Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1206) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION MARCH 6, 2003 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 4:30 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. LAND USE MAP #2 - KAI PROPERTY (CONTINUED FROM 2/27/03) 2. ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY 3. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Page 57 4. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Page 135 5. SCHOOL POLICY ISSUES (Public Facilities, Services & Safety— Page 75) 6. STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 7. PLAN ADMINISTRATION Page 10 ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 03/03/03 4:50 p.m. lh TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: March 6, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Bryant Nodine, AICP, Planning and Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020 (OV11-01-04) BACKGROUND: This is the sixth staff report to the Council regarding the draft General Plan Update 2020 recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 19, 2002. The Council meetings to date are: December 2 Study Session December 11 Public Hearing January 6 Public Hearing January 21 Special Session February 3 Special Session February 6 Special Session February 24 Special Session February 27 Special Session SUMMARY: The report format is as follows: TITLE Comment/Issue (if any, may be after the general discussion) Staff response/discussion Recommended Motion (if any) LAND USE MAP Reference maps for the requests were distributed in the January 21 packet. Please bring these maps to the meeting. The specifics of each proposal are shown in the request map and summarized in a table. Kai-Capri Property (#2) This property is located at the southeast corner of First and Tangerine. It was discussed at the February 27 meeting and was continued to this meeting with the direction to Staff to treat it as a Master Planned Community with some commercial on the corner and one unit per acre overall, and to develop policies, based on the zoning code, to direct the development. Staff is meeting with neighbors and with the applicants to develop these policies and report to the Council at the March 6 meeting. Key facts, as reported in the February 27 report are: o The area has the basic infrastructure to support the growth proposed by the applicant; though specific improvements would need to be provided by the applicant. o The area is an infill project with surrounding gross densities ranging from .2 to 3 units per acre. o As an infill project, the land uses are very controversial. Most of the neighbors who have spoken out on the issue have indicated a desire to see no more than the current zoning would allow. The summary table follows: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 11 Option Zoning 1996 Plan Landowner Steering P&Z Commission /Uses (acres) Request Committee (acres) (acres) (acres) Commercial none Minor Resort (13) NCO (25 acres) NCO (10 NCO (10 acres) Uses and Golf acres) Residential R1-144 MPC (282) (2 du/ac MPC (270 acres) RLDR LDR1 (295 acres, Uses (305) overall; 8 du/ac max) (original was HDR, (295) with 100 acres of RLDR(10) MDR, &LDR) SRA) NA (10 see note) Housing 100 570 Unknown (original 100 300 Units had over 1200 units) Note: Ten acres in the southeast corner of the area considered herein is owned by Steam Pump Ranch Estates, LLC and is included because it will likely share access through this area and shares many of the same issues. At the December 11 th hearing, Frank Bangs, representing the Kai's,presented their request to designate the area as a Master Planned Community. As noted above, this is the existing General Plan designation, except that the existing designation includes maximum gross and net densities of 2 units per acre and 8 units per acre respectively. Mr. Bangs did not propose any density maximums. On February 21, Robert Longacre, representing the Kai's, provided a revised land use map (attached to the February 27 report), which expands the commercial at the intersection of Tangerine and First from 10 acres to 30 acres and changes the SRA designated areas. ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY The fiscal model was run previously on the whole planning area and showed positive economic impacts over a 20-year period. However, this model assumed a higher rate of residential and commercial absorption than we are currently experiencing. It also assumed that all of the areas except the State Land area to the north would be annexed into the Town within ten years. This may to too aggressive. To provide a more conservative model, the consultant will be reducing the absorption rates, and treating the area within the current Town boundaries and the annexation areas separately. Staff has entered the Councils' land use map changes into the GIS and provided out put from the GIS to the consultant for the fiscal impact model. The consultant is now running the model and will be prepared to report preliminary results on March 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ELEMENT (pages 49-64) Growing Smarter/Plus mandates that all communities in Arizona include circulation elements in their general plans. These elements are required to address the general location and extent of existing and proposed roadways, bicycle routes and any other modes of transportation as may be appropriate. Together, these requirements are intended to provide guidance concerning the development of all aspects of the Town's transportation system. The most prominent aspect of the Circulation Element, however, relates to TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 11 the roadway network and the Town's plans and standards for improvement of the network. These plans and standards outline the Town's strategy for providing mobility for its residents and efficiently moving traffic through and within the Town. The Town's 1996 General Plan included a Circulation/Transportation Element that served as the basis for much of the content of the Draft Element in the updated plan, including the descriptions of key issues. In addition, the Town adopted a Transit Services Element and a Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. The policy content of those plans has been incorporated. Key aspects of this element are: • safe and efficient flow of traffic • networks designed to support neighborhoods and the environment, and • support for alternate modes such as transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. The Transportation/Circulation section of the Strategic Implementation Plan includes 26 actions, 18 of which are ongoing programs and 2 of which are new, short-term programs. None of these actions will require new expenditures on the part of the Town. The following recommendations are based on discussions with the Town Engineer. Policy 5.5.1 is incorrect as stated the Town does not provide transportation for teenagers and other young non-drivers. The expansion of services to teenagers and other persons not currently served is covered by Policy 5.7.1. Recommended Motion: I move to delete "teenagers and other young non-drivers" from Policy 5.5.1. Policy 5.8.1 should be changed to state that the Town will participate in efforts to study the feasibility of (versus establish) a regional transit authority. This is the approach taken in the implementation plan Action Item CT.20. It is an approach that aligns with our existing work programs and agreements. Recommended Motion: I move to change Policy 5.8.1 to read "Participate in efforts to study the feasibility of a regional public transit authority for the northwest region or the entire metropolitan area. PUBLIC FACILITIES, SERVICES,AND SAFETY ELEMENT (pages 65-76) This was discussed and direction was provided in the February 27 meeting. However, no action was taken on the school policies issue. The information from the February 27 addendum report follows. School Facilities Background The Public Facilities, Services and Safety Element of the draft General Plan Update addresses a number of infrastructure and safety issues. These are covered under a separate discussion on today's agenda. In response to previous discussion by the Council and oral and written testimony by representatives of the Amphitheater School District, Council requested staff research how at least some other communities are addressing the relationship between the community and the school district(s) within the community in their general plan. The draft Oro Valley General Plan Update as recommended by the Steering Committee has a number of policies regarding the relationship between the Town and the Amphitheater School District. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation made a number of significant changes to many of those policies. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 11 • Policy 6.1.2 required new development be evaluated to determine its impacts on infrastructure including schools, and that such impacts be a criteria in rezoning decisions. The Commission made a minor change replacing the phrase "Town infrastructure" to "public facilities within the Town"however the effect on school policy is neutral. • Policy 6.2.1 as recommended by the Steering Committee addressed coordinated planning, exchange of information about development and planning related matters, and the potential for proactive efforts to meet school needs during development review. The Committee went on to specifically identify: o Requirements to reserve, not dedicate, elementary and middle school sites in large developments; o Promotion of donations of land or cash from smaller developments for offsets to school construction costs only within the Town; o An opportunity for the school district to determine if school sites are acceptable o Encouragement of dedications of park and school combination sites The Planning Commission, concerned that the Town should not be adopting policy as it relates to another governing body over which it legally has no control, deleted references to school site reservations and donations, but added that if a site were to be proposed by a developer, that the school district have the ability to review it for suitability. • Policy 6.2.2 addresses working with the school district on sharing facilities. Steering Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations are identical. • Policy 6.2.3, proposed by the Steering Committee, expanded upon Policy 6.1.2, specifically requiring a school facility adequacy evaluation in residential rezoning requests. The Commission deleted the policy. • Policy 6.2.4 said school planning issues (not just facility matters) need be addressed in development review. The Commission modified the Steering Committee recommendation to eliminate reference to schools and their issues in general, but stated that student safety should be considered during development review. • Policies 6.2.5 and 6.2.6, concerning joint-use sights and safe bike/pedestrian access to school sites, were not amended by the Commission in its recommendation to the Council. The Planning Commission was concerned and believed that, in part due to the decision in the Apache Junction school impact fee case, that the town has no role in school planning beyond what the town needs to do its own planning. The Amphitheater School District raised a number of concerns with the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended policies. And, in its staff report of January 6, 2003, staff stated that the use of the term's "reserve" and "encourage"meet legal requirements because they allow the applicant and the school district to reach an agreement on locations and monetary matters. Staff recommended the Steering Committee's wording. Research Staff received information in writing, by phone or by website research from 14 communities and several counties. Not surprisingly, no two jurisdictions do exactly the same thing. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 5 of 11 There are five overarching issues: • Cooperation in terms of the ability to review and comment on proposals at one or more stages of the development process (rezoning and subdivision platting being the most common). • Encouragements of joint use facilities, often parks with schools. • Requirements on the developer to meet with and report on such meetings prior to some noted stage of development processing. • Requirements to reserve land for school sites. • Requirements to dedicate school sites. Cooperation For local jurisdictions that address cooperation with school districts in the development process, most include agency review of rezonings and/or subdivisions either in plan policy or in ordinance form. Regardless of whether this is written in a policy or in an ordinance, it appears to happen virtually everywhere anyway. Communities do report mixed results from non-responsive to very proactive school districts. The extent to which it plays a role in community decision making is inconclusive. Queen Creek has an adequate public facilities ordinance for schools and other services so there are specific standards new development must meet. Overall, existence of cooperation requirements is usually not controversial. Oro Valley, on rezoning applications, provides the Amphitheater School District with the site analysis that includes the tentative development plan. For plats and development plans, the district receives a full set of plans for review. Joint Use Agreements The most frequently found type of school related policies in general and comprehensive plans involve the development of joint-use facilities or agreements to utilize facilities jointly. Execution of such agreements varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the policy appears often. In the draft Oro Valley General Plan Update, there are no differences between Planning Commission and Steering Committee recommendations on this item. Developer Contact Requirements for developer meetings with school districts is less common, but often happens in faster growing communities that have had or have school capacity issues. Peoria has such a policy, and it is used, according to them, to deal with voluntary contributions if it is an issue, not unlike the intent behind the third bullet point in proposed Oro Valley Policy 6.2.1 as recommended by the Steering Committee. Glendale developed an ordinance, not really reflected in their general plan, putting the onus on the developer to meet with and secure the "agency review" capacity information from the school district. Scottsdale has an ordinance, modified from Glendale's, that puts the requirement on the school district, but it is clearly in the interest of the residential rezoning applicant to make sure that the capacity letter is provided to the jurisdiction. In both cases, it appears that some kind of per rooftop contribution or alternative is worked out with the school district. The city has no involvement in setting such fees, and probably doesn't know what they are. Unlike the Oro Valley Steering Committee recommendation, "donations of land or cash" is not mentioned in the Glendale's or Scottdale's General Plan or ordinances. The Town, in the OVZCR, currently requires inclusion of information in a rezoning site analysis addressing capacity and locational issues. By policy, this has been required in the form of a letter from the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 6 of 11 school district. Some form of communication between developer and school district is necessitated to obtain this information. School Site Reservations Reservation of land for schools is specifically addressed in the Phoenix General Plan, with the language referencing the phrase, "in accordance with state law". Like Paradise Valley, Gilbert, and others, they use the authority for school site reservations in the subdivision platting statutes as a basis for working to encourage reservations. One issue that was raised by some jurisdictions is what happens if the school district does not use the reserved site. Gilbert's general plan shows general locations for all future school sites, but they implement the reservation of school sites through the subdivision platting process, not the rezoning process although the rezoning staff report discusses the level of communication between developer and school district and whether a school site is being reserved or dedicated. The Town of Oro Valley in OVZCR 3-104A4n(3) requires reservation of an elementary school site in proposed developments generating over 500 elementary school children. This is done in the subdivision review process. School Site Dedications Development of guidelines for the dedication of land for schools is referred to in a Peoria policy, but they have stated it has not yet been implemented. Marana and Maricopa County make fairly extensive use of negotiated development agreements, including school contributions and even land dedications in large master planned communities. The development agreements become part of the zoning approval stipulations. In Maricopa County, if used, the development agreement is between the school district and the developer; in Marana, it is with the Town and the developer. Neither jurisdiction, however, nor any other surveyed community or county addresses dedications of land directly in a general plan policy. Scottsdale mentioned experiencing sites reverting to the developer or being sold when they were not used for a school. Other Issues From the Public Hearing No respondent said that schools earned a stronger criterion in an evaluation of a rezoning, for example, than any other issue being reviewed. Gilbert did at one point have to declare a moratorium due to school capacity which led to school impact evaluation policies in their General Plan. Of the other communities specifically mentioned at public hearing, Apache Junction, having had its impact fee concept rebuffed in court, has returned to implementing the intergovernmental agreement it has had with the school district since the City incorporated over 20 years ago. Cave Creek has no plan policy or ordinance; they do engage in agency review but the school districts are usually non-responsive as they don't generate large scale development. Finally, neither Pima County nor the City of Tucson has plan policies regarding the provision of school sites. Tucson does have a policy encouraging collaboration between the City and school districts. Summary and Recommendation There is nothing in state statute that specifically talks about fees, exactions, dedications in general and comprehensive plans. There is a lot of variation in what local governments do, and only sometimes are the policies covered in the plan. The use of development agreements dealing with dedications or contributions or other mechanisms between the Town, developer and/or school district that become a part TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 7 of 11 of a zoning stipulation ulation should undergo legal review. Neither the Steering Committee's nor the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations propose development agreements or zoning stipulations however. Staff continues to support the Steering Committee recommendation which, with the strategic implementationplan, would lead to some modification of the OVZCR. As noted in its report to the Town p Council for the January 6, 2003 public hearing, staff also recommends a revision to the third bulleted paragraph h noted in the motion below. The final phrase was added to that paragraph to ensure that there is no conflict with state law relative to the work of the School Facilities Board. Recommended motion: I move to approve the Steering Committee's recommended language for Policies 6.2.1, 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 with the third bullet in Policy 6.2.1 to read "The Town encourages the petitioners of smaller developments to discuss with the school district possible donations (land or cash); such donations will be used to offset school construction costs within Town limits to the extent allowed by Arizona state law." ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ELEMENT (pages 135-139) The State's Growing Smarter/Plus statutes mandate that all communities in Arizona with a population of over 10,000 prepare and adopt An Environmental Element. This is one of the new requirements instituted after the Town adopted its 1996 Plan, so the content of the Element is entirely new. The Environmental Planning Element differs from the balance of the General Plan's elements in that its purpose is to ensure that the goals and policies outlined in this General Plan and the actions that will be taken in implementing the General Plan do not compromise the environmental resources of the community. The State requirements are intended to force communities to consider the overall environmental implications of their general plans,with a specific focus on air quality, water quality, and natural resources. The Town's basic approach to addressing potential environmental issues associated with development under the General Plan Land Use Map is to pre-empt potential problems through application of the Plan's policies. While this "self-mitigating" approach relies on the policies of virtually all elements of the Plan, it is particularly reliant on three elements: Land Use; Open Space and Natural Resources; and Water Resources. These three elements include policies that address the three environmental issues that Growing Smarter/Plus identifies (i.e., air quality,water quality, and natural resources). It should be noted that the Draft Plan does not include a separate set of policies or a restatement of policies found elsewhere in the Plan, as most of the plans prepared in Arizona have. Accordingly, there are no implementation actions identified in the Strategic Implementation Plan. Staff concluded that such an approach would have resulted in redundancy, and thus potential confusion. Rather, the focus of the Draft Environmental Planning Element is on cross-referencing the policies of the other elements, and making an affirmative statement that the plan will not adversely affect the Town's air quality, water quality, and natural resources. STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (separate document) The Strategic Implementation Program (SIP) serves as the set of identified actions needed to implement the policies of the General Plan Update. It is an integral part of the process, but by addressing it as a separate document, it can be more easily used as a true strategic plan by the Town. The SIP is referred to in the Administration section of the General Plan Update and this section serves to link the two documents TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 8 of 11 appropriately. The SIP was modified slightly by the Planning and Zoning Commission from the version recommended by the Steering Committee, but the vast majority of that version remains intact. The Strategic Implementation Plan and cost estimates for the short term action items have been provided to the g p Council previously. Unlike the existing plan, every policy has at least one action item associated with it. Policies and actions have been cross-referenced for ease of use. Actions have been divided into short, medium or long term priorities or annual or ongoing events. There is also an overriding implementation action item regarding a review of the plan that is also reflected in the Administration chapter of Plan Update. As the action items in the SIP are intricately linked with the plan policies, changes to the plan policies which will result from previous Council direction to staff will require that staff also look at the SIP for corresponding change. Furthermore, to better correlate the review of the plan and reflect the state statutory mandates, staff suggested changes to the plan text and the text of the implementation plan in the staff report for the February 27th meeting. One of the concerns expressed by the Council was the costs, and therefore the feasibility, of implementing the policies in the plan. As previously reported to the Council, staff performed an analysis of the cost of implementing the short-term items. The costs for the first two years were estimated to be: One-time Staff Costs $ 205,000 Annual Staff Costs $ 175,000 Consultant Costs $ 195,000 Material Costs $ 35,000 Land Costs $ 200,000 Total Town Costs $ 810,000 Staff is currently in the process of reviewing the short term action items to ensure that existing, funded programs are not included in the costs and to re-prioritize them. Those action items that are attached to mandated functions will take top priority and less critical policies and actions may be shifted to medium term. Staff will present this at the March 6 meeting. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN (pages 10-17) The administration section of the plan is included in the Introduction. Its purpose is to: • provide direction on updating and amending the Plan, • ensure that developments are reviewed for conformance with the plan, and • set a program for tracking the implementation of the plan. The following sections discuss issues that have been presented related to the Administration section. Amendment Matrix (p. 12) Master Planned Community is a designation in the Plan which may have a wide range of densities. However, within the amendment matrix, it is addressed only as a general category not related to any specific density or land use restrictions. Recommended Motion: I move to delete MPC from the amendment matrix and add the following verbiage: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 9 of 11 Amendments to areas designated as MPC will be treated, per the General Plan Amendment Matrix Table, based on the land use and density of the MPC designation. If no specific land uses and densities are called out for the MPC, it will be treated, for the purpose of an amendment only, as MDR and NCO (no more than 10%) The categories listed do not match the descriptions in the Land Use Map Section. In particular LDR has two categories in the descriptions but only one in the table. Should changes from LDR1 to LDR2 be treated as minor or major amendments? The amendment matrix is presented as recommended by the Steering Committee and Commission. Both LDRs are similar enough (they both designate single-family, custom-graded home sites) that amendments from LDR1 to LDR2 should be considered minor amendments. However, to avoid confusion that no amendment is required the matrix should be changed to show both categories. Recommended Motion: I move to change the amendment matrix to change LDR to LDR1 and add LDR2 with the same amendment designations as LDR1 and with amendments from LDR1 to LDR2 to be treated as minor amendments. Adoption of Amendment(p. 14) The following text is the topic of this item. The strikeout version is that recommended by the Steering Committee; the underlined version is that recommended by the Commission. • -' The disposition of the General Plan amendment proposed shall be bald on meeting all of the following findings of faeti- 1.That the amendment constitutes a benefit to the community. coi.mm11un..ity. it shall be the burden of the applicant to prove that the change meets the findings. Adoption of Amendment. The Planning andZoning Commission.....shall:......a.pp.rove..... ::n::......the....Tow.n Council shall adopt an amendment to the General Plan if they conclude from the facts and materials presented that: 1.. The amendment in its entiret_ constitutes a benefit to the Town: and 2. The amendment is_substantially consistent with__tl.c-vision,....goals,......and....policies.-.of the Genera_ Play; and, 3. Any adyersc_-im act on the Town or adjacent lana .Uses...can be mitigated in......ann......acceptable manner through the subsequent tonin ;anddevelopment process. The applicant for the amendment shall have the burden of presenting facts: and other materials to support...these...conc.u:s:ion.s...by...clear... :nd...con.vi_nci.an.g.proof... The Council expressed concerns related to the Commission's wording in the first paragraph, which directs the Commission to approve and the Council to adopt amendments if they make the listed conclusions. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 10 of 11 Recommended Motion: I move title the section Adoption of Amendment and to use the wording in the firstara a h as recommended bythe Steering Committee deleting the words "of fact" at the end so that p �' p the wording is: "Adoption of Amendment. The disposition of the General Plan amendment proposed shall be based on meeting all of the following findings:" Theluai ier "substantially", which was added in front of "consistent" in the second criterion ("The q .� amendment is substantially consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan'), should be considered as it may `water down'the criterion. As used herein, "consistent" implies an absence of disagreement with the elements of the plan. The Commission's concern was that, given the large number of policies and the fact that some could be interpreted to conflict with each other (internal inconsistency); it may not be possible for there to be absolute agreement. Therefore, they recommended that "substantially" be added as a qualifier. However, the Town has been effectively using the criterion without "substantially" since the 1996 General Plan was adopted. Internal inconsistencies, if any, can continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Recommended Motion: I move to leave the wording of this criterion as recommended by the Steering Committee deleting"substantially." The third criterion as recommended by the Commission ("any adverse impact on the Town or adjacent land uses can be mitigated in an acceptable manner through the subsequent zoning and development process') may tend to defer consideration of mitigation measures to a later point in the development process. Mitigation measures need to be considered as early as possible. The wording reccommended by the Commission will not afffect the ability of the Town to exact mitigation measures. However, the approach of discussing mitigations measures as early as possible helps all concerned understand what is expected in the future. Thus staff supports the Steering Committee's recommendation. Recommended Motion: I move to use the Steering Committee's language for criterion number three. The result of the above motions is the following wording: Adoption of Amendment. The disposition of the General Plan amendment proposed shall be based on meeting all of the following findings: 1. The amendment, in its entirety, constitutes a benefit to the Town; and, 2. The amendment is substantially consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan; and, 3. The amendment proposes acceptable means for mitigating any adverse impact on the community. The applicant for the amendment shall have the burden of presenting facts and other materials to support these conclusions by clear and convincing proof. No Amendment Required for MUN or PSP from HDR(p. 15) The second paragraph, which starts with "Proposals for... "conflicts with the amendment matrix. Recommended Motion: I move to delete this paragraph. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 11 of 11 Strategic Implementation Program (p. 15) ARS 9-461.07.A.3 (attached a previous report) requires an annual report to the Council on the status of the plan. This requirement is not addressed in the Plan. Recommended Motion: I move to add the following to the Plan to address this requirement: Arizona Revised Statutes (Section 9-461.07-A.2) require that, once the plan is adopted and ratified, the Town will, through its planning agency, annually prepare and provide a report to the Town Council on the status of the plan and progress in its application. In addition to this annual report, the Town has developed a strategic program to implement the plan which, as described below, would include a periodic and more complete review of the plan. Recommended Motion: I move to add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the SIP section: "The biennial review will also serve as the annual report required by state statute in the years in which it is performed"; and I move to make the following change to the Strategic Implementation Program document on page 2 after the four bullets under Overriding Implementation Action Item: "For the years in which it is required, this review will serve as the annual report required under ARS 9-471.07-A.2. It may be too resource intensive to review, every two years, the progress of the Town towards completing the Strategic Implementation Plan. Staff estimates that each review will take about 4 months of part-time work and will consume approximately $5,000 of resources. This review process would occur once in between plan updates and once at the start of the next update, in which case its cost would be part of the update. Thus the additional cost of this review is $5,000. Recommended Motion: None, no action required. Definition of Policy (p. 16 and p. 18) The definitions of-policy" on page 16 and 18 are different. Recommended Motion: I move to direct staff to use the definition of policy is on page 18. RECOMMENDATIONS: As presented above. Attachments: None n r` r Pla •I, a a Z li n: Administrator Co a.unity Developme- •erector F:\PROJECTS\GP2001\Staff Reports\StudySessionstaffreport#8toTC.doc l Town Manager 1-0 fI'LaArcinv MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: David Andrews, Finance Director VIA: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager 0 DATE: March 6, 2003 SUBJ: General Plan Update — Economic Sustainability Theur ose of this memorandum is to express concerns about the General Plan in p p regard to economic sustainability. I would like to have been present at your meeting g this evening but I am attending the annual Government Finance Officers Association of Arizona's conference in Sedona. Economic sustainability refers to the ability of the Town's local economy to financially support communityservices. A local government providing a broad range of services pp will typically need more fiscal capacity than one that has a more limited role. The local Yp Y economy and its related fiscal capacity is dependent on factors such as employment opportunities, the local tax base, local taxes rates, and importantly, land use decisions. With these principles in mind, I have the following concerns: .> The General Plan's financial model indicates that the Town will be fiscally sound under all land use scenarios for the overall planning area. Given the unpredictability of annexations in developed areas, will the Town be fiscally sound within its existing corporate limits without annexations? c Do the financial models consider the increased levels of services mandated by the General Plan? In many instances the document states that the Town shall, among other things, increase its regulatory capacity and existing services, and create new services. Does the Town have the fiscal capacity to implement these mandates? b Do the financial models consider the impact of certain infrastructure/capital projects required by the General Plan such as bikeways, cultural facilities, and open space acquisition? My greatest concern, as previously directed to Planning & Zoning staff, is the continuous use of the word "shall" throughout the document. This word mandates that the Town spend money on many specific things and takes away what traditionally has been left to the Town Council's discretion. Your consideration is respectfully requested and appreciated. G:IDAVIDIMemoslGP Update-Economic Sustainability.doc PLLE Y�,9, OHO O,L� avcn, l PLANNING& ZONING DIVISION � ��,,,N, , h 'A A ,► %NOED A91 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator VIA: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager DATE: March 6, 2003 RE: Kai-Capri Property: Transmittal from Applicant The following was provided by Keri Silvyn, representing the property owners. Staff is evaluating this and will present it at tonight's meeting. attach: Applicant's Proposed Conditions for the Kai Property Applicant's Proposed Land Use Plan c: Brent Sinclair, Community Development Director file C:\My Documents\WORDS\MEMOint.doc r • Conditions for Kai Property based on MPC designation Neighborhood Commercial/Office ("NCO") 1. Must be developed as part of an overall master plan with MPC property to the south. 2. Any building within 200 feet of North First Avenue shall not be higher than 25 feet as measured from the finished grade of North First Avenue, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. 3. A minimum of 40% of the frontage to a depth of 300 feet must be maintained as a view corridor and not used for building purposes. 4. A landscaped bufferyard of 30 feet shall be provided along North First Avenue. Master Planned Community 1 ("MPC 1") and Master Planned Community lA("MPC 1A" 1. Must be developed as part of an overall master plan with the MPC 2 property to the south and the NCO property to the north. 2. Any building within 200 feet of North First Avenue shall not be higher than 25 feet as measured from the finished grade of North First Avenue, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. 3. Any building within 150 feet of Palisades Road shall not be higher than 25 feet as measured from the finished grade of the road, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. 4. A landscaped bufferyard of 20 feet shall be provided along North First Avenue. 5. There shall be no development in the 100-year floodplain or on any slopes of 25% or more, excluding roadway and utilities. 6. The total number of dwelling units shall not exceed one dwelling unit per each acre of property designated MPC 1. 7. The only housing type permitted is single-family detached residence. 8. No mass grading for residential uses in undisturbed areas. MPC 1A 134807.2 Y 1. No buildings shall be constructed within 100 feet of the east property line. 2. All lots are to be a minimum of 36,000 square feet in size. Master Planned Community 2 ("MPC 2") 1. Must be developed as part of an overall master plan with the MPC1 property and NCO property to the north. 2. Any building within 200 feet of North First Avenue shall not be higher than 25 feet as measured from the finished grade of North First Avenue, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. 3. A landscaped bufferyard of 20 feet shall be provided along North First Avenue. 4. There shall be no development in the 100-year floodplain or on any slopes of 25% or more, excluding roadway and utilities. 5. The total number of dwelling units shall not exceed two dwelling units per each acre of property designated MPC 2. 6. The only housing type permitted is single-family detached residence. 7. No mass grading for residential uses in undisturbed areas. 134807.2 t • 4 ' A • . , .. . , ...,.• OPPLDR 1 $ AN . PROPERTY BOUNDARY ,.-... P•91" —--- , "••-., I ,'' . . . ,. ., 4 10zcz nom II 1 ... ''''''''' S 1 , .•-k ----- /...,,2 , • NC* : -.., I ---i • A ''-c:N---i ...-- .,.. ... ..... ............. . ,.: . • - : .._. .... .... ,... •___., . , _•..,,, - . ., N.\ ,...‘ ,...ix....._1,_, \-- _----TRIERAVE ti '411/1*. I..: 1-1-3 ---.4' • •-• ,, ,---"\, E ' 1 r IY. t-LDR 1 'o z ..,,....., _,...,,.. „.,„..„..., . ,, MPC1A 1 .'ni , c_ ......,,.,...„_. I , ,, ___,1•__ ri-7N) I \\ \ It I I MPC 1--.....' f.. -- 1 \--1. - _:L.,. i.:, 1 li i 1 ', -- 7111,, i , 1.__, TANGELO DRIVE - I ....r.m...0 am gm .. iii. 11.1.011.11111.1%....i.pit:,.....t. ,..•AD A---- „ 1 1SP.,: \ I - 14 v_ I ------, I _______. I . . .. . I MPC 1 ....._ _. , . ,, MPC 1 RLDR _ I_____ MI, um 4 75'flariagt-aF-WAY I am am '.., ,..-... .,..-.,,,„..--,...-........,--.,...- ...,,..., , _... ... .. . ., v. LDR1 . , . . I .. , • ...,...,. ' '• MPC 2 _ . . .... . , .. •.... MM. \ r.,•• ',..„.... \ i I ---•--..-*-.. n I 1 I I I I , i . 44 i ....., , , ...... , BOUNDARY KAI PROPERTY LAND USE DESIGNATION PLAN i .,...,...,„,,.. '.---•, FOR CONSIDERATION BY ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL g ..----- , ! LEGEND: NORTH FIRST AVENUE&TANGERINE ROAD RLDR RURAL IOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1(0-0.3 DU/AC) ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA ka: t---- 1 .OW DENSITY RFSIDENTIAl 1(n.4-1_2 DUI AC) LBS 2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2(1.3-2.0 DU/AC) MBB No.182053-E-001 MARCH 5,2003 MOR, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(2.1-5.0 DU/AC) A 11111111 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL o. 2.0. . .. . MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY The ................--yin. -.T. unman..Ararniodia.Urban 13...an A . Mg? PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Min OPEN SPACE WLB Niviu3 0,...„=„-...,..-7-., i il Group_ .....1-4 Maws, (12=7.V.,,,,, , '''' Colton, Arlan From: Weekly posting to Update 2020 [blank©ci.oro-valley.az.us] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:01 AM To: General Plan; Tom Keiran Subject: Weekly posting to Update 2020 The following is a listing of the last 8 days postings to the Update 2020 system by citizens who left a comment. Ref#160 on 3/5/2003 Comment:I will vote no on the new general plan and will encourage everyone else to do the same. No one has listened to the citizens yet ! We all want more LDR and get rid of MUN! Council members and P&Z you need to listen what has been said over and over again by the citizens of OV! Ref#159 on 2/27/2003 Comment:We understand that the Oro Valley Town Council will conduct a special study session this evening (Thursday, February 27) to review, among other items, the land usage maps for Oracle and Oracle/First (Kai properties) . As home owners in the Tangerine Hills area and residents of Oro Valley we would like to submit a comment for this review. We would like to see this area (the Kai property) zoned for 3Low Density residential2 development with a minimum of 1 acre lots and NOT 3Master Planned Community2 development. It is our opinion that higher density development will diminish the charm and value that distinguishes Oro Valley from its neighbors, Marana or Tucson. The higher density development, which the "Master Planned Community" designation allows would make Oro Valley a less desirable place to live. This E-mail has been scanned by McAfee WebShield and is delivered to you virus free. Infected attachments associated with this E-mail have either been deleted or cleaned. --Town of Oro Valley Information Systems Division 1 Kai-Capri Special Area Policies . . .• •. . . ,• I . . . . , . . . . 1/ ' • • •• • •: i General 1. Transfers of residential densities are permitted and encouraged in the area. Receiving areas are: 1 the • aded area in the north central •ortion of the site- 2 areas ad•acent to Roone Ranch no more than 660 north of the south boundar and no farther east than the east ed•e of Palisades s slits. and(3) areas that are less visible from existing develo s ment and roadwa s. Units should be transferred off the followin• areas: (1) SRAs, (2 areas along North First Avenue (es s eciall the area between the road and the Palisades S slits •arcels and 3 the area southeast and visible from Palisades S s lits s arcels. 