Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice of Impediments Background ... Fair Housing Acts and...

Final Report

This document can be translated into any language upon request

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

City of Boise, Idaho

Final Report

May 15, 2012

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Prepared for

City of Boise Housing and Community Development Division 1025 S. Capitol Blvd. Boise Idaho 83706 www.cityofboise.org/Departments/PDS-HCD Prepared by

BBC Research & Consulting 1999 Broadway, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com [email protected]

Table of Contents

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Analysis of Impediments Background ....................................................................................... ES–1

Fair Housing Acts and Ordinance .............................................................................................. ES–2

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... ES–2

Fair Housing in Boise ................................................................................................................ ES–4

Fair Housing Impediments ........................................................................................................ ES–4

Fair Housing Action Plan ........................................................................................................... ES–9

I. Community and Housing Profile

Demographic Profile .................................................................................................................... I–1

Employment.............................................................................................................................. I–13

Housing Market Analysis ........................................................................................................... I–16

II. Public Policies and Practices

Public Housing Authority ........................................................................................................... II–1

Assisted Housing Units ............................................................................................................... II–5

Land Use Policy Review .............................................................................................................. II–7

Other Public Sector Programs and Services ............................................................................... II–13

III. Fair Lending and Complaints

Fair Housing Complaints ........................................................................................................... III–1

Legal Cases ................................................................................................................................ III–7

Fair Lending Analysis ............................................................................................................... III–11

IV. Public Outreach

Resident Survey ......................................................................................................................... IV–2

Stakeholder Focus Groups and Interviews ................................................................................. IV–8

Summary of Fair Housing Barriers from Public Input ................................................................. IV–9

V. Fair Housing Impediments and Action Plan

Fair Housing in Boise .................................................................................................................. V–1

Fair Housing Impediments .......................................................................................................... V–1

Fair Housing Action Plan ............................................................................................................. V–5

Appendices

A. Clarion Associates — Boise Land Use Regulations As Barriers To Affordable Housing ............ A–1

B. Fair Housing Planning Guide Crosswalk .............................................................................. B–1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City of Boise Fair Housing Study

This document is the 2012 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for the City of Boise (city).

Analysis of Impediments Background

An Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, or AI, is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandated review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private sector. The AI is required for the City of Boise to receive federal housing and community development block grant funding1.

The AI involves:

A review of a city’s laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures and practices;

An assessment of how those laws, policies and practices affect the location, availability and accessibility of housing; and

An assessment of public and private sector conditions affecting fair housing choice.

According to HUD, impediments to fair housing choice are:

Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin that restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices.

Any actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.

This update was prepared by BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) of Denver. BBC is an economic research and consulting firm with a specialty in housing studies, including fair housing. In addition to this AI, BBC recently completed a Housing Market Analysis for the city and the city’s Five-year 2011-2015 Consolidated Plan.

HUD has recently released brief guidance to communities about the department’s expectations of AIs. In this guidance, HUD clarifies that “affordable housing, in and of itself, is not an impediment to fair housing unless it creates an impediment to housing choice because of membership in a protected class.”

1 The city is also required to submit a Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and an annual

performance report. These reports were prepared separately from the AI and are available from the city.

, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING

Fair Housing Acts and Ordinance

Federal Fair Housing Act. The Federal Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and amended in 1988, prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, familial status and disability. The Fair Housing Act covers most types of housing including rental housing, home sales, mortgage and home improvement lending, and land use and zoning. Excluded from the Act are owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing sold or rented without the use of a real estate agent or broker, housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members, and housing for older persons.2

HUD has the primary authority for enforcing the Fair Housing Act. HUD investigates the complaints it receives and determines if there is a “reasonable cause” to believe that discrimination occurred. If reasonable cause is established, HUD brings the complaint before an Administrative Law Judge. Parties to the action can also elect to have the trial held in a federal court (in which case the Department of Justice brings the claim on behalf of the plaintiff).3

State of Idaho fair housing law. The State of Idaho’s fair housing act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin and disability. It does not recognize familial status as a protected class. The law is also different from the Federal Fair Housing Act in that it covers providers with two or more units or properties. The state’s fair housing law is enforced through the Idaho Human Rights Commission.

City ordinance. The City of Boise does not have a local fair housing ordinance.

Methodology

In the fall of 2010, BBC completed a Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) for the City of Boise with the primary purpose of helping the city better understand the characteristics of the residential housing market. BBC also recently helped the city complete its 2011-2015 Five-year Consolidated Plan. Where possible, data from these two studies are used in the AI. The AI contains new data from the 2010 Census that were unavailable when the HNA and Consolidated Plan were prepared. This report made every attempt to incorporate the most current data from 2010 Census and American Community Survey (ACS) when it was prepared; however, because such data are released frequently, new variables may be available since the time of the AI preparation.

BBC’s approach to the City of Boise AI was based on the methodologies recommended in HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide, Vol. I.

2 This is a very general description of the Fair Housing Act and the actions and properties covered by the Act. For more

detailed information on the Fair Housing Act, please see the full text, which can be found on the U.S. Department of Justice’s website, www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm.

3 “How Much Do We Know? Public Awareness of the Nation’s Fair Housing Laws”, The U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development, Office of Policy and Research, April 2002.


The AI workscope consisted of the following:

Public participation. HUD requires that cities solicit participation from members of protected classes, including racial and ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities, during the preparation of the AI. To this end, the public input portion of Boise’s AI was targeted to Boise residents who have disabilities and racial and ethnic minorities, particularly non-English speakers and refugees.4

The resident survey was distributed and promoted through the city’s social service stakeholder network. BBC conducted additional outreach through the following means:

English and Spanish flyers with a link to the online resident survey were displayed in Valley Regional Transit’s 52 buses and 15 ACCESS paratransit vehicles between October 31 and November 11, 2011.

An event was held at the Boise English Language Center on October 28, 2011 following a new refugee orientation to solicit refugee participation in the resident survey. Interpreters were present and provided translation for residents in 11 languages: Karen, Burmese, Arabic, Swahili, Farsi, Somali, Nepali, Russian, Kirundi, Tigrinya and French. The event was promoted through the stakeholder network. Refugees not participating in classes at the English Language Center were also invited to intend.

Surveys were sent home with students in two elementary schools (Horizon and Morley Nelson) identified as having concentrations of non-English speaking students in a 2008 Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC) report.

A total of 174 completed surveys were received.

In addition, Galena Consulting, a BBC subcontractor for the study and Boise-based women-owned business, and BBC conducted interviews with stakeholders who work with low income populations, refugees and residents with special needs to discuss their clients’ experience with housing discrimination and fair housing barriers.

Zoning, land use and housing policy review. Clarion Associates, a planning and land use firm, reviewed city zoning and land use regulations for barriers to fair housing choice. A sample of Homeowner Association (HOA) covenants were also examined for compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act. In addition, BBC reviewed the policies of the local housing authority for any potential barriers to fair housing and fair housing concerns.

Analysis of demographic, housing and lending data. In this task, data on mortgage lending approvals, subprime mortgages (from Home Mortgage Disclosure Act or HMDA data), income distribution, race and ethnicity, disability and affordable housing opportunities, recent legal cases and fair housing complaints were analyzed to detect potential discriminatory patterns.

4 The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines national origin discrimination as “treating

people…unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).” See http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm. Refugees are a protected class because the Federal Fair Housing Act protects against discrimination based on national origin.


Identification of impediments. In this task, BBC compiled the fair housing concerns identified through public participation, data analysis and review of land use policies into impediments to fair housing choice.

Actions to address past and current impediments. In this final task, BBC developed a recommended Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) for the city to use to the fair housing impediments identified in the AI research.

Fair Housing in Boise

The City of Boise has put much effort into reducing fair housing barriers in the past few years. Most notably, the city developed a fair housing campaign, designated a fair housing contact within the city, established a Mayor-appointed Fair Housing Task Force, partnered with statewide organizations to support fair housing training and events and has posted fair housing information on the city’s website. The city has also historically dedicated a portion of general fund revenues to rental assistance for low income households.

Specifically, Boise recently developed a Fair Housing Campaign—Good Neighbors + Fair Housing = Strong Communities—which includes a toll free, statewide fair housing hotline through the 2-1-1 service. Boise has also (with co-sponsorship from IHFA) created www.fairhousingforum.org, an online resource dedicated to providing practical informational resources and promoting awareness through respectful collaboration and cooperation among all stakeholders.

The city also has two fair housing organizations—Idaho Legal Aid and the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC)—that maintain websites with fair housing information and complaint filing procedures.

In sum, compared to similar cities, residents in Boise have many ways to get information about their fair housing rights and file housing discrimination complaints.

Boise has also historically supported affordable rental housing both through general funds, federal entitlements and income generated from the entitlements. This is done primarily in four ways: 1) The city provides rent concessions in its city-owned rental housing units; 2) the city subsidizes its rental housing portfolio; 3) provides rental assistance through its Charitable Assistance To Community’s Homeless Program and lastly 4) the city funds a tenant based rental assistance (TBRA) program. The city has historically provided an average annual allocation of $450,000 to these programs and intends to boost the TBRA amount by $150,000 in the next program year.

These efforts are commendable and should be continued. In addition, this AI indentified several other ways the city can work to mitigate barriers to housing choice.

Fair Housing Impediments

HUD has recently begun clarifying the difference between fair housing impediments and observations through reviews of jurisdictions’ Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs), Annual Action Plans and AIs. According to HUD, impediments directly impact a protected class, whereas an observation may lead to an impediment or may be of concern, but cannot be directly linked to a protected class. An example is lack of affordable housing which is


generally a barrier for all low income people, regardless of protected class (an “equal opportunity” barrier).

In this report, impediments that cannot be directly linked to a protected class are called “observations.” Impediments that can be directly linked to a protected class remain as impediments.

The fair housing impediments found in the 2012 AI research include the following:

IMPEDIMENT NO. 1. Some HOA covenants may violate fair housing laws. In its review of HOA covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs), Clarion Associates found that three of the six CCRs reviewed prohibit “shelter homes” in their subdivisions. If a shelter home is interpreted to be the same as a group home, this is a fair housing violation and it is not consistent with Idaho Code, which highlights an intent to not comply with a clear state statute. However, since neither the Fair Housing Act nor the Idaho Code include a definition of “shelter home,” it is possible that a court might find that term to be either broader or narrower than the protections in the Fair Housing Act and Idaho Code.

In addition, IFHC, based on its experience with complaints associated with HOAs, believes that as many as 80 percent of CCRs restrict group homes outright and are in violation of fair housing laws.

Why is this an impediment? Language that has the intent or effect of restricting group homes for persons with disabilities is illegal under the Fair Housing Act.

IMPEDIMENT NO. 2. People with disabilities report higher levels of discrimination and lower levels of housing accommodation than other residents. Between 2005 and 2010, 108 fair housing complaints were filed with HUD for violations that occurred in Boise. Forty-three percent were found by HUD to have no cause; 57 percent were pursued.

The majority—68 percent—of the complaints cited discrimination based on disability status. Many of these complaints cited discrimination based on failure to make reasonable accommodations and discriminatory terms, conditions and privileges of services and facilities.

Additionally, during the past decade, there have been a number of lawsuits in Boise which have found that developers failed to meet building accessibility requirements of the ADA and Fair Housing Act.

A resident survey conducted for this AI found that people with disabilities are much more likely to report levels of housing discrimination (30% compared to 20% for low to moderate income residents overall, based on the survey). The survey also found lack of accessible housing as a potential fair housing barrier specific to people with disabilities: Thirty percent of disabled survey respondents reported that their current homes do not meet their accessibility needs.

Finally, persons with disabilities were much more likely than other survey respondents to report places in Boise where they would not feel comfortable. Overall, however, disabled residents report equal treatment of residents in their individual apartment complexes/neighborhoods.


Why is this an impediment? People with disabilities are a protected class under fair housing law. To the extent that they cannot access housing opportunities equal to those of other residents of similar income levels, a fair housing barrier is created.

IMPEDIMENT NO. 3. Resources for limited English proficiency residents could be improved. The stakeholder groups participating in the public input process mentioned limited resources for limited English proficiency (LEP) individual as a potential fair housing barrier.

Stakeholders believe that LEP persons, which include persons with disabilities (e.g., those who are deaf and hard of hearing), face obstacles when working with local housing providers if oral and/or written translation is not provided during the lease signing process.

Stakeholders believe refugees accessing affordable housing opportunities offered through the housing authority may not be receiving necessary translation of important documents. It should be noted that 72 percent of refugees who took the AI resident survey said they received an in-person, verbal interpretation of their apartment lease; 14 percent reported no form of translation or needing to obtain translation services themselves. These answers did not pertain specifically to housing provided by the housing authority or the city, but all types of housing (public and private).

To ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, federal assistance recipients are required to provide language assistance to LEP individuals to ensure equal access to federally funded programs and housing.

HUD recommends federal assistance recipients understand the size and the needs of their local LEP population. Once the local LEP population has been characterized, HUD recommends recipients create and implement a Language Assistance Plan (LAP), which identifies recipients’ plan for serving LEP populations. HUD suggests that recipients provide written translation of vital documents and oral translation of non-vital documents if an LEP group represents five percent of the total population or 1,000 persons.

The BCACHA LAP was last updated in 2004, prior to HUD’s guidance issued in 2007. The BCACHA only provides its online rental assistance application in English. The BCACHA’s implementation plan does not specify when written interpretation of vital documents will be provided for residents, which is an important part of the HUD guidance. However, BCACHA’s rental assistance applications for the Section 8 and public housing programs do ask residents whether they need assistance with language interpretation.

Note that the City of Boise has a more comprehensive LAP that discusses language assistance measures required by HCD and property management staff.

Why is this an impediment? Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is “the federal law that protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of their race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal financial assistance.”5 Compliance with Title VI requires that federal assistance recipients provide language assistance to individuals with limited English proficiency. Failure to

5 Information on Title VI and HUD programs can be found here:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/promotingfh/lep-faq


ensure that persons who are LEP can effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs may violate Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination.6

OBSERVATION NO. 1. City land use and zoning regulations could be revised to encourage affordable housing development. Clarion Associates, a planning and land use firm, completed an in-depth analysis of Boise’s land use regulations to determine whether the city’s codes create barriers to fair housing and affordable housing development. Clarion Associates identified a number of strengths in the city’s code, as well as a number of suggestions for modifications or additions to the code.

Figure ES-1 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the city’s land use code as identified by Clarion Associates. A copy of Clarion’s complete report is in Appendix A.

Figure ES-1. Strengths and Weaknesses of Land Use Code, City of Boise, 2011

Strengths

Definitions of both dwelling unit and family to include some of the groups protected by federal law

Waivers of impact fees for affordable housing

One zone district with a 2,500 sq. ft. minimum lot area for single-family detached development, and another with a 2,160 sq. ft. minimum lot area for attached units

One zone district with an 18 ft. minimum width for attached units and 36 ft. minimum width for detached units

Unlimited height for multi-family development in the C-5 district

Only one district has a minimum unit size requirement, and it is reasonable

Treatment of manufactured housing as a type of single-family dwelling unit

Availability of manufactured housing and manufactured housing communities in many zone districts

Lack of separation requirements for group living facilities and homes

ADUs technically permitted in many zone districts

Three zone districts permit multi-family residential uses

SROs permitted in all commercial zones

Availability of tandem parking, parking districts and parking reductions by Planning Director

Two spaces per facility parking standard for group homes and relatively low levels of parking for other types of facilities

Use of platted 25 foot wide "Original Substandard Lots of Record"

Areas for Improvement

Definition of dwelling unit that does not explicitly exclude FHAA protected individuals from the 5 person occupancy limit

Lack of by-right density, height, or parking incentives for affordable housing

Lack of by-right provisions allowing reconstruction of affordable or group home facilities with an equal number of units following significant damage or destruction

R-3 45 ft. height limit reduces number of units buildable within low-rise construction techniques and fire code

No by-right reduction in minimum lot size requirements for manufactured home communities compared with surrounding district

Administrative review standards for ADUs that are not clarified in the code itself

General residential parking standards could probably be lowered for smaller multi-family units

Source: Clarion Associates.

Why is this an observation? Land use and zoning regulations may have the effect of reducing development of a wide range of housing types and levels of affordability, which may disparately impact protected classes, most likely persons with disabilities who require group home settings.

6 IBID.


OBSERVATION NO. 2. Mortgage loan approval rates were lower for African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native and Hispanic borrowers than for Whites. An analysis of 2009 mortgage lending data found that African American applicants had denial rates that were seven percentage points higher than White applicants’. White applicants had loan origination rates that were 16 percentage points higher than African American applicants.7

The differences between American Indian/Alaskan Native borrowers and White borrowers was 12 percentage points for loan approvals and 12 percentage points for denials.8

Hispanic applicants’ loan approval rates were eight percentage points lower than Whites’ and denial rates were six percentage points higher.

Why is this an observation? Because the mortgage lending data do not contain information about potential borrowers’ credit scores, it is unclear if the disparities in loan approvals between minorities and Whites are due to credit issues or lending discrimination. Still, difficulty accessing credit (despite the reason) may restrict minorities’ housing choices and can lead to disinvestment in minority neighborhoods.

OBSERVATION NO. 3. Differential treatment of refugees may occur. As discussed in Section IV. Public Outreach, the public process for the AI made a concerted effort to involve refugees who had been relocated to Boise. This effort was driven, in part, by concern by IFHC and Legal Aid about treatment of refugees. Specifically, Legal Aid recently filed a complaint against the three refugee agencies and their parent organizations alleging numerous violations, including failure to make reasonable accommodations, housing segregation, predatory lease arrangements and imposing differential treatment and housing conditions.

The survey results found some housing concerns—e.g., not all refugees report that their lease agreements were translated and some said they did not have security deposits returned—however, the survey results do not suggest that refugees face housing barriers that are unique to the protected class of national origin.

This AI acknowledges that several organizations have significant concerns about the housing process of refugees who are settled in Boise. However, specific violations of the Fair Housing Act unique to the housing situations of refugees in Boise will be determined by the resolution of the complaints discussed above.

7 It should be noted that loan applications submitted by African Americans represented just 1 percent of all loan

applications submitted in Boise, or 66 loans. 8 Similar to African American borrowers, the number of loans for American Indian/Alaskan Native borrowers was small at

64 loans.


Fair Housing Action Plan

Based on our research for this AI, BBC recommends the City of Boise implement the following Fair Housing Action Plan and activities for reducing fair housing impediments:

ACTION ITEM 1. Implement a review process of HOA covenants. City planning and legal staff will develop a process consistent with new housing development applicants for planning and zoning approval that will review HOA – CC&rs for inconsistencies with Fair Housing law. Developers and HOAs will be informed of potential remedies to achieve fair housing compliance and will will be encouraged to amend language in the CC&Rs. In addition education and outreach regarding Fair Housing compliance will be provided to all registered Neighborhood Associations with a specific focus upon inconsistencies or barrier created through CC&Rs. This will include recommending the removal of the restrictions on “shelter homes” to avoid a potential fair housing violation.

Impediment Addressed: 1

ACTION ITEM 2. Actions to resolve Impediment 2 and Observation 3 will include:

Significant portions of the City’s affordable home rehabilitation loan program will be modified to serve low and moderate income households with physical disabilities. Loans will be provided under a forgivable structure to owner occupants and will not require any form of repayment unless the home is sold prior to the specified loan term. In most cases, this is estimated to be a five-year maturity. The purpose of this assistance will be to remove physical barriers to affordable housing.

A similar effort will be directed toward multi-family owners and managers. In this instance, attractive loan terms and rates will be provided as incentives. Net loan proceeds over time will contribute to the continuation of this initiative.

ACTION ITEM 3. Implement regional coordination of LEP implementation plans. As a resettlement community, Boise houses an LEP population that represents a wide variety of languages and dialects. Translation services can be costly to provide, and it can be difficult to secure quality translators. Given the cost and time associated with securing translation services, the city and the BCACHA—as well as other partners—will share and coordinate their LEP services. This will include the following:

Types of documents that should be interpreted into additional languages;

Languages with enough representation for written interpretation of vital documents;

Types of meetings and events in which translation services will be provided; and

Timeline and process for updating the regional LAP.

The city and the BCACHA will continue to maintain an updated list of translators. Since translators are often students at Boise State University, and may only reside in Boise for a short period of time, the list of translators will be updated annually. The city and the BCACHA will continue to work with the English Language Center and Boise State University to identify a list of translators.


The City will assess a pilot program to provide financial resources to affordable rental housing providers for the purpose of translating vital documents. Providers will be expected to match the assistance in serving local LEP populations.


ACTION ITEM 4. Continue actions to increase affordable housing stock. It is a difficult time for many cities to aggressively address affordable housing shortages. As the economy improves and the city’s funds become less constrained, Boise will enhance its efforts to deeply subsidized rental units to its housing stock.


The city will establish a pilot fund during the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2012 with the intended use of providing one time incentives that can remove barriers to affordable housing for high need households. Such activities may include deposit assistance for rent or utilities, move in assistance or other landlord incentives. This pilot effort will be capitalized from the net proceeds realized from the re-sale of HUD homes purchased and renovated by the City through the “HUD Dollar Home” Program. Once initial results of the pilot effort are analyzed for effectiveness, any continuation of the program will receive on-going financial support through this same or similar funding vehicle.

The city will also modify its zoning and land use regulations with the following:

Add a purpose statement to its code that more specifically addresses the city’s purpose to provide housing choices for residents and to comply with applicable federal and state law. The city will add a purpose statement to its code that more specifically addresses the city’s purpose to provide housing choices for residents and to comply with applicable federal and state law. The purpose statement will reflect the city’s intent to coordinate housing and transportation to allow affordable housing and multifamily housing near transit.

Add definition of affordable housing to land use code. The city will add a definition of affordable housing to its land use code, in addition to the definition provided in the city’s Impact Fee Ordinance. This addition will help allow for affordable housing in the city.

Modify definition of dwelling unit.. To further clarify that all of the protected classes covered by the FHAA are excluded from the five unrelated persons per dwelling unit regulation, the city will revise is definition to read: “The physically and/or mentally handicapped included all those groups of individuals protected by the provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments, as amended, including but not limited to those currently undergoing rehabilitation for drug and/or alcohol addiction.”


Consider reducing lot size and parking requirements on mobile and manufactured homes. Boise has separate standards for mobile home parks and manufactured home communities, but those standards still require compliance with all subdivision platting standards applicable to the zone district where the property is located. It appears, for example, that both types of communities must meet the minimum lot size applicable to stick-built single-family housing in the same zone district. While it is good to have specialized standards for these types of development, the city will consider decreasing the required lot size below that of the base zoning district and reduce parking requirements below two per dwelling unit in at least one residential zone district. It is understood that the City is in the process of reinstating the density bonus provisions in conjunction with affordable housing criteria. We encourage this to result in formal adoption of by-right incentives.

Complete an inventory of multifamily parcels in zoning districts that allow multifamily development. In Boise, multifamily is permitted by right in three downtown districts: R-3, R-O, and C-5. This should be an adequate number of zone districts to respond to different types of multifamily demand, provided that the city has zoned an adequate amount of land into these three categories. In addition, multifamily is permitted two districts outside of downtown, R-3 and R-O. The zoning map only shows one R-O parcel outside of downtown, indicating that the city is mostly reliant on the R-3 district for multifamily uses. While it may be sufficient to permit multifamily in one district, it is also important that there is sufficient land zoned for that district to create a reasonable chance that multifamily will be developed. As such, the city will evaluate the supply of land available in these zoning districts to ensure that an adequate supply of land is available to support multifamily development. If an insufficient supply of land is available in these zoning districts, the city will rezone additional land to allow for more high density multifamily development.

Increase affordable housing incentives. Affordable and low income housing projects are exempt from impact fee requirements of the Impact Fee Ordinance. This is a good incentive to promote affordable housing. The city will consider adding additional incentives such as density bonuses or parking reductions for affordable and low-income housing projects.

Allow a variety of housing types that promote affordability. The city will consider allowing additional housing options like cohousing or zero lot line houses. “Zero Lot Line Development” is defined in the code yet it is not permitted by right in any district. The city will consider permitting these in the R-1M district where duplexes and row houses are allowed. This would allow for a different configuration of homes without significantly altering the character of the district.

Evaluate lot size and width requirements. The city will evaluate the lot size and width requirements outlined in the city’s zoning code to ensure they promote affordable housing development. Minimum lot sizes in all residential zones can be reduced through a PUD process. However, the need to complete a discretionary decision process with a public hearing is a barrier that could be reduced or removed through attaching objective standards that permit reduced lot sizes by right. The amount of land zoned R-1M and R-0 will be reviewed to see if it is adequate to help meet affordable housing demands.

Add a provision to zoning code to allow nonconforming structures be replaced with the same number of units if they are damaged or destroyed through fire or natural causes. It is


understood that Conditional Use Permits are available to rebuild non-conforming structures, including replacement of units in excess of the number that would be permitted under the current zoning. However, this type of relief be made available without the need for a hearing or discretionary decision process

Observation Addressed: 1

ACTION ITEM 5. Monitor lending disparities. Boise will monitor lending disparities between White and American Indian/Alaskan Native, African American and Hispanic borrowers over time and, if disparities widen or persist, initiate discussions with financial institutions about the reasons for the disparities and solutions to reduce the gap (e.g., improving the creditworthiness of African American borrowers). Expanded programs to strengthen the credit of minorities will be considered if the lending gaps persist.


SECTION I. Community and Housing Profile

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 1

SECTION I. Community and Housing Profile

This section provides a community and housing profile for the City of Boise. It includes the race/ ethnicity and income concentration maps required by HUD for AIs.

The U.S. Census began a limited release of information collected as part of the 2010 Census in the spring of 2011. 2010 Census data are referenced when possible in this report.

Additional data sources include the following:

Census American Community Survey (ACS) data;

2000 Census for data trends;

Claritas, a commercial data estimates provider;

Idaho Office of Refugees;

COMPASS;

The City of Boise Housing Needs Assessment; and

Unemployment rates and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wage (QCEW) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Demographic Profile

Population. The City of Boise’s current population is 205,671. The city experienced modest growth in the previous decade, adding approximately 20,000 new residents to its 2000 population of 185,787.

Since 2000, Ada County and the communities of Meridian, Kuna and Star grew more quickly than the City of Boise. The neighboring community of Meridian more than doubled its population in the last 10 years, and populations tripled in the smaller communities of Kuna and Star. Figure I-1 displays the population of all cities within Ada County and their growth rate since 2000.

Figure I-1. Population of Cities within Ada County, 2000 and 2010

Source:

2000 and 2010 Census.

Boise* 185,787 205,671 11% 1%

Eagle 11,085 19,908 80% 8%

Garden City 10,624 10,972 3% 0%

Kuna 5,382 15,210 183% 18%

Meridian 34,919 75,092 115% 12%

Star 1,795 5,793 223% 22%

Ada County Total 300,904 392,365 30% 3%

Population Overall Average Growth Annual Growth

2000 2010 Percent Percent

, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING

Race and ethnicity. Figure I-2 compares the city’s population distribution by race and ethnicity in 2000 and 2010. In the last 10 years, strong growth occurred in nearly every non-White racial and ethnic group in the city.

