The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1972 07-10 Meridian Zoning & Planning Commission July 10, 1972. Me ting called to order th Cha man W. D. Skiver. M tubers Present: Jack Chard E. Ben ett Robert Glais er Don obert Willard Ro ley, Absen . T R r __arn»nd the-~1tY MC _ - T the C G C• C T dotted rd T dis- -~ -- - A test' Chairman -- -- - -- ecr --- tary --- i -- ~ ---~1 -- - -- ----- -- - -- - __° - I i ~ - i itERIDIAid Land Use Planninz PROBL~i~~ 1. The farmland around Meridian is being eaten up by subdivision 2. Scattered subdivisions are difficult to provide with services 3. Urban sprawl eats into the taxes without providing tax base increases 4. Septic tanks increase the pollution hazard 5. There is a need for nnw sewage disposal facilities cad water sources 6;: A major arterial runs through the center of tom. Phis problem will increase as traffic from Boise goes through Meridian torard the new shopping center ~, `t'he downtown may not xemain economically sound if its services are taken over by the new shopping center 8. Industrial development could split the community along the railroa3 tracks SUGGESTED PL.9tiiv'Iir`G POLICIES A. Adopt boundaries for urban containment Rationale: once adopted these boundaries would make it easier for both i~ieridian and Ada County to say no to scattered subdivision. iuew devel- opment would occur within the boundaries and sewer and water planning could be undertaken with definite geographical limits in mind. Higher densities and increased tax base would result because formerly vacant land within the boundaries would begin to develop. Farmland would be saved from subdivision. I'ieridian would remain a definite place in the minds of the region's residents, rather than a suburb of Boise, B, Require that new subdivisions or any new development provide its own con- nections to central sewer and water facilities provida space or fees in lieu of land for schools and parks to acceptable standards, procide paved streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and shor in the planning stages that all problems of pollution, noise, health, and safety have bean eliminated.. Rationale: with such provisions, I4eridian could insure timely development in the right place (it would ba economically feasible to start from exis- ting mains, for example) and insure against the sprawl of the poorly built • 2 • an3 serviced residential areas. Eadh new dwelling will have the central services, paid for by the developer and eventually the homeowner, not by existing residents. If new schools and parks are needed, each developer would chip in eithar 1<and or fees in lieu of land to help provide larger facilities or spats instead of small, unusable spaces. Eden if parts or schools would not be located within tha subdivision, the money will be used for facilities that would be used by residents of the new dwellings. C. Develop new sewage disposal facilities to provide good servica to all areas witnin the adopted urban boundaries 3?atioaale: the plans for such facilities would help define,for tha public, the extent to which urban development would be serviced by central facili- ties, thereby reducing the speculative dealing in land. D. Petition the Ada Countg Highway District to reroute Hwy. 30 down Grove Road to Franklin Avenue. Rationale: this would release 1st Street and F'airviea frog that designation making it possible for T~eridian to institute traffic control signals at the north end of town to discourage unwanted traffic through the center. Then, it would ma'se a clear passage to the new shopping center from Boise possible without routing traffic from sairview through B.eridiaa. E. Limit residential development to north of the railrcad. allow only the higher dansity residential areas south of the track and only near the shop- ping center. Rationale: the railroad and Franklin avenua act as a dangerous barrier to traffic. To maintain the community image of ~`eridian and to separate the traffic likely to be genera*.ed by the regional shopping center, the area aroun3 the center should not be used for low density residential. High density uses may locate thexs in order to provide a larger aumb~m of people with ready access to shopping and transportation facilities. F. Maintain the existing center as the community coienercial and service center for the residents of t4eridian. Locate only neighborhood commercial to the north. negional commercial would be providedt< by the shopping center. The area across the street from the shopping center should be reserved for highway-oriented services only, xith controlled points of access and egress. "ationale: a to•+m nerds all different types of shopping, but each is used for different purposzs. `i'he neighborhood shopping is used only by rzsi- derts of Meridian and should be made accessible and safe to get to daily. Community shopping wou13 be the type found in do,rntoan areas of medium- size3 to.