Commission Meeting Agenda 12:00 PM - Wednesday, May 27, 2020 Michael L

Commission Meeting Agenda 12:00 PM - Wednesday, May 27, 2020 Michael L. Brokaw Auditorium

NOTE: Pursuant to Idaho Code 40-1415(6), the ACHD Commission has the authority to accept and approve all subdivision plats as to continuity of highway pattern, widths, drainage, right-of-way construction standards, traffic flow, traffic demand volumes within or outside the boundaries of the proposed development, and other matters associated with the function of the highway district. The ACHD Commission does not have the final authority to impose any conditions related to traffic caused by any new development applications. Pursuant to the Idaho Supreme Court decision in KMST, LLC vs. Ada County, 138 Idaho 557, 581-582, 2003, only the land use agency (City or County) has the final authority to approve or reject the proposed development, including the final authority to implement conditions related to the transportation system. ACHD is not governed by the Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act, Idaho Code 67-6501, which only authorizes land use agencies (City and/or County) to make land use decisions. i.e. development density, zoning, area of impact and comprehensive plan amendments.

Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/2440272215

Meeting ID: 244 027 2215

Dial by your location 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 877 853 5257 US Toll-free

1. Tips for an online meeting ACHD

PRE-COMMISSION SESSIONS 11:15 a.m. | ACHD Pre-Commission Room

WORK SESSION

1. FY2021-2025 Integrated Five-Year Work Plan – Community Programs Prioritization Presentation by Staff Community Programs is ACHD’s programmatic tool to directly invest in bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Projects are prioritized based on Commission approved prioritization methodologies. During the work session, staff will present an overview of these methodologies and the prioritization results for this year’s project requests. Staff Report - FY2021-2025 Integrated Five-Year Work Plan – Community Programs Prioritization - 21 May 2020 - Pdf Kristy Inselman - Sr. Transportation Planner - [email protected]

PRE-COMMISSION AGENDA 11:45 a.m. | Will start at this time or shortly after | ACHD Pre-Commission Room

General Housekeeping Items Page 1 of 85

Discussion of Commission Meeting Agenda Director's Administration & Operations Report - The Director's A&O Report can be heard before of after a work session or the Pre-Commission Meeting or during the Post-Commission Meeting.

The Commission welcomes public input on agenda items. If you wish to testify, please use the sign-in sheet to ensure you have a chance to speak. Individuals are asked to limit their remarks to three minutes, and more time is afforded to representatives of groups. If you want to submit written comments, please do so at least 24 hours in advance to assure that Commissioners have time to read and consider your views. Information and inquiries may be submitted through Tell US

COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA 12:00 p.m. | Michael L. Brokaw Auditorium

ADOPT AGENDA - Request for Adoption

CONSENT AGENDA - ACTION ITEMS

Items on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Commissioner or citizen so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda. All Consent Agenda Items are Commission "action items" unless noted.

1. Minutes & Minute Entries Request for Approval Request to Approve Minutes and Minute Entries from the May 13, 2020 Commission Meeting. Commission Meeting - 13 May 2020 - Minutes - Pdf Stacey Spencer - Secretary of the Board/Executive Assistant - [email protected]

2. Award Construction Bid for 2020 Southwest Ada County Pedestrian Crossings Request for Approval Staff requests Commission approval of the construction bid to Diamond Contractors for the amount of $936,510. This contract includes PHB Crossing at Deer Flat Road and School Avenue, Five Mile Road and Seneca Drive, Victory Road and Standing Timber Avenue, Z Crossing with PHB at Cherry Lane and Meridian Library, Horseshoe Bend Road and Shadow view Street, and completing the sidewalk with pathways on Deer Flat Road from School Avenue to Deerhorn Avenue. Five Mile Road and Seneca Drive and Deer Flat Road, School Avenue/Deerhorn Avenue are Commission Directed projects. 2020 Soutwest Ada PED Crossings bid award memo Jason Tugby - Project Manager - [email protected]

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS - ACTION ITEMS

All Regular Agenda Items are Commission "action items" unless noted.

1. Bob McQuade, Ada County Assessor's Annual Presentation Stacey Spencer - Secretary of the Board/Executive Assistant - [email protected]

2. Crystal Springs Apartments - Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) Request for Approval This is a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application for a design and zoning review to allow for the development of 96 multi-family housing units on 15.16-acres. For this application ACHD is a recommending body to the City of Star. Staff Report - Crystal Springs Apartments - Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) - - Pdf Mindy Wallace, AICP - Planning Supervisor - [email protected]

Page 2 of 85

DISCUSSION ITEMS

Public Communications

POST-COMMISSION AGENDA

Commission Administrative Discussion

NOTE: The Web version of the ACHD Commission agenda is provided as a service and is not the formal agenda of the Commission. The most current and legally noticed Commission agenda is the one posted at the District's headquarters, which can be obtained by calling 387-6100.

To arrange for a translator or other accommodation, contact ACHD at (208) 387-6100. Se les recomienda a las personas que necesiten un intérprete o arreglos especiales que llamen a la coordinadora de participación pública, al (208) 387-6100.

Page 3 of 85 TIPS FOR AN ONLINE MEETING THE COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED ALL TELLUS, EMAILS AND VOICEMAILS. THEY HAVE ALL BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. ANY TESTIMONY SHOULD BE NEW INFORMATION.

1. MUTE YOUR MICROPHONE. TO HELP KEEP BACKGROUND NOISE TO A MINIMUM, MAKE SURE YOU MUTE YOUR MICROPHONE WHEN YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING. 2. TO SPEAK: PRIVATE CHAT WITH THE CLERK, STACEY SPENCER, GIVE YOUR: 1. NAME 2. ADDRESS 3. ITEM YOU WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT OR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS 3. IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING ONLY BY PHONE, YOU NEED TO CALL ACHD HEADQUARTERS AT 208-387-6100 AND GIVE THE RECEPTIONIST THE ABOVE INFORMATION 4. WHEN IT IS YOUR TURN TO SPEAK, YOU WILL BE CALLED UPON IN ORDER OF REQUEST, UNMUTE YOURSELF. 5. BE MINDFUL OF BACKGROUND NOISE WHEN YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOT MUTED: AVOID ACTIVITIES THAT COULD CREATE ADDITIONAL NOISE, SUCH AS SHUFFLING PAPERS. 6. PREPARE MATERIALS IN ADVANCE: IF YOU WILL BE SHARING CONTENT DURING THE MEETING, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE FILES AND/OR LINKS READY TO GO BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. 7. IN ORDER TO ALLOW MAXIMUM PARTICIPATION, EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED NO MORE THAN 3 MINUTES. YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED WITH A BEEP THAT YOUR TIME HAS ELAPSED.

Page 4 of 85 Mary May, President Kent Goldthorpe, Vice-President Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner Sara M. Baker, Commissioner Jim D. Hansen, Commissioner

Planning & Programming

21 May 2020 STAFF REPORT

TO: FROM: Kristy Inselman - Sr. Transportation Planner - [email protected] SUBJECT: FY2021-2025 Integrated Five-Year Work Plan – Community Programs Prioritization MEETING: Commission Meeting - 27 May 2020

ATTACHMENT(S): StfRpt05272020_KInselman_CommunityProgramsPrioritization

Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208 387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achdidaho.org

Page 5 of 85

Mary May, President Kent Goldthorpe, Vice-President Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner Committed to Service Sara M. Baker, Commissioner Jim D. Hansen, Commissioner

May 21, 2020

TO: Commissioners, Director, and Deputy Directors FROM: Kristy Inselman, Senior Transportation Planner SUBJECT: FY2021-2025 Integrated Five-Year Work Plan – Community Programs Prioritization Staff Report for the May 27, 2020 Commission Meeting ______

Executive Summary The Integrated Five-Year Work Plan (IFYWP) sets forth the strategies, priorities, and projects the District will pursue over the next five years with focus on its vision of “leading transportation innovation - investing in communities.” The adopted capital budget makes up the first 2 years of the IFYWP. Community Programs is ACHD’s programmatic tool to directly invest in bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Projects are prioritized based on Commission approved prioritization methodologies. During the work session, staff will present an overview of these methodologies and the prioritization results for this year’s project requests.

Facts and Findings Through the adoption of the Bicycle Master Plan and Neighborhood Bicycle and Pedestrian Neighborhood Plans, the Commission has approved prioritization methodologies for different Community Programs project types: - Bicycle Infrastructure - Pedestrian Infrastructure - Enhanced Crossings The primary focus of these prioritization methodologies is to evaluate individual projects based on their impact on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, access to education and civic facilities, completion of a regional network, and ensuring facilities are accessible for all users. The specific criteria used is included as Attachment A.

In February and March 2020, ACHD completed a public comment period, in which partner agencies, the public, and the Commission where asked to provide Community Programs project requests for consideration. These project requests have been prioritized using the approved prioritization methodologies. During the work session, staff will review the findings of this prioritization effort with the Commission (See Attachment 2).

Fiscal Implications The FY2021-2025 IFYWP is being developed in coordination with the FY2021 Budget. The Commission directs the allocation of resources to complete projects through these documents. Prioritization assists Staff in evaluating projects for potential programming in the IFYWP.

Policy Implications The IFYWP update process is ACHD’s primary outreach tool to communicate with the public regarding the capital projects ACHD plans to construct over the next 5 years. Prioritization is one key aspect in ensuring ACHD continues to program, design, and construct the best projects to serve the Citizens of Ada County.

Attachments: (A) Community Programs Prioritization Methodologies, (B) Prioritized Project Request List

Page 6 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

INTEGRATED FIVE-YEAR WORK PLAN

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS PRIORITIZATION – BIKE FACILITY PROJECTS

This method is used to rank bike facility projects contained in the Community Program sections of ACHD’s Integrated Five-Year Work Plan (IFYWP). For pedestrian facility and crossing projects, please see the separate and corresponding prioritization methodologies. The method is designed to evaluate projects on all ACHD roadways, pending direction from the ACHD Commission. A total of 100 points is available for each project. Projects are then ranked according to the accumulated points.

TECHNICAL CRITERIA

The following is a listing of technical variables that are based on an engineering assessment of projects. A maximum of 65 points, or 65% of total, is possible from the Technical Criteria section.

T1. REGIONAL LOW-STRESS BIKEWAY NETWORK BUILDOUT

The Regional Low-Stress Bikeway Network will provide important connections across neighborhoods that are suitable for a wide range of people. The regional network will link up local connections to provide access between neighborhoods and to popular destinations. Therefore, building out the regional network is a priority to ACHD and projects that build out the network are given highest priority. Projects that augment the regional network by either connecting to the network or by building out the supporting local network are also awarded points in this category. It is ACHD’s goal to provide a bike network that is usable to a wide range of people. Only projects that meet this goal by implementing appropriate facilities, using ACHD’s Bicycle Facility Selection Matrix, are awarded points in this category (i.e., a project providing a Level 2 facility on a road that should have a Level 3 facility is not awarded any points).

Points Criteria 0 Project recommends a treatment type not in conformance with the facility selection matrix. 3 Project will provide a Level 2 or 3 facility not connected to a Low-Stress Bikeway identified in the Regional Low-Stress Bikeway Network. 6 Project will provide a Level 1 facility not connected to a Low-Stress Bikeway identified in the Regional Low-Stress Bikeway Network. 9 Project will provide a Level 2 or 3 facility connected to a Low-Stress Bikeway identified in the Regional Low-Stress Bikeway Network. 12 Project will provide a Level 1 facility connected to a Low-Stress Bikeway identified in the Regional Low- Stress Bikeway Network. 15 Project will implement a Low-Stress Bikeway identified in the Regional Low-Stress Bikeway Network.

How this category is scored: Review the proposed project against the Regional Low-Stress Bikeway map to determine the possible points. Then, review the proposed project against the Bicycle Facility Selection Matrix to confirm the appropriate facility type is identified.

Page 7 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

T2. CONNECTIVITY RELATED TO REGIONAL LOW-STRESS BIKEWAY NETWORK

This criterion focuses on creating a complete network by closing gaps, providing new facilities, and/or removing barriers. Priority is given to projects that connect between routes shown on the Regional Low-Stress Bikeway Network map.

Points Criteria 0 Project does not connect/extend any existing or planned routes or low-stress bikeways. 1 Project will provide a Level 2/3 facility parallel and within 1/2 mile of an existing low-stress bikeway. 3 Project will provide a Level 1 facility parallel and within 1/4 mile of an existing or future Regional Low- Stress Bikeway. 6 Project will provide a Level 2/3 facility parallel and within 1/2 mile of a future Regional Low-Stress Bikeway. 9 Project will provide a Regional Low-Stress Bikeway that does not connect to another existing Regional Low-Stress Bikeway. 12 Project will provide a Regional Low-Stress Bikeway perpendicular and connecting to an existing Regional Low-Stress Bikeway. 15 Project will connect 2 or more existing Regional Low-Stress Bikeway.

How this category is scored: Review the proposed project against the Regional Low-Stress Bikeway map to determine the possible points. This may be most easily completed in GIS software in order to measure distance.

T3. DISTANCE TO SCHOOL

Projects that provide an appropriate bike network within close proximity to schools (i.e., K-12 schools and colleges/ universities) are able to serve a high volume of active transportation users and help create safe routes to schools. For the purposes of this criterion, only public schools will be considered as private schools typically have a broader geographic pull from areas outside of their immediate vicinity.

Points Criteria 0 No schools within 1.5 mile 6 >0.5 and <=1.5 miles of a school 9 >0.25 and <0.5 miles of a school 12 <=0.25 mile of a school 15 Project directly connects to a school

How this category is scored: Review the proposed project against the existing roadway network and school locations to determine the highest score that would be possible (e.g., if a project directly connects to one school and is also within 1 mile of another school, the project would receive 20 points). Distance measurements should be based on the actual travel distance to the school from the project and not on the straight line distance.

T4. DISTANCE TO CIVIC FACILITIES/TRANSIT/COMMERCIAL DESTINATIONS

This criterion focuses on the proximity to popular destinations including commercial areas, major event centers (i.e stadiums, concert halls, etc), civic facilities, community centers, and transit stops. Civic facilities include libraries, city halls, museums, and parks.

Page 8 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

Points Criteria 0 Not within 1-mile of identified destinations. 2 Within 1-mile of one identified destination. 5 Within ½-mile of one identified destination. 10 Within ½-mile of two identified destinations. 15 Within ½-mile of three identified destinations.

How this category is scored: Review the proposed project against the existing roadway network and a set of identified commercial destinations (e.g., COMPASS maintains a dataset of identified commercial and civic destinations, City of Boise Activity Centers). Distance measurements should be based on the actual travel distance to the destinations from the project and not on the straight line (i.e., “as the crow flies”) distance. This measurement can be readily accomplished using the Network Analyst extension in ArcMap software.

T6. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Providing a pedestrian facility for people who are dependent on modes of transportation other than vehicles is very important. The transportation dependent population index (TDPI) is percentage of the transportation population as a percentage of the overall population. The transportation dependent population includes residents on a block group level that are over 65 years old, under 18 years old, with income under 200% of the poverty level, with a disability, and number of households with no vehicles. All census block groups in Ada County were evaluated.

Points Criteria 1 Serves census block group with a TDPI in the bottom 25% of Ada County census block groups 3 Serves census block group with a TDPI between 26% - 50% of Ada County census block groups 4 Serves census block group with a TDPI between 51% - 75% of Ada County census block groups 5 Serves census block group with a TDPI in the top 25% of Ada County census block groups

How this category is scored: Review the proposed project against the locations where residents with transportation dependent characteristics live, as calculated using the transportation dependent population (TDP) index. This index is calculated for each Census block group in Ada County using data from the most recent American Community Survey as follows:

TDP Index by Census block group = (Number of residents over 65 years old + number of residents under 18 years old + number of residents in poverty + (number of Households without vehicle * average number of people in Ada County household) + number of residents disabled) / Total Population of Ada County

If a proposed project overlaps with more than one Census block group, it is scored based on the Census block group with the highest TDP index. This analysis may be most easily completed in GIS software.

Page 9 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

PROGRAMMING CRITERIA

The following is a listing of the variable used to calculate the total Programming Points which accounts for 35 points, or 35% of the total project score. These factors measure ACHD’s prior commitments to projects, as well as factors related to ACHD’s partner agencies.

P1. OTHER FUNDING

Points are based on any available non-ACHD financial resources available to assist in implementing the project. Complete Community Programs individual applications with signatures showing a commitment from all adjacent land owners to donate right-of-way for the project is also considered a high priority.

Points Criteria 0 No non-ACHD resources available 2 1% - 10% of project cost in non-ACHD resources available 4 11% - 20% of project cost in non-ACHD resources available 6 21% - 30% of project cost in non-ACHD resources available 8 31% - 40% of project cost in non-ACHD resources available 10 >40% of project cost in non-ACHD resources available or a complete individual application with required right-of-way donation

P2. PARTNER AGENCY SUPPORT

Annually ACHD seeks prioritized project requests from its partner agencies at the 6 cities, 3 school districts, and Ada County. This criterion shows the level of support from these agencies for the identified project.

Points Criteria 0 No partner agency support 1 Project ranked as #10 or lower priority for a partner agency 2 Project ranked as #9 for a partner agency 3 Project ranked as #8 for a partner agency 4 Project ranked as #7 for a partner agency 5 Project ranked as #6 for a partner agency 6 Project ranked as #5 for a partner agency 7 Project ranked as #4 for a partner agency 8 Project ranked as #3 for a partner agency 9 Project ranked as #2 for a partner agency 10 Project ranked as #1 for a partner agency or project ranked as top 10 priority for more than one agency

P3. NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS

ACHD is continually developing neighborhood plans to identify and prioritize community programs projects of importance to the public. The programming of these plans shows ACHD’s commitment to implement what the

Page 10 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

public has identified as important. This criterion gives speaks to the identification of projects through these planning efforts.

Points Criteria 0 Not identified in an adopted neighborhood plan 1 Project partially identified in an adopted neighborhood plan 3 Project fully identified in an adopted neighborhood plan, but not prioritized as high priority within that effort 5 Project fully identified as a high priority in an adopted neighborhood plan

P4. COST/BENEFIT

ACHD is focused on making improvements that will have the greatest impact that are also fiscally responsible. The cost/benefit or a project is calculated by the dividing the estimated cost of a project less outside funding (ACHD Cost of Project) by the technical score. Each project is then ranked from lowest to highest and points given based on its ranking against other projects.

퐶표푠푡 퐴퐶퐻퐷 퐶표푠푡 표푓 푃푟표푗푒푐푡 = 퐵푒푛푒푓푖푡 푇푒푐ℎ푛푖푐푎푙 푆푐표푟푒

Points Criteria 1 Cost-benefit ratio for the project ranked in the highest quartile 4 Cost-benefit ratio for the project ranked in the 2nd highest quartile 7 Cost-benefit ratio for the project ranked in the 2nd lowest quartile 10 Cost-benefit ratio for the project ranked in the lowest quartile

Page 11 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

INTEGRATED FIVE‐YEAR WORK PLAN

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS PRIORITIZATION – PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS

This method is used to rank pedestrian projects contained in the Community Program sections of ACHD’s Integrated Five‐Year Work Plan (IFYWP). For bike and crossing projects, please see the separate and corresponding prioritization methodologies. The method is designed to evaluate projects on all ACHD roadway types. A total of 100 points is available for each project. Projects are then ranked according to the accumulated points.

TECHNICAL CRITERIA

The following is a listing of technical variables that are based on an engineering assessment of projects. A maximum of 65 points, or 65% of total, is possible from the Technical Criteria section.

T1. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC

This criterion considers the average daily traffic (ADT) for streets. Streets with higher traffic volumes have a greater need for safe pedestrian facilities because of higher potential for serious accidents.

Points Criteria 0 0 – 249 ADT 1 250 – 999 ADT 3 1,000 – 1,999 ADT 5 2,000 – 4,999 ADT 7 5,000 – 9,999 ADT 9 10,000 – 14,999 ADT 11 15,000 – 19,999 ADT 13 20,000 – 24,999 ADT 15 25,000+ ADT

T2. DISTANCE TO SCHOOL

Projects that provide an appropriate pedestrian facility within close proximity to schools (i.e., K‐12 schools and colleges/ universities) are able to serve a high volume of active transportation users and help create safe routes to schools. For the purposes of this criterion, only public schools will be considered as private schools typically have a broader geographic pull from areas outside of their immediate vicinity.

