Janik: Ways Scottsdale codes, plans get altered through amendment process

From the City’s website:

The General Plan is the primary tool for guiding the future of the city. It contains the community’s goals and policies on character and design, land use, open space and the natural environment, business and economics, neighborhood vitality, transportation and growth. It shapes the physical form of the city, yet it also addresses other aspects, such as community services, protection of desert and mountain lands, and the character of neighborhoods.

The General Plan provides a guide for day-to-day, short- and long-term decision making.

The 2001 General Plan (GP) grew out of citizen concern in the 1960s about how to keep Scottsdale economically sustainable while protecting the physical character that made Scottsdale unique among its neighbors.

The General Plan — along with the City Charter (Scottsdale’s “constitution”) which preceded it — became organic law when ratified by the citizens at the ballot in 2002.

Folks who profit from development, make more profit (in the short-term, at least) with fewer restrictions. Thus, for many of them, the General Plan represented an obstacle to be overcome, rather than a guide to the long-term goals of the citizens.

However, advantage still goes to developers. There are ways around the General Plan whether or not the citizens approve (or even know).

Most of the objectives of the General Plan are pretty vague and aspirational, with specific criteria lacking. Vagueness and confusion can lead to exploitation, especially when a mayor, City Council, and/or city staff are more oriented toward developers than the citizens they should represent.

Since 2002, there have been dozens of “major” and “minor general plan amendments” aimed at land use changes. This is a legislative process (voted on by our purported representatives on the council).

Major amendments happen once a year; usually at the end of the year when citizens are distracted by the holidays. Minor amendments can be (and are) approved at any time.

Major amendments, by definition, have the potential to erode the physical character and livability of Scottsdale. Our representatives on City Council are required to consider those impacts, to mitigate them, and to (among other things), “contribute to the building of community unity and cohesiveness.”

In addition to the general plan amendments (most of which are for the benefit of singular, large developments), the zoning code (which is the direct legislative implementation of the General Plan) has been amended many dozens of times.

Many of the zoning code changes have taken the form of “text amendments.”

The name would make you think these are to correct clerical and typographic errors. However, these are frequently pretty major changes which affect zoning throughout the city, even though many of them are initiated on behalf of a single business.

For example, the most recent one (“4-TA-2020”) would allow medical marijuana dispensaries within the Old Town boundary. The business, which initiated the text amendment request, has also applied for a “conditional use permit” (“11-UP-2020”) for a specific address in the bar district.

I’d venture that the vast majority of Scottsdale residents will never be aware of this change to the zoning code, which is likely to be approved. It is most important that the members of City Council consult with and represent the citizens in this decision making process.

These are some of the ways in which the law (organic and legislative) can be manipulated for profit and ultimately have a profound effect of your quality of life.

Editor’s Note: Betty Janik is a candidate for Scottsdale City Council in the upcoming 2020 general election.