Public Comments June 2 through June 8

From: Shane Adkins <shane.r.adkins@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:14 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Code

Hello,

I am in favor of the update zonin g code proposal. Boise is one the most unaffordable cities in the United States in  respect to housing. This is primarily driven by a low supply of  available housing that this zoning code update should help  to remedy somewhat.

Thank you.

Shane Adkins  Boise (City Council District 3)

Madison Lockhorn

Madison Lockhorn

From: mtnbillygt@aol.com

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:05 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Rewrite Comments

Good day, Mayor, City of Boise Council, Numerous letters, photographs, e-mails, and phone calls have been submitted in regards to heavy industrial dirt dump trucks being staged, stored, serviced, and shuttled from a R1-C Residential District, West Capitol Manor No. 2. Trucks are as big as 80,000 GVW, that is a huge vehicle. It is hoped all are familiar on this matter. It is also hoped that the Boise City Code can be adjusted to strengthen the following sections to prevent such activities again and to see these trucks being parked in a suitable Industrial/Commercial Zone.

Section 6-10A-14 Parking of Overweight Commercial Vehicles in Residential Districts Prohibited would be rewritten to say "No person shall park any commercial vehicle having a gross weight capacity in excess of 8,000 pounds, whether attended or unattended at any place in a residential district whether on public or private property for over two hours except while engaged in construction or any other permitted activity."

Section 11-07-03e "No Commercial vehicles shall be parked, stored, or otherwise left unattended at any place in a residential district whether on public or private property for over two hours except while engaged in construction or any other permitted activity. Attended means operator is PRESENT to perform activities concerning Industrial//Commercial vehicles" Thanks Bob Allen

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:49 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Alice Antonioli

Address Boise, ID 83704

Comment

I strongly support Boise's zoning code rewrite. I want Boise to be a city where my kids and all kinds of workers  can find homes and a good quality of life. This zoning code rewrite is essential for our local high school graduates  coming back home after college.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

From: Carrie Applegate <capplegate@hummelarch.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:33 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite Comment

I support Boise's proposed zoning code rewrite and live in Boise. This is the only way we will be able to add  affordable housing where it's needed.

Carrie Applegate

Get Outlook for iOS

Madison Lockhorn

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:21 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Elizabeth Artis

Address Boise, ID 83706

Comment

As a 5th generation Boisian and a renter I support our city’s code to rewrite for density. This will ensure sprawl  will not be our legacy, protecting our wild undeveloped boundaries and make my goal of small home ownership  attainable.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:10 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Brody Aston

Boise, ID 83703

Comment

We support more flexibility in housing for all of Boise.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Joseph Bankard <jabankard@nnu.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 10:22 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Public Testimony Supporting Rezone

Dear City Councilmembers,

My name is Joe Bankard.  I am the pastor at Collister UMC in Boise.  Our church partnered with LEAP Housing Solutions  to build two units of affordable housing on our property.  This  project has breathed new life into our congregation.  It  has given us a sense of mission and purpose. We are demonstrating God's love to the community.  It also got our  congregation very interested in the current housing crisis facing Boise (and Idaho at large).  Housing prices have gone  through the roof as have rents. There is little availability and those with thin margins have started to couch surf or have  fallen into homelessness.  As a city we need more housing and more affordability.  This is vital if we want to avoid the  many problems facing cities like Seattle, Portland and San Francisco. We need to get ahead of the tidal wave of housing  insecurity and homelessness set to hit our city.  To do this we need more apartments, more density, and more  affordability.  I strongly support the rezone.  I encourage you to vote yes on the rezone.

Dr. Joe Bankard.

Joseph Bankard, Ph.D

Associate Professor of Philosophy  Chair of Philosophy Department  Northwest Nazarene University  School of Theology and Christian Ministries

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, privileged, and/or proprietary information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments).

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 7:35 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Nicole Bare Kinney

Email nbkinney7@gmail.com

Address

1509 W Boise Ave, Boise ID 83706

Comment

I’m writing in support of the zoning code rewrite. I live in South Boise Village, which has a range of living options  and price points. This makes for a rich neighborhood that houses many different kinds of people, which is the  kind of community I want to live in. Furthermore, I would be thrilled to see even more dense and affordable  housing built in the neighborhood. Finally, i strongly support the idea of allowing small neighborhood markets.  Boise neighborhoods need more places where we can gather and get to know our neighbors. Please upzone  Boise.

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: Sunday, June 4, 2023 10:31 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name Laurie Barrera

Email lauriebidaho@gmail.com

Address

2902 W Hill Road, Boise Idaho 83703

Comment

I support Boise City's new proposed zoning code first and foremost for future generations of Boiseans. While  single family residential is what their parents have now, younger generations want options and opportunities.  We must think of the future to include more livability with a sense of neighborhood interaction, more mobility  outside of an automobile, more opportunities for outdoor activities. Thank you for your time in considering my  input.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:53 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Laurie Barrera

Address Boise, ID 83703

Comment

I support modernizing Boise zoning code so that future residents have more options and opportunities for  housing.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Kate Bauer <kjbauer93@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:24 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Public Comment

Hello!

I have been living in Boise in a duplex in West Downtown Boise since 2019. I believe updating the zoning code would  help people like me get housing quicker, whether it's residential, ADU, a tiny home, or so much more. I feel strongly that  this new modern zoning code needs to be passed as Boise is quickly growing and it's hard to find affordable housing.

Best,

Kate

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:19 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Lacey Bennion

Address Boise, ID 83716

Comment

All of our neighbors deserve to have a home! We must learn from the mistakes of other growing Western cities  and make sure we do right by the people who make Boise the incredible community it is.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: betty bermensolo <BSOLO6@msn.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:55 AM

To: CityCouncil; planningandzoningcommission@cityofboise.org; Timothy Keane; Andrea Tuning

Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite - Boise City Limits Drinking Water Depletion

Sent from Mail for Windows

To:  Boise City Council, Boise Planning & Zoning Commission, Director Tim Keane, Andrea Tuning

From:  Betty Bermensolo SWACA

Subj:  Boise City Limits Drinking Water Depletion

Date:  June 8, 2023

Veolia Water has provided critical data that was not available to the Boise City Planning and Zoning Commissioners  when they deliberated last month and voted in favor of the Zoning Rewrite.

Veolia states that within Boise City Limits there are 139,540 Residential Properties.  Of that number 5.709 Residential  Properties are not provided water by Veolia.  This would indicate that these Boise City Limits Residents and Boise Tax  Payers are relying on their domestic wells for their Drinking Water.

I own one of these properties.

Boise City Limit Residential Properties will risk loss of their wells, a critical infrastructure element, if the Boise Zoning  Rewrite moves forward without provisions that protect their water rights. See “Idaho Water Law Handbook” (pp76‐84).  This document clearly describes Groundwater Protection and the Senior water rights that have precedent over Junior  (Veolia) water right requests.  Veolia deep groundwater requests can only be considered “without adverse  consequences” to existing, senior wells due to the inevitable drawdown and depletion of domestic wells in the  traditional shallow aquifer.  See 1951/53 Groundwater Protection Amendment.   Many Boise Residents within the city limits use their wells for drinking water either because Veolia can not reach them  or the price of Veolia water would make it impossible to bear the cost. As a Boise City tax payer, I would urge the City  Council to research Idaho Groundwater Protection and look for a fair provision added to the zoning rewrite to address  this responsibility to the current 5,709 well owners within city limits.  Treasure Valley Aquifer recharge occurs with precipitation, which is essentially the same for the last 82 years (GIS) and  irrigation of our open spaces. The Concern that Boise is also asking for increased residential density (Zoning Rewrite) at a  time when there are real issues in nearby states about limiting residential development due to critical aquifer recharge  drawdowns is a compelling reason to look further at our water capacity, Idaho Water Law and not rely on a Veolia  promise for the next 50‐100 years.

Thankyou for weighing these concerns in your deliberation.

Betty Bermensolo SWACA

208‐859‐6531

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:14 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Rebekah Bitikofer

Address Boise, Idaho 83704

Comment

As Boise continues to grow, we have seen housing become less and less affordable. Idaho natives and out‐of‐state folks are both at risk of homelessness because it's so hard to find housing (let alone affordable housing). If  we want to live up to our "Boise Kind" motto, we need to update our zoning laws to allow for more housing  types in more parts of the city.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Jaycee Breedlove <jayceeblacker@u.boisestate.edu>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 9:55 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written Comments - Zoning Code Rewrite

Hi,

I am 26 years old and was born and have lived in the Treasure Valley my entire life. I went to college at Boise State  University and grew to love the city of Boise. I obtained a bachelors degree in finance and accounting.

My hope for Boise is to have more dense housing within the city through mixed use zoning. Once I graduated BSU I  wanted to purchase a house in Boise but unfortunately I couldn't afford it. I now live in Nampa. If there was more dense  housing, specifically flats (apartments) that could be purchased this would help control the housing prices and allow  younger people to afford their own homes rather than rent at outrageous rates. Denser housing would also allow for  more compact utilities. This would help lower development costs. For those who dont want to live in apartments/flats  there could be more duplexes, terraced houses, or semi detached houses within the city. With this, bus routes would  need to be improved and better/more paths for biking and walking would need to be added.

Denser housing within cities has been proven to bring more money into the economy. It allows more people to be  walking/biking within the city which encourages people to try new cafes or shops. Personally, if I'm walking/biking  through downtown or staying in downtown I'm much more likely to spend money at small shops/cafes/restaurants than  if I drive through downtown.

Please approve the modern zoning codes to create a better more connected city for our futures.

Thank you,

Jaycee Blacker

Andrea Tuning

From: Julie Blackmore <juliefblackmore@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 4:57 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] 519 S Bitteroot Drive Boise Idaho

I would like to bring something to your attention that I believe should be addressed by the City of Boise.  The home on  519 S Bitteroot has had a large red fire truck parked in their driveway for more than six months.  Many of the residents  in our neighborhood are frustrated that it never seems to move from the driveway and is an eyesore to say the  least.  Several homes are for sale in the neighborhood and I believe this is not helping with our property values.  It's also  an embarrassment to have visitors, that without exception, comment on the absurdity of a red fire engine being on  permanent display.

Please consider addressing during the public hearing next week.

Sincerely,

J Blackmore

402 S Bitteroot Dr  Boise, ID 83709

Andrea Tuning

From: Kate Blackwell <katiepsb@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 6:32 AM

To: Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

June 6, 2023

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

As a native of Boise and a fourth‐generation Idahoan, I have some concerns regarding this Zoning Code Rewrite.

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,

From: Denise C <dcaruzzi@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:12 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please approve & implement the updated zoning code for Boise

Dear Madam Mayor and Boise City Council members,

We ask the City to support the currently proposed update to our zoning code.  Not only are we experiencing a  dearth of housing for residents who make less than $60k per year‐‐and surprisingly, there are many.  We face  the reality of housing insecurity for a variety of our residents‐‐seniors, students, artists, veterans, and anyone  on a fixed or limited income or with mental or physical health problems.  Employment is no protection, when  the vacancy rate is <1%, and there is an incongruous relationship between housing cost and income. As you no  doubt know, this imbalance destabilizes families, neighborhoods, and cities, as many find it increasingly  difficult to find affordable housing.

The new zoning code, while it does not (and cannot) solve all our housing instability problems, it does provide  a foundation for increased housing types, costs, and models throughout the city.  It expands our prototypical  single family home neighborhoods with options for a wider range of Boise's residents. It has the potential to  reduce our dependance on automobile transportation‐‐understanding that housing costs ultimately include  rents, transportation, and utilities.

We encourage you to adopt and implement this new code as soon as possible, while continuing to work on  the preservation of naturally occurring affordable units, the protection of tenants with currently stable homes,  and the increased production of new/more affordable units at all levels of income below the AMI.

With our best regards,

The Boise/Ada County Homeless Coalition  Pete Schroeder, President

Madison Lockhorn

Boise Heights Neighborhood Associa�on

Comments to Boise City Council on the Zoning Code Rewrite

June 8, 2023

The Boise Heights Neighborhood Associa�on (BHNA) previously submited comments and tes�mony for the record on the zoning code rewrite now before the City Council. We urge the Council to review these in its delibera�on on this mater. At this hearing, BHNA submits these addi�onal comments to re-emphasize its posi�on on one of the subjects we addressed earlier: pedestrian and bicycle pathways and trails. Here we offer two addi�ons to the text, and further explana�on, as updates to what we submited earlier.

Sec�on 11-02-07.3.G(5)(a)(ix), page 118, contains the one-sentence mandate, which we support, that “Pedestrian access to and through the project shall be provided” in the context of hillside development. However, this simple declara�on does not specify when such access must be provided and what it must encompass (especially where open space is involved). These are deficiencies that have caused problems in our neighborhood. We present two examples.

The first concerns the mandate for pedestrian access in a 1999 condi�onal use permit (CUP) affec�ng our neighborhood that s�ll has not been fulfilled, and it is unclear when it will be. Atached as Exhibit A is BHNA’s proposed, and at this point conceptual, trail alignment through a large area of permanent open space that would comply with this condi�on’s requirement to connect Hulls Gulch, Boise Hills Park, and Military Reserve.

The second example is illustrated in atached Exhibit B. These photos demonstrate one developer’s response to this access mandate: a narrow, hard-to-recognize, un-signed, un-invi�ng and essen�ally unusable corridor squeezed between two homes in Somerset Village. This corridor then leads to a strip of open space on which no trail has been constructed.

BHNA suggested addi�on 1 (in the “Overlay Districts” sec�on, 11-02-07):

To help remedy such problems, we suggest adding the following new subsec�ons A, B, and C to sec�on 11-02-07.3.G(5)(a)(ix).

A. Each subdivision plat shall specify the loca�on and alignment within the project of pedestrian and bicycle access pathways to and through the project so as to ensure: 1) safe pedestrian and/or bicycle movement throughout the neighborhood and to adjacent neighborhoods, 2) foot and/or bicycle paths into and through adjacent open space, and 3) access corridors to these pathways from public streets or other public trail systems.

B. Within six months a�er construc�on is commenced to install any street, sidewalk, sewer or water infrastructure for any project subject to these condi�ons, the pedestrian access pathways described in subsec�on (5)(a)(ix)(A), above, shall be constructed. These pathways and connec�ons shall be secured through dedica�on, easement or other binding and permanent mechanism.

C. It is the intent of this condi�on 5(a)(ix)(A) and (B) that all purchasers of lots, dwellings, or other property interests within the project shall have no�ce, by means of the relevant recorded plat, easement or similar instrument, and by means of their physical existence, of

the pedestrian access, trails, pathways, and/or public easements within and connec�ng to the project. Trailheads and pedestrian/bicycle access corridors from any public street shall be clearly marked and sufficiently wide to make the access way obvious and to allow their contained pathways to be reasonably separated from any dwelling or other structure on adjacent plated lots.

BHNA suggested addi�on 2 (in the “Foothills Development Standards” sec�on):

We agree with the requirement in sec�on 11-04-05.6(5)(b) (“Standards for Trails”) (p. 230), that “[t]rails that comply with the following design standards shall be provided as part of the subdivision or development.” And we agree with the design standards listed as items i-iv. But again, we point out that the code should specify when these trails must be constructed. Therefore, we respec�ully suggest that the following should be inserted as new subsec�ons 11-04-05.6(5)(b)(v) and (vi):

v. Each subdivision plat shall specify the loca�on and alignment within the project of pedestrian access to and through the project, public pedestrian and/or bicycle trails, and the access corridors to these from public streets or other trail systems. Within six months a�er construc�on is commenced to install any street, sidewalk, sewer or water infrastructure for any project subject to these condi�ons, pedestrian access to and through the project, and public access to trails, and trails themselves, shall be constructed. These trails and connec�ons shall be secured through dedica�on, easement or other binding and permanent mechanism.

vi. It is the intent of this condi�on 5(b) that all purchasers of lots, dwellings, or other property interests within the project shall have no�ce, by means of the relevant recorded plat, easement or similar instrument, and by means of their physical existence, of the pedestrian access, trails, pathways, and/or public easements within and connec�ng to the project. Trailheads and access corridors from any public street shall be clearly marked and sufficiently wide to make the access way obvious to pedestrians and to allow their contained pathways to be reasonably separated from any dwelling or other structure on adjacent plated lots.

Andrea Tuning

From: Tori Thomas <TThomas@Boisechamber.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 2:55 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Boise Metro Chamber Opposes Increase to Electronic Message Sign Display Time

Boise City Council Members,

The Boise Metro Chamber along with multiple others in the business community utilize electronic message signs,  displaying upcoming events, information and support for local businesses.

The growth of digital signage has persisted over the years, primarily attributed to its outstanding communicative and  interactive capabilities. This system not only enhances real‐time interaction and engagement with large audiences but  also serves as a catalyst for substantial improvement in these aspects.

We believe changing the requirement of static frame messages from 8 seconds to 20 seconds will hinder businesses and  lower audience reach, and in doing so negatively impact our local businesses, events and tourism opportunities.

The Boise Metro Chamber recommends maintaining the industry standard of 8 second static frame messages.

Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our community.

Sincerely,

Tori Thomas

Tori Thomas Community and Government Affairs Manager

Boise Metro Chamber

P: (208) 472-5211 | C: (208) 921-9607

tthomas@boisechamber.org | www.boisechamber.org

1101 W. Front St., Ste. 100, Boise, ID 83702

Boise Working Together

P.O. Box 7082

Boise, Idaho 83707

March 22, 2023

Boise Planning and Zoning Commission

Boise City Hall

150 North Capitol Boulevard

Boise, Idaho 83702

Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners,

The Board of Boise Working Together has unanimously voted to oppose the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) in its final draft form released on February 28 of this year. We do not oppose changes to Boise’s zoning code overall, but the ZCR fails broadly as it increases land use impacts while substantially limiting public input.

Excluding meaningful public input harms local government process and transparency, and squanders local, site-specific knowledge over Boise’s eighty square-mile expanse.

Boise community leaders have long called for encoding more of Blueprint Boise into our Zoning Code, but the ZCR fails to make headway in incorporating the cherished quality of life policies into enforceable code. Failure to encode Blueprint Boise’ s policies in the ZCR now while entitling higher land use impacts may forfeit our ability to achieve these public goals in the future, as once private property is entitled, restricting its use may be challenged as a legal taking.

For a great many reasons too numerous to list here, the ZCR as currently written will dramatically and suddenly transform Boise’s landscape in ways that will adversely affect the lives of our residents, most of whom will be taken completely by surprise by the scope of change. The way this code is written it targets areas of Boise, populated by those least able to object, with the least remaining housing options available to them.

The following are a number of specific reasons for our opposition as specified by input and inclusion from all board members.

The process of writing this code has not obtained the widespread public input and awareness as advertised. Many, many neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes, most have no idea what is coming. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No prototypes or housing examples showing “worst case” scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been publicized to the viewing public. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 1000 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to ascertain what has changed from the last version let alone the current code.

A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. Due to unforeseen circumstances one-third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected. Currently three out of six council districts are not represented. Deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite now, a few short months before the November election is not sound policy and clearly designed to circumvent this important electoral process. The ZCR will forever change how Boise grows and evolves, it is only prudent for it to be enacted by a City Council representing each district of Boise and following the will of the voters they will represent.

If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will not help the supply of “affordable housing”. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021). Proposed “affordability” incentives will have minimal effect on increasing that supply. However, the numerous incentives to entice redevelopment in Boise older neighborhoods, will significantly increase displacement of Boise’s at-risk populations. It will also cause the removal of Boise’s last remaining naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), without a comprehensive displacement policy to mitigate those societal issues. The replacement market rate housing will also be significantly more expensive than the housing it replaces. Any incentives offered will not come close to replacing the low-income housing lost. There are numerous examples of this- Arbor Village, 11th and Ash, 11th and lee, Travis Apartments, Ridenbaugh Apartments, even Targee and Vista. Is this the community we have we become?

Reducing the minimum lot size in R-2 and R-1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High-density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty-year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established.

New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Significantly reducing lot sizes R1C and R2 zones will encourage demolition of current homes in stable neighborhoods. In some cases, our models show the potential for lot split increases of up to 95% vs 30% by current standards. This defies Blue Print Boise standards of protecting stable neighborhoods. Additionally, the increased height limits ignore compatibility standards. These height standards weren’t an issue before, but with new pressures to redevelop with new uses, new densities, this will be a new issue to overcome. Vast areas across the Boise Bench and West Boise are built with single level homes, split entry and tri-level homes with low pitched roofs. The tallest home in the Vista neighborhood is a full two story with a shallow pitched roof and is only 21 ft at the peak. That is a vast difference from the proposed 40 ft height in R1C. Very few homes are full two-story homes in the targeted area, as opposed to the architecture styles in the North end. This aspect of the current built environment- architecturally, economically, aesthetically is not given adequate thought in this final draft. If it works in the “North End” it should work everywhere, seems to be only standard to achieve.

Boise’s R-2 zone has been re-conceived as a higher-density apartment zone similar to today’s R-3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four-story buildings and no

limit on density. These areas are currently single-family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Medium-density neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University also bear a high-density burden in vehicles, noise, and short-term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems. There is a noticeable lack of examples in what a dwelling will look like on a 1500 sq ft lot, 5 stories high (R3) or for R2 on a 2500 sq ft lot 4 stories high. Instead, each of these districts seem to jump beyond what they were originally designed for- transitions from R1C neighborhoods to commercial uses. R2 and R3 are architecturally pushed into high density apartments vs medium density townhome style dwellings. Just pushing these limits does not mean sound, quality architecture and design is automatically achieved. Boise City Council recently approved an RFP for 12 Missing Middle/Zoning Rewrite consultants, not one of their websites illustrates the issues in design and compatibility these increased standards create. Instead, more is always the path pursued, regardless if it actually makes any sense or not.

Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R-1 to R-2 with 45-foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods of mostly single level homes. Additionally, reaching ¼ mile into surrounding neighborhoods from any MX3 zone will also create havoc in these neighborhoods. The 55 ft wide lot rule in these areas seems to ensure that that the nicest areas are the ones targeted for redevelopment vs the areas that do need it. The 55 ft rule also excludes the majority of housing and neighborhoods designed and built prior to 1950. Prior to 1950 most lots(not all) were configured with a 50 ft wide lot and alley access, equating to 5000 sq ft lot standard. From the 50’s onward, lot and home styles were more car centric, with attached garages, necessitating shallower wider lots. Home styles also changed significantly moving aware from narrow bungalow style homes, to ranch style mid-century modern, which is specifically designed to have a lower height footprint. Mid-century modern styles which are a very favorable design trend in style and consumer demand, seem to be ignored and discredited with this rewrite.

Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. This increase in size, combined with the minimum open space reduction to 200 sq ft and increased redevelopment across our neighborhoods will drastically reduce our tree canopy and open space, essentially negating any perceived environmental advantage gained with density.

Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner-occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability?

The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of pocket neighborhoods and town homes and

condos rather than apartments. The pressure to build rental units vs homes to own will only exacerbate pricing issues in housing to own, far into the future. If we do not build homes to own now, the remaining homes to own will become far more expensive and increase gentrification and economic segregation in Boise, something the ZCR is supposed to reduce not exacerbate.

The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non-contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods.

The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example:

• Industrial uses in the I-1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.” • Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance.

In the R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, MX-1, and MX-2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions.

The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated; ”

(Italics added)

Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side-by-side with existing singlefamily homes in R-1C and R-2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. While there seems to be a desire for this in our neighborhoods, the details are lacking. This should be a conditional use permit, requiring notification and acceptance by surrounding property owners, who have to live next to them, in front of them and beside them. It should not be a “by right” issue where one entity can intrude into neighborhood, removing local control over how a neighborhood evolves.

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

Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single-family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off-street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on-street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships.

Only when a serious urban transit system is actually in place will it be realistic to plan for reductions in traffic instead of merely hoping for fewer cars and trucks on the road and parking on neighborhood streets. People today do not ride transit, because it takes too long, not because they don’t live close to it.

The highly urban form the new code promotes will reduce non-built space. This will create significant tree and green space loss, and minimal permeable areas. Minimum open space requirement have been cut in half to 200 sqft while increasing lot coverage standards. Other likely results will include reduced wildlife habitat, reduced vegetation to absorb CO2, lower temperatures and buffer climate stress. Public and scientific recognition of the importance of urban greenspace has increased greatly in recent decades. Current parcel zoning and development changes that City bodies are granting already erode greenspace and urban forest canopy in our Boise neighborhoods. As written, the ZCR will accelerate these greenspace losses and rob the public of our right to comment on greenspace-altering development in the heart of our neighborhoods. Mature trees do not receive adequate protection by the City of Boise. A home or an apartment complex can be built in a relatively short time. A mature tree requires a generation to grow and evolve.

The Zoning Code Rewrite willeliminate Boise's power to negotiate with developers on a site-specific basis Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require 'Development Agreements' (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open-ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site-specific information and concerns from local residents.

The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boise's at-risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades.

The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R-2 or R-1C zones.

The Housing needs analysis is already outdated and questionable in its conclusions. There has not been any analysis of the conclusions made by the Housing Needs Analysis. Which was created in 2021 at the height of the Covid related surge and societal turmoil(riots). The first page of the Atlanta White Paper, summarizing Atlanta Neighborhoods objection to a very similar rewrite in Atlanta, highlight the need to NOT make long term strategic decisions based on a short-term surge or trend. The Nation, the Treasure Vally is currently in a housing and economic recession whose length and severity is unknown. Using data created in a short-term surge is not a sound policy- strategically or economically. Additionally, analysis of the Housing Needs data has not been done or proven out, just taken as “gospel”. The 2021 COMPASS development and permitting report indicates that Boise permits have averaged a little over 1600 units per year from 2014-2021. That number is only 26% of total permits in Ada County for the same time period. The Housing Needs increase to 2773 units per year and 42% of the Ada County permits is very questionable and no data is given to prove those assertions. This is the report that is driving every aspect of the rewrite, why has it not been challenged or analyzed for accuracy and veracity?

Transit? A significant commitmentis being made when long-term funding is still an issue. Development and increased densities along the key transit corridors- Vista, Fairview and State St is necessary. Many of Boise’s corridors are in need of significant investment/redevelopment as well. But are we ready as a community to sacrifice neighborhood integrity along these same corridors when our state legislature does not recognize or support funding for transit? Should we be forcing residents to

decide NOW, to support transit or support their homes and neighborhoods when transit viability, in Idaho, is questionable? The need is recognized, the long-term funding sources are not. The proposed incentives within ¼ mile of Mixed-Use parcels and within our neighborhoods along corridors and arterials is quite extensive and invasive. Is it all necessary, right now or is it something that should be added later as corridors redevelop and transit funding is secured, if it ever is (the reality in Idaho).

Thank you for your attention in this matter of vital concern to our city and all of its residents and neighborhoods for generations to come. It is so vitally important to take the time necessary to get it right the first time. Economic and current housing recession warrant the extra time. Examples from Atlanta, Austin, California and other cities also warrant the extra time. The local political environment and conditions of representation do as well. Boise’s residents, despite efforts to notify and inform them, do not have an understanding of what this ordinance does and will do to their neighborhoods. Or what specific details hidden in this 611-page code take away. We have taken three years to get to this point, why rush it now? Let’s make sure this is what the whole community wants and will accept. The all-encompassing impacts of this ordinance economically, socially, environmentally and physically require active, open debate and discussion which has just begun. S

Sincerely,

Dave Kangas, President Boise Working Together

Andrea Tuning

From: 208natasha@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Natasha Boles <208natasha@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:26 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am writing to express my support for the Modern Zoning Code. I have Parkinson's, single mom can't find a place to live  under $1,500.

I work in mental health yet can't afford to live.

Sincerely,  Natasha Boles

1288 E Everest St Apt G102 Meridian, ID 83646‐3009 208natasha@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

From: pamelabord@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Pam Bond <pamelabord@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:09 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I support the Modern Zoning Code because everyone should have a place to live that is dignified and affordable. We  need to be able to build up, not just out.

Sincerely,

Pam Bond  1335 E Victory Rd  Boise, ID 83706‐5158  pamelabord@isu.edu

Andrea Tuning

From: pattylbowen@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Patty Bowen <pattylbowen@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 9:59 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please pass the Modern Zoning Code!

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am writing to express my support for the Modern Zoning Code. I have talked to hundreds of Boise residents about this  issue, and the majority care about making Boise a home for future generations. This Zoning Code is one of the best  things we can do to make Boise more bikeable and walkable, support water and energy efficiency, plant more trees, and  make homes in Boise more affordable for everyone.

Please pass this zoning code and create a city that everyone can afford!

Sincerely,

Patty Bowen

912 W Fort St  Boise, ID 83702‐5425  pattylbowen@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

From: Duncan Breedlove <duncanbreedlove@u.boisestate.edu>

Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 6:52 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written Comment - Zoning Code Rewrite

Hello,

I have lived in Boise for 8 years. I'm 26. I am in support of a zoning code rewrite that allows for higher density and mixed  use zones. It allows for effective public transit and alternative commuting like bicycling, lowers the price of housing  (which also has a positive impact on homelessness), improves the local economy, and reduces land use.

There are many people opposed to a zoning rewrite because they don't understand the benefits. People not in support  of this rewrite should travel to Europe and see examples of cities that flourish under higher density. And they can still  choose to live in the suburbs. Higher density cities still have detached housing.

Please approve the zoning code rewrite.

Duncan Breedlove  1866 S Colorado Ave, Boise ID 83706

Madison Lockhorn

From: Angelina Briggs <briggs.angelina@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:34 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning change (R1 to R2) homeowner letter

Boise City Council, RE: Residential Zoning change for Ellis Ave / 24th Street block.

My name is Angelina Briggs and I live in the block on the north side of Ellis Ave between 24th and 25th Streets. It’s come to my attention that Planning & Zoning has approved a change of our zoning from R1 to R2 and City Council will soon vote on the decision.

We would like to voice our opposition to the change. Our home has been in the family since it was built in 1931 by my great-grandparents. As a 4th generation Boisean, I cherish the north end history and charm. Not only are my family’s roots deep in this neighborhood, but the houses have remained in-tact with historic character and updates that respect the integrity of the homes’ original architecture. Those of us who live in this area understand the value our property holds, both monetarily and experientially. The proposed zoning change opens the door for drastically reducing that value.

If the R2 change claims to promote “affordable housing”, my question is why does that need to be done in the very unique and historic part of Boise? Why disrupt an established neighborhood by bringing more people and more cars, and promoting demolition of what’s been there for a century? There has to be another more suitable location for higher density housing and the other types of buildings zone R2 allows.

We desire to stay in our home for as long as possible, and to help preserve the very limited historic homes Boise is fortunate to have. When I look at old photographs my great-grandparents took from the kitchen window, looking onto Ellis Avenue, it is such a pleasure to look out those same windows today and see the same homes across the street that were captured in those old photographs. If this zoning change is passed, the view out our kitchen window could change dramatically. For us, and for many people in our neighborhood. Please don’t let this happen.

Angelina & Matt Briggs

Andrea Tuning

From: Laurie Brunye <luvs2read18@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 1:16 PM

To: ZoningRewrite; Laurie Brunye; Barry Brunye; Andrea Brunye; Lindsay DeMas; Evan Brunye; Barbara and Rob Gordon

Subject: [External] zoning re write

I have three questions I believe are at the core of the proposed zoning re write:

1 You call for the removal of the density calculation requirement: Where can I find the results of the environmental impact survey that surely was done?

Sounds like the proposed building of affordable housing will take years if not decades to complete, which will result in the displacement of indigenous wildlife.

The equipment and machinery used in tearing down and rebuilding will be powered by fossil fuels which will have a negative impact on air quality and noise.

While all the walking and public transportation is being figured out, let alone implemented, in the utopian vision for Boise, there will still be automobiles clogging our roads due to construction.

I have also read of a proposed cutback in the bus schedule due to funding issues. These issues should be resolved first, not later.

2. What is affordable:

What metric are you using to define affordable?

What is the maximum $ amount that can be spent per door and still remain affordable? Has anyone done the math?:

Affordable to whom?

You mention all income levels. Will there be a sliding scale? (taxpayer funded subsidies) Will people with a higher income level have options others do not? HHHMMM

3. Elected representatives: Anyone voting on this issue must be a duly elected representative of the residents they serve, not a political appointee of the current mayor,

Sincerely,

Laurie Brunye Resident of Boise 6-7-2023

From: Ben Burnham <ben.burnham11@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 8:18 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Modern Zoning Code Written Testimony - ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001

Hello,

I am testifying today as a mid 30’s, thankful homeowner, who got in right before the market exploded, from the Central Bench (ACHD district not NA) who serves on my Neighborhood Association (NA) and works in a role where I supervise young professionals right out of college and trades staff. I note my NA participation and job because they are both very influential in why I am strongly supportive of the modern zoning code proposal.

I am a bullet list person and here are my primary reasons as to why I support this well put together document:

Earlier Neighborhood Participation and Faster Project Approval: As a NA board member, it is wonderful that the City is pushing for earlier feedback, so that impacted neighbors can weigh in before the project is essentially in its perceived final stage. This creates an environment where the neighborhood meetings are ineffective and typically toxic. The neighbors feel as though the project is too late to change and the developers have to navigate a hostile crowd that is usually against the proposed development. By moving the meetings to earlier in the process, neighbors will be a part of the development process, rather than weighing in at the perceived end, and thus creating more buy-in from their future neighbors. This code proposal also lessens the requirement for some neighborhood meetings in a way that I think are very reasonable. Currently, nearly every proposal is treated like a battle against change and it is not productive for either side of the issue. With this, we can get more housing more quickly and remove the government from getting involved when it does not need to be involved.

Low Wage Workers and Housing: As a supervisor of entry level professionals who tend to come from out of state (due to a lack of local candidates) and trades staff, this issue is of particular interest and impact to my life. While the benefits to my employment tend to be great, the wages tend to be below market rate. It is not possible to pay rent or a mortgage based on benefits. As the state capital and home to the largest, public fouryear university in the state, we are a city full of folks who have agreed to work for a bit less, for the public good. Those folks, and all lower wage workers, deserve the opportunity to live close to their work in respectable housing. With the state limitations on city/state supported housing, this rewrite is the next best strategy in bringing more units online.

My Housing Journey: As noted above, I am fortunate to be a homeowner. I was lucky enough to purchase a house in the Central Bench (ACHD district not NA) in the Fall of 2020, which was a time when home values were going up quickly, but not out of this world which happened a few months later. For one, I would not be able to purchase my very small home today. Secondly, my goal in housing was to purchase a townhome/condo and not a house. I had no desire to live the suburban dream of single family home ownership but the overly regulated market dictated otherwise. There were no affordable townhome/condo options within a safe bikeable distance from my work and the core of the city. This zoning code proposal would once again allow for housing diversity and smaller scale developers in the city. The “coolest” neighborhoods in Boise are those that were built before our current zoning code. Every citizen deserves a “cool” neighborhood, with a coffee shop in walking distance, and that features a variety of different housing types for a very diverse set of interests and needs.

The Next 30 Years, Not the Last 30 Years: Technology will be driving change and the need to be adaptable more quickly every passing year. Change is coming, and is here now, whether the community likes it or not. Wouldn’t it be great to be able to guide change in a positive manner rather than via a code that was written in the 1960’s? I say yes.

Andrea Tuning

Support Sustainable Neighborhoods: As a Central Bench area resident, the idea of easier to obtain, infill development is an incredibly exciting prospect. I live near the Orchard corridor which has been passed over time and time again by the city, ACHD, and private development. While this has created an affordable ecosystem which has allowed for the most diverse and incredible block of businesses in the city, it could be so much more. These amazing businesses deserve more customers who can walk and bike to their locations since the Orchard corridor is one of the least safe to navigate at this time. Strategic infill development is the best tool the city has to achieve its climate action plan goals, reduce vehicle traffic congestion, and create safer, more walkable and bikeable neighborhoods. The entire city should be able to enjoy the immense pleasure and connection that I get to enjoy when walking or biking to the Push and Pour development on Latah and Alpine. Let’s welcome people to our existing infrastructure and neighborhoods and stop the development from expanding further into the desert expanses.

Lastly, as you all maneuver through this process, I would like to leave you with two very telling graphics.

And I wanted to showcase some of my graphic design skills:

Thanks for your time and consideration,

Ben Burnham

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:31 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Charlie Camacho

Boise, ID 83704

Comment

I have seen unprecedented growth in Boise over the last 11 years. If our zoning code was written in 2012 it  would be outdated, let alone having been written in the 1960s. Update the code and plan now for the future.  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Comments for City Council

June 2023

Thank you Mayor and Council Members for hearing these comments. My name is Joanie Fauci, 2944 N Hillway Dr Boise ID 83702. While not currently on the Board, I have been asked by the Board of the Central Foothills Neighborhood Association to comment on their behalf.

We want to thank the staff for all the outreach and meetings they’ve had, even through a pandemic. I have been following the Zoning Code Rewrite since the beginning. I have attended meetings and commented at each phase.

I learned a lot during the town hall or neighborhood meetings and most recently at the Planning and Zoning meetings. The residents of our City have a variety of opinions. I too have modified my opinions on the Rewrite throughout the process.

I used to be concerned about the limited parking requirements. But no longer, especially after hearing from a developer how much more rent they have to charge to provide more parking. We don’t need higher rents. I also talked to a new friend about parking in her apartment complex. She says she rarely goes to the parking garage for her car, maybe once a week. She mostly uses one of her bicycles to get around town. She needs more bicycle parking, not car parking. And I heard many other young people testify similarly at the P&Z hearings. I do hope all future apartment/condo complexes have covered, secured bicycle and scooter parking, of at least one space per bedroom as well as electric vehicle charging stations for the modern car. And hopefully we will have a better mass transit system in the future.

I used to be concerned about duplexes and quadplexes. But then I looked around the North, East, and West End neighborhoods. They are tucked in everywhere and everyone is getting along just fine. Some people even testified that the plexes had more hurdles to jump through for approvals and thus resulted in a more neighborly development then some mega-single family residents that take up the entire lot and tower over the neighboring houses. So, I think we should be allowing the plexes and other smaller housing options, with building restrictions, to be built.

I used to be concerned about the public involvement process. But I’m over that now too.

What I am not over and still have concerns with are:

1. Mandates vs incentives. I’ve been told that the “code” cannot have mandates. That’s just too bad. We should be mandating affordable housing and energy efficiency/sustainability improvements.

2. A way to say “no” and the “by right” allowance. Too often I’ve seen the City approve a development proposal because “code” allowed it and there was fear of being sued. I wish the City had a way out, a way to just say “no”. Not every development should go forward.

3. Development agreements, variances, waivers. This area is where the public feels uneducated and out of the process. It’s a grey area and likely always will be, unfortunately.

4. Code compliance enforcement. The new Zoning Code is probably not the place for a staffing goal, but we do need more code compliance enforcement staff and the ability for them to levy fines or other violation punishments. We, being in the WUI Overlay zone, are mostly concerned with Firewise vegetation and outside lighting…Through this process we have also become aware of CUP amenities that never get fulfilled. This is especially a problem in multi-phased developments. CUP amenities and infrastructure improvements should be

required to be completed at the beginning of projects, not at the end. Some examples are fire stations, trail access, and playgrounds with bathrooms.

Things we really do like in the draft new Zoning Code:

1. WUI vegetation requirements. This totally affects our livability. We are SO vulnerable to wildfire. It worries us daily. Thanks for putting these requirements and the WUI Overlay in the code.

2. Water quantity, water quality, energy efficiency. This is our future. We need to be conservative with all of this.

3. Pedestrian, bicycle, mass transit. This will help all of us with better air quality, better exercise and health, and just better living.

This past winter the news group BoiseDev surveyed Neighborhood Associations for their comments on the Zoning Code Rewrite. Hopefully the Mayor and Council saw the article. We would like to express our support of most of the points made by the Boise Heights, Centennial, Collister, North End, West End, and West Valley Neighborhood Associations. We also agree with the opinions of the Neighbors for Boise group.

Our City has changed tremendously in recent years. It’s time for our zoning code to change also. So, even though we have some concerns, we think the new Zoning Code should be approved.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely, the Board of the Central Foothills Neighborhood Association.

June 8, 2023

Boise City Mayor McLean and Boise City Council

150 N. Capitol Boulevard

Boise, ID 83702

Esteemed Mayor and Council,

The purpose of this letter is to provide testimony regarding the adoption of the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite – Adoption Draft and the recommended modifications detailed in the memo to you all from Mr. Tim Keane, Planning and Development Services Director, dated June 1, 2023.

I support the motivation for this rewrite: providing a clean-slate, modern code, having code provisions that support implementation of the comprehensive plan, recognizing that the needs of a community change over time with increases in population and advancements in technology, and, most importantly, establishing provisions that facilitate the construction of affordable housing.

I want this rewrite to be successful, and, to that end, I feel that there are five issues to address to ensure that success. Those issues are:

• The importance of the minor land division process as it relates to residential, commercial, and industrial property owners.

• The impact of detached sidewalks on affordability and compact residential development.

• Housing affordability and length of deed restriction commitment.

• Proposed provisions that are inappropriate.

• Clarity and use of consistent terms.

MINOR LAND DIVISION PROCESS

The Director Memo recommends adding the Minor Land Division back into the zoning code. This addition is essential to not only providing affordable infill housing opportunities, but also providing right-sized commercial and industrial properties. Our engineering and surveying firm has filed numerous minor land divisions records of survey to create properties that are the necessary size for new or relocating businesses. Without this ability, those new and relocating business owners may go to other cities that have more flexible codes to create the right size property. Unfortunately, as proposed, the minor land division addition lacks any reference to commercial and industrial properties. I recommend moving the provision regarding incentives

to another separate standard (p) and delete the reference in the purpose statement. (Code language is shown in a different font.)

B. Minor Land Division

The purpose of the Minor Land Division is to provide the right size properties for commercial and industrial uses and to incentivize the development of affordable housing by allowing projects which comply with one or more of the incentives in Section 11-04-03.7 to create up to four buildable parcels without being subject to the procedures for review and approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat….