Page 12 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

Points Criteria 0 No schools within 1.5 mile 3 >1 and <=1.5 miles of a school 6 >0.5 and <1 miles of a school 9 >0.25 and <0.5 miles of a school 12 <=0.25 mile of a school 15 Project directly connects to a school

T3. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

This criterion considers the existing surfaces that can be utilized by pedestrians. Areas without a sidewalk have the highest priority. For the purposes of this criteria, an asphalt pathway with separation or shoulder with extruded curb are counted the same as a sidewalk.

Points Criteria 0 Existing pedestrian facilities on both sides of the road 1 Local or collector road with existing pedestrian facilities on one side of the road 2 Arterial road with existing pedestrian facilities on one side of the road 3 Local or collector road with gaps in the pedestrian facilities on both sides of the road 4 Arterial road with gaps in the pedestrian facilities on both sides of the road 5 No existing pedestrian facilities on both sides of the road

T4. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ATTRIBUTES

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that where pedestrian facilities exist, they be accessible for all users regardless of if they has a disability or not. Providing a new pedestrian facility where it does not now exist would expand accessibility, however, it may not forward ACHD’s efforts to bring the pedestrian network into ADA full compliance. For this reason, this criterion prioritizes existing facilities deemed non‐compliant above new facilities. Rankings in this category rely on information from ACHD’s Pedestrian Transition Plan (PTP).

Points Criteria 0 Existing pedestrian facilities are ADA compliant 2 No existing pedestrian facilities 5 Existing pedestrian facilities are identified as non‐compliant and ranked low priority in the PTP. 8 Existing pedestrian facilities are identified as non‐compliant and ranked medium priority in the PTP. 10 Existing pedestrian facilities are identified as non‐compliant and ranked high priority in the PTP.

T5. DISTANCE TO CIVIC FACILITIES/TRANSIT/COMMERCIAL DESTINATION

This criterion focuses on the proximity to popular destinations including large‐scale commercial areas (i.e grocery stores, malls, etc.), major event centers (i.e stadiums, concert halls, etc), civic facilities, community centers, and transit stops. Civic facilities include libraries, city halls, museums, and parks.

Page 13 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

Points Criteria 0 Not within ½‐mile of identified destinations. 2 Within ½‐mile of one identified destination. 5 Within ¼‐mile of one identified destination. 10 Within ¼‐mile of two identified destinations. 15 Within ¼‐mile of three identified destinations.

T6. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Points Criteria 1 Serves census block group with a TDPI in the bottom 25% of Ada County census block groups 3 Serves census block group with a TDPI between 26% ‐ 50% of Ada County census block groups 4 Serves census block group with a TDPI between 51% ‐ 75% of Ada County census block groups 5 Serves census block group with a TDPI in the top 25% of Ada County census block groups

Page 14 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

PROGRAMMING CRITERIA

P1. OTHER FUNDING

Points are based on any available non‐ACHD financial resources available to assist in implementing the project. Complete Community Programs individual applications with signatures showing a commitment from all adjacent land owners to donate right‐of‐way for the project is also considered a high priority.

Points Criteria 0 No non‐ACHD resources available 2 1% ‐ 10% of project cost in non‐ACHD resources available 4 11% ‐ 20% of project cost in non‐ACHD resources available 6 21% ‐ 30% of project cost in non‐ACHD resources available 8 31% ‐ 40% of project cost in non‐ACHD resources available 10 >40% of project cost in non‐ACHD resources available or a complete individual application with required right‐of‐way donation

P2. PARTNER AGENCY SUPPORT

P3. NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS

Page 15 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

public has identified as important. This criterion gives speaks to the identification of projects through these planning efforts.

P4. COST/BENEFIT

Points Criteria 1 Cost‐benefit ratio for the project ranked in the highest quartile 4 Cost‐benefit ratio for the project ranked in the 2nd highest quartile 7 Cost‐benefit ratio for the project ranked in the 2nd lowest quartile 10 Cost‐benefit ratio for the project ranked in the lowest quartile

Page 16 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

INTEGRATED FIVE‐YEAR WORK PLAN

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS PRIORITIZATION – PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

This method is used to rank pedestrian crossing projects contained in the Community Program sections of ACHD’s Integrated Five‐Year Work Plan (IFYWP). For bike and pedestrian facility projects, please see the separate and corresponding prioritization methodologies. The method is designed to evaluate projects on all ACHD roadways, pending direction frome th ACHD Commission. A total of 100 points is available for each project. Projects are then ranked according to the accumulated points.

TECHNICAL CRITERIA

The following is a listing of technical variables that are based on an engineering assessment of projects. A maximum of 65 points, or 65% of total, is possible from the Technical Criteria section.

T1. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC

This criterion considers the average daily traffic (ADT) for streets. Streets with higher traffic volumes have a greater need for safe pedestrian crossings because of higher potential for serious accidents. The ADT for the primary street to be crossed is to be evaluated against this criterion.

Points Criteria 0 0 – 4,999 ADT 2 5,000 – 8,999 ADT 4 9,000 – 11,999 ADT 6 12,000 – 14,999 ADT 8 15,000 – 19,999 ADT 10 20,000+ ADT

T2. DISTANCE TO SCHOOL

Projects that provide an appropriate pedestrian crossing within close proximity to schools (i.e., K‐12 schools and colleges/ universities) are able to serve a high volume of active transportation users and help create safe routes to schools. For the purposes of this criterion, only public schools will be considered as private schools typically have a broader geographic pull from areas outside of their immediate vicinity.

Points Criteria 0 No schools within 1.5 mile 3 >1 and <=1.5 miles of a school

Page 17 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

6 >0.5 and <1 miles of a school 9 >0.25 and <0.5 miles of a school 12 <=0.25 mile of a school 15 Project directly connects to a school

T3. CROSSING DISTANCE

This criterion considers the number of lanes a pedestrian must cross before reaching the other side of the roadway. Wider roadways provide more potential conflict points of exposure for the pedestrian and therefore enhanced crossing treatments would be a higher priority on these facilities.

Points Criteria 1 Crossing on a 2 lane roadway 3 Crossing on a 3 lane roadway 4 Crossing on a 4 lane roadway 5 Crossing on a 5 or more lane roadway

T4. SPEED LIMITS

There is a higher likelihood of severe injury or fatality in crashes occurring where vehicles are travelling at a higher rate of speed. Pedestrian crossing enhancements are intended to draw attention to and provide some level of protection for pedestrians.

Points Criteria 3 Crossing of a roadway with a 20 MPH posted speed limit 7 Crossing of a roadway with a 25 MPH posted speed limit 11 Crossing of a roadway with a 30 MPH posted speed limit 15 Crossing of a roadway with a 35 MPH or higher posted speed limit

T5. DISTANCE TO CIVIC FACILITIES/TRANSIT/COMMERCIAL DESTINATIONS

Page 18 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

T6. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Page 19 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

PROGRAMMING CRITERIA

P1. OTHER FUNDING

P2. PARTNER AGENCY SUPPORT

P3. NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS

Page 20 of 85 ATTACHMENT A

public has identified as important. This criterion gives speaks to the identification of projects through these planning efforts.

P4. COST/BENEFIT

Page 21 of 85 Community Programs Prioritization Summary

Ranking Points Project Type Project Name Current IFYWP Programming Status Request Source Crossings 1 73 Crossing US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) and 43rd St Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN in 2023. Garden City (#1) 2 73 Crossing Vista Ave and Nez Perce St Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN in 2022. Commissioner Request, City of Boise (#2) 3 72 Crossing Overland Rd and Phillippi St Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN in 2021. City of Boise (#1) 4 61 Crossing Five Mile Rd and Smoke Ranch Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN in 2021. City of Boise (#8) 5 59 Crossing Oakland Ave and Beacon St Pedestrian Crossing Needs Scoped. New Request. Boise State (#3) 6 58 Crossing Enhanced School Crossings - Meridian Middle School and Capital In IFYWP. CN in 2021. City of Meridian (#26), WASD (#1) High School 7 56 Crossing Grant Ave and Beacon St Pedestrian Crossing Needs Scoped. New Request. Boise State (#6) 8 55 Crossing US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) and 38th St Pedestrian Crossing Needs Scoped. Garden City (#6) 9 54 Crossing US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) and Coffey St Pedestrian Crossing Needs Scoped. Garden City (#3) 10 53 Crossing Eagle Rd and Ranch Dr Pedestrian Crossing Not supported by ACHD Traffic. Commissioner Request, City of Eagle (#3) 10 53 Crossing Harrison Blvd and Resseguie St Pedestrian Crossing Scoped. Awaiting programming. Commissioner Request 10 53 Crossing Maple Grove Rd and Edna St Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN in 2024. ACHD Staff 11 52 Crossing Swan Falls Rd and Indian Creek Pathway Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. City of Kuna (#2) 11 52 Crossing Warm Springs Ave and Straughan Ave Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. ACHD Staff 12 51 Crossing 09th St and Washington St Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN in 2023. ACHD Staff 12 51 Crossing 43rd St and Ustick Rd Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. New Request. Garden City (#1) 12 51 Crossing Locust Grove Rd and Woodbridge Dr Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN in 2024. City of Meridian (#12) 13 50 Crossing Fort St and 4th St Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. BSD (#29) 13 50 Crossing Harrison Blvd and Irene St Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. City of Boise (#37) 14 47 Crossing 13th St and Franklin St Pedestrian Crossing Needs Scoped. New Request. BSD (#8) 15 46 Crossing Avalon St and Kay St Needs Scoped. New Request. KSD (#14) 15 46 Crossing Boise Ave and Linden St Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN in 2023. Commissioner Request, BSD (#50) 15 46 Crossing Pine Ave and 01st St Pedestrian Crossing Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Meridian (#18) 16 44 Crossing Horseshoe Bend Rd and Floating Feather Rd In IFYWP. CN in 2024. Commissioner Request, City of Eagle (#1) 16 44 Crossing Marigold St and Coffey St Needs scoped. New Request. Garden City (#7) 16 44 Crossing SH 44 (State St) and Fisher Pkwy Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. ITD not supportive of City of Eagle (#7) project at this time. 17 43 Crossing Victory Rd and Canonero Way Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. New Request. Ada County (#1) 18 42 Crossing Floating Feather Rd and Star Rd Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. City of Star (#6) 18 42 Crossing Floating Feather Rd and Thunderbird Ave Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. New Request. WASD (#4) 18 42 Crossing Main St and King Street Pedestrian Crossing Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Meridian (#9) 19 41 Crossing Roosevelt St and Alpine St Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. BSD (#14) 19 41 Crossing, Pedestrian Five Mile Rd and La Grange St Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN in 2022. City of Boise (#5), WASD (#10) Facility 20 40 Crossing Milwaukee St and Valley View Elementary Pedestrian Crossing Scoped. Awaiting programming. BSD (#11) 20 40 Crossing, Traffic Ops Ranch Dr, WO Stierman Way Driveway Mitigation Needs scoped. WASD (#50) 21 39 Crossing Allworth St and 50th St Pedestrian Crossing Needs Scoped. Garden City (#5) 21 39 Crossing Amity Rd and Mary McPherson Elementary School Pedestrian Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Meridian (#17), WASD (#37) Crossing 22 38 Crossing Hill Rd and Lancaster Dr Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. City of Boise (#44) 22 38 Crossing McMillan Rd and Palantine Way Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. City of Meridian (#10) 22 38 Crossing Ustick Rd and Towerbridge Way Pedestrian Crossing Needs Scoped. New Request. City of Meridian (#35) 23 37 Crossing Lincoln Ave and Belmont St Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. New Request. Boise State (#2) 23 37 Crossing Meridian Rd Pedestrian Crossings (Settlers Park Entrance / Needs scoped. City of Meridian (#27) Sundance Sub Micropath) 24 36 Crossing 33rd St and US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Pedestrian Crossing Needs Scoped. Garden City (#4) 25 34 Crossing Locust Grove Rd and Palermo Dr Pedestrian Crossing In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. City of Meridian (#25) 26 33 Crossing Lake Forest Dr and School Pathway Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. BSD (#44) 26 33 Crossing Vermont Ave and University Dr Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. New Request. Boise State (#4) 27 31 Crossing Seabreeze Way and Mossywood Dr Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. WASD (#19) 28 29 Crossing Desert Ave and Latigo Dr Pedestrian Crossing Scoped. Awaiting programming. Ada County (#30) 28 29 Crossing Hillsdale Elementary Pedestrian Crossings Needs scoped. New Request. City of Meridian (#6), WASD (#7 & #8) 29 28 Crossing, Traffic Ops Jefferson St and 29th St Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. New Request. BSD (#39) 29 28 Crossing Plummer Rd and Floating Feather Rd Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. City of Star (#11), Ada County (#13) 29 28 Crossing Porter St and Cambrick Dr Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. KSD (#6) 30 27 Crossing Knoll Dr, EO Ridge Dr Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. WASD (#9) 31 25 Crossing, Traffic Ops Ponderosa Elementary Pedestrian Crossings (Paint Maintenance) Needs scoped. WASD (#23)

32 24 Crossing Capulet Way and Sienna Elementary Walking Path Pedestrian Needs Scoped. City of Meridian (#8) Crossing 32 24 Crossing Warm Springs Ave and Sky Bar St Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. BSD (#35) 33 20 Crossing Washington St and 01st St Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. City of Meridian (#19) 34 19 Crossing, Traffic Ops Producer Dr and Cagney St Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. WASD (#26) 34 19 Crossing, Traffic Ops Producer Dr and Valentino St Pedestrian Crossing (Paramount Needs scoped. WASD (#27) Elementary Walk Path) 35 17 Crossing Lakebrook Ln and Colchester St Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. City of Eagle (#8) 36 13 Crossing, Traffic Ops Taconic Dr and Pioneer Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. City of Meridian (#16) Not Ranked N/A Crossing Meridian Rd and Producer Way Interim Intersection Needs scoped. Intersection project. City of Meridian (#34)

Page 22 of 85 Ranking Points Project Type Project Name Current IFYWP Programming Status Request Source Pedestrian Facilities 1 68 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Horseshoe Bend Rd, State St / Hill Rd In IFYWP. CN in 2023. City of Eagle (#2) Facility 2 67 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Linder Rd, Main St / Deer Flat Rd In IFYWP. CN in 2024. City of Meridian (#2) Facility 2 67 Pedestrian Facility, Longfellow Elementary Attendance Area Pedestrian Improvements Designed. Pending future Commissioner Request, City of Boise (#17), Crossing maintenance to complete. BSD (#2) 3 66 Pedestrian Facility, Traffic 13th St Traffic Calming (Phase 1), Fort St / Hill Rd In IFYWP. CN in 2021. City of Boise (#47/48), BSD (#4) Calming 4 63 Pedestrian Facility Star Rd, SH 44 (State St) / Boise River Needs scoped. New Request City of Star (#8) 5 60 Pedestrian Facility Lemp St, State St / 22nd St Needs scoped. BSD (#10) 5 60 Pedestrian Facility Maple Grove Rd, Ustick Rd / McMillan Rd Needs scoped. Commissioner Request 5 60 Pedestrian Facility Roosevelt St, Rose Hill St / Emerald St In IFYWP. CN in 2022. Commissioner Request, City of Boise (#13)

6 59 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Collister Dr, State St / Hill Rd Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#10) Facility 6 59 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Glenwood St, Goddard Rd / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. New Request. Boise Bike Boulevard Coalition, Garden City Facility (#57) 7 58 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Cassia St Bikeway and Pedestrian Improvements In IFYWP. CN in 2021. City of Boise (#14) Facility, Crossings 7 58 Pedestrian Facility Phillippi St, Overland Rd / Franklin Rd Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Boise (#24), BSD (#32) 8 57 Pedestrian Facility Allumbaugh St, Fairview Ave / Northview St In IFYWP. CN in 2024. City of Boise (#4), BSD (#41) 8 57 Pedestrian Facility East 03rd St, Franklin Rd / Carlton St In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. City of Meridian (#3) 8 57 Pedestrian Facility Milwaukee St, Marcum St / Ustick Rd In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. BSD (#37) 8 57 Pedestrian Facility State St, 02nd St / Stierman Way Needs scoped. New Request. City of Eagle (#2) 8 57 Pedestrian Facility University Dr, Brady St / Chrisway Dr Needs scoped. New Request. Boise State (#5) 9 56 Pedestrian Facility, Linder Ave/Avalon St, 2nd St/ Orchard Ave Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Kuna (#1) Crossing 10 55 Pedestrian Facility Maple Grove Rd, Fairview Ave / Ustick Rd Needs scoped. Commissioner Request 10 55 Pedestrian Facility Veterans Memorial Pkwy, Osage St / Adams St Needs scoped. Garden City (#32) 11 53 Pedestrian Facility Riverside Dr, Strawberry Glenn Rd / SH 44 (Glenwood St) Needs scoped. Garden City (#6) 12 51 Pedestrian Facility Avalon St, Ten Mile Rd / School Ave Needs Scoped. City of Kuna (#8) 12 51 Pedestrian Facility Avenue D, Main St / 04th St In IFYWP. CN in 2024. City of Kuna (#6) 12 51 Pedestrian Facility Five Mile Rd, Reutzel Dr / Winterhawk Dr Needs scoped. New Request. Ada County (#4) 12 51 Pedestrian Facility Taft St, Sycamore Dr / 36th St Scoped. Concept study BSD (#26) recommended. 13 50 Pedestrian Facility Benjamin Ln, Emerald St / Westpark St Needs Scoped. New Request. Ada County (#11) 13 50 Pedestrian Facility Bower St, Meridian Rd / 03rd St Needs Scoped. City of Meridian (#20) 13 50 Pedestrian Facility Clay St, 37th St / 34th St; 34th St, Chinden Blvd / Clay St (Clay, Scoped. Awaiting programming. Garden City (#4) 32nd/37th) 13 50 Pedestrian Facility Five Mile Rd, Columbia Rd / Lake Hazel Rd Lake Hazel to Trestlewood in IFYWP. Ada County (#29) CN in 2020. Remaining sidewalk gaps needs scoped. 13 50 Pedestrian Facility Pierce Park Ln, Castle Dr / Hill Rd Needs scoped. BSD (#45) 13 50 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Stoddard Rd, Victory Rd / Overland Rd In IFYWP. CN in 2025. City of Meridian (#2), WASD (#5 & #6) Facility, Crossing 14 49 Pedestrian Facility Avenue C, Main St / 04th St In IFYWP. CN in 2022. City of Kuna (#5) 14 49 Pedestrian Facility, Grand St, 15th St / Ash St Needs scoped. City of Boise (#53) Accessibility 14 49 Pedestrian Facility Irene St, 32nd St / 20th St Scoped. 32nd/28th awaits BSD (#25) programming. 28th/20th considered complete. 14 49 Pedestrian Facility Park Ln, SH 44 (State St) / Floating Feather Rd Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Eagle (#1) 14 49 Pedestrian Facility University Dr, Lincoln Ave / Broadway Ave Needs scoped. New Request. Boise State (#1) 15 48 Pedestrian Facility 37th St, Osage St / Adams St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#23) 15 48 Pedestrian Facility 42nd St, US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#33) 15 48 Pedestrian Facility Coston St, Bannock St / Franklin St In IFYWP. CN in 2024. CIty of Boise (#20) 15 48 Pedestrian Facility Sycamore Dr, Taft St / Catalpa Dr Scoped. Concept study BSD (#47) recommended. 16 46 Pathway, Crossing Amity Rd and Valley St Pedestrian Crossing Needs Scoped. New Request. Ada County (#2) 16 46 Pedestrian Facility Ave A, Main St / 04th St Needs Scoped. City of Kuna (#4) 16 46 Pedestrian Facility Garden St, Bethel St / Emerald St In IFYWP. CN in 2025. Commissioner Request, City of Boise (#43), BSD (#12) 16 46 Pedestrian Facility Linder, Ustick to Turtle Creek Needs scoped. Will require major WASD (#15) capital project to complete. 16 46 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Victory Rd, Cloverdale Rd / Five Mile Rd Scoped. Awaiting programming. Ada County (#9), City of Boise (#42) Facility 16 46 Pedestrian Facility Washington St, 07th St / Main St Needs scoped. City of Meridian (#15) 17 45 Pedestrian Facility, Prefab Bogart Ln Pedestrian Bridge #1040 Scoped. Awaiting programming. Commissioner Request Bridge 17 45 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Floating Feather Rd, Linder Rd / Park Ln Needs scoped. City of Eagle (#4), WASD (#2) Facility 17 45 Pedestrian Facility Kent Ln, Chinden Blvd / Alworth St Needs scoped. Garden City (#3) 17 45 Pedestrian Facility McMillan Rd, Ten Mile Rd / Linder Rd Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Meridian (#5) 17 45 Pedestrian Facility Wildwood St, Fairview Ave / Ustick Rd Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Boise (#58) 18 44 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Amity Rd, Cloverdale Rd / Five Mile Rd Ped/Bike Improvements Needs Scoped. New Request. Ada County (#16) Facility 18 44 Pedestrian Facility Amity Rd, Cloverdale Rd / Five Mile Rd Pedestrian Improvements Scoped. Awaiting programming. Commissioner Request

18 44 Pedestrian Facility Bogart Ln, SH 44 (State St) / Sloan St In IFYWP. CN in 2021. BSD (#27) 18 44 Pedestrian Facility East 2 1/2 St, Carlton Ave / Fairview Ave In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. City of Meridian (#7) 18 44 Pedestrian Facility Irving St, Orchard St / Roosevelt St (Need to Add to BCPS) Needs Scoped. New Request. Public request - Tellus 18 44 Pedestrian Facility Kay St, Deer Flat Rd / Boise St Needs scoped. Full sidewalk exists on City of Kuna (#12), KSD (#10) west side. East side is undeveloped.

