---
The following are remarks delivered before the Oro Valley Town Council on June 6. The remarks were made in response to item 3 on the agenda. The objective of that item was to make it easier to make amendments to the general plan. Under this item, many more land parcels would be subject to minor and not major general plan amendment criteria. A minor amendment requires a 4 vote council majority. A major amendment requires a 5 vote council majority.
Several residents spoke against this measure, including John Musolf and Bill Adler. Shirl Lamonna delivered the following remarks:
---
We’re all familiar with the story of how the Greeks built a large wooden horse, hid their soldiers inside of it. When the horse was dragged into Troy, the soldiers crept out and conquered the city. There are changes before council that would simplify changes to the General Plan and Zoning Code. These changes would make it easier to make amendments to the general plan, by raising the threshold for defining a major plan amendment from 5 to 20 acres.
Such a change is a Trojan horse for "Mixed Use" in Oro Valley.
In deference to the new council members, let’s review how we got here. As you may know, in 2003 the Council tried to pass a General Plan that included a designated land us of "Mixed Use" despite numerous public hearings where residents objected. That plan was soundly rejected by the voters. A new plan was not approved until all references to Mixed Use were removed.
Fast forward to 2011:
I’m sure you all remember the controversy over the proposed apartments on parcel 7-I; the applicant attorney’s desire for an alternate approach to secure the rezoning. Miraculously, a few weeks later, the Zoning Commission held their first meeting to make changes to the major and minor amendment process to add a Mixed Land Use element to the General Plan.
A number of Oro Valley residents spoke in opposition that nite.
The Zoning Commission asked Town Staff to secure public input and to address several of their concerns. We discussed Mixed Use and general plan amendments at 3 of the 4 subsequent Community Outreach meetings. Panelists were recruited from Phoenix and Flagstaff to tout the benefits of Mixed Use. In my opinion, no one who was originally opposed was convinced that Mixed Use was needed or would be good for Oro Valley.
The Urban Land Institute’s Handbook on Mixed Use was recommended reading at our first outreach meeting. It states: “It should never be assumed that a mixed-use concept will lead to greater financial returns or a better urban environment. Mixed use developments can be failures on either or both counts just as easily as other projects.”
Other recent research shows that mixed use development doesn’t always solve the problems that planners and developers hope it will solve. For example: high density mixed use development and lower levels of automobile use are not always linked. Parking can be an issue. Retail space often remains vacant. Even Ross Rulney [a developer], when given an option to wait for Mixed Use several weeks ago, declined and chose to stick with only his apartment plans [Northeast Corner of Oracle and Linda Vista].
Oro Valley is not Urban. We do not have the climate, population density, universities, young professionals or public transportation that might make a mixed use concept feasible elsewhere. Why until today, we didn’t even know how many vacant parcels were in the town or their acreage. Now we know that changing the acreage threshold to 20 acres leaves only 36 vacant parcels out of 211 (17%) to be reviewed as a Major Amendment. If these changes go thru, most rezoning applications will be approved. Make no mistake: the intent of these revisions is to add mixed use - to get these projects approved quickly and to stifle input from a community that is opposed to it.
I will close with a quote from Sunday’s Arizona Daily Star titled: "Tucson Mayor and Council Disregard Constituents’ Desires": “Somehow the current Mayor and Council view governance as a process that suspends the concepts of representing the interests of the entire community … The arrogance needs to end.”
A vote to approve the amendments to the Zoning Code and the General Plan is a vote against the citizens of Oro Valley. Let’s keep representative government in our town and let voters decide on these issues with the next General Plan update.
Leave this Trojan Horse outside the gate.
---
4 comments:
In 2003, 2004 and 2005, I was an active participant in the writing, rewriting and revising the current General Plan for Oro Valley. I attended 95% of all scheduled meetings. As such I consider myself to be somewhat of an authoritry on, not only the Plan but the nuances of how it was developed, what the intent of various paragraphs is and why they were included.
