Scottsdale withdraws General Plan 2035 amendments after sustainability language removal controversy
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA — August 25, 2025

Scottsdale withdraws General Plan 2035 amendments after sustainability language removal controversy

City council meeting featured controversy over withdrawn General Plan 2035 amendments involving alleged removal of sustainability language, approved $225,000 women's final four funding despite event guideline concerns, reversed a historic preservation denial, and rejected a proposed Westworld stakeholder task force.

General Plan Withdrawal Averts Controversy Over Hidden Sustainability Language Removal; Council Approves Women's Final Four Funding Amid Guidelines Questions

On August 25, 2025, Scottsdale City Council convened for what was billed as a routine meeting but exploded into debate over withdrawn amendments to the General Plan 2035, government transparency, and the proper role of stakeholder input in city management. The evening revealed fractures on council over ideological content in planning documents and exposed ongoing disagreement about how city staff should engage citizens in complex facility management.

The most notable action never happened: Item 16, a proposed package of 196 amendments to the General Plan 2035, was yanked from the agenda Friday evening before the meeting, announced by Mayor Lisa Borowsky at the gavel. That withdrawal prevented what six passionate public speakers warned would be a procedural sleight-of-hand to overturn citizen-approved policy without full transparency.

Key Speeches

"These changes were hidden from certain council members and the public until the last minute. Changes included unnecessary word smithing, replacement of words such as incorporate or promote with encourage or consider, redacting the word sustainability and diversity, and completely removing policies and adding new ones." — Betty Janick, former councilwoman

"Sustainability means using resources responsibly so they can be available for the long term. That's a dirty word. The sensors were so intent on banishing words that might be deemed offensive. They nonsensically purged mention of terms like economic diversity and equality in the context of street safety. They censored the word climate. They cut the words domestic violence, discrimination, and homelessness." — Tammy Caputi, former councilwoman

"In a news release late Saturday afternoon, city manager Kaitton stated because the focus is now on state statutes that the city is already in compliance with, there is no requirement or need for the city council to initiate these changes and thus no need for agenda item 16." — Betty Janick, referencing the city manager's withdrawal rationale

"I'm grateful for city manager Kaitton's decision to remove it from the agenda tonight." — Councilwoman Solange Whitehead

Timeline

Opposition to Item 16 (Had It Been Voted)

Number of speakers against: 6 total public speakers; 4 explicitly focused on Item 16 (Janick, Carla, Caputi, Renz).

Main concerns:

  1. Removal of sustainability language: The word "sustainable" was replaced with "stewardship" throughout the environment section, conflating two different concepts (long-term resource availability vs. present-day stewardship).
  2. Censorship of diversity and equity references: Terms like "diversity," "equality," "DEI," and "Golden Rule" were crossed out or removed, representing ideological rather than procedural changes.
  3. Removal of public health terminology: Words including "domestic violence," "discrimination," "climate," and "homelessness" were stripped from the plan.
  4. Violation of voter mandate: The General Plan 2035 was approved by voters on November 2, 2021, via referendum after 20 years of previous failed attempts; changing 196 items undermined that citizen-mandated vision.
  5. Lack of transparency: The changes were hidden from some council members and the public until the last minute and snuck into a consent agenda without full discussion.
  6. Improper classification as "minor amendments": Betty Janick counted 18 major policy items (28% deletions), contradicting staff characterization of the changes as minor.
  7. Misuse of council authority: Four votes would have sufficed to overturn the will of the people; proper process requires public participation and deliberation.

Most compelling argument: Tammy Caputi's statement that the hidden removal of core values—sustainability, diversity, equity, climate resilience, and domestic violence awareness—contradicted the city's branding as a "gold standard of the valley" and a "golden rule city." Carla's distinction between "sustainable" (future generations) and "stewardship" (present care) highlighted the semantic and philosophical stakes.

Organized opposition: None formally organized, but the speakers represented continuity of governance (two former council members), preserve advocacy, and resident engagement networks. Their coordinated messaging over the weekend appears to have triggered the manager's reversal.

Support

Not articulated during public comment, as no speakers defended Item 16. Barry Graham brief remarks suggested the changes were procedural, not ideological, and that allegations of secrecy were "categorically untrue," but he did not argue for the merits of the amendments themselves.

Project Details (Item 16)

Vote Breakdown

No vote occurred; item was withdrawn before the meeting.

Outcome & Next Steps

Decision: Item 16 will not be agendized or brought forward for council consideration. City Manager Kaitton stated that because existing state compliance is already achieved, there is no requirement or need for the proposed amendments. The withdrawal appears permanent, though speakers expressed concern it may resurface in modified form.