Page 23 of 85 Ranking Points Project Type Project Name Current IFYWP Programming Status Request Source

18 44 Pedestrian Facility McMillan Rd, Locust Grove Rd / Red Horse Way Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Meridian (#21), WASD (#50) 19 43 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Amity Rd, Five Mile Rd / Maple Grove Rd Ped/Bike Improvements Needs Scoped. New Request. Ada County (#15) Facility 19 43 Pedestrian Facility Ave B, Main St / 4th St Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Kuna (#5) 19 43 Pedestrian Facility Franklin St, McKinley St / Pierce St In IFYWP. CN in 2021. BSD (#19) 19 43 Pedestrian Facility Nez Perce St, Vista Ave / Columbus St Needs scoped. City of Boise (#16) 19 43 Pedestrian Facility Phillippi St, Targee St / Overland Rd In IFYWP. CN in 2021. City of Boise (#15) 19 43 Pedestrian Facility Sunset Ave, 28th St / 20th St Needs scoped. City of Boise (#65) 20 42 Pedestrian Facility Amity Rd, Hillsdale Ave / Cloverdale Rd Pedestrian Improvements Scoped. Awaiting programming. Commissioner Request

20 42 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Arney Ln, Riverside Dr / State St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#1) Facility 20 42 Pedestrian Facility Ave C, 2nd St / Main St Needs Scoped. City of Kuna (#7) 20 42 Pedestrian Facility Christine St, Northview St / Ustick Rd In IFYWP. CN in 2023. Commissioner Request, BSD (#19) 20 42 Pedestrian Facility Cory Ln, Mitchell St / Maple Grove Rd In IFYWP. CN in 2023. BSD (#28) 20 42 Pedestrian Facility Floating Feather Rd, Brandon Rd / Hornback Ave In IFYWP. CN in 2023. Commissioner Request, City of Eagle (#5) 20 42 Pedestrian Facility Morris Hill Rd, Orchard St / Roosevelt St Needs scoped. New Request. BSD (#46) 21 41 Pedestrian Facility 39th St, US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) / Adams St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#25) 21 41 Pedestrian Facility Ave B, 2nd St / Main St Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Kuna (#6) 21 41 Pedestrian Facility Ave B, S/O Main St Needs Scoped. City of Kuna (#3) 21 41 Pedestrian Facility Bethel St, Orchard St / Roosevelt St Needs Scoped. New Request BSD (#9) 21 41 Pedestrian Facility Garden St, Franklin Rd / Bethel St In IFYWP. CN in 2022. Commissioner Request, City of Boise (#33), BSD (#12) 21 41 Pedestrian Facility Leadville Ave, Linden St / Sullivan St Needs scoped. BSD (#31) 21 41 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Liberty St Sidewalk and Bikeway, Douglas St / Denton St In IFYWP. CN in 2023. City of Boise (#27) Facility 21 41 Pedestrian Facility Locust Grove Rd, Paradise Ln / Grand Canyon Dr Needs scoped. City of Meridian (#39) 22 40 Pedestrian Facility 32nd St, Chinden Blvd / Clay St In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. Garden City (#3) 22 40 Pedestrian Facility 43rd St, US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#35) 22 40 Pedestrian Facility Clay St, 34th St / 32nd St In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. Garden City (#3) 22 40 Pedestrian Facility Five Mile Rd, Fox Ridge Dr / Trestlewood, Phase 2 (South Side) Scoped. Awaiting programming. Commissioner Request, Ada Cty (#29) 22 40 Pedestrian Facility Lake Hazel Rd, Cloverdale Rd / Five Mile Rd Scoped. Project Delayed. Commissioner Request 22 40 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Plummer Rd, State St / Floating Feather Rd Needs scoped. City of Star (#12), Ada County (#14) Facility 23 39 Pedestrian Facility Amity Rd, Eagle Rd / Hillsdale Rd Needs Scoped. New Request City of Meridian (#37) 23 39 Pedestrian Facility Broadway Ave, West 08th St / West 04th St In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. City of Boise (#4) 23 39 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Park Ln, Floating Feather Rd / Beacon Light Rd Needs scoped. City of Eagle (#5) Facility 24 38 Pedestrian Facility 40th St, Bench / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#28) 24 38 Pedestrian Facility 40th St, US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#27) 24 38 Pedestrian Facility 47th St, Fenton St / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#43) 24 38 Pedestrian Facility Arthur St, State St / Bush Ave Needs Scoped. BSD (#43) 24 38 Pedestrian Facility Garfield St, Manitou Ave / Broadway Ave Needs scoped. City of Boise (#53) 24 38 Pedestrian Facility Valley Heights Dr and Paris Lateral Canal Needs scoped. WASD (#3) 25 37 Pedestrian Facility Deer Flat Rd, Kay St / SH 69 (Meridian Rd) Needs Scoped. City of Kuna (#9), KSD (#13) 25 37 Pedestrian Facility Mitchell St (Mountain View Dr), Canyon Ridge Ln / Maple Grove Rd Needs Scoped. New Request. Public - Community Program App

25 37 Pedestrian Facility Remington St, 52nd St / Boise River Needs scoped. Garden City (#54) 26 36 Pedestrian Facility 43rd St, Ustick Rd / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#36) 26 36 Pedestrian Facility 48th St, Thurman Mill / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#47) 26 36 Pedestrian Facility 52nd St, Alworth St / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#53) 26 36 Pedestrian Facility Caswell St, Bogart Ln / Roe St Scoped. Awaiting programming. BSD (#49) 26 36 Pedestrian Facility Fenton St, 50th St / 46th St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#50) 26 36 Pedestrian Facility, Hill Rd, Castle Dr / Outlook Ave Scoped. Awaiting programming. BSD (#42) Crossing 26 36 Pedestrian Facility Manitou Ave, Howard St / Garfield St Needs scoped. Not supported during City of Boise (#52) Neighborhood Plan. 26 36 Pedestrian Facility Phillippi St, Malad St / Targee St In IFYWP. CN in 2021. City of Boise (#30) 27 35 Pedestrian Facility, Bike 35th St, Brown St / Greenbelt Scoped. Awaiting programming. Garden City (#11) Facility, Crossing 27 35 Pedestrian Facility 41st St, US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#29) 27 35 Pedestrian Facility 46th St, US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#41) 27 35 Pedestrian Facility 48th St, US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) / Creation St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#45) 27 35 Pedestrian Facility Amity Rd, Margaret Ln / Locust Grove Rd Scoped. Awaiting programming. WASD (#17) 27 35 Pedestrian Facility Division Ave, Highland St / Hale St In IFYWP. CN in 2021-2022. Commissioner Request 27 35 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Federal Way, Gowen Rd / Micron Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#49) Facility 27 35 Pedestrian Facility Field St, Creation St / Alworth St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#52) 27 35 Pedestrian Facility Holiday Dr, Fairfield Ave / Fairfield Ave Needs scoped. BSD (#36) 28 34 Pedestrian Facility 42nd St, Ustick Rd / US 20/26 (Chinden) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#34) 28 34 Pedestrian Facility 44th St, US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#37) 28 34 Pedestrian Facility 45th St, US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#39) 28 34 Pedestrian Facility Annett St, Malad St / Targee St Scoped. Awaiting programming. BSD (#33) 28 34 Pedestrian Facility Carr St, 36th St / 33rd St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#31) 28 34 Pedestrian Facility Creation St, 48th St / Adams St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#46) 28 34 Pedestrian Facility Sunset Ave, 32nd St / 28th St Needs scoped. City of Boise (#67) 29 33 Pedestrian Facility 38th St, Bush Ave / Sunset Ave In IFYWP. CN in 2022. BSD (#40) 29 33 Pedestrian Facility Clement St, Cabarton Ln / Mountain View Dr Scoped. Awaiting programming. BSD (#21) 29 33 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Columbia Rd, Cloverdale Rd / Five Mile Rd Needs Scoped. New Request Ada County (#25) Facility

Page 24 of 85 Ranking Points Project Type Project Name Current IFYWP Programming Status Request Source

29 33 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Floating Feather Rd, Munger Rd / Star Rd Interim facility in IFYWP. CN in 2024. City of Star (#9) Facility 29 33 Pedestrian Facility Mitchell St, Amity Rd / Victory Rd Needs scoped. City of Boise (#45), Ada Cty (#10), BSD (#30)

29 33 Pedestrian Facility Reutzel Dr, Riva Ridge Way / Summerset Way Needs scoped. City of Boise (#64) 30 32 Pedestrian Facility De Meyer St, Cloverdale Rd / Lena Ave Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Boise (#50) 31 31 Pedestrian Facility 41st St, Bench / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#30) 31 31 Pedestrian Facility Reed St, 40th St / Adams St Needs scoped. Garden City (#24) 32 30 Pedestrian Facility Bienapfl Dr, Mitchell St / Maple Grove Rd Needs Scoped. New Request Ada County (#20) 32 30 Pedestrian Facility Boise Hills Dr, 07th St / Mesa Grande Ln Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#19) 32 30 Pedestrian Facility Desert Ave, Latigo Dr / Round Up St In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. BSD (#21) 32 30 Pedestrian Facility Maple Grove Rd, S/O Lake Hazel Rd Needs scoped. Ada County (#22) 33 29 Pedestrian Facility 34th St, Brown St / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#22) 33 29 Pedestrian Facility 44th St, Ustick Rd / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#38) 33 29 Pedestrian Facility Bradley St, 50th St / 49th St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#51) 34 28 Pedestrian Facility, Bike 33rd St, Brown St / Boise River Needs Scoped. Garden City (#8) Facility 34 28 Pedestrian Facility 39th St, Bench / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#26) 34 28 Pedestrian Facility 45th St, Stockton St / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#40) 34 28 Pedestrian Facility 47th St, Goodall St / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#44) 34 28 Pedestrian Facility 53rd St, Bench / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#55) 34 28 Pedestrian Facility Cartwright Rd, Bogus Basin Rd / Bacalar St Needs Scoped. BSD (#48) 34 28 Pedestrian Facility Cory Ln-Bird St-Holbrook Ave, E/O Maple Grove Rd Needs scoped. New Request. Commissioner Request, Public request - Tellus 34 28 Pedestrian Facility Ellen St, Bench / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#49) 34 28 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Pollard Ln, Floating Feather Rd / Star Middle School In IFYWP. CN in 2023. Commissioner Request, City of Star (#1) Facility 34 28 Pedestrian Facility Floating Feather Rd, Hornback Rd / Pollard Ln In IFYWP. CN in 2023. Part of Pollard City of Star (#7) project. 35 27 Pedestrian Facility Linda Vista Ln, Canterbury Dr / Ustick Rd In IFYWP. CN in 2025. City of Boise (#23) 35 27 Pedestrian Facility Peconic Dr, Tioga Way / Canonero St Needs scoped. New Request. Ada County (#31) 36 26 Pedestrian Facility 32nd St, Brown St / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#20) 36 26 Pedestrian Facility, Bike Munger Rd, Floating Feather Rd / New Hope Rd Bikeway Needs scoped. New Request. Ada County (#28), City of Star (#15) Facility 36 26 Pedestrian Facility Murray St, Bench / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs scoped. Garden City (#48) 36 26 Pedestrian Facility Victory Rd, Glacier Bay Way / Mesa Way Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Meridian (#24) 37 25 Pedestrian Facility Coffey St, Mountain View Dr / US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City 38 22 Pedestrian Facility Lanewood Rd, Venetian Dr / Fountainhead Way Needs scoped. Ada County (#7) 39 21 Pedestrian Facility Eisenman Rd, Blue Valley Ln / Blue Sage Ln Needs Scoped. BSD (#24) 39 21 Pedestrian Facility Kentucky Ridge Way, Riodosa Dr / Victory Rd Needs scoped. City of Meridian (#40) 40 20 Pedestrian Facility Roe St, State St / Caswell St Scoped. Awaiting programming. BSD (#15) 41 19 Pedestrian Facility Warm Springs Ave, Starview Dr / Parsnip Peak Dr Needs Scoped. New Request. Public request- Community Program App 42 18 Pedestrian Facility Taormina Dr at Maesaia Way Needs scoped. City of Meridian (#30) Not Ranked N/A Pedestrian Facility Parkcenter Blvd, W Parkcenter Bridge / E Parkcenter Bridge Needs Concept. New Request. Commissioner Request Enhancement, Crossings Not Ranked N/A Pedestrian Facility Locust Grove Rd, Grand Canyon Dr / Leighfield Dr Needs scoped. To be constructed WASD (#18) with Locust Grove Rd, Ustick Rd / McMillan Rd Project. Not Ranked N/A Pedestrian Facility Nez Perce St and UPRR Pedestrian Crossing New Request. Not an ACHD facility. Commissioner Request

Not Ranked N/A Pedestrian Facility Targee St and UPRR Pedestrian Crossing New Request. Not an ACHD facility. Commissioner Request

Not Ranked N/A Pedestrian Facility US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd), E/O Ten Mile Rd Needs Scoped. ITD Roadway. Staff City of Meridian (#28) will share with ITD. Not Ranked N/A Pedestrian Facility, Bike Floating Feather Rd, Star Rd / Pollard Ln Needs scoped. New Request. City of Star (#10) Facility Not Ranked N/A Pedestrian Facility Garden City Greenbelt Interface Treatments Needs scoped. Not an ACHD facility. Garden City (#18)

Not Ranked N/A Pedestrian Facility Locust Grove Rd, Amity Rd / Wrightwood Dr Needs scoped. To be constructed WASD (#42) with Amity and Locust Grove Intersection. Not Ranked N/A Pathway Liberty Park Neighborhood Pathway Connections, Phase 2 Scoped. Awaiting programming. City of Boise (#33)

Page 25 of 85 Ranking Points Project Type Project Name Current IFYWP Programming Status Request Source Bike Facilities 1 80 Bike Facility Nez Perce St Bikeway, Orchard St / Columbus St In IFYWP. CN in 2023. Commissioner Request, City of Boise (#2) 2 75 Bike Facility Bannock St Bikeway (West Phase), Whitewater Park Blvd / Ave C Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#36), Boise Bike Boulevard Coalition 3 74 Bike Facility Bergeson St Bikeway, Federal Way / Holcomb Rd Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#57) 3 74 Bike Facility, Crossing Bannock St Maintenance and Bikeway, Broadway Ave / Greenbelt - In IFYWP. CN in 2024. City of Boise (#8 & #60), Boise Bike Bikeway Boulevard Coalition 4 73 Bike Facility Northwest Boise Bikeway, Horseshoe Bend Rd / 36th St In IFYWP. CN in 2023. City of Boise (#10) 5 72 Bike Facility Chinden-McMillen Bikeway (Phase 1), Bennington Way / Mitchell St Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#46)

5 72 Bike Facility Franklin St Bikeway, Resseguie St / Reserve St Needs scoped. City of Boise (#28), Boise Bike Boulevard Coalition 6 71 Bike Facility, Crossing Bikeway Signage (2022) In IFYWP. CN in 2022. ACHD Staff 6 71 Bike Facility Columbia Village Bikeway, Hwy 21 / Boise Ave In IFYWP. CN in 2024. City of Boise (#5) 7 70 Bike Facility 08th St Bike Facility, Bannock St / Union St Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#21) 7 70 Bike Facility Manitou Ave Bikeway, Leadville Ave / University Dr Needs scoped. City of Boise looking City of Boise (#27) to fund crossing in FY2020. 8 69 Bike Facility 43rd St Bikeway Connection, Ustick Rd / Greenbelt Needs Scoped. Garden City (#5) 8 69 Bike Facility, Crossing Hollandale-Targee Bikeway, Locust Grove Rd / Targee St In IFYWP. CN in 2024. City of Boise (#26) 8 69 Bike Facility Poplar St Bikeway, Milwaukee St / Mountain View Dr Needs scoped. City of Boise (#31) 8 69 Bike Facility Ustick-Northview Bikeway Connection, Shamrock Ave / Milwaukee Needs scoped. City of Boise (#18) St 9 68 Bike Facility Garden St Bikeway, Albion St / Greenbelt In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. Commissioner Request, City of Boise (#33), BSD (#12) 10 67 Bike Facility 11th St Maintenance and Bikeway, State St / Heron St - Bikeway In IFYWP. CN in 2022. City of Boise (#6 & #7) 10 67 Bike Facility Columbus St Bikeway, Victory Rd / Kootenai St In IFYWP. CN in 2023. Commissioner Request, City of Boise (#29)

11 66 Bike Facility Linden St Bike Facility (Level 2), Broadway Ave / Boise Ave Completed. City of Boise (#39) 11 66 Bike Facility Orchard St, Irving St / Greenbelt Bikeway (Bikeway Signage) In IFYWP. To be CN in 2022. ACHD Staff, Boise Bike Boulevard Coalition

11 66 Bike Facility Pleasanton Ave Bikeway, Greenbelt / 23rd St In IFYWP. CN in 2024. City of Boise (#63) 12 64 Bike Facility Fairview Ave Hill, Orchard St / Garden St Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#41) 12 64 Bike Facility School Ave Bikeway, King Rd / Deer Flat Rd In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. ACHD Staff 13 62 Bike Facility, Pedestrian Amity Rd Bikeway, Federal Way / Surprise Way Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#51) Facility, Crossing 14 61 Bike Facility Locust Grove Rd Bike Facility (Level 2), US 20/20 (Chinden Blvd) / Needs scoped. City of Eagle (#7) Chipper Dr 15 59 Bike Facility Cloverdale-Five Mile Bikeway, Columbia Rd / Camas St Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#59), Ada County (#8) 16 55 Bike Facility La Grange St / Desert St Bikeway Needs scoped. Ada County (#32) 17 54 Bike Facility, Crossing Linder-Meridian Bikeway, Pine Ave / Temple Dr In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. N/A 17 54 Bike Facility Sunset Ave, 36th St / Hill Rd - Bikeway Needs scoped. City of Boise (#62) 18 50 Bike Facility New Hope Rd, Can Ada Rd / Wing Rd Bikeway Needs scoped. City of Star (#17) 18 50 Bike Facility Pollard Ln, Floating Feather Rd / Hwy 16 Bikeway Needs scoped. City of Star (#14) 19 49 Bike Facility Ellis-Resseguie Bikeway, 28th St / 8th St Needs Scoped. ACHD Staff, Boise Bike Boulevard Coalition

19 49 Bike Facility Linder Rd, Deer Flat Rd / Lake Hazel Rd Needs scoped. New Request. City of Kuna (#17) 20 48 Bike Facility Five Mile Rd Bike Facility (Level 3), K Bar T Dr / Overland Needs scoped. City of Boise (#40) 21 47 Bike Facility, Traffic Law Ave, Bergeson / Boise Ave Pedestrian Improvements Needs Scoped. New Request. Commissioner Request Calming 22 42 Bike Facility Beacon Light Rd, Can Ada Rd / Hwy 16 Bikeway Needs Scoped. City of Star (#16) 23 41 Bike Facility 11th St Bikeway, S/O State St ACHD coordinating with City of Boise Boise Bike Boulevard Coalition on concept. 23 41 Bike Facility Victory Rd Bikeway, Maple Grove Rd / Cole Rd Needs scoped. New Request. Ada County (#18) 24 39 Bike Facility Osage St Bike Facility, 46th St / 32nd St Needs Scoped. Not identified on Boise Bike Boulevard Coalition Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan.

