Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah.

um thank you

I have a problem with something.

Where did I go?

Right, you wrote it.

So,

Oh, okay, yeah. Yeah, where's the . Thank you. Hey, hey, hey.

I don't want to hear that.

How are you doing? Yeah. I think if you already said it, perfect. How are we going to treat it? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was kind of a weird, weird drop back. Yeah, they don't want that. So you don't have to do it any longer in the company. That's what it is.

I don't have any questions.

All of that. Yeah. Yeah.

Sorry.

I don't know. Well. Oh, no. All right. Okay. Yeah. That was good stuff.

all right good evening everybody and welcome to the boise city planning and zoning commission public hearing A few things to start out with for tonight's proceedings. Everyone from the public entering the hearing virtually has been automatically muted and cannot speak. As the item you're interested in comes up for discussion, you'll be called upon and unmuted. There is a chat function in Zoom. However, this is not part of the record and should only be used if technical difficulties arise. Our procedures for public hearings begins with a presentation from the planning team. Then we'll go to the applicant and then the representative of the registered neighborhood association, followed by questions from the Commission. After that we proceed to public testimony, starting with those who are in person, then who signed up on the signup sheet in advance. And then anyone else who raises their hand virtually if you're attending through your telephone you can type in star nine to raise your hand. Each member of the public is allowed up to three minutes for testimony. We are strict with this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed five minutes for rebuttal, after which the hearing will be closed and the commission will deliberate and render a decision. Mr. Chair, you have the floor.

Thank you, Crystal. Okay, we are citizen volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. We make final decisions on conditional use permits, variances and appeals, and recommendations to the City Council on subdivisions, rezones, annexations, and code or comprehensive plan amendments. Any decision made tonight may be appealed to the City Council, provided that the appeal is filed within 10 days of this hearing. In order to file an appeal, you must have given written or oral testimony at tonight's meeting. So that's why it's important to give your name and address when you testify tonight. we utilize the consent agenda. This means that if the applicant agrees with the staff report and if there is no public opposition, the item will be placed on the consent agenda. All items that are placed on the consent agenda are approved with one motion without further public comment. For items not on the consent agenda, we will hold a full public hearing in the order just detailed a few minutes ago with staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and then the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Danley.

Here.

Moore. Here. Schaefer.

Here.

Dayhoff.

Here.

Torres.

Here.

Dollings. Here. Stefancic.

Here.

All present?

Okay, very good. Thank you all for coming tonight. Let's start with our consent agenda and a couple other housekeeping items. I'm actually going to start with number four on our agenda tonight because this item, CVA 26-27 and sub 26-28, has been withdrawn by the applicant. So just to let everybody know, if you were here for that, number four, again, on tonight's agenda, that item has been pulled. up for the potential consent agenda is first the meeting minutes from the Commission work session, as well as the actual Commission meeting held on July 6. Is there any discussion about either of those sets of meetings? Okay, hearing none, unless there's objection, I'll go ahead and place both of those on the consent agenda. The next item that is eligible for the consent agenda, but I don't know that it will be on the consent agenda, is item A. This is CBA 26-9. This is the land group. First and foremost, I think Commissioner Schaefer needs to say something.

Commissioner Schaefer? Yeah, Mr. Chair, thank you. I'll be recusing myself from this discussion. Very good. I'm a partner at land group.

A partner? Wow, that comes with a coffee cup? Geez, big guy. All right. All right. This is a reconsideration request of the denial of a variance to deviate from the standards of the near north end character overlay located at 1110 West Hayes Street, which was on 0.42 acres on an R3 and NC-0 or O zone. Everybody on the commission, I'm assuming, has read the revised reason statement. Yes. Are there any comments on the revised reason statement? Commissioner Moore.

I read the revised reason statement a few times and compared it against our staff report previously and my memory of our hearing and find it's consistent with kind of the basis of our findings.

Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Is there any other discussion on this item? Okay. Hearing none, I will go ahead and place item A, this is CVA 26-9 on the consent agenda. And that is it in terms of eligibility for the consent agenda. Is there a motion?

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Moore.

I move that we approve the consent agenda as constructed.

Thank you very much. I have a motion by Commissioner Moore. Is there a second?

Second.

I think that was by Commissioner Seha. Yes. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Danley?

Yes.

Moore? Yes. Schaefer? Seha?

Yes.

Torres?

Yes.

Stallings?

Yes.

Defonsic?

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Very good. Okay, I'm going to go up to item number two next. This is CFH 26-54. The applicant is Givens Pursley, and this is located at 3206 West Pleasanton Avenue. This is a river system permit to install a pedestrian bridge over the Boise River. And this has been a request for a deferral. to the September 14th, 2026 meeting. Is the applicant here or online? Doesn't have to be. Okay. Is there anybody here in chambers or online who is hoping to testify regarding number two on our agenda here, which is CFH 26-54? I see nobody online. Is there anybody in chambers who wanted to testify? Okay. Hearing none, then we'll go ahead and take, I guess, a motion to defer to the September 14th meeting. Commissioner Moore?

I move that we defer item number two, CFH 26-54, to the September 14th meeting.

Very good. Is there a second?

Second.

Oh, I think by a little bit I got Commissioner Torres. All right. Is there any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Danley? Aye.

Aye.

Moore. Aye. Schaefer.

Aye.

Teja. Aye. Torres.

Aye.

Dollings. Aye. Jafantik.

Aye.

All in favor. Motion carries.

Okay. Tag Commissioner Schaefer is back in the game. Okay. And that moves us to item number one. This is CFH 26-22. The applicant is HDR. This is a Boise River system permit located at 4010 South Eckert Road and Mr. Moser. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission.

The applicant requests a river system permit for the bridge replacement over the Boise River on approximately three acres of land within an R1A residential large lot and SP01 Barber Valley specific plan zones. The social property is also located in the following overlays, which includes the Boise River system, the hillside development, floodplain protection, wildlife and urban interface, and a development agreement. And it is located generally at 4010 South Eckerd Road. This is the vicinity map of the general area. On the east side of the river adjacent to the site is the future Alta Harris Park and conservation easements, which are owned by the City Parks and Recreation Department and also by the Harris Family Limited Partnership. On the west side of the river is the Barber Park, which is located within Ada County and the Ridenbaugh Canal Diversion Headworks. Adjacent to the north is the river and adjacent to the south is the Ridenbaugh Diversion Dam located within the Boise River itself. This slide shows the site plan and the proposed location of the bridge replacement. Early in 2025, an inspection discovered deterioration and damage to the existing bridge that warranted emergency action and temporary repair. It was determined that both the Boise River Bridge and the Rheinbach Canal Bridge needed to be replaced to improve safety and mobility for pedestrian cyclists and motorists. The new bridges will be widened with an additional multi-use pathway. This pathway will improve connectivity to Barbara Park and the Greenbelt. Alignments of the Boyd's River approach have been adjusted to enhance visibility, sight distance, and traffic at the entrance of Barbara Park. Basically means the bridge location on the west side of the river will be shifted to the north into Barbara Park itself. This is the landscape plan for the proposed bridge replacement, and it shows the trees that will be removed along the east and west sides of the river. Due to the proposed bridge's design, the impacts will be minimized on the surrounding sensitive environmental features to the maximum extent practicable. The bridge alignment on the east side of the river will remain within the existing road and bridge footprint and will avoid impact to the adjacent wetlands and conservation easements. The bridge alignment on the west side of the river will be shifted to the north to enhance vehicle and pedestrian access to the park. Shifting the bridge alignment to the north will locate a portion of the construction within the unincorporated Itta County. In summary, the proposed bridge replacement is allowed within the Class A lands, and the applicant did provide a mitigation and enhancement plan which details how they'll protect, preserve, and enhance the natural features along the Boise River. The important mitigation techniques used to protect the river's natural resource values is the placement of the bridge and roadway on site. The project initially locates the roadway and the bridge within the existing footprint on the east side of the river, which will reduce the impact on the adjacent riparian habitat, wetlands, and conservation easements, and reduce the loss of existing trees on this side of the river. In addition, the project will mitigate the associated impacts on the river itself by reducing the number of piers within the river from eight to two. In addition, the applicant will also use best management practices recommended by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to minimize impacts on in-street habitat within the river. These best management practices are discussed within the project report. It should be noted that bridge alignment will require several healthy trees within Barber Park to be removed. In addition, a section of the riverbank along the west side of the river will be disturbed for the construction of the new bridge abutments. Barbara Park and this riverbank area are located with unincorporated Ada County and outside the jurisdiction of the City of Boise. The applicant will be required to work with Ada County for any work occurring within their jurisdiction. In summary, the planning team recommends approval of this Boise River System application. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Moser. Is the applicant present? Okay. You guys want to come on up and you'll have up to 10 minutes, unless you need more, you have up to 20, if you need it.

Thank you. My name is Cameron Waite. I'm a project manager with HDR engineering. here on behalf of ACHD. Dave Rader, our ACHD project manager, is hiking in the wilderness tonight, so he wasn't able to attend.

Mr. Chair, I'm so sorry to interrupt, but could you lift that up a little bit? Oh, I apologize. Thank you.

Yeah. So he provided a slideshow. I don't know if we were going to show that. I've got his notes to share with you.

It's up to you. You have the time to go and proceed however you want.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll appreciate this opportunity to share with the Commission if you could go to the next slide. Yeah, perfect. So this is a rendering of the proposed bridge replacements as well as a roundabout at Boise Avenue and Eckert Road on the right side of the rendering. Moving from left to right, the proposed improvement would tie into Eckert Road by Millbrook Way, the intersection, and then travel along this existing alignment to the east side of the river. We'll include a new Greenbelt underpass under the roadway connecting the Greenbelt to the proposed Greenbelt in Alta Harris Park. And then the new bridge will carry over the Boise River, and as is described, it's realigned on that west side of the river. to provide better site distance and connectivity to the Barber Park driveway, as well as allow for staging the Ridenbaugh Canal Bridge construction, which would maintain access into the park when the river bridge is removed to be replaced. And then the driveway into Barber Park is rebuilt and reconstructed with left and right turn lanes coming in and out. And then the roundabout at the Boise Avenue intersection, which is part of a separate ACHD project. This river system permit is a critical piece of this project to move it forward. This project wouldn't be possible without partnership with LTAC, Leading Idaho Local Bridge Program, which is funding the majority of these improvements. And also the city partnership as we work with the Parks and Rec and other departments in the city. If we could go to the next slide. Oh, I can do it? Oh, thank you. We worked with local, state, and national partnerships to reduce and mitigate environmental impacts, including Idaho Department of Lands, the Land Trust of Treasure Valley, Idaho Department of Water Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers with the goal of reducing and mitigating environmental impacts, as was mentioned earlier. You can see here the eight bridge piers in the river currently that would be removed and replaced with two. The project has obtained permits from both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Idaho Department of Water Resources and includes revegetation and tree mitigation. It will also employ a stormwater pollution and prevention plan throughout the duration of construction. A key part of this alignment and this project was to avoid the conservation easements on the east side of the river. And so we've designed it with retaining walls and other access points to avoid getting into there other than to remove one concrete wall that's within that easement that we'll remove. Water quality monitoring and fish salvage will be employed with the dewatering plan and we have met with Idaho Fish and Game to discuss that and they will review the dewatering plan and fish salvage plan before it's implemented. And the project is, the intent is to comply with the conditions of the Boise River System Permit. These are some of the agencies I mentioned and others that the project was coordinated with to get where we are today. We had biweekly coordination meetings with the most impacted agencies on the west side, Ada County Parks and Waterways and with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to coordinate moving the project forward and meeting their needs and especially coordination with construction as Nampa Meridian Irrigation Project still has their headworks project continuing this winter. We, ACHD, hosted an in-person and online public involvement meeting in December of 25 and continues to engage with the public through construction and has meetings scheduled with the Barber Valley Neighborhood Association in early September with a construction open house scheduled for later in September. And then Dave wanted to share the schedule of the project. Bid advertisement began almost a week ago on July 28th. with a goal of hopefully working with you on the Boise River system permit tonight. A construction open house September 29th and construction notice to proceed in October of 2026 and project completion in 2020, the summer of 2028. So with that, I'm available for questions. I also have Ricardo Calderon from ACHD and Jason Mick from HDR who helped prepare the permit.

