For and Against: Concerned citizens speak about the Town Centre PAD rezoning. Part 2.

Yesterday we published comments from residents who spoke during the Public Hearing on May 15th. Today we are publishing comments we received in emails and on our Facebook page.

From LOVE’s Facebook page:

Welcome to Hiremath 2.0….So disappointed in Winfield and crew.

So they said it’s OK to cram more homes onto smaller lots at the Oracle/Pusch View Lane location. Sounds like the last gang.

From emails we’ve received:

Email #1: At the March 6th Town Council meeting, Mayor Winfield told the applicant that he was not happy with the initial proposal and decided to continue the item rather than voting on it that evening. Although the applicant returned on May 15th with revisions, they only reduced the number of lots by five and the revised average lot size (7,145 square feet) was still less than half the original 15,000 sf entitlement and will allow the property to be mass graded.

I am very disappointed in the vote to approve this rezoning amendment. To quote staff in the Council Report: “The proposed revisions are substantive; however, they do not represent significant changes.”

Email #2: Winfield failed to kill it in March. At that meeting, the vote would have been 3-3 with Winfield being the tie-breaker. Apparently, he felt it was better to table it, giving the developer an opportunity to redo things to suit the council. So Winfield backed himself and the council into a corner and they were now compelled to approve the changes.

Email #3: For the past 8 years, all we have seen are General Plan Amendments and Rezonings with a quantum leap right down to the smallest lot size (often from 3.3 acre rural residential down to 7,000 sf Medium Density Residential. Some are down to 6500 sf.) This rampant mass grading of our beautiful desert and wildlife habitat is unconscionable to us.

Developers want small lot sizes because it is cheaper and faster for them to mass grade than to custom grade and it is cheaper and faster for them to build one connecting wall between each home than it is to build separate walls around each home.

They always claim that their proposal is what's best for Oro Valley, but their proposals are always what is best for them, whatever will make the landowner and the builder the most money. Their motive is not environmental protection or protecting property values. Their motive is profit.

The majority of Oro Valley residents do not want these types of developments. The proof is in the 2018 Town Council election results where one of the hot button issues was putting a stop to mass graded developments with 6,000 and 7,000 square foot lots.

Below is an email we received from a resident who was initially against the rezoning but eventually came to agree with the Town Council’s decision to approve it.

I spent a good 10 hours going through the application and agenda attachments. I opposed this because I don't like cluster housing on small lots, cuts to the hillside, and Richmond American homes. However, Rooney had numerous private meetings with the residents of Camino Diestro and reached agreement with them to eliminate some homes close to them and build only single story homes throughout the development.

At the March 6th meeting, Mayor Winfield gave Rooney/WLB a laundry list of concerns that they had to address to get this development approved. In my opinion, Winfield acted as the facilitator between residents and the applicant, much in the same way that Mike Zinkin and Bill Adler used to do, except that Winfield did it from the dais which then boxed them into approving it once the applicant made multiple concessions.

In terms of conservation, the 2002 plan was written before ESL [Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance] was passed. Therefore, the open space was initially within the 15,000 sf lots and residents might not have kept them as open space. In the revised plan, all open space is in the common area.

Even though I am disappointed, I can understand why this happened. I don't think they threw the residents under the bus. Some actually were okay with it after concessions. But I hope this negotiating from the dais ends now.

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.

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). Oro Valley’s Trojan Horse. Part 2.

On Monday, LOVE published a synopsis of the 19-page CEDS Report. Today we are providing a list of the 90 people whom the Town interviewed for that report.

The Usual Suspects and “Stakeholders”
The report includes “the input of over ninety (90) interviews with key leaders, executives and other officials representing business and industry, education and workforce, government and strategic economic development allies.” The report refers to these people as “stakeholders.” One wonders why no “ordinary” Oro Valley citizen was interviewed. Are the citizens not considered stakeholders in their own town?

The short list of those interviewed includes:

Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association (SAHBA), Meritage Homes, Diamond Ventures, WLB Group, Mattamy Homes, HSL Properties, Venture West, Oro Valley Hospital, Simpleview, Honeywell, Amphi Schools, Tucson Chamber of Commerce, Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce, City of Tucson.

The list goes on for 3 pages and there wasn’t one ordinary Oro Valley citizen.

The point is that many of these entities have been wanting to control Oro Valley’s growth for years and now Jacobs and Johnston have opened the door for them to do just that.

Below is the complete list of individuals interviewed (along with their positions in the community). Other than for Mayor Winfield, Vice-Mayor Barrett, and Councilmembers Nicolson and Jones-Ivey, do you see anyone on this list who is interested in citizen input?

CLICK TO ENLARGE

No Comprende
What Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Johnston don’t seem to understand is that the model for retail has changed with the advent of the internet. Other than for Wal-Mart and Costco, people frequently shop online. Citizens still need local drug stores, grocery stores, hair salons, and some automotive, but look at retail in Oro Valley. All the sporting goods stores have closed – Dick’s, Big 5, Sports Authority. We need to fill all that empty retail space before we start bulldozing the desert to build more retail.

Oro Valley should be focusing on employment centers, not commercial centers. Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Johnston need to read the General Plan and listen to Citizens when they speak up. They need to stop going out on their own and pushing their own ideas…Main Streets, 36 holes of golf, and now with this CED Report, an easier way for developers to bypass citizens’ wishes.

CEDS. Clearly Egregious Destructive Scenario
Something sinister is going on here. Oro Valley was incorporated in 1974 because citizens wanted a community that was designed by citizen input…the very thing that has been removed in this document. We can only hope that the new mayor and council see through this smokescreen and keep the Trojan Horse out of Oro Valley.

