Guest View- The Roszaks: Why Does Oro Valley Have a General Plan, if It Is Not Going to Abide By It?

In the past 20 years, Oro Valley has completed two General Plans. Hundreds of citizens dedicate their time and effort to make this possible. A General Plan Update currently in progress will be completed during 2016. This updated plan will require voter approval prior to adoption.

Despite the update currently in progress, a Major General Plan Amendment which will significantly impact neighboring communities is currently proposed for 194 acres. These are located at the Southwest Corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive. The land area extends from Naranja Drive south to Lambert Lane and along the west side of La Cholla Boulevard. It surrounds the Casas Church. This general plan amendment requires a 5 person majority Town Council approval.

To sum, the existing general plan allows a Range of 124 to 319 dwelling units to be built on the property. Current zoning allows 1 house per 144,000 square feet, consistent with neighboring residential areas west and south.

The property owner’s most recent proposal is seeking to allow 500 residential units, plus 28 acres of Commercial Uses at the Northwest and Southwest Corners of La Cholla and Naranja. Up to 570 units could be built if commercial is not developed. This is a Significant Increase from the existing general plan vision. The developer has further proposed 5,500 to 7,000 square foot lots for the bulk of the residential area. Much smaller than currently allowed, and smaller than any surrounding developed areas, including Canada Hills on the east side of La Cholla Boulevard where more typical lots range from about 8,000 to 15,000 square feet.

Their requested changes defeat the spirit and purpose of the 2005 General Plan, without regard to decisions and rules formulated by the genera plan committee and adopted by vote by Oro Valley residents.

A neighborhood group representing nearby property owners has been meeting with the developers, town planners and a council member facilitator for some time, addressing their concerns. These negotiations have stalled. The project proposal has not reached community acceptance. The developer stands by his smaller lot sizes and up to 570 unit subdivision.

Under the current general plan, the developer has the right to build 120 to 319 single family homes on this land, but not the 500 to 570 proposed.

Another Major Issue for the Canada Hills area is the development’s proposed main road. The current mappProposal shows this road connecting directly into Canada Hills Drive, a private road, with cross over traffic between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive. It is also the community’s main thoroughfare for pedestrian use. It is used by walkers, bicyclists, parents with strollers, golf carts, golf cart crossings, and school buses. The street has a 25 mph speed limit and was not designed for heavy traffic.

The developer has not come up with any definite solutions to the traffic problems that his development will create. Proposals use language such as “Ultimate alignment entirely subject to Town Engineer review and approval”. The community deserves an answer prior to approval. The extension of a through road with potential of 1,000 to 1,200 additional vehicles driving through is an unacceptable negative impact to the Canada Hills community.

This general plan amendment request is on the Oro Valley town Council agenda for public hearing and final approval tonight. Residents concerned about this proposal should contact the Mayor and Council Members and attend the Council Meeting.
---
Rudy and Rosalie Roszak have resided in Oro Valley/ Canada Hills since 1992. Rudy is a former Oro Valley Council Member. Rosalie worked on the General Plan/Focus 2020 in 1995 /1996 and on the General Plan Update Revision Committee in 2004/2005

Oro Valley Town Council Considers Major General Plan Amendment Tonight

Tonight, starting at 5PM, The Oro Valley Town Council will hear a major amendment to the 2005 General Plan.  The amendment, if approved, will substantially increase the number of homes that can be built on a property. The property is located on La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive, Northwest and Southwest.

The town planning staff and the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission, by 6-1 vote, recommend that the Council approve this amendment.    You can read our previous postings regarding this amendment.

A public hearing on this amendment was held on November 20.  Eighteen speakers appeared at the hearing. Those who spoke against the amendment did so on the basis of how the proposed development on the property would impact traffic, floodplains, and their "way of life". Those who spoke for the amendment did so on the basis that they felt it improve our community and match market needs.

The general plan focuses on land-use. It does not focus on details of how the specifics of how the land will be used.  That is considered when the property is zoned and, then, when it is planned.

