Minutes - 2006 - City Council - 04/04/2006 - Regular
OR\G\NAl
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting Minutes
April 4, 2006
]. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor calls the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: BASTIAN, GUERBER, NORDSTROM, BANDY. Bastian absent.
A quorum is present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Blue Print for Good Growth and Communities in Motion: (NM)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Planner Baird Spencer: provides the Council with an overview of the Blue Print for Good
Growth and Communities in Motion. Discusses concerns that Staff has with Blue Print
for Good Growth. General discussion.
Council Member Bastian is present at 6:45 p.m.
Planner Baird Spencer: provides the Council with an overview of the Communities in
Motion and discusses some concerns that the Staff has. General discussion.
B. River floodplain development. (NM & M. Mongelli)
Mayor introduces the issue.
City Building Official Mongelli: Provides Council an aerial photograph of a flood plain
map and discusses the same. Discussion on flood plain areas, and removing areas from
the flood plain. The flood plain of 1997 may not be the flood plain of today. Discussion
on no net loss. Discussion on Dr. Peter Goodwin's models. Discussion on FEMA's
Community Acknowledgement form. Discussion on a 100 year event. Discussion on a
study being proposed by Dr. Goodwin and the City participating in the cost of the study.
Brayton Willis, US Army Corp of Engineers, discussion on Dr. Goodwin's models. He
has done a good job. Discussion on doing a study of the river. Idaho Water Board is also
interested in a study. Discussion on cost sharing with agencies. General discussion on
the duties and responsibilities of the Corp. Overall discussion on the rivers and flooding
in the area.
C. Miscellaneous City Business
Planner Baird Spencer: Discussion on private roads. We are having numerous requests
through the planned unit development to have private roads. We have no standards for
private roads. Discussion on private roads in commercia] developments. General
discussion. Discussion on building the roads to ACHD standards.
Dana Borquist, Chief of Police: Discusses safety in gated communities. They basically
shut us out and give a false sense of security.
Page I
KI,COUNClUMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\([ -04-04-06spmill_doc
Dana Borquist, Chief of Police: The complaint that was filed has been resolved. The
Officer no longer works in the community of Eagle. I have prepared a new organizational
chart and a new calendar.
Discusses the turn lane at Eagle Road and State Street. When cars back up at the light
people drive in the other lane oftraffic to get into the turn lane to turn left. I have
discussed a solution with ACHD. Limit the parking on the North side of State Street in
front of Orville Jackson. Roads are going to be stripped after the change. Council
concurs with this solution.
Discussion on pedestrian crossing at Stierman and at the Senior Citizen Center crossing.
Greenbelt patrol is staring on Friday. It is painted black and white. We have volunteers.
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: We meet on the State Farm Monument sign. Ifhe
doesn't put in the monument sign, there is an option of removing three pear trees that are
not in good condition and he could then have more exposure with lighting to his wall
sign. There would be additional landscaping to compensate. General discussion.
Council concurs to have the Zoning Administrator pursue negotiations and have the
proposal reviewed by one Staff member and a Design Review Board member for
approval.
City Clerk: The cabinets and counter will be installed in the Council Work Room next
week.
Discussion on chair mats under the Council and Staff chairs. Council would like the
mats.
Discussion on adjusting the chairs.
Discussion on the type of chairs in the large conference room.
Discussion on enclosing the patio with a wrought iron fence and a gate.
Discussion on replacing the automatic shades on the high windows to a room darkening
shade.
Discussion on a clock for the Council Chambers. Council concurs to have a large,
decorative clock.
Discussion on putting speaker monitors behind the Council so they can hear the speakers
better.
Mayor: We should get started on an Open House possibly in May. General discussion.
Nordstrom: I think we need to study any type of fund resource that we can increase
revenue to fund projects that we would never be able to fund. General discussion.
Guerber: If anyone feels so moved let your Legislature know you would like them to vote
on the park bill.
Bastian: Discusses the big issues at the Legislature, property taxes, sales tax to fund
O&M for schools, annexation, and regional waste water.
Mayor: I want to get back on the schedule where one meeting a month is for City
business and no public hearings.
Page 2
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-04-04-06spmin.doc
4. ADJOURNMENT:
Nordstrom moves to adjourn. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYE: MOTION
CARRIES...
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
1lUA-<._~I~
'-SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
.................
,.., ~ BAG!..;.....
~.. _\ 0 ........ <: -.
.t ""'" ... -.-.
~f..... OV.A7'~.. '.
~ ...... ~-q e... -:.
!V!o \ :.
: . CJ .' -: :
.. · ." '-'}J 0 :
\~ \ S~~"ij,~j
\ -":~r.oA~o::-- ~,/'T ~
.....r... · "",.."
.........;-'" TE OT~
................~
Page)
K:\COUNCIL\MfNUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC -04-04-06spmin doc
INTER
OFFICE
City of Eagle
Zoning Administration
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Attachment(s):
Copy To:
Mayor Merrill and City Council Members
Nichoel Baird Spencer, AICP, Planner III
Communities in Motion
April 4, 2006
Draft CIM Document
Bill Vaughan, AICP, Zoning Administrator
Attached for your review is the draft Communities in Motion Plan (CIM). I have annotated my comments
through the document for your review.
The CIM Plan once adopted will change the way the City currently plans for road and land uses. Some are
minor such as increased development monitoring responsibilities and reporting to COMPASS; other items
are larger such as COMPASS and RTAC review and recommendation of comprehensive plan
amendments.
Overall staff is in support of the plan but would request council review some of the policies that are
contained in the document specifically in Chapter Two: Defming Vision. This section contains a few of
the staffs concerns:
• Member agencies will amend their comp plans to conform to CIM -
Per Task 2.1.1 we will amend our plans to be in keeping with the preferred scenario. Is this
the intent of the council? Though CIM had several hundred participants in the process so
did our comprehensive plan/visioning processes? Shouldn't CIM mirror our comp plan?
What if we show land uses where there are none in CIM?
• COMPASS and RTAC review of all Comprehensive Plan Amendments and developments -
Task 2.13 & 2.1.4 -Will this have an impact on the timing of these applications? RTAC
specifically only meets once a month. RTAC represents the member jurisdictions do we
want other Cities critiquing our land use decisions?
• What will it take to have COMPASS recognize our comprehensive plan?
Per Task 1.31 we are to transmit CPA's to COMPASSS for consideration during
transportation decisions but COMPASS has still not formally recognized our Soaring 2025
Plan.
• Removal of collectors from the functional classification system.
The CIM plan will remove collector roads from the functional classification system and
Page 1 of 2
K:lplanning DeptINfisc Other120051CIM1Apri13 2006 memo to cc.doc
leave the identification of these roadways to the individual cities and/or the highway
district. ACHD has concerns identifying the collectors since these roads are not impact fee
eligible and sees these as exactions through the development process. We as a land use
agency must being detailing policies for collector locations and how they are constructed
through the development process.
• The CIM & BPGG Connection -
The BPGG uses the land use scenarios and population projections prepared by COMPASS
for the CIM process to establish thresholds for the 20 year AOI's. Though the regional
population projections have been fairly accurate the allocations to individual cities have not
been a link from the regional roadway network to local growth could significantly impact
the cities ability to grow/annex in the future.
• Reporting on efficiency and effectiveness of expenditures -
Staff is unclear on what this means. Is COMPASS now going to watch over the City's
expenditures and issue a fiscal responsibility report? Is this the role of a regional
transportation planning agency?
Overall, the CIM document provides a significant increase in the duties of COMPASS by expanding their
role to include comprehensive plan and development review as well as development monitoring. It is
important to keep in mind COMPASS is funded by dues and works at the direction of the member
agencies thus the adoption of this plan would establish a clear direction for COMPASS to begin these
review functions. Is this the role the City wishes to see COMPASS take?
Page 2 of 2
K:IPlanning Dept MIsc Othet120051CI MApril 3 2006 memo to cc.doc
1 What is Communities in Motion?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Communities in Motion is the regional long-range transportation plan for Ada County and Canyon
County. With the support of the Idaho Transportation Department (Ili)), it also considers regional
transportation corridors in Boise, Elmore, Gem, and Payette Counties. The plan supports a vision,
goals, a new transportation/land use scenario, and a commitment to enhancing regional corridors.
The major reason for Communities in Motion is to promote a future transportation system that supports
the type of community we want, identifies funding needs, and protects corridors. In addition the
federal government requires that COMPASS, as the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for
the urbanized areas in Ada County and Canyon County, prepare a regional long-range transportation
plan to enable federal funding for roads, transit and pathways in our region. This plan needs to be
updated at least every four years.
COMPASS began the planning process in late 2003. In early 2004, in an effort to plan transportation
systems that meet the needs of the growing communities in the Treasure Valley, COMPASS
partnered with ITD to expand the planning area to include Boise, Elmore, Gem, and Payette
Counties — in addition to Ada County and Canyon County. The partnership between COMPASS, its
members, local governments in the region, and ITD was an innovative approach that evaluated
various transportation modes and policies for maintenance, improvements, and development. This
process enabled true regional planning in Southwest Idaho.
Communities in Motion Vision and Goals
IVe envision a Treasure Valley where quality of life is enhanced and communities are connected by an
innovative, ffective, multi -modal transportation system. Board of Directors, 2003
Connections — Provide options for safe access and
mobility in a cost-effective manner.
Coordination — Achieve better inter -jurisdictional
coordination of transportation and land use
planning.
Environment — Minimize transportation impacts to
people, cultural resources, and the environment.
Information — Coordinate data gathering and
dispense better information.
T:\FY06\600 Projects\661 CIM\11-
Final Reports\Prelntro.doc
Summary
1 SUMMARY
2
3 Communities in Motion is the regional long-range transportation plan for Ada
4 County and Canyon County. With the support of the Idaho Transportation
5 Department, the plan also reviews regional transportation corridors in Boise,
6 Gem, Elmore, and Payette counties. The plan supports a vision, four broad
7 goals, a new transportation/land use scenario, and emphasizes regional
8 corridors. It also offers assumptions, strategies, and recommendations for
9 implementation.
10
11 The federal government requires that COMPASS, as the metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
12 for the urbanized areas in Ada County and Canyon County, prepare a regional long-range
13 transportation plan to enable federal funding for roads, transit and pathways in our region. The plan,
14 Communities in Motion, promotes a future transportation system that supports the type of community
15 we want, identifies funding needs, and protects regional corridors. Communities in Motion needs to be
16 updated at least every four years.
17
18 The preparation and review of the regional long-range transportation plan provides a forum for local
19 agencies to work together towards a common vision. What are the elements of this vision?
20 Vision
21 We envision a Treasure Valley where quality of life is enhanced and communities are connected by an innovative,
2 2effective, multi -modal transportation *stem. Board of Directors, 2003
23
24 Goals
25 Connections
26 Provide options for safe access and mobility in a cost-effective manner.
27 Coordination
28 .Achieve better inter -jurisdictional coordination of transportation and land use planning.
29 Environment
30 Minimize transportation impacts to people, cultural resources, and the environment.
31 Information
32 Coordinate data gathering and dispense better information.
33
DRAFT
Communities in Motion 3/16/2006 1
1
2
higiNidlq 3
A4
G1ohbf 65
,}0t 110046 7
t5J Ci ;'7 8
Summary
Growth in the Region
A plan is about dealing with the future and forecasted change. In
the region covered by Communities in Motion, both population
growth and shifts in where people hve are driving change. The
challenge is not only the pace of growth, but the residential
location decision of future residents and where they are relative
to lobs and services.
9 Between 1980 and 2000, the six county region of Communities in
10 Motion accounted for 56% of Idaho's population gain. If regional
11 and state forecasts are as shown, the region's share of state
Figure 1 - Regional Growth
12 growth would be 70% over the next twenty-five years.
13
14 flow that growth occurs is a critical transportation issue.
15
16 Community Choices Transportation and Land Use Scenario
17 Communities in Motion endorses "Community Choices," a land use and transportation scenario that
18 link these two important elements of growth. This is the first time a regional long-range
19 transportation plan for Southwest Idaho considered and addressed a growth pattern based on a
20 collaborative view of our future. The "Community Choices" scenario:
21 • Expands the public transportation system.
22 • Encourages housing, jobs, goods, and services be closer together to allow for walking and biking.
23 ■ Creates less dependence on personal automobiles and less time needed for travel.
25 • Encourages infill and higher density housing. "In the next twenty years, I, as a senior, will
27 • Preserves more open space. not even feel safe driving in downtown
Boise. So, convenient public transportation
29 would be a help "
31 Treasure Valley resident
32 Regional Corridors
33 Communities in Motion focuses on corridors throughout the region, rather than small segments of a project, and
34 addresses transportation needs through 2030. Ideally, this focus will improve multi -modal travel in the region.
35 The list of corridors included in the plan shows where major regional improvements should be made in order
36 to meet the vision and goals for an innovative, effective, multi -modal transportation system.
37 r Giiti .tCMt tti CwL-
38 The corridors were selected using the following criteria:
DRAFT
CIM Region/Idaho Growth
Millions
1980
1990
2000
2010
I■ CIM Region ■ Rest of Idaho
2020
2030
Communities in Motion 3/16/2006
alb I + Otls J
2 —T-Tz-ter
o
Summary DRAFT
1 • Dollars per Vehicle Miles Traveled — the cost of improvements per vehicle mile traveled.
2 • Time Savings — potential time saved because of the improvements in hours.
3 • Connections — fills gaps in system, nes to transit spine, or connects barriers.
4 • Regionality — based on classification of roadway according to function: interstate, state highway, principal
5 arterial, or minor arterial.
6 • Growth Area — relation of the corridor to the growth areas in the "Community Choices" scenario.
7 • Percent of Regional Growth (extra weighting) — percentage of the regional growth from 2005-2030.
8 • Transit (extra weighting) — based on whether a roadway also has a regional transit route, a local transit
9 route or no transit route.
10 The proposed corridor maps (major capital, minor capital, and transit) can be found in the Appendix or at
11 htm: / /www.communitiesinmotion.ore /mans.html
12
13 A Desired Shift Toward Alternatives
14 One of the strong messages delivered by participants in the workshops and outreach during
15 Communities in Motion was to create an effective alternative to driving. During the October 2004 and
16 February 2005 workshops, nearly all the work groups included major bus transit, with many also
17 calling for some form of rail or bus rapid transit. The plan calls for a major expansion of public
18 transportation services, increasing service levels more than ten -fold compared to the base transit
19 system.
wets :
Trend Community Choices
Bus local fixed -routes 19 69
Express bus routes 2 3
Miles of bus rapid transit routes 0 10
Miles of rail transit routes 0 38
Hours of service per weekday 380 4,600
20
21 The operating costs for this level of transit are far greater than available resources. Legislative and
22 voter approval of a local -option tax will help achieve the transit system envisioned in the plan. Such
23 action will raise the $1.1 billion new funds necessary for a better transit system. This investment is
24 only practical with the type of land uses with the "Community Choices" scenario.
25
26
27
28
Communities in Motion 3/16/2006 3
Summary DRAFT
1 A Need for New and Improved Roadways
2 Road improvements are integral to the plan. Transit, pedestrian and bicycle investments will attract
3 riders, but the majority of travel (90% or more) will remain in pnvate vehicles. If all the needed
4 funding can be found for the planned transit and roadway investments, 79% of the transportation
5 revenues will still go into roadway investments.
6 During the evaluation of the bus transit system,
7 high congestion on the existing roadway network
8 could reduce the effectiveness of buses. And the Roadways -
9 bus services were essential in getting riders to and Roadways- Major
Capital
10 from the rail system. 3O8% 33%
11
12 Major corridor investments will add or widen
13 approximately 270 miles of road in the six -county
14 area. Key improvements within Ada and Canyon
15 County include:
16 • Widen I-84 to six or eight lanes (both
17 direction) between Caldwell and Boise. Figure 2 - Transportation Investment Share
18 • Build a cross county connector along the Greenhurst/Lake Hazel corridor from Middleton Road
19 to I-84.
20 ■ Construct a new expressway along the SH 16/McDermott corridor from Gem County to I-84.
21 • Improve US 20/26 to an expressway from Caldwell to McDermott Road with the potential for
22 expressway to Eagle Road.
23 For a full listing, see Chapter 4.
24
25 Key Assumptions and Strategies
26 Assumptions
27 • The Treasure Valley will continue to experience high levels of growth.
28 • Fuel pnces will fluctuate, but will not rise beyond what people are willing to pay.
29 • Fuel tax revenue will increase incrementally and will continue to be used for roadways.
30 • Residents in the Treasure Valley will begin to use transit choices as they become available.
31 • Jobs will be dispersed throughout the region.
32 • Parking will become less available and more expensive.
33
34
Community Choices
Total = $8.5 Billfion
Roadways -
Other
Capital
8%
Transit -
Capital +
O&M
21%
Communities in Motion 3/16/2006 4
Summary DRAFT
1
2 Strategies (Accepted by COMPASS Board)
3 • A 50% split of funding between Operations/Maintenance and Capital Improvements is
4 acceptable pending subsequent annual reviews to determine pavement, bridge, safety and
5 equipment standards.
6 • Maintenance and safety of the transportation system are highest priority when considering
7 funding allocations.
8 • The Board recognizes the need to secure new funding for the transportation system the highest
9 priority.
10 • A longer-term growth analysis is appropriate to consider issues beyond 2030.
11
12 A Need for More Revenues
13 As described in Chapter 5, the plan includes recommendations that exceed available funding. For
14 roadway projects, another $628 million is needed over the next twenty-five years to do all the major
15 corridors shown. Only $2.2 billion of the major corridors can be a formal part of the plan, the
16 unfunded projects are considered "illustrative."
17
18 For transit, the financial needs are higher. An additional $1.1 billion in revenue is needed to achieve
19 the desired transit service level.
20
21 While the total of $1.73 billion is daunting, with forecasted growth, the amount of new revenues
22 needed works out to less than $200 per household based on 2030 population levels.
23
24 Implementation
25 What could make the "Community Choices" scenario for Communities in Motion a reality? Societal
26 changes, such an aging population seeking alternatives to large homes and the need to drive, the
27 increasing cost of gasoline, and the increasing scarcity of natural resources — such as water, may force
28 a shift in how the region grows. Economic forces, where housing becomes more affordable in urban
29 centers and more expensive in outlying areas, and public policy that supports better growth
30 management tools, including increased coordination with the private sector and better interagency
31 collaboration, may also encourage a change in direction. But what can we — residents, businesses, and
32 government — do pow, to make the "Community Choices" scenario a reality? Positive steps include:
33 • Support implementation and enforcement of policies that manage growth. For example:
34 • Enforce access management along roadways classified as principle arterials and greater.