Oro Valley residents speak out against the Town Centre PAD zoning amendment. Part 3.

This week, LOVE is presenting some of the speeches given by Oro Valley residents during the Public Hearing on the above proposal.

Today’s speech is by Oro Valley resident, Bill Gardner.

Bill Gardner – Doubling the pressure in a 35-year old water pipe
“I’m a 32 year resident and my house is Ground Zero. Regarding water, WLB has never given us any specifics as to how this is going to be done. All we’ve been told is that we have no recourse in this regard….Our water line runs from Oracle Road at the intersection all the way up to the hotel at the top of our development. That's a mile. It’s a 35-year old pipe and 6 inches in diameter. I think we’re owed an explanation as to how you can come in and double, if not triple, the pressure in that pipe to pump the water down to this new development and also possibly to Area 3. We’d like to have an independent hydrologist come in and tell us how it’s going to be done. I think that's only fair. We’ve never been told how it’s going to be done.

Secondly, who’s going to do the work? A subcontractor to Richmond American.

Our roads are private and it was established at the Planning and Zoning Commission that you couldn’t use them to access this development as a road, yet somebody can come in and tear up our roads and our common area and we don’t even get formally asked.

Third, if anything goes wrong, who’s responsible? We’d like to see some sort of contract or agreement in place before the work starts so if this thing goes south (with water problems)…Who do we call? Who’s in charge? Is it the city, Oro Valley Water, Richmond America, or is it the subcontractor? I think this all needs to be sorted out. We want to make sure that our 7 irrigation lines are not affected by this. Nobody has mentioned sewers. We want to make sure that this thing does not cause any problems with our sewer system when you come in and dig up our roads.

I realize we can’t have all these answers now, but I certainly request as a resident of our community that somebody come and explain all this and give us a good solid legal and hydraulic engineering explanation.”

Oro Valley residents speak out against the Town Centre PAD zoning amendment. Part 2.

This week, LOVE is presenting some of the speeches given by Oro Valley residents during the Public Hearing on the above zoning amendment.

Today’s speech is by Oro Valley resident, Don English.

Don English – Let the rubber meet the road
"I attended all the meetings and I don’t think the Planning Staff recommendations reflect the many serious objections to this project and the hundreds of voices (literally) of opposition. This project simply does not reflect an improvement. It is not even compatible. The negative impacts are dramatic and many. These hillsides will be scalped and graded beyond anything you’ve eve seen. There will be thousands of tons of more concrete and asphalt because there are many additional streets and sidewalks beyond the original footprint."

He then discussed additional traffic on Oracle and water issues not being addressed during the meetings.

"The developer’s attempt at mitigating these issues are modest at best. It’s still a 34% increase in the density of housing. There is still a 250% reduction in lot sizes. The 70% open space preservation claimed by the developer is an exaggeration. It will be closer to 50% because of the playground where they will scalp and grade the highest hill in this project.

The projected plan for a few more trees along Oracle Road and a wall won’t even come close to mitigating the view destruction of the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor. You’d need thousands of trees to do that, not a few. There is little justification for this dramatic rezoning. There was never any marketing study that was made public for us to look at and have professionals evaluate. That means the marketing study is, at best, self-serving.

You don’t have to go far up First Avenue or Rancho Vistoso to see that there are developments with larger houses and lots that suggest that other marketing and demand is there rather than these small dense houses. And finally, there is no empirical evidence as suggested by the Chamber (of Commerce) that this development will increase tax revenues more than the one that would come under the existing zoning.

And finally, the reputation of this developer is not good. (He was referring to the builder, Richmond American.) A cursory review of the internet shows that they’ve been sued dozens and dozens of times in the last decade. Class Action lawsuits that include up to 32,000 thousand houses. All of them claim shoddy workmanship and broken promises to cities and homeowners.

We had an election. A new leadership. A new direction. You promised to take a harder look at rezonings. Here is your chance to let the rubber meet the road…put a moratorium on this or just flat out say no."

Part 3, the speech by Bill Gardner, will be published on Thursday. Tomorrow we are running a Guest View by Diane Peters regarding Councilmember Solomon’s rude behavior towards the citizens who gave the speeches that we have been presenting this week.

Oro Valley residents speak out against the Town Centre PAD zoning amendment. Part 1.

During the March 6th council meeting, there was a Public Hearing regarding the zoning amendment to the Town Centre PAD (Planned Area Development). If approved, this zoning amendment would allow 82 mass graded cluster homes on the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor (just south of the CVS Plaza), grading into the hillsides, and obstructing our views of the Catalina Mountains with an 8 foot high sound wall.

After listening to the applicant’s presentation and comments from residents during the Public Hearing, the Town Council voted to continue this item until the April 3rd meeting.

This week, LOVE is presenting some of the speeches given during the Public Hearing by Oro Valley residents who are against this proposal. (We are guessing on the spelling of the names and apologize if any are misspelled.)

Today’s speech is by Oro Valley resident, John Warney.

John Warney – A failing grade and a gash on the countryside
“This is much like a negotiation and a bargaining session. We know what Mr. Rooney (landowner) and Richmond American want. They have permission to build 65 homes on this property and they want more. The reason is simple. They’d like to make more money. We’d all like to make more money, but the question comes to what do WE the neighborhood and the Town get out of this?

We know what we’ll get. We’ll get disruptions, bulldozers, all types of trucks with really loud back-up signals from early morning until quitting time. Dust, dirt, digging up our streets to install water lines, and traffic congestion in an area already Graded F by the State Traffic Engineer. The addition of another 150 or so cars won’t help. What comes after F?

