Oro Valley Town Council to Create 2025-2027 Strategic Plan

Oro Valley Town Council to discuss new strategic plan
The Oro Valley Town Council will hold a study session tomorrow to discuss projects, strategies, and guiding principles for the Strategic Plan for the upcoming two fiscal years (2025-2027). The current Strategic Plan covers this fiscal year (2024-2025) and the last fiscal year (2023-2024), meaning the Council must now develop a new plan for the next two fiscal years. The Strategic Plan is a significant document as it shapes budget priorities and guides long-term initiatives.

A current example: Trails Master Plan
Two years ago, the Council agreed to a plan that, among other things, called for "Creating a Trails Plan" focused on multi-use paths, natural surfaces, paved surfaces, access, connectivity, maintenance, mapping, promotions, and signage. [panel right] In November 2024, staff initiated a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a consultant to lead this effort. The RFP stated a budget of $50,000, an amount that should be in this year’s budget, though it has not been clearly identified.

The strategic plan is not the general plan
The General Plan is a voter-ratified document that outlines the town’s long-term vision for a 10-year period. The town is currently working on a new General Plan, OV Path Forward, which will take effect in 2026.

It is a council and staff interpretation of resident intent
The Strategic Plan, on the other hand, is a Council-approved document developed by town staff and reviewed by the Town Council. Unlike the General Plan, which is shaped by voter input, the Strategic Plan reflects a staff and council interpretation of the General Plan, setting the priorities for staff actions and activities. It matters even more than the General Plan because, unlike the broad statements in the General Plan, the Strategic Plan determines specific actions to be taken.

The translation from General Plan directives to Strategic Plan actions a open to wide interpretation
Over the years, LOVE has reported on the town’s Strategic Plans, and some residents have raised concerns about the process. These concerns include:

• The Strategic Plan is shaped by town staff and the Council, which may lead to misalignment with residents’ priorities.
• Staff controls the narrative, possibly selectively presenting information to the Town Council, resulting in a focus on growth that primarily benefits staff initiatives rather than community-driven needs.
• The 2016 General Plan is still the guiding document for the Strategic Plan, since the 2026 General Plan has not yet been adopted. Some fear that the 2016 plan may be dismissed as outdated to justify new priorities that may not reflect resident approved long-term vision.

It is up to the council to get this right
Ultimately, it is up to the Town Council, not town staff, to ensure that the Strategic Plan aligns with the community’s vision. It is our hope that each of the seven Council members will challenge staff as needed to ensure that resident priorities remain at the forefront.

- - -

At 49, Oro Valley Reflects Some Of The Founders' Vision

Today is Oro Valley’s Birthday!
A dream in the eyes of a few, Oro Valley has become a flourishing community. Today, Oro Valley is much more than founding fathers Jim Kreigh, Ken Holford, and Steve Engel ever imagined. From a budget of a few dollars to a budget approaching $150 million…. from a population of a few thousand to a population of almost 50,000, 

Last week, the Oro Valley Historical Society chronicled the events that led to the town’s incorporation.Today we focus on what our founders wanted Oro Valley to be.

The first general plan shared a modest but bold vision

Residents approved the town’s latest General Plan in 2016.  They were asked to wade through 126 pages. Because it was so broad, it is a plan that one could use to justify whatever they wanted to justify. 

That was not the case with the 1981 General Plan. That plan was five pages. Yes five pages long. Voters did not have to wade through it to understand it. It took minutes, not hours, to read. What the residents wanted Oro Valley to be was stated clearly.

The Founders' vision: Oro Valley is not Tucson

Unlike the town's current Economic Development efforts to bring major businesses to Oro Valley, the voters in 1981 did in want to have businesses that provide jobs for the residents.  In the area of housing, the focus was to be on low density residential developments, not on "cluster" housing, though the concept of clustering does appear in the plan as a means of protecting the environment.  Oracle Road was to be a scenic corridor. That land, according to the plan, should be used for low density uses. In the area of roads, the Founders envisioned a "balanced transportation system" by letting "traffic pass through the town with minimum disruption to the interior. They specified that Oracle Road, a State maintained road, be the only "high speed" roadway in the town. They even envisioned having a "public transit route system."  

Today, Oro Valley is most certainly not Tucson but in some important ways it is not what the Founders envisioned

Oro Valley has stayed true to what the Founder's wanted in two areas

First, the town is a residential community. Only a handful of major businesses are located in Oro Valley, despite the efforts of some councils to change that. On the other hand, the town has many businesses that serve its senior population.  Second, the town's roads are the best in the State. The road system is dominated by Oracle Road, Oro Valley's only "high speed roadway".

