The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes - 2019 - Planning & Zoning - 11/18/2019 - RegularTHE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 18, 2019 Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:09 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: JOHNSON, GUERBER, MCLAUGHLIN, and SMITH. Absent: WRIGHT. A quorum is present. 3. ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ARE ACTION ITEMS. CONSENT AGENDA: ♦ Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Chairman, a Commissioner, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the Rules of Order. ♦ Any item on the Consent Agenda that contains written recommendations from the City of Eagle shall be adopted as part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Consent Agenda approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise. A. Minutes of November 4, 2019. Guerber moves to approve the consent agenda as presented. Seconded by McLaughlin. ALL AYES... MOTION CARRIES. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. ACTIONITEM.• CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." City Planner, Nichoel Baird Spencer, provides a detailed overview of the application. Spencer responds to questions from the Commission. Chairwoman Johnson opens the Public Hearing. Jim Farrens, 7847 West Stack Rock Drive, Boise, Idaho. Farrens provides details regarding his background and recommends adopting the proposed plan. Farrens discusses costs and timelines of roadway projects, improvements required to local infrastructure, as well as the impact that additional traffic will have on level of service and cost of services. Robert Mortensen, 1340 North Golfview Way, Meridian, Idaho. Mortensen explains that he works in Eagle, is a former Avimor resident and employee, and provides information regarding his background. Mortensen wishes to see Avimor's development standards applied across the Treasure Valley, supports Avimor remaining part of Eagle's Comprehensive Plan, and appreciates their responsible clustering and riparian areas. Mortensen does not believe that Avimor will create a tax burden to Eagle, and states that they are self-sustaining in many ways. Carlos Matutes, 6481 West Dufferin Court, Boise, Idaho. Matutes represents the Southwest Idaho Mountain Bike Association and encourages the Commission to reject the proposed plan. Matutes discusses wildlife, open space, and trails in Avimor. Matutes expresses concerns about Page 1 of 9 K:%P&Z\M INUTES120191PZ-11-18-19m in.doc subdivision in the foothills and the impact that will have on the future of outdoor space Matutes responds to comments from the Commission. Kristine Sanda, 683 Nicklaus Lane, Eagle, Idaho. Sanda encourages the Commission to approve the proposed plan, discusses growth within the Treasure Valley and the repercussions of not approving the proposed plan. Sanda discusses the cost of providing services in the foothills, steps that the current Mayor and City Council have taken to put time -restrictions on developments, and discusses providing water to Avimor. Sanda provides a written document to the Clerk for inclusion into the record. Dan Richter, 18454 North McLeod Way, Boise (Avimor), Idaho. Richter is the managing partner for Avimor, and requests additional time for testimony. Commissioner Johnson denies request based upon the fact that Richter is not speaking on behalf of his collective group. Richter provides information about the history of the McLeod family and their goals for development within the foothills, the history of the foothills in Eagle's Comprehensive Plan, and the history of the Comprehensive Plan. Richter discusses 40 -acre parcels, roads in Avimor, public access, and the continuance of public access. Richter responds to questions from the Commission. Shon Parks, 18244 North Streams Edge Way, Boise (Avimor), Idaho. Parks expresses appreciation for living in a clustered -community and the services that Avimor provides. Parks discusses due process, the scope of changes proposed, states that the process seems very short and subverted, and the timeframe provided for public comment from those living in the areas potentially affected by these changes. Parks provides details regarding his family's history in the area. Parks responds to questions from the Commission. David Eberle, 3648 North Willowbar Way, Garden City, Idaho. Eberle explains his background, states that the City of Eagle is not fiscally sound, and discusses Avimor's potential contributions to the City of Eagle. Eberle states that the proposed modification does not support Eagle's vision for the foothills, discusses potential loss of public access, and the degradation of wildlife habitat and water quality. Eberle discusses sprawl that resulted from the policies of Ada County in the 1970s, and recommends that the Commission reject the proposed plan or delay a decision to allow more time for evaluation to take place. Eberle responds to questions from the Commission. Nancy Wood, 1291 North Echo Creek Place, Eagle, Idaho. Wood expresses her support for the proposed plan, discusses impacts on quality of life, costs of providing services, and traffic generated by development. Woods recommends approval of the proposed plan and provides a written document to the Clerk for inclusion into the record. Chris Stokes, 2505 East Blackstone Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Stokes thanks the Commission of the opportunity to provide input, encourages the Commission to recommend approval of the proposed plan. Stokes discusses the source of campaign contributions in the recent election, discusses the impact of development in the foothills on traffic, the cost of providing services, and the impact this may have on taxes. Stokes discusses the timeline of the amendment process and the opportunities provided for public input. Stokes provides a written document to the Clerk for inclusion into the record. Thomas Rogers, 1828 North Longridge Place, Eagle, Idaho. Rogers states his agreement with the comments made during Ms. Stokes testimony, and recommends that the Commission approve the proposed plan. Page 2 of 9 KAP&Z\M I NUTES\2019\PZ-11-18-19min.doc Charlie Kouba, 18807 North Old Shore Place, Boise (Avimor), Idaho. Kouba states that Dan Richter and his team have done a great job developing Avimor and says there is no other development like it. Kouba states that he thinks more time needs to be provided for public input, provides explanation of his background, and expresses support and reasons for support Avimor. Kouba states that Avimor provides affordable housing, discusses economic impacts of changing densities in the Comprehensive Plan, and explains why he has chosen to live in Avimor. Christopher Hadden, 909 North Morley Green Place, Eagle, Idaho. Hadden discusses the history of the foothills in the Comprehensive Plan, the McLeod family's activity in the foothills, and the lack of progress of the M3 Spring Valley project. Hadden discusses bonds, burden on taxpayers, and recommends that the Commission pass the proposed plan to the Council with a recommendation of approval. Hadden provides a written document to the Clerk for inclusion into the record. Dan O'Leary, 1240 East Riversong Drive, Eagle, Idaho. O'Leary asks that the Commission pass the proposed plan to the Council with a recommendation of approval and explains that recommending approval will allow for public comment before the City Council, discusses the cost of providing services and the utilities needed to service Avimor, and discusses Ada County's designation of the land as "wild urban fire zone" and concerns about fire hazards and pumping water. O'Leary responds to questions from the Commission. Tim Eck, 6152 West Half Moon Lane, Eagle, Idaho. Eck states that he has not seen a development with 70% open space like that in Avimor, states that open space must be dedicated open space to ensure its preservation. Eck explains that he believes more time needs to be spent evaluating the proposed changes. Eck responds to comments from the Commission. Brett Smith, 1148 North Watson Way, Eagle, Idaho. Smith explains his background and states his appreciation for the City's recent work to develop an oil & gas ordinance. Smith references a book titled Cadillac Desert, and describes the impact that water being provided to Los Angeles had on areas 200 -miles away, expresses concerns regarding providing water to Avimor and the impact that could have on development in Avimor, and mentions quality of life concerns. Smith provides a written document to the Clerk for inclusion into the record. Jane Rohling, 582 North Palmetto Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Rohling discusses the costs of services associated with annexation of Avimor, water sources, water providers, and water pumping activities. Rohling discusses concerns about the costs and responsibility of installing infrastructure, and recommends that the Commission pass the proposed plan to the City Council. Tracey Koellisch, 2013 North Black Forest Way, Eagle, Idaho. Koellisch expresses concerns about the number of "mights" and "coulds" expressed during previous testimony, states her opposition for the proposed amendment, and believes that the application needs to be returned to Staff for further exploration before moving it forward to the City Council. Koellisch states concerns regarding the scheduling of the open house, discusses comments made by Councilmember Gold on August 27, 2019, and discusses a public records request that she submitted for additional information. Rick Gilmore, 6266 West Piaffe Street, Eagle, Idaho. Gilmore states his agreement with Tracey Koellisch's statements. Gilmore discusses frustrations with the "maybes" and "coulds" expressed during the public hearing and discusses amount of time provided for input. Gilmore provides information regarding his background, discusses duplications in document, states that plan should not be approved in its current state and needs to be proofed, and states that not all stakeholders Page 3 of 9 KAP&Z\M IN UTES\2019\PZ-11-18-19m in. doc have been sufficiently involved in the amendment process. Ed Spano, 2008 North Tullshire Way, Eagle, Idaho. Spano states his opposition to the plan, states that it should not be voted on at this meeting, and expresses concerns regarding the fact that dedicated school sites may be counted toward subdivision open space calculations. Chad McCloud, 934 East Segundo Street, Meridian, Idaho. McCloud provides information about his background, states that he feels that Avimor should remain part of the Comprehensive Plan, and states that he feels that this is a major rewrite of the plan. McCloud reads an email from the Sierra Club, and responds to statements made in the email regarding affordable housing found in Avimor, fencing and its impact on wildlife, the foothills master plan, and whether the owners of Avimor can afford to develop on their own. Sheridan Hodson, 1576 West Kenai Court, Eagle, Idaho. Hodson states that he opposes changing the Comprehensive Plan and states that the proposed plan should be denied or postponed. Hodson states that this change was directed by the City Council and references the recent election and states that the newly elected officials should have a say in this application. Hodson discusses comments of Mayor Ridgeway in a recent Statesman interview and the amount of public input involved in this amendment. Hodson discusses the founding concept of Avimor, how the McLeod family paid for infrastructure to build Avimor, states that changing the Comprehensive Plan in a short time in irresponsible. Shelley Brock, 8770 West Chaparral Road, Eagle, Idaho. Brock encourages the Commission to approve the proposed plan and discusses desires for less growth. Brock references the oil and gas ordinance, and requests that the Commission protect Eagle residents health and safety by protecting residents from real estate developers, and discusses recent campaign contributions by Avimor and other developers. Brock expresses concerns about traffic generated as a result of development in the foothills and the costs of additional infrastructure, traffic accidents, emergency response times, and the cost associated with providing water to Avimor. Brock discusses the opportunities for public input, availability of information, and states that Avimor withdrew from previous discussions with the City when asked to provide information about costs. Brock provides a written document to the Clerk for inclusion into the record. Charlie Bann, 1072 North Beechwood Court, Eagle, Idaho. Baun discusses his involvement in previous Comprehensive Plan changes in Eagle and Ada County and states that this has not been a transparent process with opportunities for public input. Baun explains that this is not a discussion about the annexation of Avimor, rather a discussion about the Comprehensive Plan. Baun inquires why documents provided by Avimor have not been made available to the public for review and lists a number of documents that he believes should be made available to the public. Baun requests more time for this application so that the public can be more informed. Anne Joslin, 1750 West Washam Road, Eagle, Idaho. Joslin states her support for the proposed plan, discusses limiting growth and sprawl, and states that the current foothills plan is not in the best interests of current Eagle residents. Joslin discusses concerns about costs and the return on investment, the impact that development in the foothills will have on level of service, emergency response times, and costs. Joslin expresses concerns about increased traffic congestion, and a decline in community distinctiveness and cohesiveness. Joslin states concerns the people would drive south on Highway 55, turn east toward Boise, and never develop a connection to Eagle. Steve Bender, 1235 North Sevenoaks Place, Eagle, Idaho. Bender states his opposition to the amendment and encourages the Commission to remand the application to staff. Bender discusses errors in the plan, the age of data provided in the plan, the fact that some data reflects information for the entire state rather than only local. Bender discusses concerns about errors in the document, both typographic and substantive. Bender provides a written document to the Clerk for inclusion Page 4 of 9 K:\P&Z\MINUTES\2019\PZ-11-18-19m in.doc into the record. Chase Craig, 337 West Redgrave Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Craig opposes the proposed changes, provides information about his background as a realtor, expresses concerns about affordable housing in the area, compares average house prices in Eagle and Avimor, and discusses Avimor's community development standards. David Wilkinson, 969 North Arena Way, Eagle, Idaho. Wilkinson opposes the proposed plan, and encourages the Commission to remand the plan to staff for a number of reasons: current water purchase issues, misinformation, contradictions, conflicting statements on the scope of what is intended, disaster recovery, lack of planned emergency water storage, missing stakeholder input, missing water company input, no fire district input, future of water in the city, and discusses requirements for central services. Wilkinson provides a written document to the Clerk for inclusion into the record. John Collins, 1805 North Chaucer Way, Eagle, Idaho. Collins opposes the proposed plan, encourages slowing the process to further explore pros and cons, costs and benefits. Collins does not support the idea of giving control of Avimor to several counties, discusses the recent election, and recommends not approving the proposed plan. Chairwoman Johnson requests a recess at 08:40 P.M. Chairwoman Johnson resumes the meeting at 08:50 P.M. Tyra Benoit, 2875 South Creek Pointe Lane, Eagle, Idaho. Benoit supports the proposed plan, and discusses climate change and air quality studies referencing Boise and the Treasure Valley in recent studies and articles. Peter Robbins, 138 South Vandries Avenue, Eagle, Idaho. Robbins provides an anecdote about his