I’ve decided that our best hope here is to try to make the development do justice to the location. This is one of the few remaining building sites literally nestled against the Santa Catalina’s and Pusch Ridge. To understand the importance of this site to this community, I’d invite you (the council) to turn around and look at the Town Logo. It’s not made up of houses. It’s made up of those pretty mountains.”

He then described a portion of the development with just 50 foot wide lots and 5 foot side setbacks between the homes.

“What would be visible from the road is 180 yards of concrete and stucco, a wall almost two football fields long with no space between the houses. No room for trees or landscaping. Here’s a chance for you to improve on that. If you extend the width of these lots from 50 to 65 feet, you provide space for trees between the lots, landscaping for shade, room for some toys and a BBQ, some ventilation, and a view breaking up that ugly wall effect, converting these ugly houses into actual homes….Reducing 11 lots along that bend to 8, a loss of 3 houses but leaving a total of 79 homes, which is 30% more than the original 65 homes that they originally agreed to…

I hope you’ll think about that gash up on the countryside. It won’t be very pretty.”

Tomorrow’s speech is by Oro Valley resident, Don English.

Town Council "Continues" Town Centre PAD Amendment Hearing

Last night, the Oro Valley Town Council continued the Town Centre PAD amendment we wrote about yesterday. The vote was 4-3. The Hiremath-3 (Pena, Rodman, and Solomon) voted against continuing the item because they felt that the amendment should be approved as is.

Council member Pena believed that the amendment was consistent with the general plan. Council Member Rodman felt that process of getting the project to the hearing stage had resulted in great compromise on the part of residents, town staff and the developer. Solomon felt that the council to follow the unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission that approved this plan.

To that, Mayor Winfield observed. "I am not a rubber stamp Mayor."

Mayor Winfield, Vice Mayor Barrett and council members Nicolson and Joyce-Ivey voted in favor of continuation. Each raised concerns regarding the property. The issues included:

• How does this project fit in with the plans of the other PAD's in Town Centre?
• Is 5 feet between homes appropriate? 
• Some hillsides will be graded by 20 feet.
• Noise will be a problem for the houses built close to Oracle
• Traffic will increase at the intersection
• Water use could impact the residents of neighboring developments
• Erosion may be a problem

"It is a good project," noted Mayor Winfield. "It can be a better project."

The developer, after hearing these and other concerns, told council that he preferred a continuation versus an "up or down" vote.

The proposed PAD amendment will be heard at the April 3 council meeting.

If changes proposed to mitigate the issues raised are significant, then the project will return to the public hearing phase. It will then be reheard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Whether the changes are significant will be determined by town planner, Bayer Vella.
---

Editorial ~ Just Say No

The proposed annexation of the 800+ acres of State land on the west side of Oro Valley has caused a lot of turmoil. Every public/neighborhood meeting is filled with residents and non-residents who are opposed to the planned annexation. Their opposition appears to be primarily focused on the proposed density of the lands. Traffic, water usage, uses not compatible with the surrounding area, and non-compliance to the General Plan sum up the majority of additional objections.

Pre-Annexation Development Agreement (PADA)
The Town has been very vague about the meaning of the Pre-annexation Development Agreement, which is the first vote the Council will take prior to the actual annexation and zoning. If the Council approves the PADA as presented by The WLB Group, is the town then committed to zone the property as per the PADA? We have not received an answer. Instead, the Town provided the attached manual prepared by the Arizona League of Cities and Towns.

[Click to open the document]

As an example of what a PADA can do to modify the Town Code, the Oracle Crossings shopping center at Suffolk and Oracle was initially in the county. Both the county and the town had the property zoned as commercial, so this part was a “no-brainer.” However, there are tall palm trees in front of Kohl’s. These trees are in violation of the Town’s commercial landscape code, but Kohl’s was allowed to keep them due to the PADA.

Let’s assume the Town approves the PADA which includes a lot of land designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR allows for 2.1 – 5 units per acre. The PADA has it such that the lots are small. Can the Town allow for MDR, but modify the PADA to increase the size of the lots, thereby reducing the density? Does the approval of the PADA commit the Town to developing the property as noted in the PADA? We have not been able to get a straight answer from the Town.

What to do???
The Planning and Zoning Administrator has said publicly that this annexation will cost the Town money. After the initial collection of construction taxes and impact fees, the Town starts to lose money as it will need to maintain the infrastructure (including improving Moore Road), and provide for public safety and other town services.

However, due to the location of the annexed land, many of these new residents will shop and buy their gas in Marana, not Oro Valley. Marana will receive the sales taxes and HURF revenues (Highway User Revenue Fund).

Too many shades of gray
There are a lot of gray issues regarding the PADA and we know that it will cost the town money in the long run. When Nancy Regan was First Lady, she issued a statement regarding drug use. This statement is appropriate for the PADA. “JUST SAY NO”

Guest View: Tim Bohen ~ Is The WLB Group padding their claims? Part 2.

Part 1 was published on Monday.

The process is broken
Our Oro Valley PAD amendment process is broken but it’s hard to see on the surface. For years, we have had a developer-driven process on developer timetables and a lack of healthy cross-examination of developer claims which should expose obvious errors in documents. The Town Council eliminated the Development Review Board some years ago in order to make the supposedly unfriendly Oro Valley easier for developers to navigate.

There is at least one council member liaison present at all P&Z meetings so nothing major should slip by. In addition, Staff researches the issue beforehand for their presentation, so they should catch errors or falsehoods at this point, right? So between P&Z, the town staff, and the Town Council, due diligence has been done, right?

