The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes - 2007 - Planning & Zoning - 07/09/2007 - Special ~...... r""\ ..- "f '\ l. 2. 3. THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Special Meeting Minutes July 9, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6: 12. ROLL CALL: FELIX, ZASTROW, PIERCE, ASPIT ARTE, McCARREL PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CPA-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06IRZ-19_06_M3 Eal!le - M3 Eal!le: M3 Eagle, represented by Gerry Robbins, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include +/_ 6,005- acres into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan designating the following land use and zones: 40- acres Residential Rural (up to I unit per 5-acres), I ,627-acres Residential Estates (up to I unit per 2-acres), 470-acres Residential One (up to one unit per acre), 670-acres Residential Two (up to two units per acre), 1,250-acres Residential Three (up to 3 units per acre), 670-acres Residential Four (up to four units per acre), nO-acres Village Center, 88-acres Mixed Use, with an annexation with Pre-Annexation Agreement, a rezone with a Development Agreement, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Eagle City Code Section 8. 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 more specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file with the City of Eagle. Pierce introduces the item. Joanne Butler, Boise, Idaho, representing M3, discusses the annexation and development agreement. Original application date was April of2006. Discusses schools and water issues. Comprehensive plan is just used as a guideline. Explains what a pre-annexation and a development agreement are as well as how they work. There would be a 30 year timeline on the development agreement. Gives brief overview of the layout of the development agreement. Commissioner Aspitarte asks about schools. Ms. Butler directs the Commission to page 3 I in the development agreement. Susan Buxton, discusses charter schools and private schools. There are additional approval processes schools would have to go through for approval. John Church, Idaho Economics, supplies to the Commission and for the record an Economic Impact Analysis & Demographic Forecast. Discusses levy rates and property taxes. Also discusses property values. Reviews construction costs of schools. Commissioner Zastrow asks about revenue for the schools and about bond issues. Joanne Butler addresses the school issue. Meridian has worked with the School District and has planned well for schools. Discusses school bonds. Addresses some infrastructure questions that has been raised such as police and fire. A short recess is called. Meeting reconvenes at 7:28 p.m. Bill Brownlee discusses topographic condition of the areas proposed for the schools. Gary Funkhouser, Stanley Consultants, in the process of providing an update of the Traffic analysis. Provides a handout regarding Traffic Impact Study and Traffic analysis. Stands for questions from the Commission. Zastrow would like to know when the updated impact study will be done. Joanne Butler discusses the regional parks and open space. They are striving for 25% open space. M3 working with BLM on land exchange. Aspitarte is not clear where the recharge is coming from. Concerned with figure #9, drawdown for the area. Bill Brownlee, discusses the general principal of the areas. There is a low drawdown factor. Joanne Butler discusses what the development agreement says regarding the water. Page I of3 K:\P&Z\I\lINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-07-09-07spMINDOC' Susan Buxton, City Attorney, reviews the development agreement. Felix asks about annexation path and what the commitment of the City of Eagle would be. He also asks if the development agreement were to be changed, what would happen. Ms. Buxton explains that a material change would have to take place. Aspitarte asks if the development was to be sold, would the development agreement go with the property. Pierce opens the public hearing. Phil Fry, 4 I 22 Hartley Road. Would like the resources to be preserved. Discusses power and water conservation. Conservation should be built into the M3 plan. Teri Bath, 1729, discusses the foothills in general. Discusses the different statistics between M3, A vimor and Ada County. Bob Nichols, representing Lynne Sedlacek, reads a letter for the record. Walter Meyer, 4640 North Skyline Drive, submits and reads a letter for the record. Discusses open space in the foothills. Pat Minkiovich, 3047 Deerview Court, representing Elkhorn Estates. Would like the M3 application and development agreement be denied. Discusses M3's impact on schools. John Petrovsky, 4831 Willow Creek Road, resenting NAFCA. Feels the City of Eagle is not ready to move forward without a plan set in place. Discusses the development agreement. Feels there needs to be corroborating evidence. Alison Gilbreath, 4838 Willow Creek Road. Against the application. Discusses the size of the application. Kathy Pinnissi, Saddleman Place. Discusses the development agreement. Feels the development agreement benefits only the developer. Concerns with density transfers. Discusses schools and property taxes. Displays an article from the paper regarding air quality. Would like the application CJ Thompson, 483 I Willow Creek Road. Discusses the density the applicant is asking for. Feels the Commission should wait before making a decision. Feels there are many questions that need to be answered. Steve Purvis, 3939 Brookside Lane, Boise. Expresses concerns about the economic impact analysis and demographic forecast for the project. Russel Vanlue, 97 Fisher Street, representing the Fisher HOA. Has concerns with the schools. Discusses traffic. Mandating schools, roads. Feels density has not been addressed. Glida Bockwell, 4845 N. Agrees with what has been said earlier regarding the development agreement. Would like the Commission to deny the development agreement. Barb Jekyl, 2062 Haven Drive, discusses. Would like Mr. Church to name 10 communities that have extra tax dollars. Reads a letter for the record. Discusses the water and road plan. Joanne Butler rebuts testimony. Asks that the Commission move this forward to City Council. Discusses questions brought regarding the development agreement. There has been a very critical analysis done to the development agreement. Discusses transfer of density. Discusses comments made by Lynne Sedlacek. Bill Brownlee, M3 Companies, also rebuts testimony. Discusses water issues. Feels there is a lack of master planned communities. Discusses money involved. Discusses the BLM land exchange. Susan Buxton, City Attorney, discusses growth and infrastructure. Stands for questions from the Commission. Aspitarte asks about 6.5 - fees. A short recess is called. Meeting reconvenes at 10:08 p.m. Pierce closes the public hearing. Page2of.l K.\P&Z\MI:-"UTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-07+09-07sp\1It\i.DOr Discussion amongst the Commission. Zastrow feels there were some good comments made. Susan Buxton, City Attorney, discusses issues and conservation measures and timeframes for parks/open space. Pierce would like M3 possibly to get an elementary school. Susan Buxton would like the Commission to have a workshop with the applicant regarding the development agreement. Discussion amongst the Commission. Aspitarte moves to direct the staff to edit the development agreement consistent with the public hearing and written testimony received and bring it back to the Commission for a public workshop on July 23, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. Seconded by McCarreI. ALL A YES...MOTlON CARRIES. 4. ADJOURNMENT: Pierce moves to adjourn. Seconded by McCarreI. ALL A YES.. .MOTION CARRIES. Hearing no further business, the Planning & Zoning meeting adjourns at ] 0:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ".........."" ", cAG' ..... " ~ P '-Ii".. ..' 0 ......... " ~~,.. ." I ~.' .,O\lA 7'/i' .... '"\ ..... <L"' , : u! 0'" , _,' ~ : : c.J ,. \;; 0 \ . \ ~~p.. i ~ .. .;;:J <\: ~ "''''(!o..otJ~~ ~fII'# s ....... ~".Jj ......7' A TE 0 ",,,,- '...t.....". SHAR K. BERGMANN CITY CLERK/TREASURER APPROVED: ~~.~ JA N W. PIERCE AIRMAN A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE A T CITY HALL. Page 3 of3 K\P&Z\l\1INUTES\,Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-07-09-07spMIJ\.DOr J EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET July 9, 2007 CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06-M3 Eagle PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS PHONE PRO? CON? TESTIFY? t / d l U-e/- filey-e, Lf6-16 J. spy1 -D- 3i--oj°1` ?.70-. 