Excellent. Very good. Do either of you gentlemen have anything to add in the time that you have left? Okay. Very good. Thank you, Cameron. It's good to see you. It's been a while. I need to first, before we go to questions, see if there's anybody from the neighborhood associations. In this case, Barber Valley, Gary Vesey, I don't think. Not online. Are you a spokesperson for the Barber Valley Neighborhood Associations? Okay. A hundred percent accurate. It's not listed here. We're going to get there, but you are representative of SENA. Okay. Very good. So since I don't have the Barber Valley folks, you're welcome to come on up and you'll have up to the same 10 minutes of time that they did. Okay. I would think, yeah. Why don't you still come up? You don't have to present, but I think it would be best. for you to get your questions out. We're not gonna be able to answer them, but between us and the applicant, because you as a representative of SENA, I'm going to assume that the questions are from SENA, because if they are not, then you personally will have three minutes to testify later on. So I think it would be better to give you the chance to ask those questions at least now to get them out. Sina's on the receiving end of the bridge.

Mr. Chair, I have Eric Berg down as the neighborhood representative, though, for Sina. So I think this might be a testimony situation.

Eric Berg is president. I am the APH representative on Sina. But he's not here.

Yeah. I don't have a problem with it. I think that if you're the designated liaison representative to the district and it's on behalf of SENA, I'm assuming that you've been blessed to come and give us, and I don't think you're gonna take that much time. So I would go ahead and allow you to come on up and at least get your questions out. Okay, just make sure you identify yourself by name and address, please, when you do.

I don't know if this works. I don't think it's on.

Yep, we got you.

Okay. I'm Valerie Steffen with Southeast Neighborhood Association. I'm the ACHD liaison with SENA. I have just a few questions. The first question has to do with the multi-use path. that is along the bridge. How far does it go? How far, how wide is it? Is it on both sides or just one side? Currently, there is a multi-use path on just the west side. So that's one question. Second question, how much of the riverfront will be affected and If I understand correctly, there's a temporary bridge that will be going into the west side of the riverfront in Barber Park. Is that correct?

Okay. Are there any other questions? I'm confident that those questions will be answered. I already know the answer for sure to one of them, but this will come out as we have this discussion.

Okay, good. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Okay. With that, then we'll go ahead and open this item up to questions of the commission.

Mr. Chair. Commissioner Torres. I'm just going to open it up by asking the question she asked about the multi-use pathway. Okay, very good. This is why he had you go ahead of time because after your public testimony, or when you give public testimony later, we can't ask questions after that. So this gives an opportunity for those questions to be answered. Do you need me to repeat the question?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, if it's asking about the multi-use path, Yes, it will be installed with this. They are incorporating into it. It will extend along the north side of the bridge, connecting the Greenbelt up in the Harris Ranch side, the east side, back over, and then it connects into the Greenbelt at Barbara Park. And I think it was kind of shown on my site plan or the site plan submitted by the applicant.

Did you want to ask the other one or I wasn't sure?

What is the width of the pathway?

16 feet. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I don't know offhand, but I think it's our standard multi-use path is a 10 foot. The existing or the proposed? Although I'm pretty sure ACHD could probably answer that.

The proposed is 16. Yeah. They can answer it, but we've studied it. It's in their packet.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I mean, to some degree that the focus of the application was on habitat restoration, not necessarily on the Greenbelt per se, but we can definitely answer that.

Yep.

Very good.

Okay. Did you want to ask the other question that was provided, Commissioner Torres, that had to do with a temporary bridge? I think that was the premise of the question. Um, does anybody can, can Mr. Moser, can you address that? Was there any discussion on a temporary bridge?

Mr. Chairman of the commission. I was not familiar of a temporary bridge. Um, that would be a good question for the ACHD to answer.

Very good. Do you gentlemen want to come up? I've got a number of questions that you're going to end up coming up anyway. So you might want to do that now.

Yes, commissioners, thank you. If I could just answer the question. The pathway width on the bridges is 16 feet. There's a barrier on either side, so we wanted additional room and thought of people carrying tubes and other things to get in the park. We wanted the width off the bridge parallel to the road. There's a buffer space, and then it's 12 foot at minimum. The temporary bridge is over the Ridenbaugh Canal to the south of Barber Park, and the intent is to provide a temporary access into the park through the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District parcel than over that temporary bridge because the new bridges are about 50 feet apart and the elevation change there would make it difficult to get the buses and other vehicles in and out of the park through the construction. We thought we had found a way to do it, but by doing this temporary bridge over the canal, it makes things much simpler and keeps traffic for the most part out of construction for the majority of it, especially during float season.

Very good. Okay. Hopefully that answers the question. I think for sure it did. So, okay. Other questions of the commission?

Mr. Chair.

This is Commissioner Stallings.

To the applicant, the bridge design is shown tying to that future Boise Avenue Eckhart roundabout. Is that happening concurrently with the and what happens if those schedules deviate? Is there anything that, you know, safety or access conditions that we need to be aware about if anything slows one of those down from the other?

Thank you, Commissioner Stallings. Great question. They are being bid together as two projects, but bid at the same time, same contractor. The schedule is that the river bridge and canal bridge and roadway work needs to be done before the roundabout starts. So the river bridge has to be removed completely to replace it. There will be a detour in place so that Boise Avenue-Eckert Road intersection will stay in place until those new bridges are in place, and then that will be closed for a period to install the roundabout. with the intent to your point to minimize those disruptions and impacts.

Other questions. Okay. I've got a number of questions and I am very sensitive to the rest of my fellow commissioners. So if at any point in time during the questions that I'm asking, if you all have follow-up, please just, throw a pen at me or something like that and make sure that we get those answered. Okay. Mr. Moser, first question I'm just gonna ask your way. So this is part of our property here is class A ground. And would you agree that this is our most sensitive environmental area along the river in terms of class A?

Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, that is correct. It is Class A by definition, and that is defined as our most sensitive habitat and protection areas.

So according to our code, it then requires us to have sort of the, this is the highest degree of protection and scrutiny that this body and potentially the Council can provide. Is that accurate? Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, that is accurate. Okay. Okay. In the image that is above us, we see, can you expand that, Mr. Moser? There's a yellow dashed line. And that yellow dashed line, I believe, shows the sort of western or northern, however we're trying to define this, northwestern edge of the bridge, the proposed project, which happens to be a bridge, correct? Okay, in our packet, And I don't know if maybe Mr. Moser, if it's in yours, in your presentation, there is a dash line that shows us the area of impact that the bridge slash project has.

Can you pull that up?

While he's doing that, Cameron, if I can, I'm curious, the question would be then, does it stand to reason that would work too, that red line? Is the project what we're calling the project area. Does it stand to reason that the size of the project has a relationship with the size of the project area.

I think I'm following what you're saying. Yeah, I believe so. Okay. Thank you.

So within the project area. Are all of the natural spaces, the water, the land, all of the things that we have to consider by code, right? Okay, so the size of this project is related to the size of what we have to consider and are required by our code to consider to grant this approval. Is that accurate?

Mr. Chairman of the Commission, that is correct.

Okay. All right. Thank you. In many parts of our packet, this project is described as a replacement. Can you describe the difference in the physical size and scale and so forth of what is there today versus what is being proposed?

For the bridge itself? Mm-hmm. Yeah, the bridge itself is significantly wider, additional lane and shoulder distance to barriers on either side of the travel lanes to one each way with a center turn lane and then a barrier and then the 16 foot wide path. So it's, I don't know if Tom, I had the exact difference, but it's wider. And then it's longer, especially on the, I guess it'd be what we're calling the east side, we had to extend further because of floodplain and hydraulic modeling. And so it's about another 75 feet further to the right or east than the existing bridge end.

Great, okay, thank you. So if this bridge is taller, if it's longer, and if it's wider than the existing bridge, Is it fair to say that this is not just a replacement, but it's an expansion of what is there today?

Yes.

OK. So if this project is an expansion of what is there today and not just a replacement, then that requires to us, this body, to further scrutinize the differences and impacts to the mitigation areas defined by the size of the project. Is that accurate?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that is accurate.

Okay, thank you. By our own code, this project has to comply with our code itself This is the class A through C standards. This has to comply with our comprehensive plan. It has to comply with and meet up with the preservation and enhancement of the natural areas. And then it has to comply with federal law and state laws. It also gives us, as this deciding body, the authority's to add additional terms and conditions for approval. Is that correct? Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that is correct. So Cameron, you said you didn't know the differences. Maybe your other folks will help you on this one. And I don't know if we have the dimensions of the project available to us. I know it's in our packet. But I'm wondering if we can get specifically around the height and the width of the existing bridge compared to the height and the width of the proposed expansion bridge. I'd like to know the differences between the two, and especially the percentage of difference in overall size.

Mr. Chairman and the Commission, I'll do my best. I don't have those numbers in front of me. I can get those for you, and they may be in our packet, but The bridge, as I mentioned, on the east side is about 10 feet higher in the air than existing, specifically because of flood issues and mitigating flood issues, as well as then allowing for the Greenbelt underpass further to the east to get that to fit under Eckert Road and deal with groundwater issues and stuff. Those were the balance we struck on that side. On the west, I was going to say south, the west side, it's about four feet higher in the air, if I remember correctly. And then width-wise, I want to say it's probably 25 to 30 feet wider with the additional lane, shoulders, and shy distance, and then the widened pathway.

Okay, very good. Thank you. So I'm going to zero in a little bit on the width because the current bridge is My understanding is the current configuration of the bridge. I think it's 11 foot travel lanes, two, one in each direction. There might be a foot buffer on the outside to the Jersey barrier walls where they're railing. And then I think that the multi-use path is, I think, is it, do you know off the top of your head, is it 10 or is it 12? Mr.

Chair, members of commission, I think it was stated that across the bridge at 16. That's what the proposed is.

The proposed is 15. The existing is narrower, however. I don't remember off the top of my head, been on a zillion times. I know officially I can't give you that number for the record. I get that. I believe it is no wider than 12. It's an older design. It may even be 10, but regardless. Okay, so we have, I'm going to call it 12, 11 plus one for the buffer, 12 for 11 plus one for the buffer, and I'll call it 12 for the other, so 36 feet in width. Does that sound reasonable? Okay, the proposed bridge has 16 feet for the multi-use path, has, I believe it's a two-foot buffer between the path and the next inside the travel lane, the first travel lane.

There's a barrier there that's about two feet, yes.

Right, so there's 18 feet, right? Mm-hmm. There's different documentation in the report that says between four to six feet of buffer space between the wall and the travel lane. I don't know what the number actually is. There's a range there. I have to default to six because we have to think about the maximum terms of mitigation. Okay. The 16 plus two, there's 18, right? Plus six more. So there's 24 public school math. I think I'm there 24, right? I've got 11 foot on top of that for a travel lane. So that's now 35. So that now is about the width of the existing structure. I have a center lane. That's an 11 feet more. So that's now 46 feet plus another 11 feet lane. So that's now 57 feet plus another six feet to the buffer. So we're now at 61 plus the additional two feet for the outside wall. So 63 feet compared to 36 feet. So we are almost, not quite, almost doubling the size from the existing bridge to the proposed bridge. I want to make sure that's accurate. Again, it's not a 100% growth, but it's pretty close. Can we call it an 80%? Just for the sake of the math, you guys want you know, fix that, go by all means, but I'm going to call it an 80% growth difference in the width of that for now. Okay. Anything to add on that before I move forward? Are there any other questions of the commission before I move forward? Commissioner Seha?

Um, Terman, I have a question, um, on the design. So when you guys, when ACHD decided to design this, you guys are looking at traffic volumes 20 years out. Okay. So the, um, bridge expansion in large part is to accommodate future traffic volumes or

more turning volumes at the barber park driveway by adding that left turn out and a left turn in uh that doesn't exist today it widened that road there and part of that thought was the left turn out of barber park by having that width because the bridge is right there that width would allow someone to potentially do a two-stage maneuver to turn left out turn into that turn lane if traffic was clear one way and then could move into the other lane if it wasn't clear um the buffer space between the travel lane and the barrier is known as a shy distance, but it's typically a safety factor on bridges and barriers. And so the four and a half is the minimum at the 35 mile an hour design speed. And then it goes to six feet because we do have a radius at that North end. And so there's a little bit of variation there that to commissioner chairman Danley's point.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay, I'm going to move into our comprehensive plan for a little bit, because this is one that we have to satisfy in order to grant this approval. Okay, so I'm really going to stick mostly with the very first chapter, because there's a lot to our comprehensive plan as you know, but our very first chapter is environmental stewardship. As I think I mentioned at the outset, this is class A, a lot of this is class A land and water, which already according to our code elevates it to the top of what we need to consider for mitigation, right? On top of our very first chapter of our comp plan is environmental stewardship, which I think sort of speaks for itself of the importance of that to our city. So the very first goal is ES1, this is air quality, okay? So Cameron, can you talk or any of your team talk a little bit about the difference between a two lane existing bridge deck and what amounts to be a three lane bridge deck plus 12 additional feet of buffer space. There's far more pavement up there. What does that do for air quality?