~ms like tha pose office, banks, drug stores, etc. Regional shop- ping would drax from outside the town and should be separated from other town functions so that raffic an3 noise will not bother the residents i:: their evzryday lives. location along the freexay will also draw in non- local business. It should be separated from other uses because of danger, noise, and pollution potential. Tieighborhood and highwsy-oriented com- mercial should not be allowed within the regional shopping center. G. Industry should not extend beyond the urban boundaries and should be confined within the Railrosd tracks and rranklin avenu=. Proper buffering from sur- rounding uses should be included in plans at the time of proposal. ~Cationale: industry needs transporation but also produces obnoxious effects that may be harmful to nearby land uses. Proper buffering may help make industry a good nei<;hbor in i~Seridian. N?eridian=Holding Capscity ',Iithin the larger area=approximately 3000 aces or 5 square miles 320 acres at 7 du~acre 1120 acres at 5 du~acre 1360 acres at 3 du~acra 3 persons per du = 35,760 persons 'sii~:2in the smaller area=approximately 2200 acres or 3.5 square miles 320 acres at 5 du~acre 1120 acres at 3 du~acre 3 parscns per du = 14,880 persons or 240 acres at 5 du~acre 80 acres at '7 du~acre 3 persons per du 15,360 persons 1120 acres at 3 du~acre High Range P~oulat on Prod aeons for Meridian ~ }~, year ZQQQ 1970 1972 1975 1980 1990 2000 Population ~ 2616 3900 5500 8500 12000:( 15200 Interim Population Report INTERIM POPULATION PROJECTIONS & DISTRIBUTION FOR ADA COUNTY, IDAHO Prepared By Ada Council of Governments June 15, 1972 • Introduction The following projections of population for Ada County and of population distribution within Ada County are intended to provide guidelines for various planning needs within the area; particularly for use in waste disposal planning for the various localities. These projections are based on the share of total U.S, population which may be expected to locate in Ada County according to recent trends. While this method of forecasting takes account of the relationship of Ada County population patterns to nationwide patterns and is therefore somewhat more dependable than a strict "rate-of-increase" projection, it is nevertheless less dependable than a "Cohort Survival" projection or a combination of various projection methods. Such a population study, including an analysis in greater detail of general population patterns governing Ada County population, ie being prepared by ACOG staff for release in late 1972. Although the more sophisticated population study under preparation will be more dependable and more specific in detail, it will probably follow a line of reasoning similar to that underlying these preliminary projections. Although these projections should be considered as interim projections, we have no reservations about presenting them for use in specified planning processes. It should be noted again that projections are different from predic- tions. Because a certain level of population has been projected is no reason to assume it need ever be reached. A projection is an analysis of what might occur if currently apparent trends and patterns continue into the future, modified in any way which can be foreseen. There are always unknown factors, one of the greatest of which ie the factor of corporate and governmental po11Ey. For use in planning facilities such as sewer or water service, where a deficiency in facilities will be a more severe problem than an excess, "high range" projections should be used. When planning for facilities such ae retail stores, etc., where an excess in facilities might be a more severe problem than a deficiency, "low range" projec- tions are to be preferred. It should be noted further that additional population growth in an area such as Ada County carries with it many changes in the landscape and culture of such an area. Some of these changes may be considered desirable; others, such as pollution, traffic congestion, spoilation