No formal continuance scheduled. However, the controversy has prompted discussion of better council communication and transparency on future general plan matters.

Follow-up monitoring: Preserve advocate Carla and others cautioned that similar language removal attempts may reappear; they urged the council to ensure staff transparency and citizen participation going forward.

Controversies & Context

The ideological subtext: The removal of "sustainability," "diversity," "equity," "climate," and public health language from a citizen-approved planning document reflects a broader political recalibration on the current council. Lisa Borowsky administration (and a voting majority) has, over six months, eliminated the city's standalone Sustainability Plan and defunded the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion office—actions praised by some residents and condemned by others as abandoning long-standing community commitments.

The secrecy allegation: Betty Janick and others stated the 196 amendments were "hidden" and added to the consent agenda "on the last minute" without full disclosure to all council members or the public. Barry Graham rejected the word "hidden" as untrue, but he did not dispute the timeline or explain why these substantive changes were not presented separately for deliberation.

Solange Whitehead role: Multiple speakers credited Solange Whitehead "knowledge of the law and institutional understanding" with alerting the city manager to the overreach. Solange Whitehead, who served on the council that crafted the original 2035 plan, appears to have persuaded Manager Kaitton that state compliance did not require the amendments and that proceeding would be poor governance.

Voter mandate doctrine: Janick emphasized that the November 2, 2021, referendum passed the General Plan with over 70% voter approval—a hard-won victory after two decades of failed attempts—and that unilateral council modification violated the spirit of citizen mandate, even if legally permissible.

Other Notable Items from the August 25 Meeting

Resolution 13473: Women's Final Four Event Funding ($225,000)

Vote: Unanimous approval.

Details: The Tourism Development Commission recommended, and council approved, $225,000 from the city's bed-tax allocation to support ancillary events for the 2026 NCAA Women's Final Four tournament (games in Phoenix; VIP events, CEO forum, golf tournament in Scottsdale, April 2–5, 2026).

Comparisons to men's event: Scottsdale contributed $432,000 to the 2024 men's Final Four and realized $581,000 in sponsorship value and estimated $429 million regional economic impact.

Key conditions: Minimum 2,000 room nights guaranteed; expected higher occupancy; Scottsdale to host trophy tour, CEO forum, VIP golf tournament, and receive limited game tickets; Experience Scottsdale to market collaboratively.

Public concern: Brian Scott, a resident, challenged the funding, arguing the event violated the city's event development guidelines because (1) it occurs in Phoenix, not Scottsdale; (2) the guidelines require mega-event status and specific eligibility criteria; and (3) the host committee should not receive regional funding from multiple cities without meeting all qualifications. Scott demanded an audit of the contract and urged the council to follow the guidelines or "break the trust."

City response: Tourism staff (Steve Gigma) testified that the event qualifies as a mega-event (regionally participated, regional venue exceptions apply) and that TDC and staff believe it meets guidelines for funding. Jan Dubauskas noted that Scottsdale was receiving "more than our fair share" of ancillary events despite not hosting the tournament itself.

Council direction: Barry Graham requested a comprehensive benchmark and post-event audit to verify ROI and measure economic impact against counterfactual (would rooms fill without the $225,000?). Councilwoman Dubascus and Adam Kwasman requested follow-up reports on room nights booked and event success.

Motion to schedule work study session on tourism event funding thresholds: Solange Whitehead suggestion (rather than establishing new thresholds immediately), council agreed to schedule a work study session to review tourism event funding mechanisms, criteria, and decision-making processes. This motion passed unanimously. No date was set.

Historic Preservation Appeal: Screen Enclosure at 7635 East Pasadena Avenue

Vote: Unanimous approval to reverse Historic Preservation Commission denial (Councilman Barry Graham recused).

Applicant: Kathy Young; attorney Tim Loda.

Location: 7635 East Pasadena Avenue, Villa Monterey Unit 7 Historic District, R-5HP zoning.

Issue: Young installed netting/screening on a second-story balcony to contain her cat and prevent wildlife access. The enclosure had been in place for six years without complaint. A neighbor reported it to code enforcement; HPC reviewed it twice (May 1 and June 5 meetings) and voted 3–3 (tie = denial per bylaws).

HPC's denial rationale:

Applicant's rebuttal: Tim Loda argued the screen was barely visible, had been up six years, had HOA support, was not stucco or siding (thus outside Policy 13's scope), and was not primarily a shade screen but a safety/pet containment device (thus outside Policy 19's scope). He noted that other homes in the neighborhood have more visually intrusive modifications (walls, patios, pavers, plastic grass) that were approved or grandfathered.

