Ada County

(Update Mid-August, 2006)

Ada County has published its first Draft of the North Foothills Sub-Area Plan (July 24, 2006), as part of the broader County-wide Comprehensive Plan update. Following are NACFA’s summary notes on the Draft North Foothills Plan.  The complete plan can be found on the County’s website here.

Draft North Ada County Foothills Sub-Area Plan

1. Intensity Area Map (showing recommended levels of development by area)

Note: Roughly 25% of Area A is West of Hwy 16, to the County Line.

2. Key County Intensity Recommendations within NACFA Area of Interest*:

• Total dwelling units (east of Hwy 16, west of Hwy 55): 3,930 to 8,885 (average = 6,100)

*Note: As shown on the above figure, totals for the whole County North Foothills Sub-Area are 4,800 to 11,060. However, roughly 25% of Area A is west of Hwy 16, outside of the NACFA Area of Interest; units assignable to this area (870-2,180) are subtracted out in this NACFA summary.

• Selected estimates for major developers active within NACFA Area of Interest (order of magnitude estimates, assuming equal distribution of densities over all acres in each area): 

→ M3: 1,200 to 3,000 (average  2,100—80+% less than currently proposed)

→ Connolly (estimated at roughly one third of Area B & C yields):  260 to 360 (average 310)

→ Suncor (estimated at roughly two third of Area B & C yields):  515 to 730 (average 625)

→ Note: small Harmon and Kastera acreages in Areas B & C not estimated; units potentially  allowed would come out of the totals estimated for Connolly and Suncor

→ Kastera (east end of Area D):  38 to 56 (average 47)

→ Other owners (not currently active, mostly in Areas A & D): 1,817 to 4,439 (average 3,128)

3. Key Objectives and Other Recommendations

• Concentrate or direct development in some areas to preserve other areas of open space.
• Locate most development relatively close to highways, major roads or other public facilities.
• Maintain opportunities for rural lifestyles ... retain the rural character ... to the extent possible.
• Avoid development in areas with sensitive resources to protect them and create an interconnected open space framework.
• Continue to provide/enhance access to public lands or other areas with recreational opportunities.
• Establish a network of trails (hiking, biking, equestrian)...accessible to the public.
• Avoid development in steep ...and... visually sensitive areas.
• Ensure that future development has access to an adequate supply of water, without adversely impacting water supplies for existing residents or other users.
• Ensure that new growth funds the cost of public facility improvements needed to serve it (e.g., water, wastewater treatment, transportation, schools, fire protection, law enforcement, etc.).
• Publicly owned lands shall not be counted towards open space requirements.
• Use densities recommended in this Plan as a guide to reviewing future development proposals in the North Foothills area... (Note: this presumably removes the current wild card provided by the Planned Community ordinance; further discussion to confirm this is ongoing. Our intent, of course, is and has always been to get a get a plan that specifically tells us how much development can or should happen in the North Foothills)
• Adopt clustering ordinance provisions and maps to replace non-farm subdivision provisions and to preserve sensitive resources and open space. Clustering provisions should be consistent with recommendations of this Plan and protect open space in perpetuity.

4. Observations, Open Questions, Pro’s and Con’s

• First off, it is clear, from both the level of development recommended overall and from the above excerpted objectives/recommendations, that the County has listened faithfully to the public’s request for limited development, rural environments, and preservation of open space, recreation, and habitat. In particular, this Draft Plan reinforces what many of us have maintained: That the intensity/magnitude of development proposed by M3 is NOT appropriate or desirable. The County team should be applauded for that.
• While recognizing these positive aspects of what the County has produced, the Draft Plan leaves some important questions unanswered and could cause some significant problems (or unintended consequences):
• The Plan does not give the detail we (and the major landowners) have sought regarding exactly where development can occur, what lands would be retained in open space/habitat, and where roads, trails and recreation would go.  Without this detail, concerned citizens and neighborhoods (like the NACFA membership) may still be left with the need to watch every individual development proposal.  We want to be done with this and move on!
• The Draft Plan uses a rough “land based constraints” approach to determining recommended development intensities for different parts of the Foothills.  This is a valid perspective. However, another dimension that we believe needs to be considered hand-in-hand with this perspective is economic reality for individual major landowners, specifically as this reality influences our expectations for really achieving the kinds of impact mitigation and public benefits for which we have been pressing. Certainly it is not our concern if some owners (the speculators) have based their “investments” on inappropriate or unrealistic expectations. We do not care one bit if an acceptable level of development (as defined in the type of public process conducted by the County) does not “pencil out” for these owners. On the other hand, the level of development assigned by the County to some of the major land ownerships is probably not sufficient to motivate/enable these owners to provide and fund the types of benefits/improvements we want (i.e. dedicated open space, habitat, trails, alternative roadway routes, etc.).   At the bottom line, we believe the County’s recommendations are one part of the picture.  The realities of negotiating a mutually acceptable (to both the public and the landowners) future for these foothills remain to be worked through.  This is not an easy or clearly black and white proposition. On this point, we expect a wide range of opinions. Recognizing this, it is our view at this point that the County recommendations on development intensity may very well be close to the mark for the lands/land owners in the western half of the Foothills area.  However, that is not true for the landowners in the eastern part of the planning area. To date, our work with the major owner in the eastern part of the area has made significant progress toward crafting a specific solution for dedicating open space, retaining habitat, routing trails, and keeping traffic from new development out of existing neighborhoods. We think it is very likely that the level of development assigned by the County’s Draft Plan to these eastern lands (i.e. 700-1,100 units in 14,000 acres) will not be sufficient “critical mass” to motivate the owners in this area to continue in this process and ultimately provide necessary support/funding for the level and type of public benefits and impact mitigation we believe are needed and desired.  Make no mistake, what the County has recommended provides powerful motivation right now for all of us to get serious about hammering out solutions and reduce the posturing, but we do not see it as the final answer.
• The above points, in our opinion, make it more important than ever that Eagle proceed with its planned visioning process and carry us all the rest of the way toward a final, detailed solution.  We can truly celebrate the fact that the County planning team has spoken loudly about what intensity of develop is appropriate for the North Foothills (we say “County planning team” because we are not sure that the County Commissioners have really paid attention to and/or blessed what this Draft Plan says—this could be a big “gotcha”).
• Now, and in any case, we need “the devil in the details” and buy-off from all participants.  This is particularly critical to such related efforts as:
• [1]  Figuring out if there is even enough water to support any level of development and who will provide it (still a big question and the most important one);
• [2]  ACHD’s on-going master planning for the roadway system necessary to serve whatever development occurs in these foothills (to do this job, ACHD needs real information on “where, how much, and what kind?” of development—it is not ACHD’s job to make these judgments; and
• [3]  Defining an open space/habitat/recreation framework/system for the area—including details on what lands will be part of this system, how to join up and augment BLM lands, how to incorporate State lands, how the sum total can be managed and maintained, etc. (e.g. through by the Land Trust of the Treasure Valley)  
• The bottom line: The County’s Draft Plan sets a new tone for what the future of the North Foothills should look like (a tone far different from the type of mega-development proposed by M3). The County team’s recommendations [1] faithfully reflect what they heard from the public during the process, and [2] add the important dimension of physical constraints and natural resource protection to the discussion. Now we need to use this work to hammer out a truly feasible and detailed vision.  So, we (citizens and groups such as NACFA) need to stay involved and see all this through.

North Ada County Foothills Association

One Voice, One Plan