Communities in Motion 3/16/2006 5
Summary DRAFT
1 • Create transportation plans for the local systems within each city (sub -area transportation
2 plans).
3 • Develop and enforce regulations, inter -agency agreements, and other growth tools;
4 • Place infrastructure — schools, water, sewer, roads — where the community wants growth to go;
5 • Fund capital improvements (roads, transit, pathways, and other facilities);
6 • Find innovative funding sources. Move away from dependence on federal funds for large
7 projects.
8 • Obtain legislative approval of a local -option tax mechanism for expanded transit services and
9 win voter approval of the local option taxes; and
10 ■ Recognize that residents play a role in guiding development.
11
12 Final Thoughts
13 A plan is not a solution in itself. Rather it provides the community a destination and a broad set of
14 instructions on how to get there. Through Communities in Motion public outreach sessions over a
16
18 create a future in which there is open space, well-defined
20 communities, a choice of housing, and effective
22 opportunities for public transportation, walking and biking.
24
26 To reach these goals involves investing in transportation,
28 considering the design of our transportation systems, and
30 integrating transportation and land use decisions. The
32 adoption of Communities in Motion is not our destination;
34 rather it is the start of our journey.
36
38
39
40
41 T:\FY06\600 Projects\661 CIM \11-FinalReports\SummaryFINAL.doc
three-year period, citizens told us loud and clear to change the way this region grows. The intent is to
Communities in Motion 3/16/2006 6
Introduction DRAFT
i INTRODUCTION
2 Metropolitan Planning
3 The Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) plays an important role in making
4 decisions about future transportation needs in the Treasure Valley. COMPASS members consider
5 environmental and economic factors that affect the quality of life of area residents when making decisions
7 about transportation.
9 As an association of local governments working together to plan
11 for the future of the region, COMPASS members set pnonties for
13 spending federal transportation dollars over the next twenty-five
15 years. The agency conducts this work as the metropolitan planning
17 organization (MPO) for Northern Ada County' and the Nampa
19 Urbanized Areaz. The federal government requires the formation
21 of an MPO when an urban area reaches 50,000 people. COMPASS
23 has served as the MPO for Northern Ada County since 1977 and
25 the Nampa Urbanized Area since early 2003. The entire planning
27 area became a "Transportation Management Area" when the
29 population exceeded 200,000 in 2000. This designation results in
31 additional requirements for COMPASS to satisfy federal
33 regulations, including a Congestion Management System.
� 35 The federal government requires
that an MPO, such as COMPASS,
prepare a regional long-range
transportation plan for its planning
area. Communities in Motion is the
title given to the regional long-
range transportation plan for Ada County and Canyon County. Communities in
Motion also serves as a transportation planning document for the Idaho
48 Transportation Department (ITD) for the regional and state transportation
COMPASS Membership
General Members
Ada County
Ada County Highway District
Canyon County
Canyon Highway District #4
City of Boise
City of Caldwell
City of Eagle
City of Garden City
City of Kuna
City of Meridian
City of Middleton
City of Nampa
City of Notus
City of Parma
City of Star
Golden Gate Highway District #3
Nampa Highway District #1
Notus-Parma Highway District #2
Special Members
Boise State University
Capital City Development Corporation
Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality
Idaho Transportation Department
Independent School District of Boise
Joint School District #2
Valley Regional Transit
Ex Officio
Central District Health
Office of the Governor
Greater Boise Auditorium District
49 system in the counties of Boise, Elmore, Gem, and Payette. The partnership of ITD enabled true regional
50 planning in Southwest Idaho
Northern Ada County is the arca north of the "Boise Base Line." The invisible line runs across the county west to east
approximately seven miles south of Kuna.
2
Nampa Urbanized Area is comprised of the Cities of Nampa, Caldwell, and Middleton, as well as small parts of Canyon County.
The U.S. Census Bureau designates urbanized areas.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 1
Introduction DRAFT
2 About the Area
4 Boise is the capital of Idaho, and the largest metropolitan area in the state. The
6 six -county region had an estimated population of 504,000 in 2002 — over one-
third of the entire state's population of 1.3 million.'
Capitol Building - Boise Ioahol 7
18
Even though the region is the most populous in the state, there is still a sense of
remoteness about Southwest Idaho. Most everything a large city offers is
available, although at a different scale. Seattle has the Mariners; Boise has the
Hawks (A-level baseball). Denver has the Avalanche; Boise has the Steelheads
(AA -level hockey). Portland has the Trailblazers; Boise has the Stampede (the
19 level of basketball just below the National Basketball Association). Sports fans support these vital minor
20 league teams and often enjoy the smaller scale.
21
22 The region offers cultural activities featuring exceptional talent...and usually better seating! Professional
23 theater, ballet, philharmonic, opera, and modern dance companies have tremendous following. The Morrison
24 Center stands alone between Salt Lake City and Portland/Seattle markets as a premier performance hall for
25 touring Broadway shows and a "soft seat" presentation venue. A wide variety of galleries support the visual
26 arts, while museums offer exhibition and education on historical and cultural topics. Boise is known in the
28 Intermountain West as a city of
30 museums and cultural centers,
32 including those that recognize Basque,
34 Hispanic, and African American Washington�.�.
36 cultural influences in the state. Visitors
38 will also find cultural organizations Oreg." Edge' Idaho
„,9
Western Region -- Idaho's Bordering States
40 dedicated to visual art, hands-on
42 science, military history, human rights,
44 and zoology. Nampa's Idaho Center Nevada Utah
46 brings in major concerts of all genres,
48 and the Nampa Civic Center is a fine
Communities in Motion Study Area
50 theatrical and performance venue.
52
53 Outdoor activities such as skiing, hiking, hunting, and camping abound in the rural areas, and many golf
54 courses exist throughout the region.
55
i Detailed Census data (Census Darr.xls) for the six -county region by county is available.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 2
2
4
6
8
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Introduction DRAFT
To reach a city that offers larger -scale entertainment, museums, and popular
shopping establishments, however, one must travel a great distance. For example,
to attend the nearest big -league professional baseball and football games, a major
museum, or have multiple shopping opportunities, one would go to Seattle,
Portland, or Salt Lake City, all a full-day drive.
Housing and Transportation
Housing issues facing the region are complex, but not unique to
the region. Many Treasure Valley communities are new; some
cities have seen two-thirds of their housing built since 1990.
Decaying infrastructure, including streets, is not the challenge
that older communities may face, but the rapid expansion of low
density development means that few existing areas support
effective public transportation. A United States Census survey
shows that nearly 90% of the region's housing has been built since 1950 (see table below). Much of this
development does not include pedestrian connections to jobs, shopping, and service centers. Strong
downtown areas exist in few of the region's cities. Opportunities to alter the future of the region exist—both
for new development and redevelopment of existing areas. One national expert notes that by 2030, nearly
half of the buildings in the United States will have been built since 2000. Our region will see at least this
proportion. When asked if it is too late to effect a new vision of our future, a planning consultant a said that
this is the ideal time to start.
How Many Miles is it
From Southwest Idaho
to...
Portland = 430
Salt Lake City = 440
Sacramento = 550
Denver = 830
Seattle = 500
"To accommodate growth to 2030, I estimate
that the U.S. will construct 50% more residential
units and 90% more nonresidential space than
existed in 2000...Assuming these projections
hold, why should we be interested in them? They
show that, for those who fear we cannot change
current development patterns, there is hope."
Arthur C. Nelson. FAICP Planner's Estimating Guide
Projecting Land -Use and Facility Needs. 2004
Percentage of Housing
Built Since 1990
Built Since 1980
Built Since 1950
jh
17% 25% 34%
33% 38% 48%
78% 82% 89%
4,2
mV
Eo o �o
Wv �v 0. c...)
31% 32% 20% 24% 21%
56% 42% 31% 33% 30%
92% 82% 87% 77% 74%
CC
32%
45%
87%
Source: US Bureau of the Census Table H34 Year Structure Built Universe: Housing units. Data Set• Census 2 )00
Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data
Does the Housing Future Look Bright?
2006 Western Region Economic Forecast
' John Frcgonesc was a member of the consultant team that worked on Communities in Motion. Fregonese has been a planner for 25
years, where he has earned the reputation of creating both a vision and workable solutions to urban problems.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 3
Introduction DRAFT
1 Employment and Transportation
2 The six -county region had approximately 285,800 jobs in August 20055. Most of these jobs (63%) are located
3 in Ada County. This "jobs/housing imbalance" ratio will be discussed in detail later in the plan. The
4 imbalance is caused when people need to travel long distances from home to work. The transportation
5 system works much better when adequate jobs are available dose to where people live, creating shorter y!
6 commute distances.
7
8 Demographers expect an additional 192,500 jobs in the region by 2030. Communities in Motion anticipates that
9 jobs will be spread more equitably throughout the six -county region, thus creating the opportunity for people
10 to live closer to where they work — creating better balance in jobs and housing.
11
12 The challenge facing this region, similar to many rapid growth areas around the U.S., is that new jobs may
13 result in escalating housing prices and land values. Many workers, especially those with lower wages, may not
14 be able to find a home near their place of employment. The housing they can afford is much further from
15 their job sites, thereby driving up commuting costs and demands on existing transportation facilities. One
16 example of this phenomenon is in Silicon Valley, near San Jose, California. Fueled by the technology boom in
17 the 1980s and 1990s, housing costs spiraled upward, with fairly modest older homes costing $1 million. This
18 caused many workers to face commutes of up to two hours from surrounding communities. In turn, these
19 workers displaced lower paid residents m those communities.
20
21 These side effects have stimulated a growing interest in the concept of a "jobs/housing balance." It also
22 created an awareness of the need to monitor the affordability of housing and suggests requiring a mix of
23 housing types and costs in larger developments. What happens to a community when its teachers, police
24 officers, and mechanics can no longer afford to buy homes in the community where they work?
25
26 In addition to the people who live and work in Southwest Idaho, many people also pass through the region.
27 Interstate -84 is the major east/west freeway through Southwest Idaho, and is the main route for people or
28 products to get from major shipping cities such as Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland to locations to the
29 Intermountain West and beyond. High-speed connecting roads are otherwise scarce in Idaho.
5 Idabo Emplojment, A monthly new.rktter ofldabo Commerce & Labor, October 2005 Issue/August 2005 Data, page 15.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 4
Introduction DRAFT
1 Assumptions
2 To develop Communities in Motion, planners established baseline information with assumptions. For this
3 purpose, an "assumption" is defined as: taking a fact, notion or idea for granted; thus, the plan "assumes"
4 certain things about the future. These assumptions for the year 2030 include:
5 • The Treasure Valley will continue to experience high levels of growth.
6 • Water will remain available.
7 • Most automobiles will continue to have gasoline/diesel engines.
8 • Fuel prices will fluctuate, but will not rise beyond what people are willing to pay.
9 • Fuel taxes will remain stable and will continue to be used for roadways.
10 • Residents in the Treasure Valley will use transit choices as they become available.
11 • Expansion of the transit system will be in the "illustrative" category, which means it is not funded.
12 Legislation is needed for local funding for expanded transit services.
13 • Federal funding for both roadways and transit will remain stable for capital purchases through new
14 iterations of the transportation bill. Any federal reductions for transit operating costs will be offset
15 by local general revenues from the local governments within Ada County and Canyon County.
16 • Jobs will be dispersed throughout the region.
17 • Parking will become less available and more expensive.
18
19 Elements
20 Communities in Motion links community goals and desires — as developed in public workshops, open houses,
21 and other public comment opportunities -- to create the foundation of the plan. This foundation is created
22 with two structural elements -- "Community Choices" and Regional Corridors. The first element,
23 "Community Choices," is the scenario for land use and transportation that emerged from public workshops
24 and was adopted by the COMPASS Board in December 2005. The name reflects choice in housing types
25 (single family, multi -family, town homes, zero lot line homes, condominiums, and large lot) and in
26 transportation modes (automobile, transit options, bike lanes, and walking paths).
27
28 The second element is Regional Corridors. With a much larger planning area than past plans, Communities in
29 Motion analyzes transportation systems at the regional corridor level. Communities in Motion identifies four
30 goals, which support the issues that the community identified as important, and builds on "Community
31 Choices" and Regional Corridors. The matrix links the goals and issues.
32
33
34
35
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 5
Introduction
Matrix of Key Issues as Related to Goals
Goals
Connections - Provide options for safe
access and mobility in a cost-effective
manner.
Coordination - Achieve better inter -
jurisdictional coordination of
transportation and land use planning..
Environmental - Minimize transportation
impacts to people, cultural resources,
and the environment.
Information - Coordinate data gathering
and dispense better Information.
Issues
Balance and
0
O
.., a, C) O u
O c 4 O t 2,
T v o U" v 0
ti
X X
X X
X X
x X
DRAFT
N
Land Developed
X
X
X
X
X
1
2 Addressing these goals and issues will result in open space, infill and redevelopment, choices in housing types
3 that are currently not available, a much expanded transit system and other alternatives to the automobile, and
4 jobs/housing balance. You will find more details on these implications in the chapters of this plan.
6
8 Expectations "Big results require big
ambitions.' Heraclitus
10 The region is planning for rapid growth over the next twenty-five years. To
11 give a sense of scale, in 2030 the six -county area will likely attract the additional population and employment
12 equivalent of two new Boise cities or three new Canyon Counties, growing from the 2000 population of
13 504,000 to 978,000. Given this anticipated increase, COMPASS needs to meet the challenges of our future
14 transportation system while preserving our quality of life and open spaces — two areas of concern to both
15 elected officials and local residents. The planning process analyzed these concerns, as well as many others.
16
17 Communities rn Motion offers a detailed summary, a description of the process, and results. Links throughout
18 the electronic document provide more technical and detailed information.
19
20
21
22
23 T:\FY06\600 Projects\661 CIM\11-FinalReports\INTRODUCTION.doc
24
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 6
Chapter 2 - Defining the Vision DRAFT
1 CHAPTER 2 -- DEFINING THE VISION
2
3 Where do we want to be in 2030?
4
5 Planning for the future — to 2030 and beyond — requires a regional, rather than a local, view. Regions include
6 urban, suburban, and rural communities clustered in one area. Southwest Idaho is a region comprised of
7 unique cities and towns, yet all rely on a regional labor force, and count on a regional transportation system to
8 move the people and materials involved in the regional economy. A regional infrastructure keeps the bridges,
9 roads, and sewers intact and functioning.1 Many people no longer spend their entire day in one place. They
10 work, shop, and attend recreation events throughout Southwest Idaho. Communities that act alone will not
11 solve regional transportation demands. And, with limited funding available, communities need to collaborate
12 to ensure that transportation systems function effectively; transportation projects in one community make the
13 regional system stronger. Where do we want to be in 2030? This chapter provides the backbone of the vision
14 for Communities in Motion as well as the strategies, goals, and tasks to get there.
15
16 Vision and Goals
17 Early in the planning process, the COMPASS Board articulated the following vision for Communities
18 in Motion:
19 We envision a Treasure Valley where quality of life is enhanced and communities are connected by an innovative,
20 e�ective, multi -modal transportation rystem. Board of Directors, October 2003
21 The vision of Communities in Motion reiterates a commitment to regional planning, and supports a belief that
23 each community should keep a unique identity.
General Goals
25—
Guiding Principles for
land use 27
• Plan for growth & share„§
benefits and costs LL
• Facilitate growth in citie1
& areas of impact to JJ
efficiently use public 32
infrastructure
• Promote economic vita�3
& housing choices For a
residents while retaininB4
natural beauty
• Support a successful 35
central city to maintain
regional economic hear
and vitality
• Coordinate transportation
and land use decisions to
support travel choices
plan were established several months later. Connections
Goals for the
Coordination
Four broad goals emerged from a series of "community Environment
Information
cafes" with local residents. A technical working group then
examined the goals and crafted core objectives and tasks to reach the vision.
When COMPASS and the Idaho Transportation Department extended the
boundaries of the plan in early 2004, the original goals remained as the
underlying theme of what residents want for the region.
11ui1}iam Hudnut, "Working Together to Plan for the Future, May 17, 2004.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 1
Chapter 2 - Defining the Vision DRAFT
1 In addition to a vision, goals, and objectives, COMPASS worked closely with the Blueprint for Good Growth2
2 (for Ada County) project to identify "guiding principles" for land use. These guiding principles will help make
3 the transportation goals a reality by better linking land use with transportation. Since land use decisions are
4 under the governance of member agencies, their support of the principals and goals help ensure
5 implementation of the preferred scenario, "Community Choices."
6
7 COMPASS will report annually on the progress of "Community Choices" throughout the region in the
8 annual Development Monitoring Report;_ This report includes data about building permits and the location
9 of new development. After Communities in Motion is approved, the Development Monitoring Report will also
10 include information about how much progress the region is making towards the goals and objectives in
11 Communities in Motion, as well as the "Community Choices" land use scenario.
12
13 The Goals Defined
14 This section is the "backbone" of the plan. Strategies are statements that the COMPASS Board agrees with
15 and will base future decisions upon. Goals need to be accomplished as a region. The objectives and tasks
16 offer detail of how the region will complete and measure the goals. The following strategies, goals, objectives,
17 and tasks provide the "road map" with the Board's vision as the destination.
18
19 Certain terms have varying meanings to different people. To alleviate confusion, we have provided the
20 following definitions for clarification:
21
22 Definitions
23 In order to make progress on the plan, COMPASS staff needed agreement from the Board on certain issues.
24 These are the statements that the Board adopted on December 19, 2005.
25 Strategies — Strategies are the basic directional decisions to guide a plan. The policy level decisions by
26 the COMPASS Board that guide the direction of the regional long-range transportation plan.