(1) Standards “In addition to complying with one or more of the Incentives in Section 11-04-03.7, the Minor Land Division must meet the following conditions:

(p) A Minor Land Division in a residential zoning district must comply with one or more on the Incentives listed in Section 11-04-03.7

DETACHED SIDEWALKS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The City clearly wants detached sidewalks everywhere in the city. Each zoning district except downtown includes at a minimum an eight-foot landscape buffer between the curb and a fivefoot sidewalk. This standard will impact affordable housing.

In the residential districts, the detached sidewalk provision will put the edge of sidewalk six feet into the property and then the 20-foot setback to the garage (assuming front loaded) is measured from that point. This places the home 26 feet from the front property line. When you consider rear setbacks, the impact on small lots is huge. (Please note that I didn’t include side setbacks because the area is dependent on the length of the building.) Finally, the provisions of Residential Small Lots section create even more restrictions on buildable area:

(3) Building Size Residential floor area shall not exceed 70 percent of the effective lot area.

(4) Open Space Each unit shall have a minimum of 200 square feet of open space.

The table below highlights the cumulative impacts of these standards.

1 Calculated by adding the six feet required for detached sidewalks plus the required front setback and multiplying by the assumed lot width.

2 Calculated by multiplying the required rear setback by the assumed lot width.

I recommend deleting the building size provision given that it is unclear from the definition of effective lot area (11-06.02 3 B) if required landscape buffers and sidewalks and the accompanying ACHD easements are included or excluded from the calculation. As demonstrated by the table, the restrictions on Residential Small Lots are already unduly burdensome. Also, this is the only use of effective lot area in the new code.

A second disincentive regarding affordable housing and detached sidewalks is in the MX-3 Mixed Use District 11-02-03.3D2. As before, the streetscape standards in subsection “b” require a detached 5-foot sidewalk that has at least an 8-foot landscape buffer. This will usually put the edge of sidewalk 6 feet into the property. But within the MX-3 ground floor residential standards in subsection “f”, the code requires that:

Each building façade facing a public or private street that contains ground floor residential uses shall be constructed within 15 feet of each street-facing lot line/property line and occupy at least 50 percent of the width of the primary street frontage.

This puts the building façade at (an uncomfortable) nine feet from the edge of sidewalk. This provision could be a disincentive to provide ground floor residential in this mixed use district.

50-YEAR COMMITMENT TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

The rewrite includes several provisions that speak to a 50-year deed restriction commitment to maintain housing affordability. I don’t oppose deed restrictions for housing affordability in exchange for a reduction or allowance on other standards. However, I suspect that asking for a 50-year commitment is too long. Even lenders normally limit their commitment to a property to 30 years. Considering the cost of construction, maintenance needs and wear-and-tear on residences, the accounting and bookkeeping to track the affordability provisions, and the risk of being out of compliance, are you confident that this option will have any appeal?

INAPPROPRIATE PROVISIONS

1. Heavy Industrial (Section 11-02-04.2 I-2) Requiring a separated sidewalk with an eight-foot landscape buffer is inappropriate in a heavy industrial zone and will affect the ability of large trucks, trailers, and machinery to safely maneuver onto and within the property.

2. Home Occupations. (Section 11-03-03.2 O) The home occupation specific use standards seek to limit the number and timing of deliveries. However, these matters are out of the control of the homeowner and unenforceable I recommend deleting this provision

2(f) Deliveries and pickups shall be limited to two per day between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Conversely, it would be very reasonable to limit the time of student instruction.

2(g) Instructions classes shall be limited to one student at a time with a maximum of eight per day Instruction classes shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

As a general note, Many of the specific use standards have limits on the hours of operation when located adjacent to a residential district. There does not seem to be a logic to why it is sometimes 6:00 am to 10:00 pm instead of 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. For instance, an artisan foundry can operate until 10:00 pm, but a sidewalk café must close by 8:00 pm. Each has an equal potential to impact the adjoining residences. To be fair to all uses, I would recommend using a single time for hours of operation.

3. Sidewalk Cafés. (Section 11-03-03.4) The Director’s Memo requests that the sidewalk café provisions be removed for now and addressed later. There is one part of the proposal I feel obligated to comment on regardless. Subsection (6)(b) states:

All furniture and furnishings shall be durable and of the same visual appearance as the primary façade, as determined by the Planning Director.

I strongly believe this is an overreaching use of the City of Boise’s police powers as allowed through the Local Land Use Law and Idaho Code Section 67-6518. As a Boise citizen and taxpayer, I do not support using tax dollars to have the Planning Director regulate furniture selections. Standards regarding furniture selections should not be included in any future draft.

4. Neighborhood Meetings. (Section 11-05-04.3 B(3)(b) The current proposal [with suggested revisions in the Directors Memo shown as underline and strikeout] is as follows:

A Neighborhood Meeting shall be held no more than six four months prior to submission of the request for Interdepartmental Review application, in a finished, climate-controlled structure near the project site in a venue that is accessible to persons experiencing mobility impairments (e.g., those using wheelchairs or walkers) and vision impairments, Monday through Thursday, excluding holidays, and shall start between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Hybrid meetings that include both in person and virtual attendance options may be allowed.

Before adopting this standard, I would ask that the city develop a list of suitable sites that can be rented by the public or otherwise reserved for use. The list is likely very limited and could have the unintended consequences of reducing attendance because the neighbors are now forced to drive many miles to go to a neighborhood meeting rather than walking next door. The limited number of venues that comply may be overwhelmed by neighborhood meeting requests making it difficult for other groups to find venues. Additionally, when looking at maps or development proposals, I’ve noticed that a lot of people have difficulty understanding the drawings and getting oriented to a property unless they are standing on the property holding the drawing oriented in the direction they are standing.

As an alternative, please consider allowing an on-site meeting with a virtual attendance option to meet the requirement. Currently it “may be allowed.”

5. Off-Street Parking Requirements. (Table 11-04.9) I understand that the city leadership is struggling with the idea of no parking minimums and parking maximums. Personally, I believe that no parking should be required and that the market will, over time, provide the amount of parking needed for the use and the zone. However, I recognize that is a difficult move for a community to make. As an interim step, I suggest the following as a way to simplify the zoning code, facilitate long term administration of the ordinance, and provide certainty and clarity to property owners.

Instead of basing the minimum off-street parking requirements by use, consider setting a low minimum standard by zoning district. Most commercial uses will have similar parking needs, or the business owners will understand their parking needs and find suitable properties or make other arrangements for parking over time. For example, I know of several popular restaurants in the valley where parking was always tight and became exceedingly difficult over time. As parking became more constrained, the restaurant owners made arrangements with adjoining property owners to allow shared parking. The market was able to allow the owners to work out the needs of their patrons. The same will be true of industrial uses and property owners. Don’t underestimate the intelligence and desire of property owners to do what is right and necessary to succeed. This has the added benefit of facilitating adaptive reuse of buildings over time. While uses can change frequently, zoning does not. Parking reductions such as those in 11-0403(7) Adaptive Reuse would not be necessary nor would many of the parking adjustment provisions in 11-04-08.7.

Regarding parking maximums, if the concern is large parking lots that create a heat island, you might consider establishing a maximum area by district rather than basing the maximum on the use. The standard in the MX-2 district would presumably be larger than in the MX-5 district.

CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY

1. Private Streets and Common Driveways. (Section 11-04-07.4 Design Standards) The City states the desire to promote infill development to provide affordable housing. Infill development often is very constrained in how to provide adequate resident and fire department access to homes. For years, common drives and private streets have been the tool for making infill development a success. Within the draft code private streets are “strongly discouraged” unless the dedication of public streets is “impracticable”. It would be helpful to have parameters as to what “impracticable” means preferably those parameters would be written to encourage infill development. Likewise Common Drives or Common Driveways (both terms are used one precise term would be better) “shall only be permitted in unique circumstances”. Again, parameters that identify where common driveways are appropriate regarding infill development would be helpful.

2. More about Detached Sidewalks.

a. Section 11-03-03.2 (Specific Use Standards for Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Dwellings) allows front porches (that are a minimum of 5 feet deep and that face the street) to have a 10-foot

front setback. Given the detached sidewalk requirement, this would normally put the porch four feet from the sidewalk. If for some reason the location of the curb were closer to the edge of the right-of-way, it could be closer. You may want to specify that the 10 feet is measured from the edge of sidewalk (if that is the intent).

b. Section 11-04-07.4 Design Standards for Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity and Circulation has the standards noted below.

(b) Detached sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all arterial and collector streets identified within the current ACHD Master Street Map….

The MX-5 Downtown district does not require detached sidewalks and has arterial and collector streets. I would recommend exempting MX-5 properties from this requirement.

(c ) When sidewalks are separated from the curb line, a minimum distance of eight to 10 feet or within an approved suspended pavement system is required to accommodate buffering and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4 Street Frontage Landscaping shall be provided.

The mandatory detached sidewalks provisions within the base zoning districts do not allow the option to provide a suspended pavement system. This allowance should be clearly added as an option otherwise the more restrictive standards or eight or 10 feet as detailed in the districts will apply. Also, could you please define suspended pavement system. It is not a familiar term

The standards of “eight to 10 feet” is not clear. The district standards detail when eight feet is the minimum and when 10 feet is the minimum. Because, by code, the more restrictive standard applies, this standard could be construed as requiring 10 feet for all landscape buffers for detached sidewalks.

3. Alternate forms of Notice. (Section 11-05-04.5 A(4)) You may want to clarify that the term “newspapers” includes both the printed and digital forms.

4. Definition of Pet. (Section 11-06-03) Did you know that by Idaho State Code horses are considered pets rather than livestock?

5. Definition of Small Lot or Residential Small Lot. (Section 11-06-03) This text needs to be corrected to be consistent with the purpose statement of the Residential Small Lot provisions. Currently the definition reads:

For the purpose of Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots, a newly created lot 3,500 square feet or less in the Residential zoning districts or a Substandard Original Lot of Record in the Residential zoning districts.

Note the reference to “newly created” and “3,500 square feet or less”. Meanwhile Section 1104-03.4 Purpose states:

The purpose of this Section is to ensure that new residential development on lots less than 3,500 square feet and Substandard Original Lots of Record are compatible in design and scale with established housing.

Note the reference to “less than 3,500 square feet” and no reference to “newly created”. The definition should be amended to read:

For the purpose of Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots, a newly created lot less than 3,500 square feet or less in the Residential zoning districts or a Substandard Original Lot of Record in the Residential zoning districts.

6. Terms in Quotes and Initial Caps. I noticed that some terms are placed in quotes (“quotes”) but there is no explanation as to what that might mean. It appears the quotes are not necessary. Similarly, it is unclear if initial caps are consistently used on defined terms.

7 Yards and Setbacks. By definition, a yard is created when a building is placed on the property. Without the building, the yard does not exist. It is therefore imprecise to use the phrase “front yard setback”. Rather, the phrase should be “front setback” It also creates possible confusion in interpreting other provisions related to setbacks and yards. Throughout most of the document, the terms “yard” and “setback” are used correctly. The following are not

a. Lot and Building Standards Table in most districts: Rear Yard Any Yard Property Line (specifically, Table 11-02.13, Table 11-02.15, Table 11-02.17, Table 11-02.19, Table 11-02.21, Table 11-02.23, Table 11-02.25, Table 11-02.27, Table 11-02.29, Table 11-02.31, Table 11-02.33, and Table 11-02.35)

b. 11-03-03.1B3c. Location and Setbacks for Accessory Uses. ii Regardless of their size, detached accessory building shall not encroach into required street side or front yard setbacks. iv.…may have rear yard setbacks of nine feet. Interior side yard setbacks shall be per the zoning district. For corner lots, a minimum 15-foot-side yard setback…Regardless of their size, detached accessory building shall not encroach into required street side or front yard setbacks. iv. …may have rear yard setbacks of nine feet. Interior side yard setbacks shall be per the zoning district. For corner lots, a minimum 15-foot-side yard setback…

c. 11-03-03.2L3. Setbacks within a Manufacture Home Community. Accessory Uses. d ii Internal Front and Steet Side YardSetbacks…The front yard setback… e Interior Side and Rear Yards Setbacks…In order to maximize yard area utility, side and rear yard setbacks may be zero feet…..

d. Table 11-04.3 Any Yard Property Line

e. Table 11-04.4 …may have reduced interior side yard setbacks of 3 feet and rear yard setbacks of 9 feet Exempt from rear and side yard setbacks abutting an alley Exempt from front and side yard setbacks in Residential…May have rear yard setbacks of nine feet in any zoning district. For corner lots, a minimum 15-foot side yard street setback is required.

f. 11-04-03 Residential Small Lots Setbacks (a) Front yard setbacks shall… (b) i. When the building is located on a common lot line/property line, the remaining side yard setback shall…(b) ii. …the interior side yard setbacks may be reduced… (b) iii. Two-story attached buildings shall have a minimum side yard setback of five feet… (c) The rear yard setback shall…

g. 11-04-09.10 B Permitted Fences (1) (a) Solid fences to a height of 36 inches or open-vision fences to a height of 48 inches may be built within the front yard setback.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for this opportunity to provide written testimony on the code rewrite. I hope you find these comments helpful in developing a clean, ready-to-implement zoning code that realizes your vision and meets the needs of the community.

Sincerely,

Anna B. Canning, AICP

Andrea Tuning

From: John Clare <john.d.j.clare@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 10:22 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] comments on updated zoning code

To whom it may concern,

I'm writing in support of the proposed updates to city zoning code. I think such updating is broadly needed‐‐maintaining  a sufficient supply of affordable housing stock across the city  is critical for its continued vibrancy. (I also appreciated th e  5/26 executive summary).

I don't view all of the proposed changes favorably, but it seems unwise to prolong updates in pursuit of a perfect (or  completely agreed‐upon) code. Echoing comments from the P&Z commission meeting, I think it makes sense to continue  to monitor the impacts of code changes (e.g., incentives) and maintain flexibility to revise the document as needed.

Thank you,

John Clare

2410 W. Idaho St.

Boise

Andrea Tuning

From: colleent1950 <colleent1950@aol.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 12:46 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Upzoning proposal.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone  Please add my name to those who oppose an "upzone" in Boise. Don't like it, don't want it, don't understand how it  could even become an issue. Preserve what we have left & stop trying to copy other states who have voted against their  residents wishes. Boise is better than that.

Andrea Tuning

From: Hollie Conde <hollie.kathleen@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:12 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] support for the ZCR

Good morning,

I'm writing to express my full support of the zoning code rewrite. Boise has experienced unprecedented growth. If we  want to be a thriving city ‐‐ not a desolate suburbia ‐‐ we need an updated zoning code. I appreciate the support of  affordable housing (parking spaces cost so much money!), the increased height allowances, and the water conservation  measures.

I also very much appreciate the robust community outreach city staff has done throughout the process. Well done!

I'm excited to bring Boise's zoning code into this millennium and plan for our future.

Best,

Hollie Conde

2906 S Abbs Lane

Boise, ID 83705

Madison Lockhorn

From: Caitlin Copple Masingill <caitlin.j.copple@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 5:24 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Support for Zoning Rewrite

Dear Mayor McLean and Boise City Council Members,

I'm reaching out to show my enthusiastic support for the zoning rewrite you'll be considering next week. I'm a fourth  generation Idahoan, small business owner and single mom. I own my home in the West End. I chose to live there  because of the proximity to great neighborhood businesses like Alchemist Coffee, Good Times Bagels, Gil's K‐9, and  many others. I love that I can safely walk my 6‐year‐old to the park and to school, as well as to the grocery store at 17th  and State. More people in our community should be so lucky.

I am currently building an ADU in our backyard in order to add to the affordable housing stock in our community. The  builder is a forward‐thinking small business, Ethos, that is owned and led by women. I believe the zoning rewrite will not  only add more affordable housing options to our community, but it will also empower small businesses who are  committed to developing differently and curtailing sprawl, to get into the game in a bigger way.

Our commitment to housing equity reflects the kind of city we w

ant Boise to be, and our values require us to support  this modernization of our code. Thank you for your service to our city and your support of this policy.

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:58 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name Jessica Cortright

Email

Address Comment

Please pass this updated zoning code.

Thank you

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Andrea Tuning

From: K Crisp <crispcabinets@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 4:50 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External]

To whom it may concern,

Upzoning Boise is a terrible idea!  Do the research and see for yourself what upzoning has done to other urban and  surrounding areas throughout the U.S.  Ada County's roadways are ALREADY overflowing and cannot sustain a more  dense population!  And if you think there is a hard time finding labor now, wait til laborers are further strained and  forced to flee Boise due to MORE increases in rental prices AND property taxes due to upzoning.  This is not Portland or  Seattle, and if you think Boiseans want those cities' policies, you yourselves should flee to said cities, where those policy  decisions would be welcomed with open arms.  It is in the best interest of Boiseans and those in surrounding  communities for Planning and Zoning to NOT Upzone Boise.

Thank you for your time,  Mr. Crisp

To the Honorable Mayor McLean and Council President Woodings, CouncilPresident ProTem Hallyburton, and CouncilMembers Bageant, Willits, Haney Keith, and Nash.

Thank you for your service to the Citizens ofBoise as well as the opportunity to comment on the Modern Zoning Code.

I am writing to express my overall support of the City of Boise’s Modern Zoning Code.

I would like to applaud the City’s Planning and DevelopmentTeam who lead the rewrite effort as well as Planning and Zoning Commission for listening to the public as well as for theirdiscussions of the Zoning Code Rewrite.

As a former member of the CitizensAdvisory Committee for the Zoning Code Rewrite, I attended all the CAC meetings, attended over 90% of all the public meetings, including the P/Z meetings where the rewrite was discussed.

I have lived in Boise for over 20 years, and like you I have witnessed the housing issues we face.Afew years back I needed some specialized medical care and I would chat with staff. I was astounded as to how manyof the staff were contracted from out of state living in hotels to fill the staffing need. I would learn while these critical staff people wanted to live here, they could not afford Boise.

The local medical staff is not the only “essential” worker that needs housing in Boise. We desperately need more affordable housing for our hospital and school staff as well as every single service worker in this area. The Modern Zoning Code will help us meet this need. We needs homes for people at allprice points.

The Modern Zoning code will also enhance our city’s sustainability and climate mitigation efforts, which will result in making the city healthier for all of us.The plan also responds to facilitating increased options for transportation. If we don’t work to respond to sprawl, the traffic congestion on our highways and roads will only increase, resulting in more pollution. I volunteer in a lot of arenas, climate advocacy, environmental sustainability being some of the groups I’m involved in.This plan gives me hope for our city’s future.

In my previous comments I expressed that the plan is huge and complex. I appreciate the executive summary in this round of discussion.As the city moves forward to finalized the plan, I have some additional suggestions:

1. In the electronic version hyper link to different sections of the document. For example, when reading a specific section in the document the reader is often referred to another location of the code. It would be beneficial to hyper link to the different points being referred. For myself I viewed the various versions hard copy and would flip back and forth in the document. I’d prefer to do that electronically.

2. Develop a few short and succinct “how to videos,” and/or short lists of steps and/or and infographic for people embarking on a specific type of project to assist people on the process and procedures.

3. Schedule an evaluation process of how the Modern Zoning Code is working at 12,18 and 24 months. Scheduled evaluations to review the code, it’s procedures and processes to see if the plan is meeting the intended outcome. This will prevent the 2023 plan from becoming overburdened by the number of variances and addendums like the current 1966 Zoning Code.

I applaud all volunteers, especially since I volunteer full time. Neighborhood Associations are volunteer organizations and I compliment theircommitment to their respective areas as well as the city. That said, I requesting that the City inquire how each NeighborhoodAssociations received input from the constituents in their designated area as the NA’s make their comments to the City Council about the Modern Zoning Code. Input from the constituents of NA’s is not equitable.

In over 23 years I have received minimal, (if any) outreach to my household about what my NAwas involved in.That is a shame on many levels. However, this is particularly disturbing during the three year plus Zoning Code Rewrite process.

There were and still are multiple opinions about the Zoning Code Rewrite. In my NA only one side of this opinion base was presented by an outside citizen presenter. While I asked for the opposite viewpoint on the Zoning Code Rewrite be presented to the board, my request was only acknowledged electronically by the vice chair and not even discussed during a public NAmeeting. This is even more disconcerting after listening to two plus years of ongoing concerns from the board members about how the city did not reach out or listen to citizens, when I, an ongoing visiting citizen constituent to the NA board meetings was not heard, recognized, or thanked for my involvement in the city, even if my opinion differed then some of the more vocal members of the board. That is not equitable.

I support the revised zoning code currently being proposed. It may not be perfect, yet this is a good plan. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.

Thank you for yourtime and dedication to this issue.

Respectfully,

Roberta D’Amico Citizen Volunteer

3109 S Crossfield Way

Boise, Idaho 83706

Andrea Tuning

From: annmdebolt@gmail.com

Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 9:30 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Cc: Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; ZoningRewrite; zoninginfo; CityCouncil

Subject: [External] Comments on the Zoning Code renewal - DO NOT APPROVE

Dear Mayor McLean, City Council, and others:

I urge you to wait before making the final decision on the Boise Zoning Code rewrite. There has not be sufficient  me for  the public to weigh in. The city released the final dra  of the 600+ page code on February 28, 2023, allowing only 22  days for the public to review it so their comments could be included in the Project Report for the Planning and Zoning  Commission.  And no execu ve summa ry was included so that people could quickly learn about the new code.

The City’s proposed Upzone will drama cally change our neighborhoods without delivering affordable housing. I am  convinced of this. Smaller minimum lot sizes, increased building heights, and the reduced parking requirements that the  new zoning proposes are not compa ble with most of our exis ng neighborhoods or the goals of Blueprint Boise.

Reducing the minimum lot size from 5,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet in R1‐C zones will encourage the demoli on  of perfectly good homes to allow lot splits. These changes will lead to loss of privacy, green space, trees, and sunlight  and will remove the predictability and peace of mind we all deserve in our homes.

In November, the Council (for the first  me) will be elected by six geographic districts, giving each part of Boise a  representa ve in the zoning code process to advocate for neighborhood specific needs. This is when a vote should be  taken on this proposed code. Not next week as is the current plan.

These modifica ons will significantly change Boise, which has already changed dras cally, even in the past 4 years. We  don’t want Boise to look like Atlanta (Mr. Keane), or any other such big city.

I urge you to think long and hard about this and slow the process down.  Thank you for the opportunity to comment.  Sincerely, Ann DeBolt

Andrea Tuning

From: Micah Deffries <micahdeffries@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:06 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Yes, I approve of new zoning

Hello,

I am a 3rd generation 29 year resident of Boise.  I bought a home 10 years ago by the skin of my teeth just before  housing prices went ballistic.  I often hear of how cool it is I got in early but I’m more grateful I had control of my housing  costs while many of my friends were priced out and had to leave the community or stop being able to save for their  future because now all of their money is going to rent.

The thing about my house is that it’s only 527sqft. Both the lot and the home are substandard.  It was built in 1948 on  land that was not in the city at the time.  I couldn’t legally build this home now and I absolutely love it.  I could have  bought a much larger home with better parking a decade ago if I went farther away from the places I knew I would want  to get to, but location and minimal commuting was my one and only objective.  Get me the smallest and worst home as  close as possible and I’ll fix it up.  I’m glad I did.  But, I see now that timing wasn’t my only advantage.  There are a great  many folks who would love to own a 2 bed 1 bath home for a while.  There is a serious lack of this kind of residence and  the current zoning is one major factor causing that shortage.  Not everybody has the income for a 5 bed home with rv  parking but we definitely have jobs all over town that only pay enough for a modest home.  We have used up essentially  all of our open land in Boise.   given the choice of 10 places like mine or 4 larger homes I vote for the smaller lots, adu’s,  duplexes and smaller parking minimums along transit routes.  We have a serious housing need and there isn’t a good  solution that doesn’t increase supply.  Period.

The good time to do this was 25 years ago, unfortunately.

Housing affordability is a complex issue that can only be addressed over time may never make everybody happy.

I don’t expect this code to be a one stop cure all, but with this sort of problem incremental solutions are still useful and I approve of this measure.

Thanks,

Micah

Depot Bench Neighborhood Association

Dear Council Chair and Council Members,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments on the proposed Zoning Code And thank you to Planning and Zoning staff for presenting the new Zoning Code at our neighborhood meeting on May 22nd on short notice. I’m going to emphasize four topics that we would like to point out: one on the reduction of opportunities for public comments, one on the lack of notification to the affected parties of this rezone, one on building height in the new MX-3 zone on Vista Avenue and one regarding on street parking. These are concerns that we have as a board of directors, and are relaying concerns brought up during the neighborhood meeting where we had 50 plus people attend. As you might expect, we had a wide mix of opinions about the rewrite at the meeting with some very much for the proposed code and some very much against

Reduction in Public Comment

The DBNA has testified in front of Planning & Zoning and Council several times, and while the Commissioners and Council Members did not always agree with the neighborhood’s thoughts, we feel we were heard, and we believe it might have swayed further decisions or started some conversations that moved the needle for subsequent projects

While we see where Director Keane is coming from in his comments during the Planning & Zoning Commision presentation, that since the zoning rules may be more clearly defined for Type 2 projects and that moving away from providing those opportunities for public comment could streamline the application process, we propose that it is a step backwards to not involve the public in the process regardless of application type Since this is a new zoning code, we are sure there will be lots of questions and perhaps some disagreements, as to what is in the code and how each party reads the code There needs to be a way to have the community included in the discussions in these instances

There seems like there could be some balance point that could be initially implemented over the first few years that would allow all sides to become comfortable with the changes to Type 2 projects under the new code. In the Type 1 and Type 2 projects, there needs to be some option for public notification and for concerns to be heard The Planning and Zoning Development Tracker site is a step in a great direction, but for most folks, frequently thinking ’what projects are going on in my neighborhood’ and then looking for, finding, and going to that website is a big

www

ask These issues aren’t on the top of people’s minds until they see backhoes and dozers on a piece of property in their neighborhood.

Lack of Notification

Also, we are concerned about the lack of notifications for those property owners whose property zoning is moving from R1-C to R-2. There are folks along the Vista Avenue corridor that despite the best efforts of the City simply don’t have any idea their property is going to be put in a different zone This isn’t one or two properties, our estimates are around 250 for the Vista Avenue corridor. A simple mailing to these folks would solve that issue and allow them to be better involved in the process While such notification may not be required by law for a broad rezone, it seems like the right thing for the City of Boise to do. These property owners have high potential to have their property adversely affected by this Zoning change by future development, deserve to be notified of this change, and have the opportunity to fully understand the implications of the change before this plan is adopted.

Height concerns

We are concerned about the height of allowed buildings in MX-3 zones at 70 feet. Unlike the other proposed MX-3 transit corridors (State, Fairview, and Federal Way), the current zoning along the Vista Avenue corridor has C-2 commercial zones directly adjacent to R-1C zones along much of the corridor.. With the proposed zoning, 70-foot buildings could be adjacent to one story bungalow style houses Even with setbacks in height outlined in the new zoning plan, the 70-foot part of the structure could be 40 feet from a one-story residential dwelling. We are asking if the 70-foot allowed height could be lowered along the Vista Avenue corridor and still achieve the City’s goals The Vista Avenue corridor is unique compared to the other corridors in that the C2 lots along Vista Avenue are very narrow and the road is narrow, which using the 1/8 mile rule, catches more R1C properties than the other proposed corridors It would be nice to see a scale drawing on page 206 of the proposed plan of what this layout would really look like on a typical Vista Avenue cross-section, so that the Council and others could see the true effect of this situation

Parking

Finally, we have concerns about the Zoning Code limiting parking at large residential developments and commercial neighborhood locations As we’ve seen in areas around Boise State, overflow parking onto surrounding neighborhoods is just part of the outcome of these developments Friends come over, weekend visitors, not wanting to deal with the hassle of winding through the garage when I’m going to leave again in 20 minutes, and a host of other factors all lead to parking on the street This parking impacts the surrounding neighborhood negatively Additionally, we’ve had several streets in our neighborhood that no longer allow www depotbenchneighborhood org depotbench@gmail com

#mydepotbench

parking on one side of the street to provide bike lanes, and just plain substandard width streets that further limit parking options. Development along these streets should be required to have adequate on site parking, at realistic numbers, with adequate allowance for guest parking.

Thank you for your time, and for listening to our concerns The DBNA agrees with the City that the current Zoning Code is extremely outdated and does not meet the needs of providing a variety of housing types for our City. The code needs to be updated, however we believe there is still work to be done before this plan is passed to make sure the plan is equitable to all

Sincerely,

Depot Bench Neighborhood Board of Directors

www depotbenchneighborhood org depotbench@gmail com

#mydepotbench

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:31 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

David Miville Deschenes

Email david.miville.deschenes@gmail.com

Address Boise, ID 83706

Comment

I am writing to express my opposition to the zoning code rewrite as it is currently proposed and ask that the City  Council reject its approval in its current form. You have surely heard loudly (I hope) the primary points of  opposition from many more articulate than myself. I would rather take a more personal approach and tell you  how much the rewrite’s plan for neighborhoods like mine on the  Boise Bench concerns me emotionally and  socially.

I have never witnessed such connectedness and mutual compassion in a neighborhood as in the one I live in  now. I would describe us as quiet and friendly, there to help when a tree falls, a neighbor is sick, there is snow to  be shoveled or a tool lent. We live within similar means and ha ve similar values. The entitlements proposed in  the rewrite to R1‐C lots like ours truly disturbs me. Allow me to elaborate.

Something you should know about me is that I am a highly sensitive person and need a lot of calm and quiet  around me. I feel constant gratitude for the relative consistency of calm where I live, and feel at ease knowing  that this way of life is not being significantly threatened. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have a  huge, three story home built next to me, or a cafe or bar for that matter. Needless to say, it would be  devastating to my home value and my sanity. I have no confidence that any sort of appeal to the City Council  would be regarded in good faith, based on my own experiences in the past. It deeply offends my values that  anyone would place the health and well‐being of prospective residents over that of existing residents.

I am not an opponent of smart growth and density. What is wrong with this rewrite is that (among other things)  it shows little regard for the integrity of existing neighborhoods. On the contrary, it noticeably exempts many  wealthy and privileged individuals. I would have liked to have seen instead a concentration on building smarter  along high density corridors such as Vista, State and Fairview, especially in the acquisition or redevelopment of  derelict buildings along these roads (that goes for Overland as well). This rewrite is overreaching and overly  generalized. It removes the current process of nuanced decision making site by site with a blanket ‘by right’  rubber stamp. We live in a beautiful, liveable city and deserve better than this!

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: Cathy DeVand <cathydevand@outlook.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 5:23 PM

To: Jimmy Hallyburton; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Patrick Bageant; Colin Nash; Latonia Haney Keith; mayormcclean@cityofboise.org

Subject: [External] Zoning code rewrite ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

Dear Mayor, City Council & Planning and Zoning Committee,

As a 31-year Boise resident that loves our city, I am strongly encouraging you to not pass the current “Modern Zoning” Code. There has not been enough awareness and review of this by the residents of each District to see how massive of a change this would be to our beautiful neighborhoods. In addition, all the city council positions are not filled currently. Why the rush to get this through?

Other once wonderful cities such as Austin, TX and Portland, OR have incorporated similar zoning laws and look what they have turned into.

Please take a hard look at this and do the right thing. Are you truly representing the residents of Boise or the developers and realtors?

We are asking for a delay on the vote, more awareness and involvement from the communities and for all the positions to be filled on the city council before a huge decision is made before changing zoning laws that have been in place for over 50 years.

Respectfully,

Cathy DeVand

5140 E. Sawmill Way Boise, ID 83716

Petition to Delay Proposed New Zoning Code Until There's A Vote for Everyone

The 611-page proposed new Boise Zoning Code will be the largest single change ever made to the development rule book and will radically remake Boise. This new code will guide what type and where development will occur across Boise and will dramatically reshape the existing community we know today. For this reason, all geographic areas of Boise should be included when a vote of this significance is taken. November 2023 will mark the first time the Boise City Council will be elected from six geographic districts providing the neighborhood-level representation necessary to make a decision of this magnitude.

We, the undersigned Boise residents, request that Mayor McLean and the Boise City Council either put the proposed Zoning Code up for a public vote or wait to vote until a new City Council elected by geographic district is seated in January 2024.

I want the public hearing process preserved. I want any Upzone in density to be negotiated per project, with a flat percentage of units of affordable housing required; and preference given to projects suitable for owner-occupation.

Neighborhoods will be destroyed by allowing high density into our older quiet areas .... and this give too much power to unelected bureaucrats who are given authority to APPROVE applications for building / zoning changes. We need better neighborhood control over our neighborhoods.

The city of Boise should be looking at new innovative ways to solve housing problems instead of doing the same thing other cities have done with failed results. It should put more emphasis on the importance of stable existing neighborhoods and less emphasis on making things easier for developers.

I do not endorse an increase in neighborhood density. What we need is better public transit, infrastructure, a preservation of what we have. The changes will be a detriment to our neighborhoods, particularly without community involvement, participation, and decision making. These changes ought to be presented to the community and voted on through our election process.

1 Joe Boswell 119 N 18th St Boise 83702 I would like fair representation in Boise prior to any changes.

2 Catherine Galdos 4396 W Castlebar Ct Boise 83703

3 Mary Ann Lawford 5199 S. Paiute Circle Boise 83709

4 Lori Bevan 2224 Annett Boise 83705

5 karen getusky 3312 n tamarack street Boise 83703

6 Andrea Edgell 5927 W TWIN SPRINGS DR Boise 83709

I live in a neighborhood that I chose…Do not wish to live in a neighborhood that a power hungry council and developers want to close for me, as it has not worked well elsewhere!

Boise is already growing fast enough, and the upzone takes the power away from the people and gives it to a city counsel who the majority are corrupt.

10 Joy Barker 1916 S Latah st. Boise 83705 I do not agree with what Boise City is doing.

11

12

13

14

15

16

Collister is a very distinct area and should not change. More houses mean more traffic and there are few sidewalks and State Street is already too busy. Infrastructure before building should always be priority. Also any building should require enough off street parking. As density increases quality goes down..

Removes citizen input; ignores impact on natural and human resources; gives too much to developers and not the folks who have invested in the community here; too many rentals, mostly luxury, with folks who may not be interested in investing in the "community"

Objectively I know that upzoning would probably HELP my household. We're one of the families that are struggling to find housing we can afford in the city we've called home for decades. But I don't want to live in the version of Boise that upzoning will create. Upzoning will destroy the character-filled neighborhoods of our city and drive out longtime residents who want to live in a neighborhood, not a "gathering place". Please don't ruin our city. Build, yes! Please! But build in places where there is space, or places that need revitalization. There is so much potential and space closer to the airport that we could utilize for housing without ripping Boiseans away from their way of life.

Will cause negative impact on existing home owners and city infrastructure unprepared to provide necessary services!

The rezone benifits no one other than developers. There is plenty of land to the south and east of the city for additional development, we don't need houses packed in like sardines so the developers can but another Lamborghini.

Not adequate public process and engagement and time for public to understand what is being proposed.

8 Patrick Brady 3017 W Grover St Boise 83705

9 Aaron Ruse-Sullivan 4042 w plum Boise 83703

Sharon Meredith 3607 N Red Oak Drive Dr Boise 83703

Suzanne Troje 1408 N. 15th Street Boise 83702

Kate Baker 9939 W. Skycrest Dr. Boise 83704

Marci Howells 8867 W Cornwall Dr Boise 83704

Justin Barrie 4662 E Tanoak Dr Boise 83716

CHRIS RUNYAN 606 Brookdale Dr Boise 83712

Without proper vetting this up-zone threatens to destroy neighborhoods, ruin the lives, feel, and expectations that current neighborhoods have with a disregard to personal happiness in owned homes, true consideration of long term repercussions, or historic demographics of the city and its neighborhoods. This re-zone is a slap in the face, of ridiculous PR to make it look like they (the north end city council) cares about low income housing, while really just trying to fit more people into Boise without caring of quality of life.

Specific impacts to neighborhoods have not been explained by the City. Meetings with City staff failed to get to the devil in the details. City Council should not vote on this until the 2024 elected Council members are seated.

I object to the change this will bring to the old, established neighborhoods, the congestion it will bring, and reduction of open space.

Upzoning promotes developers over neighborhoods, destroys neighborhoods with no community input and the “incentives“ are ripe for fraud and unenforceable

Mostly for the lack of public involvement in development decisions. I live next to a “transportation corridor” and my neighborhood could be radically changed without any public involvement.

1-The lack of public comment in the new zoning. 2- We do not have an elected counsel member in our district, I feel that a hand picked city counsel member that is not elected does not have my best interest and should not be able to vote for my district. The process should be delayed until the city council has elected officials voted in by the people, not hand picked by the mayor.

It is still very unaffordable at 80% AMI and is ripe for WALL STREET investors and developers out for huge profit margins and could care less about low income to middle income RENTERS and homeowners.

It removes neighborhood approval and ignores the existing quality of life that people invested in when they bought their homes. We didn’t buy our home in the historic district to have a modern four-story apartment built next to us, destroying our privacy, extremely limited parking, and garden/solar panel sun source. We don’t want corner businesses destroying our limited parking and bringing more noise, traffic, and litter, ala Hyde Park. Why must our home investment and quality of life be harmed to accommodate more people moving to Boise? Small duplexes and even fourplexes with off-street parking DO fit the fabric of the North End, but they aren’t and won’t be affordable, thanks to our insane property taxes. Keep supporting ADUs and small infill homes in historic districts instead, and require neighborhood approval for businesses, tall structures, etc. We don’t want what has happened to Seattle’s historic districts, where more and more small old homes look like the house from the movie “Up.”

I worry what will happen to Boise if developers are left unchecked. Public hearing protect us from them.

It is of the utmost value to consider those that love and live in Boise to have input on permanent decision that will change our home.

Completely takes away from the assets of the community and drives up congestion on under planned roads

One of the best parts about my neighborhood are the older, small, single family homes. Changing this would break the identify and change the atmosphere of the neighborhood.

I oppose the proposed Upzone.

Although I am not completely in the 1/8 mile of State St upzone area, myself and my neighbors are bring upzoned. I really don't want a neighborhood cafe with alcohol next to me, nor newly subdivided lots with 45' high building and unlimited density. And, all the city has to do to approve a prison release halfway house next to us is to say its of greater public benefit than any concerns I might have. In all the contrived and scripted public outreach, the city never proactively brought up all the negative impacts to ensure that folks were aware of them and only ran a marketing campaign instead. So very few people know or even rarer still, understand the negative impacts of the ZCR.

1. This decision should wait until all of Boise is represented on City Council.

2. More consideration should be given to current homeowners and the established neighborhoods they live in. People have invested heavily in both time and money into their neighborhoods and the proposed zoning feels like it is a threat to older stable neighborhoods. Can we look at zoning that doesn't diminish what has traditionally been Boise?

No mature trees when all will be razed for density. Density does not equal affordability. No “cafes” without adjoining homeowners approval. Parking concerns.

I Reject Boise Upzone because it will add too many people and far too much traffic in our neighborhood. We also are not prepared to deal with the changes, i.e.: transportation, schools, fire departments, etc.

1) The proposal is intended to increase the supply of affordable housing, but includes no language to insure that commodity will be built or that the affordable conditions remain in place after the initial qualification. 2) Seattle and Portland are both covered by "UPZONE" rules yet their affordable housing problems persist. 3) My own property (and others on the perimeter of my neighborhood) will be rated R-1C and is governed by covenants that prohibit lot subdividing or adding an additional dwelling. but the lots behind me which are also R-1C and underdeveloped, will immediately be a likely candidate for subdivision and addition of multi-family buildings 45 feet tall and 15 feet behind our back fence. Our yard enjoyment and possibly property value will be ruined.

Rise in Property Taxes, Government Control, Keep Boise Small City Atmosphere

Most Boiseans do not know of this proposed upzoning vote and the handful who do may not understand the gravity of this vote and how it would almost certainly irrevocably change our future. We need to table this vote until more of our community understands that this is happening and then could also make an educated decision beforehand.

My personal thoughts are: Why do we need to turn Boise into something new? Why are we trying to be another Portland or Seattle? We love Boise how it is and do not consent to the proposed upzoning changes. We do not want bigger, taller or more dense constructions. Higher crime, higher taxes, higher density/population growth is a HARD NO.

This is not "For the People". The citizens are not even considered. It is about money and control of society. The government and non-governmental Industries (Building and Utilities, etc.) have every intention to dictate and control the people; specifically FASCISM/COMMUNISM. It starts with land and building. Deeper in the proposed zoning code is where control of the people starts. OUR FREEDOM IS AT STAKE.

The Bench is a beautiful place full of single family homes. I've lived here since 1995. If I wanted my neighborhood full of mass box apartments - I would move to Portland. That 'thing' being built on the corner of Targee and Vista is HIDEOUS! I want to live right where I live. Just as it is. Streets full of single-family homes and neighborhood pride. We know our neighbors & we help our neighbors + vise versa. The only issues we have in my neighborhood mostly come from the duplex rentals. Mass upzoning will NOT bring "affordable" housing. Anyone who thinks so hasn't worked in Boise real estate for over 20 years.

I want my kids to be able to buy a home someday. I don't want corporation and the rich to own all of the land and property.

Concern for nonlocal developers buying up properties and creating infrastructure issues for neighborhoods

I feel this would be detrimental

Boise is not the appropriate destination for a "15 Minute City," we are a community filled with diverse people who contend that "Home Ownership" is the most advantageous place to raise a family, grow small business and keep Boise healthy for future generations.

Boise residents should have a say in how our city is growing and changing - not just the developers and realtors who are profiting off of the destruction of our city.

A zoning change to a parcel behind my neighborhood to build multifamily housing will block views and sunlight to the entire street. This will devalue our properties in a parcel that is currently zoned for parks.

Our friends, family, neighbors have little idea what the City of Boise is attempting to do to the make up of our beautiful neighborhoods. I DO NOT support investors buying up homes, tearing down, and building a 4 plex in established neighborhoods. I DO NOT support putting in dangerous and unsightly 5G Giant Towers and 5G small cell towers in our neighborhoods! I DO support underground fiber optics that are fast and safe!

I want more thought and consideration with longer time for public input to happen BEFORE mistakes that are irreversible and sometimes downright dangerous such as small cell 5G towers allowed within where people live by only 20feet!!!!! Ludicrous and irresponsible and money hungry for what end but devastating effects! So many reasons such as parking and traffic problems in places with inadequate infrastructure such as in the Northend where I’ve lived for over 20 years! Stop raising taxes on those of us who can’t afford any higher!!