day, discusses responses provided by the public, states that he is not a fan of growth, but accepts that it is inevitable. Robbins encourages the Commission to remand the application to staff for further investigation or to deny the application. Trae Buchert, 5446 Highway 16, Eagle, Idaho. Buchert states concerns about the unknowns of what development of the foothills under Ada, Gem, and Boise Counties may look like. Buchert opposes this application. Jim Reynolds, 1118 North Snead Avenue, Eagle, Idaho. Reynolds requests that the Commission remand the application back to staff, references section 4.1 (special services), and discusses recycling and insufficient bandwidth. Reynolds responds to comments from the Commission. Ashley Neubrand, 645 West Cowman Court, Eagle, Idaho. Neubrand states her support for the proposed plan, references concerns related to fire hazards and limited ingress/egress in the foothills, roadwork and the Ada County Highway District, and discusses habits of wintering animals in developed areas. Brad Pfannmuller, 18454 North McLeod Way, Boise (Avimor), Idaho. Pfannmuller states that he is the general manager and partner at Avimor. Pfannmuller references the transportation study and existing deficiencies and states that improvements would need to be paid for by State funds. Pfannmuller references Mr. Hadden's comments about a bond, and explains bonds within various Community Infrastructure Districts within Ada County. Pfannmuller explains Avimor's efforts with regard to creating a fire -wise community, water consumption, and sewer reuse. Elizabeth Roberts, 1351 North Mansfield Place, Eagle, Idaho. Roberts supports the proposed plan and requests that the Commission pass the plan to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Roberts states concerns related to the number of households allowed under the current Page 5 of 9 K:\P&Z\MIN UTE S\2019\PZ-11-18-19m in, doc plan and the resulting traffic. Roberts echoes Mr. Farrens' concerns about the cost of improving Highway 55. Roberts discusses needed road improvements and funding for such improvements, states that proposed plan will maintain the rural character of north Ada County, and will preserve more open space for wildlife. Roberts expresses concerns related to possible Avimor annexation and the impact that may have on taxes and availability of services. Roberts provides a written document to the Clerk for inclusion into the record. Nancy Merrill, 3268 West Sky Wood Lane, Eagle, Idaho. Merrill explains history of comprehensive planning in Eagle and the number of people involved in the development of previous Comprehensive Plans. Merrill recommends that the Commission slow the application, discusses Eagle's development standards, what could happen if development is not allowed in the foothills and the impact that may have on the city, discusses foothills development standards and the benefits of such standards. Kathy Pennisi, 3675 North Saddleman Place, Eagle, Idaho. Pennisi provides details regarding her background, discusses history of the Comprehensive Plan in Eagle, and states that citizens who have participated in previous Comprehensive Plan efforts did not support suburban sprawl into the foothills. Pennisi discusses infrastructure funding for Avimor and reads from the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) transmittal response. Pennisi explains that if Avimor is annexed into the City of Eagle, those improvements will become the responsibility of the City of Eagle. Pennisi states that this amendment helps Eagle fulfill its commitments to residents in rural neighborhoods. Pennisi states skepticism regarding previous comments regarding the loss of public access in the foothills. Pennisi states that she hopes the Commission will support the proposed plan. Tami Bromley, 8856 Silver Spur Lane, Middleton, Idaho. Bromley provides details regarding her background and discusses equestrian access to public lands. Bromley opposes the proposed plan, and discusses various recreational activities that residents participate in in the foothills. Bromley encourages the Commission to stymie the amendment or postpone a decision until the newly elected officials are seated. Bromley states concerns that much of the evening's testimony has been directed toward Avimor and states that she does not feel Avimor has had an opportunity to respond. Stacey Herrig, 9295 South Fidalgo Avenue, Kuna, Idaho. Herrig states that she opposes the Comprehensive Plan, makes a comment on behalf of Chad McCloud, reads an excerpt from a document prepared by David Eberle regarding the financial impact that Avimor will have on the City of Eagle, and states that we have no idea of the potential outcome of Avimor if Boise or Gem Counties were to gain jurisdiction of Avimor. Herrig provides a written document to the Clerk for inclusion into the record. Craig Aaland, 1044 North Covenant View Way, Eagle, Idaho. Aaland opposes the proposed plan and recommends that it be sent back to Staff. Aaland states that he reviewed the comments from the Open House and provides statistics regarding the public input provided. Aaland references 11.3.2 of the Comprehensive Plan, references the recent election outcome, and urges the Commission to send the plan to the City Council until the plan is in proper shape to move forward. Steve Weston, 6126 West Piaffe Court, Eagle, Idaho. Weston discusses comments made by Councilmember Bastian and Commissioner Lachiando at the September 26, 2019 joint City/County workshop, and inquires whether it is the City's goal to allow citizens in the foothills to be governed by a County Commission that does not want control of the area and who does not provide adequate services. Weston references the origination of the proposed amendment and references the results of the recent election. Weston requests that the Commission remand the application to Staff to address concerns raised by Council members and citizens. Page 6 of 9 K:\P&Z\M I N UTE S\2019\PZ-11-18-19m i n. doc Weston responds to statements from the Commission. Daniel Gold, 609 West Bosanka Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Gold states that the last time he spoke before the Commission was during the 2017 Comprehensive Plan public hearing. Gold states that the Comprehensive Plan sets reasonable expectations for how Eagle is going to grow, states his support for this proposed plan and states that it sets a reasonable expectation that Eagle does not want to facilitate growth into the foothills. Gold details greater restrictions imposed by the County in 2016, states that the County does not desire facilitating urban -style growth in the foothills. Gold explains that it is within Eagle's character to preserve rural spaces, explains that the foothills area is currently under the County's jurisdiction, and that this change is not "giving anything back", rather, is signaling the City's intent. Richard Llewellyn, 9170 West Hill Road, Boise, Idaho. Llewellyn discusses the history of development in the Boise/Eagle area, and supports the idea of not developing north of Beacon Light Road. Llewellyn discusses traffic and costs of development. Ken Payne, 350 East Idaho Street #A, Eagle, Idaho. Payne discusses costs to taxpayers versus access to private lands, access to public (BLM) lands, and suggests releasing the data regarding costs of annexing and developing the foothills so residents can review the information and make an informed decision. Payne references prior comments made about elected officials being influenced by developers. Robert Koellisch, 2013 North Black Forest Way, Eagle, Idaho. Koellisch discusses his approval of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan as the Planning & Zoning Commission Vice -Chairman, and discusses amount of time spent reviewing and developing the plan and the efforts provided by Staff. Koellisch discusses amount of public input involved with the proposed amendment, inconsistencies in the plan, and recommends the plan be remanded to Staff. Koellisch discusses the impetus behind the plan amendment. Craig Kvamme, 1026 West Two Rivers Lane, Eagle, Idaho. Kvamme recommends that the plan be remanded to Staff for additional time and review to improve quality of the plan before forwarding it to the City Council. Kvamme discusses grammatical errors, errors in tables, repeated tables, and provides examples. Kvamme discusses concerns regarding discrepancies between plan text and practice. Johnna Buchert, 5446 Highway 16, Eagle, Idaho. Buchert discusses the Eagle viticulture area, and explains her experience working with Ada County to establish a winery. Jim Riley, 900 East Columbary Court, Eagle, Idaho. Riley explains his background, states that he does not feel there is enough information to make a decision at this time, and recommends remanding application to Staff for additional work and additional public input. Commissioner Guerber provides comments about the history of the viticulture area. City Planner, Nichoel Baird Spencer, provides rebuttal and addresses concerns raised during the Public Hearing. Spencer responds to questions from the Commission. City Attorney, Todd Lakey, explains the options available to the Commission regarding the recommendation process or next steps. Lakey responds to questions from the Commission. General discussion amongst the Commission. Lakey responds to questions from the Commission. Spencer responds to comments from the Commission. Page 7 of 9 K:\P&Z\M INUTES\2019\PZ-11-18-19m in.doc Lakey responds to questions from the Commission. Guerber moves to continue this item with the public hearing open to December 2nd and the reason I want to do that is because there has been written material presented tonight that I haven't seen and there's some that I would particularly like to such as Mr. Eberle's report which I haven't seen. I think it would also provide Avimor an opportunity to provide us with material. If they're interested in annexation, they must be having some things put together about what their intentions are, what the pro and con or whatever, and it would give them a chance to submit that additional material. I wish there was a way to tie down from the County what they would be doing in those foothills and if Staffs been meeting with them, anything that they could provide that could clarify in my mind what might be happening up there, that would certainly be helpful also. I know its short -notice; we've got Thanksgiving coming up so obviously there's several days where submissions wouldn't be able to be handled, so I think probably we should give people about one week to provide information to the Staff that could then be provided to the P&Z before that meeting on December 2"d, and that gives us a chance to continue this and gather more information. I'm kind of overwhelmed with a lot of things and I'm also confused about a lot of the information that's come in that seems to be widespread about numbers and impacts and those kind of things that I need to think about, so I'm certainly not ready tonight to make a decision about sending it to Council one way or another. City Planner, Nichoel Baird Spencer, requests clarification regarding the motion. Discussion amongst the Commission, City Staff, and the City Attorney. Guerber restates the motion and moves to continue this item to the December 16" P&Z meeting, that we allow written testimony to continue on this item until the 2"d of December, and that we will allow verbal testimony in regard to additional materials that may appear between now and the meeting on the 16tH City Attorney provides input regarding the motion. Guerber amends the motion to allow public testimony at the meeting on the 16t'` Seconded by Smith. Discussion. ALL AYES... MOTION CARRIES. 6. NEW BUSINESS: NONE. 7. REPORTS: A. Commission: Commissioner Johnson inquires about timeframes related to meeting agenda and packet publishing and the hearing dates. Commissioner Johnson states that she will be absent from the December 2"a meeting. B. City Attorney: None. C. Staff: None. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Guerber moves to adjourn. Seconded by Johnson. ALL AYES... MOTION CARRIES. Hearing no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 10:48 P.M. Page 8 of 9 KAP&Z\M INUTES\2019\PZ-11-18-19m in. doc RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: KRISTL . C ON, CLERK OF THE MEETING APPROVED: J TRENT WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN AN AUDIO RECORDTNG OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT WWW. CITYOFEAGLE.ORG. Page 9 of 9 K:\P&Z\M I N UTES\2019\PZ-11-18-19m in.doc CITY OF EAGLE — PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON VA 9 r? s ,-I S J 76 i► Lt) S Ti4Ck R oc It -D IQ tle—Vt7S � B ��9 5tcwVudl� P1. 2 V o�u�e 1110A) 601Porw 06,/ N\CA-A�., tp g3jY Z c5� �wr W(61 c✓ r� •tee �:�; � � l� r �-�: ,� �� q, V, >0 ✓ hzoo W,' W, (Aws-�ti, r7 5371 5a 6__7f 2� S . 3 l� Yu.- �7 A4,0, d �,, �, 7 )�J" F(s, �n KCu Ltej� z � . a (car �P1. s�� 1U �3!'v/� 1 Ayq 10 ) k'l j '�, `1 '='1 JV i",\ i,Le,% L'D4 > P fDpt d k -S `2 LFA N U� ►" s N -rche g7go Gu w MAC kv— $al.s e $ 3Z 1 Lf r�r $,j_r CITY OF EAGLE - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON CDT. ! A 4 eel Y � �,-n 1/_�M Z��, Ar,<A V CM � v 4y,-q�oyq Lu J 1 CITY OF EAGLE - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON W , �1v I 1 Yyl a v/i iV1�c Pawed. rams 030 M onRS� L, Pro (� tr i.1 i Y a �/ od UVAA"," -g �qoq `�VV �i 1 OA/11 10A Lei r ,1b6-tPc-," ( 2-o,3 �J �LA�g A —, . Y Ccs WN vV A TV-/� CITY OF EAGLE - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON V J 1 ' .s e�70 -�� 1 14 —777 77 1 � I 4 l 1 t� C (W �V IVB rl u` AWO 7 V J CITY OF EAGLE - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON PJ I A 1J I I/i • � 1 7 1 l l � � r lrpJ YL c C rGjY�(c � -� I ri2 Im PJ CITY OF EAGLE - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON t�, ` XVPl-z)o#J r A �WOMAOI N 0 per-- {� I :C: ��0/ �l✓rW� Jay iX / +l fry ��ac Z % r (e e 5 d 5 co/a �� ✓l� t, iS V1cl<� dozier 1109/ fL� iV a9 S r%6G��- ,y..J(� � S , U t�, CITY OF EAGLE - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON .- , l �r J o CITY OF EAGLE - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON R~�►4�"T � '.l. � C -._C. 115 � �% J , J `. i/1'`r'L��'LC.O�•tS j-" 2 c f 's % V l J I C, � 1.1JNr\.