ZEBA 11-16-2010 (1)

MINUTES, ZONING ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF APPEALS

NOVEMBER 16, 2010

The Pima County Zoning Enforcement Board of Appeals met in its regular session at the regular meeting place of the Pima County Board of Supervisors (Hearing Room), 130 West Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona, at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 16, 2010. Upon roll call, those present and absent were as follows:

All Present: Ramón Valadez, Chairman Sharon Bronson, Vice Chair Ray Carroll, Member Ann Day, Member Richard Elίas, Member Lori Godoshian, Clerk 1. LITIGATION

Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A) (3) and (4), for legal advice and direction regarding the appeal of the decision of the Hearing Officer in Case No. P09CV00138-1 and 2, Bonnie Martinez-Hatley and Robert Martinez. The Board may also, during the course of the hearing and upon motion, enter into executive session.

Without objection, this item was removed from the agenda.

2. APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER’S DECISION

P09CV00138-1 and 2, Bonnie Martinez-Hatley and Robert Martinez In accordance with the Pima County Zoning Code Section 18.95.030C, Bonnie Martinez-Hatley and Robert Martinez, appeal the decision of the Hearing Officer in the following Case No. P09CV00138-1, regarding a violation to Zoning Code Section 18.14.020.A.7, excessive number of livestock; and, Case No. P09CV00138-2, regarding violations to Zoning Code Section 18.01.030.E.1, structures without permits (animal corrals/goat pens, goat houses, round pen, animal shade and adjoined sheds over 200 square feet), on property located at 11970 W. Archer Drive, Tucson, AZ. (District 3)

Chris Straub, Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney, advised the Board that if this case involved an interpretation of the Zoning Code, it should be appealed through the Board of Adjustment.

Rick Bruster, Zoning Inspector Supervisor, provided a staff report. He stated the appellants had requested a 4H exemption but were denied because the activities did not meet Zoning Code requirements for minor-age individuals living on the property who were active 4H Club members. Staff recommended the hearing officer’s decision be upheld and that the Chief Zoning Inspector’s interpretation be

11-16-2010 (1)

MINUTES, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING

NOVEMBER 16, 2010 The Pima County Board of Supervisors met in regular session in its regular meeting place at Pima County Administration Building (Hearing Room), 130 West Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona, at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 16, 2010. Upon roll call, those present and absent were as follows: All Present: Ramón Valadez, Chairman Sharon Bronson, Vice Chair Ray Carroll, Member Ann Day, Member Richard Elίas, Member Lori Godoshian, Clerk 1. INVOCATION

The invocation was given by Pastor Kevin Prahar, Park Avenue Christian Church. 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. . . . EXECUTIVE SESSION

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elίas and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, that the Board convene to Executive Session at 9:10 a.m.

4. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 9:25 a.m. All members were present. 5. CALL TO THE PUBLIC (for Executive Session items only)

The Chairman inquired whether anyone wished to be heard on any item listed under Executive Session. No one appeared.

6. LITIGATION

Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A) (3) and (4), for legal advice and direction regarding settlement of the following:

11-16-2010 (2)

A. Honeywell International v. Pima County, Arizona Tax Court Case

No. TX2006-000401

B. Honeywell International v. Pima County, Arizona Tax Court Case No. TX2007-000579

C. Honeywell International v. Pima County, Arizona Tax Court Case

No. TX2008-000778

D. Honeywell International v. Pima County, Arizona Tax Court Case No. TX2009-000749

Chris Straub, Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney, informed the Board that this case pertained to the valuation of the Honeywell Facility (Parcel Nos. 220-11-0740/A for tax years 2007 through 2010). The proposed settlement would require a decrease in the Full Cash Value (FCV) as follows:

Tax Year 2007, reduce the FCV from $30,934,263.00 to $20,750,000.00.

Tax Year 2008, reduce the FCV from $30,924,263.00 to $25,000,000.00.

Tax Year 2009, reduce the FCV from $48,392,282.00 to $25,000,000.00.

Tax Year 2010, reduce the FCV from $48,392,282.00 to $20,750,000.00.

These values would not rollover for 2011. The Pima County Attorney’s Office and Assessor recommended approval of the settlement.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elías and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to accept the recommendation.

E. Landmark Title Assurance Agency of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Pima County,

Arizona Tax Court Case No. TX2009-001043

Chris Straub, Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney, stated this case was for tax year 2010 for the Transamerica Building and parking lot located at 177 N. Church Ave., Parcel Nos. 117-11-0160 and 0170. The proposed settlement would reduce the FCV from $9,291,986.00 to $7,312,705.00 with no change to the parking lot. The Pima County Attorney’s Office and Assessor recommended approval of the settlement.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elías and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to accept the recommendation.

11-16-2010 (3)

7. LITIGATION

Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A) (3) and (4), for legal advice and direction regarding a proposed Board of Supervisors Policy No. C 6.2, Delegation of Settlement Authority to County Attorney.

Chris Straub, Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney, stated this item was informational only, no Board action was required.

