A Sonoran Truth Editorial by Gracie O’Malley, April 6, 2015
As I watch the circus that has become the review and updating of the Cave Creek General Plan, I wonder how in the world did the Planning Commission allow the town staff to usurp their powers and legal duties? The Planning Commission is charged by law with initiating, developing, and recommending revisions to the General Plan. Yet, that is not how it is being done in Cave Creek. The process has been hijacked. Ian Cordwell and his trolls engage in a pattern of deception and illegal practices. And we failed to see it because the masters of propaganda successfully subdued the Town.
The 2015 red lined staff proposal of the General Plan has substantial changes incorporated in it with far reaching consequences for the town and its citizens. These major changes, if not corrected, could obliterate the fundamental character of Cave Creek, its quality of life, as well as its very survival. It’s time we do something, seriously do something.
What is the reason for this immense number of changes? Objective? Logic? Will the change improve our rural quality of life? Where is the analysis and reason for the change? These questions must be answered.One of the substantive changes is the complete elimination of any language in the red lined General Plan or the official land use map supporting the low density land use categories of Desert Rural 190, Desert Rural 89 and Desert Rural 70. As written, the General Plan would completely obliterate Cave Creek’s low density Desert Rural zoning and irreversibly change our rural lifestyle. All four Desert Rural land use categories must be included and any rezoning must be in conformance with the surrounding land use pattern. Once the increased density of Desert Rural zoning is allowed it is impossible to reverse. We must each take responsibility for the survival of the way of life we have worked so hard to preserve.
Also, the General Plan must support in language and on the official land use map all Desert Rural categories. This is one of its primary purposes by law. ARS 9-461.05 clearly states that the General Plan shall include “the range of uses existing in the municipality when the plan is adopted, readopted, or amended.” The four Desert Rural categories must be included in the 2015 General Plan to make it in compliance with the law.
The Planning Commission will begin the process of reviewing the General Plan on April 16th at 7:00 p.m. in Town Hall.This issue and many others will be addressed. Citizen input is very important. Your clear voice is one of the most powerful weapons we have in revising the General Plan.
Living in Cave Creek is a privilege, and with that privilege comes the obligation to preserve what we have. I envision a Cave Creek in which we:
* Leave the land better than we found it.
* Reflect closely on the environmental impact of everything we do.
* Take from the land only what we can replace.
* Consider the absolute essential resource of water in every decision we make.
* Make only changes that improve our rural quality of life.
We can stand together or wither alone,
Gracie O’Malley
Citizen’s comments:
“Cordwell is a kind of weasel. Always slipping around behind your back trying to screw whomever but with a friendly and kindly disposition when he encounters people personally. He’s a passive aggressive personality that is seething on the inside but taking extreme measures on the outside to appear friendly and kindly on the outside. Most people buy that shit because they like what he SAYS and pay no attention to what DOES.
Secretly, he loves burying the knife in his victims while appearing so nice and kindly. And, like Don Sorchych, he doesn’t want to be IN the fight, he wants to get someone else INTO the fight and then sit back and watch them carry the fight for him. It’s what psychologists call the “Let’s you and him fight” personality.”
Kerry Smith provided the Town with excellent observations.
April 2, 2015
To: Planning Commission
Mayor Vincent Francia
Cave Creek Town Council
From: V. Kerry Smith
7265 E. Continental Mountain Estates Drive
Cave Creek, AZ. 85331
Subject: Comments as Provided under ARS 9-461.06 on the Draft General Plan for Cave Creek
There are three significant problems with the current draft for the 2015 General Plan for Cave Creek. These problems compromise the ability of the revised plan to meet the Town Vision statement. More specifically the vision suggests that:
“Over the next decade and beyond everything we do:
• Shall contribute to our unique character and diverse
Lifestyles
• Shall be within the carrying capacity of our land and resources
• Shall conserve our rich, varied, self-sustaining natural environment
• Encourage tourism and development in the Historic Town Core compatible with the Town’s unique heritage” (p.1)
The problems described below constitute direct failures to recognize the implications of land use decisions for goals 2 and 3 in the above list. They also indicate a failure of planning staff to do the
2
necessary analysis of current water resources that avoid inconsistency between the plan’s assessment of water resources and current information readily available on impending threats to water availability.
After outlining each of these problems I will discuss in more detail the reasons these problems are serious mistakes that need to be addressed.
