Foothills Development

EAGLE FOOTHILLS REPORT

Author's Note:  Recognizing the importance of the public being able to participate in an informed way in the policy decisions it will make about the foothills, the Eagle City Council commissioned me to write this report.  The purpose of the report is to provide as fair and accurate a summary as reasonably possible of the issues related to Eagle’s comprehensive planning for foothills development.  I wish to thank the more than 40 individuals who generously helped develop this report by sharing their time, expertise, and perspectives in meetings and/or in comments on a draft version.  The final version is undoubtedly imperfect despite their help, but it is far better than it would have been without them.  This report was commissioned so that the public would have an independently generated summary. It does not reflect the opinions or preferences of City staff or elected officials. For a list of who participated in the process for developing this report, click here. For an author bio, click here.

Keith Allred, October 9, 2007

keithallred@allredsolutions.com

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years people have recognized that the Boise area is one of the most attractive places in the country to live. This recognition has led to one of the fastest growth rates in the nation. People living in and around Eagle are familiar with the challenges and benefits this growth brings to our community. The challenges include busy roads, overflowing schools, and strained local government services. The benefits include attractive new neighborhoods with required paths and open spaces that make living in Eagle unique and a vibrant, growing local economy that attracts new businesses and the jobs and tax base that go with them.

The foothills north of Eagle have drawn particular attention recently as a setting for an attractive lifestyle. A number of developers have purchased large tracts of land. If every home that has been proposed became a reality, there would be more than 20,000 homes in the foothills with more than 50,000 people living in them.

How should local governments respond to the foothills developments being proposed? As the Eagle City Council addresses this question, they want to hear from you. This report was created to help you develop an informed opinion on that question. In the materials that follow, you'll find information about the realistic alternatives available to the City of Eagle and other local governments, the impacts which development in the foothills would have, and competing perspectives about what the City of Eagle should do.

2. OVERVIEW OF THE REALISTIC ALTERNATIVES

Many residents of Eagle and the surrounding areas identify the foothills as one of the area’s unique attractions. The largely undeveloped foothills provide a scenic backdrop that gives the community much of its rural, western feel and provides a visual contrast with the lush green look along the Boise River. The foothills also provide quick access to recreation that is the envy of many communities. Hiking, wildlife watching, mountain biking, and horseback riding are all frequent public uses of the foothills.

It is important to note that much of the undeveloped foothills land which is visible from Eagle, particularly that between Highway 16 and Eagle Road, consists of 1,915 acres of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land that the City of Eagle is in the process of acquiring to maintain as the Eagle Regional Park. Consequently, under any scenario of foothills development, this land will not be developed.   Much of the visible front range of the foothills between Eagle Road and Highway 55 has already been developed.  Consequently, much of the foothills visible from Eagle will be unchanged and available to the public for recreation. The questions about development of the foothills center on an additional 30,000 acres that lie behind the visible front range of foothills.

A. Prohibiting All Foothills Development is Not an Option

Given the use of the foothills in their undeveloped state by the community and the strains already felt from new development elsewhere, many residents wonder why foothills development should be allowed. Public access has been assumed for so long, it's natural to think of this area as public land like the BLM land which Eagle is acquiring for the regional park. However, more than 85% of the land has been privately owned as far back as the early ranching days of the area. The public has had access to much of this private land but only through the generosity of landowners. Short of purchasing the private land, the City of Eagle or Ada County can't prohibit the landowners from developing their property just because others who are already here want to keep it undeveloped. Legal protections of private property rights ensure a basic fairness for everyone. If we simply pursued our own self interests, some of us would stop all development on open land. Stop it, that is, right after we secured our own home on private land!

B. Limiting Development to Current County Zoning Restrictions

While government can't completely prohibit private land development because of public attitudes, it does have the authority to control and limit development in certain ways. It can limit development so that it does not exceed public facilities or it can require developments to contribute to the costs of building additional facilities. It can restrict development that would be unsafe or pose unreasonable costs to the government for protection. For example, it can restrict development on overly steep hillsides or in flood plains. It can also limit the impact development will have on natural resources like wildlife and water.

Ada County already uses some of its authority to regulate development in the foothills through zoning. Almost all of the private land is restricted to not more than one home per 40 or per 10 acres. If all new development were held within these current zoning restrictions roughly 2,000 new homes could be built in the foothills.

Some argue that this is exactly what should happen—keep the current county zoning restrictions and limit the construction of new homes to 2,000. Others argue that this kind of sprawling development would have significant negative consequences. First, numerous large-lot developments may divide the land in such a way that it diminishes public access to natural open space and imposes significant impacts on wildlife and plant life. Second, it would be expensive to provide public infrastructure, such as water, sewer, and roads; and services, such as police and fire protection, when distances increase between homes. Third, relatively few homes bring in insufficient tax revenues to support expensive infrastructure and service demands. The result may be that everyone else subsidizes this kind of development. Furthermore, some argue, it is unrealistic to assume that the County would limit the number of homes to 2,000, particularly given its ordinance that allows anyone with 640 contiguous acres or more to submit an application for a planned community that would have much higher densities than one home per 40 or per 10 acres.

C. Long-Term Planning for Wise Land Use

There is fairly wide consensus that rather than restricting development to its current zoning, it would be wiser to strike a bargain with developers. The government agrees to allow more homes to be built than current zoning would permit in exchange for the developers’ agreeing to do things like concentrating their development on portions of their land more suited to development, maintaining the rest in open space, and helping to fund infrastructure demands. Supporters of this approach argue that it would produce more attractive development and limit natural resource impacts. The economics of this kind of development work better, they argue, because there is a higher tax base to support more cost effective services.

The benefits from developing in this way, proponents argue, are best realized by developing comprehensive land use plans that provide guidance to this kind of development framed by a long-term vision of the future community. The support for this approach has been sufficient that both Ada County and the City of Eagle have recently undertaken comprehensive planning processes for the foothills.

While the approach of developing comprehensive plans for wise land use attracts broad support as a general proposition, differences emerge on the details of what those comprehensive plans should look like. There are also differences of opinion regarding who should do this comprehensive planning.

        1. Ada County. Because the foothills north of Eagle are currently outside any city's limits or area of impact, development there is currently under Ada County's jurisdiction. Accordingly, Ada County undertook an extensive comprehensive planning process for the foothills. The planning process included research and mapping of the existing conditions in the foothills, focus group discussions, priority setting meetings, and public workshops and hearings. The proposed plan that resulted was then reviewed by Ada County's Planning & Zoning Commission. P&Z has recommended that plan, with some changes, to the Ada County Board of Commissioners. The Commissioners have not yet acted on that recommendation.  The recommendation leaves the County’s planned community ordinance in tact.