8. LITIGATION

Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A) (3) and (4), for legal advice and direction regarding permission to file an appeal of the State Board of Equalization decisions on the IPR’s for Tax Year 2010:

SBOE Number Notice FCV SBOE Value

94056741083782 $ 974,734.00 $ 94056740183785 $ 432,825.00 $ 94056741083787 $ 2,181,521.00 $ 94056740183789 $ 1,772,293.00 $ 94056740183790 $17,151,935.00 $4,634,820.00 94056740089136 $ 9,289.00 $ 500.00 94056740089140 $ 2,453,381.00 $ 94056740089142 $17,236,375.00 $ 94056740089144 $ 859,156.00 $ 94056740089146 $ 7,579,306.00 $ 94056740089148 $10,601,665.00 $ 94056740089150 $ 424,764.00 $ 94056740089152 $ 3,503.00 $ 94056740089154 $ 4,211,472.00 $ 94056740089155 $ 282,882.00 $ 94056740089158 $ 55,853.00 $ 94056740089160 $ 17,001.00 $ 94056740089163 $ 270,913.00 $ 500.00

Chris Straub, Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney, stated this was a request to appeal the State Board of Equalization’s (SBOE) decision concerning the 2010 valuation for Individual Possessory Rights (IPR’s) owned by Raytheon that are located on real property that is owned by the City of Tucson. The SBOE reduced the value of the IPR’s from $73,145,466.00 to $25,639,846.00. The potential loss in tax revenue from these actions will be approximately $1.2 million dollars. The Pima County Attorney’s Office and Assessor recommended the SBOE decision be appealed.

Supervisor Bronson indicated that as the County moved through this process, they would try to settle by directly contacting Raytheon prior to filing an appeal.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elίas and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the Pima County Attorney’s Office and Assessor recommendation to appeal after first attempting to settle directly with Raytheon.

11-16-2010 (4)

9. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. CALL TO THE PUBLIC

The Chairman inquired whether anyone wished to be heard on any item listed for action on the Consent Calendar. No one appeared.

B. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR

PULLED FOR DISCUSSION

1. CONTRACTS AND AWARDS

B. County Administrator

2. Racy Associates, Inc., Amendment No. 2, to provide

legislative representation services and extend contract term to 12/1/12, Various Department Funds, contract amount $280,000.00 (07-30-R-138848-1106)

3. Arthur A. Chapa, Amendment No. 2, to provide

legislative representation services and extend contract term to 12/1/12, Various Department Funds, contract amount $210,000.00 (07-30-C-138849-1106)

Supervisors Elίas expressed his concern that Mr. Racy is working as a consultant on the Marana landfill issue especially since the Board had passed a Resolution in opposition of that landfill.

Supervisor Carroll asked that the lobbyists be accessible to any Supervisors that express an interest in discussing legislative matters.

PULLED FOR SEPARATE ACTION

5. RECORDER

Pursuant to Resolution No. 1993-200, ratification of the Document Storage and Retrieval Fund for the month of August, 2010.

Without objection, this item was removed from the agenda.

* * *

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Elίas, seconded by Supervisor Bronson and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, that the Consent Calendar be approved as amended.

11-16-2010 (5)

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. CONTRACTS AND AWARDS

A. Community Development and Neighborhood Conservation

1. City of Tucson, Amendment No. 1, to provide for the acquisition

and rehabilitation of 30 foreclosed units to be conveyed to a community land trust to improve and revitalize neighborhoods impacted by foreclosure crisis, HUD Fund, contract amount $510,207.00 (02-70-T-142836-0410)

B. County Administrator

2. Racy Associates, Inc., Amendment No. 2, (PULLED FOR

DISCUSSION)

3. Arthur A. Chapa, Amendment No. 2, (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION)

C. Health Department

4. Arizona Board of Regents, University of Arizona, Health

Sciences Center, Amendment No. 7, to provide internship opportunities for public health students and amend contractual language, no cost (07-01-A-138323-0706)

D. Information Technology

5. Arizona Department of Public Safety, Amendment No. 4, to

provide reciprocal co-location of radio communication systems per site-specific agreement and amend scope of work, no cost (01-14-A-139470-0507)

E. Office of Court Appointed Council

Award

6. Qualified Applicant Award of Contract, Requisition No.

0901254, in an amount not to exceed $300,000.00 to Jacob Amaru, to provide court appointed attorney services on the Superior Court Felony Panel. Contract is for an initial three year period and provides one renewal for an additional three year period. The award includes the authority for the Procurement Director to approve a future renewal without further action by the Board of Supervisors. Funding Source: General Fund.

