Public Hearing: OV11-08-04, Vistoso Partners, represented by the WLB Group,
requests approval of a General Plan amendment for portions of Rancho Vistoso
Neighborhood 5, generally bounded on the north by Rancho Vistoso Boulevard, on the
east by the Big Wash, on the south by Tangerine Road, and on the west by the Rancho
Vistoso Boulevard.
One of the "No" Votes was by Bill Adler. Bill sent us the following email explaining his position.
This item has been ongoing, but has not received much attention by the public. Perhaps this posting will generate more interest and more debate, before the OV Council takes it on.
****************************************************************************************
Art:
You may be aware that one of the several General Plan Amendments initiated last year remains undecided. This one has to do with a change in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5. This neighborhood is largely built out, but within the Rancho Vistoso zoning, or PAD, is the commitment to eventually build a golf course mostly within the CDO floodplain roughly in the area from Tangerine north towards the Honeybee preserve.
This zoning allowance is one of many decisions made 20 years ago or more that I've been fighting my entire existence in Oro Valley.
Initially, the General Plan Amendment, and I'll over simplify, proposed to remove the golf course and build homes. Most of the golf course was left as open space, and the area to be developed was proposed for roughly 6 to 8 homes per acre.
When the Amendment went to the Planning Commission last fall, I voted for the amendment because it removed a tremendous element of destruction of a major conservation area - Big Wash. The density was a problem, and I added a condition to cap the density at 7 units per acre, about what exists already along Rancho Vistoso Blvd. We also added a transition buffer between the homes and the wash.
The Council voted to continue the matter. Recently, the Amendment was revised to reintroduce the golf course into the CDO floodplain, but remove some areas proposed for residential development, and widen the open space near Honey Bee. The revised proposal was so radically different that I encouraged the Council to return the matter to the P&Z for consideration, which they did.
Last night, in one of the more depressing decisions I've participated in, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the Amendment over my objections.
Although the proposed Amendment has some positive features, mainly reducing the total number of homes proposed; widening the open space in one narrow opening of the wash, the disaster for me was the support for the possible construction of a golf course within a major conservation area. This is directly counter to General Plan policies that mandate protection of washes. It also contradicts the Town's commitment to finally move ahead with an Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance for which the Town has approved nearly $300,000 for the consultant.
The Commission majority felt that the golf course is already "authorized" by the Rancho Vistoso PAD, and so supporting the golf course use is not a new decision, but consistent with a decision already made. Vistoso Partners stated indifference to whether there is a golf course in the area or not. They have stated that they are losing money on the golf courses they presently operate, and indicate they have no intention of building another. But some Commission members, and a few Council members ( Carter and Garner ) seem to feel that having the golf course within the designation is a good thing for economic development at some future time. I feel destruction of a major conservation area, even if already authorized, needs to be resisted on principle. The few citizens who showed up seemed to agree that a golf course in that area was fine with them. This fact - even if only representative of a few citizens' feelings - is terribly disturbing to me.
I know this is a very long explanation, and it could be much longer. I'm writing because I feel this Amendment is consistent with many of the historic battles between environmental protection and economic development I thought had been already fought. But the fighters of the past are wore out, and no longer show up to continue the fight. Maybe there are a few within your bloggers who would have a view point, if you wish to burden them with these details. Obviously, the matter now returns to the Council, and will be decided at their May 5th meeting, although that agenda is not posted as yet.
Bill
1 comment:
I was at the last Council meeting where the subject of reworking neighborhood 5 was,
once again,(re)introduced. I, as a spectator,left the meeting as confused as ever relative to who wanted what, where, and why. I cannot understand why the developers cannot come up with a FULL, realistic, and contrite illustration as to EXACTLY what they propose along with an inclusion as to where environmentally sensitive areas are in actuality, and,with expert documentation of same. Give us a plan 'A' and a plan 'B' or whatever; just give us a plan as well as the justifications in professional drawing format
that we can all understand. As of now this seems yet to be a merry-go-round.
Post a Comment