
There are plenty of neighborhoods that should be R‐3 that are not, and plenty of neighborhoods that are not ready to be 100% NOT single‐family homes that are zoned R‐3. Again, we wouldn't have this conundrum if we just let places grow organically, but here we are! :)
Cheers,
Ethan
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
Madison Lockhorn
From: Kristie McCaleb <kristieamccaleb@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 9:07 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Cc: Kristie McCaleb; Mickey McCaleb
Subject: [External] Zoning Re-Write
Dear City of Boise,
We are NOT IN FAVOR of the Zoning Re‐write for Boise.
Michael & Kristie McCaleb 4297 N Chatterton Ave Boise, ID 83713
Kristie McCaleb 208-906-6810
Madison Lockhorn
From: Kristie McCaleb <kristieamccaleb@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 9:07 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Cc: Kristie McCaleb; Mickey McCaleb
Subject: [External] Zoning Re-Write
Dear City of Boise,
We are NOT IN FAVOR of the Zoning Re‐write for Boise.
Michael & Kristie McCaleb 4297 N Chatterton Ave Boise, ID 83713
Kristie McCaleb 208-906-6810
Madison Lockhorn
From:
Nannette Nelson <nannettemnelson@gmail.com>Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Mayor McLean; ZoningRewrite; Timothy Keane; CityCouncil
Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
Greetings,
I am writing to ask you to please re-consider the impact that high density infill in Boise's peripheral neighborhoods will have on the neighborhoods between outlying neighborhoods and the areas of commerce and employment opportunities. I am a huge fan of walkable/bikeable communities. I choose to live in one. However, doubling the number of housing in the areas on the edge of town in every direction will NOT create 15 minute communities! Especially in neighborhoods in the foothills where commuting to downtown and the connector by bike and walking is in no way realistic. As much as I would love to encourage more bike and pedestrian commuting, we must be realistic about expecting people to do such if they live in the hills, especially with the extreme heat and cold weather Boise has, not to mention the lack of infrastructure to support it.
1. The things that create 15 minute cities are having shopping, schools, and jobs within a 15 minute bike or walk. That is, and will be, impossible with more housing so far from those amenities.
2. All those new residents will be driving to and from commerce and work a 20+ minute drive away. The hope that adding mixed use in peripheral neighborhoods is nice but unrealistic in areas like the foothills and will not keep residents shopping and working in their neighborhoods.
3. The roads through neighborhoods that feed the foothills and neighborhoods on all edges of town will become extremely high traffic such as happened to 15th St and Harrison Blvd. and those neighborhood roads are not wide enough or designed for that much car traffic. 4. The 15 minute city works where it is already that- an urban setting, where there is a market, pharmacy, school, barber, bar, bike shop, restaurants, baker, park etc. within 15 minutes. 5. Do you think any of the new residents on Crestline, Table Rock, Overland and Maple Grove are going to have 15 minute walk/bike commutes? No, they will still have to drive everywhere. I don't see any new bus routes planned for Shenandoah or Shaw Mtn Rd. anytime soon. The quiet east end will suffer greatly with the doubling+ of vehicles headed to Warm Springs Ave, Parkcenter and Broadway Ave.
6. High density/mixed use infill needs to be allowed where new housing is close to commerce and employment opportunities. 7. HIgh density infill in peripheral neighborhoods turns quiet neighborhoods into thoroughfares.
I recently had to sell my home, which I LOVED, on 15th St because the traffic had increased by thousands of car/truck/trailer trips per day in the last 15 years and I literally could no longer sleep at night because of the traffic noise. When I moved I made a point to find a street in the east end that had no chance of increased development in the foothills. I thought I knew what I was buying as far as traffic concerns. The new proposals will double the number of vehicles driving on my street daily. All the new residents in the foothills will drive, not bike or walk, to Broadway and Warm Springs Ave to get to their commerce and employment destinations. The stop signs and speed bumps in our neighborhood do nothing but cause the drivers to gun their engines and bang their trailers every other block. The increase of traffic on these streets will dramatically change our neighborhood as well as all other neighborhoods sandwiched between infill and commerce. Again, adding hundreds of units in the foothills and edges of town will only double the traffic through all the neighborhoods between them and places of commerce and employment. What does that do to the air quality and noise levels in those neighborhoods? Let's not be delusional. 15 minute cities are wonderful where they were built hundreds of years ago and we can do it again but they have to be planned before the development happens to really create them.
I live in the East End and I would welcome high density infill here as it supports the ideal of a 15 minute city/neighborhood. It is generally flat, has wide sidewalks and close proximity to the greenbelt, enabling nonvehicle commuting to the commerce and employment downtown, Parkcenter and Hyde Park/State St areas.
There are other areas of Boise such as Parkcenter and Downtown that have great bike and pedestrian commute infrastructure, terrain that is bike/pedestrian friendly and close to commerce and employment centers.
