June 1, 2023
Boise City Council
150 North Capitol Blvd. Boise, ID 83702
Members of the Boise City Council,
My name is Marc Seidenfeld and I am a volunteer with AARP Idaho. AARP Idaho is nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with more than 185,000 members dedicated to empowering people fifty years or older to choose how they live as they age. AARP supports the wider availability of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as an affordable, accessible housing option for people of all age. We at AARP wish to express our support for the proposed change to the Boise Planning Code under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite, Adoption Draft, February 2023, (Code) which would make the building of ADUs feasible in more areas of the city.
Older adults need more housing choices that fit their needs and their pocketbooks. This is especially true for those whose only alternative may be higher cost assisted living facilities, where the out-of-pocket costs are out of reach for many people who need long term care. ADUs are small houses or apartments that exist on the same property lots as a single-family residence but still provide separate living and independent quarters, and because they tend to be smaller and more affordable than single-family houses, they can be a good housing option for older adults who want to downsize but still live in a neighborhood setting. ADUs can be a way to offer lower cost alternatives and allow family to help with caregiving. Recent events, such as the COVID pandemic, show the importance of housing that allows for live-in or nearby caregiving.
AARP’s 2021 Home and Community Preference Survey (Survey) indicates that three-quarters of adults ages fifty and older want to stay in their homes (77%) and communities (79%) as they age. According to the survey, most adults would live in an ADU or in-law unit to live close to someone but maintain their own space (64%), if they needed help with daily activities (62%) or to save money (52%), while 62% would consider building an ADU on their property for a loved one who needed care, and 54% would for a family member or friend who needed a home. 1
1 https://www.aarp.org/research/topics/community/info-2021/2021-home-community-preferences.html
Under the proposed change in the Code, individuals and families can make informed decisions that meet their unique needs while also increasing the availability of different housing types through the option of building ADUs, within the city of Boise.
Housing affordability is a challenge for everyone in the community, but especially for older persons. Increasing the supply of housing can relieve some of the upward pressure on housing costs and provide older adults with more choices for their housing, without the need for taxpayer subsidies that are necessary for other forms of low-cost housing. It will allow older adults to remain in the community rather than having to look for less expensive housing elsewhere. This will benefit not only older adults but the community at large. Creating communities that include comfortable and affordable housing options and access to other elements that contribute to livability will be imperative as we seek to meet the needs of residents who are living longer, experiencing more, and retiring differently.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to share the importance of ADUs and the impact this will have on community members seeking to age in place, right here in Boise. We urge your support for the proposed changes to the Code. If you have any questions regarding the survey cited, please do not hesitate to contact Lupe Wissel at Lwissel@aarp.org or by calling 208-8554001.
Yours truly,
Marc Seidenfeld Marc Seidenfeld AARP Idaho VolunteerAndrea Tuning
From: Lorna B Auld <lornabauld@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 4:11 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Cc: Lorna Auld
Subject: [External] Zoning rewrite
To the Council: May 29, 2023
As part of a a group of 6 who divided up the 600 pages for the purpose of trying to understand this monstrosity. No one person in this group believes this is anything but illegal heavy handed political force.
To begin with, pages 208, 209 and 210 represent the most egregious statements in the whole code. Without a doubt, I will be requesting legal opinion. We might as well live in C hina for Gods sakes.
PG 402. I. 2 c. If a property is listed as historical, but does not perform in 20 years, when is it delisted?
Non contributing parcel owned by the City, I believe, and causing unsafe driving conditions for residents within a half mile or more. See the Spaulding Ranch and traffic on north Cole, Mountain View and Glenwood.
PG 406 Streets will become congested. Just adding 12 ‐ 20 new dwelling units will destroy all existing neighborhoods due to traffic influx. An ambulance could not move from the corner of Chinden and Glenwood up the hill to Cole road at any time from 3 to 5:30 as it is. Add more units and watch the mess.
PG. 410 (b) iii. Is for the public convenience or necessity or for general welfare… what about putting Glenwood through the Spaulding Farm to Cole road. That will promote the general welfare of everyone who traverses that section of road. There already is a real farm,130 years old, in Dry Creek. Why make life miserable for everyone for years just to satisfy the wish for Spaulding farm. It seems to me you could convince the Dry Creek for to open their door to student for a lot less money, effort, inconvenience and unsafe conditions than what you are doing.
PG 410‐11 (a). IV. What are you talking about, population balance. If every one in a single family home wanted. To live next to an apartment complex, they would live in an apartment now. You may not make a decision for me about where I live, the make up of the neighborhood I live it. It’s not in your job description.
PG 412. D (i). Has it been decided Garden City should or will annex the fairgrounds? What will be built there? Housing of any kind will only bring more traffic and we in this part of the city already know you care more about painting lines on the streets in downtown boise, and trying to force us onto buses than to dealing thoughtfully with the flow oof existing traffic. You want to put apartments out in my backyard now too?
PG 415. D. (B). Who makes this decision? The zoning board? A n unelected person or persons appointed by our current mayor whose standing as an American are more questionable every day
PG 416. 2Procedure (c) who makes this decision? An elected planner or someone appointed by this mayor?
PG 417. E i) and (n). Refer to the farm on Cole Road, the Spaulding farm, to see extreme hardship. Sitting unfinished but blocking a road completion for 20+ years.
PG 423. (4). (A) removal of Historic resignation. Why must traffic be so unresponsiblhy affected to accommodate a non working historic farm when there is a 130 year old working farm in Dry Creek?
PG 424. Remove historic designation
PG 426. (2). E ii. I am fairly certain if the conditional use permit for the Spaulding farm on Cole road was ever issues it has expired.
PG 428. H. (1). Ii, iii. Should this apply to them Spaulding farm?
PG. 430. I. (I). C. Major historic preservation action
PG 432. (3) (a) i B ii. Traffic concerns have changed immensely since the formation of this historic farm
PG 434. Legal non Conforming structures 4. C. “Shall not be replaced”
PG 436. Violation. A (2) f
Does this apply to all buildings in a historic overlay? Who makes this decision as to the amount? B. Who is going to monitor this for 50 years?
PG 437. Violation. B3
Is it legal for the City to bind any property owner to a rental amount for 50 years? What if the owner does not want the classification. T hat is a classic definition of governm ent control, isn’t that fascinating?
PG 437 3 B. Inspections
Who are these people? Appointees or elected? Will they carry weapons?
PG. 438. Very heavy handed, sort of Marxist I think. Who is this person, appointed or elected? Tha ts a lot of power for a bureaucrat
PG 439. 5. This might as well not be in here. Reference housing and the many compla inants with no follow up to a house on Maxwell Street.
PG 440. F. (2). “Offending building?”
PG 441. Definitions F. The qualification of this person must be p ublished.
If time allowed I would go on. I am totally opposed to the heavy handed weaponizing of local government.
Lorna Auld. 208‐890‐3898
Andrea Tuning
From: Michael Barker <mbarker4874@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2023 11:04 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Support for zoning rewrite
I am a Boise resident and I support the zoning rewrite.
Michael Barker
Andrea Tuning
From: Alyssa Behrens <a.n.behrens2@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 4:26 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Reject the new zone re-write
I am writing this email to urge 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 these folks 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, an Idaho native, a voter, and a taxpayer I urge you to change your stance on this matter. This will not make housing more affordable. 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, 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. This would be an incremental change that doesn't drastically change the feel of our neighborhoods.
I urge you to at the very minimum delay the vote.
Thank you for your time,
Alyssa Behrens (Sunset Neighborhood resident)
Andrea Tuning
From: Kyrsten Chaplin <kyrstenbrooke@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 9:58 AM
To: ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Patrick Bageant; Jimmy Hallyburton; Luci Willits; Latonia Haney Keith; Colin Nash
Subject: [External] Bench Zoning Written Comments Against
I oppose the proposed code and Bench neighborhood changes. I support public planning that protects homeowners, the integrity and stability of our neighborhoods, and Boise’s unique environment and quality of life. I seek a community-led zoning code that protects neighborhoods while accommodating compatible growth, not mass change. New development must not overburden infrastructure. Zoning should accommodate the feel of existing neighborhoods benefitting their residents, not developers. The Bench is mainly single-family homes which are why people purchase in the Bench. For the existing homeowners, the neighborhoods need to stay the same otherwise you not only ruin the feel of our lovely neighborhoods - you also ruin our investment in our property. No one wants to buy a home surrounded by multiunit dwellings. And don't get me started on parking.
The Bench is a beautiful place full of single-family homes. I've lived in my home 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 exactly what we do not want in our neighborhood. Don't get me started on the parking issues to come. 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 + vice versa. Everything we need is within walking distance. Our homes are all similar in size and have nice yard space - which is a desired checklist item for many Idahoans. Mass upzoning will NOT bring "affordable" housing. Anyone who thinks so hasn't worked in Boise real estate for over 20 years as I have. The only people who benefit from upzoning are the developers. We do not want multi-units, or towering units in our backyards or next door - it's simply not part of The Bench neighborhood. Keep our neighborhood "The Bench."
From: gcleverly@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 10:29 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
Boise City Council Members;
Before voting on the proposed Zoning Code Rewrite, I would ask you drive to the northwest corner of Ustick and Milwaukee roads. There you will see a ten unit apartment house being constructed on a lot that is undersized for this development.
The apartments are being constructed in the front of three existing businesses. Allotted parking spaces are inadequate. Residents and visitors will naturally look to the parking spaces that belong to the businesses. This will create problems for the business owners and their customers. The sight lines to two of these from the street has been eliminated.
This is an example of what will happen if the Zoning Code rewrite is approved. I'm not sure how this project was approved before the proposed Zoning Code Rewrite.
I'm asking as a resident of Boise for 50 years, that you vote NO on the Zoning Code Rewrite If approved it will be a detriment to existing businesses, neighborhoods, and property owners.
Sincerely,
Glen Cleverly.Andrea Tuning
From: Brock Domain <brockdwelds@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 10:03 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] My thoughts on the up zoning of Boise Idaho
Hello City of Boise zoning commission
I hope this email finds you well. I'm reaching out today to sha re some heartfelt concerns I have regarding the practice of upzoning within our urban landscape. While upzoning may promise certain benefits, it's essential to delve deeper into the potential negative impacts it can have on our beloved community.
One of the key worries surrounding upzoning is the strain it can place on our existing infrastructure. As density increases through upzoning, our already busy roads and public services may become overwhelmed. This could lead to frustrating traffic congestion, overburdened utilities, and stretched‐thin schools. We risk diminishing the quality of life for our residents if we fail to adequately prepare our infrastructure to accommodate the increased demands.
Moreover, I believe it's important to consider the potential loss of the unique character and charm that define our neighborhoods. Each community has its own story, shaped over ti me by the people who call it home. Rushed upzoning initiatives can potentially result in the demolition or significant alteration of historically significant buildings, loss of precious green spaces, and an overall shift in the aesthetic appeal of an area. The loss of these elements may impact our sense of belonging and togetherness within our neighborhoods.
Affordability of housing is another vital aspect that requires attention when discussing upzoning. Although the intention is often to address housing shortages, there is a genuine concern that upzoning may predominantly benefit developers and investors rather than offering affordable housing options for our residents. Without proper regulations and incentives, upzoning can inadvertently lead to the construction of luxury developments that cater to a select few, deepening existing housing inequalities within our city.
Lastly, we must address the issue of gentrification and the potential displacement of marginalized communities. Upzoning can trigger a rise in property values, rendering it increasingly challenging for long‐time residents, particularly low‐income families, to afford to stay in their own neighborhoo ds. The resulting displacement can lead to the loss of vibrant cultural diversity, eroding the very fabric of our city that makes it so special.
In conclusion, while upzoning may hold promises of progress, we must approach it cautiously, considering the potential negative consequences. By finding a balance between our need for growth and development and a heartfelt dedication to preserving affordability and the unique essence of our neighborhoods, we can promote responsible urban development.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns. I am eager to engage in further discussions with you on how we can address these issues and work together to ensure the sustainable growth and well‐being of our cherished city.
I hold a firm opposition to the upzoning of Boise in general. H owever, I would support the upzoning exclusively in the Quail Ridge (83712), Highlands, and Boise Heights (83713) areas. Or all areas currently zoned R‐1C north of the Boise river.
I kindly request a response to confirm the receipt of this email and to ensure that it has reached the intended recipients who hold the authority to make final decisions regarding the proposed rezoning.
Warm regards,
Brock domain brockdwelds@gmail.com
Virus-free.www.avast.com
Andrea Tuning
From: Betsy Dunklin <betsydunklin@me.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2023 10:28 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Cc: Chip Cole; Sarah Cunningham
Subject: [External] Support zoning rewrite
I am inspired by Sarah Cunningham’s guest opinion in today’s Statesman to tell you that my husband, Chip Cole, and I, who have been Boise residents for 42 years, are in support of the proposed changes to the zoning regulations for all the reasons Sarah listed. I can’t express it better than she did.
