Solar in Danger: Arizona’s Battle for the Sun


With the future of Arizona’s solar industry and utility rates at stake, the race to fill two seats on Arizona’s Corporations Commission is turning out to be one of the most divisive in the state. The primaries have left Democrats Sandra Kennedy and Jim Holway facing down Republicans Doug Little and Tom Forese in an electoral battle strongly focused on solar energy. The issue has been a hot-button topic in the state since incentives for solar were drastically reduced in 2013, and this election may determine the direction of energy policies in the years to come.
solar1
The Basics

Here are things you should know first:

1) Arizona Public Service (APS) is a private company that provides electricity for Flagstaff, Prescott, Yuma and about two thirds of the Phoenix metro area.

2) The Arizona Corporations Commission is a five-member regulatory board that oversees rates and policies for APS and other utility companies in the state.

3) Commissioners are elected during presidential election years and also serve four-year terms.

Solar’s Successes

Arizona is already a leader in the production of solar energy, second only to California in megawatt output. With about 300 sunny days every year, it is well positioned to achieve the state-mandated goal of producing 15% of Arizona’s electricity through renewable resources by 2025. As of now, APS services almost 18,000 rooftop solar customers.

solar2
Part of the reason this transition has been so successful is that the Corporations Commission has previously maintained strong financial incentives for households and businesses to go solar. Residents can often lease (rather than purchase) their panels, making up-front costs minimal. In addition, “net-metering” policies have allowed excess electricity generated by solar panels to essentially be sold back to APS for a reduction in a customer’s own bill. If the goal of these policies was to increase the share of renewable energy production by providing financial incentives, Arizona succeeded.

In 2013 the Corporations Commission began rolling back these benefits dramatically, sparking a massive legislative and financial battle that has continued into the current election cycle.

In January, net-metering incentives for homeowners were dropped from 75 cents per watt to only 10 cents per watt. Commerical incentives for solar were cut entirely. APS claimed that solar customers were not paying enough to keep up infrastructure needed to power the grid as a whole, while the law allowed them to sell back their excess electricity at prices set far too high. Republican lawmakers suggested that since the state had already met its renewable energy goal for the next several years, the rate adjustments would be appropriate for a competitive marketplace.

The solar industry and environmental interests were outraged. Without being able to offer customers the considerable savings that net-metering had previously earned, converting households and commercial properties to solar would be a much harder sell. Advocates decried the move as an attempt by APS to cripple the industry. They pointed to studies like the one conducted by the Crossborder Energy consulting firm, which showed that net-metering had provided a considerable net gain to all APS users by providing excess energy for everyone during peak (sunny/midday) times, noting that every household using solar was one less household contributing to installation and maintenance requirements for infrastructure like transformers, power lines and other inherent costs of non-renewable energy sources.

The battle became a war in November of 2013, when APS submitted a proposal to the Corporations Commission that they either be permitted to charge solar users a $50-$100 fee every month, or that they be allowed to buy that excess net-metered energy from solar users at only 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Hundreds of demonstrators and passionate citizens, environmental and interest groups converged on a two-night hearing, expressing their anger and disappointment with the elimination of proven financial incentives for renewable energy. The Corporations Commission settled on a compromise in a 3-2 vote that would charge solar users a fee of only 70 cents per kilowatt hour, which amounts to less than $10 per month for most users. But the commission was not done yet.

In April of 2014, after a review by the Department of Revenue, it levied new property taxes (estimated at around $152/yr) on homes with leased solar panels. Customers who could afford to own their equipment were exempt from the tax, but leasing had been the first choice of residential, school and non-profit customers who couldn’t afford the startup for costs of expensive solar arrays. This further chipped away at potential savings. Solar advocates cited it as yet another attack on an industry that would eventually threaten the bottom line of utility companies like APS that provided coal, nuclear and natural gas almost exclusively.

The Arizona Corporations Commission will hold another full hearing on rates in 2015 that could continue its current course of incentive-slashing or deviate dramatically. Both Democrats and Republicans see the upcoming election as an opportunity to staff the board with commissioners sympathetic to the interests of either the solar industry or utility companies. With the future of Arizona’s power grid at stake, neither is pulling any punches.

Whence the Laws and Money?

It is an oversimplification to identify the players in this saga with their party affiliation. In fact, much of the conflict throughout this election cycle has occurred within the Republican party itself.