(1) The parcel size requirement for two categories of rural zoning is modified without explanation1. These modifications are not consistent with the objectives stated on page 38 of the draft plan that:
“…the Desert Rural category is to protect the natural setting of Cave Creek and ensure development is harmonious and sensitive to the natural environment”
It appears the category of Desert Country calling for a maximum of one dwelling unit per 190,000 square feet (approximately 4.4 acres) has been eliminated2. In addition the category Desert Rural has been modified from 70,000 square feet (approximately 1.6 acres) to 43,000 square feet (approximately .99 acres) minimum lot size.
These modifications will irreversibly alter one of the most important attributes of land uses that Cave Creek provides its residents for the landscapes within its boundaries. This is a rural desert environment with large undisturbed vistas that complement the Sonoran desert views. Once the increased density associated with a 39% increase in residential density on new Desert Rural zoning is allowed, it is impossible to reverse. Such changes create a cascading set of subsequent changes. One of these implications are discussed or considered. Indeed the language of the draft does not acknowledge the significant change being introduced.
The losses likely to be experienced by current residents include: reduced property values and further insecurity in the town’s
1 The draft indicates on page 2 that the Plan does not change existing zoning. However, the amendment process on page 45 of the draft indicates that changes to Desert Rural land use to higher densities is a major amendment. It does not specify how the parcels designated as Desert Mountain or Desert Rural under the earlier larger size restriction will be treated under the new smaller size definitions.
2 See the redline changes on pages 24-25 of the draft
3
water supplies. I document the sources supporting these conclusions below.
(2) The water resources assumed available to Cave Creek do not take account of the well documented uncertainty of the Central Arizona Project water. The current draft cites the 2013 Cave Creek Water Master Plan as the source for the detailed analysis of water availability for future population growth (page 102 of the draft). The draft plan acknowledges that:
“Ultimately the Town’s water service will be dictated by it’s CAP water allocation, its ability to pump ground water as determined by the ADWR, the number of private wells that exist and the amount of person use (gallons/capita/day)” (p.102)
The draft plan notes that current water use is 308 gcd. The final 2013 Water Master Plan assumed either 200 or 250 gcd. Actual use is 25% greater than the estimates used for planning. The plan does not acknowledge the expected reduction in Arizona’s share of CAP water that is likely to arise in 2017. The recent Arizona Republic article “As the River Runs Dry: Crisis on Tap” by Brandon Loomis, March 1,2015 describes that government assessments of the water levels in Lake Meade. These analyses indicate there is a 60% chance that for a declared shortage and the associated restrictions to CAP allocations by 2017. The CAP Colorado River Shortage Issue Brief posted on the CAP web site on October 2014 describes the plans for reductions to CAP allocations to Arizona based on a 2017 shortage. The initial effects of the restrictions on CAP water availability will be on agricultural users in Arizona. Nonetheless, about 80% of Cave Creek’s water comes from CAP allocation.3 There is no recognition of the existence of this planning document in the draft general plan or in the Water Master Plan. The latter was written after the planning document was released so it could not have been expected to reflect it. However the draft general plan should have taken it into account as an important new source of information. This document identifies the priorities in allocating shortfalls. In addition the 2013 Water Master Plan uses 2,590 plus the requested 1,100 acre-feet as the town’s CAP allocation. As of the most recent CAP Subcontracting Status Report (October 2014 again after the Water Master Plan), this added allocation was not made. Cave Creek’s contracted
3 The 2005 General Plan had alternative water usage scenarios. These were not updated in the draft master plan.
4
allocation is 2,606 acre feet per year. Given high likelihood of a 2017 shortage, it is reasonable to plan as if the 1,100 acre feet will not be allocated in the near future. As a result, the usage projected in the Master Plan for the combined TOCC and Desert Hills system for 2015 exceeds what we actually have in available water supplies. Fortunately, a shortfall has not yet occurred because our current population is lower than projected so that even though per capita usage levels are higher than assumed the TOCC used 2,515.3 acre feet in 2013. These adjustments imply special attention should be given to any change in zoning that would increase population in Cave Creek and exacerbate the likely water shortage. That is, changes in zoning should be expected to influence the assumptions about new housing units and population to be served. The three issues are clearly interrelated –that is the density of land use affects the number of housing units that can be built and the people to be served. This change in turn affects water needs. This connection is ignored in this draft.
(3) Under the circulation element the draft general plan identifies six roads as major collector roads serving traffic to more major roadways. Five of the six roads have designations changed from minor to major collector roads. The structure of Spur Cross Road does not meet the designation of a major collector road. It is not paved throughout the full length of the road as identified in the master plan. Moreover, the winding nature of the road with narrow shoulders raises questions about the designation. The recent assessment of Cave Creek’s roadway infrastructure would also raise questions in the western extension of Cave Creek. This misclassification is important because it gives the impression that roadway capacity is able to accommodate the increased density of land use and associated population growth.
