The object is to gather, record and tabulate public reactions and comments in order to build a final draft comprehensive plan that will, presumably, cover all the issues to most people's satisfaction, ultimately enabling growth to occur at a reasonable and carefully regulated pace. 

Although a county's comprehensive plan must be updated or amended every 10 years under state statutes, the revisiting Pinal County's plan never has been more necessary. For several years now, developers have been viewing Pinal County as a ripe, juicy plum hanging in an orchard that has been picked over. Tempe is landlocked, with little to no land left for development. Chandler, Gilbert and Ahwatukee have all grown dramatically in the past few years. While there still may be some development potential in these communities, the trend has been to build luxury homes that are beyond the means of young families, as well as the hundreds of families that relocate every week from other parts of the country. 

Some of these Maricopa County folks are trying to avoid this housing dilemma by looking southward to Pinal County ... toward the Apache Junction area, Johnson Ranch, Maricopa-Hidden Valley and Casa Grande. Likewise, people from the Tucson area looking to escape sprawl, are looking northward to the Oracle Junction area, San Manuel and the SaddleBrooke subdivision. 

Several developers of major master planned communities already have seen this trend coming, have taken steps to secure land in all of the aforementioned areas and have begun the rezoning and platting processes necessary to proceed with construction. 

This development trend has its supporters, who believe that with the proliferation of rooftops comes amenities like supermarkets and shopping malls, schools, medical centers and improved roads. But another segment of Pinal's population opposes this type of massive development out of concern for the environment, believing that the more rooftops on the horizon, the greater the demand will be on precious water resources. They also believe that more people means more wear and tear on our roads, more air pollution and, as they see it, an end to their beloved rural lifestyle. 

The first of the open house meetings are taking place in Area 4B - basically the southeastern portion of the county, which includes Oracle, San Manuel, Mammoth and SaddleBrooke. According to Dennis Cady, director of Planning and Development Services, the public sessions being held in Area 4B will run through this week. It is estimated that hearings across the rest of the county will be from July 31 to Aug. 10. 

As an integral part of the process, Planning and Development has generated two separate questionnaires designed to aid those who attend the open house meetings and to enable those who do not attend to make their preferences known and participate in shaping the comprehensive plan. 

In order to be of assistance to Pinal County residents, to help them better understand both the questions and the issues and elements contained in the questionnaires, the Tri-Valley Dispatch has enlisted the aid of three individuals who represent a cross-section of the population in terms of being in favor of development, opposed or somewhere in between. They sat down individually to respond to questions about development. 

Steve Soriano is in favor of development, especially when it comes to master planned communities, and it isn't just because he's senior vice president of acquisitions and development for Robson Communities, a developer that has been active in Pinal County. Robson is the company that developed the SaddleBrooke subdivision near Oracle and is planning two additional communities elsewhere in the county. It is also the company that had its plans for an addition to SaddleBrooke put on hold by referendum that will put the rezoning, already approved by the Board of Supervisors, on the ballot in November 2002. 

Although he currently lives in the Phoenix area, Soriano's work brings him to Pinal County often enough that he and his family have been looking at homes with the intention of relocating here. 

Margo Tamez is a member of Pinal Citizens for Sustainable Growth (PCSG), an organization founded in the Maricopa area, where she resides with her husband and children, and she is basically opposed to large master planned communities. Besides being a landowner, Tamez is an educator and author. She has been active politically, often appearing at Board of Supervisors and Planning and Zoning Commission hearings as well as conducting public meetings on behalf of PCSG with Maricopa-area developers, primarily to question the viability of the developments and to get assurances that they will not have a negative impact on the area's limited resources. 

Pat Dugan stands somewhere in the middle on development and growth. It was development that drove him out of the dairy farm business in Chandler in 1985, so when he and his family bought land between Casa Grande and Central Arizona College, they did so with the idea that when development reaches them, in what he estimates to be within the next 25 to 30 years, their new dairy operation will have become obsolete, and then they will look to developing their own land. 