11-16-2010 (6)

F. Pima Health System

7. LifeCare Solutions, Inc., Amendment No. 5, to provide durable medical equipment, medical supplies and administrative supportive services, PHCS Enterprise Fund, contract amount $650,000.00 (07-15-L-140580-0108)

8. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Amendment No. 6, to provide

homecare services and amend contractual language, no cost (07-15-M-142130-0709)

9. Michael T. Mayo, D.D.S., P.C., Amendment No. 1, to provide

dental services and amend contractual language, no cost (18-15-M-142322-1109)

10. Mariposa Community Health Center, Inc., Amendment No. 1, to

provide primary care physician, dental, radiology, OB/GYN, transportation services and amend contractual language, no cost (18-15-M-143151-1010)

G. Procurement

11. AECOM Technical Services, Inc., Amendment No. 5, to provide

technical architectural services for the Pima County Justice Court/Tucson City Court Complex, extend contract term to 12/31/11 and amend contractual language, no cost (15-13-D-137105-0805) Facilities Management

12. MWH Constructors, Inc., Amendment No. 11, to provide

construction manager at-risk services for the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility Capacity and Effluent Quality Upgrade Project and amend scope of work, RWRD Obligations, contract amount $7,750,000.00 (03-03-M-141162-0808) Regional Wastewater Reclamation

Awards

13. Award of Contracts, Requisition 1100519 to Weber Group, L.C.

(Headquarters: Chandler, AZ) and Yellow Jacket Drilling Services, L.L.C. (Headquarters: Phoenix, AZ) in the amount of $195,000.00 each for as-needed well installation, development and repair construction services at various locations. The term of the contracts is one year with the option to extend for up to four additional one year periods. Funding Source: General Fund. Administering Department: Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation.

11-16-2010 (7)

14. Award of Contract, Requisition No. 1100118, to Brown & Caldwell, (Headquarters: Walnut Creek, CA) the respondent submitting the highest scoring proposal for the System Wide Biosolids and Biogas Utilization Master Plan Project. The total cost for this project shall not exceed $300,000.00. In the event that a fee agreement cannot be reached with the highest ranked firm, request authorization to negotiate with the next highest ranked firms in the following order: HDR Engineering, Inc., and Greeley and Hansen, L.L.C., until a contract is executed. Funding Source: System Development Fund. Administering Department: Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department.

H. Real Property

15. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 – 282 , approving an

Intergovernmental Agreement with the Pima Community College District, to provide authorization to share communication sites for the Pima County Wireless Integrated Network Project and a Site-Specific Supplemental Agreement, no cost (01-80-P-143465-1110) Office of Strategic Technology Planning

I. Sheriff

16. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 – 283 , approving an

Intergovernmental Agreement with the Arizona Department of Homeland Security, to provide for overtime and mileage reimbursement for the Operation Stonegarden Program, Federal Grant Fund, contract amount $61,046.00 revenue (01-11-A-143474-1010)

17. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 – 284 , approving an

Intergovernmental Agreement with the Governor's Office of Economic Recovery, to provide for the Public Safety Stabilization Program, Federal Fund, contract amount $365,222.00 revenue (01-11-G-143482-1010)

2. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND/OR COMMITTEES

A. Arizona Municipal Property Corporation

Reappointments of Bernhardt Wm. Collins, Cecilia Cruz, Frank Y. Valenzuela, Stanley Lehman and Virginia L. Yrun. Term expirations: 11/19/11. (Corporation recommendations)

11-16-2010 (8)

B. Pima County/Tucson Women’s Commission

Appointment of Marietta Martin - Term expiration: 10/19/14; and Lori Mennella - Term expiration: 8/17/14. (Commission recommendations)

3. SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSES APPROVED PURSUANT TO

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-273

A. Ruth Dormanen, Players Club, 16024 N. Oracle Rd., Tucson, December 4, 2010.

B. Jonas Wes Hunter, Greater Oro Valley Arts Council, d.b.a. The

Southern Arizona Arts and Cultural Alliance, La Encantada, 2905 E. Skyline Drive, Tucson, November 13, 2010.

4. FINANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Duplicate Warrants – For Ratification

Scott A. Miller $ 135.00

5. RECORDER

Pursuant to Resolution No. 1993-200, (PULLED FOR SEPARATE ACTION)

6. TREASURER’S OFFICE

Staff requests approval of the annual certification, as directed by A.R.S. §41-2421, that the five (5) percent set-aside “Fill-the-Gap” Funds in the amount of $1,548,032.67 be transferred to the Local Courts Assistance Fund for supplemental aid to Superior Court and Justice Court for processing of criminal cases.

7. REAL PROPERTY

Abandonment of Sewer Facilities

Abandonment of sewer facilities to Title Security Agency of Arizona, as Trustee under Trust No. 943, for Tax Parcel Nos. 130-14-4320 and 130-14-439B. No revenue. (District 2)

8. RATIFY AND/OR APPROVE

Minutes: September 21, 2010

October 5, 2010

11-16-2010 (9)

REGULAR AGENDA/ADDENDUM ITEMS 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 2011

RESOLUTION NO. 2010 – 285 , of the Board of Supervisors, adopting the Pima County Legislative Program for 2011.

Chuck Huckelberry, County Administrator, explained this was the annual Legislative Program put together with input from County departments and agencies.

Supervisor Bronson commented that it was going to be a challenging legislative session as the state had shifted costs, required mandatory payments or cut state shared revenues to the County.

Supervisor Carroll requested that should the opportunity arise this legislative session, that staff explore legislation that would allow the County to seek private participation, perhaps by competitive bids, in using bed tax funds which have been set aside for convention and tourism activities in the County.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Carroll, seconded by Supervisor Day and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to adopt Resolution No. 2010 – 285 with the addition of the issue as stated by Supervisor Carroll.

11. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: RILLITO RACETRACK FEES FOR COUNTY FAIR

HORSERACING

Staff requests direction to develop a four-year agreement with the Pima County Horsemen’s Association to continue horseracing at Rillito Racetrack through 2014 at an incrementally increased annual fee structure during that period. The 2011 horseracing season will be assessed a fee of $6,500.00; the second through the fourth years will be increased at a rate of $2,500.00 per year, reaching the maximum sum of $14,000.00 by 2014. Subsequent agreements beyond the 2014 horseracing season will be subject to future and independent action.

Chuck Huckelberry, County Administrator, provided an overview and stated that this graduated rate structure would provide a fair balance between the different interest groups.

Gary Davidson, Member of the Pima County Parks and Recreation Commission and Chairman of the Rillito Regional Park Planning Committee, provided a presentation which explained the reasoning behind the Commission’s fee recommendation which differed from that being proposed by the County Administrator. He also gave a brief history of the taxpayer money that had been spent on the facility.

11-16-2010 (10)

The following speakers addressed the Board:

A. Stephanie Maben, Member of the Pima County Parks and Recreation Commission

B. Phin Anderson C. Patti Shirley, Vice-President of the Pima County Horsemen’s Association D. Ebie Aldaghi E. Michael Toney

They provided the following comments:

1. The Board was asked to approve the Pima County Parks and Recreation

Commission fee recommendation so that all organizations would be charged equally.

2. The Horsemen’s Association felt the fee schedule presented by the Parks and Recreation Commission would put an end to horseracing in this area and that they were the only organization that paid for capital improvements at Rillito Racetrack. They stated this year they would be raising their fees and charging for parking.

3. Soccer organizations have been soliciting private donations to operate their tournaments.

4. This property is very important for youth sports. 5. The State of Arizona has swept the funding for County horseracing.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Day, seconded by Supervisor Bronson and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the County Administrator’s recommendation to enter into a four year agreement with the Pima Horsemen's Association and include annual renewals; the 2011 horseracing season be assessed a fee of $6,500.00; the rates for the second through the fourth years be increased $2,500.00 per year reaching the maximum sum of $14,000.00 by 2014; and a financial review of the Pima County Horsemen’s Association audit be performed by County staff to determine if fees could be increased.

12. COUNTY ATTORNEY

Staff requests approval of the Board of Supervisors Policy No. C 6.2, Delegation of Settlement Authority to County Attorney.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elίas and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve Policy No. C 6.2.

13. ASSESSOR: REQUEST FOR REDEMPTION OF WAIVER OF EXEMPTION

Pursuant to A.R.S. §42-11153(B), the Pima County Assessor has determined that the applications for Redemptions of the Waivers of Tax Exemptions for the year 2010 qualify for exemptions under the applicable statutes and requests the Board of Supervisors redeem the waivers.

11-16-2010 (11)

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Elίas, seconded by Supervisor Bronson and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the request for Redemption of Waivers of Tax Exemption.

14. DIVISION OF ELECTIONS

Pursuant to A.R.S. §16-642, canvass of the November 2, 2010, General Election.

Brad Nelson, Pima County Division of Elections Director, indicated that the State had requested a recount of the ballots for Proposition 112. He stated the cost estimate for the recount would be $60,000.00 and would be reimbursed by the State of Arizona.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Elίas, seconded by Supervisor Bronson and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the canvass of the November 2, 2010, General Election.

(CLERK’S NOTE: See attached Election Summary Report.) 15. PIMA COUNTY WIRELESS INTEGRATED NETWORK

Staff requests the Board of Supervisors support the Tumamoc Hill Consolidation Plan and approval to transmit a letter of support on behalf of Pima County to the University of Arizona.

Chuck Huckelberry, County Administrator, stated that staff had conducted three public meetings regarding the proposal and most of the comments received were regarding continued access to the hill for walking and hiking. He explained that the President of the University of Arizona had conveyed there were no plans to alter or restrict public access to the hill for walking and hiking. He recommended the Board send a letter of support and authorize staff to enter into an agreement with the University of Arizona to proceed with the proposed plan.

The following speakers addressed the Board:

A. Dr. Ron Spark B. Betts Putnam-Hidalgo

They provided the following comments:

1. Concern was expressed regarding the public continuing to have access to Tumamoc Hill for walking and/or hiking and it was suggested that a written assurance be provided by the University.

2. It was important to maintain the educational and spiritual source of the hill for the community and it was asked that the process be slowed down until further environmental impact studies have been conducted.

3. The public should be made aware of these types of issues in the beginning of the process, not at the end of the project.

4. There were no final diagrams of the tower that would be placed on the hill.

11-16-2010 (12)

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Elίas, seconded by Supervisor Carroll and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve Alternative 1, which included the following:

Send a letter of support for the consolidation plan and authorize staff to enter into an agreement with the University of Arizona to proceed with the proposed consolidation plan.

