Last week, the Oro Valley Town Council approved a general plan amendment by a 5-2 vote. They amended the general plan to allow medium density residential construction on a very small 4.9 acre parcel at Moore and La Canada. The property was planned for neighborhood commercial.
The actual lot size is a bit over 5.0 acres. However, the applicant requested a designation change of less than 5.0 acres so that the request would be a minor general plan amendment, requiring a 4 vote majority. It it were 5 or more acres, the request would have been a major general plan amendment requiring 5 votes. In this case, given the 5-2 vote, it would not have mattered.
Only Oro Valley planner David Williams stated opposition to the change. Williams observed that the general plan anticipated that people would walk to commercial services in the area once neighborhood buildout was complete. That is why the property was planned for neighborhood commercial. Buildout is only now occurring.
The neighbors agreed with the change. They don't wan't commercial property in the area. They would like homes, similar to theirs. They are not interested in walking to services.
Council Member Garner agreed with Williams. Garner noted that a change of this nature does impact the community because it is a reduction in potential commercial property and, consequently, potential future sales tax revenue.
Mayor Hiremath observed that there is no guarantee that the property would have commercial property or it that would generate sales tax revenue. He also noted that, according to the developer, there has never been any commercial interest in the property. Council Member Snider noted that there will be major commercial property on Tangerine which, as Williams noted, about a mile away from this property. People can walk or bike there if they want.
On the surface, approval of this amendment seems to be a "slam dunk." The neighbors want it. The market "demands" it. There will be other commercial "nearby."
But, is it really a "slam dunk?"
What of the wishes of the voters who approved the general plan? Where was the consideration of their vote? They approved, in the general plan, a number of locations for neighborhood commercial so that people could get needed services within easy reach.
One of the things we have observed is that the criteria of "current market demand", which is one of the 4 criteria required for a minor general plan amendment, is the primary consideration of the current council majority when they approve a general plan amendment. A second criteria is what the abutting neighbors want. The original intent of the voters of the general plan that was approved by the voters is never discussed.
Add to this the fact that there is no standard of "market demand." It is whatever the applicant says it is. The majority-4 accept whatever the applicant says. At this hearing, for example, the "market demanded" single family homes. A few months ago, the "market demanded" apartments. In some instances, the "market demanded" multiple uses of a site such that commercial and residential can be built upon it. To the majority-4 it seems that "market demand" is whatever they are told by their supporters in the developer and real estate community.
Does this mean that the original intent of the general plan carries little weight to the majority-4? It appears that way. Mayor Hiremath has affirmed this observing, at one meeting, the the general plan is a guideline to be changed as conditions change.
What does this mean to the 2015 General Plan. Does it mean that all the time and effort that the town plans to devote to this effort is really a waste of time? Does it mean that the plan will only be "good" for a few years, since "market demand" ebbs and flows? Should there be provisions added to the 2015 General Plan that make it more difficult for changes or that make intent more clear?
What do you think?
---
No comments:
Post a Comment