Besides being a dairyman, Dugan is in his third year as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, having been appointed to the position by Jimmie Kerr, supervisor for district 3. Dugan was elected committee chairman at last month's meeting. 

Questionnaire No. 1 - (A) Land Use Element 

1. What specific land-use issues would you like to see addressed in the comprehensive plan? 

Soriano: I think it should offer a mix of high-, medium- and low-density residential development as well as commercial, medical and service development that will balance out to meet the needs of the county in the next 20 to 40 years. Without an adequate commercial and service component, the tax base will be skewed too heavily toward the residential taxpayer, as it is now. 

Tamez: I would like to see air quality, water use ... consumption and water conservation issues addressed ... communities' relationship to the land addressed ... a community-based involvement and a design that's oriented toward sustainability. In other words, it needs to be community specific, locally specific and drawn up and designed by a broad-based and diverse group of people who have a relationship with the land. 

Dugan: On specific land uses, I'm more interested in the quality developments with wisely thought out communities with open spaces, highway improvements and to look at the long-term effects of the growth. Through stipulations, we're making the developers create open spaces, build schools, pave highways connected to the development. One of the latest things that we've started doing is to require that they build sidewalks throughout the development, which is something that we should have done a long time ago. 

2. What types of programs or incentives do you think should be developed to address preserving the rural character of the county? 

Soriano: I don't think that the county needs to offer any incentives to developers to preserve the rural character of the county, because the rural nature is one of the things that makes it attractive to people, and it's a big reason why people want to live there and work there. 

Tamez: One thing that needs to happen to address that - we need to look at the structures that influence citizens' lives from the governmental center, because anything that we want to do or would like to have happen has to be supervised or monitored by our local county government out here in the rural area, which is mostly unincorporated. So given that, it makes me look back at government and the structure that exists right now and question whether that structure is appropriate for the needs that have evolved. What are the structures within the county government presently that assures some sort of citizen involvement? I think we need to have some definite re-evaluation and re-assessment of how the county government handles this, otherwise there's this huge rift between government and its policies and the reality of how citizens live out their day-to-day lives. Government should be required to look to other sources that are already trying to address some of the issues of citizens and their relationship to the land and what they want to see happen on the land. They could be using nonprofit organizations, media ... all of these collaborations. 

Dugan: I'm not sure if we should restrict landowners. We're promoting 3.5 homes per acre in most developments. As far as putting up a program or incentives, I don't think we need to do that in Pinal County. I think we ought to let the market take care of itself. 

3. What types of programs or incentives do you think should be developed to address enhancing the urban character of the county? 

Soriano: I'm against government subsidies of any private development, and incentives or municipal programs would be an unfair use of tax dollars. 

Tamez: The issues of the urban areas and the rural areas are incredibly linked in terms of our basic needs. We're all basically on the same aquifer. In our part of the county, Area 2, Casa Grande, Stanfield and Maricopa and huge pathways of farms, agricultural centers, cattle processing centers and residential mini-farm areas are all intermingled with six or seven uses of the same land and the same water source. Casa Grande being a small urban area, of course, has the same vested interest in that water and in the air quality in their commerce centers. When you talk about sprawl, the very essence of that concept is that the urban issues quickly become the rural issues and visa versa, because the cities branch out and take over larger and larger sections of the rural areas; not only is the urban having to deal with the rural issues, the rural has to deal with the urban issues. 

Dugan: I think we need to promote low density and open space, and we need to have manufactured homes and stick-built homes ... a combination of both, not too much of each. We need variety and balance. We also need to have higher density in some developments like apartments or an area for winter visitors who just want a basic house with a clubhouse and a golf course. We can cluster some types of houses for that kind of use. 