Not always. See editor’s note at the end of the article.

But when developers request new entitlements at Rancho Vistoso or seek to enforce entitlements they won previously, who is actually verifying that these entitlements are properly recorded and followed for all to see? In my view, no one has been doing this for over 10 years. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the developers who have had their way for so long to bring this up. Our Town needs to insist upon a complete and verifiable application which clearly delineates the WAS and IS text of the PAD amendment before the public meeting is even scheduled.

Why single out WLB?
They are an engineering and planning firm, not a developer nor a public relations firm. First of all, the badly outdated Rancho Vistoso PAD has their name on it and has for a long time. Check “Prepared by…” on page one and “Revised by WLB July 10, 1996” in Tables H and J. [Click HERE to review the Rancho Vistoso PAD]

Despite the PAD issues mentioned above, we have on many occasions seen WLB advocating for their Rancho Vistoso developer applicants based on their “long experience” in Rancho Vistoso. But after their recent 2017 successes in these requests for General Plan and PAD amendments, have they bothered to follow through to confirm that the amendments they seek are properly recorded and available?

Also, we see WLB quite literally all over Town advocating for the interests of their developer partners, including the Arizona Bureau of Land Management in the current Tangerine Annexation process. But WLB, as mentioned, is an engineering and planning firm, not a legal or PR firm. Just who is minding the WLB store when it comes to ensuring they do their core work of maintaining current engineering and planning documentation for our Town?

Homework Assignment
Vintage documents should not be considered current in dealings between WLB and the Town of Oro Valley. WLB, if you do update the PAD for the Town website as you should, be sure to provide the Town one mylar and five colored exhibits of the entire PAD as required per Section 6A on sheet 41. Don’t forget the five bound copies and one unbound copy for future distribution per Section 6B.

---
Editor’s Note: The Saguaro Viejos development (another WLB project) is a perfect example of false information being presented as fact. During their presentation in April 2018, Paul Oland of WLB stated that their rezoning request for 6,500 sf lots was compatible with the existing land use east of the property which he claimed was 7,000 to 10,000 sf lots. The actual lot sizes for that neighborhood are 15,000 to 33,000 square feet. This was pointed out to P&Z and the Town Council by Oro Valley resident and frequent LOVE contributor, Diane Peters, who, like Tim Bohen, actually did some due diligence by reviewing town documents.

Guest View: Tim Bohen ~ Is The WLB Group padding their claims? Part 1.

Rodger Ford of Anthem Equity
When Rodger Ford of Anthem Equity said, “I was very careful to make sure that I had CPI against CPI privileges” at about the 54:50 mark of the November 8, 2018 Planning and Zoning Special Session, his words have a specific meaning. Campus Park Industrial (CPI) is a land use designation within the Oro Valley Rancho Vistoso PAD. Our Town zoning code does not use this designation. Tech Park (T-P) is the closest match you will find in the Oro Valley Zoning Code.

When Rancho Vistoso parcel 2E owner, Mr. Ford, did his due diligence in 2006, it is clear he researched the Rancho Vistoso PAD to determine what he might be allowed to build on 2E. We know this from the words he chose. As a savvy investor (just ask him), Mr. Ford no doubt clearly intended to fully understand his rights before he decided what a fair offering price would be in 2007.

Planned Area Development (PAD) documents establish landowner entitlements above and beyond the Town Zoning code
These are legal records. Current and accurate legal records are necessary for true public participation in matters such as the current Rancho Vistoso PAD amendment request for parcel 2E. And where might the residents of Oro Valley first go to seek out town records to help them find out what is going on? Yes, the Town website. I reviewed the document on the Town website and this is what I discovered.

The Rancho Vistoso PAD document was last updated in 2008. The Rancho Vistoso PAD was created in 1987 and has been updated periodically ever since. WLB is one of five authors listed on the Title Page. Not all tables contain the date of the last update, but Tables H and J were updated by WLB in July 1996. The last amendment incorporated into the text is from February 2008.

Residential projections of over 20,000 people. This PAD documents landowner entitlements (above and beyond the Zoning Code) for over 7,600 acres (about 12 square miles) and for an area once projected by the PAD authors themselves to house over 20,000 people.

Employment projections of over 31,000 employees. Neighborhoods 2&3 were once projected to have over 31,000 employees. Neighborhood 2 was to provide significant commercial along the west side of Oracle all the way up to Big Wash Overlook.

Development predicted to be completed in 15-20 years (from 1987). Thirty years have passed and based upon the level of Rancho Vistoso PAD amendment activity since the 2016 General Plan was approved, Rancho Vistoso development is clearly not done by any means.

So again, considering the importance of the document and all of the recent activity, why is a more current PAD not posted for the public?

That’s the way they like it
Can we believe at this point that anyone at the Town or in the developer community have even noticed? I maintain that the pace at which the Town Planning Staff has been asked to work since 2010 to meet applicant timetables does not allow for proper review of new applications and their supporting data. And this is just the way applicants and their advocates, such as The WLB Group, seem to like it.

A document of this scope needs to be periodically reviewed to keep it current. PAD’s are a privilege granted to developers and I find it insulting that this document is currently so far behind.

You can view the Rancho Vistoso PAD documents HERE

Part 2 will be published on Wednesday

-----
Tim Bohen grew up in Southern California and moved to Oro Valley in 2015. He has a Bachelors degree in Physics from UCI and an MBA from Loyola Marymount. He is employed as a Systems Engineer. He graduated from the Community Academy in 2016 and the Citizens Academy in 2017. He has been a member of the Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission since January 2018 and is a volunteer mediator with the Arizona Attorney General’s office. His interests include aviation and history, with his greatest interest currently being frontier life and how the West was settled.

