public notices

MINUTES, BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS MEETING

JANUARY 10, 2006

The Pima County Board of Supervisors met in regular session at the regular meeting place of the Pima County Board of Supervisors on the First Floor of the Administration Building of the Governmental Center, Tucson, Arizona, at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 10, 2006. Upon roll call, those present and absent were as follows:

Present: Sharon Bronson, Chair

Richard Elas, Vice Chair

Ray Carroll, Member

Ann Day, Member

Ramn Valadez, Member

Lori Godoshian, Clerk

Absent: None

1. INVOCATION

The invocation was given by Pastor Ken Cosentino of Calvary Assembly of God.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

All present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. PAUSE 4 PAWS

The Pima County Animal Care Center showcased an animal available for adoption.

4.PRESENTATION /PROCLAMATION

Presentation of a proclamation to Asa S. Bushnell on the occasion of his retirement.

On consideration, it was moved by Chair Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Valadez, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to approve the presentation.

Chair Bronson presented a Retirement Certificate to Asa S. Bushnell, Sheriff's Department, for his 23 years of dedicated service to Pima County.

... EXECUTIVE SESSION

On consideration, it was moved by Chair Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Day, and unanimously carried by a three to zero vote, Supervisors Elas and Valadez were not present for the vote, that the Board convene to Executive Session at 10:24 a.m.

5. RECONVENE

The Board of Supervisors Meeting reconvened at 10:45 a.m. All Board members were present.

6. LITIGATION

Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03(A) (3) and (4), for legal advice and direction regarding labor law issues.

This item was informational only. The Board took no action.

7. LITIGATION

Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03(A)(3) and (4), for legal advice and direction regarding approval of a Receiver's recommendation regarding American Bonding Company, Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No. CV95-01684.

Amelia Cramer, Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney, stated this was a proposed settlement of litigation resulting from the insolvency and receivership of the American Bonding Company involving Case No. CV95-01684 filed in Maricopa County Superior Court. Approval of the proposed settlement would allow a potential recovery of taxes on personal property owed for tax years 1995 and 1996. The Receiver recommended an allowance of $25,157.15 on the 1995 tax claim for $27,839.11, and an allowance for $28,535.80 on the 1996 claim of $35,380.88. Both the Pima County Assessor and the Pima County Attorney's Office recommended approval of the proposed settlement.

On consideration, it was moved by Chair Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Valadez, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to accept the recommendation of settlement.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR:

The chair inquired whether anyone wished to be heard.

No one appeared.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Valadez, seconded by Supervisor Elas, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, that the Consent Calendar be approved as presented.

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. CONTRACTS AND AWARDS

A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION

1. Town of Marana, Amendment No. 1, to provide management and implementation of the Community Development Block Grant Program and Santa Cruz Multi-Use Trail Facilities Project and extend contract term to 12/31/06, CDBG Grant Fund, no cost (01-70-M-135462-1104)

2. Town of Marana, Amendment No. 2, to provide management and implementation of the Community Development Block Grant Program and Santa Cruz Multi-Use Trail Facilities Project and extend contract term to 12/31/06, CDBG Grant Fund, no cost (01-39-M-133380-1003)

3. Development Design Group, Inc., to provide for off-site improvements and infrastructure at Casa Bonita III, IV, and V, 2004 Bond Fund, contract amount $184,611.00 (11-69-D-137479-1005)

4. Chicanos Por La Causa, Tucson, Inc., to provide for off-site improvements and infrastructure at Copper Vista II, 1997 Bond Fund, contract amount $595,467.00 (11-69-C-137480-1005)

5. Habitat For Humanity, Tucson, to provide for development of off-site improvements at Corazon Del Pueblo, 2004 Bond Fund, contract amount $400,000.00 (11-69-H-137481-1005)

B. COMMUNITY SERVICES, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

6. SER-Jobs for Progress of Southern Arizona, Inc., Amendment No. 1, to provide workforce development services and amend scope of work, DES, TANF and YO Grant Funds, contract amount $25,000.00 (07-69-S-136502-0705)

