CONTACT FORM SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL
From Stephen Cox stephenscox@yahoo.com
Phone Number: 2088531678
I am opposed to several elements of the proposed new zoning code for Boise, especially the potential destruction of historic R‐1C single‐family neighborhoods with multiple units on prior single‐dwelling lots. This strategy of "retro‐zoning" of existing neighborhoods will have negative consequences on the quality of life for those of us who purchased in R‐1C specifically because of its character. Let's not import the failed "New Atlanta Model" (Keane’s controversial zoning proposal, which included increased density near MARTA stations and eliminated parking requirements for most residential areas. It also reduced regulations for accessory dwelling units and was voted down by Atlanta’s City Council ‐ The Atlanta 100 online) which was wisely rejected there. Also, the removal of public hearings and input on redevelopment and simply allowing it by staff fiat puts our established neighborhoods at risk without proper public oversight. Further, with district elections for City Council coming in several months, the zoning decision should
1
Andrea Tuning
be deferred until those district representatives have the opportunity to understand the changes in their constituents' area and respond to locally‐focused citizen input.
Contact Form Submitted On: https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/city‐council/
208-608-7000
info@cityofboise.org
150 North Capitol Boulevard, Boise, ID 83702
2
Andrea Tuning
From: +18312399422@tmomail.net
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 11:25 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External]
Attachments: text_0.txt
I am opposed to the vote at this time for the Boise zoning rewrite. 1)There are appointed representatives that were not voted by those residents under their “representation “ and this is not right. The voters should be choosing who represents them, not the mayor. This rewrite feels like it is being pushed through in order to get it passed quickly before the election so that it will go the way the Mayor wants it to go. Not okay and furthers the distrust of our political leaders. 2)I am strongly against infill into established neighborhoods due to huge infrastructure failures that are guaranteed to happen at the expense of the neighboring property owners. If there are multi family buildings replacing single family homes, the schools will be over crowded & new schools will need to be built, more fire depts will need to be built and staffing them, more staffing for police, roads will be severely impacted from all of the extra traffic, as well as street parking. In my area there are at least 4‐5 of these types of multi family units with zero parking in property and they are parking on the street. There is not enough room for two cars to go through without pulling g over to let one pass. The extra sewage impact will force upgrades to be needed, the extra water use required will cause all of us to pay more at some point because of require upgrades that will be needed. All of these will be added to the existing property owners tax bills and NOT THE DEVELOPERS. They will profit and will not have to pay for the problems that these increased residents and needs to support them! This is all wrong to change our zoning after the fact of buying in a neighborhood we like! Increased property taxes to cover these infrastructure needs will likely cause many to not be able to pay those increased taxes and forced to sell!! Or maybe this is the plan all along! Pushing people out so bigger rents can go in?!?! The way it would be equitable is that a developer would be required to fund the infrastructure instead padding that buck onto the neighboring home owners! Especially, since the neighbors will have no say about what developers put in next to their homes. I was in an area where a 4‐5 story building was built next to single family home ( 1 or 2 stories) and
1
all privacy disappeared! It was horrible. Pulling in behind parked cars to let others drive by is also horrible and potentially dangerous! 3) it has been mentioned that Boise needs affordable housing. The rewrite has incentives for affordable housing but there is no accountability written in. How do you enforce the rules about who lives in the “affordable house?” And how is “affordable “ defined. According to the numbers I have seen, I can NOT afford a home in Boise. I do not make over 80k per year and there are maybe 25% of the people here than afford per those numbers and probably have homes. What about those who make 10.00‐ 20.00 per hour? What about the single parents? What about those living in cars and RV’s or tents? How are these people getting affordable housing for them? They are not making even 40k a year? This rewrite has not one thing for these people. The rewrite does not actually guarantee any affordable housing for those who actually need it. Affordable for those making 30.00 and up ‐ maybe. I hope that these things are considered and not just the work that was put in for the last few years. The rewrite needs to be revised to make sure all people are represented by the one they have voted for, that developers are paying for the infrastructure and shoving higher property taxes down the throats of existing homeowners ( many who have no kids, but would have to fund schools) and actually tackling h to e affordable housing ‐ for real, not just words! Sincerely, Teri Gardner 211 W Elwood Dr.