        2. City of Eagle. Eagle also undertook a comprehensive planning process for the foothills even though the foothills are beyond Eagle's city limits and area of impact. The City did this after several developers indicated that they wanted their property annexed into Eagle and almost a year after some had formally applied for annexation. Many concerned citizens concurred with developers that foothills development should come under Eagle jurisdiction because the foothills are considered by many to be a part of the Eagle community and because the impact of development in the foothills would be felt by Eagle more than any other city. By conducting a comprehensive planning process for the foothills, many agreed, Eagle could appropriately control its own destiny and guide development consistent with the community's values. Additionally, many argue that urban development is better and more appropriately planned for and regulated by cities rather than the County.

Idaho law gives cities the authority to annex land as long as the landowners agree and the land is contiguous with the city. Although most of the foothills targeted for development are not currently contiguous with Eagle, current voluntary annexations are in process that would make one or more foothills developers' lands contiguous. Once one developer's land becomes contiguous and is annexed, then another's would become contiguous, and so on.

Responding to this encouragement from a wide range of sources, the City undertook an extensive comprehensive planning process that included public polling as well as researching and mapping the development opportunities and constraints unique to the foothills. The opportunities and constraints analysis included a working group of land owners, a neighborhood association representative, a Planning & Zoning Commissioner, and a City Council member. Next, more than 250 volunteers working in various committees cumulatively contributed 2,000 hours in drafting, reviewing, and commenting. Based on this work, the City staff created a draft comprehensive plan.  Eagle's P&Z then reviewed that draft comprehensive plan. P&Z next recommended that plan to the City Council with some significant modifications. The City Council has not yet acted on that recommendation and has commissioned the preparation of this report to help inform the public about the issues the Council faces as it considers the proposed comprehensive plan.

       3. Other Cities. Instead of Ada County or the City of Eagle, jurisdiction over foothills development could potentially go to Star and/or Horseshoe Bend. Through scenarios similar to Eagle, the foothills could become contiguous to and thus be annexed by either city if the developers changed their minds and decided they preferred to be annexed into one of those cities. Neither Star nor Horseshoe Bend has undertaken comprehensive planning for the foothills and neither would be required to do so in order to annex foothills land. However, officials from both Star and Horseshoe Bend have expressed interest in foothills annexation.

Many local residents are uncomfortable with the foothills coming under Star or Horseshoe Bend's jurisdiction, arguing that neither city has the staff to undertake planning as extensive as Eagle's or the County's. Those concerned about Star or Horseshoe Bend having jurisdiction also argue that in the past these cities have not required development standards that are as exacting as those envisioned under either Eagle or Ada County's proposed comprehensive plans. Some conclude that there is a limit to how far Eagle or the County should limit foothills development. If they push too far, some argue, the developers may simply go to Star or Horseshoe Bend or seek to form their own city.

Others acknowledge that the Star and Horseshoe Bend options may set limits on what can realistically be asked of developers, but argue that these are not particularly attractive alternatives for developers simply because the developers are planning high-end developments targeting home buyers attracted to a community like Eagle.

The report now turns to the proposed comprehensive plans.

3. FOOTHILLS COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

While not legally binding, local governments adopt comprehensive land use plans as a guide to how they generally choose to exercise their discretion to avoid development that does not serve the public interest and to promote development that does.

A. Eagle City Staff Recommended Plan

Recognizing that the foothills are a very different landscape for development than the flat, irrigated farm land where most Eagle development has taken place, a central feature of the City's proposed comprehensive plan is the identification of constraints that make some parts of the foothills less appropriate for development. Specifically, the City found that development was generally less appropriate in areas of the foothills that have slopes greater than 25%, are floodways, or are sensitive wildlife and plant habitat. Of the 32,000 total acres in the foothills planning area, the City estimates that 63% (20,249 acres) has one or more of these constraints. Once BLM land is also taken out, this leaves 6,353 acres (or about 20% of the 32,000 acre total) of unconstrained land that is most appropriate for development. The plan establishes a base density of one unit per acre of unconstrained land.

The comprehensive plan recommended to the Eagle P&Z further encouraged wise development of the most development-appropriate areas by designating community and neighborhood centers for denser development. Community centers would be approximately 100-150 acres of a mix of uses including commercial buildings and schools along with residential development of 8-10 units per acre. Neighborhood centers would be approximately 40-60 mixed-use acres along with residential development of 6-10 units per acre.

This proposed plan designates areas surrounding and radiating out from these community and neighborhood centers that decrease in density the further from the centers one goes. Immediately surrounding the centers would be urban transition areas that are primarily residential development with about 4 units per acre. Next are suburban residential areas with 2.5 units per acre. Surrounding the suburban areas would be rural estate areas with 1 unit per 2 acres. Finally, a rural lifestyle area would surround these rural estate areas where there would be average densities of 1 unit per 40 acres. Even here, the comprehensive plan encourages development that is not literally one house for every 40 acres. Rather, a given developer with land in these areas would get, in effect, a density credit of one home per 40 acres but would be encouraged to develop these homes in clusters with lots much smaller than 40 acres or to take density credits for additional development in the more development-appropriate areas that developer owns in exchange for not developing in the rural lifestyle area. The plan also calls for locating these community and neighborhood centers near the main existing transportation corridors of Highways 16 and 55 and keeping development away from the center foothills area, roughly north along Eagle/Willow Creek Road.

Finally, the plan calls for 40% of any given development to be retained in open space and encourages open space to be retained where it will connect to adjacent open spaces. The open space standard for the rest of the City is 10%.  Of the 40% of the foothills dedicated to open space, 25% could be developed open space, such as golf courses, parks, and sport fields or other types of open space.  This 25% would be inside given developments and not necessarily readily available to the general public.  The other 15% would be natural open space outside developed areas and generally available to the public.  The City Staff recommended plan encourages a regional network of trails connecting open spaces. It also emphasizes the importance of these connected open spaces for wildlife habitat and migration and for plant and ecosystem needs. Including the BLM land, about 50% of the 32,000 acres in the Eagle planning area would remain in some type of open space under the plan that was recommended to the P&Z.

The base density of one unit per acre of unconstrained land, combined with the density unit credits of 1 unit for 5 acres for land with slopes greater than 25% and/or with special wildlife habitat value, the total number of possible homes works out to 12,547. Across the entire 32,000 acres, this means an average of one unit for every 2.5 acres.

To view a video that summarizes the City's foothills comprehensive planning process and its findings, click here.
For general information about the City's foothills comprehensive planning process and its findings, click here.