Will Council Swallow Hiremath Poison Pill Tonight?

UPDATE: Project rejected
After lengthy discussion, the town council rejected the application by a 6-1 vote, with Council Member Solomon the sole vote in favor. Reasons for rejection include:

• The proposed development was of density greater than the abutting residential development;
• The town should preserve the scarce land that it has for commercial office park; and
• There is seven years of residential development in line at present. Thus, this additional residential development is not needed.

Of concern to all was the interest of the abutting residents on the impact of the height of any commercial property that could be built. There is a concern because the prior council designated this property for "fast track" ("EEZ") approval. Under "EEZ", public input is not required as part of the project approval process.

---
The "Poison Pill"
On his way out the door, Oro Valley Mayor Hiremath left a poison pill for incoming Mayor Joe Winfield and new council members Barrett, Joyce-Ivey, and Nicolson. The pill is in the form of a follow up to a general plan amendment.

The amendment was passed by a 5-2 vote at the September 19 council meeting. The amendment changed the land designation of what we refer to as the "Ford Property" from "commercial/office park" (COP) to medium density residential (MDR). The property is located on the northwest corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd and Vistoso Commerce Loop.

Here's the poison: The property is zoned as COP. Thus, it must be rezoned to MDR in order for it to be in conformance with the amended general plan.

Ford Property

72 home potential
The proposal is to rezone the property to medium density residential. The applicant is WLB Group.

WLB wants 72 detached homes built on the property. WLB has proposed and received approval for previous zoning change requests in Oro Valley.  Paul Oland, their senior project manager, has been their representative on this and many of the other requests. He seems to be a WLB "rainmaker" when it comes to getting things changed in Oro Valley.

Planning and Zoning Commission said yes to rezoning... staff said no
"This rezoning request was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a special session on November 8, 2018. At this public hearing, the Commission voted 4-3 to recommend approval of this application, while staff recommended denial." (source)

According to staff, when compared to other communities, Oro Valley is already on the "low end" of available commercial land (Vella, 9-19-18 council meeting, 22:09 meeting video). For example, Oro Valley's 400 available acres are less than 4% of neighboring Marana. According to JJ Johnston, Oro Valley Director of Development, the town actually has only 200 acres of buildable land.(Source)

"The proposal would significantly reduce an already limited supply of Commerce / Office Park land in Oro Valley. This type of land is needed to attract employers, businesses, and residents to Oro Valley and help maintain the community's long-term economic viability...On balance, it is staff's professional opinion that this proposal is not in conformance with the policies of the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan." (source)

Under the prior council, a rezoning request of this nature was a "slam dunk." It would have been approved by a 7-0 vote.

Tonight, our new Oro Valley Town Council will decide if it wants to do this or if it wants to take a different tack. We wonder: Can it take a different tack or will it have to "swallow the poison?"
---

Guest View: Mike Zinkin ~ Speak NOW or forever lose your peace

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Wednesday, May 16th, 6:00 PM

Town Council Chambers

CAPELLA REZONING
Approx. 200 acres on the West Side of LaCholla between Lambert and Naranja

FROM: Large lot residential (R1-144 / approx. 60 homes on 3.3 acre lots)
TO: Planned Area Development (Up to 570 cluster homes plus commercial)

The History of Capella
As a former member of the Oro Valley Town Council, I was deeply involved in the compromises that were established prior to the approval of the LaCholla-Capella Major General Plan Amendments (GPA). Negotiations took place over a 9-month period in 2014-2015 between a local citizens group, the land owner, and the project engineer (WLB Group). I also held separate meetings with the WLB Group and the Town staff that resulted in further compromises.

Passing a Major GPA requires 5 votes on Council. The Council make-up at that time (May 2015) included 3 members who did not rubber-stamp development proposals. This required the WLB Group and the land owner to sit down and compromise with nearby residents in order to get the 5 votes they needed.

Current Events
Now, the Capella Rezoning is coming before the new council, a council whose campaigns were all supported by the development community, some of whom are involved in this project.

The Capella plan, on pages 188-190, requests exceptions to the current zoning requirements. These exceptions include, among other things, floor areas of 20,000 square feet per business vs. the allowed 5,000 square foot maximum, plus allowances for taller buildings and reduced setbacks. These exceptions were not part of the agreed upon compromises.

Additionally, what was discussed between the citizens’ group and WLB in 2014-2015 was a Master Planned Community. Some time between May 2015, when the Major General Plan Amendments were passed, and May 2018 when the rezoning portion of this development comes before council, the plan morphed into a Planned Area Development.

Master Planned Community vs. Planned Area Development
A Master Planned Community is a land use definition that combines many different uses. A Planned Area Development is a zoning code definition that allows for varied zoning entitlements such as Medium Density Residential (MDR), Low Density Residential (LDR), Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). A PAD can have different zoning allowances and different signage allowances than what’s in the Town Code, if the Council allows.

For example, in the MDR acreage of Capella, the PAD can have smaller set backs than what the Town Code specifies. If the PAD doesn’t mention any differences, then the Town Code prevails.

The Modus Operandi behind the rezoning request
Why do you think the developers desire reduced setbacks? With reduced setbacks, the builder (most likely Meritage Homes) will be able to add more homes. Capella is allowed only 500 units (or 570 units if two of the commercial parcels revert to residential in the future. They originally wanted 778 units). If they develop it with the OV zoning code setbacks, they might only be able to fit 480 units on that acreage. This reduces the builder’s profit, and therefore, reduces the market price for the land owner. What do you think the Town Council will do? Strictly adhere to the Oro Valley Zoning Code or allow the builder and land owner to make more money?