�il ,LLhV��J 4 t �11 I Lth, .z. tm] bay M1,,✓��,4f . CITY OF EAGLE - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON CITY OF EAGLE - PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON ry� e- �Y� V\ Q-, - q,��g I CITY OF EAGLE — PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET November 18, 2019 CPA -02-19 — City of Eagle: The City of Eagle is requesting comprehensive plan map and text amendments to the 2017 Eagle is HOME Plan. The amendments include, but are not limited to the Reduction of the Foothills Subarea; Removal of the Brookside Subarea; Establish new Comprehensive Planning Boundary for the City; Text amendments for consistency with the Future Land Use Map; Inclusion of the trail and parks master planning processes and polices, Establish an "Employment and Enterprise Overlay." NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS TESTIFY? (Y/N) PRO/CON cu v«.d rcl W. David Eberle Consulting 3648 North Willowbar Way Garden City, Idaho 83714 January 14, 2019 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 18 2019 File: Route to: Avimor retained Eberle Consulting to conduct an analysis of the Avimor Development's fiscal impact to the City of Eagle. The City of Eagle has conducted its own review of the impact Avimor may have on its finances. This report looks at the City's analysis as well as conducts its own analysis of Avimor's net cost -of -service to Eagle. This report deviates from the City analysis in their real value assumptions. And, as explained in the report, this analysis includes all revenue contributions from the Avimor Development excluding indirect revenues from Avimor spending at local shopping opportunities. Executive Summary' The concern this report addresses is the potential that Avimor will create a fiscal drain on the rest of Eagle residents should the development be annexed into the City of Eagle. This report concludes that Avimor will be a productive asset to the City of Eagle over the next thirty years producing more revenue than costs for Eagle. The model predicts that over the next 30 years Avimor will produce over $22 million in surplus revenues to the City of Eagle. After thirty years, there are too many variables to accurately forecast, on a more probable than not basis, a fiscal impact analysis. The primary drivers in the long termz will be the ratio of commercial property to residential property and the City of Eagle's fiscal policy. The report will discuss in more detail the long-term impact of annexing Avimor into the City of Eagle. The model in this report mirrors much of the methodology adopted by the Eagle model. However, it does deviate in several important ways. The first is that this report includes all direct revenues produced by Avimor in contrast with the Eagle model that only includes the tax revenue generated. The report discusses why it is important that all revenues be considered. The other significant deviation is accounting for future inflation. This report uses, in the author's opinion, indices that are more in line with the actual experience of Boise Valley municipalities. The conclusion of this report is in part due to the modeling assumptions. It is impossible to model all the impacts in a complex system. An urban area is such an example. As Eagle grows so will its commercial, business and industrial activities changing the ratio of residential and commercial properties. Unfortunately, there is no realistic way to model how this will occur. Eagle's future growth is in part dependent upon the policy decisions made by mayor and council. The addition of Avimor will help spur this shift from heavy reliance on residential property value'. This will improve the City of Eagle's long-term financial sustainability over the model's predictions. ' The changes from the original draft did not change the conclusions. The change resulted from identifying a coding error in the original draft. ' After 30 years 3 Today about 85 percent of the total assessed property value in the City of Eagle is residential. 208-949-5500 1 W_Eberle@msn.com W. David Eberle Consulting 3648 North Willowbar Way Garden City, Idaho 83714 January 14, 2019 The report's conclusion is also based on the projected build out provided by the developer. Significant changes in the projected build out schedule will significantly change the conclusions of this report. Fiscal Analysis of the City of Eagle's Net Cost -of -Service for Police and Determination of Appropriate Revenue Base In reviewing the fiscal analysis conducted by the City of Eagle it became apparent that the City's fiscal impact model needs to include development fees as part of its analysis. Normally a residential home's annual property tax will not carry the cost -of -service to that home. It is a healthy mix of commercial and residential property that generate a sustainable property tax revenue base and stable financial budgets for municipalities. A quick analysis of the City's FY 2017 audited Financial Report City of Eagle FY2017 Audited Financial Report Statement of Revenues and Expenditures* TABLE ONE General Fund Property Taxes $1,738,010 Public Safety $2,039,045 Difference -$301,035 *Property tax adjusted by 11/30 public records request for property tax base split by commercial and residential illustrates the issue for the City of Eagle. Table One shows that if one takes the General Fund property taxes for residential and commercial property collected in FY 2017 the City is relying on other revenue sources to cover its operating costs. The City makes this implicit recognition by including the City's revenue sharing funds in their analysis. The City used the Launch assumption of $82 per capita, based on 2018 persons per household which translates to $214 per household. Table Two A provides a comparison with the 2018 residential market value for the City of Eagle and the average target price of residential homes at Avimor. The current revenue structure will not cover the cost of Single Family Residence Analysis City of Eagle TABLE TWO A Eagle Avimor Residence Residence 2018 Value* $418,000. $363,000. Property Tax $166.10 $137.37 HH Cost of Police 787.52 787.52 Revenue Sharing $214.00 $214.00 Net Gain/Loss -$407.42 -$436.15 *Eagle residence average assessed value from Ada County Assessor's & Avimor from Developer police service to the City of Eagle. Even with the $309 additional service fee collected by the City of Eagle at the time of building permit issuance, it is clear that neither the existing home nor an Avimor home will cover the cost of police service. The same is true for the Library Levy. Table Two B conducts a similar analysis for library service without the additional fee or intergovernmental revenue Single Family Residence Analysis City of Eagle TABLE TWO B Eagle Avimor Residence Residence 2018 Assessed Value $418,000 $363,000 Library Levy $166.10 $137.37 Library Cost $172.27 $172.27 Library Shortfall -$56.03 -$76.13 208-949-5500 2 W_Eberle@msn.com W. David Eberle Consulting 3648 North Willowbar Way Garden City, Idaho 83714 January 14, 2019 available to cover the shortfall. The conclusion of these two tables is that the City is relying on one-time monies to finance operating costs as is illustrated on Table Three. The inclusion or exclusion of Avimor will not change this challenge. Table Three provides a summary and percentage of the revenue sources for the City of Eagle. Of particular note is the Licenses, Permits and Fees line item, which accounts for 45 percent of all revenues collected in FY 2017. In looking at the Month ending September 20174 the Building and Planning and Zoning Departments only spent 37 percent of the revenues collected by the Departments. The surplus, $2.5 million, is spent by other contracts and general fund de artment Th' City of Eagle FY2017 Audited Financial Report Statement of Revenues and Expenditures TABLE THREE Account General Fund Percentage Property Taxes $1,738,010 19% Franchise Fees $764,307 8% Intergovernmental $2,396,608 26% 45% Licenses, Permits, Fees $4,184,197 Interest $9,531 0% 2% Other $141,292 Total Revenues $9,233,945 100% V s. is means that for every dollar that the Avimor Development contributes to the Building and Planning and Zoning Departments, 63 cents is available to fund the police contract and the library.' Currently in the City, existing homes are being subsidized by new construction for operating expenses. The City needs new construction revenues to fund its services. Avimor will contribute over $21.7 million in development fees over the next 30 years. Additionally, there are two other revenue contributions that the Avimor Development will make to the City of Eagle not included in the City of Eagle's analysis. The first is the new commercial development that will contribute to the property tax rolls and second is the additional property tax that will be collected from the open space and undeveloped land at Avimor that should be included as part of the fiscal analysis. One Time Fees Currently, the City levies a building permit of $2,467 for a $363,000 home and $863 fee for plan review for total building permit fees of $3,330 per residential unit, of which $2,097 is available for subsidizing the police and library services. For each commercial unit of 5,000 square feet, the City collects $10,743 in total building permit fees of which $6,768 is available for subsidizing other services provided by the City. This surplus revenue from permitting fees will add over $13.7 million above the cost of operating the Building and Planning and Zoning Departments. Additional Property Taxes a Year-end adjustments have not been made. Expenditures are not likely to vary; however, revenue may change as collections continue for some time after the month closes. 5 This percentage will change year to year depending upon the number of applications processed by the departments. 208-949-5500 3 W_Eberle@msn.com W. David Eberle Consulting 3648 North Willowbar Way Garden City, Idaho 83714 January 14, 2019 Avimor will have approximately 9,000 acres that will be developed over the buildout of the project. These acres will not only generate property tax revenue to Eagle during the time that it is assessed as agricultural land, but will also produce a higher tax revenue once the lots are platted but not built upon. Additionally, there are another 10,000 acres that will generate $750,000 annually to the City at the agricultural exemption level. The Fiscal Impact Model Revenue In developing the fiscal impact on the City of Eagle this analysis only looks at the direct impact of property taxes, special levies, and state revenue sharing. The indirect revenues from Avimor include residents shopping in the Eagle area, higher local incomes, as well as increasing the overall real estate valuation for the area. It will be these indirect expenditures by Avimor residents that will increase in importance to the City over time. The property tax calculation is straight forward. The assessed value of a home less its standard exemption of $100,000 or fifty percent of the home valuation whichever is less is the base from which the property tax revenue is derived. The average value of Avimor homes are projected to exceed the minimum threshold therefore the standard exemption is applied. The valuation base is multiplied times the property tax levy of $0.000522333 and $0.000365521 for Library Levy for a total levy rate of $0.000887854. This same levy rate is used in the City's report as well as the assumptions generated by this report. Where the two reports deviate is that this report includes the increase in the valuation base from the transference of land at the time of preliminary plat approval from agricultural exemption to buildable lots designated as residential/commercial with the value of residential/commercial property added to the property tax base. The impact of new construction on the ability of the City of Eagle to increase its revenue base and not impact the mill levy cap is also an important consideration. This is a one-time bump in revenue base without requiring the mill levy to be adjusted which leverages future revenue to the city. As Avimor is a long-term project of fifty years, this increase in the tax base will be important to the City of Eagle in working towards financial sustainability. In order to provide an appropriate future value of the tax base it is assumed that the assessed value of homes will increase on average three percent. Under this model the mill levy rate remains constant and the assessed value of the new homes increases while The City of Eagle model increases the homes' value by one percent in contrast. 208-949-5500 4 W_Eberle@msn.com W. David Eberle Consulting 3648 North Willowbar Way Garden City, Idaho 83714 January 14, 2019 The assessed value of the Avimor land and structures are the main drivers for the model. There are approximately 20,000 acres that will eventually support 9,9986 residential homes and an estimated 166 commercial spaces. The revenue generated from the construction of these structures is dependent on the assumed values of the structures and the timing of when they are built. At time of annexation this model assumes the entire 20,000 acres will be annexed. Over a period of time, Avimor will apply for preliminary plats on the lots they expect to build over the next several years'. This will change the land use designation from agricultural to residential or commercial. At some point, the residual agricultural land will become small enough and be classified as transitional land which carries a higher assessment than agriculture.$ It is also assumed that all land that is intended to remain open space, approximately 10,000 acres, will be annexed in with an agricultural designation. The current agricultural exemption is $75 per acre which translates to an assessed value of $750,000 on the approximately 10,000 acres of remaining undeveloped land. Each preliminary plat application of 600 units will reduce the agricultural land designation to residential lots valued at $50,000 each or $30,000,000 of assessed value. Residential homes are initially assessed at $363,000. This is an average of a low $220,000 for a multifamily unit to in excess of $750,000 for custom homes. No build out schedule of housing types is yet available, so it was assumed that there is a $100,000 home exemption on each residential structure. Commercial structures do not have any exemptions. Each commercial unit is assumed to have an average market value of $75,000 in personal property. Commercial units are assessed at $650,000 per unit for 5,000 square feet or $130 per square foot. Avimor Development over the next 30 years: the Assessed Value of Property TABLE FOUR A Tax Base Calculation The assumptions outlined above are incorporated into the Tax Base. Avimor projects they will seek to preliminary plat 600 residential lots every three years and build 200 units a year. The model also projects that Avimor will build 15 commercial e The workpapers will show 10,496 housing units which is made up of already approved phases 4-8 with 367 homes and phases 9 — 10 with 131 homes with additional acres on top of the roughly 20,000 acres being annexed. It assumes that starting in 2021 Avimor will be building 200 homes every year which will necessitate that they apply for preliminary plats with 600 lots every three years. Commercial is similar with an application and construction of approximately 13 units every four years. a This study makes no assumption on any land being reclassified as transitional and therefore its assessment stays at the lower agricultural designation 208-949-5500 5 W_Eberle@msn.com 3 4 5 6 F203 otal nits n Tax olls Assessed Value Of New Homes Assessed Value Agri. Land & Unbuilt but Platted Lots Assessed Assessed Value Value Less Commercial Homeowner Structures Exemption 455 $165,165,000 $5,906,146 $725,000 $160,096,146 2 2020 655 $252,244,889 $33,410,389 $1,538,305 $267,193,583 12 2030 1 2655 $1,374,098,441 $30,448,544 $44,241,360 $1,428,788,346 22 2040 1 4655 $3,237,764,477 $21,497,715 $135,027,807 $3,374,289,999 3.1 20491.. 6455 1 $5,858,100,762 $27,742,507 $250,133,039 $6,115,976,308 lots every three years and build 200 units a year. The model also projects that Avimor will build 15 commercial e The workpapers will show 10,496 housing units which is made up of already approved phases 4-8 with 367 homes and phases 9 — 10 with 131 homes with additional acres on top of the roughly 20,000 acres being annexed. It assumes that starting in 2021 Avimor will be building 200 homes every year which will necessitate that they apply for preliminary plats with 600 lots every three years. Commercial is similar with an application and construction of approximately 13 units every four years. a This study makes no assumption on any land being reclassified as transitional and therefore its assessment stays at the lower agricultural designation 208-949-5500 5 W_Eberle@msn.com W. David Eberle Consulting 3648 North Willowbar Way Garden City, Idaho 83714 January 14, 2019 units each at 5,000 square feet every third year. This model lags the new tax base by one year from when Avimor anticipates building the structures. This reflects the fact that taxation occurs the year after a structure is placed on the tax rolls. The City of Eagle model does not include land not platted, land platted but not built upon and open space. Additionally, the Eagle model does not include taxable personal property. Table Four A provides a summary of the taxable value Avimor will contribute to the City of Eagle over the next thirty years. Avimor projects that they will add approximately $5.9 billion in tax base. Total Revenue Calculation There are three components to the calculation of the revenue projection for Avimor. The first is the calculation of the property tax levy. It is the calculation of the current levy times Column 6 of Table Four B. The second component are the one-time fees of the additional fee for police and the permits and fees for a building permit. The third is the State Revenue Sharing account. Both models use the same mill levy rates. The Eagle model includes a one-time police fee of $309 but does not include the other one time permits and fee revenues. And both models use the same State Revenue Sharing amounts. Table Four B is a continuation of Table Four A. Columns 8 and 9 multiply Column 7 by the mill levy. Column 10 is the number of housing units times the $214 revenue sharing value. Columns 11 and 12 use the Eagle Fee Schedule and the Commercial Fee Calculator results times the projected value of the real estate. 