5 PA,„/ -b- L_ri4 t- 4/J2z Utrw., 9�??-, 6 i fatR/14 , e t e 3 97 ) ??7 s'� (/Z X Xi/64 1 /it,_j- •- -�- - ,i��r .,ors..__ -• ��,E..�.� r z r >v 35 7 ,,`4 , %�/ 73 ' -/s2 t OYO-Li a.-44, /.7„/ 7 a ; 4-J.,., 9..7,40 x S 11-(AA1,) 4/ 4 - K i 7-MP A)I6 / C - Iiiiiik-LcaR 'ER 4WD 0 . l<1 1 IN R WI - X, b ,13 f T 5 E As JD iffrd 5039 G4r,�' vC 93R-1'i►R — LA40 eV77 �- L b 0 Tit . 2)9, (‘_1" (: (3f? LNJ V r c -� 93`-- -7Z 6 X. '� ,) -) ,v,0 (kw , 7• g4 • (f yg (lax L+ y' V )1k, `( e 1 idef Mif W 'Pi/ /iS_/tl fc 5fv0 9kB , -F•/C A_ )-8 t o I p VC W �,a-- *at VI, ,t- .1 'et •,,,fitk" ;IP/kV; in North Adc trio/ c t*, • •••••4, f Eagle Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Monday, Amoral, 2007, 6 PM ,101-y.F NACFA Network Organized Testimony Roster: M3 Eagle 1 John Petrovsky 2 Allison Gilbreath 3 Kathy Pennisi 4 CJ Thompson 5 Bob West 6 Steve Purvis 7 Lynn Melton Purvis 4831 Willow Creek Road, Eagle, ID 4838 N Willow Creek Rd, Eagle ID 3675 N. Saddleman Pl. , Eagle, ID 4831 Willow Creek Road, Eagle, ID 5035 N Willow Creek Rd , Eagle, ID 3939 N. Brookside Ln, Eagle, ID 3939 N. Brookside Ln, Eagle, ID ...citizens helping to create a sustainable vision for the future of Ada County's Northern Foothills... , -010 7 0 Stanley Consultants INC. A Stanley Group Company Engineering, Environmental and Construction Services - Worldwide July 6, 2007 Bill Brownlee Gerry Robbins The M3 Companies 533 E. Riverside Drive, Suite 110 Eagle, ID 83626 Subject: M3 Eagle — Traffic Impact Study Update & Traffic Analysis Dear: Mr. Brownlee & Mr. Robbins This letter presents our progress on the traffic impact study update for M3 Eagle and results from the traffic analysis scenarios you've requested. The M3 Eagle development plan has reduced the number of residential units from 12,010 dwelling units to a maximum of 8,160 dwelling units. A comparative analysis is attached as Attachment 1. In addition we have prepared analysis of two new concepts: 1) the termination of Willow Creek Road connection and providing for a cul de sac (see Attachment 2) and 2) an analysis of the foothill planning area assuming that 20,000 units were built in the foothills between SH16 to SH55 south of the Ada County line with and without Willow Creek Road connection (see Attachment 3 and Attachment 4). Attachment 1 compares the site traffic projections from the previous TIS and the current plan. As you will note, the traffic being generated on Willow Creek Road/Eagle Road requires a 2 lane roadway section with 3 lanes at the intersections. Contrary to the Channel 6 Growing Pains news report, M3 Eagle does not generate traffic impacts requiring a 5 lane roadway section. Based upon our analysis, the traffic, which is affecting Willow Creek/Eagle Road is the Kastera, Connelly and the approximate 200 acres north of Beacon Light Road area (the "North Beacon Light Area"). The Average Daily Traffic on Willow Creek Road at build -out for M3 Eagle as well as the existing Eagle Comprehensive Plan is 8,620 VTD north of Beacon Light and 9,470 VTD south of Beacon Light. Attachment 2 illustrates the results of terminating Willow Creek Road north of Beacon Light based upon the build -out of M3 Eagle and the Background Traffic (which is the build out of the Eagle Comprehensive Plan). The impacts on existing roadways for both scenarios are basically the same, except for SH-55 and the Brookside Lane connection from Willow Creek Road. Without Willow Creek Road connection, SH-55 would need additional roadway and intersection improvements between Hill Road and Beacon Light Road. The computer simulations showed that approximately 4,600 VTD would be directed to SH55 and that these trips were generally headed to the south on SH55 or Eagle Road or to the east on SH44. Essentially, there would not be any significant impact on M3 Eagle if Willow Creek Road was not part of the roadway network south of the proposed realignment to SH55 and Brookside Lane intersection. 1940 South Bonito Way • Suite 140 • Meridian, ID 83642 • phone 208.288.0573 • fax 208.288.0574 www.stan leyconsulta nts.com Bill Brownlee & Gerry Robbins July 6, 2007 Page 2 As part of the TIS update process, you also requested that we analyze the build -out of two 20,000 unit scenarios 1) terminating the Willow Creek Road Connection north of Beacon Light (Attachment 3) and 2) realigning the Willow Creek Connection (Attachment 4). In comparison of Attachment 3 and Attachment 4, the terminating of a Willow Creek Road connection north of Beacon Light would essentially have the following effects: 1) Effect the directional flow of traffic from the North Beacon Light Area to the south would require in some instances traffic going back to the north to access southerly flow by utilizing the Brookside Lane connection to SH55. 2) The Brookside Lane/Willow Creek Road connection would remain at 4 lanes under either scenario. 3) SH55 will have to be a limited access expressway under either scenario. 4) Traffic on Beacon Light Road east of the Eagle Road would decrease under Attachment 3. Essentially, the results illustrate that the primary effect will be on the North Beacon Light Area. If the City and ACHD elect to implement a roadway plan similar to that set forth in Attachment 3, then consideration may be given to localized roadways which only serve the North Beacon Light Area to Willow Creek Road. Sincerely, Stanley onsultts, Inc. Funkhouser, P.E. ransportation Department Manager cc: Nichoel Baird -Spencer, City of Eagle Enclosures --7/? /07 July 9, 2007 Eagle City .Ceti it Cbv vv 1 ss/,au3 41,2+0 My name is Walter Meyer. I have lived.ee1North Skyline Drive in the foothills since 1973. I'm encouraged that both the City of Eagle and M3 recognize the importance of the route of the Oregon Trail, Goodale's Cutoff, that goes through the foothills and will make efforts to interpret and to protect segments of this historic emigrant wagon road. The route later became the Umatilla to Boise Road, the major wagon road from the Columbia River to southwestern Idaho. As with many Eagle area residents, my major concerns with proposed foothills and other development in the Eagle area relate to the loss of open space, the great increase in vehicle traffic expected, possible overuse of ground water supplies which could jeopardize existing private wells, and probable increases in property taxes. This year, my property taxes are increasing 55 percent. fa-i1 lace f Existing propery owners within the Meridian School District should not have/to pay for additional schools reguired if foothills development occurs. Open space within the foothills should be accessible and available for publicreansiaLtion.apd independent comprehensive ground water studies/n a to comp ed 'a"n"`` o highway and road construction funding sources need to be indentified before significant foothills and other Eagle area developments are approved. Walter Meyer 4640 No. Skyline Dr. Eagle, ID 83616 208 939-0504 Lynne Sedlacek 1200 Hereford Drive Eagle, ID 83616 (208) 939-6219 M3 Development Agreement - P&Z Testimony July 9, 2007 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE JUL 0 9 2007 File: Route to: I am an Eagle native, I served on the Eagle City Council from June 1997 through December 2005, and I have been the Office Manager of Eagle Sewer District since 1988. I am currently serving on the City of Eagle's Water Planning Committee and the Eagle YMCA Steering Committee. I want to start by thanking the P&Z Commission members for their dedication to Eagle's land use planning. I would also like to commend Eagle's planning staff for their commitment to the public involvement process. As I understand it, the proposed M3 Development Agreement dictates that Annexation cannot take place without the Development Agreement. I have concentrated my testimony on the DA. My comments are based on the DA identified in the document footer as "...submitted to SEB 4-1.doc" The Exhibits are labeled SEB 4-14-07. If there are subsequent DA revisions that have already addressed my comments, I apologize for bringing them up again. The city attorney, engineer and public works director should have reviewed this document, and their comments should have been made available to the public, prior to this hearing. There are some sections of the DA-- especially in the "Section on Water" (Section 2.2) that I know to be contrary to what the City of Eagle has been trying to accomplish with the