Betsy Dunklin
Boise, ID
Andrea Tuning
From: Ari Zickau
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 3:15 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: Fw: [External] Delay the Zoning Vote!
FYI below.
Office of the Mayor (208) 972-8520
mayormclean@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone.
From: Sue Froshiesar <sfroshiesar@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 6:26 PM
To: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>
Subject: [External] Delay the Zoning Vote!
Please delay the rezoning vote until a vote of the people can vote on our council members and hold a vote not during the summer when the citizens of Boise would be gone on vacation.
Andrea Tuning
From: Ari Zickau
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 11:21 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: Fw: [External] Upzone - please hold off
FYI below Office of the Mayor (208) 972-8520
mayormclean@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone.
From: Teri Gardner <tjgardner0424@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 11:29 AM
To: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>
Subject: [External] Upzone ‐ please hold off
Good day Mayor McLean,
I am writing to ask that you and the city council would please hold off on voting for the rezone of Boise for a few reasons.
1) Representation of some districts are appointed by you and not chosen by residents, many of which are home owners, that this rewrite of the zoning will negatively impact in many ways:
a) if passed, they will have no say in what goes into their nei ghborhoods.
b)They will be forced to pay for infrastructure, via property taxes, to support infill with multi family housing( traffic upgrades like lights or round abouts that were stop signs, fire depts and schools plus staffing of those, upgrades to sewage and other systems, etc.) Unfair to force these people to pay for something that they will have no say in and have to come up with higher tax payment to fund these things brought on by developers and city approval.
c) without required on property parking being required, street parking means people parked in front of their homes leaving behind debris from cars, unsafe for bicycles, no longer walkable for families, along with broken down/ abandoned cars left and taking up space. This also brings into play that there will not be enough room for cars to get through without stopping and pulling behind parked cars to allow for oncoming traffic to pass, bringing more risk to pedestrians and cars alike.
d) 3‐4 story buildings for 12 plex buildings will take away all privacy from those homes next to them, with visual opportunities for those who steal without regard to the law.
e) part of the infrastructure is also the Police. How does the city expect to hire enough police to manage the higher volume of residents in these neighborhoods, when the rising thefts are already happening and there are not enough police to take care of Boise’s needs now! I understand that we are well over 100 police short currently. The infrastructure for this should absolutely be managed ahead of any zone changes and approvals for the neighborhoods affected by this rewrite.
**There should be the opportunity for the residents of Boise to vote for their representatives.**
2) developers should be the ones paying for infrastructure since they are the ones profiting the most .
3) The rewrite of the zoning should have more work done to address these issues. Without the infrastructure, especially, being addressed, it is shoving down the throats of the property tax payers to fund the degradation of their own neighborhoods in the way of higher taxes without a say( sorry, not sorry, for repeating), increasing their population of
their neighborhoods which brings parking, litter crimes of oppo rtunity and traffic‐ all negative impacts, just to give developers more profit, bring in rentals for people who will not be paying for any of it.
4) I understand currently there are well over 1000 empty rentals now in Boise. The supply and demand idea is not goi g to bring down costs. I moved from an area years back that had plenty of empty houses. Landlords and property flippers will continue to raise prices to cover their expenses which is more than what is affordable in Boise due to stagnant and stalled wages as prices rose over the last 4‐5 years. There are also many empty homes for sale all over the Treasure Valley due to the fact that there is no real affordable housing for those who want to buy either.
Mayor McLean, there are just so many more negatives than benefits at this time and I would hope you would support the current residents that live in Boise in taking care of these negatives before allowing the rewriting of the zones and make sure that there are many more positives for the benefit of ALL of Boise and not just a few.
Thank you for considering this request to pause the vote and allow these things to be addressed so we do not fail line the cities who have already attempted and failed‐ Portland, Seattle, Austin and others.
Respectfully,
Teri Gardner
211 W Elwood Drive Boise
Andrea Tuning
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2023 8:05 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
David Gustafson
Email gustafson@ieee.org
Address Boise, ID 83702
Comment
Data shows cities with higher urban density have less affordable housing. Increased demand for housing in a city increases prices, which triggers increased building where possible. However, there is no evidence that the additional supply ever satisfies demand enough to reduce housin g prices. Instead, the increased density induces more demand, much like adding lanes to a freeway. We cannot build our way out of a housing affordability crisis. Upzoning will not solve the problem. All it will do is increase demand for existing infrastructure and services and forever change the character of existing neighborhoods.
https://www.newgeography.com/content/007221‐higher‐urban‐densities‐associated‐with‐worst‐housing‐affordability
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.
I am not a robot
Andrea Tuning
From: Ari Zickau
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 11:21 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: Fw: [External] Rezoning Code
FYI Below
Office of the Mayor (208) 972-8520
mayormclean@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone.
From: Ashley Henderson <ashleyhenderson424@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 2:46 PM
To: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>
Subject: [External] Rezoning Code
Mayor McLean,
Please consider delaying the vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite to allow for a more inclusive community engagement process, and wait to pass a zoning code that more current Boise residents understand.
Thank you,
Ashley Henderson Precinct 1812
Andrea Tuning
From: Amanda Brown
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 8:17 AM
To: CityCouncil
Subject: FW: [External] I am opposed to the Zoning Code Rewrite
From: Holli Woodings <hwoodings@cityofboise.org>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2023 9:22 PM
To: julie hulvey <jhulvey@hotmail.com>
Cc: Colin Nash <cmnash@cityofboise.org>; Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>; Patrick Bageant <pbageant@cityofboise.org>; Jimmy Hallyburton <jhallyburton@cityofboise.org>; Luci Willits <lwillits@cityofboise.org>; Latonia Haney Keith <lhaneykeith@cityofboise.org>; Amanda Brown <ABrown@cityofboise.org>
Subject: Re: [External] I am opposed to the Zoning Code Rewrite
Thank you for your input Julie. We’ll be sure it becomes part of the record for consideration.
Have a great weekend,
Holli
Holli Woodings President, Boise City Council District 5
On May 26, 2023, at 5:56 PM, julie hulvey <jhulvey@hotmail.com> wrote:
To Whom it may concern:
The public outcry against this rewrite implementation would sure give me pause if I were in a position to be a final decision maker. Many voices are involved for different reasons. Protect my home vs. give developers a free hand. Provide affordable housing vs. build more density which will be new market rate. Transit vs. vehicles. Corporate money vs. the wage‐earner. Rental vs. ownership. Rebuild older homes vs. using code enforcement and upgrades.
Of course, when you make decisions to acquire services, you do so with good intent and to get good information. I think that there are a few more necessary steps to take before you just accept the developer consultant's and the chosen committee's ideas. It is ok so say we (the City) have spent millions (maybe not that much), but we feel we still need to do outreach to our neighborhoods, and also reign in loose edges of the developer consultant's ideas. Other communities have seen these types of plans create great conflict and then fail.
Quite a lot of development has occurred without a code rewrite. I myself am in favor of hiring more planners, and refining the process of development. Because development is complex,
and the result of it does provide tax revenue to the city, it is financially reasonable to have an investment in city services that reflects that gain. It is not free, and eliminating oversight does not make it free. There is a cost down the road. There is a cost now. All development is not good, and that is the tenor of the proposed rewrite ‐ it is good and it is free, but just leave the expensive neighborhoods out of it.
The citizens need a voice in what happens around their property. Current planning and zoning ordinances need to be enforced. If you are wanting density, then don't speak from both sides of your mouths and allow eight homes per acre out along the periphery and force more homes per acre inside. If it works, it works for all developments.
Developers will always say it is too expensive to follow the codes, and that they need absolute entitlements without consideration for what is already there. If the city does not act in the best interest of the need of the city, what then do we do? Should we all live in the streets? The city needs to exact conditions for proposals that exceed existing density codes. There is nothing wrong with the current code. There is something wrong with the lack of enforcement of it, and the apparent lack of political will of the city to understand that a trade for density is also a trade for affordability, as defined by the guidelines of HUD, or whoever writes those affordability guidelines.
The citizens need representation and it is the job of the elected people to be sure that we are not deprived of that. I don't like the fact that the neighbors are taken out of the process, that the density is fluid within areas nearby busy streets being vulnerable, that you are wishing to swap R1 to R2 AND decrease lot sizes, that infrastructure is lacking, that setbacks have been reduced, and that in the whole process, you seem to have ignored voices that have asked for solutions to these problems. And, the proposed implementation just leaves out the "nicer" R1C areas and the 'larger lot" areas.
This is unsettling, makes me feel taken advantage of, and does not spread growth evenly. It also hurts me financially. Do I have to keep on talking 'till I can't go on? If you want to ask any questions, email me. Thank you. Let's go a toe at a time instead of a full‐on dive.
Sincerely,
Julie HulveyAndrea Tuning
From: Diane Keys <draekeys@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 4:21 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] 600 Page Upzoning Draft
I am one of several people who volunteered to study this onerous plan...specifically the first 100 pages of an expansive draft which seem to set up the following 500 pages of zoning changes and the overlay districts within these changes. As well, these pages referred to part of the draft code to which I had no access. This draft is so extensive that it would seem to need A LOT OF ADVERTISING AND HEARINGS (personally, I have heard very little on radio or TV) so that the citizens of Boise have ample opportunity to testify. The people need this forum to help decide how THEY want their neighborhoods to look like....it shouldn't be dictated by the City Council at their discretion. The Council was elected to REPRESENT, not dictate. Hearings should be held in different locations so the citizenry has easy access to attend and voice opinions. It appears much in this code is slated for a 50‐year "no change." How can one possibly know what changes may be needed during that time period, so why not bring that year restriction down to a more manageable level. Because this draft code references many other codes already established, it is virtually impossible for the ordinary citizen to plow through 600 pages and know exactly what it says. Not right!
This is a plan that needs lots of input and plenty of time to make acceptable changes and revisions so that Boise is our city!
What follows may not get into the crux of this odious plan, but will highlight my observations.
11.02.01, 3.B Overlay Districts (pg 7)
If property is already established with bldgs, residences, etc., will they be subject to new regulations and be required to upgrade? The particular language in 3B.1. is repeated throughout the part of the code I read, so same question for any established property for up zoning or overlay.
11‐02‐02, 1.R‐1A, D Residential Large Lot (pg 11)
a. No definition of Tree Class I, II, or III (which is probably elsewhere).
b. There is a buffer of 8’ to 10’ (depending on Tree Class) to beginning of sidewalk. How many feet of buffer between property side of sidewalk and start of building project? Case in point, building at corner of Franklin and Orchard. The building is practically on the sidewalk area. Trees look they're growing right out of the building. How did this happen? It looks terrible!!
2. R‐1B Residential Suburban (pg 13)
Current regs exist, so assuming no up zoning for this class? 11‐02‐03 Mixed Use Neighborhoods (pg 26,27,28)
1.) Is there MUN already in existence? If not, Where will these be located?
a. Downtown? Suburbia? Are they already platted?
b. What about parking for those using the bldgs since these seem to be walking‐only areas?
c. What defines a drive‐through facility? (Referenced Section 11‐03‐03.4R which I didn’t have access to)
2.) Mixed Use General (pg 29) – Again, where are these properties to be located and where is parking?
3.) Mixed Use Active (pg 32)
a. Define city’s “Best in Class Transit Routers”…Is this buses only, cabs, personal vehicles?
b. If buildings are already on this property, will owners have recourse if they choose not to comply with new ergs?
c. Define “support transit?”
d. Define Driveways (pg 36) no more than 200 linear feet apart? Is this in residential, business or what?
4.) Mixed Use Transit Oriented (pg 38)
a. Define “transit oriented”?
b. Each development (page 41) shall have a 400’ square landscape feature and 800’ square gathering place. Define development...one building, one residential block, etc.?
c. State St. mentioned in particular, what about other main arterials?
d. Will residential developments (pg 43) be affordable to the normal wage earner in Boise?
5.) Mixed Use Downtown (pg 44)
a. Will current bldgs be required to conform or just new bldgs?
b. Where will these properties be located?
6.) Mixed Use University (pg 49)
a. What are the boundaries of the University District?
b. Will current homeowners be forced out to accommodate apartments or whatever else this draft determines?
c. Eminent domain in the offing?
11‐02‐05 Open Land Zoning Districts (pg 65)
1. How much bare, open land is in city boundaries?
2. 1 acre up to 40 acre plots (pg 70). Will specs for sidewalks and trees be required even on 40 acre plots? Kind of takes the "rural" out of rural, don't you think?
11‐02‐06 Planned Unit Development (PUD) (pg 71) ‐ How many acres will be in a PUD?