2. Transfers of densities from SRAs that are not ri•arian areas includin• 50' buffers flood 9 lains or 25% slo•e ma be calculated at us to 1.2 units ser acre. 3. Primitive trails with a •ublic access easements shall be s rovided unless otherwise prohibited by law. These will be within the existing wash areas. will connect to the o s en space area adjacent to the north boundar of the site, and will s rovide a connection from the Palisades Split Area southeasterly to the wash. 4. An chane to the General Plan which would allow more than 1.2 units s er acre over all on the residential area on the property shall be treated as a major amendment. Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) 1. Must be developed as part of an overall master plan that includes planning for thewith MPC property to the south. 2. Any building within 200 feet of North First Avenue shall not be higher than 25 feet as measured from the finished grade of North First Avenue, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. 3. A minimum of 40% of the frontage to a depth of 300 feet must be maintained as a view corridor and not used for building purposes. 4.A landscaped bufferyard of 30 feet shall be provided along North First Avenue. 4. The commercial areas shall not extend, on North First Avenue,to the south of the Ever. een Wal• een's Develo•ment. Master Planned Community • 1. Must be developed as part of an overall master plan with-that includes planning for the the ' ' : ::- : -- - . -: -- NCO property to the north. 2. Any building within 200 feet of North First Avenue shall not be higher than 25 18 feet-as measured from the finished grade of North First Avenue,unless the applicant 134807.2 demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. 3. Any building within 150 feet of Palisades Road or existing development shall not be higher than 25 18 feet . -- -• •-= .• .: - = -- :•:, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. • _• - 5 4.There shall be no development in the 100-year floodplain, riparian areas or on any slopes of 25% or more, excluding roadway and utilities. property designated MPC 1. 7-5.The only housing type permitted is single-family detached residence. &-.6.No mass grading for residential uses in undisturbed areas. MPC 1 A 1. No buildings shall be constructed within 100 feet of the east property line adjacent to existing residential areas. 2.All lots are to be a minimum of 36,000 square feet in size. Master Planned Community 2 ("MPC 2") property to the north. 2.Any building within 200 feet of North First Avenue shall not be higher than 25 feet as 3.A landscaped bufferyard of 20 feet shall be provided along North First Avenue. • • . ;a -- :a - - - ---. . .• le -• •-- - - - . . . - -- . . .. . • property designated MPC 2. 134807.2 Ail** " ,v rr X. Town of Oro Valley. General Plan Update 2020 Town Council Special Session March 6, 2003 Tonight's Focus • Land Use Map -- Kai-Capri Property (#2) • Economic Sustainability • Elements — Transportation/Circulation — Environmental Planning — School Policies (Public Facilities and Safety) — Strategic Implementation Program — Administration of the PLAN y E Kai -Capri Property #2 • On 2/27 Council directed staff toare re p p policies to treat the area as MPC with 1 unit per acre overall. • Staff met with thea applicant and neighbors. pp g — Both groups proposed policies. — Applicant revised map to expand the NCO and delete the SRA. Kai-Capri Special Area Policies • General • Transfers of residential densities are permitted and encouraged in the area. Receivingareas are:(1)the graded area in the north central portion of the site;(2)areas adjacent to ooney Ranch and south of the proposed extension of Naranja Drive;and(3)areas that are less visible from existing development and roadways. Units should be transferred off the following areas:SRAs,areas alongNorth First Avenue(especial) the area between the road and the Palisades Splits parcels,te area southeast and visible from Palisades Splits parcels. • Transfers of densities from SRAs that are not riparian areas(including 50'buffers), floodplains,or 25%slope may be calculated at up to 1.2 units per acre. [Note:The SRAs overlays are applied throughout the General Plan planning area due to environmental constraints. However,in this case,portions of the SRA were applied to buffer existing development. This policy would still provide the buffer,and would treat the Kai property consistently with other properties in the planning area.] • Primitive trails,with a public access easements,shall be provided. These will be within the existing wash areas,will conned to the open space area adjacent to the north boundary of the site,and will provide a connection from the Palisades Split Area southeasterly to the wash. • Any change to the General Plan which would allow more than 300 units on the property shall be treated as a major amendment. 40. 2 Kai-Capri Property #2 • On 2/27 Council directed staff to prepare policies to treat the area as MPC with 1 unit per acre overall. • Staff met with the applicant and neighbors. pSpecialKai-Ca ri Area Policies • General — Transfers of residential densities are permitted and encouraged in the area. Receiving areas are: (1) the graded area in the north central portion of the site; (2) areas R one Ranch and south of theproposed adjacent to o y. , , extension of Naran a Drive; and (3) areas that are less visible from development existingdevelo ment and roadways. Units should be transferred off the following areas: (1) SRAs, (2) areas along (especially First Avenue (esp y the area between the road and the Palisades Splits parcels, and (3)the area southeast and visible from Palisades Splits parcels. p — Transfers of densities from SRAs that are not riparian areas (including their 50' buffers),floodplains, or 25%slope may be calculated at up to 1.2 units per acre. 3 Kai-Capri Special Area Policies • General (cont.) — Primitive trails, with a public access easements, shall be provided. These will be within the existing wash areas, will connect to the open space area adjacent to the north boundary of the site, and will provide a connection from the Palisades Split Area southeasterly to the wash. — Any change to the General Plan which would allow more than 300 units on the property shall be treated as a major amendment. Kai-Capri Special Area Policies • Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) - Must be developed as part of an overall master plan with MPC property to the south. — Any building within 200 feet of North First Avenue shall not be higher than 25 feet as measured from the finished grade of North First Avenue, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. 4 Kai-Capri Special Area Policies • Neighborhood Commercial/Office (cont.) — A minimum of 40% of the frontage to a depth of 300 feet must be maintained as a view corridor and not used for building purposes. — A landscaped bufferyard of 30 feet shall be provided along North First Avenue. — The commercial areas shall not extend, on North First Avenue, to the south of the Evergreen (Walgreen's) Development. yya Kai-Capri Special Area Policies • Master Planned Community - Must be developed as part of an overall master plan with the MPC 2 property to the south and the NCO property to the north. — Any building within 200 feet of North First Avenue shall not be higher than 18 feet, unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the Catalinas. — Any building within 150 feet of Palisades Road shall not be higher than 18 feet unless the applicant demonstrates by a viewshed analysis that a greater building height will not interfere with views of the tai-�rias. ' 7'1'1! 5 Kai-Capri Special Area Policies • Master Planned Community (cont.) — There shall be no development in the 100-year floodplain, riparian areas or on any slopes of 25% or more, excluding roadway and utilities. — The total number of dwelling units shall not exceed one dwelling unit per each acre of property designated MPC 1 . — The only housing type permitted is single-family detached residence. Kai-Capri Special Area Policies • Master Planned Community (cont.) — No mass grading for residential uses in undisturbed areas. — No buildings shall be constructed within 100 feet of the east property line adjacent to existing residential areas. may, d 6 Kai -Capri Special Area Policies • Variation from Neighbors' Policies — Any change from LDR1 to LDR2 is a major amendment vs. major amendment for any change for more than 1.2 units per acre in the residential areas — The existing buffer SRA would only allow .4 DU/AC for transfers vs. transfers of 1 .2 DU/AC from existing buffer areas (this is affects approximately 40 units) pSpecialKai-Ca ri Area Policies • Variation from Applicant's Policies — The eastern buffer area is a transfer area vs. additional transfer and receiving areas — The SRA would be deleted which would allow greater densities in the buffer areas and transfers of 1 unit per acre out any areas vs. SRA as originally proposed with .4 DU/AC transferable from riparian++ and 1 .2 from the buffer area — No trails policies vs. protection of existing trails 4, 7 Kai-Capri Special Area Policies • Variation from Applicant's Policies — Amendments would be handled following the Amendment Matrix vs. major amendment at greater than 1 .2 units per acre for residential — Building heights up to 25' in viewsheds vs. building heights limited to 18' in viewsheds — 2 DU/AC MPC proposed at the south adjacent to Rooney Ranch vs. no MPC 2 Economic Sustainability Outline • Background • Methodology • Results • Summary • Future Uses r 8 Background • Purpose / Rationale — Estimate public costs and revenues — Function of changes in land use patterns, development, population, employment — May examine annexation, new development, and/or redevelopment — Tool for comparing alternative development patterns (e.g., general plan alternatives) Backgroi.:nd • Per Capita Multiplier — Identify available cost/revenue data, categorize and develop relationships — Estimate historic costs/revenues per person — Estimate future costs/revenues based on forecast population — May also use housing units and/or commercial sq. ft. — Service levels constant 9 M.ethodolo .