1. The tone was civil and productive.
2. Some participants are coming for the first time to sessions which have been developing over 2 1/2 years.
3. The elements of economic development and growth are interrelated and yet, we, as a public representing neighborhoods, government and businesses, don't seem to be ready to talk about them as interrelated elements and are not yet willing, therefore, to examine them with their benefits and trade-offs.
Here, then, are my notes:
Quick notes from 6/20/13 City of Tucson General Plan meeting on language and growth map, particularly as they apply to neighborhood and area plans; note no direct attribution but only initials of those quoted are in ( ) parenthesis —by a.fonte/community renaissance (CR)
[For more specific meeting info, maps, etc., go to http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/plantucson ]
Topic 1: for Chapter 4 of the General Plan—suggested additional language, which, after 45 mins. of discussion was approved “for now”. (JH) The suggested and approved text reads:
Any amendment, consolidation, deletion, or modification of any neighborhood or area plan will be subject to the same public processes that are required during a neighborhood or area plan amendment, and all public input, including the input of the affected residents, will be maintained as part of the public record that is forwarded through these public processes.
Key comments noted by CR:
· “It’s as a good a document as we can get….” (RB)
· “…what happens to the input is what is in question…” (CA)
· “Suggest that a future meeting examine how the current public processes are working….” (RB)
· “…we lack policies to support the [General Plan] statement….” (CA)
Topic 2: The Growth Area Map—City of Tucson facilitator, Rebecca Ruopp and city staff explained that the state law requires that the 10 year General Plan address future growth; it does not require a map but, staff noted, most cities are now using maps to suggest future growth areas. Tucson has not had such a map for previous plans; this is new. After 60 mins. of discussion, the map was approved with a) a new title that emphasizes it is a vision/scenario map and b) the map explanation of how to use and not use the map be moved to the map itself and increased in font size so that readers of the map cannot miss it or “cut it” off from a printed map.
Key comments or points noted by CR:
· The 12 building blocks/elements of the map were distilled from 36 or so previous elements.
· The scenario model uses policies that will be in the recommended General Plan; these policies emerged from the 2 ½ year public participation process for the Plan.
· The Map does not regulate nor is it a map for future zoning; it is a “starting place” for possible refinement of neighborhood, area and other land use plans.
· The previous 10 year plan had a map with four growth areas.
· “…we haven’t resolved the underlying [growth] issues….” (DI)
· “The Map doesn’t show enough potential growth details on the N/S corridors….” (CM)
Handouts of the City’s proposed Map, an alternative map presented by one of the participants, Growth Areas Map Use Language and Attachment A were distributed to all participants.