2
I am writing to support the City of Boise rezoning proposal.
Several years of my 25-year career at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) were devoted to working on local regulatory reform through the Joint Venture for Affordable Housing. HUD is still drawing on the information gathered from successes around the nation and makes some of this information available through its Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse
Regulatory reform has typically been the focus of Republican administrations. But near the end Obama’s term, he issued an Executive Order 13777 addressing the need to dial back local regulations to increase housing affordability and production. The last word on the subject came from the Trump administration through a report issued by Ben Carson his Secretary of HUD. So, remarkably, there is bipartisan, conservative-liberal agreement on this point.
In my own work, neighborhood opposition to affordable housing surfaces as the most malignant and effective roadblocks. Typically, this is known as NIMBY – Not In My Backyard Unfortunately, this was too often bolstered by weak political support for affordable housing and housing production – NIMTOO or Not In My Term of Office!
We know where that has gotten us. Nationally, we’re millions of new housing units short of what is needed and nearly every state is suffering from a shortage. Idaho and Boise are uniquely affected by recent emigration trends and growth, erasing any affordability advantage that it once enjoyed. Recently, the Idaho Asset Building Network reported that the state is short 28,000 units of housing and more than 9,000 units in Ada County alone.
Thankfully, the City of Boise through this proposed rezoning is taking steps to reverse this trend. The proposed zoning changes should present a more inviting environment to those who would add an ADU to their backyard or to a developer that would not otherwise be inclined to take the financial risk of developing housing where neighborhood opposition would be a certainty. This should increase the production of housing, shrink the shortage, and result in a more affordable housing market.
By offering entitlements to development, this will help mute the voices of opposition in many cases and reduce the cost and time of bringing housing development from the drawing boards to an onsite reality.
The State of Idaho has done much to eliminate affordable housing options that are routinely available to municipalities. Idaho has provided exactly $0 of its own funding for affordable housing and has only reluctantly reallocated recent federal funding for this purpose. Even Ada County has been miserly in its support. The Idaho legislature reaches even deeper to frustrate affordable housing development by eliminating inclusionary zoning, adopting regressive property tax policy for affordable housing, and frustrating mechanisms to raise funds for affordable housing that are available in all surrounding states (taxing ourselves for affordable housing, assessing real estate transfer fees, etc.).
Given the unfavorable affordable housing environment created by the State of Idaho, the City of Boise is working with the options left to it. It is looking inward for answers and the City of Boise controls its zoning. Zoning can be a powerful impediment or an incentive. The proposed rezoning has reached a good balance.
Gregg Colburn, co-author of "Homelessness is a Housing Problem", made the case in Boise that housing supply is a key factor in homelessness. The book's research demonstrated that a low supply of housing
combined with low vacancy rates exacerbates and increases homelessness. Boise's new zoning code is aimed at increasing the production of housing by removing regulatory barriers. It also adds affordability requirements. While I don't believe this is a complete solution to housing affordability or homelessness, it puts the City on course to better address these issues. If the city pairs its affordability requirements with infusion of federal, state, and city monies, it is possible to increase the impact of these investments while reducing the amounts that must be invested to make units affordable to households with incomes below 80% of the area median income.
Because the City of Boise is a HUD Entitlement Community and receives Community Development Block Grant, housing and homeless funding directly, it must adopt a Consolidated Plan. This ConPlan requires that the City evaluate the regulatory barriers that exist to block or impede affordable housing and to take corrective actions. The proposed rezoning does this and indicates that the City of Boise is leaning into the challenge rather than shrinking from it…the opposite of NIMTOO!
Boise's 2021-2025 ConPlan identifies its zoning as a barrier.
Page 87 of ConPlan: "Zoning code and land-use map provide limited acreage by right for multi-family units: Recently, the City has embarked on making significant changes to the zoning ordinance. The changes will allow increased building densities in more locations than historically permitted. For the past several decades, the number of parcels allowed on a given plot has been limited, impacting the availability of more affordable units generally derived from an increased number of residences and reduced material costs. Any developer proposing to build such housing needed conditional use permissions or rezoning to accommodate their project, which poses additional obstacles absent from conventional, single-family market rate housing."
