Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Minutes - 2006 - Planning & Zoning - 10/16/2006 - Regular
THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 660 E. Civic Lane October 16, 2006 6:30 P.M 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:50 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: JACOBS, ZASTROW, PIERCE, ASPITARTE. 3. 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 Chainnan, 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 September 27, 2006. B. Minutes of October 2, 2006. C. Findine:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CU-08-06 - Conditional Use Permit for a Dav Care Center and School within an Existine: Multi-Tenant Office BuiIdine:- Yesterdav Prooerties. LLC: Yesterday Properties, LLC, represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, Inc., is requesting conditional use approval for a day care center and school within an existing multi-tenant building, recently converted from a church. The .393 acre site is located on the west side of North Eagle Road approximately 560-feet north of West State Street at 223 North Eagle Road. Zastrow moves to approve the Consent Agenda including items A, Band C. Seconded by Aspitarte. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CPA-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-061RZ-19-06- M3 Eae:le - M3 Eae:le. LLC.: M3 Eagle LLC., represented by Gerry Robbins of The M3 Companies, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include +/- 6,005 acres into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan designating the following land uses: +/- 40 Acres Rural Residential, +/- 1,627 acres Residential Estates, +/- 470 acres Residential One, +/- 670 acres Residential Two, +/- 1,250 acres Residential Three, +/- 670 acres Residential Four, +/- 770 acres Village Center, +/- 88 acres Mixed Use; +/- 100 Acres Commercial, an Annexation and rezone with a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement for +/- 40 acres AR-DA (up to 1 unit per 5 acres with a development agreement), +/- 1,627 acres RE-DA (up to 1 unit per 2 acres with a development agreement). +/- 470 acres Rl-DA (up to one unit per acre with a development agreement), +/- 670 acres R2-DA (up to two units per acre with a development agreement), +/- 1,250 acres R3-DA (up to 3 units per acre with a development agreement), +/- 670 acres R4-DA (up to four units per acre with a development agreement), +/- 770 acres Village Center-DA, +/- 88 acres MU- DA(Mixed Use with a development agreement) to allow for a maximum of +/- 12,010 residential units, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Eagle City Code Section 8-6 "Planned Unit Developments" to allow for the M3-PUD. The +/- 6,005 acre site is generally located north of the Farmers Union Canal and Homer Road, east of State Highway 16 and west of Willow Creek Road. Specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file at the City of Eagle. This item was continued/rom the September 27,2006 special meeting. Page 1 of5 K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-IO-16-06min.doc THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 660 E. Civic Lane October 16,2006 6:30 P.M Nichoel Baird Spencer, City Planner, gives an overview of the previous meeting and of items that will be presented tonight. Introduces William McCarrel, the new Planning & Zoning Commissioner who will be appointed at the October 17,2006 City Council meeting. Mr. McCarrel will not be acting on the application until he is appointed. Bill Brownlee, discusses items that will be presented for the meeting. Gary Funkhouser, Transportation Engineer with Stanley Consultants, gives an overview of additional traffic information from questions raised at the previous meeting. Discusses proposed accesses and phases for the future. Stands for questions from the Commission. General discussion regarding Garvey project and budget projections. Scott Wonders, with Stanley Consultants, gives overview of master water system, sewer system and the drainage plan for the area. Stands for questions from the Commission. General discussion regarding existing wells and pumping systems. Aspitarte asks about the Holladay Engineering comments made in a letter that was submitted for the record. These comments will be addressed. Ed Squires, Hydro-geologist, Hydro Logic Inc. Provides written comments on letters submitted by Phillip Fry and NACF A regarding the M3 application for the record. Gives an overview and presents a slideshow of the M3-Eagle Water Plan. Stands for questions from the Commission. General discussion on measuring water levels and aquifer studies, etc. Aspitarte asks about the direction of the groundwater flow and location of ground water wells. John Church, Idaho Economics, Boise. Presents a slideshow and gives a summary of additional infonnation for the population, demographic, economic and fiscal impacts of the M3 Project. Stands for questions from the Commission. Joanne Butler, attorney, representing M3. Gives an overview of Planned Unit Developments and the difference between this and traditional zoning. Bill Brownlee, discusses the definitions of open space and the different types of open space such as regional parks, such as ball fields and community open space and spaces used as buffering between different types of uses. Reviews the applicant's responses to the letter submitted to the Commission from the North Ada County Foothills Association and what was said by the public during the City's Visioning process. Presents a slideshow of the application for the proposed area. Stands for questions from the Commission. Zastrow asks about power for the area. Scott Wonder, Stanley Consultants, analyzed dry utilities for the area. There are already a lot of services along Highway 16 that would be able to service the area. A short recess is called. The meeting reconvenes at 9:32 p.m. John Petrovsky, 4831 Willow Creek Road, Chairman ofNACFA. For the last four years they have been trying to get a Comprehensive Plan for the foothills. Values this area as open space and recreational. Presents a slideshow of their major concerns of the M3 application. Asks that a decision be deferred until the City of Eagle can adopt a Comprehensive Plan for this area. Believes the applicant should rethink their proposal. Believes the City should lead this process. not the developer. Discusses land use patterns such as development, open space, recreation and habitat. Page 2 of5 K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-IO-16-06min.doc THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 660 E. Civic Lane October 16, 2006 6:30 P.M Lynn Melton, 3939 Brookside Lane. Has lived in the area for over 30 years. Used to serve on a committee to provide input for Eagle's Comprehensive Plan. Feels the city has a clear view. Opposes the project. Discusses public good and property rights. Feels the application should be tabled and that a decision be made at a later date. Kathy Pennissi, 3675 N. Has participated in the planning process for Eagle's Comprehensive Plan. Feels that M3 is pushing for approval of their concept. Discusses the proposed roads and widening of existing roads for the project. Feels there should be a community wide plan for the foothills. LaVonne Niccolls, 4238 Triple Ridge Place, Eagle. Submits a letter for the record. Discusses the cost of building new schools, fire stations, police station. Feels the City should obtain what the projected costs will be for these new buildings. Jim Banducci, 2990 Holl Drive. Moved to Eagle for the lifestyle. Is not against growth. Would like to know a realistic cost for this proposal. Does not feel this application should be approved at this time. Bob West, 5035 Willow Creek Road, Eagle. Has concerns regarding traffic patterns and loads for the development. Alasya West, 5035 Willow Creek. Represents equestrians who have used areas in the foothills. Concerned about trails and open space. Feels there needs to be a plan for the area including open space. Feels the applicant should. Leigh Brecht, 48 North Hawkling Lane. Is not against development but feels it should be done thoughtfully. Discusses contiguous BLM property. Concerns that this application isolates public lands and feels this should be preserved. Also discusses traffic impact. Rita Dixon, 87 S. Grandeen Way. Here regarding the impacts to the habitat and wildlife in this area. Has concerns regarding the planned roads. Larry Sandusky, 7602 Canyon Drive, Meridian. Representing the Idaho Brittany Club. Uses the area Spring Valley Ranch area to train bird dogs. Discusses the wildlife in the area. CJ Thompson, 4831 Willow Creek Road. Has been involved in planning for the foothills with both the County and the City. Feels what is most important is preserving the wildlife in the area. . David Head, 855 Stillwell Drive, Eagle. Discusses the water issues in this area including water rights, etc. Where are the boundaries for this water? Feels there needs to be a groundwater study done by an independent agency. Feels there should not be a decision made on this application at this time, and there should be a plan for the whole area. John Franden, President of the Ada County Highway District. Discusses the fact they needed a Master Transportation Plan as development begins in the foothills. Discusses phase one of BPGG. Reads part of a letter that was sent by ACHD regarding this project. Requests that the City not act until a plan can be developed. The City, along with other entities should identifY reasonable land use assumptions for this area. Aspitarte asks about impact fees. General discussion. Charles Trainer, COMPASS, Meridian. Discusses the issue that ITD does not have the money for improvements for the current plan. Suggests the Commission ask for a plan with a financial strategy. Page 3 of5 K\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-IO-16-06mindoc THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 660 E. Civic Lane October 16, 2006 6:30 P.M Phil Fry, 4122 Homer Road. Submits a letter for the record. Barb Jekel, 2862 Homer Road. Discusses population projections for the project and the need for additional schools. Feels there should be more public meetings for this project. Would like to see the public have a chance to go give testimony earlier in the meeting. John Thornton, 5264 N. Sky High Way. Would also like to see the public be able to give testimony prior to the applicant. Feels the Commission should have a Comprehensive Plan for the area Aster Ceja, 3901 N. Cambria Way, Boise. Feels the concept for this project is a good idea, feels the location is wrong. Compares the project to Hidden Springs. Discusses concerns regarding traffic, economics and housing. Asks the Commission not be approve this project. Lyle Mullins, 1574 N. Ellington Lane, Lexington Hills Subdivision. Feels the Commission should table the M3 project. Feels there should be a plan for the foothills and there needs to be an independent model of a water aquifer for the area. Jay Friday, Brookwood Subdivision. Upset that he has to pay for a fire station near the Legacy project. Feels Eagle doesn't need to be developed overnight. Does not feel high density belongs here. John Mullin, Brookwood Subdivision. Feels the application should be tabled. Aspitarte moves to table this item to the October 30, 2006 meeting. Seconded by Jacobs. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES. A short recess is called. Meeting called back to order 11 :37 p.m. 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. 2006002SS-CP A - Ada Countv Comorehensive Plan Amendment: Ada County is proposing a Comprehensive Plan amendment to update the County Comprehensive Plan and to incorporate the newly created North Foothills Sub-Area Plan and the Park and Open Space Master Plan into the County's General Plan. Pierce introduces the item. Nichoel Baird Spencer, City Planner, reviews the application. Discussion amongst the Commission. Aspitarte moves that 2006002SS-CP A - Ada County Comprehensive Plan Amendment move on to City Council for their review and approval with staff's comments. Seconded by Zastrow. ALL A YES...MOTION CARRIES 5. REPORTS: A. Commission: None. B. City Attorney: None. C. Staff-Foothills Presentation, Tuesday at 5:00. 6. ADJOURNMENT: Page 4 of5 K:\P&ZIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work AreaIPZ.IO-16-06mindoc THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES 660 E. Civic Lane October 16, 2006 6:30 P.M Aspitarte moves to adjourn. Seconded by Jacobs. Hearing no further business, the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 11 :52 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ",'.......,"'1 ~...... ~AOl. ~#~ 40.... 0 ~ .......1:' ..~.. ~~,.. .. ~ 1/..,.. O\lA7'~.......~ : ...: ~~ \ \ : (.): 0 , -~ -i . . c..; .-. "\ _ ,.... i \ - ~v.e: 0 $...... c.~ .{'/ V ~ _./;J Ai..- ~., ..Z<'OR po';:.-....<;) ~ #. S ...... y ~###.# l' ATE oy,.......... .",.......",' .b~~Q ~I~(J~ .. SHAkoN K. BERGMANN CITY CLERK/TREASURER APPROVE~ _______ N W. PIERCE CH IRMAN RANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE AT CITY HALL. Page 5 of5 K\P&Z\t\.lINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-l0-16-06min doc EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle - M3 Eagle, LLC. October 16, 2006 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? John Petrovsky ZM3 f (i rt t ) (c n.415 C7 r - re r j x k/E Lynn Melton Purvis 33p. laid (, j .eS Kathy Pennisi %7c N , S6,6 r`v mt.,. O cj —Mg `4 `in LaVonne Niccolls is 3 S—,4J 72 .r. /e fi,b,$c 9 59- 7-78' K Y t 3 Jim Banducci 2 970 \(?) 1(1. L `C 3 V t, Bob West SO3 VJt C drQi 93�l-07/� 'e Alasya West 5a 3 c GJ tL(6,, J rt A# 9?-67) - )( Leigh Brecht t{ g3Q N HA-14 (h `/„ 5 Rita Dixon #? s Er-w Li2 S Larry Sandusky 7(007, COn 1r Att4 y2 S CJ Thompson Q '7i r, 4tAsfr. ee FA.cC� 72,c�C'h x y.c., S David Head qsCi' I I 'Lie i*r, dc, hn ��4n len 3�7s ,ci-,- ,.1 s--- 3€5-7 evcr-v 6 ,d ie /90r1 /4,5 i Lem° ��1'7 �u� FT/�9�'11P/ .r& T A uw S' 1-3" - Tr t_) C I t, ✓e / vie i 7"G,Z S /3,r1i &ii(K5- 3g<.1731 Q ekr A. LAI gin s m : dol l tc4 u - 33 s rV . PIA. L,., g 30- 3 i2 : ✓ 'U r 5 . d (e-1-on 34Z VY S8S-64SY -� •-pa" e r r 1 24r ckr `---ix, r [ -)-- */ 2. 2- 6-67-)44,-11,4 gF . 7-W -1-2-4 IP . C( l,c—._S 4. c.L 9 ., AV 0 se, pie: _ )‘ ► r it -- %.. I I c 1 J AA-h411Akekc c/ h ' ° ,t_ , 1 l 6J ` r Pli.-)1A CAC{6.4-1\ I-1i-/ kkill1,,)(rctIL- V 'Y� EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06— M3 Eagle — M3 Eagle. LLC. October 16, 2006 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? ��jj /// h.„ ti.ex q3y-3110 Y / i7 7'1 � _)- ,%,1 C&r , .5 7? /V, 114,1,44,1_ 73y_,f, y\A ix" G, 7 s/�w �, ay.-� 9�f-? X' 2<ycs ye..5- •ccvc,g 4_ ,2g�a //06-// AT-F4'e IlLk c (,fP- ;cc c l b- q z i 7-76)t ----rb -N-s-r-i l� f -'n t ,.'k" i (7,1 �i1 i_ X e,-,,0 k t c ,...., 1(8' 4 kl el,11i ,\ 1, ' ' -<. —7 L, T k ►._. .S2 4,I A1,_51C 1 L `Li SS s 7 %f. 4 4 S --'7,__4___'- /1&-L-t_4( "4 te I c7.41 4---51- S( roi--) a 1.4fR BBA«6ey 5 't&J 40,Uaa L n1 ci"ci .bcr) 6 0 4._ c. , �-...sue 5 S u c N.J., -t- ci.._ A 2-L, 1-( 1 v Li . t-eS /i'e /1/m4._ ( (0/ h/ .dry (!K-P e& (i -I H/ Z Z. cleft /,-caL 1/ i, q / 1 h/' L\\. \\1\4\291, -1 a.rw, 54-Mti►- \A D), ,A,le 1117->12) )> 0,1%44 11' Q %jMocO° In) 4`d t.60 d1A Y,C G'37l 111 _ -bt ii / eC) 0. Li1rkr6 ' 41 0 5-e U AA(er y1 3 9'v $ € v .e f �►v\- ` Sly- 3Y , ,-. _ (SQvu..— kj_kd,,ctS r. 7 / 6 k: 1).P.,., z J / 7 37-/cis' >e -1)A1,= 1<OEP c i�� , c kes- �4-511 k k , kL\ W, ti e i �d f.3'1 V 713 ae, ct4 70 d' flew /‘ Z ‘--70id (ACK tA- 5101 N. tram Ira W '° 031551 Z - - - Au g= it-Rcc Scl?eljei L u77 ()Ar\q- Sckk�-47 s0(►A� 4,k_A,Le EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eae1e - M3 Eaale, LLC. October 16, 2006 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? ,filI ice 4 ao-- S 1((11.(), I 93)74 b __ /,PMe Z W, 620 ;;04 Ct4- 9'8'7�i/ of /4p fli-S-1,6e4t (- " '' e_...c • 4/S5 )4r04-20yLi41Qk? .= Coc -tsp.-/ 7,14/ tiJ \1, j hc: sc-ci-z z fac-k tf-, 5--ka., --j-- 2te6 ryes it. wlN (Ape), ra o (nr-ivic fid4 ALL Lb s o r tk Li.c70 A n it "Dr Ft i s e.- 6---4 a,--csc X 4 0 44. br r PA 7 /33-,/ , - 4Ye 72dj 1bto SC �() ---pat -bIOt 1(n t- &a Lo_o . 93o_y2_S-3 13_A4 ward —los w . a var-ier- dc, q39- 66io En71/ //L S" ,27-Eric e-cz_ bk, 4.-Pt l'acti-1/9-7ceoc.,/i,v_le/e 1/1t-, "-- ";°' QV A QN-t r f 2C� o f (l ,-)NN u/ l Li r( AsorU-eY f ' 7 �( �f 2Cr/oCAbiolll� ,_ -.sft (� 232 /X S%Nc-c,'Ec7 sK • / /nicr,,l /3(// /o4-� f' `' r ( X Al CI A,ei,4 SW-i9 i 3 7 r ,Rig 5P 71 ,� , -� 9 -- ( X Ai v LLA I CAiti/E /)7 2 32 2 �l, Si U ,,,,c,il-t<<`sT G 3`".11 -“. x ' `� -LC_e_ st a t 1 / F 2 SA/'VG C t2- 1C. GW qH -71 k..) >( k30 EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle - M3 Eaele, LLC. October 16, 2006 6:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? Car ottki\ CI dee i clog I r \:i , C . ,,,,,,,, / lido E, gC -/o 29 L- file) Ilatttli wool_ Pe' 4 r' 9 7-%33 6 69 f� Z4 7 =4 F �� %.. ©74 /v y Teic (AV-� '5gzi5 /l). T3i-1c 435(7° Pc C,.hLt ,.-i r�`- ►t,u-- Cc 1vt �A s s FSoo .s. /A 11,111 r y (,/ 'P5s a�s8 Z�� c L_c.�..�;s o__.eg, Z CA 4-I N/A �/fk (1 0 -_, A( Q S 2 , 1 v yo 3 P, &Nook5(Ci 93`i' ec s ✓ ,L) e %,,,,,4,4 5q6/ %46-A-44-` 7(M-63)-3 7 c it i Ore voice. nFe goa a NACFA TESTIMONY ON PROPOSAL BY THE M3 COMPANIES File Number: CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06 MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2006 (Addresses will be supplied for the record by each speaker at the beginning of testimony) John Petrovsky Lynn Melton Purvis Kathy Pennisi LaVonne Niccolls Jim Banducci Bob Niccolls Bob West Alasya West Leigh Brecht Rita Dixon Larry Sandusky CJ Thompson David Head ...citizens helping to create a sustainable vision for the future of Ada County's Northern Foothills... North Ada County Foothills Association One voice. One goai. One p,an. WILDLIFE HABITAT FRAMEWORK ADA COUNTY COMP PLAN REVISION CITIZEN INPUT SESSION NOVEMBER 30, 2005 GOALS REVISE THE ADA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE PRESERVATION OF VIABLE WILDLIFE HABITAT IN RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY AS A DISTINCT ELEMENT, RATHER THAN AS A SUB CATEGORY WITHIN OPEN SPACE. DEFINE METHODS, INCENTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS WHICH WILL PROMOTE A HIGH SUCCESS RATE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF VIABLE WILDLIFE HABITAT. Principles • Wildlife habitat needs are dynamic and highly variable, subject to weather, fire and encroaching development. • The Boise Front, east of Highway 55 to the City of Boise and north to Idaho City, is critical winter range (typically below 3500-3700 feet in elevation, with a snowpack of 14-18 inches) for the largest mule deer population in the state. Development in this area will affect rural areas adjacent thereto, primarily the land west of Highway 55. Reduction of habitat in one area without increases in suitable and accessible habitat in other locations will have profound impacts on the health and size of this mule deer herd. • Emphasis in the Ada County foothills should thus be placed on protecting large migratory game habitat, especially winter range. This means large, contiguous areas with a complex of vegetation, including healthy stands of sage and bitterbrush, and varied terrain types. It does not mean small, fragmented, or isolated areas "connected" by narrow "corridors." This approach, by emphasizing species with large range requirements, will simultaneously provide habitat for the other species characteristic of these foothills. ...citizens helping to create a sustainable vision for the future of Ada County's Northern Foothills... • Animals do not respect human boundaries. Reduction of habitat in one location will affect proximate locations and likely involve everything in between (e.g., roads, houses). (over) Approach • Map vegetation types and conditions in each sub -area of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with the foothills (e.g., the North Foothills sub -area). • As part of the overall plan for each sub -area (not on a project -by -project or owner -by - owner basis), map large contiguous tracts with the best habitat characteristics (vegetation, terrain, etc.). • Ensure that habitat to be protected in one sub -area is contiguous with or adequately connected to habitat in adjacent sub -areas. • Plan to preserve habitat in perpetuity via such tools as conservation easements. • Limit other uses (e.g., recreation) of designated habitat as follows: closed December through March; non -motorized use allowed all other times of year. Ban motorized uses if possible; if not, restrict motorized use to June through November. Require an enforcement mechanism to ensure users adhere to these limits. • Work with developers and landowners to define incentives which encourage developers to: Restore overgrazed, eroded or otherwise damaged tracts in designated habitat locations; - Avoid construction in slot canyons and gullies (prime habitat locations); Enhance habitat throughout the community through methods such as animal -safe guzzlers, landscaping unattractive to wildlife at housing locations, maximum separation between housing locations and designated habitat; In planned communities, employ a conservation coordinator to design and implement community education and involvement programs and monitor/enforce habitat and wildlife elements. Challenges: • Cluster housing and other development in the minimum number of locations to support protection of large habitat areas; and • From a habitat perspective, large lot residential development (i.e., 5-10 acre lots) is little better than suburban density housing. Therefore, such development, like higher density residential types, should also be concentrated in the minimum number of areas. It cannot be considered part of a habitat protection response. (If large lot residential development is to be built, adequate trail systems and connections to those trails must be included.) Coordinating habitat issues for North Ada County Foothills Association (NACFA): C.J. Thompson, seajayt@starband.net, 938-0418. ...citizens helping to create a sustainable vision for the future of Ada County's Northern Foothills... October 16, 2006 To Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission: I challenge the legality and the propriety of Eagle's Planning and Zoning Commission hearing this matter at this time. These lands are neither in Eagle's area of impact nor