Oro Valley Does Not Plan To Purchase Vistoso Course From Romspen

This is the third of three reports on The Town of Oro Valley's video response to more than 1,000 resident questions on the proposed Vistoso Golf General Plan Amendment.  Monday, we focused on the "benefit of certainty" Romspen believes the amendment provides. Yesterday, we reported Romspen's belief that the proposed amendment will stabilize, perhaps enhance property values in the area. Today, we present Oro Valley's Parks and Recreation Director's Kristy Diaz-Trahan's discussion of the town's parks and recreation plan.

Please note that all three posting present what the individual said. They are presented without LOVE comment.
---
Diaz-Trahan: 
No plan to purchase Vistoso Golf Course

Oro Valley's Parks and Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan stated that the town has no intention of purchasing the Vistoso Golf Course.

This statement was a response to a question created by town staff as a summary question from residents.

The question:  Why doesn't the town purchase the Vistoso Golf property as a public park?

The response: “At this point, we do not anticipate acquisition of additional facilities. We need to address buildout and maintenance of existing facilities first."

Diaz-Trahan: 
Rancho Vistoso's parks and recreation facilities are dictated by the Rancho Vistoso PAD
Diaz-Trahan read section 1.1.A of the Rancho Vistoso PAD. That section states that Rancho Vistoso “...is envisioned as a totally self-sufficient community, including residential uses of all types, neighborhood and community shopping and retail, schools, parks, churches, natural open space, a resort hotel, town center, and adult community and office park.”

Diaz-Trahan:
Vistoso Community web site says there are numerous areas for community enjoyment

New Park at Moore and Rancho Vistoso Blvd

She also referenced the Vistoso Community web site. That site states that "There are numerous natural areas throughout the Rancho Vistoso community for the enjoyment of all residents. A system of nature paths traverses the community north to south. Our major thoroughfares include bike-ways to encourage non-motorized modes of transportation. There are 11 parks in Rancho Vistoso, including 10 neighborhood parks that are owned by the Vistoso Community Association (VCA) and maintained with our assessments."

She noted that one of these parks, Honey Bee Canyon, is owned by the Town of Oro Valley; and that there is a new "large" park (see above) that will be coming online. That will double the number of parks in Rancho Vistoso that are owned and maintained by the Town of Oro Valley parks in Rancho Vistoso to two.

Parks and Recreation master plan is being prepared
The Oro Valley Parks and Recreation plan is in the process of update. Diaz-Trahan expects to present the first phase of this plan to the Oro Valley Town Council on May 20.

Grant question not answered
One of the questions that residents asked was what the town has done or could do to obtain grants to purchase the land. The video did not include a response to that question.

Romspen: "Amendment Will Stabilize Property Values"

This is the second of three reports on The Town of Oro Valley's video response to more than 1,000 resident questions on the proposed Vistoso Golf General Plan Amendment.  Yesterday, we focused on the "benefit of certainty" Romspen believes the amendment provides. Today, we focus on Romspen's belief that the proposed amendment will stabilize, perhaps enhance property values in the area. Tomorrow, we will present Oro Valley's Parks and Recreation Director's remark that the town will not purchase the property.

Please note that all three posting present what the individual said. They are presented without LOVE comment.
---
A "one of a kind amenity"
Romspen Managing Director Peter Oelbaum addressed the question of the impact on existing property value of the proposed Vistoso Golf general plan amendment. "“Instead of living on a dead golf course with no visibility as to what may happen in the future, people’s homes will be part of a revived community to enjoy, truly, a one of a kind amenity.”

             Video: Romspen Discusses Property Value

Oelbaum believes that the proposed 115 acre multi-use trail will be attractive to many future home buyers.

 To be used by many
“Any study that we have seen says that golf courses are used by less than 25% of the residents that live around them. An amenity, such as we are discussing, could be used by everyone."

His rationale: "There are many more buyers… who would prefer to be beside a multi use path, a fitness trail... an open space providing opportunities to react with nature. In truth, there are more people out there who enjoy nature than there are golfers.”

A best path for restoring property value
Oelbaum believes that the proposed general plan amendment is the best path to mitigate and restore future property value.

He asks residents to compare "home values with a dead golf course and all the uncertainty of all that may happen in the future [to home] value with partial redevelopment that will provide certainty for the future; and [will have] a cherished amenity that can be used by everyone, not just golfers or trespassers.”

Property value impact of proposed residential facilities not discussed
Romspen did not address the impact on existing home values of the proposed high density residential homes or of the proposed senior living facility.

Watch Oelbaum's remarks in the panel above.
---

Romspen: "Amendment Will Give Residents Certainty"

The Town of Oro Valley posted a 48 minute video. The video responds to resident questions on the proposed Vistoso Golf General Plan Amendment. The town synthesized the more than 1,000 comments into eleven topics (see panel below).
There's plenty of "meat" to report on this. So, we've segmented our reporting into three posts. This first two posts focus on the answers from Romspen. the landowner. The third focuses on the town's parks and  recreation plan in relation to the Vistoso Golf property.

