Zoning Rewrite – CTNA’s Position Statement – For Membership Review and Comment

The following is a communication from Don Day, BoiseDev followed by CTNA’s response. It’s a long piece to read but if you are interested or concerned in how the current Zoning Rewrite package could impact the future of Boise – then it’s well worth your time

—————————————–

To Boise Neighborhood Associations- March 27, 2023, To Boise Neighborhood Associations

I’m reaching out to each of Boise’s Neighborhoods to gauge their stance on the proposed Boise Zoning Code Rewrite for an upcoming story. As you know, the first comment deadline has passed, and we want to help the public see how the city’s neighborhoods view the plan before public testimony in April. Could you answer these three questions, and reply by Friday, March 31?

1) Does your neighborhood association support the Zoning Code Rewrite as proposed? (Yes, no or undecided)

2) What if any changes would the NA want to see to the ZCR?

3) Does your NA feel the city conducted proper outreach to help shape/provide input on the rewrite?

Thanks! —

DON L. DAY | BoiseDev Founder & Editor

————————————–

March 31, 2023, Centennial Neighborhood Association Response – to be discussed on April 20, 2023, board meeting

To: Don Day, BoiseDev

The attached document is a position by consensus of the Centennial NA board of directors. We were unable to call a special meeting of the association’s general members within the timeline for response to your request. Accordingly, we cannot stipulate that this represents the consensus of the entire constituency of Centennial NA. We have been working diligently to keep the membership aware and informed and are therefore confident in offering this response. We are following through with an upcoming Centennial NA meeting on April 20, 2023, to further vet topic consensus and be prepared for the subsequent public hearings.

We are appreciative and are in admiration of the evident effort of BoiseDev’s “Deep Dive” into the ZCR. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in.

On behalf of the Centennial NA board of directors,

Gary Dufault, President

Centennial Neighborhood’s Reply

1) Does your neighborhood association support the Zoning Code Rewrite as proposed? (Yes, no or undecided)

No, we support some of the rewrite, but are opposed to some.

We support mixed use residential and commercial zones.
We support high density housing.
We especially support high density housing along transportation corridors, should Boise ever have viable public transportation.
We support neighborhoods of mixed size and type housing.
We applaud zoning code leaning toward form based over use based.
We applaud a streamlined approval process for all developments that meet form and use code, not just affordable housing use.
We support bicycle and motorcycle parking minimums that encourage alternative transportation.

We do not support limiting public or private parking.
We do not support the city subsidizing housing, the city owning housing or the city competing with private real estate.
We do not support ‘affordable’, subsidized or rent controlled housing in Boise prime real estate areas where we have the opportunity to grow the city tax base and relieve resident taxes.
We do not support use deed restrictions for affordable housing.
While we support streamlined approval, we do not support the efforts to stifle public comment on any project.

2) What if any changes would the NA want to see to the ZCR?

Parking

Parking space restrictions are not appropriate for Boise. We are a private vehicle culture. The public brings up parking at every opportunity and it’s usually the #1 issue. The lack of parking affects everyone, but those without other options are impacted the most. Adequate parking drives the economy. We do not want to devolve into a city, like so many others, where commercial endeavors fail from lack of access and parking, motorists driving around in circles looking for parking and parking disputes turning into violence. We should encourage people to get out of their cars by positive actions and attractive alternatives, not by trying to punish them with negative actions and unrealistic options.