24 39 Bike Facility Victory Rd Bikeway, Five Mile Rd / Maple Grove Rd Needs scoped. New Request. Ada County (#17) 25 38 Bike Facility Cloverdale Rd Bike Facility (Level 3), Columbia Rd / Lake Hazel Rd Needs Scoped. New Request. Ada County (#24) 26 37 Bike Facility Floating Feather Rd Bikeway, Can Ada Rd / SH 16 Needs scoped. Future road extension. City of Star (#13)

26 37 Bike Facility Hidden Valley-Bigwood Bikeway, Cloverdale Rd / Sea Breeze Way Needs scoped. New Request. Ada County (#23) 27 28 Bike Facility Cole Rd, Lake Hazel Rd / Desert St Needs Scoped. New Request. Ada County (#26) 28 26 Bike Facility Victory Bikeway, Cole Rd / Orchard St Bikeway Needs scoped. New Request. Ada County (#19) Not Ranked N/A Bike Facility Leadville Ave Bikeway, Federal Way / Linden St City of Boise led effort. Boise Bike Boulevard Coalition Economic Development Not Ranked N/A Economic Development 05th St and 06th St, Myrtle St / Fort St, Two-Way Conversion In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. City of Boise (#2) Not Ranked N/A Economic Development 05th St and Fort St and Hays St In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. City of Boise (#2) Not Ranked N/A Economic Development Aikens St, Eagle Rd / 02nd St In IFYWP. CN in 2023-2024. City of Eagle (#1) Not Ranked N/A Economic Development Broadway Ave/Avenue B and Idaho St/Warm Springs Ave In IFYWP. CN Year TBD. City of Boise (#16) Not Ranked N/A Economic Development Kuna Main St Revitalization, Avenue A / Avenue C - Maintenance In IFYWP. CN in 2020. City of Kuna (#1)

Not Ranked N/A Economic Development Adams St, 37th St / 36th St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#16) Not Ranked N/A Economic Development East 03rd St, Carlton St / Fairview Ave (Phase 2) Needs Scoped. City of Meridian (#14) Miscellaneous Not Ranked N/A Accessibility Miller St, Grand Ave / 09th St Needs scoped. City of Boise (#55) Not Ranked N/A Accessibility Ash St, River St / Grand Ave Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#56) Not Ranked N/A Accessibility Hummel Dr and Ashland Dr Accessibility Improvements Needs scoped. BSD (#18) Not Ranked N/A Accessibility Crestline Dr, Village Ln / Summit Ridge Rd Needs Scoped. BSD (#34) Not Ranked N/A Bridge Munger Rd Bridge #1462, 550' S/O New Hope Rd In IFYWP (Bridge Program). CN Year Commissioner Request, City of Star (#3) 2024.

Page 26 of 85 Ranking Points Project Type Project Name Current IFYWP Programming Status Request Source Traffic Not Ranked N/A Traffic Calming, Crossing Bergeson St, Federal Way / Holcomb Rd Needs Concept. New Request. Commissioner Request Not Ranked N/A Traffic Safety, Modify Orchard St and Clark St In IFYWP. CN in 2024. Intersection Commissioner Request Project, Crossing, Project. Accessibility Not Ranked N/A School Zone Kuna Middle School Zone, Ten Mile Ave and Boise St In IFYWP. CN in 2022. City of Kuna (#12), KSD (#2) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Calming Kootenai St Traffic Calming, Orchard St / Vista Ave In IFYWP. CN in 2023-2024. City of Boise (#3), BSD (#38) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Calming 02nd St, Ave C / Linder Ave Needs Scoped. New Request. City of Kuna (#9) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Control 08th St and River St Needs Scoped. Will share request Boise Bike Boulevard Coalition with Traffic for review. New request.

Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops 50th St to US 20/26 (Chinden Blvd) Needs Scoped. Garden City (#2) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Allworth St / Adams St Needs Scoped. Garden City (#9) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Andrus Elementary 'No Parking' Signage, Park Meadow Way Needs scoped. WASD (#33/34) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Andrus Elementary Pedestrian Crossing Paint Maintenance (Dahlia Needs Scoped. WASD (#29) Dr and Park Meadow Way) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Andrus Elementary Pedestrian Crossing Paint Maintenance Needs scoped. WASD (#30) (Wellspring Way and Dahlia Dr) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Andrus Elementary Pedestrian Crossing Paint Maintenance Needs scoped. WASD (#31) (Wellspring Way and Zinger Lateral Pathway) Not Ranked N/A School Zone Andrus Elementary School Zone Signage, Park Meadow Way Needs Scoped. WASD (#28) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Andrus Elementary Wayfinding Signage (Chinden Blvd and Park Needs Scoped. WASD (#44) Meadow Way) Not Ranked N/A School Zone Bown Way and Riverwalk Dr School Zone Needs Scoped. BSD (#22) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Braddock Dr and Cloverdale Rd Needs Scoped. WASD (#36) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Calming Clubview Dr and Boise Hills Park Needs Scoped. City of Boise (#35) Not Ranked N/A Signal Federal Way and Targee St Will share request with Traffic for Commissioner Request review. New request. Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Fort St and 8th St Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. City of Boise (#66) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Calming Harrison Blvd Traffic Calming, Resseguie St / Hill Rd Needs Scoped. Does not meet policy. Commissioner Request, North End Neighborhood Association (NENA) Not Ranked N/A School Zone, Traffic La Grange St, Cloverdale Rd / Valley St Traffic Calming Needs scoped. WASD (#14) Calming Not Ranked N/A Traffic Calming Lake Hazel Rd and Seabreeze Way Needs Scoped. New Request. Public request - Tellus Not Ranked N/A School Zone McMillan Elementary School Zone Needs scoped. WASD (#48) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Musket Dr and Frontier Elementary Crossing Pedestrian Crossing Needs scoped. WASD (#39) Not Ranked N/A School Zone Naomi Ave, Ustick / Ponderosa Elementary (School Zone Signage) Needs scoped. WASD (#24)

Not Ranked N/A Traffic Overland Rd and Vista Ave Intersection Maintenance and Safety Scoped. Concept study BSD(#16) Improvement recommended. Not Ranked N/A School Zone Park Creek Dr and Deer Creek Ln, Pedestrian Enhancements Needs scoped. WASD (#12) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Saguaro Dr, Linder Rd / Senora Way Signage Needs scoped. WASD (#13) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops University Dr Speed Readers Needs scoped. New Request. Boise State (#7) Not Ranked N/A Traffic Ops Warm Springs Ave Speed Readers Needs scoped. New Request. City of Boise (#70)

Page 27 of 85 Commission Meeting

Minutes and Minute Entries Wednesday, May 13, 2020 Michael L. Brokaw Auditorium

Minutes and Minute Entries of the Commission Meeting of the Ada County Highway District held Wednesday, May 13, 2020 in the offices of the Ada County Highway District, 3775 Adams Street, Garden City, Idaho.

PRE-COMMISSION AGENDA – 11:45 A.M. Commission present: none Commission via teleconference: Hansen, Baker, Goldthorpe and May Staff present: Director Wong, Price, Stanton, Cooney, Du Bois, Spears and Spencer Staff via teleconference: Daigle, Wallace, Pestka, Berenger, G.Inselman, Bevins, Skiles and Carnegie Public via teleconference: 3

The Commission reviewed the Agenda. No official action was taken.

COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA – 12:00 P.M. Commission Present: Rebecca Arnold Commission via teleconference: Sara Baker, Jim Hansen, Kent Goldthorpe and Mary May Staff Present: Director Bruce Wong, Steve Price, Michael Stanton, Ken Cooney, Scott Spears, Nicole Du Bois and Stacey Spencer. Staff via teleconference: Paul Daigle, Dave Wallace, Gary Inselman, Jennifer Berenger, Sherwin Pestka, Dyan Bevins, Lloyd Carnegie and Mitch Skiles Public via teleconference: 7

Commissioner May called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone.

The Commission and Audience recited the pledge of allegiance.

Commissioner May recognized Wendi Tillman for her dedication to the TMC and to Don Roell and Pedro Frias for World Facilities Management Day.

ADOPT AGENDA - REQUEST FOR ADOPTION A change to the originally published meeting agenda occurred less than forty eight (48) hours prior to the start of the meeting. The Commission is required to make a motion to approve the posted Amended Agenda. The Amended Agenda is effective upon the passage of the motion.

ACTION TAKEN: Rebecca Arnold made a motion to adopt the agenda. Sara Baker seconded.

Motion went to vote and carried unanimously.

Page 1 of 5

Page 28 of 85 Commission Meeting May 13, 2020

CONSENT AGENDA - ACTION ITEMS 1. Minutes & Minute Entries Request for Approval

2. First Amendment and Addendum to the Master License Agreement Between Ada County Highway District and Verizon Wireless for the use of Licensor Property in Connection with the Operation of a Wireless Network Request for Approval

3. Termination and Release of Impact Fee Deferral Agreement: Ten Mile Crossing Medical Office Building 1 Request for Approval

4. ACHD Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Advisory Committee – Appointment of New Member Request for Approval

ACTION TAKEN: Sara Baker made a motion to Approve the Consent Agenda Rebecca Arnold seconded.

Motion went to vote and carried unanimously.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS - ACTION ITEMS 1. None.

DISCUSSION ITEMS Marissa Keith, 3279 Cloverdale, Boise, Idaho, testified.

Bruce Wong, ACHD Director, provided comment.

Commissioner May provided comment.

Commissioner Goldthorpe provided comment.

Jared Ostyn, 4211 Fairmont, Boise, Idaho, testified.

Eric Willadsen, 4906 W Wymosa, Boise, Idaho, testified.

Lisa Hecht, 4920 E Sagewood, Boise, Idaho, testified.

Commissioner Hansen provided comment.

Commissioner Arnold asked a question of staff. Director Wong responded.

Commissioner Arnold asked a question of Director Wong. Director Wong responded.

Page 2 of 5

Page 29 of 85 Commission Meeting May 13, 2020

Commissioner May asked for any further Public Comments, seeing none, Commissioner May adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m.

PublicTestimony051320

Stacey L. Spencer, Secretary Mary May, President

Page 3 of 5

Page 30 of 85 Subject: Opening Streets to Cyclists for Our Safety and Health

Category: Signage

Point of Reference: Addendum to Testimony to Commission in 05-13-20 Me

Issue: Dear ACHD Commissioners,

I'd like to add some references to my comments to the Commision today, which will also lend some evidence to health-based decisions the Commissioners may make.

First, a Harvard study shows that a small increase in PM2.5 (1 microgram/cu meter) correlates with an 8 percent increase in COVID-19 mortality. Since fuel combustion from vehicle traffic emits 85% of airborne particle pollution, this is a significant contributor in our region. We can therefore improve the health of our Ada County communities in two ways: lowering vehicle traffic emissions, and reducing the spread of COVID-19. Here's the link describing the study: https://blog.ucsusa.org/cecilia-moura/numbers-that- take-your-breath-away-covid-19-air-pollution-and-equity . ACHD engineers, with DEQ, could directly calculate how increased cycling and reduced traffic will reduce our C-19 mortality rate (as well as other health impacts) and create public benefit in lower mortality and health costs.

We're already seeing reduced traffic, some of which we've discovered could be handled without driving. We're also seeing many more people crowding the bicycle paths, often not wearing masks. Clearly, it's good that citizens are maintaining their physical and mental health through cycling, walking and using our beautiful bikeways. However, without distancing, we could be spreading COVID-19. Since the roads are experiencing less traffic, now is a time to look at allocating some traffic lanes to cyclists and others on-wheels or on-foot, to allow us to keep that safe distance.

Here's a modest suggestion for accomplishing that. Open up lanes on roads parallel to the Greenbelt that have excess capacity (Parkcenter, River, Adams), as well as the low-stress bike network, but with added linkages, so it gets people to destinations like grocery stores, workplaces and parks. This could be done as experiments from which we/ACHD could collect data, learn, improve, and then replicate in other areas. Automated collection of cyclist numbers could provide the data to inform this valuable work.

One other suggestion: automate the crosswalk lights so they detect cyclist and pedestrians.

Thank you for your service. I will be happy to provide additional resources on the Harvard study, if requested.

Sincerely,

Lisa Hecht 4920 E. Sagewood Drive Boise, ID. 83716 208.841.0058 (mobile)

Page 4 of 5

Page 31 of 85 208.331.2159 (office) ACHD and Commission,

With traffic reduced to levels not seen in years, it's time for all of you to do some soul searching, what type of agency do you want to be? Who do you want to serve?

Say that the traffic levels downtown for example, were at or near capacity prior to COVID-19. With a large number of office workers, like myself, not returning to downtown in the near future, even as lockdown restrictions loosen, those same streets are now under capacity and underutilized.

Along with this influx of underutilized space, bike sales nationally and in many other countries are at record highs. Riding on our streets and greenbelt confirm there's desire by more people for more space. How are we as a community planning to serve this demand, both now and through the ebbs and flows of COVID in our community in the future?

In addition to fewer cars on the road, and increased bike sales, we are now at a crucial point for business members of our community. Some restaurants don't have enough space to make ends meet with reduced seating capacity, and some businesses are afraid foot traffic will be reduced by fears of difficulty social distancing downtown. In other cities repurposing of city streets is beginning to play a key role in their fight against COVID and the protection of their local business community.

All of these things put ACHD in possession of a prized and now underleveraged asset. How you choose to use this resource in this time will reflect heavily on who and what this agency values.

The stakes for experimentation are lower than ever for traffic flow, and the need in the community has never been greater. I recommend ACHD work with its cities, to find connected networks of underutilized roadspace to repurpose toward our businesses, our safety, and our wellbeing.

Thanks for your time and efforts, -Jared Ostyn 4211 W Fairmont St Boise, Idaho 83706

Page 5 of 5

Page 32 of 85

Mary May, President Kent Goldthorpe, Vice President Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner Sara M. Baker, Commissioner Jim D. Hansen, Commissioner

May 13, 2020 Programming Expenditures – 2020-2021 Budget Construction $923,000 2020 TO: ACHD Commissioners, ACHD Director, Construction $51,000 2021 ACHD Deputy Directors Construction Eng. $19,000 2020

FROM: Jason Tugby Project Manager

SUBJECT: 2020 SW Ada Pedestrian crossings ACHD Project No 320093.0CD, 318032, 819010, 820091.0CD, 819032, 820014 Bid Opening Date: May 13, 2020 Consent Agenda Item: May 27, 2020 Commission Meeting

Executive Summary A single bid to construct the SW Ada Pedestrian Crossings was opened and read during an online video meeting at 3:00 pm, May 13,2020. The sole low cost, responsive bid was submitted by Diamond Contractors in the amount of $936,510. Staff recommends accepting the bid and awarding the contract to the low-cost responsive bidder.

Facts & Findings The construction contract includes PHB Crossing at Deer Flat Rd and School Ave, Five Mile Rd and Seneca Dr, Victory Rd and Standing Timber Ave, Z Crossing with PHB at Cherry Ln and Meridian Library, Horseshoe Bend Rd and Shadow view St, and completing the sidewalk with pathways on Deer Flat from School Ave to Deerhorn Ave. Five Mile Rd and Seneca Dr and Deer Flat Rd, School Ave/Deerhorn Ave are Commission Directed projects.

The bid results are presented below:

` Bidder Bid Amount 1 Diamond Contractors $936,510

Engineer’s Estimate $947,691

______Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208 387 6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achdidaho.org

Page 33 of 85 The bid analysis indicates the low cost, responsive bid for the project came in 1% below the Engineer’s Estimate. There was only responsive bidder for the listed projects. The low-cost responsive bid for the project came in 4% below the combined FY20-FY21 Budgets.

Fiscal Implications There is $923,000 in the FY20 budget and $51,000 in the FY21 budget for construction. Staff will request 2nd Budget Adjustment decrease of $36,000 for FY20 and include $97,000 in the draft FY21 budget. This will allow a 5% contingency on the construction contract and a total construction budget of $984,000.

Policy Implications These projects were approved as part of the FY20 Budget and the 2020-2024 Integrated Five Year Work Plan, adopted by the Commission on September 25, 2019. On February 5, 2019 the Commission approved the Commission Directed Projects through the approval of the 1st Budget Adjustments.

Schedule Implications Substantial completion of the projects is scheduled for November 30, 2020 based on a notice to proceed date of June 24, 2020.

Alternatives 1. Accept the bid and award the contract to Diamond Contractors. 2. Reject the bid.

Recommendation Accept the bid and award the contract to Diamond Contractors.

cc: Dyan Bevins P.E. Ricardo Calderon Project File Justin Bledsoe Breann Shearer

Page 34 of 85 Mary May, President Kent Goldthorpe, Vice-President Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner Sara M. Baker, Commissioner Jim D. Hansen, Commissioner

Planning Review

STAFF REPORT

TO: ACHD Board of Commissioners FROM: Mindy Wallace, AICP - Planning Supervisor - [email protected] SUBJECT: Crystal Springs Apartments - Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) MEETING: Commission Meeting - 27 May 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application for a design and zoning review to allow for the development of the first phase of a multi-phased multi-family housing project. The first phase includes 96 units; and future phases will have a total of 100 additional units. The review application is required as part of the development agreement between the applicant and the City of Star and includes a review of the following:

• Building design and location; • Parking; • Landscaping; • Open space; and • Lighting.

The applicant’s proposal is consistent with zoning of the parcel and the City of Star’s future land use map. For this application ACHD is a recommending body to the City of Star. This item is on the regular agenda to allow testimony from neighboring property owners and the staff recommendation to limit development in this area to 125 multi-family units. The applicant and staff are in agreement with the findings and recommendations of the staff report.

Maximum Traffic on One Access Policy: The site proposed to be access by Calhoun Place and Wildbranch Street east of Moyle Avenue, both roadways area classified as local streets and were constructed to provide local access to parcels impacted by the SH-16 extension project. ACHD policy allows up to 1,000 trips per day on local streets with only one access, which applies to both roadways. The traffic impact study addressed this policy and it’s impacts on the proposed development and area roadways and suggests that ACHD could approve a higher trip threshold on these roadways, reclassify the

Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208 387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achdidaho.org

Page 35 of 85 roadways to collectors to allow a higher trip threshold, or limit the number of units that could be developed to stay within ACHD policy thresholds. Staff does not recommend reclassifying the roadways to allow additional capacity (up to 3,000 trips) or granting a modification of policy to allow additional trips as part of this or any future application in this area. Staff recommends that this development be limited to 125 total multi-family units, the 96 proposed as part of this application plus an additional 29 multi-family units only. This will ensure that Wildbranch Street east of Moyle Avenue and that Calhoun Place do not exceed 1,000 trips per day on a local street. This will also use up all of the available capacity on these roadways limiting the potential for any future development in this area. Neighborhood Concerns: Neighbors in the area expressed concern regarding the increase in traffic that this development may generate and how the additional traffic may impact existing local streets. Specific to this application neighbors in the area have expressed concerns regarding the potential for cut- through traffic between the proposed development and Heron River via Wildbranch Drive, an existing local roadway with front-on housing that extends east/west between Calhoun Place and Plummer Way, as the SH-44/Plummer Way intersection is anticipated to be signalized this summer.

Staff does not recommend any traffic calming on Wildbranch Drive between Rivermist Avenue and Plummer Way as part of the current application, as this segment of Wildbranch Drive is anticipated to have an average daily traffic count of less than ACHD’s acceptable level of service threshold and the street already contains some passive design elements such as curvature of the roadway. ACHD will monitor traffic conditions on Wildbranch Drive between Rivermist Avenue and Plummer Way as the area to the east develops.

Applicant’s Development Agreement with the City of Star: As part of the annexation and zoning of this site into the City of Star, the applicant entered into a development agreement with the City; Ordinance 285. ACHD was not party to this agreement and was not involved in the drafting of the ordinance. However, the agreement includes the following condition:

“M. Coordination with Heron River Homeowners’ Association (HRHA): Owner shall notify and invite HRHA to participate in any planning sessions with ITD or the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) to discuss traffic calming solutions on Wildbranch that would reduce or eliminate cut-through traffic into Heron River subdivision. Owner shall install, such traffic calming measures as are allowed or required by ACHD or ITD at Owner’s expense prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.”