of environmental features (as by construction of freeways and dams. etc.) may be considered undesirable by the majority of inhabitants in an area. Just the projection or forecasting of such population growth does not make it inevitable. It is possible to control both the rate of population and economic growth in an area and its ultimate "target size," and thereby to control its effects. One of the questions which must be asked of any set of population or economic projections is, "what will be the effect on this area if this projected growth does occur?" If the undesirable effects out- wligh the desirable effects, then it is necessary to examine the assumptions underlying the projections themselves, to determine which might be amenable to control. It should also be pointed out that the effects, positive as well..as negative, of a given level or rate of population increase will be largely determined by the manner in which that increase occurs: often a set of population projections also carry with them assumptions about the nature of population increase which, if altered, alter the projected levels themselves. If, for example, a population of a certain size is predicated on the assumption of additional water for irrigation or industry, which is to be obtained through construction of certain dams, and the policy decision not to build these dame is made, then the projected population growth predicated on the assump- tion of that water may not occur. Conversely, it might be possible, by building even more dame than those assumed, to increase the level of population growth ultimately achieved. None of these effects will be absolute, of course. In any event neither population growth nor economic growth is likely to occur at a greater rate than that permitted by the supply--the population and capital of the entire nation. Large areas in Ada County could be made available for industrial development but population or economic growth would still not exceed certain limits imposed by Idaho's posi- tion comparative to the remainder of the nation and by the rates of population and economic increase throughout the nation. The final note concerning population projections is that they are almost always based on a mathematical model or concept. I.e., they rarely take into account natural limitations on growth. By making certain assumptions about Idaho and about the rest of the nation, one might easily project a population of Ada County which might eventually exceed the million mark. Will the area provide for such a population? Is there enough water to drink, enough recreation, adequate markets for enough products to provide employment? Could the combined waste of such a population and of its industry be handled? The answers to these questions are currently unavailable except on an intuitive basis, but they~muat be considered in rel8tion to any long range-projections. TABLE OF CONTENTS Population History of Ada County ................................... 1 Population Projections Ada County as a share of total U.S. Population ................. Population Distribution within Ada County ...................... ~ Population Distribution within Boisa Urbanized Area .............IZ Page 1 • Pooulation Historv of Ada County Tue overall population growth of Ada County hoe shown a net immigra- tion since 1930, resulting in a continual increase in Ada County Population as a share of total U.S. Populatlon: Table I Ada County Population compared to total U.S. Population (Based on U.S. Census Population Reports) 1 0 19]LQ 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 U.S. Population 76 92 106 123 132 151 179 203 in millions Ada County Popu- 12 29 35 38 50 71 93 112 lotion in thousands Ada County share .015 .032 .033 .031 .038 .047 .052 .055 of U.S. Popula- tion (X) A rapid increase in building actlvity and total employment in Ada County since 1970 indicates a 1972 population level, which could be as high as 126,000 or .060% of estimated U.S. Population if 99°6 of all unite applied for have been built. If on the other hand, 85Y of the units applied for have been built and overall vacancy rates have risen to a 2X average, Ada County population should be only 122,000 or .058% of total U.S. Population. The higher estimate will be used for "high range" forecasts; the lower estimate for "low range" forecasts. A close analysis of Ada County population figures show a sporadic, or somewhat cyclic growth pattern. According to patterns evident in the