Please note that all three posting present what the individual said. They are presented without LOVE comment.
---

Plan approval puts uncertainty to rest
To many, the most difficult part of the Vistoso Golf situation is the uncertainty it presents. What happens to the land is in "limbo." The Rompsen proposed amendment brings certainty. There will be residential property in six areas, on 87 of the 202 acres. The remaining 115 acres will be a continuous greenbelt pathway system, donated to a yet to be identified entity.  This system runs around the perimeter of the property.

The only uncertainty left then is what entity will be responsible for maintaining the pathway system.  It could be The Town of Oro Valley, a homeowner association, a conservation trust or other not for profit group. It will not be Romspen.

Eleven Topics

Alternative: Land returns to the desert
Romspen also made it clear what will happen to the land if the amendment is rejected. The alternative, they said, is for the land to lay fallow and to gradually return to desert condition. They will only maintain it to prevent fire hazard. Romspen also made it clear that the land is private property and that those using it now are trespassing. Perhaps they will find a way to enforce this. In addition, though they did not mention this, they will be free to try bring this general plan amendment to future councils.

Won't even make them "whole"
Financially, Romspen claims that the amendment and subsequent land development will not make the company "whole" on this investment. This in contrast to our analysis. They did not provide any substance to back up their comment.  Romspen acquired the course as part of a foreclosure on eight courses. This would indicate that they secured ownership at a value which is the debt owed. Generally, this value is far less than the fair market value of the land.
---
Tomorrow: Romspen Managing Director explains how proposed amendment will stablize area property values.
Wednesday: Oro Valley's Parks and Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan discusses that the towns parks and recreation plan does not include the purchase of this land.

Promises Kept: No General Plan Amendments Approved By New Council

The Hiremath Council amended the 2016 General Plan before it was ratified!
Even before the State ratified voter approval of the 2016 general plan, the Hiremath council had voted to amend it. Then, within a year or so, they amended it 6 more times.

That council saw the general plan as nothing more than a guide. They were not legally required to abide by it. As a result, there were 126 yes votes to amend the general plan. Current council members Pena, Solomon and Rodman voted to amend the plan every time.

Their disregard for the voter approved general plan was an issue in the 2018 election.

The new members of council said they would do something about this. 
They said that the general plan was more than just a guide. It reflected what the people wanted. They said they would only carefully tread on this.

They have kept their promise
There have been no approved general plan amendments since Mayor Winfield and Council Members Barrett, Jones-Ivey, and Nicolson took office in November 2018.

Sometimes the best news is no news at all.
—-

Cresta Morado General Plan Amendment and Rezoning both failed!

Last Monday, LOVE posted an article asking our readers to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting the following evening and to please speak against the Cresta Morado General Plan Amendment and Rezoning during the Public Hearing.

We are happy to report that council chambers were three-quarters full that evening and twelve people spoke during the Public Hearing. Nine spoke in opposition. Only three spoke in favor and those three people are connected to the Episcopal Church of the Apostles. The church is the applicant who was requesting the GPA and Rezoning in order to sell off 22 acres of their land for development as a way to raise money to cover financial problems that they are having.

The proposal called for 47 lots of approximately 7,000 square feet and six “transitional” half-acre sized lots on the north side of the property.

Excerpts from The Planning Center’s presentation
Despite holding multiple Neighborhood Meetings, a spokesman for The Planning Center stated that the applicant and the neighbors were too far apart on the lot sizes to reach an agreement and that the church could not meet their financial goals with the large lot sizes that the neighbors were demanding. (Adjacent neighbors live on lot sizes of 3.3 acres and up with some living on lots sizes of 40 acres or more).

Excerpts from the Town Staff presentation
Even though the Town Staff was recommending approval, they admitted that the proposal was only “Generally consistent with the General Plan” and that the half-acre “transitional” lots represented “the minimum” of a transitional lot and that “larger lots would serve as a more effective transition.”

Speakers in Favor
One representative of the church stated that the church goes out of their way to be wonderful neighbors and that later this month they will be adding church services for those with autism and other special needs.

The church Vicar said they have gone out of their way to be a center for music and arts and that they are committed to being a good neighbor. The third person who spoke in favor was a member of the church but not an Oro Valley resident.

Note that none of the above speakers said anything about the proposal meeting the General Plan criteria or how this proposal would make Oro Valley a better place. They claimed that the new residents moving into this new development would become members of their church and this would help them to raise more funds for the church, a statement that they later could not prove when questioned by a P&Z Commissioner.

Speakers in Opposition
Topics discussed during their speeches included the proposal not being in accordance with the General Plan, destroying nearby property values, current residents paid a premium for large lots in a rural setting and their way of life needs to be respected, well-water issues, increased traffic in their rural area, setting a precedent for all the remaining undeveloped land north of Tangerine to also be rezoned down to 7,000 sf lot sizes, blading of the desert, loss of more wildlife habitat, and that the proposal would increase the current density by 20 times.

Some of the best one-liners from the evening included:

1. A resident discussed the wants of the citizens as noted in the “Your Voice, Our Future - General Plan,” and he asked:

In the General Plan, whose voice is it? The residents or the staff?

2. Another resident compared the low-density rural residential lot sizes currently surrounding the subject property vs. the proposal for tiny mass-graded 7,000 sq. ft. lots, and she pointed out that:

One of these is not like the other.

3. Another resident noted that since it was a church that was requesting this GPA and Rezoning, that it seemed fitting to close her speech with a biblical reference:

Thou shalt not approve!