Only two people discussed  "land use" at the the November 20 hearing.  One of those was resident Bill Adler. We are linking to a previous posting where Bill discussed the concept of land-use.  At this hearing Bill noted that the neighborhood meetings that were conducted regarding this property discussed the details of what could be on the property and not the concept of general plan land-use.

The particulars of the development of the land, such as impact on traffic, are discussed at the zoning stage, not at the general plan stage. One of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners stated this at the beginning of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. He told the audience that many of the concerns that they were about to express should be addressed at the zoning stage of the property, and not at the general plan amendment stage.

It is expected that many residents as well as the developer and others special interests will appear to opine at this hearing.

Will we see you there?
---

Huge Potential Home Density Increase Considered Tonight By Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission

The proposed general plan amendment for property located along LaCholla has the potential for almost tripling the number of dwelling units now allowed. This according to a document prepared by the towns planning and zoning staff.

The property is located on La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive, Northwest and Southwest.

Oro Valley Planning and Zoning staff has recommended approving this amendment. They based their conclusion on the following

" Factors For:

1. The General Plan policies support the location of higher density intensity along or near major arterial streets. 
2. The amendment will provide for the efficient use of the planned infrastructure expansion of La Cholla Boulevard. A moderate increase in density and intensity of development will provide an appropriate relationship with the expansion of La Cholla Boulevard.
3. The overall residential density proposed by the applicant is generally compatible with the moderate density to the east along La Cholla. 
4. The Low Density area, open space and one-story residential building height restriction will provide compatibility with the lower density area to the south and east
5. The proposed development provides nearby commercial services and employment to area residents.
6. The applicant has addressed the primary concerns of the neighborhood.
7. The proposals are consistent with the General Plan review criteria
8. The proposal are consistent with the Vison, Goals and Policies of the General Plan. 

Factors Against:

1. Compatibility concerns have been raised by the residents to the east and south of the property.
2. Market viability of commercial and senior care uses has not been clearly demonstrated by the applicant." (Source: Oro Valley Staff Report)

The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission will consider this proposed general plan amendment tonight. This is the last of two hearings they will hold on the amendment. The amendment will then be heard by the oro Valley town Council in December. Approval of the amendment requires a super majority of counsel; that is, passage requires a minimum of five votes.

The amendment is being opposed by Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan  Yesterday, they posted a guest view. Earlier this week, the Northwest Management Company alerted the Autumn Hill Homeowners Association of the proposed amendment.

The hearing tonight is in Oro Valley Town council chambers at 6 PM.
---

Candidates Weigh In On The General Plan: A Guideline Or A Guideline

In 2010, then candidate for Mayor, Satish Hiremath, discussed the "issues" as he saw them.  They were posted on his web site.  One of these is his view of the general plan and what it means to governance of Oro Valley.

Here's what Candidate Hiremath wrote in 2010:

"Oro Valley has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in updating and ratifying its General Plan. If for financial reasons only, the Town should begin to – as the Plan states in its Preamble – follow and consistently apply it. The General Plan represents the Will of the People, and needs to be a critical part of deliberation over fiscal, cultural, and economic requirements."

Mayor Hiremath changed is mind once in office. He has stated repeatedly at council meetings that the general plan is a guideline.  At no time during his tenure as Mayor has he ever referred to the general plan as being the "...critical part of any deliberation" that he stated he was in his 2010 issues statement.

Mayor Hiremath affirmed his position at the Northwest Conservatives Forum:

"It is a policy document hat should be used as a guideline.... Like any document, it is open to interpretation. You have to use that not just as that sole piece but you gotta in context with the larger piece."

At that forum, Mayor Hiremath used the Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance (ESLO) as an example of how he has implemented the General Plan. Mayor Hiremath was correct when he stated: "Under my tenure we ratified the ESLO."  His remark would lead one to think that he had something to do with the ESLO.

Was Mayor Hiremath misleading us?  We think so.  Mayor Hiremath had nothing to do with the ESLO other than voting for it.

