...with an agenda that included an eclectic mix of gambling, Prop 207, and more than 100 angry octogenarians ready to rumble.
Oh yeah, and a LOT of campaigning for next year's council elections. :)
The first item considered that generated some heat was the eighth on the agenda. It was a rezoning request, and a simple one at that. The request itself isn't what caused debate.
Nope, the debate came about when it was learned that the applicant hadn't signed a Prop 207 waiver stating that he didn't believe that his requested changes to zoning would lower the value of his property and that he wouldn't sue the city.
Oops.
A discussion ensued between city staff, council members, and the applicant with escalating rhetoric and tones of voice.
The problem wasn't with the proposal itself - most members were ok with it, with the only real reservations concerning the effects on downtown density and traffic, not the project itself.
The big concern expressed by some councilors was the impression that they had that a waiver was mandatory before approval could be given. They were very upset at that idea.
City staff made it clear that a waiver was NOT mandatory, but the information about a waiver, or lack of one, could be considered by the council members when deciding on their votes.
It took a couple of rounds of this for that to sink in to the councilors' heads.
For his part, the applicant said that the only reason he hadn't signed it is because he had never had to sign one before and he had been told that it wasn't mandatory. He announced that, in fact, he would be happy to sign one if it meant approval of the zoning change.
That, of course, set off new concerns that he could later state that he didn't know what he was signing because he was under duress at the time and could void the waiver.
During the discussion there was a motion to continue the issue to a later date, but that was withdrawn by the maker of the motion.
Most of the people in the audience had headaches (and the room was PACKED!) before this was resolved.
In the end, the council voted to approve the change pending the receipt of a waiver. It couldn't be done immediately because the waiver had to be notarized.
The lesson learned here, more a warning actually, is to expect this issue to crop up more and more. There's nothing in Prop 207 that would prevent a property owner from asking for a zoning change and then suing the city that approved the request if the owner's plans didn't work out to his/her benefit.
These waivers may not be *legally* mandated, but in practical terms, the cities must protect themselves and their taxpayers from unnecessary litigation. The waivers are going to become standard throughout the state.
The next issue that generated some serious discussion, and the one that, before the meeting, I had thought would be the most contentious, was an application for an OTB license for a site in downtown Scottsdale.
My thought was wrong. It passed 6 - 1, with only Mayor Manross dissenting.
A number of people spoke in favor of the proposal, including the applicant and representatives from Turf Paradise and Yavapai Downs. In addition, many of the owners of neighboring businesses spoke in favor of the proposal and the applicant (he already has a restaurant/sports bar there and just wants to add OTB to the existing operation) ; the only opposition was from the property manager of a single neighbor.
The council did have a number of concerns, but those were allayed one-by-one by the applicant - the OTB operation is a "day-time" only one that shuts down by 7:30 p.m., the applicant (and the others with him in this venture) will not apply for another OTB license in south Scottsdale (from the southern border with Tempe north to Mountain View), and there's a mandatory review for renewal of the license after one year.
The mayor's opposition was rooted in her dislike for gambling in general, not just OTB.
AZ Republic coverage of this issue is here.
EV Tribune coverage here.
The fun part of the night was during consideration of a citizen petition signed by approximately 1300 residents requesting that "the Scottsdale City Council to commit to not removing homes or widening Chaparral Road."
Chaparral Road is a road that has an interchange for Loop 101 and feeds directly into the downtown area. As such, traffic flow on the road has increased greatly over the last couple of years, and with it, so has traffic congestion and related issues. Of particular concern is a stretch between Hayden and Miller.
A number of residents of the Chaparral Road area (see: petitions with 1300 sigs) are worried that the city may decide that the best solution to the congestion is to seize a number of homes in the area (55) and widen the road.
The public speakers on this issue, with one exception, spoke in strong opposition to the idea of widening Chaparral. The one exception (sorry, I didn't get his name) brought up concerns of what would happen to surrounding neighborhoods if a solution centered on just Chaparral was enacted.
He was booed and heckled.
City staff urged consideration of the issue as part of a holistic master transportation plan, one that takes such issues into consideration.
As for the council, some of them used this as an opportunity to spout campaign rhetoric.
None of the council members thought that the seizure of homes was a good option; in fact, they all had a strong distaste for that option. However, certain members opined loudly that it was the "worst" option and moved to have it taken off of the table as something that could be considered as part of the upcoming master transportation plan.
The only problem is that they didn't say...couldn't say...what options it was "worse" than. They couldn't say, because they didn't know what the other options are.
Not only was their rhetoric inflammatory, it was lazy.
Expect more of the same rhetoric as the election season draws near - while lazy, their pronouncements were rewarded by the audience with a number of rounds of applause.
The motion to remove the option of seizing homes from the list of options failed by a 3 - 4 vote.
The motion that did pass (6 -1) was one that directed city staff to come back within six weeks with some preliminary information about all of the options to address congestion in the area. This proposal brought some hoots from the audience as the residents of the Chaparral Road area wanted immediate satisfaction.
Their frustration had some merit, as this issue has been percolating for years, but expecting the City Council to make a decision without all of the relevant facts is unreasonable. What is reasonable is expecting the Council to demand those facts from city staff and to present them to the affected and interested residents of the city, and to do so in a timely manner.
This issue will crop up again in May, probably late in the month. Right now, it's tentatively scheduled for a special meeting on May 29th, but that is very much subject to change. Stay tuned.
EV Tribune coverage of the issue is here.
In other news, during the legislative update part of the agenda, which was heard by the Council and perhaps 8 audience members (dedicated geeks, we :) ), was a report on the lege's passage of HB2369 by a 31 - 27 margin. That particular bill, because of a strike-everything amendment, would preempt all municipal ordinances affecting signwalkers. Naturally, cities and towns were opposed to this bill; however, an owner of a company that provides sign walkers is well-connected to the Republican leadership in the lege.
While it did pass (barely!), the City's Intergovernmental Relations Director, Bridget Schwartz-Manock, expressed gratitude for the 'no' votes of Reps. Michele Reagan and John Kavanagh of LD8 and Reps. David Schapira and Ed Ableser of LD17. Both LDs cover parts of Scottsdale.
Now the best hope for the defeat of this really bad bill rests in the hands of the Governor. As of yesterday, Ms. Schwartz-Manock was uncertain if the Governor would veto the bill.
One last note, and it pertains to campaigning for next year's elections.
The campaigning wasn't limited to sitting Council members. Announced candidate Joel Bramoweth spoke for a bit on the Chaparral Road issue.
If Mr Bramoweth or someone who advises him reads this blog, I have one comment, and it's one I've made before: At this point in the election cycle, and in the environs of a City Council meeting, the best campaign speech is one that isn't a campaign speech; lose the showboating, stay on the topic at hand, and be brief.
At the meeting, he was brief. That's it.
In baseball, a 1 for 3 day is a good day; in speechifying, it isn't.
Of course, given that the meeting lasted for nearly 6 hours, it could be argued that if he was going to pick only one of the three marks to hit, brevity was the best choice.
:)
Tentatively scheduled for the next Council meeting on April 24th:
The SOB Ordinance Rides Again!
There's an item to "Review and solicit public comments regarding the Sexually Oriented Business (SOB) ordinance."
That one ought to be fun, though not as much fun this meeting. The people opposed to the two strip clubs in town will twist themselves into euphemistic knots to avoid using "dirty" words, and the strip clubs will send their lawyers to speak for them instead of a few of the dancers that the City Council would like to put in the unemployment line. (Damn! :) )
Later!
No comments:
Post a Comment