In the remainder of these comments I will provide some technical documentation for my comments that the changes in density will seriously impact land values in Cave Creek and that the water use planning is seriously flawed.
Desert Landscapes and Undeveloped Vistas Enhance Private Home Values
My assertion of these effects should be regarded as my expert opinion. I am a PhD economist and have spent 45 years developing methods to
5
estimate the private households’ willingness to pay for enhanced environmental amenities such as those provided by the Desert Rural zoning with large lots and undeveloped mountain sides
4. The most widely accepted method for measuring the economic worth of these amenities relies on the increased sales prices for homes that adjoin land parcels with access to undeveloped desert lands and with scenic vistas. We do not have a specific estimate for how zoning changes would affect Cave Creek properties because they have not as yet taken place. Under these circumstances one must use other evidence to estimate the likely effects. Several recent published studies for landscape protection plans around Tucson indicate as much as a 16 percent premium above the mean sales price for homes that adjoin an undeveloped desert wash that provided a riparian corridor. Several of these studies were used to develop an evaluation of the benefits and costs of the Sonoran desert Conservation Plan. Moreover the gains were not limited to the adjoining homes. Parcels within a one mile band of the protected landscapes gained from 1 to 6 % over the average home prices in another related study of the same protected Sonoran desert. These are not isolated examples an undeveloped landscape that creates integral vistas has widespread effects on private property values. Density increases creates more home sites but they diminish the housing values for the existing homes when the density change affects these landscapes. Moreover changes to integral vistas will affect the attraction of Cave Creek to tourists. These impact are more difficult to estimate but should also be considered.
A few examples of studies documenting these effects are:
R. Bark, D.E. Osgood, B.G. Colby and E.B. Harper, “How do Homebuyers Value Different Types of Green Space?” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 36 (2), 2011, pp. 305-415.
R. Bark, D.E. Osgood, B.G. Colby, G. Katz and J. Stromberg, “Habitat Preservation and Restoration: Do Homebuyers Have preferences for Quality Habitat?” Ecological Economics Vol 68 2009, pp1465-1475.
R. Bark-Hodgins and B.G. Colby, “An Economic Assessment of the Sonosran desert Conservation Plan” Natural Resources Journal Vol 46,Summer 2006 pp. 709-725.
4 I can document if required the credentials substantiating my expert opinion. I am currently advising the US Environmental Protection Agency and have advised public and private parties on the valuation of private landscapes under a wide variety of conditions.
6
B. G. Colby and S. Wishart, “Quantifying the Influence of Desert Riparian Areas on Residential Property Values” The Appraisal Journal, Vol 70 July 2002, pp 304-307.
Colorado River Shortage Process
7
To: Planning Commission
Mayor Vincent Francia
Cave Creek Town Council
From: V. Kerry Smith
7265 E. Continental Mountain Estates Drive
Cave Creek, AZ. 85331
Subject: Comments as Provided under ARS 9-461.06 on the Draft General Plan for Cave Creek
There are three significant problems with the current draft for the 2015 General Plan for Cave Creek. These problems compromise the ability of the revised plan to meet the Town Vision statement. More specifically the vision suggests that:
“Over the next decade and beyond everything we do:
• Shall contribute to our unique character and diverse
Lifestyles
• Shall be within the carrying capacity of our land and resources
• Shall conserve our rich, varied, self-sustaining natural environment
• Encourage tourism and development in the Historic Town Core compatible with the Town’s unique heritage” (p.1)
The problems described below constitute direct failures to recognize the implications of land use decisions for goals 2 and 3 in the above list. They also indicate a failure of planning staff to do the
2
necessary analysis of current water resources that avoid inconsistency between the plan’s assessment of water resources and current information readily available on impending threats to water availability.
After outlining each of these problems I will discuss in more detail the reasons these problems are serious mistakes that need to be addressed.
(1) The parcel size requirement for two categories of rural zoning is modified without explanation1. These modifications are not consistent with the objectives stated on page 38 of the draft plan that:
“…the Desert Rural category is to protect the natural setting of Cave Creek and ensure development is harmonious and sensitive to the natural environment”
It appears the category of Desert Country calling for a maximum of one dwelling unit per 190,000 square feet (approximately 4.4 acres) has been eliminated2. In addition the category Desert Rural has been modified from 70,000 square feet (approximately 1.6 acres) to 43,000 square feet (approximately .99 acres) minimum lot size.