1. Included in a PUD are parks, trails, and a certain percentage to include three distinct types of housing determined by draft code (11.03.1), not defined in this portion. Will this include housing for the average person’s income? Will these be houses, apartments, townhouses, condos or what?
2. Where are these plots of land?
3. Why a 50 year “deed restrict?”
11‐02‐07 Overlay Districts (pg 73) What is difference between “overlay district” and “re‐ zoning or up zoning?”
1. Hyde Park Overlay
D. Character Overlay (pg 74) – Restaurant parking ‐ 2 places per 40 people?? Where will rest of parking be for those wanting to access restaurant….streets? Doesn’t seem adequate.
F. Big Sky Overlay (pg 77) ‐ Why is this overlay singled out?
G. Sycamore Overlay (pg 80) – Why is this overlay singled out?
2. D – Capitol Blvd Design Overlay (pg 88)
Current hotels at Front & Capitol are practically abutted to those streets. How did this happen? It feels like a concrete jungle when driving in that area.
E. ‐ Historic Design Overlay (pg 90)
6. Acquisition of Historic Easements (pg 91) – Will eminent domain be enacted per Overlay?
7. Neglect of current historic bldg (pg 92)
a. What is penalty for neglect?
b. What legal action is available for owner?
3. Sensitive Lands Overlay (Pg 93)
E. Boise River System Overlay
Will citizens be assured there will be no law suits from homeowners along the river to “change the course of the river” to protect their property from flooding, as has been tried in the past?
6. Setbacks – (pg 98) ‐ Will future restaurants along the river be required to be 70 feet from center of river? What if river is particularly wide at point of property for the restaurant (or other building). Seems that 70' wouldn't be adequate to protect river banks and space between river edge and beginning of building. How will this be handled?
208.230.0943
Andrea Tuning
From: Michael Lanza <michaelalanza79@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 9:00 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Comment on zoning rewrite
Hello,
I’m going to keep this short and simple. I support the proposed Boise city zoning rewrite in order to encourage and enable denser housing development throughout the city and more affordable options to help combat homelessness. Please move swiftly and aggressively in this direction. Thank you for your work.
Michael Lanza
921 W. Resseguie St.
Boise 83702
Andrea Tuning
From: klavala21 <klavala21@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 4:01 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Rewrite zoning
I believe that the even the current zoning laws are to much. Houses are to close together, the apartments that are being built on a lot which already has 3 commercial buildings on it. The parking for those 3 buildings already use our neighborhood to park in. Now there is going to be 10 apartments on the same lot, where are they going to park.
This is not the only problem even with the old zoning codes. We are losing farm land and ability to feed the people of Idaho. Dairies are closing, cattle ranches are shutting down and what about corn and other commodities. This valley use to be able to support it's self. Not anymore.
Mayor McLean has ruined this valley there are gangs and drugs and more violence then I have ever seen. We lived next to the old prison and never locked our doors or cars. Now with all the refugees and people moving in from everywhere, I don't feel safe even talking to anyone on the street.
If you make the zoning laws anymore diverse or allowing closer building then this city is doomed.
Kathryn LavalaAndrea Tuning
From: davidmlentz@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of David Lentz <davidmlentz@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 7:47 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, David Lentz
1715 N 11th St Boise, ID 83702‐2708 davidmlentz@gmail.com
Andrea Tuning
From: Karen Leone <karenleone@mac.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2023 11:26 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] More bike lanes
Residents would like to see more bike lanes, separated from traffic for safety. There have been many fatal bike/vehicle accidents this year. If the City wants more people out of their vehicles and onto bicycles, the bike lanes must be made safer. My son rides his bike to work five days a week, from Meridian to Boise. It’s challenging and dangerous to say the least.
Karen Leone
Andrea Tuning
From: Gayle Mackey <addyroluv@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; ZoningRewrite; zoninginfo; CityCouncil
Subject: [External] Upzoning Boise
You need to delay this vote to rewrite the zoning code! It was done incorrectly and your job is to be fair in your dealings about matters that impact ALL residents and neighborhoods in Boise. Every geographic area should be represented and the current council does not represent all districts, so it is illegal!!! I can't imagine why you are all rushing this through and NOT LISTENING to your constituents, but I have some good ideas about that.
Do it right, delay the rewrite.
Gayle Mackey
Boise
Andrea Tuning
From: Gayle Mackey <addyroluv@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 3:30 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Upzoning Boise
Wow, I moved here to be close to my son as I am getting up there in years and need to be close to family. Where I could afford a home is just off State Street. It is already very different than when I first bought, just 3 1/2 years ago. Multiple complexes of house so close together that you can touch the neighbor's house if you stretch out your arms. House being built in backyards, just weird. Now, a low income apartment building is under construction a stones throw away and a homeless shelter just down the street. My neighbor rents out their extra bedrooms, so there are cars parked everywhere and no space for my own car, yay, that's fun! By passing this upzoning bill you are destroying the nice neighborhoods in Boise, period. Of course, I'm sure none of you on the board care because you all live in areas where this will have no effect, right. I'll bet my life that not one of you live near an area that can be upzoned!!!
You are all responsible for ruining Boise. It used to be a nice place to live. I hate it here now!!! And, so do all of my neighbors.
Thanks a lot!
The mayor and the whole board should be recalled! I am very much against the upzoning of Boise!
Andrea Tuning
From: Brent Mathieu <bmathieuboise@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 10:10 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Greetings,
I reside at 4130 W Plum Street in Boise, 83703.
It is my understanding that the proposed code change will affect my property zoning, allowed use, and neighborhood.
I realize that our City code needs a modern revision. I realize there are multiple positive effects proposed in this proposed code revision. I support the concept of mixed use, and increased density, when appropriately designed and constructed.
There are several issues of concern. Too many for this email.
One being is that I am not a developer, real estate broker, attorney, or property investor, other than my residence on Plum street. Therefore, I am not an expert on City planning, etc... , nor am I motivated to invest hours reading, analyzing and researching the impact of a 600 page document. I would prefer to trust City staff, and Council to act in the interest of residents such as my self, in a 'City for everyone'. This requires due diligence on the impact on my property, my neighborhood, small business, and other residents such as my self, whether renters or home owners.
One specific item:
I have resided here for 31 years. I own my home. I have invested tens of thousands of dollars in home improvements, including 'Green' energy conservation and generation, particularly a solar system on my roof. I live on the north side of Plum. This re‐zoning would allow development of buildings with a height up to 45 feet? Such buildings on the south of Plum, would likely shade my solar system in the winter, possibly in other seasons. Such buildings would definitely impact my property's privacy, street parking, and traffic.
I request that if this proposed re‐zone, and code update is approved, that any new buildings on the south side of Plum street, be required to be adequately set back from Plum street, or restricted in height to no more than 2 stories.
One way to accomplish this, besides paved parking, is to encour age community green space with dwarf trees, and gardens. This also provides an enhanced view as property amenity. Plus local food.
Don't take fertile top soil and put up more parking lots. Balance needs.
As indigenous people's wisdom teaches: Plan for Seven Generations. Plan for people and planet as a priority instead of short term profit, tax revenue, and politics.
I may choose to testify on these issues at the Council meetings, June 12‐14th.
Thank you for your consideration, and service to our City, and its people.
Earnestly,
Brent B Mathieu Boise, Idaho
Andrea Tuning
From: Ari Zickau
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 3:13 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: Fw: [External] Upzoning
FYI below.
Office of the Mayor (208) 972-8520
mayormclean@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone.
From: janet mccarthy <jmccarthy32062@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>
Subject: [External] Upzoning
There is no need to be in such a hurry to pass the new zoning laws. The people of Boise need to be included in these decisions that affect our neighborhoods; that did not occur.
I voted for you in the last election. I am not so sure you will have my vote in the next election. Colluding with real estate developers and single handedly replacing Lisa Sanchez(who was v oted in by the people) has led very much soured and scared me as to what your end goal really is. Please reconsider your decision and time frame regarding upzoning.
Sincerely, Janet
Andrea Tuning
From: Lana McCullough <tlmproperties49@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 10:22 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Opposition to zoning rewrite
As a lifelong resident of Boise I am urging you to reconsider passing this huge zoning rewrite before all the citizens of Boise have had a chance to understand, comment and be involved in the process on the rewrite. It has taken two years to get this far… and only a few months to rush this through before a more collaborative process has occurred in our community. It is a huge undertaking and should not be taken lightly or quickly. We are set to have a whole new city council soon and they should have the opportunity, as representatives of the whole city, to have a voice on this project. Boise is a beautiful city and this rewrite will change it forever and not for the positive. There are aspects of it that are positive and many aspects that are a sell out to developers and while it sounds good on paper, pushing this thing through in a short time will only cause more unrest in an alrea dy unsettled situation.
This has been crammed through with little public awareness. Again, the citizens of Boise have not been included and this rewrite will only line the pockets of developers, destroy neighborhoods forever and do nothing for affordable housing.
If my neighborhood is going to be destroyed then I would expect the same for the favored “historic districts.” Just because there will be fewer parking spaces, more walking opportunities, etc. people will not be giving up their cars. The demographics of Boise should be considered. I am 77 and sure won’t be hopping on a bike to the gym anytime soon.
Thank you. Lana McCullough
Andrea Tuning
From: Gene McGill <geneemcgill@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 9:56 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Support for New Zoning Codes
I live in the Vista Neighborhood. I know several members of th e neighborhood association are in opposition to the "up zone". I disagree.
Based on the information reported by local newspapers and included in letters to the editor, I agree that the city did the due diligence to organize zoning codes that will help Boise grow in ways that will assist reaching city goals for affordability and sustainability.
Respectfully, Gene
Gene McGill
geneemcgill@gmail.com
Cell 619‐248‐2373
Andrea Tuning
From: Ray and Ginger MITCHELL <mitchellsinidaho@msn.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2023 8:22 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Oppose Zoning Rewrite
After reading “Developers support Boise’s zoning code rewrite” in Sunday’s paper, we are opposed to the zoning rewrite. It appears this would allow our neighborhoods to become more crowded which would in turn cause more parking problems and congestion on the streets. Maybe SOME people don’t need a large house but there are plenty of families that do. Maybe SOME people don’t want large lawns to enjoy but there are plenty of us who do and plenty of us enjoy having the space for family and friends to gather. We do not want neighbors so close we can hear their conversations (or fights) and we want privacy when we step outside. If others want to live in apartments or not have space to enjoy by stepping out their back door then continue to allow huge apartment complexes to be built on vacant land, land that can be zoned for multiple units from the very s tart. Many of us chose our location because of the space we enjoy. Please do not change it! Please don’t allow every green space to be taken up by housing.
Sincerely, Ray and Ginger Mitchell
May 30, 2023
To: Mayor Mclean and Boise City Council
From: Gregg Ostrow, AIA
Re: Modern Zoning Code Rewrite
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Modern Zoning Code (MZC).
I have repeatedly stated that I am not against the concept and framework for the MZC. But I have also voiced concern about the details of the R1-C zone. The code’s starting point will be critical to its success and should be well thought out.
At this point, my understanding is that you want to pass the MZC and then work out the details over time. Is this the correct approach? Only time will tell. But please consider that it is easier to give than take away property rights.
Following are my 4 major concerns with the R1-C zone:
1. Removal of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Height Transition next to single-story homes with duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes.
The FAR and Height Transition currently exist for duplexes in the R1-C zone and were in the two MZC drafts. They were removed in the February 2023 Adoption Draft.
Today, and prior to the February 2023 Adoption Draft, I could demolish my home on my 60 ft. X 120 ft. property in the East End and construct a duplex with (2) – 2,000 sf. units and up to 25 ft. tall. With the Adoption Draft, I can now demolish my house and construct (2) – 4,500 sf. units up to 40 ft. tall.
I do not see how this will meet your affordable housing goals. If one of these larger and taller units gets constructed, then more will follow, and lot prices will rise. The current solution is to put the FAR and Height Transition back in. It can be modified later if the goals of the code are not being met.
2. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
The MZC does not allow more than 1 ADU. This eliminates the opportunity for me to keep my current house and construct a small duplex with 2-ADU’s. But I can demolish my house and construct a triplex
with 3 units between 2,250 sf. and 3,182 sf. In addition, I cannot construct an ADU with 3 bedrooms.
This does not make sense for affordability or sustainability. The MZC should allow 2 – ADU’s and 3-bedroom units.
3. Demolition
Demolition is strictly limited in the zone next to arterial and collector streets and near the MX- and MX-4 zones where the city is encouraging density and not limited in the remainder of the R1-C zone.
This appears to be backwards. The city has stated numerous times it wants to develop density along transit corridors. I have asked the planners to justify this approach but have received no response.
The starting point should reverse the demolition requirements for the two Incentive areas.
4. Neighbor Notification
The MZC removed neighbor notification for most projects.
The city has worked for many years to be transparent and develop the trust of the public. Yes, this has been cumbersome at times, but it has also created good projects.