The intrigue began when credentialed conservative Congressman Barry Goldwater Jr. became chair of the organization Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed (TUSK) specifically to fight APS on the issue of incentives. In his view, protecting the solar industry is consistent with conservative principles.

goldwater“Republicans want the freedom to make the best choice and the competition to drive down rates.That choice may mean they save money, and with solar that is the case. Solar companies have a track record of aggressively reducing costs in America. We can’t let solar energy – and all its advantages and benefits it provides us – be pushed aside by monopolies wanting to limit energy choice. That’s not the conservative way and it’s not the American way.”

The plot thickened during the primaries when two Republican candidates for the nominations, Vernon Parker and Lucy Mason, began voicing complaints that APS was secretly funding two of their Republican rivals, Doug Little and Tom Forese, through so called “dark money” contributions. They claimed that money was being funneled through “Arizona 2014”, a group openly campaigning for Little and Forese. APS declined to either confirm or deny the claim as Little and Forese won the Republican primary, saying only that they could no longer afford to sit elections out.

The implications of the accusation, for those who believe it, have more to do with ethics than legality. With Citizen’s United having opened campaign coffers to corporate donations, no laws would be violated by such behavior. (Another dark money non-profit, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, contributed a half million dollars to Little and Forese, unprecedented in Corporations Commission history.) Nevertheless, many are questioning whether a private, regulated monopoly like APS should be able to financially influence who sits on the board that regulates it.

ALEC is Back

Both Tom Forese and APS itself are members of a group know as the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. The organization gained some notoriety during the international Occupy encampments as models of a supposedly toxic convergence of money and politics. ALEC is essentially a forum where conservative corporate lobbyists and lawmakers write “model legislation” together, which is then introduced in various cities and states all over the country. Last year ALEC exported the “Updating Net Metering Policies Resolution” to its more than 2,000 legislators, which recommended most of the recent cuts to solar incentives that APS and the Corporations Commission have conducted. APS publicly left ALEC in April of 2012 (along with other members) when its practices were first widely criticized. A few months later it quietly joined again, and is now spearheading what appears to be a rollback of solar incentives all across the country.

Alternatives

The single-issue controversy surrounding the campaign, especially in the Republican camp, has left Democratic candidates Sandra Kennedy and Jim Holway in a position to keep their message simple: Protect solar energy. “Let’s make Arizona the new solar capital!” says Holway’s campaign material, while Kennedy’s campaign website, sandraforsolar.com, is even less ambiguous.

Kennedy was already elected to one term on the Corporations Commission in 2008, but narrowly lost reelection in 2012. She claims that the attacks by the commission on solar and other renewable energies is what has spurred her to run again, and is clearly making the issue her priority. Holway has spent the last four years as Maricopa County’s elected representative to the Central Arizona Project, which diverts the Colorado river to Pima, Pinal and Maricopa counties, while simultaneously serving as director of the Western Lands and Communities Project.  He is calling for all dark money contributions to stop.

In what could be a final twist to the story, it now appears possible that Kennedy and Holway could win the election by default. The Arizona Democratic Party has filed an official complaint with the Clean Elections Commission, claiming that both Little and Forese violated campaign finance law by failing to properly report the money paid to companies for obtaining the signatures that got them on the ballot. If financial violations for either candidate end up totaling more than $24,000, Arizona state law will require them to be removed from the race altogether.

If not, the voters may determine the future of the state’s solar energy in November.

Advertisements

Next Steps on Landmark / Arrowhead Village

Great Flagstaff Speak Up meeting tonight, folks!  Anyone interested in working on the action items listed in this post should contact us via the Facebook group page as soon as possible so we can hook you up with others who are also interested!

First, we watched the video that represented both a victory and the most tense moments of City Council in recent memory: the withdrawal of the Landmark project.

We then watched an edited down version of the Mayor’s interview the following day, in which he explains his perspective on the contentious meeting and what might happen in the near future.

After that, everyone present discussed what would be done to continue the work on this issue.  There were four action items that came up several times as most important:

Research Upcoming Displacement Ordinance
City Council has agreed to look into a displacement ordinance for Flagstaff, but what does this mean?  What will it look like?  How can the community influence what it will look like?  At least two folks have decided to look into this and report back to the group.

–  Voting Campaign
It was noted that in order to bring the displacement ordinance before council quickly, four members would have to motion to bring it forward, and that there probably aren’t four members of council willing to do so.  That means that the upcoming elections matter a great deal.  Folks were already going to be working on election issues, but this solidified a very specific need to do so.

