Sample Letters to Ann Day re: Vehicular Access off Campo Abierto to new child care facility

Check back here for more sample letters in the coming week.

Sample letter count: 7


Dear Ms. Day,

Thank you for your note on January 3, 2007 regarding my concerns about the access to Block 24/the new child care center including the copy of the Mr. Huckleberry's letter. I have spent a great deal of time and research in the past 2 months on this subject and I am starting to believe that no one has a clue as to what a total re-vamp of Campo Abierto might cost. I have talked to several folks who know a lot about re-engineering, condemnation cases as well as a former School District Superintendent in an effort to look at all perspectives.

To gain access to Block 24 via Campo Abierto in a safe manner and to appease (well maybe) all parties, this one will probably cost CFSD $2M, and I'm pretty sure they have not a clue and I know they don't have the money.

CFSD today has access to block 24 on a safe and underutilized portion of Skyline Drive. Mr. Huckleberry stated in his letter of December 29, 2006 to Dr. Kamerzell 'NO to Sunrise access' and CFSD can't afford Campo Abierto in a condemnation action. CFSD's lawyer Mr. Smith of the DeConcini firm completely dismisses the facts of the dispute and is advising his client as such in reckless disregard in my opinion. He's running up a bill CFSD can neither afford nor should the tax payers be burdened with. We can spend our school district money in much better ways.

Therefore I would urge you -- as unpopular is this might sound -- to suggest to Pima County re-thinking a traffic Signal at Sunrise/Skyline. There have been a lot of technical advances with traffic signals in recent years and I think it is worth a re-look. CFSD has SAFE ingress and egress TODAY with the existing cut on Skyline. The question is really one of convenience for users of the new facility (initially up to 120 pre-school age kids/parents and 25 staff). How many REALLY need to make a left at Sunrise/Skyline??

I would be the 1st to admit that making a left going South on Skyline to East Sunrise is a challenge for even undistracted drivers' (without cell phones in use, etc). Until recently I had never even tried, but have on several occasions just to get the feel of it. It can be tough or easy depending on a lot of conditions and of course, time of day.

However, this is an existing problem created by Pima County a long time ago, has nothing to do with the child care facility and it should be Pima County's problem to fix. If that means a light, so be it.

I would bet MDA would be thrilled with the opportunity to purchase a traffic signal at that location. And even if they didn't, a cost of ~$150K for a signal dwarfs some condemnation action estimates.

Like I said, it might be an un-popular idea politically speaking, but it also might be the right thing to do and I would urge you to press the issue with Pima County.

Things are heating up. The La Paloma Property Owners Association (LPPOA) has engaged an attorney, the Condos of La Paloma have engaged an attorney, Waldemere, LLC has engaged an attorney. I suspect more of the La Paloma neighborhood associations will follow as well. This seems largely unnecessary, but there are some who have now demonstrated sincere passion on this subject, all of which by the way are your constituents.

Moving forward, it will be easy for the different parties to get boxe d in to one position or another and that just fuels the fire and makes it more difficult to come to reasonable resolutions.

As our District Supervisor, I would respectfully ask for your leadership, help and support in getting past this unpleasantness.



Dear Ms. Day:


Thank you very much for your letter dated January 3, 2007, and for the copy of Mr. Huckelberry’s letter dated December 29, 2006, to Dr. Kamerzell. A particularly interesting directive contained in the second paragraph of Mr. Huckelberry’s letter states:

“The County would like to ensure that this access, if constructed, is as safe as possible, and any traffic impacts along Campo Abierto or the intersection of Campo Abierto and Sunrise Drive caused by the additional traffic of the early childhood center are substantially mitigated or eliminated. This may require the District to dedicate additional land of the District for right-of-way dedicated to Campo Abierto and make additional improvements of Campo Abierto up to and including your point of access.” (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Huckelberry goes on to request from Catalina Foothills School District (“CFSD”) appropriate traffic engineering studies or reports setting forth how traffic will be handled at both Campo Abierto and Skyline Drive if Campo Abierto is, in fact, used as an entrance and exit for the pre-school complex. In addition to sending a copy of his letter to you, Mr. Huckelberry sent copies to John Bernal, Carmine DeBonis and Priscilla Cornelio.

