NACFA Concept

NACFA Concept

Assumptions & Assertions:

Assumes WATER can be provided to new development without injury to existing residents’ supply.
Traffic from new development should be routed onto highways 16 & 55, not onto already overloaded local streets or through existing rural neighborhoods. If those highways or existing river crossings southward do not have sufficient capacity, development should be deferred until these deficiencies are corrected.

Key Features:

Accommodates development without routing traffic through existing rural neighborhoods or City of Eagle.
Recognizes landowner development plans, trend toward planned communities & pressure for growth.
Preserves meaningful, connected, major open space, trails & habitat complex for the region.

Questions & Answers/Explanatory Notes

Why has NACFA done this? What is it supposed to accomplish?

We want to synthesize our concerns, opinions and ideas about the future of these foothills into a common vision that we (the citizens affected by what happens in/to these foothills) can support and promote v. simply showing up at meetings and individually expressing concerns with no solutions; and

We are frustrated by the need to attend increasingly frequent meetings, associated with multiple and overlapping planning processes (*see detail at end), with no one really in charge.

We want to concisely and clearly advocate our point of view in all relevant processes, regardless of who or how many among us are able to attend any given meeting. We wish there was one process, with one set of meetings, and one set of leaders who will make the final, coordinated, all-points-of-view-considered decisions. However, that is not the case.

The NACFA Concept is intended to concisely show our view of how we can both:

[1] Meet the needs and concerns of those of us who live here now (locally and valley-wide); and

[2] Recognize/accommodate the rights, desires and plans of the major landowners in these foothills.

Right now, the loudest voice and all the maps defining how development and road systems will look in these foothills are coming from a developer (M3) who has very definite ideas and is forcefully promoting them. The immediacy and intensity of M3’s proposal, and the lack of an equally immediate forum for mapping and discussing alternatives to the M3 view of the foothills, demand that we step into the breech, raise our voice and draw our own maps. Our bottom line right now is that M3’s proposal, as currently defined, is a long way from showing a desirable, even acceptable, future for these foothills and how foothills development will relate with those of us already here.

How realistic is it?

This concept is eminently achievable, given a true willingness by all participants to reach a collaborative solution. This is only a first draft, submitted for public discussion, but it has been drawn with specific consideration for ownership boundaries and the concerns of those landowners which whom we have been meeting (see below).

It is very likely that the most balanced and feasible solution for these foothills will be one with which no one is completely comfortable. We expect that some will say the concept gives up too much--shows too much development and not enough open space/habitat; others will say it demands too much from the landowners; still others will say the roadway/traffic idea will not work…perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…we simply want these ideas considered and tested in full light before any major development commitments are made.

Will the major landowners ever agree to such a thing?

We have discussed the ideas shown on our concept with some of the major landowners and find them willing to consider these ideas and work toward fashioning them into reality. In fact, two of the major owners have provided input to our map. We have not spoken with all the major owners, but all must be brought into the discussion. We hope that this effort can be carried forward by the County, Eagle, or ACHD…we are simply filling a gap right now.

It simply makes sense for all involved to agree to a comprehensive, detailed plan—one which gives both residents and those wishing to develop a high level of confidence that agreement has been reached and that, so long as the plan is followed, it will proceed smoothly. We’d all like to do this once and be done with it.

Although only the major, large-acreage owners are recognized on the concept map, there are several other owners, with smaller acreages. Our intent and expectation is that the interests of these owners will be protected in any solution; our map is general and conceptual…the details must follow.

How can I get my opinions on this heard and considered?

Show up at upcoming public meetings and weigh in. Mail/email/call your elected officials and tell them what you think. Advocate that those of us who live here insist on an equal seat at the table. Regardless of your opinion on this NACFA Concept, demand that a full range of possible solutions/visions be considered for the North Foothills, not just those fashioned by developers.

* There are no less than five separate planning processes currently underway dealing with these foothills:

Communities in Motion (COMPASS): A plan for our future regional transportation network which currently factors NO development in these foothills into its equations (for good reason: that is what the public wanted).
Blueprint For Good Growth (Ada County & constituent cities): A process supposedly following from the findings of the COMPASS effort at the same time the County and Eagle are entertaining proposals for major foothills developments.
Ada County Comprehensive Plan update--North Foothills sub-area plan: An effort that may have merit in terms of considering real alternatives for the whole North Foothills area, but that may be rendered moot because of the time it is taking and landowner/developer decisions to annex into Eagle rather stay in Ada County.
City of Eagle: Responding right now to a request by the M3 Companies to annex their 6000 acres into the City for a major new community (M3 Eagle) without regard for anything that might emerge from the broader COMPASS or County efforts).
ACHD (the voice of sanity): Laudably stepping into this mess and insisting on a transportation master plan for these foothills ahead of any major developments approvals, regardless of whether the County or Eagle makes the land use decisions.

[Welcome] [Our Mission] [Updates/Alerts] [Maps & Plans] [Water Matters] [Contact]

(Update notes Aug 06) NACFA concept is intended to show how many of our organization’s objectives might be met "on the ground". It is not a detailed plan; it is an idea. There are two key points made in the Concept, points/ideas we are trying to unanimously advocate in our comments/input to the County, City of Eagle, and ACHD planning processes.

Create a major open space/habitat/trails complex in the center of the area, open to all. This is very important because [1] protecting viable wildlife habitat requires large, contiguous tracts of land, not threads winding through development or crossed repeatedly by roads, [2] the "open space" normally provided within developments such as that being proposed by M3 really ends up being used by the residents of the development, not the general public (if it is useable at all), [3] a central open space/habitat complex requires a reasonable (despite protestations to the contrary by the some) contribution by each of the major landowners, and does not place an undue burden on any one of them (Connolly and Suncor are already on-board with us, working to make this concept a reality), and [4] concentrating major open space in the center of the Foothills planning area automatically means that development will be concentrated closer to the two State highways (16 and 55); this directly supports the second point...
Route traffic from foothills development to the State highways, NOT through existing neighborhoods (i.e. along Linder, Park, Ballantyne, Willow Creek/Eagle, Holl, Triple Ridge, or Little Lane--all of which are being discussed one way or another). As noted above, this means concentrating development along/near the highways. It also [1] forces the issue about whether or not these highways, and the road system south of Eagle to the freeway, can handle this traffic, and [2] does not allow developers to try and stay under the radar or pit one neighborhood against another by insisting that their traffic should be proportionately "distributed" down existing roads because the state highways can't handle it. This is a very big issue, not just for local neighborhoods, but also for the entire area. We are heading for a major traffic "train wreck" area-wide if the current head-in-the-sand attitude of the State Highway Department continues unchallenged. NACFA is pursuing this issue in other ways (e.g. starting a presentation campaign to get the issue in front of the Governor), but we must press the point with Eagle and the County.

The Concept map, with the original (May 2006) explanatory notes, is provided below.