The Town has not remained true in three areas

Yes. The focus on single family residences has remained throughout the years. But, the current council and prior council wanted and have increased density with multi-familly residences. These residences now and in the future will populate Oracle Road, thus increasing traffic. Oracle Road today is really not a "scenic corridor".  Finally, Oro Valley is primarily a town of small lot homes clustered in neighborhoods. The number of low density developments are much as they were twenty-plus years ago. Since that time, cluster housing has been and remains the primary residential home building vehicle.

Today, marks the start of Oro Valley's 50th year. Next April, a big celebration is due. 

- - -

OVCN has Shown an Utter Disregard for their Neighbors

 

Below is an excerpt of a speech given by Oro Valley resident, Shirl Lamonna, during the February 7th Public Hearing for the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene (OVCN) rezoning. Ms. Lamonna raised questions regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis, the Noise Impact Study, and the General Plan Conformance Analysis.

---

I’m a 17 year resident of Oro Valley. I’m not a member of the church. I’m not a member of the Calle Buena Vista community nor do I know any of the people that live there. But like the CBV residents, I, too, moved here for the small-town, peaceful lifestyle with beautiful mountain views. I’ve watched these residents share their concerns for the past 10 months because of what a large sports complex will do to their community. I’ve also heard the church’s views and, as a Christian, I understand their desire to serve kids because I do that at my church. But I’ve been astonished at their utter disregard for their neighbors.

I have some questions/comments related to the supporting documentation for the project.

I’ll start with the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that was prepared by a Tucson Engineering firm. On Page 3, you’ll see a reference to FDOT level of service standards. FDOT is the Florida Department of Transportation. Page 9 shows the Florida Department of Transportation’s Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida’s Urbanized Areas.

Why are we using Florida’s Urbanized DOT standards when this is rural Arizona? Shouldn’t we use ADOT guidelines – as was done with the Oro Valley Town Center TIA?

Moving to Pages 14-15, the crash data (of roadways and intersections near the church) is from 2014 to 2018. The population of OV in 2014 was 39,875. We’re now over 47,000.

Why are we using stale data? This needs to be recalculated up to 2022 - with 2020 data excluded – since CDO High School was closed and didn’t have extra-curricular activities for most of the year due to Covid.

The Noise Impact Study is incomprehensible to me. Regarding its application to Conditions of Approval– Why does it apply only to noise amplification from the athletic field and amphitheater when we already know that noise from worship practice and events in front of the church, such as the Christmas tree lighting – present noise issues?

Regarding the General Plan Conformance Analysis in the Staff Report - Yes, this project does meet some of the General Plan requirements. But it doesn’t provide ALL residents with opportunities for quality living. It’s actually detrimental to the quality of life of the neighborhood residents.

Nor does it provide recreational opportunities unless parents are willing to pay $100 per child to enroll them in a sports program. It doesn’t focus on community safety and safe streets. It doesn’t preserve desert and mountain views. It doesn’t grow high quality employment opportunities. It doesn’t keep our small town neighborly feel. In fact, it has already promoted division.

So in closing, I hope you will address these questions and vote to recommend denial because it doesn’t support the General Plan – the people’s plan.

---
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of the rezoning.  It was then forwarded to the Town Council to be heard on March 1st, but that hearing has since been postponed.  A new date for the hearing has not been set.

Residents Ask: "Put Yourself In Their Shoes" on OVCN Rezoning Request

A proposed OVCN development project will forever change the character of "Old Oro Valley"

There is a development project that is being proposed by the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene (“OVCN”). The Church is located on the northeast intersection of Concordia and Buena Vista. The Church is adjacent to an area zoned as large lot (144,000 sq ft) residential. It owns some of this land. These lots are what remains of the original Oro Valley. 

The Church wants to change the zoning designation on the land that it owns. As LOVE has reported, OVCN wants to build athletic facilities on this property. In order to do this, the land must be rezoned.

Every resident in the area is opposed to the project

Residents have been attending planning and zoning hearings and town council meetings, stating their objection to the proposed project. In the interest of encouraging a discussion on the matter, LOVE plans to present the remarks of some who live in the area over the next several weeks. Residents ask only that you “put yourself in their shoes” and read what they have to say.