The city’s African American population increased the most in terms of percent growth, nearly doubling. The city’s Asian population, which is the largest racial minority group in the city, grew by 68 percent. Persons of Hispanic descent grew by 74 percent. It is important to note, however, that these populations all still represent small minorities in Boise: despite this growth, 89 percent of residents are White and 74 percent are non-Hispanic.

Figure I-2. Population by Race and Ethnicity, City of Boise 2000 and 2010

Race

American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1,300 0.7% 1,404 0.7% 8%

Asian alone 3,870 2.1% 6,501 3.2% 68%

Black or African American alone 1,437 0.8% 3,043 1.5% 112%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone

302 0.2% 457 0.2% 51%

White alone 171,204 92.2% 182,991 89.0% 7%

Some other race alone 3,241 1.7% 5,139 2.5% 59%

Two or more races 4,433 2.4% 6,136 3.0% 38%

Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latino 8,410 4.5% 14,606 7.1% 74%

Non-Hispanic/Latino 177,377 95.5% 191,065 92.9% 8%

PercentGrowth

2000Count Percent

2010Count Percent

Source: 2000 and 2010 Census.

Racial and ethnic concentration. One of the key components of a fair housing analysis is an examination of the concentration of different races and ethnicities within a jurisdiction to detect evidence of segregation. In some cases, racial and ethnic concentrations are a reflection of preferences—e.g., people of different races and ethnicities may choose to live where they have access to grocery stores or restaurants that cater to them. In other cases, different race/ethnic populations are intentionally steered away or discouraged from living in certain areas. Housing prices can also heavily influence where minorities live.

The following maps display the geographic distribution of Boise’s largest minority groups, highlighting areas of racial and ethnic concentrations.


There are two definitions of racial and ethnic concentration used by HUD in fair housing analyses:

First concentration definition. Areas of concentration occur when the percentage of residents of a particular racial or ethnic group is 10 percentage points or more than the community-wide average. This is consistent with HUD’s definition of “disproportionate need.” For example, if 20 percent of residents in a particular Census block group are African American and African Americans comprise 10 percent of a community’s population overall, that Census block group contains a concentration of African American residents. For the purposes of this report, areas that align with this definition will be referred to as areas of “low concentration.”

Second concentration definition. Areas of concentration occur when the percentage of residents of a particular racial or ethnic group is 20 percentage points or more than the community-wide average. This definition for concentration aligns with HUD Fair Housing Equal Opportunity (FHEO) guidance issued in 2004.1 For the purposes of this report, areas that align with this definition will be referred to as areas of “high concentration.”

Figures I-3 through I-5 map areas of concentration for the city’s largest racial and ethnic groups: Asian, non-White and Hispanic. Areas of low concentration are presented on the map in dark blue and areas of high concentration are cross-hatched.

As the following figures demonstrate, there are low concentrations of Asian, non-White and Hispanics in the central portion of Boise along Highway 184. There is an additional area of low Hispanic concentration along Highway 20. There are no areas of high racial or ethnic concentration in Boise.

Figure I-3. Percent of Block Group Population that is Asian, City of Boise, 2010

Source:

2010 Census.

1 HUD’s definitions of concentration were presented to the City of Boise in correspondence with HUD’s FHEO dated

December of 2004.


Figure I-4. Percent of Block Group Population that is Non-White, City of Boise, 2010

Source:

2010 Census.

Figure I-5. Percent of Block Group Population that is Hispanic, City of Boise, 2010

Source:

2010 Census.


In April 2010, the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC) produced a report which analyzed the distribution of dialect in the Boise Independent School District.2 This study uses the standard deviation from the mean to analyze the distribution of dialects by school in the Boise School District. If the same metric was applied to the concentration maps in Figures I-3 through I-5, a “concentrated” Census block group would occur when the percentage of Asian, non-White or Hispanics is 4, 11 and 10 points higher than the mean, respectively. The methodologies employed by the IFHC and this study identify virtually the same number of block group concentrations for the non-White and Hispanic populations. However, IFHC’s methodology identifies six block groups with Asian concentrations compared to one block group in this study.

Linguistic isolation. A linguistically isolated household is one in which “all members of the household 14 years old and over have at least some difficulty speaking English.”3 The 2000 Census reported that less than two percent of all Boise households are linguistically isolated.4 In 2000, the largest proportion of linguistically isolated households in Boise spoke an Indo-European language.

Figures I-7 and I-8 show the location of the city’s non-English speaking residents. The largest proportions of non-English speakers in Boise reside in the central portion of the city.

2 Dialect Distribution in the Boise Independent

School District Narrative Report, April 15,2010, Intermountain Fair Housing Council. 3 Definition taken from the U.S. Census.

4 Linguistic isolation data has not been updated by the Census since 2000.

Figure I-6. Linguistically Isolated Households, City of Boise, 2000

Linguistically Isolated 1,299 1.7%

Spanish 434 0.6%

Indo-European 516 0.7%

Asian/Pacific Island 322 0.4%

Other 27 0.0%

Number

Percent of Total

Households

Source: 2000 Census.


Figure I-7. Percent of Block Group Population that Speaks Spanish at Home, City of Boise, 2010

Source: 2010 Claritas.

Figure I-8. Percent of Block Group Population that Speak Asian, Indo-European or Other Language at Home, City of Boise, 2010

Source: 2010 Claritas.


Refugee population. The City of Boise is one of 200 communities nationwide that provides resettlement services for refugees. Between 2006 and August 2011, 2,520 refugees—or approximately 500 refugees per year—resettled in Boise. According to the Idaho Office of Refugees (IOR), approximately 20 percent of resettled refugees leave Boise to return to their home country or move to another city in the U.S., indicating that as many as 2,000 refugees that have arrived in Boise in the last five years may stay in the city permanently.5

As demonstrated in Figure I-9, Boise refugees represent a variety of countries, cultures and languages. In the last five years, the largest proportion of refugees (42%) came from the Middle East/South Asian, which includes Iraq (572 refugees) and Bhutan (462 refugees).

Figure I-9. Refugee Population, City of Boise, 2006 to 2011

Source:

Idaho Office for Refugees.

cont'd

Africa 773 Latin America/Caribbean 19

Burundi 184

Congo 287 Near East/South Asia 1,055

Somalia 167 Bhutan 462

Other 135 Iraq 572

Other 21

East Asia 370

Burma 368 Unknown 3

Vietnam 2

Europe and Central Asia 300

Afghanistan 154

Uzbekistan 109

Other 37

Number Number

Total 2,520

The city’s three resettlement organizations—the Agency for New Americans, the Treasure Valley World Relief and the International Rescue Committee—are responsible for finding refugees their first home in Boise. Resettlement organizations are required to follow U.S. State Department guidelines for locating refugee housing, which stipulates that housing “meet locally accepted standards for safety and livability,” and they also must consider proximity to public transit, important amenities (e.g., language classes), family and other community ties, cost and rental availability when locating housing for new refugees. Refugees receive very limited federal assistance upon their arrival in the U.S. A single person household will receive approximately $4,000 in total federal refugee assistance through the first eight months of their resettlement; this provides refugees with $100 per month for housing costs.6

5 Out-migration estimate provided by the Idaho Office of Refugees. Refugees are removed from the IOR database once they

stop receiving financial assistance; as such, 20 percent is an estimate. 6 Each refugee receives a one-time $900 stipend from the U.S. State Department upon their arrival in the U.S. The U.S.

Department of Heath and Human Services provides refugees with an eight month household stipend that varies by household size.


In some instances, the IOR directs refugees’ federal assistance payments to rental payments. Figure I-10 presents the location of these direct rental payments. Assuming the location of direct rental payment assistance resembles the overall geographic distribution of refugees in Boise, refugees are most likely to live in the Central Bench neighborhood of Boise.

Figure I-10. Location of IOR Direct Rental Payments, City of Boise, 2010 to 2011

Note:

This map is not intended to represent all housing locations of refugees

Source:

Idaho Office for Refugees.

Income and poverty. The 2009 median household income in the City of Boise was $44,926. This is lower than the State of Idaho’s median household income of $47,898 and the U.S. median household income of $50,221.7 Figure I-11 displays the household income distribution for the city. More than half of Boise’s households earn less than $50,000 per year, and nearly one-fourth of all households earn less than $25,000 per year.

7 Income data is not yet available in the 2010 Census.


Figure I-11. Household Income Distribution, City of Boise, 2009

Note:

Income data not yet available in the 2010 Census.

Source:

2009 American Community Survey 1-year estimate.

$200,000 ormore

$100,000 to$199,999

$75,000 to$99,999

$50,000 to$74,999

$25,000 to$49,999

Less than$25,000

0% 8% 16% 24% 32% 40%

24.0%

28.0%

18.0%

14.0%

14.0%

2.0%

100%

Figure I-12 displays the geographic distribution of the city’s low income households. The Central Bench area contains most of the city’s concentrated block groups. Boise State University’s student population likely accounts for the low income concentrations near the campus.

F igure I-12. Percent of Block Group Households that Earn Less than $25,000 Annually, City of Boise, 2010

Note:

Income data not yet available in the 2010 Census.

Source:

2010 Claritas.

The city’s current poverty rate of 15 percent is nearly double the city’s eight percent poverty rate reported in 2000. The city’s poverty rate is highest among its college aged residents (32%); this is largely due to Boise’s student population. Twenty-five percent of Boise’s school aged population (aged 5 to 17) live in poverty, as do 21 percent of Boise’s children under the age of five.


Figure I-13. Poverty by Age, City of Boise, 2010

Source:

2009 American Community Survey.

Less than 5 years old 2,962 21%

5 to 17 years old 3,717 25%

18 to 24 years old 6,477 32%

25 to 44 years old 8,144 13%

45 to 64 years old 5,989 11%

65 years or older 2,019 9%

Total 29,308 15%

Total in Poverty

Percent of Age Group

Familial status. There are 85,704 households in Boise. Figure I-14 displays Boise’s household composition by household type. Fifty-nine percent of households are family households, and 41 percent are non-family households.

Figure I-14. Household Composition, City of Boise, 2010

Source:

2010 Census.

Family Households 50,647 59%

Husband-wife family 37,941 44%

with children 15,968 19%

without children 21,973 26%

Male Householder - no wife 3,845 4%



Female Householder - no husband 8,861 10%



Nonfamily Households 35,057 41%

Total Households 85,704 100%

Percent of Total Households

Total Households

Figure I-15 maps Boise’s single parent households by block group. Nine percent of Boise’s households are single parent households, indicating that a concentration of single parent households has 19 percent or more single parent households. The Central Bench neighborhood contains two of the three Census block groups with a concentration of single parent households.


Figure I-15. Percent of Block Group Households that are Single Parent Households, City of Boise, 2010

Source:

2010 Census.

Disability. Disability status is an important component of fair housing analysis, particularly in Boise. According to HUD, 68 percent of the 108 fair housing complaints filed in Boise between 2006 and 2010 were on the basis of disability.

In 2000, 16 percent of Boise’s residents reported having a disability.8 As seen in Figure I-16, disability rates are highest among the city’s seniors.

Figure I-16. Persons with Disabilities, City of Boise, 2000

Source:

2000 Census.

5 to 15 1,837 28,663 6%

16 to 64 17,314 125,396 14%

65 and older 7,224 18,612 39%

Percent of Age Group

Total in Age GroupNumber

8 Data for the number of persons with disabilities is not available in the American Community Survey, and has not been

released in the 2010 Census.


Figure I-17 presents the types of disabilities reported by Boise residents. A physical disability, which include “a condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting or carrying,” was the most common type of disability reported by Boise’s residents in 2000 (24%). 9 Twenty-two percent of Boise’s residents reported an employment disability, which is defined as “a physical, mental or emotional condition lasting six months or more that made it difficult to perform certain activities, such as working at a job or business.”10

Figure I-17. Types of Disabilities, City of Boise, 2000

Note:

Respondents may have more than one disability.

Source:

2000 Census.

Sensory 6,339 14%

Physical 10,918 24%

Mental 7,934 17%

Self-Care 2,984 6%

Going outside the home 7,619 17%

Employment Disability 10,123 22%

Number

Percent of All Reported Disabilities

Figure I-18 geographically displays where the city’s residents with disabilities reside. In 2000, there was one Census tract in the Central Bench that contained a low concentration of persons with disabilities.

Figure I-18. Percent of Census Tract Population with Disability, City of Boise, 2000

Source:

2000 Census.

9 The Census definition of physical disability can be found here:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/disab_defn.html#00census 10

The Census definition of employment disability can be found here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/disab_defn.html#00census


Employment

In the midst of the recent economic recession, Boise has not been immune to increases in unemployment. The Boise-Nampa Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) shed more than 8,000 jobs between June of 2008 and June of 2009. During the same period, the Boise unemployment rate nearly doubled from 4.7 percent to 8.1 percent. Historically, Boise and Idaho’s economy has performed stronger than the U.S. as a whole, but the recent recession has impacted Meridian and the surrounding area.

Unemployment. Figure I-19 displays unemployment rates for the city, state and the U.S. since 2000. As of June 2011, Boise’s unemployment rate was 8.6 percent, which is slightly lower than the overall unemployment rates in Idaho (9.4%) and the U.S. (9.2%).

Figure I-19. Unemployment Rate, Boise, Idaho, U.S, 2000 to 2011

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011(June)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Un

emp

loym

ent

Rat

e Boise

Idaho

U.S.

Note: Unemployment rates for 2005 to 2010 represent not seasonally adjusted annual averages.

Source: HUD SOCDS, Idaho Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor Statistics.


Jobs and wages. Ada County’s employment base largely consists of moderately paying jobs in service producing industries. The county’s two highest paying industries account for less than three percent of the county’s total jobs. The county’s largest industry —public administration and education—pays an average annual wage of $42,000, which is slightly higher than the average wage of $40,300 for the county overall.

Figure I-20. Employment and Wages, Ada County, 3Q2010

Goods Producing 25,456 13% $60,065

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 889 0% $28,242

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction NA NA NA

Construction 10,064 5% $45,708

Manufacturing 14,408 7% $71,987

Service Producing 168,149 87% $37,331

Wholesale Trade 8,659 4% $57,187

Retail Trade 22,703 12% $26,583

Transportation and Warehousing 4,614 2% $37,736

Utilities 901 0% $76,572

Information 3,654 2% $48,135

Finance and Insurance 8,061 4% $48,904

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 2,591 1% $31,472

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 10,166 5% $51,466

Management of Companies and Enterprises 4,040 2% $83,419

Administrative and Waste Management 19,391 10% $26,349

Educational Services (private ownership) 1,850 1% $34,886

Health Care and Social Assistance 27,417 14% $42,600

Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 3,034 2% $16,566

Accommodation and Food Services 15,742 8% $14,471

Other Services (except Public Administration) 5,349 3% $25,070

Public Administration and Education 29,977 15% $42,298

Employment

Number Percent

Average Annual Wages

Source: Idaho Department of Labor.


Top employers. Nine of the 25 largest employers in the region are public entities, including local, state and federal government and public education. The single largest employer in the region is the State of Idaho. Healthcare firms are also some of the largest employers in the region, including St. Luke’s Regional Medical System, St. Adphonsus Regional Medical System and the VA hospital.

Figure I-21. Major Employers, Boise City-Nampa MSA, 2011

Employer Industry

State of Idaho 8,489 Government

St. Luke's Regional Medical System 7,677 Healthcare Services

Micron Technology, Inc. 5,000 Semi Conductor Mfg.

WalMart 4,235 Retail/Grocery

Meridian Joint School District #2 4,000 Education

Boise State University 3,952 Education

St. Alphonsus Regional Medical System 3,407 Healthcare Services

Hewlett-Packard Company 4,000 Laser Printing Div

Albertson's/A Supervalu Company 2,500 Grocery/Retail

Ada and Canyon County 2,308 Government

Boise School District 2,200 Education

IDACorp. (Idaho Power) 1,961 Utility

J. R. Simplot 1,800 HQ/Food Production

Nampa School District 1,700 Education

City of Boise 1,600 Government

DirecTV 1,400 Customer Service

Citi 1,250 Inbound - Credit Card Sales/Service

Darmody Enterprises (McDonald's) 1,250 Retail Food

Veteran's Affairs/Medical Center 1,250 Healthcare Services

Fred Meyer 1,200 Retail/Grocery

WDS Global Services 1,100 Customer Service Call Center

EDS 1,000 Inbound - 3rd Party (military)

Teleperformance USA 950 Inbound Customer Service

Vallivue School District #139 950 Education

URS 900 Construction/Engineering Services (Gov't, Mining & Power Industries)

Number of Employees

Source: Boise Valley Economic Partnership.

Educational attainment. Thirty-five percent of Boise’s adults aged 25 and older have a college degree or higher. This is higher than state (24%) and national (28%) averages. While the city contains a relatively large proportion of educated adults, an almost equally large proportion of adults have a high school degree or less (29%).


Housing Market Analysis

According to the 2010 Census, there are 92,700 housing units in the City of Boise. Currently, 61 percent of the city’s households own the home in which they live, while 39 percent rent their current home. In 2000, 64 percent of the city’s households were homeowners and 36 percent were renters, indicating a slight shift towards renting.

The city added 14,750 new units to its housing inventory since 2000, for an 18 percent increase in the size of the city’s housing stock. New residential building permits issued between 2000 and 2010 were almost equally split between single family permits (55%) and multifamily permits (45%). Figure I-22 shows the number and type of permit issued in Boise in the last 10 years.

Figure I-22. Building Permits Issued by Type, City of Boise, 2000 to 2010

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Nu

mb

er o

f U

nit

s

994

307

785

1,036

709

489

678

433

562

235

795

377415

452

256

830

122191

145

237

323

23

Single Family

Multifamily

Note: Mobile home units are not included. Between 2000 and 2008, 79 mobile homes were permitted for construction.

Source: COMPASS.

Despite growth in the city’s multifamily housing stock in the last 10 years, single family units still account for 72 percent of the city’s housing stock. Units in structures with two to 50 units account for an additional 20 percent of the city’s housing units. Figure I-23 displays the distribution of the city’s housing units by type.

Figure I-23. Housing Units by Type, City of Boise, 2009

Source:


Single Familydetached (66%)

5 to 49 units (11%)

2 to 5 units (9%)

Single Familyattached

(6%)

50 unitsor more

(5%)

MobileHomes

(3%)


Rental housing. According to the 2009 ACS, the median contract rent in Boise was $699. This is a 26 percent increase from the contract rent of $554 in 2000. Between 2000 and 2009, the median household income of the city’s renters increased by 14 percent from $27,108 to $30,793. In general, the household income of renters has increased enough to cover increases in rental rates.

Figure I-24 displays the distribution of contract rents in the city. Nearly 45 percent of the city’s rental units require rents between $500 and $750 per month. Rental rates within this range are considered affordable to the city’s average renter household, which earns approximately $31,000 per year.

Figure I-24. Contract Rent Distribution, City of Boise, 2009

Source:


Less than$250

$250 to$499

$500 to$749

$750 to$999

$1,000 to$1,499

$1,500 ormore

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2%

16%

45%

29%

7%

2%

100%

Figure I-25 displays rental rates by neighborhood. Sixty-eight percent of Downtown dwellers rent. The city’s Southwest neighborhood contains only 13 percent renter households.

Figure I-25. Rental Rate by Planning Area, City of Boise, 2008 Source:

Blueprint Boise, Draft 2009.


Rental rates vary by geography in the City of Boise. Figure I-26 maps median contract rental rates by Census tract to examine the city’s geographic rent distribution. The highest median rents are located in the outer edges of the city. Median rental rates consistently fall between $500 and $750 in areas with the highest renter concentrations.

Figure I-26. Median Contract Rent by Census Tract, City of Boise, 2009 Source:

2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Homeownership housing. According to the ACS, the median value of an owner-occupied home in the City of Boise was $193,900 in 2009. In 2000, the Census estimated the median to be at $118,100. Based on these estimates, the median has increased by $75,800 (64%), or by an average of $8,400 per year.

In 2009, a household would need to earn approximately $20,000 more to be able to afford the median priced home than they would have in 2000. The median household income of Boise owners has increased since 2000—but only by $8,800.

According to the city’s 2010 housing needs assessment, home prices in many portions of the city peaked in 2007, and then declined. This is most notable in the city’s Foothills neighborhood. However, as of 2009, the Foothills neighborhood still boasted the highest median home price in the city. The Central Bench neighborhood had the city’s lowest median home price. The city’s downtown neighborhood was the only neighborhood where median home prices did not decline between 2007 and 2009. Figure I-27 displays median home prices by neighborhood in 2001, 2007 and 2009 to show how the city’s housing market changed during the last decade. Figure I-28 maps the city’s 2009 median home prices by neighborhood.


Figure I-27. Median Home Values by Planning Area, City of Boise, 2001, 2007 and 2009

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from Intermountain MLS data.

Southwest

West Bench

Southeast

Northwest

North End

Foothills

East End

Downtown

Central Bench

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000

$100,750$189,900

$146,750

$168,900$369,000

$380,950

$183,200$349,900

$339,000

$235,000$474,500

$400,000

$127,900$274,700

$216,950

$129,900$229,900

$179,900

$149,900$260,996

$216,900

$124,900$219,900

$162,900

$144,000$245,391

$174,900

2001

2007

2009

Figure I-28. Median Home Value by Planning Area, City of Boise, 2009

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from Intermountain MLS data.


Housing condition. The overall condition of housing units in Boise is good. According to the ACS, less than one percent of all housing units were lacking complete plumbing11 or kitchen facilities.12 Stakeholders interviewed for the city’s Consolidated Plan noted that overall quality is good; however, extremely low income households who need units priced less than $500 sometimes live in substandard rental units (e.g., insect infested units).

Overcrowding in housing can threaten public health, strain public infrastructure and neighborhoods, and points to the need for affordable housing. The amount of living space required to meet health and safety standards is not consistently specified; measurable standards for overcrowding vary by community. According to HUD, the most widely used measure assumes that a home becomes overcrowded when there is more than one household member per room.13 14

Using HUD’s definition of overcrowding, 819 units, or less than one percent of the city’s occupied housing units are considered overcrowded, indicating that overcrowding is not a widespread problem in the city.

Housing needs. BBC identified three areas of housing need in the City of Boise. These needs include the following:

Buying has become more difficult for Boise’s households in recent years. Households must earn more than $50,000 per year to buy a home in Boise. And, even at that level, households may have difficulty getting a mortgage, as lending requirements have become more stringent. Moreover, in 2000, 38 percent of the city’s renters could afford to buy the median priced home of $118,100; in 2009, only 25 percent of renters could afford the median priced home of $216,500.

Current, long-time homeowners may need assistance staying in their homes or making emergency repairs. Nearly one-third of the city’s current homeowners are elderly, one-fourth have a disability and one-quarter of homeowners live alone.

The city’s rental stock is aptly priced for 72 percent of the city’s renter households. While that is good news for many of the city’s renter households, the city’s lowest income renters are competing for a small stock of affordable rental units in the city. According to the HNA, nearly 20 percent of the city’s renter households earn less than $15,000 per year and can afford to pay $375 per month in rent and utilities. Boise has approximately 1,100 units affordable to these renters, which leaves a gap of about 4,000 underserved households. Some of these low income renters include the city’s elderly residents living on fixed income, persons with disabilities and refugees.

11

The data on plumbing facilities were obtained from both occupied and vacant housing units. Complete plumbing facilities include: (1) hot and cold piped water; (2) a flush toilet; and (3) a bathtub or shower. All three facilities must be located in the housing unit.

12 A unit has complete kitchen facilities when it has all of the following: (1) a sink with piped water; (2) a range, or cook top

and oven; and (3) a refrigerator. All kitchen facilities must be located in the house, apartment or mobile home, but they need not be in the same room. A housing unit, having only a microwave or portable heating equipment, such as a hot plate or camping stove, should not be considered as having complete kitchen facilities. An icebox is not considered to be a refrigerator.

13 For information on HUD’s definition of overcrowding, see:

http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/Measuring_Overcrowding_in_Hsg.pdf 14

The HUD American Housing Survey defines a room as an enclosed space used for living purposes, such as a bedroom, living or dining room, kitchen, recreation room, or another finished room suitable for year-round use. Excluded are bathrooms, laundry rooms, utility rooms, pantries, and unfinished areas.


Transportation

Like many western communities, Boise residents are primarily dependent on cars for transportation. Nearly 80 percent of Boise’s residents drove alone to work each day, while only one percent relied on public transportation for their work commute. 15

Public transit provides an important cost effective transportation option for the city’s low income residents. According to Boise regional public transit provider, annual bus transportation in Boise costs an adult $432, compared to $5,000 to $6,000 for car transportation. 16 Given the cost savings of public transit, it is not surprising that Boise’s public transit commuters are more likely to be renters and have lower incomes than the city overall. For example, 39 percent of the city’s households rent their homes, while 64 percent of the city’s public transit commuters are renters. Additionally, 72 percent of the city’s public transit commuters earn less than $25,000 per year, whereas only 25 percent of the city’s households earn less than $25,000 per year.17

The Boise region is served by Valley Regional Transit (VRT), which provides public transit for both Ada and Canyon counties. Figures I-29 and I-30 display the regional and downtown bus lines. Bus lines are most abundant in downtown Boise.

Figure I-29. Valley Regional Transit Bus Lines, City of Boise, 2011

Source: Valley Regional Transit.

15

Means of transportation to work statistics from the 2009 American Community Survey 1-year estimate. 16

A description of VRT’s methodology for calculating transportation costs can be found here: http://www.valleyregionaltransit.org/Portals/0/Resources/Factsheets/CostDrivingVersusBusJune06.pdf

17 Means of transportation to work is presented by worker, whereas income statistics are presented by household or family.


Figure I-30. Downtown Boise Bus Lines, City of Boise, 2011

Source:

Valley Regional Transit.

The Brooking’s Institute’s Metropolitan Transit Access project presents “metropolitan and neighborhood-level information on how transit connects workers to jobs in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas.”18 Four metrics are used to evaluate communities’ overall transit accessibility: coverage, service frequency and job access. Boise ranks 52nd out of the largest 100 metropolitan communities in overall public transit coverage and job access. More specifically:

Fifty-two percent of Boise’s residents live with three-fourths of a mile from a transit stop; this is lower than the average of 69 percent among the 100 largest metropolitan communities in the country; and

The median wait time for a bus during rush hour traffic is 22.4 minutes, which is more than twice the wait of 10.1 minutes among all 100 metropolitan communities combined.

18

The Transit Access applications can be found here: http://www.brookings.edu/Home/metro/jobs_and_transit/Map.aspx


While the city trails the metropolitan average in public transit and median wait time, they do exceed the average for job coverage. Thirty-four percent of all jobs in Boise are reachable via transit in 90 minutes, compared to 30 percent among the top 100 metropolitan communities.

The city’s low income residents earning less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income have better public transit coverage and service frequency than the city’s middle and high income residents. For example, 84 percent of the city’s low income residents live within three-fourths of a mile from a transit stop, compared to 46 percent middle income residents and 36 percent high income residents. The average wait time for a bus for low income residents is 20.8 minutes, compared to 23.2 minutes for middle income residents and 23.8 minutes for high income residents.