One example is the neighborhood meetings with the developer of the Armory site moved one level of parking underground after discussions with the neighbors. Would this have happened without neighbor notification?
I feel that more thought needs to be put into this. For example, if you are demolishing a home you should have to notify the neighbors. As written today, the MZC encourages demolition. We need to discourage demolition and encourage adaptive reuse of existing structures.
I also feel that all neighborhood cafes and retail sales should require neighbor notification and should encourage adaptive reuse of existing structures.
We are a community and sometimes it takes a village!
In conclusion, the Modern Zoning Code goal of adding density to create affordability looks good on paper but could be difficult to achieve due to outside factors.
Sincerely,
Gregg D. Ostrow, AIAAndrea Tuning
From: Ari Zickau
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 9:00 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: Fw: [External] Zoning Rewrite
FYI below.
Office of the Mayor (208) 972-8520
mayormclean@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone.
From: Robert Rangel <robert4jc1@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 9:23 AM
To: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>
Subject: [External] Zoning Rewrite
I am opposed to the proposed zoning code rewrite for several reasons:
1. Half of the city residents, including myself, have no representation on the current City Council because of the manner in which the last election was held. 3 districts were excluded from voting for their own council member.
2. The proposed rewrite excludes public comment on most developments. This is the opposite of the touted “inclusion” the city states is a guiding principle for running the city.
3. Decisions on proposed developments will be placed in the hands of 1 unelected administrator. That is not democracy in action.
4. The loosened parking requirements for many proposed developments will push parking into surrounding neighborhoods, creating insurmountable parking problems for existing residents.
5. The rewrite will NOT foster low income housing as the proposed incentives are voluntary. Housing in every jurisdiction that has attempted high density apartment building have seen increasing rents, pricing out low income citizens.
For these reasons and more, I am opposed the the proposed zoning code rewrite. I respectfully request that any vote for or against be postponed until after the November city council election, so that every resident can have their own representative on the city council.
I am requesting that my comments be included in the public comments for the upcoming City Council meeting that will consider the zoning code rewrite on June 12. Roberto Rangel
8993 W Craydon Pl
Boise 83704
Andrea Tuning
From: Barbara Robinson <barb7780@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 7:34 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] No to upzone
I'm confused as to why this upzone needs to be do ne so quickly. I think it will hurt the current administration if it passes in its current form. I am a native Idahoan who lives in SE Boise. I understand the need for infill and affordable housing; however, this plan is ill conceived and has the potential to change the look of Boise forever. I also don't think it is beneficial for wildlife if we pave and build over every square inch of available land. This is the city of trees, is it not. A developer bought a lot in my neighborhood almost 20 years ag o and has yet to build on it. He took out an 80year-old Sequoia, among other trees, and it is now an acre of dirt piles and weeds. If this is what we can expect from an upzone, I am totally against it and will vote accordingly in the next election.
Barbara Robinsonl1630 S. Londoner Ave.
Boise ID 83706
Andrea Tuning
From: Ari Zickau
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 3:13 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: Fw: [External] NO to the Upzone
FYI below.
Office of the Mayor (208) 972-8520
mayormclean@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone.
From: Barbara Robinson <barb7780@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 7:24 AM
To: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>
Subject: [External] 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 your administration, it will allow for more community engagement, and instead provide time to create a zoning code that is good for all Boise residents.
I voted for you because I thought you had the best interest of the people who live in Boise, not the developers—especially those who live out of state. Don't prove me wrong.
Barbara Robinson
1630 S Londoner Ave.
Boise ID 83706
From: Doug Roloff <dougroloff00@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 4:14 PM
To: Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; ZoningRewrite; zoninginfo; CityCouncil
Subject: [External] delay the vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite
I am asking you to delay the vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite until the next City Council is elected and seated by geographic district in November 2023.
Andrea Tuning
From: Eli Sanders <eli.b.sanders@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; ZoningRewrite; zoninginfo; CityCouncil; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant; Latonia Haney Keith; Colin Nash
Subject: [External] Reject the Zoning Code Rewrite - (ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001)
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission:
I am writing once again to ask that you please reject the Zoning Code Rewrite.
While the Planning and Zoning commission approved the rewrite unanimously, it is clear from talking with many North End residents that the majority does not want this rewrite to be approved.
The zoning code rewrite only benefits the economics for out‐of‐state, deep‐pocketed developers, while destroying the character of single‐family neighborhoods for hard‐working Boise families. The tax base (i.e. the hard working, taxpaying Boise citizens) will leave Boise in droves if ill‐advised, one‐sided plans like this zoning rewrite are passed.
Failing cities like Seattle, that passed similar zoning rewrites, are losing tax paying families as their neighborhoods have been destroyed by similarly failed rezoning policies. Do you want Boise to be like Seattle?
Would you want a towering, multi‐unit apartment building with zero parking to tower over your residence? Most Boise citizens would answer 'no' if they were fully informed of the consequences of the proposed re‐write despite what the City of Boise staff are publicly suggesting.
Please abandon this ill‐advised proposed zoning rewrite. Additional considerations are noted below.
Sincerely,
Eli Sanders
The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input as a top‐down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No prototypes showing “worst case” scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been shown to the public so they may ascertain the impact on their homes. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 1000 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to exactly what has changed from the current code.
A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. One‐third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected, deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite a few short months before the November election. Only duly elected representatives should decide what to do about the ZCR. Proceeding to a decision with mayoral appointees is anti‐democratic in principle, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Moreover, the final ZCR draft was only recently released. As citizens begin to learn and rush to learn how their neighborhoods will be
affected by such a ZCR, the need is clear: this radical zoning change for the entire city requires a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR.
If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021) while “affordability” incentives in Boise's largest zone (R1‐C) only provide a small number of homes for those making 120% AMI (Area Median Income). By increasing density allowances, the new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it. The result will be gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market‐rate or above‐market‐rate multi‐units.
Reducing the minimum lot size in R‐2 and R‐1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High‐density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty‐year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established.
New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Reducing lot sizes in R‐1C and R‐2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into were stable. Many of these areas are in parts of the city designated as “stable neighborhoods” in Blueprint Boise. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on‐street parking, and safety hazards for children and individuals with accessibility limitations. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods.
Boise’s R‐2 zone has been re‐conceived as a higher‐density apartment zone similar to today’s R‐3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four‐story buildings and no limit on density. These areas are currently single‐family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Medium‐density neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University ‐‐ also bear a high‐density burden in vehicles, noise, and short‐term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems.
Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R‐1 to R‐2 with 45‐foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher‐density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step‐down height standards to the existing neighborhoods.
Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner‐occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner‐occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de‐facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de‐incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short‐term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single‐family houses. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. It essentially allows for building a second house in the backyard of an existing home.
Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner‐occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability?
The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of cottage developments and other higher‐density diverse housing (e.g. halves of duplexes, condos rather than apartments, etc.) to encourage owner‐occupied housing and more resilient neighborhoods.
The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts. Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non‐contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods.
The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example: • Industrial uses in the I‐1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.”
Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance.
In the R‐1B, R‐1C, R‐2, R‐3, MX‐1, and MX‐2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions.
The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” (Italics added)
Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side‐by‐side with existing single‐family homes in R‐1C and R‐2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property.
The proposed notification requirements need to be revised.The draft Boise City Zoning Code limits the requirements of notification for changes in the use of single‐family/household property to the adjacent property owner and occupants, including properties across the street and alleys. Following the Planning Director’s decision, the notice for appeal is only provided to residents within 300 feet of the proposed change of use. Change of use from single‐family/household use to duplex, triplex, fourplex, or accessory dwelling units concern the entire neighborhood, not just those nearby. Notification requirements must be neighborhood‐wide and include opportunities for comment and appeal prior to the Planning Director’s decision.
Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on‐site to on‐the‐street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single‐family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on
hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off‐street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning‐required off‐street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on‐street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships.
Only when a serious urban transit system is actually in place will it be realistic to plan for reductions in traffic instead of merely hoping for fewer cars and trucks on the road and parking on neighborhood streets.
The highly urban form the new code promotes will reduce non‐built space.This will create significant tree and green space loss, and minimal permeable areas. Other likely results will include reduced wildlife habitat, reduced vegetation to absorb CO2, lower temperatures and buffer climate stress. Public and scientific recognition of the importance of urban greenspace has increased greatly in recent decades. Current parcel zoning and development changes that City bodies are granting already erode greenspace and urban forest canopy in our Boise neighborhoods. As written, the ZCR will accelerate these greenspace losses and rob the public of our right to comment on greenspace‐altering development in the heart of our neighborhoods.
The Zoning Code Rewrite will eliminate Boise's power to negotiate with developers on a site‐specific basis. Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require 'Development Agreements' (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open‐ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site‐specific information and concerns from local residents.
The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single‐family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boise's at‐risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades and affect outcomes at election time.
The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R‐2 or R‐1C zones.
Andrea Tuning
From: Renee Sandmeyer <reneesandmeyer@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 9:12 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
I am writing once again to passionately ask for the current Boise City Council to delay their decision on the Zoning Code Rewrite until full representation on the council occurs. Several districts, including mine (4) have no representative elected by its residents. I am strongly suspicious of the most recent two city council members appointed by the Mayor. She has advocated for increased density and rezoning and has hand selected two council members with no commitment to my neighborhood but a huge commitment to her. My district (as well as district 6) will have a greater (negative) impact from this rezone than others whose districts have an elected representative. Given the Idaho Legislature mandated district demarcations and representation and the rezone will be so impactful to this city for decades, I request a delay until there's time for more discussion, a greater understanding of the 600 page rezones truthful impact to ALL of Boise and district representation occurs council wide.
Renee Sandmeyer 1705 W. Canal St. Boise, ID 83705 208‐297‐8926
Andrea Tuning
From: idtelegirl@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Shelley Zimmer <idtelegirl@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 4:40 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. The city of Boise’s Modern 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.
The modern zoning code ensures we follow the best practices to grow sustainably and responsibly.
I strongly encourage the Boise City Council Members to support this modern zoning code that staff and residents have spent years crafting.
Sincerely, Shelley Zimmer
2017 N 14th St Boise, ID 83702‐1104 idtelegirl@gmail.com
Letter to Boise City Council regarding the ZCR
Below are my detailed comments and recommendations regarding the current ZCR Draft. While there are many positive aspects of the changes in the code, I am going to focus on areas of the ZCR that I find challenging. In the comments below I examine the following key issues.
• Lack of transition between R-1 properties upzoned to R-2 and other MX and R-2 properties.
• Many R-2 uses are incompatible with residential areas.
• Upzone of R-1 properties to R-2 done inconsistently and unjustly, and not necessary
• New ZCR CUP Criteria is Too Watered Down and Facilitates Approval of Incompatible Uses in Residential Areas
• Tighter Coordination and Incorporation of Transit Plans with the ZCR is Needed
• The ZCR Will Fail to Deliver Affordable Low-Income Housing Without Mandates
• The ZCR Creates Winners and Losers
• The ZCR Pushes Density without Considering Significant Downsides
I also make the following recommendations which I strongly believe are necessary to have a workable ZCR. Central to many of these recommendations is complete removal of the R-1 to R-2 upzone which will be discussed in detail throughout the below comments.
1. Objective, measurable transition standards and requirements to protect upzoned R-2 properties as well as existing properties and single-story homes which may find themselves next to very tall
buildings must be provided. A good start in doing this is to first remove the upzone to R-2 completely.
2. Due to numerous inconsistencies in the execution of the R-1 to R-2 upzone, that upzone must be completely removed from the ZCR
3. Regarding CUP criteria and negative impacts, the CUP Criteria must be reverted to simple straightforward criteria language as exists in the current code such as “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity”.
4. The ZCR must have a list of requirements for the VRT beyond just defining “Best-In-Class Transit Routes” that facilitate the ZCR’s overall success. And, in turn, VRT must have development and funding plans that have legal binding to being able to meet those requirements.
5. It is a must to have a detailed, time horizon plan including funding plan for the Bus transit system for the city available prior to voting on the ZCR. This plan must be able to justify the density being encouraged by the ZCR in a timely manner commensurate with City plans for development based upon the ZCR. It is also critical that the city have agreement from other governmental agencies as a part of this plan.
6. The ZCR should be paused until the State allows local zoning codes to mandate housing that is affordable to those with low incomes. This will likely require that the city work with the Idaho State Legislature to achieve. While that is in process, the city could shorten this pause by working with other jurisdictions for best practice to implement voluntary inclusionary zoning as if it were mandatory until such time that mandatory provisions can be put in place.
7. The upzone of R-1C properties to R-2 should be removed from the ZCR Draft as it is unnecessary in light of proven gentler, more compatible, and more effective means of adding affordable units
8. The ZCR, either as a part of mandatory IZ or otherwise, should create affordability policies that will ensure additional low-income housing in wealthier neighborhood areas.