I don't know that I can answer that question. We didn't do any air quality studies formally as part of this. Okay.

Then let me ask this question. Is it accurate to say that the more surface area that there is on a bridge... There's more accumulation of dirt, dust, all of the debris that we would typically see and often builds up. I know it drives ACHD crazy because we get weeds growing in everything, right? Things like de-icer fluid, things like traction sand. Is it safe to say that the wider the space, the more debris builds up?

I think it could be. Okay.

So then if that's the case, is it then fair to say that a wider bridge than what is there today because of the ambient materials that are on this bridge deck will then generate more localized like PM 2.5, PM 10, those types of emission type dust particles?

I would defer to you. I don't have an expertise there. I can't argue with that one.

Another part of our comprehensive plan has to do with not just the environmental part, but there's a piece in our comprehensive plan that also has to do with human health. Is it fair to say that degraded air quality has also an equivalent degradation on lungs and asthma and things of that nature?

Yeah, we're seeing that now. Okay, great. Thank you. Not great. Not great.

Okay. ES2, the next section of environmental stewardship. I'm sorry for taking my glasses on and off. It's annoying, but I'm nearsighted. So if I don't, I can't see you very well. Water quality, right? That's a big one for us in Boise. So similar question. Does a wider and longer bridge deck collect more debris?

collects more stormwater runoff that could collect more debris. Okay.

So in winter operations, a wider bridge with a center lane and depending, I'm going to get to this in a minute, but depending upon what I read is sometimes it says center lane. Sometimes it says center turn lane that definitely matters, but regardless. So we have this third lane and buffer space again in winter operations, especially when we have inversions and all that kind of stuff, there are, again, more traction sand operations, potentially de-icing fluid and all that stuff, right? And all of that, when we actually get rain or a snow melt, eventually makes its way into the river.

Well, we hope to avoid that. Our design is, we've worked with Boise Parks Department to enhance the wet basin that they have in the park now. And that's where all the water that comes off the bridge would be collected. and then ACHD is working on agreement to maintain that basin. So the hope is to keep it from getting in the river. But it happens.

There's times when... It can happen, sure. Right. Those stormwater collection sites have some issue and become a non-point type of an event and all that kind of stuff. Okay. ES6, promote urban forest. So... I want to make sure to get make sure we're clear on this, the expansion of this project so it's related again. To the area of impact that we defined by this red line we've we've already said that so I just want to make sure we're we're clear on that right okay so in regards of the project area. You all, not HDR, but one of your other sub consultants or ACHD consultants, I guess, did an inventory. And inside this red line defined by the size of this project are 120 trees. Of those 120 trees, 36 are proposed to be cut down. Is that accurate?

Mm-hmm.

Okay. So roughly a third, just about a third of the trees that are inside that red line are to be cut down. Okay. Many of the trees identified are either cottonwoods or ponderosas, ponderosa pines, that have up to 75 to 100 feet in height tree canopies. Is that accurate? Is that what the report said?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I believe the ponderosa, I don't know about the height, but there are definitely those are the trees that are in the park that are going to be removed.

Okay. Do you know, if there's any on your team, anybody here know, how long does it take for a ponderosa pine to reach 75 to 100 feet in height? Any estimate, any ideas?

I don't know.

OK, how about a cottonwood? OK, so the mitigation that is being proposed by after cutting all these downs is to plant saplings, right? But we don't know. I'm not having an answer anyway. That tells me how long in years this tree canopy will be replenished. Is that accurate?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, as for how long it takes to grow a tree, I'm not an arborist. I don't know how long that would take to get the height or Get the, to replace the tree exactly.

Sure.

A lot of those trees I will note, and I wish, I don't know if there's somebody here from Ada County Parks and Rec who could speak to it, but a lot of those trees are actually in their, inside the park and in Ada County itself. Right. So- So, unfortunately, my report could not address them because they're outside our jurisdiction.

Totally understandable. Appreciate that, Mr. Moser. I think what I'm trying to point out is that because of the size of this project in front of us, there's a direct correlation to the project area, which includes the 120 trees that are calculated in the report. I don't know, and maybe you do. How many trees would be in this report if this was an apples to apples replacement? Do we have any idea? We have 120 now. If this bridge were to be replaced exactly as it is, how much of a difference would that make compared to what's being asked of us for this permit? And we have to determine mitigation is ample.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I think a lot of this deals with the plan to shift the approach of the bridge to the north on the west side. And that's basically where it's forcing a lot of these tree removal inside the park. There is a condition that was required by staff that all trees 4-inch caliper or greater need to replace on a caliper inch. Unfortunately, that only applies to trees within the city of Boise. I can't speak to trees actually in Ada County. I think my understanding is that ACHG is working with their parks department on the mitigation that Ada County wants. I don't know what they've decided that mitigation is, what their parks department has required.

Mr. Moser, I appreciate you bringing up that point because here's, I'm going to follow this up then, because when the bridge meets sort of the shoreline into Barber Park, do you know, Cameron, the offset between the existing landing that's on the western edge of the current bridge and compared to where it's proposed to go, what is that distance?

I want to say 30 feet.

So about the width of the difference between what is existing and what's proposed then.

Yeah.

So the change in design, if we kept the design the way that it is now, but change the alignment, then it really wouldn't, there wouldn't be the difference that we're describing, the 36 foot different here. Okay. I think you said someone from Ada County is here? I don't know, you don't have to testify or add anything to this, but if you have anything to add to this, this would be a great time. Can you just throw your name and address for the record for us?

Sure, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, thank you. My name is Scott Coburg. I'm the director of Ada County Parks and Waterways. Our office is located in Barber Park, 4049 South Eckert Road. My personal address is 10508 North Palisades Way, Boise.

You won't visit your house.

Yeah, I didn't think so. Yeah, just to comment, we have been collaborating with ACHD for quite some time on this project, and that is the front door to Barber Park. Like I mentioned, that's my office location. I'll address the ponderosa pine issue, I think, first. That's probably the easiest. I believe those trees were planted in the fall of 2012, perhaps the spring of 2013. They were likely... three inch to four inch caliper trees upon planting. So we're adding 12, 13 years to that. Those are the trees at the front entrance that are landscape trees. We understand they do need to be removed given the current design. Many of the other trees on that side of the river within what would be known as Barber Park are sort of traditional riparian corridor trees, including those black cottonwoods, of which there are many. We have the largest black cottonwood canopy publicly owned in the Boise River system. Many people don't know that, but that is what Barber Park includes. Most of that is towards the back end of the park as it approaches East Park Center Bridge. And, yeah, in terms of the alignment and the stormwater accumulation and those kinds of questions as well, the basin that Cameron referred to, I think you mentioned working with Boise City Parks. That's actually on Ada County property. And we are supportive of that. And we are also working with the consultant team and ACHD on that. the, you know, what kind of tree replacement efforts would be made in Barber Park. The unique thing about Barber Park, just as a last kind of note, and then I'll sit, is that the front end of Barber Park is not owned by Ada County. So we have an agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District that goes back into the 70s, whereby that is how we manage the front end of the park, but the landowner is Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. So we're in A bit of unique circumstance. Our attorneys are working through the things just like yours would do on your end for the opposite side of the river. But all in all, we were very supportive of the design based on what we know from traffic volumes and access and the safety concerns that we have on the bridge, entering and exiting the park, all of those factors. And that pathway, correct, it's currently 12 foot wide on the bridge. We hung that through an ITD grant project back in like 2000 and maybe four. I don't know. It's been some time, but I wasn't a part of that. But that was an 80 county project as well to add a green belt crossing on Eckerd Bridge. So we're happy with the 16 foot as it's suggested with as well just because of the – it's a high volume bridge and it's only getting more so.

I'm sorry. Can you repeat your name?

Yeah. Sorry.

My name is Scott Coburg. Scott. Thank you, Scott.

Yeah.

Thanks for coming up and being here. I appreciate it. Yeah. And I'm happy to sit down. Are you able to answer that question about how long it takes a cottonwood to get up to 75 to a hundred feet in height?

So given that those would have been obtained, there were, I think at the time it was, like I said, 2012, likely, um, I started in 2013, um, In my position there, there were 20 ponderosas ordered at that time by my predecessor. They were all planted, self-performed planting by my staff. I heard a lot about it when I first took the job, that that was one of the last things that he wanted to be done was those 20 trees. But they were, like I mentioned, I think four-inch caliper at the time. Don't know what the height would have been on pond planting or what age they would have been at a four-inch caliper tree. But then you add to 2026, we're talking, you know, 12, 13, 14 years or so.

So those are the ponderosas, but you're telling me that a 13-year-old ponderosa has reached 100 feet in height?

Yeah, the 13... Yeah, I would say where those are placed and the irrigation and the time and care and attention they get, they're pretty pampered trees in that location where the new landing would be. I can't really... I'm not an arborist either, but I'm just... basing this on my memory when I know they were installed and the likely size that would have been installed at that time. And then based on the condition of those trees today. Yeah, that was one of my first questions. When I saw the bridge design, it was a bummer to lose those trees.

So before you sit down, I think my next couple of questions you might be able to answer whomever, it doesn't matter. And this was also, I guess, Mr. Moser, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe in our packet there was a Bright magenta color that stuck out that says that those this grove and most of these trees are raptor habitat, according to our comp plan. Yeah. So just making sure that that's accurate.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, there is a bald eagle setback in this section. It extends 200 feet from the high water mark with the river out, which would be identified on that magenta color approximately, although there is some flexibility because our shape file is based. We had to guesstimate where the high water mark seasonal thing is.

That's fine. Thank you. Appreciate it. Can you please pull back up your rendering of the project? Maybe Mr. Moser can do that. No, it was part of the applicant's proposal that had, I think it was the, yep, now you're getting closer. Go up to the slide number three and go up. Number, it is right there. Can you zoom in on that one? Make it the size of the screen. Perfect. Thank you so much. Okay. So before I go to that, I want to, real quick follow up then. So the nexus between needing to remove all of these trees again is established that it has to do with the size of the project. So my question is then what is the effect of removing what is a fairly large grove of trees on the water and the fish habitat and the fly fishing that all happens in that general vicinity. What happens to things like water temperature, for example, and how do the fish change their behavior? What does that mean for the recreation use that people go to that spot to fly fish all the time? Will that change? I don't know. I'm not a fish expert. I like sushi, but otherwise that's about it.

Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, usually when you're using riprap or armoring a bank, our code would normally require that you also include vegetation or trees in there to provide shade to cool the water and provide better habitat. I was not provided that detail for the west side of the bank adjacent to the park. Okay.

Anything to add on that? I would just add There was fish habitat enhancement project, I can't remember how long ago, that put in some stumps and some boulders. We did survey all those and have mapped those, and they are either to be retained and protected, or if they're moved, replaced in kind. And so to that aspect, I think that fish habitat will be similar. For the shade, we are proposing to replace trees, but it won't be the same as what is today. It will take time to grow, to your point.

Okay. This rendering... please again, correct me if I'm wrong here, but that is an after of the bridge, right?

Correct.

Okay. So then that entire grove of trees in the entrance to Barber Park will no longer be there. Is that correct?

We don't show all the saplings that would replace it, but that's what it would probably look like day one when it opened and with some saplings there.

But it's, I mean, okay, but fair to say that what's showing there is not going to look like that for at least a generation or so.

Yes, it will take time.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if I might be confused. I think this rendering actually does depict what it would look like on day one. It shows it with those ponderosas are all removed in this and as are those bank the riparian vegetation, the big cottonwoods kind of towards the southern portion of this map, if you're just orienting from the map, those are all existing, very mature cottonwoods. Those aren't going anywhere. That's in kind of a picnic area in Barber Park.

So Mr. Moser, there's a map that we have in our packet. And I think, I don't know if I saw it on any of the pictures or renderings of either presentation, but it shows, no, there is, there's a crosshatch area and it's grayed out. and shows all of the trees in that crosshatch area are to be removed. Do we have that? Sorry to make you jump back and forth like that. That's it, the one on the left. So the picture on the left shows that hatching that error is my is my understanding is that everything inside of that is getting cut down mr chair members of the commission the uh the legend off the side of it does say tree removal and replacement replanting area okay So when we think about that rendering, and I guess we're just going to disagree because it seems to me like if this is accurate, then that rendering is inaccurate. The rendering, if it was shown to look like that or reflect this, I guess, the question I guess I would have is has the public seen anything about what changes there are going to occur at least in the near term based on and those are from correct me if i'm wrong but that's from the construction staging if i cur if i read that correctly correct yeah that's the construction staging we're not putting a temporary bridge in the river so we're doing cofferdams and dewatering that access

to the river for cranes and other equipment is through the park, through that area. OK. In defense of the rendering, it is from the north looking south at an angle. So I don't know, to your point, if some of those trees that are further north look closer than they are in the rendering. OK, that's fair. Our intent was to make that as accurate as possible.