Public transportation for special needs population. The VRT’s ACCESS program is a paratransit service for Boise’s residents with disabilities who are unable to access ValleyRide’s traditional bus services. ACCESS is an origin to destination transit service operating Monday through Saturday with the same hours as the fixed-line bus system. ACCESS will travel up to three-fourths of a mile off fixed-line routes for service pickups. If residents live further than three-fourths of a mile from a fixed-line service, they must get to a bus stop to receive ACCESS services.

Sage Community Resources (SCR) serves as Boise’s Area Agency on Aging (AAA). SCR connects seniors with important services, including transportation. Transportation services are “designed to help seniors access social services, medical and health care services, meals programs, places of employment, senior centers, shopping, civic functions, adult day care facilities and recreational locations.”19 Preferences for services is given to older minorities and low income seniors.

19

For more information on the AAA senior transportation program: http://www.sageidaho.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=senior.transportation

SECTION II. Public Policies and Practices

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 1

SECTION II. Public Policies and Practices

This section reviews city zoning and land use policies, as well as the policies and practices of the Boise City Ada County Housing Authority (BCACHA ), for barriers to fair housing choice and violations with the Federal Fair Housing Act. The section also contains the results of an examination of a sample of Homeowners Associations’ covenants. It concludes with an overview of city goals and objectives related to housing and community development.

Public Housing Authority

BCACHA serves as the housing authority for the City of Boise, as well as Ada County, and provides housing to the city’s lowest income households primarily through the Section 8 voucher program and public housing units.

Section 8 Voucher Program. The BCACHA administers 1,794 Section 8 vouchers in Ada County. Sixty-four percent of voucher recipients are Boise residents.

As of May 2011, there were 5,331 households on the Section 8 waitlist, and the BCACHA estimates that households on the list will wait four to five years for a Section 8 voucher. Figure II-1 displays the demographic characteristics of Section 8 Voucher waitlisted households. Waitlisted households are largely categorized as extremely low income. African American and Hispanic residents are disproportionately represented on the Section 8 waitlist; African Americans account for less than two percent of the city’s population, but seven percent of waitlisted households.

Figure II-1. BCACHA Section 8 Waitlist, Household Demographics, 2011

Note:

Demographic data is not provided for all applicants. Household characteristics, income and race/ethnicity categories will not sum to 100 percent.

Source:

BCACHA.

Applicants on Active Waitlist 5,331 100%

Household Characteristics

Families with children 2,920 55%

Elderly families 495 9%

Families with disabilities 2,064 39%

Income

Extremely low income 4,449 83%

Very low income 820 15%

Low income 23 0%

Race/Ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 127 2%

Asian 211 4%

Black/African American 394 7%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 63 1%

White 4,237 79%

Hispanic 523 10%

Non-Hispanic 4,053 76%

Number Percent

, SECTION II BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING

Section 8 policies. According to BCACHA’s website, households can check their status on the waitlist online or by calling or visiting the BCACHA office. Households are notified by mail when a voucher becomes available to them.

To stay on the Section 8 and/or public housing waitlist, residents must report changes of address, phone, household members or local preference in writing within 10 working days of the change. Residents must also respond to requests made by the BCACHA. Failure to abide by these rules may result in the removal of residents from the waitlist.1 This information is presented on the rental assistance application found on the BCACHA’s website. The online application is only available in English.

The BCACHA closed its Section 8 waitlist on April 29, 2011 citing “large demand for rental assistance in the community, a limited amount of funding and federal budget cuts.”2 The BCACHA also recently suspended all Section 8 waitlist preferences, with the exception of the following categories:

Applicants with a Family Unification Program referral from the Department of Health and Welfare;

Applicants with a Homeless Program referral from one of the BCACHA recognized referring agencies;

Applications with a CATCH program referral from the City of Boise;

A household whose head or co-head (or at least one adult member) is working at least 20 hours per week, with verifiable income or whose head or co-head is participating in a BCACHA recognized job preparedness/self-sufficiency program or a household whose head or co-head is either elderly (62 or older), and/or handicapped and unable to work; and

A household whose head or co-head is fleeing their home due to domestic violence.

If a household does acquire a Section 8 Voucher, the BCACHA provides assistance to recipients in the following ways:

The BCACHA provides recipients with information on the location of accessible units in Boise;

They provide residents with an online checklist to evaluate apartments. The BCACHA encourages residents to evaluate the condition of the unit and the neighborhood; the cost of utilities; and the home’s proximity to public transportation, employment, schools, medical facilities and shopping.

The BCACHA encourages residents to find housing outside of Boise’s high poverty areas in hopes of increasing access to good schools, job opportunities, better quality housing and responsive landlords.

1 These policies are presented on the rental assistance applications found here: http://www.bcacha.org/rental_assist_app_12-

07-2009.pdf 2 For more information on the Section 8 program: http://www.BC/ACHA.org/Rental_Assistance/Section_8/section_8.html


Public housing. The BCACHA has 230 public housing units located between the Franklin Plaza and Capitol Plaza complexes. Both facilities were constructed in 1970 and are located in Boise. Both facilities serve elderly residents and persons with disabilities and contain a mix of studio, one bedroom and two bedroom apartments. The BCACHA also manages five scattered site duplexes with federal aid from HUD.

Public housing applications can be obtained at the BCACHA office or online. Applications must be mailed or hand delivered to the BCACHA office in Boise. The BCACHA website can be interpreted into many languages through the Google Translate tool; however, the public housing application is only available online in English.

There are currently 168 families on the waitlist for public housing units, and the average wait time for a public housing unit ranges from three months to two years depending on the unit size requested. Figure II-2 summarizes the demographic characteristics of families on the public housing waitlist. Nearly all households on the waitlist (93%) have a household member with a disability.

Figure II-2. BCACHA Public Housing Unit Waitlist, 2011

Note:

Demographic data is not provided for all applicants. As such, household characteristics, income and race/ethnicity categories will not sum to 100 percent.

Source:

BC/ACHA.

Applicants on Active Waitlist 168 100%

Household Characteristics

Families with children - 0%

Elderly families 34 20%

Families with disabilities 156 93%

Income

Extremely low income 7 4%

Very low income 2 1%

Low income 2 1%

Race/Ethnicity

American Indian/Alaskan Native 3 2%

Asian 2 1%

Black/African American 10 6%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 1%

White 138 82%

Hispanic 15 9%

Non-Hispanic 114 68%

Number Percent

Limited English Proficiency policy. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is “the federal law that protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of their race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal financial assistance.”3 Compliance with Title VI requires that federal recipients of federal dollars provide language assistance to individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP). Otherwise, “failure to ensure that persons who are limited English proficient (LEP) can effectively participate in, or benefit from, federally assisted programs may violate Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination.”4

3 Information on Title VI and HUD programs can be found here: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/

program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/promotingfh/lep-faq 4 IBID.


In 2007, HUD issued guidance to help federal assistance recipients understand their obligations to serving individuals with LEP. HUD suggests federal assistance recipients conduct a four-factor analysis to determine how to best service LEP individuals (explained below); develop a Language Assistance Plan (LAP); and provide appropriate language assistance to LEP individuals.

HUD’s four-factor analysis is a “flexible and fact-dependent” approach to helping federal assistance recipients determine which LEP populations to serve and how to best serve these populations. The four-factor analysis includes identifying the following:

The number of proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or grantee;

The frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with the program;

The nature and importance of the program, activity or service provided by the program to peoples’ lives; and

The resources available to the grantee/recipient and costs.

In addition to the four-factor analysis, HUD provides more specific guidance for Title VI compliance. HUD recommends recipients provide written translation of vital documents and oral translation of non-vital documents for LEP languages if the LEP group represents five percent of the total population of the population likely to be encountered or served or 1,000 persons.

HUD recommends that federal assistance recipients develop a language assistance plan (LAP) to describe how they intend to serve LEP individuals in their communities. The City of Boise approved a comprehensive LAP in April 2012 (this is discussed on page 5 below). The BCACHA’s LAP was last updated in 2004, prior to HUD’s 2007 guidance.

According to the BCACHA’s LAP, the housing authority is committed to quickly connecting LEP individuals to interpreters at no cost to the individual. BCACHA explicitly states that friends or family members of the LEP individual are not valid interpreters. Instead, the BCACHA utilizes bilingual staff members when available and a telephone interpreter service known as the Language Line Services.

The BCACHA’s implementation plan does not specify when written interpretation of vital documents will be provided for residents, which is an important component of HUD’s 2007 Title VI guidance. However, the BCACHA’s rental assistance application for its Section 8 and public housing programs does ask residents whether they need assistance with language interpretation.


Assisted Housing Units

The following summarizes the city’s inventory of affordable housing units directly owned and operated by the city which were constructed or acquired and rehabilitated with Community Development Block Grant and/or HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds made available through HUD. .

City of Boise rental units. The City of Boise owns and manages 275 affordable rental units in the city. Most of these units are older units—some more than 90 years old—and are expensive to maintain because of the need for extensive rehabilitation and repairs. There is strong demand for these units. Applicants will likely wait a year or more for family size units and two months or more for single occupant units. Figure II-3 lists the location, number of units and year of construction for all city-owned properties.

Figure II-3. City-Owned Assisted Rental Units, City of Boise, 2011

Location Location (con'd)

1020 S. Lusk 36 1966 709 W. Thatcher (YMCA) 1 1908

1025 S. Capitol 49 1966 1028 S. Lusk 25 1975

1121 S. Capitol (Blvd. Hotel) 22 1938 1250 W. Dundee 1 1966

1413 W. Washington 4 Unkown 1329 S. Michigan 1 1994

1604-1610 W. Boise Avenue 4 1954 2006 N. Liberty 1 1964

2002 N. Raymond 1 1970 2728 Cherry Lane 1 1980

2801 Gooding 1 1920 2752 Cherry Lane 1 1996

2809 Gooding 1 1920 2944 Cherry Lane 1 2002

425 W. Jefferson 19 Unknown 2952 Cherry Lane 1 1996

4404 Camas 1 1997 916 & 918 S. Orchard 12 1996

4/824 Wylie Lane 1 1908 2709 N. Woody Drive 1 2002

612 W. Franklin 9 1920 2717 S. Vista 80 1954

6385 Poplar 1 1980 Total 275

Number of Units

Year Built

Number of Units

Year Built

Source: City of Boise.

LEP policy. The City of Boise’s LAP outlines a plan for identifying and serving LEP individuals, interpreting vital documents and monitoring and updating the city’s plan.

The city’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) staff are to be equipped with the Department of Justice’s “Know Your Rights” pamphlet available online in 10 languages, as well as “Language Identification Flashcards” available in 38 languages. After an LEP individual’s primary language is identified, HCD staff are required by the LAP to make a prompt call for interpretation. The city uses Certified Languages International for its interpretation services. According to the city’s interpretation service call log, HCD staff has accessed interpretation services nearly 100 times in the last five years for assistance in 10 languages.

The city has also identified a list of “vital documents” that are to be interpreted. “Priority 1” documents include lease agreements, resident handbooks, drug free addendums, lead paint disclaimers, late rent notices, marketing pamphlets, website marketing information and documents from the city’s legal department. Currently, vital documents have been interpreted into Spanish.


The city has an aggressive plan to monitor and update its LAP, which includes an annual census of LEP individuals living in HCD housing. The city also vows to be “continually vigilant regarding the needs of its LEP clients,” which includes monitoring the changes in the city’s LEP population and adjusting the LAP accordingly. The city suggests that LAP changes could include increasing the number of documents interpreted for residents or increasing the number of bilingual speakers on HCD property management staff. HCD plans to evaluate the LAP every three years. The Housing and Community Development Division completed a census of LEP individuals residing in its housing units at the conclusion of Program Year 2011.

The city requires subrecipients of its HUD funds to comply with LEP including the development of an LAP and documentation of a four factor analysis. Subrecipients are monitored for performance pursuant to the City’s monitoring policies and procedures. In addition, agencies receiving funds from the City receive technical assistance in how to comply with LEP requirements.

Assisted units. There are 718 assisted units in Boise subsidized through a variety of federal programs including HUD’s Section 202 and Section 8 New Construction programs. Figure II-4 lists all subsidized units in Boise. The Shoreline Plaza, operated by the BCACHA, contains the largest number of subsidized units in the city (80 units).

Figure II-4. Units with Subsidized Rent, City of Boise, 2011

Property name Address

Shoreline Plaza 675 S 13th St. 2018 80 0 80 0 0 0

Samaritan Village I 3350 Collister Dr. 2013 50 0 50 0 0 0

Treehouse Apartments 240 W Boise Ave. 2018 25 0 8 9 8 0

Wylie Street Station 4611 Wylie Street Ln. 2019 40 0 8 24 8 0

Greenbriar Apartments 693 E. Old Saybrook Ln. 2029 46 0 15 22 9 0

Apple Pointe Apartments 3330-3486 N 34th St. 2012 30 0 8 12 10 0

Bannock Arms Apartments 330 E Bannock St. 2024 65 0 65 0 0 0

Owyhee Place Apartments 2500 S Owyhee St. 2030 32 0 8 11 7 6

Harrison Hills 2260 Harrison Blvd. 2029 36 1 35 0 0 0

Franklin Grove Apartments 4929 Franklin Rd. 2030 40 0 40 0 0 0

Wildwood 2369 S Orchard St. #124 2030 40 0 9 25 6 0

Riverview Homes 1070 Leadville Ave. 2030 40 0 0 40 0 0

Barton Apartments 5306 W State St. 2017 24 0 21 3 0 0

Dogwood Plaza 1755 N. Linda Vista Ln. 2011 50 0 50 0 0 0

Arc Living Residential Home 217 Ruby St. 2013 16 0 16 0 0 0

Samaritan Village II 3360 Collister Dr. 2012 50 14 36 0 0 0

Cottage at Boise 3390 Collister Dr. 2013 15 15 0 0 0 0

Centennial Manor 661 S Curtis Rd. 2012 39 10 29 0 0 0

718 40 478 146 48 6Total

Expiration Date

Total Units

Number of Bedrooms

Efficiency One Two Three Four

Source: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development.

While 35 percent of the assisted rental units in Boise have contracts that expire in the next three years, many units recently renewed their contracts with HUD, securing rental affordability in Boise for the next 15 to 20 years. A majority (67%) of the subsidized rental units in Boise are one bedroom units. There are limited affordable rental opportunities for households needing two or three bedroom units.


Location of city-owned and assisted units. Figure II-5 maps the location of Boise’s public housing and subsidized rental units by type. The city’s affordable rental stock is primarily located in the Central Bench, Downtown and North End neighborhoods.

Figure II-5. Location of City-Owned and Assisted Rental Units, City of Boise, 2011

Note: The BCACHA did not provide BBC with current place of residence for Section 8 voucher holders.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development.

Land Use Policy Review

The following section reviews important pieces of the city’s land use policy. This includes a review of how land use decisions are made and approved and the long-range growth vision for the city. Additionally, BBC used a HUD checklist to conduct a general analysis of the city’s zoning code to identify potential barriers to housing choice. Clarion Associates conducted a more in-depth review of the city’s land use regulations to determine their impact on the development of affordable housing.

Planning and Zoning Commission. Boise’s Planning and Zoning Commission is responsible for reviewing all zoning changes and conditional use applications. All nine members of the board are appointed by the Mayor and represent some facet of the development community (e.g., architecture, law, engineering, historical preservation). Currently, all members are racially White.

The Planning and Zoning Commission is responsible for upholding the city’s land use policies and ensuring that all planning decisions support the city’s development goals. According to city staff, the commission rarely denies housing projects as long as they align with the city’s adopted land use policy plan. Additionally, public opposition alone has never been a reason for the commission to deny a proposed project.


Comprehensive Plan. In 2007, the city began updating its 1997 Comprehensive Plan. The process, known as Blueprint Boise, commenced in May 2010 when a draft of the city’s new Comprehensive Plan was presented to City Council. The draft has since undergone a series of revisions to satisfy City Council recommendations. While no public hearing date has been established for final approval of the plan, Blueprint Boise is informally considered Boise’s Comprehensive Plan.

The Idaho State Code requires that Idaho communities examine a number of community development categories in their Comprehensive Plans including land use; school facilities and transportation; housing; and economic development. The city’s current draft of Blueprint Boise examines these elements within seven distinct vision and policy categories:

Environmental stewardship;

A predictable development pattern;

Stable neighborhoods, and mixed-use activity centers;

A connected community;

A community that values its culture, education, arts and history;

A strong, diverse economy; and

A safe, healthy and caring community

Blueprint Boise’s discussion of residential development and housing focuses on providing a “range of housing choices” a “mix of housing types and a pedestrian-oriented scale” will help make Boise a community of stable neighborhoods and vibrant mixed-use activity centers.

Blueprint Boise explicitly discusses the need for affordable housing and fair housing in the City of Boise. The city envisions increasing housing diversity through zoning policies that allow for a mix of housing types and densities and participation in a regional fair-share housing program. The city envisions achieving its goal of “providing residents the opportunity to seek housing in a neighborhood of their choice” through a public awareness campaign to “inform the general public of their rights and obligations under fair housing laws and the grievance procedures available in case of violation.”5

HUD zoning code review. To evaluate potential fair housing concerns within the city’s zoning code, BBC utilized a “Review of Public Policies and Practices (Zoning and Planning Codes)” form recently circulated by the Los Angeles fair housing office of HUD. This section poses the questions from this checklist, along with responses about the city’s code.

Does the code definition of “family” have the effect of discriminating against unrelated individuals with disabilities who reside together in a congregate or group living arrangement? The city’s code does not define the term “family.” “Dwelling unit” is defined as a single-family residence that “may be occupied by family (related by blood or marriage), or by up to five (5) unrelated individuals or by any number of physically or mentally handicapped or elderly persons as long as the residential character of the dwelling is preserved.” Thus, group living for individuals with disabilities is allowed but is contingent on preservation of “residential character.”

5 Blueprint Boise: http://www.cityofboise.org/BluePrintBoise/pdf/Blueprint%20Boise%20Draft%20-%20May%202010/2-

Blueprint_Chapter_2.pdf


The Boise Code does not reference Idaho State Code Section 67-6531 which defines a single family dwelling to include “any group residence in which eight (8) or fewer unrelated persons with disabilities or elderly persons reside and who are supervised at the group residence in connection with their disability or age related infirmity.” However, the Boise code does not restrict the number of handicapped or elderly persons living together like the State code does.

Zoning Regulation Impediment: Does the Code definition of “family” have the effect of discriminating against unrelated individuals with disabilities who reside together in a congregate or group living arrangement? N/A, see above.

Zoning Regulation Impediment: Does the Code definition of “disability” the same as the Fair Housing Act? The Zoning Code does not provide a definition of “disability,” “disabled” or “handicap.” It does state that “the physically and/or mentally handicapped includes those currently undergoing rehabilitation for drug and/or alcohol addiction.”

Practice Impediment: Does the zoning ordinance restrict housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities and mischaracterize such housing as a “boarding or rooming house” or “hotel”? No. As discussed above, individuals with disabilities may live together in a single-family dwelling unit. “Handicapped homes,” which house mentally and/or physically handicapped patients and resident staff, are allowed in all R-1 zones without a special permit and are allowed in R-2, R-3 and R-O zones upon administrative review of approval criteria.

The definition of “boarding or rooming house” in the code does not specifically exclude group living for individuals with disabilities, which may lead to confusion.

Practice Impediment: Does the zoning ordinance deny housing opportunities for disability individuals with on site housing supporting services? The definition of handicapped homes recognizes the need for supervisors, which is linked to on-site support services. However, Boise’s Code does not address support services for individuals with disabilities living together in a single family dwelling unit.

Does the jurisdiction policy allow any number of unrelated persons to reside together, but restrict such occupancy, if the residents are disabled? No, in fact the city does just the opposite: The city limits the number of unrelated persons in one household to five, but does not limit the occupancy of disabled residents.

Does the jurisdiction policy not allow disabled persons to make reasonable modifications or provide reasonable accommodation for disabled people who live in municipal-supplied or managed residential housing? No.

Does the jurisdiction require a public hearing to obtain public input for specific exceptions to zoning and land-use rules for disabled applicants and is the hearing only for disabled applicants rather than for all applicants? No. Public hearings are required to obtain a conditional use permit or non-administrative variance, but the hearing is not specific to persons with disabilities.

Does the zoning ordinance address mixed uses? How are the residential land uses discussed? What standards apply? Yes. The City of Boise does address mixed use zones, which include Neighborhood Office (N-O), Limited Office (L-O) and Residential-Office (R-O). The R-O district focuses on implementing mixed use development with an emphasis on high quality urban design and pedestrian-orientation in


those areas identified for mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Boise Plan and the River Street-Myrtle Street Urban Design Plan. The N-O and L-O districts, while effectively promoting mixed use, are focused on compatibility between small-scale office space and residential areas.

Residential uses allowed in N-O, L-O and R-O districts (either by right, by administrative review or by permit) include single family, duplex and multiple family dwellings; enhanced manufactured homes and manufactured home communities; boarding and rooming houses; halfway houses; homes for the physically or mentally handicapped; and residential uses for owner or caretaker. A description of general standards for the N-O, L-O and R-O zoning districts are as follows:

Flexible development standards and the application of Design Review principles are intended to be used to stress residential and mixed use design principles.

In general, minimum residential lot sizes, widths and setbacks are lower in mixed use districts than in other residential districts.

Maximum dwelling units per acre range from 14.5 to 87.1 in these districts.

In R-O districts, conditional use applications will not be accepted for stand-alone commercial uses except groceries.

Heliports, medical centers, religious institutions and some utilities are conditionally permitted.

In addition to these residential districts, mixed use is a component of the Pedestrian Commercial (PC) district, which is coded to provide for the pedestrian-friendly design of retail, office and mixed use developments in areas designated as Commercial or Mixed Use. Residential uses are encouraged in conjunction with commercial uses in this district. The standards for residential uses within a PC zoning districts are as follows:

Residential uses are allowed as a secondary use at ground level or on upper floors above commercial or entertainment uses on the ground floor.

Minimum lot area per unit is 2000 sq. ft.

Minimum unit size is 500 sq. ft.

Private open space (patio or balcony) per unit is 60 sq. ft.

Parking Requirement is one space per unit and .5 space for each bedroom beyond 2.

Parking must be accessed from the same driveway as the commercial parking area; however, residential parking spaces may be designated for the exclusive use of the residents.

A third district related to mixed use development is the Specific Plan (SP) district. These districts provide a means to modify or create new zoning regulations for unique areas and developments, such as mixed use districts and planned communities or planned developments, where other conventional zoning mechanisms cannot achieve the desired results. Each SP district has its own non-transferable set of regulations. Specific Plans are adopted into the zoning code by ordinance and become either the base zone or an overlay zone for the property.

Does the zoning ordinance describe any areas in this jurisdiction as exclusive? No.


Are there exclusions or discussions of limiting housing to any of the following groups: race, color, sex, religion, age, disability, marital status or familial status and/or creed of national origin? No.

Are there any restrictions for Senior Housing in the zoning ordinance? If yes, do the restrictions comply with Federal law on housing for older persons (i.e., solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older or at least one person 55 years of age and has significant facilities or services to meet the physical or social needs of older people)? “Elderly Housing” is defined in the Code as multiple family housing constructed for occupancy by elderly individuals or families (households with one or more members 65 years of age or older). Elderly Housing is allowed by right in R-1 districts and is allowed with administrative review in R-2 and R-3 districts. In addition, any number of unrelated elderly persons may occupy a single-family unit in any residential district as long as the residential character of the dwelling is preserved.

Does the zoning ordinance contain any special provisions for making housing accessible to persons with disabilities? No.

Does the zoning ordinance establish occupancy standards or maximum occupancy limits? Yes. Households and boarding or rooming houses are subject to occupancy limits. Households composed of unrelated persons are restricted to five people (excluding households of physically or mentally handicapped or elderly persons) and boarding or rooming houses are restricted to 12 persons who are not members of the householder's family. Homes for physically and/or mentally handicapped or elderly persons including rehabilitation for persons addicted to drugs and/or alcohol are not restricted by number of occupants, but are restricted to two resident staff.

Does the zoning ordinance include a discussion of fair housing? No.

Describe the minimum standards and amenities required by the ordinance for a multiple family project with respect to handicap parking. Boise zoning code requires compliance with ADA and IBC accessible parking standards. However, multifamily units located in parking district P-1 downtown are not required by the Code to provide any parking spaces.

Does the zoning code distinguish senior citizen housing from other single family residential and multifamily residential uses by the application of a conditional use permit (cup)? No. Administrative review is required for elderly housing facilities in R-2 and R-3 districts but is permitted by right in any R-1 district.

Does the zoning code distinguish handicapped housing from other single family residential and multifamily residential uses by the application of a conditional use permit (cup)? No. Administrative review is required for homes for physically and/or mentally handicapped in R-2 and R-3 districts but is permitted by right in any R-1 district.

How are “special group residential housing” defined in the jurisdiction zoning code? Residential use types that include group housing are defined below:

Households: Dwelling units for households allow for group living by up to five unrelated individuals or by any number of physically or mentally handicapped or elderly persons as long as the residential character of the dwelling is preserved. The physically and/or mentally handicapped includes those currently undergoing rehabilitation for drug and/or alcohol addiction.


Convalescent Home: A building housing any facility, however named, whether operated for profit or not, the purpose of which is to provide skilled nursing care and related medical services for two (2) or more individuals suffering from illness, disease, injury, deformity or requiring care because of old age.

Halfway House: A type of housing for persons convicted of non-violent crimes who are in the later stages of serving a sentence and are being transitioned back into free society.

Handicapped Home: Homes for mentally and/or physically handicapped resident patients and no more than two resident staff, where all State and local licensing and standards of operation requirements have been met. Homes for the mentally and/or physically handicapped shall include those currently undergoing rehabilitation for drug and/or alcohol addiction.

Elderly Housing: Multiple family housing constructed for occupancy by elderly individuals or families (households with one or more members 65 years of age or older).

Fraternity or Sorority House: A facility for housing a club of men (fraternity) or women (sorority) college students.

Boarding or Rooming House: A building other than a hotel or restaurant where lodging or lodging and meals are provided for compensation to six (6) to twelve (12) persons who are not members of the householder's family.

Shelter Homes: these are not defined in the Code, but are included under uses in Commercial zones.

Does the jurisdiction’s planning and building codes presently make specific reference to the accessibility requirements contained in the 1988 amendment to the Fair Housing Act? Is there any provision for monitoring compliance? No.

Land use regulations as barriers to affordable housing development. Clarion Associates, a planning and land use firm from Denver, conducted an in-depth review of city zoning and land use regulations for barriers to fair housing choice, including barriers to developing affordable housing. Clarion Associates evaluated five parts of the city’s land use regulations:

General regulations;

Lot and building dimensions;

Permitted and conditional uses;

Parking requirements; and

Zoning map constraints;

Clarion Associates also examined a sample of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) that govern Homeowners Associations (HOAs) in Boise. CCRs are private agreements between housing developers and homeowners that stipulate how housing may be used or maintained. CCRs do not override city’s zoning or subdivision controls, and cities are often not involved in the development of CCRs. Nonetheless, CCRs are an important land use code that can create fair housing barriers and they deserve evaluation.


Clarion Associates’ findings are summarized below. Their full analysis can be found in Appendix A.