1 Avimor Development over the next 30 years: Revenue Generated by Avimor Development TABLE FOUR B 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 City of Eagle Property City of Eagle Fees and Fees and Total Base Mill Library Base Revenue Permits Permits Revenue Year I Levy Rate Levy Rate I Sharing Commercial Residential Available 1 2019 $83,624 $58,519 $97,370 $0 $389,592 $629,104 2 2020 $139,564 $97,665 $140,170 $10,743 $665,969 $1,054,111 3 2021 $179,812 $125,829 $182,970 $0 $665,969 $1,154,579 4 2022 $227,891 $159,474 $225,770 $146,107 $665,969 $1,425,210 5 2023 $291,304 $203,850 $268,570 $0 $665,969 $1,429,692 6 2024 $339,391 $237,501 $311,370 $0 $665,969 $1,554,230 12 2030 $746,304 $522,252 $568,170 $0 $665,969 $2,502,694 22 2040 $1,762,504 $1,233,374 $996,170 $146,107 $665,969 $4,804,123 31 2049 $3,194,578 $2,235,518 1 $1,381,370 $146,107 $665,969 $7,623,541 30 Year Total $40,015,540 $28,002,274 1 $22,920,470J $1,471,812 $20,368,6471 $112,778,743 Table Four B estimates that during the next thirty years of the development over $112 million dollars in taxes, permit fees, and intergovernmental transfers will be made to the City of Eagle by Avimor Development. 208-949-5500 6 W_Eberle@msn.com W. David Eberle Consulting 3648 North Willowbar Way Garden City, Idaho 83714 January 14, 2019 Police and Library Expenditures This model uses the value of the Sheriff's contract as computed by the City of Eagle. Table Five was developed by the City of Eagle and has been incorporated into this model without revision. Because it is difficult to assign FTEs to an area that is not contingent to the current city limits, whole officers are used. This creates a lumpiness in the break-even point for the development in the early years. Once the population reaches a certain level this effect become less apparent. There are break points where an addition of a detective is necessary along with an additional patrol deputy. This model uses the City of Eagle's algorithm for when to add the additional personnel and their respective salaries. The cost -of -service per sworn officer provided by the City of Eagle is shown on Table Five. The entire cost of the sworn officer is born by Avimor in this model. It must be noted that there is another large planned unit development (M-3) and a number of smaller developments that will substantially change the staffing requirements of this area. As these developments start their build out it will decrease Avimor's staffing requirements outlined here through more efficient dispatching. The City of Eagle uses the nominal values as shown on Table Five. However, The City of Eagle has experienced an average cost increase of 17.5 percent annually for the last several years for its police services contract. This increase is unstainable. The report's analysis uses a more realistic assumption of an annual increase of 5.2 percent in the police budget. This is a weighted increase of 2 percent for wages and 10 percent for benefits. Library The analysis of Avimor's impact on library services is simpler than the police. The City of Eagle uses a cost per household value and revenue from the library levy. The report's analysis uses the cost provided by the City of Eagle of $65.75 per capita. As shown on Table Two B the library levy is insufficient to cover the cost of operating the library system. Thus, in order to cover the library costs, it will be necessary to have surplus revenue after covering the cost of police. This model uses a three percent inflation rate for library costs which contrasts with the Eagle model that does not account for cost increases. 208-949-5500 7 W_Eberle@msn.com City of Eagle Cost of Police Service TABLE FIVE PuDet Sala $136,636 Year Sergeant Sala $163,831 Detective Sala $141,549 ; Annual Cost 2018 2 Deputies $273,271.00 2019 2 Deputies $273,271.00 2020 2 Deputies $273,271.00 2030 5 Deputies $683,177.50 2040 8 Deputies, 1 Sergeant $1,256,915.00 2050 12 Deputies, 2 Sergeants, $1,420,746.00 2060 13 Deputies, 2 Sergeants, 1 Detective $2,245,472.83 2070 16 Deputies, 2 Sergeants, 2 Detective $2,796,928.66 provided by the City of Eagle is shown on Table Five. The entire cost of the sworn officer is born by Avimor in this model. It must be noted that there is another large planned unit development (M-3) and a number of smaller developments that will substantially change the staffing requirements of this area. As these developments start their build out it will decrease Avimor's staffing requirements outlined here through more efficient dispatching. The City of Eagle uses the nominal values as shown on Table Five. However, The City of Eagle has experienced an average cost increase of 17.5 percent annually for the last several years for its police services contract. This increase is unstainable. The report's analysis uses a more realistic assumption of an annual increase of 5.2 percent in the police budget. This is a weighted increase of 2 percent for wages and 10 percent for benefits. Library The analysis of Avimor's impact on library services is simpler than the police. The City of Eagle uses a cost per household value and revenue from the library levy. The report's analysis uses the cost provided by the City of Eagle of $65.75 per capita. As shown on Table Two B the library levy is insufficient to cover the cost of operating the library system. Thus, in order to cover the library costs, it will be necessary to have surplus revenue after covering the cost of police. This model uses a three percent inflation rate for library costs which contrasts with the Eagle model that does not account for cost increases. 208-949-5500 7 W_Eberle@msn.com W. David Eberle Consulting 3648 North Willowbar Way Garden City, Idaho 83714 January 14, 2019 Total Expenses Table Six provides a summary of the expenses for police and library services under the assumptions outlined in this report. The most important aspect of this Table is the impact of real prices has on future value. By 2040 nine sworn officers' cost more than the total police contract for the City of Eagle today. The total cost of policing and providing library services to Avimor over the next thirty years is estimated to be $90.6 million. A quick comparison of Table Four and Table Six reveals that the revenue from Avimor Development will cover the costs of service to Avimor by approximately 25 million dollars. Net Fiscal Impact Table Seven is a summary of the revenue and expense estimates to produce a net impact of Avimor on the City of Eagle's Fiscal Budget. In 2019, it is expected that there will be a surplus of approximately $287,000. The surplus revenues over expenses continues through the years analyzed by this report to 2049. Net Impact of Avimor on City of Eagle 's Fiscal Budget TABLE SEVEN Avimor Total Costs of Police and Library to City of Eagle TABLE SIX 2 3 Police Contact Cost Library Service Cost Total 7 Inflation 1.052 1.03 Year Police Revenue Year Police Surplus/ Shortfall Police Surplus/ Shortfall Plus Other Revenue Library Revenue 1 2019 $273,271 $79,540 $352,811 2 2020 $302,430 $118,338 $420,768 12 2030 $1,255,227 $648,379 $1,903,606 22 2040 $2,828,510 $1,529,002 $4,357,513 31 2049 $4,463,745 $2,767,260 $7,231,005 Total 2030 $55,959,761 $34,614,560 $90,574,321 approximately 25 million dollars. Net Fiscal Impact Table Seven is a summary of the revenue and expense estimates to produce a net impact of Avimor on the City of Eagle's Fiscal Budget. In 2019, it is expected that there will be a surplus of approximately $287,000. The surplus revenues over expenses continues through the years analyzed by this report to 2049. Net Impact of Avimor on City of Eagle 's Fiscal Budget TABLE SEVEN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Year Police Revenue Police Expense Police Surplus/ Shortfall Police Surplus/ Shortfall Plus Other Revenue Library Revenue Library Total Library Surplus/ Surplus/ Expense Shortfall Shortfall $(000) $(000) $(000) $(000) $(000) $(000) $(000) $(000) 1 2019 $83 $287 -$203 $283 $58 $80 -$21 $261 2 2020 $139 $302 -$162 $654 $97 $119 -$21 $632 12 2030 $746 $1,255 -$508 $725 $522 $649 -$127 $597 22 2040 $1,762 $2,828 -$1,066 $742 $1,233 $1,530 -$297 $444 31 2049 $3,194 $4,463 -$1,269 $924 $2,235 $2,769 -$533 $390 Net Impact $40,015 $55,973 -$15,958 $28,802 $28,002 $34,658 -$6,656 $22,146 Over the reasonable time horizon of thirty years the City of Eagle can expect net revenues from the Avimor development in excess of $22.1 million. One may notice that the surplus revenue does not grow over time, 208-949-5500 8 W_Eberle@msn.com W. David Eberle Consulting 3648 North Willowbar Way Garden City, Idaho 83714 January 14, 2019 and this may seem counter intuitive. This effect is the limitation of the model. One would expect the ratio of commercial properties to residential to change as more businesses move into the Eagle area to support the increasing population. This will have a positive impact on the City of Eagle's ability to cover its increasing service costs. Additionally, over time there will be changes in how policing costs are managed that are currently not available to the City of Eagle that will change the cost -of -service to level -of -service relationship. Finally, the impact of new construction over time will change the property tax base allowing the City of Eagle greater flexibility in managing its relationship between the property tax base and its mill levy rate. All of these factors will have a positive impact. Notes L Ada County Assessor's Office, Tax Levy htt s://adacountv.id.Lyov/Assessor/lnforiratioii/Levv-Rates-b Tax -District 2. City of Eagle worksheets 3. Persons per household in Ada County Idaho 2017 estimate. htt s://ivww.census.2ov/ rod/cen2O I Q/ 4. Launch Development Finance Advisors, Analysis, November 5, 2018 5. 1ittps://�vww.cei,,su.s.g- uicl<facts/fact/table/adacourtyidaho/PST045217#FST045217 6. Boise Valley Multiple Listing Service http://www.mis-boise.com/ 7. City of Eagle, Building Permit Fee Schedule, Approved 10-9-07 8. City of Eagle, Primary Roll Assessment Notice Summary, Tax District No 15, As of 5/8/2018 9. City of Eagle Audited Financial Report, 2017 10. City of Eagle, Quarterly Financial Statement, 4th Quarter 2017 and 2018 11. City of Eagle, Commercial Fee Estimator, lett s://wNv-w.citvofeajzle.or�z/index.asn?SEC=D2D3Q2C0- B79A-4EFD-ACC9-3AC22FC87A 16&DE=1663C906-2AA5-4909-A4113- A4641 EAEED6C&Tvt)e=3 D1R Personal Communication 1. Sarah Martz, Avimor 2. Brad Vanderpool, Ada County Clerk's Office 3. Brad Smith, Ada County Assessor's Office 4. Ellen Smith, City of Eagle 5. Nicole Baird, City of Eagle 208-949-5500 9 W_Eberle@msn.com To Planning and Zoning. Nov. 18. 2019 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 18 1019 File: Route to: `�— Our understanding is that money from Avimor enabled several of the new City Council members to obtain new City Council seats. Our gut feeling is that many of the citizens of Eagle are not aware that Avimor has spent a lot of money to buy the new Council so they can annex Avimor in to the City of Eagle and, many have no idea of the fall -out if this happens. When my husband and I moved to Eagle 25 years ago, there was a population of about 10,000 people and today I believe we are at about 30,000 people. Three of our five children now own homes in Eagle with another wanting to return. We have watched the farmland disappear and our home of Eleven acres is now a rarity south of Beacon Light. We support responsible growth with minimal impact and preservation of open areas and respect for the wildlife that still wanders near our home. Avimor's proposal is for 20,000 more UNITS or new homes being proposed. By a conservative estimation that would mean at least 40,000 more people ....which is a city in and of itself. We are opposed to annexing Avimor into the City of Eagle for the following reasons: 1. We avant SLOWED growth, not doubling or tripling the size of Eagle's population. 2. We are behind in adding infrastructure to the City of Eagle, let alone adding infrastructure to a location 20 minutes away. 3. We don't want our water diverted to Avimor. Avimor doesn't have enough wells because it is in the foothills. 'Where is their water going to come from? 4. We don't want higher taxes to provide for Avimor's infrastructure. Are you planning to raise our taxes when we get no benefit from adding 20,000 more homes? It just adds more traffic and congestion. 5. Fire hazard is a problem. Who is going to pay for fire prevention since building is allowed in areas where there is minimal water. Look what happened in California this last year and you will be able to predict what is likely possible in our own foothills. Adding Avimor to the City of Eagle is the exact opposite of managed growth and responsible expansion. If we want more sprawl, more traffic, more fire hazard, less open areas for wildlife and recreation, then adding Avimor is the solution. If we want to keep Eagle the treasure it has always been, we must be more careful about preserving the amenities that are unique to us. We treasure our open areas, the wildlife, the country charm and small town feel. Please act on this now to get the amendment through to the existing City Council. We do not want to annex Avimor into the City of Eagle. Find a different solution. Brian Kerr, Susan Kerr 252 W. Meadow Ridge Lane, Eagle Garrett Kerr, Jacque Kerr 4451 W. Braveheart Street, Eagle Erica Kerr Peterson, James Peterson 5103 N. Edinburgh, Eagle Cheyenne Kerr Harris and Josh Harris 214 E. Northview, Eagle Jane Rohling Eagle Comp Plan Amendments Nov. 18, 2019 Jane Rohling 582 Palmetto Drive Eagle, ID 83616 Testimony to the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission Regarding Amendments to the Eagle Comprehensive Plan Nov. 18, 2019 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 1 tl 2019 File: Route to: In my opinion, the most significant of the proposed changes to the 2017 Eagle Is Home Comprehensive Management Plan is whether or not to remove the the unincorporated portion of the Eagle foothills from the City of Eagle's planning area. Whether the City will eventually annex the Avimor development hangs in the balance. Keeping this undeveloped foothills area in the Comp Plan will almost certainly lead to the annexation of Avimor, leading to thousands of new homes and residents, doubling the land area and nearly doubling the population of Eagle. This development would change the nature of the Eagle foothills forever, adding to traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, and all of the other growth -related problems Eagle is already grappling with. Removing the foothills from the Comp Plan, will slow growth in the near future, and keep the City from being committed to the many problems and expenses that would accompany the annexation of such a large noncontiguous are to the City. In addition, it will create a large unincorporated area between the southern border of Avimor and the current northern City boundary, that would almost certainly have to be annexed as well. Adding that area along with Avimor and the already -annexed Spring Valley property would make the land area of Eagle about the size of Boise. Is that really what we want? The City of Eagle has done studies that indicate the cost of maintaining the City's Level of Service in an area so far from the