B. Eagle P&Z Recommended Plan

P&Z modified the City staff proposed comprehensive plan in some important ways before recommending it to the City Council. Two of the modifications have received particular attention. First, many agreed that insufficient on-the-ground, acre-by-acre analysis of the constraints had been done to conclude confidently how many homes could be built in the foothills.  Accordingly, P&Z removed the references to the number of acres with a given constraint and to the overall number of homes that could be built.

Second, P&Z approved M3 Companies’ plan for the 6,005 acres that M3 Companies owns and wants to develop.  In many respects, the M3 Eagle sub-area plan is consistent with what the overall City staff proposed plan envisioned for these 6,005 acres. Like the proposed City staff plan, the M3 Eagle sub-area plan would, for the most part, keep development away from slopes of greater than 25% and established flood plains, and would seek to minimize impacts to areas deemed by Idaho Fish & Game as areas of special habitat value. It also would concentrate development in more appropriate areas in dense centers separated by open spaces.

There is some difference of opinion about whether the M3 Eagle sub-area plan is consistent with or different from the 40% open space called for in the City plan. It is agreed that 25% of the property would be in community open spaces including parks and golf courses and that another 80 acres (1.3% of M3' Companies’ 6,005 acres) would be dedicated to contribute to an open space corridor along Willow Creek Road (Eagle Road turns into Willow Creek Road north of Beacon Light). In order to further the goal of creating an activity center per the City-staff recommended plan in conjunction with M3 Companies’ mixed use highway parcel, M3 Companies has proposed an exchange of approximately 800 acres (a little over 13% of M3 Companies 6,005 acres) that it owns for an 815-acre BLM parcel adjacent to Highway 16.   Without the exchange, the City’s vision of an activity center near Highway 16 is very limited.  In the event that the BLM exchange is not completed within 10 years, M3 Companies proposes to donate these 800 acres to Eagle in exchange for a tax credit equivalent to the fair market value of that land.

M3 Companies argues that these 800 acres bring their total property to nearly 40% open space. Some concerned citizens argue that since M3 Companies requires something of equivalent value in return for keeping the 800 acres in open space (either BLM land or an equally valuable tax credit), this really means that only 26.3% of its land would be in open space, putting it at odds with the overall comprehensive plan recommendation. The North Ada County Foothills Association (NACFA), a group of citizens concerned about growth and development pressures affecting the foothills, has been one of the most prominent voices making this argument.

The M3 Eagle sub-area plan differs from what the City staff plan envisioned for these 6,005 acres in several important respects. First, its largest, most dense center of development, along with a few other smaller centers of development, is located centrally between Highway 16 and Willow Creek Road (the northern extension of Eagle Road) along a planned major new road connecting Highways 16 and 55 rather than near Highway 16, the existing transportation corridor closest to M3's property.  M3 Companies explains that because of the 815 BLM acres adjacent to Highway 16, M3 Companies cannot move its commercial corridor any closer to Highway 16.  They further explain that Linder Road, which is one of the few north/south roads that has a bridge over the Boise River, feeds directly into the proposed community core.

Second, it would potentially allow substantially more homes than the City staff recommended plan. Many agree that M3 Companies’ land is among the flattest and least constrained land in the foothills and is thus appropriate for much of the densest development. Accordingly, the City staff plan envisioned that 5,087 residential units could go on M3 Companies' 6,005 acres even though that is 40% of the total of 12,547 units on just 19% of the total planning area. The M3 sub-area plan calls for an overall base of 5,640 units, which is 11% more units than the City staff plan envisions. In some portions of the sub-area plan, densities of up to 20 units per acre would be allowed, compared to 10 units per acre in the areas of greatest density under the City staff recommended plan.

While the total units difference is relatively small for these two visions for this land, M3 Companies has suggested that it can mitigate the constraints that the City has identified. The M3 sub-area plan has provisions that could increase the total homes from 5,640 to 8,160 by creation of standards for grading on slopes, including those greater than 25%, by mitigation in areas identified by the Idaho Department of Fish & Game as areas of special habitat value, and by obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA which will delineate the flood plain (which is currently not delineated). If M3 Companies’ mitigation plans were successful, the resulting 8,160 units would represent a 60% increase in density relative to the 5,087 units envisioned in the city-staff recommended plan for these 6,005 acres.  This would raise the overall number of homes in the foothills to 15,620 assuming the rest of the foothills where held to the number of homes envisioned for them in the City staff recommended plan.

Beyond substantive concerns, the P&Z modifications to the City staff recommended plan raised process concerns for many people. Many ask, for example, what the point was of the extensive planning process the City undertook, with the hundreds of volunteers who cumulatively contributed thousands of hours in working on the plan, if P&Z was simply going to supplant this committee-driven plan with the wholesale adoption of M3 Companies’ request for such a large proportion of the total development potential of the foothills. The M3 sub-area plan minimum density would account for 40% of all the homes in the foothills contemplated under the comprehensive plan recommended to P&Z.  The maximum sub-area plan density would account for 65% of the homes envisioned in the City staff plan.  Furthermore, some argue, other landowners would expect to receive similar treatment with respect to opportunities to mitigate constraints.  If the 60% increase over the city staff recommended plan for the M3 Companies’ land could be achieved throughout the foothills, the result would be  more than 20,000 new homes rather than the 12,547.

M3 Companies responds to these process concerns by noting that they significantly modified their original application to conform with the City staff plan, even though their original development application predated the City's comprehensive planning process by almost a year. Originally, M3 Companies applied for a base density of 12,010, but reduced their request to a minimum density of 5,640 and a maximum of 8,160.  M3 Companies also observes that as substantial as the city planning process was, M3 Companies’ planning efforts for the sub-area represent an even greater investment in time and expert resources.

C. Ada County Plan

Ada County's proposed foothills comprehensive plan is similar in many respects to both versions of Eagle's plan. It identifies areas of the foothills that have slopes of greater than 25%, are floodways, or are important wildlife and plant habitat as less appropriate for development, and indicates that these areas should be managed primarily for open space. Some development could occur in these areas but would require stricter management to avoid and/or mitigate impacts on sensitive natural resources.  Within the areas more appropriate for development, it calls for concentrating higher densities in development centers separated by large areas of natural open space. Like the City staff recommended plan, and like some aspects of the M3 Eagle sub-area plan, the County plan calls for these centers of higher density development to be close to the major existing transportation corridors. In particular, it envisions centers of development close to Highway 16 which is closest to the foothills areas with the least constraints and, therefore, most appropriate for development. Like the City staff recommended plan, the Ada County plan takes a constraints-based approach to how much development would be allowed. The application of the County constraints yields a somewhat lower average density of 1 home per 3 acres across the entire planning area compared to the City staff plan that envisions an average density of 1 home per 2.5 acres across the entire planning area. Including the BLM land, about 36% of the foothills would be in open space under the County plan.