General regulations. General regulations include the purpose statement, definitions used to frame the city’s zoning code, inclusionary regulations or incentives and flexibility on non-conforming structures. Clarion Associates recommends the city consider adding a purpose statement to its code that more specifically addresses the city’s purpose to provide housing choices for residents and to comply with applicable federal and state law. The purpose statement should also reflect the city’s intent to coordinate housing and transportation to allow affordable housing and multifamily housing near transit.

Clarion Associates recommends the city add a definition of affordable housing to its land use code, in addition to the definition provided in the city’s Impact Fee Ordinance, as well as a definition for family or functional family. Clarion Associates also recommends the city modify its definition of dwelling unit to increase the number of unrelated persons allowed to live in a dwelling unit from five to six or eight. These additions and modifications will help allow for or promote affordable housing in the city.

Affordable and low income housing projects are exempt from impact fee requirements of the Impact Fee Ordinance. This is a good incentive to promote affordable housing. The city should consider adding additional incentives such as density bonuses or parking reductions for affordable and low-income housing projects.

Finally, Boise should consider adding a provision to its zoning code that allows nonconforming structures be replaced with the same number of units if they are damaged or destroyed through fire or natural causes. This will help preserve non-conforming affordable housing.

Lot and building dimensions. Lot size, lot width, building height, density and housing size requirements in zoning codes directly impact communities’ ability to develop affordable housing. These are all examined below.

Lot size. The most common minimum lot size permitted in Boise’s residential districts is 5,000 square feet, which does not facilitate the construction of affordable housing. However, the minimum lot size in the R-1M district is 2,160 square feet for attached residential units, which does promote affordability. In addition, the R-O district, a transitional district between higher intensity residential uses and commercial uses, allows 2,500 square foot lots for residential uses. This lot size will also allow for more affordable housing options. The amount of land zoned R-1M and R-0 should be reviewed to see if it is adequate to help meet affordable housing demands.

Lot width. While some codes require minimum lot widths of 70 feet or more, small homes can be constructed on lots as narrow as 25 to 40 feet. In Boise, three residential districts require an average lot width of 50 feet. While this is not an excessive lot width, allowing some narrower lots would help promote affordable housing. The city should consider revising this standard to allow for 25 to 40 feet lot widths in one or more residential districts, even if minimum lot sizes are not being reduced in those districts.

The R-1M district permits interior lots of 18 feet wide for attached units and 36 feet wide for detached units. This is a much more affordable lot width that can help promote affordable housing within the city. The amount of land zoned R-1M should be considered to ensure sufficient land is available within this district.


Building height. As with lot size and width, the issues of multifamily density and height are related. Multifamily building height regulations only create barriers to affordable housing if they prohibit the builder from building the largest number of units possible on that site without moving to a more complex and expensive building code.

Because of the high cost of constructing underground parking, many affordable housing projects accommodate parking in surface or above-ground structures (i.e., by stacking dwelling units over a parking deck or podium). If surface parking is chosen then the builder needs to accommodate housing units on less site area (avoiding the parking lot), which tends to require taller buildings. If a structured parking podium is used, then the housing can cover more of the site but needs to be accommodated in the remaining available height above the parking structure. In general, the 45 foot height limit in the R-3 district restricts structures to about four floors, including parking.

While allowing efficient construction is an important contributor to affordability, maximum heights should not exceed the height at which the local fire department or district can provide effective fire protection with available equipment and manpower. In Boise, it appears that the C-5 district allows multifamily housing and does not have a height limit, which would avoid height-related affordability barriers.

Density. In Boise, the highest density in a multifamily district outside of downtown is 43.5 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the R-O district, located primarily downtown, permits up to 87.1 dwelling units per acre. These densities should be adequate to support the development of affordable housing provided that height, parking and other regulations do not prevent the achievement of those densities in practice. No maximum lot coverage requirements were found in the Boise code, which removes one of the potential barriers to achieving efficient densities in multifamily housing.

Housing size requirements. Minimum house size requirements have also been identified as a significant cause of increased housing price in those communities where they are in place. The zoning and subdivision regulations should not establish minimum house or dwelling unit sizes (beyond those in the building code). Boise does not have a minimum house size requirement (except for in the P-C district of 500 square feet), which largely avoids this potential barrier. This is an acceptable minimum house size requirement if it is necessary to establish one, although cities like Denver have removed all size minimums from the zoning code, and allow the building code alone to address the health and safety issues related to unit size.

Permitted and conditional uses. These section discuses a number of different types of housing that are important for affordable housing and fair housing in communities.

Manufactured and mobile housing. Manufactured housing and mobile homes remain one of the more affordable forms of housing available, and cities that do not accommodate them in some way may be limiting their citizens’ ability to find housing they can afford. Idaho Statute Title 67, Chapter 65 requires manufactured housing to be permitted on all land zoned single-family (except historic Districts). In addition, the federal National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 requires that manufactured housing meeting HUD safety standards be treated the same as stick-built housing that meets the building code. As a practical matter, that means they need to be allowed in at least one zone district.


Manufactured home communities (which permit both enhanced and stock manufactured homes) are allowed in all residential districts with a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This practice complies with Idaho Code 67-6509B, Manufactured Housing Community – Equal Treatment Required. Mobile homes are only permitted within mobile home parks. It is typical to restrict these older homes to mobile home parks because they are generally considered less safe than those built to MHA standards. It is also typical to require additional approval for mobile home parks, as in Boise, where a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission, is required for mobile home parks in the two highest density residential districts (R-2 and R-3). Mobile home parks are prohibited in all other residential districts, which is not unusual.

Boise has separate standards for mobile home parks and manufactured home communities, but those standards still require compliance with all subdivision platting standards applicable to the zone district where the property is located. It appears, for example, that both types of communities must meet the minimum lot size applicable to stick-built single-family housing in the same zone district. While it is good to have specialized standards for these types of development, the city should consider decreasing the required lot size below that of the base zoning district and reduce parking requirements below two per dwelling unit in at least one residential zone district

Group homes. A person with a “handicap” is a person with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his or her major life activities; or a person who has a record of such impairment, or a person who is regarded as having that type of impairment. The definition covers the frail, the elderly, persons with HIV, physically disabled, developmentally disabled, mentally ill, and recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. If a local government does not allow for residential uses for the types of individuals listed above, it may be deemed to have made those types of residences “unavailable” and therefore the community violates the Fair Housing Act.

Municipal development codes should clarify that housing for individuals protected by the Fair Housing Act are treated as residential uses and should generally allow those group housing uses in at least one residential district. While some communities require a special permit for these uses, others allow them by right provided that they comply with standards limiting scale, character, and parking.

The Boise code permits group housing for physically and/or mentally handicapped or elderly by right in most residential districts, and with administrative approval in the remainder of the residential districts and all office and commercial districts. Again, however, if the limitation of five unrelated persons as found in the definition of dwelling unit applies to these types of facilities it will significantly impact their effectiveness as a tool to provide fair and affordable housing to protected groups. As previously stated, the city may want to consider increasing this number to six or eight persons to promote affordability.

In addition, boarding/rooming houses, convalescent homes, nursing homes, and halfway houses are permitted either by right, with administrative approval, or with a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission in several residential, office, and commercial districts. These regulations help remove barriers to affordable housing and are typical of those in many other communities.


Our review of Boise’s regulations for “persons and rehab for persons addicted to drugs and/or alcohol” appears to indicate that they are not permitted in any zone district. We interpret this to mean that facilities with persons meeting this description are not included within “home for physically and/or mentally handicapped.” Although failure to accommodate those groups is not a violation of the Fair Housing Act, it is common for cities to find at least one zone district where they are permitted following review.

Some communities require that some group housing uses be separated from each other and from other listed uses (generally schools and religious institutions), which can limit the number of group housing units allowed. The absence of spacing regulations in the Boise zoning code helps promote access to fair and affordable housing.

Accessory dwelling units. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (a second, smaller residential lot on a parcel that already contains a primary dwelling unit) have been identified as an important tool in promoting housing affordability. Their limited size helps reduce building or conversion costs, and because they are located on already existing lots there are no additional land costs. Accessory dwelling units are permitted in all of Boise’s residential districts with administrative approval. However, it appears that the administrator is only permitted to approve ADU applications if they are consistent with the character of the area. If that is interpreted to mean that ADUs are only permitted in areas of the city where ADUs are already present, that would significantly limit the effectiveness of this emerging affordability tool.

Multifamily. In Boise, multifamily is permitted by right in three downtown districts: R-3, R-O, and C-5. This should be an adequate number of zone districts to respond to different types of multifamily demand, provided that the city has zoned an adequate amount of land into these three categories. In addition, multifamily is permitted two districts outside of downtown, R-3 and R-O. The zoning map only shows one R-O parcel outside of downtown, indicating that the city is mostly reliant on the R-3 district for multifamily uses. While it may be sufficient to permit multifamily in one district, it is also important that there is sufficient land zoned for that district to create a reasonable chance that multifamily will be developed.

Mixed-use development. In order to promote affordability, housing should be allowed near businesses that employ workers, particularly moderate and lower income employees. To do that the code should permit residential units in at least one commercial zone district or should map some lands for multifamily development in close proximity to commercial districts. Boise addresses this issue through allowing residential uses (mostly with administrative approval or a conditional use permit) in the office and commercial districts. A few of the office and commercial districts could be considered mixed use districts, which generally promote affordability. In addition, the purpose statement for the P-C district includes providing for mixed use development. Residential and commercial uses are permitted in this district but it appears that no land may have been zoned into this district to date.

Another way to promote affordable housing is through allowing a variety of housing types. Boise may want to consider allowing additional housing options like cohousing or zero lot line houses. “Zero Lot Line Development” is defined in the code yet it is not permitted by right in any district. The city should consider permitting these in the R-1M district where duplexes and row houses are allowed. This would allow for a different configuration of homes without significantly altering the character of the district.


Another affordable housing option is single room occupancy hotels (SROs). SROs are permitted with a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission in all commercial districts. Because this use is very similar to a hotel, they city should consider allowing it downtown without the need for a conditional use permit. Once again, the character would not change, but affordable housing options would be increased.

Parking requirements. Boise requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit for single-family units. While this is the traditional standard, many cities are reducing their parking requirements. It is typical for local governments to have lower parking standards for multifamily developments and in Boise, one and a half parking spaces, plus one guest space per 10 dwelling units, is required. The city may also want to consider reducing this parking requirement for smaller units and those with fewer bedrooms. In Boise, the Planning Director may reduce residential parking requirements by up to 10 percent, and larger reductions are available through a conditional use permit. This type of flexibility can be a significant help to affordable housing builders.

Boise also has parking districts that reduce parking requirements for downtown areas. The parking district map established three parking districts that generally expand concentrically from the downtown core. The parking table establishes lower standards for these downtown districts based on the special needs of downtown, and this, too, promotes housing affordability.

Many local governments adopt lower parking standards for affordable or group housing developments because lower income households may own fewer cars, and because many special needs residents do not own cars. These standards vary greatly depending on the types of group living to which they apply. Boise has lower standards for certain uses like halfway houses, retirement centers, and nursing homes, which promotes fair access and affordable development of these types of facilities.

The Boise zoning code references the FHA handicapped parking requirements but does not mention ADA handicapped parking requirements or FHA and ADA site accessibility requirements. The city should consider cross-referencing these standards within the parking requirements and within the site planning requirements, just so site developers and builders are aware of these requirements early in the site design process.

Zoning map constraints. As noted above, Boise’s development regulations already contain some zoning districts, specific use standards, and tools that can help promote fair access and affordable housing production and retention. However, the power of those tools is limited by how much land is included in the districts – i.e. whether Boise actually makes an adequate supply of land available so that potential affordable, multifamily, and group housing providers can find opportunities to build the housing needed. Clarion Associates recommends that the city conduct an analysis of whether more land should be rezoned to allow smaller, narrower single-family lots or higher density multifamily development.

Restrictive covenants. CCRs are private agreements between the housing developer and those who buy or occupy housing to use or maintain property in a certain way. CCRs do not override zoning or subdivision controls, which means that most cities grant or deny zoning and development permits without regard to whether proposed building or use is consistent with the CCRs that apply to the property. Enforcement of CCRs is generally by a developer or homeowners’ association (HOA) through a private action against those who violate the CCRs, and the city is seldom if ever a party to those actions.


CCRs can violate fair housing rights in a number of ways. The most common situation in which CCRs could violate the Fair Housing Act is a fairly standard provision that requires all properties to be used as single-family homes, which are then defined to exclude group homes. A variation on this theme is CCRs that prohibit all commercial uses in the development and then define group homes to be a commercial development. Challenges to these types of CCRs usually claim a violation as a result of “incidental discrimination” or failure to make a “reasonable accommodation” to allow group homes.

In all cases of fair housing discrimination filed against HOAs for their CCRs, Clarion Associates did not find any situations where the city or county was held responsible for the violations. Instead, developers, architects, investors and others involved in the development of the HOA are often liable for discriminatory CCRs.

BBC randomly selected 10 CCRs recorded with Ada County to review for compliance with the Fair Housing Act. Six of the 10 CCRs received additional review from Clarion Associates. Three of the six CCRs reviewed prohibit “shelter homes” in their subdivisions. If a shelter home is interpreted to be the same as a group home, this is a fair housing violation, and it is not consistent with Idaho Code, which highlights an intent to not comply with a clear state statute. However, since neither the Fair Housing Act nor the Idaho Code include a definition of “shelter home,” it is possible that a court might find that term to be either broader or narrower than the protections in the Fair Housing Act and Idaho Code.

Other Public Sector Programs and Services

Fair housing outreach and education. In 2006, two of the five fair housing impediments identified in the city’s AI were directly related to residents’ limited access to fair housing information. In response to these impediments, the city established a five-member Fair Housing Task Force with the goal to “further awareness and understanding of fair housing issues.”6

In April 2011, the task force and the city launched a fair housing public awareness campaign called Good Neighbors + Fair Housing = Strong Communities to increase community awareness and understanding of fair housing rights and responsibilities. Fair housing messages were spread to Boise residents through radio and television public service announcements, billboards, bus panels, bus benches and community presentations. The initiative was supported through the financial contributions of 15 partners, including Idaho Housing and Finance Association (IHFA), the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, local banks, Valley Regional Transit and local broadcasting companies. The city’s fair housing campaign has been adopted by HUD as a model for fair housing outreach.

IHFA, with initial support from the City of Boise, created and continues to maintain the Fair Housing Forum (www.fairhousingforum.org), which is the only Idaho-based online resource dedicated to providing practical informational resources and promoting awareness through respectful collaboration and cooperation among all stakeholders. . The City along with other key partners including the Boise City Ada County Housing Authority, Idaho Housing and Finance and Idaho Legal Aid developed extensive technical assistance for providers assisting clients with limited English

6 For more information on the City of Boise’s fair housing task force: http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/PDS-

HCD/FairHousing/page11361.aspx


including a “Checklist for Developing a Language Assistance Plan”. This information is maintained at www.fairhousing http://fairhousingforum.org/lep-limited-english-proficiency-resources/

The City of Boise also maintains a fair housing website ( http://pds.cityofboise.org/planning/pz/fairhousing/). The website outlines protected classes and prohibited actions under the Fair Housing Act and provides information for organizations that could field fair housing complaints, including HUD and the Idaho Human Rights Commission. In 2006, the City along with other contributing partners developed Boint (BoiseInterpreters.com) as part of a larger Diversity Project. The site if the product of a community based effort to increase access to language interpreter and translator services for providers serving limited English speaking individuals within the community.

City housing and community development activities. Boise administers a number of housing programs and activities to ensure that residents have adequate and affordable housing. These programs and activities include the following:

Rehabilitation loans. Low to moderate income homeowners can receive low interest loans to make necessary repairs and bring homes up to code, make emergency repairs. The maximum loan amount is $60,000; the maximum loan term is 30 years. Funds are also available for renter-occupied improvements and multifamily properties.

Emergency and energy efficiency and home repair. Homeowners at or below the median income can obtain a loan for the replacement of a roof, furnace, windows, insulation and other such repairs. Funds are available at a low interest for a term of 15 years; maximum loan amount is $15,000.

Handicapped accessibility loans. The City makes funds available to modify a home or apartment to increase or maintain independent living for low income elderly and disabled homeowners and renters. Examples of repairs that are eligible include: bathroom grab bars, doorbell lights for hearing impaired and step railing and ramps.

Homeownership. The City offers loans of up to 25 percent, of $35,000 (whichever is less), of the purchase price of a home at a low interest rate for a 30-year term to low and moderate income homebuyers. The loans are deferred up to three years. The loans have a 10 year prepayment penalty. Each year the City has a target of 25 loans; however, the annual average is 55 loans.

Rental housing. As described earlier in this section, the city owns and maintains a number of affordable rental units in the city.

Homeless housing. The city operates and supports many programs that address the needs of the homeless population in Boise: city-owned rental units for low to moderate income persons; long-term supportive housing for homeless families with children; short-term emergency hotel vouchers when shelters are full; a Community Detoxification and Mental Health Treatment Facility; and funding partnerships with community organizations that serve persons who are low income and/or experiencing homelessness. In 2006, the City of Boise, through the Office of


Mayor David Bieter, took the lead in coordinating a community-wide 10-Year Plan to Reduce and Prevent Chronic Homelessness. The goal of this plan is to provide housing first, or permanent supportive housing, to those who are experiencing chronic homelessness (111 persons in 2008-2009) and then to expand services to others who are experiencing homelessness.

The City provides leadership coordination, and strategic investment for the Boise City/Ada County Continuum of Care (CoC) by serving as the lead agency and applicant for an annual competitive grant through McKinney Vento Homeless Funds administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The CoC is a coordinated community approach composed of representatives of relevant organizations, which generally includes nonprofit homeless providers, victim service providers, faith-based organizations, governments, businesses, advocates, public housing agencies, school districts, social service providers, labor agencies, mental health agencies, hospitals, universities, affordable housing developers, law enforcement, legal agencies, organizations that serve homeless and formerly homeless veterans, and homeless and formerly homeless persons that are organized to plan for and provide, as necessary, a system of outreach, engagement, and assessment; emergency shelter; rapid re-housing; transitional housing; permanent housing; and prevention strategies to address the various needs of homeless persons and persons at risk of homelessness for a specific geographic area.

Many of the city’s housing and community development activities are funded with HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds (HOME) . In the last four years, the city received an approximate annual allocation of $1.3 million in CDBG and $830,000 in HOME. However, allocations have recently declined and Fiscal Year 2011 funding levels for the CDBG and HOME programs have resulted in the lowest annual allocations for the City of Boise since the city became a HUD entitlement community. In 2008, the City established a $2,000,000 Neighbors in Need Trust Fund to prevent and reduce homelessness. Interest earned from the fund is granted to non-profits for various programs and is also invested to support the CoC.

The city recently completed its 2011-2015 Five-year Consolidated Plan. The city’s six Consolidated Plan strategies are listed below. The city’s Consolidated Plan is focused on the provision and preservation of affordable housing, as well as furthering fair housing in Boise.

Strategy No. 1. Preserve and improve the quality of existing owner and renter low and moderate income occupied units.

Strategy No. 2. Provide homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income Boise residents thereby increasing personal asset base and mitigating slum and blight.

Strategy No. 3. Utilize limited funding to strategically create and preserve affordable rental housing units.

Strategy No. 4. Support affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Strategy No. 5. Support the creation and operation of a sound, effective and efficient human services delivery system for special needs and low income individuals.


Strategy No. 6. Address economic development and opportunity to improve the quality of life in Boise.

COMPASS. The Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) serves as the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Boise region. Unlike some states, regional planning organizations and jurisdictions in Idaho are not required to establish and monitor regional and local affordable housing development goals. Instead, COMPASS and other regional planning organizations in the state function as traditional MPOs, whose primary objectives include developing a regional transportation plan that adheres with federal regulations, allocating transportation improvement program funding and serving as a conduit of regional demographic, land use, transportation and GIS data and information.

COMPASS is an active regional planning organization and has partnered with the City of Boise on a number of local and regional planning activities, including Blueprint Boise, the Downtown Boise Mobility Study and the 30th Street Area Master Plan. Many of COMPASS’ past and current studies encourage the coordination of transportation and land use planning to promote higher density development and transportation access.

Public infrastructure and parks. Inequitable delivery of public services and amenities to low income residents can be a barrier to fair housing in a community. Equitable service delivery across all neighborhoods is particularly important in communities with racial and ethnic concentrations to ensure that minority and low income households have access to the same quality of life enhancements—including parks and recreation—as moderate and high income households.

As part of the city’s recently completed Consolidated Plan, residents were asked to rank the city’s greatest infrastructure needs. Residents selected a ranking of “1” to indicate the lowest level of need and a “6” for the highest level of need. Figure II-6 shows the survey results. The average rating for all infrastructure areas was below 4, or moderate. Twenty percent of survey participants consider sidewalk improvements a “high need; 10 percent of participants consider ADA improvements to public areas a “high need.”

Figure II-6. Infrastructure Need Rankings

Note:

Average rankings are in parenthesis.

n=182.

Source:

Boise Housing and Community Development Survey January-March 2011 and BBC Research & Consulting.

Water/SewerImprovement (2.6)

DrainageImprovement (2.8)

Street/AlleyImprovement (3.1)

ADA Improvementsto public areas (3.3)

Street Lighting (3.4)

SidewalkImprovements (3.8)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1

2

3

4

5

6


In 2010, the city made a number of sidewalk and ADA improvements to increase accessibility to public facilities and services for city residents and employees. Improvements have primarily been made to city-owned rental units, commercial spaces owned by the city and leased to non-profit agencies and city parks. These improvements were often funded by CDBG. These improvements included:7

An extensive Section 504 Assessment and Transition Plan of its affordable rental housing and commercial property portfolio in January 2010. This assessment resulted in the development of plans and specifications for various projects across the city. The city bid out an estimated $300,000 in ADA improvements last spring;

ADA compliant automatic door openers at the Senator Apartments, which is a multifamily affordable rental housing complex owned and operated by the city;

A Section 504 Handbook, which included information on how to assist staff with assisting customers with disabilities;

An ADA compliant bocce ball court in Ann Morrison Park;

ADA accessible restrooms at Ann Morrison Park and Helen B. Lowder Park;

Accessible parking to Hillcrest Park;

Accessible playgrounds to Morris Hill Park and Williams Park;

The installation of an accessible ramp from the parking lot to the basketball courts at Sunset Park; and

Two ramps at the playground at Willow Lane.

Prior to 2010, the city dedicated funds to improve accessibility of its downtown infrastructure. Nearly $150,000 of CDBG was used to replace non-compliant ADA curb curbs in downtown Boise. The Ada County Highway District followed that project with an additional 18 curb cub replacements. An estimated 10,900 low to moderate income persons were served by these accessibility improvements. In 2008, the city and the Capital City Development Corporation partnered to remove a large inaccessible ramp, known as the “Ramp to Nowhere” in the city’s downtown core. The project was funded with CDBG.

The City of Boise is well known for its extensive parks and trails. There are 90 parks, 23 miles of greenbelt and 1,200 acres of open space in the Boise Foothills.8 As demonstrated in Figure II-7, the city’s park system is orientated around downtown Boise and the Boise River. One of the city’s larger parks, the Ann Morrison Park, is accessible to residents in the Central Bench neighborhood, which has traditionally been one of the city’s lowest income neighborhoods.

7 Language borrowed directly from the City of Boise ADA/Section 504 2010 Annual Report.

8 City of Boise 2004 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan:

http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/Parks/PDF/PlanningDesign/00_Executive_Summary.pdf


Figure II-7. Public Parks, City of Boise, 2011

Source: 2004 City of Boise Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

SECTION III. Fair Lending and Complaints

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 1

SECTION III. Fair Lending and Complaints

This section of the City of Boise AI is divided into two sections. The first section reviews fair housing complaint data and legal cases related to fair housing violations to highlight the prevalence of and trends in fair housing violations. The second part of this section contains an analysis of mortgage loan and community reinvestment data to detect fair lending concerns.

Fair Housing Complaints

The Federal Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and amended in 1988, prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, familial status and disability. The Fair Housing Act covers most types of housing including rental housing, home sales, mortgage and home improvement lending, and land use and zoning. Excluded from the Act are owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing sold or rented without the use of a real estate agent or broker, housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members, and housing for older persons.1 HUD has the primary authority for enforcing the Fair Housing Act.

The State of Idaho’s fair housing act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin and disability. It does not recognize familial status as a protected class. The law is also different from the Federal Fair Housing Act in that it covers providers with two or more units or properties. The state’s fair housing law is enforced through the Idaho Human Rights Commission.

The City of Boise does not have a fair housing ordinance.

Contacts for complaints. Boise residents who feel that they might have experienced a violation of the Fair Housing Act can contact one or more of the following organizations:

HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Opportunity (FHEO);

The Idaho Housing and Finance Association (IHFA);

The Idaho Department of Finance (for mortgage lender and broker related complaints);2

The Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC);

Idaho Legal Aid; and

The Idaho Human Rights Commission.

1 This is a very general description of the Fair Housing Act and the actions and properties covered by the Act. For more

detailed information on the Fair Housing Act, please see the full text, which can be found on the U.S. Department of Justice’s website, www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm.

2 The Idaho Residential Mortgage Practices Act (IRMPA) charges the Idaho Department of Finance with the

responsibility for licensing and regulating the mortgage related activities of mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers, mortgage loan modification companies, independent contractor mortgage loan processors and mortgage underwriters and mortgage loan originators. See http://finance.idaho.gov/Mortgage/Mortgage.aspx

, SECTION III BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING

Legal Aid and the Idaho Human Rights Commission refer residents who call about fair housing complaints directly to HUD. Similarly, IHFA does not enforce fair housing law and refers complaints or questions to the appropriate service provider.

The City of Boise recently developed a Fair Housing Campaign—Good Neighbors + Fair Housing = Strong Communities—which includes a toll free, statewide fair housing hotline through the 2-1-1 service. Boise has also (co-sponsorship from IHFA) created www.fairhousingforum.org, the only Idaho-based online resource dedicated to providing practical informational resources and promoting awareness through respectful collaboration and cooperation among all stakeholders.

HUD complaint investigation process. Housing discrimination complaints filed with HUD may be done online at (http://www.hud.gov/complaints/housediscrim.cfm), toll free at 1-800-669-9777, or by contacting the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in Washington D.C. or Idaho’s Fair Housing Hub located in Seattle, Washington.

When HUD receives a complaint, HUD will notify the person who filed the complaint and will normally notify the alleged violator and allow that person to submit a response. The complaint will be investigated to determine whether there has been a violation of the Fair Housing Act.

A complaint may be resolved in a number of ways. First, HUD will try to reach an agreement between the two parties involved. A conciliation agreement must protect the filer of the complaint and public interest. If an agreement is signed, HUD will take no further action unless the agreement has been breached. HUD will then recommend that the Attorney General file suit.

If HUD has determined that a state or local agency has the same housing powers (“substantial equivalency”) as HUD, they will refer the complaint to that agency and will notify the complainant of the referral. The agency must begin work on the complaint within 30 days or HUD may take it back. If, during the investigation, review, and legal process, HUD finds that discrimination has occurred, the case will be heard in an administrative hearing within 120 days, unless either party prefers the case to be heard in Federal district court. The State of Idaho and Boise do not currently have substantial equivalency nor are they seeking such.