The proposed rezone addresses the barriers to housing production and affordability identified in the ConPlan.
As part of the Consolidated Planning process the city must also evaluate impediments to Fair Housing and accessibility to housing by members of certain protected classes. Restrictive zoning is shown to suppress the production of housing and has a disproportionately adverse impact on these protected classes.
Another attractive goal of the rezoning is that it is intended to curtail (or, at least slow) the sprawl of the Boise into neighboring agricultural lands. At last year’s Idaho Smart Growth Symposium, a representative of the agricultural community pleaded with the Treasure Valley cities and counties to curtail encroachment on agricultural lands. The rezoning makes development more attractive within the current city boundaries. This not only moderates the expansion of expensive infrastructure and maintenance of roads, water, sewer, power, police, and fire service, etc. but the increasing density along travel corridors makes transit a more feasible option. This will reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality.
Economic development is sometimes a forgotten benefit of having an adequate supply of housing that is affordable to the people that work in the available jobs. Last year was the first time in my knowledge that Idaho employers appealed to the State of Idaho to do more about affordable housing. While our legislators only had to reluctantly reallocate COVID-related federal funding to housing, they did it. But this was a one-time infusion. Boise-area employers have realized the unmet housing need affects their recruiting and retention. Our two regional medical centers, BSU, and even Micron have felt the pinch
that the lack of housing has on their operations. The rezoning will provide a wider range of housing cost options and underpin a strong economy in Boise.
Lastly, I live in SE Boise. I expect SENA to submit testimony in opposition to the rezoning. As a past Board member of SENA, I wish to separate myself from it and whatever its position on the proposed rezoning. SENA, while it 'represents' southeast Boise, it is not REPRESENTATIVE of those of us who live in southeast Boise. For instance, there are more than 20,000 students at BSU. BSU is in Area 1 of SENA's jurisdiction. THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE BSU STUDENT ON SENA!
I urge you to approve the proposed Modern Zoning Code as it will help keep Boise vibrant and affordable.
Gary Hanes
992 E Riverpark Lane Boise, ID 83706
From: khaustveit <khaustveit@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 2:55 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Rezoning Vote
Boise mayor & City Council,
I live on a narrow older St. on the bench.The area is getting more infill with inadequate parki ng. This in turn pinches out those of us who have lived here for years. I ask you to rethink, rewrite and postpone the upcoming vote until neighborhood associations have all had adequate time to review the most current iteration and given input to you. Sincerely,
Kristin Haustveit
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
1
Andrea Tuning
To: Andrea Tuning, Planner
Fr: Idaho Manufactured Housing Association
Teri
Ottens, Planner
Re: Boise Zoning Ordinance Draft
Thank you for letting us clarify our original submission. Below are our comments (in italics) concerning the City of Boise Zoning Draft.
What the Code Currently Says and our Recommended Changes - Page 158 (additions are underlined and deletions are struckthrough)
11-03-93.2 General Standards, Residential Units
K. Manufactured Home
A Manufactured Home except when located within a land leased Manufactured Home Community, shall comply with the following design, form, and installation standards:
(1) Except in the R-1A zoning district it shall be multi-sectional and enclose a space of not less than 1,000 square feet.
(2) It shall be permanently affixed to the ground in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications with the running gear and towing hitch removed and set upon a foundation base having an anchoring system that is completely concealed under the structure.
(3) It shall be placed on a foundation base with the finished floor area of the home not more than 12 inches above grade or 24 inches above grade if the home is over a basement. Graded earth shall not be closer than six inches to the siding of the home.
(4) It shall have a foundation fascia that is similar in appearance and durability to the masonry foundation or other foundation systems on Single-Family Detached Dwellings in the nearby area. The foundation fascia shall surround the entire perimeter of the structure and completely enclose the space between the siding and the finished grade.
(5) It shall have exterior siding and roofing that in material and appearance is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used on residential dwellings within the city or that is comparable to the predominant material used on surrounding dwellings.
(6) It shall have a pitched roof with a minimum pitch of two inches of rise to 12 inches of run (2:12).
(7) If the majority of other residential structures on the same block have eaves, the Manufactured Home shall have an eave that projects a minimum of six inches along any wall that faces a street.