7. Tucson Urban League, Inc., Amendment No. 1, to provide workforce development services and amend contractual language, YO Grant Fund, contract amount $25,000.00 (07-69-T-136942-0705)

C. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

8. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-3, approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, to develop a program to effectively reduce waste accumulation at undocumented workers' lay-up sites, ADEQ Grant Fund, contract amount $40,000.00 revenue (01-51-A-137478-0106)

D. HEALTH DEPARTMENT

9. Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Amendment No. 1, to provide for the use of the Mobile Dental/Command Center and amend contractual language, no cost (01-01-P-136933-0405)

E. PIMA HEALTH SYSTEM

10. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-4, approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Department of Economic Security, to provide for home and community based services to eligible elderly and physically disabled individuals, State Supplemental Payment Program and State Funds, contract amount $2,936,539.00 revenue (01-15-D-137491-0705)

11. Tucson House Calls, P.L.L.C., Amendment No. 8, to provide primary care physician services and reflect vendor name change, PHCS Enterprise Fund, no cost (18-15-B-130235-0102)

12. Neonatal Specialists, Ltd., Amendment No. 4, to provide neonatology and hospitalists rounding services, extend contract term to 3/31/07 and amend contractual language, PHCS Enterprise Fund, contract amount $250,000.00 (18-15-N-130682-0602)

13. Arizona Orthopaedics and Joint Replacement Center, L.L.C., Amendment No. 2, to provide orthopaedic surgery services, extend contract term to 3/31/07 and amend contractual language, PHCS Enterprise Fund, contract amount $150,000.00 (18-15-A-132290-0403)

F. PROCUREMENT

14. Southern Arizona Paving and Construction Company, Amendment No. 5, to provide asphaltic concrete and chip seal maintenance services and extend contract term to 3/31/06, Stadium District Special Revenue, 1997 Bond and General Funds, no cost (03-05-S-130571-0302)

15. Southern Arizona Paving and Construction Co., Amendment No. 2, to provide as-needed manhole and cleanout reconstruction, adjustment and repair, extend contract term to 12/7/06 and amend contractual language, WWM Enterprise Fund, no cost (03-03-S-135529-1204) Wastewater Management

AWARD

16. Highest Scoring Proposal: Award of Contract, Requisition No. 87650, Pima County Wireless Integrated Network Consultant Services in the total award amount of $1,236,215.00 to the respondent submitting the highest scoring and the lowest cost proposal, CTA Communications, Inc. (Headquarters: Roanoke, VA). Contract is for a two-year period with the option to renew for three additional one-year periods. Funding Source: Capital Improvement Bond Fund. Administering Department: Sheriff.

2. DIVISION OF ELECTIONS

Pursuant to A.R.S. 16-821B, approval of Precinct Committeemen Resignations/Appointments:

RESIGNATIONS, PRECINCT, PARTY

Somers, Matthew, 166, DEM;

Spivey,Timothy, 195, REP;

Cox, Carolyn, 199, REP;

Axelrod, Patricia C., 239, DEM;

Youngblood, Sharon A., 244, DEM;

APPOINTMENTS, PRECINCT, PARTY

Crothers, Cheri A., 065, DEM;

Spivey, Timothy, 116, REP;

Eisenhauer, Edward P., 139,

REP;

Rochlin, Neal E., 173, DEM;

Peate, Wayne, 179, REP;

Miller, Margaret, 199, REP;

Othic, Cathy, 254, REP;

Perri, Matt, 290, DEM;

Ossipov, Michael H., 292, DEM;

Nolan, David F., 354, LBT;

Junggren, Priscilla J., 357, REP; Sedano, Judith, 357, REP

Dunn, Thomas, 360, REP;

Keene, Louise, 387, REP

3. RECORDER

Pursuant to Resolution No. 1993-200, ratification of the Document Storage and Retrieval Fund for the month of October, 2005.