27 Goals — The broad and general goals of the plan. A goal is the end toward which effort is directed.
28 There are four goals.
2 Focusing and sustaining the growth is the aim of the Ada County Land Use and Transportation Guide Plan, or B6reprint for Good Growth - an attempt
to create efficient and beneficial development. The Ada County Consortium is a partnership of governments in charge of local land use and roadway
planning. Ada County, the Ada County Highway District, Boise City, Eagle, Garden City, Meridian, Kuna, Star and the Idaho Transportation
Department. The partners want to better coordinate land use and transportation planning to ensure that growth is orderly and beneficial for the
community's continued prosperity and quality of life. More details are available on the B/areprint for Good Growth website:
jtnp://ww'v.blucprintforgoodfrowth.con
3 Development Monitoring Report URL: hitp://www.comnassidaho.org/renorts.htral
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 2
Chapter 2 - Defining the Vision DRAFT
1 Objectives — A more detailed breakdown of specific areas of the goals. Aim, goal, end of action — a
2 strategic position to be attained.
3 Tasks — The specific ways in which the objectives are carried out. Tasks also describe who is
4 assigned to do the work. These should be measurable.
5
6 Strategies (Accepted by COMPASS Board)
7 1. "Community Choices" is the preferred growth and transportation scenario.
8 2. The "Trend" scenario will be maintained for comparison in the Growth Monitoring Report.
9 3. The Growth Monitoring Report will track comprehensive plan changes as well as building and
10 subdivision activity.
11 4. A 50% split of funding between Operations/Maintenance and Capital Improvements is acceptable
12 pending subsequent annual reviews to determine pavement, bridge, safety and equipment standards.
13 5. Maintenance and safety of the transportation system are highest priority when considering funding
14 allocations. -
15 6. The Board recognizes the need to secure new funding for the transportation system the highest
16 priority.
17 7. A longer-term growth analysis is appropriate to consider issues beyond 2030.
18 8. Performance standards, including Levels of Service, may vary depending on a corridor's context (e.g.,
19 a downtown area versus a suburban area).
20
21 Goals/Objectives/Tasks
22 Goal 1: Connections
23 o i eo tions o s e ess n mo i it in ost e e ti e m nne int e e ion
24
25 Objective 1.1. - Maintain the existing transportation infrastructure to provide an interconnected transportation
26 system for the movement of people and goods.
27 Task 1.1.1 — COMPASS will develop criteria for scoring projects for the Transportation
28 Improvement Program with the highest priority for projects that provide for maintenance, safety,
29 existing system efficiency (such as Intelligent Transportation System), or preservation. These
30 priorities are based on the 50% funding levels for operations and maintenance projects.
31 Task 1.1.2 — COMPASS will identify major destinations (cities, regional centers, and economic
32 activity centers) that are poorly served by the existing transportation system.
33
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 3
Chapter 2 - Defining the Vision DRAFT
1 Objective 1.2 — Expand capacity of the transportation system with improvements to existing facilities and
2 services or construction of new facilities and services to relieve congested corridors and traffic bottlenecks
3 and to ensure a connected regional system.
4 Task 1.2.1 — Member agencies with roadway jurisdiction will identify project elements and designs
5 that promote system connectivity, relieve congestion, and reduce bottlenecks.
6 Task 1.2.2 — Member agencies with roadway jurisdiction will identify project elements and designs
7 that encourage use of high -occupancy vehicles or other alternative modes of transportation.
8 Task 1.2.3 — Member agencies with land use authority will identify development elements and
9 associated policies that enhance the long-term efficiencies of encouraging high -occupancy vehicles.
10 Task 1.2.4 —Member agencies, with COMPASS support, will identify treatments for each regionally
11 important corridor, such as access management, special intersection designs, Intelligent
12 Transportation System, and land use access policies.
13 task 1.2.5 — COMPASS will include criteria in the prioritization methodology for the plan and the
14 Transportation Improvement Program to meet this objective.
15 Task 1.2.6 — COMPASS, through the long-range plan and subsequent studies, will identify corridors
16 where bus or other high occupancy vehicle treatments or services are desired. This identification
17 process will be coordinated with Valley Regional Transit and appropriate local and state
18 governments.
19 Task 1.2.7 — COMPASS, through the long-range plan, will identify corridors where existing or
20 forecasted congestion would impair the effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle treatment or
21 services.
22 Task 1.2.8 — COMPASS will identify gaps in the existing transportation system.
23
24 Objective 1.3 — Develop and provide transportation alternatives to the single -occupancy vehicle that achieve
25 an average of 5% of all trips.
26 Task 1,3.1 — Member agencies will provide to COMPASS the status of adoption of comprehensive
27 plans, particularly the transportation element of those plans, and new ordinances proposed through
28 Blueprint for Good Growth in Ada County or in Canyon County, new ordinances that support the use o
29 public transportation alternatives through land use and transportation decisions.
30 Task 1.12 — COMPASS will support Valley Regional Transit and member agencies in planning for
31 alternative transportation options.
32 Task 1.3.3 — COMPASS and Valley Regional Transit will plan a transit system with travel times on
33 bus routes no more than twice the travel times for comparable automobile travel times.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 4
Chapter 2 - Defining the Vision DRAFT
1 Task 1.3.4 — COMPASS and Valley Regional Transit will plan a transit system with travel times on
2 fixed -guideway (rail and Bus Rapid Transit) facilities during peak hours with no more than one and a
3 half times the travel time of an automobile during off-peak hours.
4 Task 1.3.5 — COMPASS will continue to update the bike path map in cooperation with local
5 agencies. This pathways map will be expanded to include Canyon County.
6
7 Objective 1.4 — Maximize funding sources for transportation system improvements and maintenance.
8 Task 1.4.1 — Member agencies will aid the efforts to obtain funding sources by evaluating their use of
9 existing funding sources, developing innovative methods of funding and supporting regional efforts.
10 task 1.4.2, — COMPASS and member agencies will work with state and federal elected officials and
11 other sources to provide funding for transportation projects identified in the plan.
12 Task 1.4.3 — COMPASS will develop a plan for developing new efforts to seek additional funding
13 sources, including existing funding tools currently not being used.
14 Task 1.4.4 — COMPASS will compile information on the efficiency/effectiveness of existing tiV•
-
15 expenditures to use in reporting to citizens and/or federal, state, and local elected officials. dd'(.�
16 Thiae
—
meA .
17 Obiective 1.5 — Develop a method allowing modeling of peak -hour traffic with multiple modes.
18 Task 1.5.1 — COMPASS will continue improvements to the transportation model to include better
19 information on peak -hour travel with multiple modes for better analysis of transportation system
20 needs.
21
22 Objective 1.6 — Approach programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations and project
23 development activities and products in a "context sensitive" manner.
24 task 1.6.1 — Member agencies will consider automobile, mass transit, walking, bicycling,
25 environmental and aesthetic issues when and where appropriate. A ,, h
26 Task 1.6.2 — COMPASS will develop a guidebook on context sensitive design to aid land use an I`iib
27 transportation decision makers and create a "regional vocabulary" on context sensitive design. CS
28
29 Objective 1.7 — Preserve freight travel as a priority in order to ensure the Treasure Valley's economic
30 competitiveness.
31 Task 1.7.1 - COMPASS will conduct a study to identify freight issues in the Treasure Valley.
32 Task 1.7.2 - COMPASS will work with ITD to identify and inventory regional and statewide freight
33 flows.
34 Task 1.7.3 - COMPASS will convene a work group of freight interests to assist in these activities.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Chapter 2 - Defining the Vision DRAFT
Task 1.7.4 — COMPASS will identify key freight origins and destinations to create a set of data for
use in future plans and projects.
Task 1.7.5 — COMPASS will research ways that freight data ties with economic development for use
in future plans and projects.
Goal 2: Coordination
ie e ette ince u is i tion oo in tion o t ns o t tion n n use nnin
Qliective 21. — Provide guidance to local governments regarding how land use plans and policies can
implement the vision of Communities in Motion.
Task 2.1.1 — Member agencies will assess and modify their comprehensive plans and ordinances o
support and be consistent with the preferred growth and transportation scenario envisioned under
"Community Choices."
Task 2.1.2 — COMPASS will develop scoring criteria for the Transportation Improvement Program
that provides for higher priorities for transportation projects and programs serving needs of the
cities, regional centers, regionally important corridors and economic activity centers and lower
priorities for transportation projects and programs elsewhere. Transportation Improvement
Program funds will be programmed for projects that support the "Community Choices" growth
scenario.
Task 2.1.3 — Member agencies will develop their ordinances and comprehensive plans, particularly \oho
the transportation element of those plans, in coordination with COMPASS and local transportation °^a l
agencies, as well as provide draft amendments of their comprehensive plans to COMPASS and local i
transportation agencies for analysis and recommendation. OtiSAtreed
lOW GUIS
PA- &Old
Task 2.14 — COMPASS will establish a sub -committee of the Regional Technical Advisory
Committee to evaluate comprehensive plan amendments for their consistency with the vision of
Communities in Motion and Blueprint for Good Growth in Ada County and provide a recommendation to
„......241
the agency for consideration.
Tittgimi
built �11�tis
Inappest
titoux4
4,eetcud
YVkaunnaX-
Objective 2.2 — Determine cumulative effects of decisions on the transportation infrastructure system.
Task 2.2.1 — Member agencies will share transportation financial data, as requested, on an annual
basis in order for COMPASS to maintain an accurate and up-to-date financial report for future
updates to the regional long-range transportation plan.
Communities in Motion
3/10/2006 6
Chapter 2 - Defining the Vision DRAFT
1 Task 2.2.2 — COMPASS will track conditions on the existing transportation system including
2 maintenance and safety issues based on data from pavement, bridge and safety management systems
3 provided by local agencies.
4 Task 2.2.3 — COMPASS will continue to develop and monitor the Congestion Management System.
5 Traffic count and travel time will be monitored and reported on an annual basis.
6 Task 2.2.4 — COMPASS will track the cumulative transportation demand based on existing, approved
7 and preliminary development.
8 Task 2.21— Member agencies will be responsible for tracking the cumulative demand of
9 development on all other infrastructure facilities in their jurisdictions.
10
11 Objective 2.3 — Provide choices for travel in the region and service special access needs for all people,
12 including youth, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and persons of varying economic status.
13 Task 2.3.1 — COMPASS and Valley Regional Transit will identify destinations that are more critical to
14 the specified population groups.
15 Task 2.3.2 — COMPASS and Valley Regional Transit will conduct a study to learn the overall effects
16 of the transportation network for minority and low-income populations.
17 Task 2.3.3 — COMPASS will work with federal, state and local agencies to improve information on
18 the residential location of specified population groups.
19 Task 2.3.4 — COMPASS will incorporate forecasts of these population groups in future demographic
20 forecasts.
21
22 Goal 3: Environment
23 Minimi e t ns o t tion im is to eo e u to esou es n t e en i onment
24
25 Obiective 3.1 —Consider the environment during the planning phase. T,
* 12f-16(4-VI/IA
26 Task 3.1.1 — COMPASS will research ways that environmental issues can be discovered during the '-ii, to
27 planning phase of projects for use in assessing future plans and corridors.
28 Task 3.1.2 — COMPASS will develop a strategy to coordinate with environmental agencies on futur kriVASP"1
29 planning efforts.
30
31 Objective 3.2 — Develop and facilitate transportation -related air quality management strategies that are
32 voluntary, innovative, and proactive.
33 Task 3.2.1 — COMPASS will research and recommend air quality management strategies to the
34 COMPASS Board.
Communities in Motion
3/10/2006 7
Chapter 2 — Defining the Vision DRAFT
1 Task 3.2.2 — COMPASS will consider the Treasure Valley Air Quality Council's recommendations as
2 related to the transportation system.
3
4 Objective 3.3 — Develop method to analyze proposed corridors to avoid negative impacts in environmental
5 justice consideration areas.
6 Task 3.3.1 — COMPASS will develop a policy to provide meaningful input regarding environmental
7 justice into the planning process.
8
9 Goal 4: Information
10 Coo in to t t e in n is ense ette in o m tion
11
12 Objective 4.1 — Develop innovative methods to involve the public in transportation planning.
13 Task 4.1.1 — COMPASS will use the Public Participation Committee to develop and improve public
14 involvement methods in transportation planning.
15
16 Objective 4.2 — Provide a method to present the transportation model in a way that citizens can understand
17 the analysis.
18 Task 4.2,1 — COMPASS will work with the Public Participation Committee to develop materials that
19 present the model, its inputs, uses and limitations.
20
21 Objective 4.3 — Promote dialogue about land use and transportation throughout the region.
22 Task 4.34. — COMPASS will work with Valley Regional Transit, Commuteride, and member agencies
23 to design a program to educate residents and employers about alternative transportation options.
24 Task 4.3.2 — COMPASS will continue to sponsor an educational series to the general public on
25 planning and growth issues.
26
27 Objective 4.4 — Develop systems to evaluate the progress of all goals, objectives, and tasks.
28 Task 4.4.1 — Member agencies will provide annual maintenance, safety ('including accidents reports
29 and security information), and system expansions for reporting purposes and will develop a system to
30 record and monitor data. The system will include data for transit and pathways.
31 Task 4.4.2 — COMPASS will produce an annual monitoring report that provides information on
32 maintenance and connections issues across the region.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 8
Chapter 2 - Defining the Vision DRAFT
1 Task 4.4.3 —COMPASS will prepare an annual monitoring report that also summarizes progress
2 toward achieving alternative transportation objectives. Progress will be measured by the following
3 factors:
4 a. Residential numbers and densities along key transit routes and within a quarter to a half
5 mile of potential fixed -guideway stations.
6 b. Total numbers and percentages of housing built at transit -supportive densities (eight
7 plus units per acre) by jurisdiction.
8 c. Transit supply (service miles and hours) normalized by population.
9 d. Vanpool supply (number of routes and service miles)
10 e. Number and percentage of housing units built within walking distance of major
11 attractors (job sites, service/retail centers, recreation sites, etc.)
12 f. Employment numbers and percentages within a quarter to a half mile of potential fixed -
13 guideway stations and transit routes.
14 g. Miles of roadway with sidewalks (0, 1, 2 sides) and bike paths. Inventories of sidewalks
15 and bike paths will be a priority for future funding.
16 h. Expenditures by mode (roadway, transit, bike/walking).
17 i. Status of actions to seek funding.
18 j. Usage factors (vehide miles of travel, congestion indices, transit ridership,
19 carpool/vanpool ridership, park and ride lots) where available.
20 k. Local government amendments to comprehensive plans and land use ordinances in
21 support of the desired land use pattern.
22 Task 4.4.4 — COMPASS will maintain the "Trend" scenario for annual comparisons as part of the
23 Development Monitoring Report.
24
25 Tying the Issues to the Goals
26 The following matrix was presented in the Introduction of this plan. More details about these issues follow
27 the table.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 9
Chapter 4 - Designing the Future DRAFT
1 CHAPTER 4 -- DESIGNING THE FUTURE
2
3 Land Use in the Treasure Valley: Two Visions of the Future
4
5 Land use and transportation go hand-in-hand. Which factor leads depends on the individual's point
6 of view. Land use was the "driving factor" when developing Communities in Motion. Land use scenarios
7 were developed primarily for Ada County and Canyon County, since these two counties have the
8 largest populations and greatest anticipated growth. These scenarios also considered the affects of
9 growth in the Partnering Counties (Boise, Elmore, Gem, Payette) on the regional transportation
10 network. Although land use was the driving factor for this plan, transportation issues are the focus.
11
12 Communities in Motion considered future transportation needs by developing the "Community
14 Choices" scenario for the regional long-range transportation plan and using "Trend" for comparison.
16 "Community Choices" emerged from the "Satellite Cities" and "Corridor" scenarios National
Traffic
18 from the February 2005 community workshops. It may take several years for Factoids
20 "Community Choices" development patterns to take hold, primarily because different
21 land use patterns occur through new ordinances and amendments to comprehensive plans. The
22 COMPASS Board concurred with the need to understand implications of the "Trend" scenario.
23 Therefore, "Trend" illustrates near-term development patterns until legal changes are enacted and
24 accepted by the marketplace.
25
26 "Trend" continues the general pattern of growth in the region, which has been predominantly low -
27 density residential and office/commercial uses, with transportation networks designed exclusively for
28 the private automobile. "Community Choices" keeps the majority of new development within areas
29 of city impacts and focuses both housing and employment development along the rail and State
30 Highway 44 (State Street) corridors. "Community Choices" develops 83,000 less acres of land than
31 "Trend" because it introduces higher housing densities, creating more housing choices. This style of
32 development supports alternative modes of transportation such as transit, walking, or biking.
33
34
35
36
37
1 Area of City Impact is a requirement of state law requiring a land use plan that not only plans for the area within the city's
legal boundaries, but also plans for areas outside of the city's legal boundaries that are still in the unincorporated area of the
county and have not yet been annexed into the city. Officially negotiated areas of city impact are necessary prerequisite for
cities to annex adjacent properties.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 1
l
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Chapter 4 — Designing the Future DRAFT
Comparisons
"Trend"
"Community Choices"
Transportation
Implications
• Consumes 125,000 acres
• Growth continues on current
open space
• 20% of development supports
alternative transportation
• Jobs and housing remain
scattered
• Limited options for alternative
transportation
• Allows some development that
supports transit
• Generates one million more
vehicle miles of travel per day
(21 million total VMT per day)
• More growth in currently
undeveloped areas
• Less choice for housing types
• Jobs and services remain
separate and often distant
• Automobile dependence
• More personal time used to
travel
• Consumes 42,000 acres (2/3
less land than "Trend")
• Offers more diversified housing
types
• Keeps jobs and housing closer
together
• Supports alternative
transportation through higher
density and proximity of
housing to jobs, goods and
services. (52% of development
supports alternative
transportation)
• Preserves more open space
• Encourages infill and
redevelopment in currently
developed areas, requiring
attention to design
• More housing choices to better
reflect the needs of future
population smaller
households, older population
• Better opportunity for
alternative transportation,
including transit (not as
dependent on automobiles)
• Promotes jobs and services
closer to neighborhoods
• Less personal time in the car
The Plan for Future Corridors
The Plan Coordination Team (PCT) developed a transportation system for each of the two land use
scenarios. For "Trend," the PCT analyzed the transportation deficiencies of the no -build system. The
highest deficiency roadways (more than 40% over capacity) appeared as red lines on the map (see
Chapter 2, page 12). The PCT took the "Visine" approach — get the red outl Land use patterns in
the "Trend" scenario dictated that public transportation was not a viable option; therefore, it was
anticipated that the transit system would remain much as it is today. The "Trend" transportation
system is not included within the plan since it is for comparison purposes only. However, the
information is available through this LINK.