The University of Arizona is the owner of the portion of Tumamoc Hill where the new Tower will be located. Letters of support from the City of Tucson and Pima County were required prior to forwarding the Consolidation Plan to the Executive Dean of Letters, Arts and Sciences and the President's Office for final approval.

The Master Agreement covering the use of all approved University of Arizona radio sites will be presented for approval of the Board of Supervisors and the Arizona Board of Regents at subsequent meetings.

In addition, a written agreement from the University be provided indicating that the public will continue to have walking and/or hiking access to Tumamoc Hill and that letters be sent to the list of attendees from the three public meetings which summarized the Board’s action regarding this matter and letters and information regarding this project be posted on the website.

16. CLERK OF THE BOARD: PIMA COUNTY CODE TEXT AMENDMENT

ORDINANCE NO. 2010 – 69 , of the Board of Supervisors, relating to Financial Disclosure for elected officials and candidates and amending Pima County Code, Chapter 2.16.

Supervisor Bronson remarked she would like to have the ability to file campaign finance reports and financial disclosure statements electronically in Pima County.

The Chairman inquired whether anyone wished to be heard. No one appeared.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Elίas, seconded by Supervisor Bronson and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 2010 - 69 .

17. FRANCHISES/LICENSES/PERMITS: LIQUOR LICENSES

A. 10-32-9044, Richard Joseph Fortuno, Skybox Restaurant and Bar, 5605 E. River Road, No. 201, Tucson, Restaurant, New License.

B. 10-33-9045, Brian Edwin and Sandy Ford Metzger, The Abby, 6960 E.

Sunrise Drive, No. 110, Tucson, Restaurant, New License.

11-16-2010 (13)

C. 10-34-9046, Georgios Varnasidis, Athens It's Greek to Me, 15920 N. Oracle

Road, No. 120, Tucson, Restaurant, New License.

The Chairman inquired whether anyone wished to be heard. No one appeared. It was thereupon moved by Supervisor Elίas, seconded by Supervisor Bronson and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to close the public hearings, approve the licenses and forward the recommendations to the Arizona State Liquor Licenses and Control.

18. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: MODIFICATION OF REZONING CONDITION

The Board of Supervisors on 9/14/10 and 10/19/10 continued the following:

Co9-81-94, PIONEER TRUST OF ARIZONA NO. 11,326 – CAMINO CASA VERDE REZONING Request of Garold C. Brown Family Limited Partnership, represented by Jeffery Stanley, P.E., for a waiver of Rezoning Condition No. 10 which states, “Recording of a covenant to the effect that there will be no further subdividing or lot splitting without the written approval of the Board of Supervisors.” The subject site is 9.4 acres of the original 40 acre rezoning to CB-2 and is located on the north side terminus of Ward Lane, approximately 630 feet west of Bessett Avenue and 600 feet north of Camino Casa Verde. Staff recommends DENIAL OF THE WAIVER AND APPROVAL OF LOT SPLITS WITH CONDITIONS. (District 4)

1. The property owner/developer shall dedicate right-of-way for a turnaround at the western end of ward

Lane. The dedication shall be sufficient to meet the minimum Subdivision and Development Street Standards requirements and shall occur within 90 days of the Board of Supervisors’ approval and prior to any lot splits.

2. Prior to approval of any Development Plan, the turnaround at the western end of Ward Lane shall be submitted for review/approval and shall be constructed and certified as complete, as determined necessary by Department of Transportation.

3. At the time of submittal of the first development plan, a site plan must be submitted to the Regional Flood Control District for review and approval. The site plan shall include the entire 9.4-acre area and demonstrate compliance with the Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Ordinance in place at that time.

4. The owner/developer shall not construe any action by Pima County as a commitment to provide sewer service to any new development within the rezoning area until Pima County executes an agreement with the owner/developer to that effect.

5. The owner/developer shall obtain written documentation from the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department that treatment and conveyance capacity is available for any new development within the rezoning area, no more than 90 days before submitting any tentative plat, development plan, sewer improvement plan or request for building permit for review. Should treatment and/or conveyance capacity not be available at that time, the owner/developer shall have the option of funding, designing and constructing the necessary improvements to Pima County’s public sewerage system at his or her sole expense or cooperatively with other affected parties. All such improvements shall be designed and constructed as directed by the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department.

6. The owner/developer shall time all new development within the rezoning area to coincide with the availability of treatment and conveyance capacity in the downstream public sewerage system.

7. The owner/developer shall connect all development within the rezoning area to Pima County’s public sewer system at the location and in the manner specified by the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department in its capacity response letter and as specified by the Development Services Department at the time of review of the tentative plat, development plan, sewer construction plan, or request for building permit.

8. The owner/developer shall fund, design and construct all off-site and on-site sewers necessary to serve the rezoning area, in the manner specified at the time of review of the tentative plat,

11-16-2010 (14)

development plan, sewer construction plan, or request for building permit. 9. The owner/developer shall complete the construction of all necessary public and/or private sewerage

facilities as required by all applicable agreements with Pima County, and all applicable regulations, including the Clean Water Act and those promulgated by ADEQ, before treatment and conveyance capacity in the downstream public sewerage system will be permanently committed for any new development within the rezoning area.