remainder of the City is substantial and the City would not .break even on the costs of these services for 20-30 years. There are many complex issues related to whether to annex the foothills or not, I'll just focus on one of them: WATER. If Avimor is annexed to the City of Eagle, current Eagle Municipal Water Customers will be saddled with paying for the additional infrastructure and maintenance costs of providing water service necessary for non-contiguous growth. The City has no existing infrastructure to connect the water system in Avimor to the rest of the City's Municipal Water System. While the developed portion of Avimor west of Hwy. 55 has a water system in place, served by Suez, and Avimor has some of their own water, they are partially dependent on additional water from the Redwood Creek well via a very complex and costly series of wells, pipelines, storage tanks, and pumping stations. Avimor does not currently have enough water to cover build out. Avimor has identified sites for two additional wells, but they have not been developed yet, and they will likely need expensive to treatment for arsenic. In addition, these future well locations are at the far western end of Avimor's land — several miles away from the current development. Jane Rohling Eagle Comp Plan Amendments Nov. 18, 2019 To give you an idea how Eagle water is transported over the miles between Redwood Creek and Avimor, I'll give a brief summary of how the system works. It's not hard to see why this is an expensive and energy intensive process. First, groundwater from the Redwood Creek well is pumped to a booster or lift station on Floating Feather Rd. , • From there, water is pumped several miles to a storage tank at Seaman's Gulch. • Next water is pumped uphill and into a holding tank above Hidden Springs. • From the Hidden Springs tank, water goes to a pump station on the north side of Hidden Springs. • From here, the water is pumped up and over another hill to a large water tank above Avimor. • Finally, Eagle's water reaches the Suez customers in Avimor. While Avimor's developer may pay for initial infrastructure costs, the developer will not be responsible for repairing, maintaining or replacing the infrastructure in the future. In addition to maintenance expenses, the cost for the electrical power alone to operate all of these pumps and lift stations is substantial. If the City of Eagle annexes Avimor, and our Municipal Water Department becomes the supplier of water to the development, ALL Eagle customers will end up subsidizing this expense through increased water service rates. If Suez continues to provide water to Avimor, the costs will continue to be subsidized by all Suez customers in Eagle, Boise and Ada County, whether Avimor is annexed or not. Why should Eagle sacrifice water that is pumped out of the ground to supply the City, so developers can pipe it to up to the and foothills and allowing urban sprawl to extend into areas where there isn't enough water to support development? If Avimor and other developments are required to supply their own water, perhaps that will limit growth in the foothills to a more appropriate level. It's interesting that Suez is proposing paying $30 - $40M to purchase EWC and implement several projects that are primarily needed to supply more Eagle water to foothills development, yet they have failed to solve critical brown water crisis in their Boise Bench systems for over 4 decades! The expense of providing City of Eagle infrastructure and services to a large noncontiguous area is an important reason for the Planning and Zoning Commission to pass the amended Comp Plan on to the City Council with a recommendation that they approve the proposed amendments. 2 Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. This is a draft plan that is nowhere near ready for adoption. It uses ambiguous terms throughout the document and leaves the meaning of words such as "urban," "rural," "high-density," and "large -lot" mean different things to different people. The plan should have a section early on that defines all of the ambiguous terms in the document so that when the reader sees "high-density" they clearly understand what it means. Even worse, the plan doesn't understand the meaning of this phrase, taken from page 7: "While the public participation process was limited, it was clear through town hall meeting, public testimony and the public hearing process that the preservation of the Foothills as rural was preferred by Eagle citizens." Of the 78 responses recorded in the attachments, 16 support, 43 oppose, 16 had questions or concerns and 3 did not respond to Question 3. Twenty percent support for and 53 percent opposition to this amendment does not constitute overwhelming support of this amendment. If the council really had an interest in responding to the citizens, they would not be doing this. If this commission is interested in hearing from the citizens to more clearly understand why there is so much opposition to this amendment, then you need to slow down the process and engage us. I don't want the proposed land being removed from the plan to be developed. Those pushing this amendment say the county will do just that. I say, today, maybe. But the voters of Eagle have virtually no control when it comes to the county commissioners. Eagle voters are less than five percent of the total but are the ones closest to this area. The City Council is 100 percent under our control. By keeping the hills in this plan, we can control the actions of the council through the ballot box. Do not vote on this amendment tonight. Work with staff, and direct them to work with the citizens of Eagle to put together a proper plan. RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 18 2019 Fila: Ratite tv: Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. Of particular concern to me is the complete failure to comply with the requirement of the plan found on page 8. The implantation strategies for Chapter 2, Property rights includes the following: E. All changes in the comprehensive plan and land use entitlement should be reviewed in compliance with this plan. The council does not seem interested in following this particular strategy. Their interest appears to be leaving behind a legacy to their failed administration that was resoundingly rejected by the voters. The current mayor received barely more than a third of the vote in the recent election. The incoming mayor received well over half of the votes in a three-way race. The voters clearly rejected the mayor and his policies, which are reflected in this amendment that runs counter to the will of the voters. The question before this Commission is whether or not you will contribute to their rejection of the voters' decision. Granted, you do not have the power to kill this amendment. Even were you to vote to send it back to the City Council with the recommendation that it be rejected, your vote would remain only a recommendation. The City Council is not bound to comply with that recommendation. It is my belief that they would continue to ignore the mandate from the voters and simply pass it over your recommendation to not pass it. In taking that action, you would simply be passing the buck back to the council and not fulfilling your responsibility in developing this plan. Instead, were you to keep the hearing open, and to ask staff to do the work that they should have done already, to follow through on the request from ITD for a meeting, to seek out active input from other outside agencies that may not have yet had the proper time to schedule or may have thought that, given the election results, the issue was no longer moving forward. Finally, the -materials in the open house contained lots of numbers that were vague and applied out of context and were, in my opinion, sufficiently muddled so that the overall impression was get in line and go along with this plan. The board comparing the 2017 and 2019 areas of impact were to scales that were significantly different. The 2019 map was 50 percent larger so that the affected areas appeared to be approximately the same size. A more honest presentation would have been to put the new boundaries of the 2019 map on the 2017 map so that citizens could see the vast amount of acreage whose control was being surrendered. The only reason I see for doing that is to intentionally confuse the issue and disarm the opponents of this amendment. I urge the Commission to do the work the Council has refused to do and to keep the proposal here with P&Z until staff can complete a thorough review. 4 Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. I wanted to talk about the fact that this draft is still full of errors. Throughout the document there are a couple types of errors that are repeated again and again. The language in many places maintains the time setting of 2017. But in many other places it talks about the action that WAS taken in 2019. While that would be appropriate if the entire plan were to be rewritten as a 2019 plan, that is not what was being done. The Council is attempting to force massive changes in under the guise of a "minor" change. On Page 9, Section 3.1 is supposed to provide background on Section 3: Population, Growth, and Housing. This introductory paragraph only discusses population growth since incorporation. The text is the original text from 2017, but they have replaced Table 3.1 Historic Population with a new table. This table deletes the 2017 population number of 26,930 that is included in the text and replaces it with the 2019 estimate of 31,270. In inserting this new table, they also "corrected" the 1990 population entry from 3,327 to 33,327 and no one caught the error. On page 12, Figure 3.2 Percentage of Households by Income Bracket uses a curved trend line. The table supporting this chart is missing. This type of data is better represented by a pie chart. The line shows the two trend spikes at $50-75 thousand and $100-150 thousand. But the chart range is only 0 to 25 percent, which has the visual effect of exaggerating these peaks. Ada County spikes in the lower range and Eagle spikes in the upper range. A pie chart would provide a more objective presentation. Also, on page 12 the narrative talks about the higher than average number of low-income earners that commute to Eagle. They chose $40k, which falls in the middle of a bracket on the income table above. Then they discuss how a low-income earner can't afford a median income home. This is deceptive. When the percentage of Eagle incomes above $100k is more than twice the national average, that inflates the median home price. The narrative also fails to discuss the 53 percent of Eagle residents in that same income range that commutes out of Eagle to jobs in other areas. The last mistake I want to point out is that on Page 17 there are school enrollment and capacity charts for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years. Then on page 18 the 2016-17 chart is repeated. It cannot be determined if this is just an editing error or if the intent was to add a 2018-19 chart. But since neither school district has been involved in this amendment, that seems unlikely. Please vote to keep the plan with your commission until staff is able to make the many corrections needed. Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. I wanted to talk about one consistency I have found in this report. That is a consistent effort to distort facts with subjective data. On page 10, there is a chart that says it is showing Annual Average Growth Rates. But instead of putting up growth rates for each individual year, they are broken into a combined group for 2000-2016 and then three sub groups: Pre -recession 2000-2005, Recession 2007-2009 and Post -recession 2010-2016. Two observations on those groupings: 1. Where is 2006? Why was it left out? What effect did it have on the numbers desired? 2. The recession began in October 2008. Why are 2007 and most of 2008 included in the recession bracket? Only 15 months of that 36 -month bracket were actually recession months. Also, on page 10 there is a table showing population forecasts out to 2040. Again, there are a couple errors with this table. 1.First, the second row is quote Region -asterisk close quote. But nowhere is that asterisk explained. It fails to define what the Region is. Ada County? Ada and Canyon Counties? What about Gem and Boise counties? Is Ontario Oregon included? The report doesn't say, so it isn't objective. 2. The numbers are a fairly linear slope that is a little steeper in the out years, but not a lot. Really? Does the staff really believe that over the next twenty-four years there will never be another recession? If that is the case, then they need an economist on staff. We may not know when, but we can be virtually certain that there will be an economic downturn sometime in the next twenty years. Of course, it may not be until after Trump leaves office in five years, but we can't even be sure of that. Finally, I want to point out a major problem with Table 3.6 in the Housing Distribution section on pages 12-13. The text cites the 2.7 percent Ada County vacancy rate, but does not state the vacancy rate for Eagle. However, it does state "The limited vacancy rate in Eagle suggests a demand for rental -type housing products." No statistic is provided to back up this claim. And table 3.6 on the next page does not include a column for Eagle, just Ada and Canyon counties. This becomes even stranger when you go back up to Table 3.5. It shows the rental/owner occupied split for Eagle, Ada County and USA. That Ada County vacancy rate is nearly 4 percent higher when adding owner occupied to rental vacancies. Reverse engineering the missing rate gives an owner -occupied rate of over 8 percent. Something is not right. Commissioners, please take responsibility for this document and work with staff to fix it. The Council obviously wants the giveaway of the hills passed before they leave office, whether or not this is a good plan or a piece of garbage. C. Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. Section 4.2 discusses schools. A single objective exists for the schools. There is a significant change to this language, despite the fact that the schools have to date had zero public input into this amendment. The objective has been modified to remove the reference to the statement "and the intended capacity of the schools is not exceeded." Seriously? Does the Council, and by extension this Commission, wish to take the position that you are no longer concerned with schools being over capacity? In Section 4.2.3, Implementation Strategy D states "Locate elementary and middle schools internal to residential neighborhoods to facilitate walking and reduce busing costs for the district." The problem with this is that at the October 8, 2019 City Council Public Hearings on new subdivision approvals, Kim Harp, speaking as a representative of West Ada County Schools, disagreed with this position and said that is not the opinion of the school system. Had the process been followed and West Ada County Schools representatives been given a chance to participate, there position would have been melded into the plan amendment. Instead, the outgoing city council appears to be forging ahead to ram through this amendment with no consideration for the wishes of the public or other agencies, particularly the schools. Commissioners, you can't speak for the City Council. You can only give them guidance. You can't vote for or vote down this amendment—that is the Council's job. But given that it is apparent the Council isn't interested in putting forth a quality product, you can ensure that this amendment is a quality document before you send it back to the City Council with your recommendation. I urge you to take the time necessary to fix the many problems in this current version by engaging the stakeholders who have not yet had the opportunity to participate in the process. Do not act on this tonight, for or against it. I have only addressed a couple problems on two pages. Take the time to fully understand where ALL the problems are throughout all 267 pages of this document before you act. Thank you. Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. I want to point out a Public Schools implementation strategy that makes little sense to me. In section 4.2.3, Implementation Strategy P on page 19 states "Consider allowing the non -building portion of school sites to be counted as required open space when school sites are dedicated." Generally speaking, the goal for new subdivisions is to have 25 percent open space. This is generally viewed as space that can be enjoyed by the community at large at any time. The problem with schools is that they are being used as schools during much of the day, not parks. Even during after school hours at middle schools and high schools, athletic fields are frequently used by school teams for practices and games. The space is not open. It is closed. A citizen cannot go onto school grounds without checking in with the front office, surrendering your ID for a pass, and justifying your presence to staff. It is not open, in fact, it is incredibly closed. Allowing developers to count it toward open space means that a larger development with a 35 -acre middle school would be excused from putting in 35 acres of open space and would instead add an additional 70 to 250 homes, depending on the zoning. Open space, walking paths, play areas, are critical to maintaining the standards of the communities that we desire to see built in our neighborhoods. This proposal is nothing more than a bone tossed to builders to give them more units and more profits. I for one am not willing to make that trade, and this is just one example of why we need to stop this freight train dead in its tracks until this amendment has been fully vetted by ALL stakeholders, including in particular the school systems of Eagle. I urge you to take no action tonight other than recommending that staff do their job in properly staffing this document. Thank you. F] Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. I am puzzled by section 4.5.2, Objectives for the Library. Object A states "Ensure that adequate library facilities are available to City of Eagle residents. 1. 1.0 square foot of library space per resident, and 2. 3.5 physical collection items per resident. What is missing from this entire section is any data. There is no historical, current, or projected usage and collection data to measure these goals against. It does not even give the square footage of the current library. It does state in the narrative that "The Library is a member of the LYNX! Library Consortium which allows the Library to share resources with nearby libraries. The Eagle Public Library has one of the highest per capita material circulation rate of any library in the State." It would appear that we are already doing something right. But I would argue since you can request a book from any of the consortium libraries in the region, then all the collection items at all the consortium branches should be included in the library's physical collection items per resident. As more and more people are transitioning to e -books, what would make more sense is for the library to invest in an electronic circulation system as other libraries have done, so that you can check out an electronic version to your tablet rather than have to build storage space for additional volumes. Unfortunately, I do not know the pros, the cons, and the particulars in doing this because to my knowledge the library has not yet considered it. And even if they are considering that, the City Council is not, because they have not engaged the library as a stakeholder in this plan. This is yet another example of why we need to slow down and do this right, rather than ramming it through at the l I' hour of the Ridgeway administration without due and proper consideration of the needs and desires of every stakeholder. Please take no action on this tonight. Fix this document. Thank you. E Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. Section 4.6 discusses domestic water. The most glaring absence in this section is the debacle we are currently seeing with the sale of the Eagle Water Company. The outcome of that decision will have a massive effect on the future of water in Eagle. The narrative states that "According to Eagle City Code, domestic water service is required for all developments with a density of 1 unit per 2 acres or greater." But in the next paragraph it states that "The City water system includes the City's current service area and all lands within the City's comprehensive plan that are not in an existing water service area." Since the City of Eagle Water System is only one of three providers, it is unclear if the second statement refers to just city water, or to all three providers. This is an example of the confusion throughout this unfinished document. Furthermore, should any more rural areas be developed at a density lower than one home per two acres, that development would not, per the first statement, have to be hooked into the system if sufficient individual well water was available to each unit. This is in direct conflict with the second statement. Clarification of what is intended is in order. While not my final concern with this document, the last one I have time to address is the issue of fire protection. Objective D does little to address the requirement for sufficient storage for fire protection. Serious consideration should be given to adding an objective for long-term emergency storage in the event of failure of the distribution system so that backups are in place. Finally, I see no evidence that any of the three water companies have weighed in on this amendment. Given they are critical stakeholders in future development, I believe it is critical that no action is taken until they have been heard. Commissioners, this report is not ready for prime time. I urge you to hold off on acting in any way on the disposition of this report in its current state. There is much room for improvement and you and the staff have a lot of work ahead of you if this is to be done right. Please take no action tonight. Thank you. 10 Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. Section 4.10 lumps several service providers of other services into this one section, including irrigation, solid waste collection—with, I might add, no reference to recycling—and natural gas to new areas, internet services, and telecommunications. Buried in this is the issue of an ever-increasing bandwidth demand. Eagle is behind. Sparklight's level of service would be mediocre at best in most big city areas. More importantly, the growth in bandwidth requirements for cellular service is growing even faster. Not only does everyone have a cell phone, but they are processing ever more data through their cell service. We all agree that cell towers are not attractive, but as everyone's demands for cellular service increases, the level of service in Eagle continues to drop. Newer technologies are coming on line that would allow more service cells without the massive towers. Citizens of Eagle are going to have to make the choice between more cell sites or less service. This plan should be looking at the latest technology and at least have an objective for achieving a higher bandwidth with the least amount of impact on our viewscapes. As a worst case, the city should be looking at locations where towers could be erected with the lowest impact possible. Please hold off on doing anything with this plan until its many deficiencies are addressed. Thank you. 11 Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. Section 5 addresses economic development. On page 46, the narrative contains a statement that I believe is inaccurate and represents a point of view that is decidedly un -Eagle: The City of Eagle, through the implementation of this plan, is working toward becoming a complete community. A community is considered `complete' when it provides access by foot, bike, transit and car to jobs, shopping, learning, open space, recreation, education, and other amenities and services. Nowhere could I find any justification or source for this definition of completeness. The entire country is dotted with small towns that lack many of these features. They do not have transit systems. They do not have bike trails because people simply ride their bikes on the roadways. While these small towns may not be like Eagle or like many other large towns, I would hate to think what would happen if this Commission were to go up to Stanley, or Emmet, or Donnelley and tell them that they are not a complete community. At a recent Eagle rebranding meeting, the Mayor, some council members and staff were the only ones in the room when the first citizen arrived to find display boards pre -populated with perception notes that described Eagle as "elitist," "rude," "snooty" and other similar terms. These were the same terms used by supporters of those who lost the recent election to describe their opponents. They are the same ones describing a "complete city" with phrases that clearly could be seen by many as "elitist," "rude," and "snooty." When I was a child, there was a phrase for this—the pot calling the kettle black. Commissioners, this is certainly not the type of economic development that I am looking for in Eagle. Our quaint downtown area is virtually complete. It will not be made more complete by putting in high- density housing in the form of high-rise apartments. That housing would only meet the stated objectives by replacing downtown with denser more modern retail centers. It will not be made more complete by removing our historic downtown and replacing it with the strip malls of Meridian and Boise. Commissioners, this amendment to the comprehensive plan does not describe my future for Eagle. I urge you to work with all interested parties to develop one that does. Thank you. 12 Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. Many people have pointed out areas of this report that are inaccurate and incomplete, and they are offended by the carelessness with which this report is created. I would like to speak for a group that is not Eagle residents but would be just as offended if they were made aware of this error. The western edge area of impact map for Eagle runs north south along Highway 16 and extends to the Boise River where it turns east. The problem lies in the fact that much of the land bounded by State Street to the north, Palmer to the East, the Highway 16 north -south line to the west and the Boise River to the south has been annexed by the City of Star. Much of the rest of the land in the first mile east of Highway 16 lies in the Star Area of Impact. Those residents of Star living in that area would no doubt be offended to learn that the City of Eagle believes that they have some measure of control in their neighborhoods. This should at the very least be investigated and a determination should be made what changes if any need to be made to the Village Planning Area shown on Map 6.4 on page 78 and on Map 6.1—Future Land Use on page 161. The large-scale maps are at the end of the section and Map 6.1 shows no recognition of the fact that Star has extended that far east. Mr. Chairman, this kind of shoddy work does not represent the level of detail and professionalism that I expect from my city staff. I am willing to give them a pass because I suspect they were on a rush job to meet the Mayor's inappropriate deadline. If this was such a critical issue that it needs to be rushed through now, why did the Mayor not address this two years ago as part of a full review? Commissioners, this amendment is in no shape to go anywhere. I fear if you send it back to the council, they will simply rubber stamp it with no concern for the many problems identified tonight because they are on the clock. The voters have already told them to leave—but we had to give them two months' notice. This change is not aligned with the wishes of the voters. Please, take your time and do it right. 13 Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. In reviewing Chapter 7 of this Plan, I was immediately struck by the outdated and misleading information in Table 7.1 on page 155. This date in this table is both out of date, and outdated or current, is not relevant to the Area of City Impact. First, I could not determine whether a single individual who took 10 hunting trips over the year would be counted as one person or 10. It would be appropriate to identify whether the participation was separate individuals or people -trips. Second, the data is from 2001 and is 18 -year-old data. Surely more current data could have been included in the plan updates over the last decade or more. Third, it would be much more informative if the table focused on participation and dollars spent within the Area of City Impact. As I continued reading farther down the page, the plan cites 19 separate non -game animal species and two plant species that are of special concern. The plan states that "species have been identified by federal, state and local agencies as being of special concern due to decreasing numbers or loss of habitat." It goes on to state on the next page that "(None of these species have Federal protection, and only one, the southern Idaho ground squirrel, is a candidate for Threatened and Endangered Species classification.) " I have to ask who wrote this section, and who reviewed it, and how did this slip through? Why do I ask this? Because one of the 19 species listed was the Bald Eagle. I assure you that species is under federal protection. Were you to pull over and find an injured eagle on I-84, and you attempted to restrain it to prevent it from wondering into traffic, you could be charged with a felony. This one I am sure of, so I have to ask ... what else did they not get right? Mr. Chairman, this entire report is full of inconsistencies, bad information, and outright errors. The Planning and Zoning Commission needs to hold this report until staff is able to work through the entire 267 pages and identify these errors and fix them. The current City Council would surely ignore any recommendations from the Commission and simply ram it through the approval process prior to their leaving office. Thank you. 14 Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. Section 8 of this plan deals with transportation. In reviewing this plan, I looked at the large-scale maps at the end of the section that begin on page 196. I noticed in particular that Map 8.7 on page 201 is outdated. It still shows the E. Plaza Drive extension from 2nd Street to Iron Eagle as a future roadway. This has been completed and the transportation maps, which are probably two to two and a half years out of date, should all be updated. Throughout the entire chapter you will find references to working with ACRD, with ITD, and with COMPASS. Yet none of these other agencies have been consulted on this amendment. Only the Idaho Transportation Department has responded and they asked for a meeting. That request had not, as of Friday, been responded to. Mr. Chairman, I can only surmise that the City Council does not actually want consultations on their amendment. They simply want to push through an amendment prior to their leaving office. Theirs is a vision for Eagle that the voters of Eagle do not share, and the voters made that clear on November 5. These lame ducks will have their vengeance on the voters by passing this over their express objections if this Commission acts on this tonight. Even if this Commission were to push it forward with a recommendation that it be voted down, I believe that the City Council would simply ignore your recommendation and adopt it anyway. Those supporters will be gone in six weeks and will leave behind the wreckage that this amendment will cause. You all will still be here and will have to bear their responsibility for a poorly conceived and poorly written plan that is not wanted by the citizens of Eagle. Therefore, I urge you to not put this on the Council's agenda