The ACHD Commission meeting is not intended to and should not be used to meet this condition. This is a regularly scheduled Commission meeting to allow testimony from neighboring property owners and to set maximum traffic thresholds for local streets.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the staff report, as written.

ATTACHMENT(S): Heron River HOA-ACHD STAR20-004

Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208 387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achdidaho.org

Page 36 of 85 STAR20-0004 Crystal Springs Apts Final Draft

Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208 387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achdidaho.org

Page 37 of 85 Ada County Highway District 3775 N Adams Street Garden City, ID 83714

May, 11 2020

RE: May 20, 2020 ACHD Hearing on Crystal Springs Apartments Application/STAR20-004 / ZC20-09.

As the HOA president for Heron River subdivision my comments are solely for the benefit of the entire HOA and approved by our current Board.

Our first request is this meeting should be postponed until after the Covid-19 limitations on large gatherings has passed.  The HOA was notified of the meeting with a window of less than a week to have homeowners email their comments and concerns to ACHD with a cutoff of May 11th at noon.  For those who have no training, or knowledge in regards to online meeting access, the HOA cannot provide a general community setting for HOA/interested group gathering and interaction with the presentation.

The following are questions that the Heron River HOA Board has assembled based on limited conversations with concerned HOA residents surrounding the e September 2019 ACHD survey. 1. What are the traffic implications of the Ridley’s market which is currently under construction? 2. Will the Crystal Springs and other proposed developments to the east of Heron River use W. Wildbranch Dr. – West as the logical choice to access Ridleys? 3. Would a study assess the impacts of vehicles moving south on Plummer and then using W. Wildbranch to Moyle as an alternate exit route? 4. Did the 2019 Assessment include analysis of vehicle trips from the Crystal Springs development and potential vehicle trips to the new retail center? 5. Did the 2019 Assessment include analysis of the vehicle flow with the traffic mitigation proposal for Moyle St. and State 44? 6. How will ACHD address the multiple development proposals currently before the City of Star for additional housing units and commercial development in the area east of Heron River? a. Will those impacts be addressed individually or cumulatively, and if so, what is the amount of vehicle traffic that would require an assessment of putting a signal at Moyle? 7. Would there ever be a traffic mitigation scenario that would allow W Wildbranch Dr – West to be a one-way eastern outlet to Moyle? 8. What conditions would need to be met to have a vehicle sensing signal at Moyle and State 44 to allow for left hand (westbound) turns?

We would hope that ACHD would please consider the residents of Heron River who bike, jog, walk their dogs and watch their children play on and near the streets within Heron River to ensure a safe pedestrian/vehicle interaction within the City of Star’s residential community.

Thank-you, Stacey Camara-President - 583 S Barkvine, Star, ID 83669 The Board of Directors Heron River Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

Page 38 of 85 From: Jim Whitman Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:24 AM To: Mindy Wallace Cc: Jim Whitman Subject: May 20, 2020 ACHD Hearing on Crystal Springs Apartments Application Importance: High

[THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED EXTERNALLY. PLEASE USE CAUTION WHEN OPENING ATTACHMENTS OR LINKS INSIDE THIS EMAIL.] May 10, 2020 Ada County Highway District 3775 N. Adams Street Garden City, ID 83714

RE: May 20, 2020 ACHD Hearing on Crystal Springs Apartments Application / STAR20-004 / ZC30-09

Regarding the following statement in the Executive Summary: “Access to the site will include two access driveways to the cul-de-sac terminus of the Calhoun Place. The primary access will be on the east side of the cul-de-sac and a joint emergency access/trailhead access will be at the existing property access on the south end of the cul-de-sac. Calhoun Place connects to Wildbranch Street, which provides access to SH-44 via Moyle Avenue and Plummer Way.” Calhoun Place does connect to Wildbranch Street. However Wildbranch Street does not connect to Plummer Way. It connects to S Rivermist Dr and W Wildbranch Dr which are not capable of supporting the Volume of traffic you are suggesting. W. Wildbranch Dr is a local street with a paved width of 32 feet. It is not an arterial or collector street. Any increase in traffic will drastically impact the health, safety of Heron River residents.

It appears that your study is also outdated in that it does not include the traffic impact that the new Ridley’s store currently under construction along Highway 44 between Senecca Springs and Plummer will cause when it opens in a few months.

The City of Star approved the Crystal Springs project in contravention of its own Comprehensive Plan which provides in part, at Chapter 8, Section 8.2.3 that high density residential “… should not be allowed unless adequate ingress/egress to major transportation corridors is assured.” They also tabled any public discussion at our weekly City Council meetings for the dates we received the “required” notifications of a project withing 350 feet of our property. As noted In section 4 Reclassification of Roadways Calhoun Place and Wildbranch Drive (east of Moyle Avenue) section a. Staff Comments/Recommendations: … "the City of Star requested that Wildbranch Street east of Moyle Avenue be reclassified from a local street to a collector roadway … Staff is not supportive and does not recommend the reclassification of Wildbranch Street … Please hold firm on your recommendation.

Page 39 of 85 As noted by the numbers in your report, this will have a major impact on traffic along SH-44 and the recommendation has been made to reduce the final number of multi-family units to 125 from the proposed 196. Please stand by your recommendation.

There is no mention of impacts on our air quality in the report. However with the number of vehicles added, there will be an impact. Especially to the surrounding “residential” neighbors.

James & Rosalyn Whitman 9282 W Deerfawn Dr. Star, ID 83669

From: GARY SMITH Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:26 AM To: Mindy Wallace Cc: GARY SMITH Subject: FW: Request to Cancel the May 20th meeting

[THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED EXTERNALLY. PLEASE USE CAUTION WHEN OPENING ATTACHMENTS OR LINKS INSIDE THIS EMAIL.] Ada County High Department:

Please add my comments to the proposed comments reference the proposed May 20th Meeting on Crystal Springs Project in Star, Idaho.

Gary D. Smith, Founder

Over 3,000 Followers and Growing

Star Community Updates

208-850-6679 http://www.facebook.com/StarCommunityUpdates

Note: This e-mail was sent to you because you gave your e-mail address for information dealing with events in the Star community, supported a Star community project and or you are a resident of the City of Star. If you would like to be removed from future e-mails please send a reply to this address asking to be removed.

Page 40 of 85 From: GARY SMITH Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:20 AM To: Stacey Camara Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Request to Cancel the May 20th meeting

Stacey,

I have heard about the meeting on the 20th with ACHD. I believe this meeting should be canceled until the City is open for Public meetings. Zoom does not give the Public a chance to hear from all sides to get a full understanding and to be able to form an opinion and to be able to ask informed questions. That is why I am asking that you request ACHD to wait until the City of Star and the State of Idaho is Open for Public meetings of 100 or more as I believe this project will fill the church with just Heron River neighbors.

There are to many open questions concerning collectors, Heron River being used in the Traffic Impact Study as a pressure release for this project. The Traffic Impact Study is out dated and did not take Ridley’s into consideration nor the fact that ITD has stated that additional projects just east of Hwy 16 will push Hwy 44 to an “F” rated road.

This project impacts not just Heron River but all of Star and Hwy 44 commenters. A local poll by Heron River residents showed that 81% of the over 700 that responded disagree with this project at this location. https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=143227648

Gary D. Smith, Founder

Over 3,000 Followers and Growing

Star Community Updates

208-850-6679 http://www.facebook.com/StarCommunityUpdates

Page 41 of 85 Note: This e-mail was sent to you because you gave your e-mail address for information dealing with events in the Star community, supported a Star community project and or you are a resident of the City of Star. If you would like to be removed from future e-mails please send a reply to this address asking to be removed.

From: stacey camara Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 1:28 PM To: GARY SMITH Cc: [email protected]; Mindy Wallace ; [email protected] Subject: Re: Request to Cancel the May 20th meeting

[THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED EXTERNALLY. PLEASE USE CAUTION WHEN OPENING ATTACHMENTS OR LINKS INSIDE THIS EMAIL.] I have my letter almost completed just waiting for feedback from the other Board members.

I have asked for this meeting to be rescheduled as Zoom is unavailable for many of our senior homeowners.

I also asked for a new survey based on Ridley’s and the traffic light at Plummer that will bring all of the East parcel thru Heron River to avoid taking a chance of a left turn at Moyle.

Stacey

Sent from my iPhone

On May 10, 2020, at 11:19 AM, GARY SMITH wrote:

Stacey,

Page 42 of 85 that ITD has stated that additional projects just east of Hwy 16 will push Hwy 44 to an “F” rated road.

Gary D. Smith, Founder

Over 3,000 Followers and Growing

Star Community Updates

208-850-6679 http://www.facebook.com/StarCommunityUpdates

May 10, 2020 Ada County Highway District 3775 N. Adams Street Garden City, ID 83714

RE: May 20, 2020 ACHD Hearing on Crystal Springs Apartments, Application/STAE 20-004/ZC 20-09

As a shareholder and resident of the Heron River development that is directly impacted by this proposed zone change, transportation study and impact decision, and future negative detriment to our property values and quality of life, we vehemently oppose the approval of these projects – both Phase 1 and 2, and future residential and commercial parcels.

Page 43 of 85 Let’s break it down. W. Wildbranch Drive within Heron River is a lightly used residential street – it is not and should not be reclassified to an arterial or collector street for the following reasons: 1. Increased traffic from this project cutting through a quiet and peaceful residential neighborhood will have a drastic impact on the health, safety, and welfare of all existing and future Heron River residents. There are no crosswalks, stop signs, posted speed limits, or other safety measures to ensure public pedestrian, bicycling, children, dog walking or other amenities that were explicitly promoted and marketed when we purchased our homes in Heron River – and should be expected in any residential development. 2. The City of Star’s Comprehensive Plan provides that, in part at Chapter 8, Section 8.2.3 that high density residential “should not be allowed unless adequate ingress/egress to major transportation corridors is assured.” 3. By common sense, the increased traffic and vehicle trips per day – am and pm peak periods – will exceed and “fail” the current traffic study capabilities of State Street/ Highway 44. Multiple existing and future approved developments that funnel traffic and thousands of vehicle trips per day are planned for south down North Plummer Way, with immense left hand turn pressure onto State Highway 44/State Street. 4. Instead of taking a piecemeal, parcel-by-parcel approach to studying traffic impact as stand-alone studies, ACHD and Star of Idaho need to take a comprehensive, long-range approach to studying transportation impact, growth, and detrimental impacts on existing neighborhoods and residents PRIOR to reviewing and ultimately approving ANY NEW proposal for developments. 5. Let’s consider this through to its logical conclusion: a. Plummer is slated to receive a traffic signal in 2020. b. Highway 44 is slated to be expanded to five lanes in 2023. c. Construction snarl created by these two events alone will last at least 18-24 months. d. If you work in Boise or any community east of Star, and end up as a resident of Crystal Springs or any other proposed new development in that Southeast shoe-horn, how will you plan to return home every evening? Got it – travel west on Highway 20/26, then turn right/North on Star Road, turn right onto Main Street, and then cut through Heron River at the future extension of perhaps W.

Page 44 of 85 Mosscreek Lane and guess where you end up? South Plummer Way so you can avoid the crawl through Star on Highway 44, and turn right back onto W. Wildbranch Drive. Did any traffic planners and engineers at ACHD, Star city planners, or Star Mayor and council representatives take any of that into consideration? 6. A new Certified Traffic Impact Study should be commissioned immediately to consider the impact from the new Ridley’s store, Crystal Springs multiple developments, and flow from traffic funneled south on Plummer Way from multiple existing and proposed huge residential projects. 7. Finally, consideration should be given to any and all three possible resolutions to mitigate detrimental impacts on Heron River and its property owners: a. Build a permanent traffic barrier, or locked emergency services only roadway gate at the east end of Heron River at the existing boundary on W. Wildbranch Drive east. This would funnel Crystal Springs development traffic north up S. Moyle, Crystal Springs, or possible future extension of Calhoun – all of which are positive, long-term solutions to the future traffic volume and flows. b. Heron River development purchases Wildbranch Drive within Heron River from ACHD, make it private, and gate it at Plummer Way. c. Build a permanent traffic barrier, or locked emergency services only roadway gate at any proposed west entrance, easterly traffic flow to Heron River development off of Main Street and Star Road – eliminate the natural inclination to cut through a peaceful residential community by frantic commuters hell-bent on getting home, regardless of public safety. Why do I emphasize this? I see it everyday from construction workers leaving in the afternoon from numerous construction sites within Heron River already.

Given the long-range plans for development of Highway 16 from Interstate 84 north with all inherent interchanges and overpasses, this consideration and ultimate decision has far reaching detrimental impacts on the quality of life and property values of all residents within Heron River and the City of Star. Please reconsider your report and revise it to reflect all current and proposed developments in a comprehensive and thorough study.

Respectfully,

Page 45 of 85

Bob and Barbara West 10227 W. Twisted Vine Drive Star, ID 83669

From: Kevin Deats Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 6:19 AM To: Mindy Wallace Subject: Input from Kevin and LaRae Deats 9468 West Deerfawn Drive -- Crystal Springs Apartments/ STAR20-0004/ ZC20-09 -- Impact of Assisted Living Facility

[THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED EXTERNALLY. PLEASE USE CAUTION WHEN OPENING ATTACHMENTS OR LINKS INSIDE THIS EMAIL.] Greetings Ms. Wallace,

We would like to thank you and ACHD for your efforts and process on the above proposed project.

We support the ACHD recommendations.

We would like to add:

Even greater traffic would be generated if a newly proposed Assisted Living Facility is approved directly west of the 196-unit multi-family apartment project. The number of units, services, residents, workforce, state, local fire, emergency and regulatory requirements for the facility had not been submitted to the city of Star when I emailed Shawn Nickel on 4/20/20. It does not appear this additional impact was included in the traffic study conducted in 2019.

Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance.

Kevin and LaRae Deats 208-761-6841

From: terry martin Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 9:27 AM To: Mindy Wallace ; Frank Martin Subject: Crystal Springs Apartments

[THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED EXTERNALLY. PLEASE USE CAUTION WHEN OPENING ATTACHMENTS OR LINKS INSIDE THIS EMAIL.] To whom it may concern, my husband, Frank Martin, and I are residents of Heron River. We are both seriously opposed to the number of residents being consider for the Crystal Springs Apartment development. As you are aware, our current roads were never structured to handle the traffic at today's levels, let alone the additional traffic that will result from Ridley's, these apartments, and other developments currently underway. We request the ACHD, hold their ground and not grant reclassification of Wildbranch Drive and Calhoun

Page 46 of 85 Place Street. We would propose that developers provide the needed streets to access their developments at their expense, not at the expense of current residence.

Respectfully,

Terry A. Martin and Frank W. Martin 208-929-0644 [email protected]

From: Cyndi Ray Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:28 AM To: Mindy Wallace Subject: Crystal Springs Apts.

[THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED EXTERNALLY. PLEASE USE CAUTION WHEN OPENING ATTACHMENTS OR LINKS INSIDE THIS EMAIL.] Miss Wallace,

In regards to the Crystal Springs development ACHD meeting on 5/20/2020 here are my comments/concerns.

1. Is it policy or wise for ACHD and the Star City council to consider any street plans piece-meal in this area? Won't 96 houses overwhelm the local streets not to mention 196 apartments in Crystal Springs, 166 townhouses/assisted living facility on the Larsen property and the proposed 53 townhouses, 10 work/live lots in the Landen Village Subdivision?

2. What are your plans for mitigating any potential flood impacts for this development? Has an Environmental Impact Study been considered or is one required?

3. Please identify by name the Star City officials who are asking ACHD to re-classify Wildbranch Drive from a local to a collector street and when they will be up for re-election.

4. Also please identify by name the ACHD officials who will approve or dis-approve the development plans associated with Crystal Springs. As above for those officials, please advise when they will next be up for re-election.

Thanks,

David Ray 446 S Rivermist Ave Star, ID 83669 I From: Mark Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 8:29 AM To: Mindy Wallace Subject: Re: Crystal Springs project meeting 5/20

Page 47 of 85 [THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED EXTERNALLY. PLEASE USE CAUTION WHEN OPENING ATTACHMENTS OR LINKS INSIDE THIS EMAIL.] Hello Mindy Wallace,

I am writing to request that the May 20, 2020 Hearing on the Crystal Springs Application be postponed and rescheduled for a future date when the restrictions of public gatherings be fully lifted by the governor and the COVID- 19 conditions have subsided and a new Certified Traffic Impact Study has been completed and available to the public for review. I can guarantee that more than 10 citizens will be in attendance to voice their concerns.

I am submitting this email during the 8:00am hour to ensure it meets the May 11 noon deadline.

I respectfully request an acknowledgement that this email has been received.

Best regards,

Mark Lawler 576 S Rivermist Ave, Star, ID 83669 [email protected]

From: Linda K. Dell'Osso Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:16 PM To: Mindy Wallace Subject: Delay Plans for Crystal Springs Development Until After Pandemic is Over

[THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED EXTERNALLY. PLEASE USE CAUTION WHEN OPENING ATTACHMENTS OR LINKS INSIDE THIS EMAIL.] Hi, Mindy. I live in the Countryside development in Heron River. I have been reading about the Crystal Springs development plans described in the May 7 email that was sent out. I strongly feel that plans for this development should be put on hold until the people that will be greatly impacted as a result of this development have an opportunity to voice their opinion. These people include all the people living in Heron River, many of which are at home due to the pandemic our country is experiencing.

Based on the dialogue and attachment that were included on the May 7 email, all Heron River residents will be very much impacted by the increased amount of traffic expected as a result of the new developments being considered. And especially those residents living on Wildbranch will be greatly impacted, to the extent that children will probably not be allowed to play outside near Wildbranch due to so much more traffic going up and down the street and the fear of being hit by a car.

Page 48 of 85 It seems that now is not the time that Star should be considering this development. Since we are in the middle of a pandemic it is difficult to attend meetings of such importance to the people living in Heron River. Also, at this point of time, most Americans are trying to deal with major issues that this pandemic is causing and their minds are on these issues, which include their health and financial stability.

For a proposal of this importance to be considered, as well as the side-effects it will cause to nearby residents, in-person meetings should be planned when it is safe to have meetings of this type. Everyone should be invited to attend these meetings so that they can voice their opinions and concerns.

Please consider putting the plans on hold for the Crystal Springs development included in the May 7 email until after the pandemic, when everyone will have a better opportunity to voice their opinions in an in-person setting.

Thank you, Linda Dell'Osso

10080 W. Twisted Vine Ct. Star

Linda Dell'Osso [email protected]

Page 49 of 85 Development Services Department

 

Project/File: Crystal Springs Apartments/ STAR20-0004/ ZC20-09 This is a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application for a design and zoning review of a 96-unit multi-family apartment project on 15.16-acres. For this application ACHD is a recommending body to the City of Star.

Lead Agency: City of Star

Site address: 680 S Calhoun Place

Commission Meeting: May 20, 2020 Regular Agenda

Applicant: Lisa Angstman Star River Holdings, LLC 199 N Capital Boulevard Boise, ID 83702

Representative: Bob Taunton Taunton Group, LLC 2724 S Palmatier Way Boise, ID 83716

Staff Contact: Mindy Wallace, AICP Phone: 387-6178 E-mail: [email protected]

Stacey Yarrington Phone: 387-6171 E-mail: [email protected]

A. Findings of Fact

1. Description of Application: The applicant is requesting approval of a CZC application for a design and zoning review to allow for the development of the first phase of a multi-phased multi- family housing project. The first phase includes 96 units; and future phases will have a total of100 additional units. The review application is required as part of the development agreement between the applicant and the City of Star and includes a review of the following: • Building design and location; • Parking; • Landscaping; • Open space; and • Lighting.

The applicant’s proposal is consistent with zoning of the parcel and the City of Star’s future land use map. For this application ACHD is a recommending body to the City of Star.

1 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 50 of 85 2. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area: Direction Land Use Zoning North Neighborhood Business C-1 South Limited Office L-O East Neighborhood Business, Limited Office C-1, L-O West Neighborhood Business, Limited Office, Medium-high density C-1, L-O, R-8 Residential

3. Site History: ACHD previously reviewed this site as a rezone application in November of 2016 (STAR16-0003/ RZ-16-02). At the time of the rezone application Moyle Avenue, Wildbranch Street, and Calhoun Place were under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD).