Our first of these remarks is from resident Ed Clary. Clary addressed the Oro Valley Town Council in May
- - -
“Hello, my name is Ed Clary, and I, my wife and sons have been residents of Oro Valley for nearly 10 years.  This evening I would like to discuss with you the proposed rezoning of the property of the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene, which, to be clear, I do not in any way support.  

The proposal, which I’m sure you all are familiar with, is admirable on its surface, but it’s simply not the right area for such a facility.   

I’m going to repeat something I’ve actually said to many of you in person or via Zoom at the last two annual meetings involving the Town facility at 680 W Calle Concordia, which is literally 3 doors down the road from OVCN, and this proposal. Previously I said, “When the time comes for you to consider the proposed rezone less than ¼ mile from here, please remember that the impact of 680, the current OVCN campus, CDO High School, Kriegh Park and the Aquatic Center is greater than the sum of its parts on those of us who live here.”   

Today, the sum of those parts sits at a level where the character of the surrounding neighborhood is endangered.  All 5 of the facilities I mentioned are contiguous with each other, with the exception of 3 private residences.   

This proposal is simply incompatible with the area, no matter how good the intent.  That’s why we have zoning.  I’m sure most of you live in residential areas.  Would you want this project in your backyard? With all due respect, if you say yes, I might like to question you further.  It simply doesn’t fit.  Neighborhood resistance is nearly monolithic.  Fourteen out of fourteen property owners in the area have protested in writing to the Town.  There is no demonstrable benefit in this plan for any neighbor, not one, in fact it hurts us all for reasons that include, but are not limited to significant drops in property values, light and noise pollution, traffic and drainage issues, plus the loss of residential views of Pusch Ridge.   

CDO High School predated the Town of Oro Valley and has been the boundary between development and R-144 residential property for more than a half century.  It should remain that boundary without a compelling reason in the public interest, and that is KEY.  OVCN certainly has a private interest, but ladies and gentlemen, that’s not your concern if the surrounding public is being hurt.  You were elected to serve the public interest.  Five basketball courts and a football field available to outsiders for a fee, controlled by a private organization does not create a compelling public interest.  If approved the effect of this new, enormous, additional facility when combined with what I listed above will finally go well, well beyond the sum of the individual parts.  It will fundamentally transform the neighborhood, literally at the expense of those who live there for the benefit of those who almost exclusively do not.  Where is the compelling PUBLIC interest, when the surrounding public is telling you with a bullhorn that as a group we are not interested?  

In closing, I generally wish OVCN well – they are one of my neighbors, and I too am a regular churchgoer, I just don’t attend OVCN.  However, they bought the land in question knowing the current rules, and while they have every right to request something different, if they could not abide by those rules they should not have made the purchase.  There is no compelling public interest that indicates they should not be required to live by the same rules all the rest of us do.  I respectfully ask that should the matter come before the Council to vote, you vote against the proposal.”  

- - - 

Guest View: Diane Peters - Town attempts to circumvent the Open Space requirement

The town of Oro Valley is considering transferring some town land to the new owner of OV Marketplace (Town West) in order for their development proposal to meet the open space requirement.

Is this what we’re going to do now? When an applicant’s plans do not meet open space requirements, we’ll just “gift” them some of the surrounding town or county land to make up for it? This is not the “open space” that Oro Valley residents envisioned when they approved the 2016 General Plan.

More for them, less for us
The town just keeps giving more and more to developers. As an example, when we moved here almost 20 years ago, washes/riparian lands were protected. You couldn't build in a wash...then suddenly developers were allowed to build in a wash. You couldn’t build into a hillside…and then you could. Five-story buildings were not allowed…and then they were.

Originally, developers had to meet open space requirements...now the town has apparently devised a way for them to circumvent that requirement as well. Every year it's a new "gift" to developers and wealthy land owners. It's like a death by a thousand cuts.

Town finally admits that Vestar hoodwinked them in 2006
During a presentation that Town Planner, Michael Spaeth gave to P&Z during a Study Session on December 14th he said, "Ultimately the Marketplace has too much supply and not enough people to support the center." This was the conclusion of a study that the town had recently done.

What does that tell you? It should tell everyone, including the town staff, the P&Z Commissioners, and the Town Council that the town was hoodwinked by Vestar back in 2006 into believing that we had the population to support their vision of Oro Valley Marketplace. After all, that’s what Vestar’s demographic and population studies showed. The town believed them and gave them a $23 million dollar tax “incentive.”