La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Plan
La Plaza Vieja has been working on a neighborhood plan for years.  It was not officially certified by council because the Regional Plan got pushed to the forefront of the agenda, but once it is done – which could be only a couple of months – the P&Z Commission and City Council will have to take it into consideration when deciding any future rezoning requests in the neighborhood.  Several members of Speak Up who live in La Plaza Vieja have been discussing attending the monthly meetings of the neighborhood association and offering any assistance possible for this and other purposes.

Research Low Income Housing in Flagstaff
One member of Speak Up has decided to look into the current state of low income housing in the city.  What has been done?  What hasn’t been done?  What can be done?

Other ideas were as follows:

– La Plaza Vieja / Arrowhead Village Block Party!
Stay tuned for the date of this event, when the residents and people working to support them can come out, meet each other, and find out the best ways to be allies.

– Housing Trust Fund
Some Flagstaff folks are interested in looking into how to reestablish a housing trust fund in the city.

If anyone is interested in working on any of these ideas or projects, let us know!

Planning & Zoning: A Six-Hour Process Gone Awry

p&z
Well over a hundred people showed up to last week’s Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to speak out against the rezoning of Arrowhead Village for the Landmark student housing project.  The crowd was so large that people began to line up along all walls of the building.

p&z2

Unfortunately, the democratic process failed many of these Flagstaff citizens who had taken time out of a weekday / work night to participate.

“A 4 1/2 Hour Filibuster”

While scheduled to begin at 4:00, the commissioners did not even convene until a half hour later – when they immediately went into executive session.  The meeting did not actually begin until about an hour after it’s scheduled start.  At that time, there was a presentation by city zoning staff concerning details of the rezoning request that lasted another considerable length of time.  This was followed by another half-hour video presentation by Landmark on relocation assistance for Arrowhead Village residents.  Then Landmark’s traffic consulting firm also gave a presentation, only partially related to traffic.  After this, Landmark’s lawyer got up and regaled those assembled with the story of his own educational background, the economic downturn of 2007 and trends in student housing.

It was almost 5 hours before public comment even started, forcing many of those who had shown up to speak about their concerns to leave.  Those whose schedules, children and patience allowed them to stay were able to contribute and listen to almost 2 more hours of public comment against the development on topics ranging from traffic, relocation, conflicts with Flagstaff’s Regional Plan, affordable housing and others.

After having been granted this much of the public’s time already, Landmark’s lawyer was then invited to give a “rebuttal” to the public comments, to which no response was allowed by the public.

After over 6 hours, the commission ruled to postpone the vote to another night, when public comment would not be accepted.

Translation Services

It was most unfortunate that despite an approved request for translation services at the Planning and Zoning meeting, there was a failure to provide the service by the city. This not only only slowed down the meeting dramatically, but made residents feel as though they were not being valued in the decision-making process. (Again.) After the Spanish broadcasting (through headsets) at the meeting failed, a nonprofit organization ended up driving across town to provide their own headphone devices for official city use.

This has been a long-standing issue in this story. A large portion of the residents of Arrowhead Village speak Spanish as their primary language. One of the first problems they encountered with Landmark was the failure of the company to provide translation at their first and second open meetings. This left many of the people who were most directly affected by the project unable to understand what was being said or communicate effectively in return.

This is why an official request was made for translation at the Planning and Zoning meeting. Unfortunately, the equipment failed. This is not the fault of any member of the P&Z commission, but it speaks ill of how seriously the need for inclusion was taken for this process.

“Compatibility With Community”

The rezoning of the Arrowhead Village homes to a Highway Commercial designation is – like all rezoning – discretionary.  This means that there is no hard and fast law determining whether any given rezoning will be granted.  Rather, there is a collection of standards which guide the process.  Those who spoke out against Landmark’s development addressed the way that many of those standards would be violated by Landmark’s student housing development.  One standard that must be considered, according to the Planning and Zoning code, is compatibility with the community.  It is for this reason and others that input from the public about projects like this are of utmost importance.  While Speak Up recognizes that there will inevitably be presentations in such meetings to bring commissioners up to speed on the primary questions surrounding any proposal, it is unacceptable for the public to be left waiting so long, or left so unable to communicate, that their voices are lost and their confidence in the democratic process is diminished.