4. Do you think new commercial and residential development should pay its "fair share"? If so, in what way? 

Soriano: There are different kinds of development, and the standard development tends to be expensive for the county in that a lot of road is generated with little tax base to pay for the construction of that road. I'm not sure that kind of development pays for itself, but then there's master planned community developments, which have roads paid for and built by the developer and ultimately paid for by the homebuyers, and the maintenance of those roads does not become a burden to the county. That type of development pays more than its fair share. The tax base from those communities provides funds in excess of the services that the county has to offer. 

Tamez: Yes, of course. The question is so ridiculous that they even have to ask it? I think that every person that is asked this question is going to say "absolutely." Why, because most people will tell you that they wouldn't mind a Fry's or a Bashas' out here, and I'm one of those people. We have a lot of elderly people who are living below a livable wage in this part of the county. We have a huge number of people who are very disadvantaged in terms of their access to resources, so I would say yes; however, developers will tell you that in bringing us a Bashas' or a Hollywood Video, that they're increasing our quality of life. Well, to me, those are not things that sustain life. The things that sustain life are recreational centers for our youth and our elderly, opportunities for physical activity, for social connections that will bring our community together around community activities. 

It is totally inappropriate for developers to come into rural areas that have population centers that will be disenfranchised from whatever those opportunities are in master planned communities. Our people are not golfers. They're hard-working people who will not be spending their time and efforts to go golfing, so there is a huge gap in the class system that will not enhance the quality of life out here, so the developers need to be social minded when they come into unincorporated areas. 

Dugan: Definitely yes. Right now, we're making them pay for road improvements and schools. We haven't done much in medical facilities, but that's an issue we might consider in the future. Definitely, these new commercial and residential developments should be a big part in promoting a quality community. 

5. What do you think will be the major development trends in the next decade and what effect will this have on available resources and development in Pinal County? 

Soriano: I think that Pinal County is in a wonderful position to both capitalize on the growth and the increase in prices in Pima and Maricopa counties, and at the same time they are in a fortunate position to be able to learn from some of the mistakes that the other counties have made. I think the development trend in Pinal County will be more focused on master planned communities with centralized wastewater systems and centralized water systems and effluent water re-use strategies to make the most of water, which is a scarce resource. It's inevitable that people will want to move to Arizona ... our climate, quality of life. If our economy continues to grow at the rate that it has, Pinal County will enjoy some of the good growth, and if they stick to high-quality developments, they'll be able to bypass some of the problems that the other counties have experienced. 

Tamez: The development trend we're seeing is very quickly rezoning agriculture areas for master planned communities. That's what I see happening currently. In 10 years? I think there are a lot of creative possibilities, and I'm not willing to say that 10 years down the road we're still going to be seeing the same kind of rezoning happening. I would like to see that we're going to be more responsible stewards, and we're going to be more mature as groups of communities, and we're going to insist that a much better sustainable design is implemented here. 

Dugan: Developers will want to develop low-cost housing for commuters from the Phoenix area. That's the way that I see these developers getting more people to buy out here, if they can put up homes that cost less than those in the Valley. I think that what we need to do is help make the housing developments fit all ranges of our economic needs. We need to have a certain amount of low-cost homes without taking away from the infrastructure or the amenities. 

6. What development trends would you like to see in the next decade? 

Soriano: Over the past few years in Pinal County, we've seen a lot of the sales tax dollars going over the county line either into Maricopa or Pima County. Unfortunately, Pinal County doesn't have a lot of supermarkets and shopping centers, although it's getting better in Apache Junction and Casa Grande. In the southeastern part of the county, we're seeing almost all of the sales tax dollars going to Pima County. Because of the no-growth influence there, no shopping centers have been built, and the people who live there are forced to do their shopping across the county line, effectively giving all the sales tax dollars to Pima County. I think that those tax dollars should stay here in Pinal County to benefit the people here. 

