February 24, 1998
Memorandum
Report to Pima County Board of Supervisors on
Urban Growth and Development in Eastern Pima County
The Board will, at the study session of February 24, 1998, discuss Urban Growth issues
in Eastern Pima County. These issues are often controversial and divisive. Although debate
on urban growth continues, the only thing that is certain is that Pima County has and will
continue to grow each and every year. The debate should not focus on growth itself, but on
how Pima County can grow in a manner that maximizes the benefits of growth to existing
residents, and at the same time minimizes future tax costs while attaining community and
environmental goals. These are difficult and debatable issues and there are probably no
right nor wrong answers.
The attached report is intended to provide the Board with a historical perspective of
regional land use planning in Pima County, some of the tools and actions being used by
other communities in growth management, and to provide a framework for future Board policy
study and direction.
Comprehensive Planning
Much of the work and study to develop a desirable land use plan for eastern Pima County
has been completed through years of public study and debate. Many of the issues regarding
growth control, urban sprawl, and environmental protection, that other communities are
dealing with today, have been studied in the past within Pima County. Independent
professional and citizen groups have compiled reports on these issues, such as the
Findings of the Urban Design Commission, the Urban Land Institute/American Institute of
Architects advisory report and the Goals for Tucson project. The County's Conceptual Land
Use Element, Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Action Plan, all have been completed. They
now require consistent and sustained implementation.
Planning and Implementation Contradictions
All adopted planning documents recognize the importance of the higher urban density and
mixed uses (jobs and shopping near home) to develop a more compact urban form. These
planning outcomes are often the subject of protest by existing residents. Further, market
demand for larger lot sizes and lower density further frustrates the goal of urban
containment. These market forces and opposition to higher density and mixed uses are
problematic for Pima County to achieve ideal urban form. Overcoming these problems may be
difficult and will require understanding and compromise.
Fragmented Land Use Decision Making
Pima County currently has six (and potentially eight) jurisdictions making land use
decisions. A regional interjurisdictional approach is needed for land use decisions
because of the potential adverse affects of independent decisions may have on the balance
of the region. Cooperative in regional land use planning remains difficult, given the
fragmentation of land use decision making without common regional goals. If this region is
to be successful in achieving the goals expressed by historical land use planning studies,
a much more cooperative and comprehensive approach for jurisdictional land use decision
making must be found.
Transportation Impact Fees, Sewer Connection Fees,
and Building Permit Fees to Promote Infill
Given the medium price of new housing in eastern Pima County of $130,000 it is unlikely
that any variation in sewer connection fees, transportation impact fees, or waiving of
building permit fees will sufficiently encourage infill development. Substantial cost
incentives that approach or even exceed ten percent of market value will be necessary in
order to significantly alter infill development patterns. This simply means that waiving
of all fees, including construction sales taxes, will be necessary in order to create such
a market value differential. Varying the sewer connection fee within the urban area or
waiving such fees in the City of Tucson will do little to create infill development
incentives.
Using Public Infrastructure Investment to Create Market
Incentives for Growth Guidance
Perhaps the single largest tool that is available to local governments in guiding growth
is public infrastructure investment. To date, almost all public infrastructure investment
has followed growth. There has not been any conscious policy effort to use infrastructure
investment to restrict or guide urban development. In the past, roads have been widened
when existing traffic grew large enough to require such investments. Sewer and water
infrastructure have also been constructed as a result of prior land use and development
decisions. Providing and subsidizing public infrastructure in specific areas is probably
the most powerful economic incentive for shaping urban form available to the Board.
Availability of Low Resource Value State Trust Lands
for Urban Development
In the past, the creation of public property reserves such as forests, monuments, and
parks has done more to shape urban form in eastern Pima County than most other actions of
state, federal, and local governments. Given large areas of state trust lands with low
environmental resource value in close proximity to existing urban development, it is
possible to use public infrastructure investment and these lands to significantly alter
urban growth and development patterns. Such is consistent with achieving the goals of the
comprehensive plan for creating a more compact urban area that fosters mixed use
development.
Recommendations
Given all the previous discussion as well as the attached report and to begin initial
Board policy discussion, I have out lined a number of recommendations below that I believe
are consistent with Board discussion on this matter.
1) Provide a Zoning Framework for Rural Open Space Land
Uses
The County zoning code does not have a low enough residential density zoning
classification to promote urban area containment separated by rural open spaces. The Board
should consider adding a "ranch" zoning classification to the County zoning code
which would promote large acreage residential uses consistent with open space
preservation. The classification would carry a minimum lot size of ten to twenty acres,
with a restriction that a majority of the property should remain natural open space. Such
a new zoning classification could be assigned to present rural areas through rezoning
process, similar to what occurred when general rural zoning (GR) was changed to rural
homestead (RH). Such is likely to be controversial; however, if there is a desire to
confine urban sprawl, it will be necessary.