 

“Landmark Leaks: Project Degrades Rt. 66 Traffic to ‘F’ Rating”

LandmarkTraffic

Transportation agencies note the traffic congestion and wait times on roads with an LOS (level of service) rating.  This grade ranges from A at best to F at worst, like high school.

The Landmark project degrades this area of Rt. 66 to an F rating, which signifies a condition of “forced breakdown or flow” in which “every vehicle moves in lockstep with the vehicle in front of it, with frequent slowing required. Travel time cannot be predicted, with generally more demand than capacity.”  The citizens of Flagstaff know how terrible traffic can be along Rt. 66 in the area of Butler and Milton already, often waiting 15 minutes to move a single mile.

Do we really want to waste more time, burn more fossil fuels and cause safety concerns for the 650 students that will need to cross the highway to get to NAU?

The city’s Planning and Zoning Commission will take up this question on June 11th. 
Got something to say about it?

Let them know!  Paste these addresses into an email with your concerns!
bkulina@flagstaffaz.gov, msawyers@flagstaffaz.gov, council@flagstaffaz.gov

Then meet us at City Hall, June 11th @ 4PM!

The Landmark Leaks: Danger Ahead

landmarkleaks1

According to emails obtained by Speak Up, the engineering company working on Landmark’s student housing project (which is owned by Flagstaff City Councilmember Mark Woodson) says the Rt 66 intersection at the site is too dangerous to even install a pedestrian crosswalk for the 650 students who will need to cross the road.  It cites “sight distance” and “approach speed concerns” as the primary reasons.

In other words, cars don’t have enough time to see the crosswalk, and they’re traveling too fast. Sounds dangerous.  The solution?

The developer plans to complete a study of what might be done a full year after 650 students have been crossing the street there.

Note to Planning and Zoning Commission: THAT’S NOT PLANNING.

Let them know!  Paste these addresses into an email with your concerns! bkulina@flagstaffaz.gov, msawyers@flagstaffaz.gov, council@flagstaffaz.gov Comments must be in by Wednesday, June 4th!

Then meet us at City Hall, July 11th @ 4PM!

Razing Affordability: How a Student Housing Project Turned Into a Political Minefield

The following article appeared in the May issue of The Noise, an arts, entertainment and news outlet covering Northern Arizona.

5_sm_alt

On February 11 of this year, the public comment portion of Flagstaff’s City Council meeting erupted in an outpouring of grievances that marked what has quickly become the most controversial social and legal issue in the city. The speakers were residents of Arrowhead Village, a Flagstaff trailer park where Georgia-based Landmark Properties plans to remove their mobile homes to build a 650-bed luxury student housing complex.

The frustrated, pleading testimony to City Council came after Landmark Properties hosted an open informational meeting with Arrowhead residents, who showed up to find out whatever details they could about the fate of their homes. As the following City Council meeting made clear, they were quite unsatisfied with the results.

Resident Anna Maria Velasco Ortiz was first to the microphone. “It was a total waste of time. Landmark could not or would not answer the questions that we had.” After her comments, a line of other long-term residents of Arrowhead came forward, each of them echoing Ortiz’s sentiments that no real answers had been given.

6_sm

Children of Arrowhead Village arrive home from school.

Most spoke through a translator – a service not provided for residents at the Landmark meeting – pleading with council to consider what the demolition of Arrowhead Village would mean for their families. “This news affects not just us, but our children,” said one long-term resident. Others questioned whether the financial conditions of their displacement would even allow them to remain in Flagstaff.

City Council candidate Jim McCarthy also attended the meeting, and has since taken a formal position against the housing development.  He agrees that Landmark could have done better at communicating with residents. “I don’t know if they were really prepared for the meeting. I did ask a couple of questions to company representatives and did not get answers that were well thought out.”

Mr. McCarthy says that the sheer quantity of people who showed up to Landmark’s open meeting reveals why the displacement of Arrowhead Village will be the hot-button issue of the year. “There were a lot of people there. Hundreds of people. Most planning and zoning issues, nobody shows up. This thing is very controversial.” The momentum to address the issue has been channeled into City Council meetings, a trend Mr. McCarthy expects to continue. “There are essentially people every week that stand up and talk about their concerns for this project, and there are a lot of people there. They’re going to fill up the room. I can see it coming. They come close when it isn’t even on the agenda.”