The PCT developed the transportation system for "Community Choices" by making transit the
priority and planning roadway improvements that will enhance the transit system. Surprisingly, the
roadway system for "Community Choices" is very similar to the one for "Trend," although some
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 2
Chapter 4 — Designing the Future DRAFT
1 roadways were not widened to the extent they were under the "Trend" scenario. Additional
2 congestion is considered more acceptable in the compact areas — just as any major city experiences
3 congestion in their compact development areas. The "Community Choices" roadway system can be
4 viewed as a "sub -set" of the "Trend" roadway system. The "Community Choices" transit system,
5 however, is more than ten times the size of the "Trend" transit system. The federal government
6 requires that long-range transportation plans be fiscally constrained. In addition, we do not have
7 enough funding to build an un -congested roadway network; the reality is that there is not enough
8 money to pay for the desired transportation networks, whether "Trend" or "Community Choices,"
9 without finding new revenue sources.
10
11 Unfortunately, the transit system in the Treasure Valley will not improve much beyond what we have
12 today without a local funding source. If the region wants an efficient transit network, and local
13 elected officials support this vision for the future, the Idaho Legislature must aid the region in
14 finding a way to pay for the system.
15
16 After the transportation system for the "Community Choices" scenario was developed, it was
17 modeled and mapped to show the forecasted deficiencies with all the improvements in place,
18 including expanded public transportation services. This `Build" deficiency map includes the projects
19 planned through FY 2009 as well as the entire new transportation system for "Community Choices,"
20 induding transit.
21
22
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 3
Chapter 4 - Designing the Future
2030 Community Choices Build
Unconstrained Roadway and Transit System
DRAFT
111
101C;. %Mi�ir ,��+ �iGw�i ..
■niimmo4r +�asi=sr=.":
■ r.u,s%r.'miiNiiiitii mmieZii;� �� •:
ocur,IR mmiu �-m-Inimarci;vmmusinimmemp:' rte.
Legend ••
Roadways At to 20% Over Capacity
Roadways 20% to 40%
Roadways 40% a mom over capacity
l'.
2030 Camunity Ctalee Budd
Vehicle Mlle or Trevel
Vehicle Han of Delay
% of System Under Capacity
%or System Ala Over Capacity
142.444
77.1%
22 9%
1 A more detailed map' can be viewed online
2 Detailed Deficiency Map URL: hare.c_cxnniuntnesmmtinnn.nrsi/env:dm-al
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 4
Chapter 4 — Designing the Future
2030 Trend No Build
2009 roadway and 2005 Bus System
DRAFT
NI
fi�lINIM_EIIIII•••111'-•u .\ e■
Legend
Roadways At to 20% Over Capacity
Roadways 20% to 40%
Roadways 40% or more over capac ty
2030 Trend No Build
Vehicle Mlles of Travel
Vehicle Hous or Delay
1 %of System Under Capacity
1 % or System Ata Over Capacity
1
23.499,2261
640.041 1 1 }
i =
45.5% (
:i■!NE■■: as ,
\.r /- Ute! 1
54.5% 1
A more detailed map' can be viewed online.
3 Assumptions for Corridors
4 A new concept for the regional plan was to look at transportation at the corndor level rather than at
5 a project level. Several items were assumed when developing the corridor list:
6 1. The split for roadway operations/maintenance and capital projects is 50/50.
7 2. The split for major capital and minor capital is 76/24 (approximately $2.2 billion for major
8 capital and $700 million for minor capital).
3. Minor operational projects such as improving a road to three -lanes, studies, and short
connections (one to two miles) will not be a part of the funding decision list. These will be
maintained in the plan as base assumptions.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
There are two types of capital improvements: major capital and minor capital. It was determined that
only the major capital comdors would be included specifically in the plan and prioritized. The minor
capital projects include intersections, traffic signals, shorter -length roadway projects, and safety
3 Detailed Deficiency Map URL: hip./ iwww.cominuninc,inmonon on, /maps .him]
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 5
Chapter 4 - Designing the Future DRAFT
1 projects. A map of some corridors, but not all that could be considered under the "minor" capital
2 category is available LINK.
3
4 How are corridors placed in priority?
5 Transportation needs outweigh existing revenues available to the region over the next twenty years.
6 Therefore, the planning team developed a process to guide the selection of corridors so that funds
7 could be spent where growth is desired and where the transportation benefits are highest. This
8 process will be used in the future to aid COMPASS and ITD in selecting projects for short-term
9 investments, i.e., those projects included in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)4 and
10 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)5. The selection and ranking process included a
11 variety of factors, including.
12 • Dollars per Vehicle Miles Traveled — the cost of improvements per vehicle mile traveled.
13 • Time Savings — potential time saved because of the improvements in hours.
14 • Connections — fills gaps in system, ties to transit spine, or connects barriers.
15 • Regionality — based on classification of roadway according to function: interstate, state highway,
16 principal arterial, or minor arterial.
17 • Growth Area — relation of the corridor to the growth areas in the "Community Choices" scenario.
18 • Percent of Regional Growth (x2) — percentage of the anticipated regional growth from 2005-2030.
19 • Transit (x2) — based on whether a roadway also has a regional transit route, a local transit route, or no
20 transit route.
21
22 These factors will be used in the project selection process during future TIP and STIP development. In
23 addition, other factors will be considered, including.
24 • Pavement and bridge sufficiency data for consideration in maintenance projects.
25 • Accident data for consideration in safety projects.
26 • Environmental issues that will help determine project readiness.
27 • Congestion Management System information on current system delays.
28 • Traffic operations issues, including project benefits as detour routes for other corridors during
29 construction.
30 • Existence of corridor management plans addressing access management and other land use policies.
31
32 One difficulty encountered in the prioritization process is the mix of corridors in Partnering Counties
33 (Boise, Elmore, Gem, and Payette) in the table. The Travel Demand Forecast Model cannot currently
34 provide useful information on corridor volumes, time savings, and other information to allow
35 comparison. Also, the "regional" funding pot is not really available for any corridor in the list. As the
4 The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a five-year approved list of priority transportation projects. The TIP
lists all projects for which federal funds are anticipated, along with non -federally funded projects that are regionally
significant. The list includes roadway and public transit projects.
5 The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is similar to a TIP, but includes all projects in the state of Idaho,
including those listed in the TIP.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 6
Chapter 4 — Designing the Future DRAFT
1 following table indicates, over half the local entity revenues are derived from local sources such as
2 property taxes, impact fees, and local option registration fees. Another 41% of the revenue is
3 obtained from the allocated state -collected revenues, primarily from the Highway Distribution
4 Account. Ada County and Canyon County have 87% of the local revenue. The Idaho Transportation
5 Department would have the balance of the estimated current $161 million available for roadways -
6 approximately $67 million per year.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total for Ada County
Total for Canyon County
Total for Boise County
Total for Elmore County
Total for Gem County
Total for Payette County
Regional Non•ITD
Federal Revenue
of Income
State Sources
% of Income
Net Local Sources
% of Income
Breakout of Regional Funding by County
2002 2003 2004 Average
$52,732,215
$16,661,956
$ 2,221,029
$ 4,657,049
$ 644,324
$ 3,018,916
$79,935,489
$ 4,009.972
5%
$34,649,710
43%
$41,275,807
52%
$53,044,690
$18,046,929
$ 1,752,432
$ 5,418,245
$ 1,820,432
$ 3,208,382
$83.291,110
$ 3,310,109
4%
$ 35,473,942
43%
$ 44,507,059
53%
$64,679,096 $56,818,667
$ 19,445,745 $18,051,543
$ 394,167 $ 1,455,876
$ 4,908,164 $ 4,994,486
$ 1,988,874 $ 1,484,543
$ 2,362,147 $ 2,863,148
$ 93,778,193 $85,668,264
$ 5,574,846 $ 4,298,309
6% 5%
$ 35,282,904 $35,135,519
38% 42%
$ 52,920,444 $46,234,436
56% 53%
of Funds by
County
66%
21%
2%
6%
2%
3%
Therefore, it is difficult to mix the Partnering County corridors into the total for a fair and
meaningful comparison. Of the $219 million in Partnering County corridors, $143 million are ITD
system corridors, including the Indian Valley and SH 16 corridors, which are part of the GARVEE
bonding proposal. The $2.22 billion funding referred to at the end of the table below includes all
funding across the region—local and ITD. The table assumes that all projects will be funded even if
one or more of the three non-ITD Partnering County corridors are to be funded. The available
funding has been reduced to account for growth in the local street and arterial street system.
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 7
)
Chapter 4 — Designing the Future DRAFT
ID
2
3
4
5
ADA AND CANYON COUNTIES - FUNDED
In Alphabetical Order
Corridor
Amity Road : Southside Blvd -Cloverdale Road. Widen from 2 lanes to 5
lanes.
Cherry Ln: Middleton Road -Ten Mile Road. Widen from 2 lanes to 5
lanes.
Cloverdale Road: Lake Hazel Road-Chinden Blvd. Widen from 2 lanes
to 5 lanes.
Fairview Ave.: Meridian Road -Orchard. Widen from 5 lanes to 7 lanes.
Franklin Road: Can Ada Road -Linder Road. Widen from 2 lanes to 5
lanes.
1-84• Cole/Overland IC -Gowen IC. Widen from 4 lanes to 8 lanes.
6 Includes interchange reconstruction at Orchard, Vista, Broadway and
Gowen
1-84: Exit 29 -Garrity IC Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes. Includes
7 reconstruction of Franklin and Nampa Blvd interchanges and existing
1 over/underpasses.
8 1-84: Future SH 16 Interchange: (vicinity of McDermott). Construct new
interchange with ramps to connect with Franklin.
9
11
12
1.84• Garrity IC -Meridian IC. Widen from 4 lanes to 8 lanes. Includes
reconstruction of Garrity interchange and existing over/underpasses.
Lake Hazel Road: Happy Valley - Eisenmann Road (including Gowen
Road Realignment)
McDermott Road: I -84 -Lake Hazel Road (including RR overpass at
Hubbard Road). Widen from 2 lanes to 5 lanes. Access management to
preserve future expressway.
Meridian Road: Waltman Dr-Ustick Road. Complete corridor
13 improvements to 5 lanes. Includes partial couplet involving Main Street
and Meridian Road.
SH 16: Ada/Gem line -I-84. Construct expressway with interchanges at
14 Chaparral, Beacon Light, SH 44, US 20/26, & Ustick Road.
Overpass/underpass at other roadways
15 SH 44: Exit 25 -Ballantyne Road. Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lane limited
access divided highway. Includes a new route through Middleton.
16 State Street/SH 55: (Eagle) to downtown Boise (Multi -Modal Center)
Ten Mile Road: Lake Hazel - Chinden Blvd. Widen from 2 lanes to 5
lanes.
17
18
Three Cities River Crossing: SH 44-Chinden Blvd. Construct new
roadway at 4/5 lanes and new bridge.
Cost
$51,900,000
$49,100,000
$43,600,000
$41,010,000
$26,700,000
$293,000,000
3513, 800,000
$73,600,000
$192,400,000
$104,210,000
$34,600,000
$12,700,000
3241,860,000
$83,600,000
$43,840,000
Cumulative
$51,900,000
$101,000,000
$144,600,000
$185,610,000
$212,310,000
$505,310,000
31, 019.110, 000
31,092,710,000
$1,285,110,000
$1,389,320,000
$1,423,920,000
$1,436,620,000
$1,678,480,000
$1,762,080,000
$1,805,920,000
$39,920,000 $1,845,840,000
$55,000,000 $1,900,840,000
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 8
Chapter 4 - Designing the Future DRAFT
ADA AND CANYON COUNTIES - FUNDED
In Alphabetical Order
1 ID Corridor Cost'-- Cumulative
US 20/26: Exit 29 -Eagle Road. Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lane limited
19 $202,930,000 $2,103,770,000
access divided highway.
20
Ustick Road. Caldwell/Nampa Blvd. -Curtis Road. Widen from 2 lanes
to 5 lanes.
$103,200,000 $2,206,970,000
1
2 Demonstration of Air Quality Conformance
3 Federal regulations require that metropolitan planning organizations demonstrate their transportation
4 plans conform to the state's air quality plans. This process is often referred to as "transportation
5 conformity." Ada County is the only jurisdiction in the six -county region required to have air quality
6 plans as a result of past air quality problems. As part of the process, emissions are estimated and
7 compared to budgets. The results of this analysis are given to the Federal Highways Administration
8 and Federal Transit Administration for approval. The transportation plan is not official until this
9 approval is received. For more information on this process, refer to the conformity demonstration
19 from Northern Ada County on this CD (link) or the COMPASS website (insert link here ).
11
12 Illustrative Corridors List
13 Revenues6 were not available for all of the corridors in the "optimal" transportation system. Those
14 corridors that are still desired, but do not have a funding source are listed below and referred to as
1 5 "illustrative" corridors. These corridors are still needed in the region, but will not be a part of the
16 official plan unless additional funding is secured. These corridors are listed in alphabetical order on
17 the two tables below, by roadway and transit types. Projects within these corridors may be moved
18 forward during the project selection process, based on maintenance, safety or traffic operations
19 benefits.
4
4,
No.
2
3
ADA & CANYON COUNTIES - ROADWAY - ILLUSTRATIVE
In Alphabetical Order
Corridor
Beacon Light Road: SH 16 -SH 55. Widen from 2 lanes to 5
lanes.
Beacon Light Road Extension: Purple Sage Road -SH 16.
Construct new 2 lane road.
Black Cat Road: Franklin Road-Chinden Blvd. Widen from 2
lanes to 5 lanes.
4 Greenhurst Road: Middleton Road -Happy Valley Road. Widen
from 2 lanes to 5 lanes.
5 Happy Valley Road (5 lane) — from 1-84 to Locust Lane
6 Details of how revenues were determined can be found in Chapter 5.
Cost Cumulative
$37,430,000 $37,430,000
$3,100,000 $40,530,000
$29,300,000 $69,830,000
$26,700.000 $96,530,000
$31,440,000 $127,970,0001
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 9
2
3
4
Chapter 4 - Designing the Future DRAFT
6 1-84: Ustick Road Interchange. Construct new interchange.
Kuna Mora Road: SH 45/Bowmont Road -existing section
(including preservation for RR overpass)
7
8
9
Linder Road: Kuna Mora Road-Ustick Road. Widen/construct to
5 lanes. Includes a rail crossing in Kuna and an overpass at 1-84.
Linder Road: Ustick Road -Beacon Light Road. Widen from 2
lanes to 5 lanes.
$25,000,000 $152,970,000
$6,000,000 $158,970,000
$77,530,000 $236,500,000
$25,100,000 $261,600,000
10 Middleton Road• Greenhurst Road -SH 44. Widen from 2 lanes to $64,200,000 $325.800,000
5 lanes.
11 Robinson Road: Greenhurst Road -Cherry Ln. Widen from 2 lanes $37,500,000 $363.300,000
to 5 lanes.
12 SH 45: Deer Flat Road -Locust Ln. Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lane $10,600,000 $373,900,000
limited access divided highway.
13 SH 55: Beacon Light Road -Brookside. Widen from 2 lanes to 4 $1,400,000 $375,300,000
lane limited access divided highway.
14 SH 55: Sunnyslope curve to Karcher IC. Widen from 2 lanes to 4 $44,900,000 $420,200,000
lane limited access divided highway.
SH 69 Connection: Kuna Mora Road-Kuna Road. Build new road
15 parallel to the UP rail (north side) to connect SH 69 to Kuna $2,300,000 $422,500,000
Mora.
16 US 20/26: City of Parma -Exit 25. Operational improvements SO $422,500,000
only.
ADA AND CANYON COUNTIES - TRANSIT - ILLUSTRATIVE
In Alphabetical Order
ID Corridor Cost Cumulative
1 BRT along State Street from west of Eagle Road into Downtown $2,602,000 $2,602,000
Boise (1 Route)
2 Downtown Boise Circulator (2 Routes - start with buses and $2,602,000 $5,204,000
evolve to a streetcar system)
3 Express commuter bus routes between Ada/Canyon and $6,505,000 $11,709,000
Partnering Counties (5 Routes)
4 Express route from Caldwell into Boise along US 20/26 $2,602,000 $14,311,000
(Chinden) (1 Route)
5 Express route from Caldwell into Boise along Ustick Road (1 $2,602,000 $16,913,000
Route)
6 Express route from Nampa into Boise along Franklin Road (1 $2,602,000 $19,515,000
Route)
7 Rail - Boise Towne Square Mall to Micron (1 Route) $3,844,000 $23,359,000
8 Rail - Downtown Caldwell to Downtown Boise (1 Route) $3,844,000 $27,203,000
Total of 21 local bus routes serving Canyon County including $27,321,000 $54,524,000
circulators in Caldwell and Nampa
10 Total of 52 local bus routes serving Ada County, including $67,652,000 $122,176,000
circulators in Eagle and Meridian
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 10
Chapter 4 — Designing the Future DRAFT
1 Partnering County Corridor List
2 As mentioned on page 8, there were no criteria available for creating a priority hst for all categones in
3 order. These projects are not subject to the urbanized area planning requirement and are shown for
4 informational purposes. It has not been determined at this point which projects will be funded in the
5 plan.
6
7
PARTNERING COUNTY LIST
In Alphabetical Order
/D . Cdrrldor Cost Cumulative
1 Dewey Road. City of Emmett -I-84 $22,410,000 $22,410,000
2 Emmett to Mesa Highway --Indian Valley: City of Emmett -Mesa $45,150,000 $67,560,000
(ITD)
3 Harris Creek: Idaho City -Horseshoe Bend $39,220,000 $106,780,000
4 New Route: City of Payette to 1-84 $14,250,000 $121,030,000
5 SH 16: City of Emmett-Ada/Gem line (ITD) $93,950,000 $214,980,000
6 SH 21 • Lucky Peak -Idaho City (ITD) $4,030,000 $219,010,000
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 11
Chapter 4 — Designing the Future DRAFT
1 The Corridors Defined
2 Defining the corridors is the first step in creating the plan. Many of the corridors traverse multiple
3 jurisdictions and several of these roadways connect county to county. To help convey the complexity
4 of the corridor concept, each corridor is described in detail, including:
5 • Why the corridor is important to the region;
6 • Characteristics of the corridor and how it is used;
7 • Recommendations for the corridor to meet CIM goals;
8 • Land use decisions required on this corridor to implement CIM goals (or, actions needed to
9 occur to preserve the corridor for the future improvements);
10 • Opportunities or challenges for the corridor;
11 • History of improvements and financial investment to date;
12 • Recommended investments in the funded portion of CIM;
13 • Additional desired improvements, or... a wish list! These improvements are not funded.