Some of the Questions asked by P&Z Commissioners prior to the vote

Commissioner Gambill

• If this fails to pass, is the church likely to foreclose? No.

• How many members of the congregation are Oro Valley citizens?

They didn’t have an exact count but said that their members come from Oro Valley, Marana, and Saddlebrook. (This was proof that people don’t choose a church because it’s located next door to them, rather, they drive long distances to attend the church of their choice. This is where their argument fell flat that building new homes next door to the church would increase their attendance.)

Commissioner Bergsma

• Is selling this parcel to Richmond American homes contingent on this rezoning? Yes.

The Vote
During the discussion, Commissioner Gambill stated that the neighbors comments bear a lot of weight with her and she didn’t see this proposal as benefitting Oro Valley as it did not preserve the scenic beauty or the unique community identity as a special place. Other commissioners stated that they were disappointed in the small lot sizes, and that the half-acre transitional lots were not a large enough transition next to rural low density residential.

The General Plan Amendment was denied by a 5-1 vote. Commissioner Hong was the lone vote to approve it.

The Rezoning was denied 6-0. (Once the GPA was denied, the rezoning had to be denied as well). 

We all know that this would have been a very different outcome if it had been heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission that was in place during the Hiremath years.

Cresta Morado General Plan Amendment: A Major Turning Point. Important Public Hearing Tomorrow Evening

Planning and Zoning
Tuesday, September 10th
6:00 PM
Town Council Chambers

General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
47-lot residential subdivision (Cresta Morado)
22 acres on the NW corner of Tangerine and La Cholla

This General Plan Amendment is to change the existing development rights FROM Public/Semi-Public TO Medium Density Residential AND Rezoning FROM R1-144 (large lot residential) TO R1-7 (small lot residential).

Why is this important?
(1) The land north of Tangerine was supposed to remain low density rural residential with minimum lot sizes of 3.3 acres (144,000 square feet). Approval of this GPA and Rezoning will set a precedent for all the remaining land on the north side of Tangerine to also be rezoned down to tiny 7,000 sq.ft. mass-graded lots with 2-story homes and connecting walls.

The homes surrounding this 22-acre property are on large lots of 3.3 acres and up. For example, the homeowner living directly north of this parcel lives on approximately 50 acres. Homeowners to the west of the parcel, also on large lots, will lose their views of the Catalina Mountains due to the 2-story homes that are planned.

(2) The request is being made because the landowner, The Episcopal Church of the Apostles, is having financial problems and is operating in the hole. This led to their decision to sell off the 22 acres surrounding the church.

One of our sources has revealed that the church’s deficits were intentional as they were trying to boost their music program by hiring a Music Director and purchasing a $76,000 dollar pipe organ in 2018 (two things they could not afford). Despite announcing a projected deficit of $40,000 in 2018, they told their parishioners not to worry about the deficit because they were going to get approval to sell off the land. They then raised $76,000 in 7 weeks to purchase the pipe organ. (Note: the actual deficit turned out to be $30,000).

In other words, they were deliberately running deficits while crying poverty during the Neighborhood Meetings.

This isn’t the first time that The Episcopal Church of the Apostles has been “unfriendly” to the neighbors. Back in 1998, when the church purchased the property, they allowed their Title Company to sue the adjacent neighbors over deed restrictions.

From “Tucson Weekly, The Skinny, Shill Zone, 4/30/98”

“…[Chuck] Cowles is a leader of the Church of the Apostles and wants the church's proposed new site at the corner of Tangerine Road and La Cholla Boulevard to be in Oro Valley. Why? Because the title company missed the deed restrictions on the new church site and neighboring property when the church made the purchase. To cover its butt, the title company then sued all of the neighbors affected by those deed restrictions to get them declared illegal. The judge ruled in the title company's favor. While the church wasn't directly responsible for the lawsuit, the neighbors hardly looked upon it as an act of Christian charity…” [Source]

As usual, the town staff is recommending approval. Therefore, residents must speak up. We urge you to attend the meeting tomorrow evening and speak during the Public Hearing.

You can find more information about this project HERE

Guest View: Robert Peters ~ Cresta Morado General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Draws Ire From Neighboring Residents

Background
This 22-acre property at the NW corner of La Cholla and Tangerine is currently owned by Episcopal Church of the Apostles. Neighborhood meetings revealed that the church is having financial difficulties which has led to their decision to sell the land surrounding the church. The presenter, Brian Underwood of The Planning Center, stated, “We started this project because the Episcopal Church of the Apostles was in the hole.”

The General Plan Amendment is to change the land use from Public/Semi-Public to Medium Density Residential. The Rezoning request is to rezone from R1-144 (144,000 square foot lots) to R1-7 (7,000 sf lots).

The third Neighborhood Meeting for Cresta Morado was held on February 7th. There were approximately 40 attendees. I did not see any council members in attendance. However, Councilmember Rodman attended the first two neighborhood meetings in January and October 2018 and Vice-Mayor Barrett attended the first neighborhood meeting in January 2018 while a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Town documents reveal the following concerns of adjacent neighbors:

• the request is not consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan
• water issues -- nearby wells are declining
• 2-story homes will obstruct their current views of the Catalina Mountains
• light pollution impacting the existing rural character
• negative impact on wildlife
• they do not support any access via Como Drive
•7,000 sf lot sizes and 2-story homes are not compatible with the rural character of the surrounding area

The tension was palpable
When I walked into the Neighborhood Meeting, I could already feel the tension in the room. This “ambience” would soon deteriorate even further into skepticism and distrust for the presenter who apparently had nothing more in mind than to convince the crowd that this was the best deal that they could expect.