Ugh ??

83709 I belive the city government isn't acting in the best interest of Boise's residents. 67

We don’t want neighbors homes torn down to make apartment buildings with added traffic and crime concerns. This also depreciates our home values. 68

83706 time needed for investigation 70

There are specific areas within Boise that are unique because they still have large lots and a more agricultural feel (like Collister). Rezoning will destroy these neighborhoods, because within time all of the large parcels will be divided. It will force long-term residents out because they don’t want to be in dense housing and apartment districts.

This move will specifically hurt existing residents and destroy the character and charm that makes Boise a city that so many people love and call home.

I have no confidence that this will address Boise housing crisis or create more affordable housing for the residents here. I am 55 years old and for the first time in my entire life I cannot qualify to buy a home in the town that I grew up in. 72

Wildlife concerns, quality of living, property value, view/skyline, culture all of these are in jeopardy 73

This came about too quickly without giving the community adequate time to understand its implications.

Protection of our environment, safe neighborhoods, democracy

Too many people/apartments jammed into Boise. Tyrant mclean is trying to destroy Boise and turn it into Portland.

Makes neighborhoods too crowded, loss of trees with construction, too much added EMFs with the 5G cell towers instead of fiber optics straight into homes, rise in rental fees and home prices, increased parking issues, loss of sunlight to garden spaces in homes and blocked views with the higher units crowding the spaces. Less privacy and peacefulness with increased nosey neighbors looking into ones backyard, loss of older classic homes etc. just to name some of the many issues.

A developer was awarded spot zoning next to my single family residential home and is building an ugly eyesore monstrosity of 30 block housing units where 3 single family homes are currently. I am so disappointed with the city for approving this development and the ruin it will bring to my quiet street and neighborhood.

The change in zoning will destroy the environment of old Boise by allowing large, new apartments into tiny home neighbourhoods. Residents in these areas are removed from any input.

Keep Boise a quality city. Do not turn it into a metropolitan wasteland of transient housing.

Voting on the code needs to be done by elected representatives, and only elected representatives. This proposed code change could impact Boise significantly, and should not be decided on by mayor-appointed city council members.

The upzone would UNDO so much of the developmental guidance and protections that Planning and Zoning has been working on for YEARS. I especially decry the absence of notification, loss of opportunity for input, and impotence for recourse that would be suffered by property owners and neighborhoods. This is the kind of action that DESTROYS COMMUNITY rather than building the social networks we so desperately need.

It's not that I reject rewriting the code, it's that it should have public transparency and voice in the process. The code as currently written does not reflect such because it has not been including the level of public input at earlier stages that changes of this magnitude should have.

The up zone process has not been transparent nor accessible to city residents. At this point, I don't have any confidence that quality of life of those who are already Boise citizens is being prioritized at all. There should be no rush to "up zone" but rather, it should be a thoughtful process which should engage the voices of as many neighborhood groups as possible, and defer to their unique perspectives on what is actually needed in our neighborhoods rather than catering to out-of-state and developer interests.

Loss of homes, neighborhoods, disproportionate number of single family homes to dense multiple house. Loss of natural landscape, reduction of parking, noise,

Not right move for Boise. Neglects residents interests in favor of developers and ideology.

First of all, I am against the density of housing that I see happening on every vacant lot in Boise. When we purchased our home, we wanted a specific lot size and consistency of lot size in the neighborhood. This proposed zoning change would completely change my neighborhood if owners decided to subdivide their properties. It would increase traffic and probably attract renters. None of that is what I want to see happen. It would not be an improvement to my neighborhood. We paid for the right to choose our neighborhood. If we wanted to live in a denser neighborhood, we would have chosen to do so.

The neighborhood streets in Bench area are already exploding with cars parked on the street, increased traffic, and speeding that’s not being addressed at the current population level. Up zoning this area is going to make this worse .

I love Boise and this will fundimentally change the skyline and the communication between the city and it's citizens.

I reject it for lots of reasons. The section on where and how to store firewood on personal property is completely ridiculous. People store their firewood in places it won't get wet. How can the city tell citizens where they can and can't store firewood?

Let’s allow duly-elected council members cast the final vote for this highly impactful, historic re-write

Denser housing being forced into neighborhood communities ruins the community vibe. I have also seen 0 mention of increasing funding for infrastructure like schools and public transportation to go with more apartment and townhomes.

It’ll destroy Boise’s history of the first ever properties there. It’ll drive the last small group of true Idahoans living there, out; prices are so high that people are already struggling to keep their homes & put food on the table. This code will make things truly unaffordable for the average Idahoan. Plus my generation (recently graduated college students from Boise area) can’t even afford to move back home bc of this issue. So, we have to move into our parents or live far away, so if you take our parents house away then all of our homes are gone. For what? Just so some more rich people can make more money? This code will create more homeless and be detrimental to Boise’s residents, it’s culture and future. And I promise you’ll be have a valley full of outsiders (new residents from surrounding states that don’t know our values) by the time it’s done.

is not the right solution for

I reject

This upzone isn't about creating affordable housing. It is about putting more rentals in the areas that currently ARE more affordable. Renters typically are more transient and have less investment in the areas in which they live. Increased crime, traffic and litter result. Property values drop. This in turn affects the neighboring housing areas. There is a place for 3 story apartment buildings. That place is not in our older family oriented neighborhoods.

Decrease in historical preservation and elimination of long time green areas; increase in traffic chaos with lack of traffic law enforcement and resulting lack of parking; increase in out of state developers pushing rapid development in the city detrimentally affecting local economic opportunity, and with increased pressure on outdated and unprepared infrastructure and services; increased pollution with denser population; rapidly increasing activity resulting in destructive stress on local parks, foothill traffic, roads, etc.

It affects established neighborhoods in mostly lower income areas negatively by invasive tall buildings next to one and two story homes and it doesn't allow adequate off street parking making the streets where cars will have to park unsafe for walkers and bike riders (including children going to school) because streets will be crowded and narrow. These taller multifamily dwellings should be in places that don't affect quiet neighborhoods and MUST have adequate OFFSTREET parking.

I reject the upzone rewrite, because, as it is, I don't feel like it addresses affordable housing, lack of parking, lack of privacy, lack of open space, lack of shade/trees and these are very real concerns of ours.

I am tired of our beautiful, quiet, neighborhoods being turned into racetracks for the influx of speeders, trash, crowded streets, and unesthetically pleasing monstrosities.

It will ruin the city of Boise in order to serve the greed of developers. Boise is supposed to be the city of trees, but say goodbye to that if this goes through.

creating " tunnel effect" Homes to big, no setbacks, limited parking,

stop

I don't like building commercial and residential that rises four stories high in neighborhoods with no one being able to voice their thoughts on it

Upzoning Boise will disenfranchise residents from affordable home ownership and drive up rental costs at the same time. Putting up hideously ugly apartment buildings within single family residential neighborhoods only serves Developers and the big corporations collecting the inflated rental prices. This is NOT about low income housing! That is a LIE fomented by the Mayor and the media. It’s time to use our voices! We’ve got to stop this now.

A major Planning and Zoning REWRITE should never be SHOVED DOWN THE THROATS of STATE and PROPERTY TAX paying citizens. This rewrite is a LIE only to put profit in the pockets of Big Bucks Developers, City and County Officials and to secure a Feather in Mayor McLean's "HAT" for her future political use. Mayor McLean is not TRANSPARENT, Mayor McLean is DECEPTIVE, Mayor McLean continues to LIE to the citizens of Boise about opening a "POLICE STATION" on Willow Lane (across from the proposed IFS Warehouse Shelter) which will NEVER open and will NEVER come to fruition. Mayor McLean is NOT creating a City for Everyone, Mayor McLean mission has changed, McLean is building her Political Power only to leave Boise in disintegration, decay, and disrepair. The Rewrite will DESTROY Boise as we know it today 2023 and so will Mayor McLean.

The city is using the upzone lie to build more apartments not for the essential worker but to bring more refugees to vote for them. This is nothing more than a means to continue the mayor and the city council's lust for power at the expense of the citizens

The City is already struggling with the high density they've already approved. They are having a hard time keeping up on what they've said yes to. Including creating a serious fire hazard for our neighborhood that they are doing nothing about. It also creates more traffic, parking & theft issues to add the up zone into certain neighborhoods.

in our

Lived in a city where they did this and results were terrible, lost property value and loss of community.

Boise Upzone will increase my property taxes and change our neighborhoods. Plus this zoning code needs to be put on the ballot for the citizens of Boise to vote on not passed by the city council.

I believe it would rally change the dynamics of already established neighborhoods. Change the parking and also traffic. Cities are designed to incorporate several different types of living and businesses. When you start changing the zoning it changes the balance in living and commuting. I strongly oppose changing existing zoning laws.

This proposal will remove public input for new projects, will lower current property values with smaller lots, the continued push for high density housing(apartment complexes) further erodes property values while creating high density traffic and renters do not pay property taxes which is where road repairs come from. This proposal only will take away taxpayer rights.

Homeowners should be the first to know of any potential development in their neighborhood that causes traffic congestion, property value decreases, injury to wildlife, environmental impact and loss of quality of life.

A disregard for existing neighborhoods. Unfounded assumptions about existing neighborhoods and parking/traffic conditions.

Boise Upzone denies meaningful input from residents living in the neighborhoods that will be directly impacted by changes made to the zoning code, and gives all the power to developers, whose only interest is profit. Boise Upzone damages the quality of neighborhoods through the loss of large trees and yards, and creates a volume of traffic that cannot be handled by our streets for travel or parking.

It will destroy neighborhoods and promote density which is antithetical to the boise lifestyle

The proposed changes will destroy dozens of mature trees, displace established families, and turn quiet neighborhoods into noisy urban environments.

I live in an older established neighborhood and have for 77 years lived near Boise downtown. I believe the changes are intentional to disrupt neighborhoods, destroying private property ownership in lieu of apartments, rentals bringing down the livability of our neighborhoods and entire city. There are other options and there has not been enough time for citizens of Boise to consider the ramifications these changes will bring. I love my city and I love my neighborhood. The mayor of Boise is selling our city to developers to achieve a utopia that does not exist at the expense of our wonderful way of life. There is no hurry.

I don't reject the upzone. Parts are very good. Some parts are not. A city council that represents all residents should make modifications, and adopt the best of it.

Our property taxes already tripled in the last 8 years. I don't know how we can handle further increases that I believe upzoning will bring. According to Boise planning, new apartments along Vista will have less parking than needed, and I don't want to compete for street parking in front of my house. We live within a mile from my husband's work, and we can't afford to sell, buy and move due to current property values and interest rates and we have no reasons to do so other than being pushed out. I have seen the new high-density projects in Boise. They have too narrow offset from property lines, they destroy green spaces. I don't mind apartment buildings necessarily, but what is built in Boise lacks thought or care and isn't affordable anyway. This should be decided on a project-by-project basis instead of a broad zoning change.

Hello. I’ve lived in the Randolph-Robertson neighborhood on Fernwood Dr. since 1979. We are the third generation here and would rather see our area designated as a historical district than have our unique area of mid-century modern history be bulldozed! REJECT

Growth control, parking, homeowners rights, benefits only developers, decisions not being well planned or thought out

We seem to be losing what made Boise such a great place to live and grow up in. I grew up in Southwest Boise on an acre and my Mom still lives there. She could make a lot of money if the zoning changes to make it more dense but Boise right now does not need more dense housing. We currently don't have the infrastructure in place to support more houses/more people.

Recently went to Salem OR and saw what is happening there. Cute bungalow neighborhoods have 4 story apartments built behind them. Destroys the character of the neighborhoods. Also don't like massive parking on the street. Now we can see what is coming, see neighbors, watch out for things. Streets are cleaned without trouble.

This will change our community. We were not notify about changes that will happen to our property.

I reject the Boise Upzone because of the already significant traffic impacts were currently dealing with, and potentially doubling or even tripling the amount of traffic in the Upzone areas will impact everyone in a very negative way. From trips to the grocery store, to adding significant amounts of time to firefighters, EMS, and police services.

I don't want more being shoved into our family neighborhoods. I do not want to be told what to do, or have loss of control of my own property.

And most importantly, I want full transparency from the city. They have failed to make this known to everyone, especially those whom could/will be affected.

Because I think all the people should be able to vote on this. Not just the city council

safety and impact to streets not designed to carry increased traffic. Loss of property value.

Boise upzone will reduce the availability and increase the cost of single-family homes. My children were raised in the Bench Neighborhood. They always had a spacious backyard in which to play. Now college graduates, they want to own their own homes and shouldn't have to raise their children in high-density zones.

Single-family homes provide more long term stability for children of owners as well as renters. Residents in single-family neighborhoods form more closely-knit relationships, which foster childcare collaboration, safety and altruism. High-density areas are detrimental to children, in myriad ways.

This upzone building agenda is so un-Idahoan and anti-family, it's shameful. I request a public vote on the proposed new zoning code, or to delay the vote until 2024.

Overcrowding, increase in traffic, increase in pollution and trash, increased cost for everyone.

Developers have too much power and influence in boise. They continue to build cheap, institutional looking, outrageously priced boxes.

I like my neighborhood the way it is with single family homes. The changes would downgrade the quality of life.

This removes affordable housing. This shuts out neighbors from the planning and zoning process. This creates increased real estate speculation and investor activity. This creates higher property taxes and rents. This creates loss of Mature Tree canopy. This will fill the landfill with sound habitable buildings to be replaced with expensive new housing priced out of reach for locals.

Boise planning and zoning is a joke. There is no pre-planning for infrastructure, they just allow developers to build and then blame the county and everyone else for not having roads, and schools and then when the roads are finally in they tear them up to react to water and sewer replacement. My biggest concern for me personally is the aquafir. I am on a well and the amount of new construction is drying up our wells. Oh my did planning think about that? I spent most of my life living in southeast Boise which I loved until the infill became horrible. My elderly neighbors and I whom once enjoyed our beautiful backyards had big double story homes or duplexes built next to them with loud disrespectful renters trashing the neighborhood, parking in front of our driveways, blocking our mail boxes oh and the noise was another story. Our neighborhood was basically turned into a ghetto. The place I once loved I could not get out of fast enough. Parking became horrible and I can't imagine what it would be like with this current proposal.

Boise leadership is trying to destroy Boise charm with these high-end apt complexes and barriers for our cars. We are not a communist city.

My friend will lose his home that his family has owned for years. His neighbors bought their houses 2 years ago. Due to the market going down. The amount the city is stating to buy the house will not cover the loan they took out to buy the house. They will be left with 10s of thousands of dollars owed for a house they no longer have.

It does not include any affordable housing mandates, which will further exacerbate the lack of affordable purchase and rental options in the city. It also seeks to eliminate public input regarding projects that will substantially change the look, feel, and functionality of existing neighborhoods. Finally, most of the impacted areas don't currently have representation on the city council. I am opposed the rezone as currently written, but especially opposed to City Council trying to vote on it prior to November when every district will have a representative on the council.

Boise is now being run by out of state developers. This is causing major traffic issues, increased homelessness and the exodus of small businesses which have been the lifeblood of Boise for decades. Please stop the ruination of our City of Trees by continually building multi-story structures in our city. Thanks

170 Geraldine Chase 5490 S Veronica Pl Boise 83716

171 Dawn Retzlaff 5467 S Farmhouse Place Boise 83716

I reject the Boise Upzone because I love our old unique neighborhood with large trees and a sense of history. Our main problems from my point of view are when a house is torn down, and beautiful old trees are cut down to provide room to build four houses on a lot that previously held one. The four new houses have no yard to speak of and totally inadequate parking. This is under the current zoning code. And now, this proposal wants to build even more houses in the same space. Presumably, the only way to do this is to build up, leaving us with the prospect of four story buildings across the street from us (with cafes!) that we are told won't bother us because they will only be allowed to be open 13 hours a day. Since all of this would be approximately 40 feet outside one of our bedroom windows, I assure you this would bother us.

We moved into this neighborhood a dozen years ago with the idea of living here through retirement. We have lived in Boise and SW Ada for twenty eight years. This is our home. Now we are being faced with the prospect of being forced out so that many more people can be jammed into the neighborhood that we already live in and love. The streets are very narrow here, and often there is only a one way trail through all the parked cars on the quiet side streets. I do not notice people walking down to catch the bus. We do notice people trying to manage on a fourth of a lot with a lifestyle that often includes 3-4 cars. And this is all before the upzone, where my understanding is that it will be come much more dense. More people, more cars, more congestion. All in a quiet neighborhood that people love the way it is. It all feels like someone - developers - want our land because of the convenient location. There is affordable housing in large parts of this neighborhood now. I cannot imagine that will improve in any way when many of these modest older homes are bulldozed to build high density housing. At the very least, it will destroy our homes and way of life. We have lived here a dozen years. Most of our neighbors have lived here for many years. We have met people in our neighborhood who have lived here their entire lives encompassing multiple decades. We love this neighborhood the way it is and the way we assumed it would be allowed to stay under the zoning code we purchased our homes under. Please, if dense housing needs to be built, don't take our neighborhood to build it on. Once the process starts, I would imagine our way of life will be gone and we will be left with little choice but to move away. This is not at all what we want.

Please delay the vote until representatives for the different parts of town are the ones voting. Or better yet put it up to a public vote after letting the public know just exactly what is being proposed. Not just a whitewashed version of how police and ambulances can reach people who are all jammed up together. We have adequate services right now.

Most of all, please do not destroy the old Boise neighborhoods. If you must build dense housing in desirable locations close to downtown, please do not do so on top of the homes that are already there.

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 12:05 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Kayla Dodson

Email civickayla17@gmail.com

Address

705 N Bacon Dr, Boise, ID 83712

Comment

I support the Modern Zoning Code Rewrite. As much as I wish things could stay just the way they are, I know  that is impossible. Boise is a great city and other people want to move here. What I want, since change is  happening, is to preserve our foothill trails and Greenbelt and I hope they will be expanded. I want there to be  neighborhood schools and parks close to all the places where people live. I want safe bike routes. We have to  encourage building of a variety of homes including efficiency apartments and very small houses. I don’t want  big, out of state companies coming in, buying up blocks of hous es and tearing them down to build expensive,  high rise apartments and I don’t think that will happen with this zoning update.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Pam D <pamdokus@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 11:23 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Boise rezoning

Please do not change the zoning for existing residential neighborhoods!  What visitors love about the possibility of  relocating to Boise is all of the wonderful existing neighborhoods, where residents take pride in their property and get to  know their neighbors.  This will be changed and lost forever if multi family, multi story housing is built next to homes in  these neighborhoods.

Apartment living is essential, but it is transitional and should not be allowed in single home neighborhoods.  The small,  older homes in many of these neighborhoods are the most affordable homes for young people/families starting out right now. They are excited to get into a home that they can make improvements to and be proud of.  These new home  owners and the existing residents in the neighborhood, have, or are working hard to pay their mortgages and taxes so  they can be out of, and away from multi unit living.

I don't believe any homeowner or home renter wants to have multi‐unit housing built next door that looks down into  their property, with more noise, changing neighbors, cars, and parking issues or lot.

Multi unit housing and apartments are definitely necessary, and good options for many, but should be in commercial  areas, along major roads. Many have been built in the last year with more near completion.  Housing is expensive, but  with all these new units, I now see that many have vacancies, and wonder why city leaders would allow one of the very  things that people love about Boise to be lost.

Newcomers to the area need housing, but we should not dismantle the many lovely neighborhoods of Boise that our  residents have maintained throughout the years.

Please don't change Boise to a city of cement and apartments, with a few nice parks.

Thank you for considering my comments.

PD

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:52 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Matthew Duncan

Boise, ID 83705

Comment

I support increased density and many entry points to ownership in Boise including more condos and  townhomes.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Alexandra DuSablon <dusablon.alexandra@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 7:13 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Public Comment: In favor of the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Boise City Council:

I, Alexandra DuSablon, live in West Boise at 2661 N Bird Street, and I am in favor of the proposed Zoning Code. I believe  that we are past due in rewriting this decades‐old code; it is based on an incredibly outdated perspective on urban  planning and therefore serves as a major hurdle for building diverse housing types, increasing affordable housing,  creating dense transit corridors that reduce our reliance on cars, preserving our open spaces, and prioritizing climate  resilience.

I'd like to talk about my neighborhood in particular: I have owned a home in West Boise (between Fairvew and Ustick)  for two years. While I do not fall within the zone near Fairview that would be re‐zoned for higher density, I am very  excited to be located so close to it. We have a lot of potential in my part of town to add more density, more public  transit, more walkable streets, more local businesses, and more vibrancy! Instead, Fairview is lined with parking lots,  and it is terrifying to walk or bike along it. That is simply not the kind of neighborhood I, nor my neighbors, want to live  in. Walkable neighborhoods are linked with increased life longevity and improved mental health (there are so many  articles stating this, here's just one). And while you can't find as many studies showing that having a coffee shop or  restaurant right down the street improves your quality of life, I've experienced that phenomenon first hand in the other  places that I've had the pleasure of living in! That's why I am so excited about the new zoning code's sections on  neighborhood cafes and on increasing density along Fairview (and other transit corridors). West Boise will be one of the  parts of town that benefits the most from this code.

I regret that I will not be able to attend the public hearings and provide testimony (I will be out of town). I watched the  P&Z hearings closely, and so I know that you are going to hear a lot of different opinions from folks across our city. As a  former city employee, I also know that the PDS staff did an incredible job reaching out to neighborhood leaders and  residents throughout this process. As the P&Z Commission pointed out, this proposed zoning code is a reasonable  compromise that satisfies the needs of all Boiseans. I am definitely on one side of that compromise: I would have  completely eliminated parking minimums across the city right off the bat! I think that this shows that this new zoning  code is a well‐measured and reasonable next step for our city. It will provide an excellent base that we can continue to  build on as Boise grows. Not to mention, the alternative option of sticking with the outdated code is simply  unacceptable.

Please do the right thing for Boise's future.

Thank you for time,  Alexandra DuSablon  dusablon.alexandra@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: David and Denise Eikanger <Eeks4@msn.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 9:05 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Opposition to Modern Zoning Code Rewrite

We have been residents of 107 Jantoni Dr. Boise Idaho (Northeast Boise) for 34 years. Please accept this email as written  opposition to the new zoning code rewrite for the following reasons:

1. Shuts out neighbor’s input. By making higher density housing and more uses allowed “by right” the code eliminates  neighbors voices from the proceedings by removing today’s publi c hearing process.

2. Allow incompatible uses next to homes. Uses like multifamily developments, retail sales and cafes, and bed and  breakfasts hosting 12 or more guests will be allowed in residential neighborhoods. These changes will forever alter the  face of our cherished neighborhoods.

3. Make it harder to buy a home. When higher density is allowed, increased interest from investors and developers  drives up property values, making it harder for someone to become a homeowner.

4. It will drive property taxes and rents up over time.

5. Remove affordable housing. The code promotes redeveloping affordable neighborhoods like the Bench, Veterans  Park, West End and Vista. Existing affordable housing will be demolished, with developers required to build few – if any  – truly low‐income units in return for higher density.

6. It would facilitate the destruction of trees and various green spaces because structures will be pushed to the limits of  the property.

In summary of our opposition of the new code rewrite, please look at what upzoning like this as done in other parts of  the country. (i.e., Vancouver BC, Seattle, Portland, Austin) If it’s such a great idea/Plan why has it failed in those areas?  We’re fortunate here in Boise because we can learn from the mistakes other cities have made. Any final decision on the  code should wait until after the November election when the city will be represented by new council members selected  by their geographic district and has been seated in January.

Let’s do it right the first time!

Thanks, David & Denise Eikanger

Andrea Tuning

From: Mark Elf <dobermann70@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:05 PM

To: zoninginfo; Timothy Keane; Andrea Tuning

Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite - Groundwater issue

To:  Boise City Council, Boise Planning & Zoning Commission, Director Tim Keane, Andrea Tuning

From:  Markus Elfes

Subj:  Groundwater overuse

Date:  June 8, 2023

As Boise rewrites its Zoning Code to reflect modern challenges to our rapidly growing area, proactive measures to address the depletion of the traditional aquifer must be explicit and carefully constructed. After all, Boise’s Comprehensive Plan, which, by Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA), directs changes to zoning, emphasizes “Protect groundwater quality and quantity (Environmental Stewardship Goal ES3)” through a  number of policies.

The traditional source of drinking water for the Treasure Valley are shallow aquifers that are now almost entirely recharged by infiltration from farmland irrigation (%), or from directly from seepage of canals and laterals (%). [Bertolino, Sukow]. Most drinking water wells in the area rely on this traditional aquifer, and this recharge.

The draft zoning code contains a new standard meant to ensure an adequate water supply for 100 years for new developments [Adequate Water Supply Ordinance]. While this standard may help protect Boise foothills to the north, and desert to the south, from additional sprawl, it contains an exception that may exacerbate the depletion of the traditional aquifer: developments that are expected to use less water than the property currently uses – the typical situation for irrigated farmland upon subdivision – are exempted. Thus, the standard will further target irrigated farmlands for development.

Some Boise residents have already been suffering from a depletion of these traditional aquifers as urban sprawl has led to the development of much of the farmlands at the city’s edge. This is especially apparent in SW Boise and nearby unincorporated Ada County [news article].

During the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on the Zoning Code Rewrite, the Commission deliberated on oral comments regarding this problem from Marisa Keith, President of Southwest Ada County Alliance (SWACA).

The Commissioners were not aware that Boise residents rely on private wells for drinking water. However, many do, as municipal water as provided by Veolia is not available in all areas – for example, in some areas of NW Boise and SW Boise annexed into the city. According to data from Veolia, 5709 residential properties within Boise do not receive municipal water, and likely rely on their own well for drinking water.

Unfortunately, Boise staff was not able to provide these data to the Commissioners. Instead, they were told that some households with wells that relied on the ‘false aquifer’ were having problems. Given this description of the problem, the Commissioners chose not to recommend changes to the draft code.

However, Idaho’s Groundwater Act of 1951 defines groundwater as “all water under the surface of the ground whatever may be the geological structure in which it is standing or moving.” Thus, the rights of senior users of the traditional, shallow aquifer are protected, regardless of whether the City of Boise characterizes this aquifer as ‘false.’

We ask that the City of Boise strike the exception from the new Adequate Water Supply ordinance, so that irrigated farmlands are given at least equal consideration as other open spaces likely to be developed on the edges of Boise. We also hope that Boise will incorporate other measures to uphold the Environmental Stewardship goals regarding groundwater protection, specifically the policies under ES3.

It would be responsible when other large cities are observing a decline in groundwater availability, for Boise to take a  more comprehensive look at our guaranteed water source before accelerating residential densities and further  depleting areas of traditional aquifer recharge.

Thank you for your consideration as you review our concerns (SW Boise resident).

Markus Elfes

2088719657

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:31 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Robert Elliott

Address Boise, ID 83706

Comment

I fully support updating the zoning code to make it easier to build more housing for more people, and removing  restrictive barriers like parking minimums from the zoning code.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Madison Lockhorn

From: Matt Entinger <matt.entinger@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 10:13 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning code comment

I'm writing in support of the new proposed zoning code. I've been thinking a lot lately about why I love my  neighborhood (Sunset) and how I'd like to see it change. The things I love most about my neighborhood are the  proximity to nature and recreation in the foothills and Boise River, the easy access to downtown (busing, biking, or a  short drive), and the ability to walk to great restaurants, cafes, and a grocery store. All of these things would be  maintained or enhanced by adding gradual density and allowing more (but limited) commercial uses in my  neighborhood, which this proposal would do.

The thing my neighborhood needs the most is affordability. We bought our house not even 3 years ago, and we couldn't  afford to buy it today, despite our family income going up substantially since then. This proposal will allow more housing  supply which should at least slow the price increases.

I want more people to be able to live in great places and have access to all the amenities that I do! Some of my friends  are full‐time students and would love a studio or 1 bedroom apartment, some of them have started families and would  probably want a townhouse or detached single family home. I think having more housing types in more neighborhoods  would be a great thing, and this proposal allows that.

In my mind, the most desirable area of the city is the North End near Hyde Park and the Co‐op. One thing I notice  walking around that area is that there are a bunch of small apartment buildings scattered around. These buildings were  likely built before the current zoning code, and I don't think they would be allowed today. These apartments haven't  ruined the neighborhood, they've enhanced it! This proposal would allow more neighborhoods to be more like the most  in‐demand parts of the City, and I think that is great.

Matt Entinger

3100 Grace St

Boise, ID 83703

Disclosure: I work in the City's IT Department, but this comment contains only my own personal beliefs as a Boise  resident.

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:43 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Leslie Erfurth

Boise, ID 83713

Comment

I think we need to find a happy medium between keeping our beautiful open spaces while allowing for the  growth that we currently and no doubt will continue to experience. I feel this should be done in a realistic way. I  would eventually like to own a home in my city of birth, however, Right now it is cost prohibitive to even rent a  space for myself to live

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

Andrea Tuning

From: mrs.essensa@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Stephanie Essensa <mrs.essensa@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:12 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am writing to express that I am in support of the Modern Zoning Code because we need to...

MAKE IDAHO AFFORDABLE!!

Sincerely,

Stephanie Essensa

3047 Tattenham Ave  Boise, ID 83713‐4961 mrs.essensa@gmail.com

From: Mary Feeny <feenymary@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 10:36 AM

To: CityCouncil

Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite

Zoning is complicated. A 600 page proposal borders on the absurd when it comes to expecting the average citizen to understand what is being proposed. The fact that the zoning proposal has been in the works for years does not lessen the fact that many who are going to be impacted have no idea of what is happening and what will eventually happen to Boise and to their neighborhood. To claim otherwise is a falsehood.

Take a walk around Boise and in your own neighborhood and ask people what they think of the zoning proposal. Don’t be surprised by how many have no idea what you are talking about and what is being contemplated or pushed for Boise and their neighborhood.

It is a noble goal to address affordable housing, and that goal of any update in zoning makes sense.

Short terms rentals and carving up established neighborhoods does not make sense.

Do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Andrea Tuning

From: schuyler fitzwater <fitzwater1982@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 11:24 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Yes on up-zoning!

We are in desperate need of more housing. If upzoning will allo w for more building with increased density, I’m in favor.  This teacher of 12 years can’t afford to live in Idaho much longer. The costs are too high and housing options too limited.  Yes to upzoning!

Thank you

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Andrea Tuning

Andrea Tuning

From: K Fletch <kljfletch@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 6:14 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Vote No

I think the new zoning code rewrite is a horrible thing for Boise. It will increase traffic, pollution, overcrowd our already  pressured infrastructure systems (schools, hospitals, roads, commerce, etc), and swallow up the last of our rural roots.  Our quality of life should not be sacrificed in the name of affordable/ apartments and condos stacked on top of one  another.

This is not what Boiseans want. Please listen.

Kenya Fletcher

From: Byron Folwell <bfolwell@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 10:35 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written testimony for ZRC - City Council Hearing - 6/7/23

Mayor McLean & City Council,

First – thank you for your continued service to the City of Boise, and especially for the increased efforts surrounding the rewriting of our outdated zoning code. It was my pleasure to spend the last few years on this process as well, in my limited capacity as a local architect, housing advocate, and member of the Citizen Advisory Committee. My hope is that our collective work will result in a more equitable, accessible, and livable city to pass down to future generations.

I am in full support of the proposed Modern Zoning code. At the same time, I acknowledge that the proposed code is a compromise - a middle ground between pro-housing and anti-growth voices in Boise. This kind of change is uncomfortable for many, and zoning codes are complex and difficult to understand, exposing the public to a great deal of misinformation. My hope is that this is just a first step, and that we will be able to retool, revise, and recalibrate this code in order to deliver the outcomes we want. We cannot let the voices of anti-growth, anti-diversity, and anti-housing be the loudest voices in this process, as these Boiseans do not speak for all, but speak only for their own interests.

This new zoning code is needed to address not only the development challenges of today, but to address the problems created by our existing, outdated code. Our current 1960s-era zoning code was written specifically to safeguard the interests of the protected classes at the expense of the marginalized, and we cannot go a moment longer in good faith with this exclusionary set of land use laws.

Today, we know that our success as a city can only come when all of us are able to participate in economic development, when all are safely and securely housed, and all of us are able to find accessible routes around our city to participate in a full life. We cannot be a city for only the healthy, wealthy, and white - we must strive to be a city for all.

As an architect with a focus on affordable housing and Missing Middle housing types, I need an inclusive and efficient zoning code in order to deliver the kind of housing options we have neglected to build in the last 60 years. I need a permitting and entitlement process that is efficient, so I don’t have to burn hundreds and thousands of my clients’ dollars in administrative processes that do not serve the project, nor the interests of the city. I need city staff - housing managers, planners, inspectors, and building officials to be working together with us in the housing industry toward common goals - efficiency, fairness, quality, and openness. I need this Modern Zoning Code in order to help find housing options for my friends, my family, my community, and my city.

I encourage you and I stand with you, as you deliberate this decision. Boise is long overdue for this important first step, and many, many Boiseans share this vision with you. Please reach out if I can be of further service in this effort.

Warm regards,

Andrea Tuning

This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the  addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any  action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please contact  me at the above email address.  Thank you.

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:45 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Melanie Folwell

Boise, ID 83706

Comment

I'm writing to add my name to the growing roster of Boiseans who understand that the status quo (and the  outdated zoning code) isn't working us, and hasn't been for some time. We know what healthy, vibrant, dense,  walkable, bikeable, thriving cities look like: we vacation to them, travel to them, celebrate them. This zoning  code rewrite brings so many of those ideas for density and city planning home to Boise, where we have a once‐in‐a‐generation chance to course correct for some of the worst zoning practices of the last century. I urge your  approval and adoption of this code, and thank you for your service to our city.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:54 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name Wendy Fox

Email

Address Boise, ID 83703

Comment

I support the new zoning code.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:08 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Robert Frazier

Boise, ID 83704

Comment

The Boise City rezone is a key way to support private property rights, create new housing opportunities and  support affordable housing.

We wish it went even further in removing red tape and bureaucracy.  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

From: April Frederick <aprilinboise@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:58 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite Comments

The old code is archaic & no longer fits Boise’s need for smart, affordable housing. Also, mass transit is lacking in the  Treasure Valley, so it’s important that people who work in Boise also have an affordable place to live in Boise. I approve  of the zoning code rewrite.

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:57 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Robert M. Fritsch

Address Boise, ID 83712

Comment

Let's move forward by looking back to the past. I think that the evidence is in that the "urban renewal" and the  interstate highway plans of the 1960's were unsuccessful at best and discriminatory at worst.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Andrea Tuning

From: mkf1999@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Kerry Fuller <mkf1999@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:44 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

Transportation is a social determinate of health, so housing on bus routes is vitally important.

I support the Modern Zoning Code Rewrite.

Sincerely,  Kerry Fuller  4432 E Thomas Mill Dr  Nampa, ID 83686‐3021 mkf1999@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: bawarfield@aol.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 10:19 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Example of how rewrite will destroy older neighborhoods.

From my experience with the zoning rewrite process, it is obvious that the process has merely been a formality and not  a true listening to the voice of the citizens of Boise.

The consultant that was hired, the director of planning that was hired, the many development connected citizens  appointed to the advisory board were all to assure the rezone would pass regardless of the effect it would have on  existing neighborhoods.

I stand to gain more financially if the rezone goes through but if I (with two R‐1B adjoining lots ) and my next door  neighbor with a third R‐1B lot cave in to out of state investors who call and text regularly , our entire 65 home  neighborhood will eventually be demolished to make room for the 4 story multi family developments as one by one the  smaller R‐1B lots around us are bought up.  We are not against infill as we have seen several quality projects in our  neighborhood but the height allowance of proposed rewrite in our neighborhood causes us to make an exit plan.

The realtor I consulted states that out of state investors routinely demolish livable homes to gain vacant lots and put  them in their “waiting pipeline” of inventory for developing three or more years down the road.

Along with the 60 year old  neighborhood vanishing, so will our 60 year old trees.  I have over 30 trees on one lot  alone.  According to the certified arborist I spoke to, planting tiny trees can’t mitigate destroying healthy 60 year old  large trees.

I am unable to attend the upcoming testimony    but I believe since we don’t have a representative on City Council from our geographical area that little effort has been  made to understand our neighborhood (Imperial Acres Sub #1 and Sub #2) which is near but existed before Boise Towne  Square Mall.   Because this regional activity center is near Imperial Acres Sub #1 and Sub #2  the Rewrite as written  makes our neighborhood vulnerable to demolition and I believe t argeted.    Originally the proposed new code gave some protection to our neighborhood by transitioning only current L‐O zoning  within 1/4 mile from Regional Activity Centers to transition to  MX‐3.  They then changed it to a radius of 1/2 mile to  capture more L‐O zoning that could be transitioned to MX‐3.

This whole process has triggered mistrust in our current City Government.

Please reject this proposed code as currently written.

Barbara Gordon

7750 W. Preece Drive

83704   Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

Madison Lockhorn

From: Sherry Gorrell <sherry@pinkguesthouse.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 7:01 PM

To: Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; ZoningRewrite; zoninginfo; CityCouncil

Cc: Sherry Gorrell

Subject: [External] Delay the Zoning Vote!

Hello All,

Prior to running for mayor, Lauren contacted many of us to meet with her at local coffee shops to find out the needs of  the people of this City I was born and raised in.

Rushing the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite (without an Execu ve Summary!) is not mee ng the needs of the people of  Boise.

I highly recommend and encourage you to DELAY THE VOTE un l a er the fall elec ons to give all of us  me to weigh in  on this.

Thank you,

Sherry

ThePinkGuestHouse

www.PinkGuestHouse.com

716 W. Franklin St., Apt #1, Boise, ID  83702; 208‐880‐8670  blessed are the curious for they shall have grand adventures!

Andrea Tuning

From: Kimber Green <green.kimber@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 7:42 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Concerns

Hello City Council,

I was one of 6 individuals who read 100 pages of the Zoning Code Rewrite.  I see the need to approve new code because  our beautiful city is growing and that growth must be managed responsibly however, this document is full of serious  issues that need attention. I have outlined just what I came across below but I have heard many other concerns that  should not be overlooked for the sake of expediency. The impact of passing this as is will be catastrophic. If this truly is a “city for everyone” then wait to pass this until it has been thoroughly amended from all community feedback. Even  better to wait until all of the city council seats have been vo ted into office so everyone in all parts of our city  have representation on the city council.

Page 108 (g)  Abrogation and Greater Restrictions ‐ How can it be legal to have this new zoning code rewrite be a blanket  override of any other ordinance, regulation, easement, convenient or deed previously in place for any reason?

Page 109 (j) Warning and Disclaimer ‐ “This Section 11‐02‐07.3.F shall not create liability on the part of Boise City, or any  officer or employee thereof, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Section or any administrative  decision lawfully made using this section.”  How can the city indemnify itself when it creates and enforces all the zoning  rules and restrictions?  It’s understandable to mitigate risks and protect the tax payers but the need for this disclaimer is  another reason this zoning code isn’t even close to being ready for approval.

Page 109 (2) iii. “Existing structure in the Floodway Zone that are displaced by floodwater shall not be reconstructed” ‐  How can the city justify its authority to prevent businesses and homeowners from rebuilding?  Isn’t that precisely why  insurance exists?

Page 110 (c) Prohibited Uses i. “New construction or substantial improvements of residential and nonresidential  structures” ‐ Homeowners and landowners should be able to improve their property in any way they want as long as  they do not affect the flow of water during or after construction.

Page 111 B. “All new development shall use materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.” Private property  owners should have the autonomy to choose the materials they prefer for construction on their own properties, without  interference from the city.

Page 111 D. “Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air‐conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall  be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the  components during conditions of flooding.”  This decision shoul d be left to the property owner, builder and insurance  company.  It does not impact the city so it is not within your jurisdiction to dictate such decisions.

Page 114 vii Recreational Vehicles ‐ This type of regulation should fall under the purview of neighborhoods with  covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R) and homeowners associations (HOAs) that are responsible for enforcing  such guidelines.

Page 118 (5) Hillside Development Standards ix.  “Pedestrian access to and through the project shall be provided” ‐  Pedestrians should not have access to and through private property at any time but especially not when the property is  under construction.

Page 125 (8) Building and Structure Standards (a)  Roofs “The roof covering on buildings or structures in existence prior  to the Effective Date that are replace, or on which 50 percent or more of the roof area is replaced, during a 12 month  period shall be replaced with a roof covering required for new construction based on the ty pe of ignition‐resistant  construction.”  Zoning code can not have retroactive repercussions ‐ that is completely unreasonable, wrong and unfair.

Page 126 (c) Siding iii ‐ Same as the previous concern, you can’t back date the requirement prior to the code being  approved.

Page 127 (10)  Vegetation (b) “deer and elk resistant” ‐ Fire resistant plantings make sense but deer and elk resistant  landscaping does not have an impa ct on fires and should be eliminated.

Page 130 6. Additional Eligibility Requirements B. Housing Affordability.  This is the only section in all 600 pages to  address housing affordability (one small paragraph)!  The city and specifically Tim Keane have lied to the public about  housing affordability being a requirement in this new zoning code.  It specifically states in this section “two of  the following three elements" are required for projects.  Here is proof of one of those lies  ‐ https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/growing‐idaho/boise‐zoning‐code‐rewrite‐draft‐first‐public‐hearing‐april‐24‐housing‐density‐affordability/277‐09bbd603‐03de‐4d55‐8237‐ef1d2c954fbd

"Well, this is the opposite of that," Keane said. "For instance, we have a proposal to allow within our neighborhoods  slight density increases that are very appropriate and common in a place like North End. But in order to get the higher  densities within that piece, you have to provide affordable units.”

Page 150 Accessory Dwelling Unit (*ADU) (7) “One standard parking space shall be provided for ADU’s with two  bedrooms” ‐ Each bedroom could have 2 residents. This should be at least 2 parking spaces minimum.

Page 151 E.  Dwelling, Single‐Family Attached (2) Architectural Elements ‐ “Each attached unit shall have a facade or roof  treatment that distinguishes it from the other attached units” ‐ What is the purpose of this requirement?

Page 153 (7) Design (b) “All street‐facing faces shall include architectural treatments to provide visual interest.”  Visual  interest is subjective.  Who decides what is visually interesting?