Rendering sometimes can be a little tricky. So that's fair. Appreciate that, Cameron. OK. Unless there's any other questions, I'm going to move into the next section of our comp plan, which is noise.

Mr. Chair, can I jump in with a couple questions? Yeah, please. So my first question is, is it fair to say that the decision to relocate the bridge to this location is primarily out of traffic and safety concerns? Were there any other considerations that went into that?

The other was that we knew the river bridge would be removed completely, and to maintain access to the park, the canal bridge over the Reinbach Canal Bridge is staged, so you could build half of it to the north or west of the existing bridge and keep that existing bridge open and then shift traffic there. And so that was part of the consideration as well.

So that existing bridge that is being removed no matter what, the bridge you just mentioned?

The canal bridge is being replaced as well.

Okay. Kind of on an unrelated note, Chairman Danley's asking a lot of very good questions, but my question's for staff. Most of the trees we're talking about are on the Ada County side of the river, correct?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that is correct.

So my question is kind of a, for lack of a better word, a jurisdiction question. Because that's outside of Boise City limits, how much leeway do we have to make a decision based on that side of the river? Or the bridge, I mean, I'm sorry.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Yeah, I kept my report focused on the sections within the city limits of the Boise. I don't think Ada County has a similar river system permit. I know they have a river setback of 100 feet, but I don't think they have a similar type of Boise River system ordinance that we do. So I wanted to keep my focus on within the city limits and my conditions limited to the city limits.

and kind of as a follow-up. So any mitigation we chose to include in our decision, it would have to be on our side, on the city side of the river, or the side of the bridge, is that correct? Or what is our, for lack of a better word, what is our flexibility here, I guess, would be my question.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the river system application or founding view is focused to only land within the city of Boise, because that is where the ordinance takes effect. Once you get into county, then they have their own ordinances and they have their own process and they would have to follow those.

One last question and I'll let Chairman Danley resume. So hypothetically, if we were to order planting of more trees to make up for the loss of these trees on the west side of the river, they would have to be on the east side of the river, on the Boise side of the river, is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I don't I think it gets tricky to require mitigation for trees outside of our jurisdiction.

Thank you.

Okay, anything else? Okay, I'm going to move on to the last section of our comp plan before I get into the design of the bridge itself. I wanted to talk the last one is es eight. And that's excessive noise. noise is another component of our comprehensive plan and our zoning code that we are required to be stewards of, right, as you would expect us to be. So here's my question then. How does a taller, wider, and longer bridge differ in noise generation than a shorter and narrower bridge?

I think a higher bridge would carry noise further. I don't know about width, if that would make a difference or not.

I'm not up to that. So on the width part of it, the current operation is vehicles are opposing one another with only the stripe in the middle to separate. The proposed version is farther out with a center lane. that I heard you describe as possibly being used as an acceleration lane for left-hand turns coming out of the park.

The intent is not acceleration, but to allow a two-stage left turn out of the park when it's busy traffic.

Okay, that's fair. But the width of two vehicles offset farther from one another would then, I think you'd agree, propagate noise farther than if they were right next to each other? Yeah, I don't know well enough. I won't disagree with you. Okay. And then just the general amount of material in the bridge, right? The beams, the concrete, there's more of it. And so again, the noise propagation coming from a larger structure is generally louder than than is what is there now, which is also closer to the river in terms of height, which then can kind of deaden the sound too, right? Can it not?

I don't know, but I don't disagree with you.

Okay. All right. I'm going to turn my attention to the design of the bridge itself because I think this is a really important point to note that this is the rational nexus, right? behind what we are challenged with, which again, has to do with environmental stewardship from our comp plan, the code and the river permit, all of the things that go in it and are specifically, which I'll get into a little bit later, what our charge is. But I wanna get into the bridge design itself, but I wanna make sure again, are there any other questions of the commission on, well, it can be anything, but anything that we just covered comp plan or otherwise? Mr. Stallings.

yeah question for staff um just would staff characterize this project as producing like a net ecological improvement at completion or creating a near-term impacts that are expected to recover over an amount of time mr chair members of the commission i mean our river system ordinance the goal of that is is no net loss i mean that is sort of the stated goal of of um

of natural resource value. Is the overall project creating a net or loss or gain over time? Or that's hard to say. I mean, I don't know what steps are being taken within the park itself to mitigate for those impacts or those trees. So as an overall, without that, it's hard to say if the overall project is a net gain or loss. I think if you just look at this, the work occurring in the city within the city limits. I think they are at no net loss. It's just the I just don't know what's happening or how the trees within the park are being mitigated.

Okay, thanks.

David Price- Mr Moser would you mind i'm sorry to do this to you again, but can you please find the slide that depicts the the proposed design of the bridge itself. David Price- And it's in our packet I it's on like page 91 of our packet of memory served me, but I want to get to the the configuration of the actual bridge so in terms of the number of lanes the dimensions of the lanes. all of that sort of stuff. That's what I want to be sort of speaking.

In our PowerPoint, there is a cross-section rendering that might help.

It has those dimensions as well.

Just pass the question slide. Yep, that would be good. See if that would help.

That would work. That works just fine. Thank you very much. Okay. All right. Throughout this packet, and written in a number of the letters that were submitted on behalf of this project, the word safety comes up over and over again. Can you tell me how many crashes have occurred on this bridge over the last seven, eight years?

I don't believe there's any on the bridge. There's been several at the intersection just beyond the bridge. Okay.

So your project sponsor is LTAC, right? They're one of your partners. So LTAC has safety data available, and you're correct. That bridge deck has no crashes in its recent reported history, seven years. There's a handful at Barber Park, a handful up the way at Millwood. But as for the bridge itself, there are no crashes on it. So if there's been no crashes on the existing bridge, then I'd love to know how are we keep, again, hearing that word safety throughout this packet. How is safety being addressed if there are no crashes to fix?

The biggest safety concern was the Barber Park driveway with this project. And The biggest issue with that is sight distance, with the existing pathways and barriers, and especially on the Ridenbaugh Canal Bridge up that cage that goes over the top. And so between the alignment and the bridge configuration, we feel like we've improved that sight distance to make it better, and then adding those left turn lanes as well.

OK. OK, so the alignment gets us better sight lines. The entrance and exit into and out of Barbara Park think does what you're talking about i think that's all fair so talk to me about this center turn lane the current bridge has never had it there are no crashes on it why is that needed well it's a good question and one we talked a lot about as far as for a bridge uh and and

should go back to history of this, the design and construction of this bridge is on a very accelerated pace compared to a typical river crossing bridge. The design was done in eight months versus typically a two year process. And so trying to be efficient with design and construction, all that being said is keeping the bridge width constant versus a taper. Those two bridges on either side are right at that intersection. And so we need that full width at that end of each of those bridges. And to keep the bridge design and construction simple and faster was keep it consistent with across the bridge and then tying into the three lane section at Millbrook. The other consideration that came up was if there was an incident that blocked a lane or something, you would have a space for emergency vehicles to go around a traffic jam or a block lane or something. Or if there were maintenance activities, you could keep two-way traffic going. So those were some of the considerations for the bridge width.

Okay. So West Park Center Bridge, East Park Center Bridge, the rebuilt Amity, which is just up the way, Federal Way, Highway 21 and Broadway, I already mentioned Broadway, none of those have center turn lanes. Many of them have changes whether it's curvature, whether it's approaches and left-hand turns. So I'm having a hard time understanding why none of the other bridges in all of East Boise that span the river, span the canals, have the similar kind of issues as this. Why does this one have to have an additional 11 feet, which starts to encroach into these class A spaces, water, land, and so forth?

The reasons that I outlined earlier are the reasons that this was selected last fall, specifically the proximity to that intersection and turning movements and trying to keep the bridge, trying to not introduce a taper on the bridge was a big part of the design and construction. And then the left turn out to allow that as a, like I said, a two stage or a refuge left turn.

Okay. Those were the considerations. Okay. How is Eckerd listed on ACHD's master street map? That's ACHD's policy document on how this road is to be treated. Do you know? Yeah, I believe it's a collector. And how many lanes does that document state Eckerd is to be?

I believe two.

Two. What are we proposing then? Because this is technically, operationally anyway, we're calling this a center turn lane. So it would be considered three at this point, right? And so now, if we consider the roundabout all the way to Millwood, we've now constructed a three-lane section, right? Okay. So here's my next question then. Why do we have a four- to six-foot buffer on the outside when, again, none of the bridges that are on the system now have that width?

That is a safety consideration called shy distance. Distance from the edge line to the face of a barrier, an area for a vehicle to recover if they start to veer towards that. And at 35 miles an hour, The recommendation is 4.5 feet. That's an ITD standard. We designed this bridge to ITD standards because it was through the LTAC, LIB, Little Leading Idaho Local Bridge Program.

Okay. Correct me again, please, if I'm wrong, but you all have engineering judgment. That is a foundation of AASHTO.

Correct. Other bridges we're designing similar five-mile overpass, we're using the same shy distance offset.

Well, I mean, I think you'd agree with me. A freeway overpass is not a neighborhood collector.

No, but the same design speed and vehicle speed.

So we're using the same design speed as the freeway overpass as we are in a residential collector?

They're both listed at 35 miles an hour. So we're using 35-mile-an-hour design speed, correct. I just use that as an example that... That's fair.

That's what I'm trying to get at. Okay, so then... I guess I'll go back to if there have been no crashes on this bridge with the existing cross-section, then why are we adding width that is solving a problem that doesn't exist?

Well, I think the considerations I mentioned before with the access in and out of the Barbara Park being the primary one that led to this decision.

Okay, so let me ask this then. If I look at that cross section, I have three 11-foot travel lanes. If I add six, I'm going to take the maximum on either side. That's additionally 12. 12 plus that 11 is now 23. That's enough space to create four lanes on that bridge. Is that the intent? Is that part of what is being preserved for the future at some point? I think Commissioner Seha asked that question earlier and it sounded like the answer to that was at least potentially yes.

It's not something that came up in our discussions that I'm aware of. The road itself, as you point out, is not planned for more lanes. And so on the east side of the river, we're matching into existing right away other than for the new pathway considerations.

Okay. So you answered the question earlier. What's the current design speed? 35 miles an hour. What is it now?

It's posted at 35 right now.

Okay. But this design opens up that road to add more space, right? With that center lane. You guys are engineers, right? What's the research say about introducing additional primarily unused widths into a roadway regarding motorist behavior and speed?

Yeah, it could lead to higher speeds.

And higher speeds then equate to what on crashes?

depending, it could lead to more crashes. It's dependent on other factors as well.

And severity of crash, right? The severity of a crash at a higher speed versus a lower speed.

So the curvature at the, I guess what we call the south end going in, or where the existing curvature is, is posted with a recommended 25 mile an hour speed on both sides as you come into that curve because it is tight. And we're maintaining that same geometry on that end. And then with the roundabout curve, There's hope that that will, not hope, those are things that will slow vehicles down on that end. But you're right, towards Millbrook, it may open up more.

So one of the questions or one of the comments you made, Cameron, was that emergency services and that sort of thing. There's a fire department just on the south side of Amity, right there in the corner. And there's another fire department on the other side of the bridge. Has the existing bridge been a problem for emergency service responses?

Not that I know of, no.

Okay. Is it possible that that middle lane could also then be used by some people? People get silly around this part of town, especially during float season, for things like going around, right? Like overtaking and things like that. That space allows that.

Possibly, yes.

Okay. What does the higher speed, if you will, of a roadway mean when it comes to turning around? movements into and out specifically into Barbara Park and into what's going to be Alta Harris Park. When we have a higher operating speed, what does that mean for vehicles who are turning into driveways?

I guess they'd have to slow down, brake sooner. More rapidly, unfortunately, hopefully. We hope so. Okay.

I've read in many parts of the staff report that this design is following a standard. Standard is a legal term. What standard is being followed when it comes to the center turn lane application on this bridge? Where in AASHTO or ITE guidance is that specifically coming from?

I can't point to a standard for that.

Okay. What would the difference be in cost between a straight replacement of the structure that's there now compared to the addition of this center turn lane and the six-foot buffers on either side? You're talking, again, 23 feet of additional space What does that look like in terms of cost? Any idea?

Right now, I think, I believe we have eight girders. You probably remove two of those with that reduction. So probably, I think our engineer's estimate was 13 million for this bridge. So it'll probably be closer to 10.