HUD complaint trends. BBC obtained data from HUD’s Seattle Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) on the number of housing discrimination complaints filed in Boise from 2005 through 2010. Figure III-1 presents complaints by year. During the five year period, 108 complaints were filed. The largest number of annual complaints was 27 in 2007. Only three complaints were filed in 2008.


Figure III-1. Fair Housing Complaints Filed with HUD, City of Boise, 2005 to 2010

Source:

HUD.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Nu

mb

er o

f C

om

pla

ints

15

21

27

3

2220

Sixty-eight percent (or 73 complaints) of the 108 complaints filed in Boise cited discrimination based on disability status. Discrimination based on national origin (15% or 16 complaints), sex (12% or 13 complaints), religion (12%, also 13 complaints) and familial status (10% or 11 complaints) were also cited in Boise fair housing complaints, but to a much lesser degree than disability status.3

The most common violation cited in complaints was failure to make reasonable accommodations.4 Twenty-four percent of complaints cited discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges of services and facilities, which is often related to complaints on the basis of disability.

3 Complainants are allowed to cite more than one basis for discrimination when filing a complaint. For example, a

complainant may cite discrimination based on national origin and religion. 4 Complainants are allowed to cite more than one reason for discrimination when filing a complaint. For example, a

complainant may cite discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges of services and facilities, as well as discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges relating to rental.


Figure III-2. Issues Cited in Complaints, City of Boise, 2005 to 2010

Source:

HUD.

Discrimination in services andfacilities relating to rental

False denial or representationof availability

Using ordinances to discriminatein zoning and land use

Discriminatory refusal to sell

Failure to provide accessible and usablepublic and common user areas

Other-non-compliance with designand construction requirements

Steering

Refusal to provide insurance

Other discriminatory acts

Non-compliance with design/construction requirements

Discriminatory advertising,statements and notices

Otherwise deny ormake housing available

Discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges relating to sale

Failure to permit reasonablemodification

Discriminatory acts underSection 818 (coersion)

Discriminatory refusal to rent

Discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges relating to rental

Discriminatory terms, conditions,privileges, of services and facilities

Failure to make reasonableaccommodation

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

0.9%

0.9%

0.9%

0.9%

0.9%

0.9%

0.9%

0.9%

1.9%

1.9%

2.8%

2.8%

3.7%

7.4%

12.0%

23.1%

24.1%

24.1%

40.7%

100%


Of the 108 cases filed in Boise, 96 cases were closed. The largest proportion of cases (43%) was closed after HUD found “no reasonable cause to believe that housing discrimination occurred.”5 Twenty-five percent of complaints closed following a successful conciliation or settlement. Figure III-3 summarizes the closure type for Boise’s recent fair housing complaints.

Figure III-3. Fair Housing Complaint Closure Type, City of Boise, 2005 to 2010

Source:

HUD.

Dismissed for lackof jurisdiction

Unable to locatecomplainant

Complainant failedto cooperate

Compaint withdrawnafter resolution

Complaint withdrawn bycomplainant without resolution

Conciliation/settlementsuccessful

No causedetermination

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

42.7%

25.0%

14.6%

8.3%

4.2%

4.2%

1.0%

Figure III-4 compares the number of complaints filed with population by county. Complaint data are borrowed from the State of Idaho AI and include complaints filed between January 2006 and October 2009. During that time, 123 complaints were filed in Ada County—many of which were filed in Boise—which represents 35 percent of the all complaints filed in the state. Ada County’s population represents 25 percent of the state’s total population. Ada County has a higher rate of complaints per capita than the other large counties in the state, including Canyon, Kootenai and Bonneville.

5 For a definition of no cause determination, please visit:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/complaint-process


Figure III-4. Fair Housing Complaints and Population by County, State of Idaho, 2006 to 2009

County continued

Bonner 2 40,877 20,439 Adams 0 3,976 0

Canyon 15 188,923 12,595 Bear Lake 0 5,986 0

Madison 3 37,536 12,512 Boundary 0 10,972 0

Owyhee 1 11,526 11,526 Butte 0 2,891 0

Blaine 2 21,376 10,688 Camas 0 1,117 0

Washington 1 10,198 10,198 Caribou 0 6,963 0

Minidoka 2 20,069 10,035 Cassia 0 22,952 0

Benewah 1 9,285 9,285 Custer 0 4,368 0

Clearwater 1 8,761 8,761 Franklin 0 12,786 0

Bingham 7 45,607 6,515 Fremont 0 13,242 0

Elmore 5 27,038 5,408 Gem 0 16,719 0

Bonneville 21 104,234 4,964 Jefferson 0 26,140 0

Nez Perce 8 39,265 4,908 Jerome 0 22,374 0

Banncok 20 82,839 4,142 Lemhi 0 7,934 0

Gooding 4 15,464 3,866 Lewis 0 3,821 0

Latah 10 37,244 3,724 Lincoln 0 5,208 0

Kootenai 38 138,494 3,645 Oneida 0 4,286 0

Twin Falls 23 77,230 3,358 Payette 0 22,623 0

Valley 3 9,862 3,287 Power 0 7,817 0

Ada 123 392,365 3,190 Shoshone 0 12,765 0

Clark 1 982 982 Teton 0 10,170 0

Idaho 18 16,267 904 Idaho 343 1,567,580 4,570

Boise 34 7,028 207

Total Complaints Population

Population per Complaint

Total Complaints Population

Population per Complaint

Source: HUD and 2010 Census.

IFHC complaint process and testing. The Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC) “is a nonprofit organization that promotes fair housing practice for housing consumers and housing providers throughout Idaho.”6 The IFHC is involved in fair housing education, compliance monitoring, enforcement activities (e.g., complaint investigation, testing, complaint filing) and mediation.

When IFHC receives a complaint, they collect all information from the complainant that supports the complaint (e.g. doctor note) and determine whether the complaint meets four important factors to determine whether a complaint is valid:

The complaint occurred within the last year;

The action seemed to occur because the person fell within a protected class;

The individual that committed the potential violation is subject to Fair Housing Act; and

The complaint appears to be a prohibitive activity.

6 For more information on the Intermountain Fair Housing Council, please visit: http://ifhcidaho.org/about.html.


If the complaint requires additional facts to prove its validity, IFHC will conduct extra research and investigation (e.g., testing, check property tax records with the Assessor’s office, gather additional documentation). Once sufficient information has been gathered, IFHC will advise the client on next steps. Next steps could include calling HUD directly to file a complaint by phone or IFHC staff can help individuals fill out complaint forms to ensure the complaint has strong documentation. IFHC faxes the complaint directly to HUD and also sends the complaint via registered mail. If IFHC has invested sufficient administrative resources into the complaint filing, they co-file a complaint. IFHC believes co-filing demonstrates to FHEO that there is strong merit to the case.

IFHC is funded under HUD’s Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) to complete 130 fair housing tests per year within the State of Idaho over an 18 month period. Approximately 50 of the 130 tests are administered within the City of Boise and Ada County.

IFHC estimates that approximately 60 percent of fair housing testing in Boise and Ada County reveal fair housing discrimination. IFHC estimates finding discrimination in 50 percent of tests for familial status; 60 percent of tests on the basis of disability; and 50 percent of tests on the basis of national origin.

Legal Cases

As part of the fair housing analysis, legal cases occurring in the past ten years were reviewed to determine significant fair housing issues and trends in Boise and the surrounding area. Cases were found on websites maintained by the Department of Justice, the National Fair Housing Advocate and HUD. In many cases, text was borrowed directly from the legal briefs.

An analysis of statewide complaints completed by BBC in summer 2011 found that the vast majority of fair housing legal cases in the State of Idaho occurred in Ada County and were related to developers, builders, engineers and/or architects failing to comply with the accessibility requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Disability.

United States v. Canal Street Apartments, et al. In 1998, the IFHC filed a complaint with HUD alleging that the Canal Street Apartments located in Boise, Idaho frustrated the IFHC’s mission of eliminating discrimination by failing to construct and design the complex so that the public use and common use portions are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities and ground floor units contain features of adaptive design.7

Upon finding reasonable cause for discrimination based on disability, HUD referred the case to the DOJ.

In September 2002, the court filed a consent decree requiring the defendants to retrofit the ground floor units and public and common areas to make them accessible to persons with disabilities; submit to periodic inspections and record-keeping; and pay $3,300 in monetary damages to IFHC, $5,000 to the Accessibility Improvement Program (AIP) of the Idaho Housing and Finance Association to promote

7 In this case, adaptive design included: (i) doors sufficiently wide to allow passage into and within the unit by persons in

wheelchairs; specifically including: doors to the bedrooms; doors to the bathrooms; doors to the walk-in closets; doors to the patio; (ii) threshold at the exterior primary entrance low enough to allow entry by persons in wheelchairs; (iii) bathroom floor space sufficiently clear for an individual in a wheelchair to enter and close the door; (iv) providing reinforcement in the walls at the tub and water closet to permit the later installation of grab bars.


handicap accessible housing construction and fair housing in the City of Boise and Ada County area, and a $6,500 civil penalty. The five-year consent order also requires the defendants notify HUD if they again design or construct multifamily dwellings and provide a written statement from any architect involved with the project that the plans include design specifications that comply with the requirements of FHA Accessibility Guidelines.

United States v. Pacific Northwest Electric, Inc., et al. In January, 2001 the United States filed a complaint alleging that the defendants developers Walter T. Sigmont and Wirt Edmonds, Pacific Northwest Electric, Inc., Edmonds Construction Co., Inc., and architects Teal Whitworth Architects, P.A. and Capstone, Inc. located in Boise, Idaho discriminated on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct five Boise apartment complexes in accordance with the FHA’s accessibility requirements for new multifamily housing. The five Boise complexes that were the subject of the suit are Grayling Place, Jade Village, Imperial Court, Eagleson Park and Harborview Station (formerly known as Lawton Apartments). Specifically, the defendants failed to design the apartment complexes so that the public and common areas are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; all doors within the 72 ground floor units are sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs; and the 72 ground floor units contain the features of adaptive design.8

In October, 2003, the court entered a consent decree, which required the defendants to retrofit the complexes by, among other things: removing steps; reconfiguring kitchens and bathrooms to provide added maneuvering space; widening doorways; leveling sidewalks; and adding accessible parking and curb ramps at an estimated cost of approximately $300,000. In addition, the defendants were required to pay damages in the amount of $29,000 to persons harmed by the lack of accessible features at the complexes, pay $5,000 in damages to the IFHC, and ensure that any new construction complies with the FHA. The consent decree remained in effect for two years.

United States v. Thomas Development Co., et al. In February, 2002 the United States filed a complaint alleging that Thompson Development Co. and affiliated companies (defendants) engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of disability by failing to design and construct the ground floor units and public /common use areas in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the FHA. The defendants were alleged to commit these violations at 17 apartment complexes located throughout Southern Idaho in the cities of Boise, Meridian, Nampa, Shelly, Rexburg, Caldwell, Rigby, Lewiston and Jerome. The complaint also alleged that some of the defendants retaliated against a tenant family at one of the complexes by attempting to evict the family after one of the family members requested a reasonable accommodation for their disability.

In March, 2005, the court entered a consent order, which included injunctive relief and monetary payments totaling $125,000. The consent order remained in effect for three years.

Garcia v. Brockway. In May 2003, Noll Garcia (plaintiff) filed a complaint against the original owner/developer and designer of his apartment building in Boise, Idaho. The complaint alleged a failure to accommodate disabilities as mandated by the FHA. Mr. Garcia is disabled and uses a wheelchair for mobility and filed a complaint because the apartment complex he was lacked curb cuts from the parking lot to the sidewalk, didn't have a ramp to the front entrance door, and the doorways

8 See footnote 2 for qualifications of “adaptive design.”


were too narrow to allow clear passage of his wheelchair. Mr. Garcia requested that management make appropriate accessibility improvements, which were ignored, as was his request that management build a ramp to his door or that he be relocated to a more accessible unit. In addition, Mr. Garcia sued the original builder and architect (Brockway and Robert Stewart, respectively), and the current owners and management (the Zavoshy defendants).

The defendants (Brockway and Stewart) argued that because they no longer owned the building (which they sold in 1994), their liability was time-barred by the statute of limitations in the FHA. Thus, the plaintiff’s complaint would have had to been filed within two years following construction of the apartment building in 1993. The plaintiff countered, arguing that the failure to remodel the apartments constituted a continuing violation and that the statute of limitations take effect upon discovery of the alleged violations. Mr. Garcia also claimed that failure to make modifications constituted new violations.

The court ruled that the continuing accessibility issues were an effect of a prior discriminatory act but not a continuing violation. The argument that the two-year statute of limitations should begin at discovery of a violation was deemed unworkable, as a developer would be liable for these violations indefinitely in spite of his or her ownership of the complex. Finally, the original developer was not found to be liable for refusal to make modifications while current management company was at fault. The defendant still had a remedy under the FHA with building owners, but his motion against the developers was dismissed. Claims against the current owners and management were settled out of court.

United States v. S-16 Limited Partnership, et al. In April, 2003, the United States filed a complaint alleging that the owners and developers of the 254-unit Village at Columbia apartment complex in Boise, Idaho and the architects and engineering firm involved in its design failed to design and construct the complex in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the FHA. Specifically, the defendants failed to design the apartment complexes so that the public and common areas are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; all doors within the 76 ground floor units are sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs; and the 76 ground floor units contain the features of adaptive design.9

In March, 2005, the court entered the consent order requiring the defendants to retrofit the common use areas of the complex and 76 ground-floor apartments. The order also required defendants to pay $2,000 in damages to the IFHC, the original HUD complainant in the case, and to establish a fund of $40,000 to compensate victims of defendants’ discriminatory practices. In addition, the order included a general injunction against future discrimination; a requirement that defendants inform HUD of future development and design work in which they become involved and obtain statements that design plans comply with the FHA; a mandate that defendants require all supervisory employees and agents to participate in fair housing training and certify that they have read the order; post signs describing their policy of nondiscrimination in housing; and meet reporting and record-keeping obligations. The consent order remained in effect for three years.

9 See footnote 2 for qualifications of “adaptive design.”


Familial status.

United States v. Blue Meadows Apartments, et al. In July, 1995 Blue Meadows Limited Partnership, the owner of Blue Meadows Apartments in Boise, Idaho (defendant) stated, adopted, and enforced a policy that imposed a limitation on the use of facilities by persons under the age of 18 years. Specifically, those rules required all occupants under the age of 18 years to be supervised whenever they were outside of their apartments; the rules also prohibited all people under the age of 18 years from using or occupying any of the common areas after 10 p.m., irrespective of adult or parental supervision. Defendants incorporated these rules into an addendum to the lease that tenants were required to sign. Several residents of Blue Meadows that had children under the age of 18 filed complaints with HUD in 1999 and 2000. Upon finding reason for discrimination based on family status HUD referred the case to the DOJ for resolution.

In September, 2002, the court entered a consent decree where the defendants agreed to delete the current restriction on persons under 17 from using the pool unless accompanied by a parent; limit any future age restrictions governing unaccompanied children using the pool to those under age 13; and refrain from instituting any other rules that restrict the use of common areas at by persons under 18, except those that apply to all persons, regardless of age. Defendants were also required to pay one of the plaintiffs $1,200 in damages.

Religion.

Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise. This case was brought by a nonprofit corporation, Community House, Inc. and other individual plaintiffs. This case involves the lease and sale of a building owned by the City of Boise that had previously been leased and operated as a homeless shelter by Community House, Inc. In 2004, the City of Boise assumed the daily operations of the shelter until it could transfer the services that were being provided to homeless individuals to private entities. In 2005, the City of Boise negotiated a lease with an option to purchase the facility with the Boise Rescue Mission, a private religious organization. Plaintiffs contend that the lease and sale of the building by the City of Boise to the Boise Rescue Mission violated the Fair Housing Act and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, because Boise Rescue Mission would be operating the facility as a men-only shelter and was a religious organization. Plaintiffs contend that the lease and eventual sale of the building discriminates against them and resulted in the denial of housing on the basis of gender or familial status, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The City denies its decision to lease and sell the building to the Boise Rescue Mission violated either the Fair Housing Act or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The City further contends that the decision to lease the building was not discriminatory. Trial is set to begin in federal court in late August, 2012.

Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission Ministries. The Rescue Mission is an Idaho nonprofit funded through charitable donations from businesses, churches and the general public. The Rescue Mission operates two facilities in Boise. There were recently two cases filed against the Rescue Mission on the basis of religion.

Case #1: Plaintiff Richard Chinn was periodically homeless during the years 2005 and 2006 and a guest of the homeless shelter located at the River of Life Facility. During his stays at the shelter, he had no other place to stay and intended to remain in the shelter in excess of several months. Chinn asserts that he was told by shelter staff that he would be required to participate


in Christian religious activities such as chapel services in order to reside and eat meals at the shelter. He observed that guests of the shelter who did not attend chapel services were either required to wait in the dining room or were not permitted to enter the shelter until chapel services were completed. Chinn found the practices of the shelter to be coercive, unpleasant, embarrassing, and offensive to his religion. He did, however, participate in the religious services out of fear that if he did not participate, he would be denied housing and other services.

Case #2: In addition to the homeless shelter, the Rescue Mission also provides a New Life Discipleship/Recovery Program, which is an intensive, one-year Christian-based residential recovery program for individuals with drug or alcohol dependency. In October 2005, Plaintiff Cowles was in jail on drug-related criminal convictions. Cowles contacted the Rescue Mission and requested that she be admitted into the Discipleship Program, stating that she was "focused on changing my life through God and spiritual growth," and that she is "desperately looking to fill this void in my life with spirituality and not drugs.” Following admittance to the program, Cowles was required to participate in religious activities Cowles was upset at being forced to adopt the Christian religion. When Cowles requested that she be allowed to change to a non-religious program, she was put on "30-day restriction" during which all her telephone calls with her attorney were monitored by Program staff and she was not allowed to participate in other limited activities that she previously had been allowed. Eventually, Discipleship Program staff wrote a letter to the judge presiding over Cowles' criminal case and informed the judge that Cowles "struggled with the Christian based program that was offered." Staff recommended to the judge that Cowles be given an opportunity to complete a non-faith-based program to allow her to "better focus on her recovery without the confliction of her beliefs."

Both cases were resolved recently in appellate court. The court found that since the Boise Rescue Mission is not a “dwelling,” it is not subject to the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. The court also concluded that the religious practice requirements are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Fair Lending Analysis

This section analyzes fair lending conditions in the City of Boise using residential mortgage lending data from 2009 (the latest data available at the time this report was prepared). Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ratings and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data are commonly used in AIs to examine fair lending practices within a jurisdiction. As of 2004, HMDA data contain interest rates of high cost loans, which allows an analysis of high cost (subprime) lending patterns.

CRA review. The CRA requires that financial institutions progressively seek to enhance community development within the area they serve. On a regular basis, financial institutions submit information about mortgage loan applications as well as materials documenting their community development actively. The records are reviewed to determine if the institution satisfied CRA requirements. The assessment includes a review of records as related to the following:

Commitment to evaluating and servicing community credit needs;

Offering and marketing various credit programs;

Record of opening and closing of offices;

Discrimination and other illegal credit practices; and


Community development initiatives.

The data are evaluated and a rating for each institution is determined. Ratings for institutions range from substantial noncompliance in meeting credit needs to an outstanding record of meeting community needs.

There are four banks with headquarters in Boise: Idaho Baking Company, Idaho Trust Bank, Syringa Bank and Western Capital Bank. All four banks received a “satisfactory” CRA rating within the last five years.

HMDA data analysis. HMDA data are widely used to detect evidence of discrimination in mortgage lending. In fact, concern about discriminatory lending practices in the 1970s led to the requirement for financial institutions to collect and report HMDA data. The variables contained in the HMDA dataset have expanded over time, allowing for more comprehensive analyses and better results. However, despite expansions in the data reported, HMDA analyses remain limited because of the information that is not reported.

As such, studies of lending disparities that use HMDA data carry a similar caveat: HMDA data can be used to determine disparities in loan originations and interest rates among borrowers of different races, ethnicities, genders, and location of the property they hope to own. The data can also be used to explain many of the reasons for any lending disparities (e.g., poor credit history). Yet HMDA data do not contain all of the factors that are evaluated by lending institutions when they decide to make a loan to a borrower. Basically, the data provide a lot of information about the lending decision—but not all of the information.

Since 2004, HMDA data include the interest rates on higher-priced mortgage loans. This allows examinations of disparities in high-cost, including subprime, loans among different racial and ethnic groups. It is important to remember that subprime loans are not always predatory or suggest fair lending issues, and that the numerous factors that can make a loan “predatory” are not adequately represented in available data. Therefore, actual predatory practices cannot be identified through HMDA data analysis. However, the data analysis can be used to identify where additional scrutiny is warranted, and how public education and outreach efforts should be targeted.

HMDA data report several types of loans. These include loans used to purchase homes, loans to make home improvements and refinancing of existing mortgage loans, as defined below.

Home purchase loan. A home purchase loan is any loan secured by and made for the purpose of purchasing a housing unit.

Home improvement loan. A home improvement loan is used, at least in part, for repairing, rehabilitating, remodeling, or improving a housing unit or the real property on which the unit is located.

Refinancing. Refinancing is any dwelling-secured loan that replaces and satisfies another dwelling-secured loan to the same borrower. The purpose for which a loan is refinanced is not relevant for HMDA purposes.

The HMDA data are separated into two primary loan categories: conventional loans and government-guaranteed loans. Government-guaranteed loans are those insured by the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans Administration.


This section uses the analysis of 2009 HMDA data to examine:

The geographic areas in Boise where high-cost lending and loan denials are concentrated, and the correlation of these areas with concentrations of minority and low income households; and

Disparities in high-cost lending and loan denials across different racial and ethnic groups.

Methodology notes. There are two important methodological notes to highlight as part of this HMDA analysis:

Only loan applications for owner-occupied properties are analyzed.

Loan applications are analyzed at the Census tract level. Aggregating Census tract data to jurisdictional boundaries may result in loan applications outside jurisdictional boundaries being included in community-level analysis.

Types of loans. In 2009, there were approximately 13,800 loan applications filed in the City of Boise. Figure III-5 presents the distribution of loan applications by the types of loans applicants applied for in 2009. Most loans in the city were for conventional loans (73% or 10,092 loans).

Figure III-5. Types of Loan Applications, City of Boise, 2009

Note:

Less than 1 percent of loan applications were for FSA or Rural Housing loans. These loans are not included in this Figure. The percentages in this Figure will not add to 100 percent.

Source:

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2009.

Conventional (73%)

FHA-Insured (22%)

VA-guaranteed

(4%)

Purpose of loan applications. When Boise residents applied for mortgage loans in 2009, most applied for a mortgage refinance (73%). An additional 23 percent of applicants applied for a loan to purchase a home. The remaining 4 percent of applicants applied for home improvement loans. This distribution closely resembles the purpose of loan applications for the State of Idaho overall.

Figure III-6. Purpose of Loan Applications, City of Boise, 2009

Source:


Refinancing (73%)

Home Purchase (23%)

HomeImprovement

(4%)


Action taken on loan applications. Sixty-one percent of loan applications submitted by Boise residents in 2009 originated, while 18 percent were denied. The State of Idaho had a slightly higher denial rate than Boise at 21 percent. Figure III-7 compares the action taken on loan applications in Boise with the state.

Figure III-7. Action Taken on Loan Applications, City of Boise, 2009

Source:


Loan Originated 61% 57%

Application approved but not accepted 8% 7%

Application denied by financial institution 18% 21%

Application withdrawn by applicant 11% 12%

File closed for incompleteness 2% 2%

Boise Idaho

Figure III-8 compares loan outcome by loan purpose. Home purchase loans had the lowest denial rate (11%). Applications for mortgage refinances were denied 19 percent of the time and, home improvement loans, 28 percent of the time.

Figure III-8. Action Taken on Loan Applications by Loan Purpose, City of Boise, 2009

Source:


HomePurchase

HomeImprovement

Refinancing0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

74%

4%

11%

9%1%

49%

11%

28%

11%2%

58%

9%

19%

11%2%

Loan originated

Application approvedbut not accepted

Application deniedby financial institution

Application withdrawnby applicant

File closed forincompleteness

Denial rates by race and ethnicity. When applicants identified their race and ethnicity as part of their mortgage application, they most often identified themselves as racially white (97%) and ethnically non-Hispanic (97%).

Figure III-9 presents loan outcomes by race and ethnicity. Denial rates were highest for applicants who were American Indian/Alaska Native (29%), Black/African American (24%) and Hispanic (23%).

As the last part of Figure III-9 shows, the most extreme disparity in lending occurs between African Americans and Whites: White applicants had loan origination rates that were 16 percentage points higher than African American applicants’. Similarly, African American applicants had denial rates that were 7 percentage points higher than White applicants’. Disparities between Hispanics and Whites were not as pronounced. It is interesting to note Asian/White disparities, which are rare (Asian applicants usually have better loan origination rates than do Whites).


Figure III-9. Action Taken on Loan Applications by Race and Ethnicity, City of Boise, 2009

American Indian or Alaska Native 0% 51% 5% 29% 16% 0%

Asian 2% 58% 7% 19% 14% 2%

Black or African American 1% 47% 9% 24% 15% 5%

Native Hawaiian or Other 0% 64% 5% 17% 12% 2%

White 97% 63% 8% 17% 10% 2%

Hispanic or Latino 3% 55% 7% 23% 12% 3%

Not Hispanic or Latino 97% 63% 8% 17% 10% 2%

Asian/White -5% -1% 2% 4% 0%

African American/White -16% 1% 7% 5% 3%

Hispanic/Non-Hispanic -7% -1% 6% 2% 1%

of LoansPercent

OriginatedLoan

accepted

approved Application Filedenied by

institution by applicant incompletenessfinancial withdrawn but not closed for

Racial and Ethnic differences between...

Ethnicity

Race

Application Application

Note: Nine percent of applicants did not identify their race and 9 percent did not identify their ethnicity in their loan application. This analysis sonly includes applicants that identified their race and ethnicity.

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2009.

Racial and ethnic denial rate disparities were higher in the state overall than in Boise. For example, loan applications submitted by Hispanics in Idaho were denied 29 percent of the time, compared with a 20 percent denial rate for non-Hispanics. The difference in denial rates statewide between African Americans and Whites was 11 percent, compared to 7 percent in Boise.

Denial rate by race/ethnicity by census tract. A further examination of loan approvals by race/ethnicity is provided in the maps that follow. Figures III-10 and III-11 overlay Census tracts containing loan denial rates above the city’s 18 percent denial rate with the city’s racial and ethnic concentrations. The maps do not suggest a correlation between high denial rates and racial and ethnic concentrations, as areas with higher than average denial rates extend throughout the city.


Figure III-10. Census Tracts with Higher than City-Wide Average Denials by Percent Non-White, City of Boise 2009

Note:

The denial rate for all loans in the city overall was 18 percent.

Source:

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 2009 and 2010 Census.

Figure III-11. Census Tracts with Higher than City-Wide Average Denials by Percent Hispanic, City of Boise, 2009

Note:

The denial rate for all loans in the city overall was 18 percent.

Source:

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 2009 and 2010 Census.