Is the latest proposal just another hoodwinking?
The 2006 Vestar hoodwinking should be a warning to the town that they need to stop bending over backwards to appease developers and wealthy land owners. They will always “sell” their proposals by telling you that their project is what’s best for the town, when the truth is that their project is what’s best for their bank accounts. Their job is to spin it into something that appears to be what’s best for the town. That’s what Vestar did and we now know that they lied, or at the very least, that their study results were faulty. So whether it’s deliberate lying or faulty study results, why should we believe any “studies” submitted by applicants?

My plea to the P&Z Commissioners
Please don’t continue to fall for developers’ sales pitches.  Our town “leaders” never learn and Oro Valley residents pay the price with destroyed views, traffic congestion, traffic noise, air pollution, etc. Does any of that sound like the “small town feel” that Oro Valley voters said they wanted? Was the 2016 General Plan just another hoodwinking?  The open space requirement is supposed to be on the parcel in question…not on the surrounding parcels.

Reminder: Oro Valley’s Vision for the Future, Page 8 of the 2016 General Plan
Preserve the scenic beauty and environment
• desert and mountain views
• desert climate and environment
• wildlife and vegetation
• open space

Keep the unique community identity as a special place
• small town neighborly feel
• nice place to live
• quiet, delightful, laid back, and peaceful
• friendly and neighborly people
• clean and well-kept
• forward thinking
• built environment sets OV apart

---
Diane Peters has lived in Oro Valley since 2003, moving here to escape the humidity of the East Coast. She’s been involved in OV politics and development issues since 2006, including organizing a citizens group in 2014 that spent 9 months negotiating a controversial 200-acre development project. In her past life, she worked in medical research at various University Hospitals in New England. Her interests include reading, writing, nature photography, travel, art galleries, museums, and politics.

Major Rezoning For Apartments Under Consideration

Town considers more apartments
The The Town of Oro Valley commissioned a study of apartments. "The purpose of this study is to provide information to assist the governing body in evaluating Oro Valley’s housing mix and upcoming apartment proposals." (Source)

The study is a follow on to action item 135 in the 2016 Your Voice Our Future General Plan. That action item called for "Developing a housing plan that addresses the needs of a diverse community." (2016 General Plan Page 81).

Almost 3,000 apartments now

"Oro Valley currently has 12 apartment communities with a total of 2,961 units, 790 of which were completed in the last five years....Oro Valley has 19,295 housing units and apartments represent a 15.3% share of all Oro Valley housing units."(Source: Report Page 10).  By our estimate, apartments house approximately 8,400 residents. The occupancy rate is 96%,

The town is zoned for an additional 95.5 acres of apartments. The Town is currently processing five apartment proposals that would add 1,036 units, housing approximately 2,400 residents. The average rent is $1,123 per month. There are two more anticipated requests that would add 712 units housing approximately 1,660 residents.

Many more on the way.. if council chooses

There are five apartment complex request under consideration and two more are anticipated. If all are approved, they will add 1,748 apartments to the town's inventory, increasing apartment capacity by 59%. 

Two of these requests require no council approval. These are circled with a solid line in the map at right. They total 83 apartments. 

The other five of these seven requests require rezoning of 83 acres to accommodate 98% of the planned units. 

Thus, residents, through council, have 'control' over what happens with these as resident participation in the process will be required.

Oracle corridor the target

All but one of the seven complexes will be built on or near Oracle Road as can be seen in the panel map. These 1,665 apartments will add about 3,000 cars along Oracle Road daily. 

Oracle traffic will increase substantially

Traffic on Oracle Road, which is already heavy, will be even heavier. The area most hard hit will be from Hardy to Ina Road, an area with high traffic accident rates and long light cycles. The problem is that Oro Valley does not have the businesses to employ these several thousand household workers. And it likely that Oro Valley will not have added jobs for many years to come. Like it or nor, Oro Valley is a commuter community.

The report is an advertising circular supporting apartment construction in Oro Valley 

We urge each LOVE reader to download and read the report. It alleges that it debunks all alleged concerns residents have had regarding apartment growth. Some of the "concerns" are simply foolish such as the impact on our community of lower income families. We've not heard that voiced as a concern.

The issues it does address are done in a very superficial way.

For example, one alleged concern is that the school system does not have capacity to house a  significant number of new students. Don't worry! According to the report:  "Renter household sizes tend to be smaller, with fewer children, resulting in less of an impact on schools than new single-family homes. That may be true but it does not provide real data for consideration.

The report also dismisses the issue of possible crime increase because of an increase in household density as not supported by fact. Seems to us that a thief could ride the bus up and down Oracle Road and have a party since that's where all the apartments are.