until you have had the opportunity to correct the many, many mistakes that are found throughout this plan. Direct the staff to fix it, but do not return it to the council with a recommendation for or against in its current state. Thank you. 15 Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. I would like to address the narrative of Chapter 9, Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces. It states that during the City's parks planning process Citizens were asked what the most needed park/recreation facilities within the City were. Among the top five responses was acquire and protect land for natural open space. Currently, within the Eagle foothills there are miles of trails that are regularly used by the citizens of Eagle. But these trails are on private land. By tradition, this open land has been freely used by citizens with at least the tacit approval of the individual owners. This amendment is attempting to cede control of thousands of acres of this open space to Ada County. Those who support this amendment have argued in social media that the county has already zoned it for 10 to 40 -acre parcels. It will remain open. Two thoughts on that I would like to share with you. The first is "for now....." The Current Ada County Commissioners support that, but they can always be changed, and there are no guarantees that future commissioners would maintain that zoning. The second is that even if they do, if all of that land were developed with 40 -acre homesteads, it is highly unlikely that the new owners, now enjoying their 40 -acre parcels, would want the citizens of Eagle traipsing over their land. Our citizens would lose that access they have enjoyed for so long. Were this amendment to be rejected, and the land kept within the City's area of impact, then any development that di occur could be zoned to a lower density and the City council could require that part of the land be dedicated open space. I can't tell you what will happen to this space, but I can tell you that of the two government entities, the voters of Eagle only have control over one of them—the Eagle City Council. I strongly urge this commission to do everything in your power to keep the Eagle Foothills under the control of the Eagle City Council. Unfortunately, today that means doing nothing. For even if you recommend that it not pass, this council, with no concern for the wishes of the voters, will vote for it, and the hills will be lost. Thank you. 16 Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this Commission should not vote tonight to send this plan back to the City Council. For those who managed to read all the way through to page 211, there is a very interesting list of considerations. Section 11.3.2 states: As the City grows and expands, it is important to ensure that the vision and goals of the plan are still consistent with the citizen's expectations. The City has historically engaged our citizens in the review and update process. This process should continue to be the method of updating the plan. I refer the Commission to the results of the recent election. The citizens' expectations were very clearly stated. The elections office fully expected a runoff in the three-way race. That will not be necessary. The candidate who supports this amendment, Mayor Ridgeway, was soundly defeated because the majority of citizens do not want this. This also says that historically, citizens have been involved in these updates. This should continue. But in this case, it has not. There has been minimal involvement of the citizens of Eagle. More importantly, it goes on to list several considerations. Among those is the question Has it been 10 or more years since the last review of the plan in its entirety? No. It has only been two. Proponents will tell you this is just an amendment. Well, everything after it was written has always been an amendment. In this particular case it has been only two. And from the following pages there is a list of 53 considerations that include all city departments and many outside organizations. That hasn't happened. They have not consulted because they have not had the time to do so and they clearly intend to adopt this without that review. One other observation that I noticed. While this comprehensive plan frequently uses the phrase "health and safety" there is no section that discusses medical services for the citizens of Eagle. As the area grows and traffic worsens, what is the travel time of a citizen from home to an urgent care facility or to a major hospital trauma emergency department? I believe that is an entire section that should be factored into this plan. Please, Mr. Chairman, do nothing until this plan is in proper shape to move forward Thank you. RECEIVED & FILED Library issue r ., �C11`Y OF EAGLE 18 2019 NDV Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, File. Route to; I wanted to bring up to your attention a different matter from the-&—aff comp plan before you take action this evening on the proposed draft: the section on Library Section 4.5 on p 24. This section describes the goals, objectives and implementation strategies for Eagle Library. I am puzzled by section 4.5.2, Objectives for the Library. Object A states "Ensure that adequate library facilities are available to City of Eagle residents. 1. 1.0 square foot of library space per resident, and 2. 3.5 physical collection items per resident. I am wondering where these requirements come from. Are they some sort of federal or state mandates defining adequate library facilities. And how can we understand the current status when the plan is not even including the square footage of the current facility or what is the usage of the current facility vs its potential capacity. Also under objectives, there is a statement that no citizen of Eagle should be father than 5 miles from a public library. Where is this requirement coining from? And is this meant to be any ada county public library since they are in a network (LYNX Library Consortium).? I would suggest this is the intent of the write up, but it world be great to have this clarified by staff in the final plan. Further in the section, under implementation strategies, we see a mandate that when developments exceed 10,000 people a new branch is added. However, this seems inconsistent with other cities in the treasure valley and in other states . For example, Meridian has a bit over 100,000 residents and 3 libraries, which is 1 library to about 30,000 residents. So why would Eagle commit to more facilities per resident. 1 Library issue Per the proposed implementation strategies, when Eagle is at 100,000, we'd have 7 new branches and one old. That seems excessive, especially in our day and age when everyone is able to connect to internet and access all kinds of information. Perhaps Eagle library should be modernizing rather than proliferating. As more and more people are transitioning to e -books, what would make more sense is for the library to invest in an electronic circulation system as other libraries have done, so that you can check out an electronic version to your tablet rather than have to drive to a physical location and then drive again to return it; bottom line is: the proposed approach seems so 20th century when we really need 21 century solution. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the current draft comp plan is lacking data to support the goals, objectives and implementation strategies and i do not believe that the public was sufficiently engaged and provided input into the future of our library: what do people need? Do we know? I think this is another item that needs to go back to staff for reconsideration, data gathering and redrafting. Thank you. 2 1 RECEIVED & FILED Citi` OF E;€` 00 E Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission: NOV ,i 6 2019 r"O' Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendmnM 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. One of many concerns is the failure to comply with the requirement of the plan found in Chapter 2. It states, " The implementation strategies include the following: E. All changes in the comprehensive plan and land use entitlement should be reviewed in compliance with this plan." The city council is not following this requirement. In our recent election, the voters clearly rejected the mayor and his policies. And his policies are reflected in this rushed Amendment. The question before this Commission is whether or not you will contribute to the council's rejection of the voters' decision. You can vote to send it back to the City Council with the recommendation that it be rejected. But the City Council is not bound to your recommendation. It is my belief, the council will ignore your recommendation and approve this plan. 2 Instead, keep the hearing open. Have staff do the work the Comp Plan requires: 1) follow through on the request from ITD for a meeting. That must be done first. 2)seek out active input from the other outside agencies that are affected by these changes Finally, the materials in the open house contained numbers that were vague and applied out of context and were misleading. The map comparing the 2017 and 2019 areas of impact were not of the same scale. The 2019 map was 50% larger so the affected areas appear to be approximately the same. An honest presentation would have been to put the new boundaries of the 2019 map as an overlay on the 2017 map. Then citizens could see the vast amount of acreage that we are surrendering to the county. For those citizens who did not attend the open house, or don't subscribe to the city email system a 6 x 8" map was published in the Statesman. We have many seniors in this community who are not plugged in to social media or email and may not subscribe to the Statesman. By comparison, for the 2017 Comp Plan Amendment, the City held three open houses and did 5 mailings spaced over a one year period sending out a total of 79,300 pieces. And that does not include the direct contact they had with close to 4,000 residents. 3 The city councils attempt in getting accurate information to our citizens and giving them input this year is pathetic. My belief is the council wants to intentionally confuse the issue for those citizens who cannot devote extensive time in research of the true facts. I urge the Commission to do the work the Council has refused to do and#o Keep the proposal here with P&Z until staff can complete a thorough review. Please do the right thing. TQ Qr I Co > MM M Ni November 18, 2019 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 18 2019 Filer Route to: Elizabeth Roberts 1351 N Mansfield PI Eagle, ID Thank you for; _• • - _��. _ serving on the P & Z Commission. live in Lexington Hills near the corner of Floating Feather and Highway 55. I'm speaking in favor of the proposed amendments to the Eagle Comprehensive Plan, and I request that you pass the plan onto the City Council with the recommendation that they approve it. My main concern with the Comprehensive Plan as unamended is the potential for increased traffic on Highway 55 because of the large number of homes- 20 to 25 thousand- that are allowed by the plan. The number of residences allowed by the amended plan is lower- 9,400 residences maximum- this is much better for me and for Eagle. The increased traffic coming south on Highway 55 would make traveling to Boise and Meridian even more congested than it is now. I will be directly affected because I live near Highway 55 and use it often to get to meetings and to church. Traffic in the valley has gotten considerably worse in the last few years. IDT and ACHD are already way behind on improving the roads to allow traffic to flow smoothly. Adding 20 to 25 thousand homes to the north will make things even worse. I'm concerned that the county and the state won't have the necessary funds to improve the roads. I'm also in favor of preserving the foothills for wildlife. This amendment to the plan will maintain the rural character of northern Ada County and will preserve more open space. I'm also very worried about the increased costs to Eagle should the foothills be annexed and a large development goes there. I'm concerned that my taxes will go up if this area is annexed and we have to provide services to a new development. Please vote to pass the amended plan onto the City Council with a recommendation to approve the amendment. Thank you. _0 O 41 Q aJ c� > c a m 3 o n Q � � v tw 0- a LU Ul O O •a 4.1 L Q) 0 > `° o c Q) v C v ° � ai i% C9 cv 1 -0 Ea) o ` a'f W n� 00 E c v o Q v O M 3E > p "- } °J ro t > 4- } U~' Q Q �-V) O a) L Q C_J m Z3 QJ O � U > 0 ~ O 3 Qr m L v a� a) cn +� r 0- a a d 0 -6 m 0� v M Q 7 O N m 0 C O ii � a) dA _0 L m } bA m Q1 Q1 = W' Y C N O 4�00 W 4- L N a) •Ql > 4 -- v (1) by m 4 M p O LU 4� L p W Q) L -C �O L U @ W Q) _0 .v C 4 -CL 4- O mI+- CL O > } N O E a) C O bA m _0 Q1 C Q) J O O U 6 O — o m N m O C �. Q) CJ y_ MC > L L Q) 4= O Z cu > Q) OL m c6 ;� 4� X O 4- O O a1 4— O C C L C U Q1 +' O L W Q O O co V) C 0) _ m +vn aCU -o U 'o +0 m +- `+ cOO cm L X> 4- 00 ULO >M O v aJ ap M a- Q) V, a) CU) m N hA (3) > v (U > C C 3 _ �E 76 O mV) C Y L L ^tn + O �-+ L m I- +' 0 U m Q) Q m 7 LJ t6 N 0- E a) v7 O ` 6 Q) d 6 N ai L v " Q m— O (U w m �'' m Ca 'a M co E L > m Co LLJ Q) o O ons _+� E 3 t r v m Q U c 3 O ` v Q 3 -' a m= a) > L + v 00 orJ o C aJm 4-1 v cQ > u V) C bA •U) >. M coo a) Ua) N (Y-) Un 00 o m +- 4- CO . U2 i M N Q D ••1�+ m O L O Q1 Z3O C) V) QJ m (6 Q Q 7 Q) A 000 Q N +-+ - U 7 N L0 C Q O — 3 U Q) V) aJ � v L7 C .. O a) C U a) n C Q) > m 01 4-'41 C O O N O O N O N C 4-1 O Q a) _ _ O ^L C L V) a -- U _0 4.1 L LO \m IaInn / V O C 4-1 m co E a) � a) C O Q r Q � .. 5 C Q) } 3 0 L O U ran) > V O E QJ .� L +-' L c > Q 0 -C C N Q Q1 m Q N +� V) Q c 0) v C m 0} m LO O p O N CD C t c �; 3 m o Q a)-- i 3 n Q a v Z N a" O O m— N Vt •O QNJ >- i a) M b0•� .� Ln O Vt OL O _ O N v m O C n Q) O O > a) �O C Q Q1 0- m m � a) °> 3 3 N + ^Q) a) m� �� E E Q) m m c Q m U -0 r, cn 4_a o a) a) .o C v m O> C ut N ro = L Qj L Ql 41 O C v L - W m `- 0 +�, O C C H -0-0 U •> co Q- O O VI a) Q N= a) O N m� — 0 � U - Q) E Q NQ) O N O O N l]nA =L U E U C Q � Ln 4'O - a1 6 aJ N. a) 7 0 OU E L > O = a1 O X 4. 4 Q) L E N a) L M z 4.1 aJ nj �`� �• Q 4- c >to }; 3 v Q C C 5 S +, tin � > v Q s o m N O a) c +� M L 4-1O Ln a) L >' c0 U m CLn C U Q. U N m 7 0 L a) f- N m C Qi O O v m m t -C Ln O Q ` E O I N Y } 'C O 4 C N L v) m �, iE •IF a) m -p Vi 4� ..0 c% -0 O O 3 +' Q ,-, � c a) � 6 t Q) � � o L r � � 0 2 � .� � � •� - � \ \ /\ X00 2$0 m� \2 w / cue / y = : \ / \ � \ 3 ca ƒ r / ƒ {% \ 2\\ / c. \ \ \ \ 0 & J 2 / � \ 2 � .