These overall average densities of the City staff and County plan, however, are not directly comparable for two reasons. First, the Ada County planning area is larger, taking in 39,000 acres, than the City planning area which involves 32,000 acres. For both planning areas, the east boundary is Highway 55 and the north boundary is the north Ada County line. The County picks up more land than the City's due to the fact that the western border for the County's planning area extends beyond Highway 16 to the Canyon County boundary, while the City's planning area extends only as far west as Highway 16. The County plan average of 1 home per 3 acres results from 12,530 homes that could be built over a total of 39,000 acres, while the City plan average of 1 home per 2.5 acres results from 12,547 homes over a total of 32,000 acres. Under the County plan 36% of the foothills would remain in open space, compared to 50% under the City plan. The City plan manages to preserve more land in open space even with an average higher density by going further than the County plan in keeping the development within denser centers of development.

Second, the County densities are not directly comparable to the City densities because the County plan provides a vision for the next 20 years given landscape constraints (e.g. slopes greater than 25%) and the limits of current infrastructure such as roads. It is not a vision for full build out of the foothills. In other words, if infrastructure were provided, greater densities would be allowed. It also assumes that only a portion of the area would be within communities with urban densities (likely planned communities) and that much of the area would remain essentially rural.  The City plan, on the other hand, is meant to be a plan for full build out.

For more on the Ada County plan, click here

The report now turns to consideration of the economic impact of foothills development.

4. ECONOMIC IMPACT

One of the most important questions raised about foothills development is whether it will fully pay for the increased public facilities and government services that it will require. Some are confident that foothills development will more than pay for itself, making it easier to provide public infrastructure and government services.  Some are concerned that it won't, meaning that either public infrastructure and government services will become inadequate under the increased strain or that those not living in these new developments will pay for the additional infrastructure and services needed.

This question of growth paying for itself is of particular concern in the foothills for two reasons. First, the foothills question has presented itself at a time when there is a growing consensus that the recent growth in the Treasure Valley has not paid for itself. Although little formal analysis has been done, many familiar with development in other states argue that Idaho requires development to contribute far less to infrastructure. Many who believe that growth is paying for itself in the Boise area, nevertheless acknowledge that insufficient analysis has been done to answer the question definitively and feel that having an answer is important to making rational decisions about new development. Many of the developers who have recently come to Idaho from out of state agree that Idaho lacks many of the tools that other states use to fund infrastructure.

Second, the question of growth paying for itself is of particular concern in the foothills because the scale of proposed new foothills development is so large and would be further from existing infrastructure and services than most other development has been. Most planning efforts for new infrastructure in the future have assumed that growth would come primarily in the areas of impact immediately surrounding existing cities.

Particularly given the current concern that growth has not been paying for itself and the scale and distance from current infrastructure and services, many argue that it is irresponsible to complete plans for foothills development without first being able to determine what a given development's proportionate share of infrastructure costs are in order to maintain a specified level of service. Beyond that, many argue that policies need to be implemented by which development will be required to contribute that proportionate share. Those making this point observe that an effort to do these things is already underway by Blue Print for Good Growth (BPGG). BPGG is an Ada County consortium of governments in charge of local land use and roadway planning including Ada County, its cities, the Ada County Highway District, and the Idaho Transportation Department. BPGG is currently working to develop a model "adequate public facilities ordinance" which would require that "essential public facilities be provided at adopted levels of service prior to or concurrent with the creation of new demands for those facilities."  Eagle is also working on its own version of such an ordinance.

Others respond that waiting for more economic impact analysis is misguided for several reasons. First, with respect to infrastructure or capital costs, they argue that while Idaho does not have some of the tools that other states have, it is nevertheless within local government's existing authority to require that development pay for the additional infrastructure that it necessitates. Most simply, cities can require contributions to infrastructure as part of a development agreement.  Furthermore, many agencies can simply withhold needed permits until an agreeable arrangement for infrastructure contribution has been found.  For example, the Idaho Transportation Department could withhold a permit to connect a road from a foothills development to Highway 16 or 55 until a way had been found for the developer to contribute an appropriate amount for the improvements to those highways that the increased traffic will necessitate.  Many of the developers with plans for the foothills have committed in principle to paying their proportionate share of infrastructure costs, whatever the mechanisms for doing so may be.

Second, with respect to services, foothills developers point to the results of economic impact analyses they have had prepared that indicate that not only are the increased revenues these developments generate greater than the increased costs of services they impose, but that the increased revenue in many cases would be two to four times the increased costs of services.

Two main explanations are offered for why these developments expect to generate so much of a surplus. First, these tend to be planned communities that include not just new homes, but significant commercial development as well. Commercial property generally tends to bring in more revenues than it takes back in government services. Second, the homes planned for these developments tend to be on the higher end of the market in the Treasure Valley. Not only do these above average price homes pay more property taxes than average price homes, but developers argue that they are also purchased by smaller families. Consequently, these higher-priced homes both pay more taxes and create less demand for government services, particularly schools.

Many who are concerned about the economic impacts of foothills development find developers' assurances inadequate. With respect to infrastructure, while they welcome developers' commitment in principle to paying their proportionate share of infrastructure costs, they observe that developers and local governments often disagree once the discussion moves from general principle to the actual detailed calculation of proportionate share. The Meridian School District says that its experience does not confirm the assumption that fewer children live in higher end homes. Those concerned about economic impact conclude that it is unwise to grant development entitlements by approving developer applications before such a fundamental question as revenue has been addressed.  They argue it is similarly misguided to complete comprehensive plans that have not sufficiently addressed this important question.

With respect to services, those concerned about economic impact agree with developers that the mix of commercial and high-end residential potentially give these developments a more favorable economic profile, but they note that similar planned communities in the recent past have not been as successful in attracting businesses as they had projected even though they were developed during a vibrant real estate market. Even if these developments were as successful as they are projected to be, many of the most knowledgeable people on this topic in the Boise area say that the projections of two to four times as much new revenue as new costs is unrealistically positive.

This general question of foothills growth paying for itself has particular implications unique to each of several specific types of public infrastructure and resources. The report now turns to an examination of the questions, economic and otherwise, relating to these specific types of public infrastructure.