There are many other, important issues that need to be considered such as the density of housing and its impact on Oracle Road, as we've mentioned, and the substantial increase in water use. 

The report will be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight.

---

For and Against: Concerned citizens speak about the Town Centre PAD rezoning. Part 1.

Below are comments from residents who spoke during the Public Hearing on May 15th. Some of them live adjacent to the property and were against this rezoning amendment despite the concessions that were made by the applicant.

I for one have been heartbroken and feel betrayed
The views from my backyard are majestic and the nature is amazing. The property is home to several bobcats, a mountain lion (that she captured on video), countless coyotes and javelinas. THIS is why we moved to Oro Valley and this is why we chose this house. When we moved here, we were told that the property was a scenic corridor and that the Town of Oro Valley understood just how unique this land was and so they earmarked it to be the Town Center. 

It’s no surprise to Patrick Rooney or anyone else who’s worked with me to hear me say that my dream and continued hope is that the Rooney family would donate this property, dedicate it as a natural preserve, and take it as a tax write-off… I for one have been heartbroken and feel betrayed by the Town leadership for encouraging cut and fill and high density housing.

John Rooney’s vision for this land was…respecting the desert and wildlife that we all love
John Rooney’s vision for this land was not high density housing…It was for pristine desert, and at the worst, custom home sites with 15,000 square foot lots respecting the desert and wildlife that we all love. This whole thing just horrifies me, to tell you the truth Mayor Winfield. It horrifies me that the Town of Oro Valley is not respecting what we as voters voted on (the 2016 General Plan) and instead, not your administration, but a previous administration was encouraging [this], and you can see the rape of our hillsides. I just don’t know how all of you can sit here and look at yourselves in the mirror and feel good about this. This is an atrocity.

You are here to represent the people and that’s why we elected you
A PAD is supposed to be consistent with the General Plan, but if you look at the General Plan’s Vision page, it indicates that we the people wanted to preserve the scenic beauty and environment. That includes desert and mountain views, wildlife and vegetation. It’s also supposed to keep the unique community identity as a special place. That is a special piece of property and [this development] is going to make our town look ordinary.

In the WLB PAD amendment application, it states, “The proposed changes in Area 4 are focused on making this area more receptive to the current demands and requirements of homebuilders.” I don’t think Oro Valley is in the business of making anything more convenient for home builders. I think you are here to represent the people and that’s why we elected you.

How is this in accordance with Town Code?
Lot #4 has 11 feet of fill. Lots 43-48 and Lots 62-64 have 10 feet of fill all the way to 13.5 feet. How is this in accordance with Town Code of 8 feet of fill for environmental protection of the hillside and also to prevent erosion?

Later in the meeting, Planning Administrator Bayer Vella explained why they can do this:

Bayer: The Code limits cuts and fills to 6 feet but it also allows to go up to 8 feet if it’s stair-stepped. So the idea is to soften the slope. The applicant has the ability to ask to go beyond Code as a Planned Area Development…They are enabled by Code to customize this site as part of a rezoning amendment. That’s why this is before you [the Town Council] to go beyond the 6 and 8 feet. If this were not a PAD, we wouldn't be having this conversation unless they received a grading waiver from the Town Council.
---
Tomorrow we will publish some of the comments that LOVE received in emails and on our Facebook page.

Expansion: A Daunting Oro Valley Challenge

In 2016, the residents of Oro Valley approved a general plan. There is a map that is part of the general plan (adapted below). This map shows the current boundaries of Oro Valley. It is within these boundaries that all of us are neighbors. And it is within these boundaries that the town must provide essential services, such as water and police protection. It is within these boundaries from which Oro Valley collects sales taxes, the primary source of town operating revenues.

The map also shows an area that extends beyond the boundaries of the town. This area is unincorporated Pima County land. It is land which Oro Valley can attempt to annex to our community. The "State Lands Annexation and Rezoning" is one example of land that is not part of Oro Valley but is within it's planning boundary. The resort, Westward Look is another example. All the businesses on Oracle Rd, from Orange Grove north are also examples of properties included in the planning area.

The planning area is huge

Oro Valley Town Limit and Planning Area

Attempting to bring unincorporated Pima County land into Oro Valley presents both a challenge and an opportunity to the new council.

Mayor Hiremath's theory was that business will locate in Oro Valley if Oro Valley has more rooftops. Thus, the community saw many general plan amendments and zoning changes that did, indeed, enable more rooftops. As we will discuss Wednesday, there are many more rooftops to come.