•/ • Process — Reviewed existing annexation models and Town financial reports — Interviewed major department heads Prepared draft fiscal impact model — Revised model based on comments — Modeled general plan land use map alternatives Methodology • Process — Again revised model based on further comments — Modeled Steering Committee recommended land use map — Revised model based on Town Council land use map and slowing development trends sic73- — 10 Methodology • Commentators — General Plan Steering Committee members — Town Manager — Town department heads and staff — Interested Town residents Methodology • Flexible Model — Amount and timing of development and annexation adjustable — 20 year period, annually adjustable — 9 revenue categories — 10 expenditure categories Y\ h� R 11 Methodology • Revenues - Ongoing • One-time — State shared revenues — Building permit/plan fees — Local sales tax — Construction sales tax — Hotel sales and bed tax — Roadway impact fees — Cable franchise fees — Business license fee — Transit fare box revenues Methodology. • Expenditures — Police — Hotel bed tax — Public works transfer/rebate — Parks — Sales tax rebate — Development services — Library services — Magistrate court — Transit — Other 12 Methodology • Land Use Map Alternatives Modeled — Current General Plan — Alternatives • Cluster/Mixed Use • Fiscal/Services • Environmental • Steering Committee Draft • Staff Recommended — Steering Committee Recommendation — Town Council Draft Results • Town Council Draft land Use Map — Two areas • Within Town Boundaries • Outside of Town Boundaries 13 Results -• Town Boundaries • Within Current Town Boundaries — Existing and new development — 20 year modeling period (FY02-03 to FY22-23) ti Results — Town Boundaries • Dwelling Units (DU) — New: 6,911 new DU (400 DU annually) — FY22-23: Total of 22,191 DU (100% built out) • Population — New: 14,624 residents (846 annually) — FY22-23: Total of 46,874 residents 14 Results TownBoundaries • Commercial Sq. Ft. — Includes both retail and office (CRC, NCO, COP, MUN-COP, MCP-COP) — New: 5.9 million sq. ft. — FY22-23: Total 7.6 million sq. ft. (approx. 80% built out) y i i „, - Results — Toon B 'j,:ur..da.ri ..s • Commercial Sq. Ft. (cont.) — Community/Regional Commercial (CRC) • Near-term: no development • Mid-term: Specific major developments (e.g, Steam Pump Village, Oro Valley Town Center,Vistoso Town Center) • Long-term: 100% built out • FY22-23: 100% built out 15 Results — Town Boundaries • Commercial Sq. Ft. (cont.) — Neighborhood Commercial/Office (NCO) • Near-term: 50,000 sq.ft. annually • Mid/Long-term: 150,000 sq.ft. annually • FY22-23: 80% built out Results:. -- Town Boundaries • Commercial Sq.Ft. (cont.) — Commerce/Office Park (COP) • Near-term: No development • Mid-term: Specific major developments (e.g., Rancho Vistoso, New Hospital, New High-Tech) • Long-term: 100,00 sq.ft. annually • FY22-23: 75% built out 16 Results - Town Boundaries • Employment • New: 15,667 employees • FY22-23: Total 20,316 employees k.: Resu l .s Town Bonndaries � • Hotel Rooms — New: • Specific short/mid-term developments (Ritz, Steam Pump Ranch, Oro Valley Town Center) • 763 new rooms — FY22-23: Total 1,284 rooms 17 Results — Town Boundaries • Fiscal Conditions — FY02-03 values — Service levels constant (per resident, not totals) — Naranja Town Site not considered due to uncertainties (cost, timing, financing) Boundaries Results - Town • Fiscal Conditions (cont.) — Revenues annually exceed expenditures — Annual net surplus increases from $2 million to $11 million during 20-year period — Cumulative net surplus of $166 million 18 Results - Outside Town • Annexation Areas — Outside current Town boundaries and within planning areas — Results for 100% annexation of existing development and 100% new development Sre %max --- Results — utside Town • Dwelling Units (DU) - Total of 12,320 DU (100% built out) • Population — Total of 26,069 residents 19 Results — Outside Town OMMRID • Commercial Sq. Ft. — Includes both retail and office (100% built out) — Total 5.4 million sq. ft. • Employment — Total 14,142 employees Results — Outside Town • Hotel Rooms — Total 244 rooms (Westward Look Resort) 20 Results. — C...utsid]e.: Town • Fiscal Conditions — FY02-03 values — Service levels constant (per resident, not totals) — Revenues annually exceed expenditures — Annual net surplus of $4.5 million Sunriniat r • Fiscal model — Tool for comparing alternative land use plans Based on Town's existing annexation models, financial reports, and interviews Numerous iterations and refinements made to date — May be used to numerous analyses (e.g., development/fiscal trends, potential annexations, individual projects, land use map amendments) 21 Sum fli a.r • Within Town Boundaries — 20-year modeling period (FY02-03 to FY22-23) — Residential development built out — Commercial development largely built out — Annual net surplus of $2 million to $11 million — Cumulative net surplus of $166 million Summary • Outside Town Boundaries — 100% annexed and 100% developed (built out) — Annual net surplus of $4.5 million y/ 22 Fi..it.i... re Uses and Next. Steps • Future Uses — Development/fiscal trends — Potential annexations — Individual projects — Land use map amendments • Next Steps (Implementation Plan) — Refine model as necessary — User's manual and user friendly interface Transpo.rtationiC..ir.cu!ation Element • Required by Growing Smarter/Plus — Location and extent of existing and proposed roadways, bicycle routes and any other modes of transportation as may be appropriate • Included in 1996 Plan (and Transit Services Element) • Three Subject Areas (Goals and Policies) — Safe and efficient flow of traffic — Networks designed to support neighborhoods and the environment — Support for alternate modes (transit, bicycles, and pedestrians) • Strategic Implementation Plan — 26 actions, 19 of which are ongoing — Negligible cost �.t 23 Transportation and ircura sion Changes • Policy 5.5.1 is incorrect as stated the Town does not provide transportation for teenagers and other young non-drivers. • The expansion of services to teenagers and other persons not currently served is covered by Policy 5.7.1. • Recommended Motion: I move to delete "teenagers and other young non-drivers" from Policy 5.5.1. Transportation and Circulation Changes • Policy 5.8.1 should be changed to state that the Town will participate in efforts to study the feasibility of(versus establish) a regional transit authority. • This is the approach taken in the implementation plan Action Item CT.20. It is an approach that aligns with our existing work programs and agreements. • Recommended Motion: I move to change Policy 5.8.1 to read "Participate in efforts to study the feasibility of a regional public transit authority for the northwest region or the entire metropolitan area. 24 Public Facilities, Services, and Safety Element. -. School Issues • Significant differences between Steering Committee and Planning Commission recommendations in 3 of 7 school related policies; minor change to another • Steering Committee felt strongly about its language; Commission concerned about legal relationship between Town and School District • School District raised concerns over Commission wording • Staff asked to research other communities Public Facilities, Services, and Safety Element School Issues • Research — 15 communities, 2 large and 3 smaller counties — No 2 jurisdictions alike — Mechanisms: plan policy, code, negotiation — Five overarching issues on the subject theme • Cooperation/agency review-frequent • Joint Use agreements -frequent • Developer contact with school district-varies • Requirements to reserve school sites -varies • Requirements to dedicate school sites—two plus 25 Public Facilities.,.. Services, and Safety Element — School Issues • Current Town requirements - School district review transmittals required by code - Site analysis detail on capacity and location required • Information required by code • Developer secured letter by policy - Elementary school site reservation if >500 children by code Public Facilities, Services, and Safety Element — School Issues • Recommended motion: - I move to approve the Steering Committee's recommended language for Policies 6.2.1, 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 with the third bullet in Policy 6.2.1 to read "The Town encourages the petitioners of smaller developments to discuss with the school district possible donations (land or cash); such donations will be used to offset school construction costs within Town limits to the extent allowed by Arizona state law." 26 Environmental Plannung Element • Required by Growing Smarter/Plus — To ensure that the Plan does not compromise Oro Valley's environmental resources (air, water, and natural resources). — Introspective focus to evaluate overall implications of the Plan. • Self-Mitigating Approach — Policy-based mitigation — Land Use; Open Space and Natural Resources; and Water Resources Elements — No restatement or repetition of content/Cross-referencing • No Actions in Strategic Implementation Plan • Recommendation: No Action -w-* Str . .tegi: ...i ifl.i.p.1cmen.t.a. ti.o:n. Plan • Separate document compiling all implementation actions • Serves as a strategic plan • Every policy has an action item • Annual report required by ARS — Language change needed to coordinate with biennial review and avoid duplication • Short term costs: $780,000 — Reviewed numbers since last special session — Categorized beginning a potential prioritization process 2/ Strategic. imF....k..ment.atic..n elan COSTS Existing or Total Basis* Action Items Budgeted New Cost Cost Grants State Mandate LU.19 Negligible State Mentioned LU-9;LU.17;PR.1**;PR.11; 60000 60000 120000 OS.4;OS.7;OS.9 g ..E':v ,. .....:.:.,:;..oz....:,a:.,.::y.;;.K.::>:•<•:, «s:: ra :<x�:' 010101141.Migiail:ii, Long Standing Commitment LU.1;LU.17;PR.1*;PFS-6 75000 5000 80000 Public Input/Accepted Plan LU.12;ED.6***;CT.19;PR.7, 50000 250000 300000 PR.11 fi ,...v. All other Short Term Policies 220000 60000 280000 55000 �. - - - ............... `.::..::,..::::::...-....::mow:.�•;>:..::.>:y..i .....>.:>::... ..,-: Total $405,000 $375,000 $780,000 $55,000 *=action items in two categories only financially counted in one **=incorporates Actions OS.1;OS.12;OS.13 ***=will be moved to Public Facilities element S.trategic `1. : :kment.atic...n Plan • Recommended motion 1: - I move to add the following to the Plan to address this requirement: "Arizona Revised Statutes (Section 9-461.07- A.2) requires that, once the plan is adopted and ratified, the Town will,through its planning agency, annually prepare and provide a report to the Town Council on the status of the plan and progress in its application. In addition to this annual report,the Town has developed a strategic program to implement the plan which,as described below,would include a periodic and more complete review of the plan." ,IP!!!", s 28 Strategic Im lemen at on P a.n • Recommended motion 2: - I move to add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the SIP section: "The biennial review will also serve as the annual report required by state statute in the years in which it is performed"; and I move to make the following change to the Strategic Implementation Program document on page 2 after the four bullets under Overriding Implementation Action Item: "For the years in which it is required,this review will serve as the annual report required under ARS 9-471.07-A.2." S.trategic liii.F.. en entati on Plan • Recommended motion 3: - I move to tentatively adopt the Strategic Implementation Plan subject to changes necessitated as a result of language and direction changes to the policies in the General Plan Update and to direct staff to prioritize short-term action items with mandated items taking top priority. 