� � � •� - � \ /\ X00 2$0 m� \2 /\/{ cue / e $ E F g e ) bD \ � \ 3 ca ƒ \) {% \ 2\\ = c. LO \ \ 0 & J 2 �av i, � �Jt ��-1✓lSo. RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE Chairman Wright, Members of the Commission, File: NOV 18 2019 Route to. ------ Tonight, I am speaking against the proposed amendment to the 2017 Eagle Comprehensive Plan. There are many reasons this commission should not vote tonight. Remanding this Comprehensive Plan Amendment back to the City Staff is the best course of action. This document is not ready to be finalized for the following reasons: 1) Missing dependencies a. Current water purchase issues 2) Misinformation 3) Contradictions a. Conflicting statements on scope of "what is intended" 4) Disaster Recovery a. Lack of planned emergency water storage 5) Missing stakeholder input a. No water company inputs b. No Fire District input (1) Missing dependencies Section 4.6 of the amendment discusses domestic water. What is not considered here is the outcome of the current water purchase decision, which will have a massive effect on the future of water in Eagle. (2) Misinformation The narrative states that "According to Eagle City Code, domestic water service is required for all developments with a density of 1 unit per 2 acres or greater." However, in the next paragraph it states that "The City water system includes the City's current service area and all lands within the City's comprehensive plan that are not in an existing water service area." Since the City of Eagle Water System is only one of three providers, it is unclear if the second statement refers to just city water, or to all three providers. This is an example of the confusion throughout this draft document. (3) Contradictions Furthermore, should any more rural areas be developed at a density lower than one home per two acres, that development would not, per the first statement, have to be connected into the system if sufficient individual well water was available to each unit. This is in direct conflict with the second statement. Clarification of "what is intended" is in order. (4) Disaster Recovery While not my final concern with this amendment, the last one I have time to address is the issue of fire protection. Objective D does little to address the requirement for sufficient storage for fire protection. Serious consideration should be given to adding an objective for long-term emergency storage in the event of failure of the distribution system so that backups are in place. (5) Stakeholder Omission Finally, I see no evidence that any of the three water companies with an interest in the local water resources have weighed in on this revision. Given they are important stakeholders in future development, I believe it is critical that no action is taken until they have reviewed the amendment and been heard. Commissioners, this amendment is not ready for publication. I urge you to hold off on ratifying this document in its current state and remand it to staff for revision to correct the numerous issues identified this evening. Thank you. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 11/18/19 Hello. My name is Kristine Sanda and I live at 683 Nicklaus, Eagle. I am not one to stand up and speak publicly. It terrifies me. But, I am here in spite of my fear. This is an issue that is important enough for me to speak up to protect our community from further explosive development in the foothills. I stand before you tonight to ask you to pass the amended Foothills comprehensive plan on to the council without delay and with recommendation that they approve it. The Avimor development was approved more than 15 years ago, but not by Eagle. Things have changed in 15 years and growth all over the valley causes all of us to examine how we want our city to grow. I fear that by NOT passing the amended Foothills comprehensive plan, the explosive growth that will surely result with more "village" development will be a higher cost than can be imagined. If the City does not pass the proposed amended Foothills Comp Plan, the cost of potential annexation of the foothills that will result in expansion of Avimor development is too high. The long term cost impact for extension of services such as parks, water and safety for the City budget is too important to ignore. There is a reason Avimor does not want to take steps to create their own city — it's expensive! Future Avimor development projections make it seem the revenue will be of benefit to Eagle. In reality, if the foothills are annexed the long-term costs to the city to assume responsibility for Avimor development will far outweigh the benefits. While the newly elected team assuming office in January have put the blame for explosive development on Mayor Ridgeway and the city council, the fact is, many of those developments were approved long before they took office. To correct that situation, the City Council has responsibly passed an ordinance that prevents this from happening in the future. There is an argument that Eagle should control of the foothills, not Ada County. I don't agree! Those opposed to the amendment really want to turn over control of the foothills to developers. One more concern: Water, Water, Water. Why should existing Suez and EWC customers have to pay to subsidize the additional infrastructure and maintenance costs of providing water service to Avimor? The additional cost of power to transport this water from Eagle to Avimor is significant. Those costs will continue to be subsidized by ALL Suez customers and Eagle Water customers across the valley. Eagle needs to control Eagle Water. I urge you to pass this amended Foothills Comp Plan to the City Council and recommend they approve it. Thank you for hearing my request and your careful consideration. Kristine Sanda 683 Nicklaus Lane, Eagle, Id RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 18 2019 File: Route to: -%"%,L- IVLU cx FILIZU CITY OF EAGLE NOV 18 2019 File, Rou B to: Good evening members of the Planning & Zoning Commission. I'm here ton igh� to d5K -- you to pass this amended comp plan on to the council with a recommendation that they approve it. The last time I stood before you was in 2018 when I, and other concerned citizens, asked you to protect our health and safety, our water, our quality of life and tax base against the threat of a special interest group — the oil industry. You listened to our concerns, and showed courage and conviction by passing some of the best protections against drilling and fracking anywhere in the US. Your actions helped make Eagle one of the safest places in the nation to live and raise our families. Now here we are again, asking you to protect our health and safety, our water and our quality of life from yet another special interest group — real estate developers who seek to profit off the backs of Eagle taxpayers. You have a chance to demonstrate courage again by standing up for the citizens of Eagle and passing an amendment to the 2017 comp plan which will preserve our foothills region and accomplish something everyone in our community has been very vocal in saying they want — curbing growth. In fact this amendment was drafted specifically in response to concerns from citizens about that growth and the risks and costs it would lay at the feet of taxpayers. Avimor and other large builders just spent record amounts of cash putting officials into office here that they hope will allow them to build tens of thousands of additional homes in our foothills. If that happens we will be fighting the impacts of tens of thousands of additional vehicles streaming down our Eagle roadways at a cost of billions of dollars for the necessary improvements. Who will pay for that? Who will shoulder the blame for the increased accidents and fatalities that will be inevitable and the delayed emergency response times because of all that congestion? Why should Suez and Eagle Water Company customers (which Suez is attempting to acquire) have to pay to subsidize the massive infrastructure, maintenance and power costs of providing water service necessary for non-contiguous growth? Why should Eagle sacrifice our precious water that is pumped out of the ground and directly to homes within the city, so wealthy developers can pipe it to up to the and foothills for greater profits? Many have condemned the approval of development under the 2017 comp plan when the city followed it, yet now that amending that plan and reducing potential development in our community by as much as 15,000 homes is a possibility, those same folks are rallying around the existing plan and claiming it shouldn't be tampered with. If we really want less growth this change to the comp plan will do more to accomplish that than anything else. Some believe the city should have control over foothills development, not the county. The truth is that Ada County has been very vocal in saying they do NOT want any more development up there and that they will not be a competitor for development. In fact, the best way to ensure less development in our foothills is to allow the county to retain jurisdiction since they have much more restrictive requirements. Accusations that the council is trying to "ram" the proposed amendments through with no public input fall flat considering this is the 5th public meeting since discussions started 7 months ago; and all those meetings have been widely publicized with all documentation publicly available. Besides, this amendment is not a review of the entire plan, but just the Foothills Planning Area. And it also includes amending the City's area of impact with Ada County which hasn't been done in 15 years and is long overdue. Please don't allow these big developers to make a killing in our community and then move on without a second thought about the havoc they caused. I've called Eagle my home for over 45 years and the last thing I want to see is a sign at the city limits saying "Welcome to Avimor South" Please protect Eagle for those of us living here now, and for future generations, by passing this amended comp plan on to the council with a recommendation that they approve it. Thank you. Shelley Brock 8770 W. Chaparral Rd. Eagle, Idaho (208) 559-6127 c w :. c° w o IT, o s w c y y 7y �• C� CD on �• 0 0 o CDCDoa CD CD o CD "n O CD °, ,' N O ° O c"^3i, h C = •u ^� m C o ' 2 n UOQ N im-. ¢: �`-�.. w • CD 0 CD CD o dao N o m o ate ' oO-Q CD N?' Sao �m w•N.Q O. C 6' `� cr cmn G- CD J < c.l < ' vi : ' ° .ID � N m On O N �' O m p r,- 21 M O r ^�{ tD �. fttj C O CD 0 `C cn � '� O C O Q- �• m .' O o © ti ('� =, ^ O � m fv (� Oq p " m I p ceo 50 o 5 n CD o o a� ov m . CD cD o CD 'm oac• � ° CDm � CD ""' o" on' �• '� c �. c p oa m o CD c w o f o n CD o °CD M oo �.e�D o h°7 =(u- o CCDe0oo��a 'ego �oe05P,)' �e'-`uw o6- w�. �� Zom�°�� o�� fm 0q n o° o o m a o p�+ v"� y o o I"D O P N CD (D ti m, Cn �, O O G N ° < I'D ° "~r� UQ El 0 CD oN o csao o m Z v C �' c :° CD cD n c117, m o w o I CD CD CD P) p. S]- �'. OC p -"p �, �•v On "' CD 00 �? vmi O gLC O ,�•• ap ��' " °� Q o m. = m W �. ero ��oog=°a"c� oo °�m� c=; map O 0.CD Er p C pCD Om O " °° Q �` p �. GO"�t O R 'O :p. `C CD , •; w CD ti �' ^CS p, W w CD a'm �' 'C oPI CD 0 m C]a m a; `�W nZ QD oCDn CD 0¢° .r I p OCD m v' `0 GFR > w n p O r C• o p CD�.A m 10 G o v m b m p m a o n�JQ O 0 a Om p 1, mM,Om O m m Om Z C C7 m a 72 CD P �` N m CD R o' o < Z pry CD O v': C• c c`VCD o •O �'.- G z O Q, 0"Oq (lq Co O C O G W P ,-y "OU GOq m O CD W n ,•. CD CSD m CD "C1 ^ Q' O N N fCD n (D S'v CD A, N C� tT7 Q co A°, C CA t:rG �, �° 0CD o - o-npw o o'o -D 0 o �'o °ol 0 �- CD a CCD m W Q. m O OD O O O-�uocMy, G O O 11 C'< .�' CD 0 O. P h G C O•.' :zrm N 1 R P— ',`�, e� m o vi O.. O O O <: m qf .,. s cp CD o eo �. . v a. o va o. a <y o o� is m owa. e. CD .,°�,o �o �m n O o' CCD iCD ° Q' °o O' �. 0 CD 9:' CD CDC. to ID CD 0 o =t CD �vao°cam° °oo�•c cm5'aoo S in F .0 �' C O 0o CD tl° ° - c°QD o Q O-. .�Oro • = ,o o �n T� fl L7 eD� '„ rfijj� C '� o � �, ° R O ~ <. O CCD CDC, O CD CD O.. IV fl. CD Sa. O Ja CD D EIVED FIL Subject: 2019 FOOTHILLS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMEI,TY OF EAGLE Date: 11/19/19 NOV 18 2019 File: Route ta: Good evening. My name is Chris Stokes and my address is 2505 Blackstone, Eagle. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input about the proposed Foothills Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which has proven to be a defining issue as evidenced in the recent election results. I am speaking tonight to ask that you pass the Amended Foothills Comp Plan on to the City Council with a recommendation that they approve it. My understanding is that the developers and landowners in the foothills, which includes those who have donated large sums of money to the newly elected Mayor and City Council members, have interests related to a major Avimor expansion and, thus, the potential for annexation in the foothills. Their interests are bumping up against the City Council's attempt to limit development of the foothills and thus the impact of growth in Eagle which is a common complaint. If the Avimor developers and landowners are successful in annexing the foothills to develop thousands of homes in the planned "village" communities, the impact of traffic on the already stressed arteries, such as 55, 16, Glenwood and Eagle Road, will be monumental. Our elected officials in the Legislature, not City Council, control funding for infrastructure. ITD and ACHD determine priorities for roads being added, widened or improved — not the Mayor or City Council. A proposed expansion of Hwy 55 to Chinden was turned down years ago. It has been said that further widening of Eagle Rd is doubtful. Widening Glenwood has major restrictions and extending Hwy 16 is an expensive and long-term goal. Traffic is the most common reason for complaints about added development. Why would annexing and allowing huge housing development in the foothills be any different? The time is now to pass the Amended Foothills Comp Plan because this is a matter of responsibly controlling growth BEFORE applications for development in the foothills are brought before the City Council. People are coming to Idaho and our community no matter what we do — the argument is where do we want growth? And what should it look like? If we allow sprawl into the foothills through annexation, the cost of services including police, library, water, parks, and safety, will rest on the Eagle taxpayers forever. Impact fees from developers do not cover all related expenses over the long term, the developers will be long gone and Eagle will be left to deal with the cost and impact of the expansion. I reject the often-stated complaint that the City is "pushing" this amended comp plan through in a hurry. There has been more than ample time for public comment. Initial discussions were months ago. This is the 5th opportunity for public comment. By next Monday, there will have been 6 opportunities for information and comment. The original Avimor project was approved more than 15 years ago. Things have changed and the Eagle City Council is taking a responsible position in proposing an amendment to the comp plan. I appreciate the weight and importance of your responsibility. I respectfully ask that you to pass the amended Foothills comp plan to the City Council with a recommendation that they approve it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Chris M Stokes 2505 Blackstone Rd Eagle, Id 83616 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 18 2019 November 18, 2019 File: Route to: Members of the City of Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission Eagle City Hall 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, Idaho 83616 Members of the Commission; M_y name is Nancy Wood and I live in the Echo Creek subdivision in Eagle. I have submitted a request to speak on the Eagle Foothills Comprehensive Plan Amendment. I support the proposed amendment for its in-depth study of the possible impacts to our city services, environment, and quality of life if Eagle becomes responsible for the support of Avimor's 23,000 acre growth north of Eagle. I believe that those impacts would have a negative effect on the City of Eagle. In contrast to the developers' possible profits, the cost to our city in dollars and quality of life may be much higher, especially in the long run. For example, according to the Northwest Foothills Traffic Impact Study, Highway 55 would need to be widened from Highway 44 to the interchange at Avimor at a projected cost of five hundred million to one billion dollars. The traffic on Highway 44, Eagle Road and other roads would be greatly increased. What would be the impact of widening Eagle Road on the property owners that have the current right-of-way? Aside from the personal and financial costs associated with tremendous growth, I believe that the quality of life as we know it here in Eagle and the surrounding foothills would be greatly reduced. In addition to the traffic impact, there are a number of other issues that would likely have an adverse effect on the City of Eagle by the annexation of Avimor. These important issues include open space preservation, the strain on essential city services, and the inevitability of increased taxes. For the above reasons and those that I haven't mentioned from the Eagle Foothills Comprehensive Plan Amendment, I request that you pass the amendment on to our city council with the recommendation that they approve it. Thank you for your good work on this amendment. Nancy Wood 1291 N. Echo Creek Place Eagle, ID 83 616