This appears to be another example of the WLB Group looking for more than what was discussed and agreed upon in 2014-2015. Of course, if the applicant can ask for more at this stage of the plan, so can YOU!

Town Council vs. the Board of Adjustment
The rezoning request requires just 4 council votes to pass. I can assure you that the current council will not read the Council Packet material, and will certainly never read all the way to pages 188-190 where the zoning modifications are outlined and requested. Thus, this rezoning will likely pass by a 7-0 vote. These zoning exceptions should be vetted and eliminated. The zoning code applies to all, and exceptions should only be authorized by the Board of Adjustment.

Let your voice be heard
The Government is responsible to YOU, not the developers. You may speak on this issue at Wednesday’s Town Council meeting by completing a Blue Speaker Card located on the back counter. If you cannot attend the meeting but would like to voice your concerns, you may contact the mayor and councilmembers at Council@orovalleyaz.gov but you must do so before tomorrow’s 6 PM council meeting.

Editor’s Note: The Capella Rezoning is the first item on the regular agenda. You can view the entire agenda HERE

Guest View: Tim Bohen ~ With the WLB Group, every penny counts. Every word, not so much.

Today’s article pertains to the self-serving WLB proposal for a 200-acre residential and commercial development known as Capella, planned for the west side of LaCholla between Lambert and Naranja. There will be a PUBLIC HEARING on this proposal at this Wednesday’s Town Council meeting which begins at 6 PM.

For those restless Oro Valley residents who are disposed to read public documents such as the Capella PAD (Planned Area Development), there is certainly a lot to learn about how the sausage gets made when it comes to development in today’s Oro Valley. But why should you have to read them? After all, Oro Valley has a capable Town Staff who, in the course of their duties, reviews such documents before they are posted for public view and before they are presented to the Town Council for a vote. I mean of course they do, right?

WLB Group vs. the Oro Valley General Plan
Let’s focus on just one area, but a critical one, of the Capella PAD. This is the Part XV Compliance Analysis. In this Analysis (provided by the applicant, WLB, on their own timeframe), the content of the proposed Capella PAD is evaluated against key criteria in the Oro Valley General Plan. The applicant provides a Y or N as to whether, in their view, their proposal meets this criteria and they explain their rationale in the “Comments” section.

Below are actual WLB responses regarding their inability or their refusal to comply with three criteria that the Oro Valley General Plan emphasizes as desirable approaches to new development.

1. General Plan Criteria
Mass grading techniques are minimized for project development.

WLB Comments
Mass grading reduces urban sprawl and also allows homebuilders to provide a higher level of amenities rather than spending money on less efficient grading techniques.

2. General Plan Criteria
Parking lots with greater than 20 car capacity are screened from adjacent uses and public thoroughfares.

WLB Comments
Meeting this criteria would compromise the viability of retail uses to be developed within the PAD. This criteria should be removed from the list because it is bad for Oro Valley’s struggling retail market.

3. General Plan Criteria
A favorable fiscal impact analysis.

WLB Comments
A fiscal analysis has not been prepared, although such analysis would surely confirm the economic benefits of this proposed PAD.

Are you buying what they’re selling?
• Do you (or does our Town Staff) believe that mass grading is actually the solution to urban sprawl?

• Does a struggling Oro Valley retail market really need more Capella retail?

• Are the economic benefits of the Capella PAD so self-evident that a fiscal impact analysis would simply be a waste of time? Or is it just that WLB doesn’t want to spend the money to have the analysis performed?

Flippant Responses
It’s astonishing that the WLB Group allowed their self-serving rationale for cutting costs to be included in their proposal which would be reviewed by the Town Staff and at least a few dozen Oro Valley residents. What remains in the final PAD brings into question the competence of both WLB and our Town Staff, who ostensibly fully review such submittals before posting them for public view. Why did the Town Staff not reject such flippant responses?

A Questionable Method of Operation?
More importantly, it may reveal the true feelings of both groups about the actual need for Public Hearings and public participation in the first place. Their M.O. seems to be:

“Nobody’s going to read it anyway and we can always talk around it, so why bother to craft a better answer? Better answers might cost WLB a little more money.”

And we all know that costing WLB and its clients more money in an effort to comply with the voter-approved General Plan always appears to be the wrong answer.

In his own words
In Planning Administrator Bayer Vella’s own words…”Staff took a very long time to review this case, more than normally as far as rezoning.” If the Town Staff had truly reviewed the Capella PAD above and beyond the level to which PADs are normally reviewed, would the above WLB responses remain verbatim in the revised version coming up for Town Council review on May 16th?

Listen to the audio for yourself (right panel).
It begins with Commissioner Swope’s question followed by Bayer Vella’s response. They seem to think that adding flexibility for WLB in the commercial zones might help them repeat the previous “success” of San Dorado.

Open mind or Case closed?
Is Staff reviewing the Capella PAD with an open mind or with the presumption of acceptance of the WLB proposal? What we do know for certain is that San Dorado is at a much better commercial location (Oracle and First) than anywhere in Capella and yet San Dorado is still looking for tenants according to the Town itself.

Click HERE and scroll down to Page 2 which shows that there are still four vacant buildings at San Dorado totaling almost 25,000 square feet in available retail space.

.......