5. ISSUES RELATED TO SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCES

A. Roads and Highways

People who drive in Ada County don't need studies to tell them that traffic is increasing on our roads and highways. The current pressures on the transportation system provide the context for understanding the transportation impacts of foothills development.  First, with or without foothills development, there is broad consensus that needed improvements to existing roads and highways are lagging behind the development that has occurred in recent years. Second, there is wide agreement that as projected growth continues it will be difficult for the improvements to catch up to the increasing demands continually being placed on the roads. Third, most agree that the problem isn't just the pace of growth, but that the mechanisms by which we fund our transportation system aren't equal to the demands being placed on the system. While many improvements to the existing roads and highways have been planned to address the increasing demands, the means by which these improvements would be funded have, to a large degree, not yet been found.

What demands would foothills development place on our roads and highways beyond the development that is already anticipated?  It’s generally assumed that the developers would build the roads internal to the developments that would be needed, including a major new east/west road connecting Highways 16 and 55.  Beyond that, two analyses of the unique impacts of overall foothills development on the surrounding transportation system have been conducted to date.  First, the City provided  COMPASS, the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho, with a number of assumptions relating to foothills development and asked COMPASS to analyze the impacts.  Second, a consortium of foothills developers have funded a study which has been overseen and reviewed  by staff representing the developers, the Ada County Highway District (ACHD), the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), COMPASS, Ada County, and the City of Eagle. 

Although they were conducted using somewhat different assumptions and methodology, both projected that Highway 55 would require significant improvements as a result of foothills development.   Highway 55, they projected, would need to expanded into a 4 or 6 lane expressway with interchanges.  Both studies similarly projected that significant improvements to Linder Road would be required, including extending it into the foothills.  The Eagle study projected that Palmer Road would also need to be extended north into the foothills. 

The developer consortium study projected that significant improvements would be needed elsewhere as a result of foothills development.  Specifically, it estimated that: 

For more a more detailed summary of these studies and their projections, click here.

Emphasizing the need for additional, more detailed analysis, the developer consortium study provided a preliminary estimate that the improvements necessitated by the foothills development would cost a total of approximately $300 million. The report estimated that the cost per single-family dwelling in the foothills would be approximately $9,500. To read the full tier 1 report for the developers' study, click here.

The results of both studies necessarily depend on assumptions that were made about things that are not known with certainty at this point in time, including the feasibility of some of the projected improvements given unique challenges of the foothills landscape and constraints like existing homes, businesses, canals, etc.  Many agree that further refinement of assumptions, detailed analysis, and investigation of feasibility will be needed to more precisely project impacts.  Two such efforts are currently under way.  First, the developer consortium funded study is moving into “tier 2” of its analysis and an exploration of funding possibilities.  Second, COMPASS, ACHD, and ITD are currently conducting the North Ada County Transportation Plan scheduled to be completed in 2008.

Whatever the transportation system impacts attributable to foothills development, there are contrasting views about the way in which these impacts should be handled.  Developers argue that while it is certainly fair to expect the new developments to fund their proportional share of increased demands on the roads and highways, it would be unfair to expect them to address the backlog that currently exists and that is projected to continue with or without foothills development.

Given the existing backlog, COMPASS, ACHD, and ITD raise questions about how foothills development should proceed even if developers do pay for all the impacts attributable to them.  For example, the $300 million the developers’ study projected would be needed in improvements to the transportation system because of foothills development is the difference between the approximately $140 million in improvements to roads and highways in and near the foothills that will be needed without foothills development and the roughly $440 million needed with that development.  The transportation agencies point out that the funding sources for most of that $140 million in improvements needed in any case have not been identified.  Consequently, the transportation agencies ask whether it is wise to move forward with developments that assume improvements to the transportation system that are presently not funded.

The transportation agencies point to additional complications.  First, many of the improvements that are needed to accommodate foothills development are improvements to state highways, such as Highway 16 and 55, which are under ITD jurisdiction.  Unlike ACHD, ITD does not have the impact fee authority by which development can pay for the impacts it has.

Second, the transportation agencies argue that the expansion of existing roads and highways faces physical constraints related to existing homes and businesses, the availability of new rights-of-way, and the physical limitations in places like the canyons through which Highway 55 runs. Given the limitations already faced, the transportation agencies suggest it would be wise to further investigate the feasibility of the transportation plans being discussed.  These agencies that deal with roads and highways in Ada County argue that comprehensive planning efforts and development applications for the foothills should be put on hold until the North Ada County Transportation Plan that they are currently conducting is completed in 2008 and until funding mechanisms have been worked out like the adequate public facilities ordinance that Blue Print for Good Growth is developing.

Developers and others respond, first, that even without impact fee authority, cities and counties can require that developers come to an agreement with ITD about both how much a development will impact the state highways and how the developer will pay for the costs of that development.  Second, they respond that while more detailed study of the costs and feasibility is undoubtedly needed, this doesn’t all have to be done prior to the approval of a comprehensive plan.  In fact, they argue, it would be very difficult for a comprehensive plan for such a large area to get into this detail.  It is more appropriate, developers suggest, for much of the more detailed work to be done in connection with a particular development application.

B. Schools

As with roads and highways, it's been difficult to build schools quickly enough to accommodate the increasing number of students associated with the recent growth both because of the pace of growth and because of the limited means by which we finance new schools. In Idaho all school facilities are built through bond levies that must be approved by two-thirds of the voters in a given school district. Those bonds are repaid through a property tax levy on the residents of that school district. This approach differs from most other states in two ways. First, Idaho is one of the few states in the nation that requires a two-thirds voter approval threshold to pass a bond levy. In most states, the threshold is 60% or less. Second, in most states the state government contributes a more significant portion of the costs of school construction. Additionally, school districts are the only type of local government in Idaho without authority to assess impact fees.

Students living in the foothills are within Joint School District No. 2, more commonly known as the Meridian School District. The District estimates that on average there are .8 students living in every home in the area. With 12,547 new homes under the City staff recommended plan at full build out, this would mean 10,038 students who would require 7 elementary schools, a little more than 2 typically sized middle schools, and 1.5 typically sized high schools. According to the District, the cost for all these schools would be $203 million, not including the cost of the land or the interest that would be paid on the bonds. If the $203 million for these new schools is divided by the12,547 potential new homes, the cost would be a little over $16,000 per home.

Recognizing the challenges the District faces in financing the construction of new schools, developers sometimes offer to help in some way, for example by donating the land for school sites. This is more often the case with large, planned communities for which having a school integrated into the community can be a selling point. The District responds that it welcomes these contributions, but points out that they typically fall far short of the total costs for new school facilities. Developers respond that growth will continue regardless of where it comes next, so that the costs for the new schools will be incurred no matter what.  However, they argue, since the foothills provide opportunities for large planned communities, the school district is likely to get more financial help to the extent that new growth occurs in the foothills rather than elsewhere. As mentioned above, developers also observe that the mix of commercial and high-end residential development make a larger contribution to the property taxes that will pay for the school bond levies.  The District observes that the increased property values are no guarantee that school bonds will pass and express concerns that planned community residents may feel they have paid “their fair share” and be reluctant to vote for future district bond issues.

