---
There is a proposal afoot, initiated by former Council Member Barry Gillaspie, to "fast track" development in Innovation Park (East of Rancho Vistoso Blvd and North of Tangerine). The proposal would allow development to bypass all board reviews, public hearings and approvals as long as the development meets or exceeds PAD/Zoning/General Plan requirements ("code"). A project that is being "fast tracked" would be reviewed and approved by town staff only. It is being worked on by the Oro Valley Development and
Infrastructure Department and will be discussed by council in September,
Sound a bit scary? Well, it is. But think about the upside. Fast tracking could accelerate construction six to nine months, speeding jobs to Oro Valley. It would also would make Oro Valley a more attractive place to located versus other communities because reduced reviews and reduced time to construction means less cost to business and a friendlier business climate. In addition, if a project meets or exceeds "code" then board reviews and approvals are really a waste of time.
We think that this proposal conceptually makes sense. We think that the seven council members can probably agree to it.
We think, however, there are many potential problems in implementing it. Here are a few:
"Fast track" puts trust in the hands of a few people: Those who are called "town staff". Now, its not that I don't like these guys. It's just that I don't trust that they will make decisions that enforce the "codes". This is because they sponsor code changes to council that are not consistent with the general plan. For example, they have proposed to change the criteria for what a minor amendment to the plan is. They have also proposed adding an entirely new zoning code, multi-use, to our codes even though voters rejected it in 2005. It seems to us that they want to substitute their judgment for that of the people. Is it wise to give them the power that "fast track" would bestow on them?
What, exactly does "meeting code" mean? If a proposed structure is one inch taller than "code" what happens? Is the entire project immediately subject to board reviews and public hearings for all aspects of the project or just for the height requirement? Or can the "town staff" simply look the other way?
Where are the "checks and balances?" What reporting will "town staff" make on these projects? To who will they make them? If a "voliation' is detected, who will enforce it?
What is the time limit for "fast track?" If a development starts on the "fast track", delays the project for whatever reason, such as the economy or financing turning down, does the project move of the "fast track"?
There will be no public hearings on a "fast track" project. This is a loss of civic input that has been so important to our community.
Finally, does "fast tracking" a project really provide a competitive advantage to Oro Valley such that it will attract business to our town? If so, does the benefit outweigh the potential negative impace of the issues we raise?
What do you think?
---
4 comments:
The concept of “Fast Tracking” commercial development to make Oro Valley most business friendly is a good one.
However, I would like to quote one of your statements in this posting:
“What, exactly does "meeting code" mean? If a proposed structure is one inch taller than "code" what happens? Is the entire project immediately subject to board reviews and public hearings for all aspects of the project or just for the height requirement? Or can the "town staff" simply look the other way?”
Funny you should mention a height requirement as an example of trusting “Town Staff” on meeting code requirements.
I remember the construction of the Splendido Retirement Buildings. The current DIS “Town Staff” was not involved in that commercial project.
However, it was discovered prior to the execution of that project that Splendido would exceed their building height restriction. No problem. Splendido simply dug a basement to pass the height restriction. This is an example of trusting “Town Staff”.
The current DIS Department recently proposed adding an entirely new zoning code, multi-use, to our codes even though voters rejected it in 2005.When a number of citizens spoke against adding the multi-use code, the DIS Department “Town Staff” responded by scheduling “outreach” educational programs to “understand” the general plan and strategic implementation plan. This was to understand the process that is used to define codes. Instead, the four educational programs concentrated on how multi-use would be “beneficial” to the Town. So much for trusting “Town Staff”! It seems to me that they want to substitute their judgment for that of the people.
Is it wise to give them the power that "fast track" would bestow on them?
Giving “fast track authority” to “Town Staff” without any council, board review or public oversight could result in potential future violations being ignored.
This is another example of reducing transparency to the citizens of Oro Valley.
At the very least one public meeting should be mandatory.
John Musolf
I see that some things never change. One of them being the lack of knowledge (and I am being generous here as opposed to claiming that some of the comments are simply an intentional misrepresentation to fulfill an agenda).
Specifically, "adding an entirely new zoning code, multi-use, to our codes even though voters rejected it in 2005." And while I have repeated this 100 times before,it seems, I will not let erroneous information pass without a challenge. Those opposed to the then "mixed use" land use were only opposed to it because it was placed in the proposed general plan void of a definition.
I would strongly disagree with AZMoose's description, "This is another example of reducing transparency to the citizens of Oro Valley." The proposed change is very public, it is discussed here on the LOVE blog, the change is being led by Mr. 'Transparency' himself, Barry Gillaspie.
The mixed use designation was initially rejected by the voters in the rewrite of the 2005 General Plan. The voters did not have a definition of “mixed use” in the General Plan.
To quote Don Cox’s (a.k.a. OV Objective Thinker): “I see that some things never change”. This is true! Let’s look at the Don Cox’s complete lack of transparency or full disclosure. He helped create the code words “complimentary use” (without a definition) to substitute for “mixed use” so that the voters would accept the amended 2005 General Plan.
To further quote Don: “And while I have repeated this 100 times before, it seems” he has pushed for the reinstatement of “mixed use” designation in the General Plan at least that many times since 2005.
John and other LOVE readers:
Throughout the life of this blog I have frequesnly posted comments challenging the facts presented by some posters and frequently by the original blog master. Unfortunately, I must do so again.
The previous posting by Mr. Musolf is 90% inaccurate. I give him credit for getting my name correct and for his accurate cut and pasting of my previous comments.
I had nothing to do with the term "complimentary use". That came from the 2004 Update Revision Committee chaired, I believe, by Mr. Adler, that was appointed to make revisions in the original proposed plan. That committee is listed in front of the General Plan on page iii. It is clear that I was not on that committee. I never met with that committee. As Chair of the P&Z, I was invited to one meeting which was a joint meeting with the revision committee and some other members of the community. At that meeting I did forward the suggestion, which was adopted, that the four findings of fact be removed from the plan and new language be inserted.
Further, until the proposal was recently forwarded by the DIS Department, I have not spoken to a single person in this community since 2005 in support of mixed use. It has never been a topic of discussion in which I partiicipated.
I suggest that the 'moose' do some fact checking and try again.
LOVE,
Don
Post a Comment