municipal water system. It makes me nervous to think that the general public needs to worry about these details. The Development Agreement mandates a 30-year commitment, automatically renewable to 40 years. The Development Agreement is very binding with mandatory language such as "shall" and "will." The 30-year commitment is too long for density guarantees. In some areas the language is too general. My experience with Development Agreements is that ambiguity can lead to future time-consuming and costly disagreements. In several places the DA references time periods which are only modified "at the Developer's, sole and absolute discretion" The City of Eagle should not sign a DA that allows time -lines to be changed at the Developers "sole and absolute discretion." This language should be removed in every instance. In several places, the DA assumes to supersede Eagle City Code. If the City were to let individual DAs supersede City Code, the result would be an enforcement nightmare. Strike this language in every instance. This DA dictates conditions for a Traffic Reimbursement Agreement, a Water Reimbursement Agreement, a Wastewater Reimbursement Agreement, a Drainage Reimbursement Agreement, and a Traffic Reimbursement Agreement. It also calls for a Development Fee Credit. This proposed Development agreement gives the developer all the cake --and the frosting too. I want to remind the P&Z members that you are in a position to make as many changes as you deem necessary to make this agreement work to the benefit of the City of Eagle. I want to remind the P&Z members that the M3 development should work to the benefit of Eagle. It is not your task to assure developer profit; and Eagle should not run scared of what Ada County might allow. 1 C:\DOCUME-1\LSEDLA-1.ESD\LOCALS-1\Temp\M3 DevAgreement0707.doc I have not addressed the individual densities planned for each specific foothills planning area. There are people testifying tonight that have a better understanding of the area's topography and geographic limitations. Please listen to these people. There is simply too much density planned for the area, and not enough assurances that this development will finance the lacking infrastructure. Based on my past City experience, I would vote against this Development Agreement as it is presented. I would not want my name attached to the approval of this document. The DA gives too much away; therefore, much more work needs to be done and the public comment period should be left open to allow the public to review the modified draft(s). Tonight's P&Z discussion should revolve around required language changes; and the requested language should be submitted back to the M3 development team for review. If the M3 development team rejects the P&Z changes, then the P&Z Commission should vote to deny the annexation request and the DA. Best wishes and good luck, Lynne Sedlacek 2 C:\DOCUME—l\LSEDLA--I.ESD\LOCALS-1\Temp\M3 DevAgreement0707.doc J Specific Concerns regarding the Proposed M3 Development Agreement: RECITALS Section D: I have a good understanding of the City of Eagle's current budget conditions, both revenues and expenditures; and I do NOT believe the M3 development will generate enough "economic benefit" to finance the project's service and infrastructure demands. The net result of this development will be an increase in costs to the existing taxpayer. The P& Z Commission is a land use agency, and doesn't get a lot of exposure to the city budget; but P&Z should have an opportunity to view the service costs that will go along with this development. I have not seen any analysis of those costs. This side of the financial equation has not been adequately addressed. Section E: What is the purpose of Section E? I would like this section explained by BOTH the city and the developer. Section F: I have been involved with local land -use planning projects for several decades and Large un-contiguous expansion of public infrastructure provides few benefits to existing communities, in fact such expansion is currently defined as "sprawl." Section G: Developer is willing to participate in provision of Public Infrastructure only with the assurances that Developer SHALL be able to complete development of the Property as provided in this agreement. The developer bought this property knowing that the existing zoning allowed only one unit on 10 to 40-acre parcels. The development risk lies with the developer, not the City of Eagle. To what degree does the developer agree to participate? 50%, 75%, 100% of the infrastructure costs? DA needs to better define "participate" or strike this entire section of the agreement. Section H: Another example of why this project fits the definition of sprawl. Section I: Last sentence "City shall not enter into any agreement with any state or local government agency.... " The government planning agencies should work together on this large-scale development. Strike the last sentence of the Section I. Section J: 5th line down, middle of the sentence, "at Developer's sole and absolute discretion" go to the middle of the 5th sentence and change to "...period of time is extended by agreement of the Developer and City. Strike "..at Developer's sole and absolute discretion through time period of 12 months." Section K through M: Zoning Densities By virtue of this section, the City should not annex the property at this time. If the City decides to move forward with annexation, remember that this section of the DA commits the city to a lock -in on zoning densities. These property entitlements will prevail for 30 years ---with an automatic 10-year renewal. 3 C:\DOCUME—I\LSEDLA4I.ESD\LOCALS—I\Temp\M3 DevAgreement0707.doc AGREEMENT Section 1.2 - Planned Unit Development — Last Sentence: Add a Period at the end of "Eagle City Code" and strike from "provided, however" through the end of the sentence. A Development Agreement should never supersede Eagle City Code. If this were allowed to happen, the city would have an enforcement nightmare. City Standards are set for specific reasons. Densities — *How does a constrained area become an unconstrained area? *If city/developerBLM land trades are considered, how will wildlife be impacted, where will the access points be located, and how will public parking be accommodated? Section 1.8 Term: Stress the length of the agreements term. 30 years automatically extended to 40 years. I would suggest 20 years ---maximum. Section 2 Infrastructure Section 2.1 Traffic - Is it appropriate for the City of Eagle to agree to the Traffic statements made in the agreement, when these decisions are outside Eagle's jurisdiction? Will Eagle be allowing private roads? Section 2.2 Water *Is the referenced Recommended Standards correct for our area? *The agreement references "other provider" What other providers will be approved for M 3? *Last sentence under 2.2 (e) pg 26 Review 10-year time limit. *Sentence 8 of Section (g) pg 26 change "project build -out" to "as developed." *Section (h), top of pg 27, the 5th line down -References time periods which are modified "at the Developer's, sole and absolute discretion" No City of Eagle Development Agreement should allow this type of language. *Section 2.2 (h) Very last sentence (i, ii, and iii) This is contrary to Eagle's Municipal Water System Master Plan. *Section 2.3 Wastewater Service is outside the City of Eagle's jurisdiction. The DA should not attempt to bind the City to these development conditions and time -lines. *Section 2.4 (a) Remove the 1st word "Post -development." *Section 2.5 (c) School Sites. Does "dedicated" mean, "donated?" If not, then who pays for the school site? *Section 2.7 Master Environmental Design Plan — Should adhere to Eagle City Code or City Code supersedes DA. *Section 2.10 Development Fee Credit; Reimbursement. Strike the entire section. The Developer is responsible for extending service under existing regulations of each jurisdiction. Regulation of Development Is the City of Eagle ready to assume that there will not be any regulatory changes within the term (30 years) of this Development Agreement? Are we going to let the Developer decide which amendments are major and minor? The City is willing to grant Vested Rights for a 30-year period? 