2) Strengthen the Urban/Rural
Boundary
For all practical purposes there is no real separation, other than on paper, between the
urban and rural boundary identified in the comprehensive plan. This is primarily because
of uncontrolled lot splitting where subdivision standards are not met and very little
infrastructure exists. State Legislation in the past has lessened standards for
subdivisions thereby inadvertently facilitating unwise and costly sprawl. To better
strengthen the urban edge and to differentiate between rural and urban areas, I would
recommend that Board support actions to stop uncontrolled lot splitting.
Further, there should be no public subsidization of infrastructure investments in areas
prone to unregulated lot splitting. This simply means that the County, by policy, should
not use public funds to pave roads or extend sewers to such areas. To avoid placing a
hardship on existing County residents who have moved to such areas, certain areas should
be grand-fathered as of a specific date selected by the Board. These areas would still be
eligible for such publicly subsidized County infrastructure investment.
3) Use Public Infrastructure Investment As a
Tool to Guide Urban Development
Historically, County public infrastructure investment has followed growth. Almost all past
investment has been in reaction to where urban growth has occurred and not used as a
policy tool to guide urban development. The County should determine where urban growth
should occur with the least environmental, public, and economic cost and make
infrastructure investments designed to encourage development of specific geographic areas
of the County.
4) Develop Ecologically Based Buffers around Public
Preserves and Parks
The National Forest, National Monuments, and County parks are located where they are for a
reason. They were originally designed to protect specific environmentally sensitive lands
in eastern Pima County. Their boundaries follow the geographic or public land survey
boundaries, not ecological boundaries. The present County buffer overlay zoning ordinance
is insufficient to protect environmentally and ecologically sensitive lands adjacent to
public preserves. Additional action is necessary, it is recommended the Board adopt the
principal of establishing ecologically based buffers around public lands.
5) Promote Urban Infill Based on Sound Engineering and
Economic Standards
Urban infill is an often misused phrase that has become a buzz word for solving a variety
of urban ills. Infill is valuable, but it must be measured and deliberately directed. I
would recommend the Board support Urban Infill that occurs in areas where:
1) There is a demonstrated surplus or availability of public infrastructure capacity in either sewer, water, street, or school capacity and;
2) Where segments of the community are economically depressed based on national standards of income.
By using these two measurable standards, it is probable that if infill occurs in said
areas it will provide public tax benefits. Therefore, public subsidy in the form of
waiving connection fees, building permit and inspection fees, as well as construction
sales tax revenues will be justified.
6) Increased Interjurisdictional Cooperation on Urban
Growth
Each of the six municipal jurisdictions in Pima County (Tucson, South Tucson, Marana,
Oro Valley, Sahuarita, and Pima County) independently determines land use policy within
their boundaries. There needs to be increased regional cooperation in land use decisions.
The Pima Association of Governments (PAG), the metropolitan planning organization,
provides framework for these discussions to occur. The primary purpose of these
discussions should be for each jurisdiction to define areas within their boundaries where
urban growth can occur which accomplishes minimal environmental and public cost as well as
promotes infill in areas with surplus public infrastructure capacity or economic distress.
7) Strengthen Development Standards
Development standards in certain areas should be strengthened to protect the natural
environment. Increased grading restrictions should be inserted in the grading ordinance.
Native plant protection should be established through a new ordinance and zoning code
dealing specific with protection of native plants. Natural washes should also be protected
from encroachment or the removal of riparian vegetation. Both the work of the County Urban
Design Commission as well as the Urban Land Institute/American Institute of Architects
needs to be reviewed to create development standards consistent with Pima County
southwestern heritage. Of importance from both studies of using the concept of placing
underground overhead utilities to remove the visual clutter from the urban environment as
well as to improve mountain vistas.
8) Become a Development Partner with the
State Land Department
The State Land Department and controls significant continuous properties in Pima County.
(For example, there are 40 square miles of state trust land presently within the boundary
of the City of Tucson.) Some prime for urban development. Many of these properties have
lower environmental resource values than other developing private properties. These
properties should be encouraged to enter the development market through rezoning,
planning, and infrastructure investment. Pima County should do whatever is necessary to
encourage the State Land Department to allow development of low resource value state trust
lands while reserving and protecting environmentally sensitive state trust lands for
exchange or preservation.
Respectfully submitted,
C.H. Huckelberry
County Administrator
Attachment :
Report to Pima County Board of
Supervisors
on Urban Growth and Devlopment in Eastern Pima County