city limits. The fact that they are being heard by Eagle's P arming and Zoning Commission gives the impression that special treatment is being given to M3. Whether or not Eagle is better off to have the matter of this property's development in the hands of Ada County or the City of Eagle is a secondary concern. It is clear that M3 wants a signal that Eagle will annex and zone this property as part of Eagle's Comprehensive Plan. Such a signal gives them marketing leverage and financial leverage to move ahead with this development which is clearly not in the best interests of the people who reside in Eagle proper. Approving or even considering a development of this magnitude outside the normal scope and rules of the system makes both the City of Eagle and its Planning and Zoning Commission look suspect in the eyes of citizens adversely affected by such a development. In the interest of keeping the work of Eagle's Planning and Zoning Commission untarnished and reputable I urge you to make no recommendation whatsoever about these properties until and unless they are duly annexed into the city limits or made a part of Eagle's area of impact. Sincerely, Morgan Masner Former Eagle City Councilman, 757 — /7/ I'm CJ Thompson and I live in the foothills at 4831 Willow Creek Road. I've been involved in the planning for these foothills for now nearly four years, both with the County and with the City. I'm one of the hundreds of people who use and care about these foothills and turned out at meetings on what development should look like. Whether it's the county or the city asking what's important, preserving foothills wildlife habitat shows up on top. I'm wondering, having read this proposal and attended the first hearing, whether the applicant was at the same meetings I was. There is no mention of the vibrant wildlife community already here. I'll be entering into the record excerpts from the applicant's biological survey that weren't in testimony at the last hearing. You'll see that the applicant's wildlife consultant talks about the 290 species of wildlife the foothills support, about resident mule deer, about nesting red -tail hawks and juvenile golden eagles, about how the agricultural grasslands slated for dense housing and commercial activity are full of rodents and reptiles and other small mammals that are an important food source for raptors and larger mammals. Those of us who care about the foothills care about these creatures...and we care deeply. People in my neighborhood regularly lug 50 pound bags of cracked corn to feed the quail and chukar...or let their pastures grow long in the spring to encourage pheasants to nest. My neighbor chased but didn't even consider shooting the coyote he met coming up the driveway with his rooster in her mouth....because the coyote has pups to feed...it's pretty much her job...and Bill and Marie understand that. Another of my neighbors spends long hours every spring and fall tilling and planting 10 or 15 acres of sorghum or corn strictly as food for the resident wildlife. I could describe for you the incredible lengths John and I went to this spring to get a badger to move his burrow to protect a feral kitten we'd taken in rather than killing that badger...or the pleasure of watching two foxes sun themselves in our pasture for a couple of hours. 1 realize that habitat preservation is new ground for Eagle. But resources are available. I'll be entering into the record too the preservation principles NACFA coordinated about a year ago with Fish and Game and several hunting organizations. The County requires a mitigation plan with its applications. Take a look at the one prepared by SunCor for their Avimor project east of Highway 55, which talks about a full time conservation coordinator and habitat restoration with native plants and grasses, among other things. Rather than transforming it, SunCor values becoming a part of this community. Here's one example of how this application treats wildlife. Fish and Game and the hunters say that viable habitat must be large contiguous blocks of land without heavy human activity. In this area east of Willow Creek Rd., we know that Cullen and Simone Connolly have volunteered 1000 acres that abut state and BLM land, a third of their property, as permanent open space and habitat. Cullen and his family have history here and they love these hills. To the north, SunCor plans to leave their Little Gulch parcel open with continued public access.... maybe at some point a few large tot properties with fences pulled in to the half acre point. In the middle of this area, on one of the two pieces of land the applicant's consultant grades as good habitat, the applicant proposes at least 150 houses, which will break up large, superior quality habitat with human activity. The applicant couldn't even spare 300 acres, 5% of the 6000, for wildlife. As for the neighborhood park over here, that's for people and I understand it's to be prettified with trees and benches and other amenities. Is this really the best we can do? I don't think so. Please remember that once this habitat is gone, it's gone. And let the applicant know that Eagle values wildlife...that wildlife is part of what we are...and that there will always be room here too for the creatures who lived here before we did. Thank you. EXCERPTS FROM URS BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE M3 COMPANIES File Number: CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06 "The community dynamics of the foothills ecosystems supports more than 290 species of wildlife." (p. 7) [reptiles, rodents, small mammals] "...an important food source for raptors and other predators throughout the foothills..." (p. 11) "It is likely that mule deer utilization is concentrated on those portions of the study area east of Willow Creek Road, where URS biologists observed an abundance of fresh droppings during the survey." {p. 22) "URS observed pheasant, quail and partridge during surveys of the study area. Based on the presence of shrub habitat and irrigated agricultural lands, it is expected that various pheasants, quail and partridge species could be found in and around the proposed development area. Agricultural lands generally support pheasant populations, while upland shrub, grassland and riparian communities support quail. chuckar and partridge." (p. 23) Raptor use of the study area was observed throughout the study area during the survey. URS biologists observed a nesting pair of red -tail hawks in a large bitterbrush shrub in the BLM parcel immediately east of Willow Creek Road (eastern portion of the study area). The nest was active at the time of the observation (April 2006) with a clutch of 3 eggs. It is likely that red -tail hawks use the surrounding area to hunt. The biologists also noted a juvenile golden eagle on several occasions foraging in central portions of the study area. Raptor use of the area is likely high due to the abundance of ground dwelling small mammals on the property." (pp. 25-26) "URS observed four individuals [long -billed curlew] during a biological survey of the study area...there is ample habitat for Long -billed curlews in close proximity to the study area." (p. 29) • COMMISSIONERS; • My name is Bob West. I have been a resident in the Eagle foothills for the past 22 years. I live at 5035 Willow Creek Road in Stillwell Estates. • My interest here tonight is concerning the traffic patterns and loads with a development such as the applicants. • The applicant insists that routing traffic down Eagle Road thru the city core of Eagle is necessary. Based on roadway capacity standards from their own consultant, 4 — 5 lane roads will be required. (Show Map) • Intersections shown on the applicants Traffic Consultants study show most intersections degrading from B, C, and D to "F". I find that unacceptable. • The applicant claims they will they will have a 30 % capture rate within their development. Is this very realistic??? If there is that much business and commerce won't there be an in flow of traffic to support that many jobs. What about schools, fire and police service jobs. • The applicants development comprises 17% of the North Ada County Foothills Area. Where will the traffic from the eventual build out of the 87% of the foothills area be routed? Partially down thru Eagle? • This hour glass is letting me know that my time is about up. But it also gives a good representation of what the traffic flow will be down thru the core of Eagle on Eagle Road. ( show shape of hr glass) Thank you for your time. Larry Sandusky 7602 Canyon Drive Meridian, ID 83646 (208) 895 8089 Eagle City Council - 10/16/06 1. Intro - I'm Larry Sandusky, speaking both as an individual and representing the Idaho Brittany Club 2. All of us, even those who do not use the Spring Valley Ranch area, owe a debt of gratitude to the McLeod family and its long-time ranch manager Jerry Thompson for preserving good wildlife habitat and open vistas so close to an urban area, while also allowing public access to its beauty, abundant wildlife and quiet. ❖ Without their long term commitment to Spring Valley Ranch and to sharing it with the public we would not be having this discussion 3. My primary use is the training of bird dogs on wild birds, primarily on horseback. I'm probably the heaviest user from our club, as I live somewhat nearby in Meridian. ❖ I'm out there when most others aren't - early in the morning, rain or shine, for hours. I quit training only to protect the wild birds during nesting season in May & June, and during peak summer heat & peak winter cold. 4. In exchange we've checked fence and patrolled for destructive interlopers - mostly 4-wheelers and ATV users who damage the terrain. ❖ We also do periodic cleanups, taking out everything from paper to furniture. 5. This area is a unique resource for myself and our club members because of its substantial populations of quail, grey or Hungarian partridge and chukar partridge. ❖ For us this is like catch and release hunting - we don't harm the birds because we appreciate them as a unique resource. 6. Game birds are most important to us, but let me tell you about the other wildlife I see from the saddle! •3 In September a bobcat ❖ Last week a golden eagle taking a rodent off a side hill ❖ Red tailed hawks ❖ Prairie falcons like Sharp -shinned & Cooper's Hawks hunting from their perches in sagebrush and small trees ❖ Burrowing owls ❖ Regular sightings of coyotes - in fact they stalk the young dogs ❖ Mule deer ❖ Badgers, whistle pigs, field mice. ❖ Song birds - meadowlarks, robins, swallows, flickers, juncos, buntings, sparrows, and others ❖ In Spring, long -billed curlews nest all over the area 7. This Spring we saw mountain lion tracks on a muddy trail. 8. The thing we must all remember is that the wildlife moves around season to season - the birds and animals don't live on any particular hilltop on any particular day and they use large tracts of habitat. 9. 10. Please do not let M3 develop this valuable habitat without forcing it to preserve UNALTERED open space, and please don't let M3 leapfrog Eagle's comprehensive planning process to destroy a unique treasure just a few miles from where we are tonight. 