4 C:\DOCUME-1\LSEDLA-4.ESD\LOCALS-4\Temp\M3 DevAgreement0707.doc Alternatives for Financing Infrastructure Improvements *Section 4.1 - The M3 Development should not dictate that ".....such funds SHALL be applied to, or made available for." The City will undoubtedly be paying for the Administrative Costs of these funds and the city will decide how and where they will be used. *Section 4.2 — replace the word "Shall" with "May" in every instance. Cooperation and Alternative Dispute Resolution *Section 6.5 — The City should not agree to "no new, increased or additional impact of development fees or costs" for a 30-year period. Fees will need to go up and this development should not be exempt. Miscellaneous *Section 8.5 (a) I don't believe the DA can be superior and senior to any future lien placed upon the property —including Local Improvement Districts, or utility tax liens. Original - Me 5-Commission, 5-Heather, Legal, Engineering, Staff x 2 3-Applicant 5 C:\DOCUME-1\LSEDLA--I.ESD\LOCALS- i\Temp\M3 DevAgreement0707.doc 7/07 CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION M3 - EAGLE DEVELOPMENT OUTLINE FOR PRESENTATION Monday July 9, :2007 Steve Purvis 3939 Brookside Lane 1. Personal background: 2. Purpose of testimony: 3. Lack of information: 4. Three things to keep in mind as you assess the impacts of this development: TO EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS & DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST FOR THE PROJECT ON TWO OCCASSIONS I HAVE PERSONNALLY ASKED IDAHO ECONOMICS TO PROVIDE ME WITH THE DETAIL SCHEDULES THAT SUPPORT THE REVENUE AND EXPENSE FORECASTS FOR THIS PROJECT. THE LAST TIME WAS ABOUT SIX WEEKS AGO. WHEN AN EARLIER MEETING DATE WAS SET. MY OBJECTIVE WAS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ANALYSIS AND FEEDBACK OF THE PROJECT. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE INFORMATION YET. THE KEY ASSUMPTIONS NEED TO BE TESTED BY DOING "BEST CASE / WORST CASE" ITERATIONS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE A RANGE OF IMPACT. FOR EXAMPLE: THE COMPOSITION OF THE PROJECT AS IT RELATES TO POPULATION AND DEMOGRAHPIC COMPOSITION IS VERY DIFFERENT THAT WHAT EXISTS IN EAGLE TODAY. THE ASSUMPTION CHOSEN WILL HAVE A MATERIAL EFFECT ON FAMILY SIZE AND THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN TO BE EDUCATED.AND THE CORRESPONDING COSTS. THE PROJECT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 90% RESIDENTIAL WHICH WILL PUT SIGNIFICANT BURDEN ON EAGLE TO PROVIDE URBAN LEVEL OF SERVICES. THE PROJECT DEVELOPERS HAVE SAID THE PROJECT WILL PENCIL OUT AT BUILD OUT BUT THE RELATIVELY SLOW BUILD OUT OF THIS PROJECT, 7% AT 5 YEARS, 23% AT 10 YEARS, 52% AT 15 YEARS AND 100% AT 20 YEARS WILL PUT HUGE BURDENS ON INFRASTRUTURE AND SERVICE PROVIDERS IN THE INTERIM PERIOD TO PROVIDE SERVICES... OR THE SERVICES WILL 5.Conclusion: 6. Recommendation: JUST NOT BE PROVIDED IN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS & DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST NEEDS AN OPEN AND THOUGHFUL VETTING BY THOSE WHO WILL BE ASKED TO PAY THE BILL. DO NOT MOVE THIS DEVELOPMENT FORWARD UNTIL THERE IS SOLID AGREEMENT ON THE FINANCIAL AND SERVICE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT M3-Eagle Development Economic ImpactAnalysis & Demographic Forecast Significant Findings The M3-Eagle Development of residential housing and commercial development is slated to be constructed over a 20 year. At full build -out of the M3-Eagle Project it is anticipated that nearly 8,160 residential housing units (plus 500 lodging units associated with the commercial development of the project) will have been constructed along with a village center with ample commercial business opportunities that may not only serve the residents of the M3-Eagle Development but also provide services to other existing and future residences that are likely to be nearby. It is projected that, at full build -out the M3-Eagle Development will be home to nearly 19,000 persons residing in 8,000 occupied housing units. (While 8,160 residential. housing units are slated to be constructed in the M3-Eagle Development, this study anticipates that at any one time nearly 2.0 percent of those housing units, nearly 160 units at full build -out, will be vacant for one reason or another.) At full build -out of the M3-Eagle Development it is projected that nearly 81.0 percent of the households within the community will be family households, a characteristic that is similar to the currently existing demographics of the population in the City of Eagle. Furthermore, if the demographics of the future populations residing in the M3-Eagle Development continue to mirror that in the City of Eagle it would follow, and it is projected in this study, that approximately 70.7 percent of the family households with the M3-Eagle Development will be married -couple families. In 20 years, it is projected that the M3-Eagle Development will be home for nearly 4,890 children of school age of which 4,600 will choose to attend the public school system. The remaining 290 school age children residing within the M3-Eagle Development are expected to be either home -schooled or attend private schools. This economic impact analysis predicts that in the first five years of the M3-Eagle Development the number of school age children in the development will average 0.69 per household. By the tenth, fifteenth, and twentieth years of the project the number of school age children per household in the development is forecasted to decrease slightly to an average 0.64, 0.63 and 0.62 school age child per household, respectively. This economic impact analysis of the M3-Eagle Development projects that single -parent family households will, on average, account for nearly 9.8 percent of the total households in the project (about 780 at full build -out) of which 81.7 percent, about 640 households, would be single -parent households with children under the age of 18. The number of non -family households in the M3-Eagle Development is projected to comprise close to 19.5 percent (or nearly 1,500) of the project's projected 8,000 occupied housing units in the twentieth year of the project. The M3-Eagle Development is forecasted to yield a significant stream of property tax revenues to those public service providers in the area that have property taxing authority. At the end of the first year it is forecasted that the M3-Eagle Development will yield close to $664.3 thousand in local property taxes. This estimate is based upon the John Church Idaho Economics July 9, 2007 Page 1 sales of residential building lots, the value of the residential improvements (and also commercial improvements) that are placed on the property tax rolls at the end of the first calendar year of the project and the residential occupancy tax that will be levied on those residences that occupied for only part of a year. (All property tax estimates are expressed in 2006 dollars.) - By the fifth -year of the M3-Eagle project it is projected that the development will yield nearly $8.39 million in local property taxes. In the tenth and twentieth years of the project the annual local property tax collections from the M3-Eagle Development are expected to be $24.44 million and $48.70 million, respectively. At full build -out of the M3-Eagle Development the projected annual property tax revenues paid by properties within M3-Eagle, at today's levy rates, would be: o $12.56 million to Ada County, o $27.96 million to the Meridian School District, o $4.47 million to the City of Eagle, o $4.79 million to the Eagle Fire District, o $4.48 million to the Ada County Highway District, Additional, lesser, amounts will be paid to other property taxing authorities in the area. While a first glance the proposed M3-Eagle Development appears to be a development project that may be too big for the Boise market area. However, the M3-Eagle is slated to build its nearly 8,160 residential housing units over a 20 year timeframe — an average annual rate of nearly 400 housing units per year over the project's 20 year life. The projected annual average increase in the number of residential housing units to be built at the M3-Eagle Development is unlikely to overwhelm the local housing market. The M3-Eagle Development will add fewer residential housing units into the Ada County residential housing market in one year (an average of 400 units per year) than the historic average over the past 10 years — 2,632 units per year. The projected net fiscal impacts (projected additional revenues, using 2005 property tax levy rates, with an adjustment made to the levy rate for the Meridian School District to reflect the effects of the Idaho Legislature's Summer 2006 property tax relief measure) minus the projected additional costs of providing public services) of M3-Eagle are universally positive. In the 20 year period to full build -out of M3-Eagle the projected net fiscal impact to those public service providers affected by the project would be: o City of Eagle +$16.1 million o Ada County +$105.4 million. o Ada County Highway District +$74.9 million o Ada County Emergency Medical Services +$3.9 million o Eagle Fire District +$23.2 million o Meridian Joint School District#2 +$177.1 million John Church Idaho Economics July 9, 2007 Page 2 N) <0 0 (0 le Fiscal Im (0 w 2 0) 0 0) c O C .0 > CO 0) F Le (0 0 'O 0 a0+ C) 0) 0 a N (O 4f z O C O O. > Q 0: o o 0 0 0 n O co MN O 0 Ih to R 0 N N N ( to i 000 .