The damage to neighborhoods is rarely a result of high density residents, it is the vehicle traffic that creates the damage to quality living, not the people.
Please reconsider the upzoning of Boise's peripheral neighborhoods and the damaging impact of being sandwiched between more car commuting neighborhoods and commerce/employment destinations would have on our "in-between" neighborhoods.
Thank you for your work to manage the growth of our city. I appreciate the intent to grow better and healthier.
All the best,
Nannette Nelson
425 N Locust St
Boise, ID 83712
208‐859‐1972
~Live well~
Madison Lockhorn
From:
Nannette Nelson <nannettemnelson@gmail.com>Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 4:24 PM
To: Mayor McLean; ZoningRewrite; Timothy Keane; CityCouncil
Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
Greetings,
I am writing to ask you to please re-consider the impact that high density infill in Boise's peripheral neighborhoods will have on the neighborhoods between outlying neighborhoods and the areas of commerce and employment opportunities. I am a huge fan of walkable/bikeable communities. I choose to live in one. However, doubling the number of housing in the areas on the edge of town in every direction will NOT create 15 minute communities! Especially in neighborhoods in the foothills where commuting to downtown and the connector by bike and walking is in no way realistic. As much as I would love to encourage more bike and pedestrian commuting, we must be realistic about expecting people to do such if they live in the hills, especially with the extreme heat and cold weather Boise has, not to mention the lack of infrastructure to support it.
1. The things that create 15 minute cities are having shopping, schools, and jobs within a 15 minute bike or walk. That is, and will be, impossible with more housing so far from those amenities.
2. All those new residents will be driving to and from commerce and work a 20+ minute drive away. The hope that adding mixed use in peripheral neighborhoods is nice but unrealistic in areas like the foothills and will not keep residents shopping and working in their neighborhoods.
3. The roads through neighborhoods that feed the foothills and neighborhoods on all edges of town will become extremely high traffic such as happened to 15th St and Harrison Blvd. and those neighborhood roads are not wide enough or designed for that much car traffic. 4. The 15 minute city works where it is already that- an urban setting, where there is a market, pharmacy, school, barber, bar, bike shop, restaurants, baker, park etc. within 15 minutes. 5. Do you think any of the new residents on Crestline, Table Rock, Overland and Maple Grove are going to have 15 minute walk/bike commutes? No, they will still have to drive everywhere. I don't see any new bus routes planned for Shenandoah or Shaw Mtn Rd. anytime soon. The quiet east end will suffer greatly with the doubling+ of vehicles headed to Warm Springs Ave, Parkcenter and Broadway Ave.
6. High density/mixed use infill needs to be allowed where new housing is close to commerce and employment opportunities. 7. HIgh density infill in peripheral neighborhoods turns quiet neighborhoods into thoroughfares.
I recently had to sell my home, which I LOVED, on 15th St because the traffic had increased by thousands of car/truck/trailer trips per day in the last 15 years and I literally could no longer sleep at night because of the traffic noise. When I moved I made a point to find a street in the east end that had no chance of increased development in the foothills. I thought I knew what I was buying as far as traffic concerns. The new proposals will double the number of vehicles driving on my street daily. All the new residents in the foothills will drive, not bike or walk, to Broadway and Warm Springs Ave to get to their commerce and employment destinations. The stop signs and speed bumps in our neighborhood do nothing but cause the drivers to gun their engines and bang their trailers every other block. The increase of traffic on these streets will dramatically change our neighborhood as well as all other neighborhoods sandwiched between infill and commerce. Again, adding hundreds of units in the foothills and edges of town will only double the traffic through all the neighborhoods between them and places of commerce and employment. What does that do to the air quality and noise levels in those neighborhoods? Let's not be delusional. 15 minute cities are wonderful where they were built hundreds of years ago and we can do it again but they have to be planned before the development happens to really create them.
I live in the East End and I would welcome high density infill here as it supports the ideal of a 15 minute city/neighborhood. It is generally flat, has wide sidewalks and close proximity to the greenbelt, enabling nonvehicle commuting to the commerce and employment downtown, Parkcenter and Hyde Park/State St areas.
There are other areas of Boise such as Parkcenter and Downtown that have great bike and pedestrian commute infrastructure, terrain that is bike/pedestrian friendly and close to commerce and employment centers.
The damage to neighborhoods is rarely a result of high density residents, it is the vehicle traffic that creates the damage to quality living, not the people.
Please reconsider the upzoning of Boise's peripheral neighborhoods and the damaging impact of being sandwiched between more car commuting neighborhoods and commerce/employment destinations would have on our "in-between" neighborhoods.
Thank you for your work to manage the growth of our city. I appreciate the intent to grow better and healthier.