We applaud efforts to reduce traffic volume and we applaud developing walking neighborhoods, but we do not support limiting public and private parking in either the ‘modern’ or the old code.
The Treasure Valley does not have a viable public transportation system.
- We understand the ‘chicken and the egg’ approach…
  - But those moving into housing without parking will need a fully viable public transportation system on day one. Viable means access throughout the Treasure Valley, not just transportation corridors, 24/7, all weather, affordable, quick, safe and sustainable.
    - This is the minimum a working person would need just for day-to-day use and does not include major shopping trips or recreation. Even those that prefer to use public transportation regularly will usually also require a personal car on occasion.
  - At what cost and for how long will the taxpayers support an unused public transportation system before they begin to trim off the edges by cutting routes, operating hours and trip frequency?
Walking neighborhoods require somewhere to walk to. The current focus on more housing will result in more housing, but without the commercial and public accommodations we might want to walk to.
- Centennial Neighborhood is an example in which the city has denied commercial development in commercial zones and approved in-fill high density residential. There was nothing to walk to before. Now we have more homes and still nothing to walk to, but also less available parking.
- Walking neighborhoods require sustainable businesses to walk to. In mixed use development, parking is essential for any business that cannot survive only on the clientele within walking distance.
  - Those of us in areas like Centennial and West Valley without a lot of commercial development have been in the habit of driving to other areas to spend our money. If we get to those areas and don’t have anywhere to park, we can’t patronize the businesses.

Affordable Housing

We do not support city subsidized housing, the city owning housing or the city competing with private real estate. We see this as an infringement on free enterprise and, perhaps even free elections.
We do not support ‘affordable’, subsidized or rent controlled housing in Boise’s prime real estate areas where we have the opportunity to grow the city tax base and relieve resident taxes rather than concede these areas to tax-free or subsidized-by-tax areas. The areas we consider prime are downtown, along the Greenbelt and bordering any parks or foothill access. These assets are places residents will, and should, pay a premium to live near. They should be reserved for either high tax base residential or commercial properties that all of Boise can enjoy.
We do not support fixed use deed restrictions, If the project fails, it might need to be repurposed without trying to change deed restrictions.

Project Approval

While we support streamlined approval, we do not support the efforts to stifle public comment on any project. There are pieces of the ‘modern’ code designed to limit public participation such as elevating the design review to a commission, allowing planners to make more desk approvals and creating the role of a ‘Fair Hearing’ that will be appointed by and accountable to the administration. We also note the current practice of reducing the time for public comment, especially for the Neighborhood Assns. which have been labeled as remnants of the old, failed urban renewal efforts of the past.

Public comment provides benefits.
- It encourages the developer to present quality projects, not the bare minimums. What we build today will be with us and affect quality of life in Boise for years.
- Even when a project ticks all the boxes legally, public comment has resulted in voluntary project refinement and improvements that make it more palatable to the neighbors. At least their voices were heard.
- It allows for public participation which grows participation.
We’re told some projects will still require public hearings based upon “complex applications” and other considerations, but who will make those decisions? The temptation to make these decisions based upon political considerations would be great. How would the public hold the administration accountable for elevating controversial projects to a hearing? “Alternative form” hearings would be held for the reasons opposite of what the public may want…less density, more parking, etc.

3) Does your NA feel the city conducted proper outreach to help shape/provide input on the rewrite?

We feel that the city has made extensive, but meaningless outreach.

The administration appointed a ‘city wide advisory committee’ packed with developers and affordable housing advocates to represent us, but that’s not representative of all of Boise.
An intern was assigned to interview the public and she chose a laundromat to hold the interviews. Not very representative of much of Boise.
While the city has made some small perceived concessions such as:
- leaving a zone named residential in the new code, but changing residential zone details that change the nature of this zone
- calling for ‘stable neighborhoods’ while defining stable as restrictions moving toward more dense, affordable housing
- changing the name of the ‘hearing examiner’ to ‘fair hearing’ and letting the Planning Director, who reports to the mayor, appoint the examiner instead of the mayor appointing that person directly. These changes do nothing to change the fact that one person, accountable to the administration, would still be making the decision and the only appeal would be an expensive lawsuit.

Affordable housing is needed, but that should not be the predominant goal and following the examples of cities that have failed in this effort will only lead to failure here. We have the chance to create a code that will encourage affordable housing while also encouraging vibrant, quality development that protects what we love about Boise