Additional Conditions of Lot-Split Approval: 1. Any and all future lot-split requests will still be subject to original rezoning Condition #10 (Co9-81-94)

requiring Board of Supervisors approval. 2. The masonry wall along the north and west boundaries of the original ten-acre parcel (as required by

original rezoning Condition #18; Co9-81-94) will be a minimum of six feet (6’) in height. The minimum twenty-foot (20’) landscape buffer required in conjunction with the wall (as required by the same Condition #18) shall conform to the Bufferyard “D” standards as defined in the Pima County Landscape Design Manual.

3. A Southwestern color palette and non-reflective painted surfaces shall be used for all buildings on the three (3) lot-split parcels. It is understood that metal buildings are allowed, subject to meeting the above color requirement.

4. The maximum building height on the three (3) lot-split parcels shall be thirty-four feet (34’). 5. The following uses are expressly prohibited on the three (3) lot-split parcels: Section 18.45 – CB-2 General Business Zone Pony-riding ring without stables (beneath the heading “Amusement or recreational enterprise

[outdoor]”) Off-road vehicle facility (beneath the same “Amusement…” heading) Bar Baths: Turkish, Swedish, steam, etc. Cemetery (including items (a) thru (c) beneath same)

Cocktail lounge Drive-in theater (including items (a) thru (l) beneath same) Kennels, provided no such building, etc. Large scale retail establishment Massage establishment Nightclub Pawn Shop Shopping center, regional Taverns Truck-trailer repair: In conjunction with a truck stop on a state or federal highway Feed yard Body or fender work, painting or upholstery: When the site is located adjacent to or abutting a State or

Federal highway (including items (1) thru (4) beneath)

Section 18.45 – CB-2 General Business Zone Conditional Uses Adult activities facility Racetrack or sports stadium (including items (1) thru (5) beneath) Section 18.43 – CB-1 Local Business Zone Auto mechanical repair: In conjunction with service stations on state or federal highway only Bank (except non-chartered financial institutions) Billiard or pool hall Café or lunchroom (including items (a) thru (b) beneath)

Department store Drugstore Gasoline service station (incidental repair only), including items (a) thru (c) beneath Hotel Large scale retail establishment Liquor store Shopping center, regional Taxicab stand Theater Wholesale of oil: In conjunction with service stations on state or federal highways only Restaurant, including a restaurant liquor license (including items (1) and (2) beneath) Section 18.31 – TR Transitional Zone Any use as permitted in Sections 18.25.010 (CR-3 Single Residence Zone), 18.27.010 (CR-4 Mixed-

Dwelling Type Zone) and 18.29.010 (CR-5 Multiple Residence Zone) Motel or hotel (including items (a) thru (e) beneath)

11-16-2010 (15)

Arlan Colton, Planning Director, provided a staff report and requested a waiver of Rezoning Condition No. 10 that would eliminate the lot splitting requirement on this particular rezoning for this particular parcel of that rezoning. He indicated that there had been several public comments, and an agreement had been reached with the owner that contained additional conditions which included use restrictions on the property. Staff concurred with the recommendations that have been made.

The Chairman inquired if anyone wished to be heard. No one appeared.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Carroll, seconded by Supervisor Day and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to close the public hearing, to deny the waiver and approve the lot splits with the nine conditions recommended by staff and the five additional conditions recommended for lot split approval.

19. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT

Co7-10-02, AJOUZ – W. INA ROAD PLAN AMENDMENT Request of Toufic M. Ajouz and Katherine Mather-Ajouz, to amend the Pima County Comprehensive Plan from Low Intensity Urban 1.2 (LIU-1.2) to Medium Intensity Urban (MIU). The approximately 0.88 acre property is located at 1022 W. Ina Road, on the north side of W. Ina Road approximately 100 feet west of N. La Cresta Oesta Avenue, in Section 25, T12S, R13E in the Northwest Subregion. On motion, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioners Poulos, Membrila, Smith and Steinbrenner were absent) to recommend MODIFIED APPROVAL subject to Rezoning Policies (RP). Staff recommends DENIAL. (District 1)

Rezoning Policies 1. Notwithstanding the zoning districts allowed under the Low Intensity Urban 1.2 (LIU-1.2) planned land

use intensity category, a rezoning to TR Transitional Zone to allow a computer software engineering use only shall be deemed in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

2. As an adaptive reuse, the residential character of the property shall be preserved. The footprint of the existing building may not be changed.

3. The property owner shall construct a six-foot masonry wall on the west property line to buffer the residential use to the west.

4. A maximum of six (6) employees shall be permitted.

Sherry Ruther, Planning Manager, provided a report. She stated that one individual representing the La Canada/Magee Neighborhood Association had addressed the Planning and Zoning Commission in opposition and that staff had received three letters in opposition and one letter in support. She explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended modified approval subject to rezoning policies and that staff recommended denial of the amendment.

The Chairman inquired if anyone wished to be heard. No one appeared.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Day, seconded by Supervisor Bronson and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to close the public hearing, approve Co7-10-02 with modified approval subject to Rezoning Policies as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and to direct staff to incorporate "adaptive reuse" as part of the County Code and integrate it into the Comprehensive Plan during its next revision and update.