Tamez: I think people are tired of mono-cultural approaches to developing so-called communities. I think people are much more interested in a more integrated and inclusive type of development, instead of exclusive master planned communities that, by the very nature of the concept, are exclusive ... meant to keep in and to keep out, and we understand the sort of social planning behind that. I think that the public policies institutes have already established this in a lot of different studies, that people are very interested in integrating and becoming a part of community, becoming a part of something that is real ... something that has meaning, and master planned communities do not provide that. 

Dugan: I'd like to see stick-built homes of 3.5 per acre or less ... developments like Circle G in Casa Grande, where nice homes can be built on an acre and a quarter. We also need some recreational areas so that the people who live here have some type of recreation nearby, which we don't really have right now. I was disappointed that the Picacho Lake project fell through. It would be nice if we could get one of the Cactus League teams to move down here, too. That would be a big boost to our winter economy. That's something that if the cities don't want to do it, maybe the county can work on that. 

7. What do you think is the role of land-use decisions in determining the future of Pinal County? 

Soriano: I think the role of land-use decisions has to be for the Planning and Zoning Commission and for the Board of Supervisors to continue looking at the merit of each individual zoning case that comes before them and determine if that one is in the best interest of the county. That's what they've been doing. They approve some projects and they disallow others. On some projects, they require certain modifications before it gains their approval. The key word is balance. A nice blend of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational development that will create a tax base for all the existing residents of the county and not create a situation where the existing residents are paying for development in the future. 

Tamez: The role of land-use decisions can either be conceived as negative or positive based on how the structure is set up to make those decisions, and that's how I'm understanding this question, which is very strange. One thing that they ought to understand is that no longer is Pinal County going to be able to have a blanket policy for all these diverse areas. I think that the whole country, the whole world is moving more and more toward globalization. There's pressure to think locally, and there's good reason for that. We have very specific local issues that have to be dealt with that will support agriculture and that will not deny us opportunities for evolving agriculture away from the conservative approaches ... more sustainable approaches that work for the farmer, for the land and work for the community, and there are many models out there that this part of the county could learn from in order to sustain agriculture. One of the saddest things is that a lot of these agricultural lands will be cemented over and without giving the farmers opportunities to look for other types of buying situations where they don't have to sell to developers. There are many conservation groups and other groups who are very much wanting to buy agricultural land to preserve it for the same market price, so I think it all comes back to locally driven design. 

Dugan: We have to be careful that Pinal County doesn't take too strong a hand in chasing off development. We don't want to be pushovers, but we have to be smart with our consideration of land use ... protection for water, air and traffic. However, the landowners need a certain amount of freedom to be creative in the development of their land. We don't want to stifle that by being too strict in our requirements. 

8. Do you think growth should be concentrated near incorporated cities and towns? Please explain your answer. 

Soriano: Because Pinal County is so geographically spread out, it's impractical to assume that all development would be around cities and towns. I think that the development of small, self-sustaining communities that offer their own wastewater systems and their own water systems, their own employment base, while still contributing to the countywide tax base, is a more desirable strategy to help Pinal County maintain its rural character while increasing its tax base, so we can lower tax rates. 

Tamez: Growth defined as master planned communities? I think that the whole concept of what growth is needs to be studied, because I think that we're operating on a very strict and very market-oriented concept of growth. When I think of growth, I'm thinking about the whole social structure of the community, of various age groups, various ethnic groups ... of land, water and air. To me, growth has to be about all of that, not just a market-oriented product that is separate from the land. It's got to be a part of the land. 

Dugan: No. We must give developers freedom to promote growth throughout our county. Many people desire to live in remote areas. They too should have the right to live in quality developments in the remote areas, and I believe that through proper planning, we can do that. In some of the very remote areas of the county, people have lived for years without fire protection. Some people just don't like living in an area with too many neighbors. They have to realize that if that's their choice, then they have to understand that they are giving up some amount of protection. The county can't be everywhere, so it's a kind of buyer beware situation for these people. 

