HomeMy WebLinkAboutShannon, L - Letter of Opposition_CompPlan_02.02.25Laura Shannon
4707 Middlesboro Way
Caldwell, ID 83607
February 1, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
City of Caldwell
205 S. 6th Ave.
Caldwell, ID 83605
Subject: Proposed Caldwell Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
There are several process and content problems with the Proposed Caldwell Comprehensive Plan
(CCP), which I urge you to investigate and correct before adopting it as a basis for zoning decisions.
First, the current CCP draft should have been made public before presenting it to the Planning &
Zoning Commission (P&Z). The CCP was taken offline at the end of year, when the public comment
period closed, and was then updated. This updated version was presented to the P&Z on January 8th,
without previously being made available for public perusal, thereby depriving the public of the
opportunity to comment on its specifics at the meeting. In addition, despite signing up for CCP
notifications, I was not informed of the culminating presentation before the P&Z, or I would have
provided the contents of this letter at that time. The P&Z conditionally approved the updated CCP on
January 8, 2025, and it was not until January 14, 2025, at my request, that it was posted for public
viewing.
Second, do a better job of involving the public; so far this has been insufficient.
The CCP, p. 3 states: “The heart of the comprehensive plan is the community’s vision and
goals for itself. The goals and objectives are a direct expression of the desires of the
community. Goals and objectives were developed with extensive citizen input…”
I wholeheartedly agree, but at the January 8, P&Z presentation, the audience was sparse, and only one
member of the public (a Boise resident) showed up to speak. Clearly, the public was not adequately
engaged in this process.…not because of indifference, but because the message did not get out.
Third, develop better statistical methods to accurately measure “extensive citizen input”. These
must include filtering out input by paid staff and consultants, as well as double counting data. The
CCP, p.11 gives “Public Engagement” statistics, which were referred to at the P&Z meeting by the
consultant (1:19:45 to 1:20:45) and staff (2:18:30 to 2:18:53) to make the case for a reasonable level of
citizen engagement. But the statistics are misleading, as follows:
a. Website Views. The “32,000+ Project Website Views” was a padded figure. According to an
email from the deputy director, “The 32,000 views are not unique individuals, it is every view
of the plan, including by staff.” I was on the site upwards of 50 times, and I suspect those
employed to create the plan were on this website hundreds of times.
b. Event Participants. A records request to verify “525 Event Participants” yielded sign-in
sheets with 136 signatures and notations referring to 71 unknown “walk-ins”. Adjusted for
double counting, 122 individuals signed in, of which 40 are identifiable as Boise area
professionals associated with land development, or City of Caldwell /Caldwell Housing
Authority employees. Some are acknowledged as planners in the CCP.
c. Online Comments. At the P&Z presentation, the consultant displayed a chart to the P&Z
(1:22:05 - 1:23:20), reporting, “...we got a lot of comments, a lot of suggestions…” In fact,
they received 96 online public draft comments. I believe my own 9 comments during the
online review were nearly half of its public input (not including staff), and at last glance on
12/31/2024, I counted 42 of those comments from a single planner whose name and firm can
be supplied upon request. I didn’t receive feedback for my suggestions, and the resulting draft
was not published until after it was approved by the P&Z. Furthermore, this online viewing
period was only open to the public during the busy holiday season from November 18 -
December 31.
These statistics do not represent “extensive citizen input” from a city with a population of more than
70,000 people. Better methods must be developed to accurately measure “citizen” input.
Fourth, “Placetypes” should be more narrowly defined. The CCP, p.17 (and elsewhere) lists two or
more primary purposes for each placetype, but allows for several secondary purposes. The end result is
few boundaries or restrictions for development. Placetypes should be more specifically defined.
Fifth, development in “Neighborhood 2 ” areas should require new builds to have a level of
compatibility with preexisting structures. The CCP, pp. 23-26 allows an "everything goes" mentality
as vacant lots are developed with 2-8 units (12 if density bonus) per acre (p.24), three-story remodels
are permitted, and accessory dwelling units are squeezed into backyards (CCP, Appendix A, Figure
A-4). Already, there are too many examples of incompatible development: Lovely, single level homes,
in place for 50+ years on Brian Street, are negatively affected by 2-3-story apartments, with minimal
setback, that were recently squeezed into the lot across the street.
Sixth, delete the DEI provisions and the requirement for mixed housing types in all developments
and neighborhoods. The CCP, p. 97, requires housing types be “mixed”, through infill, or in new
developments, and mandates "diversity" and "inclusion" in neighborhoods. Idaho recently banned
DEI in institutions, and I don't recall any public conversation regarding the use of this ideology in
planning Caldwell's future growth. For economic reasons, apartments and beginner housing do not
belong next to investment-of-a-lifetime housing.
Seventh, do away with transportation-based development which promotes high density housing
for the purpose of establishing public transit routes in Caldwell. Public transit will be costly for
Caldwell taxpayers, and referencing the CCP (Appendix C-18) in regards to Caldwell’s existing transit
system: “total ridership since March 2020 [saw] a sharp decline due to COVID-19. Ridership has not
returned to pre-COVID-19 levels since.” In spite of its larger population, Boise embarked on its
experimentation with public transit 25+ years ago, and still struggles with marginal ridership.
Furthermore, high density housing comes with several intrinsic problems which will include extreme
traffic issues if tenants choose to drive cars instead of riding a bus.
Eighth, eliminate the “Density Bonus” program, p. 115-116. I'm concerned about the extreme
densities proposed throughout the community, but especially near my own neighborhood. The term
"density bonus" reinforces the observation that Caldwell is but a gameboard in the hands of developers,
and translates to the potential for 40 units/acre in parts of Caldwell, including property ("Mixed Use"
component of "Community Center" placetype) near Cumberland Estates.
Ninth, make the CCP well defined so it is easier to implement. Caldwell Citizens will be frustrated,
developers will argue their every project is acceptable under the broadly defined placetypes, and
governing bodies will have no authority to decline projects vaguely aligned with the ambiguous
language in the CCP if it is approved in current form. Our neighborhood (Cumberland Estates) recently
staved off the building of dense, 2- and 3-story, multi-family housing units near our single-level homes.
In unanimous decisions, the P&Z (September 25, 2024), as well as the City Council (December 2,
2024), declined multi-family housing units near Cumberland Estates, agreeing they were not a good fit
next to existing neighborhoods. At the December 9th, "CCP Event", the consultant told me it would be
difficult for governing bodies to deny such development if the land were defined as a "Community
Center" placetype which permits 3- to 5-story structures, and promotes high density housing. A plan is
only as good as its specificity. Please advocate for wise growth by monitoring the work of developers
with a revised Caldwell Comprehensive Plan.
In summary, please investigate and correct the concerns outlined above before adopting the CCP.
My great-grandparents came to Caldwell in the horse and buggy days. I am proud to say I was born and
raised here, as were my children. I accept that growth is inevitable, but it should be wisely managed in
a systematic, predictable fashion with the public’s input. The CCP guidelines should preserve positive
aspects of existing homes and neighborhoods, and new growth should be dealt with in an orderly
progression that will create a community the next generation can take pride in.
Thank you for your service to the City of Caldwell!
Sincerely,
Laura Shannon
4707 Middlesboro Way
Caldwell, Id 83607