Oro Valley Town Council Continues Decision On Desert Springs Amendment

---

Tonight, the Oro Valley Town Council voted 7-0 to continue the Desert Springs General Plan Amendment.  This means that this property, located across from the Oro Valley Marketplace, adjacent to Catalina State Park will remain as low density residential/ commercial for the moment.  It also means that those who oppose this change must remain vigilant, for this amendment will come up again in some form, unless the developer decides they can get a better deal by staying in Pima County.

It was obvious, based on the tenor of the discussions, that the amendment would not have been approved by a super majority of council, as required. So, the "pro business four"(Mayor Hiremath and Council Member's Waters, Hornat and Snider) pulled if off the table.  This, they could do by a majority vote.  This, they had to do, because the measure would not have been approved.

Significant points that arose during the discussion:

• To Mayor Hiremath, the decision is a matter of control.  Does Oro Valley want to have Pima County control what happens to this property or would Oro Valley rather have control over what happens?  Thus, a rejection of this amendment would leave the future development of this parcel in the hand of the County.
• The requested amendment is to change the land use designation; not to annex the property. Annexation would occur if the applicant requested annexation by the town and the town agreed. In other words, the applicant could get agreement for a land use change and then pit Pima County and Oro Valley against each other in a bidding war for zoning most favorable to the use granted.
• Council Member Burns questioned where the facts were to support the assertions that, for example, medium density housing is needed now, whereas it was not needed when the plan was approved in 2005.  Also, he asked, has the town vision of being a "residential, resort" community changed such that it should foster significant density residential next to the Catalina State Park?  If so, where is the evidence to support this assertion?
• Council Member Garner questioned why, in one request, WLB, the developer of two separate parcels being requested for amendment, said there was no demand for residential; yet, on Desert Springs, located two miles east, they claim that there is a demand for residential.
• Council Member Zinkin noted that the property, once approved for a medium density land use, would likely be requested to be zoned for this use.  This increase density would result in "track homes." 

Council chambers was packed to overflowing, with concerned County and Oro Valley residents. Many spoke during the public hearing portion of the discussion. Most spoke against the amendment.

In other items:

• Council continued discussion of annexation of Tohono Chul.  The continuance was requested by the applicant.  The applicant needs more time to "shore up" support for the anexation among other property owners in the area.  For example, there is a hotel and substantial other commercial property owners in the annexation area.  The addition of Oro Valley would be a significant, positive addition to our community.
• Council approved by a 7-0 vote the general plan amendment to allow commercial property use of the parcel located on the northeast corner of Tangerine and LaCholla. 
• Council rejected an amendment that would add an energy component to the general plan. As Council Member Zinkin motioned, it would be best for the voters of Oro Valley to decide an addition of this nature when the 2015 general plan is considered.