- 0 0 0 0 OD Cr O 0) N CD 0) .- 0 n CA M r N N '- N '.N 0 0 0 0 0 CO N. N CO V N O O N (n 0 n (V �Op coO r. co C) M M V' et- 0 0 CO CO N co'Oi N n W (n 0 N CO sr:(D coN CO- 0 0 0 CO CO N O CD V O) CNOD N (.069 0 0) N G w • N C) y 7 t 0 C O LL > CZ CO a N Eft,, N co V CO N. CO (O Cn 00 (n 00 O R N O) CO 00) V N N 0) (OO On CD CD O 0) CO (n '- CO R co- N O V (O O CO O CO N '- ,- N N N .- N .- O N N M 0 N CO N CO CO F CO N 0) O M O M co O r Nr M co F CO V co M N CO 7 CD Act Cn CD .- $4,268,910 City Franchise Taxes & Fees O o (D M N- O n to s— 0 N CO (D N 0 0 .- N 7 0 CO N N CD 0 0 0) V) N N co- N 0) 0 (n •- O M .- 0 V N O) CO '- 0 0 0 V CO `Cr r- O (n 0 oi. N 0 M N. N N N 0 0 (n M 0 0 0) (0 C) M 0 CO CD (n rt 0 t` O Cr 0 (A 0 (n (n 0 (p 0) co" M (O 0 0 N 0 N CO N M CD CO N N 0 pp pp .„._- CD UN w O 4.3). C C xi 'C oi > CO N .0 IX 0 (n N. M E9 0 N 0) (n N. 0 sr (D co- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N N. 'et CD N (0 h co N V Cn N 0) 0) •- 0) 0 V CO Kt N 0) (D Cr N. O C() 0) n V h? co- co- V si. V 0 V 0) N CO M 0 CO N CO O N N N M d' N CD CD N CO 0 M '- 0 CO N N 0 Cf) 0 0 CO CO 0 M co r (D N N .- ,..CO. I $13,958,560 Z. 10 t N C a.x F a 0 N upa)CO O CD EA o h 0) n 0 s- 0 0 0 V co' N CO M (n 0 M M 0) CO N 0 0 0 O (D N N 0) N .- 0 0 M N N to .- 0 0 OD N 0) CO F 0 0 0 R CO 0) M W M 0) (O R N CO N 2) N N N N 0 0 (n CO- co 0 M 0 V M r M M 0 7 CO 0) (n M 0 CD sr N: CO M 0 0 Cf) Cr No (n (D 2) M 'C s} 0 0 0 CO O co (O CION V V V V v, $46,254,140 I. N co C (D co f` co O O N M R Cl) W N. CO O N li 0 E m 2 2 Total Additional Franchise Fee 0) 7 W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N (0 0 CO M 0 in V V N C 0 F 2) () CO N 0) M CO 0 t` co N N 0 N U) 0) (D h 0 0) N N- (D Ne CO- N N R M O 0) (+) C) co - col (D N M N- N R CD h 0) M CO 0 M (O 0 (() CO CD CO N N N M M t st (n CD N N 0 a'- CD Projected Franchise Fee Revenues from 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N CO R N 0 0 CC) Cr CO CO 0) (0 (D N O t1 CO'' N- O) 0 v v v (0) c (n (0 (D 0 CO 0 r` N M 0 OI N CO 0) (n M co' co- co" (p t` (O N (D O EA .- N N M Cr CD 0 CO O M (n C` 0 M C. co N N N N Television 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0) 0 0 N o o 0 CO 0 (D C LC) CO CO 0) e- O N O) N CD VI r (t) O h r (D CD M '- .- 0 N (O CCCO 00 M O) (C) N (5 co- co" 0) N N. t 0) fA .- Fe- N N M V u7 N CD n O) O N CO CO 00. 0 H CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO M N h 0) (D 0 M R N N N 0) M O 0) N CO V U( N N (0 M N CO 0) 0)O M 0O 0) CO CO CO t (O CO0) CO M Oi N (C) CO O ('0 to (0 (A h r` N N r Na0 E9 N N rt (D O N 00 0 .- CO (A N O Cr Cr N N N o 2 7 r 0) n W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 «) (f) 0 0) n C!) O CO 0 M N LC) R N U) M N 0) C) O O .- •- CO .- M .- M CO N N M O (D N N O) N- M 69 N M If; O (D N CC M 0) (D O co" N. gN N N M M V lA Ul (D N O) C0 W 5 0 P9 0 N co W 1 N MrtIn CO C` co co co N 01 Act U1 CD N OO O O Y O F 2 E s P 5 2 E 2 8 Page 3 0 0 y i3 O 0 0 0 C E co 0 co it G1 z 0 N 0 0 m a • Fiscal Surplus of S177.1 million from Years 1-20 plus an annual fiscal surplus of S17.8 millions per year for years 21-30.* Page 4 Aiming f'sn hours the to +tithe MO dam smoke Came not just mite 'but- also l'attieS lighting attbsa the Valley: b i*Orry+"this°time of year is not soot but ozone, apale blue forms when nitro- emitted primarily r not tors, mixes' with volatile organic chemicalsinthe atmos- phere and. is. "cooked" by sun- light The extreme heat was :expect- ed to push ozone levels higher this week, but traffic levels have been down and Herr said he sus- pects 'that's contributed to the lower ozone levels. "It will be just as hot next week, but the cars will be back on the road so well see what happens," Herr said. Rocky Barker:377-6484 M3 Application testimony by Allison Gilbreath 7/9/07 First I'd like to thank you for your decision on 6/25 — removing the density before approving the foothills plan. I agree that it's easier to control one mega developer, versus 25 individual ones. Master planned communities are a good thing if they are in the right place. As Blueprint for Good Growth shows, Eagle foothills is not an appropriate place for 8000 homes, which is what the applicant is proposing after mitigation. In my May 3'i letter, I mention several noted master planned communities. I'd like to mention one more: This equestrian -based community is the prize jewel of Williamson Valley in Prescott. This land was acquired from its long-time owners after convincing them that our vision was perfect for this unique place. Many had tried before us, but we understood the proud history of this colorful property, which was once traded for a revolver. We preserved this rich heritage in the smallest details of the community; in its street names, architectural styles, and respect for the Equestrian and Western family heritage. Residents will long appreciate the history of the American Ranch, and choose American Ranch because they understand the importance of their stewardship for the future. A new American Dream is thriving in the colorful high country of Prescott, Arizona. In this private community, bountiful opportunities for recreation and discovery mingle with a privileged lifestyle and a strong commitment to family. Adjacent to over 10,000 acres of Prescott National Forest, American Ranch is a fully planned community providing the finest in amenities and residential opportunities. A stunning selection of homesites ranging from 1 to over 5 acres in size. Among the benefits enjoyed by residents are: • Over 10 miles of caommunity riding and hiking trails • Community Center with billiard game room and sports lounge • Equestrian Center fully accommodating English and Western riding • Ranch Camp with picnic areas and play grounds • Three acre catch -and -release bass fishing lake • Tennis, swimming and sport courts • To ensure privacy, only 210 homesites on 600 acres will ever be developed • w!iiitats This is from the applicant's own website, describing American Ranch in Prescott, AZ. If they can do that in AZ, why not ID? The applicant presented at the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce leadership conference in Sun Valley in April. I find it ironic that at that same Sun Valley conference last year: (See attachment) ��cks iL<" f ink ,hit N\ 3 The applicant has done this type of prof many times. Eagle has not done this before, of this magnitude. That's not to imply ' is not capable. But that we need to ensure there are no hasty decisions, the density is ealistic, and the roadways, wildlife, & open space are in place first. The foothills are too precious of an asset to be a guinea pig. Perhaps Eagle is worried about being sued by the applicant, if they deny. Well when you look at the legal power here, and the enormity of the application, I suggest City of Eagle spend a little more money upfront — more help to city planners, such as Nichoel, more legal help to city attorney, etc. I would think it's much easier to foot the bill for that now than,pay to clean up after this development later. �iC.Srnn 2,006 Leadership Conference EXECUTIVE SUMMARY KEY PO TSOFTIE2006 WORSHIP CONRMENCE, 1ULED DE POSER OF CHOICE: CHARTING OUR ECONOMIC, EDUCATION AND ENVIROIEENT MURES' BOISE METRO CHAMBER OF OMMERCE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, ARIZONA GROWTH EXPERT WARNS Morrison Institute researcher says 40 years of expansion has made Phoenix a hot city — literally Careful what you ask A for, Arizona growth ex- pensed sage advice, humor and regret at p warns the Leadership Conference, saying the (detail, Pagel) , one year hie, $5maim 1n his keynote address, raised topromote Valley economy (dew page 1) Top priority: get com- munity college (details, page 2) Treasure Valley by the numbers (details, page 2) Business is as business dots (details, page 3) Plan for open space first, then build (details, page 3) Theater and business search for creativity (de,Page 3) "Phoenix and Boise are simper in many ways. They're dominant urban areas with economies built on call centers, electronics and there are conservative state politics,' Gammage told the 168 attendees attire confer- ence, held at Sun Valley inn from April 30-May 2. 