Minutes: November 15, 2005

Zoning Enforcement Board of Appeals Minutes of December 6, 2005

9. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: WATER CONSERVATION CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS

The Board of Supervisors on December 13, 2005, continued the following to this date:

Staff requests direction regarding the following:

1. Development of Water Conservation Ordinances;

2. Initiation of Code text amendments to Title 15, Buildings and Construction; Title 18, Zoning; Title 8 Health and Safety; and Title 9, Public Peace, Morals and Welfare; and,

3. Solicitation of public input from the community in the development of these Ordinances.

Chuck Huckelberry, County Administrator, stated a series of concepts regarding water conservation have been introduced and the one that drew the most fire, to date, was the elimination of evaporative coolers. Habitat for Humanity uses air conditioner units in their new home construction due to increased energy efficiency. Progressive counties, such as Cochise County, introduced a concept of banning evaporative coolers in new homes and proposed a law that would prohibit evaporative cooling. Given the state of the rainfall in Southern Arizona, water is an important topic. We know that other communities, particularly municipalities who happen to be in the water business, have Water Conservation Ordinances. It is time for Pima County to move in that direction as it follows up on a series of policy discussions contained in the plan.

The following speakers addressed the Board:

1. Peter Vokac, resident;

2. Val Little, WaterCASA;

3. Lori Lustig, SAHBA; and,

4. Michael Toney, resident.

The speakers provided the following comments:

A. In 2004, there was a 3.5% increase in population. In twenty years the population and the demand will have doubled, and the water will run out;

B. Arizona has experienced one of the worst droughts in history. The Gulf of California is an unlimited source of water, and we have the technology to guarantee the future of the CAP by harvesting that source;

C. Banning misters and coolers is foolish; coolers are more efficient than air conditioners;

D. One of the long-term goals of WaterCASA was to provide assistance and support in having similar codes, ordinances and regulations throughout the region; and,

E. If municipalities within Arizona were to establish a clear Water Conservation Plan, it would simplify things for developers and the general population.

Supervisor Elas stated that portions of the plan might need to be changed or excluded in order for conversations to continue.

Supervisor Day concurred that these issues raised a red flag and more discussion was needed. She asked what was the research and methodology used to compile the plan?

Kathy Chavez, Water Policy Manager, responded that she started by analyzing cities such as Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, Glendale, Santa Fe, Albuquerque and El Paso. She also studied Cochise County as they are in a very tight water situation and are looking at some aggressive ideas. Val Little provided a study commissioned by WaterCASA known as "Evaluation and Cost Benefit Analysis of Municipal Water Conservation Programs" (ECOBA) that offered creative ideas and cost effective numbers.

Supervisor Carroll stated he wanted to remove the prohibition of evaporative coolers because it sends out the wrong message. Prohibiting misters in commercial areas such as restaurants or bars would not provide a great savings. The prohibition of evaporative coolers would be an added cost to the homebuyer.

Supervisor Day inquired on the use of potable water at construction sites.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Elas, seconded by Supervisor Carroll, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to approve the item with the removal of the section prohibiting the use of misters and evaporative coolers.

10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: SPECIAL BOND ELECTION

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-5, ordering and calling a Special Bond Election to be held in and for Pima County, Arizona, on May 16, 2006, to submit to the qualified electors thereof questions on authorizing the issuance and sale of $54,000,000.00 principal amount of General Obligation Bonds of Pima County, Arizona, for Psychiatric Care Facilities; providing for and giving notice of the Special Bond Election, and declaring an emergency.

Chuck Huckelberry, County Administrator, stated if the Board approved the authorization for the election, there would be two questions on the Ballot; $18,000,000.00 for Psychiatric Urgent Care Facilities and $36,000,000.00 for stand alone Psychiatric Inpatient Hospital Facilities. The pro and con statement period would be open until February 15, 2006, with appropriate public notice. There would be a Countywide Bond Election with separate questions for the RTA (Regional Transportation Authority) and the Excise Sales Tax to fund that plan.