11-16-2010 (16)

20. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT

Co7-10-03, PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT – LEE MOORE WASH STUDY AREA SPECIAL AREA POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT Request of the Pima County Regional Flood Control District, to amend the Pima County Comprehensive Plan Regional, Rezoning and Special Area Plan Policies by amending Special Area Plan Policy S-18, Floodplain Management, to add a new section to reference and incorporate the June, 2010 Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study (LMWBMS) and to provide for a comprehensive Flood Control Protection Program and appropriate guidelines for development. Planned Land Use Intensity would remain unchanged. The 101,253 acre unincorporated Pima County portion of the 136,320 acre LMWBMS Area defines the amendment area, which is generally bounded by Interstate 10 and the City of Tucson on the north, Sonoita Highway/State Route 83 on the east, Coronado National Forest and Santa Rita Experimental Range on the south and S. Nogales Highway, the San Xavier District and the Town of Sahuarita on the west. The amendment site covers all or part of: T15S, R4E, Sections 31 and 32; T16S, R14E, Sections 1-15, 18-20, 22, 28-30 and 32-36; T16S, R15E, Sections 7, 10-15, 17, 18, 22-27, 32, 34 and 36; T16S, R16E, Sections 15, 16, 18-22 and 26-35; T17S, R14E, Sections 1-5, 8-17, 20-28 and 34-35; T17S, R15E, Sections 1-36; T17S, R16E, Sections 1-35; T17S, R17E, Sections 18 and 19; T18S, R14E, Sections 1, 2 and 11-13; T18S, R15E, Sections 1-27, 35 and 36; and T18S, R16E, Sections 3-8 and 17-19 in the Rincon-Southeast/Santa Rita and Upper Santa Cruz Subregions. On motion, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioners Poulos, Membrila, Smith and Steinbrenner were absent) to recommend APPROVAL subject to Rezoning Policies (RP) Special Area Plan Policies. Staff recommends APPROVAL. (Districts 2 and 4)

Staff recommends APPROVAL of this proposed amendment to Comprehensive Plan Regional, Rezoning and Special Area Plan Policies, Special Area Policy S-18, Floodplain Management, as follows: S-18 Floodplain Management General location: There are several sites within eastern Pima County designated as Floodplain Management Special Areas by the Pima County Flood Control District. They are: Upper Santa Cruz River (Upper Santa Cruz Valley Subregion); Rillito Creek Overbank Storage (Catalina Foothills Subregion); Cienega Creek (Rincon Southeast/Santa Rita Subregion); Wakefield and Anderson Washes (Rincon Southeast/Santa Rita Subregion); Lee Moore Wash, including eight tributaries: Gunnery Range Wash, Sycamore Canyon Wash, Fagan Wash, Cuprite Wash, Petty Ranch Wash, Franco Wash, Flato Wash and Summit Wash (Rincon-Southeast/Santa Rita and Upper Santa Cruz Subregions) Policies: A. Upper Santa Cruz River Special Area Policy: Land use planning in the Santa Cruz River floodplain

from the Santa Cruz County line downstream to the Tohono O’odham Nation shall be based on a river management study. Channelization, encroachment, development or rezoning shall not be permitted within the Santa Cruz River 100-year floodplain or erosion hazard area, whichever is greater, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad, until completion of the river management study. A landowner proposing to modify the Santa Cruz River floodplain prior to the completion of said study shall be responsible for providing a comparable study addressing impacts of the proposed development, based on a scope of work acceptable to the Flood Control District. The study scope and results shall be submitted to the District for review and approval.

B. Rillito Creek Overbank Storage Special Area Policy: Proposed improvements in the floodplain designated to be preserved for overbank storage and located on the north side of Rillito Creek between Country Club Boulevard and Columbus Boulevard or between La Cholla Boulevard and the Southern Pacific Railroad shall not unreasonably diminish existing overbank storage volumes.

C. Cienega Creek Special Area Policy: No channelization or bank stabilization shall be permitted along Cienega Creek upstream of Colossal Cave Road to the Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area.

11-16-2010 (17)

Cienega Creek’s regulatory floodplain and/or erosion hazard area, whichever is greater, shall be dedicated in fee simple to the Pima County Flood Control District upon approval of any tentative plat or development plan.

D. Wakefield and Anderson Wash Special Area Policy: The Wakefield and Anderson Washes’ 100-year floodplains and/or erosion hazard areas, whichever is greater, shall be dedicated in fee simple to the Pima County Flood Control District upon approval of any tentative plat or development plan.

E. Lee Moore Wash Basin Special Area Policy: Development shall be regulated per the Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study. This study provides hydrolody and hydraulics to ensure consistency between land uses, identifies permanent natural flow corridors and establishes Development Criteria in addition to those contained within Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management Ordinances. This policy adopts by reference the entire Study including floodplain maps, flow corridor maps, flood hazard data and development criteria as described in Development Criteria for the Lee Moore Wash Basin Management Study, as adopted by the Pima County Flood Control District Board of Directors on June 1, 2010 (Resolution 2010-FC6).