Zoning Out

Arrowhead Village is comprised of 56 families who own their mobile homes, but rent the lots on which those homes sit for about $285/month plus utilities. Though City Council has no control over whether the owner of Arrowhead sells the property to Landmark, the construction of the student housing project requires rezoning of the property from mobile home status to “highway commercial”.

One of the project’s most vocal opponents is Friends of Flagstaff’s Future (F3), an organization dedicated to “advocacy of policies supporting a livable community”. Director Moran Henn points out that the rezoning required for Landmark’s project makes the Arrowhead Village issue a public concern. “I think it’s very important to understand that this is not about private property rights. When a landowner asks for rezoning, that becomes a community issue.”

Having served six years on the Planning and Zoning Commission, Jim McCarthy agrees, and says that one of the first things these commissions generally do when considering rezoning proposals is to see if a neighborhood plan exists. Arrowhead sits in the La Plaza Vieja neighborhood, where the final draft of an official, 75-page neighborhood plan was completed in 2011 after more than three years of work. Unfortunately, one particular part of the plan seems to have generated as much confusion as clarity about what the community envisions for the area.

The “Tier 3” Question

La Plaza Vieja (“The Old Town”) is Flagstaff’s original settlement, taking its name when a series of fires in 1883 forced the city’s train depot to move a half-mile east, to where it remains today. (The new location was first dubbed “New Town”, but eventually adopted “Flagstaff”.) La Plaza Vieja became a settling place for Mexican immigrants who worked on the railroad and in lumber mills, and has always had a strong Mexican-American culture, a trend still evidenced today by the almost exclusively Latino families that occupy Arrowhead. La Plaza Vieja’s neighborhood association, which is open to the public, views its official plan primarily as a way to preserve “a safe neighborhood which respects and preserves the cultural dignity” of the area.

Landmark’s representative, Joe Villasenor, tells me that any discussion about rezoning should take into consideration that the student housing project fits nicely with this official neighborhood plan. “Everything we’re doing is in conformance with the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Plan. We’ve been looking at it and using it as a guide. That’s the really important piece that I think people are missing here.”

Mr. Villasenor seems to be referring to a section of the plan titled “Mobile Home Redevelopment”, which contains the following suggestions for the Arrowhead Village mobile home park:

Tier 1 – Install a sidewalk and street trees along Blackbird Roost
Tier 2 – Replace uninhabitable structures with habitable ones
Tier 3 – Complete redevelopment plan, but ONLY with residential relocation plan

Laura Myers, the neighborhood association’s outreach director, says that Mr. Villasenor is simply wrong. “What we were wanting was another mobile home park, not five-story, 650-bed student housing.” When I ask her whether Landmark’s plan could be considered to fit the Tier 3 “complete redevelopment” category, she acknowledges that it may seem that way, but insists that this was not their intention. “Any sentence is up for interpretation. I can interpret any sentence one way and you another. But a new and up-to-date mobile home park is what we were talking about.”

To support her claim, she shows me a report from a 2008 “visioning session” during which the neighborhood plan was being developed. Under a heading titled “Prioritize Goals and Strategies”, one relevant item stands out: “Upgrade mobile homes”. Ms. Myers also shows me a letter that is currently being distributed by the neighborhood association to residents of La Plaza Vieja. It seems to make their stance on the issue very clear: “It is extremely important that we band together as a neighborhood and let the City Council and the developer know that this project, as proposed, does not belong in La Plaza Vieja neighborhood!”

The letter addresses issues of affordable housing (sorely lacking in Flagstaff), building design, traffic in a neighborhood already sealed off by a busy Rt. 66, the safety of hundreds of students crossing the 4-lane highway many times every day, and other concerns.


Living With NAU

NAU is not involved in the Landmark development deal directly, but it is arguably the school’s booming enrollment that is causing student housing developers like Landmark to see financial opportunities in surrounding neighborhoods. NAU has an official enrollment goal of 25,531 by the year 2020, and it is well on its way to surpassing that number. This has put considerable strains on the on-campus housing units, which can only hold 8,600. A Resident Assistant who wishes to remain anonymous tells me that this past semester was especially bad, with some students forced to bunk in various lounges, common areas and exercise rooms, in some cases with up to 4 other people. This was confirmed by another student employee.

Some of this overcrowding may be alleviated in the coming semester when several new residence halls will bring on-campus housing capacity to 9,000, but Moran Henn of F3 says that the general outward expansion into other communities was what originally grabbed their attention about Landmark’s plan for Arrowhead Village. “Even before we realized there was going to be displacement of residents, we came to this issue because it’s a historic neighborhood, and when you add 650 units of student housing into a single story historic neighborhood that’s already congested with traffic… that’s why we came to this issue in the first place.”