The following speakers addressed the Board:

1. Neil Cash, C.E.O., Community Partnership of Southern Arizona;

2. Norm Botsford, President of University Physicians Healthcare, (UPH);

3. Larry Hecker, Chair of the Bond Advisory Committee and member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the RTA Plan;

4. Albert Elas, RTA Citizens Committee Member;

5. Steve Leal, City of Tucson Vice Mayor;

6. Martha Cramer, Bureau Chief Pima County Jail;

7. Clarence Dupnik, Sheriff;

8. H. Clarke Romans, Executive Director of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Southern Arizona;

9. Scott Whitley, resident; and,

10. Susan Hyder, resident.

The speakers provided the following comments:

A. There is unanimous support for Psychiatric Urgent Care Facilities among agencies and individuals throughout Pima County;

B. Pima County has seen a five-fold increase in mental health crisis due to substance abuse;

C. Psychiatric Urgent Care Facilities would reduce the pressure and demand on overburdened resources;

D. An urgent care facility would facilitate and simplify the work of law enforcement and other first responders;

E. The facilities would divert non-violent and substance abuse offenders from the jail into the behavioral health system;

F. It would divert non-violent youth from detention into the Behavioral Health System;

G. It would improve available treatment alternatives and improve the quality and coordination of care for individuals in crisis;

I. UPH established a partnership with Pima County to effectively deal with severely mentally ill individuals that require extensive care and evaluations and for patients to be placed and properly cared for;

J. There are approximately 400 seriously mentally ill people in jail at any one time and having a Psychiatric Urgent Care is a major opportunity to cut that population down and delay having to build another jail facility;

K. When offenders are ordered by the Court to be restored to competency to stand trial, they are sent to the State Mental Hospital and the taxpayers are charged over $500.00 a day per inmate;

L. In Pima County, 25,000 individuals have a serious mental illness and a large percentage are undiagnosed and untreated. These individuals should not be taken to jail but instead to an appropriate facility to ensure thorough treatment.

Supervisors Day, Elas and Valadez expressed their gratitude for all those present who supported both the Psychiatric Urgent Care Facilities and the RTA Special Bond Election.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Valadez, seconded by Supervisor Elas, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to pass and adopt Resolution No. 2006-5, and declaring an emergency.

11. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION

Staff requests approval and authorization to negotiate Intergovernmental Agreements for each of the following projects as recommended by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Oversight Committee:

Project, Neighborhood, District, Estimated Budget

Street Lights, Midvale Park, 5, $398,000.00;

Pedestrian Bridge, Rose, 5, $303,000.00

Supervisor Day asked if there was a settlement with the City and what has happened with the discussion regarding the payment of administrative costs?

Chuck Huckelberry, County Administrator, responded there was a settlement with the City. The County would pay engineering, incidental and overhead costs necessary to do the project, but the County does not pay administrative costs.

On consideration, it was moved by Chair Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Day, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to approve the above.

12. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: COMMUNITY SERVICES, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-6, to accept a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the amount of $85,163.00 with a local contribution of $49,982.00 for the Green Careers Program at Pima Vocational High School.

On consideration, it was moved by Chair Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Carroll, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to pass and adopt Resolution No. 2006-6.

13. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT

The Board of Supervisors on November 15, and December 06, 2005, continued the following to this date:

Co7-05-24, DEMPSEY - N. LA CAADA DRIVE PLAN AMENDMENT

Request of Jack Dempsey, represented by Jack Cook, to amend the Pima County Comprehensive Plan from Low Intensity Urban 1.2 (LIU 1.2) to Medium Intensity Urban (MIU). The subject property is approximately 1.05 acres and is located on the northeast corner of W. Hardy Road and N. La Caada Drive in Section 23, T12S, R13E, in the Northwest Subregion. On motion, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioners Cuyugan, Matter and Poulos were absent) to recommend DENIAL. Staff recommends DENIAL. (District 1)

"Rezoning Policy:

Two town homes, each single story with a building height not to exceed 18 feet are allowed on the amendment site".