9. To mitigate negative mental-health outcomes The ZCR must pause and develop a more stepwise implementation plan that can be measured and used to guide next steps in the plan.
I know we all strive to create the best Boise possible, so I hope you objectively, fairly and without regard to politics, review these comments and incorporate these recommendations into the ZCR
Upzone to R-2 Harms Quality of Life with Untenable Conflicts of Height and Setbacks
During the PZC hearings on the ZCR, Director Keane repeatedly said, regarding the upzone of properties from R-1 to R-2, that it only applied to those [within] an 1/8 mile of the center of one of the three
corridors1 (State, Vista or Fairview). Yet examining maps of the upzoned parcels, we see numerous properties that are either partially within the 1/8 mile, completely outside of the 1/8-mile zone all being upzoned.
And while Director Keane claims, regarding the upzone to R-2, that “it doesn’t seem like a dramatic change … these are very small percentages” [Tim Keane, April 25, 2023 PZC Hearing2], this is simply a callous remark that dismisses the impact and generates distrust. It is in fact a major change that is extremely impactful to those who own these parcels, or to the thousands of owners of the parcels that are neighbors of the upzoned properties.
My family are among the unfortunate directly impacted residents who are proposed to be upzoned. My neighborhood is almost exclusively single-story, single-family homes that are near State St The proposed ZCR code would allow 70’ high buildings barely more than 5 feet away from single story homes that, since they are unfortunately proposed to be upzoned from R-1C to R-2, have no step-down provision. None. This was mentioned a number of times during the hearings with the PZC, yet no recommendation was made. Imagine the damage that would do to your quality of life – possibly casting your family’s home permanently in another building’s shadow. The proposed code must be changed to protect upzoned homes (or better yet, simply remove the upzone).
Also, now being in a single-story home (that is unfortunately upzoned to R-2) that is next to another upzoned to R-2 parcel, is a recipe for loss of quality of life and harm to the character of the residential neighborhood. The tangible pressures upon upzoned parcel owners will push them to ultimately leave, likely at a significant financial and emotional cost, to allow development for other uses and further gentrification. This most likely means high density rental units at the maximum height (4 stories, 45 feet) which will be needed to offset any acquisition and demolition costs. And, if your newly upzoned property happens to border a newly zoned MX-3 property, you could find yourself next to a 70-foot-tall building with NO setback. Having 45 foot and 70-foot-tall buildings a mere 5-10 feet away from a singlestory home is destructive, environmentally unfriendly (can you say permanent shadow), and, obviously, unjust. The proposed code must be changed to protect upzoned homes (or better yet, simply remove the upzone).
These issues are clearly illustrated in the first, top, diagram in Figure 1. This figure shows two example drawings that illustrate what this “modern” zoning code allows The first shows the ZCR Adoption Draft as proposed with upzoning from R-1 to R-2 This extremely hostile scenario shown is possible in our family’s neighborhood Clearly shown are the lack of any transitions to protect the single-story home since it is now R-2 which gets no transition protections.
No transition protections mean the potential for a 45-foot-tall building just 10 feet away from our house, and for some of our neighbors, a 70-foot building even closer at only 5 feet away since MX-3 can build right up to the side lot line. The only protection granted is a small 5-foot additional setback on the third story of the 45-foot-tall R-2 building which is already required in R-2 because its adjacent to a single-story home.
1 For example see 12:15 into video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2RfJQeJkGM
2 Director Keane reiterated this at 6:07 in the video from April 26 as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9sxp08S788
And though the ZCR says in 11-3.3.2H “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 [...]”, there are NO objective standards listed or required. As a result, NO protections can be expected. Say goodbye to quality of life and privacy
Additionally, this degree of development intensity, and lack of transition into neighborhood housing is not what is contemplated in Blueprint Boise which, in Principle IDP-C.1: Transitions to Adjacent Neighborhoods, specifies the need to provide “transitions between higher-intensity corridor development and adjacent neighborhoods as follows: [ ] Provide gradual decreases in building height and mass so that new structures have a comparable scale as adjacent homes along the shared lot line or street frontage”
Clearly objective, measurable transition standards and requirements to protect upzoned R-2 properties as well as existing properties and single-story homes which may find themselves next to very tall buildings (such as the 70 foot building in this example) must be provided. A good start in doing this is to first remove the upzone to R-2 completely.
The removal of the R-1 to R-2 upzone from the ZCR Draft is shown in the second, bottom, example in Figure 1. Although I still wouldn’t want to be that house in the middle – it is preferable to the first example. There is a lower overall height and bulk on the adjacent residential property which remains R1C without the upzone (3 stories and 40’ instead of 4 stories and 45’), and the MX-3 property with the 70’ high building is 5 feet further away at ground level, and then has the transition required step-backs of 20 feet above 35 feet of height, and an additional 10 feet above 45 feet of height. This pulls the tower far enough away that it doesn’t just loom over the house. Still not desirable though.
Upzone to R-2 Harms Quality of Life by Encouraging Incompatible Uses
And now consider what the ZCR allows those upzoned parcels to become beyond just multi-family apartments. How about a cafe serving alcohol? This cafe can be open from 7 am to 8 pm and be next door to a single-family home. It could have an outdoor patio creating numerous noise issues for virtually all waking hours of the day. Then considering deliveries/pickups that will need to be made and the needed prep prior to opening and after closing, and you have a nightmare scenario for a neighboring parcel. Now imagine that house, maybe yours, next door to the new café has young children. How could a proposed code subject children to the risk of being mere feet from a public drinking establishment (that serves food). Bad idea!
Or instead of a café your neighbor could become a retail shop, or a large group home, mausoleum, halfway house, etc., it could even have an accessory food truck with no restrictions in the ZCR Draft on its hours of operation! All of these uses will have proven negative impacts to properties in the vicinity.
These new upzoned and expanded neighboring R-2 uses, aside from laying waste to the ZCR’s stated purpose of protecting the character of residential areas, run counter to neighborhood plans (such as that of VPNA3 which is a part of the Blueprint Boise), and will certainly damage the quiet enjoyment of one’s property, destroy residents’ quality of life, and runs directly against the base principals of Blueprint Boise which is to preserve quality of life
Upzone to R-2 Was Done Inconsistently and Must Be Removed from the ZCR
And while Blueprint Boise may consider large portions of neighborhoods such as Veteran’s Park to be an area of change, that is primarily due to the city’s planning efforts which are working to de-stabilize itand with little to no consideration for the residents.
We must ask why properties SW of State St and Alamosa, for example, are “protected” from the upzone to R-2 (see the green shaded properties in Figure 2), while those NE of State St have an expanded upzone beyond the 1/8 mile (see the pink shaded properties in Figure 2). Housing types on both sides are similar, with a similar amount of development activity. Not to mention some of the properties on the SW side are also within the MX-4 node radius for the Collister and State. Also, Director Keane simply saying the properties to the SW are in “Suburban” land use, ignores the fact that numerous R-2 properties already exist in the city’s Suburban land use areas, clearly showing the city already believes that R-2 zoning is compatible with Suburban land use
Now, let’s return to, and examine, the 1/8-mile upzone comment that Director Keane made several times during April’s PZC hearing and that I touched on at the beginning of this document The reality is that 18% of all upzoned to R-2 properties, including my family’s property, are not within the 1/8-mile zone Director Keane said was being followed And, there are 1,235 R-1C properties fully within the 1/8mile zone that are not being upzoned to R-2 Director Keane tries to explain this by saying those near Alamosa are planned in Blueprint Boise as suburban. But as mentioned above this argument falls flat as throughout the three corridors the not upzoned R-1C properties vary considerably, and there are numerous R-2 properties in the Suburban land use as well, including those within the 1/8-mile zone around State St. Director Keane then indicates these inconsistencies are to accommodate roads, but of course, that is applied in an inconsistent manner as well along the three corridors (and we will see an example near Arthur a bit further in these comments).
I expect Director Keane and Staff will continue to justify these many inconsistencies in the upzone to R-2 with new reasons, but that is just defining the rules after-the-fact. Why are there no clear explanations anywhere in the proposed ZCR that details exactly and correctly how the upzone was executed? And, more importantly, if as Director Keane said “[the upzone] doesn’t seem like a dramatic change … these are very small percentages”, why isn’t the city and PZC reaching out directly, one-on-one, with each impacted owner, and their neighbors, who are subjected to the upzone and its impact? Likely because it is a dramatic change, and it’s easier to get it passed without that transparency.
3 See Veterans Park Neighborhood Policy Guide, 1999 page 2-2 lists the following goals for residential:
“1. The existing family residential character of the Veterans Park Neighborhood should be protected and enhanced.
a. Existing residential areas should retain their present zoning, which provides for a variety of housing types within the neighborhood.
b. Commercial, office or industrial uses which will impair the integrity and viability of residential areas should not be allowed to expand into residential areas.
The map in Figure 2, already mentioned, shows residential properties with respect to the 1/8-mile State St zone. We can see the extent of the 1/8-mile buffer zone in light blue, R-2 upzoned properties that are fully within this buffer zone in purple, and properties that are upzoned but not fully within the 1/8-mile buffer zone (and therefore should not be upzoned according to Director Keane’s comments during the PZC hearing) in pink and red
The three pink properties near Taft/Plum and Silver which are all single-level and a mix of single-family homes and duplexes are not within the 1/8-mile buffer zone that Director Keane repeatedly spoke of. Yet they are upzoned to R-2 These three pink properties must be removed from the upzone. The three properties, which include my family’s, will suffer all of the impacts of the ZCR upzone and will damage their residents’ and neighbors quiet enjoyment and quality of life. This through creating larger, bulkier buildings closer to them with no neighborhood transition for setbacks (maybe even a permanent shadow) along with incompatible uses such as potential prison release halfway houses, accessory food trucks, boarding houses, large group homes, cafes with alcohol, etc., and, of course, the newly created parking problems; etc.
And though some of these uses may require a CUP, under the ZCR Draft the city, and in particular, Director Keane, have given themselves the power to approve pretty much anything given the new CUP criteria which includes language allowing the city and Applicants to claim Public Benefit (an undefined term) as a deciding rationale for their approval.
2 – State & Alamosa – Inconsistent Upzoning
As discussed earlier, when Director Keane says the properties colored Green in the above map (see Figure 2) off of Willow, Alamosa and Wylie were not upzoned because they are shown on the future land use map as “suburban” , it is clear that this is just a “reason to give” to silence critics. All we have to do is look at Fairview between Cole and Milwaukee (see Figure 3) and we can see there are plenty of similar suburban land use R-1C properties that are upzoned (purple properties on the right in Figure 3) and the purple outlined yellow sections of the Land use Map which show suburban for these upzoned properties, to know it was just a “reason to give”
Next, we see there are properties on Arthur (See bottom-right of Figure 2- highlighted in green and circled in red) which are within the 1/8-mile zone of State St that aren’t upzoned to R-2. And, giving the rationale of following streets doesn’t make sense in this case because there are no streets bounding these properties along Arthur to the North. Also giving the rationale that these properties aren´t upzoned because they are outside of the Mixed-Use land use doesn´t make sense either as we see three nearby properties along 36th (see Figure 4 - highlighted in yellow and circled in black) which remain R-1 (not upzoned) and are in a mixed-use land use.
We also see in Figure 4 many properties upzoned in the Irene & 28th St vicinity (in red and pink, and circled in red) even though they are beyond the 1/8-mile State St zone And, while this area is shown as mixed-use on the Land Use Map (see red square on Figure 5), that does not imply it should be upzoned as we saw the three R-1 mixed use parcels along 36th not upzoned even though they are mixed-use (see black circled area on Figure 4). And R-1C parcels within a mixed-use area will now support greater permissiveness and mixed-uses anyways per the ZCR
And, there are also a few R-1M properties off of Dewey just East of 28th (circled in orange on Figure 4) which are upzoned to R-2. And while, at first glance, this may seem to make sense because the lot sizing is similar between the previous R-1M and the new R-2, the real impact is that the new R-2 allows a significantly expanded set of uses which are incompatible with this neighborhood than does the R-1M zoning.
Next, we examine the north potion of the Vista corridor. The map in Figure 6 shows properties in red and pink that are upzoned to R-2 which are outside the 1/8-mile zone along Vista. Also shown are a number of properties in green that are well situated for re-development that are explicitly excluded from the upzone to R-2. Also highlighted is a property in a mixed-use area (circled in orange) that is not upzoned.
The numerous properties near Victoria (an example is shown in the Google Maps clip in Figure 7) appear to be ideal for future development activity. Also note the large lot on the right of the Google Maps picture that is next to a multi-family building is one of the many properties not included in the upzone, but which is completely within the Vista 1/8 mile zone.
