Shelley Lupher 2-221
Charlene Way
From:Shelley Lupher <shelleylupher@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:13 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:public testimony submittal
Hello - Could you please distribute and add my email to the public testimony for application, Lost Rapids H-
2018-0004. Thank you.
Shelley Lupher
Dear Ms. Wallace,(ACHD)
Thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns regarding the traffic study done for the
proposed Costco development identified at the intersection of Ten Mile and Chinden Blvd. I believe
the city has named this project "Lost Rapids".
As I reviewed the traffic study and its summary, I found there to be some omissions of data that, due
to their adjacency to the site, should be critical to review for the traffic study.
I noticed the following in-progress developments were not included in the study:
• Bainbridge development, both currently in progress and the proposed R-15 developments,
which are both directly adjacent to the site, were not mentioned in the report.
• Irvine Meadows, also in progress, across from the proposed gas station location was not
mentioned in the report.
• Silverleaf development, while 99% built out, is directly effected by the proposed traffic and
future light at Lost Rapids and Ten Mile.
• The Rockharbor church, while it does not have a current application, they have a prior traffic
study that should be reviewed and considered in relation to this proposed costco
development.
• Heron Ridge and Oak Leaf developments at the back of Spurwing, while smaller
developments, are in-progress and will generate traffic through the proposed development
area.
I also observed the following data was also missing or incorrect:
• The crash reports were only current up to 2015. There are current crash reports available up
until the end of 2017. I believe these reports will show several accidents directly adjacent to
the area where the developer is requesting a right out on Chinden. While I realize this
(Chinden) is IDT's jurisdiction, it should be considered due to its overall relation to the traffic
flow of this proposed site.
• The Spurwing Entrance traffic counts are outdated. A study was completed in late 2016/early
2017 that should be available to Kittleson to use. As you may recall, due to the Tree Farm
subdivision development being approved, this puts Tree Farm Way (Spurwing Entrance) well
over the ACHD limits for a single entrance residential collector.
• I did not see reference to including a backage road on the site, which is required per Meridian
city code.
• The planned elementary and high school do not appear to be included in the study. As Lost
Rapids will likely be a walking and driving route for these schools, this is a safety concern.
2
In addition, I find it extremely disturbing that the applicant's firm submitted this report attempting to
use a 1% background rate for growth of traffic. Given this firms' repeated traffic studies in the region,
they should know that 2% is the ACHD requirement; I see this as a direct attempt to manipulate
numbers to meet ACHD's requirements and hide the negative impact from the city and public.
And finally, we all realize that congestion and traffic growth is a reality of living in a popular and
growing city. However, the traffic analysis as presented shows the mitigation actions applied (more
lanes, future lights) will not actually solve the problem, and that the siting of a large industrial
commercial business that draws in thousands of vehicles per hour from the region into a 3 way
neighborhood intersection does not result in a safe nor efficiently moving neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding
my points.
Shelley Lupher
Meridian, ID