Having said that, I can tell you that the comments made my Ms. Lamonna are very misleading.
She would have you believe that the Mixed Use language was removed from the original documents because Mixed Use was not a desired use in the community. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The ONLY reason Mixed Use was removed from the plan was because there was no definition in the Plan or Zoning Code to describe the use.
An error that is frequently made by folks when trying to interpret the adopted Plan is that they fail to review the Implementation Plan which is a part of the voter approved document.
And when the current definition of Mixed Use was brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission recently, I pointed out that we were several years late in arriving at a definition as it was directed by the voters that we do so 7 years ago. If there was ever a breach of the will of the citizens that was it.
Mixed use is a tool that deserves to be in the planning process of Oro Valley. When appropriate it can be a very beneficial use.
OVOT
Don, I first want to compliment vou on the long service you have given to the Town of Oro Valley especially on the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Don, I would like to point out that your comments on Ms. Lamonna’s Guest View are equally misleading.
OVOT comments:
“Having said that, I can tell you that the comments made by Ms. Lamonna are very misleading.
She would have you believe that the Mixed Use language was removed from the original documents because Mixed Use was not a desired use in the community. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The ONLY reason Mixed Use was removed from the plan was because there was no definition in the Plan or Zoning Code to describe the use”.
Don, you only told part of the story. In the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on January 3, 2012 (about 1:39 into the audio) you stated that the words: “Mixed Use” were forbidden in the pending 2005 General Plan and Strategic Implementation Plan approval. To get voter approval of the 2005 General Plan and Strategic Implementation Plan the code words: "Complimentary Use" were substituted for “Mixed Use”.
However, there needed to be an easy way to get those forbidden words “Mixed Use” back into the General and Strategic Implementation Plan. I
In an attempt to be able to turn what many consider a major general plan amendment and turn it into a minor general plan amendment the Planning & Zoning Commission approved raising the threshold of a major general plan amendment from 5 acres to 20 acres (Town Council has not approved). This had the effect of reducing 211 undeveloped parcels to only 36 undeveloped parcels above 20 acres.
This meant that only 36 parcels would be considered major and 175 would be minor amendments. It would be easier labeling a land use designator “mixed use” as a minor amendment for a developer.
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
The quote is from Sir Walter Scott.
John Musolf
John.....What did I leave out? The fact that "Complimentary Use" was inserted has noting to do with the point. There was a definition for "Complementary Use".
Lamonna wants people to believe that Mixed Use was left out because it was unwanted, bad and rejected. That's totally incorrect.
The fact that the Implementation Plan directed use to establish a definition for "Mixed Use", in the "short term". You go on to say, "However, there needed to be an easy way to get those forbidden words “Mixed Use” back into the General and Strategic Implementation Plan." That is also an inaccurate and misleading statement. The VOTERS decided that there needed to be a definition for Mixed Use.....in the "short term".
We failed to do that for 7 years.
It is my understanding that the SIP (Strategic Implementation Plan)identifies actions to implement the Gen Plan - like annual action or account plans in the private sector. While the Gen Plan was voter approved, the SIP was approved ONLY by Mayor & Town Council.
The term Complementary does NOT appear in the Gen Plan so why did it became an Action Item in SIP? And why rename Mixed Use as Complementary if it was so desirable to taxpayers? THAT is a prime example of MISLEADING.
Further, it just took 6 months for the Town to identify undeveloped parcels within Oro Valley. As of 6/6, the details concerning acreage & current zoning were not available at the parcel level.
So do we even know what properties could be considered for Mixed Use? Who is really behind this push for a new land use element & why? And why the rush given the pending Gen Plan update?
Given that homeowners based - in part - their home purchases on existing zoning codes of neighboring properties, why are voluntary & elected officials placing interests of developers above those of the taxpayers in this Town? I am perplexed by this agenda.
Post a Comment