Page 153 (7) (f)  “Duplex Dwellings located on lots at the corner of two local streets shall not have more than two  parking spaces accessed from each street.”  Duplexes can have more than one bedroom in each living unit. Living units  with multiple bedrooms should have enough parking for each bedroom at a minimum.

Page 153 (g) “Balconies shall be located in areas that will cause minimal interference with the privacy of neighboring  properties.”  Another subjective rule, who is to decide what is minimal interference?

Page 155 (f) ‐ i through vi. ‐ How will these ‘amenities' be monitored and who is going to do it?  What will happen if  these amenities aren't being followed?  How is “in scale” measured?  That is also subjective.

Page 156 (2) Standards in the MX‐3 and MX‐4 Zoning District (a) Building Design ‐ Each technique listed under this  section is completely subjective ‐ “creative facade”, “adds character and visual interest”, "perceived scale”, "clear and  welcoming building entries”.

Page 162 (4) Prohibited Home Occupations ‐ Anything illegal or dangerous should not be permitted (ex. escort  services).  Any other business affecting neighbors can be dealt with in other ways. Government can not have a blanket  restriction on how people make a living out of their home. Those who want home occupation restrictions can live in a  neighborhood with HOA’s and CC&R’s.

Pages 168 ‐ 174 ‐ Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) ‐ There are 6 pages of requirements outlining how  to “minimize aesthetic impacts” of WCF’s however this zoning code rewrite allows installations every 1,000 feet (.2

miles) and only 4 feet from mixed‐use residents’ property lines.  Research has indicated that living within a quarter mile  of a cell phone tower can have extremely negative health affects on individuals. This part of the zoning code should be  seriously researched.  There should also be a requirement to alert anyone living within a 1/4 mile of a proposed tower  installation months in advance.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my feedback.

Kimber Green

4140 N. Mountain View Dr.  Boise, ID 83704

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:59 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Dave Green

Address Boise, ID 83702

Comment

Responsible zoning laws are the chief tool we have to put people and families ahead of profits.  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:28 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Chelsea Harada

Email chelseanharada@gmail.com

Address Boise, Idaho, 83709

Comment

I'm in favor of Boise's zoning modernization because I believe it's a first, important step to addressing our  housing crisis. We have a chance to avoid the pitfalls of other cities by learning from their mistakes and taking  action before it's too late.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:06 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Walter F Hartje IV

Email wallyhartje4@hotmail.com

Address

1602 North 20th Street Boise ID 83702

Comment

I may have commented on this already so sorry if it's a repeat ‐ more density and less regulation is crucial to  have more affordable housing.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: jaredleehawk@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Jared Hawk <jaredleehawk@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:13 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Pass the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

Passing the Modern Zoning Code should be a no‐brainer.

Please modernize Boise.

Sincerely,

Jared Hawk

2712 W Madison Ave  Boise, ID 83702‐4707 jaredleehawk@gmail.com

June 8, 2023

City of Boise Planning and Development Services

150 N. Capitol Blvd. Boise, ID 83702

Re: Testimony on Airport Influence Area in Boise City Code

To whom it may concern:

The current Airport Influence Areas (AIAs) allow the airport to exert land use control over large swaths of land located far outside of actual measured airport noise impacts. We are concerned that the modern zoning code is incorporating guidelines from a decidedly non-modern exercise. The methodology for drawing the 40-year-old AIA is unknown even to the airport, but it appears to reflect areas of unquantified or potential impact from the Air National Guard F-4 fighter jets that retired from U.S. service almost 30 years go. Instead, we suggest that the Modern Zoning Code should adopt the Boise Airport’s 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) that are updated every 5 years from empirical evidence specifically to make “informed land-use decisions.” (2015 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Study Update, iflyboise.com/media/1149/cfr-part150studyupdate2.pdf) Even the NEM’s worst case scenario, which assumes exposure to F-15 fighter jets, is a substantially smaller area than the AIA.

The table below accompanies the Part 150 NEM shows the noise levels where residential uses are allowed, limited, and denied outright. Per the FAA’s CFR Part 150 guidelines, residential uses are allowed without limitation below 65 DNL (outside of green area below). In contrast, the area of the AIA that limits residential use (B-1 to C, in pink) extends well beyond the boundaries of the NEM’s noise contours that limit residential use.

NEM “worst case scenario” 65 DNL contour for residential development limitation

According to the airport’s own sound study update, the currently adopted 2020 Noise Exposure Map (shown above), which includes the evaluation of an F-15 fighter jet mission, “represents a worst-case scenario for which the City of Boise and Ada County can use to make informed land use and zoning decisions.” If the intent of this Part 150 NEM is to “make informed land use and zoning decisions,” then what is the intent of the AIA, and why is it being used to impact development decisions over the Part 150 NEMs?

Here are two examples of projects that illustrate why the NEMs are, in the end, the correct map for land use planning.

AIA B-1 boundary for residential development limitation.

PUD20-00003 proposed 84 dwelling units on the north side of the 3635 W Elder St within Airport Influence Area A (which allows residential uses) but inside of the 65 DNL contour (which limits residential uses) per the FAA’s NEM. It was denied by City Council after an applicant appeal because it would have negatively impacted the airport’s ability to receive federal FAA grant funding.

Conversely, PUD21-00006 proposed 270 units within Airport Influence Area B (which prohibits residential uses) but outside of even the 60 DNL contour (which allows residential uses) per the FAA’s NEM. It was approved by PZC and City Council (even after appeal by a neighbor), and Council even encouraged the construction of additional units on the site (PUD22-00042) because it would not have negatively impacted the airport’s ability to receive federal FAA grant funding.

The AIA does not impact airport grant funding, nor dictate where projects can and cannot be built when the rubber meets the road. Why, then, are we willing to arbitrarily limit the ability to construct housing in an environment (and code) when one of the stated goals is to increase the supply of housing? We have witnessed firsthand a chilling effect from the airport’s pre-denial of projects due to the AIA. In one instance, a NeighborWorks Boise project halted at the pre-app based upon airport comments, even though the site was well outside of even the 60-65 DNL noise contour.

We disagree that a 40-year-old map of unknown origin (AIA) should take precedent over modern maps generated by the Airport and approved by the FAA using professional, modern sound studies based on federally approved sound guidelines for the purpose of land use planning (NEMs). Please direct Staff and the Airport to update the AIA to allow residential uses per other code sections outside of the NEMs or eliminate the AIA all together in favor of the NEMs.

Very Sincerely,

Brent Thomas and Ethan Mansfield

Pre-Development Manager and Pre-Development Project Manager Hawkins Companies

June 8, 2023

City of Boise Planning and Development Services

150 N. Capitol Blvd. Boise, ID 83702

Re: Testimony on City of Boise Code Re-Write

To whom it may concern:

Please accept this written testimony in response to the City’s proposed re-write of its Development Code

We are a real estate development company based in downtown Boise. Our history dates back over 45 years. Since then, we’ve completed more than 300 projects in 28 states, totaling over 13 million square-feet of buildings. We continue to own and manage over 4 million square-feet of commercial space. Meanwhile, we own about 1,000 multifamily housing units, and we have another 4,500 in due diligence or development You might be familiar with a few of our projects located in Boise, including Franklin Town Plaza, Milwaukee Marketplace, Main & Marketplace, Village East Apartments, The Kensington Apartments, and our headquarters located downtown at 9th and Broad.

Upon our review of the proposed Development Code re-write, we are generally supportive of the City’s efforts to promote greater residential development options, as well as thoughtful commercial development. However, we have serious concerns about the following:

 MX-3 Boise Town Square Regional Ac�vity Center – We strongly recommend that this area be designated as MX-2 instead of MX-3. As its name accurately states, this area serves the en�re region. As such, customers and employees will con�nue to drive here for products and services for many years into the future. The design requirements of the MX-2 zone are more sensi�ve to this reality. On the other hand, the MX-3 zone would make it hard for people who do not live nearby to use this area by vehicle, which will cause undue economic harm to hundreds of businesses and thousands of employees in this area

 MX Zones, Parking Not Allowed Between Street and Buildings

o Many pre-exis�ng shopping centers have longstanding, legally binding CC&Rs that conflict with the design principle of placing the building between all parking and any public street. Such proper�es will have disincen�ve to be fully developed or redeveloped over �me.

o Many proper�es are bounded on several sides with roadways, which significantly complicates design efforts and may lead to unintended nega�ve outcomes. Not

allowing parking between streets and buildings will also complicate delivery and u�lity service loca�on – logis�cally, many businesses can only provide a single front door (or single façade where mul�ple doors may be located). This forces the service side of the building to be oriented to the public right of way, which diminishes the aesthe�cs and public interac�on the City is trying to achieve, or it increases pedestrian/vehicle conflicts as it forces the service side and delivery opera�ons between the building and parking lot, where customers must park and then walk through the service ac�vity that may include large delivery trucks. This design requirement appears to act contrary to the objec�ve of suppor�ng the pedestrian experience

o Fire protec�on vehicles will have fewer frontages by which to access the building. This could make some buildings, especially those on corner or triple-fronted lots impossible to construct.

o While the proposed code intends to hide parking lots, it will instead hide many businesses. Only a few businesses can fit along the front of a property before the balance of the site becomes invisible. This will cause the interior of projects to either suffer high vacancies or avoid development altogether. Instead of trying to hide parking lots, we suggest instead that though�ully landscaped parking lots can provide atrac�ve greenery while simultaneously protec�ng valuable sightliness between businesses and the roadway.

o We strongly urge the City not to require parking behind buildings—except in the densest urban areas and certainly not within MX-2 and similar zones.

 “Alterna�ve Form” Requests – As the code is currently writen, “alterna�ve form” requests only allow devia�ons from height and some parking requirements. There is no relief from Form and Layout Standards for each zone, which include the aforemen�oned requirement to place buildings between any parking areas and the street. Please allow “alterna�ve form” requests to include devia�ons from all form and layout standards, including parking and “vehicle-oriented facili�es” loca�on. This opportunity could allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to assess arguments to deviate from required layout standards on an individual basis. For example, it could allow for slight devia�ons from the standards, like allowing no more than one drive aisle with parking between the building and the street. This could yield overall beter design if loading areas, fire lanes, etc. conflict with a strict interpreta�on of the Form and Layout Standards.

 Enclosed Drive-Throughs – A requirement to enclose drive-throughs en�rely within buildings is something we have not seen in more than 28 states where we have developed commercial property. If the City’s goal is to discourage new drive-throughs altogether, then the extreme cost to comply with this requirement will probably achieve that. But it will have no effect on the public’s demand for products and services that are typically

offered by drive-through businesses. The unintended consequence, as the City con�nues to grow, will be more people driving further to visit preexis�ng drive-through businesses that will become traffic hot-spots. Furthermore, these grandfathered drive-throughs will have disincen�ve to redevelop over �me. Meanwhile, the greatly increased start-up cost for new, enclosed drive-throughs will unfairly deter small businesses, while favoring only na�onal operators who can afford the increased startup cost. A few final safety concerns are that vehicles exi�ng drive throughs that are en�rely enclosed may lack clear sightlines for pedestrians or other vehicles

 “Vehicle-Oriented Facility” – The lack of defini�on for this term in the proposed code is very concerning. We feel this opens the door to subjec�ve, unfair and/or inconsistent City interpreta�on, which can have a real, chilling effect on new development proposals that involve large sums of �me and money for property acquisi�on, feasibility studies, project design, and pursuit of tenants.

 Parking Quan�ty Requirements – We appreciate the value of promo�ng mul�-modal transporta�on However, parking availability is a prime concern for residents and businesses alike. And the only thing worse for a community than no development is failed development. Ar�ficially limi�ng parking below its demand can create parking overflow between neighboring proper�es, cause vehicle stacking and conges�on into the roadway at project entrances, and ironically promote sprawl by pushing developments to adjacent ci�es where parking codes are more aligned with market forces. Therefore, any strict limit to the amount of parking – minimum or maximum – within a development should be at the owners’ business discre�on, rather than an arbitrary code requirement.

 Airport Overlay The current Airport Influence Areas (AIAs) allow the airport to exert land use control over large swaths of land located far outside of actual measured airport noise impacts. We are concerned that the modern zoning code is incorpora�ng guidelines from a decidedly non-modern exercise. The methodology for drawing the 40-year-old AIA is unknown even to the airport, but it appears to reflect areas of unquan�fied or poten�al impact from the Air Na�onal Guard F-4 fighter jets that re�red from U.S. service almost 30 years go. Instead, we suggest that the Modern Zoning Code should adopt the Boise Airport’s 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) that are updated every 5 years from empirical evidence specifically to make “informed land-use decisions.” (2015 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Study Update, iflyboise.com/media/1149/cfr-part150-studyupdate2.pdf) Even the NEM’s “worst case scenario”, which assumes exposure to F-15 fighter jets, is a substan�ally smaller area than the AIA. Please see Hawkins Companies’ leter dedicated to this subject for more informa�on.

Thank you for accep�ng this leter. We appreciate your �me and considera�on of this important subject.

Very Sincerely,

Brent Thomas and Ethan Mansfield Pre-Development Manager and Pre-Development Project Manager Hawkins Companies

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:30 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

deborah hennessy

Address Boise, ID 83712

Comment

"I bought my modest home in the East End in 1996. What I considered perks to this location then—foothills  access one block away, Boise River access just a bit further in the other direction, proximity to public schools,  city parks, Roosevelt Market, and M&W; and the ability to walk home from downtown after a movie—never  disappointed, but were only the beginning of why I love this neighborhood’s mix of young and old families; brick,  frame, and adobe houses; and newly planted and mature landscaped areas.

While most of of us were horrified when the “Mar‐a‐Lago” house was built nearby, there have been so many  beautiful remodeling jobs and new houses that add to our neighborhood’s character. We even have homes that  were moved due to the St. Luke’s expansion and now have a new a ddress near us.

But, it is the people on the local trails or in the coffee shops that contribute to my quality of life. We look out for  each other even when we don’t agree on everything. Some of us are 80+ years of age. Some are recently retired  and are moving closer to family. Some want to have families of their own. And, it all works.

Boise needs to be welcoming to families and individuals at all stages of life and from many backgrounds. To do  this we need affordable housing on safe, well‐lit streets that encourages us to get to know our neighbors. It was  a good decision for me in 1996!"

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Mariah Herbeck <maize2005@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:24 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] In support of rewrite!

Hello!

A supporter of Neighbors for Boise stopped by today and I want to write in and let you know I support rewriting the  zoning code. In particular, we desperately need more affordable options for our senior citizens in Boise.

Thank you.

Best,

Mariah

From: Andrew Herndon <ahherndon@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:41 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite Testimony

Dear Boise City Council,

My name is Andrew Herndon and I live downtown. I'm in favor of the zoning code updates and modernization. My  neighborhood will have some of the most dramatic changes in use of any neighborhood in the city with this package of  reforms, with many office and co mmercial zones that will be turned into mixed use and with most height restrictions  lifted completely.

These zoning changes are needed, and urgently. The downtown area is rapidly changing from a place where people work  to a place where people live and interact, and these changes will help support that naturally occurring shift. It's also  timely ‐ with the increasingly widespread adoption of remote working, large business districts that are dominated by  office space and cater to an office clientele are going to shrink. Having new uses already permissible will help as the  downtown finds itself needing to pivot at an unknown speed into the future. Real estate issues, especially complicated  ones like those inherent to denser places like downtown, tend to take long periods of planning and work before results  and buildings emerge, so being proactive with these changes keeps us from falling behind.

I appreciate that this is happening now, rather than waiting for downtown to begin a spiral of decline and having to have  the law catch up to it.

Thanks for your attention to this issue and your public service. That thanks also extends to the staff who will be reading  and compiling this testimony.

Andrew Herndon

Madison Lockhorn

From: Charlie Hill <chaaarleshill@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:57 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Pass the zoning code rewrite

I am writing in support of the zoning code rewrite. I believe i t will provide more housing for Boise residents, more  options for builders and renters and will create more destinations for citizens in the own neighborhoods. I urge you to  pass the rewrite.

Thank you,  Charles Hill

1310 N 19th St, Boise, ID 83702

Madison Lockhorn

Madison Lockhorn

From: Slobodanka Hodzic <shodzic@jannus.org>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 8:56 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] FW: Testimony for zoning code re-write

Hi All,

My name is Slobodanka Hodzic a nd have lived in Boise for 2001. As a long‐term resident of this beau ful town, I know  how much housing situa on has changed. As a parent of two adult  women, I know that my children do not have the  same change to find housing or buy a house as that opportunity was presented to me. I also work with refugees for a  long  me and know how much social and monetary capacity is used to find an affordable and available housing  opportunity for our new neighbors. Something needs to change. We cannot live with the code over 50 years old that  supports red lining segrega on and does not give opportunity fo r less fortunate to find their home. I support the new  zoning code which will provide all of us with more housing oppo rtuni es and give us ability for new genera ons to find  their place in Boise. Otherwise, we will lose young genera ons who will leave to find place somewhere else with more  housing chances. We have an obliga on to give younger genera ons the same opportuni es we have had about  housing.

Thank you,

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 8:55 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Slobodanka Hodzic

Email slobodankahodzic@msn.com

Address

8826 W. Snohomish Ct., Boise ID 83709

Comment

My name is Slobodanka Hodzic a nd have lived in Boise for 2001. As a long‐term resident of this beautiful town, I  know how much housing situation has changed. As a parent of two adult women, I know that my children do not  have the same change to find housing or buy a house as that opportunity was presented to me. I also work with  refugees for a long time and know how much social and monetary capacity is used to find an affordable and  available housing opportunity for our new neighbors. Something  needs to change. We cannot live with the code  over 50 years old that supports red lining segregation and does not give opportunity for less fortunate to find  their home. I support the new zoning code which will provide all of us with more housing opportunities and give  us ability for new generations to find their place in Boise. Otherwise, we will lose young generations who will  leave to find place somewhere else with more housing chances. We have an obligation to give younger  generations the same opportunities we have had about housing.

Thank you,

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

From: jhopper9321@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Julia Hopper <jhopper9321 @everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:31 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am in support of the Modern Zoning Code because we need more affordable housing!

Sincerely,

Julia Hopper

4830 S Chex Way  Boise, ID 83709‐7602  jhopper9321@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

From: kellyhorsley93@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Kelly Horsley <kellyhorsley93 @everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:47 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] I am in support of the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am in support of the Modern Zoning Code.

Sincerely,  Kelly Horsley

212 N Flume St  Boise, ID 83712‐6317  kellyhorsley93@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:51 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Chris Howe

Address Boise, ID 83705

Comment

I support coming to the table with solutions, not just criticism and doomsday scenarios.

Growth is happening and the more responsibly and sustainably it can be done, the better.

I'm also for anything that encourages pedestrian and bike traffic, or just less car traffic in general. I'm also an  advocate for anything that makes Boise and Idaho in general a more welcoming place for everyone.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: huajenn6@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Jennifer Hua-Koroni <huajenn6 @everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:46 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] I Support The Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am writing to express my support for the Modern Zoning Code because I'd like to see more affordable housing in Boise.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hua‐Koroni  860 W Sherwood St  Boise, ID 83706‐2883  huajenn6@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:14 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Amberdean Hurst

Email amberdean.g@gmail.com

Address

2551 W Breneman St

Comment

I support the new zoning update because I believe that affordable housing is a human right. Because I believe  our foothills and the areas surrounding our rivers should be kept public and not filled with housing and  development. Because I believe that local neighborhood hubs and walkable neighborhoods are one of the things  that make Boise, Boise. But mostly, and this is all encompassing, because Boise is growing at an exponential rate,  and as someone who has lived in big cities that have both managed their growth appropriately and not, I believe  that we are at the exact moment in time that if we don’t act appropriately, Boise won’t be the Boise we all know  and love anymore.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Larry Ice <iceworks@msn.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:38 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite- Parking

Mayor McLean and Boise City Council,

I am in support of a Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). It's long overdue. But not this ZCR as written.

I am in support of finding ways to encourage affordable housing, but I know those answers are elusive and some of the  cities we are considering following are failing in this effort. I view zoning code as a realistic, rather than ideological tool.

I am in favor of multifamily and high density housing throughou t Boise, especially along the “transportation corridors”,  but not without adequate parking. I am in favor of a viable public transportation system, but realistic enough to realize  that won't happen.

I am in favor of walking neighborhoods, but residential areas need commercial areas within walking distance. Much of  our infill opportunities in residential areas goes to more residential, not commercial. I can think of no areas of Boise in  which everything a resident may want and need is within walking distance. We'll still need cars and somewhere to park  them.

Even under the current code, you would be hard pressed to point out an apartment community in which parking does  not overflow throughout the surrounding neighborhood. By limiti ng parking residential properties, the city is negating  the opportunity for developers to build to customer demand and tenants to freely choose an apartment with adequate  parking to meet their real needs.

Discouraging private vehicles by limiting parking is not the same as promoting alternative transportation. Public  transportation is a noble goal that continues to perplex city planners. People in Boise will need cars until we have a  viable public transportation system. By viable I mean affordable, safe, convenient, frequent and able to reach all parts of  the Treasure Valley 24/7.

Boise does not have a viable public transportation system or viable plans and money to build one. The Idaho Statesman  detailed the lack of funding just last week. We can talk about chicken and the egg, How much would that cost? How long  will the tax payers fund a pipe dream before we start shutting down routes, limiting hours or operation and decreasing  frequency?

Elaine Clegg, after championing the ZCR, took the helm at Valley Ride. The week after the P&Z Commission  recommended approval of the ZCR, Valley Ride announced the need to decrease service due to lack of funding.

Denver was advised by Clarion to allow high density housing without adequate parking in “transportation dense” areas.  After millions spent on RTD and the light rail, Denver discovered people still want, need and use cars and places to park  them. The transportation district is currently cutting routes a nd frequency. Entire light rail routes have been  discontinued.

Just last week a NYT article talked about the failures to create affordable housing along public transportation in  Berkeley.

We know “free” parking isn't actually free, but we also know limiting parking doesn't necessarily result in lower rent.  Many high density apartment communities now charge for on site parking and use it to increase their margin instead of  raising rents. Many without adequate parking have waiting lists. Allowing parking within the code provides the  opportunity for the tenant to make the choices for themselves between lower rent or parking.

Who needs cars and places to park them?

Destination commercial businesses need parking unless they are able to survive and thrive only on the customer base  within walking distance. Many businesses that depended upon walk‐in customers failed during the Covid lockdowns and  haven't recovered because of the remote working trend. They might have survived had they had parking to attract  customers from outside the area.

Tradesmen need vehicles to transport themselves and their tools to the job site.

Anyone that wants to leave the city and enjoy Idaho outdoors needs a vehicle.

Those of us that live in areas of the city without much commercial business need cars and places to park when we arrive  at businesses outside our neighborhoods. If we can't park at businesses in Boise, we'll have to take our money  elsewhere.

Families need cars to take the kids to school, church and doctors. They need cars to shop at our big box stores.

The working poor need cars to survive. Low income jobs are the least likely to allow remote work. Part time workers  sometimes have multiple pt jobs and can't spend hours on public transportation going to each. Some workers which  may have gig positions and jobs that require cars such as Uber or Grubhub. Service industry employees work primarily  evenings and weekends when the bus just doesn't run.

The elderly and differently‐abled are not able to walk 1.5 to 2 miles to sit in the sun or cold at a bus stop.

Most of Boise needs a car just to attend a City Council meeting. Even if we live on a bus route, the buses don't run that  late.

There are other real detriments to reduced parking other than the challenges listed above.

Some cities have to rely upon parking apps to mitigate the traffic and pollution of motorists driving endlessly looking for  parking.

Some cities use dynamic surge pricing for parking that again puts the less affluent at a disadvantage.

Limited on‐site parking necessitates on‐street parking which de creases bicyclist and child safety while facilitating easier  vehicle burglaries.

People forced to park away from their residence are faced with the burden of walking that distance carrying their  groceries and children.

And tragically, much too often, parking disputes lead to violence.

I know from attending and watching the public meetings that you've heard about parking. Many comments have  focused upon parking. It's a major concern of the public that is quickly dismissed by the city.

Boise is not San Francisco, Manhattan, Boston, Seattle or even Portland. It's also not Atlanta or Charleston. We can all  read ideologically focused books like “The High Cost of Free Parking”, but not in a silo. There are also books that refute  limiting parking agendas. Reduced parking in the ZCR is written from an ideologically based elitist position of privilege  that doesn't recognize the lived experiences and struggles of others in our community. We cannot assume those less  fortunate in our community do not want, need, deserve or will have private transportation.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer my comments and your earnest consideration.

Larry Ice

Sent from Mail for Windows

601 W. Bannock Street

PO Box 2720

Boise, ID 83701

Main: 208-388-1200

www.givenspursley.com

Preston N. Carter Direct: 208-388-1222 prestoncarter@givenspursley.com

Via email

Boise City Council

150 N. Capitol Blvd

Boise, ID 83702-5920

zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org

June 7, 2023

Re: Intermountain Gas Company’s Comments on new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001)

Dear Boise City Council Members:

Please accept these comments on behalf of Intermountain Gas Company (Intermountain Gas) regarding Boise’s Zoning Code Rewrite. These comments address the restrictions on energy source contained in Section 11-03-03.2H(1)(f)(i) (amenities for multi-family housing developments) and throughout Section 11-04-03.7(D) (incentives available for exemption from density limits in various zoning districts) of the proposed ordinance (Draft Ordinance).

Intermountain Gas provides natural gas service to approximately 405,000 customers throughout Idaho, including customers within the City of Boise (City). Intermountain Gas values its relationship with its customers, the City, developers, and other stakeholders, and appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. As a general matter, Intermountain Gas understands and appreciates the time, energy, and effort that has gone into the Draft Ordinance. Intermountain Gas shares many of the goals embodied in the Draft, including encouraging affordable and fair housing and promoting the use of environmentally friendly development practices and energy conservation.

Intermountain Gas does, however, have concerns with the Draft Ordinance. Two sections of the Draft Ordinance appear to regulate the source of energy available to certain developments. First, under Section 11-03-03.2H(1)(f), a multi-family housing development must provide at least two of the six listed amenities in certain zoning districts. Prohibiting natural gas connections is considered an “amenity.”1 Stated another way, the Draft Ordinance regulates the

1 Specifically, the Draft Ordinance designates, as an amenity, a building that restricts the source of energy to “electricity or geothermal” to meet all “heating, hot water, and appliance energy needs” for all dwelling units. Section 11-03-03.2H(1)(f)(i) (Use-Specific Standards for Residential Uses).

source of energy for certain new, multi-family dwellings by classifying natural-gas-free buildings as an “amenity.”

Second, throughout Section 11-04-03.7(D), housing developments are exempted from density standards, parking requirements, and height restrictions if they meet certain requirements. One of these requirements is prohibiting natural gas connections within the development.2

Recent legislation prohibits this type of energy-source restriction. See Idaho Code §§ 50346, 39-9701.3 House Bill 106, codified as Idaho Code Section 50-346, prohibits a city from “enact[ing] or implement[ing] any resolution, policy, or ordinance that: (1) Prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the authorized connection or reconnection of an electric, natural gas, propane, or other energy utility service provided by a public utility, municipality, or cooperative utility; (2) Restricts, or has the effect of restricting, the source of the electricity, natural gas, propane, or other energy utility service provided by a public utility, municipality, or cooperative utility; or (3) Requires residents or businesses within the municipality to use a particular type or generation source of electricity, natural gas, propane or other fuel.”

Designating an all-electric or all-geothermal building as an “amenity” both “has the effect of restricting[] the source of the electricity, natural gas, propane, or other energy utility service” to the building and requires “residents or businesses” within that building to use a “particular type or generation source,” in violation of sections (2) and (3) of House Bill 106. See Section 1103-03.2H(1)(f)(i); Idaho Code § 50-346(2) & (3). Similarly, the exemption from density and other requirements eligibility for which requires a natural-gas-free development has “the effect of restricting” the energy source for the development and “[r]equires residents or businesses” within the development “to use a particular type or generation source” of energy. See Sections 11-04-03.7(D)(1)(b)(i), (3)(c)(i), (4)(b)(i), (5)(b)(i); Idaho Code § 50-346(2) & (3). In addition, implementing and enforcing these provisions will “[p]rohibit, or ha[ve] the effect of prohibiting” connections to a natural gas utility within certain developments, and will “require[] residents and businesses” within these developments to use a particular type or generation source for their energy needs. See Idaho Code § 50-346(1) & (3). In short, these provisions violate state law.

Legislative history confirms that the Legislature intended to prevent the type of energysource restriction contained in the Draft Ordinance. In the Senate’s debate, Senator Rabe explained that House Bill 106 would prohibit even voluntary, incentive-based programs,

2 One of the requirements to earn these exemptions is that the “building shall use electricity or geothermal energy to meet all of its heating, hot water, and appliance energy needs” in all dwelling units. Sections 11-04-03.7(D)(1)(b)(i), (3)(c)(i), (4)(b)(i), (5)(b)(i) (Incentives to Create Affordable and Sustainable Housing).

3 Even if these statutes didn’t directly apply, the City of Boise would still lack authority for this type of action. Idaho is a Dillon’s rule state; cities lack inherent authority to legislate. Rather, their lawmaking power derives from grants of authority expressly granted or necessarily implied by the Idaho Constitution or statute. Caesar v. State, 101 Idaho 158, 160, 610 P.2d 517, 519 (1980). While the Local Land Use and Planning Act grants Idaho cities authority to make land-use decisions, including zoning decisions, cities lack authority to regulate sources of energy.

including the City of Boise’s ability to incentivize connections to geothermal energy. Senator Wintrow’s comments reflect a similar understanding of the Bill.4

House Bill 287, codified as Idaho Code Section 39-9701, “preempt[s], eliminate[s], and prohibit[s] cities . . . from adopting energy code or energy-related requirements through any code, ordinance, process, policy, or guidance that differ from or are more extensive than the requirements of the Idaho energy conservation code as provided for in this chapter.” (emphasis added). To obtain the exemption from certain density standards, or to meet a required amenity, developers may use only electricity or geothermal energy. This is an energy-related requirement that differs from, and is more extensive than, the requirements of the Idaho energy conservation code. These provisions of the Draft Ordinance are expressly preempted by Idaho Code Section 39-9701.

As a factual matter, these provisions are contrary to the City’s stated goals of promoting affordable housing. Natural gas is an affordable and stable energy source. The American Gas Association notes that households that use natural gas for heating, cooking, and clothes drying save an average of $1,068 per year compared to homes using electricity for those applications. In addition, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that natural gas will continue to be 30–50% less than the price of other fuels through 2050.5 Natural gas is not only cheaper than electricity, but also provides more heating comfort and better cooking performance.6 Removing these provisions would align the Draft Ordinance with the City’s goals regarding affordable housing.

During the Planning and Zoning hearings, City staff stated that the Draft Ordinance creates incentives but does not impose restrictions. The legal problems with these provisions cannot be so easily dismissed.

House Bill 106 prohibits ordinances that have the effect of prohibiting, restricting, or requiring the use of a particular energy source. See Idaho Code § 50-346(1)-(3) (prohibiting resolutions, policies, or ordinances that “have the effect of” prohibiting, restricting, or requiring the use of particular energy source). It does not matter whether the ordinance achieves those effects directly, through an explicit ban, or indirectly, through an incentive. The effect of the ordinance, not its form, is what matters.

4 See Senate Chambers Digital Media Archive (Mar. 14, 2023). Video at 2:19:18-2:32:50, available at https://lso.legislature.idaho.gov/MediaArchive/ShowCommitteeOrMedia.do;jsessionid=70CF07950B33C6E96D09F 40A3840B827. Senators Rabe and Wintrow both advocated against House Bill 106, as they both appeared to support the type of energy-source restrictions contained in the Draft Ordinance.

5 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2020, available at, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=3-AEO2020&region=10&cases=ref2020&start=2019&end=2050&f=A&linechart=ref2020-d112119a.3-3-AEO2020.1-0~ref2020d112119a.5-3-AEO2020.1-0&map=ref2020-d112119a.4-3-AEO2020.10&ctype=linechart&chartindexed=0&sid=ref2020-d112119a.5-3-AEO2020.1-0&sourcekey=0

6 See Kenneth W. Costello, Why Kill Natural Gas?, REGULATION, Spring 2022, at 27, attached as Exhibit 1.

As succinctly put by the Ninth Circuit in analogous circumstances: “States and localities can’t skirt the text of broad preemption provisions by doing indirectly what Congress says they can’t do directly.” Cal. Restaurant Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 65 F.4th 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 2023) (emphasis in original).

Second, House Bill 106 prohibits not only the passage, but also the implementation of ordinances that prohibit, restrict, or require the use of a particular energy source. See Idaho Code § 50-346 (“No municipality, city, . . . or any other local government entity of any kind may enact or implement any resolution, policy or ordinance that: . . . . (emphasis added)). To implement the “amenity” of an electricity- or geothermal-only building, the City must impose a binding, perpetual condition that prohibits the multi-family dwelling from connecting to a natural gas utility. To implement the density bonus, the City must impose a binding, perpetual condition that prohibits residents within the development from connecting to a natural gas utility. These implementation/enforcement mechanisms whether implemented through binding conditions, through requiring imposition of restrictive covenants, or otherwise violate all three sections of House Bill 106: they prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting, the otherwise-authorized connection to a natural gas utility; they restrict, or have the effect of restricting, the source of the energy utility service provided to the building or the development; and they require residents or businesses within the municipality to use a particular type or source of fuel. See Idaho Code § 50-346(1), (2), & (3).

Implementing and enforcing these provisions will create a host of other legal and practical problems. For example, Intermountain Gas is a public utility regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Consistent with its PUC-approved tariffs, Intermountain Gas is legally obligated to provide service to customers within its certificated service territory. This is true even if the request for service comes from within a development that purports to restrict natural-gas connections, as would be the case if the developer receives an “amenity” or “bonus” for an all-electric or all-geothermal development. Any attempt to enforce the restriction, by the City or otherwise, would be preempted by Intermountain Gas’s state-law obligation to serve the customer.

To provide another example, if a City policy, condition, covenant or restriction associated with an all-electric or all-geothermal “amenity” or “bonus” regulates the energy use of appliances, that policy, condition, covenant or restriction is preempted by federal law. See Cal. Restaurant Ass’n, 65 F.4th at 1050 (holding that the City of Berkeley’s ban of natural-gas infrastructure through a building code constitutes a “regulation concerning the energy use” of covered appliances, preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act).7

These are only two examples. It is not possible to think through every enforcement scenario. Suffice it to say, there is no clear, lawful path to implement and enforce these provisions of the Draft Ordinance.

7 While the bulk of this comment focuses on House Bill 106, the Draft Ordinance’s attempt to regulate the “appliance energy needs” of certain buildings is arguably preempted by the federal as well as state law. See Draft Ordinance at Sections 11-04-03.7(D)(1)(b)(i), (3)(c)(i), (4)(b)(i), (5)(b)(i) (stating that, to qualify as an “amenity,” a building “shall use electricity or geothermal energy to meet all of its . . . appliance energy needs”); Cal. Restaurant Ass’n, 65 F.4th at 1056 (holding that the City of Berkeley’s indirect attempt to prohibit the use of natural gas in appliances is preempted by the EPCA).

To summarize: The energy-source restrictions in the Draft Ordinance are inconsistent with Idaho law as well as the City’s affordable-housing goals. Styling these provisions as “incentives” rather than “restrictions” does not make them lawful. And implementing and enforcing these provisions will create a host of legal and practical problems into the future.

Thankfully, this is not a difficult problem to solve. These provisions can, and should, be removed from the Draft Ordinance. This will allow all parties to focus their efforts on implementing the lawful provisions of the code rather than on legal challenges to the problematic provisions. Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,

Preston N. Carter Morgan D. Goodin Givens Pursley, LLP Attorneys for Intermountain Gas

cc: Tim Keane, Director of Planning and Development Services

Jayme B. Sullivan, Boise City Attorney Members of the City Council 16782692_6.docx

601 W. Bannock Street

PO Box 2720

Boise, ID 83701

Main: 208-388-1200

www.givenspursley.com

Preston N. Carter Direct: 208-388-1222 prestoncarter@givenspursley.com

Via email

Boise City Council

150 N. Capitol Blvd

Boise, ID 83702-5920

zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org

June 7, 2023

Re: Intermountain Gas Company’s Comments on new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001)

Dear Boise City Council Members:

Please accept these comments on behalf of Intermountain Gas Company (Intermountain Gas) regarding Boise’s Zoning Code Rewrite. These comments address the restrictions on energy source contained in Section 11-03-03.2H(1)(f)(i) (amenities for multi-family housing developments) and throughout Section 11-04-03.7(D) (incentives available for exemption from density limits in various zoning districts) of the proposed ordinance (Draft Ordinance).

Intermountain Gas provides natural gas service to approximately 405,000 customers throughout Idaho, including customers within the City of Boise (City). Intermountain Gas values its relationship with its customers, the City, developers, and other stakeholders, and appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. As a general matter, Intermountain Gas understands and appreciates the time, energy, and effort that has gone into the Draft Ordinance. Intermountain Gas shares many of the goals embodied in the Draft, including encouraging affordable and fair housing and promoting the use of environmentally friendly development practices and energy conservation.

Intermountain Gas does, however, have concerns with the Draft Ordinance. Two sections of the Draft Ordinance appear to regulate the source of energy available to certain developments. First, under Section 11-03-03.2H(1)(f), a multi-family housing development must provide at least two of the six listed amenities in certain zoning districts. Prohibiting natural gas connections is considered an “amenity.”1 Stated another way, the Draft Ordinance regulates the

1 Specifically, the Draft Ordinance designates, as an amenity, a building that restricts the source of energy to “electricity or geothermal” to meet all “heating, hot water, and appliance energy needs” for all dwelling units. Section 11-03-03.2H(1)(f)(i) (Use-Specific Standards for Residential Uses).

source of energy for certain new, multi-family dwellings by classifying natural-gas-free buildings as an “amenity.”

Second, throughout Section 11-04-03.7(D), housing developments are exempted from density standards, parking requirements, and height restrictions if they meet certain requirements. One of these requirements is prohibiting natural gas connections within the development.2

Recent legislation prohibits this type of energy-source restriction. See Idaho Code §§ 50346, 39-9701.3 House Bill 106, codified as Idaho Code Section 50-346, prohibits a city from “enact[ing] or implement[ing] any resolution, policy, or ordinance that: (1) Prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, the authorized connection or reconnection of an electric, natural gas, propane, or other energy utility service provided by a public utility, municipality, or cooperative utility; (2) Restricts, or has the effect of restricting, the source of the electricity, natural gas, propane, or other energy utility service provided by a public utility, municipality, or cooperative utility; or (3) Requires residents or businesses within the municipality to use a particular type or generation source of electricity, natural gas, propane or other fuel.”

Designating an all-electric or all-geothermal building as an “amenity” both “has the effect of restricting[] the source of the electricity, natural gas, propane, or other energy utility service” to the building and requires “residents or businesses” within that building to use a “particular type or generation source,” in violation of sections (2) and (3) of House Bill 106. See Section 1103-03.2H(1)(f)(i); Idaho Code § 50-346(2) & (3). Similarly, the exemption from density and other requirements eligibility for which requires a natural-gas-free development has “the effect of restricting” the energy source for the development and “[r]equires residents or businesses” within the development “to use a particular type or generation source” of energy. See Sections 11-04-03.7(D)(1)(b)(i), (3)(c)(i), (4)(b)(i), (5)(b)(i); Idaho Code § 50-346(2) & (3). In addition, implementing and enforcing these provisions will “[p]rohibit, or ha[ve] the effect of prohibiting” connections to a natural gas utility within certain developments, and will “require[] residents and businesses” within these developments to use a particular type or generation source for their energy needs. See Idaho Code § 50-346(1) & (3). In short, these provisions violate state law.

Legislative history confirms that the Legislature intended to prevent the type of energysource restriction contained in the Draft Ordinance. In the Senate’s debate, Senator Rabe explained that House Bill 106 would prohibit even voluntary, incentive-based programs,

2 One of the requirements to earn these exemptions is that the “building shall use electricity or geothermal energy to meet all of its heating, hot water, and appliance energy needs” in all dwelling units. Sections 11-04-03.7(D)(1)(b)(i), (3)(c)(i), (4)(b)(i), (5)(b)(i) (Incentives to Create Affordable and Sustainable Housing).

3 Even if these statutes didn’t directly apply, the City of Boise would still lack authority for this type of action. Idaho is a Dillon’s rule state; cities lack inherent authority to legislate. Rather, their lawmaking power derives from grants of authority expressly granted or necessarily implied by the Idaho Constitution or statute. Caesar v. State, 101 Idaho 158, 160, 610 P.2d 517, 519 (1980). While the Local Land Use and Planning Act grants Idaho cities authority to make land-use decisions, including zoning decisions, cities lack authority to regulate sources of energy.

including the City of Boise’s ability to incentivize connections to geothermal energy. Senator Wintrow’s comments reflect a similar understanding of the Bill.4

House Bill 287, codified as Idaho Code Section 39-9701, “preempt[s], eliminate[s], and prohibit[s] cities . . . from adopting energy code or energy-related requirements through any code, ordinance, process, policy, or guidance that differ from or are more extensive than the requirements of the Idaho energy conservation code as provided for in this chapter.” (emphasis added). To obtain the exemption from certain density standards, or to meet a required amenity, developers may use only electricity or geothermal energy. This is an energy-related requirement that differs from, and is more extensive than, the requirements of the Idaho energy conservation code. These provisions of the Draft Ordinance are expressly preempted by Idaho Code Section 39-9701.

As a factual matter, these provisions are contrary to the City’s stated goals of promoting affordable housing. Natural gas is an affordable and stable energy source. The American Gas Association notes that households that use natural gas for heating, cooking, and clothes drying save an average of $1,068 per year compared to homes using electricity for those applications. In addition, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that natural gas will continue to be 30–50% less than the price of other fuels through 2050.5 Natural gas is not only cheaper than electricity, but also provides more heating comfort and better cooking performance.6 Removing these provisions would align the Draft Ordinance with the City’s goals regarding affordable housing.

During the Planning and Zoning hearings, City staff stated that the Draft Ordinance creates incentives but does not impose restrictions. The legal problems with these provisions cannot be so easily dismissed.