Subprime analysis. Approximately 2 percent (182 loans) of Boise’s originated loans were considered subprime in 2009. Of the subprime loans in which applicants reported their ethnicity, 6 percent were made to Hispanics, and the remaining 94 percent were made to non-Hispanics. Hispanics received subprime loans 4 percent of the time, compared with 2 percent for non-Hispanics. While there was some disparity in subprime lending by ethnicity in 2009, the difference is not great enough to suggest subprime loans were targeted to Hispanics. Of the subprime loans in which applicants reported their race, 96 percent were made to White applicants and the remaining 4 percent of subprime loans were divided among the city’s Asian and African American applicants.

SECTION IV. Public Outreach

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 1

SECTION IV. Public Outreach

This section details the results of the public outreach process completed for the City of Boise AI.

Involvement of protected classes. HUD requires that cities solicit participation from members of protected classes, including racial and ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities, during the preparation of the AI. To this end, the public input portion of Boise’s AI was targeted to Boise residents who have disabilities and racial and ethnic minorities, particularly non-English speakers and refugees.1

The AI resident survey was distributed and promoted through the city’s social service stakeholder network. BBC conducted additional outreach through the following means:

English and Spanish flyers with a link to the online resident survey were displayed in Valley Regional Transit’s 52 buses and 15 ACCESS paratransit vehicles between October 31 and November 11, 2011.

An event was held at the Boise English Language Center on October 28, 2011 following a new refugee orientation to solicit refugee participation in the resident survey. Interpreters were present and provided translation for residents in 11 languages: Karen, Burmese, Arabic, Swahili, Farsi, Somali, Nepali, Russian, Kirundi, Tigrinya and French. The event was promoted through the stakeholder network. Refugees not participating in classes at the English Language Center were also invited to intend.

Surveys were sent home with students in two elementary schools (Horizon and Morley Nelson) identified as having concentrations of non-English speaking students in a 2008 Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC) report.

A total of 174 completed surveys were received.

In addition, Galena Consulting, a BBC subcontractor for the study and Boise-based women-owned business, conducted interviews with stakeholders who work with low income populations, refugees and residents with special needs to discuss their clients’ experience with housing discrimination and fair housing barriers.

1 The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines national origin discrimination as “treating

people…unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).” See http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm. Refugees are a protected class because the Federal Fair Housing Act protects against discrimination based on national origin.

, SECTION IV BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING

Altogether, nearly 40 organizations were consulted during completion of the city’s Consolidated Plan and AI.2 These organizations represent a variety of interests, including community-based organizations, housing providers, realtors, lenders, community planning officials and fair housing organizations. These organizations are listed in Figure IV-1.

Figure IV-1. Organizational Participation in Public Outreach Process, City of Boise AI, 2011

Participating Organization Participating Organization (cont'd)

Agency for New Americans Idaho Small Business Development Center

Area Agency on Aging Intermountain Fair Housing Council

Boise City Ada County Housing Authority International Rescue Committee

Boise City Library Keller Williams Real Estate Company

Boise Valley Economic Partnership Living Independence Network Corporation

Capital City Development Corporation Mercy Housing

City of Boise City Council Microenterprise Training and Assistance

COMPASS Northwest Real Estate Capital Corporation

Create Common Good Parkland Corporation

El Ada Community Action Program Sage Community Resources

Experience Works Senior Solutions

Habitat for Humanity Sustainable Connections

Idaho Community Reinvestment Corporation Sustainable Futures

Idaho Council for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Terry Reilly Health Services

Idaho Department of Insurance The Housing Company

Idaho Department of Labor Thomas Development Corporation

Idaho Housing and Finance Association Touchmark

Idaho Human Rights Commission Valley Regional Transit

Idaho Office for Refugees Wells Fargo Bank

Idaho Legal Aid

Source: BBC Research & Consulting.

Major findings from the resident survey and stakeholder consultation follow.

Resident Survey

Between October 2011 and January 2012, a survey was administered to Boise residents to learn about their experiences finding housing in Boise. The survey was distributed to residents through the city’s social service and fair housing networks. The organizations listed in Figure VI-2 were mailed paper copies of the survey to distribute to their clients. In addition, surveys were sent home with students in two of the four elementary schools (Horizon and Morley Nelson) identified as having concentrations of non-English speaking students in a 2008 IFHC report.

2 Some organizations were interviewed about fair housing barriers as part of the city’s 2011-2015 Consolidated Plan

preparation.


Figure IV-2. Organizations Distributing Resident Surveys, City of Boise, 2011

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting.

Distributing Organizations

Agency for New Americans

Boise City Ada County Housing Authority

Catholic Charities

Create Common Good

English Language Center

Idaho Legal Aid

Idaho Office of Refugees

Idaho Housing and Finance Association

Intermountain Fair Housing Council

International Rescue Committee

Living Independence Network Corporation

Microenterprise Training and Assistance

Terry Reilly Health Services

Treasure Valley World Relief

United Way of Treasure Valley

The survey contained a question that asked how respondents learned about the survey. The majority (69%) found out about the survey because it was sent home with their child at school or distributed through the English Language Center. The remainder received the survey from the City of Boise, fair housing organizations, the housing authority, a social service organization or friends and family.

Languages available. Idaho Legal Aid and Morley Nelson Elementary School requested written translation of the survey in the following languages: Kizigua, Mai Mai, Swahili, Somali, Kirundi, Laotian, Nepali, Karen, Burmese, Vietnamese, Bosnian, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and French. BBC solicited translation services via phone and email from translators who were recommended by the English Language Center, as well as individuals on the Boise interpreter website.3 BBC was able to obtain written translation of the survey instrument in Spanish, French, Arabic and Nepali. The survey was also available online and in written form in English and Spanish.

One survey was received in Spanish. The remaining surveys were completed in English. Most limited English proficiency (LEP) populations completed the English survey in person with the assistance of a translator.

A total of 177 surveys were received; of these, 174 were completed in full. Characteristics of survey respondents included the following.

Survey respondent characteristics

60 respondents, or 34 percent of all respondents, had a household member with a disability.

62 percent made less than $25,000. Respondents with disabilities were most likely to earn less than $25,000 (84% earned less than $25,000). Sixty-eight percent of minority respondents and 53 percent of families with children earned less than $25,000.

3 The website can be found at: www.boiseinterpreters.com.


66 percent lived in households with children.

72 percent rented.

23 percent were racial and ethnic minorities. A little more than half of these respondents were refugees.

It should be noted that due to the small sample size and the method of survey distribution, the results of the survey are not statistically significant and do not reflect the views of the city’s entire resident population. Instead, the survey was specifically meant to capture the responses of protected classes and low income residents of Boise.

Survey findings. The survey instrument asked respondents about their experience finding housing in Boise and if they had experienced housing discrimination. The survey contained a subsection to capture the housing experience of refugees, which was completed by 51 (29%) respondents.

Looking for housing in Boise. The main reasons respondents chose to move to Boise was family (31%), because they are refugees (28%), employment (23%) and/or quality of life (24%).

The majority of survey respondents said that their first apartment or home met their housing needs. For the 40 percent of respondents that said it did not, this was largely due to cost and size, as shown in Figure IV-3.

Figure IV-3a. “Think back to when you first looked for a place to live in Boise. Did the first home or apartment you lived in meet your needs?”

Source:

Boise AI Resident Survey, 2011.

Yes 60% 43% 59% 48%

No 40% 57% 41% 52%

Total Respondents 153 49 102 66

All Respondents

Respondents with a

DisabilityRespondents with Children

MinorityRespondents

Figure IV-3b. Why not? (Respondents who answered "No")

Cost too much 57% 54% 61% 70%

Didn't feel comfortable with neighbors 11% 8% 13% 3%

Didn't like apartment management 18% 19% 21% 8%

No accommodations for disability 6% 14% 4% 5%

No bus stop nearby 3% 5% 2% 0%

Too far from work/school 16% 16% 17% 19%

Too far from friends, family, people like me 5% 11% 2% 14%

Too small 24% 22% 28% 14%

Undesirable/bad location 9% 11% 9% 8%

Other 19% 30% 15% 11%

All Respondents

Respondents with a


MinorityRespondents

Source: Boise AI Resident Survey, 2011.


Respondents with disabilities and minorities were less likely than respondents overall to say that their first apartment met their needs. Indeed, about 30 percent of respondents with a disability said their current apartment or home still does not meet their accessibility needs.

Cost was the primary factor that respondents were dissatisfied with their first apartment of home, regardless of respondent type. The “other” reasons respondents gave for their dissatisfaction were many; however, poor quality housing was named most often.

Minorities were less likely to say that they didn’t like the apartment management or that their apartment was too small compared to other respondents.

Respondent were also asked why they chose their first apartment or home in Boise. Cost was the primary factor (51%), followed by location (33%) and the type of apartment/home (27%).

Refugees were asked a series of questions about their experience moving to Boise as a refugee. Most (85%) said their lease was interpreted for them; 12 percent said it was not. The vast majority—80 percent—said that the concept of a security deposit was explained to them during the lease signing process.

When asked what could have made their transition to Boise easier, refugees provided the following comments:

Clearer explanation of my rights, responsibilities and public assistance programs;

More affordable housing;

Language assistance;

More communication and interaction with people;

Access to a car or motorcycle;

Opportunity to go to college;

Access to bus transportation; and

Better medications.

Refugees, in addition to all respondents, were asked if they had moved from their current apartment since coming to Boise and, if so, if they received their security deposit back. Overall 43 percent of respondents said “no.”

Five refugees—or 55 percent of refugees who had moved from their first apartment—said they did not receive their security deposit back after moving. This is a higher proportion than for survey respondents overall (43%); however, the number of refugee respondents to this question is too small to make any definitive conclusions. Three refugees were told the security deposit was retained to make repairs to the apartment; two refugees were not told why their deposit was retained.

Feeling comfortable in Boise. Respondents were asked two questions to access their level of comfort living in Boise. The first asked “Do you feel like residents of your apartment complex or neighborhood are treated equally/the same?” The vast majority—85 percent—of respondents said “yes.”


As shown in Figure IV-4, respondents overwhelmingly feel that residents are treated equally in their current apartment complex or home, regardless of respondent type.

Figure IV-4. “Do you feel like residents of your apartment complexor neighborhood are treated equally / the same?”

Source:


Yes 85% 80% 88% 82%

No 15% 20% 12% 18%


Respondents with a


All Respondents

MinorityRespondents

Respondents were asked if there were certain portions of Boise in which they would not feel welcome to live. This question was meant to identify areas where protected classes may not feel comfortable and/or may not look for housing.

As shown in Figure IV-5, minority respondents were the least likely to say “yes,” followed by families with children. More than one-third of people with disabilities said there were parts of Boise in which they would not feel comfortable.

Figure IV-5. “Are there places in Boise you don't think you would feel welcome to live?”

Source:


Yes 24% 35% 18% 17%

No 76% 65% 82% 83%


Respondents with a


All Respondents

MinorityRespondents

When asked to identify those areas, survey respondents wrote:

“Most areas in central and southwest Boise as well as the bench neighborhood or north end Boise.”

“Areas with large immigrant populations—too concentrated.”

“All the places that don’t take Section 8; been turned down a lot for vouchers.”

“Downtown; not comfortable because I have kids.”

“Rich” areas (many comments about being too poor).

“Downtown, we get looked at funny and people tell us we need to learn English.”

“In citizen housing because I have mental health issues.”

Close to an area or airport,

Places that don’t allow dogs,

North end, and

Garden City.

Respondents were asked how important it is to them to live near people who are similar to them. Just 34 percent said “very important;” 37 percent said “somewhat important.” Minority respondents were much more likely to say that it is “very important” for them to live near people like them.


Figure IV-6. “How important is it for you to live near people who are similar to you?”

Source:


Very important 34% 31% 31% 50%

Somewhat important 37% 41% 43% 19%

Somewhat not important 11% 9% 9% 8%

Not important 18% 20% 17% 22%

Very + Somewhat important 71% 72% 74% 69%

Total respondents 171 59 113 78

Respondents with a


All Respondents

MinorityRespondents

Response to discrimination. Residents were asked if they had experienced housing discrimination and what they would do if they faced housing discrimination. Figure IV-7 shows the answers by respondent type. Minorities were least likely to report they had been discriminated against and people with disabilities were the most likely.

Figure IV-7. “When you were looking for housing in Boise, did you ever feel you were discriminated against?”

Source:


Yes 20% 31% 19% 14%

No 80% 69% 81% 86%


Respondents with a


All Respondents

MinorityRespondents

The reasons for discrimination included having children (38%), having a disability (24%), age (24%), speaking language other than English (16%), race/ethnicity (14%). Respondents also listed other reasons they felt they had experienced discrimination, which were mostly details of their specific experiences.

When asked what they would do if they had experienced discrimination, most said they would contact an organization (53%); 17 percent said they would tell a friend. The specific organizations respondents would contact included the housing authority (39%), Idaho Legal Aid (25%), Idaho Commission on Human Rights (24%), the Better Business Bureau (22%), HUD (17%) and the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (17%). Overall, respondents showed high awareness and willingness to contact an organization that could help them if they felt they had experienced housing discrimination.

Disproportionately analysis. HUD is particularly interested in knowing if protected classes experience disproportionate barriers to fair housing choice. The survey results indicate this could be true of persons with disabilities.

1. Are different household types more or less likely to report housing discrimination? Only for persons with disabilities. Minorities, including refugees, reported lower levels of discrimination than other protected class categories and residents overall.

2. Are there fair housing barriers that appear to be specific to a certain class of residents? Yes, lack of accessibility improvements for persons with disabilities. Thirty percent of disabled survey respondents reported that their current homes do not meet their accessibility needs.


3. Do residents have the same housing and neighborhood opportunities regardless of protected class, adjusting for income? Except for persons with disabilities, residents do not report differences in where they feel comfortable living in Boise. In fact, minorities express the strongest preferences to live near people who are like them. Persons with disabilities were much more likely than other protected classes and residents overall to report places in Boise where they would not feel comfortable. Overall, however, residents report equal treatment of residents in their individual apartment complexes/neighborhoods.

Stakeholder Focus Groups and Interviews

The stakeholders consulted during the AI process described the primary barriers to fair housing in Boise around several themes:

Lack of affordable housing throughout the city;

Lack of accessible housing;

Limited transportation;

Need for more education and outreach about fair housing;

Lack of limited English population (LEP) resources; and

Lack of employment opportunities for persons with disabilities and refugees.

The comments of stakeholders are summarized by type of barrier in the following section.

Lack of affordable housing and accessible housing. Stakeholders provided the following information on affordable housing in Boise:

There is a shortage of private sector developers willing/able to build affordable housing in the urban area.

The community does not have a clear housing objective or strategy, so resources are not being pooled, maximized or leveraged. Other governmental processes are working at odds with housing objectives (i.e. zoning codes, entitlement requirements, fees, etc.). Additionally, it is hard for small partnerships and nonprofit housing providers interested in developing affordable housing to access funding sources.

Boise has a severe shortage of housing units for very low income individuals. The waiting list for public housing units and Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers was closed recently due to its size (over 5,000 households) and estimated wait time (4-5 years). Even when providers attempt to locate housing for a disabled client, they find it difficult. There is not a very coordinated regional approach to identify and access housing units for specific clients.

Affordability is primarily a function of the amount of benefits a disabled person receives to pay for housing. Most disabled individuals have very low income because they are unlikely to be fully employed and their benefits are their only income. Even where Medicaid benefits “follow the person,” cuts in Federal funding are and can be expected to continue, further reducing the ability of the disabled to afford quality and accessible housing. Disabled individuals will most likely need subsidized or Section 8 housing. The disabled population needs housing of all types and in all areas, but particularly subsidized for very low income individuals, and located close to transit.


Limited transportation. Limited transportation outside the city’s urban core affects low income residents’ opportunity to move into the city’s outer neighborhoods. The refugee population is particularly dependent on public transportation, as most do not immediately purchase cars. Limited public transportation options may prevent refugees from accessing employment and housing opportunities. For example, there is a desire among refugee populations for single family homes in suburban subdivisions, but the existing transportation system cannot support these residents in accessing services, education and employment.

Improvements in education and outreach. Stakeholders believe that discrimination in Boise is linked to lack of awareness and understanding of fair housing laws and requirements—i.e., offenders commit fair housing violations out of ignorance.

Boise stakeholders think the City of Boise is modeling good stewardship and examples of fair housing in their properties; however, they feel there has not been a clear voice in support of fair housing within the community.

Employment. Current barriers to employment for disabled individuals who want to work and can work include a lack of transportation, opportunities, and training.

Stakeholders’ Recommendations to Address Barriers

The city should focus on a short term and a long term strategy for addressing housing needs. In the short term, the city should focus on rehabilitating existing rental units to address the housing needs of the elderly and disabled (ADA modifications) through the provision of revolving loan funds.

The city could require that property owners waive the first and last month’s rent for disabled tenants. Preferences for city loans could go to properties that are/will be located near transit. Long term, the city should submit an 811 application to HUD for the development of additional units.

To avoid the historical “clustering” of jobs for the disabled (food, flowers or filth), participants recommend the city explore job developers. These job developers could evaluate parts of any production or service process and identify tasks that could be done effectively by a disabled employee. This approach employs more people, reduces poverty among the disabled, and cuts operating costs for employers.

The deaf and hard of hearing populations need information on how to obtain housing, negotiate a rental agreement, etc. The primary barrier to serving this population is the shortage of interpreters and service staff who can sign. In addition, this population needs visual lighting devices and signs in residential settings.

Additional education and support is needed for landlords and tenants. Such education should be held in a “safe place to address fair housing issues free from litigation.”

Focus group participants support moving from a sheltered workshop model of employment for the disabled to a community supported employment model. In this model, disabled individuals would have a job coach go with them to the job site and provide necessary training and assistance. Taken a step further, employers can be provided with a stipend that can be allocated to an in-house job trainer for disabled individuals.


Developmentally disabled individuals are not given a great deal of choice in employment, partially because of a lack of awareness about what accommodations they need and what they can produce. Stakeholders who work with persons with disabilities are interested in partnering with employers to provide mentoring to give the training, ongoing support, and accommodation that is needed to employ this portion of the workforce.

The city and/or housing authority should establish a fund for low income residents who need reasonable accommodations and cannot afford to make them.

Barriers identified by Fair Housing Organizations

In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC) and Legal Aid. The organizations identified a number of barriers to fair housing in Boise, which are summarized below. Their comments are captured separately from the stakeholder summary above because of the specific fair housing focus of these two organizations.

Restrictive HOA covenants. IFHC reports that the majority (an estimated 80%) of Homeowners Associations’ Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs) restrict group homes outright. IFHC believes this is a “major institutional barrier” to fair housing in Boise, as well as in the State of Idaho.

Discrimination against service animals. The fair housing organizations report that landlords require extra fees for service animals and/or won’t return rental deposits to tenants with service animals.

Non-compliance with Title VI limited English Proficiency (LEP) requirements. The fair housing organizations do not believe that assisted housing providers in Boise comply with Title VI limited English proficiency requirements. For example, LEP families on waiting lists for subsidized housing only receive information in English about the need to certify their address.

Caseworkers resist making reasonable accommodations. The fair housing organizations report that local housing providers, including the BCACHA, are resistant to making reasonable accommodations for residents. IFHC considers this an “institutional barrier to advocacy.”

Segregation of refugees and low income residents. IFHC and Legal Aid believe that refugees are often placed in a just a few apartment complexes in the city, creating concentrations of refugees and low income residents. Legal Aid recently filed a complaint against the three refugee agencies and their parent organizations alleging numerous violations, including failure to make reasonable accommodations, housing segregation, predatory lease arrangements and imposing differential treatment and housing conditions.

The city should spend more money on housing residents than planning for housing. Legal Aid believes that persons with disabilities, refugees and persons who are homeless are all inadequately housed in Boise. The city’s fair housing organizations would like the city to spend more of its General Fund and HUD funding on homeless and low income housing.

SECTION V. Fair Housing Impediments and Action Plan

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 1

SECTION V. Fair Housing Impediments and Action Plan

This final section of the Boise AI identifies impediments found during the research process and concludes with a recommended Fair Housing Action Plan for the City of Boise.

Fair Housing in Boise

The City of Boise has put much effort into reducing fair housing barriers in the past few years. Most notably, the city developed a fair housing campaign, designated a fair housing contact within the city, established a Mayor-appointed Fair Housing Task Force, partnered with statewide organizations to support fair housing training and events and has posted fair housing information on the city’s website. The city has also historically dedicated a portion of general fund revenues to rental assistance for low income households.

Specifically, Boise recently developed a Fair Housing Campaign—Good Neighbors + Fair Housing = Strong Communities—which includes a toll free, statewide fair housing hotline through the 2-1-1 service. Boise has also (with co-sponsorship from IHFA) created www.fairhousingforum.org, an online resource dedicated to providing practical informational resources and promoting awareness through respectful collaboration and cooperation among all stakeholders.

The city also has two fair housing organizations—Idaho Legal Aid and the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC)—that maintain websites with fair housing information and complaint filing procedures.

In sum, compared to similar cities, residents in Boise have many ways to get information about their fair housing rights and file housing discrimination complaints.


These efforts are commendable and should be continued. In addition, this AI indentified several other ways the city can work to mitigate barriers to housing choice.

Fair Housing Impediments

HUD has recently begun clarifying the difference between fair housing impediments and observations through reviews of jurisdictions’ Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs), Annual Action Plans and AIs. According to HUD, impediments directly impact a protected class, whereas an observation may lead to an impediment or may be of concern, but cannot be directly linked to a protected class. An example is lack of affordable housing which is

, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING

generally a barrier for all low income people, regardless of protected class (an “equal opportunity” barrier).

In this report, impediments that cannot be directly linked to a protected class are called “observations.” Impediments that can be directly linked to a protected class remain as impediments.

The fair housing impediments found in the 2012 AI research include the following:

IMPEDIMENT NO. 1. Some HOA covenants may violate fair housing laws. In its review of HOA covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs), Clarion Associates found that three of the six CCRs reviewed prohibit “shelter homes” in their subdivisions. If a shelter home is interpreted to be the same as a group home, this is a fair housing violation and it is not consistent with Idaho Code, which highlights an intent to not comply with a clear state statute. However, since neither the Fair Housing Act nor the Idaho Code include a definition of “shelter home,” it is possible that a court might find that term to be either broader or narrower than the protections in the Fair Housing Act and Idaho Code.

In addition, IFHC, based on its experience with complaints associated with HOAs, believes that as many as 80 percent of CCRs restrict group homes outright and are in violation of fair housing laws.

Why is this an impediment? Language that has the intent or effect of restricting group homes for persons with disabilities is illegal under the Fair Housing Act.

IMPEDIMENT NO. 2. People with disabilities report higher levels of discrimination and lower levels of housing accommodation than other residents. Between 2005 and 2010, 108 fair housing complaints were filed with HUD for violations that occurred in Boise. Forty-three percent were found by HUD to have no cause; 57 percent were pursued.

The majority—68 percent—of the complaints cited discrimination based on disability status. Many of these complaints cited discrimination based on failure to make reasonable accommodations and discriminatory terms, conditions and privileges of services and facilities.

Additionally, during the past decade, there have been a number of lawsuits in Boise which have found that developers failed to meet building accessibility requirements of the ADA and Fair Housing Act.

A resident survey conducted for this AI found that people with disabilities are much more likely to report levels of housing discrimination (30% compared to 20% for low to moderate income residents overall, based on the survey). The survey also found lack of accessible housing as a potential fair housing barrier specific to people with disabilities: Thirty percent of disabled survey respondents reported that their current homes do not meet their accessibility needs.

Finally, persons with disabilities were much more likely than other survey respondents to report places in Boise where they would not feel comfortable. Overall, however, disabled residents report equal treatment of residents in their individual apartment complexes/neighborhoods.


Why is this an impediment? People with disabilities are a protected class under fair housing law. To the extent that they cannot access housing opportunities equal to those of other residents of similar income levels, a fair housing barrier is created.

IMPEDIMENT NO. 3. Resources for limited English proficiency residents could be improved. The stakeholder groups participating in the public input process mentioned limited resources for limited English proficiency (LEP) individual as a potential fair housing barrier.

Stakeholders believe that LEP persons, which include persons with disabilities (e.g., those who are deaf and hard of hearing), face obstacles when working with local housing providers if oral and/or written translation is not provided during the lease signing process.

Stakeholders believe refugees accessing affordable housing opportunities offered through the housing authority may not be receiving necessary translation of important documents. It should be noted that 72 percent of refugees who took the AI resident survey said they received an in-person, verbal interpretation of their apartment lease; 14 percent reported no form of translation or needing to obtain translation services themselves. These answers did not pertain specifically to housing provided by the housing authority or the city, but all types of housing (public and private).

To ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, federal assistance recipients are required to provide language assistance to LEP individuals to ensure equal access to federally funded programs and housing.

HUD recommends federal assistance recipients understand the size and the needs of their local LEP population. Once the local LEP population has been characterized, HUD recommends recipients create and implement a Language Assistance Plan (LAP), which identifies recipients’ plan for serving LEP populations. HUD suggests that recipients provide written translation of vital documents and oral translation of non-vital documents if an LEP group represents five percent of the total population or 1,000 persons.

The BCACHA LAP was last updated in 2004, prior to HUD’s guidance issued in 2007. The BCACHA only provides its online rental assistance application in English. The BCACHA’s implementation plan does not specify when written interpretation of vital documents will be provided for residents, which is an important part of the HUD guidance. However, BCACHA’s rental assistance applications for the Section 8 and public housing programs do ask residents whether they need assistance with language interpretation.

Note that the City of Boise has a more comprehensive LAP that discusses language assistance measures required by HCD and property management staff.

Why is this an impediment? Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is “the federal law that protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of their race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal financial assistance.”1 Compliance with Title VI requires that federal assistance recipients provide language assistance to individuals with limited English proficiency. Failure to

1 Information on Title VI and HUD programs can be found here:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/promotingfh/lep-faq


ensure that persons who are LEP can effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs may violate Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination.2

OBSERVATION NO. 1. City land use and zoning regulations could be revised to encourage affordable housing development. Clarion Associates, a planning and land use firm, completed an in-depth analysis of Boise’s land use regulations to determine whether the city’s codes create barriers to fair housing and affordable housing development. Clarion Associates identified a number of strengths in the city’s code, as well as a number of suggestions for modifications or additions to the code.

A copy of Clarion’s complete report is in Appendix A.

Why is this an observation? Land use and zoning regulations may have the effect of reducing development of a wide range of housing types and levels of affordability, which may disparately impact protected classes, most likely persons with disabilities who require group home settings.

OBSERVATION NO. 2. Mortgage loan approval rates were lower for African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native and Hispanic borrowers than for Whites. An analysis of 2009 mortgage lending data found that African American applicants had denial rates that were seven percentage points higher than White applicants’. White applicants had loan origination rates that were 16 percentage points higher than African American applicants.3

The differences between American Indian/Alaskan Native borrowers and White borrowers was 12 percentage points for loan approvals and 12 percentage points for denials.4

Hispanic applicants’ loan approval rates were eight percentage points lower than Whites’ and denial rates were six percentage points higher.