So we could conceivably see a roughly, and I'm not going to hold you to that.

Yeah, that's very rough.

Cameron said. Yeah. So roughly, you know, 3 million or ish. in terms of budget savings. What would it look like for time scheduled delivery absent that center turn lane and those six foot buffers? Would it accelerate construction?

Yeah, you'd have fewer girders to place, a little bit narrower pier caps and things. So it would save you, we're showing it just over a year now to remove and replace the river bridge. I think we had it at 14 months, so maybe a year, save a couple months potentially.

Fair enough. Yeah. So there's a difference. It's not going to be crazy, but it's going to be noticeable. Okay. What would it look like? And I want to make sure I hit this. If the bridge was absent that center turn and absent those six-foot buffers, that changes that 30 feet, then I'm going to assume that the construction area, the staging area, would then be able to be reduced in size? Would it be a linear relationship there?

Not necessarily, because you'd need the same equipment and the same radius for cranes and things. So I don't know. And what we show is the ultimate we may or may not need. So I hesitate to say it was linear. I don't know if it's a direct correlation.

That's fair. Okay. So on the construction part of things, was there discussion on alternative construction methods that don't require kind of coming back a bit to the Barbara Park part of things, cutting down? all of those large growth trees in order to stage the equipment is there alternative ways to do this because i'm going to assume that the bridge that's there now many of the trees that are in existence in that park today were there when that bridge was built and i know that simply because those trees in many cases are older than the date of the bridge so conceivably somehow that bridge was built Without needing that area. I don't know what it looked like on either side of the bank. So just to be fair, but was any of that discussed as an alternative practice on the construction of this? So it doesn't have the effects that we're having to discuss here tonight.

Another alternative that was discussed was putting a temporary bridge across the river. And that would be a, you know, 30 foot wide potentially for the equipment and needs with multiple peers in the river for about a year. parallel and talk with the army corps of engineers that was less favorable in their eyes and it was a bigger cost to the project and so that was one that we did explore and look at but felt like this was a better option okay so

there are no left-hand turns off of this bridge, right? Correct. Okay, but we have what is, again, in some places listed as a center turn lane. There's nowhere to turn left. So then why not, instead of a full center turn lane, Why not add like the West Park Center Bridge has, I think it's four feet, it has a Jersey barrier, not the most attractive thing in the world, but hey, right? And different treatments that are much narrower, reduce cost, reduce impact. Why not choose that design as opposed to this design, which has not been employed in all of East Boise?

Specifically because of the Barber Park driveway, the approach slab to that bridges within the intersection area. And so to do that, we would have to put a taper on the bridge, which is especially girders and is a higher cost and complexity to the bridge. That was the concern of trying to do a variable, what would have to be a variable cross section across the bridge to accommodate that because we need that with any intersection. Or your through lanes wouldn't be lined up on either side. You know what I mean? They would you'd have to veer across, not veer, but you wouldn't be lined up directly with your lane across on the bridge. You'd be looking potentially at a barrier directly and you'd have to angle across. And so the intent was to keep that as a continuous movement through the intersection.

Okay. Are there any other questions of the commission? I know I've got a lot. Commissioner Seho.

I'm not an engineer. But I do have to work with engineers. And I don't sometimes understand the situation. But the way that I see this is, you know, we were tasked at reviewing this application for the permit. And as Mr. Chairman, which I just forgot your last name, indicated, we have to look at the environmental impact. In this case, we're looking at class A property. In my experience as a NEPA practitioner in my day job, you do have a project area but that doesn't necessarily mean that the entirety of the project area or the boundaries within that project area are going to be disturbed. So my question to both our city planner and to the applicant is when we look at the total acreage of the project area, specifically that class A property, how much of it is going to be disturbed? Because for me, that's what I'm looking at. What is the environmental impact here? I can't speak to the design. I know that you can work through the design to minimize the impacts. I know that this project, as you said, is a leading Idaho project. That's a state-funded project. That doesn't have to go through the National Environmental Policy Act process, like projects that are federally funded. But it's still required to get a 404 permit and a construction general permit and meet other requirements. They may not all have been identified in the application. So yeah, so can someone answer that question in terms of the project area? What is the approximate acreage that is actually going to be disturbed, specifically within that class A?

For class A specifically, yeah. I don't know if you know, or Jason, do you know?

So class A, we've seen that. It doesn't have values.

Mr. Chair, I think this has the class ABC lands and waters map from our GIS file on the left-hand side. Most of the class A is, of course, in the parks area, as you can see. You get on the other side of the river and it's class B and C because that was primarily farmed back when Harris Ranch was doing it. But this... How much will be disturbed? It would probably be the main section of this will be that area you pointed out along the bank in the park where they need to get access. I don't know what the exact dimensions of that area are, but that's probably the main point or the main gist of the disturbed area, plus where the road will come through and the loss of the Ponderosa Pines and those type of adjustments. Most of the impact on the east side of the bridge David Apsley, Be fairly minimal. It'd be just basically for the widening of the road and and probably maintained into the right away itself. David Apsley, So fairly minimal on the east side, but most it's going to be on the west side in the park where they have to gain with after basically damn or disturb the area to get down to the river for the work.

David Apsley, I know in our sweat plan. We had a river bank restoration is in cubic or square yards, excuse me, and I I want to say it was 4,000 square yards, but I need to, I don't have my numbers in front of me. I apologize for that as well as any tree plantings in that area that we have on that plan.

Okay. So just so that I'm clear, I wish I had a pointer. So it's the mostly, so when you look at the class A lands on the left-hand side and you have, yeah, so it would be like where your cursor is, it would be just mostly that area, that lower right side area.

Correct. And then up to the driveway where those planes are.

Okay. So maybe a third, maybe a third of the Class A property on the Barbara Park side? Rough estimate?

Yeah, something like that.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the one thing I will note about this map, that's noted on our GIS layer, is that this is from a survey from 1983. And that's the only data we had on it. So our class A land waters is 43 years old. A lot of that land within the parks that is not directly adjacent to the river itself has already been its manicured lawn and such. That would not necessarily be now considered Class A land. It's really only the section of the riverbank next to the river where they're going to be.

Fantastic. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

I mean, that hatched area is really the area that's going to be the most impacted. That would be really, truly Class A land. The rest, as you can see, is manicured lawn. That's not really Class A anymore at this point. It might have been in 83. I don't know. But that's when our survey and those Class A lands maps were generated. Quite old.

Mr. Moser, this is something that's been on a – I couldn't make this out. That hatched area, I've heard this mentioned. I mean, look at that previous map. I don't know exactly where. Some of that is city of Boise. Some of that is county. Some of it is apparently the Nampa Irrigation District.

It owns the parcel.

Ada County has access and rights to it. But a portion of that is under the city of Boise? A portion of it might be.

Our city limits essentially the seasonal high watermark, where that 6,500 CFS line is. Where that is on the riverside is city of Boise. Once you get above that seasonal high, it's Ada County.

But to be fair, us granting this permit has effects on other jurisdictions, including the county, including the good folks out in Nampa and Meridian, probably somebody else from 1983 that bought a chunk of ground and we know about, I don't know.

This is the wetland delineation map that was submitted with them. The red line along the river is they call it out as the seasonal high watermark. That is basically, for all intents and purposes, that would be the city limits. So what's on the right-hand side would be probably in the city next to the river. The left-hand side will be in Ada County, if that helps. You can also see that there is some forested wetlands right there too, that area. Okay, perfect.

Did you have a follow-up? And I think there was someone over on my left side that had a question. Torres or Stefancic?

Commissioner Daly? Yeah, please go. Maybe this is a stupid question and takes us all the way back. But as we're talking about this class A, B, Was there any consideration in the beginning to just remove the bridge altogether?

And not replace it? And not replace it. I'd have to defer to Ricardo. I don't believe so. Ricardo from ACHC said no, it wasn't.

No, in order to potentially not impact the waterway, knowing that there's high traffic bridges further down, improve the habitat in that way so that wasn't in your planning when you look at it you don't consider like fully removing it at all at any point and let the benefits or costs I don't think it came up when it was closed there was a lot of concern from people that use the bridge asking when's it going to be open again so there was a lot of feedback to ACHD to get it open again and keep it open so I think that was a consideration as well but was there ever a consideration of just making it a pedestrian bridge I don't believe so no And would it be able to, as is with minor or the repairs that were made to keep it as just a pedestrian bridge and shut down car traffic?

Yeah, the concern was load rating for vehicles. Anything over three tons wasn't allowed at the time. And so the repairs, I think ITD said three to five years to allow those to go over and then it would need to be replaced. But for pedestrians, you don't have near that load.

All right, thank you.

Any other quick questions?

You mentioned when we were talking about the other ways this bridge could be constructed and there was the discussion with Army Corps of Engineers of the temporary bridge to put the crane and to have that. Was there any discussion about omitting the center lane and using that budget to offset the cost of the temporary bridge or the other construction types. This wasn't addressed at all.

No, because the bridge section was set fairly early on just for the reasons I mentioned before. Those were the discussion points. And so we kept that. Access would always have to be from the park regardless because of the conservation easements on the other side of the river. And so whether it was a temporary bridge or not, we would have access from the park the same.

Were the cost impacts of tapering the bridge, like you said, and I know we're still talking about the same impacted area if it's tapered or the center lane doesn't continue throughout the length of the bridge. Was there a discussion there on the cost savings there? I know it was mentioned that this has been designed, an accelerated design timeline from two years to about eight months is what I'm hearing. Is it just driving time and construction budget to keep that center lane through the entire length of this extended length bridge? How far did we explore the tapering?

Not that far to that point. And also for construction to get the complexity of the bridge and to get specially girders is a longer lead time. So we're concerned as it would extend construction time as well to get the, cause those girders are built offsite and then trucked to the site. Um, those were the, I guess, qualitative discussions we had. We didn't get into details on laying it out and costing it to your point.

And then do you have any insight on when the primary drivers to make those decisions for time and you know, the construction schedule, is that to benefit the overall budget or is that to benefit the public?

I guess I would defer to Ricardo if you want. I would say it's ACHD Commission's goals to get this replaced as soon as possible to serve the public.

Thank you.

Cameron, you just mentioned that The bridge design has been, I think your words were set for quite a while. There was a public meeting in December. When was the bridge design pretty much solidified?

So at the public meeting, we had the 30% design. pretty well complete, and the rendering you saw of the cross-section of the bridge was shown at that meeting. So the cross-section was set very early when ACHD and LTAC kicked the project off.

Okay, so Idaho Code requires a transportation agency to evaluate our, the city's, comprehensive plans when coming up with a design. How was that achieved?

Um, it's a good question. There was a separate project before the emergency issue that was a planning project. And another firm in the valley did a concept study that looked at those sorts of things. When HDR came on board, we started with that concept report and those, I guess, considerations to your point. And so I'd have to go back and look at that report to see specifically what was included there.

So that concept report, did it include a two-way left turn lane or a center turn lane and buffer spaces of six feet?

I don't know if it had the buffer spaces. I believe it had the three lanes, but I'd have to go back and look.

Okay. So my last few things I guess here is... Just to confirm, our code, I'm just reading a couple sections, Class A, extremely important for preservation. The objective is to preserve and protect these areas for their benefits. That's straight out of our code. So the question, I guess part and then number the third bullet of our this collective bodies requirement is to determine that the degree of preservation or enhancement and so. I guess along those lines. We have to think about the mitigation part of it as it relates to preservation. Our code, just to verify, Mr. Moser, section 10, subsection C is mitigation measures in terms of sequencing. A, avoid adverse impacts, alternatives. That's number one, top of the list. Can you confirm that? Mr. Chair, management of the commission, that is correct. That is the first and primary if you can do that. Okay. And B is to minimize impacts to be less intrusive. So A is to avoid them altogether through alternatives, and B is to minimize impacts that are less intrusive.

That is also correct, Mr.

Chair. Okay. And then section 11, when it talks about enhancement and construction techniques, our code says that we are to find innovative – that's the word in the code – techniques to build whatever project that affects Class A lands.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Commissioner, that is also correct.

Okay. And then lastly, we have adjustment of standards. This is a power given to this body. We are the deciding body on this river permit. Under adjustment of standards, under section E, adjustment examples, number two, reduction in street width standards to minimize impervious surfaces and to provide more land, vegetation, habitat improvements, et cetera, et cetera. I was verifying that is in our code.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that is correct. You have the authority to make those adjustments in the added conditions. Cool. Hey, Cameron, it's empty.

No more questions. I appreciate you standing there taking those questions from me, but I want to make sure before we move on, are there any other questions from anybody else? Go ahead, Commissioner Schaefer.