House Bill 106 prohibits ordinances that have the effect of prohibiting, restricting, or requiring the use of a particular energy source. See Idaho Code § 50-346(1)-(3) (prohibiting resolutions, policies, or ordinances that “have the effect of” prohibiting, restricting, or requiring the use of particular energy source). It does not matter whether the ordinance achieves those effects directly, through an explicit ban, or indirectly, through an incentive. The effect of the ordinance, not its form, is what matters.

4 See Senate Chambers Digital Media Archive (Mar. 14, 2023). Video at 2:19:18-2:32:50, available at https://lso.legislature.idaho.gov/MediaArchive/ShowCommitteeOrMedia.do;jsessionid=70CF07950B33C6E96D09F 40A3840B827. Senators Rabe and Wintrow both advocated against House Bill 106, as they both appeared to support the type of energy-source restrictions contained in the Draft Ordinance.

5 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2020, available at, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=3-AEO2020&region=10&cases=ref2020&start=2019&end=2050&f=A&linechart=ref2020-d112119a.3-3-AEO2020.1-0~ref2020d112119a.5-3-AEO2020.1-0&map=ref2020-d112119a.4-3-AEO2020.10&ctype=linechart&chartindexed=0&sid=ref2020-d112119a.5-3-AEO2020.1-0&sourcekey=0

6 See Kenneth W. Costello, Why Kill Natural Gas?, REGULATION, Spring 2022, at 27, attached as Exhibit 1.

As succinctly put by the Ninth Circuit in analogous circumstances: “States and localities can’t skirt the text of broad preemption provisions by doing indirectly what Congress says they can’t do directly.” Cal. Restaurant Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, 65 F.4th 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 2023) (emphasis in original).

Second, House Bill 106 prohibits not only the passage, but also the implementation of ordinances that prohibit, restrict, or require the use of a particular energy source. See Idaho Code § 50-346 (“No municipality, city, . . . or any other local government entity of any kind may enact or implement any resolution, policy or ordinance that: . . . . (emphasis added)). To implement the “amenity” of an electricity- or geothermal-only building, the City must impose a binding, perpetual condition that prohibits the multi-family dwelling from connecting to a natural gas utility. To implement the density bonus, the City must impose a binding, perpetual condition that prohibits residents within the development from connecting to a natural gas utility. These implementation/enforcement mechanisms whether implemented through binding conditions, through requiring imposition of restrictive covenants, or otherwise violate all three sections of House Bill 106: they prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting, the otherwise-authorized connection to a natural gas utility; they restrict, or have the effect of restricting, the source of the energy utility service provided to the building or the development; and they require residents or businesses within the municipality to use a particular type or source of fuel. See Idaho Code § 50-346(1), (2), & (3).

Implementing and enforcing these provisions will create a host of other legal and practical problems. For example, Intermountain Gas is a public utility regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Consistent with its PUC-approved tariffs, Intermountain Gas is legally obligated to provide service to customers within its certificated service territory. This is true even if the request for service comes from within a development that purports to restrict natural-gas connections, as would be the case if the developer receives an “amenity” or “bonus” for an all-electric or all-geothermal development. Any attempt to enforce the restriction, by the City or otherwise, would be preempted by Intermountain Gas’s state-law obligation to serve the customer.

To provide another example, if a City policy, condition, covenant or restriction associated with an all-electric or all-geothermal “amenity” or “bonus” regulates the energy use of appliances, that policy, condition, covenant or restriction is preempted by federal law. See Cal. Restaurant Ass’n, 65 F.4th at 1050 (holding that the City of Berkeley’s ban of natural-gas infrastructure through a building code constitutes a “regulation concerning the energy use” of covered appliances, preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act).7

These are only two examples. It is not possible to think through every enforcement scenario. Suffice it to say, there is no clear, lawful path to implement and enforce these provisions of the Draft Ordinance.

7 While the bulk of this comment focuses on House Bill 106, the Draft Ordinance’s attempt to regulate the “appliance energy needs” of certain buildings is arguably preempted by the federal as well as state law. See Draft Ordinance at Sections 11-04-03.7(D)(1)(b)(i), (3)(c)(i), (4)(b)(i), (5)(b)(i) (stating that, to qualify as an “amenity,” a building “shall use electricity or geothermal energy to meet all of its . . . appliance energy needs”); Cal. Restaurant Ass’n, 65 F.4th at 1056 (holding that the City of Berkeley’s indirect attempt to prohibit the use of natural gas in appliances is preempted by the EPCA).

To summarize: The energy-source restrictions in the Draft Ordinance are inconsistent with Idaho law as well as the City’s affordable-housing goals. Styling these provisions as “incentives” rather than “restrictions” does not make them lawful. And implementing and enforcing these provisions will create a host of legal and practical problems into the future.

Thankfully, this is not a difficult problem to solve. These provisions can, and should, be removed from the Draft Ordinance. This will allow all parties to focus their efforts on implementing the lawful provisions of the code rather than on legal challenges to the problematic provisions. Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,

Preston N. Carter Morgan D. Goodin Givens Pursley, LLP Attorneys for Intermountain Gas

cc: Tim Keane, Director of Planning and Development Services

Jayme B. Sullivan, Boise City Attorney Members of the City Council 16782692_6.docx

Madison Lockhorn

From: Abigail Jenkins <abigailjenkins100@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 5:45 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Legalize Homes

Hello,

I hope you are doing amazing! I support positive change to our zoning code that increases equality! I would love to see  changes to the code that reduce and eliminate redlining and racial covenants. You are proba bly aware, but College of  Idaho students are working to bring to light all of the discrim inatory housing practices through research.

Link to their page: https://www.collegeofidaho.edu/news/quest‐redline‐project

Paper by Professor Cunningham with examples: https://www.wintrowforidaho.com/racial‐covenants‐redlining‐intergenerational‐wealth‐in‐idaho/

Thank you! Have a great week!

Thank you,  Abigail Jenkins

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:29 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Neysa Jensen

Address Comment

I am writing in favor of the new zoning code. Here are a few of the reasons I support the new zoning code:

1. Current code is archaic and based on a world we don't live in anymore. Among other things, our city needs a  wider variety of options and zones to build more housing in denser communities. We cannot and should not go  forward with an expectation of single family homes on large lots as the main focus. This is not a pathway to  creating housing options. Families and individuals are not homogeneous; needs differ widely.

2. Transportation must be part of our forward thinking, as transportation costs are a piece to consider in housing  affordability. It just makes sense to zone transportation corridors to encourage density there and to work  cooperatively with multiple agencies and entities to create a mixed use area that relies less on cars. Basically,  the opposite of suburban sprawl.

3. Opponents argue that the new zoning code does not address our most urgent need for housing for extremely  low income people. I think it doesn't answer every needs, nor should zoning laws set out to do that. I do think it  sets the stage and provides incentives to developers to consider lower income options. And I do think that  allowing for more varied and dense options will help with affordability.

However, it has mostly always been the case that those with the lowest incomes will need subsidized housing of  one sort or another, and I urge you as our city leaders to take urgent action in identifying and funding projects  that meet the needs of those citizens. It is the right thing to do, and I'm in favor of the actions you've taken to  date.

While the modern zoning code doesn't solve all our problems, it most certainly is a huge improvement over our  extremely outdated code. You should approve it and then do more.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: zoninginfo

Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 12:26 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: FW: [External] zoning change

Comments

Gemma Flores Assistant Planner Planning and Development Services

Office: (208)608-7086 gflores@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org

Creating a city for everyone.

From: Tom Jewell <CTJEWELL5@msn.com>

Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 12:03 PM

To: zoninginfo <zoninginfo@cityofboise.org>

Subject: [External] zoning change

Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001

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

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

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

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

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

Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is  essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the

weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully  submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22.

Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be  included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.

C T Jewell, M.D.

Boise City Resident

Mayor McLean

Boise City Council

150 North Capital Blvd

Boise, ID 83702

Dear Mayor McLean and City Councilors,

Here are my personal comments concerning the Zoning Code Rewrite. I submit these comments as a long-time neighborhood advocate and leader with the Vista Neighborhood Assocation. Active President for Boise Working Together and spokesperson and an original organizer of Reject Boise Upzone. A licensed Realtor for over 20 years. Unfortunately, I have also found myself actively opposed to numerous policy issues with the City of Boise- F35, Library and Stadium Initiative, Murgoitio Park, the Open Space Initiative and now the Zoning Code Rewrite. In each case the City’s administration charged forward supporting policies that were not supported by greater Boise’s population. Nor was adequate thought given to the negative impacts of those policies outside of downtown. The Zoning Code Rewrite is following those same processes to the “T”.

In the aftermath of the Library and Stadium initiative, it was readily apparent how difficult it is to reach, inform and educate the masses. City staff performed many attempts to reach the public and felt very strongly that the public supported a new main library from those public outreach efforts. Yet, in the end it failed at the ballot box with 70% opposed. My experience in opposing the Zoning Code Rewrite indicates the same trend. Our supporters largely know little to nothing about the rewrite before we reached them via signage, social media and emails. Overwhelmingly the more they learn and understand about what it does in our neighborhoods, the more they are against it. They have supported our efforts with hundreds of small donations $10, $20 an occasional $100 which in turn paid for 400 yard signs specifically delivered to recipients by request and thousands of flyers distributed by concerned volunteers. Interestingly, donations and interest picked up after the Planning and Zoning hearings by developers, investors and other local leaders and activists, which in turn funded billboards, banners, digital advertising. I say this to point out that the RBU efforts have been funded and driven by 100’s of concerned citizens- all in only 6 months, not two years. People across the City care about their city, their neighborhoods and their homes, something PDS Director Keane should have been keenly aware of after Atlanta.

IMO, most of this could have been avoided with a much softer, scaled approach to implementation vs the heavy handed apply it everywhere (except Historic District, overlays, CCR’s, specific plan areas) approach being taken. Few people want to stop growth. Most understand the issue of Urban Sprawl. However, overwhelmingly they oppose the direction, the intensity this rewrite applies to neighborhoods

(up to 12 units per lot, 3 stories 40 ft high). Because principles work or are desired in the North End does not mean work or are desired everywhere.

One of key issues with the argument to delay the vote, is to get it right the first time. Not implement an ordinance that everyone knows needs to be revised to “fix it” later. The economy has slowed, the housing market has slowed as well. We have the time, let’s take the time to get it right. Planning and Zoning chose to “kick the can down the road”. After 1800 pages of comments, does anyone really think the public overwhelmingly endorse these zoning code changes? I certainly don’t.

The issue of delaying the vote on this comprehensive ordinance that will forever change Boise, is not a reflection on this Council’s dedication, love for Boise or their abilities, training or education. Instead, it is an accurate representation of how people in Boise’s outlying areas feel about being represented at City Hall. Who are the elected representatives for Districts 2,3,4 and following the voice and direction of those residents on this issue? Let’s face it the current make up of this Council includes two appointees obviously chosen for their support of this ordinance and two others who will not be answerable for their vote in November. It does not reflect well on this administration or this ordinance to push it forward under these conditions. Please delay the final approval or implementation until after a new city council is seated in January!

Over the last 6 months since Reject Boise Upzone was formally launched in December, our coalition has been amazed at how many people in Boise are completely unaware of this proposed code changecompletely unaware! I do not fault the efforts of PDS for this issue, but it is readily apparent Boise is heading down the same path they did with the F35, the Sofdie designed main library, Murgotio Park, IFS, Blue Valley, the Open Space initiative. Now the Zoning Code Rewrite. It is obviously apparent that there is a glaring disconnect between City Hall and Boise residents on some very big issues. Issues that have required Boise Citizens to organize formal opposition even initiatives against the proposals coming from City Hall, which is sad and frustrating. The Zoning Code Rewrite and the Reject Boise Upzone effort is a prime, current example. It is going to be interesting to see how your deliberations and decisions will be perceived this fall through the campaign season and election.

As far as the specific details of the actual code are concerned, we feel this code goes to far in giving in to the development community without actually requiring affordability. The incentives for the smaller projects under 12 units we fear will be ineffective in actually generating affordable units. It will be easier in many cases to move forward with alternative plans avoiding the incentives. I cannot a developer of projects of this size actually choosing to have the city tell them how they can build and also restrict the income they will receive. Especially when there are alternative routes- like duplexes with 8-12 bedrooms, that will maximize square feet without the restrictions.

Is there really a demonstrated need to go 3 stories up to 40 ft high in residential areas primarily made up of single level homes? Approximately 70% of past sales without CCR’s or Historic Districts are single level homes in the areas targeted by this rewrite- the Bench and West Boise. The stated goals of the incentives of granting up to 12 units per lot, in established neighborhoods certainly has generated massive opposition. I wonder if it is worth it, for an unproven concept.

It can’t help but be noticed how quickly the changes to large lots were removed, the quickly followed by support of the rewrite by those same neighborhoods. It is quite apparent how specific areas will be targeted for redevelopment while others will be protected from its impacts. Basically, overtime Boise will be divided by this exclusionary policy which places density in the older, less expensive areas while protecting others- large lots, CC&R’s, Historic Districts, specific plan areas. These impacted areas of Boise currently house our lowest median income residents and have the lowest median sales prices. Just how do we expect to redevelop those areas into greater affordability? Just where do those displaced residents have to go? Where are the displacement policies for Boise’s numerous trailer courts in r2 zones?

Dealing with growth is one thing. Creating a zoning code designed to accelerate that growth is another. The Hosing Needs Analysis clearly shows Boise’s intent to increase production by 85%! The avg annual number of building permits issued since 2014 is 1486 permits a year (per COMPASS reports). Increasing to the stated “need” of 2773 annually is an 85% increase, which also represents a 12% increase in Ada County Maret share! Not only is Boise proposing to accelerate growth, it wants to reduce growth elsewhere and bring it to Boise!

If there was ever a document designed to divide a city this is it. It has effectively created a divide between established, long-term residents who helped build this city and a younger generation who want to take advantage of what was created by those who came before. Out with the old, in with the new, move over, move out in the most callous way possible. All sold to provide affordability which it actually destroys in the older parts of Boise. For “diversity” which already exists throughout Boise’s older neighborhoods already. Sold for walkability through increased density in areas that lack the basic infrastructure for the increased population and traffic. In a city that is already has 10-15 year back log of neighborhood improvement projects with ACHD. All while pedestrian, bicycle accidents and deaths increase annually. The ZCR sells a product, but avoids the details, the issues, the costs, the livability that will be destroyed for current residents for policies and programs they don’t support, did not ask for and are not funded.

I sincerely hope, City Council will decide to take a pause, reflect and reevaluate the implementation of this unpopular ordinance. There is time. It is needed. It does not reflect the needs and desires of a large part of Boise and significant portion of its residents.

Dave Kangas

1715 W Canal St

Boise, ID 83705

208-841-0580

Davekangas@msn.com

June 8, 2023

Dear City Council Members

I sat on the City-Wide Advisory Committee for the re-write and would like to thank staff for taking many of my comments and making changes to the proposed code. In reading the final draft there are a few things that I would, personally, like to see changed.

I was at the splash pad grand opening at Molenaar Park a few weeks ago and took this picture. These “turn off your engine” or “No Idle Zone” signs can also be found at most schools for a very good reason.

I don’t think this Council needs education on the harm that vehicle emissions cause to people. It is well documented that people who are exposed to increased emissions suffer increased health issues. It is also well documented that many of those people exposed are low income or other marginalized or vulnerable populations.

The current code states:

11-06-05 3.A.2.c Additional Requirements In C-1 districts, a 200-foot setback from residential use or zone is required for the drive through window or lane where the primary use of the window is food service. The 200-foot setback shall be measured from any part of the window or drive through lane to the nearest lot or parcel used or zoned for a residence.

Although there are additional requirements placed on drive throughs in most of the MX zones, this 200 foot protection is removed in the proposed code, though it remains in effect in areas such as Harris Ranch in their specific plan.

We had an instance in our neighborhood where a developer wanted to put a drive through within 200 feet of residential which he had also recently developed. Because the 200-foot setback was in place it not only prevented the drive through but it also prevented the drive through aisles from being just 100 ft from his own tot lot.

The new code states 11-03-03.4(12)(b) Drive-through lanes shall be set back at least 10 feet from each Residential zoning district or residential use; and along with additional requirements for landscaping and sound abatement walls (Drive Through Facility standards can be found on pg. 183.)

Although the new code requires covered service lanes to be covered, a cover will not filter the emissions and it will go out with the airflow. Emissions from idling vehicles will also not be stopped by landscaping or walls, which is why COPD and asthma rates are so much higher along interstates and heavy traffic roads even when those things are present

Those that find themselves living next to the MX-2 zones will not even have the protection of covers and walls and may find a drive through lane just 10 feet off of their fence line. In the picture, MX is in the shades of pink and red

I would ask that the 200-foot setback from any residential use or zone be retained and also expanded to include parks, schools and daycares.

The second ask has to do with Bike Parking Standards (Pg. 265)

The City has really done a nice job improving the standards from what they were before. There are only two issues I would like Council to consider.

First, the number of bike parking spots in multi-family dwellings are calculated by dwelling unit, not by the number of bedrooms that unit may have. So, a project that has ten one-bedroom apartments could have 10 long term and 1 short term bike spaces. While ten three-bedroom units could also have 10 long term and 1 short term bike spaces even though we could expect this project to have substantially more people.

Car parking is calculated using bedrooms, because for that I guess it is assumed that if there is more than one bedroom there will be more than one car.

Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements Multiple Family Dwellings:

Long Term: 1 space per DU

Short Term: 1 space per 10 DU

Minimum off-street parking for cars at Multiple Family Dwellings (Pg. 253)

Studio/Efficiency: 0.5 per DU

1BR: 1 per DU

2BR: 1.25 per DU

3+BR: 1.5 per DU

Guest: 1 per 10 DU

If Boise really wants to encourage other modes of transportation, then long term bike parking should be scaled up with an increase in bedrooms, as it is for cars. It doesn’t need to be at the same rate, but it should be related to the increase in the number of people that are expected to live in the units. Each person who lives in a unit should have the ability to keep their bike safe in the long-term area.

Secondly, to further encourage biking, some percentage of short-term parking should be required to be covered.

In locations such as schools, where students may leave bikes outside for 6+ hours in all kinds of weather it should all be covered.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Marisa Keith

Andrea Tuning

From: Scott Ki <senorllave@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 4:03 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Fwd: ZOA23-00001, CPA23-00001

It wasn't clear whether to comment again or not on the upzone for the City Council meetings coming up. And, to date,  my comments and other folks' serious comments with major concerns on the plan have not been adequately addressed  in the adoption draft that will be reviewed by the City Council. As such, I am forwarding the comments I made for the  P&Z Commission back in March so the City Council gets a chance to hopefully review these comments. I want to  emphasize again the continued need for accountability, transparency, more time to comment, better processes for  public comment, and the need for geographic representation throughout the entire city, i.e. waiting until after the  November elections for the City Council to consider this plan. Thank you!

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

From: Scott Ki <senorllave@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:08 PM

Subject: ZOA23‐00001, CPA23‐00001

To: <zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org>

Scott Ki, 1408 N 15th Street, Boise, ID 83702

Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning Committee, and  City Staff,

We have very serious concerns with the current version of the City of Boise's upzone plan. We ask first that the City  postpone this process to allow more time for public comment on the current draft which exceeds 600 pages and is  written unnecessarily in very dense technical language.

Overall, the lack of meaningful opportunities to provide public comment on the upzone plan as well as the inability for  public comment within the plan itself are contrary to the fundamental building blocks of a functioning democracy,  namely transparency and accountability.

If this upzone plan passes, there will be no opportunity for neighbors to comment on buildings that may reach 40 feet  into the sky and block sunlight from homes and backyards, or to comment on structures that may be occupied by a  fourplex, neighborhood cafe, or cellphone towers, among other uses, which would significantly alter the nature of  existing residential communities and damage their quality of life.

I ask everyone involved in this upzone a simple request: provide one successful example of such a plan that has worked  in the United States and did not lead to the further degradatio n of affordable housing and residential neighborhoods,  did not increase noise and air pollution, did not place strains on water, traffic and other infrastructure, and did not  significantly reduce parks and greenspace. Many have asked this question before during the City's process, but we have  never been provided an adequate answer, perhaps because there are no successful models?

We hear that we need more housing to address the lack of supply and increased demand in Boise so that homes can be  made affordable for the backbone of our city – seniors, teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, and other service  professionals that we depend on to create and sustain a great quality of life. Unfortunately, supply and demand is just  one part of a complicated equation that involves investor cash flows and deep pockets from many who don't even live in  Boise. More housing is great if you can implement price controls and focus on owner‐occupied developments.

Otherwise, Boise is open to any investor in any corner of the world who can buy and hold mul tiple properties and wait  for prices to go up and write out the blank check that the City will provide them if this zoning code passes.

Let's face it developers and investors want to maximize profits, that's what they do. They're not in this industry to  provide affordable housing and restrict their return on investment if they don't have to.

Finally, we are not NIMBY's. My wife and I are parties of record in support of TRICA which is right behind us in the alley  and The Franklin House. The folks who run these establishments live in the area and provide the neighborhood a unique  charm. I'll also say that many who are opposed to the upzone are also not NIMBY's, but we all do worry about the future  of a city that has already grown too fast and driven many who made up the special fabric of our neighborhoods out of  town or out of state.

For all these reasons, I ask you to postpone the upzone process or to reject the plan as it's currently written.

Thank you.

From: hking1128@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Holly King <hking1128@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:54 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Pass the Modern Zoning Code/Save the Environment

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I support the Modern Zoning Code because it will save the environment.

Sincerely,

Holly King

3410 N Whistler Ln Apt 203 Boise, ID 83703‐6903 hking1128@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

Please Adopt the Modern Zoning Code

I’m writing in support of adopting Boise’s Zoning Code Rewrite with minor modifications as soon as is practical The ability to anticipate and adapt to change is the key to survival in nature: the same applies to individuals, neighborhoods, businesses and communities.

Boise is changing all around us as more people move here and compete for land and resources. Unless we can adapt to that change and create informed policies that reflect this reality, Boise will eventually lose what attracts and keeps people here; it also means people who call Boise home will be priced out and displaced from their own neighborhoods. Planning ahead is always more cost efficient and satisfying than planning behind

I realize this is a challenging decision and that perennial naysayers are once again making the strident and emotional pleas to hold Boise hostage to their ever-changing demands. Many seem to view the zoning issue through a drinking straw, and they’ve convinced some Neighborhood Association boards to do the same. The same NA boards that claim the City’s historic public engagement is inadequate have routinely rejected, silenced and ostracized their own constituents who want to take a broader view. My own NA (EENA) does not reflect my views or those of many of my neighbors.

The reason we are in such dire straits is because local officials have always thought in terms of election cycles instead of the long-range generational thinking our community needs if we are to manage growth on our own terms. This means higher development costs that favor big out-of-state developers that critics like to rail against.

As someone who has focused on housing affordability, land use, economic development and fair housing for a quarter century, I know the Zoning Code Re-write isn’t magic. It won’t make all housing affordable overnight. Strictly speaking, the laws of supply and demand don’t apply equally to housing and things like oil or corn. Standard commodity prices can respond to market shifts in hours, days or weeks, while housing prices change over years owing to the lag time involved in building and permitting enough inventory to change demand for tenants. But just like oil and corn, housing relies on taxpayer supports to make it appear affordable to consumers. And that boils down to policy priorities.

Housing choice and equity, social mobility and access to opportunity matter

Our current conventional/exclusionary zoning limits the type and density of housing that can be built in a particular area. Low-density, exclusionary zoning was purpose-designed to prevent the development of affordable housing and keep low-income and minority residents out of neighborhoods. It still does that, but is also excludes essential workers, artists, musicians, care workers, students, young families, seniors, teachers and first responders the people who make our community functional, who keep us provisioned, safe, and connected socially and culturally.

The recent thunderstorms brought home the importance of legalizing flexible zoning and distributed housing diversity and density by right not in block-by-block battles over every project. As I walked below Castle Rock late last night, I saw emergency crews carefully removing a large evergreen blown over by the winds and knocking power out to the neighbors on Bacon Drive. Then I saw video of ACHD crews working overtime to unclog storm drains and reduce flooding. Those professionals need to live in the community they serve, especially if we expect quick response in an emergency.

If we’re smart, we will create a city for our children and grandchildren but we also need to design for these essential workers, and for the their children and grandchildren. To succeed as a species and society, we need to learn how to extend empathy outward in space and forward in time. This may mean asking ourselves what we’re willing to concede or contribute in order to create a stronger Boise for ourselves, our neighbors, and future generations. And it means thinking beyond election cycles.

Creating more distributed and diverse housing options and reducing or eliminating exclusionary zoning is explicitly identified as a requirement under HUD’s requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Failure to do so deprives residents of the benefits of living in a diverse community, which formed the basis of the first Fair Housing case to reach the Supreme Court. (Trafficante v Metropolitain Life). Exclusionary zoning also limits social mobility for those locked out, and prevents access to essential community assets like employment, education, recreation, healthy food, etc.

Social mobility the ability of individuals to move up or down the economic ladder is a key determinant of the economic opportunity available to children over their lifetimes. Zoning policies affect social mobility by either creating or limiting access to affordable housing, quality schools, and good jobs.

According to Raj Chetty and his research team at Harvard, children from low-income families have better outcomes as adults when their families inhabit neighborhoods with secure, affordable housing and less segregation by income. Providing more affordable housing in all areas can promote economic mobility and help reduce poverty. (Source: Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. F. (2015). The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the Moving to Opportunity experiment. American Economic Review, 106(4), 855-902.) Additional research shows the benefits of “…affordable housing subsidies or changes in zoning laws” that lead to greater social mobility and mixing. (Source: Neighborhoods Matter, Opportunity Insights/Neighborhoods)

When children and families have greater opportunities to build social capital in diverse communities, their earning increases and their overall dependence on public programs is dramatically lower. This mean taxpayers win in the long run.

Walkable neighborhoods with a mix of compatible uses

Opponents point to concerns over parking and traffic. Transportation planners and place makers all agree: ‘if you design for cars you get more cars; if you design for people you get more people.’ We’ve lived in our East End home since 1995; we have never had off-street parking, and we’re doing just fine. Proximity to downtown means we have dropped down to a one-car family since most of what we need can be accessed by bike or on foot. Neighborhoods designed for walking and biking support individual health and reduce public health costs of chronic diseases tied to inactivity. Mixed-use neighborhoods with easy access to shops, restaurants, and services improve social connections and overall wellness and a stronger community. (Source: Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265-294.)

Moving away from exclusionary zoning promotes more equitable access to high-opportunity areas. It reduces economic and social segregation and promotes more diverse communities. (Source: Rosenblatt, E., & Shinn, M. (2017). Housing and neighborhood quality among recipients of housing choice vouchers: Implications for residential mobility. Housing Policy Debate, 27(1), 54-73.)

Housing Affordability: what went wrong and how do we fix it?

It’s generally acknowledged that Boise’s housing costs have been impacted by investment patterns that view housing as an asset-class investment as opposed to a human right. To be sure, this is one factor. Another is the influx of new residents relocating from higher cost primary markets on the coast who can afford to make cash offers well over asking prices. Local speculators and house flippers have also capitalized on Boise’s popularity. But it’s not always clear if investment patterns were entirely the cause of price inflation or were the effect (i.e, investment dollars flow to rising markets.).

Another driver of housing costs is self-inflicted: NIMBY. When residents object to sprawl, density or repurposing of land for affordable housing, they in effect reward private equity hedge fund investors. Atlantic author Jerusalem Demsas researched this dynamic extensively; I’ll include a long quote since she makes the case quite well:

“Housing is primarily unaffordable in this country because of persistent undersupply. In fact, institutional investors are entering the single-family-home market precisely because supply constraints have led to skyrocketing prices. One institutional investor’s SEC filing admitted just that, celebrating a “decline” in supply that has “driven strong rental rate growth and home price appreciation.” The filing also lamented the possibility that “continuing development … will increase the supply of housing and exacerbate competition for residents.”**

A lack of supply is caused by a complex web of rules and regulations that prevent developers profit and nonprofit alike from building enough housing to meet demand. A recent report from Freddie Mac estimates a shortage of 3.8 million housing units. For decades the United States has been underbuilding in employment hubs (such as San Francisco, New York, and Boston) and the surrounding suburbs, pushing prices up. Elected officials have allowed the home-building process to become hijacked by unrepresentative opposition and gummed up in legal challenges, many under the guise of bogus environmental concerns.*

If elected officials want to fix the problem, they should eliminate those constraints, such as bans on duplexes, triplexes, and multifamily buildings. And they should curtail the various legal pathways that are used to obstruct new housing.* As the Brookings Institution expert Jenny Schuetz explained to the House Financial Services Committee last summer: “Targeting a small subset of landlords without addressing underlying market conditions and policy gaps will not meaningfully improve the well-being of renters and prospective homebuyers.”*

*Emphasis mine **Invitation Homes, Inc.

Sustainable development patterns and local housing control = perpetual social and tax benefits

Low-density development is a notoriously inefficient way to deliver infrastructure, utilities and services. By contrast, missing middle housing or ‘neighborhood-friendly’ development with two or more units collocated (whether in a cottage courtyard or shared-wall form) provides housing and services for more households at a lower cost per door. Small-footprint residential options conserve building materials, energy and other resources, and make more efficient use of land near amenities and transportation. Slight increases in overall density coupled with more predictable, by-right permitting policies allow small local developers a better chance to create housing capacity in their own communities.

Sustainable development, which incorporates environmentally friendly practices and reduces waste and pollution, can help reduce the impacts of climate change and improve economic efficiency. This can lead to cost savings for developers and homeowners, as well as improved environmental outcomes. (Source:

Daly, H. E. (2007). Ecological economics and sustainable development: Selected essays of Herman Daly. Edward Elgar Publishing.)

Housing affordability supports sustainable economic development in many ways. Employers benefit from diverse housing types and price points near employment centers. They know a stable labor force supports planning, productivity, and competitiveness, and long commute times or financial strain can impact performance and reliability. Economic development professionals recognize housing as critical infrastructure―like schools, broadband or health care― essential to recruiting and retaining outside investment, good-paying jobs and dynamic workforce development. Economists know local housing control keeps wages circulating in the local economy.

Distributed, modest density reduces the pressure for urban sprawl and the conversion of agricultural land to residential subdivisions. Accepting some density (conditioned on genuine affordability) helps preserve natural areas and reduce the environmental impact of development.

See also: The impact of housing affordability on the economy

Benefits for taxpayers and residents.

Modernizing zoning codes can lead to improved economic outcomes for cities, including increased tax revenues and job creation. It can also promote more equitable access to resources and opportunities for residents, leading to improved social outcomes. (Source: Schuetz, J., Meltzer, R., & Been, V. (2018). Zoning and land use regulation. Handbook of regional and urban economics, 5, 429-506.). There are several tangible benefits to distributed density and diversity:

• Economic growth: Building new housing units creates jobs and demand for local goods and services.

• Improved public transportation: Higher density supports expansion of public transportation systems, which can make it easier for residents to get around car-free if they choose.

• Enhanced walkability: More walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods.

• Reduced commute times, traffic and parking issues. When people live near the workplaces, save money that can be spent in the local economy air quality.

• Increased social interaction: Dense, diverse communities can facilitate social interaction and help to build a sense of community among residents.

• Improved access to public services: When more people live in an area, it can support the development of public services like schools, libraries, and parks.

• Reduced carbon footprint: By reducing the need for car travel and promoting energy-efficient buildings, increasing density can help to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change.

• Increased tax revenue: The development of new housing units can increase tax revenue for local governments, which can be used to fund public services and infrastructure improvements.

Why move quickly

I’m concerned with demands from some groups to delay adoption until after the fall election. They say they need more time. We don’t have time. I track rental vacancy rates and as of today, there are 4,706 units of ‘affordable’ housing in Boise; only 3 are available. A healthy rental vacancy rate (RVR) is 5–7%, which creates competition for tenants helps moderate rents. Boise’s current ‘affordable’ housing rate (from housingidaho.com) is 0.06%. The overall rental vacancy rate for Ada County is 2.85%, according to the SW Idaho National Association of Residential Property Managers.

We’ve had ample public outreach in this process: dozens of community conversations, citywide Advisory Committee Meetings, stakeholder meetings, council presentations and local government meetings. Multiple surveys and thousands of responses seem to represent genuine engagement. Some people simply don’t want anything to change, and threaten chaos if their demands aren’t met.

Judging from Austin’s experience (a housing colleague has been involved in their chaotic zoning rewrite efforts) , capitulating to opponents of zoning modernization would be bad for Boise residents, businesses and taxpayers, and would in fact undermine affordability, equity and walkability. Austin continues to struggle under their outdated zoning code, and housing prices continue to skyrocket while segregation is at record levels. Doing the same things that got us here and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Concerns and suggestions

Change is hard. Many homeowners have legitimate concerns about the potential of four-story apartments being built next door, and it’s no secret that new development is often used for short-term rentals (STRs) that create ghost neighborhoods. I’d recommend seriously thinking about those concerns. I led a housing team during the March, 2016 Cascade Community Review; when we visited, over 72% of the housing stock in Valley County was either a vacation home or a short-term rental. By the fall of that same year, that figure was up to 76%.

I co-presented a session on Ghost Cities for the APA Idaho conference with Aaron Qualls, former planner for the City of Sandpoint. They created a set of ordinances designed to protect their residents and community from the Ghost Neighborhood Effect, and you can read about that here. Bois would do well to find ways to limit the overuse of missing middle housing for STRs.

How we make housing ‘affordable’

1. Increase wages indefinitely to subsidize real estate speculation this in turn fuels overall inflation in goods and services

2. Increase taxes to subsidize employer and consumer costs through housing choice vouchers and development incentives that keep rents low for essential workers (who do not earn a living wage)

3. Eliminate low-density zoning and policies that exclude the distribution of diverse housing types and price points throughout our neighborhoods and community; allowing modest density by right means local developers are able to create small-footprint, modest density residential without the delays and cost overruns created by NIMBY. That allows essential workers to ‘rent local,’ which keeps their wages and incomes circulating in the local economy.

I’ll end with the question I’ve asked community residents and leaders through 20 years of Community Reviews: What are you and I willing to concede or contribute to make Boise stronger for everyone, everywhere, in the long term? Just like wearing masks to protect others, or standing up for marginalized community members, we all share a responsibility to examine what our community needs to thrive.

Respectfully,

Erik Kingston, PCED 1010 E Jefferson Boise, 83712

Andrea Tuning

From: dkociol@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of David Kociol <dkociol@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 9:52 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am in support of the Modern Zoning Code because housing should be a human right!

Sincerely,

David Kociol

1011 W Warren St  Boise, ID 83706‐3556  dkociol@outlook.com

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:57 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

April Kolman

Boise, ID 83713

Comment

Our family is so excited about the opportunity to make room for our neighbors from across a variety of  backgrounds and experiences. It’s what makes Boise great!

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Blair Krigbaum <bdkrigbaum@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 9:29 AM

To: ZoningRewrite; CityCouncil; Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo

Subject: [External] Delay upzone vote

Please delay the upzone vote until we have a council elected by geographic district in Nov and seated in Jan 2024. It’s  important we are represented appropriately.

Thank you

Blair Krigbaum   ‐‐

Blair Krigbaum

Andrea Tuning

Boise City Council June 8, 2023

Subj: Testimony for Public Hearing, Zoning Code Rewrite

Case Numbers: ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

Centennial Neighborhood Association

Madam Mayor, Council Members,

With respect, it is recognized that the ZCR presents a vision for the future of our City and represents an extraordinary amount of staff effort, community participation and taxpayer expense to reach this stage. It is important that the decision-making bodies, specifically the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, be aware and sensitive to public sentiment. Given that this is not a measure that will be put to an official vote of the City of Boise voting constituency, public testimony at the hearings is the last opportunity for meaningful dialogue with and influence of you, our elected representatives.

It appears that the constituency offering testimony, in both writing and in person, is being largely ignored and the decision, in effect, has already been made and the hearing process is merely a formality the City’s representatives must offer. Your public’s perception should be carefully measured and considered by the City’s decision makers In this case, we opine, it is not

The ZCR is a large piece of code with broad impact citywide. And one can legitimately argue that updated zoning code is long overdue for Boise. Yet there are also legitimate process concerns that tend to taint the overall ZCR project and the optics of its administration

To wit, in brief summary, concerns with the proposed ZCR and process:

1) Suppression of public input in the application approval process:

• More desk or staff approvals.

• Less applications going to public meetings.

• Neighborhood meetings moved forward in the process before details are finalized and reports to the city planners, about the meetings, only from the developer.

• The design review committee elevated to an appointed commission with greater approval powers.

• The creation of a hearing examiner, a one-person arbitrator, beholden to the city and the last appeal recourse before litigation in district court.

2) Sidelining of Neighborhood Associations:

• During the previous administration NAs were given equal time with the applicant, up to 30 minutes.

• Under this administration, NA time allowed is no longer equal with the applicant, was reduced to 20 minutes, then 15, then 10 and at the ZCR P&Z hearing, it was reduced to 5. We recognize that speaker time allotments are and have historically been at the discretion of the chair of the meeting regardless of the time noted in City postings. Unpredictable and variable time allotments, unfortunately, do not allow for a tailored presentation from Neighborhood Association representatives.

• The NAs are the voice of areas of the City and have seasoned, informed and skilled elected representatives able to effectively present community consensus. Testimony has to be vetted and approved by its board. The time allowed to NAs should offer the best value to the City for time spent.

3) The approval and codification process for the ZCR:

• The public outreach has been extensive, but meaningless. The Citywide Advisory Committee was packed with developers and affordable housing advocates. Public comment has been ignored.

• The City was supposed to, but didn't, provide 90 days for code consideration of the final document, not drafts. This would be especially important for a code this large.

• Because of the size of the code, an executive summary has been requested by many in the community, including the P&Z commission. It's available now, the week before the hearing.

• The ZCR could and should be an election year topic. It seems the City administration is pushing this through now in order to avoid that situation.

We thank you for your time in reviewing and considering this critical input.

Gary Dufault

Joe LaGue President Secretary Centennial Neighborhood Association Centennial Neighborhood Association

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:59 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name Emily Larsen

Email accidentalwaltz@gmail.com

Address Boise, ID 83702

Comment

Respectfully, I am voicing my strong support for the development of a modern zoning code in Boise. I believe it  is of paramount importance to provide equitable and inclusive housing opportunities which lends to dynamic  and healthy growth within our community.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:25 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Kaija Lazda

Boise, ID 83702

Comment

Hi! I live in Boise close to downtown, the only reason I can afford to live here is because I bought a duplex and  rent out the bottom. Having multiple types of housing allows more people to live in this city and supports a  community made up of people living with a wide variety of incomes. Please do not let Boise become yet another  unaffordable city. Change the zoning and encourage young people and young families to move in as well.  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

208.391.2823

670ERIVERPARKLANESUITE170

BOISE,IDAHO83706

June8,2023

ASTATEMENTINSUPPORTOFNEWZONINGCODEFORBOISE

Iampleasedtosupportthepassageoftheproposedzoningcodeonbehalf oftheboardofdirectors,leadership,andstaffofLEAP,ahousingtrustwhose goalistoprovideorprotect1,000homesforpersonsoflowincomeby2026. LEAPwilldothisthroughahousingtrustthatistodayenablingdozensof low-incomefamiliestoowntheirownhomes;strikingpartnershipsfor housingwithTreasureValleychurches;constructingmulti-familydwellings suchasalargecomplexinMountainHome;andenablingthosewholivein manufacturedhometoowntheircommunitiescooperatively.

LEAPisthecity’scontractedpartnerexploringhowtoexpandaffordable accessorydwellingunitsaswellastiny,manufacturedhomesinBoise. We particularlyurgeyoutopromotehomeownershipforthoseoflessthan averageincome--suchasthroughalandtrust--andtoprotectandexpand theavailabilityofthemostaffordableandreadilyavailabledwellingsfor thoseofmodestincome:ADUsandmobileormanufacturedhomes.

Youmightaskwhyanorganizationdevotedtoaffordablehousingchoosesto supportacodethatisnotitselfaboutaffordablehousingorevenhousing alone. Theansweristhatuntilthehousingsupplycatchesupwithhousing demand,ourclientsandfriendswillsufferthemostseriously. Rentswill continuetoriseextravagantly. Untilthemissingmiddleisfilled,thebottomof themarketwillcontinuetosufferdisproportionately.

Therewouldbenohomelessness--andtheextremecostofhomelessness--if everyonehadahome. Poorhousingcontributestohighmedicalcostsand mentalhealthcrises.Shelteristhefoundationoflife.

Sowhydowesupportthenewzoningcode? Arisingtideliftsallboats. A risingtideofhousingwilleventuallybenefiteveryone.

Intakingactionafteryearsofstudy,planning,andcompromise,Boisewillbe theleaderinIdahoinaddressingthestate’smostseriousproblem. Strikingly, itwillalsobejoiningprogressiveleadersinsurroundingstates.Thislast legislativesession,Washingtonappropriated$400milliontobuildaffordable housingand,moreimportantly,approvedgreaterdensityinWashington’s

cities. Thiswillbegintofillinthe“missingmiddle”inthatmarket,eventually buildingtensofthousandsofnewhomes.

InMontana,conservativeRepublicanGovernorGregGianfortesigned legislationintendedtobuildmorelower-costhomesthroughmore permissivezoning. OnMay17,GianfortetoldMontanansthataffordable housingisthatstate’smostseriousproblem.

Finally,inSaltLakeCity,afteryearsofpushingnewhousingintothesuburbs, thecityisfinalizingafive-yearplantobuildaremarkable10,000housingunits by2027,offeringassistancetothecity’srenters,andpromoting homeownershipforlow-incomehouseholds. SaltLakeisslightlysmallerthan Boiseso10,000newhomeswillbepowerful.

So,takeaction,Boise. Youwillbeinproudcompany,eventuallyliftingthe economicboatsofallofourfellowcitizens.

JerryBrady BoardPresident

Andrea Tuning

From: Steven Lester <stevenlester73@gmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 5:53 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite

Dear Boise City Council:

We write to support the proposed zoning code rewrite. Continuing with the status quo and expecting better results for  affordable and accessible housing obviously will not work since it has not worked so well thus far. Boise faces continued  sprawl with ever‐growing transportation problems unless we try something different than what we have now. Updating  the zoning code to tackle current and projected housing, transportation and homeless challenges is our best path  forward. Please vote to adopt the proposed zoning code changes.