housing Market, population growth in Ada County was quite heavy during the early 1950'x, then almost stagnant during the late 1950's and most of the 1960-1970 decade. Since about 1966 or 1967 Ada County population hoe bean in another period of rapid expansion, signalled by a rapidly expanding fob market and a tight housing market. • Page 2 Although there is no end to this current period of growth in sight, it almost certainly will, eventually, slow up again and may h-lt altogether. The consensus in Ada County seems to hold that current high rates of immigration are fueled by disenchantment of the citizens of denser urban areas, particularly Puget Sound and Southern California. Al- though smog and various urban ills are usually cited as the primary factor in repelling people from these urhan concentrations, and a clean, desirable outdoor environment as a primary factor in attracting people to Idaho, it is probable that recent reductions in defence spending and consequent unemployment in the Puget Sound and Southern California areas are more important, both in encouraging out-migration from those areas and in discouraging in-migration to those areas. This is not to discredit the living amenities of Ada County and of Idaho generally. Certainly Idaho does enjoy a relatively unspoiled, uncrowded outdoors with its share of the enchanting scenery of the Western U.S. This is definitely an attraction to many people, resi- dents and would-be residents of the area alike. However, it is important to retain a proper perspective. Most of the other Western States also enjoy spectacular scenery and a wealth of outdoor recreation possibilities; particularly Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico and Colorado. Many of these states enjoy a climate milder than Idaho's climate and, aside from the coastal areas, equally dry. In addition, precisely because of their greater concen- trations of population, the Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay and Southern California areas offer a variety and selection of cultural and commer- cial opportunities which are not available anywhere in Idaho because of the lack of a population base sufficiently large to support such opportunities. Even at the most optimistic growth rates, Ada County will not have a population base sufficient to support a much greater diversity and intensity of cultural and commercial enterprise until well into the 21st century. Many of the people who are attracted by outdoor recreation opportuni- ties are also attracted to cultural activities and varied commercial facilities. In short, a move to Idaho involves a choice between two or more alternative sets of opportunities, a choice which only a few individuals will make wholly without ambivalence. • Page 3 An additional qualification to the concept of Idaho's environment as a population - magnet is required. Even at a population of 125,000 many of the outdoor recreational facilities available to Ada County residents have become over-used and crowded. Expansion of and addition to these facilities can only be done at the cost of a degradation of the overall environment. Furthermore, serious air, water and surface pollution has been evident in Ada County for many years and is rapidly approaching a crisis point. There appears to be a threshold at which expanded cultural and commercial opportunities become easily supportable, barring unusual circumstances such as a high per capita education, high per capita income, etc. Few cities smaller than the Portland, Oregon-Vancouver SMSA (in the U.S.) support even a basic professional artistic/cultural effort; few cities smaller than San Francisco-Oalkland SMSA support a cultural effort with any degree of diversity. There also appears to be a population threshold for any metropolitan area, above which the outdoor environment of that metropolitan area ceases to deteriorate slowly and begins to deteriorate rapidly. The various eco-systems which make up the outdoor environment of Ada County are almost all relatively fragile and moat are vulnerable to destructive exploitation. Detailed study of each eco-system will be required to determine the approximate level of the environmental deterioration threshold; however, it is probably well below the minimum threshold for slgnificant expansion of cultural and commercial opportunity. This tends to the conclusion that, once the "Environmental Deterioration threshold" has been reached, each increment of additional population