A change in direction provides many options
The people of Oro Valley clearly stated in this past election that they don't like the rooftops strategy. They want Oro Valley to have a "small town feeling."

Why expand at all?
If Oro Valley no longer has a "rooftops strategy", then getting more buildable land through amendments or through annexation is no longer a sole reason for change.

What, therefore will the new council do regarding expansion of Oro Valley's boundaries?

The General Plan does not mandate expansion.

It's up to council.

So, the first question the council must answer: Why expand at all?
--

Analysis: The Town Council views the General Plan as nothing more than “a glossy advertising sales pitch.”

Town Council continues to ignore citizens in order to appease developers
Below is a speech given at the May 16th Town Council meeting by Oro Valley resident, Diana Sanderson, during the Public Hearing portion for the 200-acre Capella Rezoning. This is another example, in a long list of examples, of how, when it comes to development issues, the current Town Council will not listen to anything presented by an Oro Valley resident, even when the resident is citing the voter-approved General Plan in their argument. The rezoning passed by a 7-0 vote.

Ms. Sanderson’s Speech
Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. I am an Oro Valley resident for almost 3 years. I appreciate my neighbors and community members voicing their concerns regarding the Capella Rezoning project. I want to speak to the entity that has no voice in any of this: The desert wildlife. I sense I am in the minority on this topic, but to me, it certainly doesn’t diminish the importance.

The Your Voice, Our Future General Plan does a very good job of convincing the general public of the following:

From Page 29: “Oro Valley’s exceptionally rich wildlife and vegetation are a big part of the region’s appeal. We cherish Oro Valley’s open space and strive to focus development in appropriate areas.” From Page 33, Policy SD.8: “Encourage development project designs that connect wildlife habitat areas, avoid disturbing significant wildlife habitats and minimize the overall impacts on wildlife habitat areas.”

Policy SD.9: “Provide for the safe movement of wildlife near man-made features which may potentially disconnect wildlife corridors.”

In all the Capella parcel designs offered, it’s difficult to determine exactly where these two policies were a consideration.

Blading of desert landscape does little to promote any of the policies outlined. It’s a fact that blading in the spring and summer months disturbs habitats and kills the young. Anyone that thinks animals move on when development begins is wrong. They simply die.

The Tucson Wildlife Center offers a free service to walk areas scheduled for blading before the process even begins. The purpose is to identify potential habitats of animals that could be safely relocated. They have yet to be engaged on any Tucson or surrounding area development projects. With respect to Mr. Oland [the applicant] and Mr. Spaeth [Town Planner] the 30% of open space that they are leaving in this development is land that cannot be built on.

We are stewards of this planet and should speak for those inhabitants that have no representation and are basically considered development collateral damage.

From Page 33, Policy SD.1: “Identify, preserve and manage an integrated and connected open space system that protects Oro Valley‘s natural resources and provides enjoyment for residents and visitors while recognizing our place in the larger ecosystem.”

That should be our goal, not a politically-correct marketing pitch.

It starts with us. Let’s make the policies in the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan a reality instead of a glossy advertising sales pitch.

. . . . .

Click HERE to read another example of an Oro Valley resident’s well-researched and well-prepared speech being dismissed by the current council. The agenda item on which she spoke, again citing non-conformity with the General Plan, also passed with a 7-0 vote.

Important Public Hearing - LaCholla Rezoning

Planning & Zoning Commission

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

6:00 PM

Council Chambers

11,000 N. LaCanada Drive

CAPELLA PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT.  Discussion and possible action regarding a proposed rezoning on 207 acres from large lot residential (R1-144)* to Planned Area Development (PAD) for approximately 199 acres located on the west side of LaCholla Blvd. between Lambert Lane and Naranja Drive AND 8.2 acres located on the NW corner of LaCholla Blvd. and Naranja Drive. 

*R1-144 equals 144,000 square foot lots (3.3 acre lots). The rezoning request is for minimum lot sizes of 6600 square feet.

What to expect
If approved, this rezoning will allow the development of 500 residential lots on minimum lot sizes of just 6600 square feet. It will also allow commercial OR the addition of another 70 residential lots at the NW and SW corners of LaCholla/Naranja.

The applicant is Paul Oland of the WLB Group (the development/engineering firm representing the landowner). WLB also represents Jeff Grobstein, President of Meritage Homes, the likely builder.

Who is representing YOU?
Who is representing the residents who live along the LaCholla corridor, Lambert Lane, Naranja Drive, and the Canada Hills subdivision who will be adversely impacted by this development?