11. I'd also like to know if M3 will make any attempt to preserve the segment of the Oregon Trial called Goodale's Cutoff, a unique cultural resource in itself. 12. Our concern as historic users is that M3 stands in such stark contrast to SunCor and Connolly in preservation of wildlife habitat. Eagle is at the same crossroads the city of Boise faced recently - are you going to develop the foothills to their max or act as wise stewards and preserve open space and wildlife habitat. COMPASS COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION of Southwest Idaho October 16, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Eagle 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 RE: CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06— M3 Eagle — M3 Eagle, LLC Dear Commissioners: The consideration of the M3 project, along with other potential development in the North Ada Foothills area, needs to be put into the context of transportation capacity in the region. In August 2006 the Board of Community Planning Association approved Communities in Motion, a 25-year transportation plan based on a scenario of growth that envisioned most growth occurring inside the Areas of Impact of cities in the region. Of the 120,000 new homes forecasted to be built by 2030, the transportation plan assumed over half would be built at transit densities and near jobs and services. The plan then laid out a set of major roadway improvements costing nearly $3 billion, of which at least $630 million was beyond projected funding. Among the corridors planned for improvement are SH 44 (State Street), SH 16, SH 55, Beacon Light, Linder, and a new connection between Purple Sage Road in Canyon County and Beacon Light. US 20/26 (Chinden) and the Three Cities River Crossing are also on the list of planned improvements. While the Communities in Motion plan proposes improvements to these corridors, none of the improvements is actually budgeted by the Idaho Transportation Department or the Ada County Highway District. COMPASS ran an analysis of growth possible under the many developments that have surfaced over the past year or so. We added the potential 69,000 new households to the growth already shown under Communities in Motion and evaluated the growth against the budgeted transportation system. This system consists of existing roads and projects which have actual programmed funding through 2010. The results show a massive increase in congestion, with many of the main roads operating at very poor levels of service. While this analysis is not constrained to evaluating just the effects of M3's proposed development on transportation, it does highlight the major challenge we face in addressing growth and travel demand in the face of constrained funding. Federal funding, a mainstay of ITD's budget for many years, is drawn from a national trust fund which is projected to be "bankrupt" by 2010. That means expecting future increases in the level of federal funding is unrealistic for Idaho. Idaho has been a beneficiary among the states — receiving more federal funds than it puts into the trust fund. At the same time, the state trust fund has seen a period of flat revenues from the state gasoline tax and registration fees. This stagnation in revenues is during a time of major growth in our region. Impact fees have been a major source of revenues for ACHD for more than ten years. These revenues have nearly equaled the revenues to ACHD from the state trust fund and from property taxes levied by ACHD. Impact fees have not been available to ITD nor does ITD gain from increased property taxes due to growth in the region. As the attached map depicts, the travel problems would spread throughout the roadway network. It is not a matter of fixing one or two intersections, adding a lane of travel for a mile, or refining the timing on a traffic signal. The needs extend to almost every arterial between Caldwell and Boise, from Kuna to north of Eagle and Star. To address some of these issues, ACHD, ITD and COMPASS have been meeting with local governments to discuss a North Ada Foothills Transportation Study. This study would refine our preliminary analysis to reflect all potential developments, evaluate the transportation needs generated by development, estimate the cost for the necessary improvements, and propose financial tools to raise the money to build transportation capacity to serve the growth. Consideration of M3, along with other developments in the area, should be conditioned upon the results of this study. In defining the improvements needed to serve the growth and the financial tools to pay for the improvements, the study will implement the recommendations under the Blueprint for Good Growth to ensure adequate public facilities prior to approving growth. A policy contained in Communities in Motion also can be addressed. It stipulated that improvements driven by growth outside the Areas of Impact should be funded by those developments. In our evaluation, we estimated that as many as 29,000 dwelling units could be built in projects in the North Foothills area, including projects lying just to the east of SH 55. These were included since they will access the same corridors. A developer -funded estimate came up with more than 33,000 potential dwelling units. By way of comparison, the City of Meridian has around 26,000 dwelling units today —or about 60,000 people. What is proposed in the North Foothills area is similar to putting a city the size of Meridian in an area lacking a transportation infrastructure. Just consider the travel issues faced in Meridian, even with its immediate access to the Interstate and the number of east -west and north -south alternatives. Highway 44 west of Highway 55 could have more than 47,000 vehicles per day, an amount equivalent to Eagle Road south of Fairview. Highway 55, north of Highway 44, could exceed 37,000 vehicles per day —about the same at Glenwood at the Boise River. Highway 16 north of Beacon Light would carry the same traffic as Eagle Road south of Franklin today at 53,000+. Finally, Beacon Light just west of SH 55 could near 35,000—about the same as Curtis Road at Northview. These forecasts are not based on any careful analysis of what developments are likely to build out, nor are they based on a particular date for buildout. The forecasts are intended to demonstrate that the potential traffic could far exceed the existing capacity of the roads today. Allowing time for the North Ada Foothills Transportation Study to complete its work will provide decision -makers with better information about the impacts, the needs, and the financial solutions. Thank you. Sincerely, Charles Trainor Director of Planning Attachments (1) CT: T:\FY07\700 Services\705 Transportation Liaison Services\traffic impact studies\m3-eaglepandz-oct2006.doc pc: Don Kostelec, Ada County Highway District Karen Doherty, Blueprint for Good Growth Sue Sullivan, Idaho Transportation Department -District 3 File 705.1 Transportation Liai§on-Ada County ti This evaluation was based on estimating additional growth of 69,000 dwelling units on top of the growth allocated within Ada County during Communities in Motion. The added growth was based on 16 planned communities throughout Ada County. When household estimates were not provided by the developer, a density of 3 units per acre was assumed with developable acres assumed at 75% of total acreage. Roads shown in red indicate volumes exceeding 140% of a road's capacity. Roadway capacity reflects improvements budgeted through 2010. October 16, 2006 To Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission: I challenge the legality and the propriety of Eagle's Planning and Zoning Commission hearing this matter at this time. These lands are neither in Eagle's area of impact nor city limits. The fact that they are being heard by Eagle's Planning and Zoning Commission gives the impression that special treatment is being given to M3. Whether or not Eagle is better off to have the matter of this property's development in the hands of Ada County or the City of Eagle is a secondary concern. It is clear that M3 wants a signal that Eagle will annex and zone this property as part of Eagle's Comprehensive Plan. Such a signal gives them marketing leverage and financial leverage to move ahead with this development which is clearly not in the best interests of the people who reside in Eagle proper. Approving or even considering a development of this magnitude outside the normal scope and rules of the system makes both the City of Eagle and its Planning and Zoning Commission look suspect in the eyes of citizens adversely affected by such a development. In the interest of keeping the work of Eagle's Planning and Zoning Commission untarnished and reputable I urge you to make no recommendation whatsoever about these properties until and unless they are duly annexed into the city limits or made a part of Eagle's area of impact. Sincerely, Morgan Masner Former Eagle City Councilman, f.19—/7f Updates to Comments to the M3-Eagle Development-16Oct. '06 by Philip Fry, phone 939-9267 , EMAIL idphil@earthlink.net Worsening of the aquifer impacts. For these comments I had update all my calculations for aquifer impacts. The new SunCor developments increase the aquifer impacts by 40%over my previous calculations provided to P&Z. SunCor's application shows no commitment to housing numbers. But whether SunCor eventually commits to the 13,000 homes allowed by the requested zoning, or 10,000 or even 7,000 homes,they still plan to use a disproportionate amount of the aquifer. My calculations then used 13,000 homes. I also reviewed other development plans, and found changes. The number of planned homes and homes allowed by planned zoning changes in the N. Foothills increased by 36% from 23,400 to 31,890 homes. The planned development area increased by 78% from 18,432 to 32,747 acres. Most of this increased area is in Gem and Boise Counties, but Ada Country has about 75% or 4,700 acres of the 6,290 acres of SunCor's clustered development. We now see plans to develop 52% of the private land area in the Ada County N. Foothills. The Eagle P&Z commissioners must consider the total impact of all development in the N. Foothills for equitable municipal sharing of resources. N. Foothills Aquifer Issues A summary of my previous arguments were: 1. Eagle, Ada County and IDWR must equitably share aquifer resources among all future residents, 2. Use of the Valley aquifer must be sustainable, 3. Developers and IDWR do not know what water is available for residents. 