Public support: Diane Frank, a Villa Monterey resident, testified that the hottest summer on record made cooling the second floor critical, that coyotes and feral animals roamed the neighborhood, and that the screen was visually unobtrusive and had no neighborhood opposition except from the neighbor who reported it (who has since moved and been replaced by a supportive owner).

Council action: Lisa Borowsky moved to reverse the HPC denial; Jan Dubauskas seconded. Unanimous approval (6–0, with Barry Graham recused). Certificate of appropriateness granted.

Westworld Task Force Proposal (Item 20)

Motion: Lisa Borowsky proposed creation of a 7-member advisory task force of Westworld stakeholders (vendors, event producers, equestrian representatives) to advise city staff on facility management, scheduling, and operational improvements.

Vote: Failed (motion 1 aye, 4 noes, 0 abstentions; vote count unclear from transcript but motion failed).

Supporters:

Opponents:

Context: The previous Monday, council held an emergency work study session on Westworld after stakeholders expressed concerns about facility scheduling conflicts, aging infrastructure, revenue inconsistencies, and management responsiveness. Lisa Borowsky and Solange Whitehead saw the task force as a way to institutionalize that engagement; opponents saw it as unnecessary bureaucracy.

Outcome: Motion failed. Council directed City Manager Greg Kaitton to address Westworld issues directly and provide regular progress reports to council on infrastructure improvements, event scheduling, and financial performance.

Other Items Approved or Noted

Consent Agenda Items 1–14 (except Item 5): Approved unanimously.

Board of Adjustment 2024 Annual Report: Presented by Chair Jason Chron. Board heard 8 cases (3 approved, 5 denied). Chron recommended future board appointments include members with legal background (minimum 2 of 7) to enhance familiarity with quasi-judicial procedure, citing the Development Review Board model. Councilman Quasman requested written submission of recommendations.

McDowell Sonoran Preserve Commission 2024 Annual Report: Presented by Chair Steve Kuchio and Vice Chair Savannah Engel King. Highlights: updated ecological resource plan; completed Browns Ranch interpretive trail (first cultural resources dedication); recommended 5-year preserve improvement plan; treated 335 acres for wildfire/fuel mitigation (pre-emergent treatment credited with stopping 2024 Dove Valley Trail wildfire). Upcoming: Rio Verde Wildlife Overpass feasibility study, year-one capital improvements, oversight of Proposition 490 parks/preserve sales tax allocation.

Meeting minutes (June 10, 17, 2025): Approved unanimously.

Dog Park Petition Harassment Allegations (Non-Agendized Public Comment)

Speaker: Steve Sutton.

Claim: Sutton created two successful dog park safety petitions at Chaperel Dog Park (500+ signatures, 100+ on parking study petition). On June 1, 2025, council member Barry Graham received an email from neighbor John Black alleging Sutton harassed residents and placed them "under duress" to sign petitions. Black's email triggered a series of 30+ emails (June 1–6) between Black, Barry Graham, City Manager Kaitton, Chief of Police Joe Leuk, Assistant Chief Richard Slavven, Assistant City Attorney Thomas Sorski, and Parks Director Nick Moliner.

Sutton's assertion: The investigation into his conduct, based on Black's "absurd complaints," represents an improper threat to residents' right to petition government and violates his civil liberties. He indicated he would continue his presentation at the next council meeting to demand council action on matters within its jurisdiction.

Outcome: Matter continued to next council meeting.

Persian New Year's Festival Funding Controversy (Non-Agendized Public Comment)

Speaker: Brian Scott.

Allegation: The Persian New Year's Festival received city tourism funding but violated event development guidelines by:

  1. Operating as a private venue (video evidence: organizer stating "This is a private venue. You can't be in here"), which disqualifies public funding eligibility.
  2. Failing to meet minimum attendance requirements (March 1 event drew only "a few hundred" vs. thousands required).
  3. Canceling the second scheduled date (March 28), rendering the contract ineligible.
  4. Substituting a final event (May 17) unrelated to Scottsdale branding: a foreign-language movie screening described as exploring "chaos unleashed in a city."

Scott's demand: Full audit of contract 2025-024-CSC and assertion that the city breached its public trust by distributing taxpayer funds outside established guidelines.

Council response: Councilwoman Dubascus and others noted the concerns; City Manager Kaitton and tourism staff classified the event as a "mega event" qualifying for exception from certain guidelines. The Women's Final Four funding vote (Item 5, pulled from consent agenda) proceeded unanimously despite Scott's testimony. No direct response to the Persian New Year's allegations; matter appears to have been noted but not formally referred for audit or investigation during the meeting.

Duration