C. Fire Protection

Of course, the new homes and businesses in the foothills will require fire protection. The foothills are some distance from existing fire stations. Consequently, new fire stations would need to be constructed and new firefighters hired to man those stations. Several foothills developers have indicated their willingness to donate sites for new fire stations.

Officials at the Eagle Fire District, which would have jurisdiction for fire protection for most of the foothills, indicate that fire protection would be substantially more expensive in the foothills than it is within the current city limits. They argue that this is partly because homes and businesses in the foothills would face threats from wildfires. The record-setting wildfire season Idaho is currently having, with two fires in the foothills already this summer, makes this difference particularly vivid.

The Eagle Fire District already has responsibility and bears the costs, along with a few other fire districts and the BLM, for fighting wildfires in the Eagle foothills. However, Eagle Fire District officials point out that if future wildfires in the foothills put thousands of people and property valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars at risk, then those fires will have to be fought more aggressively and expensively. Currently, the Eagle Fire District does not have a mechanism by which residents in the Eagle foothills would pay more if protecting them from fire is substantially more expensive than protecting those who don't live in the foothills. Any higher expenses would be borne by all property owners within the district.

The developers argue that much of the risks and costs posed by wildfire can be addressed by developing strategies based on the lessons of past experience. Most of the developers have indicated their intention to follow best practices such as requiring fire resistant building materials, particularly for roofs, defensible buffer zones with appropriate fire resistant landscaping between structures, and natural open spaces, etc.

Officials from the Eagle Fire District agree that the measures for addressing the wildfire threat the developers mention are useful and quite effective under many circumstances.  They point out, however, that under high wind conditions embers can carry more than a quarter of mile and render many of the protections much less effective.  Some concerned about the unique challenges of fire protection where there are periodic wildfires also argue that rather than relying on developers' stated intentions and/or requiring such design standards as part of approving individual development applications on an ad hoc basis, the City should have these requirements as part of their code and/or comprehensive plan. The City of Eagle's proposed comprehensive plan and ordinances and the Eagle Fire District's ordinances currently do not have such provisions though the intention would be to adopt provisions similar to those that have already been adopted by Ada County and the City of Boise for development in the wildland/urban interface.

D. Water

The Idaho Constitution establishes a right to appropriate available water for beneficial uses.  Is there sufficient water available for appropriation for foothills development?

Most development in Eagle and Ada County has occurred on what was previously farm ground irrigated by diverted Boise River water. When converted into sub-divisions, the irrigation water typically continues to be used to support that development. The picture is different in the foothills where there is relatively little irrigated land.

A number of studies have been undertaken to investigate whether there would be sufficient water available to sustain development. The most significant investigations have been done by hydrogeologists working for developers. As dry as the foothills look, the studies indicate that portions of the foothills overlie aquifers that contain substantial amounts of groundwater. Furthermore, some of the studies indicate that some of the aquifers under the foothills receive recharge. Combined with the fact that there have been relatively stable groundwater levels despite steady increases in pumping in the Eagle area over the last 20 years, the developers’ hydrogeologists conclude that there is water in at least some foothills areas for new appropriations.  Furthermore, they conclude that using water from some foothills aquifers would likely not injure existing water rights and wells.

In addition to the presence of aquifers in the foothills, the developers and their consultants make two additional observations in support of their conclusions about the adequacy of the water supply.  First, they note that there are few existing wells in some of the areas proposed for development. Wells that do exist, they note, generally tap shallower aquifers that are distinct from the deeper aquifers the developers plan to use.  Second, they note that several of the developments plan to use advanced water conservation techniques, including water-saving landscaping and treating water for reuse as irrigation water for public areas like parks and golf courses.  The result, they suggest, will be far less water us per household compared to typical developments.

Hydrogeologists who work for the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) agree with assessments made by area water resource consultants that there are productive aquifer systems in north Ada County. However, the sustainability of these water supplies and their interconnection with other local aquifer(s) currently utilized by local residents are uncertain, they argue, based on the available information. IDWR has developed a preliminary cost estimate and scope of work for additional study, which is aimed at reducing this uncertainty. IDWR ultimately will compile existing data with data from the proposed study in a comprehensive evaluation of the water resources of north Ada County to support water management decisions in the area.

Ultimately, the question of whether there is sufficient water to be appropriated for a given development will be answered by the IDWR on a case-by-case basis with each application for a water right.  In the application process, the applicant bears the burden of proving that there is sufficient water available to appropriate for the intended purpose and that the proposed appropriation would not reduce the quantity of water under existing water rights.  Several experts, including IDWR Director David Tuthill, suggest that water will likely not be a constraint to development because there is ample water available in the Boise and Payette basins generally that can be drawn upon to support foothills development.

What happens if IDWR grants new water rights and pre-existing water rights nevertheless turn out to be adversely impacted?  Some developers have already put in place networks for monitoring and have been monitoring in order to establish a water-level baseline. The information from the developers’ monitoring networks will be publicly available through IDWR as will information from a similar monitoring network that IDWR itself plans to implement. This will make it easier to determine if the water levels in existing wells are impacted by new wells once pumping begins.  Furthermore, changes in regional groundwater levels generally occur slowly because regional pumping rates generally increase slowly.  Aquifer management based on careful water-level monitoring during measured increases in water use can help prevent widespread injury.

If new wells do affect older wells, what happens next depends on the specific circumstances of a particular case as dictated by a somewhat complicated area of water law.  Owners of impacted older wells may have legal recourse, but it’s difficult to predict what would happen in any particular case.  It again depends on the specific circumstances, but pursuing that legal recourse can be a time-consuming and expensive process. For more information from IDWR on water in the Eagle foothills and on their processes, click here.

E.  Wastewater

Since the foothills are far from the Eagle Sewer District’s existing infrastructure, it’s generally understood that developers would build their own wastewater treatment systems.  As mentioned above, several developers plan on developing infrastructure that will allow them to treat and store water for reuse, which, they suggest, is an advance over how wastewater is managed elsewhere.

Officials for the Eagle Sewer District agree that it is certainly feasible for developers to build effective wastewater treatment systems that can produce water that is safe for reuse.  They and others note, however, that there are some unique challenges that will come with developing unique wastewater treatment systems far from the integrated infrastructure in Eagle.  First, they observe, a by-product of the wastewater treatment process is bio-solids which will likely need to be trucked to Eagle Sewer District’s facilities.  Second, these kinds of systems benefit from economies of scale meaning that smaller, disconnected systems are less efficient.  Third, some observe that privately built and operated systems elsewhere have often not invested sufficiently in maintaining their infrastructure over the long term, leading to various problems.