14
15 To implement the corridors, each corridor needs to be studied to determine the design for each
16 improvement. There will most likely be multiple designs for each corridor as it passes through
17 various land uses. This is "context sensitive" planning. For example, a roadway or bus route must fit
18 within the land use that surrounds it. Therefore, a route through a neighborhood will look and
19 function differently than a route through a more rural area or one that is considered regional in
20 nature.
21
22 The corridor analyses are listed in alphabetical order from this point forward.
23
24 INSERT CORRIDORS HERE
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Chapter 4 - Designing the Future DRAFT
Special Future Studies
During the design of the "optimal" transportation system for the plan, several corridors were
considered that lacked sufficient information to determine alignments or designs. These corridors
were noted for further study to discover the detail needed to include it in a plan and are shown as a
"study box" on the maior capital improvements map7. These special studies include (in alphabetical
order):
•
lBeacon Light/Purple Sage Road Extension — an alignment for the connection of these
roadways is needed. Current development activity could preclude any connection, and an
alignment is needed to protect rights-of-way.
• Cloverdale Road and Five Mile Road — during discussions of an "optimal" transportation
system, these corridors will need improvements. A current study of the Three Cities River
Crossing has not been completed, which will establish connections of one or both of these
roads across the Boise River to State Highway 55. Other issues include the potential of an
interchange at I-84 and Cloverdale, and connections of one or both of these roads to a
future Kuna-Mora expressway.
• Cloverdale Road and the Eisenman Interchange — new connections are needed in the area
south of Boise between Cloverdale Road and the Eisenman Interchange. The study would
locate the most desirable and efficient connections.
• I-84 Interchanges — study for possible inclusion of an interchange at Robinson Road in
Nampa and near Amity Road in Boise. A more complex interchange study is needed to
connect Franklin Road to I-84 in the vicinity of SH 16 and McDermott Road.
• Kuna-Mora Road — study for possibility of an arterial roadway in the future. This corridor
would connect to the McDermott extension (SH 16) in the distant future and to State
Highway 45 on the west and 1-84 on the east. This study would determine alignments,
access management needs, and design/implementation options as a future expressway.
• River Crossing in Canyon County — there is currently a six mile gap (Star Road to Middleton
Road) between river crossings in a high-growth area of Canyon County. This study would
determine the alignment and connections of a river crossing. The preferred alignment will
likely align with either Franklin Road or Northside Road. Once a determination is made, the
preferred road will be classified as a principal arterial and the other as a minor arterial
• SH 16 to SH 55 Connection Study — in anticipation of future growth north of the City of
Eagle, a study would determine feasibility and alignment of a northern connection.
ham
stkirk041
W'O'W" giak
Sernabut
Major Capital Improvements Map URL:}hrtp://www.communiticsinmonon.org/ma .htrnl
Communities in Motion
3/10/2006 13
Chapter 4 — Designing the Future DRAFT
1 • SH 69 Extension — ACHD and the City of Kuna agree that an extension is needed, but
2 differ on the alignment and need for a railroad overpass. The study will consider costs,
3 benefits and environmental issues of the options.
4 • Canyon Truck Route Corridor Study -- there is a desire for a route to divert truck traffic
5 south of I-84 west of the City of Caldwell to Kuna-Mora and connecting back to I-84 south
6 of the City of Boise. This study will also include the feasibility of a new river crossing near
7 Weitz Road northwest of the City of Caldwell.
8
9 Other transportation studies in the region can be found on the "Studies Coordination8" website.
10
11 Critical Intersections
12 COMPASS uses a travel demand model that focuses on regional corridors and travel patterns rather
13 than on specific issues at individual intersections. Certainly the regional corridors are high priorities
14 for investment, but this emphasis does not mean that intersections are not important. In fact,
15 intersections are key to understanding traffic flow on urban roads. This section is intended to
16 highlight the issues and potential approaches in addressing significant intersection problems.
17 Figure 1 shows the largest intersections in the Valley by 2030 in terms of entering volumes. Each of these intersections will be
18 over 70,000 vehicles per day in terms of entering volumes.
19
8 Studies Coordination URL: htm://www.comnassidaho.org/studies.html
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006
14
Chapter 4 — Designing the Future DRAFT
1 The intersections shown are at -grade intersections. Grade -separated interchanges on I-84 and I-184
2 may carry high volumes but are less challenging since movements are physically separated. Traffic
3 engineers deal with high levels of intersection volumes in several ways, including.
4 • Increase the capacity of the intersection by adding more storage for the various traffic
5 movements.
6 • Separate the movements.
7 • Reduce or eliminate left -turn movements.
8 • Improve signal progression to reduce stacking at intersections.
9
10 The critical intersections shown in the map above will need special design treatments if they are not
11 to become very large parking lots by 2030. Whether grade separation, exotic left -turn treatments, or
12 roundabouts are appropriate are questions that need to be considered --and soon. Or else growth will
13 reduce the options and likelihood of a good solution. A more detailed white paper on critical
14 intersections (LINK) is available.
15
16 Enhancement Possibilities
17 Throughout the process of developing Communities in Motion, local residents and officials wanted
18 communities to maintain an individual character. The workshops in November 2004 and February
19 2005 provided an education on specific roadway design options including main streets, boulevards,
20 and sidewalks. These types of design enhance the community through the design of a roadway or
21 transit stop.
22
23 In the next twenty to twenty-five years, many of these community enhancements could occur
24 through a federal program for called the Surface Transportation Program — Enhancement (STP -E);
25 however, it is difficult to specify which communities will apply or be approved for these funds. The
26 STP -E programs have a federal aid limit of $500,000. The local match varies and is based on a sliding
27 scale. Specific categories include: bicycle/pedestrian pathways, scenic, or historic. All the categories
28 must have a strong connection to transportation. Some examples of the federal enhancement
29 projects funded through FY 2008 follow:
30
31
32
33
34
35
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 15
Chapter 4 — Designing the Future DRAFT
Year
2006
2006
2006
2006
2007
Examples of Federal Enhancement Projects
Project Name and Brie/ Description
Weiser Recreational Vehicle Trail (Bike/Pedestrian)
Garden Valley Trail (Bike/Pedestrian)
Eckert Pathway Extension II (Pedestrian)
Caldwell Depot Rehabilitation (Historical)
Total Amount
$222,000
$235,000
$644,000
$455,000
Boise State University Greenbelt Pathway (Bike/Pedestrian) $599,000
2007 Warm Springs Boulevard (Scenic)
2008 Canyon Crossroads Transportation Museum in Melba
(Historic)
2008 I Pennsylvania Ave & 4' Street (Bike/Pedestrian)
$273,000
$410,000
$450,000
Sponsor
City of Weiser
Miscellaneous
Ada County
City of Caldwell
Boise State
University
ACHD
Canyon County
City of Fruitland
1
2 Other similar projects will also be funded at the local level through community revitalization efforts.
3
4
5
6
7 T:\FY06\600 Projects\661 ClM\11-Final Reports\CHAPTER4-FUTURE.doc
Communities in Motion 3/10/2006 16
County Boundary
Nampa Loop Route
MIStacy Areas
- imerstale
Expressway
- - - - Proposed Expressway
— Principal Arena
Proposed Pnncioal Arterial
Minor Arterial
- - - - - Proposed Minor Arena!
Future Interchanges
Type
F-1 New Fteeull3 Inter:ran;e
I—I Nero Recull3 Overpass
I.
v.7j7j',r
LJ
war
114.xxii, Loa Fid
-$
-it
-1
1--
14Wir :•13
4Lk?
Communities In Motion
2030 Functional Classification Map
Communities in Motion
2030 Proposed Transit Routes
--- • - -•• • I
a.••••
• ...mreallOONIPSIMININar.!WCA"161/1111; - - • J * Q4. a
ISICR T,;,Ur " w"-11.1
Ida,*
wit
largo Pallitel4AM?,19PIMPINETE5 priC4.4N-
9.• 44;.A.04ft-1 Igkquutlumikaloileraliki.
wv,
Li •wLr
40:714/'•-• G • • •
A140.1A '
vt• w -47 -4-4zr- '
4.irmi ;;42: ...,e • '4.^..r;,' -- t -- " .""it •,..V ' 41 • • 1
eilill 411•60,:.q tr i,
:.:..•7•'.... _...4solub....„, ."'1:..14 X'411
,.I; • e,.' , ., glaMear.—re„,: ,..pi,t.
. ;
Inca •
I -
4111/0 a...L.1,241;103W
lant,tr•
I-
1
At? t"; 44e,ri.74/4/:
11-4
11 ,21.".. . 4 ffiv`..li
• -
Mai • t,• • "
• 6 r
1,k.q11`lig 10;411)Pnilltii
ff41911,4milPtiti
24. .' •••
6 if ../.....4."4:4: 6.:14. S, 4Z.,* . 17 ....'..•..!1- " 01 'tati. ' 5 '' .
_ _ • e ..,..,....0.-:„.r .•-•'''' w i• ''.• 0. ...."41
.-1
' ' 17):11.4"...,41.111„ !I*4'7•44;431%.):4-'91:ezt )4; ir'''.... it!• **1‘...
'''',•.' - 0' lialliktIti tt..._ 1 ' 11.47.-,.. - • .'• -
irl.ne.vitr.:1.4...,:...,...,,,.-,;,i,.(.1
• P ---"I'14:--7:; :
'7...,"1iiil?!.1
zi • •
.11TANgelif;7‘...,
4.1137+1./ZPI Wort NM
Iftwell11.1Li PI) aM V414.024*
; Jr. • 4!•
ts 4:•••• • %.
4441.4
14. \i"
:14;11-
L ;
;01411 ;
X • vie ...if ;at el "
!!.. • '4.6; a -
— • ','"''.'11110.,;',i'is, •
^ '
.011;1•,,b; •-••7: 41 e,
- —
it, a
.11,!r177
crit. Y-0°'
Sagle City ,5a«
310 4. estate Jr,
eagle, kidaha 83616
(2049919-61W fax (208) 919-6827
N jemorAndum
To: Mayor, City Council
CC: File
From: Michael Mongelli
Date: March 29, 2006
Re: Meeting with Dr. Peter Goodwin
In response to my letter to Dr. Goodwin, Professor of Civil Engineering,
University of Idaho, dated March 2, 2006, and a phone conversation last week, Dr.
Goodwin met with Mayor Merrill and I to discuss floodplain development along the
Boise River. Dr. Goodwin is well aware of the challenges local communities face
reviewing land use proposals adjacent to the Boise River. Participating communities
are presented with the FEMA one dimensional study as a regulatory tool to manage
floodplain development. The study information reflected on the FEMA mapping
delineates a floodplain and floodway that has complied with FEMA guidelines. To
accomplish this end, data gathered in the field is adjusted to somewhat smooth out
results for input into the model thus reflecting an even floodway discharge.
The area of research Dr. Goodwin has pursued is simulation models for flood
management, sediment management, geomorphic evolution and environmental
management. His work is internationally renowned and he holds chair of the board in
the assessment of New Orleans for the National Science Foundation. The University
of Idaho has convinced Dr. Goodwin that his expertise will be welcomed closer to
home, specifically the Boise River system.
from the desk of:
Mike Mongelli
March 29, 2006
The City of Eagle has been presented with an exceptional opportunity offered by
Dr. Goodwin. His research has developed two dimensional flood modeling to
evaluate hydraulic performance in rivers which has been accepted by FEMA. This
type of study is on the cutting edge of engineering and the benefits associated with
this information would lay the foundation for the long term preservation of the Boise
River, one of Eagle's treasured resources. The components of this research offer more
precise identification of flood hazards, projected long term impacts of specific
developments and also a historical overview of the system.
Dr. Goodwin is very clear that the University is not in competition with consulting
engineering companies and look on this project to benefit both scientific and
engineering communities. As with all endeavors requiring the collection of a large
body of data, costs are incurred and the University is prepared to source research
funds into the project. If the City is able to dedicate a portion of the funding and
develop partnerships with the State and Local representatives, the scope of work
could be increased to cover a greater portion of the drainage.
The Boise River presents a distinctive condition with its two channels, as
development is proposed along this river the City faces increased responsibility to
provide for the safety and well being of the public and preserving the environment
supporting that public. I will be attending the Special Meeting on April 4, 2006 to
address questions and contribute to discussion on floodplain development.
Michael Mongelli
Building Official
K:1Beilding DepttBase DocsODr. Goodwin Memol.doc 2
INTER
OFFICE
City of Eagle
Zoning Administration
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Attachment(s):
Copy To:
Mayor Merrill and City Council Members
Nichoel Baird Spencer, AICP, Planner III •JA'E,r
Blueprint for Good Growth Update
April 4, 2006
Draft Policy Document
Bill Vaughan, AICP, Zoning Administrator
Attached for your review are the draft policies for the Blueprint for Good Growth (BPGG). I have
annotated my comments on the left column for your review.
The BPGG process has been beneficial for the City for it has provided a forum for the Cities to share
concerns and policy directions as well as provide a regional view point of growth. Unfortunately, the
process has become larger than the original purpose. The BPGG process was originally sold to the City as
a process to bring land use and roadway investment together to allow ACHD to plan for future growth and
ensure that as development occurred outside of the plan an appropriate fee was assessed so that
development paid for its impacts. As this process has evolved it has gone beyond infrastructure
investments to growth management.
Staff has the most concerns with the following policy areas:
Minimum Densities — (pg. 12)
The establishment of minimum densities within the cities without constituent
involvement and direction.
Hearing Officers — (pg. 20 & 25)
The plan directs the use of a hearing officer for large projects to ensure
consistency with the regional plans. This process would also require
approval from the other cities, county and COMPASS who do not have
jurisdictional authority.
Unconstrained County Growth — (pg. 15)
The plan limits the county to subdividing no more that 5% of the overall
projected growth of the county each year but allows unconstrained and
undirected planned community growth to occur anywhere and at any
intensity through out the county.
Use of COMPASS Growth Proiections — (pg. 26)
The plan limits annexation to areas of city impacts and limits the expansion
of AOI's to 1.5 times the land area needed for the COMPASS projections.
Page 1 of 2
C:1Documents and Settings\nbaird\My Documents\MEMO Nahoel.a«
I
In the past COMPASS growth projections by city have not been highly
accurate and this could severely limit the City's growth potential.
The Mayor and staff have been very vocal at both the consortium and steering committee level with our
concerns about the direction of the BPGG process and the need to stay focused on the original task —
coordination of land use and infrastructure investment. At the March 9, 2006 consortium meeting the City
of Star withdrew from the BPGG process prompting a review of the overall BPGG direction and priorities.
Staff is cautiously optimistic that the outcome will be beneficial but does not provide support of the
documents as they are currently drafted.
Page 2 of 2
C:1Documents and Settings\nbaird\My Documents\MEMO Nichoetdoc
BLUEPRINT
for
Good
GROWN
Prepared by:
Planning Works, LLC
8014 State Line Road
Suite 208
Leawood, KS 66208
913-381-7852
www.ourplanningworks.com
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &
Walker
515 South Flower Street
Twenty-fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213-683-6000
www.paulhastings.com
BGG Steering Committee
Preliminary Discussion Draft
February 11, 2006
m
Blueprint for Good Growth
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Overview 1
A. Issues 1
B. Guiding Principles 2
C. Definitions 5
II. Blueprint Objectives & Policies 8
A. Growth Management 8
B. Natural Resources 18
C. Transportation Goal, Objectives and Policies 20
D. Utilities Goal, Objectives and Policies 22
E. Public Schools Goal, Objective and Policies 24
III. Strategies 25
A. Plan Amendments 25
B. Intergovernmental Coordination 26
C. Regulatory Changes 29
D. Legislative Initiatives 30
E. Educational Initiatives 30
IV. Appendices 31
Appendix A: Growth Projections 31
Appendix B: Scenarios Analysis 31
Appendix C: Plan Policy Amendments 31
Appendix D: Regulatory Models 31
Draft February 11, 2006
Blueprint for Good Growth
I. Overview
Ada County is a desirable place — the climate, natural resources, and economic
opportunities available here continue to draw new people and new development to this
area. The Blueprint for Good Growth is a collaborative multi jurisdictional effort
intended to coordinate land use and public facility decisions so that growth in Ada
County will be an asset to existing residents and future generations. The plan establishes
an overall framework for growth management in Ada County that includes policies and
strategies that ultimately will be incorporated into the plans, regulations and practices of
Ada County, Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kuna, Meridian, Star, Ada County Highway
District (ACHD) and Idaho Transportation Department (ITD).
This document identifies the main issues to be addressed by the Blueprint for Good
Growth, establishes goals, objectives and policies for the plan, and identifies strategies
that should be pursued by each of the participants in this process to achieve the mutually
beneficial goals established in this plan. While this plan does not prescribe specific land
use amendments, it establishes a growth tier map that establishes distinct growth policy
areas and the applicable policies. It also establishes an on-going process to sustain
effective interagency coordination required to effectively address the growth challenges
faced by Ada County residents, businesses and service providers.
This plan was developed in coordination the Community Planning Association's program
to update the region's Long Range Transportation Plan. This "Communities in Motion"
program established and evaluated numerous growth scenarios that are described in the
appendix of this Plan. The policy areas and policies established in the Blueprint for Good
Growth are consistent with those included in the Long Range Transportation Plan.
A. Issues
Ada County jurisdictions face a variety of growth issues which were identified in the
Needs, Issues and Opportunities Report. This section refines and prioritizes these issues
to help establish a schedule for implementation and to guide decisions involving
competing objectives.
Key issues that need to be resolved over the course of Key Issues:
Blueprint Plan development include:
• Land Use and Development. Coordinating land
use and infrastructure decisions, maintaining strong
and vibrant downtown areas and healthy
neighborhoods, developing better systems for
managing regionally significant development
projects, and promoting sustainable infill
development are just a few of the land use issues
facing each jurisdiction.
• Transportation. While there is an overall belief
that ACHD has greatly improved its transportation
Land Use &
Development
Transportation
Agriculture
Environment &
Recreation
Business & Economic
Development
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Draft February 11, 2006 1
Blueprint for Good Growth
planning and development practices, there also are numerous ways to improve
the transportation planning process. Ultimately, roadways must serve
residents, not just vehicles. Land use and transportation planning and actions
need to be coordinated to provide greater transportation choices and create
healthier neighborhoods, to continue remedying existing deficiencies, to
balance investment in new projects with operation, maintenance and repair
needs, and to explore innovative ways to provide transit and non -automotive
travel modes such as sidewalks, paths, bicycles, buses, and trains.