4. Developer plans show no equitable sharing of aquifer use with other residents, 5. The developers plan excessive use of the aquifer and must be constrained, 6. The increases to the valley population will cause a water crises which will require eventual legislative restrictions on water usage, 7. The N. Foothills is now undeveloped and will allow applying best designs to conserve water, 8. The N. Foothills aquifers are isolated from the valley and its recharge from river water, 9. Therefore we must now restrict water use in all new developments to equitably share the aquifer with all residents and to reduce impacts of backfitting future legislative water restrictions. The following only affects item 5 as the developers now use is even more aquifer water. Allocated Water Rights With the Dry Creek Ranch and the new Avimore development, IDWR permits will allow pumping 17,200 acre feet /year =1.9 times the optimistic recharge. Further, the number of homes planned by SunCor will require at least another 5 CFS permit which will allow pumping 22,100 acre feet/ year = 2.5 times the optimistically available recharge. Compare this with pumping 3/4 of the optimistic recharge shown at the last meeting. I showed last meeting that all seven developers will have a design capacity of 2.3 times recharge rate. Now all seven developers will need total design capacity 3 times the optimistic available recharge. Actual Water Usage Estimates. Now all seven developers plan 31,890 homes which will need 18.7 CFS average well capacity = 13,200 acre feet/year = 1.5 times the recharge. This usage is also 41% of all municipal water used in the valley in 2000. Compare this with my previously calculated 9,700 acre feet/year. What is a Reasonable Buildout? At the reduced 244 gpd average home usage the planned 31,890 homes can be still tolerated, with 1900 homes left for future development, the planned offices and planned parks. But the higher home water usage with reduced housing density now only allows 0.66 homes per gross acre, which couldn't support the needed infrastructure. The only reasonable option then is reduced water usage. Summary I add another candidate CC&R restriction I presented to IDWR for a SunCor well protest: - Separate potable and irrigation water in large developments to allow preservation of precious potable water by allowing future use of surface water and gray water for irrigation. Hydro Ltc, Inc 1002 W Franklin Street, Boise, ID 83702 (208) 342-8369. (Fax) 342-3100, hydrologic@qwest.net October 16, 2006 Ms. Nichole Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP Planner III City of Eagle 660 E.Civic Lane P.O. Box 1520 Eagle, Idaho 83616 Re: Comments on Letters Submitted by NACFA and Phillip Fry Concerning the M3 Eagle Proposed Planned Community Development North of Eagle, Idaho Dear Nichole: I write to comments on three matters pertaining to the City's consideration of the proposed M3 Eagle planned community development (the Project): 1) to respond to Phillip Fry's September 27, 2006 letter to the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commissioners, 2) to respond to North Ada County Foothills Association's (NACFA) October 11, 2006 letter , and 3) to present an overview of Hydro Logic, Inc.'s investigations and preliminary conclusions with respect to its hydrogeologic ground water study of the Eagle area for M3 Companies. My responses are confined to my area of expertise which is ground water hydrogeology. As you know, my consulting firm, Hydro Logic, Inc. has been hired by M3 Companies to characterize the water resources for the regional area surrounding the Project. To that end, we have been vigorously pursuing a $ 750,000 ground water study of the area encompassed by Highway 55 to the east, the Ada/Canyon County line to the West, the Boise River on the south, and the Payette River to the north. Our charges include: 1) to develop an understanding of the underlying aquifers relied upon for municipal supply, 2) to quantify the ground water development potential for the area, and 3) to estimate the sustainable yield for the area aquifers. I am a consulting hydrogeologist, a Registered Professional Geologist in the State of Idaho, and president of Hydro Logic, Inc., a hydrogeological consulting firm in Boise. I have over 18 years of hydrogeological experience studying the Boise Valley aquifer and my Masters Thesis, entitled "The Hydrogeologic Framework of the Boise Aquifer System, Ada County, Idaho" was published in 1992. I have extensively studied the geologic, geophysical, and hydrogeologic characteristics of the north Boise foothills and my mentors, advisors, and colleagues have led the research in these areas. I personally have been involved in all major Boise Valley ground water research projects since that time including my service on the Treasure Valley Hydrologic Project's Technical Advisory Committee at the appointment of the Director. 1 PHILLIP FRY'S LETTER I appreciated Mr. Fry's extensive letter (5 pages). I am also impressed that Mr. Fry, whose family has apparently been in the Eagle area for several generations, is willing to step forward as an individual concerned about Eagle's future quality of life. I believe that Mr. Fry presents several worthwhile, even visionary, concepts concerning future water supplies for municipalities. We strongly disagree, however, with Mr. Fry's methodology and discussion of available ground water supplies, recharge, and related subjects, and we question his technical qualifications to make such statements. First, Mr. Fry specifies three water use issues for the North Foothills. Each is discussed below: 1) "-equitable sharing of water resources among all residents,". a. This concept by Mr. Fry is envisioned by the 1996 "Municipal Water Rights Act" which allows municipalities, and other municipal water providers, to apply for "reasonably anticipated future needs" for a "planning horizon" that exceeds the typical 5-year development horizon provision that covers all other new water rights. b. In other words, the 1996 Act sets forth the conditions under which Cities and other municipal providers may appropriate water now and hold it in "reserve" for future population growth. c. To our knowledge, no Idaho city has yet employed this statute. M3 would agree that the City of Eagle would be well advised to pursue its options under the Act, but in the meantime it is prudent for M3, as a proposed municipal provider under the Act, to pursue water supplies and entitlements under the Act for its Project. d. M3 intends to apply for a municipal "future needs" water right with a planning horizon of 20 years to accommodate the Project's envisioned build -out period. The current intention is that these rights will be incorporated into the City of Eagle's municipal water rights portfolio in the future. 2) "-protecting Eagle's municipal water rights from appropriation by developers," a. As indicated above, M3 is pursuing water supplies and water rights that are anticipated to come within the City of Eagle's ownership. M3 thus is providing for the City's future water needs. b. Eagle's existing municipal water rights, being senior to those of M3, already have priority over those that M3 will develop. If the City's ground water rights are injured by the operation of M3's wells, the City will have full recourse under the law. But again, M3 anticipates that its water rights 2 and its full water system will be turned over to the City, so the City also will be protected in this way. c. Practically speaking, competent, long-term water level monitoring is the best protection for the City's water rights, and M3 pans to provide for this (see below). 3) "- implementing water conservation by using CC&R restrictions and monitoring of water usage." a. In our opinion, water rates and adopted conservation methods, provide the only real means to achieve water conservation. b. M3 plans to deliver as much of its water, both domestic and irrigation, through meters inclusive of effluent usage. This will allow M3 or the City, as the case may be, to charge for water usage whereby the more water one uses the more one pays. This is the means to achieve water conservation. c. M3 will monitor aquifer pressures in the aquifer from which it plans to produce its municipal water. This provides a meaningful measure of the effects of water usage on ground water resources overall, and provides data that can be used to administer water resources. Second, Mr. Fry offers several calculations and statements about hydrogeology, the carrying capacity of the aquifer system, housing densities, land use, and assumed impacts from development densities. To these, we respond as follows: 1) We do not believe Mr. Fry is qualified to make such calculations. 2) As to the aquifer's carrying capacity, the professional hydrogeologists at Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) and SPF Water Engineering guardedly estimate recharge within very large "order of magnitude" error brackets. a. Yet Mr. Fry asserts that water withdrawals exceeding his calculated 9,000 acre-feet per year "will surely deplete the aquifer." Mr. Fry offers no scientific evidence to support this statement, and, based on our preliminary studies, it is untrue. b. If the upper end of SPF's recharge estimates (35,000 acre-feet per year) were plugged into the analysis Mr. Fry evidently used, the resulting aquifer recharge would be somewhere on the order of 70,000 AFA or more (a number we still question as low). 3) We disagree with the aquifer characterization retorts upon which Mr. Fry relied for his water budget calculations. a. The SPF Engineering reports for SunCor were focused mainly on the northeastern area of the Eagle Foothills located generally northeast of the 3 Pearl Road (north Eagle Road) and especially the area adjacent to Highway 55. In contrast, Hydro Logic's study is focused more on the area southwest of the Pearl Road. b. The SPF water budget for the Eagle foothills, upon which Mr. Fry's aquifer calculations are based, did not address, much less calculate, the recharge present as underflow from the Boise Valley aquifer for the large area southwest of Pearl Road. In Hydro Logic' Inc.'s conceptual model for the aquifer, this is the largest source of aquifer recharge to and through the Eagle area. c. Hydro Logic, Inc.'s preliminary calculations fmd SPF's "order of magnitude" estimate of aquifer recharge to be a couple of orders of magnitude too low for the lower area referred to by SPF as the "Northern Margin Aquifer." 4) Good -quality, long term aquifer monitoring provides a viable means of preventing any over -appropriation and/or interference problems with long-term water supplies. a. Currently, eight area domestic wells are measured under a monitoring plan agreement between NACFA and SunCor. The same agreement obligates SunCor to measure and report on seven additional wells drilled by SunCor in the North Foothills. b. The USGS and IDWR measure another six area wells. c. Various other programs, including the Statewide Water Quality Monitoring Program result in periodic measurements of at least 30 additional wells between West Boise and Star. d. United Water Idaho is monitoring at least two supply wells and a multi- level piezometer in the area. e. M3 is currently monitoring six wells, and is in the process of equipping four more. f. M3 is currently constructing, developing, and equipping two multi -level nested piezometers that monitor various depths of the aquifer at long-term designated monitoring locations. g. No other area of the Valley has a density of 72 monitoring stations for such a localized area. 5) Mr. Fry indicates that IDWR should allocate less water for each well permit and that Idaho's system of recognizing water rights should be changed. 