Just a quick one for you. I'm just mostly out of curiosity because it's more of a core issue. We have eight piers in the river currently. We're being reduced down to two, which I think is a net positive. I'm just curious, like the removal of the existing piers, what does that look like? Does any of that remain in the riverbed?

IDWR is requiring that we remove it to 18 inches. They're wooden piles for the... vehicle structure and then metal for the pedestrian we remove all those down to 18 inches below and then backfill and we're required to remove all the riprap that's around those uh piers as well okay so 18 18 inches below below riverbed riverbed yeah and then backfill with native as much as we can and then remove all the angular i think the way that defines angular riprap rock around those okay great thanks riprap That's a new term.

I didn't know that one. Okay.

Riprap. It's all that angular rock around the edges that's supposed to keep it from eroding. So all those piers have a significant amount of riprap on the upstream side.

Okay. And share something with my kids and they will not care. I lied, Cameron. One last question. I just want to make sure. I heard you say this, that this project is out for bid. Correct. Correct. So the advertisement for construction companies to bid on this project to move forward, regardless of this evening, has begun. Yes. Okay. That's all. Mr. Rucher. Give me some more.

I just have a clarification that this permit is probably at risk. So if something were to happen, some of that would be probably for naught. So it's kind of an at-risk forbid deal.

Oh, sure. Yeah. I think we understood that we'd submitted this permit work back in March and April and just the process has taken us to here. But yeah, that was the understanding that was at risk. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Appreciate it. Mr.

Chair, one more question. Yeah, no, go ahead. So based on the discussion of where the actual border is between the city of Boise's jurisdiction and the county's, It is the high watermark on the Barber Park side of the river. So any mitigation we would do could potentially be done in that area if we can think of something that would be practical to address safety or environmental concerns. Is that a fair way of putting it?

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I think when you're looking at conditions, you can look at the overall project and try to address the overall impacts of the project. That is definitely something in your preview. You just need to focus the nexus of the condition towards the overall project and its impacts and not specify to like some things are happening in part to look at the overall picture. Of course, for any mitigation that would happen, it would probably need to occur in kind on site. within the city limits.

Thank you. And as we've said many times before, we do not like to design from the dais up here. So thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Cameron. Much appreciated. At this point, I don't think there's going to be a Well, let me take a gauge. I don't have anybody on a sign-up sheet in chambers who was wanting to testify. By a quick show of hands, is anybody in the chambers wanting to testify on this item? None. Is there anybody online who wishes to testify on this item? I see no hands.

Hey, Cameron.

Rebuttal. Normally, we would have people who come up and provide their three minutes of testimony. We don't have that just to make sure it looks like we don't. So I have to afford you five minutes additional time should you want to take it to rebut in this case, whether it didn't come from public or anything. You have that time. It's up to you if you want to use it or not. Great. Can you just, since you haven't testified, would you mind just identifying yourself and giving us some form of an address? That would be wonderful.

Yeah. Chairman, commissioners, my name is Ricardo Calderon. I'm the corporate project supervisor for ACHD. Our address is 5800 Meeker Street, 83713, I believe. That's enough. Yeah, Commissioner, you'd like to say that, you know, this project has been in the works for quite a while and it's fast paced, as Cameron mentioned. And we wouldn't be here without the cooperation of a lot of agencies already that he also did mention, including City of Boise staff from various departments. Yeah, we do understand the project is out to bid right now with a few outstanding permits. I believe that the NTP right now, if it all goes per plan, is going to be sometime in October is when we'll be awarding this project. But again, it's to replace this aging bridge. And primarily, you know, the safety concern that we were talking about too, a lot of it stems from that access into Barber Park. That's part of the reason why the median turn lane was discussed and it was included in the bridge. It's safe to say, too, that this project, as you mentioned, is bid with the Randova of Boise Ave, which won't happen until both the bridges are complete over the Boise River and the right on Buck Canal. We've been working with all the neighboring partners, associations. They all know it's coming. We took the bridge, those exhibits to the public. We listened to those concerns and where we're at based on feedback. So I just like to kind of mention that to you guys too. This would be one of our last permits that we would need in order to move forward with the ward. We've got the 404 permit approved already. IDWR has safety permits as well. We're just kind of at the finish line. But knowing that you guys are still one of our last permits too for us to be able to move forward with the bridge. So for any questions, if there's anything else you guys like to ask me

Okay, appreciate your time. Thank you for being here. Appreciate you answering the call and the invite. So thank you. Okay, at this point, the public hearing portion is closed. Let's take a break, at least five minutes, and then we'll get ourselves together, come back, and likely have a discussion and eventual motion and see what we come to. Five minutes.

So. I'm sorry.

Yeah. Yeah. So again, I don't know if we got something, but something should really help us out. Okay. Yeah. The only way to do it.

Seahawks fans apparently go to the bathroom a little later than everybody else.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, I think we're ready to reconvene. Appreciate the opportunity to take a little break. All right, the item is before the commission. And just to reset the table, this is item number one, CFH 26-22. Technically, the applicant is HDR. And this is for a Boise River system permit. um that includes lots of things it also has to do with the barber valley specific plan spo1 it has to do with the boise river system hillside development floodplain protection wildland urban interface and the development agreement all located at eckerd in the river we can try for a motion or we can have discussion to work toward a motion Anybody care to go first?

Mr. Chair. Mr. Torres. I am not going to put forward a motion.

That's fine.

I want to discuss.

Go ahead.

So this is a tough one. I think your questions really got at the importance of the environmental impacts of this project. where i'm kind of struggling still is the competing jurisdictions the fact that a lot of the environmental impact looks like it's going to be on the part of the side of the river that is not under boise jurisdiction um i think there were good points made about safety concerns i just i'm not sure how comfortable i am at the same time like designing this project from up here either so i'm i'm just kind of expressing my concerns about it i think I think it's just a really complicated project with all kinds of moving parts here. And I'll be honest with you, if there's a motion put forward, I'm not sure which way I'm going to go at this point. So I'll just start with that.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Appreciate it. Mr. Schaffer? Mr. Chair?

I might be in the minority up here, and that's fine. But I'm prepared to make a motion to approve and to allow these fine gentlemen to proceed with their project. I think that we have to remember that there are multiple jurisdictions at play here that have almost higher level of scrutiny in some regards, especially for some of the environmental impact to this project. And we have a staff report recommending approval. We have... One, two, three, four, five different applications within the city. So it's gone through, you know, five levels of scrutiny, if you will, amongst staff. Um, the core, the Army Corps of Engineers, IDWR, City of Boise, Ada County, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and ECHD will all be giving permits to construct this bridge. So I appreciate the scrutiny. that we are giving the project. But I don't think I share some of the concerns that have been vetted tonight in this discussion. I think these gentlemen are doing a really nice job. And in fairness to roadway and bridge design, I think that we're always learning from past mistakes perhaps and maybe best practices are evolving at all times so considerations towards turning radii sight distances bridge width pathway widths shy widths i think all those things should come into play and we shouldn't just be rinsing and repeating previous designs that maybe aren't appropriate right for the knowledge that we have today So, again, I think it could be in the minority, I'm not sure, but I'm happy to make a motion to approve with the staff report that we have and proceed with this project.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Schaffer. Appreciate it.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Seheult.

Commissioner Schaffer, I would vote in support of this motion. Yeah, based on the staff report, you know, there was a little bit too much engineering discussion going on earlier, and that always makes me nervous as a non-engineer. Also recognizing, though, when we have significant impacts, how we can avoid, minimize, or mitigate, right? And in this particular case, we have impacts to class A lands, but I also have to, through my environmental lens, look at the size of the impact and the intensity. And if it is a permanent impact that will completely take this property out of a class A. If we're planting trees in a particular area where we're removing them, those trees are eventually going to grow. That is different than bulldozing the whole area and leaving it as a gravel parking lot. So for those reasons as well, I am in support if we proceed forward with a motion to approve this permit.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Stahel. Other discussion?

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Stallings.

Yeah, I appreciate... the different levels and perspectives that you brought up specifically to the width and what behavior traditionally follows that, that situation as was discussed, you know, I know it's a 35 mile an hour section. I think that encourages speed on the flip side of that. I think, the trade-off of tapering it creates other safety concerns as we're discussed. And then we still don't save any of the ecological impacts. Crane's gotta be set there no matter what. Yeah, I'm still back and forth in my head, but the biggest thing that's holding me up is, traditional behavior on wider shoulders, wider lanes in that residential area that is already, it's risky in my mind. I just don't know that we have the ability, you know, I don't know, I don't know what the solution is to avoid avoid that and not create a different offset of conclusion. So I'm still kind of debating in my head, but just to brain dump on where I'm at.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Stallings. Commissioner Moore?

Yeah, I'd be in support of Commissioner Schaefer's motion. I think, you know, agreed with Commissioner Schaefer. I think, you know, from one standpoint, most of those class A lands are on Ada County. That's something that we cannot control. The other point, we have extensive analysis in our packet about how these impacts are being mitigated from experts that has been reviewed by other experts. And I think that, you know, at some point, we're relying on that expert review and that expert kind of judgment to kind of inform our decision. And we've got it in our packet. I understand that. I appreciate that. the kind of analysis about the wider bridge causing a great kind of creating the nexus for a greater project area. And that's how it's tied to our, our conditions and how it would kind of start to impact our conditions. But I also know, you know, even if there isn't an issue right now, if you're replacing a bridge codes change, whether we, you know, whatever international codes or state or local codes or, are driving the bridge specifically, you know, that's probably different than when it was built in, you know, whatever, several decades ago. So that code probably changed. So regardless of whether you were going to build it three lanes or two lanes, it was probably always going to look different regardless because the codes changed. One can only assume. And so for all of those reasons and the reasons stated in the staff report, I'm in agreement with Commissioner Schaefer on this one.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Chairman Daly. Go ahead, Commissioner Stefanski.

Sorry, not Daly, Daly. Yeah, this one's a tough one. I know I learned a lot and I appreciate the questioning and the response and the work, everyone here. I think about the language in here is about kind of replacing the bridge, right? PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And and that could be a lot of different things and concerning what Commissioner more just shared right those things change over time, taking a look at what was currently there and replacing what's there or making improvements. I think I am struck by the size of now the impact area. There was an impact area and then now a bridge and it seems like now an even larger impact area in that area. And then, you know, considering our responsibility in making sure that we're adhering and aligned with the comprehensive plan, there could be some impacts, some of the things that were listed. I think... Are are broad and not necessarily very specific so it's hard to say this because it's wider it will cause more of this type of impact in that area directly from the bridge itself in a long term capacity and. But I'm also in a mindset where it's like, okay, do we always have to build bigger? And can we build smaller, smarter, I should say, in that area while also meeting some of the goals of our comprehensive plan and making things accessible and enjoyable. I know I don't enjoy going on a bridge or on a road, even with protection when there's more cars or cars are going faster in that area. So those are things that we think about in how we design and how our city grows. And growth doesn't always mean that we have to create bigger and larger things. So I'm a little torn with it. And I think I'm going to have to think and wait for my vote.

Okay. Mr. Chair, just to clarify, did we get a second or are we still waiting?

We haven't had an official motion. Are you wanting to make a motion?

I move to approve CFH 26-22 with the terms and conditions as written in the staff report.

Okay. We've got a motion by Commissioner Schaffer to approve and a second by Commissioner Moore. Do you need any discussion or?

Mr. Chair, no, I think my big picture comments, you know, I stated earlier when we began discussion, the bridge is under the purview of ACHD. We're not responsible for bridge design up here, right? We're up here to evaluate potential impacts of that design on Boise's property. I'm satisfied with the staff report. Parks, in particular, has looked at this in great detail with mitigation plans for the vegetation Parks Commission recommended approval of the project as well. And again, you know, there are multiple agencies looking at this project from high levels of environmental review on down to constructability, not just the city of Boise. So I am comfortable with the package as presented, and therefore I've made the motion to approve.

Okay. Any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Chair, nothing further to add for me.

Okay. Okay. I'm gonna add mine, as you might expect, but I wanna make sure to give everybody else their crack.

Wait, do we have a second?

