Prescott council denies petition to send major general-plan amendments to voters, directs staff on map, nondiscrimination language and other updates

Prescott City Council on March 11 rejected a petition that would have required voters to ratify major amendments to the city’s General Plan and gave staff multiple drafting directions for the Prescott 2025 update.

The council voted 7-0 to deny the petition submitted by resident Ralph Hess after a multi-hour discussion that covered the General Plan Review Committee’s work, changes to acreage thresholds and whether the plan should include nondiscrimination language in the introduction or in the community-quality chapter. The city attorney told council staff recommended denial; the petition would have changed how a major plan amendment is treated, not the numerical triggers for an amendment.

Why it matters: Council members said the General Plan committee and staff had tried to strike a balance between too-restrictive rules that could stall development and too-permissive rules that would allow unchecked growth. Several council members and the committee’s chair, Terry Sapio, described the committee’s compromise to set new major-amendment triggers at lower acreages than the previous 40-acre threshold so more probable projects would be reviewed through the major-amendment process rather than being effectively exempt.

What the council decided and directed - Deny petition: Council moved and approved a motion to deny the petition from Ralph Hess 7-0. The denial was procedural — staff said the petition would change the decision body (voters vs. council) rather than the triggers — and council majority said that requiring public votes for many foreseeable projects would impede economic development. - Add very-low-density back to the land-use map: Council instructed staff to reinsert a “very low density” designation on the draft land-use map. During discussion council members asked staff to show where that designation would apply and to align the major-plan-amendment table with that addition. - Nondiscrimination language: Council reviewed a revised nondiscrimination paragraph proposed by the Martin Luther King Peace & Justice Committee and directed staff to include the revised language in the plan’s introduction (a majority favored leaving it in the introduction rather than moving it to the community-quality chapter). Council recorded consensus to use the updated wording submitted to staff. - Other drafting directions: Council asked staff to place a thumbnail of the land-use map early in the plan (with a link to the full map), to add an executive-summary (cliff notes) version for the public, to refine the major-plan-amendment thresholds and table after reintroducing very-low-density, to add childcare and YMCA references under community services, to update airport elements (including runway/airport references), and to retain the sustainability, resiliency and climate elements (with some council members preferring the phrase “climate extremes”). Staff said they would return with a revised draft on March 25.

Key arguments and concerns - Pro-petition rationale: Petitioner Ralph Hess told council he believed voters who ratified the General Plan should also ratify major amendments. Hess said his original proposal had been presented to earlier committees but not agendized and that this step was necessary to ensure enforceability. He proposed that “major” be defined to include changes such as converting land from low-medium density to medium-high density on parcels at or above the acreage triggers. - Committee and staff view: Terry Sapio, chair of the General Plan Review Committee, told council the committee had worked for months to produce a compromise that balanced growth and restrictions. He described the committee’s research into how many projects would have triggered a major amendment under different thresholds and said the recommended 10- and 20-acre triggers resulted from that work. - Economic-development concerns: Council members and the community development director warned that sending typical growth-area rezonings to a voter referendum could make conducting routine economic development projects impractical, potentially requiring special elections for multiple projects per year. - Process and clarity: Council asked staff to make the plan’s status and limitations clearer (the General Plan does not automatically change zoning and only affects future rezonings that request different entitlements), to mark which plan elements are mandatory under state statute, and to provide clearer maps and links for public use.

What’s next: Staff will incorporate the council’s directions—adding very-low-density, the revised nondiscrimination text in the introduction, the thumbnail map and clarifying edits—and return with a revised public draft for further review on March 25. No final adoption of the General Plan took place on March 11; council provided policy direction and editorial changes only.

Quotes "When that happens under state law, it goes to the normal planning and zoning process with public comment, and then it comes to the city council with 60 day comment, and then a two-thirds majority vote of the city council to approve it," Terry Sapio said of major plan amendments. "So it would require a vote of 5 out of the 7 members of the council to approve a major plan amendment." (Terry Sapio, General Plan Review Committee chair)

"I brought this to the council's attention because it appeared that it was not gonna come to the council any other way," petitioner Ralph Hess said, describing why he submitted the petition.

Ending Council members agreed the draft needs clearer public-facing material, including an executive summary and an up-front thumbnail map, and asked staff to return with a revised document that incorporates the council's decisions and the corrections discussed at the March 11 meeting.