• Agriculture. The retention of agribusiness and agricultural land uses is a
cultural, economic and fiscal issue. It is possible to reach consensus on the
importance of the future of agriculture in Ada County through consultation
with agricultural land owners. Major issues are how much and what types of
agriculture can be sustained and how to provide economic support to farmers
to help them realize as much gain from retaining agricultural lands as the
would from land sales.
• Environment and Recreation. The natural environment is the key factor in
the local quality of life. The emergence of Ada County as a recreation
destination is directly related to successful efforts to clean up the Boise River.
Current decisions about development and transportation will affect
environmental quality and recreation opportunities for years to come. Current
decisions about development and transportation need to be made
simultaneously with preservation of natural areas and the environment and the
creation of park, recreation and open -space areas.
• Business and Economic Development. Ada County is in the enviable
position of having an attractive environment for economic growth. This
growth should provide diverse employment opportunities for residents while
remaining sensitive to quality of life issues.
• Intergovernmental Cooperation. Ada County, ACHD, the cities, the state
and Canyon County all need to use the plan through mutually reinforcing
intergovernmental agreements that address: expansion of annexation areas
and areas of impact; location and percentages of residential and economic
growth; preservation of agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands,
water distribution and rights; and allocation of federal, state and regional
funding.
B. Guiding Principles
Prior to selecting a preferred growth management strategy, the Steering Committee
developed a set of guiding principles on which this plan is based.
Draft February 11, 2006 2
Blueprint for Good Growth
General Principles
• We love our home in the Treasure Valley. The valley has grown and we
expect it to grow more. It will be a better place if we plan growth to meet our
most important priorities, which follow.
• We will ensure growth is a benefit to all citizens and the economy. Our plans
will support good jobs and a strong, sustainable economy.
• We will support growth in all communities to allow choices in where to live
and work.
• We will manage growth with fiscal responsibility, discipline and creativity.
• Our plans will limit sprawl and promote other kinds of more responsible
development.
• We will invest in our neighborhoods to create and maintain attractive and
livable places that nurture community and reflect our pride in the Treasure
Valley.
• We will offer a quality transportation system for private vehicles with
increasing choices for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.
• We will maintain a vibrant central city in Boise and strong downtowns in all
cities.
• We will protect the natural resources that we value.
We will manage growth with fiscal responsibility, discipline, and creativity.
• Growth must pay for itself.
• We will reduce infrastructure costs by
o building higher densities in appropriate locations;
o better managing growth in impact areas;
o Aligning capital improvement plans with areas targeted for new growth;
and
o Considering new and innovative ways to accomplish these things.
• We will reduce transportation costs and pollution if we can create complete
communities where jobs, shopping and housing are near each other.
Our land use plans will complement a strong economy.
• Our land use plans must allow developers to offer products that the public will
buy.
• Our land use plans will complement our strategies to produce well -paying
jobs and broad prosperity.
• We must have a strong education system to have a quality community and a
strong economy. When we plan, school representatives will be included on the
team.
We will limit sprawl and promote other kinds of more responsible development.
• We will emphasize infill development and increasing the density of residential
development.
• We will require master planning of larger, undeveloped areas to ensure an
appropriate mix of commercial, residential, and open space uses.
Draft February 11, 2006
Blueprint for Good Growth
o We will focus most commercial and residential development within
cities and in contiguous portions of defined areas of impact.
o We will consider master -planned communities outside of developed
areas if they demonstrate they will pay for their impact on the area and
will not burden other communities by shifting capital, operations and
maintenance costs.
• Residential development will include a range of densities, housing types, and
price levels.
• We will create a transportation system that will support the land use patterns
we want and will be the least harmful to the environment.
• We will work creatively using our group strength to implement the land use
patterns we want.
We will enhance our neighborhoods and sense of community.
• We will educate and work with neighborhoods and communities so they know
who they are and what they want to be.
• Development must respect, and creatively enhance, community identities.
• We will distribute growth to all communities so that citizens have choices of
where to live and work.
We will create attractive places to live, work, shop and play.
• Neighborhood and community design will support community identity and
discourage sprawl.
• We will design attractive streets that are as safe as possible for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
• We will develop community centers that promote activities day and night.
• We will develop safe, attractive communities.
• We will emphasize the planting of trees and flowers.
We will offer a quality transportation system for private vehicles with increasing
choices for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.
• We will construct mixed-use patterns along main streets and in downtowns.
• We will connect neighborhoods, parks, schools and open space to shopping
areas and other area assets with complete sidewalks, transit stops and bike
paths.
• We are firmly committed to identifying, preserving and using key highway
and rail corridors.
• We are firmly committed to expanding and strengthening highway and transit
connections between communities.
• We will coordinate investments to create efficient transportation corridors.
• We will ensure our transportation systems support our land use decisions and
provide alternatives to vehicular travel.
• We will create stable and equitable funding sources for transportation.
Draft February 11, 2006
Blueprint for Good Growth
We will maintain a vibrant central city in Boise and strong downtowns in all
cities.
• We will maintain a vibrant downtown Boise as the region's center for
government, commerce and entertainment.
• We will accommodate growth through infill, redevelopment and expansion.
• We will build stronger neighborhoods through mixed-use development.
• We will promote an effective regional transportation system by building
developments that support transit.
• We will create a city where car ownership is not required to travel freely.
• We will encourage expansion and reinvestment in all downtowns.
We will protect the natural resources we value.
• The natural resources we value most are our clean air and water, our trees, the
Boise Foothills, the Boise River and floodplains, Lake Lowell and agricultural
lands.
• We will protect these assets by
o building higher densities in appropriate locations,
o better concentrating and coordinating growth in impact areas,
o providing incentives to property owners, [Comment: new idea for
discussion]
o adopting development regulations that encourage protection of natural
resource areas, and [Comment: new idea for discussion]
o Participating in the planting of trees and flowers, and
o Supporting programs that result in tree and flower proliferation.
• We will better protect these assets if we are able to locate jobs, shopping and
housing near each other.
C. Definitions
One key to achieving a coordinated growth management strategy is agreement on a
common language. The following terms, used through the Blueprint for Good Growth,
shall have the following meanings:
Adequate public facilities — requirement that essential public facilities will be
provided at adopted levels of service prior to or concurrent with the creation of
new demands for those facilities.
Compatibility — the ability of uses to coexist adjacent to one another without
reducing the value or viability of either use due to noise, light, shadows, traffic,
odors and other potential nuisances. Scale, height, density, building design, site
design, setbacks, buffers, use and materials are some of the factors affecting
compatibility. Each of these factors may be modified to enhance the
compatibility between adjacent uses that may differ in use, intensity or design.
Conservation subdivision — a development technique in which the size of lots
may be reduced in order to provide for a greater amount of undeveloped open
space, which may be permanently preserved through a variety of methods.
Draft February 11, 2006
Blueprint for Good Growth
Density, Gross — the total number of dwelling units divided by the total number
of acres in the tract on which those units are located.
Density, Net — the total number of dwelling units divided by the total number of
acres in the tract on which those units are located minus land located within
floodways, steep slopes, rights-of-way, and public lands.
Development of Regional Impact — define this
Downtown development — development within Boise's defined downtown area
and other future areas characterized by high intensity development. See Main
Street development.
Economic impact — changes in employment, considering targeted salaries or
wage rates; changes to property values; and changes in retail sales.
Environmental protection — implementation of programs to retain specific
environmental resources in their natural state, enhance the quality of degraded
environmental resources or to protect environmental resources from degradation.
Environmental resources — specific water, land, or air resources that are
designated for protection due to some fiscal, cultural, biological, recreational,
aesthetic or public safety value. For purposes of this plan, the specific
environmental resources targeted for protection include: floodways, locally
defined water quality protection zones, slopes in excess of 30%, identified habitat
areas, wildlife corridors and scenic vistas.
Essential public facilities — facilities for which the capacities may be specifically
linked to the approvals of developments that create demands for those facilities.
For purposes of this plan, essential public facilities include water, wastewater,
stormwater, transportation system, fire protection and schools.
Fiscal impact — the net monetary affect of a development on all public service
providers after considering all costs and revenues resulting from the development.
Growth Tier — a defined area that is subject to a set of policies that are distinct
from the policies of other growth tiers.
Infill — development that occurs on small or remnant parcels within otherwise
developed neighborhoods.
Level of Service — an adopted, quantifiable measure of the capacity of a facility
to meet anticipated demands.
Main Street development — development occurring within the established
downtowns or city centers of cities other than Boise. See downtown
development.
Mixed-use development — development that includes integrated residential and
non-residential uses within a single project area. Uses may be mixed horizontally
or vertically, but each mixed use project contains both residential and non-
residential uses. (insert local examples)
Draft February 11, 2006 6
Blueprint for Good Growth
Multiple use development — development that may include two or more different
types of uses that are not developed as a single, integrated project.
Open Space — any parcel of land maintained in an essentially unbuilt state and
reserved for public or private uses, including, but not limited to habitat protection,
water quality protection, passive recreational uses, livestock grazing or field crop
production (see open space policies).
Planned community — a new mixed-use community developed from vacant land
that includes all the services and uses needed by residents to live work and play
(see planned community policies).
Planned development — a flexible zoning tool that allows for deviation from
minimum lot sizes and other standard code requirements in return for provision of
amenities such as common open space and other design features. Also known as
planned unit development.
Transit -oriented development — development designed to reduce the use of
private automobiles by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle,
carpool, bus, streetcar, rail, or other transit mode. TODs generally feature higher
densities, a mix of uses, and greater emphasis of a pedestrian scale. (see appendix
for TOD model)
Transit -supportive development — development featuring a balanced
transportation network where walking, bicycling, and transit work in harmony
with the private automobile.
Urban Development — areas characterized by a variety of housing types and
densities as well as the availability of goods, services, employment and provision
of essential public services.
Draft February 11, 2006 7
Blueprint for Good Growth
II. Blueprint Objectives & Policies
A. Growth Management
This section establishes the framework for management of growth through coordinated
decisions that are consistent with the guiding principles established above. Objectives
and policies in this section identify growth tiers, the targeted proportion of growth to
occur in each tier and conditions applicable to development in each tier. Additionally,
this section outlines areas to improve coordination between participating agencies and
addresses the timing/phasing of development in relation to the availability of adequate
public facilities and services.
Growth Tiers Defined
Map 1 establishes a variety of growth tiers covering Ada County. The growth tiers
described below define areas with different development opportunities and policies which
are defined in this plan.
Activity Centers
This tier includes commercial and mixed use development at various scales and
intensities of development that serve neighborhoods, communities and the region.
Most neighborhood activity centers, and all community and regional activity
centers should be designed to support access by transit services as well as other
modes of transportation. Standards for each of these centers shall be established
within each community's land development regulations.
• Neighborhood activity centers, which are not shown in Map 1, serve one
or more neighborhoods and are characterized by relatively small scale
retail and service uses that may include mixed use or attached housing
opportunities. These centers are characterized by designs and scales that
support pedestrian access from adjacent neighborhoods. [e.g., 16th and
State Street, and 8th and Fort in Boise]
• Community activity centers meet the needs of a group of neighborhoods
or the entire community. These are characterized by shopping centers that
include grocery stores as anchors, moderate to high density housing
housing, office and service uses and mixed-use or multiple -use
development. [insert local examples]
• Regional activity centers meet the needs of one or more community and
include large scale employment and retail uses, high density residential
development and mixed use projects that draw business from throughout
the Treasure Valley. [insert local examples]
Areas of Impact
These areas are adjacent to incorporated cities and reflect an area that could
reasonably be expected to be annexed and to be served by centralized sewer
service within the next twenty years. Some rural residential development that
does not receive centralized sewer service may be included within areas of impact
Draft February 11, 2006
Blueprint for Good Growth
in accordance with the applicable municipality's comprehensive plan. The
primary purposes of areas of impact are to:
• Protect future city growth areas from inappropriate development that would
constrain future growth;
• Facilitate coordinated land use and facility planning so service providers can
better anticipate and plan to meet future demands;
• Provide a predictable framework for private development decisions;
• Provide for orderly and sequenced annexations and to reduce pressure for
rapid area of impact boundary adjustments to encompass short-term
annexation plans; and
• Ensure fmancial and physical capability to provide needed public facilities
and services.
Cities
This tier includes currently incorporated municipalities and will be modified to
reflect future annexations and incorporations.
Rural Tier
This tier includes all unincorporated land that is not located within an area of
impact or approved planned community.
Planned Communities
This tier includes planned communities that are located outside an area of impact.
The planned community tier should change to reflect the boundaries of planned
communities approved through the County's comprehensive plan and planned
community zoning processes. Note that this plan encourages development of
planned communities and developments that include the characteristics of planned
communities within areas of impact and cities.
Public Lands
This tier includes lands owned by a federal, state or local governmental agency.
Transit Corridors
This tier includes lands along existing or planned high volume transit routes that
may be served by buses, bus rapid transit (BRT) or a fixed guideway system (e.g.,
commuter rail or light rail).
Growth Management Goal, Objective and Policies:
Goal: To establish and maintain sustainable development patterns that foster a high
quality of life in Ada County.
Comment: Quality of life is defined by the guiding principles and subsequent
policies. While these policies also more fully define what is meant by sustainable
development patterns, generally sustainability means that development will result
in:
Draft February 11, 2006 9
Blueprint for Good Growth
• A Healthy Economy, with sustainable jobs and businesses that develop
and nurture the local work force, where decision-making takes into
account the interdependence of economic, environmental and social well
being;
• A Healthy Environment, where decision-making takes into account long
term consequences of development on natural and built up areas, and
efforts are made to prevent problems before they occur;
• Social Equity, which is the promotion of fair and equal treatment across
generations and among dfferent groups in society, as well as the
reduction in disparities in risks and access to benefits. Evidence of social
equity includes housing and employment opportunities for all residents,
regardless of age, education, cultural background or income, as well as
inclusive and participatory decision-making processes. Social equity also
means that the benefits derived from growth do not shy burdens to
existing residents; and
• Efficiency, which includes the efficient use of energy and resources with
little or no waste. This includes the efficient use of natural and fiscal
resources (e.g., taxes and fees).1
Objective: Within two years of adoption of the BGG, local governments will update
their comprehensive plans to be consistent with the BGG, and within three years
of adoption of the BGG, local governments will update their land development
regulations to be consistent with the policies established in BGG.
General Growth Management Policies
GM -1: MAP 1 establishes the growth tiers covering Ada County. To
implement this plan in a consistent and coordinated manner, local
governments shall use the growth tier map in conjunction with the
applicable policies established in this section of the BGG to guide growth
management decisions, including capital improvements planning,
comprehensive plan amendments, annexations, area of impact extensions
and development decisions.
GM -2: Ensure that development decisions are coordinated with the
availability of essential public facilities so that adequate public facilities
will be provided before or concurrent with the generation of demands for
those facilities. [Comment: this will require ongoing coordination
between local governments and independent public service providers.]
GM -3: Coordinate land use and capital facility planning by requiring capital
improvement programs by service providers to be consistent with adopted
comprehensive plans and the Blueprint for Good Growth.
' Text modified from Exploring Sustainable Communities, a teachers guide by World Resources Institute
for secondary education.
Draft February 11, 2006 10
„ Pl.:. oY,a.l Im
Blueprint for Good Growth
GM -4: Establish and use the BGG revision process to ensure that local
growth management decisions are consistent with the County -wide growth
management strategy established in the BGG. [Comment: see the
implementation section for a description of the BGG revision process.]
GM -5: Develop and update local transportation elements of the
comprehensive plans in conjunction with ACHD, Valley Regional Transit,
ITD and COMPASS to ensure that policies reflect the ability to provide
and maintain adequate transportation system capacity. Local plans and
development decisions shall be consistent with the ACID Capital
Improvements Program, the Long -Range Transportation Plan, and the
Valley Regional Transit Regional Operations and Capital Improvement
Plan, as amended from time to time.
GM -6: Coordinate development decisions with local and regional plans for
the full range of public facilities, as well as open space and environmental
protection.
GM -7: Encourage cities and the county, as applicable, to establish long-term
<< annexation agreements pursuant to policy GM -18 to minimize
pti4intergovernmental conflicts and provide greater predictability for property
owners
tsrit1 t�l,t�I�f`i uu�l�finci
Draft
GM -8: Establish a development of regional impact review process to ensure
that large scale developments (see Strategy section of this plan for
thresholds), including major future land use map amendments, are
consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan and the 20 -year
ACHD Capital Improvements Plan. All developments of regional impact
shall be subject to the following criteria:
1. Require the submittal of a concept plan for all contiguous land
holdings prior to the first preliminary plat approval.
2. Ensure that the development is reflected in the applicable
comprehensive plan, the BGG tier map, and the Long -Range
Transportation Plan and the ACHD 20 -Year CIP.
3. Establish the base residential and non-residential intensity at the time
of concept plan approval, considering:
a. the adequacy of essential public facilities;
b. applicable comprehensive plan policies;
c. consistency of the project with the Long Range Transportation
Plan and the ACRD 20 -Year CIP;
d. the proximity of the project to existing employment centers;
and
e. physical limitations of the site.
February 11, 2006 11
Blueprint for Good Growth
Activity Center Policies
GM -9: Identify activity centers within individual comprehensive plans that
are consistent with the BGG Tier map and assign appropriate land use
categories and densities within each activity center to promote a
sustainable mix of land uses that reduces automobile dependency and
supports pedestrian trips.
GM -10: Establish standards for community and regional activity centers that
require minimum densities of at least 8 dwelling units per acre, minimum
levels of pedestrian connectivity and transit facilities that are sufficient to
support viable transit service. The following intensities are provided to
guide local jurisdictions in defining centers:
Regional
Community
Neighborhood
Greater than 20 dwellings
per acre
12 to 20 dwellings per acre
8 to 16 dwellings per acre
Greater than 150,000 sq.ft.
of gross leasable area
25,000 to 150,000 sq.ft. of
gross leasable area
Less than 25,000 sq.ft. of
gross leasable area
GM -11: Establish mixed -se development standards that allow appropriate
scales of mixed use development by right within each type of activity
center.