In 2014-2015, when this development proposal was being presented as a Major General Plan Amendment, you were being represented by a citizens’ group, Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan. They negotiated with The WLB Group for 9 months.  They negotiated the number of homes from 778 down to 500.  They also fought for and were granted the following Special Area Policies.

Click HERE to view the Special Area Policies.

(NOTE: The 6600 square foot minimum lot sizes were agreed to reluctantly as The WLB Group would not budge on this issue. However, in exchange for 6600 square foot lot sizes in one area of the residential parcel, WLB agreed to increase the lot sizes to 10,000 square feet along Lambert Lane).

All of this can still be re-negotiated during the current rezoning process.

Citizen Advocates is no longer active as their goal was to negotiate the Major General Plan Amendments that pertained to this property. This was settled in May 2015.

So the answer is…YOU have to represent YOU!

Entitlements vs. Mandates
The applicant’s bottom line is getting all 500 homes that they are currently entitled to build. In order for them to fit all 500 homes, the lots need to be on the smaller side, thus the rezoning request.

However, although 500 homes is the maximum allowed per the 2016 General Plan, it is not a mandate. They can always go lower on the density without requiring Town Council approval. No one is forcing them to build 500 homes.

Campaigns funded by developers
We currently have a 7-member pro-development town council whose election campaigns were funded (and will likely be funded again this year) by the same people who are looking to develop this property. It stands to reason that the applicant wants to get approval before the upcoming 2018 Town Council election when the makeup of the council could change and may no longer be so developer-friendly.

What can YOU do?

(1) Send your objection letters to Oro Valley Principal Planner, Michael Spaeth (mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov).  Your letters will be included in the packet for the Planning & Zoning Commissioners. Should they vote to approve this rezoning despite citizen objections, your letters will then be included in the Town Council packet for the next Public Hearing.

(2) You can also plan to speak during the Public Hearing portion of the Planning & Zoning meeting.

You can view the agenda and all of the attachments HERE

View the entire proposal and the rezoning requests HERE (The rezoning requests are on pages 188-190 of the proposal)

If you are concerned about the small residential lot sizes, pay special attention to:

Items #12, #13 and #14. (Medium density residential, west side of LaCholla from Lambert Lane to Naranja).

If you are concerned about the commercial parcels, pay special attention to:

Item #4 (Neighborhood Commercial, NW corner of LaCholla/Naranja)
Item #15 (C-1 Commercial, NW corner Lambert/LaCholla)

Residents need to do more than just complain about the rampant development in town AFTER the bulldozers have arrived. You need to speak up now BEFORE the development is approved so that YOU can have a say in the future of YOUR town and YOUR neighborhood.

Important Planning and Zoning Meeting tomorrow (Tuesday)

Tuesday, March 6th at 6 PM

Town Council Chambers
11,000 N LaCanada Drive

If you live in the LaCholla area between Glover and Lambert, there are THREE agenda items scheduled for Tuesday's P&Z meeting that affect your neighborhood.

Item 3: CAPELLA
This is for the proposed REZONING for the Major General Plan Amendment that was approved in 2015. The applicant, Paul Oland of the WLB Group, has stated that this is just the continuation of the Major General Plan Amendment and that nothing has changed. But we all know that deals are made when no one is looking, so if you live in this area, you might want to plan on attending.

Items 4 and 5: SAGUARO VIEJOS
This is the residential development slated for the area on the west side of LaCholla between Glover and Naranja. See the history of this parcel below.

History of Saguaro Viejos
This parcel was already rezoned from 144,000 square foot lots down to minimum lot sizes of 20,000 sf in 2007. In 2014, The WLB Group submitted an acceptable plan for custom homes on lot sizes between 16,000 sf all the way up to lot sizes of 1.5 acres. This plan involved no mass grading. Each lot would be custom graded.  Surrounding neighbors agreed to this plan back in 2014.

(They could go down to 16,000 square foot lot sizes despite the minimum lot size being 20,000 sf if they left open space in other areas, which they were planning to do.)

Fast-forward to 2018.  NOW they are coming back requesting to scrap that plan and rezone the eastern portion of this property again, this time from 20,000 square foot lots down to minimum lot sizes of 7,000 square feet!!!! This will include mass grading of a large portion of the 85 acres followed by the building of cookie-cutter homes with connecting walls. This is unconscionable considering that surrounding homes are on lots sizes of 1/3 acre, 1/2 acre, all the way up to 3 acres and include custom and semi-custom homes and no connecting walls.