Adoption Draft Comments on ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
And this exclusion of parcels off of Victoria that seem well suited to re-development highlights just how arbitrary the proposed R-2 upzone is since the parcels to the south of them off of Day Dr (see Figure 6) that are not within the 1/8 mile zone at all, are upzoned!
Further driving this point home is that both the not upzoned properties off of Victoria, and the erroneously upzoned properties off of Day are shown on the Blueprint Boise’s “areas of change” and “future land use” maps as being in a “stable” area of compact residential as outlined in red in Figure 8 below.
Another example of the lack of consistency and attention to detail in selecting (or not-selecting) properties to be upzoned to R-2 is caused by failing to use current data for the zoning and conversion maps. For example, Figure 9 shows the city’s Zoning Map and the ZCR Conversion Map that shows, for example, in green parcel R2338000040, a R-1CH property near State St. Reviewing Figure 11 which shows the 1/8 mile buffer zone, we see that the parcel taken as a whole (but now obsolete as we will see) would be only partially within the 1/8 mile buffer zone, and therefor should not be upzoned.
But if we look instead at the current Ada County map in Figure 10 we see the lot is now shown as split The new parcel is R2338000043 and is 0.098 acres, whereas the primary parcel is now R2338000041, and as of 2022 this primary parcel is a narrower lot that is now fully within the 1/8 mile buffer zone for State St (see Figure 11). But, above, in Figure 9, the city’s Zoning and Conversion maps, that property is still shown pre-split, and, as a result, it erroneously isn’t being included in the R-2 upzone.
Due to these numerous inconsistencies, the upzone from R-1 to R-2 must be completely removed from the ZCR.
And, while I am sure that Director Keane and City Staff will create and explain more reasons for why specific properties were or were not included in the upzone, as has been discussed, undoubtedly those too will likely be inconsistent as to date we have seen the following inconsistencies:
• Director Keane says repeatedly during the PZC Hearing that the upzone applies to properties within 1/8 mile of the three transit corridors BUT we learn that simple statement is not true as there are plenty of properties within the buffer zone that are not upzoned (over 1,200), and 18% of the upzoned properties are not within the buffer zone!
• Properties outside of the 1/8-mile zone that were upzoned with the rationale they are in mixed use – BUT we have also seen that there are many cases (about 2,476) where R-1 properties in mixed use were not upzoned.
• Properties within the 1/8-mile zone that were not upzoned with the rationale they are in a suburban land use area – BUT we have also seen there are numerous upzoned properties along corridors that are in a suburban land use.
• Properties outside of the 1/8-mile zone that were upzoned with the rationale they are in an area magically defined by the next street outward from the zone. BUT we have also seen properties outside of the zone correctly not included when not fully within the zone and there are other streets a bit further out of that area.
• Properties fully within the 1/8-mile zone that were not upzoned because they were beyond a street or road which was rationalized as defining an area generally outside of the 1/8-mile zone
BUT we have also seen properties within the zone included in the upzone up to the full extent of the 1/8-mile zone regardless of roads, and
• Properties within the buffer zone that failed to be upzoned because the city’s data does not include a lot split.
It is clear that the rules as explained by Director Keane and City Staff are not applied consistently nor justly.
These injustices are further compounded by the fact that the almost 1,110 upzoned to R-2 properties are primarily in areas of lower income. The upzone encourages developers to pressure low-income owners to leave their homes (in many cases these are naturally occurring low-income properties) whether directly, or more likely by gradually making the area unbearable to live in4 . This forces many lower income, long term residents to need to pay real money to relocate, most likely they won’t be able to afford anything elsewhere in Boise, and thus will find themselves leaving.
Because of these inconsistencies and injustice, the upzone of R-1 to R-2 must be completely removed from the ZCR – including restoring parcels R9441000224, R9625000312, and R9441000217 to R-1C.
New ZCR CUP Criteria is Too Watered Down and Facilitates Approval of Uses Incompatible with and Impacting to Residential Areas
This was briefly touched upon already, but the approval criteria for CUPs has changed dramatically to facilitate easy approval of development.
The current development code CUP criteria in 11-03-04.6.C(7)(a) includes the following criteria:
“The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity”
This is very simple, easy to read, and says “will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity”. Not much question about what that means. This requires that all adverse impact be mitigated by the conditions, not just “material adverse impact” .
The ZCR Draft in section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(b)(i)5 Decision [Pg 354. Common Procedures for Decision Making Body] says the following (brackets and color coding added to make comparison of text easier between common and specific criteria in the ZCR Draft):
4 This displacement and resulting gentrification is well documented. One example is “The Effect of Rezoning on Local Housing Supply and Demand.” , is Hsi-ling Liao, 2022, which evaluates New York upzonings and concludes: “Incumbent residents in upzoned areas are more likely to move particularly if they are Black. And in-migrants to upzoned areas are more likely to move from higher-income neighborhoods”
5 Note that 11-05-05.3.c(3)(a) starts with “Unless Subsection (b) below applies, the PZC shall approve the application or” . But there is no subsection (b) below. So, one has no idea what was intended. This is just another error in the ZCR Draft.
The application will not create any material negative impacts on adjacent properties; or [any material negative impacts have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable and the public benefits of the application outweigh any material negative impacts that cannot be mitigated];
Where as the ZCR in section 11-05-05.3.C(3)(a) CUP [Pg 394. Specific CUP decision criteria] say the following:
The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or [any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable], or the public benefits of the proposed use outweigh any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;
Because there exists specific conditions in 11-05-05.3.c(3)(a) those will apply in addition to 11-0504.6.A(3)(b)(i) And though a reader of the ZCR Draft will reasonably believe these two criteria (one general and one specific) are the same, that simply isn’t true. One speaks of impacts to adjacent properties where the other to impacts to uses in the surrounding area. The fear is that this will allow legal interpretation to read this as only applying to adjacent properties, whereas the current code speaks to adverse effects to property of the vicinity where vicinity is commonly interpreted as a neighborhood (see https://legaldictionary.lawin.org/vicinity/). This could imply that only impacts to a very small number of properties will be considered. The language is also subtly different in the sentence structure that could allow a simple determination of public benefit to be used for approval, versus both mitigation of negative impacts6 and having public benefit.
In addition, the ZCR Draft only considers “material negative impacts” where as the current code allows consideration of all “adverse effects” . This implies under the proposed ZCR Draft that more minor adverse effects as determined by the city will be ignored even if they are held in high importance by the affected property owner.
And the proposed ZCR Draft further eases meeting the criteria by only requiring negative impacts to be mitigated to “the maximum extent practicable”7. In parsing this term, it must be noted that the
6 Of course, the mitigation is only to the “maximum extent practicable” which as we will discuss, has a definition which allows significant wiggle room. This must be tightened up so that the mitigation of negative impacts is meaningful
7 The ZCR Draft defines this as “The applicant has taken all possible steps to comply with the standards or regulations and to minimize potential harmful or adverse impacts, and no other feasible or prudent alternative exists, given the conditions of the site and pre-existing constraints. The economic costs of further efforts to comply may be taken into account in determining whether additional efforts to comply are feasible or prudent, but shall not be the overriding factor. Constraints to full compliance that are selfcreated by the owner or previous owner of the land, such as those created by prior platting, development, or design decisions, shall not be considered sufficient justification for a determination that no feasible or prudent alternative exists. The applicant’s failure to request or receive comments from other governmental agencies or from other owners of interests in or under the property, or an applicant’s unwillingness to address or resolve issues raised in comments from such parties, or the applicant’s desire
applicant no longer needs to comply with standards or regulations, nor minimize potential harmful or adverse impacts – they just have to take all possible steps (basically say that they tried everything at their disposal and could not mitigate the impact).
Also, they only have to consider “prudent alternatives” and don’t need to consider alternative solutions to those negative impacts that require going above and beyond. This further weakening of the criteria in the ZCR Draft is evidenced by the “maximum extent practicable” also including how much the Applicant spends or will have to spend to mitigate negative impacts in determining if alternatives are “prudent” And while the definition goes on to say that the economic cost cannot be “and overriding factor” (which means it cannot be the most important factor), obviously, it would be easy to say that cost and their efforts together made an alternative imprudent
And when that is taken together with the clause in the criteria that allows the above rationales to be coupled with a non-objective “public benefit” factor of the Applicant’s use (and “public benefit” is undefined and interpreted application-by-application by Director Keane), you have a recipe for easy approval of projects the city wants through the use of ambiguous terms like “public benefit” , “prudent alternative”, and “economic costs of further efforts” .
And though both City Staff and the city Attorney, during the PZC Hearing in April on the ZCR Draft, tried to explain how this new ZCR Draft criteria is more stringent than before, that clearly isn’t true as anyone reading the criteria can attest to.
If the ZCR Draft CUP criteria are allowed to stand, it opens the doors to all sorts of abuse and government overreach. For example, the ZCR Draft upzones my family’s property and my neighbors to R-2. One of my neighbors is pressured to sell to a developer who wants to build a prison release halfway house. Clearly this would have many proven negative impacts to my family’s property and to other neighbors. But, if the city wants this project, it only has to say the following (for example):
“The Applicant mitigated some negative impacts, but after spending a large amount of money found there was no way to secure the neighbors in the surrounding area with a reasonable and prudent security plan. And that they simply couldn’t afford to provide an open checkbook to address that security Therefor no prudent alternatives exist. And by the way the site is uniquely well suited to a halfway house because of its proximity to a bus route and social services.
Since the Applicant’s use provides a critical solution to preventing homelessness for individuals who could reside at the halfway house, it is for a greater public benefit that any unmitigated impacts such as security concerns” .
That the code is written to make this scenario possible should be a red flag, It seems dangerous to ever allow the city to be able to make these sorts of decisions where it can unilaterally interpret terminology to its favor and thereby permit grievous negative impacts to neighbors and neighborhoods.
to obtain approvals more than would be required to address or resolve comments received from such parties, shall not be considered sufficient justification for a determination that no feasible or prudent alternative exists.”
The CUP Criteria regarding negative impacts must be reverted to simple straightforward criteria language as exist in today’s code such as “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity” .
The ZCR Will Fail to Deliver Affordable Low-Income Housing
The ZCR Draft is all about providing affordable housing. And the premise of the ZCR providing affordable housing is focused on making it easier and cheaper for developers to build affordable housing. This is then tied to a mass transportation system (but oddly is not explicitly tied to living-wage job creation which is critical to success) which is able to remove cars from the roads.
Setting aside the job creation piece for now, since the ZCR Draft generally does nothing to create livingwage jobs such as might be found at Albertson’s, Micron’s or Amazon’s sites (arguably the minimum 4story ZCR MX-3 requirement makes it harder). Though the ZCR Draft does seem to create neighborhood jobs with likely lower wages such as could be expected in a neighborhood cafe and the like. And, without those further away living-wage jobs being easily accessible, it is highly suspect that cars will be abandoned.
Thus, let’s look at the transportation plan needed to support the ZCR Draft.
Tighter Coordination and Incorporation of Transit Plans with the ZCR is Needed
The push for density and upzoning along the three corridors (State St, Vista and Fairview) is purportedly so that they can easily walk to a bus stop (as well as other household needs being met within a walkable/bikeable distance), and thus cars are not needed.
Pretty much the only thing the ZCR does to ensure that these cars aren’t needed is to define three corridors that are defined to be “Best in Class Transit Route[s]” . The city’s ZCR Draft defines “Best in Class Transit Route” as a “transit route that runs every 30 minutes throughout the day, runs every 15 minutes during peak hours, has increased hours of operation Monday through Friday (5:30 am to 9:30 pm) and Saturday (8:00 am to 9:00 pm) and includes amenities such as a shelter structure and real-time route and tracking information” . This definition is defined by the city, and is not defined at a state or national level, or directly by another jurisdiction as a reference. Hence it should be validated that it will provide best-in-class transportation in a meaningful way.
And though 30 minutes may appear reasonable given other jurisdictions and recommendations8 one must be careful to ensure that any metrics used truly meet the requirements of the ZCR (which, obviously, must be captured and tied to VRT commitments, for the ZCR to be successful)
For example, in the ZCR definition such as it is, you have to wait 30 minutes most of the time for a bus. But leading transit solutions provider DDSWireless says it best “No one wants to stand on the side of the road for 30 minutes waiting for a bus” And with only 22% of Boise’s jobs being downtown (Blueprint Boise 2021) which is where these best-in-class transit routes tend to end-up at or near, most people will be still be driving just to get to work, not to mention other needs
Additionally, the ZCR language and density/upzoning push is only about three corridors. Coverage of the city as a whole, or at least places the “best-in-class transit” will need to take people to get to living-wage jobs does not appear to be considered or incorporated in to the ZCR planning. Unless the lions-share of
8 Such as that distilled in “Best Practices in Transit Service Planning” , Center for Urban Transportation Research – University of South Florida , March 2009 (https://www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/77720.pdf )
those jobs are downtown or along Fairview, Vista or State, it is unlikely that the Bus will get new residents in denser buildings along these corridors to where they need to go. Clearly major employer sites and campuses need to be covered, etc.
