Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

The area within a USA will probably bt developed more schematically, based on 10- or 20-year programs to extend existing street grids,-water pressure zones, public school infrastructure, and sewer lines. In some areas oft. he United States, the concept of controlling growth through the implementation of UGBs might be politically infeasible because all growth is consideted desirable, and the idea of controlling landowners' options is considered an infringement of property rights. (This is not something that is geographically predictab!e, as anti-UGB sentiments run strong in places as different as rock-ribbed Yankee New England and the libertarian desert Southwest. Arizona's new smart growth. law actually prohibits the designation of urban growth boundaries.) The UGB concept has been most accepted in areas that put a high value on sense of place. On the other hand, the USA concept is most applicable in areas where people might generally resist taxes and government controls on development and want to keep the costs of growth and development to an efl:icienr minimum. It is a concept that might not go far enough for some planners' or activists' tastes in some areas, but is likely at least to be fairly heard in most parts of the United States. Taking cz Fresh Look Jim Sayer, who. heads California's Greenbelt Alliance and' has been a strong and effective advocate for the adoption of UGBs and USAs, ~ays that ~urban growth boundaries provide a real incentive for cities to take a fresh look at urban development within their boundaries." They also ~bring together diverse interests to meet planning.needs on both sides of the boundary.' In this sense, they don't simply limit sprawl--they also create new momenrurn for infl[l and revltalization efforts within existing urbanized areas. Calif'ornii communities where UGBs have been adopted by referendum in the past two years are now scrambling to adapt their zoning and spemding plato. Plac~s where UGBs or USAs have been in effeo; for ydan--such as Lexlngton/Fayette County, Kentucky--have been worldng together on their zoning and capir.~l improvement plans for decades. The adoption ora USA or UGB can fundamentally alter the dynamics of growr, h, requiring new attention from city and county governments. If the impacts of the UGB or USA are not planned for, or are inadequately considered, there can be undesirable results. For instance, in PAS Report No. 440 (Staying Inside the Lines: Urban Growth Boundaries), Gall Easley says maximum densities were set too low--five acres--in Sarasota County outside Sarasota, Florida. As a result, zoning created a new incsntive to parcelize land out of agricultural use, and r_his made it difficult to overlay a sensible urban pattern in later years. The zoning created unnecessary new fiscal burdens: as most planners and civic officials now know, five-acre lots require a cosdy program of delivery of urban and suburban services such as police and fire. Additionally, creation of a UGB without coordination among regional governments and dear nwa, zoning, spending, and design review policies in areas where urban development is wanted may simply cause growth to leapfrog through suburban Ned Farquhar is the executive director of l O00 Friends of New Mexico and a former member of the Juneau, Alaska, planning commission. and satellite communities. Although leapfrog development is avoidable, it is much more likely to occur where zoning experts have not been included in the process of implementing a UGB or USA. And where state law does not require conformity among land-use plans by rural and urban governments within a region, that probability increases.. Creating a UGB or USA puts the spotlight on issues of regional coordination, revitalization of urban areas, and--let's face itmzoning. With full integration of zoning policies in the creation of UGBs and USAs, many rewards are possible. Without adequate consldetafion of the relationship between zoning and the creation ora UGB or USA, however, there can be expensive, unintended consequences. Upzoning as cz Development Incentive In October, as about a dozen California communities prepared to vote on urban growth boundary referendums, a reporter noted that "the failing of most cities that attempt urban growth boundaries is that they haven't taken steps.., to encourage more development and revitalization within the inner core of cities where growth is supposed, to be funneled." In other words, they haven't adapted the zoning and changed spending plans and the development process to support growth in existing " The zoning within an urban growth boundary or urban service area must help create incentives for desired development in the right places and disincentives where development is not wanted. Features of the USA/UGB Experience California. Nineteen UGBs h'ave been created by public referendum since late 1996, usuafl, y with a 20- or 30-year land supply within the boundary. San Jose and Santa Clara County adopted a USA agreement in the 1960s. No state law requires counties or adjacent jurisdictiom to cooperate. Rural and agricultural zoning provide up to 640-acre minimums. Significant traft:ic congestion makes transit-oriented development more feasible.' " Kenl~¢ky. A Iong-standlng USA agreement bet-ween Lexington and Fayetre County has increased the cost-.eXeirectiveness of growth. The agricultural and horsd farm economies are strong and healthy. Density is 3 to 4 dwelling units per acre in urban arm. Older urban dev~opment is typically suburban, shaped by traditional single-use zoning. Increasing mobility and the creation of hobby farms have led to increased minimum lot sizes in Ore,/on. UGBs are required by state law, with approval by a state agency. Portland's UGB was drawn big originally, so the region has experienced typical suburban development but now is planning for more transit-oriented development. Density is steadily increasing, with reliance on itccessory uniti, maximum lot size, and required density. There are strict limits on rural land use: tight control on agriculture-rela{ed uses, and no nonagricultural subdivision allowed.