9. Do you think growth should be in outlying areas of the county? Please explain your answer. 

Soriano: That's very similar to the last question. I think that growth that creates more tax base than it takes out in services is positive growth, whether it comes in the outlying areas or near municipalities. I don't think that where it goes should be the measuring stick. I think that more importance should be placed on what's the correlation between the benefits versus the relative costs of the development, not where it's going to go. 

Tamez: The basic premise of this question seems to be coming from the perspective that growth equals development ... communities, golf courses and strip malls, so I turn the question back to the planners, because I'm thinking about other concepts regarding measures that are going to bring positive social and cultural wellness for people of all ethnic groups, of all walks of life, all religions and economic classes. I'm not just thinking about the theme that this question is geared for, which is asking about master planned communities. 

Dugan: Yes. Our county needs diversity. It's healthy so long as the development is one of quality. Just because they build way out somewhere, we don't want to see junk homes built. Through proper zoning and stipulations, we can protect the county from having run-down places. 

10. If your answer to 9 above is yes, how do you think transportation issues should be addressed to the outlying areas? 

Soriano: Transportation in Pinal County is in the form of a car or truck. Our tax rates are high enough right now. I don't want to see us take what limited resources we have in doing a San Francisco-style or Portland-style transportation system, because frankly, Pinal County is not anything like those areas. It works there, but it won't work here. We've got a lot of distance between municipalities, and other than in very limited areas within the cities, we should be thinking how to get adequate roads and maintain those roads and get those roads paved without thinking about trains or light rail or whatever the environmentalists are after. 

Tamez: The planners of Pinal County who are asking these questions are saying to me, "If you live in an urban area, do you think growth should happen in an urban area or should it happen out there somewhere in the rural area that you never go to"? You see, what this does is it starts to polarize communities. It starts to divide urban and rural populations from each other, even if they're in the same planning area like we are with Casa Grande. That's the kind of question that really misinforms the public on growth issues. If you're in an urban area, you're going to say, "I don't want any more of this, let it go out to the country." When you say that, you're affecting a lot of other people who also have very specific issues and very specific concerns. The lack of understanding of so-called growth in this questionnaire is completely offensive to me. 

Dugan: Definitely, transportation issues need to be addressed with the help of developers and hopefully from a broader tax base in the county from growth, it should be easier to develop better roads. Every new house that's built means more taxes for the county, and that means more money for roads and other things. 

(B) Transportation/ Circulation Element 

1. What specific transportation issues would you like to see addressed in the comprehensive plan? 

Soriano: I think we need to find a better way to integrate the outlying communities in Pinal County. There are a lot of roads that are not being maintained as well as they could be, and that's due to limited funds, limited resources. But if the roads could be upgraded a little bit as new tax base comes in, I think that maintaining the roads would be a greater benefit to everyone in the county. 

Tamez: In the rural areas, people who live out by a gravel road want a gravel road. They moved out there for a reason, and it was their decision at the time, and perhaps that was a plus and not a minus. We have to get out of that mode of thinking that if you don't have modern conveniences that you're living in substandard conditions. Well, a lot of people out in the wilderness areas are very happy to be living in those circumstances. They elected to be there for a quality of life beyond monetary value. We have to consider their viewpoints. I live in the mini-farm area, and we do have paved roads, and yes that's convenient, but I would not impose my living circumstances on the people in Hidden Valley, because they are a community of people with like circumstances and like conditions, and they need to be involved in how that community is going to evolve. 

Dugan: It seems like they're referring to a possible light rail system or bus route that would extend down here. I guess I'm not thinking long term, but I just don't think that people who live out here in Pinal County are going to use public transportation. I think it's farther than 10 years off and shouldn't be an issue in the comprehensive plan. 

2. Under what circumstances would you consider alternatives to the automobile? 

Soriano: In Arizona, we have large distances to travel, and we all have errands to run on the way to work, at lunchtime and at the end of the day, and those of us that work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. every day need the freedom that a car offers. 