Ben Changkakoti, Comprehensive Plan Administrator, stated this was a request to amend approximately one acre from LIU 1.2 to MIU with the intent of building four town homes on the subject property located on the northeast corner of West Hardy Road and North La Canada Drive. It lies outside the Conservation Lands System and the property is currently zoned CR-1. The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommended denial for four town homes. The applicant amended his request to two town homes.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Day, seconded by Chair Bronson, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to close the public hearing and approve Co7-05-24 for 1.05 acres from LIU 1.2 to LIU 3.0 with a Rezoning Policy for two town homes, single story with a building height not to exceed 18 feet.

14 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: ZONING PLAN AMENDMENT

Co13-61-13, AGUA CALIENTE - SABINO CREEK ZONING PLAN

Proposal to amend the Agua Caliente - Sabino Creek Zoning Plan by adding the following additional

conditions to the Plan: 1) all subdivision plats currently required to implement conditional zoning under the Plan must be submitted within six months from approval of this amendment by the Board of Supervisors, and the approved final subdivision plat must be recorded within eighteen months from adoption of this amendment; 2) in the event that a subdivision plat is not submitted and recorded within required timeframes, the conditional zoning approved by the Plan shall expire; and 3) any development shall conform to the Conservation Lands System component of the Pima County Comprehensive Plan. The Plan was adopted April 2, 1963 and comprises of approximately 20,075 acres. The Plan is bounded generally as follows: The northern boundary commences at the intersection of Sabino Canyon Road and the boundary of the Coronado National Forest and proceeds east along the Forest boundary for approximately 6 1/2 miles; south along the boundary of the Coronado National Forest for approximately 2 1/2 miles; east along the boundary of the Coronado National Forest for approximately one mile; south approximately 2 1/2 miles to Speedway Blvd.; west approximately 4 1/2 miles to the incorporated limits of the City of Tucson; north along the jurisdictional boundary for the City of Tucson for approximately 1 1/2 miles, then generally northwest along the jurisdictional boundary until its intersection with Sabino Canyon Road; then east approximately 1 1/2 miles along a line approximately one-quarter of a mile south of Cloud Road; north approximately three-quarters of mile; west approximately 1 1/4 miles to Sabino Canyon Road; then north to the Coronado National Forest. The Plan provides conditional zoning of CR-1 and SR zoning districts; it also establishes a 1000-foot buffer either side of three major watercourses in which rezonings may be approved under certain conditions. The existing underlying zoning within the Plan area is: SR, SR-2, CR-1, CR-2, CR-5, TR, CB-1, CB-2, RVC, and SP zoning. On motion, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-1 (Commissioner Membrila voted NAY; Commissioner Cuyugan was absent) to recommend APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. Staff recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. (Districts 1 and 4)

"Staff recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS by adding the following conditions:

1. Add Condition #8 which would state, "An acceptable subdivision plat must be submitted by (date specific six months from the adoption of this condition)," and an approved subdivision plat for the property must be recorded by the Pima County Recorder by (date specific 18 months from the adoption of this condition)."

2. Add Condition #9, which would state, "In the event that a subdivision plat is not submitted or recorded within the timeframes required herein, the conditional zoning approved by the Zoning Plan shall expire."

3. Add Condition #10, which would state, "All developments must adhere to the policies of the Conservation Lands System at the time of platting."

Chuck Huckelberry, County Administrator, stated that this began with the process to clarify the issues of surrounding land uses primarily in the areas of major washes. What occurred was what is called "hydraulic gymnastics" to prove it was okay to build in and around the floodplain boundaries, thereby automatically getting CR-1 zoning and bypassing the rezoning process. That was clearly inappropriate and should not have occurred. That action caused a review of the entire Agua Caliente/Sabino Creek Zoning Plan, further modifications, downzonning and taking the zoning plan out of play for the majority of undeveloped properties that are undeveloped in the area. Property owners were trying to build homes in the floodplain that ended with the entire Zoning Plan becoming obsolete and requiring major modifications.