Why is this an observation? Because the mortgage lending data do not contain information about potential borrowers’ credit scores, it is unclear if the disparities in loan approvals between minorities and Whites are due to credit issues or lending discrimination. Still, difficulty accessing credit (despite the reason) may restrict minorities’ housing choices and can lead to disinvestment in minority neighborhoods.

OBSERVATION NO. 3. Differential treatment of refugees may occur. As discussed in Section IV. Public Outreach, the public process for the AI made a concerted effort to involve refugees who had been relocated to Boise. This effort was driven, in part, by concern by IFHC and Legal Aid about treatment of refugees. Specifically, Legal Aid recently filed a complaint against the three refugee agencies and their parent organizations alleging numerous violations, including failure to make reasonable accommodations, housing segregation, predatory lease arrangements and imposing differential treatment and housing conditions.

2 IBID.

3 It should be noted that loan applications submitted by African Americans represented just 1 percent of all loan applications submitted in Boise, or 66 loans.

4 Similar to African American borrowers, the number of loans for American Indian/Alaskan Native borrowers was small at

64 loans.


The survey results found some housing concerns—e.g., not all refugees report that their lease agreements were translated and some said they did not have security deposits returned—however, the survey results do not suggest that refugees face housing barriers that are unique to the protected class of national origin.

This AI acknowledges that several organizations have significant concerns about the housing process of refugees who are settled in Boise. However, specific violations of the Fair Housing Act unique to the housing situations of refugees in Boise will be determined by the resolution of the complaints discussed above.

Fair Housing Action Plan

Based on our research for this AI, BBC recommends the City of Boise implement the following Fair Housing Action Plan and activities for reducing fair housing impediments:

ACTION ITEM 1. Implement a review process of HOA covenants. City planning and legal staff will develop a process consistent with new housing development applicants for planning and zoning approval that will review HOA – CC&rs for inconsistencies with Fair Housing law. Developers and HOAs will be informed of potential remedies to achieve fair housing compliance and will will be encouraged to amend language in the CC&Rs. In addition education and outreach regarding Fair Housing compliance will be provided to all registered Neighborhood Associations with a specific focus upon inconsistencies or barrier created through CC&Rs. This will include recommending the removal of the restrictions on “shelter homes” to avoid a potential fair housing violation.


ACTION ITEM 2. Actions to resolve Impediment 2 and Observation 3 will include:

Significant portions of the City’s affordable home rehabilitation loan program will be modified to serve low and moderate income households with physical disabilities. Loans will be provided under a forgivable structure to owner occupants and will not require any form of repayment unless the home is sold prior to the specified loan term. In most cases, this is estimated to be a five-year maturity. The purpose of this assistance will be to remove physical barriers to affordable housing.

A similar effort will be directed toward multi-family owners and managers. In this instance, attractive loan terms and rates will be provided as incentives. Net loan proceeds over time will contribute to the continuation of this initiative.

ACTION ITEM 3. Implement regional coordination of LEP implementation plans. As a resettlement community, Boise houses an LEP population that represents a wide variety of languages and dialects. Translation services can be costly to provide, and it can be difficult to secure quality translators. Given the cost and time associated with securing translation services, the city and the BCACHA—as well as other partners—will share and coordinate their LEP services. This will include the following:

Types of documents that should be interpreted into additional languages;

Languages with enough representation for written interpretation of vital documents;


Types of meetings and events in which translation services will be provided; and

Timeline and process for updating the regional LAP.

The city and the BCACHA will continue to maintain an updated list of translators. Since translators are often students at Boise State University, and may only reside in Boise for a short period of time, the list of translators will be updated annually. The city and the BCACHA will continue to work with the English Language Center and Boise State University to identify a list of translators.

The City will assess a pilot program to provide financial resources to affordable rental housing providers for the purpose of translating vital documents. Providers will be expected to match the assistance in serving local LEP populations.


ACTION ITEM 4. Continue actions to increase affordable housing stock. It is a difficult time for many cities to aggressively address affordable housing shortages. As the economy improves and the city’s funds become less constrained, Boise will enhance its efforts to deeply subsidized rental units to its housing stock.


The city will establish a pilot fund during the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2012 with the intended use of providing one time incentives that can remove barriers to affordable housing for high need households. Such activities may include deposit assistance for rent or utilities, move in assistance or other landlord incentives. This pilot effort will be capitalized from the net proceeds realized from the re-sale of HUD homes purchased and renovated by the City through the “HUD Dollar Home” Program. Once initial results of the pilot effort are analyzed for effectiveness, any continuation of the program will receive on-going financial support through this same or similar funding vehicle.

The city will also modify its zoning and land use regulations with the following:

Add a purpose statement to its code that more specifically addresses the city’s purpose to provide housing choices for residents and to comply with applicable federal and state law. The city will add a purpose statement to its code that more specifically addresses the city’s purpose to provide housing choices for residents and to comply with applicable federal and state law. The purpose statement will reflect the city’s intent to coordinate housing and transportation to allow affordable housing and multifamily housing near transit.

Add definition of affordable housing to land use code. The city will add a definition of affordable housing to its land use code, in addition to the definition provided in the city’s Impact Fee Ordinance. This addition will help allow for affordable housing in the city.


Modify definition of dwelling unit.. To further clarify that all of the protected classes covered by the FHAA are excluded from the five unrelated persons per dwelling unit regulation, the city will revise is definition to read: “The physically and/or mentally handicapped included all those groups of individuals protected by the provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments, as amended, including but not limited to those currently undergoing rehabilitation for drug and/or alcohol addiction.”

Consider reducing lot size and parking requirements on mobile and manufactured homes. Boise has separate standards for mobile home parks and manufactured home communities, but those standards still require compliance with all subdivision platting standards applicable to the zone district where the property is located. It appears, for example, that both types of communities must meet the minimum lot size applicable to stick-built single-family housing in the same zone district. While it is good to have specialized standards for these types of development, the city will consider decreasing the required lot size below that of the base zoning district and reduce parking requirements below two per dwelling unit in at least one residential zone district. It is understood that the City is in the process of reinstating the density bonus provisions in conjunction with affordable housing criteria. We encourage this to result in formal adoption of by-right incentives.

Complete an inventory of multifamily parcels in zoning districts that allow multifamily development. In Boise, multifamily is permitted by right in three downtown districts: R-3, R-O, and C-5. This should be an adequate number of zone districts to respond to different types of multifamily demand, provided that the city has zoned an adequate amount of land into these three categories. In addition, multifamily is permitted two districts outside of downtown, R-3 and R-O. The zoning map only shows one R-O parcel outside of downtown, indicating that the city is mostly reliant on the R-3 district for multifamily uses. While it may be sufficient to permit multifamily in one district, it is also important that there is sufficient land zoned for that district to create a reasonable chance that multifamily will be developed. As such, the city will evaluate the supply of land available in these zoning districts to ensure that an adequate supply of land is available to support multifamily development. If an insufficient supply of land is available in these zoning districts, the city will rezone additional land to allow for more high density multifamily development.

Increase affordable housing incentives. Affordable and low income housing projects are exempt from impact fee requirements of the Impact Fee Ordinance. This is a good incentive to promote affordable housing. The city will consider adding additional incentives such as density bonuses or parking reductions for affordable and low-income housing projects.

Allow a variety of housing types that promote affordability. The city will consider allowing additional housing options like cohousing or zero lot line houses. “Zero Lot Line Development” is defined in the code yet it is not permitted by right in any district. The city will consider permitting these in the R-1M district where duplexes and row houses are allowed. This would allow for a different configuration of homes without significantly altering the character of the district.

Evaluate lot size and width requirements. The city will evaluate the lot size and width requirements outlined in the city’s zoning code to ensure they promote affordable housing development. Minimum lot sizes in all residential zones can be reduced through a PUD process.


However, the need to complete a discretionary decision process with a public hearing is a barrier that could be reduced or removed through attaching objective standards that permit reduced lot sizes by right. The amount of land zoned R-1M and R-0 will be reviewed to see if it is adequate to help meet affordable housing demands.

Add a provision to zoning code to allow nonconforming structures be replaced with the same number of units if they are damaged or destroyed through fire or natural causes. It is understood that Conditional Use Permits are available to rebuild non-conforming structures, including replacement of units in excess of the number that would be permitted under the current zoning. However, this type of relief be made available without the need for a hearing or discretionary decision process


ACTION ITEM 5. Monitor lending disparities. Boise will monitor lending disparities between White and American Indian/Alaskan Native, African American and Hispanic borrowers over time and, if disparities widen or persist, initiate discussions with financial institutions about the reasons for the disparities and solutions to reduce the gap (e.g., improving the creditworthiness of African American borrowers). Expanded programs to strengthen the credit of minorities will be considered if the lending gaps persist.


APPENDIX A. Boise Land Use Regulations As Barriers To Affordable Housing

1

BOISE LAND USE REGULATIONS AS BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

2. REVIEW OF LAND USE REGULATIONS ..................................................................... 1 A. General Regulations ........................................................................................................... 1

1) Purpose Statements .................................................................................................... 1 2) Definitions .................................................................................................................... 1 3) Inclusionary Regulations or Incentives ........................................................................ 2 4) Flexibility on Non-conforming Structures ..................................................................... 3

B. Lot and Building Dimensions .............................................................................................. 3 1) Lot Size ........................................................................................................................ 3 2) Lot Width ...................................................................................................................... 3 3) Building Height ............................................................................................................. 4 4) Density ......................................................................................................................... 5 5) House Size Requirements ........................................................................................... 5

C. Permitted and Conditional Uses ......................................................................................... 5 1) Manufactured/Mobile Homes ....................................................................................... 5 2) Group Housing ............................................................................................................. 7 3) ADUs ............................................................................................................................ 8 4) Multi-Family .................................................................................................................. 8 5) Additional Housing Options and Mixed Use ................................................................ 9

D. Parking Requirements ........................................................................................................ 9 E. Zoning Map Constraints .................................................................................................... 10 F. Restrictive Covenants ....................................................................................................... 11

1) Background Discussion ............................................................................................. 11 2) Review of Sample CCR Provisions ........................................................................... 13

3. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 16

4. APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 18 A. HUD Analysis of Impediments - Checklist ........................................................................ 18 B. Use Table .......................................................................................................................... 21

Clarion Associates – Boise Housing Regulation Review 1

1. INTRODUCTION This report summarizes our review of the Boise City Code for its impact on housing affordability and availability. The topic areas reviewed include:

A. General Regulations

B. Lot and Building Dimensions

C. Permitted and Conditional Uses

D. Parking Requirements

E. Zoning Map Constraints

F. Restrictive Covenants

The findings for each topic are shown below. In addition, the discussion below highlights practices that tend to encourage or discourage the affordability and availability of housing for those individuals and groups protected by the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (the FHAA). While it is not necessary that all of the suggested revisions be incorporated into the Boise City Code, including more of them will further reduce barriers to housing choice.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has developed an “Analysis of Impediments ‐ Checklist” within the Fair Housing Planning Guide that can be found in the Appendix of this report. We recommend that the city become familiar with the Fair Housing Planning Guide and this Checklist. While this document reviews the issues related in that checklist as they relate to land development and use, the checklist contains additional information on city programs, management, or investments that would supplement the information below.

2. REVIEW OF LAND USE REGULATIONS

A. General Regulations 1) Purpose Statements

The purpose statement within the code should reflect the city’s purpose to provide housing choices for residents and to comply with applicable federal and state law regarding housing choice. The city should consider adding a purpose statement of this nature to the general provisions of the code. In addition, since housing availability and affordability is closely related to transportation options (money not spent commuting to and from work can become available for rent or mortgage payments), the purpose statement should also reflect the city’s intent to coordinate housing and transportation to allow affordable housing and multi‐family housing near transit.

2) Definitions Certain terms should be defined in order to allow for or to promote affordable housing, including:

Affordable housing ‐ The Impact Fee Ordinance defines this term. If that definition works generally for zoning purposes, then its general applicability should be


clarified (i.e. perhaps move or repeat it in the zoning ordinance. If it does not work in other contexts, then the IFO definition should be limited to that context and a different definition of the term should be included in the zoning ordinance.

Dwelling unit – This term is defined and includes, “… A dwelling unit may be occupied by a family (related by blood or marriage), or by up to five (5) unrelated individuals or by any number of physically or mentally handicapped or elderly persons as long as the residential character of the dwelling is preserved. The physically and/or mentally handicapped includes those currently undergoing rehabilitation for drug and/or alcohol addiction”.

To further clarify that all of the protected classes covered by the FHAA are excluded from the five unrelated persons per dwelling unit regulation, we recommend that the first sentence quoted above be revised to read: “The physically and/or mentally handicapped included all those groups of individuals protected by the provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments, as amended, including but not limited to those currently undergoing rehabilitation for drug and/or alcohol addiction.”

Manufactured home – The discussion for this term can be found under Manufactured/Mobile Homes below.

Family, functional family, and household – These terms are not defined. The definition of “Family” is loosely included in the definition of “Dwelling Unit,”, but it is better to include separate definitions of any of these terms used in the code. Many municipalities try to avoid defining “Family” and use the term “Household” instead. The city may consider adding the definition of a household such as: “Any number of individuals living together on the premises as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, lodging house, or hotel.”

3) Inclusionary Regulations or Incentives Generally, the profitability of residential development depends strongly on the price for which the final units can be sold or rented. So dwelling units designed (or required) to be sold or rented at more affordable rates produce smaller profits – and smaller profit margins increase development risk. To maintain the same profit margin on affordable units (as compared with market rate units), the builder has to either (1) obtain the land a lower price than the market rate developer, or (2) build more units on the land than market rate developers. In most cases however, land is sold to the buyer that is able to pay the highest price, so it is not likely that an affordable builder will obtain land at a lower price than a market rate developer. In order to avoid paying subsidies, many local governments offer incentives that allow affordable builders to build more units on the site. Typically, that involves allowing a higher development density, a taller height limit, smaller lot sizes, lower parking requirements, or some combination of those tools.

Another common incentive includes waivers or reductions of application fees or development impact fees. In Boise, affordable and low‐income housing projects are exempt from the impact fee requirements of the Impact Fee Ordinance. This is a good incentive to promote affordable housing. It is understood that height exceptions and parking reductions for workforce or affordable housing are granted with some frequency, but any process that requires a public hearing or discretionary decision (such as a variance) is a barrier that could be eliminated through allowing those types of adjustments by right for workforce and fair housing


projects. It is understood that the City is in the process of reinstating the density bonus provisions in conjunction with affordable housing criteria. We encourage this to result in formal adoption of by‐right incentives. Flexibility on Non‐conforming Structures

Although zoning codes generally require that nonconforming structures damaged or destroyed through fire or natural causes can only be rebuilt in compliance with the zoning code, an increasing number of codes are exempting affordable housing from this requirement. Often the most affordable housing in a community is located on older lots that are too small or narrow for the district where they are located, or in multi‐family buildings that have too many units for the district where they are located. If forced to replat with larger lots or to reduce density following a disaster, those affordable units may be lost. Allowing rebuilding with the same number of units as before may be the most efficient way to preserve this these units in the housing stock. It is understood that Conditional Use Permits are available to rebuild non‐conforming structures, including replacement of units in excess of the number that would be permitted under the current zoning. However, we would recommend that this type of relief be made available without the need for a hearing or discretionary decision process.

B. Lot and Building Dimensions 1) Lot Size

In 2007, a national study prepared by an independent consultant for HUD and the National Association of Home Builders found that large minimum lot sizes are the single largest regulatory factor raising the costs of single‐family homes. At least one zone district (or overlay district, or permit system) should permit small lots for single‐family detached housing. While the appropriate minimum lot size will vary with the character of the city, many communities now allow single‐family lots to be platted at sizes ranging from 3,000 to 3,500 square feet.

The most common minimum lot size permitted in Boise’s residential districts is 5,000 square feet which does not facilitate the construction of affordable housing. However, the minimum lot size in the R‐1M district is 2,160 square feet for attached residential units, which does promote affordability. In addition, the R‐O district, a transitional district between higher intensity residential uses and commercial uses, allows 2,500 square foot lots for residential uses. This lot size will also allow for more affordable housing options. The amount of land zoned R‐1M and R‐0 should be reviewed to see if it is adequate to help meet affordable housing demands.

2) Lot Width A second, smaller contributor to the price of single‐family homes is minimum residential lot width. When the west was settled, many urban areas were platted with 25 foot wide lots, although builders often combined three lots into two 37.5 foot lot, or four lots into two 50 foot lots. Platting patterns often produced lots that were much deeper (often 100‐120 feet) than they were wide. However, post‐war platting and house styles were often based on ranch houses that were much wider than they were deep, so wider lots became the norm in many areas. Wide lots inflate the costs of roads (and in urban areas also the water pipes, sewer pipes, storm drainage, and telecommunications cabling) because it takes a longer road to serve


wide lots than to serve narrow lots. When lot widths increased from 25 feet to 75 feet, three times as much road must be paved – and maintained – across the front of the lot. Higher road costs are often recouped by raising lot prices, which undermines affordability.

While some codes require minimum lot widths of 70 feet or more, small homes can be constructed on lots as narrow as 25 to 40 feet. In Boise, platted 25‐foot “Original Substandard Lots of Record” in the R‐1A, R‐1B, R‐1C, R‐2, R‐3, A, R‐O, N‐O, L‐O, C‐1, C‐2, and C‐3 zones can be used through an administrative Record of Survey process (without a hearing or discretionary approval) which removes one of the barriers often found in larger cities .

On the other hand, the R‐1M district permits interior lots of 18 feet wide for attached units and 36 feet wide for detached units by‐right. This is a much more affordable lot width that can help promote affordable housing within the city. In addition, it is understood that lots as narrow as 18 feet are available through a rezoning process. The amount of land zoned R‐1M should be considered to ensure sufficient land is available within this district.

3) Building Height

As with lot size and width above, the issues of multi‐family density and height are related. Multi‐family building height regulations only create barriers to affordable housing if they prohibit the builder from building most of the units that would be possible on that site without moving to a more complex and expensive building code.

Because of the high cost of constructing underground parking, many affordable housing projects accommodate parking in surface or above‐ground structures (i.e., by stacking dwelling units over a parking deck or podium). If surface parking is chosen then the builder needs to accommodate housing units on less site area (avoiding the parking lot), which tends to require taller buildings. If a structured parking podium is used, then the housing can cover more of the site but needs to be accommodated in the remaining available height above the parking structure. In general, the 45 foot height limit in the R‐3 district restricts structures to about four floors, including parking. It is understood that the City grants height exceptions that allow taller buildings; however, permitting five stories of wood frame construction by‐right and as permitted by the building code would allow builders to achieve efficiencies of scale with affordable housing techniques. Permitting five stories by‐right would also avoid the extra step of a height exception process.

Some common building codes allow structures to achieve heights of up to 75 feet before requiring more expensive and fire‐resistant building construction techniques. Height limits in the 50 to 75 foot range give multi‐family builders more leeway to achieve efficiencies of scale with affordable building techniques. In areas where surrounding development is lower, many cities impose height transition standards that require portions of the building near property boundaries to be lower but central portions of the structure to be taller. While allowing efficient construction is an important contributor to affordability, maximum heights should not exceed the height at which the local fire department or district can provide effective fire protection with available equipment and manpower.


In Boise, it appears that the C‐5 district allows multi‐family housing and does not have a height limit, which would avoid height‐related affordability barriers.

4) Density The need for attached and multi‐family housing is rising throughout the country, including the Rocky Mountain west. The economics – and therefore the price – of multi‐family housing depends heavily on how many dwelling units can be built on the lot, how tall the buildings can be, and what percentage of the site must be set aside for non‐building purposes (generally parking, landscaping, and drainage).

In Boise, the highest density in a multi‐family district outside of downtown is 43.5 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the R‐O district permits up to 87.1 dwelling units per acre but this district is mostly located downtown. These densities should be adequate to support the development of affordable housing provided that height, parking, and other regulations do not prevent the achievement of those densities in practice. No maximum lot coverage requirements were found in the Boise code, which removes one of the potential barriers to achieving efficient densities in multi‐family housing.

5) House Size Requirements Minimum house size requirements have also been identified as a significant cause of increased housing price in those communities where they are in place. The zoning and subdivision regulations should not establish minimum house or dwelling unit sizes (beyond those in the building code). Boise does not have a minimum house size requirement (except for in the P‐C district of 500 square feet), which largely avoids this potential barrier. This is an acceptable minimum house size requirement if it is necessary to establish one, although cities like Denver have removed all size minimums from the zoning code, and allow the building code alone to address the health and safety issues related to unit size.

C. Permitted and Conditional Uses To better understand Boise’s regulation of uses pertaining to affordable housing, we created a use table, which is included in the Appendix to this report. Each use with potential affordability impacts is discussed below.

1) Manufactured/Mobile Homes Manufactured housing and mobile homes remain one of the more affordable forms of housing available, and cities that do not accommodate them in some way may be limiting their citizens’ ability to find housing they can afford. Idaho Statute Title 67, Chapter 65 requires manufactured housing to be permitted on all land zoned single‐family (except historic Districts). In addition, the federal National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 requires that manufactured housing meeting HUD safety standards be treated the same as stick‐built housing that meets the building code. As a practical matter, that means they need to be allowed in at least one zone district.

a) Manufactured Homes The Boise zoning code does not include manufactured homes in the definition of dwelling, but they are treated similar to a dwelling. The definition is split into two categories: “enhanced” and “stock”. The definition for enhanced


manufactured homes contains architectural placement standards, such as a minimum floor area of 1,000 square feet. Stock manufactured homes are those that do not have all of the architectural placement standards of enhanced manufactured homes.

Enhanced manufactured homes are basically treated as single‐family dwellings and are allowed in all residential districts. While there are clearly affordability impacts in prohibiting smaller manufactured homes in some single‐family districts, this approach is typical of many other cities. More specifically, many cities allow manufactured homes only where the size and configuration of the home matches the scale and character of the area, and courts have generally upheld this practice.

A 2011 HUD study titled Regulatory Barriers to Manufactured Housing Placement in Urban Communities found that those cities with manufactured home community standards achieve higher levels of manufactured home use, which generally promotes affordability. In Boise, manufactured home communities (which permit both enhanced and stock manufactured homes) are allowed in all residential districts with a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This practice complies with Idaho Code 67‐6509B, Manufactured Housing Community – Equal Treatment Required. Allowing smaller – generally single‐wide – manufactured homes only in manufactured home communities is another typical practice

b) Mobile homes Mobile homes are defined separately from manufactured homes and are also divided into two categories: “mobile home” and “mobile home rehabilitated”. Mobile homes include those units that do not comply with the federal National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (MHA) while rehabilitated mobile homes have been upgraded and have a state certificate of compliance.

Both types of mobile homes are only permitted within mobile home parks. It is typical to restrict these older homes to mobile home parks because they are generally considered less safe than those built to MHA standards. It is also typical to require additional approval for mobile home parks, as in Boise, where a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission, is required for mobile home parks in the two highest density residential districts (R‐2 and R‐3). Mobile home parks are prohibited in all other residential districts, which is not unusual.

c) Subdivision and Improvement Standards Boise has separate standards for mobile home parks and manufactured home communities, but those standards still require compliance with all subdivision platting standards applicable to the zone district where the property is located. It appears, for example, that both types of communities must meet the minimum lot size applicable to stick‐built single‐family housing in the same zone district. While it is good to have specialized standards for these types of development, the city should consider decreasing the required lot size below that of the base zoning district and reduce parking requirements below two per dwelling unit in at least one residential zone district. Minimum lot sizes in all residential zones


can be reduced through a PUD process. Once again, the need to complete a discretionary decision process with a public hearing is a barrier in itself that could be reduced or removed through attaching objective standards that permit reduced lot sizes for manufactured housing by‐right.

In contrast, it appears that Boise has adopted subdivision improvement standards for manufactured home communities and mobile home parks that differ from those applicable to traditional subdivisions.

The narrowest street width for a manufactured home community or mobile home park depends on the total number of lots and the length of the street. The minimum back of curb to back of curb street width for four to ten lots is 24 feet (for street lengths less than 200 feet) and 28 feet (for street lengths greater than 200 feet). For 11 or more lots, the back of curb to back of curb street width is 28 feet, with minimum of a 40 foot right‐of‐way. While these standards avoid the excessive street standards contained in many codes, some cities allow local streets to have narrower right‐of‐way widths in manufactured home communities or mobile home parks to reduce the cost of infrastructure. As discussed above, wider streets lead to higher costs of infrastructure and thus drive up the price for developers, buyers, and renters.

2) Group Housing The federal Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (the “FHAA”, 41 U.S.C.A. § 3601 et. seq.) makes it unlawful:

“To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable, or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of (a) that buyer or renter, or (b) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available, or (c) any person associated with that buyer or renter”.

A person with a “handicap” is a person with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his or her major life activities; or a person who has a record of such impairment, or a person who is regarded as having that type of impairment. The definition covers the frail, the elderly, persons with HIV, physically disabled, developmentally disabled, mentally ill, and recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. The definition does not cover persons currently using or addicted to alcohol or a controlled substance and not “recovering” and does not cover facilities or halfway houses for those in the criminal justice system. If a local government does not allow for residential uses for the types of individuals listed above, it may be deemed to have made those types of residences “unavailable”.

Municipal development codes should clarify that housing for individuals protected by the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 are treated as residential uses, and should generally allow those group housing uses in at least one residential district. While some communities require a special permit for these uses, others allow them by right provided that they comply with standards limiting scale, character, and parking. Failure to provide for these uses in the code could subject the city to a developer’s request for “reasonable accommodation” under the Act, and failure to provide “reasonable accommodation” could be a violation of federal law. In light of the aging of the American population, municipal codes should also provide areas


where congregate care, nursing home, and assisted living facilities may be constructed.

The Boise code permits group housing for physically and/or mentally handicapped or elderly by right in most residential districts, and with administrative approval in the remainder of the residential districts and all office and commercial districts. Again, however, in the definition of dwelling unit, “physically and/or mentally handicapped” should be clarified to include all of those protected by the FHAA.

In addition, boarding/rooming houses, convalescent homes, nursing homes, and halfway houses are permitted either by right, with administrative approval, or with a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission in several residential, office, and commercial districts. These regulations help remove barriers to affordable housing and are typical of those in many other communities.

In addition, “Home for physically and/or mentally handicapped or elderly Persons and rehab for persons addicted to drugs and/or alcohol (+ 2 staff)” is permitted by‐right or with administrative review in all residential zone districts.

Some communities require that some group housing uses be separated from each other and from other listed uses (generally schools and religious institutions), which can limit the number of group housing units allowed. The absence of spacing regulations in the Boise zoning code helps promote access to fair and affordable housing.

3) ADUs Accessory dwelling units (a second, smaller residential lot on a parcel that already contains a primary dwelling unit) have been identified as an important tool in promoting housing affordability. Their limited size helps reduce building or conversion costs, and because they are located on already existing lots there are no additional land costs. Secondary units that can be rented expand the supply of affordable housing. Accessory dwelling units are permitted in all of Boise’s residential districts with administrative approval. However, it appears that the administrator is only permitted to approve ADU applications if they are consistent with the character of the area. Language should be added to this regulation that describes the administrative review standards that classify an ADU as “consistent with the character of the area.” This language could be misinterpreted to mean that ADUs are only permitted in areas of the city where ADUs are already present, and that would significantly limit the effectiveness of this emerging affordability tool.