My husband and I continue to be very concerned about the impact of the proposed use of Campo Abierto on the safety of our neighborhood and of the young children attending the center. We are hopeful that you share this concern. You have assured us in your recent letter that Pima County “will continue to closely monitor the School District’s plans. . . ” Accordingly, we would appreciate your letting us know who, among the County officials who received a copy of Mr. Huckelberry’s letter, will be responsible for reviewing and evaluating CFSD’s studies and plans for their proposed use of Campo Abierto.

In addition to the safety issue is one that, to date, does not appear to have been addressed. This is the cost to CFSD of utilizing Campo Abierto as planned. Mr. Huckelberry’s letter contains suggested requirements – the dedication of additional land owned by CFSD for right-of-way and the construction of additional improvements on Campo Abierto – that may be very expensive. There may be more requirements as CFSD and Pima County study the issue further. We are aware of one engineered cost estimate of at least $2,000,000 to make Campo Abierto safe. We think the absurdity of an expenditure of this magnitude to make it convenient for people leaving the center to proceed east on Sunrise is self-evident.

There is a feasible, cost-effective solution to this dilemma. One entrance and exit on Skyline Drive, and the installation of traffic signal lights at the intersection of Skyline and Sunrise. The cost estimate for this alternative is $150,000. As taxpayers and voters, this is the alternative my husband and I would support.

Thank you for your responsiveness to our concerns.



Supervisor Ann Day, District 1

Pima County Board of Supervisors

130 W. Congress, 11th floor

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Dear Ms. Day,

I am writing this letter to you to request that you intercede on behalf of your constituents living in the La Paloma communities that will be adversely affected by burdening Campo Abierto, north of Sunrise with as many as 200 additional automobiles, on a given day, once the planned Child Care Center is operating at the planned capacity. Note that the flawed traffic study comprehended only 120 students instead of the planned 200.

Campo Abierto was never intended to handle either amount of additional traffic. When the controversial traffic light was installed at the Sunrise intersection, it was intended to provide protection for the residents of La Paloma, on both sides of Sunrise, and the few low traffic commercial businesses that were located in the area.

The CFSD purchased block 24, from The Murphy Trust, with the expressed intention of providing the area with an Elementary School. Not a for-profit “Child Care Center”. The Elementary School was to safely shuttle school children, by and large with large school buses, via Skyline Drive.

At no time did the residents of La Paloma consider taking on the responsibility for the safety of as many as 120 to 200 mothers and children on a the privately owned Campo Abierto street. Campo Abierto was never intended or designed for such a use regardless of the existence of a traffic light at the Sunrise intersection.

If CFSD intentions are now to be fulfilled, it will require them to make a considerable expenditure. I am pretty sure that they don’t have funds. The CFSD board minutes, clearly states that the $4,000,000 funding for the Early Childhood Development Center did not even include funding for the construction of an entrance, from block 24 on-to Campo Abierto, let alone any additional construction that will surely be required.

This is so indicative of a public funded operation that has little or no concern for spending other people’s money! As our elected representative, I believe that it is your responsibility to ensure that the spending of our tax dollars include well thought out and cost effective planning.

If CFSD understands the amount of additional funding that will be required to follow through with a plan to now utilize Campo Abierto, to safely shuttle little children to and form their taxpayer funded “Child Care Center” it is definitely not apparent.

A much less expensive alternative would be to install a synchronized light at the Skyline / Sunrise intersection. Even though this seems to be pretty unpopular with certain county officials; I believe, due to an unpleasant history with MDA, it should be seriously reconsidered with an open mind.

As our District Supervisor, I respectfully ask that you involve yourself in this issue to an extent to fully understand all of the consequences of the utilization of Campo Abierto as currently planned by the CFSD.


I would appreciate a thoughtful reply. Please don’t respond with a 3” X 5” note bearing your stamped signature attached to the Huckleberry letter. I would like an understanding regarding what you intend to do on behalf of your La Paloma constituents.



Dear Ms Day,

While we recognize the importance and need in the area for such a facility and wholeheartily support this, as residents of La Paloma over the past 12 years as well as taxpayers, we are deeply concerned that the construction and utilization of this facility take into consideration the importance of our concerns in order that we maintain the same level of safety, security and utilization of our West Gate as in the past. We are particularly disturbed that we have to date, been unable to receive assurance that the new facility will not be using Campo Alierto for entry or egress as originally stipulated for reasons that have already been well documented by our Master Board. It is vital that these concerns be adressed in final design considerations in order that an atmosphere of cordiality and good neighborliness be established and maintained.