These modifications will irreversibly alter one of the most important attributes of land uses that Cave Creek provides its residents for the landscapes within its boundaries. This is a rural desert environment with large undisturbed vistas that complement the Sonoran desert views. Once the increased density associated with a 39% increase in residential density on new Desert Rural zoning is allowed, it is impossible to reverse. Such changes create a cascading set of subsequent changes. One of these implications are discussed or considered. Indeed the language of the draft does not acknowledge the significant change being introduced.
The losses likely to be experienced by current residents include: reduced property values and further insecurity in the town’s
1 The draft indicates on page 2 that the Plan does not change existing zoning. However, the amendment process on page 45 of the draft indicates that changes to Desert Rural land use to higher densities is a major amendment. It does not specify how the parcels designated as Desert Mountain or Desert Rural under the earlier larger size restriction will be treated under the new smaller size definitions.
2 See the redline changes on pages 24-25 of the draft
3
water supplies. I document the sources supporting these conclusions below.
(2) The water resources assumed available to Cave Creek do not take account of the well documented uncertainty of the Central Arizona Project water. The current draft cites the 2013 Cave Creek Water Master Plan as the source for the detailed analysis of water availability for future population growth (page 102 of the draft). The draft plan acknowledges that:
“Ultimately the Town’s water service will be dictated by it’s CAP water allocation, its ability to pump ground water as determined by the ADWR, the number of private wells that exist and the amount of person use (gallons/capita/day)” (p.102)
The draft plan notes that current water use is 308 gcd. The final 2013 Water Master Plan assumed either 200 or 250 gcd. Actual use is 25% greater than the estimates used for planning. The plan does not acknowledge the expected reduction in Arizona’s share of CAP water that is likely to arise in 2017. The recent Arizona Republic article “As the River Runs Dry: Crisis on Tap” by Brandon Loomis, March 1,2015 describes that government assessments of the water levels in Lake Meade. These analyses indicate there is a 60% chance that for a declared shortage and the associated restrictions to CAP allocations by 2017. The CAP Colorado River Shortage Issue Brief posted on the CAP web site on October 2014 describes the plans for reductions to CAP allocations to Arizona based on a 2017 shortage. The initial effects of the restrictions on CAP water availability will be on agricultural users in Arizona. Nonetheless, about 80% of Cave Creek’s water comes from CAP allocation.3 There is no recognition of the existence of this planning document in the draft general plan or in the Water Master Plan. The latter was written after the planning document was released so it could not have been expected to reflect it. However the draft general plan should have taken it into account as an important new source of information. This document identifies the priorities in allocating shortfalls. In addition the 2013 Water Master Plan uses 2,590 plus the requested 1,100 acre-feet as the town’s CAP allocation. As of the most recent CAP Subcontracting Status Report (October 2014 again after the Water Master Plan), this added allocation was not made. Cave Creek’s contracted
3 The 2005 General Plan had alternative water usage scenarios. These were not updated in the draft master plan.
4
allocation is 2,606 acre feet per year. Given high likelihood of a 2017 shortage, it is reasonable to plan as if the 1,100 acre feet will not be allocated in the near future. As a result, the usage projected in the Master Plan for the combined TOCC and Desert Hills system for 2015 exceeds what we actually have in available water supplies. Fortunately, a shortfall has not yet occurred because our current population is lower than projected so that even though per capita usage levels are higher than assumed the TOCC used 2,515.3 acre feet in 2013. These adjustments imply special attention should be given to any change in zoning that would increase population in Cave Creek and exacerbate the likely water shortage. That is, changes in zoning should be expected to influence the assumptions about new housing units and population to be served. The three issues are clearly interrelated –that is the density of land use affects the number of housing units that can be built and the people to be served. This change in turn affects water needs. This connection is ignored in this draft.
(3) Under the circulation element the draft general plan identifies six roads as major collector roads serving traffic to more major roadways. Five of the six roads have designations changed from minor to major collector roads. The structure of Spur Cross Road does not meet the designation of a major collector road. It is not paved throughout the full length of the road as identified in the master plan. Moreover, the winding nature of the road with narrow shoulders raises questions about the designation. The recent assessment of Cave Creek’s roadway infrastructure would also raise questions in the western extension of Cave Creek. This misclassification is important because it gives the impression that roadway capacity is able to accommodate the increased density of land use and associated population growth.
In the remainder of these comments I will provide some technical documentation for my comments that the changes in density will seriously impact land values in Cave Creek and that the water use planning is seriously flawed.