6. PERSPECTIVES

To this point, the report has focused primarily on the issues involved with foothills development and the substantive information relevant to those issues. The various perspectives of interested parties have only been introduced where necessary to explain a given issue. The report now turns to a more complete account of those perspectives.

In addition to the City of Eagle and Ada County, the interested parties can be divided into three categories. First, there are the developers who own land in the foothills.

Second, beyond the land-use planning authorities of the City of Eagle and Ada County there are various government agencies that are interested in and affected by the decisions that Eagle or Ada County might make about development in the foothills. The Ada County Highway District (ACHD), the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), COMPASS, the Meridian School District, the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), the Eagle Fire District, and the Eagle Sewer District are some of the most prominent parties in this category.

Third, there are citizen and public interest groups that have been involved. As mentioned, many citizens participated in the City’s comprehensive planning process.  Perhaps the most active public interest group has been the North Ada County Foothills Association (NACFA). The Eagle Chamber of Commerce has also participated in the public discourse.  Idaho Smart Growth, a non-profit organization that promotes long-term planning for smart growth and works with citizens and local governments to prevent the negative consequences of poorly planned, sprawling development, has also been involved. Voice of Eagle is an online discussion group that has been focused on the foothills issue. Although mainly focused on development issues on the east side of Highway 55 across from the Eagle foothills, the Dry Creek Rural Neighborhood Association has been involved. Besides the interested parties that fit into one of these three categories, there are many interested citizens not affiliated with any group.

The perspectives of these various interested parties can be described along two dimensions. First, perspectives vary about how many homes can be appropriately built in the foothills. Second, perspectives vary about whether there has been sufficient information and analysis generated at this point to make wise planning decisions about foothills development.

A. Perspectives on How Many Homes

Although there are differences within each group, the developers generally think that higher densities are appropriate for the foothills and the citizen and public interest groups tend to think lower densities are appropriate.  It should be noted that the Chamber of Commerce supports high densities. The affected agencies typically don't have a perspective on the appropriate level of density per se. Rather, they tend to be focused on ensuring that adequate public facilities are provided whatever densities occur. There is a range of perspectives on density by unaffiliated concerned citizens.

        1. Arguments for More Homes. Those in favor of high densities argue, first, that higher densities make more economic sense.  The more homes, the more commercial development they will stimulate.  In turn, this development will provide more jobs and services so that people living in these neighborhoods will need to make fewer trips outside the foothills, thus mitigating the impact on roads and air quality. The superior economics of these densities can also be leveraged to better fund public infrastructure and services, including roads, schools, and parks, and to generally invest in well-designed planned communities. Conversely, they argue, low density development is the kind of development that doesn’t pay for itself because it costs proportionately more to provide infrastructure and services to fewer homes separated by greater distances while contributing less in tax revenue.

Second, higher density supporters argue that respect for private property rights dictates that property owners be allowed to fully develop the potential of their property within appropriate constraints of the landscape like steep slopes and flood plains.  Particularly if growth is made to pay for itself, it is an inappropriate assertion of government power, they argue, to limit development on private land beyond these landscape constraints simply because some people who live around that land want fewer homes there.

Third, if Eagle or Ada County were to require significantly lower densities, some argue, there is a greater risk that foothills developers would seek to come under the jurisdiction of Star or Horseshoe Bend. The results would likely frustrate many of the interests that are mentioned in favor of lower densities, since Star and Horseshoe Bend, they argue, would likely apply less exacting development standards than Eagle or Ada County.

Citing each of these reasons, supporters of higher densities argue that the idea of one unit per acre of unconstrained land in the Eagle plans is inappropriate.  If the land is unconstrained and is to be annexed into Eagle, they suggest that it’s appropriate for it to be developed at urban densities typical of other unconstrained land in Eagle, which would be more like 4-10 units per acre.

        2. Arguments for Fewer Homes. First and foremost, many who support lower densities argue that the foothills are simply an inappropriate landscape for so many homes and people. This dry, hilly landscape where there is valuable habitat, periodic wildfires and where it is more difficult to significantly expand highways, they contend, is not a place where we should be building large planned communities. There is plenty of land to the south and west that is closer to existing urban centers and their infrastructure without the challenges unique to foothills development that can provide a sensible and attractive setting for those who wish to live in the Treasure Valley.

Second, those who argue for lower densities argue that it particularly does not make sense to develop so many homes so far from existing urban centers and the infrastructure that goes with them given that we can't even finance and build infrastructure for growth occurring close to our existing urban centers.

Third, supporters of lower density argue that since this land has long been zoned in a way that would not allow more than 2,000 homes, property owners don't have an entitlement to develop at levels many times the current allowed density.

Fourth, lower density supporters argue that it’s an appropriate exercise of land use planning for a community to decide that there should be a transition from higher densities in the core of a community to lower densities outside the core.  Eagle’s comprehensive plan has long envisioned areas north of the core that have one home per 1-2 acres on land that is less constrained than the foothills.

B. Perspective on Whether Adequate Information Exists to Make Wise Planning Decisions

Along this dimension, there are, again, some differences within groups, but generally the developers believe the information and analysis that has been developed is extensive and rigorous and provides more than an adequate basis for both Eagle and Ada County to make wise, informed planning decisions. The citizen and public interest groups tend to think that there are significant questions that have not yet been adequately addressed. In general, affected agencies and units of government feel that additional information and analysis are essential to making wise planning decisions for the foothills.

        1. Arguments that there Is Sufficient Information. Those who argue that there is sufficient information point to the extensive planning processes that both Eagle and Ada County have undertaken. Those processes, they observe, involved extensive mapping and research regarding constraints to development in the foothills and deliberative processes to distill community values and priorities. Between the City and County's planning processes, the research done by experts hired by developers, and the relevant information and analysis conducted by affected government agencies, they argue, there is sufficient footing for wise decisions. Furthermore, they argue that the fact that the City and County processes came to such similar results provides compelling evidence that sufficient information has been generated.

They argue that to do the analysis that others argue would be necessary to specify with confidence the number of homes that could be built on the 32,000 acres in the foothills would be inordinately expensive and impractical.  In fact, they argue, that Eagle’s finalization of its comprehensive plan actually provides necessary inputs for many of the on-going studies to be completed.  They also point out that a comprehensive plan is only one of many steps in the land use planning process.  Once a developer makes an application to develop a particular piece of land, the City or the County can require the developer to do additional analysis prior to signing a development agreement, granting final plat approval, or granting certain permits.