Areas of Impact Policies
GM -12: Establish and adjust Area of Impact boundaries based upon:
1. coordinated 20 -year capital facility plans that reflect historical or
reasonably anticipated funding levels to facilitate the efficient
provision of adequate water, wastewater, stormwater and
transportation facilities;
2. recent growth trends and projected growth of the applicable city;
3. the availability of adequate land supplies within the city and its area of
impact to meet the amount and diversity of growth that may be
reasonably anticipated by the city [Comment: the evaluation of land
supplies should consider the availability of a mix of infill and green-
field development opportunities required to meet projected growth
demands.];
4. the existence of short-term (e.g., 5 -year) capital improvements
programs that are adequately funded to accommodate growth
anticipated within at least 20 percent of the area of impact; and
5. inter -governmental agreements with the County and applicable service
providers to coordinate land use and infrastructure decisions in
accordance with the policies established in this plan.
Draft February 11, 2006 12
Blueprint for Good Growth
GM -13: Within Areas of Impact, identify areas where essential public
facilities are available and areas where essential public facilities are
scheduled to be available based on 5 -year CIP to coordinate development
patterns with efficient infrastructure system development.
GM -14: Where essential public facilities are available, the County may
approve development applications that are consistent with local plans,
regulations and adopted facility extension/connection policies.
GM -15: Where essential public facilities are scheduled to be available in
accordance with and adopted 5 -Year CIP, the County may approve
development that is consistent with local plans, regulations and facility
connection policies, subject to the extension of public facilities and the
applicable service providers' reimbursement policies for capacity that
exceeds demands generated by the development.
GM -16: Where essential public facilities are not scheduled to be provided
within adopted 5 -Year an CIP, the applicable city and Ada County may
take one of the following actions after considering the factors listed below:
Actions'
• With written consent from the city, approval of the entire
development application subject to the provision or guarantee
of adequate public facilities for the entire development and
compliance with adopted city plans, regulations and
infrastructure policies; or
• With written consent from the city, approval of development of
up to 20 percent of the land area2 in the development that is:
• consistent with the applicable city's comprehensive
plan, development regulations and infrastructure
policies, and
• subject to a concept plan for the entire development and
a development agreement that provides for future
annexation and full funding of facilities, including
funding for future connection of the portion of the site
that is initially developed to centralized water and
wastewater systems; or
• Disapproval of the development application.
' Through any development approval, the City and County may require the reservation of sufficient right-
of-way and easements to serve planned development in the vicinity of the project. Dry sewers may be
required if elevations can be determined at the time of development.
2 The remaining 80 percent may be developed when the City determines that the full range of facilities and
services are adequate to serve the entire site.
Draft February 11, 2006 13
Factors
Blueprint for Good Growth
• Consistency of the concept plan for the portion to be developed
and the entire property with the applicable city's
comprehensive plan;
• System -wide benefits provided by proposed public facilities;
• Local and regional fiscal and economic benefits;
• Capital obligations generated by the development;
• Operations and maintenance obligations generated by the
development; and
• Other benefits consistent with the city's adopted
comprehensive plan goals (e.g., housing, environmental,
recreational, economic, transportation, etc).
GM -17: When an applicant seeks an exception to adopted public
improvement standards within an area of impact, the exception shall
require approval by both the applicable city and Ada County to avoid
future infrastructure deficiencies that impede future growth and service
delivery.
GM -18: Adjustments to area of impact boundaries to reflect 20 -year growth
plans shall include an agreement not to annex beyond the area of impact
unless approved by the county or the other affected city. Pursuant to
Policy GM -7, local governments are encouraged to enter into annexation
boundary agreements that establish ultimate boundary lines between
individual cities and are based upon the following factors:
• Anticipated growth and the need for additional land to serve the cities'
residential and non-residential land use needs;
• Sewer service basins and the capacity to serve development in those
basins;
• Other service area boundaries (e.g., school districts, fire districts)
• Geographic features (e.g., ridges, waterways, arterial streets, railroads,
greenways) that form appropriate breaks between communities; and
• Public input from affected property owners.
City Policies
GM -19: Ensure that development decisions are consistent with the adopted
comprehensive plans, regulations and the BGG.
GM -20: Establish a mix of uses that maintains or improves the balance of
jobs, housing and services in each city to improve local fiscal health and
reduce long-term transportation demands.
Ei_ot C- Clatink -21: Base annexation decisions on the availability of essential public
F440 vutS y,)J facilities, the schedule for provision of those facilities in applicable capital
_ improvements plans, area of impact boundaries, fiscal benefits, economic
ori ArA. des tgn4
4'his �i a 1tA1Y'�* iFebruary 11, 2006 14
Blueprint for Good Growth
benefits, the need for additional development areas, and the local
comprehensive plan.
Rural Tier Policies
GM -22: Limit development in the rural tier to an average of five percent of
projected county -wide population growth within any three-year period,
exclusive of development approved within a planned community. This
limitation should be based on building permit issuance and, to the extent
that demand exceeds the five percent permit allocation, permits shall be
allocated on a first come, first granted basis.
5/. capoNu
Sthvisi ons
O Alternative language suggested by County
GM -22: 1Limit Ddevelopment in the rural tier te-an should average of five
COXd fl percent of projected county -wide population growth within the previous?
Aihitinsh any three-year period, exclusive of development approved within a
planned community. This limitationon building permit
pc 1LothrItAbalance and, to the extent that d
lit allocation, permits shall be allocated on a first come, first granted basis.
toyAry1014,
Who is the monitoring body and would we realistically expect any
jurisdiction to do this?
GM -23: Establish an equity -based program to secure permanent open space
within the rural tier through the use of techniques such as: conservation
subdivisions, transfers of development rights, or purchases of land,
conservation easements or development rights.
[Comment: policies GM -24 through GM -25 reserved in this draft]
Planned Communities Policies
Draft
GM -26: Allow planned communities to be established within cities, areas of
impact or rural areas of the County subject to the policies of this section,
comprehensive plan consistency and compliance with applicable
development regulations.
GM -27: Adjust development standards to encourage planned communities or
developments providing the benefits of planned communities within cities
and their areas of impact. These standards, described more fully in the
implementation section of this plan, may include, minimum density
thresholds, by -right development patterns that allow a mix of uses and
dwelling types subject to administrative review, trip -generation credits for
mixed use and transit -oriented development patterns and other incentives
to create more sustainable development patterns.
February 11, 2006 15
Blueprint for Good Growth
GM -28: For all planned communities:
1. Require the submittal of a concept plan for all contiguous land
holdings to be included within the planned community. Prior to
approving any extensions to a concept plan require the cumulative
analysis of facility, service and fiscal impacts for all lands to be
included within the planned community, including the creation of
facility and service demands in portions of the development located
outside of Ada County.
2. Prior to approval of a planned community, ensure that the
development is reflected in the County's comprehensive plan, the
BGG tier map, the Long -Range Transportation Plan and the ACHD
20 -Year CIP.
3. Assign the base residential and non-residential intensity at the time of
concept plan approval, considering:
a. the adequacy of essential public facilities;
b. consistency of the project with the Long Range Transportation
Plan, the ACRD 20 -Year CIP and the Valley Regional Transit
Plan;
c. the proximity of the project to existing employment centers;
and
d. physical limitations of the site.
GM -29: Refine existing County development regulations addressing planned
communities outside areas of impact to implement policy GM -28 and the
following policies:
1. Ensure that planned communities fund 100 percent of on and off-site
capital improvement costs for essential public facilities and emergency
service facilities required to serve the proposed development.
2. Ensure that development will fully fund operations and maintenance
costs for water, wastewater, transportation, public safety and
emergency services at adopted levels of service. (see Strategies
section for discussion of alternative funding tools)
NuniA is 3. Require the preservation of at least 50% of the gross acreage of the
FILSii p) property for open space. Allow the applicant to meet the need for up
to half the required open space throughh the conservation of off-site
f j1(U3,
high priority open space areas.
-to 5Jb7•
Le,ss -1110A a. SiltYldA4-
guts at- 5okilb
Draft
February 11, 2006 16
Blueprint for Good Growth
Public Lands Policy
GM -30: Coordinate with state, federal and local agencies to:
1. develop and maintain an inventory of public lands for use by all
service providers in identifying opportunities for collocation of
compatible public uses;
2. identify potential land swaps that result in more efficient protection of
resources within Ada County;
3. maintain or enhance access to public lands for public access and
emergency service provision;
4. maintain or enhance connectivity between public lands for recreational
or wildlife purposes;
5. review the impacts of proposed development of lands on
a. the preceding polices;
b. land use compatibility; and
c. transportation system function.
Transit Corridor Policies
Note: While the emphasis of this section is on the preservation of transit
corridors that are anticipated to provide some level of service within the next 20
years, this plan anticipates that long term need for more extensive transit
services to efficiently move people throughout Ada County and other portions of
the Treasure Valley. The preservation of future transit opportunities is critical
to ensure that needed services needed beyond the planning period can be
established to serve future residents.
GM -31: Map # shows the key arterial routes that have the greatest potential
as primary bus transit corridors. Local governments should require
development within these bus transit corridors to safely and efficiently
accommodate necessary transit facilities. These facilities may include on -
street bus stops with convenient pedestrian and bicycle access, pullout
lanes at community activity centers or on-site transit stations at regional
activity centers. (insert reference to Valley Regional Transit design
standards)
GM -32: To support the provision of efficient and convenient transit service,
cities should encourage or require minimum gross densities of at least 8
dwelling units per acre within identified bus transit corridors. Where
stable neighborhoods or natural resources inhibit the compatible
establishment of higher densities, seek to obtain transit supportive
densities and designs in mixed use activity centers in other areas along the
corridors.
GM -33: Map # illustrates the corridors most likely to support high capacity
transit services (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail or commuter rail). Light
or commuter rail is planned for the existing rail corridor. Bus rapid transit
(BRT) service has been studied and is proposed for the State Street
Draft February 11, 2006 17
Blueprint for Good Growth
corridor. Chinden Boulevard could provide another opportunity for BRT
if the right-of-way and abutting development support the service. To
enable the provision of high capacity transit services, local governments
should require minimum densities of at least 16 dwelling units per acre
within one-quarter mile of potential transit stops. Potential stops are
illustrated on Map #, for the light rail and State Street corridors. Potential
sites along the Chinden corridor will require more study.
GM -35: Adopt and apply transit -oriented development design standards that
address connectivity, pedestrian access, parking and transit facility design
within all bus transit corridors and within one-half mile of all high
capacity transit facilities. [Comment: TOD design standards to be
included in implementation section appendix]
GM -35: Ensure that local development decisions are consistent with adopted
transportation and transit plans to promote effective movement of people
and goods.
B. Open Space and Natural Resources
This plan supports the retention of open space for a wide variety of uses and the
responsible use of natural resources that results in the protection of the environmental and
aesthetic value of our land, air and water. While efforts to protect air quality will require
regional solutions, local land use and transportation decisions could significantly reduce
air pollutant generation from automobiles.
Open Space and Natural Resource Goal: To develop an interconnected
system of open spaces and natural resource areas that:
• Protect water quality;
• Protect development from flood hazards;
• Provide an accessible, system of greenways and trails;
• Protect wildlife habitat by avoiding fragmentation of habitat
areas and corridors;
• Minimize development on steep hillsides; and
• Provide appropriate recreational opportunities.
Open Space
OS -1: Develop a countywide open space and greenway plan to facilitate the
establishment of a coordinated system that helps achieve the open
space and natural resource goal.
OS -2: Establish context -sensitive minimum open space requirements for all
non -industrial development projects based on the following general
guidelines:
• Activity centers and transit corridors — no minimum percentage, but
establish plazas and other public spaces.
Draft February 11, 2006 18
Blueprint for Good Growth
• Cities and Areas of Impact:
o Residential projects: 20 percent open space, including land
dedicated for public uses, but excluding street rights-of-way.
o Non-residential and mixed-use projects: 15 percent open space,
including plazas and other public gathering spaces.
• Rural Areas: a minimum of 50 percent open space for conservation
subdivisions.
• Planned Communities: 50 percent open space (see policy GM -29).
OS -3: In reviewing development proposals, evaluate opportunities to retain
meaningful open spaces consistent with the preceding policies. Adopt
standards addressing the amount, configuration, dimensions, usability
and uses allowed within open spaces (see implementation section for
more details).
Natural Resources
Ada County encompasses many distinct environments offering a wealth of natural
resources that merit special protection efforts, including:
• Scenic hillsides and ridgelines;
• Floodplains along streams and rivers;
• Wildlife habitat areas; and
• Agricultural lands.
OS -4: Coordinate natural resource conservation efforts with federal, state and
other local agencies responsible for the maintenance and protection of
those resources.
OS -5: Enable development to satisfy a portion of its open space requirements
through the preservation of valued natural resource areas shown in
Map #.
OS -6: Limit development encroachment into areas identified in Map #.
Where land or development rights cannot be secured, use conservation
subdivision design to maximize preservation of the resources.
OS -7: Ensure that new development neither impedes the function of
floodplains or floodways, nor places development or its occupants at
risk from floodwaters. Coordinate stormwater management efforts
with affected agencies, which may include the ACHD, Boise River
Flood Control District 10 and/or irrigation entities, encouraging the
use of low impact stormwater management design wherever feasible.
OS -8: Coordinate with irrigation entities to minimize the risks and costs to
operators for the use of irrigation ditch rights-of-way and easements
for bicycle and pedestrian trails as part of the larger greenway system.
Draft February 11, 2006 19
Blueprint for Good Growth
OS -9: Preserve and protect gravel resources needed to support growth and
maintenance of facilities within Ada County. Minimize encroachment
of new development into relatively open areas that may be quarried for
gravel without interfering with existing development.
OS -10: To ensure limit potential safety hazards that may be generated by
gravel operations, establish review standards that require site
reclamation and the protection of floodplain areas during and
subsequent to the quarry operations. (see appendix for model
language)
C. Transportation Goal, Objectives and Policies
This section establishes policies to coordinate transportation facilities with future
development. In addition to establishing policies for road corridor preservation, it
addresses transit corridor preservation and the incorporation of non -motorized (e.g.,
bike/pedestrian) transportation facilities and services into the overall transportation
system. Other key transportation policies address connectivity, streetscape, traffic
calming techniques, interconnectivity and other issues identified in this Plan.
[Comment: Many of the policies are contingent upon the adoption of different level of
service (LOS) standards for different areas/road segments (e.g., lower congestion
thresholds in rural areas, such as LOS B or C and the identification of constrained
facilities in high priority areas such as downtowns and activity centers that may continue
to operate at LOS E without impeding future development).]
Transportation Goal: To coordinate land use and transportation decisions
so that the full range of mobility needs may be met with the least fiscal
burden.
Objectives:
3t'4..
- • Establish a formal plan amendment review process to ensure that local
comprehensive plans, the Long Range Transportation Plan, the ACRD 20 -
year CIP and the Valley Regional Transit Regional Operations and Capitalm��Sg iensure that planned land uses and
Improvement Plan are consistent to
po r tiya1 pZ.A'TY transportation facilities are mutually supportive.3
AT t&nth.. eh&N1g
3 ACHD will continue to plan for street capacity to serve development approved by local governments.
While near term projects shown in the 20 -year CIP will reflect approvals that more closely reflect trend
development patterns, longer term projects should reflect planned land uses that are consistent with
"Community Choices", the preferred growth scenario adopted through the Long Range Transportation Plan
and locally adopted land use plans.
Draft
February 11, 2006 20
Blueprint for Good Growth
• Within four years of adoption of the Blueprint for Good Growth,
implement a transportation management program that is consistent with
the following transportation policies.
Transportation Policies
T-1: Establish appropriate level of service standards that:
• Allow greater levels of congestion in cities and activity centers
than in outlying areas;
• Recognize the capacity constraints of some key corridors by
allowing for greater levels of congestion in constrained corridors;
• Allow for greater levels of congestion along identified transit
corridors.
'ION ton+,
A3iltcton
Stu -10t. 60 nu.
carr -Cl(u_ ontur.
Draft
T-2: Establish context sensitive street cross-sections that safely convey
existing and projected traffic in accordance with established level of
service standards, while addressing the following factors:
1. Compatibility with planned land uses along the corridor;
2. Safe access to abutting properties (note: this may be provided through
parallel roads, alleys or private drives along arterial streets);
3. Anticipated bicycle and pedestrian traffic;
4. Access to transit; and
5. Stormwater management needs.
T-3: Map # is the functional classification map that indicates the planned
function of future roadways. This map shall be used in conjunction with
cross-sections developed pursuant with policy T-2 to identify right-of-way
needs and to prevent encroachment of development into rights-of-way
needed to serve existing and planned development
T-4: Along corridors where additional right-of-way is needed, require
development to provide its pro -rata share of the right-of-way and
improvements. If additional right-of-way is needed, buildings and critical
parking shall be located outside of the planned right-of-way. Unless
sufficient funds are available to secure needed right-of-way prior to
development, maximum development intensities shall be based on the
acreage of the site prior to acquisition of the right-of-way.
T-5: Establish minimum connectivity requirements to improve traffic flow,
pedestrian connectivity, bicycle access, transit access and minimize
projected vehicle miles traveled from new development. Require new
development along arterial streets to provide access parallel to the arterial
street via an appropriate combination of frontage roads, private drives and
parallel collector streets.
T-6: Establish and maintain a more detailed traffic model that will track
existing, committed (e.g., approved), and planned traffic demands, as well
February 11, 2006 21
Blueprint for Good Growth
as their impacts on arterial and collector intersections. Continually refine
the model to provide more effective guidance in the review of traffic
mitigation proposals.
T-7: Adopt and implement the ACHD Pedestrian -Bicycle Transportation
Plan to establish routes that make bicycles a viable transportation
alternative for some individuals.
T-8: In conjunction with the development of context -sensitive street cross-
sections, develop and adopt a menu of traffic calming provisions in the
design manual that:
1. Identifies alternative traffic calming designs (e.g., bulb -outs,
boulevards, roundabouts and medians);
2. Effectively slow traffic;
3. Allow streets to function at planned capacities; and
4. Do not obstruct emergency access to and through neighborhoods.
T-9: To facilitate transit services that provide effective alternatives to
automotive travel, ensure that development and street designs are
consistent with the Transit Corridor development policies established in
GM -34 through GM -37. Along arterial roads that serve as bus routes,
require adequately designed bus pull-outs at appropriate locations
identified by Valley Regional Transit to facilitate transit provision without
obstructing non -bus traffic.