4) Multi-Family A study for the Colorado Department of Local Affairs found that failure to provide opportunities for multi‐family development was one of the four leading regulatory causes of increased housing costs. At least one zone district (or overlay district, or permit system) should allow for the construction of multi‐family housing. In Boise, multi‐family is permitted by right in three downtown districts: R‐3, R‐O, and C‐5. This should be an adequate number of zone districts to respond to different types of multi‐family demand, provided that the city has zoned an adequate amount of land into these three categories.

In addition, multi‐family is permitted two districts outside of downtown, R‐3 and R‐O. The zoning map only shows one R‐O parcel outside of downtown, indicating that


the city is mostly reliant on the R‐3 district for multi‐family uses. While it may be sufficient to permit multi‐family in one district, it is also important that there is sufficient land zoned for that district to create a reasonable chance that multi‐family will be developed.

5) Additional Housing Options and Mixed Use In order to promote affordability, housing should be allowed near businesses that employ workers, particularly moderate and lower income employees. To do that the code should permit residential units in at least one commercial zone district or should map some lands for multi‐family development in close proximity to commercial districts. Boise addresses this issue through allowing residential uses (mostly with administrative approval or a conditional use permit) in the office and commercial districts. A few of the office and commercial districts could be considered mixed use districts, which generally promote affordability. In addition, the purpose statement for the P‐C district includes providing for mixed use development. Residential and commercial uses are permitted in this district but it appears that no land may have been zoned into this district to date.

Another way to promote affordable housing is through allowing a variety of housing types. Boise may want to consider allowing additional housing options like cohousing or zero lot line houses. “Zero Lot Line Development” is defined in the code yet it is not permitted by right in any district, only through the use of the PUD process which requires a discretionary decision process with a public hearing that is itself a barrier. The city should consider permitting these in the R‐1M district where duplexes and row houses are allowed. This would allow for a different configuration of homes without significantly altering the character of the district. In addition, a variety of housing types should be permitted without separation or side setback requirements beyond those required by the fire code, in at least one zone district.

Another affordable housing option is single room occupancy hotels (SROs). SROs are permitted with a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission in all commercial districts. Because this use is very similar to a hotel, they city should consider allowing it downtown without the need for a conditional use permit. Once again, the character would not change, but affordable housing options would be increased.

D. Parking Requirements Minimum parking requirements for residential uses affect housing affordability by requiring more land per dwelling unit. While the norm for many years has been to require two off‐street parking spaces per dwelling unit, a growing number of communities are lowering that standard for certain types of housing where experience has shown that occupants may own fewer cars. While most single‐family lots (even small ones) can accommodate space for two cars in addition to the house, most zoning codes prohibit “tandem” parking – i.e. the parking of one car behind another in a garage or driveway – which means that two off‐street spaces must be provided in a side‐by‐side configuration. That tends to lead to wider houses and wider lots to accommodate them, which increases housing prices because of the longer utilities needed to serve wider lots. In the case of multi‐family housing, the two‐spaces‐per‐dwelling‐unit requirement can significantly reduce the number of dwelling units that a given parcel of land can accommodate. Since the lowest cost parking spaces are those at grade (i.e. not


in garages either above or below ground), minimum parking requirements tend to shrink the footprint available for the apartments or condominiums, and that (along with low height limits) often restricts the final density of development below the maximum density that is in theory available under the zoning code.

Unfortunately, minimum off‐street parking requirements have a way of increasing over time. In response to a particular parking problem, the council or commissioners may raise parking standards for several types of uses. However, there is no corresponding pressure to reconsider and lower parking standards even if parking spaces are going unused. Studies routinely find that a significant amount of parking required by local governments is seldom if ever occupied, and we routinely find local governments whose parking standards for the same use differ by 100% or more. For these reasons, it is wise to revisit parking standards periodically and to consider which could be lowered in order to promote more efficient and affordable housing development.

Boise requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit for single‐family units. While this is the traditional standard, many cities are reducing their parking requirements. Boise allows tandem parking to count as two parking spaces, which is indeed a good practice. It is typical for local governments to have lower parking standards for multi‐family developments and in Boise, one and a half parking spaces, plus one guest space per 10 dwelling units, is required. The city may also want to consider reducing this parking requirement for smaller units and those with fewer bedrooms. In Boise, the Planning Director may reduce residential parking requirements by up to 10 percent, and larger reductions are available through a conditional use permit. This type of flexibility can be a significant help to affordable housing builders.

Boise also has parking districts that reduce parking requirements for downtown areas. The parking district map established three parking districts that generally expand concentrically from the downtown core. The parking table establishes lower standards for these downtown districts based on the special needs of downtown, and this, too, promotes housing affordability.

Many local governments adopt lower parking standards for affordable or group housing developments because lower income households may own fewer cars, and because many special needs residents do not own cars. These standards vary greatly depending on the types of group living to which they apply. Boise has lower standards for certain uses like halfway houses, retirement centers, and nursing homes, which promotes fair access and affordable development of these types of facilities.

The Boise zoning code references the FHA handicapped parking requirements but does not mention ADA handicapped parking requirements or FHA and ADA site accessibility requirements. The city should consider cross‐referencing these standards within the parking requirements and within the site planning requirements, just so site developers and builders are aware of these requirements early in the site design process.

E. Zoning Map Constraints As noted above, Boise’s development regulations already contain some zoning districts, specific use standards, and tools that can help promote fair access and affordable housing production and retention. However, the power of those tools is limited by how much land is included in the districts – i.e. whether Boise actually makes an adequate supply of land available so that potential affordable, multi‐family, and group housing providers can find opportunities to build the housing needed. For instance, if multi‐


family development is only permitted in a district that makes up a small percentage of city land, then it is not likely that multi‐family will be developed. A detailed analysis of the supply of land in each district is beyond the scope of this study, but we recommend that the city conduct its own analysis of whether more land should be rezoned to allow smaller, narrower single‐family lots or higher density multi‐family development.

F. Restrictive Covenants 1) Background Discussion

One additional impediment to fair housing can arise through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs) created and recorded by a housing developer – generally at the time the housing is built. Legally, CCRs are private agreements between the housing developer and those who buy or occupy housing to use or maintain property in a certain way. CCRs do not override zoning or subdivision controls, which means that most cities grant or deny zoning and development permits without regard to whether proposed building or use is consistent with the CCRs that apply to the property. Enforcement of CCRs is generally by a developer or homeowners’ association (HOA) through a private action against those who violate the CCRs, and the city is seldom if ever a party to those actions.

In some cases the line between a city’s “public” zoning and subdivision powers and “private” CCRs is less clear. For example, many cities require that new subdivisions create a HOA that can own and maintain open spaces and amenities that the city does not want to maintain, and that the HOA adopt CCRs that obligate homeowners to pay assessments to fund that maintenance. Questions sometimes arise when a city requires the creation of CCRs but the CCRs also contain provisions that might violate the FHAA or ADA. Does the fact that the city required and probably reviewed the CCRs, and would not have approved the subdivision without them, implicate the city in any denial of fair housing rights through CCR provisions that the city did not request? Does the city have a responsibility to challenge those provisions or to condition subdivision approvals on their deletion? The language of the FHAA does not address these issues, but litigation to date does not appear to have extended liability to cities based on their approval of CCRs in these circumstances.

Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST (FIRST) is an equal housing opportunity initiative sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that identifies entities and situations in which they would have standing to sue under the FHAA1. That list includes (1) state or local enforcement agencies whose mission is to improve the stock of accessible housing; (2) non‐profit or private fair housing groups whose mission is to provide counseling to persons with disabilities who are looking for accessible housing; (3) disability rights advocacy group that have several members who are having difficulty finding accessible affordable housing; and (4) any membership group where one or more of their members would have standing.

The FHAA also identifies who is liable for a discriminatory action, and that language has been interpreted broadly. In Baltimore Neighborhoods Inc., v. Rommel Builders,2

1 Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST, Fair Housing Act Enforcement: Participant Manual, Fair Housing Accessibility FIRST (October 2005). Available at http://www.fairhousingfirst.org/documents/ FAIR_HOUSING_ACT_ ENFORCEMENT_FINAL.pdf (last accessed September 19, 2011). 2 40 F.Supp.2d 700 (1999).


the court held that an aggrieved person or entity can sue any party that contributes to a violation. FIRST interpreted this language and developed a list of liable parties, which includes: developers, builders, architects, engineers, landscape architects, corporate and business owners, successor owners who purchase the property after it has been constructed, homeowners associations, and property management companies. Interestingly, cities and counties are not on this list (unless they fall into one of the categories above – e.g. they own the property).

Claims under the FHAA may prevail if the plaintiff succeeds in showing (1) intentional discriminatory conduct, or (2) incidental discrimination (i.e., housing practices that have a disparate impact on persons with disabilities); or (3) failure to make a reasonable accommodation to allow a disabled person to enjoy a chosen residence, and it is clear that local governments can run afoul of these rules. The “reasonable accommodation” provision requires that “rules, policies, practices, and services” of local governments provide equal housing opportunities to persons with disabilities. Courts have interpreted “rules, policies, practices, and services” to include land use and zoning actions. The question is whether they also include practices in requiring or allowing CCRs that violate the FHAA to be recorded.3

The most common situation in which CCRs could violate the FHAA is a fairly standard provision that requires all properties to be used as single‐family homes, which are then defined to exclude group homes.4 A variation on this theme is CCRs that prohibit all commercial uses in the development and then define group homes to be a commercial development. Challenges to these types of CCRs usually claim a violation as a result of “incidental discrimination” or failure to make a “reasonable accommodation” to allow group homes.

In Anchota v. Westborough Homeowners Improvement Ass’n, No. 3984885, an HOA sought to prevent a group home and installation of a wheelchair ramp because its RRCs prohibited commercial operations and allowed only single‐family uses. The court held that the restriction had a discriminatory effect and was unenforceable. In Rhodes v. Palmetto Pathway Homes, Inc.,6 , a mental hospital sought to open a group home for mentally impaired adults in a single‐family residential subdivision, and were challenged as a commercial and non‐single‐family use. Again, the Court held that enforcing a restriction that violates the FHAA is incidental discrimination because it makes housing unavailable for the disabled, and refused to enforce the restriction.

In Dornbach v. Holley,7 property owners sought to open a group home for developmentally disabled adults in a single‐family residential subdivision, and were challenged as a violation of the CCRs. The court held that a group home is the functional equivalent of a single‐family residential unit that does not pose any threat to the purpose of justifying the CCRs, and that refusal to waive the restrictions was an illegal refusal to offer a reasonable accommodation. In Double D. Manor, Inc. v.

3 Ann T. Fathy, Fair Housing Law: Zoning and Land Use Issues, Housingrights.org. Available at http://www.housingrights.org/pdfs/Fair_Housing_Law-_Zoning_and_Land_Use_Issues.pdf (last accessed September 19, 2011). 4 Id. 5 (Cal. Supreme Ct. San Mateo County Aug. 14, 1998) 6 400 S.E.2d 484 (S.C. 1991) 7 854 S.O.2d 211 (2002 FL),


Evergreen Meadows Homeowners Association,8 which was based on very similar facts, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a single‐family home used for a group home was still a single‐family home, and that payment for the care of residents did not change the use from residential to commercial, so the covenants could not be used to exclude the group home.

However, none of these cases extended liability to the city or county involved in approval of the development. In general, the FHAA does not require state and local governments to review building or site plans for compliance with the Act.9 Since cities that require CCRs are generally doing so in furtherance of their zoning, subdivision, or site planning activities, it seems unlikely that there is a duty to review those for compliance either. There are, however, two cases that suggest a different outcome is possible. In Baltimore Neighborhoods Inc., v. Rommel Builders,10 the court held that all participants in the housing development process as a whole are bound to follow the FHAA and thus, are liable for any violations, because holding otherwise would defeat the purpose of the statute. In Baltimore Neighborhoods v. LOB, Inc. et al, the court held that an entity not involved in the design and construction but with architectural control over the property is liable for violations to the FHAA.11 Although neither case involved municipal liability for requirement or filing of CCRs that violated the FHAA, they demonstrate a general inclination of courts to extend the reach of the FHAA fairly broadly.

2) Review of Sample CCR Provisions The paragraphs below analyze covenants from six subdivisions in Boise to determine whether they violate the FHAA. Covenants have been grouped into four categories, and some of the categories include more than one CCR.

a) Prohibiting Commercial Uses in a Subdivision Orchard Point: “Unless otherwise shown on the Master Plan for the property and specifically permitted in a Supplemental Declaration, no Lot shall be used at any time for commercial or business activity, provided, however, that the Grantor or persons authorized by the Grantor may use a Lot(s) for development and sales activities relating to the Property, model homes or real estate sales. As used herein, “commercial or business activity” shall not include the use of a Lot for an incidental use as described in Section 5.01, above, or the rental by an Owner of a Lot and the Improvements thereon for residential purposes. The use of a Lot for a shelter home, as the same is defined in §67‐6530 et. seq., Idaho Code, whether or not operated for profit, shall for the purposes of this Master Declaration, be a commercial or business use.”

Peppertree: “All Building Lots shall be improved and used solely for residential use. Except for Accessory Structures as may be approved as provided below, no Building Lot shall be improved except with a single‐family dwelling structure, which dwelling structure excluding garages and porches, has no square feet minimum required, and shall be designed to

8 773 P.2d 1046 (Colo. 1989), 9 Fair Housing Council et at. v. Village of Olde St. Andrews Inc. et al. 10 40 F.Supp.2d 700 (1999). 11 92 F.Supp.2d 456 (2000).


accommodate no more than a single‐family and occasional guests, and such other Improvements as are necessary or customarily incidental to a single‐family residence. No business or home occupation shall be conducted from said dwelling structure or Improvement, exclusive of Grantor’s use thereof, including, without limitation, use by Grantor as a sales office intended for the sale of Building Lots or new homes thereon.”

Showy Phlox: Subject to the Restrictions, the Showy Phlox Estates Subdivision Property shall be used only for single‐family residential purposes. Any business, trade, garage sale, moving sale, rummage sale or similar activity is prohibited; provided, however, that an Owner may conduct business activities within a residence located upon a Lot so long as such business activities (i) are not observable or detectable from the exterior of the residence, (ii) comply with all governmental rules, regulations and ordinances, (iii) do not involve regular visitation by clients, customers, suppliers or other business invitees, (iv) do not involve any kind of door‐to‐door solicitations within the Showy Phlox Estates Subdivision Property, (vi) do not constitute a nuisance, or a hazardous, illegal or offensive use, or threaten the security or safety of other persons as may be determined in the sole discretion of the Board, or (vii) otherwise are approved by the Board.

The FHAA does not answer the question of whether a group home is a commercial or residential use, but a practice of treating small group homes as a form of residential use has been developed through case law. In 1989, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in the Double D Manor case discussed above and held that (1) a single‐family home used for a group home is still a single‐family home, and (2) RRCs that prohibit commercial operation do not exclude group homes. In 2002, the District Court of Appeals of Florida validated a similar regulation in Dornbach v. Holley (discussed above) by holding that the public policy supports the premise that a group home is the functional equivalent of a single‐family residential unit.

In addition, most states have supported the FHAA by adopting implementing legislation, and Idaho is among them. Section 67‐6530 et. seq. of the Idaho Code establishes that “. . .it is the policy of this state that persons with disabilities or elderly persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings and should not be excluded therefrom because of their disability or advanced age, and in order to achieve statewide implementation of such policy it is necessary to establish the statewide policy that the use of property for the care of eight (8) or fewer persons with disabilities or elderly persons is a residential use of such property for the purposes of local zoning.” In addition, Section 67‐6531 of the Idaho Code states that “the classification of ‘single family dwelling’ shall include any group residence in which eight (8) or fewer unrelated persons with disabilities or elderly persons reside and who are supervised at the group residence in connection with their disability or age related infirmity.”

It appears likely that RRC prohibitions on commercial uses would be held not to prohibit group homes of eight or fewer disabled or elderly from single‐family residential developments in Idaho. Since the Idaho statute does not address groups other than the disabled or elderly that are also protected by the FHAA, it is not clear


whether an Idaho court would extend the “residential use” rationale to those case (following the Double D and Dornbach cases) or would conclude that the legislature’s failure to list those classes of individuals indicated their intent not to extend the same protections to other groups.

b) Prohibiting Group Homes in a Subdivision Arowhead, Anthem, and Orchard Point: “As used herein and elsewhere in this Master Declaration on a Lot for living accommodations by one (1) or more related or unrelated persons, including guests of the principal occupants, which guests reside therein on a temporary basis. Notwithstanding the provisions of Idaho Code Sections 67‐6530 et. seq., as used in this Master Declaration, the term “residential” is not intended, nor shall the same be construed, to include the use of a lot for the operation of a shelter home for persons unrelated to each other or unrelated to the Owner or Occupant.”

Since this clause is facially inconsistent with the Idaho Code – in fact, it highlights an intent not to comply with a clear state statute – it is likely that a court would refuse to enforce this provision, at least as it applies to the disabled and elderly. However, since neither the FHAA, nor the Idaho Code, nor the RRCs at issue include a definition of “shelter home”, it is possible that a court might find that term to be either broader or narrower than the protections in the FHAA and Idaho Code.

c) Prohibiting Accessory Dwellings (ADUs) in a Subdivision Arowhead: “No trailer or other vehicle, tent, shack, garage, accessory building or out building shall be used as a temporary or permanent residence.”

Showy Phlox: “No Lot shall be improved except by one (1) dwelling or residence structure (hereinafter “residence”) designed to accommodate no more than a single family and its servants and occasional guests, plus an attached garage or garages with capacity for not less than two (2) nor more than six (6) automobiles and which may contain a guest quarters, fencing and such other Improvements as are necessary or customarily incident to a single family residence.”

CCRs that prohibit accessory housing may create barriers to affordable housing issue, but they do not, on their face, raise potential violations of the FHAA. Unlike group homes, it is not clear how the availability or non‐availability of accessory dwelling units affects those classes of individuals protected by the FHAA.

The Boise zoning code permits accessory dwelling units in order to provide more affordable housing and to increase density throughout the city, but makes ADU approval subject to administrative review of approval criteria in all of its residential districts.12 The approval criteria establish several minimum qualifications for the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and requires the structure to be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood.13 The zoning administrator may approve a land use application for an ADU, regardless of whether a CCR prohibits accessory

12 City of Boise, City Code, 11-04-03.05. Available at http://www.cityofboise.org/Departments/City_Clerk/CityCode/ (last accessed October 6, 2011). 13 Boise City Code 11-05-15.


temporary or permanent residences. But if a subdivision has enforced a CCR ban on ADUs, there will be no ADUs in the area, and the zoning administrator may conclude that the application is not consistent with the existing character of the area. Because of the wording of the Boise code, therefore, a CCR prohibiting ADUs may be effective in preventing their construction, and that outcome would not violate the FHAA.

3. SUMMARY Boise, Idaho’s, zoning and land development regulations contain several districts, use standards, tools, and one incentive that can help promote both affordable housing and fair access to housing for those groups protected by the FHAA and ADA. But there are also areas where the city could consider potential changes that could improve performance in both those areas:

Strengths of the current code include:

• Definitions of both dwelling unit and family to include some of the groups protected by federal law;

• Waivers of impact fees for affordable housing;

• One zone district with a 2,500 sq. ft. minimum lot area for single‐family detached development, and another with a 2,160 sq. ft. minimum lot area for attached units;

• Use of platted 25‐foot wide “Original Substandard Lots of Record”;

• One zone district with an 18 ft. minimum width for attached units and 36 ft. minimum width for detached units;

• Unlimited height for multi‐family development in the C‐5 district.

• Only one district has a minimum unit size requirement, and it is reasonable;

• Treatment of manufactured housing as a type of single‐family dwelling unit;

• Availability of manufactured housing and manufactured housing communities in many zone districts;

• Lack of separation requirements for group living facilities and homes;

• ADUs technically permitted in many zone districts;

• Three Zone districts permit multi‐family residential uses;

• SROs permitted in all commercial zones;

• Availability of tandem parking;

• Availability of parking districts and parking reductions by Planning Director; and

• Two‐spaces‐per‐facility parking standard for group homes and relatively low levels of parking for halfway houses, retirement centers, and nursing homes.


Areas for potential improvement include:

• Definition of dwelling unit that does not explicitly exclude FHAA protected individuals from the occupancy limit of five unrelated persons;

• Lack of by‐right density, height, or parking variances or incentives for affordable housing;

• Lack of by‐right provisions allowing reconstruction of affordable or group home facilities with an equal number of units following significant damage or destruction;

• R‐3 45 ft. height limit reduces number of units buildable within low‐rise construction techniques and fire code when five stories of wood frame construction is permitted by the building code;

• No by‐right reduction in minimum lot size requirements for manufactured home communities compared with surrounding district;

• Administrative review standards for ADUs are not clarified in the code itself;

• General residential parking standards could probably be lowered – specifically for smaller multi‐family units and those multi‐family units with fewer bedrooms.


4. APPENDIX

A. HUD Analysis of Impediments - Checklist


B. Use Table This use table was created from the use tables within Chapter 11‐04. All uses pertaining to affordable housing were combined to visually see the regulations. Please note: Blank cells are uses that were not addressed in the use standards, these uses are to be determined by the planning director.

Uses pertaining to Affordable Housing

A = Allowed AA = Allowed with Administrative Review CC = Allowed with Commission level CUP P = Prohibited

Use Open Land Residential Office Commercial Health A‐1 A‐2 R‐1A R‐1B R‐1C R‐1M R‐2 R‐3 R‐O L‐O N‐O C‐1 C‐2 C‐3 C‐4 C‐5 H‐S

Manufactured/ Mobile Homes

Manufactured Home Enhanced A A A A A A A A A CC CC CC P P CC P A

Manufactured Home Stock P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

Mobile Home P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PRehabilitated Mobile Home P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

Manufactured Home Community CC P CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC P P CC P CC

Mobile Home Park P P P P CC CC Group Housing Boarding House,

Rooming House P P P P CC A A CC CC AA CC CC CC A

Convalescent Home P P P P CC CC A CC CC CC CC CC CC CC ANursing Home14 A CC CC CC CC CC CC CC AHalfway House P P P P CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CCHome for Physically and/or Mentally Handicapped Persons including rehabilitation for persons addicted to drugs and/or alcohol (Plus 2 staff)

A A A A A A AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA AA

Home for Elderly15 A A A A A A AA AA CCADUs Accessory Dwelling

Unit AA AA AA AA AA AA

14 This use was split from “Convalescent Home” because “Nursing Home” is not included in the use for the residential districts. 15 This use was split from “Home for Physically and/or Mentally Handicapped” because “Home for Elderly” is not allowed in the office, commercial and H-S districts.


Uses pertaining to Affordable Housing

A = Allowed AA = Allowed with Administrative Review CC = Allowed with Commission level CUP P = Prohibited

Use Open Land Residential Office Commercial Health A‐1 A‐2 R‐1A R‐1B R‐1C R‐1M R‐2 R‐3 R‐O L‐O N‐O C‐1 C‐2 C‐3 C‐4 C‐5 H‐S

Multi-Family Single Resident Occupancy Hotels

CC CC CC CC CC

Multi-Family Dwellings (Excluding PUDs)

These cells were blank in the code

Multiple-Family Dwellings

A CC CC CC CC CC CC A

3 to 6 Dwelling Units in 1 Building

P P P AA16 CC A

7 to 20 Dwelling Units per acre in 1 Building

P P P P P A

3 to 20 dwelling units per acre in 1 building

A

20 to 43.5 units/ac P P P P P CC More than 20 dwelling units per acre

CC

2 or More Multi-Family Building per lot

P P P P P CC CC

High-rise P P P P P CC CC

16 In the R-1M District, multiple dwellings in a single building are allowed (AA) only in townhouse or row house design, with one dwelling per lot and dwellings to be attached at the common lot line. Refer to Section 11-04-04.01M (Special Standards for the R-1M District.)

APPENDIX B. Fair Housing Planning Guide Crosswalk

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX B, PAGE 1

APPENDIX B. Fair Housing Planning Guide Crosswalk

Although AIs lack governing regulations for their content, HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide gives jurisdictions and states direction for the completion of the AI.1 Figure B-1 shows the location of HUD’s AI subject areas in the Boise AI outlined in the Planning Guide, Volume 1 Chapter 4, Section 4.3 AI Subject Areas.

Figure B-1. HUD Crosswalk to AI Subject Areas

AI Topical Area Location in City of Boise AI

Public Sector

Building, occupancy, health and safety codes Section II

Equalization of municipal services Section II

Property tax assessments Property tax rates were reviewed as part of the Housing Needs Assessment and Consolidated Plan completed by BBC to calculate housing affordability in Boise. No evidence of discrimination was found. Stakeholders also had the opportunity to comment on property tax assessments during focus groups and interviews

Accessibility standards Reviewed as part of zoning and land use analysis, Section II

Zoning laws and policies Section II

Demolition and displacement policies Reviewed as part of zoning and land use analysis, Section II

Administrative policies concerning community development and housing

Opportunity to identify as a barrier during stakeholder focus groups and interviews

Restrictions on the provision of housing and community development to areas of minority concentration

Reviewed as part of zoning and land use analysis, Section II

Policies that inhibit the employment of minorities and persons with disabilites

Discussed as part of the stakeholder focus groups conducted by BBC for Consolidated Plan and AI; reported in Section IV

Restrictions on interdepartmentalcoordination

Opportunity to identify as a barrier during stakeholder focus groups and interviews

Planning, financing and administrative actions related to the provision and siting of public transportation and social services

Social services and public transportation were discussed during stakeholder focus groups

Source: BBC Research & Consulting and Section 4.3 of the Fair Housing Planning Guide, Volume 1.

1 The guide is available online at http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/images/fhpg.pdf.

, APPENDIX B BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING

Figure B-1. (CONTINUED) HUD Crosswalk to AI Subject Areas

AI Topical Area Location in Sonoma County AI

Private Sector

Steering or blockbusting Opportunity to identify as a barrier during stakeholder focus groups and interviews

Deed restrictions or covenants Review of deed restrictions and covenants conducted by BBC and Clarion Associates; discussed in Section II

Trust or lease provisions Opportunity to identify as a barrier during stakeholder focus groups and interviews; AI survey asked residents about rental leases

Conversions of apartments to all adult Opportunity to identify as a barrier during stakeholder focus groups and interviews

Inaccessible design Reviewed as part of zoning and land use anaylsis,Section II

Occupancy quotas Reviewed in Section II

Banking and insurance policies HMDA review in Section III

Housing brokerage services Opportunity to identify as a barrier during stakeholder focus groups and interviews

Financial assistance for accessiblity modifications Discussed in stakeholder focus group and interviews

Public and Private Sector

Housing complaints and lawsuits Section III

Evidence of segregation Section I, maps I-3 to I-5

Delivery system of social services programs to families and persons with disabilities

Discussed as part of the stakeholder focus groups conducted by BBC for Consolidated Plan and AI; reported in Section IV

Source: BBC Research & Consulting and Section 4.3 of the Fair Housing Planning Guide, Volume 1.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice of Impediments Background ... Fair Housing Acts and...

Documents

Transcript of Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice of Impediments Background ... Fair Housing Acts and...