And, having read VRT’s Valley Connect 2.0 Plan9 (VC2) which does a nice job of discussing coverage for Boise as a whole as well as the greater valley, I was surprised to not find any binding between that plan (or any other similar plan), the VRT, the ZCR, and the city Without these binding commitments being in place, the entire ZCR is just aspirational
Instead The ZCR must have a list of requirements for the VRT beyond just defining “Best-In-Class Transit Routes” that facilitate the ZCR’s overall success. And, in turn, VRT must have development and funding plans that have legal binding to being able to meet those requirements.
It is clear that Boise’s ZCR plans are dependent upon a very high level of bus (and/or other transit) service well beyond the three best-in-class transit routes to achieve success. During the April 26, 2023 ZCR Hearing both Commissioner Danley and VRT Director Clegg spoke in support of this need for a broader transportation network10 .
Yet the lack of commitment between key entities is readily apparent not just in the lack of inclusion of written transportation plans in the ZCR, but also that just days after Director Clegg testified at PZC regarding VRT being in support of the ZCR, the VRT is already proposing cuts to routes and frequencies. Clearly these cuts will damage residents’ ability to go many places within the city, and curtails the times in which they can do so. Back-pedaling on a broader more frequent citywide transit network deals a deadly blow to its usefulness, and will see the ZCR just put more cars on the road.
Also of concern is that the amount of development already occurring along State St (for example) will exceed the plan for the corridor as outlined in the TOD plans For example, Boise Dev captured the capacity as follows11:
“A market analysis of the proposed district estimates 1,100 single family homes, 2,600 multifamily units, 362,000 square feet of retail, 50,000 square feet of office space and potentially a small hotel will come to the district in the next twenty years”
It is clear that the current rate of building permit and multi-family development along the State Street corridor will outstrip that. When asked about this residential development along State St being overbuilt with regard to the TOD plan for State St (which includes the widening of State St along with further expanded bus service), Director Keane acted as if the overbuilding was a good thing. This apparent disregard for corridor plans and infrastructure, and what it is capable of supporting is disheartening. The fact that the ZCR code does nothing to take into account other agencies and their infrastructures is myopic at best, and will likely cause further problems.
9 Freedom to Move, Valley Connect 2.0, April 2018 (https://www.valleyregionaltransit.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/valleyconnect2_apr18_final.pdf )
10 Commissioner Danley at 25:50 and Director Clegg (VRT) at 27:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2RfJQeJkGM
11 Boise Dev, June 17, 2021
It is a must to have a detailed, time horizon plan including funding plan for the Bus transit system for the city available prior to voting on the ZCR. This plan must be able to justify the density being encouraged by the ZCR in a timely manner commensurate with City plans for development based upon the ZCR. It is also critical that the city have agreement from other governmental agencies as a part of this plan.
If this cannot be done prior to voting on the ZCR, the ZCR should be rejected because just hoping things work out is not good governance.
The ZCR Unlikely to Deliver Affordable Low-Income Housing Without Mandates
Second, and the hope that most ZCR supporters hang their hats on, is that the ZCR will provide affordable housing to lower income residents to meet the needs of a rapidly growing city. But it should be clear that at best this is a tenuous goal
We heard at least anecdotal evidence during April’s ZCR hearing that developers believed that they would actually provide less affordable units if the ZCR is approved than under the current code. This should ring an alarm bell for the City Council because if the math works this way, affordable housing will not be created.
But if the city was to thoughtfully incorporate inclusionary zoning (IZ) mandates for construction of multifamily development, for example, it would greatly increase affordable housing, particularly for low and very-low incomes. And while the APA (American Planning Association) acknowledges (emphasis added):
“Voluntary inclusionary housing programs can be successful. First, it should be recognized that, theoretically, with enough of a subsidy any voluntary program could work extremely well. Realistically, however, housing subsidies are becoming scarcer. Nevertheless, voluntary programs can work well when they are implemented as if mandatory”12
But recent experiences with Boise’s January 2021 signature “Housing Bonus Ordinance”13 showed the downside of a voluntary program that had only four projects utilize it in over a year14 At that time Council President Clegg admitted:
“You offer a bonus of so many units or so much cost reduction per unit and then the market increases more than your bonus, it doesn’t do a lot”15
12 The Inclusionary Housing Debate: The Effectiveness of Mandatory Programs Over Voluntary Programs
Nicholas J. Brunick, American Planning Association, September 2004
13 https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/planning-and-development-services/planning-andzoning/housing-bonus-ordinance/
14 Only four projects take advantage of Boise’s housing bonus ordinance a little over a year since approval, Margaret Carmel, BoiseDev, May 24, 2022 (https://boisedev.com/news/2022/05/24/onlyfour-projects-take-advantage-of-boises-housing-bonus-ordinance-a-little-over-a-year-since-approval/ )
15 Ibid.
And because, generally, in the ZCR there are fairly comparable incentives as the unsuccessful voluntary Housing Bonus Ordinance has16 , it is highly questionable that the density and parking incentives will be enough.
The APA’s study reached similar conclusions regarding voluntary IZ. And said that mandatory programs simply produce more affordable housing particularly for lower incomes (emphasis added):
“Experience and research indicate mandatory inclusionary housing programs are more effective at generating a larger supply of affordable housing than voluntary programs. A 1994 study by the California Coalition for Rural Housing (CCRH) says, “Mandatory programs produce the most very-low and low-income affordable units compared with voluntary programs, both in terms of absolute numbers and percentage of total development.” A 2003 study by CCRH and the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California found similar results. The 15 most productive inclusionary housing programs in California are mandatory programs”17
And the APA went on to point out communities that had housing affordability programs that had failed due to voluntary programs:
“Two communities (Los Alamitos and Long Beach) “specifically blame the voluntary nature of their programs for stagnant production [of affordable housing] despite a market-rate boom.”18
And went on to detail a number of cities which had switched from ineffective voluntary programs to mandatory ones – namely Boulder CO, Cambridge MA, Irvine CA, and Pleasanton CA.
But there is a hurdle that mandatory IZ in Boise would need to overcome in order to implement it and improve the odds of affordable housing success. Though mandatory programs have been shown to be more effective, many jurisdictions (such as the State of Idaho) disallow or avoid such programs because there is a fear that it will hurt developers and development. A paper published by the Urban Institute captured this issue well19:
“By requiring developers to sell or rent a percentage of their units at below-market level, IZ policies may drive up costs for market-rate units or reduce the production of new units. This potential for an adverse effect on the private market has been the main basis for state preemption of local IZ laws (Silverstein 2017)”
But, of course, by providing developers with strong offsets these issues can be overcome, and mandatory IZ programs are well recognized to be very predictable for developers. The city will need to work with the State to change policies to put in place structure that allows mandatory IZ programs. There should also be discussion and rework to package any voluntary IZ programs to be implemented as if mandatory. Either path requires a pause to the ZCR process in order to make necessary modifications to state statutes and packaging of, and offsets for, IZ in the ZCR
16 Ibid. Deanna Dupuy “told BoiseDev the housing bonus ordinance was written into the second module of the city’s draft zoning code rewrite”
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Inclusionary Zoning – What Does the Research Tell Us about the Effectiveness of Local Action, Kriti Ramakrishnan, Urban Institue, January 2019
Thus, the wisdom of the current complex voluntary IZ program should be questioned, and set aside in favor of a mandatory one which would generate greater affordable housing for all incomes and more broadly across the city particularly “in higher-opportunity neighborhoods where otherwise they would be priced out”20
And, if the ZCR is driven through without heeding the need to be able to mandate affordability through mandatory inclusionary zoning, most developers will simply choose to take advantage of the ZCR’s more permissive zoning without opting for as many affordability bonuses We heard this clearly in Don May’s (a Boise developer) testimony at the April 25, 2023 ZCR hearing at PZC where he presented a detailed cost analysis and concluded:
“
It barely makes economic sense to build fourplexes and rent them at market rate rents right now, and it certainly doesn’t make sense at below market rate rents”21
We also heard it in Greg Ostro’s testimony at the April 26, 2023 ZCR hearing where he presented plans he was going to submit for a large expensive townhome he will be able to build on his property thanks to the ZCR22 .
And, as previously discussed, this was also the fate of development under Boise’s own Housing Bonus Ordinance.
Now that it is clear that mandatory inclusionary zoning should be the gold standard, and the policy which the ZCR should seek to incorporate/implement, let’s take a deeper look at the current ZCR Draft affordable housing provisions, how they will most likely be used, and why they will most likely fail to deliver the desired affordable housing
The ZCR Draft, while it focuses the most intense upzoning and permissiveness along the previously discussed three transit corridors and nodes, and will likely see development there, that development will most likely be market rate development as that will be most profitable23
This development will most likely occur first on any vacant land, followed by the most under-utilized (which is likely the oldest) parcels next. Unfortunately, these under-utilized, older parcels are likely naturally occurring affordable housing which, of course, will be demolished. This will then displace residents who were living in those naturally affordable homes, who will be unlikely to find affordable living in Boise, and will either move to lower cost locations (Nampa, Caldwell, etc.) or leave the area completely.
20 Inclusionary Zoning, PolicyLink (https://www.policylink.org/resources-tools/tools/all-in-cities/housinganti-displacement/inclusionary-zoning )
21 Don May, Boise Developer, testifying at April 25, 2023 ZCR Hearing beginning at 4:18:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2RfJQeJkGM
22 Greg Ostro, Private Developer and property owner, testifying at the April 26, 2023 ZCR Hearing beginning at 43:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9sxp08S788
23 Refer to Don May and Greg Ostro’s testimonies to PZC at the April 25-26 ZCR Hearings.
To better understand this and other issues with the current ZCR affordable housing plan, a review of numerous recent studies and articles show just how difficult it is to achieve affordability through upzoning. Repeated themes in these studies and articles include:
• Small but significant increase in new housing units
• A minor increase in affordable properties but mostly at higher income points
• Gentrification of upzoned areas
• Loss of naturally occurring low-income housing
• Displacement of existing low-income and minority residents
For example, a very recent detailed study24 , studied more than 1,100 cities that enacted zoning changes and concluded that density doesn’t deliver affordability. This study found that:
“reforms that loosen restrictions are associated with a statistically significant, 0.8% increase in housing supply within 3 to 9 years of reform passage […] This increase occurs predominantly for units at the higher end of the rent price distribution; we find no statistically significant evidence that additional lower-cost units became available or moderated in cost in the years following reforms” .
This same study also concluded that:
“[A]mong reforms loosening restrictions, we find no significant effects of reforms [ ] on rent levels”25
and goes on to say:
“We theorize that these outcomes may be produced by amenity affects occurring when a reform takes place; new buildings increase housing supply, but not only are new units likely to be more expensive than existing units, they may also bring amenities that improve the attractiveness of a city’s housing market overall. This could outweigh the effects of the supply increase on reducing prices for more affordable units at least in the jurisdiction where zoning reforms occur. In other words, certain zoning reforms may induce more construction, but rather than opening up existing units in the surrounding area for lower-income families, existing housing units maintain relatively stable rents due to increased demand”26
And says that in order to increase affordable housing for lower incomes that (emphasis added):
“These results indicate that policies targeting affordable housing may need to accompany measures designed specifically to increase supply [of affordable housing]”27 .
The only logical conclusion is that without having policies that directly mandate and create low-income affordable housing, the necessary low-income affordable housing will not be built. Otherwise, these
24 Land-Use Reforms and Housing Costs: Does Allowing for Increased Density Lead to Greater Affordability? Christina Stacy, 2023 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00420980231159500)
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
more permissive zoning codes will simply drive gentrification as a recent Brookings Institute surmised in a study of upzonings in New York City which were not linked to mandatory inclusionary housing:
“a study examining how a series of upzonings implemented in New York City in the early 2000s interacted with subsequent gentrification pressures (using growth in the non-Hispanic white population as a proxy for gentrification). I find that upzoning activity is positively and significantly associated with the odds of a census tract becoming whiter, suggesting that upzonings might accelerate, rather than temper, gentrification pressures”28
Additionally, a study of Chicago’s upzonings with their allowed increased densities and parking reductions showed that unit prices went up and did not significantly increase additional units:
“I detect significant, robust increases in values for transactions on parcels that received a boost in allowed building size. I also identify value increases for residential condominiums, indicating that upzoning increased prices of existing housing units. I find no impacts of the reforms, however, on the number of newly permitted dwellings over five years. As such, I demonstrate that the short-term, local-level impacts of upzoning are higher property prices but no additional new housing construction”29
However, when mandatory inclusionary zoning is a part of the more permissive zoning being put in place significantly better results are achieved as was seen in the previous discussion of mandatory IZ.
