Matching Items (3)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

42651-Thumbnail Image.jpg
Created1999-09
Description
Following the January 1999 regarding the future of Canoa Ranch, the County Administrator met with the developer/owners to discuss plans for acquisition of the property, The owners did not desire to sell the entire property to Pima County, and proposed development of the property as shown in this report. This

Following the January 1999 regarding the future of Canoa Ranch, the County Administrator met with the developer/owners to discuss plans for acquisition of the property, The owners did not desire to sell the entire property to Pima County, and proposed development of the property as shown in this report. This memorandum provides an update and report on Canoa Ranch.
42626-Thumbnail Image.jpg
Created2001-10
Description

Describes existing inclusionary housing ordinances and programs, with a focus on those in Montgomery County, Maryland, Fairfax County, Virginia, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and the states of California and New Jersey. Inclusionary housing may be a viable policy proposal as we consider the land use and cost of growth elements

Describes existing inclusionary housing ordinances and programs, with a focus on those in Montgomery County, Maryland, Fairfax County, Virginia, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and the states of California and New Jersey. Inclusionary housing may be a viable policy proposal as we consider the land use and cost of growth elements of the Pima County Comprehensive Plan.

42664-Thumbnail Image.jpg
Created2000-06
Description

Provides a brief analysis of the legal and financial feasibility of the March 16, 2000 proposal, as well as a comparative analysis of (1) the conservation value, (2) the level of cultural resource protection, and (3) the fiscal impact of the proposal as measured against other development projects and against

Provides a brief analysis of the legal and financial feasibility of the March 16, 2000 proposal, as well as a comparative analysis of (1) the conservation value, (2) the level of cultural resource protection, and (3) the fiscal impact of the proposal as measured against other development projects and against the various alternatives that might be exercised by the landowner.