Wednesday, February 22, 2023

OVCN has Shown an Utter Disregard for their Neighbors


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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