Reader's View: Foothills are a priceless asset to community, let's keep it that way

By Dr. Leslie Nona

Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 01/01/07

Here's wishing outdoor writer Pete Zimowsky a speedy recovery after his recent surgery, which he spoke about in his article "A walk in the Foothills is good medicine." As a physician and lifetime Boisean, I couldn't agree with Pete more about the recuperative qualities of the Boise Front. Sadly, the Foothills we all treasure are endangered by planned community development which, under Ada County Ordinance 621, can set aside current rural preservation zoning.

From Idaho 16 to Idaho 21, planned communities proposed for the Foothills would place a combined population equal to Meridian in that sensitive environment.

Many concerned citizens testified to this fact at the recent P&Z public hearing on the Ada County Comprehensive Plan and the North Ada County Foothills Sub-Area Draft. In its creation, the sub-area draft involved significant input from the public and private land owners, and is a major step in the right direction. It limits proposed Eagle Foothills development by two-thirds. However, the draft stops east of Idaho 55. It leaves the central and eastern Foothills vulnerable, as evidenced by the many planned communities proposed for these areas.

If the county considers planned communities in the Foothills on a one by one or piecemeal fashion, the true fiscal impacts will not be mitigated by the developer, as required by the Ada County code. These impacts are primarily the cost of massive infrastructure upgrades to handle the traffic and services requirements created by so many homes.

The North Ada County Foothills Association and the Dry Creek Rural Neighborhood Association developed an informative white paper entitled "State Highway 55: Planned or Parking Lot" (view at www.nacfa.net or www.savedrycreek.com), emphasizing the traffic handling inadequacies of this region. This white paper has been presented to then Gov. Risch's office; and the Idaho Department of Transportation, ACHD and COMPASS are quite aware of the looming traffic problems it describes. The white paper was presented to P&Z on the opening night of the comp plan public hearings, and was echoed in later testimony by ACHD and COMPASS.

ITD and ACHD are a billion dollars in the hole for maintenance alone, increasing at $240 million a year. There is simply no money available for necessary upgrades to existing infrastructure that dense Foothills development would require. The developers must pay for their impacts — that necessitates comprehensive land and road use planning to determine realistic costs. For this reason these planned community applications cannot be considered in isolation.

The Foothills are a priceless asset to this entire community. If that's not enough to preserve them, the public must realize that the true cost of development in them is astronomical. This should not be dumped on taxpayers, whether through public funding or the nightmare of gridlock on Idaho 55, Idaho 44, Idaho 16, overflow to arterials, collateral damage to existing neighborhoods and impact on areas to the north such as Cascade, Donnelly and McCall, since Idaho 55 is the major north-south corridor.

Concerned citizens of Ada County and beyond can urge the Ada County P&Z and county commissioners to hold off on approving any Foothills planned community development until comprehensive land use and road use planning is complete, and funding assured.

To accomplish this, ITD and ACHD must be enabled to complete a through study of the improvements needed for the Idaho 55 corridor, and downstream arterials, based on valid land use assumptions.

This is the only way the true fiscal impacts of these developments can be mitigated as required by the Ada County code.

May the Foothills continue to be your tonic, Pete. The county code is what it is, but like you, I wish the fate of the Foothills were something very different. At least the code requires development to pay its way.

Dr. Leslie L. Nona, of Boise, is a local physician.

Joanne Pence: Dry Creek Ranch a bad plan for a good area

Joanne Pence

Edition Date: 06-29-2006

Proposals for planned communities are springing up all over Ada County. Developers love them. Ada County commissioners love them. Obviously, they must be wonderful for you and me, right?

A planned community is said to be a place where residents live, work and play, which means they should not cause any strains on our infrastructure (roads and services), but simply bring in additional taxpayers.

In fact, planned communities are a way for developers to build in an area the public has said it wants preserved — the Foothills.

Not only can developers ignore current Foothills zoning (usually rural, one residence per 40 acres), they can pack houses, apartments, and condos into small, urban-sized lots. The latest proposal, Dry Creek Ranch in northwest Boise, puts 4,600 dwellings (some 15,000 people) on 1,400 acres of pristine Valley land that is now home to raptors and many other species, and is on the migratory path of mule deer and pronghorn antelope. This "ranch" density is four times that of Eagle.

On May 24, 2006, the commissioners adopted a new ordinance (No. 621) on planned communities. First, it amends the section on the Rural Preservation District and the Rural Residential District (8-2A-1) — the section which talks about protecting wildlife and farmland — by stating that such areas will: "allow urban density development within planned communities."

It goes on to say that planned community developers must present a "vision statement," "a list of coordinated goals, objectives, and policies," "a conception land use map," and "illustrations." How difficult is that? In fairness, the economic feasibility study is written tough — it requires experts to provide lots of information. Unfortunately, experts lie, misstate, or perhaps just don't know any better. At the Dry Creek Ranch neighborhood meeting where "experts" showed us the planned community, they said the 4,600 residences would cause 20,500 auto trips per day. That sounded like a lot until we learned that everyone else uses 10 trips per day per residence, or 46,000 daily auto trips pouring onto Highway 55, and from it, onto State Street and Eagle Road. (Their explanation for the difference is that planned community residents live, work and play in the community. Oh, really?)

When we questioned a land use expert on the wildlife habitat, he said the Valley land was rated "poor" because it wasn't natural. No, it's not natural, it's an alfalfa field. Just because it isn't natural doesn't mean that the herbivores who migrate through, or the rodents and rabbits who live there, or the raptors and other species who dine on them, find it a "poor" area. It's an alfalfa field. And it has water — Dry Creek (whose marsh and rivulets will be paved over, forcing more water downstream).

And what happens if the economic plans the developer presents don't live up to the promises made? Section F. 3. states that if the planned community "has caused undue adverse economic impacts on affected municipalities or other agencies and/or districts, the board may initiate hearings to investigate such matters and may, at the conclusion of such hearings, adopt changes to the Planned Community Comprehensive Plan, Planned Community Development Plan or Planned Community Zoning Ordinance to mitigate such undue adverse economic impacts."

Oh, my. I'm sure the developers are quaking in their boots.

For the planned communities we now have, taxpayers have had to foot the bill for much of the infrastructure. (Remember the fights over the bridge Harris Ranch developers promised?)

If I were a cynical person, I'd say planned communities were simply a way for developers to make a whole bunch of money by making promises they never have to deliver. But developers tell me such communities are for my own good, and our county commissioners agree. So surely, it must be true.

Joanne Pence is a mystery author, and member of the Dry Creek Rural Neighborhood Association (www.savedrycreek. com)