We should also examine the degree of upzoning that is required for the ZCR to achieve density. If we examine the ZCR Draft’s proposed R-1C changes we see greater height, smaller lots, broader allowed residential uses, and even some more controlled expanded uses. By itself, the more permissive changes the ZCR makes to R-1C, without requiring the R-1C to R-2 upzone and the likely negative impacts that will have upon residential areas, are sufficient to drive higher density in residential areas while better maintaining their character
This was captured well by Diana Budd’s examination of upzoning and affordability30. She clearly calls out a gentler increase in housing density through very cost-effective means such as ADUs and cottage housing, and how they could be done thoughtfully to preserve neighborhood character:
“Recent legislation to upzone single-family residential areas en masse focuses on so-called “missing middle” housing [ ] which includes accessory dwelling units, duplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and bungalow courts. These housing types fall somewhere between single-family homes and mid-rise multi-family buildings. When designed thoughtfully, missing-middle housing adds density without dramatically changing the character of a neighborhood”31
28 The double-edged sword of upzoning, Jenna Davis, July 15, 2021
(https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/07/15/the-double-edged-sword-of-upzoning/ )
29 Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction, Yonah Freemark, January 29, 2019 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418824672 )
30 Will upzoning neighborhoods make homes more affordable? Cities and states across the country are proposing new upzoning laws to combat the housing crisis. Will they work? Diana Budds Jan 30, 2020 (https://archive.curbed.com/2020/1/30/21115351/upzoning-definition-affordable-housinggentrification )
31 Ibid.
The effectiveness and immediacy in terms of achieving affordability of these gentler options are reinforced by Sightline Institute’s August 2021 article: “We ran the rent numbers on Portland’s 7 newly legal home options”32. Although, the fourplexes, etc., are options developers will evaluate overtime as financials improve their attractiveness, they typically would require demolition, which adds significantly to project cost. The Sightline article clearly shows that the simplest solutions are the most affordable And, as Budd indicates, the neighborhood character can be preserved:
“The best way to make an infill project work is to avoid demolition”33
And on the right side of Figure 12 (from the Sightline article) can be seen options such as ADUs, Cohousing, etc, that are easier and cheaper to develop and rent (or own)34
32 https://www.sightline.org/2021/08/01/we-ran-the-rent-numbers-on-portlands-7-newly-legal-homeoptions/
33 Ibid.
34 Clearly the ZCR doesn’t allow home on wheels though it is being investigated, and doesn’t permit two ADUs. But the point is that there are a set of more simplistic housing options which can be implemented with less expense and time. Thus, they will be more affordable to lower income residents to rent or own.
Clearly the ZCR’s more permissive R-1C would generally allow these housing selections35, including those pictured on the right of Figure 12 which would facilitate more cost effective housing types for adding affordable units (Perhaps the city should also consider banning Airbnb for these units such that they remain available). Thus, removing the upzone from R-1C to R-2 from the ZCR Draft is appropriate and will help it achieve its purpose of protecting the character of residential areas
Taken as a whole, these studies support the assertion that making zoning regulations more permissive will likely create a small increase in available housing But, in terms of making housing more affordable, it can be expected that mostly those at or above AMI will find available housing to them is more plentiful. In order to create a greater quantity of housing affordable to lower incomes, additional policies focused on developing affordable housing will be required. For example, this could actually be added into the zoning code by requiring units affordable to low-incomes in multi-family development over a certain size
The ZCR should be paused until the State allows local zoning codes to mandate housing that is affordable to those with low incomes. This will likely require that the city work with the Idaho State Legislature to achieve. While that is in process, the city could shorten this pause by working with other jurisdictions for best practice to implement voluntary inclusionary zoning as if it were mandatory, until such time that mandatory provisions can be put in place.
The upzone of R-1C properties to R-2 should be removed from the ZCR Draft as it is unnecessary in light of proven gentler, more compatible, and more effective means of adding affordable units.
The ZCR Creates Winners and Losers
Lastly, in looking at the ZCR’s approach to affordable housing, it is clear that it creates a segregated city of haves and have-nots (or winners and losers if you will). It does this by largely keeping areas with HOAs and good CCRs protected from much of the development and re-development as it cannot override the legal CCRs. Thus, the ZCR will struggle to create low-income development in those areas. Which, if the ZCR could succeed in doing, would increase economic opportunity for low-income and minority populations in Boise.
Mandating affordability in multi-family projects in all neighborhoods in Boise could help unlock this economic opportunity for minorities and low-income residents.
As it stands, the ZCR Draft will further inequality through the following results which as we have seen are likely based on the take-aways from previously discussed research studies and articles:
• Displacement of low-income residents living in naturally occurring affordable housing. Many likely being forced out of Boise
35 Looking at Figure 12 it is easy to see that the ZCR’s more permissive R-1C permits in some manner development of all types of housing on the left and most of the simpler and less expensive options on the right. This points out another area the ZCR should rework which is allowing more of these “gentler” options on the right such as the shown dual ADUs and tiny homes on wheels.
• Over the long term a further concentration of low-income and minority residents along the corridors, as that is where the few low-income affordable housing units will be built
• And the wealthier neighborhoods, through their strict CC&Rs, and lack of mandated incentives to encourage low-income housing in those neighborhoods, will successfully keep out affordable development.
The ZCR, either as a part of mandatory IZ or otherwise, should create affordability policies that will ensure additional low-income housing in wealthier neighborhood areas.
The ZCR Pushes Density without Considering Whether it is Desirable
Anyone reading the ZCR Draft will immediately see it is about increasing density so that more units may be built. The “hope” of the ZCR is that this increased density and the additional units it may create will result in additional low-income affordable units. And namely, that it will allow enough affordable units that the mental health toll of homelessness or near homelessness can be avoided. And though I firmly believe that the research and data shows that the ZCR Draft will not result in a significant increase in affordable units, even if it did, at best it is trading one mental health devil for another, as this increased density will bring with it a severe increase in mental health issues.
We know that Mayor McLean has a focus on mental health issues as we have heard the following:
“The mayor is improving access to mental health, which has become a bigger issue for Boiseans after the pandemic”36
“The city of Boise is also taking meaningful action when it comes to public safety and mental health support”37
“Appropriate mental health support is crucial to the wellness of our community”38
Clearly Mayor McLean recognizes the importance of supporting Boise’s mental health. Thus it is mystifying that the city would continue its singular push for density when it is clear that the increased density that would be brought about by the ZCR will cause significant and severe mental health issues. Numerous papers and studies have been done that clearly show this linkage as the below examples illustrate:
“With the rapid increase in urbanisation, exposure to noise is increasingly recognised as a common and serious problem worldwide. Many studies have shown that noise is a primary contributor to certain risk factors related to physical and mental health, such as loss of hearing, sleep disorder, and stress”39
“Urbanization affects mental health through the influence of increased stressors and factors such as overcrowded and polluted environment, high levels of violence, and reduced social support [ ] The range of disorders and deviancies associated with urbanization is enormous. Some of the disorders are severe mental disorders, depression, substance abuse, alcoholism, crime, family disintegration, and alienation”40
36 https://www.cityofboise.org/news/mayor/2022/may/council-approves-millions-in-recovery-dollarsfor-boise-families/
37 https://www.cityofboise.org/news/mayor/2023/may/mayor-mclean-delivers-state-of-the-cityaddress/
38 Boise Mayor, Lauren McLean, in a tweet on January 18, 2023
39 Dzhambov and Dimitrova, 2016 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2399808320930247)
40 Urbanization and mental health, Kalpana Srivastava, 2009
“Small living space, […] and a lack of housing tenure were also reported to be linked with a higher risk of mental disorders in Australia, the United Kingdom, and South Korea […] It was found that the prevalence of any adverse mental health symptoms such as depression and anxiety was higher among urban residents than among rural residents, and higher levels and speed of urbanization were significantly related to mental disorders [ ] it was found that annoyance caused by the environment such as noise and air pollution was associated with lower sleep quality and mental disorders for residents”41
“A significant health issue relates to the scourge of Mental Illness. There is convincing evidence showing adverse mental health consequences from increasing density [ ]
A monumental Swedish study of over four million Swedes examined whether a high level of urbanisation (which correlates with density) is associated with an increased risk of developing psychosis and depression. [ ] It was found that the rates for psychosis (such as [ ] schizophrenia) were 70% greater for the denser areas. There was also a 16% greater risk of developing depression. The paper discusses various reasons for this finding but the conclusion states: "A high level of urbanisation is associated with increased risk of psychosis and depression”. […]
A British study found that 93% of children living in centrally located high-rise flats had behavioural problems and that this percentage was higher than for children living in lower density dwellings. Anti-social behaviour often results. An Austrian study showed disturbances in classroom behaviour higher for children living in multiple-dwelling units compared to those living in lower densities. […]
There is an association between overall Human Happiness and density. Professor Cummins’ Australian Unity Wellbeing Index reports that the happiest electorates have a lower population density. A United States study finds the satisfaction of older adults living in higher density social housing reduces as building height increases and as the number of units increases”42
The linkage is clear – increased urban density causes mental health issues. And though density may bring about some benefits for the city such as more manageable infrastructure, and potential benefits from having less cars on the roads, these benefits pale in comparison to the negative health and mental health impacts, particularly for an administration that frequently talks about the importance of mental health
The only way to deal with this tension between the desire for density (as a means to drive mass transit, and make infrastructure more manageable), and the reality that density is unhealthy, is to proceed more cautiously in creating and executing plans that focus on increasing density. The city must take smaller steps, and, with an open mind, collect metrics and feedback from those smaller steps. This feedback can then lead to adjustments in plans as it guides next steps. This more reasoned and cautious approach is vastly preferable to the current ZCR Draft which over-commits to density. And, which most likely will doom many Boiseans, particularly those lower income residents who will find it hard to avoid the dense areas, to numerous mental health issues.
41 The Impacts of Housing Characteristics and Built-Environment Features on Mental Health, Zihan Kan, April 23, 2022
42 Health, Happiness and Density, Tony Recsei, September 18, 2013
To mitigate negative mental-health outcomes The ZCR must pause and develop a more stepwise implementation plan that has objective metrics that are then used to guide next steps in the plan.
Conclusion
As I mentioned in the Introduction, there are many portions of the ZCR that are a good and helpful to Boise. But I have focused on key issues. After the above review of those issues, I make the following recommendations which are necessary for a successful ZCR:
1. The R-1 to R-2 upzone should be removed completely. Its implementation is inconsistent and unjust, and the new R-1C zone is sufficient for creating affordable housing and will do so in a more residential compatible manner.
2. Objective, measurable transition standards and requirements to protect upzoned R-2 properties as well as existing properties and single-story homes which may find themselves next to very tall buildings must be provided.
3. Regarding CUP criteria and negative impacts, the ZCR CUP Criteria must be reverted to simple straightforward criteria language as exists in the current code such as “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity”.
4. The ZCR must have a list of requirements for the VRT beyond just defining “Best-In-Class Transit Routes” . And, in turn, VRT must have development and funding plans that have some legal binding to be able to meet those requirements.
5. It is a must to have a detailed, time horizon plan including funding plan for the Bus transit system for the city available prior to voting on the ZCR. This plan must be able to justify the density being encouraged by the ZCR in a timely manner commensurate with City plans for development based upon the ZCR. It is also critical that the city have agreement from other governmental agencies as a part of this plan.
6. The ZCR should be paused until the State allows local zoning codes to mandate housing that is affordable to those with low incomes. This will likely require that the city work with the Idaho State Legislature to achieve. While that is in process, the city could shorten this pause by working with other jurisdictions for best practice to implement voluntary inclusionary zoning as if it were mandatory, until such time that mandatory provisions can be put in place.
7. The ZCR, either as a part of mandatory IZ or otherwise, should create affordability policies that will ensure additional low-income housing in wealthier neighborhood areas.
8. To mitigate negative mental-health outcomes The ZCR must pause and develop a more stepwise implementation plan that can be measured and used to guide next steps in the plan.
I know we all strive to create the best Boise possible, so I hope you objectively, fairly and without regard to politics, review these comments and incorporate these recommendations into the ZCR
In my comments I have addressed but a few of the key issues which need to be addressed in the ZCR. But there are other areas in the ZCR that are problematic as well, including:
• The ZCR is incredibly complex and has changed considerably over each release. The lack of transparency in presenting these changes and their impacts, particularly to those most affected needs to be strengthened.
• ZCR policies regarding notification of residents of development that will affect them needs to be increased
• Neighborhood Associations need to be given equal time at hearing (not just the pared back 5 minutes in the ZCR)
• The ZCR needs to be reworked to ensure fairness across the city.
• Etc.
I hope as others raise these issues and make recommendations, that you take them to heart for making the best Boise possible.