4 a. While it is true that water rights are permitted on the basis of estimated water needs, the actual licensed amount of water withdrawal is based on the amount of water put to beneficial use during the permit period. In other words, only the amount of water used by an applicant can be licensed for permanent withdrawal. b. Idaho's code of water law is embodied in Idaho's Constitution and is not likely to change. M3 is proceeding under existing law. COMMENTS ON THE NACFA OCTOBER 111$ LETTER Hydro Logic, Inc. was hired by M3 to conduct a comprehensive ground water study two months after NACFA sent a letter to the IDWR Director requesting a "Comprehensive Groundwater Resource Evaluation and Consideration of New Water Rights Moratorium" (letter dated January 25, 2006 from David Head, Chair, NACFA Water Resources). M3 directed NACFA's letter to my attention and asked Hydro Logic, Inc. to address each of the points and concerns raised by NACFA. Mr. Head's letter expresses legitimate concerns about the availability and sustainability of ground water supplies beneath Eagle, Idaho. NACFA correctly pointed out that the carrying capacity of the underground aquifers has not been established and/or studied in detail. Specifically, NACFA requested that IDWR: 1) "Conduct a comprehensive hydrogeologic modeling study in our area" 2) "Define the carrying capacity of our aquifers: and" 3) "Develop a water budget for the North Foothills based on the modeling results." Hydro Logic, Inc. has been conducting such studies since March 2006 and has made presentations at three public meetings at which NACFA leaders were present. Therefore, we assume NACFA understands that M3 is addressing the concerns expressed in their January 2006 letter and that M3 also has pursued NACFA's request for the development of an independent ground water modeling project. M3 has contracted with the University of Idaho's Department of Geological Sciences to develop and calibrate such a model. M3 has funded a Masters of Science thesis for graduate student Stacie Douglas to develop the ground water model under the guidance of Dr. James Osiensky. UI graduate students also have been involved in the measurement of water levels in area residents' domestic wells. Boise State University researchers are also involved in geophysical investigations including seismic and magnetometer studies. In addition to the M3-funded independent study, Mr. Head has reported that IDWR has agreed to conduct its own study of the ground water in the area at NACFA's request. Hydro Logic, Inc. has been in contact with the two universities and IDWR concerning our studies, and we provide our findings to UI for input into their model. M3 is committed to full cooperation with other researchers. It is our opinion that adequate data are being developed and that sufficient studies, including independent projects by UI and 5 IDWR, are underway to characterize the ground water resource . In other words, M3 is pursuing everything NACFA requested in its January, 2006 letter. In addition to these ongoing water studies, NACFA has obtained, SunCor's commitment to implement a 10-year water level monitoring program involving eight NACFA members' domestic wells in addition to seven wells owned by SunCor. Six additional area wells are monitored by IDWR and/or USGS. As noted, M3 is monitoring six wells, equipping four more, and constructing two multi -level piezometers. No other area of the Valley has a comparable suite of monitoring stations. We believe this fully addresses the concern, in NACFA's October 11, 2006 letter pertaining to the need for independent researchers and potential interference to residents' domestic wells. OUR CONCLUSIONS FROM READING THE NACFA OCTOBER 11, 2006 LETTER. 1) The administration of the State's water resources is IDWR's responsibility, not the Citv's. Likewise, IDWR is vested with the authority to evaluate water availability. a. M3 cannot develop its planned community without approved water rights. b. NACFA will have full opportunity to participate in the administrative process before IDWR. 2) Hydro Logic, Inc.'s ground water study will be submitted to IDWR when it is available. a. We anticipate, and indeed are committed to, working with IDWR technical staff as appropriate to answer any questions. 3) Hydro Logic, Inc.'s acquired scientific data are being analyzed and modeled concurrently by the University of Idaho's Department of Geological Sciences. a. This is an independent study by the University to test by modeling the hydrogeological conceptual model developed by Hydro Logic, Inc. 4) Hydro Logic, Inc. disagrees with NACFA's Note K on Table 1 which states that "independent corroboration/peer review not yet planned." a. As noted, peer review of Hydro Logic, Inc.'s data and conceptual model for the Eagle aquifer system is not only planned, it is occurring. b. This data is being independently modeled by the University of Idaho's Department of Geological Sciences. c. M3 also has included Boise State University's CGISS Center for independent geophysical investigations of Hydro Logic's conceptual model. d. Hydro Logic, Inc. has been in contact with IDWR and will share its data, and cooperate with the planned IDWR study. 6 e. M3's water study will be available for IDWR review and by other ground water consultants within the context of M3's planned water right application or otherwise. IN -PROGRESS, M3 -SPONSORED, REGIONAL SCALE WATER STUDIES: The following studies have been sponsored by M3: 1) Pre -development water level and/or GPS measurements of over 200 water wells and development of a potentiometric surface map. 2) Ground water geochemistry study. 3) Drilling and completion of at least two deep exploratory test wells/piezometer nest installations and evaluations of two others. M3 piezometer nest #1 is completed (5 zones) and sampled. 4) Development of a map showing water -level change in wells over time. 5) Re -analysis of data from 15 existing large diameter well aquifer tests to a. characterize the transmissivity of the aquifer, and to estimate volume of water passing through it. 6) Ground water geochemistry study. 7) Development of a long-term water level monitoring network including ten continuously recording digital data -loggers and down -hole camera inspection of the details of well construction for all targeted monitoring wells. 8) Development of a hydrologic water budget for the area. 9) Regional scale aquifer testing is planned with cooperation with the IDWR and local area resident's domestic wells. 10) Development of a regional domestic well density map. 11) Development of a structural fault location map from all available geologic and geophysical data. 12) Boise State University seismic reflection and magnetometer surveys in Big and Little Gulches. 13) University of Idaho ground water computer model and M3-funded Masters Thesis in Hydrology. 7 HYDROLOGIC, INC.'S PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS To DATE 1) An impressive body of scientific data exists for the Eagle area including the Eagle foothills. a. There are more scientific data available for this area than for most other areas of the Boise River Valley. b. The quality of the available scientific data is generally high and not dependent upon Driller's Reports of uneven quality. c. Over 72 wells are being monitored in the general area which is more than in any other localized area of the Boise Valley. 2) The aquifers in and around the Eagle area have high notentiometric heads. a. In layman's terms; the aquifers are full. b. Many area wells are naturally flowing artesian wells at land surface. c. Both the new City of Eagle Eaglefield well and the City of Star Well #3 flow naturally at land surface at discharge rates of over 11/2 million gallons per day each. d. Some area wells (UWID State and Linder and Star #2) have above ground potentiometric heads of up to 40 feet above land surface. 3) Water level interference effects between large producing wells are not pronounced. a. Documented interference effects from large bore wells producing at 1,500 gpm or more from the deep aquifer have been generally shown to cause less than 10 feet of interference drawdown in nearby (1/2 mile) wells completed into the same aquifer with direct hydraulic connection (City of Eagle 7-day aquifer test 2006). b. Long term (30-day) tests show stabilized drawdown and suggest that similar stabilization will occur across the aquifer in other pumping wells. 4) The Eagle area aquifers are strongly recharged with good quality ground water. a. Aquifer pressures recover from pumping. b. The cones of depression from pumping wells encounter positive hydraulic boundaries after a short pumping period (hours to days). c. Virtually all analyzed ground waters meet USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act standards, although foothills aquifers northeast of the Pearl Road may be an exception. 8 5) Aquifer pressures have not changed appreciably over the last 20 years in the Eagle area. a. There are no documented water level declines that can be attributed to ground water pumping. b. High quality, specially constructed monitoring wells show no water level decline in the deep aquifer over the last ten years of accelerated population growth (United Water Idaho State and Linder Test Well). c. Between the IDWR's Technical Services Bureau, the US Geological Survey, and IDWR's Statewide Water Quality monitoring program, over 70 wells were measured from North Boise to Star this year. IDWR's preliminary conclusions are that water levels in wells have not declined in this area (Shane Bendixsen, Technical Hydrogeologist, IDWR, personal communication 10-16-2006). 6) Significant thick, productive, and aerially -extensive sand aquifers exist beneath the Eagle area that extends laterally under the Big and Little Gulch foothills. a. Productive cold water aquifers exist beneath the M3 property. b. Correlation can be shown using borehole geophysical logs. c. A 250-foot-thick sand aquifer is continuous for 4 miles up Big Gulch from Highway 16 and to the greater Eagle area at least as far south as State Street. 7) Aquifers northwest of the Pearl Road do not appear to be interconnected to the main Boise Valley aquifer. a. Ground water geochemistry, aquifer pressures, mapped geology and structural faulting all suggest that these aquifers are not interconnected to the main Boise Valley aquifer. 8) Newly completed large -bore production wells along the current northern impact areas of Eagle and Star have shown prolific aquifers resulting in individual well yields of several million gallons of water per day without significant impacts to existing area wells. a. City of Eagle's new Eaglefield and Legacy municipal wells. b. City of Star municipal Well #3. 9) The ground water quality and geochemistry of aquifers beneath the M3 site appear suitable for all municipal purposes and likely will require no treatment beyond simple disinfection. a. Spring Valley Ranch #7 Test Well was sampled for a complete municipal water-quality/water chemistry suite of analytes. b. The water geochemistry appears to be very similar to the greater Boise Valley aquifer chemistry. 9 c. M3 currently has water quality samples in the laboratory for analysis for three sub -aquifer zones (piezometer nest) beneath the former Kling property with four additional zones being sampled. 