'The goals of our economic develop- ment policies were to encourage people to move to Phoenix and it didn't matter what jobs drew them. You're far enough behind us to ask if raw population growth alone Is a sufficient policy.' Arizona State university that provides in- formation and recommendations to busi- ness and political leaders. Despite Its reputation for sprawl, Phoenix is reasonably compact, according to Gammage, and has a higher overall The future Measure Valley? With a mt'a'im people, it's bud to imagine the Boise metro area is in the same place Phoenix was 40 years ago. density than Portland, Ore. The scarcity of water discour- ages leapfrog development. In fact, the region is a leader in water con- servation, retuming 4 million acre feet of water underground in the past decade and creating a huge "bank" for future growth. Treated wastewater is used on golf cou►ses and to cool a nuclear reactor. Funding growth is easier be- cause many capital projects re- quire no public vote and others only a simple majority. But imenitstruggieswithits self image, Gammage said: VSenseaspAtmeameakutlilkr roalianduluseamilbuTasellai .ate But population is leveling off and shrinkage is forecast. Last year, 60,000 hones ware bolt ; it's now down to 40,000gy 4 nopepaspinelliterealliling Parasersientili. (continued onpage2bottom) ONE YEAR LATER: $5 MILLION RAISED TO PROMOTE VALLEY ECONOMY Valkylnibiative for Prosperity to put Boise on footing with otherregloos competing for high-ptayin,gjobs The 2006 Leadership Conference was both a celebration of success and adunowledgement of the serious work that lies ahead for economic development The success was raising $5 million for the Valley Initiative for Prosperity (VIP) a 5-year effort to compete with other metropolitan areas. "This past year has seen a true metamor- phosis in our business community - In one short year, we have raised $5 million in the name of economic initiative and growth,' said Doug Ann - strong, chairman of the Boise Valley Economic Partnership. "Now, we must move forward and put that money to use promoting our region to the na- tion and world." Local leaders are aware that some jobs con- tribute more to the community than others and they have designed MP around creating 5,000 jobs that pay 30 percent above the Idaho average. To- ward that end, VIP seeks 25 new companies in the "best tit' target profile: computers/electronics, transportation, software, telecommunications, recreation equipment manufacturing, health care, blotedmology, nanotechnol- ogy and entrepreneurs/stamps. VIP is also focused on retaining ex- isting businesses and nurturing local start- ups. Idaho's largest private employer, Mi- cron Technologic, started as a small local company. Paul Hiller, of the Inland Empire Eco- nomic Partnership in Riverside, Calif., is the new executive director of BVEP and will be on board this fail. 2006 Leadership Coafereace Executive Summary — page 2 "Business and government leader, have done agoodjob thus farm securing and growing our economy. The challenge for us now is to build on that foundation and continue the success, while safeguardthg our environment and quality of Ilk. We'vegone as far as we can go in tak qq air and water goal* for granted and we must now seriouslyfactor those into our economic expansion efforts, even as we reach for international markets." DenldsJohttson, United ilerltage, Conference Chairman "Ifwe understand ourplace in the globalmarketpbce, we're going to come up with our own lwrg-tern economic vision. The things that stick out the most as red Bags are the workforce, medical costs and being abk to afbrd to live and work in a place" Elaine Clegg, Boise Clgr Councilmensber Top priority: Get a community college Experts warn lack of dedicated community college jeopardizes prosperity In the prior 12 years of the Leadership Confer- ence, land use and transporta ion have tended to be the most urgent themes. Not this yew, where talc of a Treasure Valley community college system was prominent in presen- tations and braicetroming sessions. This summer, a special Legislative committee is looking at the op- tions for setting up and funding a ►egional or state- wide community college system. Jeny Evans„ former Superintendent of Public Instruction, told the conference that Idahoan cov- ered much the same tenittory 25 years ago, when a spedal committee recommended a statewide com- munity college system. "Since that time, there has been some tinkering by the Legislature and State Board of Education, but the bottom line is nothing has changed and the Treasure Valley and state are hampered by the lack of a meaningful community college system," Evans said. "Hopefully this time they will make the right dedsion. We need to sit down and figure out how al of the parts and pieces fit together and come up with a plan for each of the six region of Idaho to have a community college." John Hale, cm -chair of the Intermountain Venture Forum, said a community college is crucial to attract- ing and keeping new businesses. "One of the fhst things a company asks is, 'Do you have a trained workforce,'" Hale said. "It affects retention - Mixon would love to expand but they don't have the technicians they need. Something has to start today.' Some of the lack of momentum on a community celege may come from the fact that higher education seems well served already and other community col- leges operate in Idaho said Julie Johnson, with the University of Phoenix campus in Meridian. George IWf of Callers International said getting a community college system In the Treasure Valley isn't a question of will, but of leadership. "Thee is the bhkks and mortar available but we need the leadership to better understand the costs and this gets done," Riff said. "What is the entry fee, what is it going to cost to create a sufficient scope of services and pay for professors and all the other coststhat go into it. We need to have some idea of exactly what were talking about" Working out a funding system will be student hag, said Marc Johnson of the Gallatin Group. "We can talk al day about changing the govem- ment system for community colleges, but the folks in those communities that have them have made a long-term investment in the property tax system,' Johnson said. Treasure Valley by the numbers The first annual Treasure Valley State of the Region report was unveiled at the Leadership Confer- ence. "We hope this becomes a tool to use as a way to start thinking like a Valley," said Boise State Uni- versity professor Gregory Hill. who presented the report with professor Susan Mason. The report, which looks at 49 economic. social and environmental measurements. is among the first products of the new BSU Institute of Community and Regional Planning. The metro area is comprised of Ada, Boise. Canyon. Gem and Owyhee counties. Some interesting facts from the report: • The area saw a 110 percent population in- crease from 1990 to 2000. • In the 2004 primary elections. Ada had the low- est voter turnout. about 15 percent. Gem had the highest with about 42 percent. • Canyon saw the greatest'04-'05 rise in as- sessed property value. 17.9 percent. • Out-of-state driver licenses surrendered to Idaho increased 51 percent from '03-'05, While much of the information in the report ex- ists in Census and local government files, this is the first time any group has pulled all the information together regionally in a single report. As the years pass. the reports will provide the ability to compare conditions over time and provide guidance to busi- ness and government leaders. 