Arlan Colton, Planning Official, stated the project was formally initiated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Supervisor Carroll. The Commission voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the Zoning Plan Amendments. The proposal would amend the plan to add the following three conditions:

1. All Subdivision Plats currently required to implement Conditional Zoning under the plan must be submitted within six months of the approval of this amendment by the Board of Supervisors; the approved Final Subdivision Plat must be recorded with eighteen months from the adoption of this amendment.

2. In the event that a Subdivision Plat is not submitted and recorded within the required period the Conditional Zoning approved by the Plan shall expire.

3. Any development shall conform to the Conservation Lands System Component of the Pima County Comprehensive Plan.

The Board originally approved the Zoning Plan which granted Conditional Zoning subject to those notes on the plan in 1963. The plan area was reduced over the years primarily through annexation and is now comprised of approximately 20,075 acres. The plan area was largely built out in accordance with the plan in either SR or CR-1 densities. There are some exceptions because there are undeveloped lands that would be affected by this action, some of which are in the three main watercourses. For the record, this was treated effectively as a rezoning and all property owners of record in the area were notified. Two public meetings were held at two different locations within the plan area, each attended by over 80 people. At the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, six members of the public spoke with four in favor, one opposed and one with general concerns. Three letters of protest and/or concern and four letters of support were received. A super majority vote was not required. In terms of the dates, if the Board took action this date, August 15, 2006, would be six months and August 15, 2007, would be eighteen months.

The following speakers addressed the Board:

1. Carolyn Campbell, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection; and,

2 Arlene Essig, resident.

The speakers provided the following comments:

A. The Coalition supported the proposed amendments;

B. The proposed amendments would protect important Riparian areas, the Biological Core and Multiple Use areas; and,

C. The Tanque Verde Valley Association unanimously supported the proposed amendments.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Carroll, seconded by Supervisor Day, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to close the public hearing and approve Co13-61-13 subject to conditions.

15. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: REZONING ORDINANCES

A. ORDINANCE NO. 2006-3, Co9-04-19, Shannon Business Park, L.L.C., et. al. - Shannon Road Rezoning. Owner: Stewart Title and Trust, Trust No. 3580 and Shannon Business Park, L.L.C. (District 1)

B. ORDINANCE NO. 2006-4, Co9-04-20, Andersen - Pinto Lane Rezoning. Owner: Chris and Sheri Andersen. (District 1)

C. ORDINANCE NO. 2006-5, Co9-04-31, Osborne - Camino de Oeste Road Rezoning. Owner: Linda Osborne. (District 3)

On consideration, it was moved by Chair Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elas, and unanimously carried by a four to zero vote, Supervisor Carroll not present for the vote, to pass and adopt Ordinance Nos. 2006-3, and 4, and 5.

16. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTIONS

A. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-7, Co7-05-20, Fidelity National Title, Trust No. 60,050 - W. Valencia Road Plan Amendment. Owner: Fidelity National Title, Trust No. 60,050. (District 5)

B. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-8, Co7-05-22, Sabol - W. Lobo Road Plan Amendment. Owner: Dennis and Karen Sabol. (District 1)

On consideration, it was moved by Chair Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elas, and unanimously carried by a four to zero vote, Supervisor Carroll not present for the vote, to pass and adopt Resolution Nos. 2006-7 and 8.

17 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: CLARIFICATION OF HOOK M. RANCH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT POLICY REVISION

Staff recommends that the condition of Comprehensive Plan approval be clarified by adding the following to Condition No. 5: "or the balance of Empirita Ranch in Pima County is conserved."