29 Plan Administrationp10-17) ( ages • Provide direction on updating and amending the Plan - procedures for amending the Plan - definition of Minor and Major Amendment - Amendment Matrix • Ensure that developments are reviewed for conformance with the plan, and • Set a program for tracking the implementation of the plan. Amendment Matrix (p. 12) • Master Planned Community is a designation in the Plan which may have a wide range of densities. However, within the amendment matrix, it is addressed only as a general category, not related to any specific density or land use restrictions. • Recommended Motion: I move to delete MPC from the amendment matrix and add the following verbiage: Amendments to areas designated as MPC will be treated, per the General Plan Amendment Matrix Table, based on the land use and density of the MPC designation. If no specific land uses and densities are called out for the MPC, it will be treated, for theurpose of an amendment only, as MDR and NCO (no more than 10%) 444\e", 30 s Amendment Matrix (p. 12) • LDR has two categories in the Land Use Map Section descriptions but only one in the matrix. Should changes from LDR1 to LDR2 be treated as minor or major amendments? • The amendment matrix is presented as recommended by the Steering Committee and Commission. Both LDRs are similar enough (they both designate single-family, custom-graded home sites)that the amendment should be minor. However,to avoid confusion that no amendment is required the matrix should be changed to show both categories. • Recommended Motion: I move to change the amendment matrix to change LDR to LDR1 and add LDR2 with the same amendment designations as LDR1. Adoption oAmendment (p. 1 �wwsw The following language was recommended by the Commission: Adoption of Amendment. The Planningand Zoning Commission ppTown Council shal adopt an amendment to shalrapprove and the o from the facts and materials the General Plan if they conclude presented that: 1. The amendment, in its entirety, constitutes a benefit to the Town; and, 2. The amendment is substantially consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan; and, 3. Any adverse impact on the Town or adjacent land uses can be mitigated in an acceptable manner through the subsequent zoning and development process. The applicant for the amendment shall have the burden of presenting facts and other materials to support these conclusions by clear and convincing proof. 31 Adoption of Amendment (p. 14) • The Council expressed concerns related to the Commission's wording in the first paragraph, which directs the Commission to approve and the Council to adopt amendments if they make the listed conclusions. • Recommended Motion: I move to use the wording in the first paragraph as recommended by the Steering Committee deleting the words "of fact" at the end so that the wording is: "Adoption of Amendment. The disposition of the General Plan amendment proposed shall be based on meeting all of the following findings:" Adoption of Amen.dnent (p. 14 • The wording of the second criterion is: "The amendment is substantially consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan" • The qua/iffier "substantia//y', which was added in front of"consistent"in the second criterion should be considered as it may 'water down' the criterion. • Recommended Motion: I move to leave the wording of this criterion as recommended by the Steering Committee deleting "substantially." --- 32 Adoption o • The third criterion as recommended by the Commission is: "any adverse impact on the Town or adjacent land uses can be mitigated in an acceptable manner through the subsequent zoning and development process" • This wording may tend to defer consideration of mitigation measures to a later point in the development process. Mitigation measures need to be considered as early as possible. • Recommended Motion: I move to use the Steering Committee's language for criterion number three. Adoption of Amendment 14) The result of the above motions is the following: Adoption of Amendment. The disposition of the General Plan amendment proposed shall be based on meeting all of the following findings: 1. The amendment, in its entirety, constitutes a benefit to the Town; and, 2. The amendment is substantially consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan; and, 3. The amendment proposes acceptable means for mitigating any adverse impact on the community. The applicant for the amendment shall have the burden of presenting facts and other materials to support these conclusions by clear and convincing proof. c4;7?"-"-"f#" 33 No Amendment Required for HDR Changed to MUN or PSP (p. 15) • The second paragraph, which was supposed to be deleted, states that proposals for MUN and PSP in a HDR zone do not require an amendment. It conflicts with the amendment matrix. • Recommended Motion: I move to delete this paragraph. • 7: • Af:;=-Abp. 20LII Genera//... ; :fl: EN D 34 Strategic Implementation Action Items: Cost by Category COSTS Existing or Total Basis* Action Items Bud•eted New Cost Cost Grants State Mandate LU.19 Negligible .,cZ:......E ......t..:.::.>.�.:::<.�...,.:..:.:�.:a.:...:,>.:>:>....:,...:.:.:.,:. .. ........... .. .......... ... ... .. State Mentioned LU.9; LU.17; PR.1**; PR.11; 60000 60000 120000 OS.4; OS.7; OS.9 Long Standing Commitment LU.1;LU.17;PR.1*; PFS.6 75000 5000 80000 Public Input/Accepted Plan LU.12; ED.6***; CT.19; PR.7; 50000 250000 300000 PR.11 ................ ,.......:...... ............ .... ., ...�....,. r. ......\. .a, .. .;f'. .mak' T �<: �`ti ... ,..... ..........................................a...,.....................................a..........,................... -bks:. -:.r.: :3—�`.,,....>.>.,mow,:....£.. .k. .............._-.... .........................................._..... ................7........................._..... ..\. ,.s... .rN.. >z;.. .............. ,.Ate. ... , iii All other Short Term Policies 220000 60000 280000 55000 .....>:.... .....,.......... .. .. ......,.... .......................,. ...,.... .a... , .\+> .,ft<. ,:j;:?::i:[' ;:kms<�.t.�•+. , ., .................... ................,. ...v.. .... .t. .. >..h, v�,N.n,nom;::,,r. ,.:. .,.......:.. \\.r.. .......„ .........,..+- ...c,. ....,.................... £y,�.art ..ar.'v ..`Y. .> x S ,F a:,r..,.:. .�+ ....�x.. s.:..,,,....,...c,....,..,,,..,.a,> yx ..3>"x `�'... >�C R,. :r<f.os: 'L>r.<:.. .. V`tt ,, r. .> .. �` .... ..... ... ..>V V2-.. ..R ... .v.Q.... i'Z•�f]' k:�):tu f, s 2...., ...,.,..-... \. +>:-....,.R3 ,>.... .....,... ....\.....:.,�>.. � >x�' `i .)t,. ,L r v., v S`•>:2a`;E2<.:'?3sz.. .... ..,.. � ..x.. -�:>.:.......> :�if.,.,..moi.t..,..,'<:...... .. .:...... ....:.c'..<........... ,.: Total $405,000 $375,000 $780,000 $55,000 * =action items in two categories only financially counted in one ** =incorporates Actions OS.1; OS.12; OS.13 *** =will be moved to Public Facilities element 3/6/2003 77 C -o r r c . > °- C C 3 — C- 5 w a. r, C' o .5 Z Cr) n < o c, rr C • Ci) 7 n cf, n CIO :J U7WNNNN � "". : -� � _,, - m 2' �, = cn � W � � �1W � N � N �� Do rt)-1 -�,• c o: � —' "" NN � � N � NW m 0 0 = _ m g • -1 - p ; (r) i)Cn = X no g ..�- � � _. � � p -' � .6. N 3 v .A NNi17" �-, ' a 0 —1 a O g °_ 5' Cn ? v o � p sl.) vv - D ?73030 — < -0 CDZ aD -0 a o 0 �- N v v o Z O rn 3 z 2: D CD Cl. - O D v 4 2:* Eaa0 r -p n co 0) 0 o cD o o < a, ocCCD -13 r ° o cn c a •c = 3 ' CD m o (1)- 0 CD = g (" N 0 o o' Z 7) ° v j �; �• m -� sv '< a v 0 > 0 -u w . 0 O =s• — 0 -, CD --I, O CII cn •5• 30 0Z cD CD_ CO v * Zvv D Ei v • a _. SD CDC73 D < tet'' 5. � ° - �= ---I-� o 0 r=: o a rn 0ca c) c (I)0 ( _ a :- v a -CO D 5 pN m v � (1' o = D Fo cCD 0 in N vo m O cn CCD (D CD fl) FIT - < CD 0) 03 a a (n' a) M —1 H t= O0 0 O 0 z c o cn > W 0 co co Oo -� n Qo r _< I -< Z Z cn D (i) s cn 0 0a o E• 0- 0 rn 074: o =- p O 3 0 �0 c rn F Q' o Fir co cn ( m. c n n � w cn Noap . CCDD `. CO Z r r r r r r r r C C C C C C C C � g-• — - _ — - - Cr) Cn CT cro CD No 4 C3) •P W N) — . N CL O N v-) • r. -' 'CP CJt W W N WZ. -' :k Q) (" ,. -P CJt N N *CD . CO 3 3 •� cam) 6) .� ' -0 N. g - _. W C) W -5' cr) 3 g W O• 0 a -' _ CD 3 -D � — C. a_ y o < a � CCCDD ° nCD � � Cn a) < B Lo (LI c�' < � o• o m � � � a O • 3 cD - 0 0 � yam, y a fD ,-+ CLO — ,_ -, (a (D V) (D '� ,< o cD CD — O = (D O •- O Z z. an = -", ;U pp O o ? Z, _ _ _ • Pp- o. p CD 0 5 �.,, o• p oCD �, ax. „D• o � �) n CD 7 z CD n O O a CCDD 'a CD a 0- a o (D -gyp = 0 0 CD 0 �. CD O C CD 5. n 3p = 7 5 * n -am 3OC -0w = cn CD cD N o o c=D c- z 0 0 - O .--.1i1 _o (D z E CD CD 52-, NO o -o (D N v C(D CD• Sv CD CD ' s., a 0. � m Q. a0 cn' � C� o 0 " 'a co COD COD •� -II N' z p <. (�D CD o "t v cn -O 3 -� =, On O O O OCD (I) ` 0 Z C 0 C 0 a) a -0a . �aoa Ev CDR O o cD N t _ c� -p = _ p O ca: n O Q. _ ca n- O = C v Z. p N -� �1 CD < CD 0 b, (i) Z OO ap Er 1) o (D 5 C v�• . CD �. o CS cn (1D r —• _• r+ N co N CD (D O 0 _. O �„� CD FIT (73. . . -ti 0. xi 5. ,.�, C• _ _, — •-a Cv Ca n a) (0 (D ^,, 0- N C = N •� --1 a ? <• O n o a cn co rn cD O -'• cD ,< O CD co y a)a - a) 5 SJJ C 0 v � � n (D ate• Ba . CD _ C o 0) — < (D O B (/) v �. CII a) = a) N N o-p p a o• 0 O a' `� 30 a) '� 3 ci CD n_ z cn ES z CD 3 a o CD 0 CD 7 O "0 a = O fl. C=7 - 'O =• a C) - v v — - 0) O cp ET-Q 5- 3 a O• -C o �) a v co zi' o' ro < a z o O 0 ri' 5 a) (D ca CD •-�. v * Q. a) cn Q. co V = C 5.- D � CD o CDS CD X M -o -D -0 -0 -v 7:, -0 -o c -0 NO) N v NO)7. N v N v N v N v N v O = O = O = O = O = o = o = O = 0 22 _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 _ 00 __ _ 0 0 = Z 3 5' 5' 5 5• 5 _• _' _• _' 0 _' _ _ _ _ = V1 > (n c0 cC(ca (n (n (n co (n (0 (n (n c0 co (n (0 W 73 Qo 20 90 20 20 90 20 90 r -' r,, 0 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- R ocr) 11 O H m 0 v k. n) -4 �. cD CC o co (Q co k k co z O �• 0 �• (0 (0 ' i yy• _, N a' 1 i ii & co & a.: Q. CJS Ci U1 CY cn CD CD CD CD 77 C 0 C) C N z ET"C_ ? --I p 3 C- -I r r C o > w a- o 0 C C 2 5' F �. r c i 0 --IC. N,) -1 -' 0 —i > co co (1)=• o m g co r' "_ a.C C N3 Ln N , H N .. o f 9 -k - Z 9 craw N) 3 — N) Cn �, n n' `< 15 `< Coco ' MOM FirN 3 _. F cn• � t), mv? 6 O a)• ' a� a Za. C n O CD 3 D • E - CD -i C.I. CD CD a 3 0 0 3 Z o •• 5 < C -1 oJox o o CD 01 O C cD C (D 0 o 3 v < (0 m <-0 CD Z73' 20 O N o v 4 c� m c� C ES ...•• 70o ..•• � v o0 r fl- r_ -� . C ;-+ v C c3 C o Sc' CD < m 10 —1 o H too o 3 CD CD _" _ 0) -0 3 3 N cn .... _ o . o_ 7 C CD CO ° CO Z C -0 -0 C o cn (n Fie di cn C -z v 5 cn• C cn cD O 0) C C o C 0 X O cn CO u) cn v co cD > ca o o C 0O -* C CD C 5' o = C' o �- cn 0 cn = v C co o a m ,-,. Co cn n o rn y o c' - w 3 -� v O K o K cn 0.. --J(1) D C d a o n- o T 3 0- 3 cn CD C n --I � . cn r 0 r' � cn c D �« O -, 0 C - CD C () C 0 5 3. a) CD n (/) C) o C C O C- -o oo v °o * o CD C• c) � O FIC � C C St' Sz C. o-, ci m o C1 .c� o o 5. 