These are the facts:

• The ESLO was required by element 11.2.7 of the 2005 General Plan.
• It was put on the 'back burner' until Council Member Barry Gillaspie rekindled it, fearing that time was not on the side of ever creating such a plan give the nature of the 2007-8  recession and a push, by the development community, to reduce restrictions.
• None of the Majority-4, including Mayor Hiremath, ever worked on any of the ESLO.
• The ESLO was the work of many people, including Council Member Barry Gillaspie and resident, then Planning and Zoning Commission member, Bill Adler.   Neighborhood meetings were held in 2009. The town had an ESLO technical advisory committee that included Carolyn Campbell; Arizona Sonoran Desert Coalition; John Windes, Arizona Game and Fish Department; Sherry Ruther, Pima County Environmental Planning Manager; and Scott Richardson, US Fish&Wildlife Service.
• Voting on the ESLO had been pulled from the January agenda, though Council Members Garner and Gillaspie (and, yes, then Council Member Solomon) have motioned to consider it then. At that time, the Majority-4 weren't ready to approve it.  The "environment heavies" had to weigh in to get it passed.
• The ESLO was approved unanimously by council on February 16, 2011, after being "watered down" by appointed Council Member Solomon.  Council Member Gillaspie, working with Solomon, was trouble by the compromises made at the end, but he felt that it was more important to have an ESLO than to not.
• The Majority-4, and the rest of council, approved a "watered-down" ESLO on February 16, 2011.    

Mayor Hiremath did not do the the heavy lifting.  Council Member Gillaspie and others, like resident Bill Adler, did the "heavy lifting."  Mayor Hiremath did nothing more than to vote for the final version of the plan.

Is this the best example of implementing the general plan that Mayor Hiremath has?  Is there nothing else that he can use to illustrate how, during his tenure, he has considered the general plan "... as a critical part of deliberations" as he had claimed he would in 2008?

Because...

If it is his best example, then he has nothing to point to that shows how he as implemented the general plan.  Perhaps the reason he has no example is because, to Mayor Hiremath, the general plan is merely a guide to be interpreted as one wishes.

Watch the video linked above to learn how the other candidates feel about whether General Plan is blueprint or a guide.

What do you think?
---

Council Members Burns, Garner and Zinkin Stand Up For You and and Your General Plan (Part 1)

Last week, the Oro Valley Town Council heard 3 general plan amendments.  Read our posting to learn more about the details of each request. The Olson property amendment was approved 7-0.  The Miller Ranch amendment was continued.  The Vistoso Highlands amendment was rejected.

This is the first part of a two part posting on the Vistoso Highlands amendment.
----
Council Members Burns, Garner and Zinkin stood up for your general plan at last Wednesday special town council meeting.  Because of their vote, the Oro Valley Town Council did not approve a general plan amendment for Vistoso Highland. The amendment would have changed land use from neighborhood commercial to residential.  In the form that it was being discussed, it also would have moved Oro Valley into unchartered legal waters.

It took a while to get the final vote.  This is because of the bizarre manner in which Mayor Hiremath conducted the discussion.  Clearly in favor of approving this amendment, he did everything he could to keep it alive and then to cajole, coax or otherwise intimidate council members to support its approval.

Lest you think we're "off the rails," here's what happened.

The applicant started the discussion of the amendment by requesting that the item be continued.  The applicant requested the continuance for 3 reasons:  The request had not been approved by Planning and Zoning Commission; it was not recommended for approval by town staff;  and the request was probably not going to achieve the needed super majority approval by council.   In the end, the applicant was right.

Rather than leave it at that, Mayor Hiremath opened the discussion to a public hearing.  His reasoning was that some residents had come to this meeting to specifically state their opinion on the amendment.  Six residents spoke on the request.

Others would have spoken. However, Mayor Hiremath had recommended that one not speak if they were merely going to repeat what others had said.  So much for an "open" public hearing.