Yes, by Commissioner Warren. Oh, okay, I didn't hear it, sorry. Okay. It's not going to come as a surprise, I absolutely will not support this motion. We have an objective up here to be environmental stewards of our comprehensive plan, We have an obligation to our code to ensure that Class A lands, B, C, all of the water, everything, the noise, water, air quality, recreation, all of those things are preserved. We look at transportation projects all the time on this dais, all the time. And we make recommendations on transportation projects all the time. The city of Boise has the authority granted to it by the KMST trial that granted specific authorities to the land use agencies of this county explicitly stating that we have ultimate authority over ACHD. That's flat out law. The notion that our standards have changed over the years and that things get bigger. I would refute that on a few different notes. One, when asked about any specific AASHTO, that is the governing body for traffic engineering. No standard was provided. Anything from ITE, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, that was not provided. ACHD themselves have granted their own authorities to be flexible in design in this modern times. They did so with a complete street ordinance. That gives engineering judgment to provide the appropriate design to match the context in which a project is designed for. This is not just Barbara Park. This is also a new park, soon to be built, the Alta Harris plant, or Alta Harris Park, right? in a completely residential area, in a master plan community of Harris Ranch that was designed specifically with narrower roads and treatments designed purposely to counter the opposite of what is in front of us here, which is wider, faster, and solves absolutely no safety problems because there's no safety documentation with crashes. We have a bridge that is nearly double in size and will have generational effects on the ecological and, frankly, anthropological nature around it, the environment around it. And we are to be stewards of that. So when we look at our comprehensive plan, to me, it's pretty clear that this project, which happens to be a bridge has profound effects. When we look at our code, it has profound effects. And it's going to take generations to recover from. because we are choosing a design that is not solving a problem and frankly is not warranted by any standard whatsoever. There's proof of that in every other bridge in all of East Boise. We have the exact same condition on the West Park Center Bridge when you come into Beacon. There's a very tight left-hand turn there. West Park Center Bridge does not have a center turn lane. It has a four-foot buffer in the middle that has been engineered to have safety accounted for. The new Amity Replacement Bridge that ACHD themselves just put in right down the street from this has no center turn lanes and yet left-hand turns directly adjacent to it, especially as you go into Surprise Valley. So at every turn, this bridge, which is vital, does need to be replaced. No denying that, to me, has absolutely gone way too far in overengineering, accelerated far too quick. I think, if I'm being honest, the applicant themselves said was designed within a month, two months before public input. with very little consideration of our comprehensive plan, which is state law. So all of these things are present right here. And I hate to say it this way, but we're sort of the last line of defense when it comes to a bridge that will have generational effects, not just on Boise, but everybody who goes to Barber Park, which we know come from all over the valley. This design is going to be faster for traffic. It's going to invite more risky behavior coming in and out of the park. The applicant themselves said so. By saying that coming out of the left-hand turn, they anticipate people going into a turn lane. That's not what turn lanes are for. Frankly, that's illegal. A center turn lane is supposed to be to slow down and turn left. Not to stage and accelerate and go right. But that's what's in front of us. So to me... My particular bend is this. I believe it or not, I don't think that we are the appropriate body to make this level of a decision. I think that council is because council is the ones who are elected. And this is a very significant decision that to me rises a bit above us because of all of the things that Commissioner Schaefer pointed out, all of the people and the momentum. I get it. I understand that. So for me, I would be opposed to the approval as is. I would love to see approval with conditions, but that those conditions be the removal of that center turn lane and the reduction of the buffer down to two feet, which does comply with ACHD standards. And if they want to appeal to council, great. let council make the final decision. If that's what the city of Boise wants to live with, let them live with it. But as a sitting commissioner who's tasked with this river permit and the four specific conditions in which we are tasked with analyzing, as given to us, no way do I believe that this complies with those conditions and should be approved. as put forward. Are there any other conversation, any other discussion?

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Torres.

I think I've made my decision, and I'm going to be reluctant to no on the motion. I do want to mention something that I really like about this design, and I think the multi-use pathway is great. In isolation, I think that's a great project. That's not what's before us, unfortunately. But I just have too many doubts about this based on all the questioning we asked, particularly about the ecological impact. Commissioner Ceja made some good points, you know, in opposition to what I just said, but at the same time, I just have too many doubts in this regard to be comfortable voting to approve this. If it was a slightly smaller project, if there were more mitigation of the ecological impacts, I think I would be more supportive of it. But I'm going to be reluctant no on the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Any other discussion? Chairman Danley.

Commissioner Stefancic. I will also be a no for some slightly different kind of reasons here, I think, to some points, though. But I think the scope at which we're considering this that you just brought up also puts a lot of pressure on this. the size of this. I'm still stuck with the replace the bridge, not expand, enhance, grow the size of the bridge in this case and in this situation because nothing deems it necessary. It's not a vital connection for... a whole new subdivision they can't get across in any way there's no clear discussion of traffic increases of crossing the bridge needing for us to create this much more expansive and larger bridge at this time okay thank you commissioner stefancic mr chair mr stong's

I, too, will be a no for a lot of the same reasons Commissioner Stefancic just mentioned. The scale and I think the future of this area. I just I, too, think something scaled down or more relative to the current size is more appropriate for this. But I also agree with what the chair said and. This may be more suited for city council to review. So, yeah.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tongs. Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Seha. I don't think we can ask a question to the planner on this project, can we?

Unless it's about the procedure, it's closed. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion? All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Schaefer and a second by Commissioner Moore to approve as conditioned in the staff report. Would the clerk please call the roll?

Danley?

No.

Moore? Yes. Schaefer?

Yes.

Neha?

Yes.

Torres?

No.

No. No.

Okay. So at this point, the item is still before the commission. But the motion to approve has has failed. So we would need a substitute motion. And the chair really should not be the one to propose.

Mr. Chair, I'm not going to propose the substitute motion. You know, there was talk about reducing the width of this, this bridge. I don't know how we can make an informed decision as to total or potential total impacts to the class A property with a reduction in, in the width of the bridge. So I'm struggling with this. Like, I don't know how you can do that unless someone up here knows how to do that.

Commissioner Seau, great point. And at the end of the day, it might not be, I mean, at the end of the day, if that's the recommendation moving forward, then that could be a condition to reassess the subject area that's affected by whatever redesign potential this body makes. And ultimately, if it does go to council, that's not a foregone conclusion, but then that has to be reassessed. And that happens all the time when it comes to things that we recommend when it comes to site plans and subdivisions and all of that sort of thing.

Mr. Chair, I think you understand this, but you said recommendation a lot, so I just want to be clear that you are the deciding body on this. Correct.

Yes, thank you for that, Crystal. Appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, I don't think that I could support a motion that would suggest making some design changes to the bridge again, because of the unknown. I think there are other factors in here as well. This project is going out to bed, not that that is a priority, but that does change things. And so I think we're kind of stuck.

Mr. Chair, if I may, another option before you all tonight is if you have specific questions and you don't feel like you have enough information to make a decision tonight, you can defer this to another day when you might have more information. So just another tool.

Yeah, appreciate that, Crystal. Since we're in discussion, understand the notion of the bid. without in any way disrespect or to be flippant about this at all that ultimately is not our responsibility because our responsibility is to our code is to our comp plan and to the citizens of this city the fact that this is out to bid is is irrelevant to the decision that we have. I totally understand the practical side of it, especially being in this industry. I get that. But that decision just doesn't ultimately move. It doesn't move me because it's completely part and parcel to what is at hand here tonight. Mr. Chair. Mr. Schaefer.

I'd like to encourage one of the previous no voters of my motion to make a motion to deny this application and move on. I mean, that's clearly where this is going. So someone step up and make the motion.

Yeah, we could deny or we could approve with conditions.

Or you can defer.

Or we could defer.

But, you know, then we're sitting here. I read off the list of other agencies that have reviewed this application. And the Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission is going to get in the way of All of that, right? I just want to be very clear about what we're talking about right now. Over eternally.

I disagree with that contextual argument because it's not just the turn lane. The turn lane is part of a project. The buffer space is part of a project. If this was a building, the existing building would be about three stories. What's being proposed is a 10-story building where four stories isn't even going to be used. If this was a land use decision like that, How would we scrutinize that? But that's what's before us because we know we've doubled the footprint and a majority of it has no bearing.

Well, see, that's where I think maybe you and I have to disagree. We haven't doubled the footprint. There are eight piers in the river now. They're going down to two. Yes, the bridge deck is wider. Yes, yes, true. But if we think about what's in the river right now, yes, we have to remove what's there, but what they're putting back is less than what's there now. Right? So I think we have to make sure, you know, we're talking big picture here, right? Like I do agree. Yes, the bridge deck is wider. That's what they've designed. Right? So again, we had a motion to approve that was denied. We need a motion to deny and move on. The record is full. Yeah, I don't disagree.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Torres.

I'm not sure how comfortable I am deferring unless we make very clear what we're looking for in a deferral. Otherwise, we're just going to deadlock again when we hear it again. So to Commissioner Schaefer's comments, I move that we deny CFH 26-22.

Okay. I've got a motion by Commissioner Torres to deny CFH 26-22. I'll second that. I've got a second by Commissioner Stefancic. Is there discussion?

Mr. Chair, I don't have anything to add.

I'm sorry?

I don't have anything to add. Okay.

Commissioner Stefancic? Nothing more to add. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Hearing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Damning.

Yes.

Moore? No. Schaefer?

No.

Seha? No. Torres?

Yes.

Stallings? Yes. Defuncic?

Yes.

Four in favor, three opposed. Motion carries.

Okay. Thank you. Let's take five. Let's reset, and then we'll move on to our last item before we adjourn.

No. Thank you.

Don't gang up on Ed now. Oh, said no ganging up on Ed now.

Yeah.

I don't think I've ever seen that one.

We know with the next version. Let's go. Yes. Am I in? I don't know. Sometimes. Yeah. Yeah. I have, um... Yeah, which he agreed, because they were like some pretty big . Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I have an idea. No. Yeah, it's pretty similar to this.

It's like, yeah, it's pretty similar.

Yeah. Yeah, it's really weird.

Okay. Let us move forward. to our last item, and that is item number three, SUB 26-26. This is the Stardust subdivision, free house subdivision, located at 10529 West Stardust Drive. This is a preliminary and a final plot for a residential subdivision, comprised of two buildable lots, so on and so forth. Doug?

Good evening, Commissioners. Before you tonight is a request for the approval of a preliminary and final plot for a residential subdivision comprised of two buildable lots on 0.97 acres located at 10529 West Stardust Drive in an R1A residential large lot zone. Included in the application materials are requests to allow well water for the two-lot subdivision and to allow attached sidewalk on Stardust Drive, both of which will be discussed further. Regarding well water, the site currently uses a well for the existing single family home. As summarized in the project report and the late correspondence memo, the development code does require connection to municipal water and Central District Health approved the proposal for municipal water, not well water. The request to utilize well water is at the discretion of City Council. The planning team will be recommending to City Council that City Council does not approve well water use. Water lines are available in the surrounding area and extending water lines is a common component of redevelopment throughout the city. As summarized in the project report, the planning director did not waive the detached sidewalk requirements for Stardust Drive, which is a local roadway. The director's determination is not before the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight. The path forward to allow attached sidewalk on Stardust Drive would be through a variance application. The requirements for 5-mile road have been waived due to an upcoming ACHD project. The scheduled improvement includes a 10-foot wide multi-use path, as shown on screen. A 30-foot landscape easement is provided along 5-mile road per code, and the lots meet the dimensional requirements of the zone. In conclusion, the planning team recommends approval as the application has conditioned. And I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

Okay. Uh, thank you very much. Mr. Exson is the applicant present. Awesome. Come on up. Are you Connor Lindstrom? Awesome. Okay. If you would, uh, just list your name and address for the record and you'll have 10 minutes. Okay. All right. Excellent. Thank you.