growth will produce a significant decrease in environmental quality of the area and therefore, of the attractiveness of the area and it's capability both to attract immigrants and to retain would-be emmigrants. In short, additional population growth for Ada County carries with it a constant deterioration of the outdoor environment and of the outdoor recreational facilities with a lower compensating increase in indoor cultural opportunities and commercial opportunities. Two other factors tend toward the conclusion that the current high population growth rates will not be sustained over the long term. First, it ie unlikely that either the Puget Sound area or the Southern California area will remain totally stagnant economically. The Puget Sound area in particular has a history of sporadic population and economic growth as pronounced as that of Ada County. It is unlikely that either Southern California or the Puget Sound area will ever again experience the "boom times" of the 1950's and early 1960'x. However, it is likely that both areas will recover at least enough of an employment base to remove the economic compul- sion for •mmigration from these areas. • . Page 4 Second, it appears increasingly probable that total U.S. population growth will continue its current decline. "Zero Population Growth" may or may not be attained within the forecast period, but it appears increasingly likely that Lower Population Growth will occur. It is even possible that a population decline may set in over the long term, if current cultural trends continue. Overall fertility rates for the U.S, have been declining rapidly since about 1960, and have continued this rapid decline since 1969 fertility rates on which the bureau of the census population projections were based. Much of this decline in fertility rates is ascribed to rapidly improving birth control technology. Additional factors have occurred in conjunction with the new birth control technology; particularly a new set of cultural assumptions about the nature of the family and the role of women,and the much publicized "Women's Liberation Movement." Granted that only a small percentage of women have actually pined the "women's Lib" movement, and only a small percentage of young people have actually experimented with the new concepts of "marriage" and "family;" these movements have nonetheless spun off and publicized alternatives with which an undetermined but probably growing number of people are in sympathy. In particular, a growing number of for the income, but permanently for ducted by various sociologists have bearing children have a tendency to who do not. women are working, not temporarily the satisfaction. Studies con- shown that women who work before bear fewer children then women Most indicators suggest that the "modern" tendency of women to define themselves as individuals rather than as mothers and of married couples to define their marriage in terms of companionship rather than pro- creation is a permanent trend rather than a "passing fad." As a result, the overall fertility rate is likely aver a long term to decline rather than to increase. Add County Population As a Share of Total U.S. Population I. Total U.S. Population The U.S. Bureau of the census has prepared a aeries of four cohort survival population projections based on four different assumptions of fertility rates. The Series D projection assumes a birth rate stabilizing at approximately 2.45 children per woman, up slightly from 1969 fertility rate of 2.4 children per woman. The Series E projection, lowest of the four, assumes a continuing decline to 2.2 in 1980 and 2.11 (zero population growth) by 2000. The high range projections, B and C, assume an increase in fertility rate to 3.1 and 2.78 respectively. Page 5 . u In May, 1972 a further decline of the fertility rate to approximate- ly 2.25 children per woman was reported. This ie even lower than the Series E projection fertility rates, suggesting that Series B and C projections are unrealistically high. For this reason, the Eureau of the Census Series D projection will be utilized for a "high range" projection of Ada County Population and the Series E projection will be utilized for a "low range" projectlon. Table II U.S. Population to 2000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census projections) (thousands) 1970 1 72 1975 1980 1990 2000 Series D 204,800 209,181 216,561 230,855 260,762 288,293 Series E 204,800 209,016 215,703 227,765 251,431 271,082 