The presentation was given by The Planning Center. (Yes, for once it wasn’t The WLB Group). They, as all other planning groups do, glossed over the impact of this rezoning while patting themselves on the back for moving the recreation area to the west side of the property and reducing the number of lots from 54 to 47.

The discussion grew heated in a short amount of time. Some highlights are below:

• A resident asked why they had to go from the lowest density (R1-144) to the highest density (R1-7). The presenter advised that the builder (Richmond) would probably drop out if the lot sizes were any larger than that.

• A resident complained about the recreation area being moved to the west side of the property. This recreation area would now border the large lot homes on the west side. Surrounding residents want the recreation area located away from their homes.

• Why didn’t the church add this rezoning to the 2016 OV General Plan? The presenter advised that the property wasn't on anyone’s radar prior to 2016 and that the church’s financial problems arose after the 2016 General Plan was ratified.

• A homeowner stated that, “The church’s financial mistakes are not my problem.”

• The presenter advised that they don’t consider the homeowners group as a hostile element, to which one homeowner responded, “You can consider me a hostile element.”

• The discussion finally evolved into a look at zoning for the overall Tangerine/La Cholla area. One homeowner noted that it had been understood when they all purchased property in that area (some residents have lived there since the 1980’s) that the land north of Tangerine would always be zoned low-density and the land south of Tangerine was for medium and high density housing.

The transitional lot sizes and buffer zones are inadequate
This property is surrounded by very large rural lots (rural low density residential) including a 50-acre rural property immediately to the north of the proposed development. The “transitional” lot sizes adjacent to this 50-acre rural parcel are just half-acre lot sizes. This is hardly an adequate transition.

The north side of the property (abutting Limewood Drive) shows a buffer yard of just 10 feet plus a 30 foot conservation easement, for a grand total of 40 feet of buffer between a 50-acre rural lot and this medium density development.

The west side of the property (abutting Como Drive) shows a buffer yard of just 30 feet. Granted, this is double the 15 foot requirement but it’s still not nearly enough of a buffer to separate R1-144 zoning (minimum 3.3 acre lots) from R1-7 zoning (minimum 7,000 sf lots).

For comparison, during the 2015 “Capella” Major General Plan Amendment, neighbors living on large lots along Shannon Road (adjacent to the west side of Capella) negotiated a 200 foot natural desert buffer between their homes and the Capella medium density residential development.

Conceptual Site Plan

My opinion
This rezoning would set a dangerous precedent. We’ve all witnessed that after a rural low density area gets rezoned down to 7,000-10,000 sf lots, it sets the stage for all the undeveloped land surrounding that parcel to also be rezoned down to tiny mass graded lots (with 2-story homes and connecting walls). The developer uses the first rezoned parcel to claim that the parcel next to it should also be rezoned down to 7,000 sf lots in order to be “compatible” with the first parcel. And on and on it goes until there are no rural areas left, roads are widened to four lanes, traffic lights are installed, and the wildlife disappears.

It bothers me that one entity – one landowner, can disrupt so many lives with their development plan, especially in an area that was originally zoned for rural low density. The town has frequently given more consideration to one landowner than to all of the surrounding neighbors that these plans will affect. It isn’t right. But it’s done because greed takes precedence over way of life. It also happens because decision makers see Oro Valley as a building project rather than as a community. In this case, the community is rural residential with unspoiled desert surroundings and solitude.

Town Planner Michael Spaeth stated, “It’s the applicant’s job to demonstrate that what they’re proposing improves upon what’s there today.” Does anyone believe that this plan is an improvement?

The neighbors are justifiably upset.

Editor’s Note: This will most likely be the last Neighborhood Meeting. The proposal will be presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a vote. If approved by P&Z, it will be sent to the Town Council for the final vote.

---

Robert Peters is an Army veteran who served in Germany and South Korea. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Russian and Eastern European Studies and a Master’s degree in Business Management. He relocated from New England to Arizona in 2003 and was employed by Raytheon Missile Systems for 12 years, retiring in 2016 after 50 years in the workforce. He’s been active in dog rescue organizations for the past 20 years. He’s also an avid reader and history buff who has traveled extensively throughout the U.S., Europe and Russia. A former hippie, he attended the 1969 Woodstock Festival in Upstate New York.

Guest View: Mike Zinkin ~ The mayor’s Halloween “trick”

The Council meeting on September 19, 2018 included another amendment to the General Plan.

“Discussion and possible action regarding an amendment to the General Plan future Land Use Map from Commerce/Office Park (COP) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) for a 15-acre property located at the northwest corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Vistoso Commerce Loop."

It was six weeks before Halloween but the mayor was already wearing his disguise
During the discussions, Mayor Hiremath erroneously educated the members of the council that this was not an amendment, but, rather, an option that would add MDR to the current land use of COP.