000.00 CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, ARIZONA GROWTH EXPERT WARNS (continued from page 1) "We have political silos and we have to figure out how to get those silos to communicate with one another and implement all the good ideas we're talking about" Doug Haagen, HDR Engineering Gammaggrielddisebaerienen igetavproligillaticirsenk- Pia* Also, due to rising property values, the median -income family cannot afford the median home price. Urbanization has had serious environmental consequences, induding an 11 degree rise in Phoenix's average nighttime tem- perature. If daytime temperatures increased that much, Phoenix would become uninhabitable, Gammage said. Ironically, higher density --a top goal of most plan- ning efforts —could exacerbate the "heat island" ffect .1....7., has "heatThe island" r wath of Phoenix its origins in national policies to pro- mote the settlement of the West... Large dams and water projects, paid for by the federal government, made urbanization possible. "Some of our dholces have been good. We've built light rail and have used local option taxes in a way that you can't," Gammage said. fitutilmaikaphesaw Chairman Pierce and Commissioners: I'm CJ Thompson; I live at 4831 Willow Creek Rd in the Foothills. I think City Attorney Buxton was understating it when she said at the last hearing on this specific application that the development agreement is " an extremely complex document." Your head swims. I expect that, just as for me, it will take many hours to cover all your questions on this agreement. I wondered, after plowing through the all this paper: What does this agreement really mean? I think one of the answers is this: It entitles the applicant to at least 5600 and even more--8100--housing units. It's right there on page 1, in the definition of "base project density." Quoting: "Developer will be allowed to develop the density and intensity of uses set forth in Tables 1-6 prior to mitigation of slope, floodway and habitat areas." The pre -mitigation numbers in those tables total 5640 housing units. And what does "intensity" mean? Farther back, in the exhibits, we see densities up to 20 units per acre. Ms. Butler and Ms. Buxton have told me this agreement only guarantees a possible maximum number of housing units...that it doesn't guarantee the applicant any minimum number of units, despite the clause I just read. If it doesn't, why is that clause there at all? Why don't we just delete it entirely and with it any and all mention of the 5640? And on top of that, the agreement also entitles the applicant to a couple of hundred acres of commercial, two private golf courses, and 500 hotel rooms, 7 schools, a couple of police stations and a fire station. I realize none of this is platted and that a lot of the details will come as plans for 7/07 each of the subareas are submitted. Even given that, you must want, as I do, straight answers on critical issues before you make any recommendation on entitling this applicant to these thousands of units...to golf courses and hotel rooms... through an agreement that, to my way of thinking, is essentially the applicant telling the City: "Just trust me on all this." Several weeks ago you stripped density discussion from the draft Foothills comp plan amendment, because you had strong, well-founded concerns about building and paying for infrastructure and schools, about traffic impacts...a host of serious issues that will affect not only Eagle but the entire Treasure Valley. Between the state highways to the Ada/Gem line, you thought 12,500 units, including SunCor, was too big a bite. This agreement asks you to entitle one applicant —an applicant with 20% of the land in question —to 45 to 65% of those 12,500 units you weren't ready to buy in the Foothills amendment. And even if you were willing to consider reversing yourselves, how could you agree to these entitlements when you don't know with any confidence how many units will be located where? I'm referring here to this horrendous density transfer provision. Add up the applicant's individual "maximum densities" for all the subareas and you'll get a number approaching 11,000, including 500 hotel rooms. Compared to the range of unit entitlements in the development agreement —the 5600 to 8100— that's what I'll call an "aggregate mystery factor" attributable to density transfers �}-- a,pL7yo +cu._ poNA1 of 2700 to 5200 housing unitsk That's a big eal. i4-kauf-or, L / , 4,. Aren't siting and density critical to transportation planning and habitat? What happens if we decide, when the traffic agencies weigh in six months to a year ituurNe6 down the road, that the transportation impacts from this application are just too great? If the development agreement is adopted allowing 5600 housing units and even that's too much, what do we do? This agreement has been characterized by the City attorney as "the contract between the City and the applicant." Why would the City even consider an agreement like this? It's ill-defined. It imposes onerous requirements on and demands breathtaking commitments from the City. And most obviously, it's an attempt to lock in entitlements prematurely— before a Foothills comp plan, before hard questions about infrastructure and schools are answered, before a transportation plan has been agreed on and the means established to fund road improvements, before Foothills -wide wildlife impacts are addressed, before an open space and recreation plan is in place. This agreement is a developer's dream and the City's nightmare. If you want to make a recommendation tonight, without substantial modification to this agreement in its current form, you know the answer on how to proceed: Recommend denial of this development agreement. Thank you. Lynne Sedlacek 1200 Hereford Drive Eagle, ID 83616 (208) 939-6219 M3 Development Agreement - P&Z Testimony July 9, 2007 RECEIVED & FILEU CITY OF EAGLE JUL 0 9 Z007 File: Route to: I am an Eagle native, I served on the Eagle City Council from June 1997 through December 2005, an• I have been the Office Manager of Eagle Sewer District since 1988. I am currently serving on the City of Eagle's Water Planning Committee and the Eagle YMCA Steering Committee. I want to start by thanking the P&Z Commission members for their dedication to Eagle's land use planning. I would also like to commend Eagle's planning staff for their commitment to the public involvement process. As I understand it, the proposed M3 Development Agreement dictates that Annexation cannot take place without the Development Agreement. I have concentrated my testimony on the DA. My comments are based on the DA identified in the document footer as "...submitted to SEB 4-1.doc" The Exhibits are labeled SEB 4-14-07. If there are subsequent DA revisions that have already addressed my comments, I apologize for bringing them up again. The city attorney, engineer and public works director should have reviewed this document, and their comments should have been made available to the public, prior to this hearing. There are some sections of the DA-- especially in the "Section on Water" (Section 2.2) that I know to be contrary to what the City of Eagle has been trying to accomplish with the municipal water system. It makes me nervous to think that the general public needs to worry about these details. The Development Agreement mandates a 30-year commitment, automatically renewable to 40 years. The Development Agreement is very binding with mandatory language such as "shall" and "will." The 30-year commitment is too long for density guarantees. In some areas the language is too general. My experience with Development Agreements is that ambiguity can lead to future time-consuming and costly disagreements. In several places the DA references time periods which are only modified "at the Developer's, sole and absolute discretion" The City of Eagle should not sign a DA that allows time -lines to be changed at the Developers "sole and absolute discretion." This language should be removed in every instance. In several places, the DA assumes to supersede Eagle City Code. If the City were to let individual DAs supersede City Code, the result would be an enforcement nightmare. Strike this language in every instance. This DA dictates conditions for a Traffic Reimbursement Agreement, a Water Reimbursement Agreement, a Wastewater Reimbursement Agreement, a Drainage Reimbursement Agreement, and a Traffic Reimbursement Agreement. It also calls for a Development Fee Credit. This proposed Development agreement gives the developer all the cake --and the frosting too. I want to remind the P&Z members that you are in a position to make as many changes as you deem necessary to make this agreement work to the benefit of the City of Eagle. I want to remind the P&Z members that the M3 development should work to the benefit of Eagle. It is not your task to assure developer profit; and Eagle should not run scared of what Ada County might allow. 