(8) Structures that are not manufactured or constructed in compliance with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 are not Manufactured Homes are prohibited within the city.
Why We Recommend the Change
We agree that homes placed in residential areas, either in Manufactured Home Subdivisions or within a residential zone with primarily site-built housing should meet these design standards. However, if they are placed within a land leased Manufactured Home Community there should be slightly different design standards due to the nature of the location and how Manufactured Home Communities are traditionally operated and managed. See our reasoning under Section L below for more clarification.
What the Code Currently Says and our Recommended Changes - Page 159-160 (additions are underlined and deletions are struckthrough)
11-03-93.2
General Standards, Residential Units
L. Manufactured Home Community
(2) Dwelling Unit Design Features Each dwelling unit shall comply with the following standards:
(a) It shall have a roof pitch of at least two inches of rise to 12 inches of run (2:12).
(b) It shall have a foundation fascia that is similar in appearance and durability to the masonry foundation or other foundation systems on Single-Family Detached Dwellings in the nearby area. The home shall be either permanently or semi-permanently affixed to the ground in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications or the Idaho Manufactured Home Installation Standard with the running gear and towing hitch removed and set upon a base or pad having an anchoring system that is completely concealed under the structure The foundation fascia shall surround the entire perimeter of the structure and completely enclose the space between the siding and the finished grade.
(c) It shall have exterior siding and roofing that in material and appearance is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used on residential dwellings within the city or that is comparable to the predominant material used on surrounding dwellings.
(d) It may be single or multi-sectional as space and lot setbacks allow.
Why We Recommend the Change
A land leased Manufactured Home Community (MHC) and a Manufactured Home subdivision are two entirely separate things and should not be combined into one category.
Reasoning for changes in Section (b) - Manufactured homes placed in land leased communities should not be required to be placed on a foundation that is “similar in appearance and durability to the masonry foundation or other foundation systems on single family dwelling in the nearby area.” In land leased MHC’s, homes may be either permanently or semi-permanently affixed, which is more often the case as the home should be able to be moved if the circumstances require it. The home is affixed to the land by approved HUD tie down systems and more often than not have metal or other type of skirting around the home. Seldom, if ever, does one see a permanent foundation, or material “similar in appearance and durability to the masonry foundation” in a land leased community due to many factors including:
o Cost of a permanent foundation
o Impracticality of a permanent foundation when the land belongs to the landowner and the home belongs to the homeowner and can be moved if needed
o The fact that a permanent foundation that fits the footprint of one manufactured home will likely NOT fit the footprint of the next home leasing the lot, will create huge removal expenses
We have also added the reference to the Idaho Manufactured Home Installation Standards as, under state law, new manufactured homes have to be installed under manufacturer’s specifications while used homes have to be installed under the Idaho Manufactured Home Installation Standard (see Idaho Code 44-2201).
Reasoning for Changes in Section (c) - Many MHC’s are not located in single family areas and are often fenced away from surrounding uses which raises the question on how they can be “comparable to the predominant material used on surrounding dwellings”. (Note that most MHC’s set their own standards for the appearance of the homes).
Reasoning for Adding Section (d) – Most MHC’s are designed to allow for single section manufactured homes so the multi-sectional requirement that is specified for homes in single family neighborhoods should not apply. Single section manufactured homes are very popular for smaller families, seniors and those in need of more affordable housing and should be able to be utilized within MHC’s in Boise. Adding a multi-section requirement will negatively impact many existing MHC’s that currently have spaces designed for single sectionals and may not be able to replace them, making that space useless.
What the Code Currently Says and our Recommended Changes - Page 159-160 (additions are underlined and deletions are struckthrough)
11-06-03 – Definitions
Page 473
Floodplain Protection -
Manufactured Home Community or Subdivision - A parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more Manufactured Home lots for rent or sale.
Page 490 - Manufactured Home Community - Any site, lot, tract, plot, or parcel of land, designed for the placement of 10 or more Manufactured Homes or Tiny Houses, located and maintained for dwelling purposes on a permanent or semi-permanent basis on individual lots, pads, or spaces; whether those lots, pads, or spaces be individually owned, leased, or rented.