Mayor Hiremath stated:

"I want to make it clear to this council that the General Plan Amendment request that's being asked today is NOT to put up residential but is to offer ANOTHER POTENTIAL USE...This gives the new council flexibility...It's going to be up to them whether they want to have that flexibility to choose residential…or to let it remain tech park...If the future council decides that they don't want to go residential, then too bad, it just has to remain tech park. However I think this council owes it to the next council to afford as much flexibility on all the available properties left."

A blatant misrepresentation on the part of the mayor
The facts were revealed in a follow-up communication between an Oro Valley resident and the Planning and Zoning Administrator who described exactly what the council voted to approve that night:

“Town Council formally changed the General Plan designation to Medium Density Residential…By code and state law, a rezoning must be in compliance with the General Plan designation. So a presumption to favor approval of a residential rezoning has been established.”

As you can see, this was not an option for a potential use. This was a land use designation change from COP to MDR. The only option for the incoming council to decide is what form of residential will be allowed on this property.

Mayor Hiremath was his usual disingenuous and deceitful self. He had no regard, as usual, for the People’s input into the General Plan and was likely communicating for the applicant and campaign donor, Rodger Ford of Anthem Equity Group, who donated a total of over $7,000 to the re-election campaigns of the incumbents and to YES on 454 in support of the Naranja Park Bond.

Councilmembers Rodman and Solomon were complicit

Solomon said:

"I want to confirm what the mayor had said...if we approve this tonight, all we'd be doing is allowing the option for residential? It could still have the current zoning placed on it? It basically gives us more flexibility on this parcel?"

Keep in mind that Solomon is a developer and fully knows what a General Plan amendment entails. Rodman is a former member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and also knows the ramifications of a General Plan Amendment. Yet neither of these individuals attempted to correct Hiremath’s explanation. Hiremath has been mayor for 8 years. He also knows how a General Plan Amendment works. None of them are ignorant on this issue which makes it highly suspect that this was done deliberately.

The Town Attorney and the Town Staff also never corrected the mayor. Perhaps this was because the mayor had already torn into the Planning Director and the Economic Director for recommending that the council deny the land use change.

Snider and Pina voted against it (the first time that Snider has voted against the mayor in her 8 years in office and the first time that Pina has voted against the mayor in her 2 years in office). Therefore, if Solomon and Rodman had been honest and not acquiesced to Hiremath’s deception, the amendment would not have passed. They (along with Hornat and Waters) knew exactly what this was but they went along with the mayor’s disguise.

Hiremath, Hornat, and Waters will soon be gone, but Solomon and Rodman have another two years left on their terms. Let’s hope that the new mayor and three new councilmembers who were elected to provide a new direction, will steer these two individuals in a direction that is pro-citizen rather than pro-developer.

Guest View: Love Contributor ~ Mayor Hiremath omits important details on the Tangerine State Trust Land annexation

An article in the January 3rd Explorer, “Recent Oro Valley land changes to remain in place” discussed the attempt by the Political Action Committee, Keep OV Green, to take the General Plan Amendments passed during the December 6th town council meeting to the voters via a referendum.

One of those amendments was the Tangerine North General Plan Amendment (annexation of 321 acres of State Trust Land north of Tangerine -- between Moore Road and Tangerine).

The Explorer article contained the following comment regarding that annexation:

“Hiremath wasn’t even sure why Keep OV Green chose that property to focus on, because developers may not choose to be annexed into Oro Valley. Pima County and Marana also have the property in their respective general plans.”

Mayor Hiremath’s comment omits important details about prior Council actions for the Tangerine 550. (550 acres at the NW corner of Tangerine and Thornydale). Oro Valley has a serious interest in this land, which now seems to be why the land north of Tangerine is important. Both these parcels of land will be designated as one large Master Planned Community (approximately 871 acres).

The Paper Trail

August 28, 2012: Councilmember Hornat met with the Arizona State Land Department concerning the 550 acres of State Land at Tangerine and Thornydale. (This is evidenced in the letter below from the State Land Commissioner, dated February 27, 2013).

October 2012: The Town of Oro Valley approached the City of Marana with an “Annexation Request” regarding the Tangerine 550. (This is evidenced in the letter below from the City of Marana dated October 1, 2012).

February 2013: State Land Commissioner, Vanessa Hickman, sent a letter to Councilmember Hornat, dated February 27, 2013, outlining three specific items required in order for Oro Valley to move forward with the annexation. Those items are:

1) A no-objection letter from the Town of Marana
2) A waiver of town ordinance requirement for fencing of open range livestock grazing
3) An agreement not to enact or apply ordinances or regulations prohibiting mining on the State Land

Mayor Hiremath is not being fully transparent nor is this as innocent as the mayor would like us to believe. Although Marana has this land in their General Plan, it is false to say that they remain in the picture. I have recently followed-up with the City of Marana and they still support the decision in their letter of 10/1/12 to allow Oro Valley to annex the property.

Letter from the Town of Marana

Letter from the State Land Commissioner

Editorial ~ Speak up and Stop the Development of Big Wash

Big Wash General Plan Amendment and Rezoning

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:00 PM

Town Council Chambers, 11,000 N LaCanada Drive

PUBLIC HEARING: Big Wash General Plan Amendment and Rezoning discussion and possible action regarding approximately 108 acres located north of Tangerine Road between the future Moore Road loop on the west and Rancho Vistoso Blvd. on the east. The applicant seeks to change the existing development rights on the property. (Details below under Two New General Plan Amendments.)