In less than ten years, that parcel has gone from a plan of approximately 25 homes on 144,000 sf lots (3.3 acre rural residential lots) to 118 homes on 20,000 to 63,000 sf lots, and now they are requesting 178 homes.  Of those 178 homes, 103 homes will be on 6,500 sf lots and 64 homes will be on 7,000 sf lots (for a total of 167 homes on postage stamp sized lots).  Only 11 homes will be on 16,000 square foot lots.

How does this proposal meet the below criteria in the General Plan?
- Promote land use development practices that conserve and minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources
- Maintain the small-town, neighborly character and improve the design and safety of the built environment

You can view the agenda HERE

Guest View-Shirl Lamonna and Diane Bristow: Is Oro Valley Main Streets Project a Road to More Taxes?

Is Oro Valley Staff Off On Yet Another Folly?
Were you, like us, confused by the postcard and Explorer advertisements about an Oro Valley Main Streets Project? Does Oro Valley really need a "downtown?" Is this what the residents want?

After all, Oro Valley is already 85% built out.

Isn’t a planned downtown area a little too late? Didn't Oro Valley already pass on this? Why didn't Oro Valley move forward with a "Town Center" that was originally planned at Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Moore Road? At one time, wasn't the strip center on Oracle and First Avenue (across from Rooney Ranch) supposed to be a gathering place? Didn't the Majority-4 tout the Community Center as a gathering place? So why does Oro Valley need a Main Streets project and who will pay for the project?

Several of us attended town staff hosted workshops (See panel below).
At these workshops, we were told that the idea of Main Streets grew from the Town Council's 2015 Strategic Plan, the Planning & Zoning fiscal years 2016 and 2017 work plans and the town's 2016 General Plan "Your Voice, Our Future" project.

Even after the workshops however, we weren't clear that the desire to "create the heart" of Oro Valley and reinvent Oro Valley was a priority to residents.
So, we checked out town staff's stated justification for investing resources to even plan this concept. After all, don't they have better things to do than look for work?

We found no compelling reason for a "Main Streets" Project
Reviewing the Oro Valley 2015 Strategic Plan, we found within the Economic Development Focus Area two strategies possibly referring to Main Streets:

• Continue developing Steam Pump Ranch as a cultural and historical destination.
• Evaluate the development of an entertainment district that includes music, sports, museums and private/nonprofit galleries.

From the Town’s website, we were not able to locate the Planning & Zoning Commission work plans to which the staff had referred. We did find mention of it in the "Oro Valley Main Streets Background Inventory, under Project Origin". There is mentioned a Planning & Zoning Commission Commission Work Plan – Item 3: The District… “The Work Plan identifies the District project as a high priority… includes… a complete streets policy and mixed-use zoning.”

We then reviewed the 2016 yet to be voter approved General Plan, Your Voice, Our Future (90% Completion). In the Complete Community Section, "Neighborhoods", we found Policy CC.6: “Promote the creation of unique community gathering places that are inviting, walkable, attractive and vibrant and offer commercial, entertainment or cultural activity.”

We also found Action 10, relating to Policy CC.6.: “Develop a plan for designating areas of Oro Valley that serve as the community’s gathering places."


Finally, we analyzed the Your Voice Our Future telephone survey to gain a better understanding of the backing for the project. We discovered that...

The desire of the residents for a central gathering place is as rare as the demand for golf and a restaurant at the Community Center
In other words, it is so far down on the list of wants to be irrelevant.

Our conclusions:
There is minuscule resident interest in creating a downtown
Why do we say this?
First, very few residents attended the Main Street's workshops (see panel above).

Second, the statistically valid 2013 survey of residents that was used to define portions of the 2016 General Plan did not contain a single question about a downtown or community gathering place. Few people commented on a downtown area or a central location to meet people. Only 3% of the 306 respondents believed more restaurants and dining choices were required to make Oro Valley a more complete or livable community.

Third, we imagine there will be even less resident interest in this if the residents will have to pay in any way for Main Streets. At the moment, this is considered long-range planning so cost and maintenance cos was not addressed despite direct questions on funding of the project.

Our apprehension with the Main Streets Project centers on the fact that Oro Valley Council and Staff seem to have an agenda to reinvent Oro Valley into a crowded Scottsdale-like city, despite a complete lack of community interest. Instead there is an overwhelming community's desire to retain Oro Valley's small town feel. 

Diane Bristow
Shirl Lamonna
Oro Valley Residents