Why We Recommend the Change
We recommend that the City separate land leased Manufactured Home Communities from Manufactured Home subdivisions in your draft. These are two entirely separate options in providing housing and should be treated separately. We believe that your subdivision section already covers the creation of 2 lots or more and it does not matter what kind of development it is (single family,
manufactured homes or even commercial). A MHC is a different option, most often involving a lot or lots under a single ownership with leased spaces.
We recommend adding the words “semi-permanent” as land leased communities lease their lots and when the lease expires the home should be able to be moved.
What the Code Currently Says and our Recommended Changes – Page 470 and 474 (additions are underlined and deletions are struckthrough)
11-06-03 – Definitions
Floodplain Protections
Page 470 - Existing Manufactured Home Park Community or Subdivision - A Manufactured Home community or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the Manufactured Homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the Effective Date of the adopted floodplain management regulations.
Page 474 - Mobile Home Park Community or Subdivision - Any area, tract, plot, or parcel of land, developed and designed primarily for placement of mobile homes located and maintained for dwelling purposes on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.
Why We Recommend the Change
The term “park” is not used anywhere else in the ordinance and is not defined. To avoid confusion we recommend sticking with the term “community” as used throughout the rest of the ordinance or defining the term “park” as meaning “community”.
IMHA would be happy to work with you on why these changes are necessary, including testimony before the City Council if needed. Contact information is:
Teri Ottens, Planner
208-869-6832
tottens@amsidaho.com
May 16, 2023
Tim Keane, Director
Boise Planning and Development Services
140 North Capitol Boulevard
Boise, Idaho 83702
Re: Idaho Power Comments to Boise’s Proposed Zoning Code Re-Write
Dear Tim,
Idaho Power Company (or Idaho Power) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to Boise’s proposed Zoning Code Re-Write. Idaho Power is concerned about the impacts to its critical infrastructure within city limits – namely, the exclusion of electrical substations in several zoning districts under the proposed Zoning Code Re-Write. Per Section 11-06-03, an electrical substation is defined as a “Utility Facility, Major”, below:
In the current Boise Zoning Ordinance, Table 11-06.1, electrical substations are considered a Conditional Use (requiring a Conditional Use Permit) in almost all zoning districts (except in N-O, PC, U and HS). In the proposed Zoning Code Re-Write, these facilities would only be acceptable in MX-U, I-2, I-3, A-1, and A-2. Without consideration for these facilities in all zoning districts, as shown below in Table 11-03.1, Idaho Power would be greatly restricted from effectively serving residents and businesses in Boise city limits as electrical substations would be deemed “Prohibited” since the boxes have been left blank.
In 2012, Idaho Power worked with local area leaders and stakeholders to develop the Eastern Treasure Valley Electrical Plan 1. The Electrical Plan considers the growth and electrical needs over a 20-year period and helps Idaho Power site locations for electrical infrastructure components based on future need. The Electrical Plan notes that Idaho Power must maintain flexibility to address future growth in the area. Idaho Power expects to revisit this plan with Boise, and stakeholders from other nearby jurisdictions, later this year (2023).
The electrical substation is a critical component of the electrical grid, reducing the voltage from electrical transmission lines to a level that can be moved locally, on electrical distribution lines, into neighborhoods, buildings, and businesses. Idaho Power owns and operates 17 electrical substations within Boise City Limits, with many located in residential and commercial zoning districts to best serve those customers locally. Idaho Power would be very constrained to effectively provide electrical service, in Boise, if substations became a “Prohibited” use, or existing facilities became “nonconforming”, as substations are the core electrical sites that allow power to be distributed out to surrounding customers. Idaho Power would rather take steps to better integrate or minimize the visual concerns through the conditional use process, than have electrical substations disallowed.