10) Transmissivity values calculated from hydraulic test results and inferred recharge for the aquifer units under Eagle, Star and the foothills areas north of these cities, rival the productivity of any aquifer in the greater Boise Valley. a. Calculated transmissivity values are generally high within the main area aquifer. 11) Interference effects to surrounding existing wells from large wells on the M3 property are expected to be minimal. a. The M3 property is separated from the main Eagle "domestic well field" by an expanse of BLM land. b. Very few wells exist north of the M3 property. c. An in -place designated monitoring network will serve to determine with certainty the effects of M3's ground water development as the water resource is developed. d. The monitoring network is currently operating to establish baseline aquifer pressures and is slated to be maintained throughout the life of the project. e. M3 intends to monitor all of its wells, including its designated monitoring wells (piezometers) for piezometric head. f. Available hydraulic tests of wells suggest stabilizing drawdown after relatively short pumping periods (hours to days); therefore, the cone of depression from the pumping well is not continuing to deepen or grow laterally at a fast rate. 12) In our opinion, there exists no current data to suggest that adequate sustainable ground water resources do not exist beneath the M3 properties to fully supply the proposed planned community's water demand at build -out from on -site ground water wells. a. This can be known with certainty only with pumping and development, but we have seen no obstacles to this plan so far. 13) There appears to be no impending water availability crisis in the Eagle area. a. Rather, there appears to be unappropriated ground water available for use. b. Comparison of nearly 200 well measurements, obtained by M3 and UI, during June 2006 does not indicate significant changes with respect to water levels reported by the well drillers upon completion of the wells. 10 c. Over 70 spot measurements by state and federal agencies suggest no significant changes to aquifer pressures in the Eagle area. d. Long term monitoring wells (10-to-20-years) show stable water levels. 14) The single biggest threat to the Eagle area aquifer is the continued proliferation of unsealed and poorly constructed domestic water wells. a. Eagle's domestic well field is one of the densest in the Treasure Valley. b. Domestic wells are exempt from water right permitting, and are constructed with little -to -no state oversight. c. Many residents experience sand production and drawdown problems due to poor construction or other physical problems unrelated to the overall availability of ground water. d. The wells are generally unsealed and proximal to "recharge" from septic systems and other sources of surface contamination. e. Virtually all of the many of hundreds of domestic wells have been drilled with the low-cost air -rotary drilling method that, in our opinion, should not be used for sedimentary aquifers due to the difficulty —or even impossibility —of sealing such wells against surface and inter -aquifer contamination. f. In addition to not being properly sealed, these types of wells are often completed without well screens or hydraulic testing of any kind. Drawdown problems in domestic wells are most often found to be a result of well construction but are more often perceived to be a result of interference from other pumping wells. h. Many domestic wells are being used beyond their already generous 13,000 gallons -per -day limits, or beyond the one-half acre statutory limit. However, IDWR lacks the resources to police this misuse. 15) M3 Eagle is taking a proactive approach to understanding the water resource prior to filing an application for water rights. a. All previous water studies in the Eagle area have been in response to water right protests after water right applications have been received at IDWR. b. M3 is funding a minimum $ 500K comprehensive water study of its own accord prior to any water rights application because of its interest in understanding its own long term water supply. g• 11 c. M3's water study is the most comprehensive ground water resource study in the area to date. Please feel free to call me directly with any questions or if you require the supporting documentation referenced above such as test data, water levels, well locations, or other information. C: Eagle Planning and Zoning Commissioners Eagle Mayor and City Council John Petrovsky, Chairman, NACFA David Head, Water Committee, NACFA Phillip Fry Bill Brownlee, Manager, M3 Companies JoAnn Butler, Spink & Butler Jeff Fereday, Givens Pursley LLP Respectfully, Ed Squires V �\ EDWARD ` f_ RILS Jj 12 Eagle Planning and Zoning October 16, 2006 I think it's ludicrous that Eagle is considering a development of 12,000 homes as part of a community the size of Eagle considering the impact on the infrastructure, the schools, the water and the quality of life of existing residents. This clearly benefits no one but the developer and his investors and if considered at all, should be allowed to develop in fractional increments over a twenty year period. Further, if approved in any fashion such approval should contain a "drop dead clause" that cancels all approval if development plans are not executed in a timely fashion, or exactly as approved. To provide this developer with long term pocket approval that benefits their marketing and financing progress would not be in the best interest of Eagle citizens. Sincerely, Masner 4325 W. Gray Teal Ct. Eagle, Idaho 83616 I`m Alasya West and I have lived in the foothills for 22 years at 5035 Willow Creek Road. € 5 I represent many hundreds of equestrians, coming from Ada, Gem, Canyon, and Boise Counties, who are grateful to have ridden and walked the foothills because of the generosity of the former ranchers. We want to thank the applicant for installing the equestrian gates at Little Gulch for present use. I am critically concerned about the future for trails and open space. Map#1 shows the BLM, the future Eagle Equestrian Park, has almost 2000 acres of land to be used for public access. The applicant will be adjoining this land for approximately 7 miles and receiving the benefit of its use and its draw for their sales and marketing, yet the applicant is suggesting only 5% contribution to public open space. Other adjoining large landowners are contributing much more in order to make a viable and useable regional recreational framework. The Connelly family has proposed 1000 acres for abutment to BLM, 1/3 of his land for public use; Suncor is suggesting over 50% of their land and has continually desired to work with us for trail connectivity. Map #2 with this applicant's proposal: -There will be a reduction of public/BLM land in the Eagle foothills of 800-1000 acres. - Public/BLM lands will go to private development for the applicant. -The opportunity to connect BLM parcels with meaningful open space trails is eliminated (Their connecting trail goes along a large road of multiple lanes.) -The applicant gives only 5% of its land to public open space and has all BLM/Eagle Equestrian Park benefits for sales and marketing Eagle has a great opportunity here for a regionally significant park and trail system — IF and only IF there is an overall plan and vision for open space, trails, and connectivity first, before development, or the opportunity will be missed forever. The opportunity for a regionally significant park and trail system is possible if: - Eagle waits for the plan before development is allowed to take place - All adjacent private landowners desinpte land along the BLM lands to make a larger regional park with connecting trails -The applicant is willing to designate land to connect the BLM parcels to make them large enough for a viable corridor Although I have lived here for 22 years, I have lived in the Washington, D.C. area, San Francisco area, and both have wonderful regional parks that include trails for equestrian use. Eagle has incredible opportunity here for a regionally significant park and trail system. Waiting and working together with a common vision that benefits all, it can be done. Thank you. I am LaVonne Niccolls, 4238 Triple Ridge Place, Eagle, Idaho. 208-939-2787 Prior to retiring here in Eagle, I had the privilege to serve as a city council person for 12 Yz years. The city in which I served had a population of almost 90,000 people. I served many years as the chair of the budget and finance departments; the public safety department and as the council liaison to the unified school district, the largest in the county. During these years we investigated and deliberated on the annexation of county areas in our city and sphere of influence including brand new subdivisions. In each and every situation, it was found that the added areas never supplied enough new tax revenue to cover the additional costs to the city. None were revenue neutral. During the recent ACHD-Eagle City Council meeting, ACHD stated even with developer fees new developments do not have a history of paying all their costs. The current developer has done an excellent job of predicting what will be needed in the areas of schools, fire and police services. I applaud his research. M-3 has stated that full build out of the project will require the addition of 8 elementary schools; 3 middle schools and 2 high schools. It is also projected that 2 new fire stations and 1 police station will be required. M-3 has agreed to provide the land for these added public services stations and schools as well as utility hookups to these parcels. This is extremely beneficial. It is generally assumed that the new revenue from the new taxpayers will cover the on going costs of maintenance and personnel. The HUGE gaping hole is in what it will cost to build and furnish the new schools; new Fire Stations and a police station; as well as the rolling stock for fire and police and other start up expenses such as computers and emergency equipment. I strongly recommend that the P & Z AND the city council obtain what these numbers pencil out to be. Meridian School District is building new buildings and should be able to provide good estimates for the schools. The Eagle Fire District just completed an analysis of what the current addition of a fire station on the west side will cost. A bond to cover these services was passed...additional costs to the taxpayers. Surely our Ada County sheriff's department can provide the cost of providing whatever number of new officers and added equipment will cost the taxpayers. There could even be the need for new ambulance and/or EMT services. Ada county EMT should be able to provide these capital expense forecasts. These expenses must be calculated and factored into whatever decision is ultimately made. I understand that impact fees for new school buildings as referenced above can not at the moment be levied; that this may need legislative input. But these issues must be addressed and if it takes legislative action, perhaps our local councilman who also sits in our state legislature needs to carry this ball. Or, perhaps M-3 can creatively determine a way to build