We appreciate all the hard work by city staff and the city council throughout this process. And thank you for considering  our comments.

Sincerely,

Steve and Linda Lester

3714 N. 39th Street  Boise 83703  208‐401‐5011

Andrea Tuning

From: cmlimber@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of cynthia limber

<cmlimber@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2023 3:03 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Zoning Code Rewrite

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am writing to express my support for the Modern Zoning Code. 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 rapid  growth.

Growth is inevitable, and we need a modern zoning code to ensure we are following the best practices to grow  sustainably and responsibly. It has been clear that Boise City Staff have put in the effort to make an inclusive and  extensive community input process to develop the zoning code our city needs and deserves.

Boise has become increasingly unaffordable for everyone, especially for new home buyers, renters, students, low‐income residents, refugee families, and elderly folks on fixed incomes. This code helps address those issues.

I specifically appreciate that this zoning code protects our green spaces, improves our tree canopy, incentivizes energy  and water efficiency that saves money over the lifetime of a home, allows for smart and targeted density, increases  opportunities for multi‐family homes like duplexes, removes unnecessary parking space minimums, protects pollinators,  and makes our communities more walkable and bikeable.

I strongly encourage the Boise City Council to support this zoning code rewrite that staff and residents have spent so  much time and effort to shape.

Sincerely,  cynthia limber

1715 N 11th St  Boise, ID 83702‐2708  cmlimber@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 8:54 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Ryan Lindsay

Email dieselboise@hotmail.com

Address 912 N 21st St

Comment

My name is Ryan Lindsay. I am a pediatrician in Boise. I was bo rn at St. Luke's and graduated from Boise High  and Boise State. I wanted to tell the city council that I strongly support the updated zoning code. Thanks for all  the work you do for our community

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, June 8, 2023 8:32 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Ryan Lindsay

Address Boise, ID 83702

Comment

I live in Boise and I support the new zoning code.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Andrea Tuning

From: Ted L <celivermore@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 10:12 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Support for Upzoning

Hello,

I would like to register my support for the proposal to increase density in Boise.  Increased density will support more  affordable housing, a more walkable city, and support Boise's continued growth creating increased economic  opportunities for our citizens.

Continued economic growth with support a growing tax base that can be used to provide improved infrastructure to the  city.

Thanks,

Charles Livermore

1504 W Washington St, Boise, ID 83702

Andrea Tuning

From:

Lindsay Lodis <lindsay.lodis@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 10:53 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite Support

Dear Mayor McLean and Boise City Council Members,

I would like to show my support for the zoning rewrite under consideration next week. I own my home in SE Boise and  my husband and I have two little boys. When the time comes, we will be able to safely walk them to Garfield school; for  now, we take advantage of our prime location next to Ivywild Park nearly every day. These are things that are easy to  take for granted and more people should be so lucky.

I support the zoning rewrite for two main reasons: more community‐based small businesses and a more affordable  housing market. Though my family enjoys a daily walk, we do hop into our car for grocery runs, and we do not have  casual interactions with neighbors at bagel shops, coffee shops, etc. because, well, there isn't one to stroll by. Science  shows us that short, friendly interactions with folks boosts our mental health and at a time when our nation is so  polarized, I think it goes miles to say "HI" to our fellow community members.

As far as introducing more housing options, you don't need me to tell you about the soaring in Boise. A 1,200 sq. ft.  house across the street from us sold last week for more than twice what we bought ours just eight years ago. That price  point is exclusive and gentrifying neighborhoods marginalizes underrepresented people. Boise is better than that and I  believe strongly that we can all benefit from a more fair and just city.

Thank you for your time and the work that has gone into this work that helps advance the City of Trees.

Best,  Lindsay  207‐299‐8060

From: Madeleine Smith <madeleine.smith@berkeley.edu>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:38 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Support for the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Boise City Council,

Having grown up in Boise, I will always be rooting for its success and cheering the city on as it makes meaningful changes  that improve the quality of life of its (current and future) residents. The modern zoning code is an important step in that  direction, and I'm thrilled to support it. Based on personal conversations with many parties involved in the code rewrite,  I'm confident in the thought, care, and expertise they poured into the process.

I've lived across the country, most recently in San Francisco, and have seen the impact of zoning codes gone awry. I'm  hopeful that the moderate yet impactful changes put forth in the modern zoning code will allow Boise to develop into a  city that is accessible to a diverse range of residents. I appreciate the time that all involved have contributed and look  forward to Boise's progressive future.

Madison Lockhorn

‐Madeleine S.

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:28 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Samuel Macomber

Boise, ID 83712

Comment

I am in favor of a modern zoning code that supports more homes for all kinds of people, all types of workers, at  all stages of life.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Andrea Tuning

From: Daniel Malarkey <daniel.j.malarkey@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:32 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written testimony in favor of new zoning code with changes

Boise's existing zoning code dates to the 1960s, when the city abandoned the flexible rules of the early 20th century in favor of exclusionary codes that limited residential neighborhoods to single-family detached homes on their own lot. The new code’s improvements to what’s allowed in residential zones include:

 Decreasing the minimum lot size from 5,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet.

 Simplifying the permitting process to lower the risk and costs for developers to gain approval from the city to build more housing.

 Increasing the maximum size of backyard cottages and basement apartments from 700 to 900 square feet and ending city discrimination against renters in the primary house

 Allowing tri-plexes and four-plexes that were previously banned

 Reducing off-street parking requirements for multi-plexes by 50 percent

Unfortunately, the last three bullet points come with new conditions: many of the newlyallowed housing units will be subject to rent control through deed restrictions and incur higher costs due to requirements to meet sustainability goals.

An earlier version of the zoning rewrite, released in 2022, would have allowed the construction of four-plexes by right in all residential zones. City planning officials later backed away from that idea and added new requirements that four-plexes must exceed the building code on energy efficiency and water use and must limit rents on some units with deed restrictions. These new requirements along with limits on the demolition of existing buildings included in the new code will ultimately constrain the production of this in-fill-friendly housing.

These late-arriving provisions of the new zoning code have a plausible logic: the city grants permission for more units per residential lot but in return developers must make the units sustainable and affordable through rent control. The problem is that these requirements don’t apply to single-family homes, so given the choice of redeveloping a lot with a large singlefamily home or, say, a four-plex, these added costs and conditions will push developers toward building familiar single-family homes.

Boise’s proposed zoning code embodies a skepticism that relaxing the existing barriers to building more units per lot will actually promote enough new supply to hold down prices. This distrust that the laws of supply and demand actually apply to housing resulted in the imposition of rent control on many of the smaller new units in residential zones. The experience of other cities shows that if the problem is high rental prices due to inadequate housing supply, then rent control makes it worse and more new construction makes it better

It’s difficult to know exactly how infill developers will respond to Boise’s new code. Meaningful improvements in allowing smaller lots and more forms of housing could unleash a wave of

new construction given the strong market for rental housing in Boise. It’s more likely that not much will change.

The council could improve the new code with the following changes:

 Adopting a strategy of new housing production rather than rent control through deed restrictions to achieve affordability

 Further reducing or eliminating parking requirements

 Allowing developers to tear down old buildings at the end of their useful life and build more homes for more people

The new zoning code as it stands represents a positive move towards allowing more types of housing for everyone. City council could make it even better.

Daniel Malarkey Citizens Advisory Committee Member

3416 Meadow Drive Boise, ID 83706

Daniel Malarkey

direct: 206 310 9385  e‐mail:  daniel.j.malarkey@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:24 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Beth Markley

Boise, ID 83705

Comment

Boise's current zoning codes are outdated and contributing to the housing crisis that currently is keeping my  children from considering living here. I support the changes to zoning laws that would create more opportunities  for affordable housing, including changes to the R‐1C category, which I believe would open up more affordable  housing opportunities, enrich neighborhoods with new opportunities.

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, June 6, 2023 10:21 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Brian May Martinez

Email bmay.idaho@gmail.com

Address Boise, ID 83709

Comment

We need to develop denser and more affordable housing options for a sustainable and vibrant future. I think  that is what this rewrite will help us move toward.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 3:45 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Bruce Mastorovich

Email b.mastorovich@gmail.com

Address

450 W Grove St, Boise ID

Comment

I support Boise's Modern Zoning Code update.

It is very well written. I like the illustrations and hyperlinks between relevant sections.

I think increasing density is the only real option Boise has for growth. To our west, we are bounded by Meridian  and Eagle. To our north, south, and east are dry hills and plateaus. It would be very expensive to build and  supply water to these regions, so Boise doesn't even have the choice to annex more usable land. Density is our  choice.

We as a city, need more homes and need to contribute them.

Thank you for rewriting our code!

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

From: Sharon Matthies <sharonmatthies@earthlink.net>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:19 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] zoning update appreciation

Greetings –

My deep appreciation – especially to the city’s exceptional zoning staff, as well as the volunteer citizen committee – for  all the thoughtful research, analysis, and brainstorming that has been invested in the entire zoning rewrite effort.

Through the multitude of public events you’ve offered, as well as the clear materials you’ve posted online (& some  correlating newspaper articles), I’ve learned so much about the intricate, nuanced, and demanding considerations that  must be factored in across the board – including seemingly minor aspects such as lighting and driveway placement  (street vs alley).  Much more than I’d already learned from my aunt who worked for the Village of Oak Park’s Housing  Authority.

Since the mid‐1980s, I’ve owned 3 homes in Boise; 2 of them with comfortable payments.  After the end of a  relationship, I’m now living in an apartment because I haven’t been able to find a house I can afford.  In fact, even  though my income is higher now, I could not afford to purchase any of those 3 homes today, due to the outrageously  unrealistic property valuation explosion.  The income‐to‐price ratio is simply untenable.

As a result, I embrace most of the measures toward housing affordability that the city is folding in to the zoning  rewrite.  It’s an ambitious and fair‐minded set of solutions that are a combination of “certain to succeed” and “definitely  worth trying.”

Further, you are seeking a multitude of ways to help our species live in harmony with the rest of nature, rather than  acting as though we are separate from – and above – other living things on this planet.  Our location in the high desert  means we should use water‐thrifty groundcovers and other plants rather than mid‐west style bluegrass lawns.  This will  help lower emissions as well, reducing the number of gas mowers in the valley.  Your emphasis on xeric landscaping is  deeply appreciated, as well as important.

Further:  Our city, like many others, made significant errors many decades ago when originally setting huge plot sizes for  single‐house areas.  With such an impressively high number of parks per capita, we can easily transition to smaller yards  (denser areas) while providing families with plenty of nearby recreational spaces.  Perhaps some of those can be small‐scale agricultural areas as well.  The more integrated the better.

My only hesitation about the proposed changes has to do with residential parking.  For 1‐ or 2‐bedroom households with  two employed adults whose work shifts are outside public transportation schedules (such as night shifts at hospitals,  Micron, police, etc.), or whose employers are not proximate to a bus route, limiting that household to just one car (i.e  just one carport or garage space) isn’t realistic or supportive.  When there’s not enough on‐property parking, then of  course there will be more street parking.  Especially in neighborhoods without sidewalks, the area then becomes less  walkable (especially for children) – and less likely for neighbors to visit with each other.

A main reason given at the public presentations:  reducing auto emissions in the valley.  However, as we migrate to  hybrid and electric vehicles, that problem will be corrected anyway.

Madison Lockhorn

Overall, the plan is ambitious, ethically focused, comprehensive, diligent, wholistic, considerate, grounded in well‐researched concepts, and exceptionally thoughtful.  The zoning team’s attention to detail, and genuinely deep interest  in listening to all of us who live here (and who visit), has been so reassuring and heartening.

My confidence is with the professionals – the experts who live here, too.

Thank you for this impressive effort!

Sharon

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Sharon Matthies  sharonmatthies@earthlink.net

208‐488‐4347 landline

Boise, ID

From: Don May <don.may.email@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 8:02 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Quad Upzone Destined to Fail without allowing all 4 to be "At-Market" Rents

Attachments: Quad Costs Boise Idaho.png

Dear Boise City Council,

A big part of Boise's up-zone proposal is to allow developers to build 4 units (a QUAD), so long as developers subsequently rent out 2 of those units at below market rents. This sounds great. It sounds like a "win-win". Developers and landowners like me get to build more units and renters get lower rents in return. In reality, it's a fantasy. Exactly zero units will ever get built using this "incentive".

I’ve outlined the actual costs using super low cost assumptions in an attached spreadsheet, using both 2019 numbers (which barely turned a 6% profit) and 2023 numbers (which ran a staggering 23% loss even at an unrealistic 6% interest rate and unrealistic building cost of $150/SF and holding all other costs steadywhich is again, unrealistic). As a member of the Urban Land Institute, I can assure you that these numbers are real. These numbers used "market-based" rents too! Can you imagine the losses if one had to offer 50% of the units at discounted rents?!?

I urge you to compare my spreadsheet numbers with all of your developer contacts to ensure they are correct. Actually, they're dramatically underestimated. I promise you all of my numbers are extremely low. There is no practical way to build a QUAD in Boise in 2023 and subsequently rent the units out at "market rents" and make a profit, much less rent them out at "below-market rents".

Developers will only build Quads in Boise if they can charge premium rents. While this may not seem like a "win" for affordable housing, you can rest assured it most certainly helps. When someone moves out of a lower-priced unit and into a premium unit, it opens up the lower-priced unit for someone else... and on down the line. It's simple "supply and demand". The more units that can get built, the better for our affordable housing crisis.

Andrea Tuning

One thing that will most certainly not help is implementing an incentive that ensures it will never be used, thereby stifling housing supply.

It appears that Boise City Council is prepared to pass legislation, a portion of which (allowing QUADs to be built but only if 2 units are rented to low-income renters) will have zero chance at success.

If Boise City truly wants to allow more units to be built, it will allow Quads and Triplexes to be built at "market-based rents". Even then, developers will have to take a chance that they will be profitable. There is zero guarantee of success when you build.

Thank you for your time.

Don May

3108 W Stewart Ave

Boise ID 83702

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:09 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Margaret McCarthy

Boise, ID 83714

Comment

We need an updated zoning code so that our city can be more walkable and bikeable and affordable!  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Boise City Council Members

Mayor Lauren McLean

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed city-wide zone code rewrite before the City Council in June, 2023.

I believe that a decision of this magnitude should be made by duly elected representatives from each of the six new city districts. All City Council members are up for election in November and any zoning code approval should wait until after the new Council has been seated. If this code rewrite is as good for Boise as presented, it will be just as good after the election. I wonder, what is the hurry to proceed now? This radical zoning change for the entire city requires a vote by everyone impacted by the ZCR. Council members should be accountable to the voters, rather than those appointed and/or not living in the approved districts effective in January.

The outline of decision-making processes starting on page 345 reflects big changes in procedures. There will be reduced neighborhood notifications, comment opportunities, public hearings, and the appeal process. The proposed Hearing Examiner would be on contract with the City which creates a possible conflict of interest. Zoning decisions are made at each level and there is little room for review or appeal. This could potentially increase legal action which is very expensive for all involved.

In reviewing the impact of the CUP criteria, proposed changes would allow a project with "public benefit" to avoid mitigating impacts and project mitigation measures to what is "practicable". This will make any project much more difficult to deny or condition. This more than opens the door for any project to claim public benefit and ignore any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be easily mitigated. The current code indicates the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. This is a drastic zoning change for Boise residents including property owners and businesses in the area of any proposed project. It could also make it very easy for any changes to CUPs already in effect to change the original decisions and limits. The proposed code expands the number of "allowed" uses that would not require a CUP hearing. No impacts would be considered. No conditional use permit hearings would be required. In the current process, the hearing would be required and impacts would be documented.

The ZCR picks winners and losers in our city. Areas with CCRs, HOAs, and historic designations will feel little if any impact from the proposed ZCR. The historic North and East Ends will feel minimal impact and the South, Northwest, and West will be more heavily affected. Those are also the areas currently without voter representation. Single-family homes and residences of those with modest incomes will be targeted for redevelopment with high-density apartments and multi-use structures. Developers and investors will be the winners.

As Mr. Keane stated at the P&Z Commission meeting, the ZCR is not meant to solve affordability issues. Its purpose is to increase density and use of public transportation. This was apparent at the City Council public hearing in February for the six-story 130-unit apartment building on Ash

Street. Four affordable four-plexes will be demolished to make way for the structure. Developers proposed 13 affordable units at 100% of AMI. At the hearing the developer told the Council that if Council required two more affordable units at 60% of AMI the owner would just reapply after the ZCR was approved when no affordability would be required. Demolishing existing affordable housing will not lead to new affordable units taking their place.

The proposed code would allow intrusive uses without public notice requirements. For example, retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side-by-side with existing single-family homes in R-1C and R-2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. No consideration is given to parking needs.

Rezoning neighborhoods on corridors like Fairview, State, and Vista from R-1 to R-2 with 45foot height limits and MX-3 and MX-4 with 70-foot height limits, and no limit on density would destabilize modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods. The ZCR exacerbates problems that are already prevalent in high-density neighborhoods such as vehicles, noise, and short-term occupancies. Public transit routes in Boise are already limited and recent plans to eliminate some of the current routes to increase use of the busier routes seems contrary to what the City desires.

As developers increase density no consideration is given to public schools. Although the funding does not come from the City, there needs to be a source of income to pay for this expected need. Perhaps developers could share in this taxpayer burden. I continue to be frustrated with the perceived need to make the lot sizes smaller, structures taller, and the occupancy denser. Infill is not always good. As areas are paved over and buildings added, we lose the unique neighborhoods. In a few years, driving down State Street will feel like being in a tunnel with the tall structures and lack of trees. Boise can do better.

Respectfully,

Rosemary McClenahan

3300 N Hawthorne Dr, Boise

From: Lana McCullough <tlmproperties49@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 6:13 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Commenting on the current zoning rewrite

We are very much against making a decision on the current revision of the zoning code as it is written now.  After  thorough review and attending a meeting with the neighborhood a ssociation, we believe if these revisions are put into  affect it will destroy many neighborhoods in our lovely city.

We are confident the developers would be very happy slapping up small (and big) apartment buildings owned by out of  state investors, leaving it to the taxpayers to deal with the infrastructure.  People want to own their space, whether it is  a tiny house, a tent, home or duplex.

It can be seen in many areas of the city now…. i.e., the move to put sidewalks on each side of Garden St., removing  dozens of decades old trees in the process…  destroying the neighborhood, shade and beauty so a few people can  walk/ride (which they do now very well).

Compromises to the rewrite can accomplish both…. Saving our pre cious neighborhoods, protecting our way of life in  Boise, its current canopy of trees….. is paramount to us all.  Once done, it cannot be undone.

We are requesting that the community be given time with the new city council rather than push this through before the  community even knows what is going on.

Madison Lockhorn

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:30 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name Ian McLaughlin

Email imclaughlin30@gmail.com

Address

5206 N Sunderland Dr. Boise, ID 83704

Comment

I am in support of the new zoning code ordinance. As a member of the CAC (Citizen's Advisory Committee) for  the Zoning Code rewrite, I got to see and experience first hand the conversations that led to the development of  this document. I believe this document is a great starting point to prepare Boise to be a city of the future while  retaining and adding to the character which makes it special. Outlined below are a handful of reasons I feel the  proposed zoning code has the City headed in the right direction

The more housing choices allowed by the new ordinance creates more options for people from all backgrounds  and incomes. Both short‐term and long‐term housing is needed to build up housing stock and make Boise a city  for everyone. People need to be able to live near the neighborhoods they work in to be in order to feel invested  in their communities as well as reduce commutes.

The allowance for small businesses in and adjacent to neighborhoods further contributes to walk‐able  neighborhoods. Many of Boise’s most desirable neighborhoods feature easy access to markets, coffee shops,  and other small businesses which create an amenity for these communities.

The focus of the new code on affordability is key for preventing some of the housing crisis we are seeing in  neighboring communities in Idaho and nationwide (ie. Ketchum, H ailey, McCall). Creating affordable options for  the service workers, teachers, and healthcare professionals is important to keeping our City running smoothly.

Responsible and sustainable new construction will help promote the City we want and set us up for the future.  The new ordinance incentivizes efficient construction practices and growth in parts of the City with access to  transit corridors and utilities.

I view the new zoning code ordinance as essential to coping with the change this City is experiencing. As a City  we can no longer ignore the issues and consequences from inaction, we must prepare for a future we want and  address the tremendous growth concurring in the Treasure Valley

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Dear Mayor McLean and City Council,

In addition to three points I outline below, I must begin as follows: In the interest of a fully democratic process, now is not the time to act on ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001 except to place the matter on hold until after the city council is the fully elected and seated governance body it is supposed to be. The added benefit of the city’s first city council elections by districts next November goes a long way to grant the city the trust it is now losing by rushing this rewrite through. To proceed now may be an okay legalism, but such an approval action would be morally bankrupt. The scale of the harm to democracy in Boise should give all here pause. No number of public hearings at this stage can justify making recommendations to a partially unelected city council, however well-intentioned the appointees or well-considered the appointments to this body may be. When one-third of the council is appointees; when two elected councilors are understood to not be seeking re-election; then accountability for more than a third of those on the dais evades the one place for the citizens to enact accountability with their vote: the election in November. These are terrible conditions for such a massive policy change, conditions that the public has only just begun to awaken to. Better to frustrate the key players in the rewrite than to stand against a clearly elected and representative vote. Instead, use the current code to deal with growth/housing issues. You’ll be respected for it. You will not otherwise, especially as the real consequences are felt throughout the city.

Now to the three points I promised. They support waiting on grounds other than assuring full democratic representation, concerning: “research,” “public engagement,” and the meaning of “up-zoning.”

“Research”: With my experience as a former national reviewer for the U.S. Fulbright Commission in the field of communication and the public sphere, I’ve had to be on the lookout for bad research by any applicant for project approval. As someone who has analyzed administrative research since my doctoral student days, I have seen much better summaries of public sentiment than what has been marshaled up to this point. Insufficient research leading to hastily drawn proposals based on narrow and misunderstood methodologies about public opinion can have a detrimental impact on policy development. It is imperative to conduct thorough research prior to making any policy decisions. Even after all this time, we're still dealing with the problem of rushed and limited approaches. The frame was already set at the beginning of a persistent, three-year public relations campaign that kept using flawed research, vacuuming up preferred examples for dealing with growth and density along the way. New personnel were brought in to seal the deal as public presentations never articulated other sides, manipulating public sentiment through the city’s well-funded repetition. This disinformation campaign is yet another marker of bad research: failure to perform a decent literature review to include an array of alternatives to growth, to include analyses of the fallacy that cities can build themselves out of any alleged housing “crisis.” It appears that the city needs a set of comprehensive seminars with a diverse range of experts, rather than just relying on the limited and consultant-run "stakeholders" committee to help legitimize the rewrite process. Flawed research into the public is but one reason that the public should vote and the council should delay.

“Public Engagement”: The term "public emgagement" used by certain well-funded industries can be misleading. These industries use outsourced consulting firms, PR agencies, and commercial groups to manage and control public demands for recognition and participation. This approach, however, only weakens the public sphere and fails to legitimize public concerns. Instead, these industries make specious claims about communication, dialogue, deliberation, and transparency, all of which are aimed at controlling and managing the public’s participation. International scholars have analyzed the use and abuse of managed public engagement in a special issue of a refereed academic journal slated for printing in October. If you are interested in reading my research for that issue, a pre-print version is available here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13183222.2023.2201761 . If nothing else, please take a moment to review the bibliography, which contains a comprehensive list that was not included in the city's three-year preparation leading up to this important decision.

“Up-zoning”: To rise above the fray over this term, I urge settling on the World Bank’s definition (also discussed in the article cited above). The term means changes to zoning requirements “to allow higher-value, more dense use” by “increasing F-A-R’s [Function Area Requirements].” This definition applies to existing zones as well as to rezones, as when R-2 zones in Boise move from 35 to 45 feet or another zone becomes an R2 zone. Zoning downward – say, R-2 back to 35 feet reduces F-A-R’s, a “down-zoning” that many cities have done after regrets for having up-zoned in the first place. Up-zoning primarily involves profits. The definition of density in up-zoning is determined by financialization, not the “need” for growth or even dense housing as such. To quote the World Bank: “As with density bonuses, up-zoning [is a] “financing tool” to “incentivize … developers” in “the private sector [to] capture gains [by increasing] allowable density.”1 About all increased density plans, let’s not ignore the key driver of up-zoning: it is fundamentally about financial capitalization, a revenue stream that should be kept in mind when evaluating the specifics of any up-zone. The city has failed to do that beyond those builders and developers emphasizing that “penciling out” is the main thing. So who is growth and density for? For which people is that the answer? An inevitable “demand” for housing? By whom and for which interests? Affordable housing? Livability? All such questions are linked in Boise to the up-zoneimperative: capture financial gain via densification. Not all cities do that, even in the U.S. Again, the city seems in need of a public seminar, to stop claiming that its hands are tied by state law. Zoning is a powerful negotiator, but we appear on the verge of giving up that power to financial gain at a steep price for we, the people.

A democratically elected city council must answer these and similar questions in ways that remove the financial incentive constraints on the city’s imagination. We need to better interpret, negotiate, and challenge the state of Idaho instead of merely citing its laws and regulations. In this moment, we must wait until we actually have a city council that represents all districts of the city, a looming reality in November. Meanwhile, don’t rush this. The public deserves better.

Sincerely,

Ed McLuskie, BSU professor emeritus residing at 1919 W Verna Lane, Boise, Idaho 83706

1 h#ps://urban-regenera0on.worldbank.org/node/21

Andrea Tuning

From: David Meredith <davidraymeredith@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 8:02 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Against Zoning Rewrite without changes

As a 50+ year resident in the Collister Neighborhood and having lived in the same home for almost 50 years I have  concerns about the Zoning rewrite. While high density housing along State Street may be advantageous for some to be  on the bus route I have concerns about limited parking and increased traffic.  It may be nice to think people will ride the  bus or have less vehicles, in reality I doubt the results will be all that great. Even if someone takes the bus, they will still  have cars and most more than one.  Increased on street  parking can be dangerous to pedestrians and cause strife in  nearby neighborhoods which will be affected by increased on street parking.  This is not a high density place like New  York where people truly can exist without cars.

Also,  I have seen how infilling destroys a neighborhood.

I have read reports that the public input regarding concerns related to the rewrite has not been seriously addressed.   After going through the “ laughable” City Council process of “listening” to neighborhood concerns regarding Interfaith, I  will be interested in what if any concerns will be properly addressed with this Zoning process.

Respectfully

Sharon Meredith

Sent from my iPad

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:10 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Theresa Mereszczak

Address Boise, ID 83706

Comment

We need to create space for all the people that live in Boise, not just the top 5%and financial secure.  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:55 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Karen Miller

Address Boise, ID 83703

Comment

I'm in favor of rewriting the zoning code and requiring new developments to include duplexes, etc.  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Priscilla <priscillatree@gmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 9:13 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Response

As a Boisean who loves living in the West Bench, I am adamantly opposed to the zoning code rewrite as currently  written. I feel that the city is trying to force this down the throats of citizens , and if nothing else, we , the taxpayers,  need to see the decision on the zoning code rewrite moved to a later date, preferably after elections in November. It is  clear to me and many others, that this rewrite is an attempt to serve up properties on the Bench to greedy developers,  who care nothing for the lifestyle we as Boiseans have always preserved.

We call Boise the city of trees, but if this rewrite is passed, many of our old growth shade trees will be cut down to  make room for multiplex units. Over time, we will see a reduction in our tree canopy, the very thing we so proudly point  to now.

The city is trying to portray this rewrite as a way to bring in more affordable homes. Great idea, but not going to  happen. If more building brought affordability, that would be happening now, as we have a ton of new units on the  market now. Prices are just as high or higher.

It’s quite clear that Mayor McLean wants to push this vote through as quickly as possible. Why? Well, it puts the  feather in her cap that she so desperately wants, and therefore, she and the council are not willing to wait and give the  citizens of Boise more time to read this dense document (talk about density!), and look at what it means for their  neighborhood. They are banking on people being unaware.

In short, the zoning code rewrite is a bad idea all the way around, destroys our neighborhoods and will make many  citizens angry and unhappy, and that means losing the very thing that makes Boise special – the way we treat each  other.

I urge the council to give this decision more time, and be honest about what is really going on here.       Priscilla Mohler, West Bench resident

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Alexandra Monjar <alexandra.monjar@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:59 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Support for the MZR

Dear Boise City Council,

I am writing in support of the Modern Zoning Code. I appreciate all of the work that the City has done to get to this point  and I am so pleased that Boise is addressing its zoning now. By adopting this code, Boise City will be doing what other  cities failed to do in the face of current and anticipated rapid growth. With this code, Boise will be better equipped to  welcome new neighbors whether they are from other towns and cities in Idaho or beyond our state borders, or, have  grown up here and are establishing households of their own.

The Modern Zoning Code gives us the ability to leverage growth for the betterment of our community and mitigate the  challenges that growth brings instead of exacerbating them. One such opportunity is retrofitting a built environment  that has for too long prioritized the movement of private vehicles over the health and wellbeing of its residents. I  support this code for its emphasis on creating multi‐modal networks throughout the City and encourages development  that supports pedestrian activity. One element of such support is the reduced parking requirements downtown and for  residential uses. I urge the City Council to consider that removing parking minimums from the code altogether would  make this code even better.

Removing municipal parking minimums is an easy way for the City of Boise to further encourage development that  meets the goals of this code to create great neighborhoods, support movement for everyone, and ensure that we can  provide a home for everyone. Removing parking minimums enables more affordable housing to be built, it encourages  the development of other mobility options and infrastructure, and it is in alignment with the City's leadership on Climate  Action. If I may be so bold ‐ it is disingenuous for a city prioritizing Climate Action to have parking minimums in its code.  Parking minimums are culpable for creating a built environment that isolates us, reduces economic opportunity and  performance, pollutes our environment, is damaging to our physical health, and creates the burden of requiring vehicle  ownership to support our basic needs.

I encourage the Council to adopt this code. And I encourage Council to consider taking the next logical step towards  supporting the desired outcomes of the code and the City's broader initiatives.

Sincerely,

Alexandra Monjar

2222 W Kootenai St

Madison Lockhorn

Andrea Tuning

From: wrightlaurenA@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Lauren and Mitchell Moores <wrightlaurenA@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:27 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] In Support of the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am writing to express my support for the Modern Zoning Code because all housing should be a human right.   Affordable and accessible should be required.

Sincerely,

Lauren and Mitchell Moores

4087 N Heritage View Ave  Meridian, ID 83646‐1809 wrightlaurenA@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:00 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

richard mross

Email r@uar.biz

Address

7990 horseshoe bend rd

Comment

In 1992, while I was riding my bike, I was hit by a car that left the scene. I was unconscious and had to get facial  reconstructive surgery that includes a plate in my head. I was never the same after that. My helmet was crushed  and bloody but it saved my life. With the zone code changes, much less of this will happen for many reasons.   Also, while listening to the public comments in April, the number 611 came up often, which is the number of  pages in the final ZCR draft. Because of my situation, I needed  to read more than average yet I only needed to  read much less than half of the document.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: somikmster@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Somik Mukherjee <somikmster@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 9:55 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Support/Concerns for the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I support the Modern Zoning Code because increased housing density in Boise seems needed. That said, I am unsure  how this proposal ensures housing affordability, less developer profiteering, public housing options.

Sincerely,

Somik Mukherjee

5312 W Targee St  Boise, ID 83705‐3665  somikmster@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

From: kweerde@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Lindsay Mulm <kweerde@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:50 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I support the Zoning Code Rewrite because we have to do something!

Change outdated policies

Sincerely,  Lindsay Mulm

212 N Flume St  Boise, ID 83712‐6317  kweerde@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:55 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Erin Murray

Boise, ID 83704

Comment

I support this code update because it will help address the massive need for housing in the city and help make  more affordable units available.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:44 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Adam Musser

Address Boise, ID 83703

Comment

I support Boise's Modern Zoning Code in order to provide more affordable homes for more people.  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

From: Jenna Narducci <narduccijenna@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:25 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Writing in support of the zoning rewrite

Hello,

I am writing in support of the zoning rewrite.

I moved to Boise in 2014 for my first "career" job. I had never been to Boise, let alone Idaho, and had no idea it would  become my home for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, I have never been able to *buy* a home. While there are  many factors contributing to unaffordable housing that are outside the city's control, updating our 50+ year old zoning is  huge! Creating mixed use zones will help cultivate small, connected neighborhoods that I so miss out east. Increasing  density and allowing more non‐single homes will substantially help develop desperately needed housing. I appreciate  the city adding requirements for affordable housing as part of  those developments.

I led research at Boise State University looking at how urban growth might occur across the Treasure Valley based on  historic development, and the amount of sprawl we saw in our mo del was dire. A zoning update like this will vastly  change how we develop over the decades. I believe our city will preserve more agricultural areas (the first to go in a  sprawling city), as well as leave more room for parks and other natural areas. I hope we develop more of a sense of  community as we move away from only developing large residential lots. I hope we can create SOME affordable housing  (and I REALLY hope regulating short‐term rentals is next ‐ if the state allows it), and more opportunities for public transit.

Please vote in favor of updating our city zoning.

Sincerely,  Jenna Narducci

Madison Lockhorn

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:27 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Jenna Narducci

Boise, ID 83702

Comment

I am fully supportive of our city taking the initiative to modernize zoning to reflect current conditions, and  increase opportunities for housing for all.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: lauren.necochea@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Lauren Necochea <lauren.necochea@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:59 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] I Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I support the Modern Zoning Code because Boise urgently needs the flexibility to produce more homes with more  existing infrastructure. It is critical for residents, who desperately need affordable homes, and critical for our economy,  which relies on workers being able to live here.

Sincerely,

Lauren Necochea

713 N 20th St  Boise, ID 83702‐3202  lauren.necochea@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 8:29 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name Kristin Nelson

Email khnelson2@gmail.com

Address 5006 S Umatilla Ave 83709

Comment

I'd like to state that I don't think it's appropriate to be voting on such radical issues when two of the city council  members have not been voted in by Boise citizens. It seems to me that those members could have been chosen  based upon their politics or furthering an agenda. Please take this initiative off the table until the city residents  have voted on all members of the council for proper representation. Thank you. Kristin Nelson

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

June 8, 2023

Mayor McLean and City Council City of Boise

My name is Patricia Nilsson and I have resided at 3225 Snowflake Way since 1998. I re�red from my 36-year public sector career in planning in 2021 and have quietly engaged with the rewrite of the zoning ordinance, and I support its adop�on. I have a few comments I hope the city takes to heart to ensure the engagement does not end with the adop�on of the code. I have been atending my local neighborhood associa�on mee�ngs and have seen the divided views on the code up close. I have a few ideas to help recognize the energy that people of all sides have invested in this update and how to harness it going forward to ensure the code creates the neighborhoods and housing choices we desire without degrading the quali�es of Boise that we enjoy today.

Comment 1: Consider adding a radius no�ce and mailed no�ce to uses allowed by administra�ve approval., par�cularly the introduc�on of commercial uses in tradi�onally residen�al areas. I have used this type of no�ce in my career and found that feedback from those closest to the site results in a beter decision. Some�mes simple tweaks to site design details can improve compa�bility.

Comment 2: At a recent neighborhood associa�on mee�ng, I heard praise for the public outreach process for Blueprint Boise and less praise for the zoning update process. As the former project manager for Blueprint Boise, I thought about the differences as both were substan�al efforts. One difference that stands out was the use of a neighborhood council for Blueprint Boise to get substan�ve input on neighborhood policies. This role doesn’t translate well to a zoning code update, but there is an opportunity to use the neighborhood associa�ons to provide feedback on how the new code is working (or not). I encourage the city to set up a formal portal to receive and respond to neighborhood associa�on feedback. Trust me, the city will discover a need to tweak some of the code and having a transparent process to iden�fy necessary amendments will help build trust.

Comment 3: As the city develops its budget, I encourage investment in PDS to adapt exis�ng repor�ng to include analyses of how the new code is affec�ng the design and loca�on of development and redevelopment, especially new housing. There should be zoning subject mater experts who are charged with answering ques�ons, communica�ng with neighborhoods, and atending neighborhood associa�on mee�ngs. The current efforts are appreciated but staff turnover has been too high for the city and the neighborhood associa�ons to rebuild their rela�onships.

Comment 4: There are several zoning map errors in Southeast Boise that I reviewed with staff. It’s not clear when those will be fixed, and I ask that the City develop a process to iden�fy and

correct the zoning district boundaries. None of the dozen or so errors I iden�fied were the fault of the property owners, so a City-led process would be an appropriate path forward.

Thank you to the city staff and Clarion Associates team who have dedicated countless hours to create this code. I also want to thank the par�cipants on the ci�zens commitee who provided feedback as the modules were introduced over the past 2 years.

Sincerely yours,

Patricia Nilsson, AICP

Andrea Tuning

From: DAVID OGDEN <dogden4066@msn.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 9:01 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Our desire for Zoning rewrite

Two points:

1. City council should delay approval of the proposed rewrite until next year when all geographic council seats are  filled by the will of the voters in each of those districts. Currently we have no one on city council that directly  represents our geographic district from southeast Boise.  Other Boise citizens have the same problem.  Currently  two council seats are held by persons appointed by the mayor an d confirmed by the current city council, not  elected by the people. One current councilman is lame duck having decided not to run again for office.  The  current mayor is not assured of re‐election this fall.  The current Boise City leadership should not be making the  call on this new law that affects every person in Boise for decades to come.  Approval of the law by the current  leadership will surely result in a court challenge to the validity of the process and most certainly a political  challenge from the people.  We all deserve a better process on such an impactful law change.

2. The proposed law is 600 plus pages.  But nowhere does the law set forth in plain language the rights of home  owners to protect them from unintended ramifications that could usurp their rights either by accident,  bureaucratic administrative creep, or intentional defrauding by government or developers for their economic  and political gain.  In fact the proposed  law in the name of efficiency for government and developers empowers  planning and zoning to make more decisions while the appeals process for property owners is weakened.  The  first or second section of the law should clearly set forth property owners rights assuring them of due process of  law in appealing any decisions effecting the value or use of their property up to and including appeals to the city  council.  It should assure property owners that any taking of their property cannot occur without just  compensation under the law.  And that the definition of taking includes the devaluation or reduction of  enjoyment or use and benefit of property, and any quality of life impingements.  Existing CCRs and restrictive  covenants should be protected and held inviolate to protect neighborhoods and personal homes.  Existing  neighborhoods without an HOA or CCRs should be given an opportunity of 18 months or more to organize and  form associations and draft CCRs to have their vision of their homes and neighborhoods secured in law.

David and Connie Ogden

3353 Chickory Way  Boise, Idaho 83706

208‐571‐0262

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:30 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Ben Ovard

Email benovard@gmail.com

Address

Comment

Hi, I am writing today IN SUPPORT of the new zoning code rewrite. I was born and raised in Boise, and I've seen  too many of my friends and family priced out of the city. We desperately need to increase the housing supply,  and I believe the new zoning code will be one of the best ways to do that. We also need to provide better access  to the city for people on bikes, walking, and using transit, and the new code will also do that. The new code is  good for people, good for families, good for the environment, a nd good for Boise. I strongly urge you to approve  it. Thank you.

Ben Ovard

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 6:08 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name Matthew Pabich

Email matthewjpabich@gmail.com

Address

5218 W Bel Air Street, B

Comment

The Zoning Code Rewrite is excellent all in all, and I support voting in favor of it. The proposed reforms allow for  a greater diversity in buildings, more efficient land use, and will help create conditions to bolster the public  transit system.

I have long lamented the massive decline of mixed use areas and buildings in a lot of American cities, and I am  excited to see it become a more viable option in Boise. As you are all familiar with, there is a housing shortage in  Boise and it appears people are going to continue to flock here. The entire time I have lived here, there has been  a mismatch between demand and supply.

The old parts of Boise are where the mismatch between supply and demand is most pronounced. These  locations, notably, have smaller lots, less parking, more foot traffic, and a higher demand than many areas of the  city. Under the current code, building in similar styles range from burdensome to disallowed. But shouldn't  people be able to build what we have a demonstrated demand for? Mixed use areas, higher density, and  walkable areas present opportunities for retail businesses, which in turn helps the local economy. Reduced  parking minimums allows businesses to determine what they need, and allow them to have agency in  determining business space, and less acreage dedicated to parking.

Higher density options allow for reduced net miles driven. Even if public transit, walking, and biking is assumed  to not occur, there can be a great reduction in the net miles and minutes for many cars on the road: the very  source of traffic.

In the end I believe that the code rewrite will help Boise achieve what most residents want out of their city.  Thanks for taking on the massive task of this update.

Matthew Pabich

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Jon Palumbo <jnpidaho01@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 1:33 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zone rewrite

Good afternoon,

My name is Jonathan Palumbo. I am a home owner in Northwest Boise. I would like to encourage my not to except the  current zone rewrite plan. This plan will only over crowd current already crowded neighborhoods. Increase traffic and  hurt our current quality of life. Take this from someone that is originally from New Jersey, the most densely populated  state. It will not make for more affordable housing. It will just drive up prices in more desirable locations and only create  more of an income gap. This plan in it current form is a terrib le idea. Please take a look at other cities in the country. This  type of zoning does not and has not improved any other location in the area. All it will do is make Boise a city of renters  not home owners.

Thank you,

Jonathan Palumbo

Sent from my iPhone

Andrea Tuning

From: patterson.madelineh@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Madeline Patterson <patterson.madelineh@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:28 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] I support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I support the Modern Zoning Code because I am excited to have w alkable neighborhoods with small businesses close! I  love 13th St and would love to have more places like this throughout Boise!

Sincerely,

Madeline Patterson  2510 N 29th St  Boise, ID 83703‐5422  patterson.madelineh@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: Pamela Pauline <pamela.pauline@sbcglobal.net>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 4:37 PM

To: Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; ZoningRewrite; zoninginfo; CityCouncil

Subject: [External] Rezoning

Dear Mayor, and all concerned,

Please delay the rezoning vote until November 2023, after elections,  so that all people have their say in the  representation of our City Council.