Ideally, Idaho Power would prefer all of its projects and facilities be classified as Allowed Uses under the City’s zoning code. However, we recognize the importance of land use planning, public involvement, and transparency with respect to any infrastructure project. With that in mind, and to maintain consistency with current practices in Boise, Idaho Power requests that “Utility Facility, Major” continue to be considered as Conditional Uses in all of the zoning districts listed on Table 11.03-1. Idaho Power is agreeable to a process that allows consideration of these facilities with fairness and transparency to all stakeholders. Alternatively, electrical substations could be defined as a Conditional Use under “Utility Facility, Minor”, below:
On another item, Idaho Power would like clarification on how Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) would be considered in the Zoning Code Re-Write. BESS are emissions-free utility-scale battery systems that are being installed by Idaho Power and other utilities to store and release power from solar, wind, and other renewable generation sources. As cited in the City of Boise’s own clean energy plan which identifies a goal for 100% of the electricity used by the City of Boise residents and businesses to be clean by 2035: “Boise’s Energy Future also acknowledges the potential need for energy storage technologies to support and supplement the increased renewable electricity generation recommended with this opportunity.” 2
1 https://docs.idahopower.com/pdfs/AboutUs/RegionalElectricalPlans/etvep/ETVEP_Report_Final.pdf 2 https://www.cityofboise.org/media/7676/ef-report.pdf
Boise’s Proposed Zoning Code Comments – Idaho Power Page 2 of 3
It seems that a BESS could be considered as a “principal use renewable energy facility” under “Utility Facility, Minor”. If not, Idaho Power would request the BESS facilities be listed under “Renewable Energy Facility, Accessory”, in Section 11-03-03.5 (H). The BESS facilities provide a proven, emissionsfree technology to store and leverage clean energy for use at high-peak demands, typically within an existing or expanded electrical substation yard. Idaho Power would be happy to provide more information on BESS facilities at the City’s request.
Finally, Idaho Power would recommend the following change in both definitions of “Utility Facility, Major” and “Utility System, Minor” The Idaho Public Utility Commission regulates, and does not control, investor-owned or privately-owned utilities that provide gas, water electricity or some telephone (landline) services 3
“…a facility required for the operation of a utility regulated controlled by the Idaho Public Utility Commission…”
On behalf of Idaho Power, we appreciate your time and effort to review and consider these comments on the Boise Zoning Code Re-Write. Please contact me with any questions or clarification, 208-388-2402 or jmaffuccio@idahopower.com.
Regards,
Jeffrey Maffuccio Facility Siting Coordinator Idaho Power Company
Boise’s Proposed Zoning Code Comments – Idaho Power Page 3 of 3
3 About the Commission -
IPUC (idaho.gov)
Andrea Tuning
From: Tim Kerber <tkerbs@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 3:55 PM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: [External] Zoning Changes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
We are home owners in the historic east end. We are property tax payers and our voices should be heard. We are not in favor of the Zoning Rewrite and we ask you not to support it
Tim & Mary Kerber
1428 E Jefferson St. Boise, ID 83712
1
Andrea Tuning
From: Michele Latter <youn9465@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 8:28 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Subdivision of land
To whom it may concern. I have attempted to read the new code to ensure I understand, but I don't believe it's highlighted.
History: my husband and I own 2103 N Hillway Dr. We built an ADU on the property, 2001 N Hillway Dr, with the long‐term intention of splitting the lot (with ADU on the new lot) and building a new SFH that would match the ADU. However, current code did not allow for the lot split with an ADU as the primary structure. The problem with this is that we could not refinance the land/ADU until the lot split had occurred, rendering us unable to afford building the new SFH (sharing the drive with ADU, as planned from the beginning‐ Derek Hurd is our architect).
I did not necessarily see clarity in the new code, can a lot split include an ADU, resulting in the ADU being the primary structure on the new lot. Thought I'd give my feedback, because it did cause us to halt the project, which seems to be what the rewrite is attempting to mitigate. I could be wrong, however.
I appreciate your time and expertise. Thanks for all you do, can't be easy to satisfy all of the voices.
Sincerely, Michele Latter 208‐4340‐0464
1
Andrea Tuning
From: James <jayno78@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2023 11:10 AM
To: CityCouncil; Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Request to delay vote on new zoning code
Mayor McLean and City Council,
After reviewing the proposed revisions to the zoning code, I am very concerned by the significant negative impacts they will bring to the unique character of neighborhoods across our city.
I kindly ask that you delay the vote until after January 2024 when the new council is seated. This delay will not only provide more time to consider this overhaul, but also ensure we citizens are represented by a council elected by geographic district. At present, I understand that only 2 of 6 Council members have been elected by geographic district. Waiting until after January will provide much better representation for those of us who will have to live with the impacts of the decision.