Tamez: I consider alternatives every day, when I start to go on a walk down to my neighbors' instead of getting in the truck. That's a consideration, because I decided that it's a much better way to go. I can save on resources and I can learn something along the way. This question underestimates the values that people have for that mode of living that they even overlook the fact that they're making these decisions already. It's not something that legislation will impose upon them. They're already riding their bikes out here in the country. They're walking in Casa Grande, and they're walking out here. We need to open our eyes and look. Maybe we ought to think about making the pathways wider for them and narrower for cars. 

Dugan: Right now, I can't think of any alternatives. They're putting a train station in Maricopa, but that's not really a commuter type thing, so I just can't see anything right now under current circumstances. 

3. What alternative forms of transportation do you think would be most beneficial to residents of Pinal County? 

Soriano: I think that we need to get our roads as good as they can be before we start spending money on different transportation schemes. 

Tamez: You're not going to ask a blanket question like that and get a response that's going to be valuable to any planner of highways or roads or any planner of natural walks and pathways in wilderness areas. You need to ask it of people where they live to get an appropriate answer, and that's what's needed here. 

Dugan: This is a rural county, and nothing right now would be effective as an alternative means of transportation. 

4. Would you use an alternative mode of transportation, if available? 

Soriano: If there was one that met my needs, not only getting to and from work but to the people I need to visit during the course of my day, both for business and personal reasons, and I was able to do it in a timely fashion so I wasn't spending an hour and a half waiting for a bus that really didn't go near where I needed to be, then I would consider it, but so far, I'm not aware of any rural county that's been able to implement such a program, without wasting millions of dollars. 

Tamez: I do all the time. Come and check me out. Come on a walk with me. 

Dugan: No. 

(C) Natural Environmental Element 

1. Which environmental issues do you think Pinal County should devote the most resources to? (Rank them in order of importance.) 

Soriano: Water resources/surface and groundwater, water quality, air quality, recreational resources, preservation of natural landscapes, solid waste/recycling and habitat preservation/natural resource protection laws. 

Tamez: To me, they're all interrelated and therefore equally important. 

Dugan: Water quality, water resources/surface and groundwater, air quality, recreational resources, solid waste/recycling, habitat preservation/natural resource protection laws and preservation of natural landscapes. 

2. What do you think is the county's role in protecting the environment or scenic areas? 

Soriano: The county is not in a position to hire all the experts it takes to enforce environmental laws. There are federal and state agencies charged with doing that. It's an extremely expensive process, and I don't see a need to increase the cost of county government by adding a third political entity to the process. 

Tamez: I think the county needs to be a very visible, effective and meaningful advocate when it comes to protecting all the resources that we have, and they need to make that their No. 1 priority. If the county doesn't get to that task quickly ... make it a priority beyond all these market-oriented schemes, our quality of life is going to go down. 

Dugan: I think that we need to be reasonable and make effective laws that would encourage people to react to the laws voluntarily; because living out here in the country, there is no way that we can enforce regulations. It's better to put a program out there that people will think of as their own and that they will respect. 

3. Do you think the county should create and fund a parks and recreation department? 

Soriano: I have kids, and parks are absolutely critical and essential, but I don't know who's going to pay for it ... if you don't have the growth to support the tax that these parks departments will need in order to go forward. 

Tamez: Yes. If it's not happening, then it needs to happen, and again, the need to get people involved is very important. That's the beauty of community design, and that's when you get people who are committed, and when you're committed there's going to be long-term planning and the communities are going to be more stable. There are so many positives when people get to design what's best for their communities. 

Dugan: I say no, because I don't know how much it would cost and where the money would come from for something like that. I might consider it if I knew the costs involved, but there are so many other needs in our county that might be more important than this at this time. We have enough government bureaucracy right now, so I would have to say no.