1 C:\DOCUME-1\LSEDLA—I.ESD\LOCALS-1\Temp\M3 DevAgreement0707.doc I have not addressed the individual densities planned for each specific foothills planning area. There are people testifying tonight that have a better understanding of the area's topography and geographic limitations. Please listen to these people. There is simply too much density planned for the area, and not enough assurances that this development will finance the lacking infrastructure. Based on my past City experience, I would vote against this Development Agreement as it is presented. I would not want my name attached to the approval of this document. The DA gives too much away; therefore, much more work needs to be done and the public comment period should be left open to allow the public to review the modified draft(s). Tonight's P&Z discussion should revolve around required language changes; and the requested language should be submitted back to the M3 development team for review. If the M3 development team rejects the P&Z changes, then the P&Z Commission should vote to deny the annexation request and the DA. Best wishes and good luck, Lynne Sedlacek 2 C:\DOCUME-1\LSEDLA--I.ESD\LOCALS-1\Temp\M3 DevAgreement0707.doc Specific Concerns regarding the Proposed M3 Development Agreement: RECITALS Section D: I have a good understanding of the City of Eagle's current budget conditions, both revenues and expenditures; and I do NOT believe the M3 development will generate enough "economic benefit" to finance the project's service and infrastructure demands. The net result of this development will be an increase in costs to the existing taxpayer. The P& Z Commission is a land use agency, and doesn't get a lot of exposure to the city budget; but P&Z should have an opportunity to view the service costs that will go along with this development. I have not seen any analysis of those costs. This side of the financial equation has not been adequately addressed. Section E: What is the purpose of Section E? I would like this section explained by BOTH the city and the developer. Section F: I have been involved with local land -use planning projects for several decades and Large un-contiguous expansion of public infrastructure provides few benefits to existing communities, in fact such expansion is currently defined as "sprawl." Section G: Developer is willing to participate in provision of Public Infrastructure only with the assurances that Developer SHALL be able to complete development of the Property as provided in this agreement. The developer bought this property knowing that the existing zoning allowed only one unit on 10 to 40-acre parcels. The development risk lies with the developer, not the City of Eagle. To what degree does the developer agree to participate? 50%, 75%, 100% of the infrastructure costs? DA needs to better define "participate" or strike this entire section of the agreement. Section H: Another example of why this project fits the definition of sprawl. Section I: Last sentence "City shall not enter into any agreement with any state or local government agency.... " The government planning agencies should work together on this large-scale development. Strike the last sentence of the Section I. Section J: 5th line down, middle of the sentence, "at Developer's sole and absolute discretion" go to the middle of the 5th sentence and change to "...period of time is extended by agreement of the Developer and City. Strike "..at Developer's sole and absolute discretion through time period of 12 months." Section K through M: Zoning Densities By virtue of this section, the City should not annex the property at this time. If the City decides to move forward with annexation, remember that this section of the DA commits the city to a lock -in on zoning densities. These property entitlements will prevail for 30 years ---with an automatic 10-year renewal. 3 C:\DOCUME-1\LSEDLA-1.ESD\LOCALS-1\Temp\M3 DevAgreement0707.doc AGREEMENT Section 1.2 - Planned Unit Development — Last Sentence: Add a Period at the end of "Eagle City Code" and strike from "provided, however" through the end of the sentence. A Development Agreement should never supersede Eagle City Code. If this were allowed to happen, the city would have an enforcement nightmare. City Standards are set for specific reasons. Densities — *How does a constrained area become an unconstrained area? *If city/developerBLM land trades are considered, how will wildlife be impacted, where will the access points be located, and how will public parking be accommodated? Section 1.8 Term: Stress the length of the agreements term. 30 years automatically extended to 40 years. I would suggest 20 years ---maximum. Section 2 Infrastructure Section 2.1 Traffic - Is it appropriate for the City of Eagle to agree to the Traffic statements made in the agreement, when these decisions are outside Eagle's jurisdiction? Will Eagle be allowing private roads? Section 2.2 Water *Is the referenced Recommended Standards correct for our area? *The agreement references "other provider" What other providers will be approved for M 3? *Last sentence under 2.2 (e) pg 26 Review 10-year time limit. *Sentence 8 of Section (g) pg 26 change "project build -out" to "as developed." *Section (h), top of pg 27, the 5th line down -References time periods which are modified "at the Developer's, sole and absolute discretion" No City of Eagle Development Agreement should allow this type of language. *Section 2.2 (h) Very last sentence (i, ii, and iii) This is contrary to Eagle's Municipal Water System Master Plan. *Section 2.3 Wastewater Service is outside the City of Eagle's jurisdiction. The DA should not attempt to bind the City to these development conditions and time -lines. *Section 2.4 (a) Remove the 1st word "Post -development." *Section 2.5 (c) School Sites. Does "dedicated" mean, "donated?" If not, then who pays for the school site? *Section 2.7 Master Environmental Design Plan — Should adhere to Eagle City Code or City Code supersedes DA. *Section 2.10 Development Fee Credit; Reimbursement. Strike the entire section. The Developer is responsible for extending service under existing regulations of each jurisdiction. Regulation of Development Is the City of Eagle ready to assume that there will not be any regulatory changes within the term (30 years) of this Development Agreement? Are we going to let the Developer decide which amendments are major and minor? The City is willing to grant Vested Rights for a 30-year period? 4 C:\DOCUME-1\LSEDLA-1.ESD\LOCALS-1\Temp\M3 DevAgreement0707.doc Alternatives for Financing Infrastructure Improvements *Section 4.1 - The M3 Development should not dictate that ".....such funds SHALL be applied to, or made available for." The City will undoubtedly be paying for the Administrative Costs of these funds and the city will decide how and where they will be used. *Section 4.2 — replace the word "Shall" with "May" in every instance. Cooperation and Alternative Dispute Resolution *Section 6.5 — The City should not agree to "no new, increased or additional impact of development fees or costs" for a 30-year period. Fees will need to go up and this development should not be exempt. Miscellaneous *Section 8.5 (a) I don't believe the DA can be superior and senior to any future lien placed upon the property —including Local Improvement Districts, or utility tax liens. Original - Me 5-Commission, 5-Heather, Legal, Engineering, Staff x 2 3-Applicant 5 C:\DOCUME-1\LSEDLA-1.ESD\LOCALS-1\Temp\M3 DevAgreement0707.doc a. N.) IN' 3. -4 ICAL , — ND 1aj,990 Cil. 116,210_ ., 13,960 ' i ., .4.4* , F'alme i - WA b) ' ik in. ,., , , 1,,,---2—t, ; e.p .2.14460„ 22,730 CA) CPI C57 > CD CD CD CA, el CD CD u) Cfl (i) - Cl) CI7 C/7 (i) IM=UNUM 0--• • (4.-) 0—• • 0 n CD '"" • CD 0 CD • • r+ EU F ILIIII4 M'II; cp ovir- 0 • r. , o ,� 1 V t x_• -.,- 4 0 y' 55,270 pt 64 520 54,010 � 4 ; 'k; ri 74/oo 62% a, SH16 co _ cn to V y ,4. A so 11 �511�1," .: :: '4,111, �' 22,080 "-': Q ., 94% ° - 4 Palmer Ln c� i� EE r 10,870 a t r e, ! L. �s 78% o cnitr jA '� so O o - •'r 10.5% .finder R. 4,18, 100°/ `+r S Par, 34,,580 77%� • (5,000 4$%_ 1 _ Q A z, : -- ` CO Q) w cD vi o .tD o iG A 23,530 `bs' 1\° 76� " �� w d Ballantyne; Rd o W CD A , "' c) oigo o O 4e. 13,890 . 4,130 a 750h, Eagle Rd 26% 14,61311 Willow Creek Rd- c CM -Di -Sac °�° .0, 4, 56c •F• p4' 44% 1' CO (CO* t C e 03 ,$7;2'1,130 67,030 i v .FAO _f. r Ifs: �r7 -Si 55 80% ° .. 6;1• J�7 >* '6. 11, +'�- W. (•iQ)'VD 5 .E..: to a—) G1 �'_ pa fl1 a1 n cD n O z 3 3 z z 3 tD er G (D K': cD . p calf Uri CI) 9 • CA, Cl) N • r..) o'�so 0 ' 0 W_Yr 3 CO , OOP *X ocs -a �, 3:. 0_ 401 CD 40 r— ca- _-- r 7. 1. r` rir 0 I • r 1 sZr o�o�'C "Pc?. 05'Or L �0 0 r 1. °.�°G! 1, 'CA r• , >a - v v co oho v b O °%4►,5 • _ pZ6 5 t r . 4 W, 4.. y. 4 O O O O W N v PcJ phD O • CI)D O O O • H A) 0 -.i CD .4. P+ O W O H 0 fa H ot-21 RI° PJ 0 '.< aa f.: 5