5Ci'• .- o o. C cf' o � �, o O o O c� �. _a; "0X _a: 0) cn co0 v * 0 n � "D o N C COco 0 v Z � � � ca 90 to > ca CD o > Q — z E W ccD o.o o - -< cn C 3 E o ° • 7 � oo 71 gm cad' 3 m g ° 3 an rn g o co 0 - a) c co an 0 Fp-, _, cn I cn CD o w 0 "7 c Cr) --i m m m m c W °- O 0 0 0 0 0 2 rn ao c, —1 > 0) CJt W -' ( C7 D o co r "� O °"0 3 z N 0 El CD -.....1,rnw CO � ) co co ° v N rn cn 9 v w w -a -0 m • `� -�oo -�-- co f. , = rn 6 r- CD �I Co(J1 0)-P GJ CD —. 0 =• • a _..a N —�a • N O 0 -. coN NN ...co CD g 3 -v 3 VI O. m = � Z a. 2 D o _, --1 `° -v 373 3a) 0ac� ZZ n U' D � < aC3B a � O n- 0 — a �N � 3N � N, N-1 co � CD n CD CDD �0 .o CO X CD 373'0 �. Q v a LU m CD -10 6 2.—CD• a c"c 2 - FP`=' a c� o -O (-•a -=3 o a CD 5' 3• o �•(D -0 N.3 m 3 a -asD � c c� a� o �' N °-oco 3 — v �CD CD cn C CD p CD CD T< (7 (t. n. v a c� O- D.° m o Q c -. n XNCD � O CD LU O CD 3_ cD n a' (7 ca o CO G) -.O 0 C) O 0 0 CD CD a'0 '�' Cn 3 m CD • CD a CD 0 cn • u) CD < O y n. O o v C�—'D Q cn C - co -0 --a-a co x C zn C . (D co-0 O co (/)v T-"I y = v aPa v o m m D 5'° CD - a co ° -n CD CD 0 0- * 0 3 n a V� A) O Si 27 , , �-+ -a CD 'a CD n v -0 N.) O .-+_ O 50 (D N COD CDO CD g 0 0 m a < o v' cD 0 o 0 0 m -ao - - - .0 v) = - . 73 5 3ca CD 3 v 0 z E c v c cD to > 0 Zv cp m00 73 CD cD -o -I o 2 -< O 0 a 0 0 0 s x =f H H H H D rn 2 3 2 3 m o 0) a cr' a) • a• a (xi o n k n o 0 �. v O j' ..... O V) O CD O CO co (Q O -' CD `< Z — �� � 0- � N � Cr n �. 0 0 0 . 3 o o a• n IN, CD 7 °' C° .170 H "1 Cin > N cD O • o cn cn O 5oi. N O) Cn —Ir&) O 4=. _ O n CSD -A CEJ N 3 0 `-< N u,• _. *CD (D O D c) cD O rn N iv -• Z -. r- 3 `° K n 0 K `'`' cD — O w a cn CD 3. o .p m cD x o' a 4 m cn "'1 a vi g 2 v Z --I -1 D o m "1 -" R = O ° ocn o C) - U1 0 "* V) c0 > Cn (D•n CD CD O v t�D Oc) c6 v H - co N (/) Lo CD co Q. cn cD O -n o (73 CD N z -,cn v O co r � cn 'z•••• 0 D r Qa a)'0 CD 0 0 0 cn 1 cc �-« z O v i 0 ° O 5 N co cn Z —I n na' Ox Cl) CD <•a -(-1 (1) -. cD o -o cn: o v 0 ID �. 0 O n v � -A '_` CD ci)cD 5 c .� 0• Q 33(j) 0 3 OCD o �,O CD X a Cn 0 v j CD O C.O Z � ° 0 a) ( . 0 ,� °' o Z �. 0 0 o � c ° 0 ° 0 ov 0� - O 0 0 �co v cn . 0 . Q. mom. cn0 a O - - O o CQ -. 7 cn �'v '• C v n N) _ 0- O O' 0 Cn p N -• y cn O N O 0 < O N o _ v O .73 0'0 cn E. _ v O r z 0ci) r o � o m0 CO el CD* co x• o * (I) a) 0v S ° n (4 ° n 0 v cn o z M.0 rn cr o 0 cn a 0 n N cn a) co 0 0 al O 1:1cD 73 c� CD CD AI 5' 0 O -, AI CD n• -, v co = coE 0 v m cn 73 cn 0 O a (f) 77 o rn C1) co v 71 CD N o 2° to c c 5 — p 70 _' v Z cn N .5.2 X> � 0 -o cn > v-, 3. r" cco o o. co x CO '< C) H H m 0 m. ] ,m v `° m -, m 3 Z Z 0) 0 n) (/) E co co 0 D s N c1) cn m Cn 0 c — — O m = c k k � n O co C-a cn = I 0 y. 0 cn. (D CD a) ,, z' C O' Vim! t of � C -17) C PI 3. (I) .cT'n Cite) cCi) Ci)) (i Ti 71 71 ) 'U aNo CJ1 -A N N - (D C o CO N u-, r °' C) C) a) 6)5 Fit; O C) Q) n nn D C) 0 -' - -lam W3 0 - ri W •A. CD It. --; o' 3 N :A 3 n m W o =w CD Cl) 3 m 3 � 70 z < o m o a v a < Q) C O CD < 0 C-3 (D x m . �;. CD n CC) O r CD O (D (<D (n CD — p CD CD < Co Qz °a o 90 — ) cn O CD 't3 (n -p,� 't3 C- o coCa) CD cn --0 `? a) j n•CD v 3 N C cvoo - --, 3 • D =� oCD v 3 �0 CD °' c � 3 � � o 0 M o c4 - CCD CQ co ii CD =,.. Qj 5 Q a N o `C D co ' < Cn ? -, -0 a cn 3 * 3 . V o 5. z Ci) v O < o N- a (0 Z 3 cn � ' o CD C �, oma• D) CD -� •- =CD C O 3 � �`< cn CD3 8 co CD -0 <. ? D)) 3 N '"'' O CD O CCD =�, (!) .74 C CD C c- n o a C 73 caC ^ -0 'p -` = n (= v * C <O • cn c DO C C4 o C• 'O > > a CC0v 303 0 -•�' 0 CD C P. 3 a) `=' N '� CD CD C C 5cn 1 = v = CDN y CZ .-t o co -r1 cD _t3 co o 74- CC ? n O C S v o0N -0 -J. 5�. S , � cm v o CD CD o p P 0 C7 o p o � �' � � Z. -a a cn C 0 cn cn v v v c C -I v 3 a CD 0 Ei o CD , 5 < v c (on x'073 v .co ° CD o �. o v a c 0CI) 0 0 3 p — o co 73 * -D -v 10 v 'n m v TKO r- E c , --,' Cn a- 77 o -o u FIT co (Cn CD o Dl Co �• c)• cn co z F. = -n o v• � (ID a �, - -h-• -� C v o X =. °3 CD C CD v r -� a. CI) _ — cn cn CC CC CC CC H 0 0 0 0 0 0 C M C C- 73 -1 co 3 C- -1H -I H H H o.;--"o E CD CD (D fD CD co C C� . m m 3 3 3 3 3 co o (, z 0) 0 G) o cn 0 K o 0 3 o 0 k• Q � 1 1 1 k I I 1 k cn () � 7 ,� cn O • 7 o o p C CJ) CJ1 U1 �:65 CD (� -) (Q (ca (c1(Q CD 0 !!� 1 7-a -0 "v C • - --{ I C . - --I cm o CD > --I >x CD - cD --I > 00 C H CCn = C O -, oo _ _ _ c -J� o • o a c ra W -'.�, Z N NN gi, Z N n n. N -, 0 K ...4..--, O - -'',I" CD �'J CDS v v "0 'ti D v W -1.-1. o m 7) WN FF 0 n cn W 3 n• —�N ° m D0 cn CD CD� o N rNn O ,, f _I C CD Z C 7. -, Z CTD ccoo a. o' '-, c) 0 —5-D cn �- Z �< D a 0 0- cn � U� m co � o < o o O-0 , (D cn . = -z = p ... v � �...' C � 0 O --•`< 5 0 cn , O .0 a) CCDCD co ccnn0 =a ( cc cn CD CD • Er CD a D -►,CD O�y s On(LD SD0 073 D z O - < CD _ " (DCD = Q O -a Cn.O.=� ,-+ Z y n O O.CD CQ v O"(i3 O , a «CD o = 5 g = °' CD CD CD 0 CD cn v 5'CD o o v O-o a 3 •cn7 a-) = ,y; = (DDO O CXDO �� O —CD = 'S C= a.C O = co v S cD 0 a) O = CD O C 'cn C7: S- 0D co CCDco M �• (' �� �. Z= 0-v Icl Cn C _ (n CCDD O Z, CaD CD 0 CII 3 cn O• 0 0 Q.cn CD ea ea .-r. > Cr_, CDS C=D N .a a. = 0 CD o= 7 FD' a CD= C7 �•� C• O = cD = C• T Do O ?� off. cn B �. CD r- a) <-•— 0 C�D � a) -1�� =O - cCD O= _ =Fn. CD O 3 ca a) cn-a co pCD v v = S= _+ .r+ O = a. CD C7 CD CD 0 ._ n a' - cn O O cnD > a'O D sv a C cn a v v �- cn 0•n 5- c c_ o CD a) =c c .� _ cn'o ? vCD cp �. 5'v• o V) o 0 a' a • a a -o 73 rn cn -D m cn N� v -13 17 v N6 "c v O = i; p co O = 0 = cQ .o x- -n cn CcC.co _ > cn co a) X W. co a) CA 73 = CD F -< = '� r a 2 a- -t -C U) Co E U) C --I Co O 0 'n s < Q) E .,,� o (D D) m -o 91 cm ' = � �' ) , m � -j 3 cP. 3 = m cn o FP Z Oho �, 0cn a) cn = p �. U) C7 C7 c� = 5 cn C7 v CD D a ca, y• _. O = �U, �• ��, I r'' sysv I = tQ NCD co cc 01 cert I 00 O Cl) ".1 > •CD = -�I -0 70 Z CO 0 0 0 0 0 30 73 73 cra N -� D °° X -I D co 'Co �, °' a CD 1 -I CD I- o - o 3 3 w O CO Z O Co Co oo - Co 5opo N :� 0 N N '01 01 -'' N n n' '•G —' �G rP 07 01 . N ✓ "3 -t, C v Oo 00 Co • - V CD !D —• -� co x a = y m a. O 4, n O 5• 5. N 3 -c Q- C)) co a, _CD - CD 'PT-� p -1 3 Z 9 o' = co a C U1 U1 '-�(p' CJS CD a) a) cD o cn = CD cn a r o r o OZ8n -8 x =moo OZs 5� ca ca �O -Q 0 -0 < a-o ZI ocDv(D -, , � -, v • (D f-CI) CD Mn ,Z. ° CD -p QD C . (D+, �, .p ?o A CD 3 CD -0 CD C v cD -D- tDa Qom: v.O acne -, Qom; civ ° � a O O � y � N == v v O' er O a CD cD � a � �: cD v 6a, 0 So � -{ o a o E3 O = 0 0C. n eco K0 CD �. 0 co ca cD ". '�c' c n- 0 v cD ? .-} v _ O_ a —' 5 CD 5 (D ` (D of ('-D 6 CD O CO ,4: n CO Q • C 'JO -, �0 Q 8 H = C 'M0 , o. as � 3' --1 (i) 0 cDQ v v -v v CZ C; 5- K '1 .oaOZ o°a a n a v ��� v Q o -n-I O i3m ° � � --I a D z a v m a r- r cn y = 5--. CD y 770O Q 0) CQ CDa aa .0 a � CDcD c � (i) O ° a o C Z 0 -0 C z CD a) (D CSD CDD CD 0 CD CDD a AA" CD -ate, v v a v O' ani cn < 6, Z co 0 c ° �- a ((D 0•( 't3 uz0) c z 0) * o z 3 cD cis a- -a o a' CD n O O O 7 o �. FD a a z z m a CD CD CD "''' aa;5. X cn '0 m cn "D "D v v N � Cl) v v v CD 0 = 0 CDD N C o = n cn a Z cn =.a a S?o 20 ca ca Oo co ca co X 73 � Cv - v 0 CD CD C t_ a a. 9 9 Cn = s = Cn 0 'n 0 0 0 0 °M. M. M. M. M. c m CCDCD H CCD CDS CD Trt Cn . o o r Z 0� = = � cN a) CD ( C o ca ' O a. _ -z, - co ca >< a to N 1 �..= a O ~• N a CD ONO CD (D (Q o v 77c Z — $ 0 0 0 c - 0- --I > > o °: U) a' • 0 0 II I 70 Qoo. -' O CD w N 0 o m 3 0 n -moo - - - co z = 0 n. N•Ul -a �--a� 0 D _' _' 0 on- C.0 �. -. p p r 3 3 Nv o o -o _' m v "0 0 �, N D cn iv v, O 0 7 v o c6 D 3 77 ...a, Co c Z U1 0 Q. rCD cn p Lc) a) a3 a-< 0 cu CD < 0 v n iv o C = cn (D' a v CD7_7 C73 y• v a x-CD �. 0 CD n r• r, U) m 0 0 CD x w 0 6 a) m o 0 0 cn �. n�p su a ,_ -D- cn CD C cCD vn �-N . _ z• n. x n --I �, X C uz y — -D n n ccn ,T0j • a� pn ItI CDD `�b3 -j CD a (mJ) 0 -; � a oo o Z =Pi CQ D 4) 0 0 p C c) C C!) O a o n `` Cpa. C co O O a (0 0 0 D z v v v CD Z CD .II CD ,e.C .. cc, o cn CD Z o CD •-+ CD Q cn 0- Q D o v CD C o '< oOCI) . O . C D = Cco a co . Ccn �• C0 . n CU a a O c 0 � p CD -o C CFIT CD SD T ch 0 , 3ci cn N 5• • Ri a) S r. a (D 2. CD o •�• a' 0 a o 0 ca 0 0 0 3 a• cnv p N CCD 0 5 - Sn C � CD CD D0 o - 5' 3 3 CD v SI) CD = a = Cn Q a Q, CD '< '< 0 CIZ E 0 0 _z ET 0 5 N= N � N � 'o cn 3 0 = 0 � 0 � D CD � . 5 cn 0 0 5'cn 55. 'co 5 co to v cn v c0 v W a3 0 0 0. r•. -< -t o H H H C aCD CD CD CD rn -, CD 3 3 , rn m cn � IET I C0 k• Cl) a) 0 = yam' k o cg' * CD 0 CC2 I _a SU • I .3.•- r.-. ,�..,•• 0) FT) OCO -p to 3 = CQ (n o CO C v OJ = C Er° ? -� 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 cn CD cn Cn cn 5' FIT —I o a) > Co N 0 a 3 0 N cn O r, .. c o N —a —a s-, �, ...A. nI:! -, —a CD 'co N 3• -v U1 row . CCD W °_ g W a, o' ,,,, N 0 CD n C 0 D-, c� cD n CD 0 cD v 0 a, a 0 as CD -O w < * < a) o.v o cn cQ Z. OC" cQ =O cD o n.s 0.5= o cn (/)�- 0• cn▪ co a) - o _`< a cn �C w 0 .0 C n(DD = 0 CD Q) 0 3•�C1D Q ,�,,, o CD C a , 3.Cr a C �. �' ab a. �' a) coo v O� w • < a) as 0 < (Q V1 co 121 (Q to � ;- C O 3 0 CD 3 y < N CD CD .� o 3 o m coxa co = a CD CD7J 2. cD • -� = c �, n, a cD _ Z �m p ao Z" o r.o co 0' o p' < —h 3' p a)- 0 <73 0 `< CD ET C cfl v C , 3CC C �' C C aa) (? Q Q Q. Q cn 0 C O -a CI) o cn o o � o< o °-< o cD � 00 cn o 0 o Cl) =o y V a- as a, o 0 v cD a) o a) o N CD = � C a) < a) 0 "� 3 0 C 0 —.a 0 6 a 0 W ,-+ -; . 6 O "C* CC C.) p a)--, j OCD C. v csD vo o� CD �� -ow (D_5- * ? k k moa � _' k �,'..� �- C) cn 0 -a C3 < n 3v o CD (1) CD -0 "" CD C. CD "'' v -�, "'' v a) a) n) a) C > a) CO a) c-v cl CD v o &) o v a"-'3 0 v o 0 0.0 -,. F'a) (D Z a cn z -)E o z 6 o -oo � Oa) z O = �, 0 0 (n vav 0 rn 0 Cv . -1 cnoa "I 3 -1 00 �. c, -0 CO • C .Q < -0 in.0 Z Z 5. = C (t) Z a:— � o "g =1. cfl (J) ,:-.,. ca ,-,.. ca CD (1) Q Q a o Q. Q S E. CD . ET co pN = N = N = N =N = O = O = O = O = 5 (o 5 (o 5 co 5 (o 5 co o (r) a) co a) Co a) CO v Co v p o 0 . LU c/, . c c Z as c CD CD k k U) 0 o 4 - _a a 1 co - (, N y. 1 (. N z C C �. CJl U1 CTI E3' I ;D 73 “Q CQ CD CA -vC K m a v U, � --i Z N) . w 0 O = N v,0.0 c No D 71. o = D a CD 0 c — p ] cn `-I o Cn r". n a• - v :='I - m °' — o -I (O Cn CO Cn 0 o 0 ( �- M m --I `< 73 - m rn 3 c ' r v IV 0 N. F. a z n ^ u, O 5 _ ♦♦ O 0 O K /xj n o' o 0 0 C-D a 0 rn 3 -v 3 - 0 B ry 5. • V) a. a g _ -i z. v _ w 3 O b9414 -- -69 cin N) CD w v C31 00 O Ci.) O N) N CD CD C31 O O CJl U1 CTl C31 v �' �? p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- • Q, 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o (0 CD w -� b. m x .� o o CD 0 O v "V (A CJ1 O 01 C31 c ru) v o O o O O a O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COD co Cl ,-+ 0 -a CD 5• v a ca 5• Cn 3 : a) co ry co3) � •..1 O co co --L C.1 CCDD K O C11 O O 01 O O * a N 0 0 O 0 0 0 c -T 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o a 5. cc m- o CD 0 A Cnv St 13 rn 73 5. CD -0 X) 2 a- -< c� = 73 ca:_0 5. m 3) cn 0 O z 5. Cn � ca po m F cn CD 7-1 0 m ] g � �co n 0 0E.+) • Cl) CD -j 6 5 5