Not only is that the ethical and correct thing to do,  but I'm trying to find out if it's even legal, in trying to expedite a  vote at this time,  before all people  are granted representation.   Two members of the City Council have been appointed  and not voted in,  and those 2 seats and the 2 that are currently vacant raise a genuine question of whether it's in the  people's best interest to vote at this time.  At face value,  the answer is no.  People are entitled to representation voted  on by the people,  at this level.  More so at this level than at any other level, because it affects us directly with it's  impact.  Decisions made by the City Council at this time are not even half of the 6 seats.  Instead,  it's 2 people who were  voted in and 2 people who were granted their seats,  at the behest of Mayor McLean, thereby possibly influenced to  align with the ideas of the Mayor  and not necessarily of the people in the City of Boise.  As a resident of Boise, to be  ethical and transparent, this vote needs to wait until the people of Boise can vote in the new City Council. This rezoning  was rushed without public input d uring Covid. That's another lack of transparency. I sincerely request that you hold off  on the rezoning initiative until after the November 2023 vote comes to pass.  Thank you.

Sincerely,

Pamela Pauline

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android

Andrea Tuning

From: pelligrinovicker@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Vicker Pellegrino <pelligrinovicker@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:42 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Support a Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I support the Modern Zoning Code because I am trying to buy a house and the costs are prohibitive.

This zoning code creating more affordable housing would make the city more livable for me.

Sincerely,

Vicker Pellegrino

1533 Greenburrow St  Boise, ID 83706  pelligrinovicker@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: l Pennisi <lppennisi@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:51 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Cc: Mayor McLean; Luci Willits; Holli Woodings; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant; Christopher Nash; Latonia Haney Keith

Subject: [External] ZCR - Vote no to implement modern zoning code

Attachments: IMG_20230426_154617_HDR.jpg; IMG_20230423_145835_HDR.jpg; IMG_20230423_150044_HDR.jpg

Good afternoon, Mayor McLean and City Council members, My compliments to the team for their community meetings, impromptu meetings, and answering the many questions and concerns of residents. Often these meetings were after work hours and I appreciate giving their time to this process and residents.

I've attended several community outreach sessions, "book club" sessions, and P&Z hearings on this topic. Here are my reasons to reject it:

Documentation and process

The ZCR team has had 3 years to create an extremely detailed and complex document and the citizens have had a few months to read and understand it.

Unanimous passage from P&Z is highly suspect in my view. A 500+ page document and no changes? recommendations? Nothing? I find that hard to believe. Commissioner Gillesppe had a list of things that he was concerned about in the ZCR yet none of them were revised by the ZCR team? no recommendations offered?

Diminished public participation in the process Process should always include input from impacted residents. Continue to use the existing notification process within the area of impact, usually within 300 feet of change.

Any ZCR changes should favor residents over developers. Each neighborhood has its own character/flavor/quirks that developers (especially out-of-state developers) are not interested in preserving. Most developers don't live in my neighborhood, and from my interactions during past projects, they want to build their project and leave. Plus, they don't have to deal with problems or unintended consequences but the residents will.

I do not understand why this ZCR puts more control and options to developers but not residents. And, does the City have a process for handling unintended consequences from developers?

ZCR should also include design standards and requirements that match the existing character of the affected neighborhood. Even with today's process, there is not coordination or cooperation between P&Z and Design Review. This ZCR does nothing to fix that problem.

Expanding allowed uses in R-2 zone will severely limit a resident's ability to comment and be effective in participating in changes in their neighborhood. Most of the West End was developed with standard 50 x 100 lots. This ZCR will allow minimum lot size of 25 x 100 (2500 sq ft). So is the intended effect to allow developers to buy single-family homes to demolish them, split the lot, and build 2 houses? Or, demolish two houses, join the lots, and then build a multi-family building? Either scenario would be allowed and would effectively change the West End neighborhood to something it was never meant to be.

Past Results

Housing Bonus Ordinance was meant to solve housing problem by giving incentives to developers. Based on this article, the results fell far short of the goal. Only four projects take advantage of Boise's housing bonus ordinance a little over a year since approval

How does P&Z know whether this proposed ZCR will accomplish the goals of housing types, adds character, and creates opportunities for all at all income levels? To date, in my neighborhood, projects focus on multi-family housing with medium density. Developers proposing these projects design them using the downtown buildings as justification for the same design in our neighborhood. There is no focus on character today and I do not see how this goal will be met based on the proposed ZCR.

The current P&Z process and Design Review do not emphasize "character" and the ZCR does not include a process to consider "character" as stated in Modern Zoning Code flyer by the City of Boise.

Allowed uses

Changes to R-2 zoning will affect the West End neighborhood dramatically and not in a good way. I'm basing my opinion on developments in progress on 27th Street and the Jordan parcel. In both instances these projects dominate and change the neighborhood. Why is this necessary? The West End has a comfortable mix of apartment complexes, duplexes, multi-family housing, single-family homes, and small businesses.

I've attached a photo of another eyesore on Jefferson Street where a multi-story complex is right next to a single-family home, and that is a result of the existing zoning code!

The additional 10 ft height allowance to 45ft (in R-3) would mean that these buildings would tower over existing single-family homes and change our suburban neighborhood into an urban center. That type of change does not look like progress to me.

Disparity in zones

I noticed that north of State Street has R-2 zone fronting State Street (between 21st and 28th) and then one block north of State, zones are either R-2 or R1-CH.

South of State Street has either R-2 or MX-3 fronting State Street between 21st and 28th) and then most if not all the blocks south of State Street are R-2; that zoning practice is not consistent or equitable.

Same is true about Main Street between 21st and 27th. Mixed Use zone fronting Main Street and R-3 zone north of Main Street on Idaho and Bannock; that zoning practice is not consistent or equitable.

Campaign issue

This ZCR draft should be voted on after November's election. This is a perfect campaign issue that allows candidates to debate and present their views to citizens.

Switching district seats and city neighborhoods adds to complexity and confusion, leaving citizens without knowing who their representative is now and will be in the future.

More questions about process and timing

1. Why do we have to pass this now?

2. Is the City Council counting on federal dollars if this ZCR--that promotes higher density--is passed?

3. How can a P&Z board unanimously pass this ZCR document without any recommendations? Aren't they required by law to do their due diligence, especially on a massive change in this document?

4. How will we know that the housing "crisis" is solved? What measures will be used to determine success? What are benchmarks or goals to know that this ZCR is effective? How will success be monitored?

5. How and when will this ZCR be reviewed and revised? What is the process? Has it been defined?

6. Will the City Council ignore the comments from the public? How is the City Council going to measure/monitor/count those residents who are for or against ZCR?

7. What guarantees that there will be affordable housing as a result of this ZCR?

8. How can this ZCR be passed without revising the Design Review process? That is gap today in the process and it will continue if this revision is approved.

9. How does the City of Boise know that this ZCR will have a positive effect? What happens if it doesn't? Are there are corrective action plans?

Thank you for the opportunity to share my opinions with City Council.

Lauren Pennisi 2411 W Pleasanton Ave

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:09 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Quinn Perry

Address Boise, ID 83705

Comment

The zoning code rewrite is a necessary part of continuing Boise’s livability and sustainability efforts!  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Kelly Peterson <kelly.peterson.a@gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 2:31 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Reject the new zone re-write

I am writing this email to urge you and the City Council to delay the vote in the Zoning code rewrite. I believe this is the  right decision for our community to give more time to our residents.

This has been rushed and frankly not advertised to the people that voted you into office. Many people, including myself,  had no idea about this re‐write until just recently. This will detrimentally affect the neighborhoods in Boise and I am  extremely against this. As a homeowner, a voter, and a taxpayer I urge you to change your stance on this matter. This  will not make housing more affordable, and conversely, it will also make Boise neighborhoods less desirable and feel less  like the communities that they are. There are no requirements in this code rewrite to create affordable housing. This will  only put more money in developers' pockets, lower the value of houses next to these giant buildings, destroy  communities, and harm renters in the city of Boise.

As an alternative, zone re‐writes could be introduced to relax laws around Accessory Dwelling Units in Boise to create  more affordable housing. I have been wanting to build one but t he laws are too cumbersome and require owner  occupancy in at least one of the units at all times. This would be an incremental change that doesn't drastically change  the feel of our neighborhoods and the communities that have built them.

I urge you to at the very minimum delay the vote.

Thank you for your time,

Kelly Peterson (Sunset Neighborhood resident)

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:53 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Mark Phillips

Email gmarkphillips@gmail.com

Address Boise, ID 83705

Comment

PLEASE DON'T UPZONE BOISE!

Doing so would be a BIG mistake and here's why:

1. "Upzoning creates less diversity, fewer affordable units and  whiter, wealthier neighborhoods." SOURCE:  https://www.archdaily.com/961234/new‐york‐city‐promises‐affordability‐through‐rezoning‐but‐delivers‐gentrification

2. [Upzoning] is positively and significantly associated with the odds of a census tract becoming whiter,  suggesting that upzoning might accelerate, rather than temper, gentrification." SOURCE:  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how‐we‐rise/2021/07/15/the‐double‐edged‐sword‐of‐upzoning/

3 "Upzoning increased prices of existing housing units." SOURCE: https://betterdwelling.com/broad‐upzoning‐makes‐housing‐less‐affordable‐and‐doesnt‐add‐supply/

4. "We Have incrementally quadrupled the density of Vancouver, but we haven't seen any decrease in per  square foot costs. That evidence is indisputable. We can conclude there is a problem beyond restrictive zoning.  No amount of opening zoning or allowing for development will cause prices to go down. We've seen no  evidence of that at all. It's not the NIMBY's that are the problem ‐ it's the global increase in land value in urban  areas that is the problem." ~Patrick Condon, Landscape Architect, Professor, Urban Planner, and former  supporter of widespread upzoning. SOURCE: https://www.livablecalifornia.org/vancouver‐smartest‐planner‐prof‐patrick‐condon‐calls‐california‐upzoning‐a‐costly‐mistake‐2‐6‐21/

Thank you for not upzoning Boise!

Mark Phillips

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:49 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Alexis Pickering

Email alexis@alexispickering.com

Address

7772 W Bayhill St., Boise, ID 83704

Comment

I strongly urge you to support and approve of the modern zoning code rewrite. As one of your ACHD  Commissioners, we desperately need better coordination and growth along the arterials and infrastructure that  can handle the density we need, rather than sprawling away and taking up valuable resources. As a resident of  Boise and a new mom, we need solutions so that my son can not o nly grow up here, but afford to lay down his  own roots. Boise (and Idaho) is unaffordable and I'm heartened to see my city look to try proven solutions like a  zoning code rewrite. I would also urge you to evaluate the impact that parking minimums have on housing,  density, and affordability. ACHD and VRT are making strides in providing better infrastructure that is safe and  multimodal. Making parking mandatory takes up valuable space that could be housing, green space, or some  other use, and adds to the affordability crisis. I deeply appreciate the addition of the pre‐planning meeting that  will allow ACHD staff to understand development applications, ensuring we're all on the same page. This  improvement alone will save thousands of dollars in staff time,  smooth out the process for the developer, and  lead to better developments overall. Thank you in advance for your support of the zoning code rewrite.  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

From: Nathan Plowman <nplowman@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 6:25 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] I support the zoning code rewrite

I wanted to voice my full support of the zoning code rewrite.  The two big selling points for me are walkability and affordability.

My preferred way to get around the city is by bike, so I am very excited about the zoning changes that will help make the  city more walkable and less car‐dependent, such as allowing more mixed use development in more places and the  designation of transit corridors.

On the topic of affordability: I am a millennial who was lucky enough to purchase a home in 2016 when starter homes  could still be found for under $200,000. Over the last few years, I have watched so many of my peers get pushed out of  Boise and have to move to Nampa, Kuna, or leave the area entirely due to rent increases or skyrocketing price of starter  homes. I believe that the zoning code rewrite is an important part of the solution to the housing affordability problem,  as it will increase the supply of housing overall, as well as allow for more types of housing to be built at a variety of price  points.

Nathan Plowman

2083 S Coronado Way, Boise, ID 83709

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:33 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Nathan Plowman

Boise, ID 83709

Comment

I love Boise and I hate that I've been seeing so many friends and family members priced out of living here over  the last few years. While zoning reform alone will not fix the problem of affordability overnight, I believe that it  is an important and necessary piece of the puzzle. I fully support the proposed zoning code.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:53 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Sherry Prescott

Boise, ID 83702

Comment

I support the modern zoning code for Boise. I don't want Boise to sprawl any further than it has already. Enough  already.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

From: joshprice991@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Josh Price <joshprice991 @everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:28 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am in support of the Modern Zoning Code.

Sincerely,

Josh Price  1716 S Helen St  Boise, ID 83705‐3123  joshprice991@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:21 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Chryssa Rich, Director of Marketing, Primary Health Medical Group

Email chryssa.rich@primaryhealth.com

Address

PO Box 191050 Boise, ID 83719

Comment

Primary Health Medical Group is against the proposed change as outlined in Section 11‐04‐012.7 On‐Premise  Signs, (5) Electronic Message Displays (EMD) (b) Standards iv., which states, "Each message or frame shall be  displayed for a minimum of 20 seconds."

The City’s motivation behind this proposed change is not clear, however EMD guidelines are typically put into  place to reduce driver distraction and reduce the “gaudy” look of a city.

Primary Health has eight medical clinics in Boise, seven of which offer walk‐in urgent care as an alternative to  visiting an emergency room. We rely on EMDs to communicate timely and important health information to the  public, including:

• Protocol for accessing healthcare in a crisis like COVID

• Protocol for accessing urgent care 7 days a week

• COVID and seasonal flu vaccine  availability and how to access

• Family doctor availability (Idaho ranks last in the nation for family doctors per capita)

• Hiring and wage announcements

• Special hours and early closures which impact urgent care accessibility

In their current format running 8‐second frames, our EMDs are readable and effective. We see positive changes  in patient behavior based on the messages we display.

Some of our EMDs are too small to present a complete message in one frame. Increasing the display time from 8  seconds to 20 seconds will hamper our ability to communicate co mplete important health information to the  public.

Section 11‐04‐012.7 On‐Premise Signs, (5) Electronic Message Displays (EMD) (b) Standards vii. directly  contradicts the presumed goals of reducing driver distraction and a gaudy look, stating, "Text‐only single‐color  message displays with letters no higher than 12 inches may scroll or travel without the static message limitation.  Maximum area for such displays is eight square feet." Small, scrolling text is extremely difficult to read,  especially on lower resolution EMDs. Scrolling text is also visually more distracting and gaudy than a static 8‐second message. Businesses with EMDs under eight square feet are better served by allowing 8‐second frames  rather than scrolling text.

In summary, we request that Section 11‐04‐012.7 On‐Premise Signs, (5) Electronic Message Displays (EMD) (b)

Standards iv. be amended to reflect the current rule, "Each message or frame shall be displayed for a minimum  of 8 seconds."

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, June 8, 2023 8:33 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Ronnie Pruitt

Address Boise

Comment

I moved to Boise in October 2018. At that time the rental cost I thought was atrocious yet since then it has  continued to escalate. It appears to me that the old zoning code was intentionally written to be exclusionary.  Boise only wanted people that fit a certain category (i.e. white, middle class, married homeowners). I hope Boise  is willing to move into the 21st Century with a zoning rewrite that is inclusive of all.

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, June 8, 2023 12:59 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Zach Reider

Address Boise, ID 83706

Comment

Please support Boise's Modern Zoning Code! We need more types of homes for all kinds of people.  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

Andrea Tuning

From: shannon470@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Shannon Romero <shannon470 @everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:22 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I support the Modern Zoning Code because I think that housing should be affordable and people should be able to live  here without sacrificing location.

Sincerely,  Shannon Romero  2514 N 21st St  Boise, ID 83702‐0602  shannon470@gmail.com

From: Shelly Root <msrute_15@outlook.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:23 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001

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

We have lived and worked in Boise for over 20 years. Please know that we are opposed to this Zoning Code Rewrite.

Sincerely,

Shelly Root

Michael Root

10285 W. Alliance St.  Boise, Idaho

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 3:22 PM

To: CityCouncil

Subject: Contact Form Submitted to City Council

CONTACT FORM SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL

From Irene Ross mscristiana.108@gmail.com   Phone Number: 2083220759

I have lived in Boise for 46 years and I would like to request that the planning and  zoning promote family housing and not more apartments. Putting more people in  less square footage is not beneficial. The proposed new zoning plan increases  crime, traffic, environmental impacts, families and affects wil dlife.

Contact Form Submitted On:

https://www.cityofboise.org/CityWideContactForm?contactId=1890

Madison Lockhorn

CREATING A CITY FOR EVERYONE

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:50 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Chris Runyan

Email chris.runyan01@gmail.com

Address

606 N Brookdale Dr

Comment

Dear Boise City Council,

I urge you to vote NO on passing the Zoning Code Rewrite as currently written. Below are some of my concerns:

The city of Boise is using the “ zoning code amendment” process to pass this massive 620‐page code without  having to hold a public vote. This goes against the intent of the amendment process wherein modifications of a  code are reasonable, not an entire zoning code.

The city has not adequately disclosed the intended impact of reducing the minimum lot size from 5,000 ft2 to  3,500 ft2 in R1‐C zones. In my neighborhood of 226 homes, the number of existing homes that could be  purchased, demolished, and then split into two lots for redevelopment would go from 31 lots to 212 lots (+584%  increase). I’ve looked at nearly 4,000 parcels and the change in the amount of lot splitting were all in this same  range. The city has stated that higher density from the ZCR will be focused along transit corridors, the above  data does not reflect that and needs to be disclosed to property owners.

The city emphasizes that the public process started during the Fall of 2020 but neglects to mention the impact  the Covid pandemic and city enforced occupancy restrictions had on limiting public parti cipation or awareness  during the first 2 years of this process. Most Boise residents still don't even know the zoning code is changing let  alone what it means for them.

The Final Draft of the 620‐page code wasn’t released until Feb 28th, 2023, with only 22 days provided for the  public to review so that comments could be included in the initial Project Report for the Planning and Zoning  Commission.

Note: the Final Draft contained no “track changes”, essentially removing any ability for the public to quickly  review the 620‐page code to see what changed from the prior draft.

After thousands of pages of public comments, P&Z recommended no changes to the code highlighting that for  this process, public input was not incorporated or valued.

The city just recently released an Executive Summary and user guide to the R1‐C zone one week before the  public hearing. By doing so the city acknowledges that this information was indeed required for the public to  more easily understand what is being proposed. Allowing only on e week for the public to review this is not  adequate and more of a political check‐the‐box tactic to be able to say they provided one rather than a genuine

desire for public input and engagement.

The current City Council is composed of 2 members that were appointed by the Mayor in April 2023 and were  not elected by public vote. It is undemocratic to allow this City Council to vote on such a wide‐reaching and long‐lasting zoning code change.

In November, the City Council will be elected by six geographic districts (per State Law) that will give each part of  Boise someone to represent them in the zoning code process and to advocate for neighborhood specific needs.

Sincerely,

Chris Runyan

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

From: Sam Sandmire <samsandmireidaho@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:20 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] I am in favor of Boise's new zoning code

Dear Boise City Council,

I am in favor of Boise’s new zoning code because the old one no longer fits our city’s needs. Boise desperately  needs affordable housing so people can afford to live and work in our city. This is only possible with more  density & less sprawl. Because the Treasure Valley lacks coordinated mass transit, people need to actually  reside in Boise where their jobs are.

I have 3 grown sons. I would like them to be able to afford to live in Boise, but unless we update the zoning  code, this will be a challenge.

I wholeheartedly support the updated zoning code Boise is considering.

Sincerely,

Yvonne “Sam” Sandmire

800 W. Ranch Rd.  Boise, ID 83702

PS‐I will be out of town during the hearings, so please consider this my testimony in favor of the new code.  Thank you.

Madison Lockhorn

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 10:59 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name Teresa Schmalz

Email teresa.schmalz@gmail.com

Address

5623 N Marcliffe Ave, Boise, ID 83704

Comment

I support the new zoning proposal. This addresses many of the housing issues that Boise faces today and  updates an out of date code. Please vote YES for increased affordability, accessibility, and stronger  neighborhoods. Thank you!

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

From: Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:52 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written comments regarding removal of notifications; June 2023 City Council hearing

REMOVAL OF NOTIFICATIONS

Removing notification requirements for adjacent properties will (by intention?) open up the door for abuse of CC&R’s.

This will allow an application to go through the process and a nearby property owner will not find out about a type of use not allowed by their CC&R’s such as another dwelling unit, or a small café or business, until after the approval, which then places the burden on that person or their neighbors to take the permit to court.

These property owners will not have had a chance to bring forth the CC&R’s to the decision maker(s) in advance and defend their contractual private property rights.

This is more of the same trickery by the developers. Not only does eliminating the notification process alleviate the cost of printing and postage for them, plus the cost of signs, it allows them to count on citizens not being able to afford to take the issue to court.

The only section of the LLUPA that requires notice to adjacent properties is for a Variance, see section 67–6521 (1)(b). By making more uses allowed by right and changing the most common items that seek a Variance (height, setbacks, parking), the City is crafting policy that will enable the developers to slip one by the public.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that removing notification only serves one interest. And by shifting citizens toward choosing to “opt–in” for electronic notification, this further places the burden on individuals to constantly be checking the status of land around them.

Sincerely,

Erika Schofield

Madison Lockhorn

Madison Lockhorn

From: Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:54 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written comments regarding the numbers in the Housing Needs Analysis

The 27,000 number from the Housing Needs Analysis is higher than the past amount built because it is attempting to address what the city knows is already happening and will most likely escalate under the rewrite; additional rooftops needed to replace those being displaced as small old homes get torn down or other group living situations such as the Arbor Crossing issue, plus more demand for student, refugee, and homeless housing, and rooftops to try to address the “cost–burdened households that are being pushed out from rising rents.

The study also mentions this need for housing can’t just be met by Boise, so the number is more applicable to the region as a whole but the city is using this number to intentionally mislead to support the rewrite rather than explain the underlying issues.

This study was never provided to the Citizen Advisory Committee for this proposed rezone.

Sincerely,

Erika Schofield

From: Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:57 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written comments regarding inaccurate title of the proposed zoning code; City Council Hearing June 2023

Both the current and proposed “zoning code” are technically a Unified Development Code and should be  accurately titled as such. Please see page 1621 thru 1630 in the Project Report for the Planning and Zoning  Commission hearing which provides the public comments submitted by Boise Working Together which  explains this in further detail.

Sincerely,

Erika Schofield

Madison Lockhorn

From: Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:58 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written comments regarding lack of trust

The Clarion Diagnostic Report addressed the issue of a significant lack of trust regarding development in this  city. If this application is approved, one more nail in the coffin of trust will have been hammered down.

Madison Lockhorn

From: Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:59 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written comments regarding AFFH for Council Hearing; June 2023

I have been wondering how Boise’s zoning rewrite and the implementation of the AFFH rule will interact with Boise’s Specific Plan Districts (SPD) because the three SPD’s (Harris Ranch, Barber Valley, Syringa), will not be affected in this rewrite. This has been clearly stated in the back of each draft of this document.

I know Boise accepts a lot of federal housing funds from HUD, and from what I read on the AFFH Fact Sheet on HUD’s website, AFFH is suppose to apply to all of a program participants activities and programs relating to housing and urban development, which would include the “activity” of rewriting the zoning ordinance because that dictates housing issues.

A city is to show that they are promoting housing choice and fostering inclusive communities, but under this rewrite, an SPD will maintains its status quo, which appears to be just a modern, or clever form of redlining, not by color, but by income.

Sincerely,

Erika Schofield

Madison Lockhorn

From:

Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:50 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written Comments regarding public safety risk for City Council Hearing, June 2023

To Boise City Mayor and Council:

For six consecutive years I have provided written and oral testimony on public safety and advocating for decisions based on data and adopted standards. This issue is of great significance to the proposed zoning code rewrite.

The City is falling further and further behind on its core responsibility of public safety in regards to keeping up with the growth it has aggressively pursued through national promotion, annexation, and approving higher density via rezone applications. This is a serious problem that takes place behind the scenes and that most citizens are blissfully unaware of.

In summary, extensive research and the hard data shows:

Decades of annexation and development approvals in the Northwest Planning Area, starting with the Quail Ridge subdivision in 1988, that were based on the promise to build “planned” fire stations.

35 years of empty promises have gone by.

Now we have a fire station planned for Bogart Lane, but even if this station is actually built we might not be able to staff it.

Why? Because we now have an immediate staffing need of 117 additional fire fighters for our current population.

In 2015, the city’s record for the police department showed the need for 34 additional officers to keep up with growth.

By 2018 that number increased to 54.

By November 2021, we were short nearly 70 positions.

And the most recent data shows we now have an immediate staffing need of 129 additional officers for our current population.

These are disturbing numbers because at the end of the day, this literally means everyones tax payerfunded protection and safety is being placed at higher risk every day.

This also places the safety of our first responders at higher risk. The City’s recent public safety plan acknowledges the burden being imposed on these departments through its strategies to address burnout from being overworked, the risk of suicide, as well as the need for trauma recovery.

Madison Lockhorn

We are most likely not going to read or hear testimony from our first responders because this might put their job security in jeopardy. But I fully anticipate comments from upper management that attempts to minimize the issues, but the data speaks for itself.

No rationale or excuses can dispute what the data shows in the City of Boise Public Safety Five Year Plan presented on 02/28/2023 at City Council Work Session:

 Public safety services are already stretched too thin.

 We are now at more than a 7 minute response while the policy in the Comprehensive Plan and the  adopted response standard used in the methodology for collecting fire impact fees is a 4–minute  response.

 Boise’s elected officials have failed to build up the strategic assets necessary to accommodate the  additional growth they now wish to pursue. It may have been possible in 2018 when this process  started and are public safety staffing needs were far lower, but that is no longer the case.

 We simply do not have the carrying capacity to handle an increased demand generated by rezoning  for higher density.

There is nothing unclear about this data the zoning rewrite will further the undue burden on the police and fire departments services and adversely impact public safety.

The agency comments from our police and fire departments should be solidly against the additional demand that will be generated by rezoning to higher density and stand their ground in defense of the people under their watch; both their staff and the citizens of Boise.

Citizens need to ask themselves how can the Mayor (as was sent out recently online by the City of Boise) claim that the proposed new zoning code will actually improve public safety in Boise, in the face of such numbers? This is smoke and mirrors for those who are easily fooled and not aware of the data.

It is irresponsible and reckless to ignore this data.

What can happen when public safety resources do not keep up?

It starts slow, with issues such as more auto break-ins at trailheads, which is already happening. Then word gets out that we don’t have enough public safety resources and criminals see opportunity. Next comes the bottom feeder accident/injury attorneys who will challenge land use rezone and CUP/PUD applications the city approved without having the adequate resources to serve the increase in demand. Makes one wonder if a bonafide legal case could be based on collecting impact fees that use an adopted response standard in the methodology to calculate the fees, but then fail to come close to delivering that standard because the public safety service has not been invested in to keep up with growth?

The City record shows it claims it makes data driven decisions, but in this case, the opposite is happening while building a reputation of risk within the first responder community. Who wants a stressed out, overworked first responder coming to aid them at a time of crisis? When people are stressed and overworked mistakes happen. Mistakes that harm the person receiving a response and mistakes that cause injury to the first responder.

Now is not the time to add more burden to our fellow citizens who serve as first responders. This application puts them at even higher risk, while also putting the whole city at greater risk.

We are not fine. Believe me, if you have a stroke and the Best Practice 4-minute adopted response is not achieved, your chances of permanent health damage increase by each minute, and scientific studies to support best practices in the fire industry have shown that a fire can double in size every minute after four minutes has passed.

Decisions impacting public safety are of the utmost importance. The decision before you involves the adopted Level of Service for fire and police impact fee collection, which rely on specific standards, and so does the ISO rating for fire by the insurance industry. Therefore, increasing public safety risk by approving this proposed zoning code will force citizens, properties, and businesses across the City to increase the adverse impacts for health and safety risks on their balance sheets.

How did we get to this point?

Past and present commissioners and councilors have contributed to this public safety problem we now face. They participated in decisions to recommend and approve annexations and approve rezones to higher density with a CUP/PUD while avoiding the public safety response standards, or were not being provided with transparent information from the fire dept. to make an informed decision, or via city staff who avoided and disregarded this subject.

In conclusion, the current public safety data was provided through oral testimony to the Commissioners, who now appear to have chosen to avoid this substantial evidence to support a recommendation of denial.

This demonstrates a clear avoidance of their codified responsibility. The Planning and Zoning Commission’s codified duties include examining the present circumstances and problems of the city, and the establishment of proper services for the promotion of the public health, interest, morals, safety, comfort and welfare (Boise City Code § 2-4-6). Recommending the proposed rewrite fails their duty as it does not meet the required decision criteria of compliance with and conformance to the Comprehensive Plan, and that an approval is for the public convenience or general welfare.

The City’s public safety plan indicates the data is to be used for making intelligent decisions and the data clearly shows we are wholly unprepared to support an increase in demand that will be brought on by this rewrite. An intelligent decision is to not approve this proposed rewrite of the zoning code. An unintelligent decision is to do so, which demonstrates a total failure of government.

Once again, I state for the record to please quit ignoring this data and safety risk. Do so by NOT approving this proposed code.

Sincerely,

Erika Schofield

City Record Sources

2‐4‐6: DUTIES:

It shall be the duty of the Planning and Zoning Commission to study and examine the economic, social and  physical conditions and problems of the City, particularly in regard to and in connection with regulations for

the development of all public enterprises within the City, and to recommend and make suggestions to the  Mayor and Council in regard to public development, operation, management, regulation and control of all  public utilities, buildings, property and structures and to recommend and propose all measures and plans  consistent with the future growth and development of the City in order to secure for the City and its  inhabitants proper sanitation and the establishment and promotion of proper service of all public utilities and  facilities and to promote such measures as may be advisable and beneficial for the promotion of the public  health, interest, morals, safety, comfort and welfare of the inhabitants of the City. (1952 Code § 2‐06‐06)

Andrea Tuning

From: Bonnie Shuster <bjshuster@msn.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:58 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Thank You! I Support the Re-Write

Dear Mayor McLean and City Council,

I support the Zoning Code Rewrite. It is much needed. I believe it is a thoughtful effort to help ensure that Boise  continues to be a great place to live and work for residents of all income levels. I do not want Boise to be a place where  only those of considerable wealth and income can afford to buy a house, and that it what it is already becoming. We  must have more affordable housing in order to maintain and promote economic diversity, and the rewrite will help. I  also very much appreciate the emphasis on sustainability, and on transit modes other than automobiles. I hope you will  approve the rewrite!

Thank you to P&Z for the Executive Summary that was recently provided (although I did read quite a bit of the many  pages of the rewrite itself).

Thank you for your leadership!

Bonnie Shuster  1932 N 18th St  Boise, ID 83702  303‐748‐8226

Sent from Mail for Windows

Dear Mayor McLean and Boise City Council Members: 6/8/2023

“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody,” Jane Jacobs.

Zoning Codes are meant to be living things that respond to the needs of the city they’re built for. They are best built where everyone has a seat at the table at the most granular level, where specifics can be hammered out and responded to. In March, SENA sent a letter to you asking for the final vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite until after the fully districted council is seated in January of 2024.

While our position remains the same, if you are to vote on it now and adopt the Zoning Code Rewrite, SENA voted unanimously to bring three overall concerns to your attention There are many instances in the code that, line by line, we could go through with our suggestions, but these are the most important issues that the council could address alongside any adoption of this code.

First, regardless of a new code, agreements between stakeholders independent of the code need to be honored. There are many of these all over the city that neighborhood associations have worked incredibly hard to build. For example, going all the way back to zoning issues in the 90s, SENA worked with Boise State University to build agreements reflected in the 1997, 2005-08, and 2015 Boise State master plans. These master plans allowed for Boise State’s growth, while protecting the neighborhood south of Beacon Street These understandings were recently expanded upon to address concerns in the Collegiate Subdivision area and have been effective in building trust between the neighborhood and the university. The council should make clear that nothing in the rewrite would undermine these community agreements, to build trust in the code. Proposed changes to height limits at the campus boundaries from 45 to 70 feet in the Zoning Code Rewrite seem to conflict with those past understandings.

Second, any code will require adjustment, but even more so when the change is as widespread in a complete rewrite. The council, planning and zoning, and staff will need to be as proactive as possible to respond to and fix issues as they become apparent. The best government is a responsive one, and continual improvement to the code will build trust, and prevent the need for further wholesale rewrites. We ask that a semiannual or annual outreach and review of the code be instituted to find what is working and what is not. For instance, if the density height target is being accomplished in an already dense R-2 zone with current 35’ heights, a tightening of the code back from 45’ to 35’ might be warranted. If there are loopholes that pop up they may necessitate emergency ordinances and immediate action from the council before bad development cascades through town. In addition, by laying out the reasoning behind these fixes and what issue they are responding to will build faith that concerns are being addressed.

Third, the council must make sure that notification requirements are not relaxed as proposed in the code. This is an issue of transparency and accountability for neighbors, developers, and the city. If notifications are required, it prevents the ‘surprise’ of a project that can be the most jarring part of the development process to the public. The new online development tracker is great but is no replacement for the traditional tool of a postcard in folks’ mailbox letting them know about a project in their area. Whether they are commission or administrative level approvals, this transparency and openness in the process streamlines the

process and helps defuse issues with development before they start. We understand the development community's request to streamline the development process. However, relaxing the notification requirements would do the exact opposite Countless times we’ve seen issues get resolved before anything needed to go before a commission just because neighbors were made aware of a project, and had their concerns addressed by the developer. Neighbor notifications are vital to a code that works for everyone becomes it involves everyone and it’s a commitment from the city code itself to inform the public at every step. It is not only good practice, but vital if we want to have the trust and support of residents for the code.

Regardless of your decision tonight, or preferably after a districted council is seated, the most important actions you take are the ones moving forward. Are they responding to previous arrangements by the groups in our city, are they acting proactively to issues, and are they informing the public about the process? Even in adoption of the code by amending to reflect these three issues you have the power to set this city on a better arc. By respecting everybody’s agreements, responding to everybody’s issues, and informing everybody, you can fulfill the promise Jane Jacobs laid out of building a city for everybody.

Sincerely

Erik Steven Berg Planning and Zoning Director SouthEast Neighborhood Association

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:24 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Bonnie Shuster

Boise, ID 83702

Comment

Dear Councilmembers, I support the Zoning Code Rewrite and I urge you to do so as well. It will help Boise  increase its supply of more affordable housing in a sustainable manner. We need to be able to retain our  younger residents and maintain economic diversity, and we can’t do that if our housing is affordable only to  wealthy retirees from other states who pay cash and bid up prices. Our City needs to work for all of us, not just  those of great means. I welcome the idea of different types of housing in my neighborhood. Right now, when a  modest home is sold, it is scraped off and a mega‐home replaces it. How nice it would be to see a duplex, triplex,  or four‐plex instead. Please support the Rewrite! Thank you.

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, June 8, 2023 8:24 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Bonnie Shuster

Boise, ID 83702

Comment

Dear Councilmembers, I support the Zoning Code Rewrite and I urge you to do so as well. It will help Boise  increase its supply of more affordable housing in a sustainable manner. We need to be able to retain our  younger residents and maintain economic diversity, and we can’t do that if our housing is affordable only to  wealthy retirees from other states who pay cash and bid up prices. Our City needs to work for all of us, not just  those of great means. I welcome the idea of different types of housing in my neighborhood. Right now, when a  modest home is sold, it is scraped off and a mega‐home replaces it. How nice it would be to see a duplex, triplex,  or four‐plex instead. Please support the Rewrite! Thank you.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: keruha@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Kirill Sinyarsky <keruha@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:30 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] In Support of the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am in support of the Modern Zoning Code because we need more affordable housing.

Sincerely,

Kirill Sinyarsky

4723 Northwind Ct  Boise, ID 83714‐4761  keruha@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

From: Jane Slattery <janenancys@icloud.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 12:06 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Code Hearing

Please give this your attention. We live on 401 South Bitterroot Drive in Boise City.  On 519 South Bitterroot Drive there  has been a full size large red fire truck parked in their driveway for at least six months. They have no intention of moving  it. I have called on it and been informed that it is legal according to present ruling. Our neighborhood finds it offensive.   We would like you to drive by and judge for yourselves. I could send a photo. Seeing it in real life setting would be best. I  recommend changing the rule to no fire trucks park permanently on our drive ways in this entire neighborhood.  It’s  been affecting residential sales and  beauty of our  area. I would like you to give it your attention    I am. Jane Slattery  living with my husband Bill Slattery at 401 S Bitterroot Drive. We have lived here since the 1970’s and never had such an  awful visual before.  I could name many residents  who would agree with me.  Some may have called besides us. Thanks  for your consideration.  We would appreciate a written response to this situation.     Jane and Bill Slattery. June 6 2023

Sent from my iPhone

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:25 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Christina Smerick

Boise, ID 83704

Comment

Density in appropriate areas is good for the city, good for the environment, and preserves land from being  gobbled up by housing developments.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Karen Smith <stablewoman2@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:30 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Delay vote on upzone

IOn the upside, I have never seen an issue that has so united the right and left in every neighborhood in Boise (except for the north side neighborhoods and historic overlays which will be least affected). Let me say that I attended several of the informational meetings and left in dismay.

No matter how you package and market it, no matter how many words like “vibrant” and “modern” you dress it up with, you are asking every neighborhood in Boise to have their population double, triple, octuple, or worse, with no real benefit to us at all. You are asking us to accept more crowding with absolutely no guarantee that infrastructure and amenities will keep up. You are handing the keys to developers and promising us that people will somehow magically quit owning cars and start riding bikes and busses everywhere, and that a mixture of attractive businesses will be happy to move in so we can all walk to everything we need. We all know that is not a guarantee, and in fact, those are not human behaviors you have any control over. Not to mention that you don’t really have any control over what surrounding counties, ACHD, ITD, VRT or the school district will do to accommodate this growth in a timely manner. What is in it for us? The fact that you have worked so hard to market this idea to us (at our own expense) only makes us trust it less. A good idea sells itself.

I realize that we do need more housing, but lining State Street with unlimited apartments will add nothing but stress to the existing neighborhoods that will back up those developments. Is the goal to drive us all out? At the very least, the developers of any such structures should be providing adequate parking for residents and guests. They should also provide outdoor park areas for residents and their children, not to mention grassy areas for dogs to do their business, because there will be a lot of dogs added to the population, too. If that cuts into their profits, that is not the fault of the neighbors. And there should be a timely and guaranteed plan by the city for handling the amount of traffic this immediate increase in population will create. Has land been set aside for new schools? New parks? Nobody could answer that question at the meeting we attended. Nor could anyone answer when asked, “In what western city has this approach worked to create affordability, reduce traffic, and curb sprawl?”

As one of the rare unicorns who lives off State street who actually does walk, bike, or use the bus whenever possible, I can suggests some changes that would get more people walking and biking. The first would be making it easier to cross State to get to the bus stops on either side and be able to cross more safely. The recently added crosswalks are a failure in that regard. I have nearly been run over several times because drivers simply don’t pay attention, and the lights are set to allow left turning vehicles before I am halfway across. Almost nobody bikes or walks here because they do not feel safe. We need pedestrian overpasses. Yes they are expensive, but it would mean that those of us who do no longer have to push a walk button, wait a ridiculously long time, then get flipped off and yelled at by annoyed drivers who get backed up for several blocks to let us cross. I am not kidding. This happens a lot. I am willing to go through all that, but most people aren’t. Most people I talk to are afraid to walk or ride bikes in this area or allow their children to do so. Adding thousands more cars to our neighborhoods won’t help. We know that.

Please delay voting on this flawed plan until some changes are made. People are not feeling heard. I hate to think what kind of a council and Mayor we will end up with if you don’t return.

Karen Smith 3416 Hawthorne Drive Boise 83703

Madison Lockhorn

From: Matthew Sobeck <mpsobeck@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 6:44 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite

My name is Matthew Sobeck, I’m 30 years old and first moved to Boise in 2017. My wife and I bought a house  in the West End last April and I’m writing in support of the zoning code update. I understand the need for  zoning laws, I certainly don’t want a loud night club for a neighbor in an otherwise quiet neighborhood but  allowing more mixed use zones and denser housing will allow Boise to grow, and grow responsibly. My first  apartment here was along the Greenbelt and it’s what convinced me this city is the city I want to call home. I  had, for the first time in my life, nearly everything I needed on a daily basis within walking or biking distance.  Having to drive only rarely was a pleasant change coming from Denver where most of the time I had at least  20 minute drive to get anywhere. The sense of close knit community and ease that gives me is hard to  describe but when I had it I realized that I had been looking for it for a long time.

Boise has to grow but allowing multi unit housing and mixed use zones will allow it to grow and retain what  makes it already great. I applaud the city’s expansion of the Greenbelt and bikeways and I think the zoning  code goes hand and hand with that. I get to travel quite a bit for work and the best places I visit always share  the same traits. Walkable or bikeable (with good public transit for longer journeys) and diverse lively  neighborhoods with mixed use. Cafes and shops near residential and working spaces not only reduce  commute times and traffic but give cities a sense of character that many larger cities lack. I’ve stayed in many  a downtown hotel in a major city and been surprised at how dead it becomes after close of business. With the  increase in remote work these changes are even more needed to keep city spaces alive. Additionally we have  such a dire need for housing that a change is critical. Much of downtown is already out of reach for all but the  most wealthy and it shouldn’t be. Boise is such a special place and I think this zoning code keeps it that way  and more.

Matthew Sobeck

Madison Lockhorn

South Cole Neighborhood Association

Boise, Idaho 83709

June 8, 2023

Dear Mayor McLean and City Council,

We are concerned that the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) is being fast-tracked without thoroughreviewandconsideration.ThefinaldraftwaspublishedandpostedontheCity’swebsite on February 27, 2023. As such, only 23 days have been allowed to read and understand 611 pagesofthedraft ZCRdocument.Whyisacomplete overhaulof Boise’szoningcodebeingfasttracked, without consideration for public understanding and participation? The current zoning code has previously been, and can continue tobe, amendedtofix specific codes that need to be adjusted.