As part of the State Highway 16 (SH-16) project, south of State Highway 44 (SH-44), ITD constructed Moyle Avenue, Wildbranch Street, and Calhoun Place to provide local access to properties that were affected by the extension of SH-16 to the south. The Moyle Avenue and Wildbranch Street were constructed with 30-feet of pavement, Calhoun Place was constructed with 27-feet of pavement, all roadways were constructed with gravel shoulders, and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. ITD was to dedicate these streets to ACHD when completed and accepted by ACHD. This occurred in March of 2019. Moyle Avenue, Wildbranch Street, and Calhoun Place are now under the jurisdiction of ACHD.

2 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 51 of 85 4. Adjacent Development: The following developments are pending or underway in the vicinity of the site:

• Landyn Village, a preliminary plat application, consisting of 73 single family building lots located west of the site is currently under review.

• Larson Star River Ranch, a preliminary plat application, consisting of 4-single family building lots located west of the site was approved by ACHD in May of 2017.

• Parkstone Subdivision (Heron River), a mixed-use development of commercial and residential uses, located west of the site was approved by ACHD in March 2005, is in various stages of development.

5. Transit: Transit services are not available to serve this site.

6. New Center Lane Miles: The proposed development includes 0 centerline miles of new public road.

7. Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of any building permits. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. The impact fee assessment will not be released until the civil plans are approved by ACHD.

8. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)/ Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP): There are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that are in the Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP) or the District’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

B. Traffic Findings for Consideration

1. Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 702 vehicle trips per day; 56 vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour, based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition. This is the first phase of a phased multi-family housing project.

2. Traffic Impact Study Kittelson & Associates prepared a traffic impact study for the proposed Crystal Springs Apartments. Below is an executive summary of the findings as presented by Kittelson & Associates can be found as attachment 3. ACHD has reviewed the submitted traffic impact study for consistency with ACHD policies and practices, and may have additional requirements beyond what is noted in the summary. ACHD Traffic Services and Development Review staff has completed a review of the required traffic impact study and has found it to be in compliance with ACHD Policy and standards.

a. Policy: Level of Service Planning Thresholds: District Policy 7205.3.1 states that, Level of Service Planning Thresholds have been established for principal arterials and minor arterials within ACHD’s Capital Improvement Plan and are also listed in section 7106. Unless otherwise required to provide a Traffic Impact Study under section 7106, a proposed development with site traffic less than 10% of the existing downstream roadway or intersection peak hour traffic shall not be required to provide mitigation for a roadway or intersection that currently exceeds the minimum acceptable level of service planning threshold or V/C ratio.

b. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The traffic impact study for the Crystal Springs Apartments consists of 196 multi-family dwelling units, although the current application is for 96 multi-family units. The traffic study references a future commercial phase of the project, however that information was not included as part of the study. The traffic impact study only addresses the development of the 196 multi-family dwelling units noting that a separate traffic impact study will be prepared for the future commercial development.

The traffic impact study notes that build out of the 196 multi-family dwelling units that this site is estimated to generate 1,144 vehicle trips per day with 108 trips during the PM peak hour. The

3 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 52 of 85 application currently under review is only a portion of the multi-family development, 96 units. The estimated trip generation for the current application is noted under finding B 1 above.

The traffic impact study includes an analysis of 4 different access scenarios for the site. The first considers full access turning movements at the Moyle Avenue/SH-44 intersection, the second includes an analysis of Moyle Avenue being restricted to left-in/right-in/right-out at SH- 44, and the third and fourth take into consideration a new access point onto SH-44 which is not proposed as part of this application. ITD did not provide comments regarding new access points to SH-44 – see Finding for Consideration C 2 below.

The traffic impact study also included a cut-through analysis based on access scenarios 1 and 2. This information can be found under Finding for Consideration C 1 below.

Plummer Way/SH-44 Intersection: Under existing, background, and total traffic conditions the intersection of Plummer Way and SH-44 is anticipated to exceed ACHD’s Acceptable Level of Service Thresholds. Signalization of the intersection in the summer of 2020 will improve the function of the intersection and bring some v/c ratios to an acceptable level, the through traffic volumes are high for single lane approaches (east/west travel). ITD is planning to widen its segment of SH-44 to 5-lanes in 2023, which will bring the function of the intersection to an acceptable level of service planning threshold. The traffic impact study notes that the site traffic is approximately 1.2% of the total traffic entering the Plummer Way/SH-44 intersection. Therefore, consistent with District policy 7205.3.1 Lever of Service Planning Threshold, which states, a proposed development with site traffic less than 10% of the existing downstream roadway or intersection peak hour traffic shall not be required to provide mitigation; no improvements are required at this intersection.

Moyle Avenue/SH-44 Intersection: Under existing, background, and total traffic conditions the intersection of Moyle Avenue and SH-44 is anticipated to exceed ACHD’s Acceptable Level of Service Thresholds, under access scenario 1 – full access at Moyle Avenue. This is due to the high delays of vehicles on side streets waiting to turn onto the high volume roadways, in this case SH-44. ITD has indicated that a signal will not be considered at this intersection and if Moyle Avenue is restricted to left-in/right-in/right-out as described under access scenario 2 and recommended by ITD, then the intersection will operate acceptably.

SH-16/SH-44 Intersection: The SH-16/SH-44 intersection is under the jurisdiction of ITD. The traffic impact study indicated that the eastbound (AM Peak hour) and westbound (PM peak hour) through exceed movements exceed ITD operations standards under existing and background traffic conditions. With the planned widening of SH-44 to 5-lanes in 2023 the overall intersection is anticipated to operate acceptably. ITD has required the applicant to pay $216,000.00 for the development’s proportional share of a future interchange at this intersection.

Roadway Segments:

All ACHD roadways area anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service threshold under total traffic conditions.

Roadway Segments – Maximum Traffic on One Access:

The traffic impact study included an analysis of allowable average daily trips on Wildbranch Street east of Moyle and Calhoun Place, both classified as local streets. ACHD policy (7207.3.3) allows up to 1,000 trips per day on local streets with only one access, which applies to both roadways. The traffic impact study suggests that ACHD could approve a higher trip threshold on these roadways, reclassify the roadways to collectors to allow a higher trip threshold, or limit the number of units that could be developed to stay within ACHD policy thresholds. This would limit the development to 125 multi-family units to stay within ACHD policy thresholds. Staff is not supportive of reclassifying Wildbranch Street east of Moyle or

4 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 53 of 85 Calhoun Place as collector roadways. This is further discussed in Finding for Consideration C 3 below.

3. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour (VPH)

PM Peak Hour Functional PM Peak Hour Roadway Frontage Level of Classification Traffic Count Service **State Highway 44/ 0-feet Principal Arterial 1,128 N/A State Street

Plummer Way 0-feet Collector 38 Better than “D” Wildbranch Drive 0-feet Local 24 N/A E of Plummer Way Wildbranch Street 0-feet Local 14 N/A W of Moyle

Moyle Avenue 0-feet Collector 28 N/A

Calhoun Place 100-feet Local N/A N/A

* Acceptable level of service for a three-lane collector is “D” (530 VPH).

** ACHD does not set level of service thresholds for State Highways.

4. Average Daily Traffic Count (VDT) Average daily traffic counts are based on ACHD’s most current traffic counts.

• The average daily traffic count for SH-44 west of SH-16 was 19,485 on 07/24/2019.

• The average daily traffic count for Plummer Way south of SH-44/ State Street was 1,228 on 06/11/2019. • The average daily traffic count for Wildbranch Drive east of Plummer Way was 372 on 05/02/2019. • The average daily traffic count for Wildbranch Street west of Moyle Avenue was 406 on 09/11/2019. • The average daily traffic count for Moyle Avenue south of SH-44/ State Street was 489 on 05/02/2019. • There are no current traffic counts for Calhoun Place.

C. Findings for Consideration

1. Neighborhood Concerns As noted above, ACHD has reviewed development applications for annexation, rezone and map amendment(s) for this site (residential) and for future commercial developments located north of the site (STAR16-0003). Traffic impact studies were and are required to be submitted and accepted by ACHD as part of future development applications.

As part of the 2016 annexation and rezone application on this site neighbors in the area expressed concern regarding the increase in traffic that this development may generate and how the additional traffic may impact existing local streets. Specific to this application neighbors in the area have expressed concerns regarding the potential for cut-through traffic between the proposed

5 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 54 of 85 development and Heron River via Wildbranch Drive, an existing local roadway with front-on housing that extends east/west between Calhoun Place and Plummer Way.

The proposed development will take access onto Calhoun Place, a single access roadway that intersects Wildbranch Street, which intersects Moyle Avenue, a collector street. Wildbranch Street transitions into Wildbranch Drive that intersects Plummer Way and Seneca Springs Way within the Heron River (Parkstone Subdivision). Plummer Way, between Wildbranch Drive and State Street, is a collector roadway and Seneca Springs Way is a local street. Moyle Avenue, Plummer Way, and Seneca Springs Way all intersect SH-44/ State Street. The intersection of Plummer Way and SH-44/State Street is anticipated to be signalized in the summer of 2020.

Site =

Wildbranch Drive =

Future Signalized intersection =

The submitted traffic impact study included an analysis of the potential cut-through traffic on Wildbranch Drive at full build-out of the development (196 total units, 96 are currently proposed). The traffic impact study notes that Wildbranch Drive east of Plummer Way had an average daily traffic count of 372 on 05/02/2019 and at build-out of the entire multi-family development that segment of roadway is anticipated to carry approximately 588 trips per day based on the assumption that Moyle Avenue remains as full access at its intersection with SH-44/State Street. If left turns out of Moyle Avenue are restricted, as ITD has indicated, then it is anticipated that an additional 81 vehicle trips would use Wildbranch Drive bringing the total average daily traffic to approximately 669 vehicle trips per day. At 669 vehicle trips per day Wildbranch Drive would operate below ACHD’s acceptable level of service threshold of 2,000 trips per day on a local street.

Staff does not recommend the any traffic calming on Wildbranch Drive between Rivermist Avenue and Plummer Way as part of the current application, as this segment of Wildbranch Drive is anticipated to have an average daily traffic count of less than ACHD’s acceptable level of service

6 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 55 of 85

threshold and the street already contains some passive design elements such as curvature of the roadway.

ACHD will monitor traffic conditions on Wildbranch Drive between Rivermist Avenue and Plummer Way as the area to the east develops. Traffic calming should be considered as the last option and area development should be limited to reduce the impacts on existing residential streets.

2. State Highway SH-44/ State Street SH-44/ State Street is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The applicant, the City of Star, and ITD should work together to determine if additional right-of-way or improvements are necessary on SH-44/ State Street.

Staff Comments/Recommendations: This site doesn’t have any frontage on SH-44/State Street, but roadways intersecting SH-44/State Street will be used to access the site Plummer Way and Moyle Avenue. As part of ITD’s review of the traffic impact study, ITD has required that Moyle Avenue be restricted to left-in/right-in/right-out only with the installation of a median barrier at full build-out of the development (196 units). ITD’s comment letter may be found as attachment 4.

As noted above, the traffic impact study included 4 access different access scenarios for the site. The first considers full access turning movements at the Moyle Avenue/SH-44 intersection, the second includes an analysis of Moyle Avenue being restricted to left-in/right-in/right-out at SH-44, and the third considered a new full access approach onto SH-44 and the fourth takes into consideration a new right-in/right-out access onto SH-44. ITD’s comment letter did not address access scenarios 3 and 4 and it is unclear whether or not an additional access onto SH-44 will be allowed to accommodate future development.

3. Maximum Traffic on One Access a. Existing Conditions: Wildbranch Way and Calhoun Place are classified as local streets.

b. Policy: Maximum Traffic on One Access Point: District policy 7207.3.3 states that if a proposed development only has one access to a public street that it a local street or if it proposed to extend public street from existing development with only one local street access to the public street system, the maximum forecast ADT allowed at any point on the local street access is 1,000 and is subject to fire department requirements for the provision of a secondary access. This volume maybe reduced or increased based on information received from the lead land use agency, the applicable fire department, and/or emergency services. The District will also take into consideration the following items when determining whether or not to reduce or increase the maximum allowable ATD: railroad crossings, canal crossings, topography (foothills vs. flat land), pedestrian connectivity, location of schools, etc.

c. Staff Comments/Recommendations: Access to the site is provided via Wildbranch Street east of Moyle and Calhoun Place, both classified as local streets. ACHD policy allows up to 1,000 trips per day on local streets with only one access, which applies to both roadways. The traffic impact study addressed this policy and it’s impacts on the proposed development and area roadways and suggests that ACHD could approve a higher trip threshold on these roadways, reclassify the roadways to collectors to allow a higher trip threshold, or limit the number of units that could be developed to stay within ACHD policy thresholds.

Although this application is for 96 multi-family units the traffic impact study analyzed 196 multi- family units anticipated to be built-out on the site. Based on the analysis of the total units the site generated traffic at build out is anticipated to be 1,144 vehicle trips per day. This would be bring the total average daily traffic on Calhoun Place to 1,154 trips (10 existing daily trips) and Wildbranch Street east of Moyle Avenue to 1,194 trips (50 existing trips) exceeding ACHD policy thresholds for Maximum Traffic on One Access.

7 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 56 of 85

Staff does not recommend reclassifying the roadways to allow additional capacity (up to 3,000 trips) or granting a modification of policy to allow additional trips as part of this or any future application in this area.

Staff recommends that this development be limited to 125 total multi-family units, the 96 proposed as part of this application plus an additional 29 multi-family units only. This will ensure that Wildbranch Street east of Moyle Avenue and that Calhoun Place do not exceed 1,000 trips per day on a local street. This will also use up all the available capacity on these roadways limiting the potential for any future development in this area.

4. Reclassification of Roadways – Calhoun Place and Wildbranch Drive (east of Moyle Avenue) a. Staff Comments/Recommendations: As part of an update to ACHD’s Master Street Map MSM) the City of Star requested that Wildbranch Street east of Moyle Avenue be reclassified from a local street to a collector roadway to support land uses that were recently approved as part of their comprehensive plan update. The reclassification of Wildbranch was also mentioned as a way to increase the allowable average daily traffic volumes in the traffic impact study. If reclassified to a collector roadway, the allowable Maximum Traffic on One Access would increase to 3,000 trips per day. Staff is not supportive of and does not recommend the reclassification of Wildbranch Street east of Moyle Avenue as part of this application. Such an action should be considered as part of an overall review of the area and not on a parcel by parcel basis.

As noted above Wildbranch Street and Calhoun Place were constructed to provide local access to properties impacted by ITD’s SH-16 extension project. Those roadways have limited access to SH-44 and were not constructed to support the mixed use/commercial land uses designated on Star’s comprehensive plan. Additional access to SH-44 will be needed to support these land uses. Without additional access to SH-44, the land uses will overwhelm the local street network and impact local residential streets within the adjacent Heron River Subdivision.

Additional access to SH-44 should be a coordinated planning effort between ITD, the City of Star, and ACHD. ACHD policy will not allow the approval any additional development in this area until additional access to SH-44 is in place.

Any reclassification of Wildbranch Street or Calhoun Place should be done as part of the master street map process once a determination regarding the additional access to SH-44 has occurred. This will allow the public to provide testimony regarding the reclassification of the roadways, as part of ACHD’s public hearing on the MSM update, which is tentatively scheduled for September of 2020.

8 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 57 of 85

Site/High Density Residential =

Compact Residential =

Commercial =

5. Calhoun Place a. Existing Conditions: Calhoun Place currently terminates in a temporary turnaround that is improved with 100-feet of pavement, gravel shoulder, and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site.

Calhoun Place north of the site is improved with 2-travel lanes, 27-feet of pavement, gravel shoulders, and no curb, gutter or sidewalk within 50-feet of right-of-way.

b. Policy: Local Roadway Policy: District Policy 7207.2.1 states that the developer is responsible for improving all local street frontages adjacent to the site regardless of whether or not access is taken to all of the adjacent streets.

Street Section and Right-of-Way Policy: District Policy 7207.5 states that right-of-way widths for all local streets shall generally not be less than 47-feet wide and that the standard street section shall be 33-feet (back-of-curb to back-of-curb).

Standard Urban Local Street—33-foot Street Section and Right-of-way Policy: District Policy 7207.5.2 states that the standard street section shall be 33-feet (back-of-curb to back-of- curb) for developments with any buildable lot that is less than 1 acre in size. This street section shall include curb, gutter, and minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks on both sides and shall typically be constructed within 47-feet of right-of-way. For the City of Kuna and City of Star: Unless otherwise approved by Kuna or Star, the standard street section shall be 36-feet (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) for developments with any buildable lot that is less than 1 acre in size. This street section shall include curb, gutter, and

9 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 58 of 85

minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks on both sides and shall typically be constructed within 50-feet of right-of-way.

Sidewalk Policy: District Policy 7207.5.7 states that five-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required on both sides of all local street, except those in rural developments with net densities of one dwelling unit per 1.0 acre or less, or in hillside conditions where there is no direct lot frontage, in which case a sidewalk shall be constructed along one side of the street. Some local jurisdictions may require wider sidewalks.

The sidewalk may be placed next to the back-of-curb. Where feasible, a parkway strip at least 8-feet wide between the back-of-curb and the street edge of the sidewalk is recommended to provide increased safety and protection of pedestrians and to allow for the planting of trees in accordance with the District’s Tree Planting Policy. If no trees are to be planted in the parkway strip, the applicant may submit a request to the District, with justification, to reduce the width of the parkway strip.

Detached sidewalks are encouraged and should be parallel to the adjacent roadway. Meandering sidewalks are discouraged.

A permanent right-of-way easement shall be provided if public sidewalks are placed outside of the dedicated right-of-way. The easement shall encompass the entire area between the right- of-way line and 2-feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk. Sidewalks shall either be located wholly within the public right-of-way or wholly within an easement.

Cul-de-sac Streets Policy: District policy 7207.5.8 requires cul-de-sacs to be constructed to provide a minimum turning radius of 45-feet; in rural areas or for temporary cul-de-sacs the emergency service providers may require a greater radius. Landscape and parking islands may be constructed in turnarounds if a minimum 29-foot street section is constructed around the island. The pavement width shall be sufficient to allow the turning around of a standard AASHTO SU design vehicle without backing. The developer shall provide written approval from the appropriate fire department for this design element.

The District will consider alternatives to the standard cul-de-sac turnaround on a case-by-case basis. This will be based on turning area, drainage, maintenance considerations and the written approval of the agency providing emergency fire service for the area where the development is located.

Maximum Traffic on One Access Point: District policy 7207.3.3 states that if a proposed development only has one access to a public street that it a local street or if it proposed to extend public street from existing development with only one local street access to the public street system, the maximum forecast ADT allowed at any point on the local street access is 1,000 and is subject to fire department requirements for the provision of a secondary access. This volume maybe reduced or increased based on information received from the lead land use agency, the applicable fire department, and/or emergency services. The District will also take into consideration the following items when determining whether or not to reduce or increase the maximum allowable ATD: railroad crossings, canal crossings, topography (foothills vs. flat land), pedestrian connectivity, location of schools, etc. c. Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is proposing to improve Calhoun Place abutting the site with additional pavement widening, curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk. d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant’s proposal to improve Calhoun Place abutting the site with additional pavement widening, curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk meets District policy and should be approved, as proposed. The cul-de-sac turnaround should be designed to maintain a minimum radius of 45-feet and to allow for the construction of a 36-foot wide street section to the north.

10 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 59 of 85

6. Driveways a. Existing Conditions: There are no driveways to or from the site.

b. Policy: Driveway Location Policy: District policy 7207.4.1 requires driveways near intersections to be located a minimum of 75-feet (measured centerline-to-centerline) from the nearest local street intersection, and 150-feet from the nearest collector or arterial street intersection.

Successive Driveways: District Policy 7207.4.1 states that successive driveways away from an intersection shall have no minimum spacing requirements for access points along a local street, but the District does encourage shared access points where appropriate.

Driveway Width Policy: District policy 7207.4.3 states that where vertical curbs are required, residential driveways shall be restricted to a maximum width of 20-feet and may be constructed as curb-cut type driveways.

Driveway Paving Policy: Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 7207.4.3, the applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway.

Driveway Design Requirements: District policy 7208.4.3 states if an access point is to be gated, the gate or keypad (whichever is closer) shall be located a minimum of 50-feet from the near edge of the intersection and a turnaround shall be provided.

c. Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct two 26-foot wide gated driveways onto Calhoun Place from the site, one located near the north/east property line and an emergency/ trailhead driveway on the south side of the cul-de-sac. Both driveways are proposed to be gated.

d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: While the applicant’s proposal generally meets District policy, staff has concerns regarding the function and safety of the proposed driveways as they are almost right next to each other with very little separation. These concerns were raised in the traffic impact study which notes that the close proximity of the driveways could create conflict between entering and exiting traffic. Based on these concerns staff recommends that the driveways be located to create as much separation between the two driveways as possible.