Laura Myers of the neighborhood association tells me that NAU bears some financial responsibility for the housing needs of students it draws to the area. “They are able to get capital for other projects. We want to see them get the capital they need to make student and resident housing on campus, or on their own property. They’re involved in educating these students and have no idea how this is affecting neighborhoods.”

In the same week that The Arizona Daily Sun first reported on Landmark’s plans for Arrowhead Village, it also printed a seemingly unrelated story on The Grove, another of Landmark’s student housing developments in Flagstaff. Police arrived at The Grove that night to find 200-300 people dancing and drinking alcohol in the street. The ground was littered with trash, and they claimed to have seen at least one person throwing glass bottles from a second story window onto the sidewalks below. Police could not get in touch with management at The Grove, and were unable to even determine who lived in the unit from which the party had spilled.

They were back only a few hours later to break up another party, where a partially clothed 18-year-old woman was found nearly dead of alcohol poisoning in a shower. A friend was holding her to “keep her from choking on her vomit again”.

The night in question took place on Homecoming weekend, which is notorious for its heavy drinking, but Moran seems to suggest that this is an exaggerated example of student culture that often causes problems for neighborhoods in which they are located. “The reason people want to move off-campus is that they don’t want to follow the regulations and alcohol restrictions that on-campus housing has, and it’s the communities that bear the brunt of living next door to these developments.”

Landmark representative Joe Villasenor views their role quite differently. “At the first open house meeting [with Arrowhead residents], there had to be 30-40 students there. The comments they left on the cards were compelling, because many of them talked about the deplorable conditions of housing outside the campus. Leaks in the roofs, windows ripped out, just crazy stuff that they’re living in during winter months up there.” He believes that The Grove and the proposed project at Arrowhead Village is providing safer, more comfortable housing for students who would otherwise get much less for the same price.

Compensation

Still, much of the controversy surrounding the Landmark plan is focused on the residents who will be forced to move. Only 24 hours before this article’s deadline, Landmark held another meeting with residents to address criticisms leveled at their first attempt. Mr. Villasenor claimed that word of the student housing project became public earlier than Landmark had anticipated, before they had opportunity to solidify the details that residents were eager to know.

The presentation made clear, for the first time, precise monetary amounts that Arrowhead Village residents would be compensated for the displacement. Though the details are somewhat complex, they primarily include the following awards:

– Relocation Fund: $1250 for a single-wide trailer, $2500 for a double-wide
– Moving Allowance: Based on the number of rooms with furniture, from $700 for one room to $1100 for five rooms

– Six Months Rent at Arrowhead Rates: $1710
– Rental / Down Payment Assistance: up to $6750, which Landmark claims is the difference between Arrowhead rates and the average mobile home park rate in Flagstaff over 42 months


The total ends up being between $7,000 and $10,000 per trailer, assuming that the residents can prove ownership. Mr. Villasenor insists that Landmark is going above and beyond the federal standard to accommodate the Arrowhead Village residents who will be displaced. Federal law, for instance, requires that anyone who receives moving assistance be a US Citizen. “We have determined that citizenship, to us, does not matter. My client has said ‘We will treat everybody fairly.’”

But Ms. Henn of F3 says that financial compensation is not the sole concern, and that regardless of what is being offered in the short-term, there won’t be compensation that will allow them to remain in Flagstaff for longer than the rental assistance lasts. “The people of Arrowhead have told us that even if by some miracle they could find somewhere as cheap, it would be a 30-minute drive. [Arrowhead Village] is a location where they can walk to work, walk to school and public transportation is available.” One 14-year Arrowhead resident at the February council meeting testified to this, saying, “I can’t drive, and I have to go to the laundromat, to Safeway, to the dollar store.”


The Battle Ahead

If opponents of the Landmark plan are to succeed in stopping its implementation, they will have to prevent the property from being rezoned for “highway commercial” use by the city. This will be discussed and voted on in three public meetings:

June 11th: a public hearing/vote before the Planning and Zoning Commission

July 1st: first hearing before City Council

July 15th: final hearing/vote before City Council

Jim McCarthy says that even if Landmark’s plan is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, a close vote could cause City Council to think harder about its own decision. “The outcome is not preordained. This could go either way.”