T-10: Refine street system capital funding sources so that adequate funds are
available for capacity expansion in addition to the maintenance and
operations of existing facilities. Evaluate the following strategies to
enhance capital funding:
1. Ongoing adjustment of local street impact fees to ensure that they keep
up with rising construction and right-of-way costs;
2. Expansion of impact fees to include state routes and the collector street
system;
3. The use of special districts to fund extraordinary capital and
operations/maintenance costs associated with developments of
regional impact;
4. Dedication and improvement requirements for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
D. Utilities Goal, Objectives and Policies
Coordination of utilities with growth and development decisions is an objective that will
be difficult to achieve due to the large number of service providers. Utilities are provided
within Ada County through a collection of municipal, public and private service
providers. Electrical service is provided by Idaho Power. Water and sewer service is
provided by municipal and other public and private service providers. Stormwater
Draft February 11, 2006 22
Blueprint for Good Growth
management responsibilities are shared between local governments, irrigation entities,
ACHD and various flood control agencies. Despite the challenges created by the
fragmented service provision, this plan strongly supports continued efforts to share
information and coordinate capital and service provision plans.
Utility Goals:
1. To compatibly and safely integrate necessary utility facilities with future growth
and development;
2. To ensure that utility systems are adequate to meet the needs of residents and
businesses;
3. To minimize energy consumption and water demands through aggressive
conservation measures (e.g., green buildings, xeriscaping, grey -water usage); and
4. To minimize the negative impacts of utility provision on the natural and built
environments.
Utility Objectives:
1. Within two years of adoption of the BGG, local governments will update local
plans to identify public utility needs and to make accommodations for the
facilities required to deliver projected services.
2. Within three years of adoption of the BGG, local governments will update their
land development regulations to be consistent with the policies established in this
section.
Utility Policies
U-1: Adopt and enforce minimum fire flow requirements or alternative fire
suppression options for all development located within cities and all
development within areas of impact that is served by centralized water and
sewer service.
U-2: Plan for the extension of municipally approved sewer service throughout
cities and their areas of impact, except in areas specifically planned for
large lot residential development. Ensure that development in planned
sewer service areas is designed to be connected to the municipal sewer
system. Where development of interim facilities is authorized pursuant to
policy GM -16, ensure that provisions are made for the future connection
of the development to the applicable municipal system.
U-3 Map # illustrates the general locations of electrical system substations
required to serve planned development within each community. Local
governments shall coordinate with Idaho Power to ensure that adequate
land is planned for siting these facilities and associated power lines.
[What are the rules regarding advance site acquisition by Idaho Power?]
U-4: Annually review of applicable short and long-range utility capital plans
with all utility providers4 to discuss projected short and long-term
4 This should include all water, wastewater, electric, telecommunications and natural gas service providers.
Draft February 11, 2006 23
Blueprint for Good Growth
demands from development, facility siting and construction needs, and
right-of-way and easement acquisition needs.
U-5: Coordinate development reviews with applicable service providers to
ensure that new development can be served safely and adequately.
U-6: Evaluate alternatives to coordinate and provide a stable funding source
for stormwater management services that address the needs of ACHD,
irrigation entities, flood control districts and local municipalities,
including compliance with NPDES stormwater quality requirements.
Alternatives may include the expansion of an existing agency's mandate
or the creation of a new stormwater management utility.
E. Public Schools Goal, Objective and Policies
Three school districts provide public school facilities and services in Ada County. Each
of these districts faces unique growth related challenges, the outcome of which will have
a dramatic impact on the quality of life in Ada County. The most significant challenge
faced by local school districts is the funding of the capital facilities needed to serve
anticipated growth.
Public School Goal: To coordinate development decisions with the capacity of local
school districts to provide high quality educational facilities and services.
Public School Objective: To establish adequate public school facility requirements
within two years after the adoption of the Blueprint for Good Growth.
Public School Policies
PS -1: Coordinate with local school districts to secure sufficient funding to
meet anticipated demands from the state or other local sources.
PS -2: Coordinate with local school districts to ensure that public facilities are
adequate to meet projected demands from new development.
PS -3: Coordinate with school districts to establish appropriate school siting
criteria that address:
• Appropriate access for elementary, middle and high schools;
• Opportunities for collocation of recreation and other appropriate
facilities; and
• The extension and funding of support infrastructure, including, but
not limited to water, sewer and streets.
Draft February 11, 2006 24
Blueprint for Good Growth
III. Strategies
This section of the Blueprint for Good Growth outlines recommendations to implement
the policies established in the previous section. Many of the recommendations will need
to be adjusted to reflect differences in the plans, codes and character of local
governments.
A. Plan Amendments
This section identifies comprehensive plan amendments that each jurisdiction will need
to make to ensure consistency with the objectives and policies of the Blueprint for Good
Growth.
Future Land Use Map Amendments
The Blueprint Growth Tier Map and local governments' future land use plans are largely
consistent with the future land uses proposed by the Communities in Motion Community
Choice Scenario. This scenario established as the basis for future population and
employment growth on which the Long Range Transportation Plan is based. While no
specific future land use amendments are listed in this plan, local governments will need
to adopt the Blueprint for Good Growth Tier map and related policies to implement this
plan. Additionally, local governments should review zoning maps and zoning district
requirements to ensure that they are consistent with and promote the implementation of
the Blueprint policies.
As Ada County and each of the cities update their future land use map and the tier map
within their jurisdictions, they should:
"TSIs X54 _ 1. Determine whether the amendment is a major or minor amendment. Minor
amendments are those that do not result in a change of the tier map boundaries
a. ha'i1and do not exceed the development of regional impact thresholds. Adjustments to
. city limits boundaries that are encompassed within the applicable city's area of
Pg-iudIn impact shall be considered minor amendments.
Minor amendments should be handled through the normal process used by the
\i ex-. local agency.
&wool-
3. Major amendments should be forwarded to the Blueprint for Good Growth
Hearing Officers, who shall:
a. review the proposed amendment for consistency with:
. i. the goals, objectives and policies of this plan;
ii. the Long Range Transportation Plan;
iii. the ACHD 20 -year CIP; and
iv. Valley Regional Transit Operations and Capital Improvement Plan.
etii..ai b. Forward draft consistency findings to the BGG Consortium for formal
ihmett
action in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement implementing
this plan.
CUsts app roY��i,emvt.
o1)itex
1?)PG
o e that this text presumes the use of a hearing examiner to review local government actions for
consistency with the BGG. The Consortium will be responsible for retaining the hearing examiner (whose
expenses should be covered by application fees) and making a formal consistency finding.
Draft
February 11, 2006 25
Blueprint for Good Growth
c. If the BGG Consortium finds that the proposed plan amendment is
inconsistent with any of the documents in paragraph "a" ... [discussion
item]
Policy Amendments
Each community may incorporate the Blueprint for Good Growth policies by reference or
directly incorporate applicable policies into their comprehensive plans. Subsequent to the
plan amendments that reference or incorporate the plan amendments, each jurisdiction
shall forward proposed policy amendments to the BGG Hearing Examiner for a
consistency review pursuant to major amendment provisions of the previous section.
B. Intergovernmental Coordination
This section identifies changes in intergovernmental policies, practices and agreements
needed to implement the BGG objectives and policies.
Areas of Impact
This section outlines locally adopted standards and procedures related to adjustments to
areas of impact. In addition to establishing local procedures, this section identifies
proposed statutory changes. The local standards and procedures should be implemented
through intergovernmental agreements between each of the cities and Ada County.
Boundary modification standards: In addition to considering the state mandated
factors for modifications to areas of impact, the following factors shall be evaluated prior
to granting an amendment to an area of impact boundary:
[Should these factors be considered by the hearing master prior to County action
established under the statute? This could reduce political pressures on County
Commissioners and result in a clear evidentiary record prior to their review and action.]
Bt2411. Consistency of the proposed boundary with applicable long range capital facility
AM plans that reflect historical or reasonably anticipated funding levels to facilitate
S,)Net the efficient provision of adequate water, wastewater, stormwater and
L transportation facilities;
c3y, e,„yytpetSS 2. Recent growth trends and COMPASS growth projections for the applicable city;
3. The availability of adequate land supplies within the city and its area of impact to
-Careat4hmeet the amount and diversity of growth that may be reasonably anticipated by
taitt (., the city. When considering this factor, the Hearing Master shall examine the
planned land uses in the existing city, existing area of impact and the expansion
allb tS • area to determine whether they represent a mix of land uses and products that can
reasonably be anticipated to be demanded. Generally residential land supplies
NM- :twist- that are more than 1.5 times the anticipated 20 -year demand should be considered
CULGUICaG excessive. Commercial and industrial surpluses may be more than twice
projected demands, depending on very long-range needs and opportunities.
4. The existence of short-term (e.g., 5 -year) capital improvements programs that are
T — adequately funded to accommodate growth anticipated within at least 20 percent
11
Draft
February 11, 2006 26
Blueprint for Good Growth
of the area of impact. Note that these plans should provide capacity, though not
necessarily line extensions that typically are funded by new development; and
5. Whether existing inter -governmental agreements with the County and applicable
service providers to coordinate land use and infrastructure decisions are consistent
with the policies established in this plan.
Area of Impact development standards:
Development within each area of impact shall be subject to the terms of an
intergovernmental agreement implementing the Blueprint for Good Growth policies.
Each local government shall document applicable land use, development and public
improvement standards through a separate intergovernmental agreement. Each
agreement shall establish:
• Applicable future land use categories;
• Zoning districts to authorize planned land uses;
• Site development standards addressing bulk, setback and other applicable
development standards for buildings, parking areas, landscaping, signs, and public
use areas;
• On and off-site public improvement standards addressing water, wastewater,
transportation, stormwater and public utilities; and
• Development approval criteria.
Development review procedures.
Except as otherwise provided by the Area of Impact Policies, applications for
development within areas of impact shall be:
• jointly reviewed by City and County staffs for compliance with the applicable
development standards; and
• acted upon by the applicable County authority.
In those instances when City approval of a development agreement is required, the
County shall not approve the final plat of a project until the City and developer have
executed the development agreement.
In those instances when a variance to a public improvement standard is requested, the
County shall not authorize the variance unless the City has provided written
documentation that the variance has been approved.
ACHD Coordination
This section addresses potential changes in the development review and capital planning
processes to enhance the coordination between transportation system decisions,
comprehensive plans and development decisions. Included in this section are
recommendations to:
[To be finalized after confirmation of policies by Steering Committee and Consortium]
• implement the BGG objectives and policies;
Draft February 11, 2006 27
Blueprint for Good Growth
• ensure that traffic modeling addresses the cumulative impact of development;
and
• resolve inconsistencies between neighborhood plans and regional
transportation needs.
COMP Coordination
section addresses potential changes in local government planning and development
monitoring procedures to ensure that COMPASS has the most current information
available concerning current and future land uses. Additional coordination will involve
the coordination of traffic modeling between ACRD and COMPASS.
[To be finalized after confirmation of policies by Steering Committee and Consortium.]
Development review procedures:
Diall4
• In addition to providing development review opportunities in accordance with
existing policies and procedures, local governments will provide to COMPASS
coApAss and ACRD quarterly reports that identify:
n o Building permit and certificate of occupancy data,
liZtA) j Cup Ukd . o Zoning and plan map amendments, and
o Concept plan, preliminary plat and final plat approvals.
• See new DRI procedures below.
Traffic modeling procedures:
• COMPASS and ACHD will update travel demand models based on development
activity reports from local governments.
• COMPASS, ACRD and IDT will share traffic count data, transportation network
information, and collaboratively calibrate traffic models on an annual basis.
• COMPASS will continue to monitor current and long range traffic demands at a
regional level.
• ACHD will track existing plus pipeline development (e.g., development projects
approved, but not yet built) and refine travel demand modeling to provide more
detailed assessments of the impacts of development on intersections and non -
arterial streets.
ITD Coordination
This section will address potential changes in local and State policies, standards and
procedures to address existing issues, such as funding, roadway design, access
management, roadway amenities (e.g., sidewalks, landscaping and other streetscape
design issues), and incorporation of impact fees and adequate public facility standards
into state ITD policies and regulations.
[To be finalized after confirmation of policies by Steering Committee and Consortium.]
Draft
February 11, 2006 28
96t\
Blueprint for Good Growth
Valley Regional Transit Coordination
[To be finalized after confirmation of policies by Steering Committee and Consortium]
developments of Regional Im
This section establishes the thresholds and procedures for review of Developments of
/Aden
w1 t, Regional Impact (DRI).
cbs
Q6\LflCLL
kommit.
-gyp degor
-b4A1,
WI*
41487'
Cal
DRI Thresholds
[discussion item]
DRI
.
•
.
.
.
Procedures
Upon determining that an application for site development plan, zoning map
amendment, comprehensive plan map amendment, or subdivision approval
exceeds the DRI thresholds, the local government shall notify the applicant of the
need for review of the application by the Hearing Master, who shall hear the
application within days of the submittal of the application to the BGG
Consortium.
Copies of the application shall be forwarded to all local governments and other
public service providers affected by the application within 5 working days of the
filing of the application with the Consortium.
Insert notice and hearing requirements.
Within 45 days of the opening of the public hearing on the DRI application, the
Hearing Master shall provide written findings of fact and conclusions of law
regarding the application's compliance with the DRI review factors.
Effect of Hearing Master's finding — to be completed
o Site development plan
o Zoning map amendment
o Comprehensive plan map amendment
o Subdivision application
DRI Review Factors
Insert factors for each type of application
C. Regulatory Changes
This section will identify and prioritize regulatory changes needed to implement the
BGG. Model regulations (including policy options) will be prepared to address
numerous regulatory needs, including, but not limited to:
i. Infill standards
1. Administrative design standards for high density projects;
2. Creation of "third" places6 within neighborhoods
3. Form -based zoning standards for transit -oriented development; and
6 Home and work are the first two places; third places are public, quasi -public and private places where
people can meet their neighbors, such as: coffee shops, public plazas, parks, museums and social clubs.
Draft
February 11, 2006 29
Blueprint for Good Growth
4. Compatibility criteria for infill development.
ii. Planned Development Regulations
iii. Planned Communities Regulations
iv. Conservation Subdivision Standards
v. Adequate Public Facilities Standards
vi. Mitigation Standards
vii. Benchmarks to measure annual compliance with BGG standards and policies
[Comment: recommended plan edits by jurisdiction will be drafted after discussion of
draft policies and determination of the funding status of phase 11 of BGGJ
D. Legislative Initiatives
This section will identify key regulatory initiatives that would help implement the BGG,
which may include:
i. Proposals for public improvement district (PID) standards that would require
PID consistency with comprehensive plans and would allow the PID to be
used to fund operation and maintenance costs resulting from certain
developments;
ii. Adjustments to the area of impact processes;
iii. Adjustments to impact fee legislation; and
iv. Clarifications of authority for intergovernmental agreements.
E. Educational Initiatives
This section will identify short-term and ongoing educational initiatives that may be
provided through Blueprint efforts or other mechanisms. In addition to addressing
general planning and plan implementation topics such as those listed above, the plan
could outline presentations on specific topics of interest, such as case studies of
successful and unsuccessful planned communities, the use of mitigation fees, and form -
based zoning.
Draft February 11, 2006 30
Blueprint for Good Growth
IV. Appendices
Appendix A: Growth Projections
Appendix B: Scenarios Analysis
Appendix C: Plan Policy Amendments
Appendix D: Regulatory Models
Draft February 11, 2006 31
Communities in Motion
Trend Land Use Scenario
with Currently Developed Areas
'r
_• r ---V w
Market St Markb}Rd
CC
OldHwyl8
•e
E
Dix a Rd
Red Top Rd
8
ar
Galloway Rd
Purple Sage R
0
October 5, 2005
Maes
2
4
I '
Purpl yrage R
Peckham Rd
Activity Center
Arterial Commercial
- Central City
- City
Compact Neighborhood
Industrial
Large Lot Residential
- Main Street
- Office Park
Residential Subdivision
Rural Housing
Town
Developed or Exempt Lands
* Major Destination Points
S WROJECTS\Canrrun0.lesInMdion\OtbberMtgs\Irerrdland_B. mzd
pv
S MayfielI Rd
i
v
S
Rd
Z�z
% ..
BeionLight Rcil
HomerAd
Communities In Motion
Trend Land Use
Homer Rd
Beacon Light Rd
4.0
c m
a
m �, _ ..: _
Communities In Motion
Communities Choice Land Use
i
1
Communities in Motion
Community Choices Land Use Scenario
with Currently Developed Areas
Market St
Market Rd
OldHwyl8
i
Dixie Rd I
a
Red Top Rd
trs
Galloway Rd
Purple Sage R
Purple <age Rd
J
.6
m
Bol Iver Rd
Homer Rd
0
October 5, 2005
N
Mks
2
4
Beacon Light Re
s
a
0
Float SgFeat
Peckham Rd
derHwy 19
1
tate !WY 44
r
E
11 I f ISynpotB
K
Us ick Rd _-
US HWY !0 & 28
Ustick Rd
I (stick Rd
Homedale Rd
Karcher Rd
Ch rry Ln
Q
se Drchard Ave
J C
Lone
Cha eaJ
he nr
2 Mc Alan • . L%
v
E. a • ��eQ�a
U clic eirlialLCW
!#.tilipowaska 44,
jai t I) �.i%1 1�_`y-iW1FY,YW:ta talL 'A iMT wok
N
0
J
Marsing Rd
Lake H>Izel Rd
Lake Shore r__
_
thiColum ria Rd
Activity Center
Arterial Commercial
MI Central City
City
Compact Neighborhood
Industrial
Large Lot Residential
El Main Street
I. Office Park
Residential Subdivision
Rural Housing
Town
L a G
Ler Ha
ce0
i
0
U
(0
Columbia Rd
Deer Flat Rd
Hem
Missouri Ave
0
CC
sou
eer FI =t Rd
se
ve
K ma Rd _' Arlon
0
King RI
Kuna Rd
13ee
UPor
SPROJEC S am unihesinMdgn\OtbberMtgsldhoiknd_B,rntd
0
Melba R1
re0
2
Ferry Rd
Kuna-Mora Rc
Swan Falls Rd
Kuna-Mora Rd
SMeyfiel Rd