        2. Arguments that there Is Insufficient Information. Those who argue that there is insufficient information point to many critical questions that they believe have yet to be adequately answered to make wise planning decisions. Those arguing for more information suggest that if the Eagle P&Z is correct in the assertion that the analysis done by Eagle to date is insufficient to characterize how many homes can appropriately be built in the foothills, then the analysis that has be done to plan for various impacts must also be inadequate.  These analyses can’t be meaningfully conducted, they argue, without making assumptions about how many people will be living there.  Even if the maximum number of homes that can appropriately be built in the foothills cannot be exactly specified, they argue, enough research needs to be done to provide at least a reasonable range or else the planning process has little meaning. 

What is foothills development's proportionate share of the costs for improving highways and roads? What are individual developers' proportionate shares? How will the highways and roads function adequately when we don't have sufficient funding to undertake the improvements that existing growth already requires and then we add demands far from existing areas of impact? Do the aquifers the developers want to tap provide a sustainable water supply? How much more expensive will fire protection be at the wildland/urban interface? Those who argue for more information suggest that better answers to all these questions than we have now are essential to wise planning decisions.

The insufficient information perspective also argues that it is particularly unwise for Eagle or Ada County to conclude their planning processes now when so many useful processes are due to conclude in the near future which will provide valuable answers to the important outstanding questions. Valuable studies currently underway include the North Foothills Transportation Study and tier two of the developer consortium sponsored transportation study.  Blue Print for Good Growth's development of a model adequate public facilities ordinance and Eagle’s development of its own version of such an ordinance are currently underway. The Idaho Department of Water Resources hopes to begin its foothills groundwater study soon. Given that developers are asking to build at densities six or seven times what they are currently entitled to, many argue that it is appropriate to require developers to wait long enough to determine more definitively whether that many homes can appropriately be developed there, and, if so, what will be required in terms of infrastructure and their contribution to creating that infrastructure.

7. ALTERNATIVES

The Eagle City Council has wide discretion as it considers the proposed foothills comprehensive plan. This section briefly outlines several of the most prominent alternatives that interested parties have suggested.

A. Adopt the Comprehensive Plan Recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission

Of course, the City Council could adopt the comprehensive plan that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended. With the M3 sub-area plan that the P&Z Commission included in its recommendation, and if the identification of contraints has been accurate, this plan envisions a base density of 13,100 homes with a possible density of as many as 15,620 homes if M3 Companies successfully mitigates for the constraints of slope, floodplain, and wildlife and plant impacts.

B. Adopt the City Staff Recommended Comprehensive Plan

The Council could adopt the comprehensive plan as it came forward from the City's comprehensive planning process with the reference to densities and without the M3 Eagle sub-area plan. This plan envisions 12,547 homes.

C. Adopt an Alternative City Plan

Some have suggested that foothills development should come under the purview of an Eagle comprehensive plan, but that the existing plans should be modified in various ways. There are several suggestions for modifications. These modifications could potentially be combined.

1. Same Overall Approach, Higher Densities: In this scenario, the same overall constraints based approach that encourages clustering of higher density development interspersed with open space would be followed, but a higher base density than one unit per acre of unconstrained land would be established. For example, a base density of four units per acre could be established.  If the City’s estimate that 6,353 of the 32,000 acres in the foothills are unconstrained, this would result in more than 25,000 homes in the foothills.

2. Same Overall Approach, Lower Densities: In this scenario, the same overall constraints based approach that encourages clustering of higher density development interspersed with open space would be followed, but a lower base density than one unit per acre of unconstrained land would be established. For example, a base density of one unit per two acres could be established, which would result in a total of about 6,250 homes.
     3. Same Overall Approach, Lower Base Densities, Increased Density Bonuses: This would be the same approach as (2) above, except that along with a lower base density, it would include more aggressive density bonuses for developers if they were willing to do things like retain an even higher proportion of open space or contribute more towards building new or expanding existing roads and schools.
     4. Include Boise & Gem County SunCor Properties in the Comprehensive Plan: SunCor has asked that the 17,000 acres that it owns in the foothills but that are across the Ada County line in Boise and Gem Counties be included in Eagle's comprehensive plan and ultimately annexed into the City of Eagle. The City comprehensive plan originally included this property but then took it out at the request of the P&Z Commission. The City plan with this property included would envision 20,536 residential units. Supporters of including this SunCor property observe that all the reasons for Eagle to do a foothills comprehensive plan don't stop at the artificial county line running through the foothills. Many agree with SunCor’s logic and support their request, including NACFA.  For example, some suggest that efforts to connect open spaces in a regional trail network and to protect wildlife corridors would benefit from keeping this land in the same jurisdiction. SunCor indicates that it may not be interested in any of its property coming under Eagle jurisdiction if all of its property can't be.
     5. Take Additional Time to Gather More Information and Modify the Plan Accordingly: This approach would allow the City to take advantage of the results of studies now underway or soon to be undertaken.  First, this approach could use the results of the North Foothills Transportation Study now under way and slated for completion in 2008. Second, the joint City and County planning approach could incorporate Blue Print for Good Growth's effort to develop an adequate public facilities ordinance. Third, this approach could draw on the foothills groundwater study that the Idaho Department of Water Resources plans to undertake. The City might also make further efforts to address other questions more fully. Some have observed that the City can't and shouldn't hire the number of staff that typically would manage and evaluate development applications that are so large that they would double or triple the size of Eagle. Since it is the developers who are proposing such large expansions to Eagle, some suggest the developers should be required to pay for the City's use of various consultants with expertise to examine the various substantive issues more fully.

D. Recommend that the Foothills Remain Under the Auspices of the County Plan

The Council could decide that it does not want the foothills to come under the City's jurisdiction. The City and its residents could still participate in the County's comprehensive planning deliberations to seek to have Eagle's interests understood and respected.

E. Develop a New Joint City & County Comprehensive Plan

Some have suggested that the City and County should work together to prepare a single, joint plan. They suggest that the City and County should combine the extensive planning work already done by both.  They also suggest that, as in alternative C(5) above, the City and County should allow time for other processes to be completed and then take advantage of the results. For example, a new City and County joint plan could draw on the transportation study, adequate public facilities analysis, and water study that are currently being conducted or will shortly begin.

F. Recommend that the Foothills Come Under the Auspices of Another City

The Council could decline to adopt a comprehensive plan but encourage development to come under the auspices of some other city, presumably Star or Horseshoe Bend.

G. Limit Foothills to Current Zoning