If the new code is as wonderful as some proclaim it to be, then
Sincerely,
James Novak East End Resident
1
there shouldn’t be a problem in waiting.
Andrea Tuning
From: Barbara Robinson <barb7780@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 7:28 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Fw: NO to the Upzone
Why the hurry to pass something as important as the Upzone? Delaying the vote is the right decision to make for the city, it will allow for more community engagement, and instead provide time to create a zoning code that is good for all Boise residents.
Keep in mind the best interest of the people who live in Boise, not the developers—especially those who live out of state.
Barbara Robinson
1630 S Londoner Ave.
Boise ID 83706
1
Andrea Tuning
From: dialedeyes <dialedeyes@protonmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 1:39 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Cc: Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Patrick Bageant; Jimmy Hallyburton; Luci Willits; Latonia Haney Keith; Colin Nash
Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
Not like you care one bit what the public/homeowners/taxpayers want based on the last meeting...I am writing to let you know that I reject the zoning code rewrite as it is currently proposed. There has not been proper amount of time nor public input to put this on the agenda right now.
Boise was claimed to be a desirable place to live the past few years. These new zoning codes that will bring high density and destroy our neighborhoods will end all that. Who wants to live surrounded by high rises and concrete? What happened to the city's commitment to neighborhoods?
Look to other cities and see what been done. High density has devastated them, increased rents and taxes for homeowners. And to implement this rewrite under the guise of affordable housing is simply not true. Putting high rise apartment buildings along bus corridors like Vista - has it raised the ridership? I'm sure it has not. Instead it's brought more cars into the neighborhood. Have you been on the roads during rush hour lately? It will continue to get worse.
Not to mention, THERE IS NO public transportation system here other than the bus that runs on limited time (really 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. - What a joke.). How can you have a city without public transportation?!?
As a homeowner, I have taken pride in my home in the Vista Neighborhood for many years. That is up until last year when multiple homes were demolished and a 4 story, 46 unit apartment building started being built behind me. The past year has been nothing but noise and dirt 5-6 days a week, making it impossible to not only enjoy my yard but for my husband and I to work from home. Do I want to live in this kind of neighborhood? NO! Do I want to leave? YES and am currently looking to get out.
I do not want my lot (or my neighbors lots) rezoned to 45 feet, therefore allowing more high rises to be built around my property.
Why don't we, as homeowners get a bigger voice? Instead, Council members, some of which are new and temporary, get to vote on the future of my neighborhood?!?
The rush to rewrite is inappropriate. I'm sure (mostly out of state developers) are knocking on your door to rush in and buy up everything they can.
There has to be more public input, time allotted and the vote deferred until the new council has been seated.
Don't Upzone Boise!
Kim Stuart
2421
Ona St.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: dialedeyes <dialedeyes@protonmail.com>
Date: On Thursday, April 20th, 2023 at 11:54 AM
Subject: Zoning Code Rewrite
To: zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org <zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org>
1
I am writing to let you know that I reject the zoning code rewrite as it is currently proposed. There has not been proper amount of time nor public input to put this on the agenda right now.
Boise was claimed to be a desirable place to live the past few years. These new zoning codes that will bring high density and destroy our neighborhoods will end all that. Who wants to live surrounded by high rises and concrete? What happened to the city's commitment to neighborhoods?
Look to other cities and see what been done. High density has devastated them, increased rents and taxes for homeowners. And to implement this rewrite under the guise of affordable housing is simply not true. Putting high rise apartment buildings along bus corridors like Vista - has it raised the ridership? I'm sure it has not. Instead it's brought more cars into the neighborhood. Have you been on the roads during rush hour lately? It will continue to get worse.
As a homeowner, I have taken pride in my home in the Vista Neighborhood for many years. That is up until last year when multiple homes were demolished and a 4 story, 46 unit apartment building started being built behind me. The past year has been nothing but noise and dirt 5-6 days a week, making it impossible to not only enjoy my yard but for my husband and I to work from home. Do I want to live in this kind of neighborhood? NO! Do I want to leave? YES.