All the best,
Nannette Nelson
425 N Locust St
Boise, ID 83712
208‐859‐1972
~Live well~
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 11:57 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Rebecca J Oparnico
Email RebeccaO.realestate@gmail.com
Address
4959 S Umatilla Ave Boise ID 83709
Comment
Please DO NOT upzone Boise!
Upzoning will increase cost of living and destroy the unique character of our community.
I have lived in Boise for 30 years, raised my children, built my business and have created an incredible community of family and friends.
Boise struggles currently to keep up with infrastructure based on the growth in the past 30 years. Exponentially growing the population and building more apartments, high rise buildings, etc. will cause irreversible harm to our community & infrastructure. I have yet to see affordable housing being built so I don't see how Boise residents (homeowners & renters) will benefit from this plan.
Property values have continued to rise over the past years leaving many Boiseans having to consider moving out of Boise just to afford housing costs. Upzoning will continue to rise property values & property taxes. Other than this benefitting the City of Boise financially, I don't see how this benefits the citizens of Boise.
Please reject the upzone Boise plan!
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 11:57 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Rebecca J Oparnico
Email RebeccaO.realestate@gmail.com
Address
4959 S Umatilla Ave Boise ID 83709
Comment
Please DO NOT upzone Boise!
Upzoning will increase cost of living and destroy the unique character of our community.
I have lived in Boise for 30 years, raised my children, built my business and have created an incredible community of family and friends.
Boise struggles currently to keep up with infrastructure based on the growth in the past 30 years. Exponentially growing the population and building more apartments, high rise buildings, etc. will cause irreversible harm to our community & infrastructure. I have yet to see affordable housing being built so I don't see how Boise residents (homeowners & renters) will benefit from this plan.
Property values have continued to rise over the past years leaving many Boiseans having to consider moving out of Boise just to afford housing costs. Upzoning will continue to rise property values & property taxes. Other than this benefitting the City of Boise financially, I don't see how this benefits the citizens of Boise.
Please reject the upzone Boise plan!
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: l Pennisi <lppennisi@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 4:31 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] ZOA23-00001, CPA23-00001
This zoning code rewrite is nothing more than a way to destroy the American Dream of single-family homeownership, all in the name of climate change, equity, and affordability.
The proposed changes are so legally complicated that the residents will most likely be unable to fight the radical transformation that this code permits. The housing bonus ordinance was a warmup for what is proposed in this ZCR.
I participated in several of the ZCR community sessions and have testified at P&Z hearings in the past so I have been involved in the process. I know how difficult it was to bring arguments before P&Z because residents could only base their comments on legal challenges. This rewrite would compound the public's ability to participate in the process because if a person cannot understand the legalese then how can that person challenge it? This ZCR seeks to remove the public from the process and solidify the relationship between the City and developers all to accelerate development, but the taxpayers pay and suffer the consequences of unmanaged growth.
Change is not always necessary and not all change is good.
Lauren Pennisi 2411 W Pleasanton AveFrom: l Pennisi <lppennisi@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 4:31 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] ZOA23-00001, CPA23-00001
This zoning code rewrite is nothing more than a way to destroy the American Dream of single-family homeownership, all in the name of climate change, equity, and affordability.
The proposed changes are so legally complicated that the residents will most likely be unable to fight the radical transformation that this code permits. The housing bonus ordinance was a warmup for what is proposed in this ZCR.
I participated in several of the ZCR community sessions and have testified at P&Z hearings in the past so I have been involved in the process. I know how difficult it was to bring arguments before P&Z because residents could only base their comments on legal challenges. This rewrite would compound the public's ability to participate in the process because if a person cannot understand the legalese then how can that person challenge it? This ZCR seeks to remove the public from the process and solidify the relationship between the City and developers all to accelerate development, but the taxpayers pay and suffer the consequences of unmanaged growth.
Change is not always necessary and not all change is good.
Lauren Pennisi 2411 W Pleasanton AveFrom: Linda P <lindapeterson83706@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 9:38 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Proposed Zoning Code
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.
Thank you, Linda
Peterson2195 S. White Pine Pl. Boise, ID 83706
From: Linda P <lindapeterson83706@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 9:38 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Proposed Zoning Code
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.
Thank you, Linda
Peterson2195 S. White Pine Pl. Boise, ID 83706
Madison Lockhorn
From: bella.pratt@ymail.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 7:16 AM
To: Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Extend Timeline for Upzoning
3/28/23
To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningr ewrite@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 for public comment by at least 90 days.
Sincerely,
Bella Pratt 2577 S. Oak Leaf Ln
Madison Lockhorn
From: bella.pratt@ymail.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 7:16 AM
To: Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Extend Timeline for Upzoning
3/28/23
To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningr ewrite@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 for public comment by at least 90 days.
Sincerely,
Bella Pratt 2577 S. Oak Leaf Ln
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:33 AM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: Contact Form Submitted to City Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