The Building Frenzy
The Oro Valley building frenzy that we are all witnessing will continue as long as there is money to be made and as long as Mayor Hiremath and his submissive council are in office. Builders and developers have been feeding at the trough for the past year taking advantage of the passive 7-member pro-development council.

Let’s take a drive
A drive up First Avenue from Oracle Road to Rancho Vistoso Blvd. vividly shows Oro Valley’s new skyline -- Cat and Komatsu bulldozers and tractors framed against our once magnificent view of Pusch Ridge. This has become the new normal with our developer-run town. The picture below shows the grading that is already underway.

• Able to reap tall buildings in a single council meeting
At First and Lambert Lane we see the south entrance to Nakoma Sky, our new assisted living complex. This property will feature a 5-story building that was approved by Mayor Hiremath and Councilmembers Hornat, Snider, and Waters (who received $65,654 in campaign contributions from builders, developers, realtors, and brokers during the 2015 recall election). It was also approved by current councilmember Bill Rodman when he was on the Planning & Zoning Commission.

You can be sure that this 5-story building will set the stage for the introduction of more high-rise structures in Oro Valley to solve the developer “problem” of diminishing buildable land.

• South of Tangerine – Palisades
Further north on First at Naranja Drive we see the main entrance to Nakoma Sky where the natural ridge has been bulldozed for stop light access to the project whose boundary extends east to the CDO wash.

Continuing north towards Tangerine we pass construction and grading on both sides of E. Palisades road. The earth moving is so extensive that E. Palisades has been severed to allow graders free movement north and south across the road. We can only speculate the traffic and access problems these projects will add to our trips.

• North of Tangerine – Moore Road
Crossing Tangerine to Rancho Vistoso Blvd. we see that all the flat ridge lots to the east have been developed.

But at the juncture with Moore Road, a major change is occurring. A traffic light is being installed and Moore Road has been extended into a new development to the east. This is not an access road into another plateau development, but a serious traffic mover. The road curves around the model homes and dips down into big wash where the pavement stops. The roadway continues as a graded entrance for - you guessed it - Cat and Komatsu earth movers now tearing up Big Wash for more homes.

Two new General Plan Amendments
As if this isn’t enough wanton destruction of our once pristine desert surroundings, our “never met a developer they didn’t like” mayor and council will most likely amend our 2016 voter-approved General Plan to rezone Big Wash and Honeybee Wash parcels to change land use and zoning designations for undeveloped parcels loacted along Honeybee Wash and Big Wash. This will allow 408 homes in two additional subdivisions.

The western development will contain 166 homes with minimum 6,000 square foot lots and building heights of 30 feet (two stories). Moore Road will be extended and loop south through the wash back to a point of connection with Arrowsmith Drive.

The eastern development will contain 242 homes at the juncture of Big Wash and Honebee Wash. The development will require its own access road from Rancho Vistoso Blvd. – between Sun City Oro Valley and the Big Wash Bridge – that will loop around the Estates at High Mesa to access the new homes.

View the LOCATION MAP here.  View the TENTATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN here.

Let’s Make a Deal
The applicant is Paul Oland of the WLB Group. William Walker (owner of WLB) donated $1,000 to the YES on 454 PAC in support of the $17 million dollar Naranja Park Bond that was supported by the mayor and council. As previously reported on LOVE, The WLB Group frequently appears before council to request land use changes, rezoning requests, and grading waivers to accommodate their Oro Valley developments. Since history has shown that the town council always acquiesce to these requests, LOVE has always viewed these developer donations as a Quid pro quo.

It’s time to show up and speak up
Over 100 pages of opposition letters were already submitted to Planning and Zoning for their October 3rd and November 8th meetings. Despite these letters of opposition, P&Z recommended forwarding the application to the council for a vote. Therefore, we urge you to add your voice to the opposition.

Let the council know that residents do not want these General Plan and PAD Amendments and that this rampant development and destruction of nature, wildlife habitat, and our peaceful surroundings has got to stop.

Keep the momentum going
Keep in mind that the recent 71% to 29% defeat of the Naranja Park Bond was a huge blow to the Town Council who had previously convinced themselves that the citizens of Oro Valley are in agreement with the direction in which this council has taken our town.

A large resident turn-out at the December 6th meeting in addition to the recent landslide defeat of the Naranja Park Bond will send them a message that citizens are informed and are tired of being dismissed.

LOVE Contributor ~ Proposed Big Wash - Rancho Vistoso General Plan & PAD Amendments (Part 2)

Another Neighborhood Meeting…another proposal to build 500-600 new homes on 108 acres of undeveloped land. Another group of irritated residents asking what reasons they can provide that will convince the town to say "No." Part 1 was published yesterday. Today we present the Question and Answer portion of the meeting.

Neighborhood questions and concerns

What is the benefit to the community of this General Plan Amendment?
Staff responded that the Amendment will minimize the impact to Open Space areas in terms of hillside/flood plain encroachment into Big Wash. No other benefits were presented.

When will construction start if these General Plan and PAD Amendments are approved?
Ground breaking is anticipated in 2019.