these buildings and fund the startup furnishings and equipment. Planned communities have many, many positive qualities. However the financial hole that I have just shared needs to be addressed now. We cannot wait until the development is authorized and completed or we will be left holding the bag. As is now often said; you do the math. I am available for questions; my phone number is on the written copy provided. Thank you for your time and service to Eagle. October 13, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Eagle 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 411;;;'-'41119i-tNtlyt._ CHD RE: CPA-5-062OA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle, LLC John S. Franden, President Carol A. McKee, lst Vice President Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Rebecca W. Amold, Commissioner RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE OCT 16 2006 File: Route 1o• Dear Commissioners, We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the subject Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment before the Commission at the public hearing on October 16, 2006. We understand this hearing was continued from September 27, which allowed ACHD to further discuss the proposal internally but also highlight the need for a reasonable approach to the land use assumptions. Pursuant to Idaho Code 40-1415(4), ACHD is responsible for the transportation planning in Ada County. In doing so, ACHD is required to consider the City of Eagle's Comprehensive Plan. As part of the City of Eagle's Comprehensive Plan review process, the City must conduct a transportation analysis in coordination with ACHD that shows the general locations and widths of the major traffic thoroughfares and the recommended treatment of the streets. See Idaho Code 67-6508(1.) In developing the transportation component, previous and existing conditions, trends, desirable goals and objectives, or future situations for the planned area must be considered. ACHD has been exploring the most appropriate manner in which to prepare a master transportation plan for the Northwest Foothills of Ada County. This area is bound by the Gem County Line, Beacon Light Road and State Highways 55 & 16. Recognizing the application before the City of Eagle, as well as information we have received from other developments in the Northwest Foothills, ACHD requested COMPASS and the Blueprint for Good Growth facilitate a discussion to develop a set of reasonable land use assumptions for the Northwest Foothills Area (see attached letter). This effort is needed as our research uncovered such variability in the proposed land uses that it prohibits us from continuing with the development of a transportation plan for the area until reasonable land use assumptions are determined. ACHD is neither opposing nor supporting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rather we implore the City of Eagle to carefully consider and weigh the transportation impacts, from a funding and operational perspective, with thorough consultation and input from ACHD, the Idaho Transportation Department and COMPASS. We do request that following these hearings, the City of Eagle not act on any preliminary plats within the Northwest Foothills area until a transportation plan is adopted to ensure that this development is consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the plan. We also request the City of Eagle, in cooperation with other appropriate land use and transportation agencies, participate in a process through either COMPASS or Blueprint for Good Growth, to identify a reasonable range of land use assumptions for this area so Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208 387 6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achd.ada.id.us S:\NW Foothills Master Plan\20061013 Eagle M3 Comp Plan Amendment P-Z letter.doc Page 1 of 2 the impacted transportation agencies can plan for a future system that supports the land use goals of the City. As with any effort of this magnitude, this will take some time. ACHD will comment on the detailed aspects of the traffic impact study supplied by the applicant as part of this application as the City's consideration continues to the Council level. The M3 proposal, when combined with other development considerations in the Northwest Foothills, clearly justifies establishment of an Extraordinary Impact Fee Overlay zone to fund the needed roadway system. However, this cannot proceed knowing only the impacts from one major development, as the cumulative impacts will be generated by many developments in the Northwest Foothills. A thorough concerted effort to identify these impacts, as requested in the September letter to COMPASS and the BGG, will ensure that the M3 development or others will not bear an undue burden in terms of financing the needed transportation system. Additionally, it also allows the Idaho Transportation Department, whose system will see the greatest impact, to fully assess their options and abilities to determine necessary improvements. The establishment of an Extraordinary Impact Fee Overlay zone for the ACHD system is the most appropriate mechanism to pursue as the land uses and associated transportation needs are over and above those shown in the latest travel demand model and associated demographics as established by COMPASS, which ACHD is statutorily required to follow in the establishment of regular and extraordinary impact fees. This section of the county is unique in that there is no existing local roadway system within the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment area, or in other reaches of the Northwest Foothills area. It also affords us the opportunity to fully plan and adequately prepare for development of this area. Now is the time to take the time to go through this process. We look forward to working with the City of Eagle and other agencies in this cooperative effort as our goals for the Northwest Foothills are the same —provide the citizens with the most efficient range of services to preserve quality of life through development that sustains the economy of the region for decades to come. Sincerely, John . Franden Commission President CC: Matt Stoll, COMPASS Eric Shannon, Idaho Transportation Department, District 3 Karen Dohery, Blueprint for Good Growth Enclosures S:\NW Foothills Master Plan\20061013 Eagle M3 Comp Plan Amendment P-Z letter.doc Page 2 of 2 ACHD September 13, 2006 The Honorable Mayor David Bieter President, Ada County Consortium Blueprint for Good Growth c/o Doherty & Associates 575 E ParkCenter Blvd. Boise, Idaho 83706-6674 RE: Land Use Assumptions for the Northwest Ada County Foothills Dear Mayor Bieter, John S. Franden, President Carol A. McKee, 1st Vice President Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner Government agencies, including the Ada County Highway District, have been under pressure since spring 2006 to develop plans for the Northwest Foothills of Ada County, roughly the area bound by State Highways 16 & 55, the Gem County Line and Beacon Light Roadway. As the agency mandated to conduct roadway planning in Ada County, ACHD began examination of this area with the goal of developing a transportation master plan to provide a framework for future development and determine the appropriate funding mechanisms. We are poised to continue with phase II of the effort, which will outline corridor needs. We are requesting the Blueprint for Good Growth, through the Ada County Consortium, and COMPASS to develop a land use scenario for this area of the county so ACHD can continue Tong -range planning for the roadway network in Ada County. ACHD is making this request after our research has uncovered a great level of variability within the land use assumptions for this area. Below is a table depicting that variability (figures are rounded to the nearest 1000). ACHD desires to have these assumptions by November 1, 2006 so that we can effectively and efficiently guide development of the roadway system in the Northwest Foothills area. # of Dwelling Units Draft Ada County Comprehensive Plan 4,000 to 11,000 COMPASS Communities in Motion 1,000 to 5,000 City of Eagle Visioning Process & Comprehensive Plan Update TBD Input from Major Landowners in the Area* Range 18,000 to 21,000 1,000 to 21,000 Potential Trip Generation 40,000 to 110,000 10,000 to 50,000 TBD 180,000 to 210,000 10,000 to 210,000 Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208 387 6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achd.ada.id.us * This figure represents approximately 60% of the buildable land area in the study area. The Idaho Transportation Department's facilities have the greatest potential for adverse impacts, but we have yet to receive a commitment from ITD to conduct analysis on the state highway system. We also request that the Blueprint for Good Growth and COMPASS solicit ITD's input on this process and assist in aligning the funding for that portion of the study. Needless to say, it is nearly impossible to generate an effective transportation plan with the kind of variability represented in the table above, and we are asking for your prompt resolution of this matter. Thank you for your attention and anticipated prompt response. n S. Fr nden, President da County Highway District Commission CC: Frank Bruneel, Idaho Transportation Board Dwight Bower, Idaho Transportation Department Eric Shannon, Idaho Transportation Department, District 3 Matt Stoll, COMPASS Michael Lauer, Planning Works Karen Doherty, Blueprint for Good Growth � CHD Cor+....va re 1 5e44, :ce 10/13/2006 4:33 PM Facsimile Cover Sheet John S. Franden, President Carol A. McKee, 1st Vice President Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner Deliver Fax To: City of Eagle, Planning & Zoning Commission Receiving Fax No: 938-3854 Total Pages: 5, including cover Comments: Following is a letter from ACHD Commission President John Franden regarding the public hearing on CPA-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle, LLC. Please include these as part of the public record. ACHD staff will be in attendance to answer any questions regarding this letter. Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208 387 6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achd.ada.id.us *** TRANSMISSION REPORT *** PRINT TIME 10/13 '06 16:13 ID:ACHD TIMER=— : -- FILE START MODE No. TIME 836 10/13 16:12 TX ERROR PAGE= FAX:1 208 3457650 LOCATION 9383854 10/13/2006 4:33 PM U*****2AP 181 P STORE TX/RX TOTAL CODE PAGE PAGE TIME 5 5i 0 00'54" OK Facsimile Cover Sheet John S. Franden, President Carol A. McKee, 1st Vice President Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner Deliver Fax To: City of Eagle, Planning & Zoning Commission Receiving Fax No: 938-3854 Total Pages: 5, including cover Comments: Following is a letter from ACHD Commission President John Franden regarding the public hearing on CPA-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06- M3 Eagle, LLC. Please include these as part of the public record. ACHD staff will be in attendance to answer any questions regarding this letter. Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208 387 6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achd.ada.id.us