II. Ada County Population 1970-2000 High Ranze Proiection: For the purpose of designing services delivery systems such as sewer systems, water systems, etc., it is preferable to project population growth at a slightly high, or pessimistic rate. For this reason the projections presented be- low were based on the U.S. Bureau of the Census "Series D" projec- tion. Ada County population has been projected ae a share of total U.S. Population. A continuation of the recent rapid rate of increase in Ada County Population compared to total U.S. Population is pro- jected through 1975, with a decline in the rate of increase there- after. Table III U.S. Population to 2000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census projections) (thousands) 1970 1972 1975 1980 1990 2000 U.S. (Series "D") 203,312 209,181 216,561 230,855 260,762 288,293 Ada County % U.S. .055 .060 .065 .067 .069 .070 Ada County Popula-112,000 126,000* 141,000 155,000 180,000 202,000 tion * High Estimate • • Page 6 Low Range Projection For purposes such ae economic forecasts, determining market support for various facilities, etc., it is preferable to project population growth at a slightly low, or optimistic rate. For this reason, the population projections presented below were based on the U.S. Bureau of the Census "Series E" projection. For the purpose of this projection it is assumed that the recent rapid rate of increase in Ada County population compared to total U.S. popu- lation will continue through 1975, by which time the population level induced environmental deterioration will begin to increase in effect. As Ada County's perceived environment loses it's "competetive edge" over the perceived environment of other areas within Idaho and of other states within the Western U.S., population growth in Ada County will slow to a rate only slightly higher than that of the U.S. as a whole. Table IV U.S. Population (thousands) (series E) Ada County % U.S. Ada County Population Ada County Population 1970 to 2000 Projected as share of total U.S. Population (Low Range) (rounded to nearest 1000) 1970 1972 1975 1980 1990 2000 203,312 209,016 215,703 227,765 251,431 271,082 .055 112,000 .058 .060 .062 .064 .065 122,000* 129,000 141,000 161,700 176,000 * Low Estimate • •age 7 Population Distribution Within Ada County For the purpose of sewage disposal studies and other planning activities currently underway in Ada County, the forecasts of popu- lation distribution among specific towns and cities of Ada County based on the "High Range" population projections should be used. For other planning activities, those based on "Low Range" projections are preferable. Until late in the decade 1960-1970, the urbanized area surrounding and including the city of Boise had been increasing steadily its share of total Ada County Population. However, the urbanizing trends of the past five years have reversed this tendency and total population of the "Boise Urbanized Area" has begun steadily to decline as a share of total Ada County population, despite a continued increase in Urbanized Area Population in absolute numbers. These forecasts are based on the assumption that this sub-urbanization trend will continue. The City of Meridian will probably gain the moat in terms of its share of total county population, due to its location, convenient both to Boise employment centers and to I-B0. The proposed new shopping center in Meridian will also contribute to a continued rapid rate of population growth in Meridian. The newly-incorporated town of Eagle, enjoying a location convenient to the employment and trade areas in Boise, is also expected to continue growing rapidly in relation to the remainder of the county. The town of Kuna, with a leas accessible location, will probably increase its share of total Ada County population only slightly over the forecast period. The meat-processing plant projected for the Kuna area will doubtless contribute some additional population to Kuna; however, employees of this plant are as likely. to live in Meridian and possibly even Boise as in Kuna. In the absence of specific population data for the urbanized area of Star, a population of 350 persona has been assumed. Star offers a location even less convenient than Kuna, and will probably fail to increase its share of total county population at all. The second rather tenuous assumption concerns the rural areas of the county outside the Boise Urbanized Aras. To date there has been extensive "slurb" style