I do not want my lot (or my neighbors lots) rezoned to 45 feet, therefore allowing more high rises to be built around my property.
Why don't we, as homeowners get a bigger voice? Instead, Council members, some of which are new and temporary, get to vote on the future of my neighborhood?!?
The rush to rewrite is inappropriate. I'm sure (mostly out of state developers) are knocking on your door to rush in and buy up everything they can.
There has to be more public input, time allotted and the vote deferred until the new council has been seated.
Don't Upzone Boise!
Kim Stuart 2421 Ona St.
2
Andrea Tuning
From: Sunset Neighborhood <sunsetna83703@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 9:25 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Cc: Michelle Doane
Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite Comments - Sunset Neighborhood Association
Dear Boise City Council Members,
On July 12, 2022, Boise City Council unanimously approved the Sunset Neighborhood Plan. This plan was developed over two years through a neighborhood improvement grant requested by the Sunset Neighborhood Association. The plan’s development was led by Sunset residents and included significant outreach to solicit neighborhood contribution through in‐person and virtual workshops as well as multiple surveys that were advertised by direct mail campaigns.
The final plan covered neighborhood visions and goals and included specific feedback on zoning and density preferences. Once adopted, this plan was folded into the broader Blueprint Boise comprehensive vision plan and was considered by city planners as the proposed zoning code updates were drafted. The Sunset Neighborhood Association Board appreciates the city’s effort in soliciting neighborhood feedback as part of their zoning code update process and encourages City Council to continue incorporating the views of Sunset Neighborhood residents and bu sinesses as they decide how to proceed with the proposed zoning code updates.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments.
Sincerely, Sunset Neighborhood Association Michelle Doane, President 208‐724‐7590
1
Andrea Tuning
From: Vista Neighborhood Association <vistanaboise@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 10:38 AM
To: Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; ZoningRewrite
Cc: Allen Sielaff; Marty Dufer; Michelle Dufer; Rita Fleck; Michelle Clement Taylor; Kim Bentley; Mia Russell; howe.chris45@gmail.com; tylermooremartin@gmail.com; Diane Sielaff Winn; gmarkphillips@gmail.com
Subject: [External] Vista Neighborhood Association's Comment on the New Zoning Code Ordinance ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001
March 26, 2023
Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council
150 North Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702
Dear Mayor McLean and City Council Members,
The Vista Neighborhood Association would like to request that the city council defer voting on the proposed zoning code rewrite until after the 2023 elections in November for the following reasons.
1. The Vista Neighborhood does not currently have a representative on the city council. Our association is particularly concerned about this situation because our neighborhood will be greatly impacted by the zoning rewrite. We would like to ensure we have a method to share our thoughts and concerns with the city council.
2. We would prefer there be more time allotted for Boise residents to read, analyze, and understand how these potential changes would impact our neighborhoods and way of life.
Thank you for hearing our concerns. If you have questions, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Mark Phillips, Vice President Vista Neighborhood Association Vista Neighborhood Association
VistaNABoise@gmail.com
Check out our Facebook
1
Andrea Tuning
From: Jacquie Wing <jacquiewing@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 11:02 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Upzone
Mayor McLean and who it may concern,
I grew up in Boise. I am outraged and so sad to see what has happened to our beautiful city and community by all the development. The trails I have ran, biked and hiked on for years are being taken over by housing developments. The animals are being pushed into dangerous spaces and out of their homes. Not to mention the amount of traffic. It’s ridiculous. I am open to change but this has to stop. All that Boise stands for and has to offer is slowly being taken. My kids and friends kids are getting degrees in college and still aren’t able to afford houses here. Please, please, please stop the up‐zoning. Please don’t put blinders on or promote this devastation in the name of money and opportunity to make a few extra bucks.
1
Concerned and sad Boise citizen, Jacquie Wing
Sent from my iPhone
Andrea Tuning
From: Donna Yule <donnayule@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 1:49 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Yes to zoning rewrite
I have been concerned about Boise’s exclusionary zoning for some time. I’ve also been concerned about the prevalent NIMBYism. I applaud the city for looking at a rezone, and I’m 100% in favor of the proposed plan.
Donna Yule
210 Wallace Street
Boise
Sent from my iPad
1