What are the setbacks between homes?
10 feet.

How will this area be accessed?
The development of these parcels will expand Moore Road, which will loop back south to the intersection of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Arrowsmith Drive.

Is there a housing shortage?
There is a strong demand for housing because Oro Valley is a great place to live. Rancho Vistoso was developed at roughly two-thirds of its originally envisioned residential density because people wanted larger lots than designated in the original PAD.

Why then, do developers continue to seek and receive approval for “postage stamp size lots” throughout Oro Valley? Why blade some of the Town’s most pristine land for more cookie cutter houses?

What about the $60K premium I paid for my view lot on the ridge? My builder assured me that nothing could be built in the wash because it’s a flood plain.
The lower parcels have been in the Plan for over 30 years. There is a 60 to 100 foot drop so the building heights of the new homes will be well below the existing homes. They will not block the view of the wash or the mountains.

What is the distance between the Horizons Neighborhood homes and the school property?
200 to 300 feet.

Isn’t the General Plan supposed to be “Our Voice?”
One astute gentleman commented that the General Plan is such that he “could make a case for this amendment anywhere in the country.” A cursory review of the Vision page in the General Plan confirms that statement.

How can Oro Valley "manage growth" when some residents are concerned about rapid growth and others think the current growth rate is about right?

How can Oro Valley preserve the scenic beauty and environment and keep its small-town, neighborly feel when there are numerous proposals (not yet approved) on OV Projects to add 1,700 to 1,870 new homes, not including potential annexations?

The General Plan is supposed to be “Our Voice.” Yet this and other significant changes through General Plan Amendments are not what we approved. 

Learn more about this project HERE

LOVE Contributor ~ Proposed Big Wash - Rancho Vistoso General Plan & PAD Amendments (Part 1)

Another Neighborhood Meeting…another proposal to build 500-600 new homes on 108 acres of undeveloped land. Another group of irritated residents asking what reasons they can provide that will convince the town to say "No."

Current Entitlements vs. Requested Proposal
The land in question is located due west of the intersection of Rancho Vistoso Blvd and Moore Road, along the Honey Bee Wash and the Big Wash. To be fair, there are existing entitlements for development of this land. The designated land uses currently in the General Plan allow Open Space, Park, Resort/Golf Course and Medium Density Residential. This is what Vistoso Partners is entitled to develop.

However, they want to eliminate the Resort/Golf Course use and add High Density Residential to the mix. They are not entitled to that change unless the Town Council approves it. Council approval will also then be required to amend the 1987 Rancho Vistoso PAD zoning to match the revised General Plan.

Only a “smattering” of attendees were familiar with Oro Valley’s General Plan
Paul Oland of the WLB Group, representing Vistoso Partners, began his portion of the Neighborhood Meeting with the question, “How many of you are familiar with the General Plan document?” When only a few hands were raised, Oland acknowledged, “A smattering.”

That’s all? The General Plan was just approved by 70% of Oro Valley voters in the 2016 election. How many residents voted for it without knowing what was in it and now regret their decision? And why it is being changed so quickly? Could there be any connection to the development community’s generous campaign donations to all seven members of Council?

Reconfiguring the Parcels
Mr. Oland continued his presentation, referring to maps to explain the somewhat complicated parcel shuffle in Neighborhood 5. The golf course (designated as a place holder for Parcel 5-I when the school rejected that location for its middle school) will be eliminated and Parcels 5-M, 5-O, and 5-Q will be reconfigured since they no longer need to fit around the golf course envelope.

Proposed Land Use

Reconfiguring and clustering the parcels for development will “allow for more efficient infrastructure, less hillside disturbance, and less wash disturbance.” Portions of the sites will be mass graded. A park will be developed and the Rancho Vistoso HOA will assume responsibilities for it. All remaining land outside of the subject development parcels will be re-designated as Open Space.

Flood Zone, Cultural Resources, and Wildlife Concerns
Portions of the site have been designated as Zone A by FEMA, meaning the area is subject to a one percent or greater annual chance of flooding in any given year. Zone A requires the mandatory purchase of flood insurance per FEMA.gov.

There are no known cultural resources on this land based on a 1986 survey. If any ground-disturbing activities reveal the presence of undiscovered human remains or funerary objects, construction will stop within the area of the remains.

When asked about a wildlife study, Mr. Oland responded that 50% of the Rancho Vistoso PAD was set aside for Open Space protection in 1987, which included the most sensitive areas and major wash/wildlife corridors.

One would suspect that wildlife movement would have changed during the past 30 years as a result of development. And in fact, an Arizona Game and Fish Department Environmental Online Review contained in the PAD Amendment Site Analysis requested further coordination to:

(1) provide project species specific recommendations for wildlife and plants predicted to be within the project vicinity, and

(2) address the needs of wildlife in regards to movement, connectivity, and access to habitat needs.

History of the School Site
The former school/current golf course site, Parcel 5-I, was reallocated to Parcel 5-R (behind Safeway) in 2009. It's important to understand why Amphi rejected the former site for a school. According to a 2008 Council Communication, Parcel 5-I is "located near the confluence of the Honey Bee and Big Washes, an environmentally sensitive area that has challenges for access and hydrology." Yet if this General Plan Amendment is approved, residential development will be allowed in this flood plain. 