Tim Bohen grew up in Southern California and moved to Oro Valley in 2015. He has a Bachelors degree in Physics from UCI and an MBA from Loyola Marymount. He is employed as a Systems Engineer. He graduated from the Community Academy in 2016 and the Citizens Academy in 2017. He was recently appointed to the Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission and is a volunteer mediator with the Arizona Attorney General’s office. His interests include aviation and history, with his greatest interest currently being frontier life and how the West was settled.

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.

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Planning Department enters the Circle of Deceit. Part 2.

You can read Part 1 HERE

Below is the speech that I gave before the P&Z Commissioners:

Point #1: There’s a document in the P&Z Packet that describes the surrounding neighborhood land uses. It describes the neighborhood EAST of the property as being “single-family residential 7000 and 10,000 sf lots.” This is false.

A map that I obtained from the Town shows that it was actually zoned for a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (not 7000 sf)…and more importantly, although that parcel was zoned for 10,000 sf minimum lot sizes, it was not developed that way.

The majority of homes in that neighborhood (Ironwood Canyon) are on lot sizes between 16,000 and 19,000 square feet. The smallest lot is just under 15,000 sf and the largest lot is 33,000 sf. There are a total of 65 homes and 22 of them are on lot sizes of over 20,000 sf.

The developer (WLB Group) is asking to build 167 homes on lot sizes of 7000 square feet and less with only 11 lots of 16,000 square feet, meaning that the average lot size will be way under 15,000 sf. This means that the entire buildable portion of the property will be mass-graded. (When the average lot size is less than 15,000 sf, the developer is allowed to mass grade the entire property). This not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods as the developments directly to the east and to the north were not mass-graded.

Point #2: The Staff Commentary (in the packet) states that this proposal conforms with the General Plan because it will provide housing for employees and students of the adjacent schools.

Those schools have been there for years and the employees and students haven’t needed housing in the immediate area in all that time. Why do they suddenly need it NOW? We already have 570 new homes planned at Capella…right next door.

What did the applicant present to the staff that supports the housing need for employees and students of adjacent schools? Where are these people and how many of them are there?

In 2014, the surrounding neighbors agreed to a rezoning request on that parcel to allow 118 semi-custom homes on lot sizes ranging from 1/3 acre to 1.5 acres. What significant change has taken place in the last 4 years to support this new proposal?

Point #3: The documents state that, “Staff recommends approval.” Well, they also recommended approval of the original plan that was presented for this property in 2014 --- 118 semi-custom homes on large lots with no mass grading and no connecting walls. So does this mean that the staff was wrong when they recommended approval of that project in 2014? And if they were wrong in 2014, why should we trust their judgment now?

I want names
A few days later, I contacted the Town and asked for the names of everyone involved in compiling the informational packet for the P&Z commissioners and the Power Point presentation and reviewing it for accuracy. I was provided the following names:

Bayer Vella (Planning Manager/Planning & Zoning Administrator)
Michael Spaeth (Principal Planner)
Rosevelt Arellano (Senior Planner)
Milini Simms (Planner)

Getting into the weeds
So that’s FOUR Town planners who worked on this who either didn’t know that the information they provided was false (incompetence) or they knew but their number one job is not to tell the truth, but rather to do the mayor’s bidding by pushing through new developments as quickly as possible. Either way, the citizens are not being properly represented.

Mayor Hiremath always says that he doesn’t “like to get into the weeds” but shouldn’t the staff be getting in there? The staff should be visually inspecting the neighborhoods adjacent to the subject property to ensure compatibility and not just assume that the developer’s submittal and Town documents are accurate.

Since P&Z and the Town Council base their votes on the information provided to them by staff, that information needs to be accurate and up-to-date.

The Vote
The initial vote was a 3-3 tie with one commissioner absent. 

Voting YES to approve the rezoning were Chairman Charlie Hurt and Commissioners Tom Drzazgowski and Don Cox.

Voting NO were Vice-Chair Melanie Barrett and Commissioners Thomas Gribb and Bob Swope. (Commissioner Gribb mentioned my speech as his reason for voting no.)

They reworded the motion and voted again.  The second vote was 5-1 to DENY the rezoning.  Commissioner Tom Drzazgowski was the lone YES vote.  It will still go before Council, but with the caveat that P&Z does NOT recommend approval.

Once again, town staff controlled the message and the message was false.

Below is the erroneous information that was included in the P&Z packet and in the Power Point presentation. It appears in Row 3 where it describes the zoning to the east of the subject property.

Below is the false statement made by Planner, Milini Simms, during the Town’s presentation in support of the Saguaro Viejos rezoning:

“The existing zoning is 20,000 square feet and the applicant is requesting to rezone the property to 7000 sf lots…..I do want to point out that at 7000 square foot lots, it is located to similar sized lots especially to the east and to the south.”

As you can see, if I hadn't spoken up, the P&Z Commissioners would have assumed the information in their packet was correct and they would likely have approved the rezoning. You have to wonder how many other times they have unknowingly voted to approve a rezoning based on false information.

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. In 2014, she organized a citizens group, Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan, who over a 9-month period, successfully negotiated 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.

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Planning Department enters the Circle of Deceit. Part 1.

Major Town decisions that affect us all, from how much we pay in sales taxes to the quality of development in our neighborhoods, are often being decided based on false information.

In two LOVE articles last week (Oro Valley Government lies to the citizens and Troon Enters the Circle of Deceit) you learned of the many falsehoods being disseminated by the Town of Oro Valley. Whether it’s deliberate lying on their part or just plain incompetence remains to be seen (but either way, it doesn’t serve us citizens well).

A presentation given by a town planner at last Tuesday’s Planning and Zoning meeting was the latest example.