Chuck Huckelberry, County Administrator, stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendments would become effective with the conclusion of a Federal Land Exchange to take the Empirita Ranch property and put it into conservation. Part of the exchange was to take private lands purchased by Diamond Ventures and exchange that land with Federal land. It was agreed Hook M Ranch would be developed and Empirita Ranch would be conserved. In addition to the primary properties included in the Federal Land Exchange, the conservation of Tumamoc Hill is an opportunity to have the Federal government take the property from the State without auction but with the understanding that the County would compensate the State for the value of Tumamoc Hill Federal Land Exchange which may be subject to an act of Congress. If Congress does not act, Empirita Ranch could be developed. In the Bond issues, Empirita Ranch property was designated as habitat protection priority property making it eligible for bond funding to acquire it absent a Federal Land Exchange. Any modifications, including the clarifications that were made in the staff report, should be returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission for comment before the Board takes action as long as it is understood that only those modifications are going back to the Commission for modification.

There are four points to review:

1. The Federal Land Exchange with Tumamoc Hill;

2. The original Hook M Plan Amendment;

3. The suggested modifications made by the Board that conflicted with staff reports; and,

4. An alternative for the conservation of Empirita Ranch would be the potential acquisition if the Federal Legislation fails.

It was recommended the proposed modifications made by the Board to the Hook M Comprehensive Plan Amendment, along with additional language providing the alternative method of conserving Empirita Ranch, be returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission to be considered in their February meeting, to double advertise, and bring those changes back to the Board as soon as possible. At the same time, allow the submission of a Specific Plan to be processed by the staff of Hook M Ranch. Continued dialogue on Tumamoc Hill was needed to ensure conservation in a manner that was realistic and affordable, to bring in other parties to participate in the cost, to enter into a discussion with the City of Tucson about downzonning, and enter into a discussion with the State Land Department about transferring density to other State lands so that the City of Tucson is compensated for any value reduction that may occur due to the change of the rezoning.

The following speakers addressed the board:

1. Matt Skroch, Executive Director of The Sky High Alliance; and,

2. Carolyn Campbell, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection and member of Congressman Grijalva's Environmental Advisory Group.

The speakers provided the following comments:

A. This Federal Land Exchange has a positive conservation value and is the entity that connects Empirita Ranch with Hook M Ranch and allows the preservation of Empirita Ranch and Tumamoc Hill without using taxpayer dollars;

B. The Congressional Land Exchange is a comprehensive legislative package that is complicated as far as what is being exchanged and gained and what will be done to conserve Tumamoc Hill;

C. The biological significance of Empirita Ranch and Tumamoc Hill are two very important issues which Congressman Grijalva's Committee will meet to discuss; and,

D. Retain this as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment conditioned on a land exchange occurring between the Federal Government and the present landowner; and, send it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for clarification before the Board takes action.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Elas, seconded by Supervisor Valadez, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to send the item back to Planning and Zoning Commission to clarify Condition No. 5 and keep the balance of Empirita Ranch for consideration as stated. This would include double advertising the item and getting it back to the Board allowing the applicant to process the Specific Plan.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Elas, seconded by Supervisor Valadez, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to review the conflicting issues surrounding Tumamoc Hill, the Federal land exchange and to instruct staff to keep it as part of the language related to the land exchange.

18. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND/OR COMMITTEES

A. Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee

Appointment of Donna Aversa, Town of Oro Valley Representative, to fill unexpired term of John Nowak. Term expiration: 12/31/06. (Jurisdictional recommendation)

B. Pima County Fair Commission

Reappointment of Steve Hopkins. Term expiration: 9/30/09. (District 4)

On consideration, it was moved by Chair Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Valadez, and unanimously carried by a four to zero vote, Supervisor Carroll not present for the vote, to approve the appointments/reappointments.

19. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Selection of Chair, Vice-Chair and Acting Chair for 2006. (District 3)

On consideration, it was moved by Chair Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Day, and unanimously carried by a five to zero vote, to select the following officers:

Richard Elas, Chairman

Ramn Valadez, Vice Chairman

Sharon Bronson, Acting Chair

20. CALL TO THE PUBLIC

The Chair inquired whether anyone wished to be heard.

Michael Toney, citizen, addressed the Board regarding issues relating to the community.

21. ADJOURNMENT

As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

____________

CHAIR

ATTEST:

___________

CLERK

Publish March 9, 2006

Tucson Citizen