Part 2 will be published tomorrow and includes the Question and Answer portion of the meeting.

Two Important Neighborhood Meetings this Week

During both meetings, the applicant will provide a presentation and Town staff will facilitate the meeting. The focus will be on addressing your questions and concerns.

For more information on either of these two proposals, please contact Michael Spaeth at mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov


Neighborhood Meeting
Tangerine State Land General Plan Amendment

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

6:00 PM

Casas Church

10,801 N. LaCholla Blvd.

This proposed amendment will extend the General Plan Planning Boundary and add a land use designation of Master Planned Community to 321 acres of State-owned property at the NW intersection of W. Tangerine and N. Coyote Crossing (and bordered by W. Moore Road and N. Thornydale Road).

For more information, click HERE

Neighborhood Meeting
Big Wash General Plan and Planned Area Development (PAD) Amendments

Thursday, August 3, 2017
6:00 PM

Icagen

2090 E. Innovation Park Drive

This proposed amendment is for the remaining undeveloped parcels in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5, comprising approx. 108 acres between the future Moore Road loop on the west and Rancho Vistoso Blvd. on the east.

For more information, click HERE

LOVE identifies the “Local Investment Group” that is requesting a General Plan Amendment on the Manning Property (Shannon Road)

LOVE has obtained the following information regarding the Manning Property

This parcel is currently being considered for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use/rezoning to accommodate 108 homes clustered on 6,250 square foot lots.

This parcel is currently zoned for rural low density residential 3.3 acre lots.

Parcel Numbers: (Book-Map-Parcel)
224-21-0020         224-21-0030        224-21-0040        224-21-0050

Legal Class
Vacant/Agriculture/Golf

Sale Date and Price
February 2016
Sale Price $2,200,000 / Time Adjusted Sale $2,377,275

New Owners
Shannon 77 LLC
700 E Broadway Blvd., Suite 200, Tucson, AZ

Manager/Member Information Listing:

Gurpreet Jaggi
CEO of First Magnus when it  filed for bankruptcy in August 2007.  Read about the First Magnus bankruptcy filing here.

Gurpreet Jaggi
G&R 2009 Family Revocable Trust (Gurpreet S. Jaggi and Reema Sawhney, Trustees

David Williamson
Real Estate Developer, Fairfield Homes, 6420 E. Tanque Verde, Tucson, AZ

Garry Brav
President and Founder of BFL Construction
Multi-million dollar commercial projects throughout Tucson and Southern Arizona
Single family and Multi-family residential developer
bflconstruction.com

SJ Holdings, LLC
c/o Gregory Gadarian (Gadarian Law Offices)
2200 E River Road, #123, Tucson, AZ 85718
Steven Scott Albert
Julie Mariane Albert

Indus Holdings, LLC
c/o Matthew Thrasher (Thrasher Law Offices)
1785 E Skyline Drive, #131, Tucson, AZ 85718
---

Mark your calendars. Shannon Road – Manning Property General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application

Proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for an approximately 78-acre property east of Shannon Road immediately south of Ironwood Ridge High School.

Current Land Use Designation
Rural low density residential 3.3 acre lots (144,000 square feet). Maximum one dwelling per 3.3 acres (23 homes total) with substantial setbacks between individual homes in order to maintain a rural character and retain the natural environment.

Proposed Land Use Designation
Low density residential-2. Maximum 1 dwelling per half acre (89 homes total). Includes “retention of a rural open character…minimum of [natural desert] disturbance with building envelopes on individual lots.”

Don’t let this description fool you into believing that the end result will be low density half-acre lots with minimal loss of natural vegetation. The devil is in the proposed rezoning details below.

Current Zoning
Large lot residential R1-144. (Equates to 144,000 square foot minimum lot size). Allows agricultural uses and promotes open space.

Proposed Zoning ~ The Devil is in the Details
Small lot clustered homes. Residential R1-7. (Equates to 7,000 square foot minimum lot size). Medium-high-density detached single-family residential development. This proposal also includes changing the allowed maximum building height from 18 feet to 25 feet, which will allow for the building of 2-story homes. It also allows side setbacks in between the homes of only 15 feet (7.5 feet per home).

Aerial View Of Proposed Site

Why This and Why Now?
What would make a developer think that they can get approval to build small cluster residential homes on 7,000 square foot lots in an established neighborhood of $500,000 to $800,000 homes on 3.3 acre rural residential lots? The answer is evident by the timing of the application. The pre-application was submitted in January 2017, coincidentally timed to be heard by our new 7-member pro-development council.

Keep in mind that this is not a small change. If approved, this change will completely alter the rural character of the Shannon Road neighborhood thereby lowering the property values of the existing surrounding homes.

Not My Neighborhood…Or is it?
If you’re thinking, “I don’t live on Shannon Road so I don’t need to concern myself with this,” think again. Every time a land use or rezoning change is approved in one neighborhood, it sets the stage for a similar land use/rezoning change in the surrounding neighborhoods. The developer’s excuse is always…”this proposal with 7,000 square foot lots and 2-story homes with mass grading is in keeping with the neighborhood immediately to the north (south, east, or west).”

We urge you to attend the Neighborhood Meeting on April 25th and make YOUR VOICE heard.

More information is available on the town website: CLICK HERE
---