11 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 60 of 85

The gates for the driveways should be located a minimum of 50-feet from the near edge of Calhoun Place and a turnaround shall be provided.

7. Off-Site Roadways – Calhoun, Wildbranch Street, and Moyle Avenue a. Existing Conditions: Calhoun, Wildbranch Street, and Moyle Avenue are located off-site, Calhoun and Wildbranch Street are currently classified as local roadways, and Moyle Avenue is classified as a collector roadway. Wildbranch Street and Moyle Avenue are improved with 30- feet of pavement, Calhoun is improved with 27-feet of pavement and all the roadways are improved with gravel shoulders within 50-feet of right-of-way.

b. Policy: Off-Site Streets Policy: District Policy 7206.2.3 states that if the proposed development is not served by a public street that is fully improved to urban standards (curb, gutter, sidewalk) or a minimum 30-feet of pavement, then the developer shall provide 30-feet of pavement with 3- foot wide gravel shoulders from the site to the public street specified by the District; OR the developer shall provide 24-feet of pavement with 3-foot wide gravel shoulders and a minimum 6- foot wide detached asphalt/concrete pedestrian facility, from the site to a public street specified by the District.

Alternatives to pavement widening including sidewalks and pathways or other proposals, may be considered by the District. The extent of roadway improvements (improvement type and length) will be determined by evaluating certain criteria. Criteria to establish improvement type and length include but are limited to: traffic volumes (existing and projected); number of pedestrians (existing and projected); location of pedestrian “attractors” and “generators” (i.e. parks and schools); number of access points/streets serving the proposed development; usable right-of-way; need for traffic calming; utilities and irrigation facilities. All utility relocation costs associated with the offsite street widening shall be borne by the developer.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT): District policy 7207.3.1 states that ADT on new and existing streets should typically be less than 2,000. This ADT applies to both existing and new streets. For new Streets that are stubbed to connect to adjacent land that is not fully developed, the allowable ADT for the new street will typically be no more than 1,000 ADT, to accommodate future additional traffic from the adjacent land, depending on the location and type of the stub street and the location and size of the adjacent undeveloped land. When stub streets are connected and properties fully developed, local streets should not exceed 2,000 ADT.

The ADTs above are desirable planning thresholds for local streets, not roadway capacities. Actual roadway capacities are much higher than the planning thresholds.

Acceptable Level of Service Planning Threshold: District policy 7106.4.1 states that the acceptable level of service planning threshold for a 2-lane collector roadway is 425 vehicles per hour in the PM peak hour and 530 vehicles per hour in the PM peak hour for a 3-lane collector roadway.

c. Staff Comments/Recommendations: There is a series of offsite roadways Calhoun, Wildbranch Street, and Moyle Avenue, that will be used to provide access to the site. All of these roadways were constructed with 27 to 30-feet of pavement and gravel shoulders meeting ACHD’s Offsite Improvement policy. Therefore, no additional improvements or right-of-way dedication will be required, as part of this application. These roadways will be fully improved with the construction of additional pavement widening, curb, gutter, and sidewalk as parcels abutting the roadways develop.

8. Tree Planters Tree Planter Policy: Tree Planter Policy: The District’s Tree Planter Policy prohibits all trees in planters less than 8-feet in width without the installation of root barriers. Class II trees may be allowed in planters with a minimum width of 8-feet, and Class I and Class III trees may be allowed in planters with a minimum width of 10-feet.

12 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 61 of 85

9. Landscaping Landscaping Policy: A license agreement is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas. Trees shall be located no closer than 10-feet from all public storm drain facilities. Landscaping should be designed to eliminate site obstructions in the vision triangle at intersections. District Policy 5104.3.1 requires a 40-foot vision triangle and a 3-foot height restriction on all landscaping located at an uncontrolled intersection and a 50-foot offset from stop signs. Landscape plans are required with the submittal of civil plans and must meet all District requirements prior to signature of the final plat and/or approval of the civil plans.

D. Site Specific Conditions of Approval

1. Improve Calhoun Place with additional pavement widening, curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk abutting the site to allow for the construction of a 36-foot street section north of the cul-de-sac.

2. Maintain a minimum radius of 45-feet for the existing cul-de-sac turnaround at the terminus of Calhoun Place.

3. Construct two 26-foot wide gated driveways onto Calhoun Place located as far apart as possible. Locate the gates a minimum of 50-feet from Calhoun Place and provide a turnaround.

4. Submit civil plans to ACHD Development Services for review and approval. The impact fee assessment will not be released until the civil plans are approved by ACHD.

5. Payment of impact fees is due prior to issuance of a building permit.

6. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.

E. Standard Conditions of Approval

1. All proposed irrigation facilities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). 2. Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way.

3. In accordance with District policy, 7203.3, the applicant may be required to update any existing non- compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant’s engineer should provide documentation of ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. A license agreement and compliance with the District’s Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas. 6. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 8. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District’s Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details.

13 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 62 of 85

9. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 10. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 11. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACHD. 12. If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a waiver/variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission.

F. Conclusions of Law

1. The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are satisfied.

2. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development.

G. Attachments

1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Traffic Impact Study Summary 4. ITD Letter 5. Utility Coordinating Council 6. Development Process Checklist 7. Request for Reconsideration Guidelines OR Appeal Guidelines

14 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 63 of 85

VICINITY MAP

15 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 64 of 85

SITE PLAN

t -.-.ITA 10.. 01i ...t ... ti'DOI._,T .._ .._ ....._.,_.. o:;tl _ ,.._,_.oe

CfJ (!)(/) a :z- a. w CfJ ::;; ...JI•

16 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 65 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed Crystal Springs Apartments will be located on approximately 16 acres of land in Star, Idaho and is the first phase of a two-phase development. This first phase will include approximately 196 apartment units. The second phase will be development of an additional 11-acre parcel north of the apartments as a mixture of commercial uses. The project site for the apartments is currently zoned R-13 but identified as high density residential on the comprehensive plan by the City of Star. Exhibit 1 shows the parcels on an aerial photo and Figure 1 shows the site vicinity.

Based on discussion with the City of Star and ITD, the Phase 2 commercial development will be studied separately as part of a more comprehensive build-out evaluation of the area in order to confirm the alignment, geometry, and traffic control for a new public street access to SH-44 that will be constructed through the commercial property and connect to Wildbranch Street.

Access to the site will include two access driveways to the cul-de-sac terminus of the Calhoun Place. The primary access will be on the east side of the cul-de-sac and a joint emergency access/trailhead access will be at the existing property access on the south end of the cul-de-sac. Calhoun Place connects to Wildbranch Street, which provides access to SH-44 via Moyle Avenue and Plummer Way. Both Calhoun Place and Wildbranch Street were constructed by ITD as part of the SH-16 project and recently ownership was transferred to ACHD. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan for the development. Build-out of the apartments is anticipated to occur by 2021.

Exhibit 1. Project Location and Phases

The results of the traffic impact analysis indicate that the proposed Crystal Springs Apartments development can be constructed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety on the

2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 66 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019 surrounding transportation system. The findings of this analysis and recommendations are discussed below.

FINDINGS

Existing Conditions

▪ All study intersections were found to operate within agency standards during the existing weekday AM and PM peak hours except for:

o Plummer Road (Plummer Way to the South) & SH-44: The intersection does not meet ITD operating standards with respect to level of service and v/c ratio during the weekday PM peak hour and does not meet ACHD and ITD policy with respect to level of service. During the AM and PM peak hours, the southbound lane group operates at LOS F, experiencing high delays and operating near capacity. Additionally, during the PM peak hour, the northbound left and through movements operate at LOS E and F, respectively, though these movements are well under capacity. The intersection is planned for signalization this year per discussions with ITD.

o Moyle Avenue & SH-44: The intersection does not meet ACHD or ITD level of service operating standard during the weekday PM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the southbound approach operated at LOS E, experiencing high delays but operating well under capacity (v/c=0.128). Such high delays are common for side street turning movements on high-volume arterials due to the need to wait for gaps in traffic and a long signal cycle length at the upstream signal at SH-16. The volumes are under the thresholds for traffic signal warrants and ITD has indicated they will not approve a signal at this intersection.

o SH-16 & SH-44: During the AM peak hour, several left-turning movements operate at LOS E, though the only movement/lane group that operates with a v/c ratio greater than 0.90 is the eastbound through movement, with a v/c=0.91 during the AM peak hour. SH-44 is scheduled for widening in 2023 which will improve the lane utilization for the eastbound and westbound movements and improve intersection operations to acceptable levels (KN 20574 and KN 20266).

▪ All ACHD study roadway segment traffic volumes are within the acceptable volume thresholds.

▪ Crash data at the study intersections for the most recent five years (2014–2018) was analyzed for existing crash trends. Key findings include:

o There were no reported crashes on most of the roadway segments.

o The SH-16 & SH-44 intersection had the highest crash activity, with 47 total reported crashes.

3 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 67 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

Thirty-one of the 47 crashes (66%) were rear-end collisions, of which 27 occurred on weekdays.

The adjacent roadway segment, SH-44 from Plummer Road and SH-16 experienced an additional 5 rear-end crashes, most of which occurred in the peak direction during the corresponding weekday peak periods, suggesting queues from the SH-16 intersection may be extending into the adjacent roadway segment.

o There was a single reported fatality in the study area, which occurred along SH-44, between Plummer Road and the SH-16 & SH-44 intersection. The collision involved an eastbound traveling vehicle that collided head-on with an opposing westbound pick- up truck. The collision report lists driver impairment as a contributing circumstance.

Year 2021 Background Traffic Conditions

▪ Year 2021 background traffic volumes were forecasted using a 4% annual growth rate for traffic on SH-44, and inclusion of in-process peak hour trips associated with the following approved developments:

o Anderson Property (Southeast corner of SH-44 & SH-16) - Consists of 290 age- targeted (senior) detached houses, with build-out is expected to occur in year 2023. The full development was assumed to be completed in 2021 for this study.

o Parkstone Subdivision in Heron River (South of SH 44 and West of Plummer Way): Approximately 81,980 square feet of commercial development in addition to the continued buildout of the 587-unit residential development (estimated to be approximately 50% built-out currently, remaining build-out assumed by 2021). In conjunction with this development, it is assumed that the Plummer Road & SH-44 intersection will be signalized which is planned this year per discussions with ITD.

o Hormachea-Belvoir Subdivision (Northwest of Sh-44 & SH-16 along Palmer Lane) – Minimal traffic from this development is expected in the site vicinity by 2021 due to the development of homes not starting until approximately mid-2020, completion not being until 2028, and the location of the development being 2 to 3 miles from the site. Therefore, the 4% annual growth is was assumed to account for the limited amount of traffic from occupied homes that occur by 2021.

▪ Under 2021 background conditions, the study intersections were found to operate within agency operating standards, except for:

o Plummer Road & SH-44: As a signalized intersection, the intersection v/c ratio is anticipated to exceed ACHD and ITD operating standards at 0.92 and 0.95 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Additionally, the eastbound lane group is anticipated to operate with a v/c ratio of 0.96 during the AM peak hour, exceeding ITD standards. Several left-turn movements are also anticipated to operate at LOS E,

4 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 68 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

though with v/c ratios less than 0.90. While the new signal improves the LOS for the side streets, the volume of through traffic is high for the single through lane approaches. Per the ITD ITIP, widening of SH-16 to five lanes in this section planned by ITD in 2023 (KN 20574). The planned widening of SH-44 in year 2023 will increase the east-west through capacity of the signalized intersection to meet ITD and ACHD policy.

o Moyle Avenue & SH-44: The southbound approach operates at LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours. The approach is well under capacity during both peak hours. Such high delays are common for side street turning movements on high-volume arterials due to the need to wait for gaps in traffic and the effect of a long signal cycle at the upstream signal at SH-16. ITD has indicated that signalization will not be considered as mitigation and therefore signal warrants were not evaluated. Therefore, since the movements remain under capacity, no mitigation was identified.

o SH 16 & SH 44: The overall intersection v/c ratio is projected to be 0.95 during the PM peak hour and at LOS E during the AM peak hour, exceeding ACHD and ITD operational standards. During the AM peak hour, the eastbound through lane group v/c ratio is 1.12, and during the PM peak hour, the westbound through lane group v/c ratio is 0.98 exceeding ITD operational standards. Additionally, during both AM and PM peak hours, several left-turn movements operate at LOS E, though with v/c ratios below the 0.90 ITD threshold. Per the ITD ITIP, widening of SH-16 to five lanes in this section planned by ITD in 2023 (KN 20574 and KN 20266). Operations will improve to meet ACHD and ITD standards, with the exception of continued high delays for left-turning movements, which are expected to have high delays based on the timing plans. Therefore, no mitigation was identified.

▪ All ACHD study roadway segments peak hour or daily traffic volumes are projected to be within the acceptable threshold volumes.

Trip Generation and Distribution

▪ The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition was used to estimate the trip generation for the proposed development.

▪ The proposed Crystal Springs Apartments, also referred to as Phase 1, is estimated to generate a total of 1,441 daily trip ends, with 90 trip ends (21 inbound / 69 outbound) occurring during the weekday AM peak hour and 108 trip ends (68 inbound / 40 outbound) during the PM peak hour.

▪ The distribution pattern for site-generated trips was developed by evaluating existing traffic patterns and major trip origins and destinations within the study area as well as a select zone analysis from the COMPASS regional travel demand model. Assignment of site-generated trips varied in the four SH-44 access scenarios considered:

5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 69 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

o Scenario 1 (Proposed) – Existing Street Network: Primary access for site trips to/from SH-44 is via Moyle Avenue & SH-44 intersection, with no new access to SH-44.

o Scenario 2 – Moyle Avenue Restricted Lefts: Similar to Scenario 1 with the Moyle Avenue approaches to SH-44 as right-in/right-out/left-in (RIROLI), to mitigate the high delays under Scenario 1 for the minor street left-turn movements.

o Scenario 3 – New Full Public Street Access to SH 44: A new full access (referred to as the “New Access”) to SH-44 is constructed to provide additional access to the area, in addition to the Moyle Avenue & SH-44 intersection.

o Scenario 4 – New Right-in, Right-out Public Street Access to SH 44: Similar to Scenario 3 with the New Access as right-in, right-out only (RIRO) at SH-44, to mitigate the northbound left-turn delay in Scenario 3.

Year 2021 Total Traffic Conditions

Access Scenarios 1 & 2 (No New Access To SH-44)

▪ Under the access Scenario 1, the study intersections were found to operate within agency standards during the future year 2021 weekday AM and PM peak hours, except for:

o Plummer Road & SH-44: Similar to background conditions, the signalized intersection v/c ratio is anticipated to exceed ACHD and ITD operating standards during the AM and PM peak hour. Additionally, the eastbound lane group is anticipated to operate with a v/c ratio of 0.96 during the AM peak hour, exceeding the ITD standards.

This is due to only having a single eastbound and westbound lane in each direction on SH-44 and will be mitigated with widening of SH-44 by ITD planned in 2023 (KN 20574).

Trips from the proposed Crystal Springs Apartments are projected to be approximately 1.0 to 1.2% of the total entering volume at the intersection.

o Moyle Avenue & SH-44 (AM and PM Peak Hours) – The northbound and southbound approaches operate at LOS E or F due to high delays for the side street left-turn movements. The v/c ratios remain well below the 0.90 threshold, but the delays remain high due to the time required for left-turning vehicles to find a sufficient gap in the traffic on SH-44. The following mitigation was evaluated:

Analysis of access Scenario 2 (restricting this intersection to right-in, right-out, left-in) identified that with restriction of the critical minor approach left-turn movements, the intersection operations meet ACHD and ITD operating standards. However, restriction of the northbound left-turn is estimated to result in approximately 10 additional peak hour trips and approximately 81 daily trips traveling west through the Parkstone residential development, to use Plummer Way to access SH-44.

6 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 70 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

Trips from the proposed Crystal Springs Apartments are projected to be approximately 4.8% of the total entering volume at the intersection.

o SH 16 & SH 44 (AM and PM Peak Hour) – Similar to background conditions, during the AM and PM peak hours, the overall intersection v/c ratio is projected to be 0.92 and 0.96, respectively, exceeding the ACHD and ITD operational standards. The intersection operates at LOS is E during the AM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, the eastbound through movement is overcapacity, as is the westbound through movement in the PM peak hour.

ITD has plans to widen SH-44 to five lanes which will allow for full utilization of both east-west through lanes. Once widened, allowing for full utilization of both of the eastbound and westbound through lanes, the overall intersection is projected to meet agency operating standards, though two left-turn movements will continue operate at LOS E due to the maximum green split time of 30 sections for the left-turning movements and maximum cycle length of 160 seconds which results in LOS E delays for the left-turn movements, irrespective of the lane configurations.

Trips from the proposed Crystal Springs Apartments are projected to be approximately 2.1% of the total entering volume at the intersection.

Access Scenarios 3 & 4 (New Access To SH-44 at the Future SH-16 SB Ramp Intersection Location)

▪ By providing a new full access to SH-44 to the west of the SH-16 & SH 44 intersection at the future ramp location identified by ITD (Access Scenario 3), the study intersections were found to operate within agency standards during the future year 2021 weekday AM and PM peak hours, except for:

This is due to only having a single eastbound and westbound lane in each direction on SH-44 and will be mitigated with widening of SH-44 by ITD planned in 2023.

Trips under Access Scenario 3 from the proposed Crystal Springs Apartments are projected to be approximately 1.0 to 1.2% of the total entering volume at the intersection.

o Moyle Avenue & SH-44 (AM and PM Peak Hours) – The northbound and southbound approaches operate at LOS E or F. While delay for the minor street approaches are high, the intersection operates under capacity. Similar to Scenario 1, the high delay left-turn movements could be mitigated by restricting access to RIROLI.

7 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 71 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

Trips under Access Scenario 3 from the proposed Crystal Springs Apartments are projected to be approximately 0.8 to 1.1% of the total entering volume at the intersection.

Trips under Access Scenario 4 from the proposed Crystal Springs Apartments are projected to be approximately 1.8 to 3.4% of the total entering volume at the intersection

o New Access & SH-44: During the AM and PM peak hours, the northbound left-turn movement operates at LOS E, exceeding ITD operational standards. Additionally, eastbound through traffic currently queues past the proposed access location from the signal at SH-16. Therefore, restriction of the intersection to right-in, right-out was evaluated (Access Scenario 4) and found to result in meeting ACHD and ITD operating standards.

▪ Overall, the year 2021 total traffic conditions found that site-generated trips do not result in any additional operational deficiency or cause any intersections to not meet agency operational standards beyond those that already exist or are projected to occur in 2021 background conditions.

Roadway Segment Evaluation

▪ All ACHD study roadway segments were found to not exceed the ACHD policy for peak hour segment (arterials and collectors) and daily maximum traffic thresholds for local street.

▪ Because Wildbranch Drive (east of Moyle Avenue) and Calhoun Place provide only one access to the development, a lower threshold could be applied of 1,000 ADT (ACHD Policy 7207.3.3). If this policy is applied by ACHD, the following segments would not meet the policy:

o Access Scenarios 1 & 2 (no new access)

Wildbranch Street (E of Moyle Avenue): Reaches the ACHD daily threshold for a local street that serves as the only access of 1,000 ADT at approximately 125 units.

Calhoun Place (S of Wildbranch Street): Reaches the ACHD daily threshold for a local street that serves as the only access of 1,000 ADT at approximately 133 units.

o Access Scenarios 3 & 4 (new access to SH-44 extending from Wildbranch Street)

Calhoun Place (S of Wildbranch Street): Reaches the ACHD daily threshold for a local street that serves as the only access of 1,000 ADT at approximately 133 units.

o Three options were identified to address Wildbranch Street (E. of Moyle) and Calhoun Place exceeding thresholds:

8 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 72 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

Approve a Higher Threshold: Approve a higher threshold due to the unique circumstances of this situation:

In the 2016 staff report, ACHD identified both Wildbranch Street and Calhoun Place as having a maximum ADT threshold of 2,000, which is adequate to serve buildout of the apartments. (Pg 3, Draft Staff Report, 2016)

The streets were recently transferred to ACHD from ITD and these are essentially new requirements on the development since ITD does not have a similar policy.