subdivision activity particularly in the rural area between Meridian, Eagle, and the Metro Area boundary, and there is keen interest in extending this subdivision activity. Whether this occurs and the extent to which it occurs will depend almost entirely on the county government. If the county government takes afirm stand on subdivison of agricultural land, the population increases projected for these areas will fail to materialize. In this case the Tennant population growth will probably ahlft to Meridian and Eagle. •., •., •~~~''•. • ADA ~'••., COUNT Y •.. N • • Page 9 If on the other hand the county government takes no preventive action whatsoever, population increases in the rural areas could far exceed these forecasts. In this case population increases in the Boise Urbanized area will probably be reduced. These forecasts are based on the assumption that county government will succeed in imposing some control on subdivision of agricultural land. This assumption allows in particular for the possibility of at least one "new town" type self contained development. Page 10 Table V HIGH RANGE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS 1970-2000 (rounded to nearest 100) 1970 1972 .1975 1980 1990 2000 Ada County Popu- 112,230 126,000 141,000 155,000 180,000 202,000 lation Boise Urbanized Area Ada County Meridian Ada County Eagle Ada County Kuna Ada County Star Ada County Rural Areas 97,392 107,600 120,000 129,600 148,200 165,900 86.8 85.4 85.0 83.6 82.3 82.1 2,616 3,900 5,500 8,500 12,000 15,200 2.3 3.1 3.9 5.5 6.7 7.5 359 500 700 1,100 1,600 2,200 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 586 700 800 900 1,100 1,200 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 400 400 500 500 600 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 11,277 12,900 13,600 14,400 16,600 16,900 • • Page 11 Table VI LOW RANGE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS 1970-2000 (rounded to nearest 100) 1970 1972 197 1980 1990 2000 Ada Co unty Popu- 112,230 122,000 129,000 141,000 161,000 176,000 lation Boise Urbanized 97,392 104,000 109,000 117,000 131,000 142,000 Area Ada County 86.8 85.2 84.5 83.0 81.4 80.7 Meridi an 2,616 3,900 5,200 7,800 10,500 13,200 Ada County 2.3 3.2 4.0 5.5 6.5 7.5 Eagle 359 500 600 1,000 1,400 1,900 ;; Ada County 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 Kuna 586 700 800 900 1,100 1,200 Ada County 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 Star 400 400 400 500 600 Ada County 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Rural Areas 11,277 12,500 13,000 13,900 16,500 17,100 Page 12 • • Distribution Within the Boise Urbanized Area Por purposes of sewage treatment facility planning for the Boise Urbanized Area, population distribution by census tract has been forecast, using the high range projections as a base. Two distribution forecasts have been prepared. Each forecasts popu- lation distribution within the urbanized area for various county popu- lation levels up to a county population of 235,000, and a metro area population of up to 200,000. 1. Population Distribution According to current patterns. The first set of distribution forecasts assumes the continuation of current patterns, with at least some subdivision of agricultural lands both within and without the urbanized area and with a continu- ation of present policies concerning taxation and other factors affecting land costs and development pattern. Residential development, hence the population pattern, is likely to be split between the high market demand close-in housing and the "path of least resistance" urban sprawl, with little infill of vacant land around [he out-skirts of the city and a steadily increasing diversion of new development and population growth to the rural areas beyond the development metro areas. 2. Population Distribution According to Preferred patterns of land use. The second set of distribution forecasts assumes an increased restric- tion of subdivision of agricultural land and alteration of key zoning and real estate taxation practices to permit and encourage a higher rate of residential construction in the closer-in, existing neighbor- hoods than in outlying areas. The close-in neighborhoods would eventually approach "saturation density," or the maximum number of residents permitted by the current land use plan. The outlying areas would sustain limited new construction only on land not presently used for agriculture and there would be a very limited amount of residential