Desert Landscapes and Undeveloped Vistas Enhance Private Home Values
My assertion of these effects should be regarded as my expert opinion. I am a PhD economist and have spent 45 years developing methods to
5
estimate the private households’ willingness to pay for enhanced environmental amenities such as those provided by the Desert Rural zoning with large lots and undeveloped mountain sides
4. The most widely accepted method for measuring the economic worth of these amenities relies on the increased sales prices for homes that adjoin land parcels with access to undeveloped desert lands and with scenic vistas. We do not have a specific estimate for how zoning changes would affect Cave Creek properties because they have not as yet taken place. Under these circumstances one must use other evidence to estimate the likely effects. Several recent published studies for landscape protection plans around Tucson indicate as much as a 16 percent premium above the mean sales price for homes that adjoin an undeveloped desert wash that provided a riparian corridor. Several of these studies were used to develop an evaluation of the benefits and costs of the Sonoran desert Conservation Plan. Moreover the gains were not limited to the adjoining homes. Parcels within a one mile band of the protected landscapes gained from 1 to 6 % over the average home prices in another related study of the same protected Sonoran desert. These are not isolated examples an undeveloped landscape that creates integral vistas has widespread effects on private property values. Density increases creates more home sites but they diminish the housing values for the existing homes when the density change affects these landscapes. Moreover changes to integral vistas will affect the attraction of Cave Creek to tourists. These impact are more difficult to estimate but should also be considered.
A few examples of studies documenting these effects are:
R. Bark, D.E. Osgood, B.G. Colby and E.B. Harper, “How do Homebuyers Value Different Types of Green Space?” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol 36 (2), 2011, pp. 305-415.
R. Bark, D.E. Osgood, B.G. Colby, G. Katz and J. Stromberg, “Habitat Preservation and Restoration: Do Homebuyers Have preferences for Quality Habitat?” Ecological Economics Vol 68 2009, pp1465-1475.
R. Bark-Hodgins and B.G. Colby, “An Economic Assessment of the Sonosran desert Conservation Plan” Natural Resources Journal Vol 46,Summer 2006 pp. 709-725.
4 I can document if required the credentials substantiating my expert opinion. I am currently advising the US Environmental Protection Agency and have advised public and private parties on the valuation of private landscapes under a wide variety of conditions.
6
B. G. Colby and S. Wishart, “Quantifying the Influence of Desert Riparian Areas on Residential Property Values” The Appraisal Journal, Vol 70 July 2002, pp 304-307.
Colorado River Shortage Process
7
Further musings…
PRESERVE THE PAST…PLAN FOR THE FUTURE
Cave Creek was a frontier town. The date is July 8, 1986, and, on that date, Cave Creek achieved her independence. Primarily due to the efforts of Cheri and John Hoeppner and many others, the spirit of Cave Creek was preserved for the future.
Due to a $60 million debt, it is inevitable that we will continue to face the threats of commercial development. The incumbents are willing to sacrifice the spirit of Cave Creek and our lifestyle for revenue – rezoning residential land to commercial. Without a change in Council, what will remain of Cave Creek – the Cave Creek Museum and the Cave Creek Cemetery? Not if I can help it.
My pledge to the citizens of Cave Creek, I will:
· Hold fast to the General Plan
· Preserve our unique rural lifestyle
· Protect Desert Rural zoning
· Never place commercialism in the path of your horses or homes
In closing, as a tribute to these pioneers, “the 86’ers,” I have obtained permission from Cheri Hoeppner to use her “Ode to the 86’ers,” to be published on July 8, 2086. After you read this poem, you will fully understand and appreciate what I am striving to preserve and protect.
Ode to the 86’ers
A century ago, a group of independent As we look out at the desert, saguaros still
pioneers stand guard
Saved the life of a town now admired From the very spot they first took root,
by her peers their beauty unmarred
The Eighty-sixers were the folks whose And a Red-tailed Hawk circles overhead
votes made her a town admiring the sight
They loved her as we do, they couldn’t Of a new fawn playing in the warmth
let her down of golden sunset light
The Eighty-sixers saved Cave Creek for you July 8, 1986 was independence day
and for me For Cave Creek and all who loved her then
For the Harris’ Hawk, the mule deer and And who share her land today
all that’s wild and free
And the spirit of the Hohokam still dwells amongst To you, the Eighty-sixers,
as, they say A tribute is due
Thanks to all the folks who voted yes, You gave us Cave Creek
who wanted them to stay We’ll never forget you!
By – Cheri Hoeppner
© 1986
Eileen Wright
Candidate for Cave Creek Town Council (shot down by Sorchych)