SinceIdaholawnowrequirescitieswithapopulationexceeding100,000toelecttheircitycouncil members from geographic districts, it should be required that this new sweeping overhaul of the Boise zoning code should be understood and approved only by a city council that is duly elected inourcity.Currently,twoofthesixcitycouncilmemberswillbeappointedbyMayorMcLeanand assuch,maynotrepresentthevoterswithinallofBoise’sgeographicdistricts.Itstandstoreason that approval of the City’s zoning codes and building laws should be postponed until after the November 2023 election.

There are several items within the new draft zoning code that are concerning and have not been addressed, although they were raised during draft public meetings, held by the City.

Some land uses will become “by right” in certainresidential zones. Retail sales and cafes selling alcohol have the potential to destabilize residential neighborhoods, with noise, traffic, and additional parking. The removal and changes of notification to neighbors and neighborhood associations,causesconfusionanduncertaintywithinacommunity.Thesebyrightdevelopments are a rubber stampfor developers without proper oversight.

The reduction of dwelling unit open space, from 375 sf to 200 sf, is also very concerning. For a City that calls themselves the ‘City of Trees’, this amount of green space is sadly small. By reducing green space in urban areas, we contribute to the heat island effect and reduce carbon sequestration potential.

The ability to split single family lots in the R1-C zone into four units will increase density, but seemstobenefitdeveloper’sincomepotentialthemost.Splittinglotsinresidentialneighborhoods

will not benefit residents in our community. This change will remove current affordable and established neighborhoods and will likely destabilize single family home areas.

Pleaseconsiderextendingthetimelineforreviewandapprovalofthezoningcoderewrite,sothat these and other public concerns can be adequately addressed.

Thank you,

Estee Lafrenz

Sincerely,

Estee Lafrenz

Estee Lafrenz, President South Cole Neighborhood Association Estee@SouthCole.org

Andrea Tuning

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 11:24 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Patrick Spoutz

PSPOUTZ@GMAIL.COM

753 W Sandstone Ct

Comment

As a member of the Citizen's Advisory Committee for the Boise Zoning Rewrite, and a contributor to Neighbors  for Boise, a pro‐housing abundance organization in Boise, I am proud to support the Modern Zoning Code. This  code takes a meaningful step forward by reducing parking minimums, minimum lot sizes, and allowing a mixture  of unit sizes. The biggest impact is likely to be the mix use zones.

I do believe this code could and should have gone further. Some  missed opportunities include: eliminating  parking minimums entirely, ensuring that small scale multifamily is feasible in existing R zones, truly small  minimum lot sizes (e.g., 1500 sq feet), and allowing for demolition to convert existing 1‐plexes to small scall  multifamily.

I trust that the city will, should it pass this rewrite, will monitor what works and does not work, and if needed,  will reconsider additional next steps in the future.

As the code is written it is a good and important step forward. I encourage the city to pass it.

Respectfully,   Patrick Spoutz   Neighbors for Boise

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:56 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Alyssa Stadtlander

Address Boise, ID 83704

Comment

I’d like to live here! I grew up here, and now work 3 jobs and still can’t afford to purchase a home, much less  rent an apartment. Let’s make Boise a stronger, greener walkable town please!!

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: xander@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Xander Starson <xander@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:07 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am writing to express my support for the Modern Zoning Code because I would like to see more affordable housing,  tree canopy and density.

Sincerely,  Xander Starson

7014 W Petrie St  Boise, ID 83704‐7421  xander@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: kateegaga@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Kate Stevens <kateegaga@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:53 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] In Support of the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am writing to express my support for the Modern Zoning Code because of the better transit opportunities  and the more options for new homeowners.

Sincerely,

Kate Stevens

11117 N LIBERTY St  Boise, ID 83704  kateegaga@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

From: vacbooking@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Samuel Stimpert <vacbooking@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:16 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am writing to express my support for the Modern Zoning Code because we need affordable housing.

Sincerely,

Samuel Stimpert

3637 N Willowbar Way  Garden City, ID 83714‐6566 vacbooking@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

From: zeraswhite@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Brittney Stone <zeraswhite@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:51 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite.

Sincerely,  Brittney Stone

1117 N Liberty St Apt 235 Boise, ID 83704‐2610 zeraswhite@gmail.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:43 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Maureen Stringham

Address Comment

Protecting Boise’s beautiful nature and making sure there is affordable housing for everyone is so important  during this time of growth.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Das@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Das Surrist <Das@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:03 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,  I am writing to express that I support the Zoning Code Rewrite Initiative.

Sincerely,  Das Surrist  1712 S Toluka Way  Boise, ID 83712‐8914  Das@globalbsn.com

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:23 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Skylar Swinford

Address Boise, ID 83702

Comment

"As a North End resident, I fully endorse the proposed Modern Zoning Code. This change is crucial for  accommodating Boise's growth and utilizing infrastructure effectively.

This new code is an essential first step towards increasing our city's density. I encourage its swift  implementation for the benefit of present and future residents of Boise."

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

From: Rochelle Sykes <ssykes98@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:51 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] I support this rewrite

Thank you.

Madison Lockhorn

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 8:16 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Trevor J. Timm

Email jromt17@gmail.com

Address Boise, Idaho, 83703

Comment

I live on 28th street and own my home. I have lived in this spot for over 6 years. With the current housing  market it is very unliekly I could afford anything in the neighborhood I currently live. I realize we are in a totally  different housing market from 5 years ago but still think it is important to try and bring down cost and improve  availability. I believe our neighborhood needs more affordable  housing. If that means apartments, condos, taller  homes, etc. I am for it. I have seen lots raised to build these huge homes which the current code allows so the  rewrite can't be any worse than it already is. I am for the zone rewrite. ~Trevor

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

From: Tony Torres <cyricvt@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:37 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Written testimony for Zoning Code Rewrite

Good Afternoon,

I want to write in support of the rewrite of the zoning code. I will try to keep this brief as I know you will be  receiving a lot of comments. First of all, I want to thank Mayor McLean, City Council, Director Keane, and  Planning staff for all the hard work on this and for providing a vision for the future of Boise. I support the  zoning code rewrite for multiple reasons. I’ll focus mainly on one in my testimony before City Council next  week, but I’ll talk about a couple of them here.

The first and most important is that Boise and the Treasure Valley (and the United States as a whole!) need  more housing. People who grew up here or who lived here their entire lives and are now retired are being  priced out of Boise. They are being forced to move out to Kuna, Caldwell, and eventually to Parma or beyond.  They also are being forced to leave the state. Boise needs to stabilize housing prices so that wages can catch  up. We’re also on the verge of a real crisis of people experiencing homelessness if we do nothing. We need  more missing middle housing that is no longer allowed to be built in most of the city. I know that city staff,  Mayor McLean, and City Council all know this. I do have a suggested change to the rewrite. I think the city  should make it easier to allow tiny houses. I think that could stand up more housing even faster than the other  changes.

The second reason to support the zoning code rewrite is the efforts to allow for housing types for those  starting out and for those who do not wish to drive or who wish to drive less. It’s a chicken and egg thing  whether density has to follow transit or transit has to follow density. We need both and I commend the plan  for leaning gently into that. In fact, I would urge you to eliminate parking minimums city‐wide and let the  market decide the amount of parking that is appropriate for new housing.

It is critical that we provide more housing and reduce infrastructure and water costs as well as get at least  some people out of their vehicles so that we can address climate change, conserve water resources, and  improve air quality. Boise can be an example of addressing all these problems and lay a good foundation that  so many cities have failed to do. We can lead the way. I urge City Council to approve the rewrite with my two  suggested changes above. However, I support the code as is if my suggestions are not feasible at this point and  I would only ask that City Council, the Mayor, and Planning staff consider them in the future if they cannot do  so now.

Madison Lockhorn

Thank you for all your hard work!

Tony Torres  2413 Pendleston Street  Boise, ID 83705

From: Allen Traylor <allentraylor@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 1:56 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] New Modern Zoning Comment

Greetings,

Per the current proposal for the area off Warm Springs spanning from the eastern portion at Bacon Dr. to the western  portion at Coston.

This area is suffering from traffic congestion with limited options for easing the traffic. This particular area is  experiencing additional traffic with added events at the Botanical Gardens and Eagle Rock Park. Warm Springs avenue is  becoming more and more unsafe with constant traffic and near impossible to cross. Adams Elementary school also  experiences this issue during school hours. Currently, there is no capacity to add more density to this area. Allowing for  multi‐plex housing would simply put more pressure on an area that does not have additional options for traffic control.  Moving from R‐1B to R‐1C simply is not in the best interest of this neighborhood and the safety of the large number of  children that play in the area.

Allen Traylor

Madison Lockhorn

I oppose this new proposal.

Andrea Tuning

From:

Suzanne Troje <cybersuze@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 4:14 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Fwd: A Plea for More Consideration of the Zoning Code Rewrite

To Mayor McLean, Current City Council Members and relevant city staff:

I implore you to delay a final vote on the "Adoption Draft" of the Zoning Code Rewrite pending further discussion and  representation on City Council.  I have written to you on a number of occasions concerning the proposed changes to the  Code.  Among other things, I requested further transparency on the changes that had been made, including a rationale  for them and a summary of public comments that had been received.  I personally have taken the time to review those  comments and it is clear that the final "Adoption Draft" is not responsive to the many concerns that have been raised by  me and others.  I was pleased to finally see an Executive Summary but it fails to provide any indication of the public  comments that have been received and is heavy on lofty ideals with no clear precedent anywhere on how the proposed  changes will achieve the stated goals.  There is much to be lost without careful consideration of the consequences and  impact on the citizens of Boise.  What is the rush? Why take away advance notice and citizen input to proposed  developments?

I understand there is an open comment period until June 8.  What is not clear is to what extent previously submitted  comments are being considered so I am providing you with this note and forwarding one of my previous letters.  I  sincerely hope they will be given meaningful consideration.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Troje

1408 N 15th Street

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

From: Suzanne Troje <cybersuze@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 4:03 PM

Subject: Fwd: A Plea for More Consideration of the Zoning Code Rewrite

To: <zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org>

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

From: Suzanne Troje <cybersuze@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 3:43 PM

Subject: A Plea for More Consideration of the Zoning Code Rewrite

To: Mayor McLean <Mayormclean@cityofboise.org>, Elaine Clegg <eclegg@cityofboise.org>,  <hwoodings@cityofboise.org>, <Jhallyburton@cityofboise.org>, <lsanchez@cityofboise.org>,  <Pbagaent@cityofboise.org>, <lwillits@cityofboise.org>

Cc: <zoningrewrite@cityofboise.com>

Dear Mayor McLean and City Council Members:

I am writing to implore you to truly consider the full implications of the proposed Zoning Code rewrite, in particular the  consequences for local residents. I appreciate that the City has invested significant resources in marketing the proposed  new Code to the residential community, and was particularly pleased to see Council Members Sanchez and Woodings sit  through the North End/East End “Neighborhood Conversation” that was held. That being said, it is quite disconcerting  that there were very few responses to the legitimate questions and concerns that have been raised in these meetings.

For example, a basic question has been whether there is a particular City that is a model for the approach in the rewrite  of the zoning code, or specific research or other proof, that greater density provides affordable housing and greater  transportation options. Neither City staff nor the representative of the Denver‐based consultant, Clarion Associates,  have been able to provide an answer to this question – one which I raised in writing to the City well over a year ago. The  answer given at the “Neighborhood Conversation” was that Clarion Associates had done work for some 50 cities. That is  not an answer. I also tried to ask a question about what benefits the proposed re‐write would have for existing  residents. That question was removed by City staff from the “sligo” app and not answered. Questions and concerns  about the preservation of open space, conservation of farmland and/or wildlife habitat, or the possibility of establishing  such areas under the new code have been raised with no clear response.

I have studied the available literature to find some answers for myself about the benefits of housing density, which at  first blush seems appealing, but the fact of the matter is it does not guarantee you will be closer to your place of  employment or necessary amenities such as a grocery store. The Treasure Valley has limitations with respect to existing  and future public transportation options which appears to be at odds with the proposed strategy of density as a one size  fits all solution to affordable housing. It does guarantee maxi mized profit for the developer who is now able to take  what previously was a plot for a single family home and extract rent from multiple renters, thereby increasing returns to  the developers and investors but significantly undermining affordability and quality of life.

The impact of the proposed zoning changes on Boise will be significant. The public has not been given sufficient time or  information to understand the ramifications of the new proposals, e.g., the fact that neighbors will no longer be allowed  an opportunity to review and comment on nearby developments that now can proceed with simply an “administrative  review.” This is a big carte blanche give to developers, and a big take from the existing community. Conditional Use  Permits should be required for bed and breakfasts, cafes, retail establishments, and attached wireless communication  facilities, and interested parties should be allowed a meaningful opportunity for comment on such proposed  developments. The proposed owner occupancy requirement for properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit is a must  have in any new zoning code. And, there needs to be better height transitions so that multi‐story apartments can't be  built directly next to single‐ or two‐story existing homes. The implications of prescribing lot sizes on the potential for  contributing to the demolition of existing homes for the sake o f converting to investor‐owned apartments need full  consideration.

In spite of all the “outreach” I cannot help but continue to believe we have been presented with a fait accompli facilitated by the hired consulting firm and in favor of investor‐driven development. Boise residents deserve to be given  a meaningful opportunity for comment on these proposals – some assurance and accountability for the decisions that  are taken. This seems to be missing from the current process. The City should postpone its vote on the Code until 2023  and after the new City Council is  seated by geographic district

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Troje

1408 N 15th Street

Boise, ID 83702

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:31 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Casey Tschikof

Email caseyt84@gmail.com

Address Boise, Idaho, 83709

Comment

It's past time for us to update Boise's zoning code and make way for the type of missing middle housing that  Boiseans need.

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, June 8, 2023 8:26 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Michael Van Lydegraf

Address Boise, ID 83704

Comment

I am a lifelong Boise native of 32 years, former unhoused child, and current homeowner. I am in support of the  Zoning Code Rewrite, and would like to see it go even further to provide more housing in the City of Boise,  reduce rent burden on our residents, and permit more mixed use zoning to promote walkable & vibrant  communities. As a professional engineer designing transportation infrastructure, I would like to see more dense  development along transit corridors (and expanded access to public transportation), which would in turn make  us all safer, more connected to one another, and less reliant on personal vehicles.

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, June 8, 2023 8:28 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Amy Vecchione

Address Boise, Id 83703

Comment

I am in support of the rewrite of zoning because I want to ensure that all Boiseans have a place to call home.  If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: Walt Household <boisewalts@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 8:30 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Support for updated zoning

I am in full support of the changes being introduced in the zoning rewrites.  I am represented by Lucy Willits and I would  ask that she vote in support of the updated policies.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Walt

Andrea Tuning

Geoffrey M. Wardle (208) 388-3321

gwardle@clarkwardle.com

June 8, 2023

Boise City Council

150 N. Capital Blvd. Boise, ID 83702

Re: ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

Dear Members of the Boise City Council:

As land use attorneys who regularly represent property owners in matters before Boise City, we write in support of the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. Our prior written comments submitted in April in support of this effort are attached as a courtesy.

Updating and modernizing the Boise City Zoning Code is neither a recent effort by the City of Boise nor is it a rushed process. This all began more than four years ago when Boise City undertook conforming its zoning code to its comprehensive plan goals. During the proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission, it became apparent that many who object to this effort are unaware of its genesis.

The policy decisions underlying this effort were made in 2011 when the City of Boise adopted Blueprint Boise. The Zoning Code Rewrite implements the policies and goals articulated in Blueprint Boise. We heard very little criticism of Blueprint Boise from the public during the proceedings before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ideally, this comprehensive revision of Boise’s relevant land use regulations would have occurred shortly after the adoption of Blueprint Boise. A comprehensive plan is only a guide, it is not an enforceable policy document. It requires implementation pursuant to an adopted zoning ordinance

Those that claim that Boise is abandoning its charm, its neighborhoods, or its roots ignore the policy decisions that this community embraced in its acceptance of Blueprint Boise. The housing provisions reflect the density standards and goals that this community embraced in 2011, with the fundamental amendment to the then existing comprehensive plan for Boise. The beneficial impact that timely implementation of Blueprint Boise potentially would have had on this city over the past ten years to have housed more of those important to the function of our community cannot be underestimated.

The time has come to move forward and adopt the Zoning Code Rewrite and the associated comprehensive plan amendments. Is the Zoning Code Rewrite perfect? No, it is not. Will there be the need to come back in the future and address the consequences of certain provisions? Yes, provisions

will require revision in the future Are there changes in zoning designations and zoning text that will require cooperative efforts to either modify or implement in light of past development patterns, existing development agreements, and economic changes? Yes, there are.

Is ensuring that both our parents and our children have the ability to remain in our community through the legalization of housing choices other than large lot detached single family residences important? Yes, it is not only important, it is critical to ensure a vibrant community, one where our workers can afford to live, one where our children can raise their families, one where our parents can remain in housing that fits their needs as they age, one that does not become a retirement community or an exclusive haven for the wealthy.

We support the actions of your Staff in bringing this forward and request your approval of ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001.

Very truly yours,

Geoffrey M. Wardle

T. Hethe Clark

Joshua J. Leonard

Preston B. Rutter

Geoffrey M. Wardle (208) 388-3321

gwardle@clarkwardle.com

April 20, 2023

Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission

150 N. Capital Blvd. Boise, ID 83702

Re: ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001

Dear Commissioners:

As land use attorneys who regularly represent property owners in matters before Boise City, we write in support of the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. We respectfully request your affirmative recommendation of ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001 to the Boise City Council.

A. Introduction

Under Idaho law, comprehensive plans are guides to future decisions. Such plans are not zoning ordinances, so to be implemented, they require adoption of zoning ordinance incorporating those goals as objective requirements. Ideally, this effort would have occurred in conjunction with the adoption of Blueprint Boise in 2011.

However, with the work that began four years ago, the efforts of Boise City’s staff, consultants, and citizen advisors have brought us to this point where many of the goals that were articulated for this community will in fact finally be incorporated in Boise City Code.

In evaluating a proposed zoning ordinance amendment, it is important that the creation and regulation of zoning districts “be in accordance with the policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan” as required by Idaho Code 67-6511. We believe that the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite reflects the culmination of the community planning effort that produced Blueprint Boise.

Blueprint Boise recognized that meeting its identified goals necessitated both “a range of housing choices”, as well as “a mix of housing types”, and “increase[ing] housing options”. 1 Blueprint Boise acknowledged that provision of a “mix of uses” providing for “a range of commercial/retail services” is necessary to reduce the need for vehicular trips.2 Blueprint Boise provided guidance on desired design

1 Blueprint Boise, p. 2-2

2 Blueprint Boise, p. 2-34

and development principles for the community, to “ensure future development in the city’s eleven planning areas is compatible with the unique characteristics of each area”.3

The Boise Zoning Code Rewrite furthers, and is in accordance with, all three of those goals: (1) promoting diverse housing, (2) facilitating true mixed-use development, and (3) establishing design and development standards. We will address each below.

B. Diverse Housing

Boise City is to be commended for the modification to the Table of Allowed Uses to include more diverse and alternative types of housing in more zones of the City. Appropriately, such are coupled with clear and objective use specific standards.

It is important to remember that the ability to zone property was held to be constitutionally permissible in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), where the zoning ordinance at issue was specifically adopted to restrict housing other than detached single family residences. Unfortunately, many of the objections voiced regarding the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite sound as if lifted directly from the decision of the Supreme Court which noted that “the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite.” Id., at 394. History has not been kind to this analysis. Housing should be recognized as housing, regardless of its form, configuration, or ownership.

Use-Specific Standards for various residential uses found in Section 11-03-03.2 of the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite are appropriate. They not only satisfy the housing goals of Blueprint Boise but they also further the development principles articulated therein. The provision of housing focused incentives is appropriate as such further both the goals associated with housing and sustainability in Blueprint Boise.

We are particularly in agreement with the proposed amendments associated with Accessory Dwelling Units as we successfully defended a client’s ADU permit in 2022 from a neighborhood appeal and believe that the revised ordinance would have improved our client’s plan to house an aging parent on their property, and would have permitted it to be processed through the neighborhood appeal in a more expeditious matter.

Housing, of any type, should be the easiest land use to approve. Housing is a fundamental human need. Housing is a necessity. Housing should be provided via a variety of housing types, detached single family residences should not be the default or the predominant type of housing. The Boise Zoning Code Rewrite does a commendable job of providing for a variety of diverse housing types and overcoming the historic bias in favor of detached single family residences ever since Village of Euclid.

C. Mixed-Use Development

Blueprint Boise was clear in the desire of this community to ensure that mixed-use development was encouraged throughout the City. With respect to the nonresidential uses that will be permissible within

3 Blueprint Boise, p. 3-1

residential zoning districts, the use standards which have been developed are consistent with the historic mixed-use patterns found in the vicinity of Hyde Park, Lowell Elementary, and the Ustick Townsite. These are the types of uses that existed prior to the spread of Euclidean Zoning, uses that were organic, and uses inherent in all neighborhoods.

We appreciate the simplification that has been undertaken in the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite with respect to the consolidation of the various commercial, office, and institutional zoning designations. It is clear that significant thought has gone into the resulting mixed-use zones which recognize the fundamental desire to ensure that specific uses and zones are defined not by paint on a map but rather by the function and relationship that such uses have with a specific land use or development type.

The organization of the MX-1, MX-2 and MX-3 zones, in particular, are logical and reflect easily articulable development typologies. The classification of uses and consolidation of uses are reflective of the described intensities and the specified dimensional standards. Most importantly, the inclusion of residential uses within all of the MX zones will be an important means of accomplishing the goals in the future associated with providing housing in this community.

If we have learned anything from the nearly 100-year history America has had with zoning since Village of Euclid, it has to be that the strict separation of uses has resulted in a society that has become car dependent, economically segregated, and sprawling. To accomplish the underlying goals of Blueprint Boise, a true commitment to promotion and facilitation of mixed-use development is imperative.

D. Design and Development Standards

Finally, the attention paid to design standards is a commendable element of the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. As set forth in Section 11-04-03, attention has been paid to ensure that dimensional standards are reflective of actual development requirements and to promote the goals of Blueprint Boise. Bringing improvements closer to the street while addressing setbacks at higher floor levels will further the goals relating to scale and design in a meaningful and satisfactory manner.

Moreover, the inclusion of specific building design standards as part of the actual zoning code is to be commended. As set forth in Section 11-04-06, this is an appropriate step in ensuring that some of the disputes over design review in the past are minimized. We would recommend, however, that the Citywide and Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines be evaluated next and conformed to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite to eliminate any conflict in the future and ensure consistency with the Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act.

We are also supportive of the provision that addresses many of the encroachments or exceptions to the various dimensional standards. By establishing clear design standards for elements that frequently require and frequently are granted waivers, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite simplifies many design issues that have historically necessitated a conditional use permit. Cupolas, screening of HVAC, necessary structural elements, and other design elements that make buildings more functional and more attractive and do not increase the underlying density should be treated as such. This will reduce the unnecessary administrative load that has arisen from requiring conditional uses permits that are wholly unrelated to the actual use and only relate to dimensional standards.

Most importantly, the design and development standard make the desired development pattern under Blueprint Boise the default form. This then results in enhanced review when there is deviation from the desired development pattern.

E. Conclusion

Far too often we hear at hearings the claim that decisionmakers are not implementing Blueprint Boise. We believe that Boise City is now in fact implementing Blueprint Boise with a comprehensive code rewrite that will encourage the type of development that this community, its neighborhoods, and its residents supported in 2011 with the adoption of Blueprint Boise.

We recognize that with any change, the unknown is the source of fear for many. We recognize that there will be provisions of the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite that will prove to be impractical, uneconomical, or ineffective when implemented. We recognize that there are elements here which will need to be revisited in the future but those issues can be addressed as they arise.

We believe that the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite should be recommended for approval to the Boise City Council. This four-year process, which is really an extension of the planning exercise initiated more than twelve years ago with the adoption of Blueprint Boise, implements the goals that the citizens of Boise said they valued in 2011 when it was adopted. We strongly support the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite.

Very truly yours,

Geoffrey M. Wardle

T. Hethe Clark

Joshua J. Leonard

Preston B. Rutter

Madison Lockhorn

From: Layne Watkins <layne@fullswingpr.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 10:01 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] SUPPORT FOR ZONING REWRITE!

Dear Mayor McLean and Boise City Council Members,

Thanks, in advance, for listening to those of us who are excited and ready to fight for equity in housing here in this  amazing city.

I was born in Boise in 1985. My husband and I bought our house in Boise's West End in 2012. Since then, we've  remodeled to accommodate our growing family. We've also begun plans to build a small ADU in our back yard to  accommodate our aging parents.

My parents have a small military retirement income and social security. They do not own their home and are now totally  priced out of even the RENTAL market! They are among so many aging Boiseans who aren't able to locate housing. We  want to help but face loads of red tape.

This zoning rewrite is VERY important to my family and VERY imp ortant to keep this amazing city welcoming and  wonderful.

THANK YOU!

‐ Layne Watkins

2405 W. Madison Ave.

Boise, ID 83702

Layne Watkins

Executive Assistant

C. 208‐863‐2511

E. layne@fullswingpr.com

How Business Can Support Real Change, Not Just Rainbows in Pride Month she/her/hers

From: Jan Werle <werlejan1@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 8:06 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] New Zoning Code for Boise - comments

Enforcement by Complaint only

The largest concern I have is over the current as well as the future code compliance enforcement. The nuisance code  defines areas of routine non‐compliance in Boise neighborhoods, and enforcement of this code depends on neighbor  complaints ‐ which cannot be done anonymously, and a public rec ords request is easily granted by the offending  neighbor in order to learn who reported the non‐compliance. Thi s pits one neighbor after another. I understand that the  City would like neighbors to talk to each other ‐ to work these items out. In our case, this hasn't worked; I believe that it  doesn't work in most cases. We have neighbors who routinely leave trash and holiday decorations throughout their yard  all year long; they park non‐working vehicles and trailers on their lawns or side yards or on the street for months. They  have non working appliances on their porches/patios or in their side yards; these nuisances remain that way for months  and years. My recommendation: If the City cannot enforce the code that threatens fines and a misdemeanor charge for  non‐compliance, eliminate the code. Don't require a neighbor to  report on another neighbor; employ the staff or  partner with law enforcement to do the monitoring.

Madison Lockhorn

From: Anne Wescott <annewescott8@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:13 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Cc: Anne Wescott

Subject: [External] Support for Zoning Rewrite

Mayor McLean and Members of the Boise City Council,

Thank you for this opportunity to present my support for your adoption of the zoning rewrite.

A native Boisean, I have seen my community grow and change in surprising ways.  Some were welcome ‐ "so much new  life downtown!" and some took more time to adjust to ‐ "I have to pay for parking downtown now?"  I have lived in  Boise for most of my life, and raised my children here in the house in the Depot Bench neighborhood where my mother  grew up.  I have also lived in larger cities including Seattle, Salt Lake City and Pittsburgh and bring that perspective into  my views about planning for growth.

In my professional career I have supported large and small citi es in the Intermountain West address the pressures of  growth. Most of my clients express regret that they did not anticipate and prepare for the impacts of growth over the  past 20 years. We cannot stop the growth in population predicted for the years ahead.  We can, however, adopt a  thoughtful plan for meeting the needs of growth that incorporates community planning strategies successfully utilized  by other growing cities.

Like many neighbors, I, too, am concerned about community quality.  However, I include in my definition of community  quality the degree to which we engage and welcome people into our neighborhoods.  I want to know that there will be  enough housing available at all price points so young families, retirees, and those at risk of housing insecurity due to loss  of employment, health issues, etc. can be meaningfully included in a safe, aesthetically‐pleasing environment close to  existing parks and schools, employment centers and other amenities.

If we are to respect our community's desire for fiscally and environmentally‐sustainable growth, we have to allow for  more density.  This has to mean infill development, and it has to mean multi‐family units.  This can be accomplished  without sacrificing community safety, overly burdening our transportation systems, increasing crime, lowering property  values or negatively impacting our quiet enjoyment of all the City has to offer.

I have listened carefully to the arguments from some that density will create a decline in our quality of life.  I live one  house off Kootenai Street, close to Latah, and the zoning rewrite could have a very real impact on my own life.  Not  wanting to to be a hypocrite in my advocacy for density, I challenged myself to consider the possibility that a multifamily  unit could be approved next door.  I walked around the block, considering what the size of the hypothetical structure  would look like in relation to my house and others, how traffic on my street would be impacted, how children in these  units would walk to school, etc.

3‐4 stories looming over my bedroom? It would be a big change.  Quite honestly, it would be weird. I have known this  house and this neighborhood since my birth.  I know all of my neighbors, as well as the 3 generations before them.  I am  used to my view of the trees and the sky, and the quiet of my street.

And it would also be fine.  I can make room for others in my neighborhood. I can welcome new people and care for  them like we already care for each other.  I can teach them how to access the flood irrigation, shovel their walk if they  are unable, and deliver a casserole when a baby is born.  I can put blinds on my windows and  learn to enjoy the sounds  of children playing on the street again.

Madison Lockhorn

We cannot ignore the fact that the gap that already exists in available, affordable housing is going to be challenging to  meet.  Future growth will only exacerbate the problem.  Infill development will not occur all at once, and our memories  of "the way it used to be" will be  replaced with new memories of healthy neighborhoods and pride in knowing we did  what we needed to in order to ensure that everyone could have a home.

I support the adoption of the amendments to the zoning code and encourage your leadership in preparing our  community for a livable future for all.

Sincerely,

Anne Wescott

1214 S Johnson Street  Boise, Idaho  83705  208‐860‐0133

Andrea Tuning

From: csaandrea@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Andrea Wilson <csaandrea@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:04 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I am writing to express my support for the Modern Zoning Code. We need more affordable housing; allowing for more  mixed‐use to our antiquated zoning laws makes that easier.

Sincerely,

Andrea Wilson  838 N Carmen Ave  Boise, ID 83704‐9778  csaandrea@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

From: tylerwattwolf@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Tyler Wolf <tylerwattwolf@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:06 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I support the Modern Zoning Code because we need more affordable housing and sustainability.

Sincerely,

Tyler Wolf

2411 E Riverside Dr  Eagle, ID 83616‐7527 tylerwattwolf@gmail.com

From: Avery Worrell <heyaves@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 4:20 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite

Hi there,

I'm writing to voice my strong support for the zoning code rewrite, for modernizing our zoning laws to allow for more  infill development, density, and neighborhoods with amenities within walking distance. We need the zoning code  update to help address the "missing middle" in the housing equation.

I live in West Downtown, over by Fairview Park. I'm able to meet almost all of my needs at places within a half hour's  walk of my home. It's done wonders for my sense of wellbeing, and I think more people deserve to live in neighborhoods  like mine.

Thank you,  Avery Worrell

###

Madison Lockhorn

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 8:22 AM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name

Email

Address

Tate Yager

Boise, ID 83705

Comment

As a homeowner in the Central Bench, I have come to realize how unbelievably ridiculous code is here. The ADU  code in Boise is behind every other major city in the PNW and west coast. Too much regulation, permit  requirement overload and building restrictions that benefit 1 group, the wealthy and established. It needs to  change and it needs to change now or Boise will never be able to house the next generation.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.

I am not a robot

Andrea Tuning

From: ianwhymusic@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Ian Yearsley <ianwhymusic@everyactioncustom.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 3:14 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: [External] Please Support the Modern Zoning Code

Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,

I support the Zoning Code Rewrite because I really care about the window coverings for birds and their positive effects.

Sincerely,

Ian Yearsley

4181 W Pinoak Ct  Boise, ID 83705‐3228  ianwhymusic@gmail.com

Andrea Tuning

From: K. Youtz <karenayoutz@hotmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 7:30 PM

To: Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; ZoningRewrite; zoninginfo; CityCouncil; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant; Latonia Haney Keith; Colin Nash

Cc: NENA BOARD; Amy Cook

Subject: [External] Please mitigate impacts of ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001 on residents in the following five ways.

Dear City of Boise,

In order to minimize impacts on neighborhood residents, there need to be: 3.) NO idling delivery trucks or  concert tour buses.  NO diesel generators running to cool/heat/run video games for parked tour buses or any  other vehicle (like an RV)

1.) LIMIT business hours for neighborhood businesses; none should ever be open later than nine pm.

2.) NO amplified music or television (sports games and the like) allowed outdoors at these businesses to limit  noise pollution, a published maximum decibel level for all indoor, amplified sound bleeding out.

3.) NO idling delivery trucks or concert tour buses that the air.  NO diesel generators running to cool/heat/run  video games for parked tour buses or any other vehicle (like an RV).  These should be illegal in neighborhoods.

Our shared goal of housing everyone and keeping the land, water, and air around here habitable for all species  needs to

4.) PRESERVE ten to one thousand times more green space with trails and wild space for animals and plants  without human intrusion

5.) PLANT trees upon trees upon trees to get North End percentage canopy in every part of town.  If Boise  could get to 50% canopy that would help with heat and pollution.

Thank you for your time,

Karena Youtz

1512 N 14th Street

Boise, ID

Phone available on request to this email address

Madison Lockhorn

From: noreply@cityofboise.org

Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 12:51 PM

To: ZoningRewrite

Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted

The following information was submitted:

Name Christopher Zimmer

Email

Address Boise, ID 83702

Comment

I support Boise’s Zoning Code Rewrite.

If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot

The second goal of this Zoning Code Rewrite talks about providing a coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing.

Affordable Housing is defined as a residential dwelling for which the household pays no more than 30 percent of their gross income for housing costs (including utilities) and where the annual household income does not exceed 80% of theArea Median Income orAMI. PG450

According to Boise’s Housing NeedsAnalysis in 2020. It is believed that Boise needs around 2773 additional homes every year for 10 years. 77% of those homes or 2145 new homes is needed per year for households earning 80% or less of AMI.

As I talk about the affordable units that could be provided by this rewrite, remember affordable units are only provided by developers and builders wishing to receive an incentive. And rental costs will go up whenever the area median income goes up. Whether your income goes up or not.

In Residential R-1 zones of medium to large-size lots the rewrite provides incentives to developers who provide up to 2 affordable units in buildings of 3 – 12 dwellings

In Residential compact and urban zones and mixed-use zones the rewrite has incentives for developers that make 25% of their units affordable to households making up to 60% ofAMI.

There are no incentives for affordability in the downtown zone, nor within most of the many Boise acres that aren’t located close to a major roadway or in a mixed-use zone. Single-family homes on their own lot will not receive incentives.

Let’s say that Boise gets the needed 2773 additional homes and that best case 25% or 693 are actually affordable. The Boise NeedsAnalysis says we need 2145 affordable homes This fair exceeds the 693 potential affordable homes this rewrite could provide.

This rewrite does not come close to encouraging the needed affordable housing.

Also, all of the incentives for affordable units are only provided in residential zones that are close to a major roadway or a mixed-use zone or are actually located in a mixed-use zone. This is not fair housing. What it does is segregate low-income households into less desirable areas; crowded area areas with excessive noise, less clean air, less space, less green area, less sunshine and no privacy, amongst commercial, office and institutional businesses.

This rewrite does not meet this very important goal. You must deny.

Denise Zimmerman

Boise used to be a great place to live. Just ask anyone who lived here before 2020.

People moved to Boise for:

• wide-open spaces,

• 206 days of sunshine:

• To experience all four seasons,

• an abundance of outdoor recreation

• the greenbelt and the river

• relatively affordable cost of living

• affordable path to home ownership

• low traffic

• great downtown area

• and because Boise is one of the most gun friendly states in the country. Then Covid happened. Boise still had all the great things it had before, but now there is an additional reason to move to Boise,

• minimal covid restrictions.

People who just wanted to get away, who had exposable income and jobs that let them work from anywhere, flocked to Boise.

Boise thrived. More and more people moved here. They brought their cars, clogging our roads, and purchased our homes, inflating prices. They shopped in our stores and dined in our restaurants. Boise was raking in unprecedented revenue from sales tax.

In 2022 Boise saw an unprecedented increase in sales tax revenue of 10% from the influx of people shopping to fill and renovate their “new” homes, dining in makeshift outdoor spaces.

Property tax revenue increased from unprecedented higher home sale prices, and valuations.

Boise was granted an unprecedented $36.9 million inARPAfunds.

Who benefited the most? The city of Boise, not the citizens, but the government of Boise.

Boise city hall wants more, they are giddy over the excess city revenue generated during one of my lifetime’s biggest disasters The Boise 2023 budget is based on the perceived idea that Boise revenue will continue to grow at unprecedented numbers. In order to grow unprecedented revenue, Boise will also need unprecedented growth.

Great! Boise planners have decided that Boise will continue to grow quickly, and we will need over 2700 new homes every year for the next 10 years. In order to keep all the new people and the revenue they generate from living elsewhere, the city believes they need to change the Boise zoning code to make sure everyone can have a home within the Boise city limits and specifically

close to downtown. Boise is expecting unprecedented growth and revenue to continue through an expected economic slowdown.

This doesn’t work

There are high expectations of an economic slowdown in the next couple of years. We don’t want a city full of half-built apartment buildings, as the interest rates go up, borrowing and investing slow down and unprecedented growth is just that unprecedented. It is not guaranteed. It’s possible that we are racing toward rapid growth when rapid growth is not racing toward Boise.

Before I mentioned all the great reasons people move to Boise, but I forgot to mention the things that are not so great.

WHAT’s not so great about Boise

• The homeless population has doubled in the last 3 years.

• Poor public schools. Idaho’s public school system is rated as one of the worst in the country.

• Lack of diversity. More than 88% of residents identify as white, leaving little room for diversity.

• Expensive homes

• Expensive rents

• Developers have not taken advantage of affordable housing incentives They only want to build and sell units at market rate.

• Aless than “best in class” transit system that continues to get smaller

• Concealed carry gun laws

• Inversions. Common in the winter and summer months, inversions bring with them low air quality or a fog that just keeps hanging around.

• Fire season. Smoke lingers in the valley from forest fires near and far, prescribed burns and general wood burning for residential heat.

• Boise is on a high desert with only 11.58 inches of annual rainfall.

• Hot summers. Boise hit 100 degrees on 18 occasions in 2021, 16 times in 2006 and 2007, and 14 days in 2018, 2015 and 2013, and 27 days in 2022.

• Cold winters. Below freezing temperatures do occur from October through May.

Boise is no longer that great place that everyone wants to move to and the new building codes aren’t going to make it any more desirable.

Remember the great reasons why people move to Boise I mentioned before. Here is how the ZCR affects those:

• wide open spaces – It is amazing how free and peaceful it feels to have a yard you don’t have to share with your neighbors. To many of us this is our wide-open space. The code wants everyone to live in a multi-family home, sans yard, with our windows looking directly into another multi-family building. Idaho will still have wide-open spaces, but you will need a car to see them. The ZCR makes it difficult to own a car. Many people with never see the best of Idaho.

• 206 days of sunshine - What is 206 days of sunshine, when you can’t see it from your own window. People living on the lower floors of a multifamily building, may not see any sunshine in their home. Sunshine provides a free vital nutrient, but in order to get this need met, you may have to walk down the middle of a street where the buildings don’t block the sun from you.

• all four seasons – yes, we will probably continue to experience all four seasons, but winter streets will be shaded from taller, close together buildings. Slick roads may stay icy all winter making it treacherous for driving, e-bikes, e-scooters, biking and walking.

• Outdoor recreation –The ZCR only requires 200 sq ft of open space when the size of the lot is 3500 sq ft or less. A3500 sq ft lot is allowed to have 12 dwelling units. 200 square feet for at least 12 people and their pets, isn’t what I would call outdoor recreation space. None of the larger residential zones are required to have any open space. When children are young outdoor recreation often comes in the form of a backyard, since they can’t or shouldn’t take themselves to the park We all need daily outdoor recreation. For children outdoor recreation will have to come when someone takes them to a park.

• Greenbelt and the river – the ZCR is not making the river nor the green belt wider or longer, or safer, but it does allow for building along the shores of the river and next to the greenbelt. The Boise greenbelt will become even more crowded with pedestrians, scooters, and bikes. Peaceful walks along the river and on the greenbelt, will become a thing of the past.

• Affordable cost of living – the ZCR does nothing to reduce the cost of groceries, utilities, day-care and entertainment. Likely the less desirable homes will go down in rent, but the more desirable home cost will go up. If Boise builds more homes than are needed, all rents and home values will go down.

• Path to home ownership – the ZCR incentivizes building apartment buildings rather than owner-owned units. It is likely that homes for purchase will go up in price as they will be built on the larger lots away from the downtown core.

• Low traffic – consolidating denser growth next to the main roadways, will cause traffic congestion that will be felt by everyone.

• Great downtown area – the zoning code will allow for high-rises to be built everywhere in the downtown core. Sunshine will be minimal, noise will increase. The ZCR doesn’t require larger sidewalks or less cars. Downtown will become a place that people will think about before going. Whether they have a car or a bicycle, where will they park? How much will it cost? They can maybe get there on a bus, but how will they get home after the bus stops running? There may be a lot of things do to downtown, but there is also a lot of things to do in other parts of the city and the surrounding towns, that are less hassle than going to downtown Boise.

• Gun friendly – the ZCR does nothing about gun laws, but it does potentially put a large number of conceal carry guns with and around people living in high density environments. There will be more people, more barking dogs, more loud music, no place to park and no sense of privacy.All things that can cause a person to snap. It is happening everywhere.

I ask the city council to think about the future of Boise as not just the next couple of years but 30 years into the future. I have two asks that I believe will help Boise succeed for the next 30 years.

Robust transit system.

The lack of a robust transit system, will continue to thwart any real change in Boise’s carbon footprint. Please come up with a workable plan for a working transit system. The plan must make it so people do not continue to drive everywhere. A working transit system needs to take them to where they want to go. Less people are working downtown. Transit needs to take people to where they work and close to their homes. Please do not make the city denser without a working transit system. The current one is not sufficient.

Keep the people we have.

I ask that you rethink this Zoning Code Rewrite. It does not provide the kind of housing where people want to live. I opened one of those articles about the best places to live. Out of 15 cities Boise was not mentioned, but Nampa and Meridian were number 1 and 2. This ZCR will continue to push people out of Boise while not providing any good reason for someone to move here.

Denise Zimmerman