I will look forward to your reply.



Dear Ms. Day:


My wife and I recently moved to Tucson and are residents of the Paloma Encanto neighborhood of La Paloma. We are very concerned about the impact of the proposed use of Campo Abierto as an entry and exit on the safety of our neighborhood and of the young children who will attend the Early Childhood Development Center being constructed by the Catalina Foothills School District. We hope you are concerned about this as well.

We also understand that Mr. Huckelberry, the Chief Administrative Officer of Pima County, has required the school district, if it pursues this ill-advised plan, to implement a number of improvements to Campo Abierto that are very likely to be extremely expensive. It seems foolish to us for a school district to spend so much of the taxpayers’ money on an additional entry and exit to a pre-school, which is likely to benefit only a small portion of the population served by the district.

For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose the school district’s plans for use of Campo Abierto and ask that you employ the authority of your office to encourage the district to modify its plans accordingly.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Yours very truly,



Re: Campo Abierto Access

Catalina Foorhills District 16 pre-school facility

Dear Supervisor Day;

Having attended a recent meeting of concerned La Paloma residents, I am writing to you urging that you look into reasonable alternatives for the ingress and egress that the School District seems to prefer. That is off the private road, Campo Abierto which is already heavily used by residents and the many maintenance contractors and suppliers that enter and exit at exactly the same time that parents will be bringing their 2-1/2 to 5 year old children to the new pre-school facility.

It's obvious that the reason access is desired is due to the traffic signal at Campo Abierto and Sunrise making it possible to turn left onto Sunrise when exiting Camp Abierto. The alternative that is just as convenient and safer would be to have the main entrance to the school off Skyline Drive. Making this a reasonable alternative would require a traffic signal at the intersection of Skyline and Sunrise. I have been told that Chuck Huckleberry is not in favor of the proposed traffic signal. I and many residents of LaPaloma urge you to urge Mr. Huckleberry to reconsider his objection in view of the considerable congestion that is inevitable should several hundred vehicles be added to the traffic that already exists every day on Campo Abierto. Some traffic light coordination would be required between the existing Campo Abierto signal and the new one at the Skyline intersection but any inconvenience pales compared to the backups that will occur both east and west bound on Sunrise if the children's transportation competes with residents, contractors, maintenance crews, school buses, trash removal and delivery vehicles that are cleared through the guard gate each day, not to mention potentially blocking emergency vehicle access. Back ups occur as the guard calls residents for clearance to allow vehicle entry. That can stop entry to the school and cause back up traffic east and west bound on Sunrise at RUSH HOUR.

Access to the new school through Campo Abierto is a terribly flawed idea when an ideal alternative is easily at hand.

Thank you for your interest and hoped for support.

Yours sincerely,



Ms. Ann Day

Supervisor, District 1

Pima County Board of Supervisors

130 West Congress, 11th Floor

Tucson, AZ 85701

Dear Ms. Day:

As La Paloma residents, we are writing to express our sense of alarm regarding the possibility of allowing the projected CFSD Early Childhood Center (on property adjoining La Paloma to the west) to somehow share Campo Abierto, which is currently the exclusive west entrance of La Paloma. In our view, such a scheme would create a highly dangerous and logistically unacceptable traffic conflict – for La Paloma’s residents and service vehicles, as well as for a multitude of cars with youngsters going to and from the child care center. From logistical and safety standpoints, converting Campo Abierto to conflicting dual functions would be an open invitation to an extremely hazardous traffic condition for everyone concerned. Consequently, it should be eliminated as an option.

Introducing such conflicting functions for Campo Abierto should also be ruled out by virtue of the history of the proposal for the center: plans for the child care center (until only very recently) never contemplated using Campo Abierto as an entrance.

From a practical viewpoint, we find it completely logical and far safer to adhere to the center’s original plans of creating its own entrance off of Skyline. This option would thereby keep the center and La Paloma from becoming tangled up with each other’s traffic. A worst-case scenario would be that eastbound traffic on Sunrise making a left turn onto Campo Abierto could easily get stopped and backed up across the westbound lanes of Sunrise, creating a potential traffic congestion nightmare. The potential risk of harm to all the children being dropped off and picked up at the center should not be overlooked or minimized. And that’s just for openers, in terms of traffic conflicts between child care and La Paloma vehicles.

We strongly urge, therefore, that Campo Abierto be excluded from usage by the child care center.

Respectfully yours,