Access spacing on both roads is similar to a collector roadway.

Classify as Collectors: While Wildbranch Street (E Moyle Avenue) and Calhoun Place (S. of Wildbranch Street) do not meet the ACHD policy thresholds for daily traffic on a local street, they generally serve as collector roadways for the following reasons:

The current City zoning and comprehensive plan identify a mixture of commercial and high-density residential land uses that cannot be accommodated assuming a single location street connection.

No front-on homes with driveways where vehicles must back onto the street.

Access spacing on both roads is similar to a collector roadway, which would allow for 3,000 ADT as a single collector access and not be limited once a second access is provided.

Limit Units: Only build to the number of units allowed below of maximum of 125 units for Wildbranch Street and 133 units for Calhoun Place.

▪ Calhoun Place is currently a cul-de-sac and therefore ACHD Policy 7207.3.5 could be applied which limits daily trips for a local street cul-de-sac. It is estimated that the 400 daily trip threshold will be reached with approximately 53 units. Assuming this policy is applied by ACHD, the following options were identified to address the ACHD cul-de-sac thresholds:

o Approve a Higher Threshold: Approve a higher threshold due to the unique circumstances of this situation:

The streets were recently transferred to ACHD from ITD and these are essentially new requirements on the development since ITD does not have a similar policy.

9 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 73 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

Access spacing on both roads is similar to a collector roadway, which would allow for 3,000 ADT as a single collector access and not be limited once a second access is provided.

o Provide New Access to SH-44: Construct the proposed New Access to SH-44 from the Calhoun cul-de-sac to SH-44 at right-in, right-out at SH-44.

o Eliminate the Cul-De-Sac: This option would create a loop back to Wildbranch Street and essentially eliminate the cul-de-sac condition.

o Limit Units: Only build to the number of units to 53 units as shown above and develop an expanded roadways system prior to additional development.

▪ Wildbranch Drive through the Parkstone Subdivision will continue to have daily traffic volumes that are well below the ACHD threshold of 2,000 ADT. Restriction of the side street left-turns Moyle Avenue & SH-44 in access Scenario 2 results in an increase of approximately 81 daily trips through the neighborhood in comparison to Scenario 1.

▪ Similar to background traffic conditions, the SH-44 peak hour directional volumes between SH-16 and Moyle Avenue exceed the ACHD/COMPASS segment peak hour thresholds for a principal arterial at LOS E in the existing and future conditions. ITD plans to widen SH-44 to two-through lanes in each direction in 2023. Once widened, total traffic 2021 peak hour directions volumes on SH-44 would be below volume threshold.

▪ The ACHD 2,000 ADT policy thresholds for the local streets (Moyle Avenue, Wildbranch Street, and Calhoun Place) may limit future Phase 2 development unless ACHD approves a higher daily traffic limit or the roadways are classified as collectors.

Site Access Evaluation

▪ An analysis of the need for right-turn lanes was performed for the primary site accesses along SH-44 at Moyle Avenue the potential New Access. The peak hour right-turn volumes at the Moyle Avenue & SH-44 intersection and at the New Access & SH-44 intersection do not meet ITD warrants for right-turn with the proposed residential development.

▪ A queuing analysis was performed for all access points for vehicles entering and exiting the proposed Crystal Springs Apartment development.

o At the Moyle Avenue & SH-44 intersection, the estimated 95th percentile queue lengths for the northbound movement is 4 vehicles or less and therefore will extend to the first existing driveway access on either side of Moyle Avenue located approximately 100 feet from SH-44. No mitigation is necessary for the following reasons:

The queue will not block the driveways.

There is no development that uses the existing north driveways near SH-44 and none that are in-process.

10 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 74 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

There are a second set of driveways approximately 65 feet south of the north driveways that serve the same parcels.

▪ Intersection sight distance was evaluated at the site accesses to SH-44 and at the existing intersections along Wildbranch Street Calhoun Place and found:

o All roads in the study area are relatively flat in the vicinity of the study site and intersections of Wildbranch Street & Moyle Avenue, Wildbranch Street & Calhoun Place, and the Calhoun cul-de-sac have adequate sight distance, depending the amount of vegetation growth.

o Intersection sight distance is met at the Moyle Avenue & SH-44 intersection.

o Intersection sight distance can be achieved at the New Access & SH-44 intersection, but queues from the nearby SH-16 intersection block the left-turn movements during the weekday morning hours. Therefore right-in, right-out operation should be considered.

As the design of the proposed new access progresses, sight distance should be fully evaluated, as should proximity to the existing SH-16 & SH-44 intersection.

▪ The two accesses on the Calhoun Place cul-de-sac should be oriented to ensure adequate space between the driveways. Locating the main access on the east side of the cul-de-sac would improve spacing.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the report’s analyses and evaluation findings, recommendations focused on the total traffic conditions were developed as follows:

Intersection Improvements With or Without the Proposed Development

The following intersections were found to not meet ACHD and ITD LOS standards with, or without, the proposed development:

▪ Plummer Road & SH-44: No additional mitigation is necessary with the planned widening of SH-44 by ITD planned in 2023 (beyond the horizon year of this study). The vehicle trips generated by the development contribute approximately 1.0 to 1.2% of the total entering vehicles at the intersection during the AM peak and PM peak hours.

▪ Moyle Avenue & SH-44: The following improvement options could be considered with, or without the proposed development. The vehicle trips generated by the development contribute approximately 4.8% of the total entering vehicles at the intersection during the AM peak and PM peak hours.

11 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 75 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

o No mitigation: All movements/lane groups remain under capacity, but the northbound and southbound approaches will continue to experience high delay due to left-turns onto SH-44 waiting for gaps in traffic.

o Restrict to Right-in, Right-out, Left in: All movements will operate at an acceptable level of service but more traffic will travel west along Wildbranch Street (Wildbranch Drive at Plummer Way) through the adjacent neighborhood to Plummer Way and southbound left-turns from the storage unit development on the north side of SH-44 would also need to find alternative routes to go east on SH-44.

o Signalize the Intersection: This option was not evaluated based on ITD input that a signal at this location is not an option for consideration.

▪ SH-16 & SH-44 intersection: No mitigation is necessary with the planned widening of SH-44 by ITD planned in 2023 (beyond the horizon year of this study). The vehicle trips generated by the development contribute approximately 2.1% of the total entering vehicles at the intersection during the AM peak and PM peak hours.

Additional Improvements Required with the Development

▪ Wildbranch Street (east of Moyle Avenue) & Calhoun Place Traffic Volumes: If ACHD applies the maximum volume on a single local street access policy per ACHD Policy Section 7207.3.3, consider the following options to address the ACHD 1,000 daily vehicle threshold:

o Approve a Higher Threshold: Approve a higher threshold due to the unique circumstances of this situation:

In the 2016 staff report, ACHD identified both Wildbranch Street and Calhoun Place as having a maximum ADT threshold of 2,000 (Pg 3, Draft Staff Report, 2016).

The streets were recently transferred to ACHD from ITD and these are essentially new requirements.

Access spacing on both roads is similar to a collector roadway.

o Classify as Collectors: While Wildbranch Street (E Moyle Avenue) and Calhoun Place (S. of Wildbranch Street) do not meet the ACHD policy thresholds for daily traffic on a local street, they generally serve as collector roadways for the following reasons:

The current City zoning and comprehensive plan identify a mixture of commercial and high-density residential land uses that cannot be accommodated assuming a single location street connection.

No front-on homes with driveways where vehicles must back onto the street. Access spacing similar to a residential collector. o Provide New Access to SH-44: Construct the proposed New Access to SH-44 from the Calhoun cul-de-sac to SH-44 at right-in, right-out at SH-44.

12 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 76 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

o Limit Development Units: Only build to the number of units to 125 units as shown above and develop an expanded roadways system prior to additional development.

▪ Calhoun Place Cul-De-Sac Traffic Volumes: If ACHD applies the maximum volume on local street cul-de-sac policy per ACHD Policy Section 7207.3.5, consider the following options to address the ACHD 400 daily vehicle threshold:

o Approve a Higher Threshold: Approve a higher threshold due to the unique circumstances of this situation:

In the 2016 staff report, ACHD identified both Wildbranch Street and Calhoun Place as having a maximum ADT threshold of 2,000 (Pg 3, Draft Staff Report, 2016).

The streets were recently transferred to ACHD from ITD and these are essentially new requirements.

Access spacing on both roads is similar to a collector roadway, which would allow for 3,000 ADT as a single collector access and not be limited once a second access is provided.

o Provide New Access to SH-44: Construct the proposed New Access to SH-44 from the Calhoun cul-de-sac to SH-44 as a right-in, right-out at SH-44.

o Eliminate the Cul-De-Sac: This option would create a loop back to Wildbranch Street and essentially eliminate the cul-de-sac condition.

o Limit Development Units: Only build to the number of units to 53 units as shown above and develop an expanded roadways system prior to additional development.

▪ New Access & SH-44 intersection (if Access Scenarios 3 or 4 are Chosen):

o Restrict the access to right-in, right-out and re-study the access as full or partially restricted access as part of the Phase 2 commercial development TIS or an areawide traffic study.

o Coordinate with ITD on the design access and integration with the existing lane configuration and ultimate interchange design. This includes a buildout analysis as park of the Phase 2 commercial development if the intersection is not intended to be interim.

Consider installation of an eastbound right-turn lane if the access is planned to also serve the future commercial development. A right turn lane is not required for this Phase 1 residential development.

Consider re-striping the inside eastbound dual left-turn lane at the SH-16 signal to be a westbound left-turn lane into the site if the access is not restricted to right-in, right out given the low eastbound left-turning volume.

▪ Wildbranch Street & Calhoun Place

13 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 77 of 85 Crystal Springs Apartments – Star, Idaho Project # 20700 Executive Summary September 2019

o Consider changing the traffic control to an all-way stop control or two-way stop control at the Wildbranch Street & Calhoun Place intersection if the new access connects as a fourth approach.

▪ Calhoun Place Site Access

o Locate the residential access to on the east side of the cul-de-sac in order to separate the driveway sufficiently from the trail/emergency vehicle access driveway.

▪ Pedestrian & Bicycle

o Coordinate with the City and ACHD to address the long-term need for sidewalks or a pathway to provide connectivity to the existing sidewalk facilities provided in the Parkstone development to the west.

Future Considerations for Access Beyond the Phase 1 Apartments

▪ While the daily traffic is projected to remain under the 2,000 daily vehicle thresholds for Moyle Avenue, Wildbranch Street, and Calhoun Place, these segments will be close to reaching the thresholds once the apartments are completed and occupied. Even with the proposed New Access on SH-44, the 2,000 daily traffic thresholds will likely be met with even a small commercial development. Therefore, Consider the following options to address the ACHD 2,000 daily vehicle threshold for these local streets:

o Work with ACHD staff to approve a higher daily traffic threshold or classify the streets as collectors based on the following:

No front-on homes with driveways exist or are planned where vehicles must back onto the street.

No development in in place at this time, so access could meet collector requirements.

The current City zoning and comprehensive plan identify a mixture of land uses that cannot be accommodated assuming all local streets.

14 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Page 78 of 85

IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 8028 • Boise, ID 83707-2028 (208) 334-8300 • itd.idaho.gov

October 22, 2019

Shawn Nickel City of Star 10769 W. State Street Star, ID 83669

VIA EMAIL

RE: Crystal Springs Subdivision – ITD Traffic Impact Study Acceptance Letter

Dear Mr. Nickel,

The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has completed our review of the findings presented in the Crystal Springs Subdivision Traffic Impact Study (TIS) dated September 2019. The development is located on the southwest corner of SH-16 and SH-44. The subdivision proposes taking access from two existing public roads (Plummer Road and Moyle Avenue), however, the traffic it adds to the already congested SH-44 corridor does cause impacts to safety and mobility at the intersection of SH-44 / Moyle Avenue and well as SH-44 / SH-16.

ITD requests that the city of Star require Crystal Springs Subdivision to mitigate its impacts to the State highway system. The improvements needed prior to occupancy are as follows:

Intersection of SH-44 and Moyle Avenue The TIS shows that at full buildout of the 196 residences, the northbound left and southbound left turning movements at Moyle Avenue fail. • Construct a median barrier using shur-curb to limit Moyle Ave to right-in, right-out, left-in. Median barrier shall extend 150ft from center of the approach. See below diagram as an example.

150ft

Intersection of SH-44 and SH-16

Page 1 of 3

Page 79 of 85

IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 8028 • Boise, ID 83707-2028 (208) 334-8300 • itd.idaho.gov

The TIS identified that in 2021 the intersection of SH-44/SH-16 is anticipated to exceed ITD’s minimum operational thresholds. Congestion is further increased from trips generated by this development. ITD requests the city of Star require the developer to pay a proportionate share towards a future Interchange equal to their total site trips as compare to total intersection trips in 2045. The estimated cost of the SH-44/SH-16 interchange is $40M. • ITD requests that the developer pay a proportionate share of $216,000 (0.54%) to the future interchange based off of total intersection trips.

Site Trips

2045 Build SH-44 Traffic Analysis AM Adjusted Forecasts = 13,370 intersection volume PM Adjusted Forecasts = 14,352 intersection volume

AM Peak Buildout Site Trips AM Peak 2045 Total Trips = Site Trips = 0.51% of total = 68 13,370 intersection trips PM Peak Buildout Site Trips PM Peak 2045 Total Trips = Site Trips = 0.56% of total = 81 14,352 intersection trips AM/PM Average = 0.54% Estimated Interchange Cost = $40M Proportionate Share Cost = $216,000

ITD has started discussions with the city of Star regarding creation of an interagency agreement to hold the developer’s proportionate share contribution for use in a future project(s) on SH-44. ITD would like to work with the city of Star to determine which project(s) would be best to direct these funds towards.

This letter acknowledges ITD’s acceptance of the Crystal Springs Subdivision TIS. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the city in identifying projects that will improve safety and congestion concerns in your area. Maintaining safety and mobility for Idaho’s motorists is of the utmost importance to ITD. ITD would appreciate the city of Star requiring the Crystal Springs Subdivision to implement the needed roadway improvements as

Page 2 of 3

Page 80 of 85

IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 8028 • Boise, ID 83707-2028 (208) 334-8300 • itd.idaho.gov

outlined above to mitigate for their impacts to the State Highway system. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 208-265-4312 extension #7.

Sincerely,

Erika R. Bowen, P.E. ITD – District 3 Traffic Technical Engineer

cc. Mindy Wallace – ACHD John Ringert – Kittelson & Associates

Page 3 of 3

Page 81 of 85

Ada County Utility Coordinating Council

Developer/Local Improvement District Right of Way Improvements Guideline Request

Purpose: To develop the necessary avenue for proper notification to utilities of local highway and road improvements, to help the utilities in budgeting and to clarify the already existing process.

1) Notification: Within five (5) working days upon notification of required right of way improvements by Highway entities, developers shall provide written notification to the affected utility owners and the Ada County Utility Coordinating Council (UCC). Notification shall include but not be limited to, project limits, scope of roadway improvements/project, anticipated construction dates, and any portions critical to the right of way improvements and coordination of utilities.

2) Plan Review: The developer shall provide the highway entities and all utility owners with preliminary project plans and schedule a plan review conference. Depending on the scale of utility improvements, a plan review conference may not be necessary, as determined by the utility owners. Conference notification shall also be sent to the UCC. During the review meeting the developer shall notify utilities of the status of right of way/easement acquisition necessary for their project. At the plan review conference each company shall have the right to appeal, adjust and/or negotiate with the developer on its own behalf. Each utility shall provide the developer with a letter of review indicating the costs and time required for relocation of its facilities. Said letter of review is to be provided within thirty calendar days after the date of the plan review conference.

3) Revisions: The developer is responsible to provide utilities with any revisions to preliminary plans. Utilities may request an updated plan review meeting if revisions are made in the preliminary plans which affect the utility relocation requirements. Utilities shall have thirty days after receiving the revisions to review and comment thereon.

4) Final Notification: The developer will provide highway entities, utility owners and the UCC with final notification of its intent to proceed with right of way improvements and include the anticipated date work will commence. This notification shall indicate that the work to be performed shall be pursuant to final approved plans by the highway entity. The developer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting prior to right of way improvements. Utility relocation activity shall be completed within the times established during the preconstruction meeting, unless otherwise agreed upon.

Notification to the Ada County UCC can be sent to: 50 S. Cole Rd. Boise 83707, or Visit iducc.com for e-mail notification information.

17 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 82 of 85

Development Process Checklist

Items Completed to Date:

Submit a development application to a City or to Ada County

The City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD

The ACHD Planning Review Section will receive the development application to review

The Planning Review Section will do one of the following:

Send a “No Review” letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific conditions of approval at this time.

Write a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.

Write a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.

Items to be completed by Applicant:

For ALL development applications, including those receiving a “No Review” letter: • The applicant should submit one set of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Review Section for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee assessment.) • The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way, including, but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts.

Pay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval.

DID YOU REMEMBER: Construction (Non-Subdivisions) Driveway or Property Approach(s) • Submit a “Driveway Approach Request” form to ACHD Construction (for approval by Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval.

Working in the ACHD Right-of-Way • Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a “Temporary Highway Use Permit Application” to ACHD Construction – Permits along with: a) Traffic Control Plan b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50’ or you are placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt.

Construction (Subdivisions) Sediment & Erosion Submittal • At least one week prior to setting up a Pre-Construction Meeting an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plan, done by a Certified Plan Designer, must be turned into ACHD Construction to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Stormwater Section.

Idaho Power Company • Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being scheduled.

Final Approval from Development Services is required prior to scheduling a Pre-Con.

18 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 83 of 85

Request for Appeal of Staff Decision

1. Appeal of Staff Decision: The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the final decision made by the Development Services Manager when it is alleged that the Development Services Manager did not properly apply this section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an error of fact or law, abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or enforcement of the ACHD Policy Manual.

a. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be charged the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs.

b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the Secretary and Clerk of the District, which must be filed within ten (10) working days from the date of the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall refer to the decision being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address and telephone number and state the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall include a written summary of the provisions of the policy relevant to the appeal and/or the facts and law relied upon and shall include a written argument in support of the appeal. The Commission shall not consider a notice of appeal that does not comply with the provisions of this subsection.

c. Time to Reply: The Development Services Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may during such time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also consider and/or modify the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply and any modifications to the decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant prior to the Commission hearing on the appeal.

d. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the appeal will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular meeting to be held within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of the Development Services Manager’s reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being appealed, the notice of appeal and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at least one (1) week prior to the hearing.

e. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affirm or reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision being appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence presented at the hearing.

19 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 84 of 85

Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action

1. Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action: A Commissioner, a member of ACHD staff or any other person objecting to any final action taken by the Commission may request reconsideration of that action, provided the request is not for a reconsideration of an action previously requested to be reconsidered, an action whose provisions have been partly and materially carried out, or an action that has created a contractual relationship with third parties.

a. Only a Commission member who voted with the prevailing side can move for reconsideration, but the motion may be seconded by any Commissioner and is voted on by all Commissioners present.

If a motion to reconsider is made and seconded it is subject to a motion to postpone to a certain time.

b. The request must be in writing and delivered to the Secretary of the Highway District no later than 11:00 a.m. 2 days prior to the Commission’s next scheduled regular meeting following the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered was taken. Upon receipt of the request, the Secretary shall cause the same to be placed on the agenda for that next scheduled regular Commission meeting.

c. The request for reconsideration must be supported by written documentation setting forth new facts and information not presented at the earlier meeting, or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of the earlier vote, or information establishing an error of fact or law in the earlier action. The request may also be supported by oral testimony at the meeting.

d. If a motion to reconsider passes, the effect is the original matter is in the exact position it occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. It will normally be returned to ACHD staff for further review. The Commission may set the date of the meeting at which the matter is to be returned. The Commission shall only take action on the original matter at a meeting where the agenda notice so provides.

e. At the meeting where the original matter is again on the agenda for Commission action, interested persons and ACHD staff may present such written and oral testimony as the President of the Commission determines to be appropriate, and the Commission may take any action the majority of the Commission deems advisable.

f. If a motion to reconsider passes, the applicant may be charged a reasonable fee, to cover administrative costs, as established by the Commission.

20 DRAFT Crystal Apartments

Page 85 of 85