Sherry Ruther, Planning Manager, summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommended approval of the request.

The Chairman inquired whether anyone wished to be heard. No one appeared.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Carroll, seconded by Supervisor Day and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to close the public hearing and approve Co7-10-03 subject to Special Area Plan Policies.

21. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Presentation by Bill Carnegie, Chief Executive Officer, Community Food Bank, regarding the current state of the food bank. Discussion/Action (District 3)

Bill Carnegie, CEO of the Community Food Bank, provided an update regarding the status of the Community Food Bank. He highlighted some of their upcoming projects and outlined their involvement with the opening of a Kid’s Farmers Market Pilot Project at Walter Douglas Elementary School. He noted that they would also be working with City High School on a community garden.

Mr. Carnegie explained how they would be faced with challenges as their resources were stretched due to current economic conditions and that they were anticipating about a $200,000.00 reduction in government funding. He stated that other non-profits would be faced with the same challenges and everyone was concerned with donor fatigue. Mr. Carnegie thanked the Board for being supportive of the efforts of the Community Food Bank.

22. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

Staff requests approval of the proposed revised Board of Supervisors Policy No. C2.7, Prohibiting Weapons in Pima County Facilities and Vehicles.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Elίas, seconded by Supervisor Bronson and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the policy revision.

11-16-2010 (18)

23. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

Presentation of the Pima Association of Governments Clean Fuels/Clean Cities Program, highlighting the Electric Vehicles Initiative.

Colleen Crowninshield, Pima Association of Governments Clean Cities Manager, described the Electric Vehicle Initiative Project for Pima County. She stated that they were working to ensure that local installers would be used as they moved forward with the infrastructure for the project. She announced that Tucson was listed for their Electric Vehicle Project on Vice-President Joe Biden’s 100 Top Recovery Act Projects and that Tucson had been chosen by Ford Motor Company as an official launch site for their electric Ford Focus in late 2011.

24. CONTRACT AND AWARD: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM

The Board of Supervisors on 11/2/10 and 11/9/10 continued the following:

Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau, to provide for the promotion of tourism, business travel, film production, youth, amateur, semi-professional and professional sports development and marketing for the term 7/1/10 to 6/30/11, General Fund, contract amount $2,565,463.00 (11-71-M-143410-0710)

Chuck Huckelberry, County Administrator, briefed the Board on the proposed contract. He stated the contract should be amended to include a revision to Section 4.4, for a requirement to conduct a performance audit subject to review and approval by the Board. He added that the performance audit should be overseen by a committee appointed by the County that would consist of County staff, the chief executive officer of each major resort in the unincorporated area of the County and a representative from both the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and the Pima Air and Space Museum. He explained the performance audit should include an independently compiled satisfaction survey to measure how well the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau (MTCVB) was meeting the expectations of its client benefactors.

Jonathan Walker, President of the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau, addressed the Board and explained how MTCBV marketed and promoted Pima County as a tourism destination. He stated they planned to fully cooperate with an audit committee and would provide them with any information they may need.

Chairman Valadez inquired how MTCVB compared to comparable communities or entities in tourism.

Mr. Walker stated a comparison to other designations was always difficult because every community and entity was different and unique. He confirmed that the budget for this year would be around 7 million dollars and his staff consisted of 35 full-time employees and 7 part-time employees and that Tucson competed on a regular basis with the markets in Phoenix, Scottsdale and Palm Springs.

11-16-2010 (19)

Supervisor Carroll requested MTCVB report to the Board on a quarterly basis. He requested the Board withhold a quarter of the funding until the performance audit was completed.

Mr. Walker responded he would be available to report on a quarterly basis, if required.

Hank Atha, Deputy County Administrator for Community and Economic Development, explained that the contract was a pass-through which meant that as money was received it was transmitted to MTCVB.

Supervisor Day commented that the Board should have a better understanding of what the money is expected to do regarding advertising and selling Pima County as a tourism destination. She asked for better communication between MTCVB and the Board.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elίas and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the contract with the amendment to Section 4.4, as recommended by the County Administrator, and that the Board receive quarterly reports from MTCVB’s Chief Executive Officer.

25. CONTRACT AND AWARD: PROCUREMENT

Low Bid: Award of Contract, Requisition No. 1100624, in the amount of $9,565,600.00 to the lowest responsive bidder, D.L. Withers Construction, L.C. (Headquarters: Phoenix, AZ) for the ROMP Central Laboratory Complex. Contract is for a sixteen month period and may be extended for project completion, if necessary. Funding Source: Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Obligations Fund. Administering Department: Facilities Management.

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elίas and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the award.

26. BOARD, COMMISSION AND/OR COMMITTEE: PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF

HEALTH

Appointment of Miguel Rojas. Term Expiration: 11/30/14. (District 2)

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elίas and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the appointment.

27. PROCLAMATION

Proclaiming November 20, 2010 to be:

“GRADY D. SCOTT APPRECIATION DAY”

On consideration, it was moved by Supervisor Bronson, seconded by Supervisor Elίas and unanimously carried by a 5-0 vote, to approve the proclamation.