Thank you. Chairman Danley, Connor Lindstrom with KM engineering, five, seven, two, five North discovery way, Boise, Idaho, five, um, 8713. Sorry, getting late. I have a presentation. Doug, if you could pull it up, that'd be awesome. I'm also speaking on behalf of the property owners, Kevin and Caroline Wanacott. They should be on the line. So any questions I can't answer, hopefully they can step in as well. Doug summed it up great. Current 0.97 acre lots with an existing lot within a subdivision That was approved years ago. The, the request here is to just create one additional parcel or one new lot through the free house subdivision a combined preliminary and final plat that's before you tonight. We're at the southeast corner of Stardust and five mile zoning is our one a single family residential CoB, Joe Taddeucci & CoB, Here's the the lot layout fairly straightforward to look at. We have points for seven acres for the West lot point for nine acres for the East lot. And this was the the plot that was submitted the dash outlined area. I'm kind of around the The lot lines, those are the setbacks, as you can see. Then on the south, you could call it the south third of the property, there is an easement. It's a 12-foot wide drainage and utility easement that runs east-west across the lots. It kind of makes that south third difficult to build on. So really, the building footprint for this western lot would be that area in the north two-thirds. Um, kind of the main two discussion points here are, uh, water service and the sidewalk. So as for water, um, this area, if you're familiar, it's, these are older subdivisions, um, generally lower density in nature. Um, they were, uh, you know, constructed on, you know, with the ability to drill wells. The existing lot there had a newer well drilled that replaced the old well in 2022. And then if you look to the west and all these blue dots are existing wells, there are more wells in this area that will predate the well log. But those three cluster of three wells just to the northwest of this project, those were approved back in 2022, if I'm not mistaken, or 2023. That was with a record or survey minor land division that took place. So right now, we have this issue where we're trying to split this parcel into two lots. It's a small subdivision, and the implications and costs to bring Veolia water service to the site are substantial. To the north, we have Franklin and Five Mile. It's approximately 400 feet away. If you're familiar with this area, there's an elevation change there. It's about 25 feet. And it would require you to also bring the water line and bore it underneath the Ridenbaugh Canal as you then bring it up the road. The other nearest water line is to the south at Bridge Tower and Five Mile. It's approximately 1,000 feet away from, you know, that's 1,000 foot distance to where you'd bring it up to Stardust. And so our request is to keep the existing well for the existing residents and then to drill a new well for that western lot. Then our next point here is on the sidewalk. So as Doug stated, you know, the city would like to see detached sidewalk. At this time, I've kind of created some red dashed areas. Those are the areas where sidewalk does exist and has been approved, all of which are attached sidewalk areas. Everything east of five mile within the general vicinity here has no sidewalk to be found. And so our request is to, you know, redevelop the site and really split it into just two lots, but keep the same configuration of the roadway. We do not foresee this area. PB, David Ensign he & Him he's redeveloping specifically because how the lots are laid out and how the houses were constructed on them, you'll see many of the houses. PB, David Ensign he & Him he's Are up against the roadway. And so if you were to redevelop these lots, you would, you'd have to mostly mode down most of those houses to get any access drives into the back half of those properties. PB, David Ensign he & Him he's Or there'd have to be a significant redevelopment of the area which given the I don't know, given the layout of the lots and the people that are moving into these areas, it's our understanding that this would not be an area that would redevelop very quickly. Most of these subdivisions were constructed roughly 50 to 60 years ago, and we haven't seen much redevelopment in this area up until this lot we have here. And then across the way, there's that minor land division that took place. This is that minor land division that I'm speaking of with the record of survey. It shows the attached sidewalk was allowed with that approval back in 2024. So we're not saying we don't want to do any sidewalk. We're fine with attached sidewalk, but that is our request. This just shows the findings of facts for the subdivision that we believe we're consistent with. Specifically, we like to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, preserve the existing access patterns, and support orderly residential infill development. Thank you. I'll stand for any questions. And once again, the property owners on the line too, if you'd like to ask them any questions.

Okay, great, Mr. Lindstrom. So just to be clear, the property owner is sort of technically kind of part of your team, if you will.

Yeah. Okay.

Fair enough. Just want to make sure we got that straight. Okay. Hold tight. Let me just make sure. Probably not, but I just need to make certain. The neighborhood associations always have an opportunity. This is the West Boise Neighborhood Association, Chris Cockrell.

Anybody here from West Boise Neighborhood Association?

I don't see anybody in chambers or online. Okay, just making sure. All right, are there any questions from the commissioners?

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Torres.

My question is for staff. So just to clarify, the sidewalk question is not before us on this. This is a determination by the planning director. And whether the lot has to be connected to city water or not is a city council decision. It is not ours. Is that correct?

Chairman, Commissioner Torres, that is correct, yes.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Moore.

So question first, maybe staff or maybe the applicant. Do you know, what is the scope of this ACHD work? It's the road, sidewalk. Are they putting in a detached sidewalk too, all that good stuff?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Moore, or sorry, Commissioner Moore, there's a little cross-section of the section of Five Mile near the property shown on screen. This is part of a larger project where they'll be redoing the overpass over I-84 altogether as well. The general build-out may fluctuate a little bit. I believe ACHD has already acquired all the right-of-way for the project, and the construction year, I believe, is set to start in 2027. But generally, it will include a 10-foot multi-use path on both sides. The overpass may look a little different, like I mentioned, that portion of it. A smaller landscape buffer than what the city would typically require. As you see, there's no street trees proposed, at least in this rendering. However, our city code does allow, if there is an upcoming project within the five-year work plan, to alleviate the streetscape requirements in lieu of the ACHG project.

So, Mr. Chair.

Which one?

So there's no... Eulia is not planning on adding a water line at the same time since the road is going to be torn up?

Not to my knowledge, no.

Okay. And there's really... Sorry, I'm out of... Mr. Chair. Please continue. There's no water line in Five Mile in that section?

Not in that section. It doesn't... go south of the canal. And then as Connor mentioned, the only other portion of waterline is Bridge Tower once you go south of the canal. And then that whole subdivision, as Connor mentioned, it's all been, it was all developed in the county. So it was all well and septic. There's been some redevelopment in kind of the larger area that slowly brought some waterlines in, but overall that whole pocket still very much well-dominated.

And then I guess one final follow-up on that one. Are there any other kind of nexus that would bring that water kind of further down besides development, or is it really relying on development to bring the water line down?

ACHD may have some additional information on if they've been working with Veolia to extend that. Connor may also have some more information if he's had any contact with ACHD regarding the extension of the water line. But outside of redevelopment or a Veolia-initiated project, I'm not sure if there'd be any other kind of natural impetus for that water line to be extended there.

Yeah. Chairman, Commissioner Moore. So yeah, we spoke with a CHD. They do not have any plans to work with viola to bring water to the site. It would be in the future should development occur. That's what we were told. I did also reach out to viola specifically and there's a form that you can fill out where they can provide you more detailed water service information. So I'm hoping to have that prior to city council.

Mr. Lindstrom is, I'm sorry, did you mention Kevin? Is he your client?

Yes.

He has his hand raised up and I'm assuming that's to try to participate in the Q&A. So, sir, would you mind just identifying yourself and your name and address for the record? And then if you want to answer the question, you can do that.

My name is Kevin Wanacott. And I just wanted to say that I did talk to the deal, a water company before I even started this process. And they told me the only way they would bring the water was if a developer was building something that they wouldn't just bring it up. So great.

Mr. Want to talk. Can I get your address for the record, please?

It's five, seven, three South Malaga lane, Boise, Idaho, eight, three, seven Oh nine.

Wonderful. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

Any other questions?

All right, any other questions? Oh, Commissioner Schaffer.

Mr. Chair, Doug, the right-of-way on 5 Mile is wide enough for the widening at this parcel, correct, for the future widening?

Commissioner Schaffer, that is correct, yeah. Okay, great.

And then the landscape along 5 Mile could be in an easement, correct?

That is correct. Yes.

It'll be in a 30 foot easement. And that's different than the building setback from the property line. So can you just walk me through the need for that easement there?

Yeah, Commissioner Schaffer, the easement is required by our subdivision section of code. If there is a side of a subdivision located adjacent to a collector or arterial, we do require a 20 or 30 foot buffer depending on the road typology. In this case, I believe it's a 30 foot landscape easement as shown on the updated landscape plans here. And that's just to provide some separation from the higher volume roads to the residential use. that easement can overlap with residential setbacks though. So it's not like there'll be an additional setback on top of the easement. They can overlap there. But in effect, it's made their setback 30 feet. Yeah, it does reduce the buildable area. Gotcha. Okay. And the applicant's okay with that approach?

Yeah, chairman and commissioner Schaefer. Yes. So that is another point of, you know, slowly we're, we're losing our buildable area. And we are in agreement with it though. You know, Our understanding was that hopefully we could utilize the landscaping that would take place by ACHD within the right-of-way because they do have plans to have landscaping along the corridor. But in talking with Doug and working with Doug, we don't know for sure when ACHD will develop that section of right-of-way. So our plan is to provide landscaping here in the meantime. And the property owner has agreed to that.

Okay. I guess one follow-up on this. Go ahead. So then... Fencing, I mean, the easement is fully within their property. So theoretically they could fence on their property line. What does code say about fencing in relation to the property line and this easement?

Commissioner Schaefer, I don't know off the top of my head if there is a specific provision in code that prohibits them from doing a fence on the outside of the landscape easement. I will say standard practice would be to fence the inside of that easement because as you drive around town, you'll see those larger buffers along those roadways typically they'll be owned in a common law this um proposal it's too small to have it as a separate common law and still be allowed to be subdivided right um but i believe if there was a fence erected it would be on the inside of that that landscaping so that's standard practice there okay and there would also be cc and rs uh for an hoa to dictate some of that maintenance there's that also probably something in the ccnrs that would be ironed out of You know, the owner of law. Yeah. One block one shall not fence the outer portion along ACHD right of way. Okay. Is that your understanding as well as the applicant?

Yes. Okay. All right. Thanks, Doug.

Thanks. Mr. Chair. Mr. Torres. Understanding that it's still early in the process of this, the new lots that are being built, the buildings that will be built there, I'm assuming they're houses, are Is it fair to assume that they're gonna be priced at market rate and they're gonna be for sale or will they be for rent? I'll start with that.

Chairman Danley, Commissioner Torres, I'd like to defer to Kevin. Kevin, I don't know if you can speak to that or if you hear that, but I'd like to defer to you if possible.

Sorry about that, I was muted. We really, you know, we're planning on building a house, but whether we're going to rent it or sell it, you know, we really haven't thought that far ahead, just trying to get the subdivision done.

Would it be fair to say, though, you're thinking market rate for that renting or selling?

Yes, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions? Mr. Lynch, we only have six pages worth of questions. Okay, no, I'm just kidding. I do not. Okay, making sure any other questions, no. Okay. All right, you can go ahead and have a seat, sir. And I need to now open it up to the public. And I have a signup sheet, but your name is on it. So you're already taken care of. I have somebody in the audience. Do you wish to testify in this item? You do not. Is there anybody online? Who wishes to testify? It doesn't look like it. I don't think so. Okay, well, I lied. You can have five minutes of rebuttal, even though there's no things to rebut. But you do have that five minutes if you have anything else you want to add.

Thank you, Chairman. I'd just like to say thank you for your time. I do understand you guys are recommending on this, specifically the well, the sidewalk situation. But we would always support your support. So thank you.

Okay, thanks for hanging in there. I know it's been a little bit longer than you probably thought it was going to be. Okay. Okay, that concludes the public hearing, and the item is before the commission. This is the... Subdivision request 26, 26 Stardust subdivision. So yes, we are recommending body. Yeah, we get it. And the item is before the commission.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Torres.

I move that we recommend approval of SUB 26-26. And just to clarify, is it Stardust or is it from the house?

We don't usually see that on our forms. I don't know the answer. Are we going with Stardust or are we going with Freehouse?

I believe Freehouse is the correct.

Freehouse subdivision.

Stardust Freehouse.

At 10529 West Stardust Drive.

It's not a Freehouse though, apparently. We've determined that. Okay, sorry. I digress. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stallings. Is there discussion?

Mr. Chair, this one seems pretty straightforward. I mean, the two areas of disagreement between staff and the applicant are areas that we can't address. It's good. It's a good small amount of infill development, which is much needed in our community. We need more housing. So for those reasons, I support the motion, although I am a little disappointed there's no bridges in this project.

Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion?

I don't have anything extensive to add to what Commissioner Torres said. I appreciate the applicant and the staff. Yeah, their report on this, this one was pretty straightforward.

Yep. Okay.

Mr. Chair?

Commissioner Moore.

I agree with the motion and the reasonings and staff report. Just one note, it does seem like a waste if ACHD is replacing Five Mile but has no plans to add water lines. That can add significant costs to projects, extended water lines this far, and can not only decrease affordability, can price out projects and things like that. It just seems like a really big missed opportunity between ACHD and Veolia to not put this water line while the road is open. instead of saw cutting into a brand new road or something like that. So just to, otherwise I agree with all the terms.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Okay. I think we're good with the clerk. Please call the roll.

Danley.

Aye.

Moore. Yes. Shaper.

Yes.

Seha.

Yes.

Horace.

Yes.

Stallings. Yes. Deponsic.

Yes.

All in favor. Motion carries.

Okay, before we adjourn, I just want to real quickly say that I greatly appreciate everybody on this commission's efforts, the work that we put in, the homework that we do, the approach that we take, and sometimes even the emotions that can come with that. I know these decisions are not always easy. We've all been through them. And so sometimes it can be tough, but I just want to say that there isn't any moment when we have these commission meetings that our efforts are not appreciated. And that includes, without a doubt, our staff. And so I just want to say thank you. I want to appreciate everybody. Kind of a tough night, but these things happen and we'll move forward. And again, appreciate everybody's efforts. So with that, meeting adjourned.