The primary concern of those who spoke was not with the land use change.  In fact, they wanted the land used changed to residential. However, they wanted changed to residential only with specific restrictions to which the applicant had agreed. They would approve of the amendment if these restrictions were part of the amendment.  They would not approve of the amendment if it did not include these restrictions.

Restrictions passed as part of a general plan amendment, other than a density per acre restriction, are not enforceable, noted town planner David Williams.  Restrictions of land use other than a density per acre restriction can only be enforced at the rezoning stage.  Williams recommended, several times, that the restrictions be considered during rezoning hearings as this is where enforcement does occur.  So, at best, the conditions, if included in the amendment, are guidance for use during rezoning hearings.

Apparently the fact that the restrictions would not be enforeceable did not matter to the majority-4: Mayor Hiremath and Council Members Hornat, Snider and Waters.  They were eager to hear this item and to approve it.  In fact, the Mayor was so eager that he asked the applicant if they wanted to reconsider their request to continue the item. The applicant then agreed to move forward with the request.  A mistake on the applicant's part, as it turns out.

Council then began to discuss the amendment.  Council Member Zinkin observed that the general plan does require space for neighborhood commercial and that taking this 25 acre parcel out of commercial land use is in contrast to the plan. "This is an ideal location for commercial."  Council Member Garner asked how the request met the criteria for changes to the general plan.  Council Member Snider said she was in favor it it. Council Member Hornat had motioned and Council Member Waters had already seconded its approval.  They were ready to close the discussion.

As the conversation proceeded, it was clear to town council Kelly Schwab that some council members simply wanted to push this amendment forward without clear definition.  Carelessness creates the possibility of mistakes that could not be easily corrected.  Schwab recommended that the council continue this amendment so that town staff could further review it under guidance from the council. She was concerned that the discussion was far too vague; that members would be voting on an item on which they did not have the same understanding and agreement.

So, we have, at this point in the discussion, a Mayor and 3 council members who want to push this amendment forward. They want to do it against the advice of their town attorney, who wants them to "take a breath" and document what they are talking about. They want to approve it with no support from the Planning and Zoning Commission. They want to approve it despite lead town staff saying that restrictions at the general plan level are simply not enforceable.

What happened next? Tune in tomorrow.
---

Oro Valley Town Council Considers Three Major General Plan Amendments Tonight

Tonight, Oro Valley Town Council will hold a special session to consider 3 major general plan amendments.  We have discussed each of these in various postings as the requests proceeded from neighborhood meetings and to 2 Planning and Zoning Commission hearings.   Council is required to hear major general plan amendment requests by the end of the year in which they are requested. They are not required to decide, however.

The request are:

• NW corner of Tangerine and La Canada:  The request is to change the approved land use for  a portion of the property to medium density residential from rural or low density residential. (Olson Property)
• NW corner of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Vistoso Highlands Drive:  This is part of the Rancho Vistoso PAD. The request is to change the land use designation of the property from Commercial (C-1) to a Residential use. (Vistoso Highlands)
• North side of Moore Road between Yellow Orchid Drive and Mystic View Place. The request is to change the land use designation of the property from Low-Density Residential (LDR) to medium density residential. (Miller Ranch)

Approval of an amendment requires a 5-person council majority.

From Less To More Residential

All of these requests are to increase residential properties in Oro Valley. All are primarily being justified based on "current market demand."  Two of the three are being submitted by the same design firm. The applications are very similar.

How Will The Council Consider The General Plan

These 3 applications been vetted through a vetting process. There may be little "neighbor" opposition.  If there is, we should hear it tonight.

If there is little neighbor objection, one might conclude that approval of these amendments should be a "no brainer".   After all, the applicant has asserted that market demands it and the neighbors no longer oppose it.

However, approval of a major general plan amendment requires more than that.

There are 5 criteria that the council must consider when assessing a general plan amendment:

1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification.
2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility.
3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community acceptance.
4. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning
5. The proposed cha change will conform to the Goals and Policies set forth in the General Plan development processes.

It is up to the council to weigh these criteria in forming their judgment on each requested amendment.
---