The March 6th P&Z Meeting contained an agenda item for a rezoning of Saguaro Viejos, a single-family residential development on the west side of LaCholla between Glover Road and Lambert Lane. This 85 acre parcel is currently untouched pristine desert containing numerous saguaros and an abundance of mature desert vegetation that is home to a variety of wildlife. It’s one of the most picturesque desert landscapes left in Oro Valley.

History of the parcel
When I moved to Oro Valley in 2003, that parcel was zoned for rural residential, one home per 144,000 square feet (3.3 acres). In 2007, it was rezoned down to 20,000 square foot lots. The same developer (The WLB Group) who requested that 20,000 square foot rezoning, has now come back requesting another rezoning down to 7,000 square foot lots.

They poked the bear
Since 7,000 square foot lots are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, I was curious as to what justification the developer had given the Town for requesting this rezoning.

A few days prior to the meeting, I researched the P&Z packet on the Town website. These are the documents that P&Z Commissioners review prior to the meeting to familiarize themselves with the proposal. The packet was compiled by staff members in the Town Planning Department.

A glaring error
While reviewing the packet, I discovered a glaring error regarding adjacent lot sizes which prompted me to show up at the meeting and speak during the Public Hearing portion.

Prior to the Public Hearing, a Planning Department staff member (Milini Simms) gave a presentation on the proposal. The erroneous information that I found in the packet also appeared in her Power Point presentation and she verbally repeated the false information during her presentation. Between the packet, the slide presentation, and her speech, the P&Z Commissioners had now seen or heard the false information THREE TIMES…false information that they would then use in formulating their decision to approve or reject the application.

And now I was loaded for bear.

Part 2 will be published on Wednesday and includes the speech I gave before the P&Z Commissioners, the false information that was disseminated by the Town, and the results of the vote.

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

Mark Your Calendars ~ Upcoming Town Meetings

During the next two weeks, there are four town meetings scheduled regarding development issues in Oro Valley (General Plan Amendments and Rezonings) and the Community Center Golf Courses. We know that this is a busy time of year for many people but we hope that each of our readers will make an effort to attend at least one of these important meetings.

Keep in mind that the 2016 General Plan (a 10-year plan) was approved just one year ago by Oro Valley voters, yet developers are already looking for changes.

THIS WEEK’S MEETINGS

Wednesday, December 6th at 6 PM

Council Meeting – Town Council Chambers

Big Wash GPA and Rezoning; Shannon Road GPA and Rezoning

(1) Big Wash General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
Approximately 108 acres between Moore Road on the west and Rancho Vistoso Blvd. on the east

The applicant’s proposal includes the following three zoning designations:

Medium Density Residential (7,200 square foot lots)
Medium-High Density Residential (5,400 square foot lots)*
Open Space

*This designation “is intended to provide individual single-family ownership through patio homes and townhouses.”

If approved, this proposal will allow two massive developments with over 400 homes and mass grading in the FLOODPLAIN of Honeybee Wash and Big Wash.

View the Big Wash Project Fact Sheet HERE

(2) Shannon Road General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
76-acre property, east side of Shannon, south of IRHS

Applicant desires to change the zoning FROM R1-144 large-lot residential (3.3 acre lots) TO R1-36 small lot cluster residential with minimum lot sizes of 7,500 square feet with just 5 foot side setbacks (10 feet of space between each home.)

View the Shannon Road Project Fact Sheet HERE

A LARGE RESIDENT TURN-OUT IS IMPERATIVE AT THIS MEETING.   If you would like to speak during the meeting, please complete a Blue Speaker Card located on the back counter in council chambers.

Thursday, December 7th at 6 PM

Neighborhood Meeting – Casas Church, 10,801 N LaCholla Blvd.

Saguaro Viejos Rezoning

175 lot subdivision on 85 acres on the NW Corner of Naranja Drive and LaCholla Blvd.

Rezoning FROM R1-20 (20,000 sf lots) single-family residential TO R1-7 (7,000 sf lots) single-family residential

NOTE: The town already granted a rezoning on this property in approximately 2009 from 3.3 acre rural residential (144,000 square foot lots) to 20,000 square foot lots. The applicant is now requesting to rezone the lot sizes even further, down to a minimum lot size of 6,000 sf.

View the Saguaro Viejos Project Fact Sheet HERE


NEXT WEEK’S MEETINGS

Tuesday, December 12th at 6 PM

Community Meeting – Town Council Chambers

Golf Courses Update

Special meeting with Town Manager, Mary Jacobs.

Ms. Jacobs will review the Golf Consultants’ recommendations (from the $50,000 Golf Consultants’ Report) and also where the Town currently stands in the process of evaluating golf operations. Attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions and offer feedback.

The final recommendation to Council will be presented in January 2018.

You can view the entire Golf Consultants’ Report HERE and the briefer Executive Summary HERE

Wednesday, December 13th at 6 PM

Public Meeting/Neighborhood Meeting – Hilton El Conquistador

Proposed Development - Commercial/Senior Care/Apartments

25 acres located on the NE and SE corners of Oracle Road and El Conquistador Way
This project is located within the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor.

The applicant is proposing to rezone the property FROM single-family residential R1-144 (144,000 sf lots), Resort District and Technology Park TO Planned Area Development with an underlying zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial.

View the Project Fact Sheet HERE

NOTE: This property is owned by HSL Properties (Humberto Lopez, who infamously dumped the money losing golf courses on the town and who has donated almost $80,000 to the campaigns of all 7 current sitting council members.)

$15,730 to the 2014 Election campaigns of Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters
$25,750 to the 2015 Recall Election of Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters
$38,000 to the 2015 Election campaigns of Pina-Rodman-Solomon

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.