development in the rural areas outside the Boise Urbanized Area, or none at all. • BOISE METROPOLITAN AREA Page 13 N 3 24 SY4i MOIINi ONN VIEW-~W urf~'BJ' OI°~ ~~'1 \\ 12 _______ __ __ ___i ~NHEC 23 , /f 13 20i ~~~~NF: q 19 ~' \' 22 5 10 2 I`; 14 XI _ ,~.._< ~~ 15 9 BEN IgMO ~ OVF PI f ~ 17 p`I 18 16 ~~ 8 \ "yM1V .... _ _ • \'qB 4W 'OF9 of NON 21` ._ ' ' "i 105 __. _._._., en 7 7. XI.I II~FXI ,C P \: P al BOiSF >Vf ~. Page 14 Table VII 6ola• Urbanised Area Population. Distribution Population Lavals of 97,000 to 190,000 Distribution Assumlag Continuation of Current Pat`aras After 2020 1970 1973 1975 1982-1990 1992-2000 2005-2010 Sf aver ^_ (1986) (1996) County Pop- 112,230 129,000 141,000 169,000 194,000 213,000 235,000 ulatlos Boise Hecro Araa 97,392 110,000 120,000 140,000 159,300 173,900 190,000 Ceneu• Tract 1 4,118 5,700 6,800 9,000 10,500 11,000 11,700 4 4,161 4,400 4,200 .5,000 5,000 5,100 5,200 5 6,576 6,700 7,400 9,000 9,500 10,000 11,200 6 6,454 6,500 6,800 7,500 7,800 8,000 8,100 ](part A) 51 4.600 x,.100 6.000 6.400 7..000 _8.000 Dovntorn 25,660 27,900 30,300 36,500 39,800 41,100 44,200 Arse Total 9 4,536 5,200 5,900 8,000 8,700 9,500 10,800 8 4.445 5.800 6.500 10,00Q 1 000 18.OOQ 21.700 Heat Boise 8,981 11,000 12,400 18,000 22,700 27,500 32,500 Total 10 5,517 5,700 5,800 6,000 7,000 :'8,000 9,200 13 649 600 600 600 600 600 600 19 4,629 4,500 4,000 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 20 2,178 2,300 2,400 2,700 3,500 3,600 3,700 14 4,026 4,300 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 18 3,569 3,700 3,800 4,000 4,100 4,300 4,500 15 4,229 4,500 4,700 5,000 ~ 5,100 5,200 5,400 16 3,752 4,200 4,400 4,800 5,000 6,000 7,200 17 x.505 3.600 3.600 3600 3.600 3.700 3.900 Hunch Total 32,054 33,400 33,800 35,500 38,200 41,200 44,800 11(Garden 2,502 2,700 2,800 3,000 3,600 3,600 3,600 City) 12(Uest 1.896 8.100 8.500 9.000 9.500 9.700 9.900 Beach) Core Area 77,093 83,100 87,800 102,000 113,800 123,100 135,000 Total 24 3,905 4,800 5,600 6,000 7,500 8,000 8,400 27 5,602 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,500 11,500 12,200 21 6 22 2,590 2,700 2,800 2,800 3,000 3,000 3,000 3 3.467 5,000 6.000. _7„000 8.000 9.500 ]0.400 lieetern Sub- 15,564 19,500 22,400 25,000 29,000 32,000 34,000 division Total 2 4,735 5,800 6,800 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 ](part B) - 600 1.000 1.500 2.500 2.800 __7~OOS Foothills 4,735 6,400 7,800 9,500 11,500 12,800 14,000 Total ](part C) - 1,000 2,000 3,500 5,000 6,000 7,000 • . Page 15 laDl• VIII Doisa Urbanised Araa Population Diatributlon Population Levels of 97,000 to 200,000 Distribution Assuming Preferred Land Usa Pattarn• 1970 X72 1973-75 1990-BS 9g1 7-93 X995-2005 2010-202 County Popu- 112,230 126,000 137,000 159.000 181,000 203000 223,000 latiom Bo1sa Metro- 97,392 110,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 Area Cansu• Tract 1 4,118 5,700 6,600 4 4,161 4,400 4,600 5 6,576 6,700 7,500 6 6,454 6,500 6.700 7 (part A) 4.351 4.600 5.900 Downtown Araa 25,660 27,900 31,300 Total 8,000 10,000 12,000 5.000 5,500 6,000 9,000 10,500 12,000 7,000 7,soo e,ooo 000 11.500 14.000 38,000 45,000 52,000 200,000 13,000 6,500 13,500 lo,ooo 15.500 58,500 9 4,536 5,200 6.100 8,000 9,500 11,000 11,500 B 4.445 5.800 7.900 000 0 0 21.000 25.000 bast Bola• 8,981 11,000 14,000 21,000 26,500 32,000 36.500 Total 10 5,511 .5,700 6,400 7.800 8.900 10,000 10,100 13 649 600 700. 800 900~~ 1,000 1,200 19 4,629 4,500 4,400 4,300 4,200 4,000 4.200 20 2,178 2,300 2,900 4,000 5,000 6,000 6,500 14 4,026 4,300 4.500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 1B 3,569 3,700 4,000 4,400 4,700 5,000 5,500 15 4,229 4,500 4,600 4,800 4,900 5,000 5,500 16 3,752 4,200 4.800 6.000 7,000 8,000 8,500 17 ~ 3.505 00 3.800 20 4.600 X000 X04 Danch Total 32,054 33,400 36,100 61,300 45.700 50,000 53,500 11(Gardan 2,502 2,700 2,800 2,900 2,900 3,000 3,500 C1ty) 12(Weat 7.896 9.000 .9.300 800 _10.400 ~Q 00 Bench) Core Ara• 77,093 84,000 ~-93,500 113,100 130,500 148,000 163,000 Total 24 3,905 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 5,000 23 5,602 7,000 7,100 7,200 7,600 8,000 9,000 21 6 22 2,590 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 3 7.467 5.000 5.100 5.200 1 0 7.000 8.000 Western Sub- 15,564 18,600 18,800 19,000 20,300 21,600 24,600 division Total 2 4,735 5.800 5,900 6,000 6.500 7,000 7,900 7(part E) - 600 700 800 1.100 1.400 2.000 loothill• 4,735 6,400 6,600 6,800 7,600 8400 9.900 total 7(part C) - 1.000 1.100 1,200 1,600 2,000 2.500