Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Councilmembers Snider and Hornat offer absurd reasons for approving a recent rezoning

Click HERE to read the absurd comments that Mayor Hiremath made during the same Council Meeting when discussing this rezoning in the LaCholla/Naranja area.

Today’s article focuses on the absurd justifications made by Councilmembers Snider and Hornat to explain their approval of that rezoning request…rezoning 85 acres of pristine desert on the west side of LaCholla from R1-20 (minimum 20,000 square foot lots with custom grading) to R1-7 (minimum 7,000 sf lots with mass grading).

Prior to their discussion, I spoke at the podium, pointing out the false information that had been supplied to them by the applicant and the Town Staff…false information that they would use in formulating their decision. Below is an excerpt from my speech:

"I’d like to begin by stating that The WLB proposal contains misinformation. Page 5 states that the existing land use east of the property at Ironwood Canyon has “a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.” That is false. The smallest lot size is just under 15,000 sf and there are only 2 lots of that size. The majority of lots are between 18,000 and 23,000 sf.

In your Council Packet, Item C3 states that the largest lot in Ironwood Canyon is 28,884 sf. That is false. The largest lot is 33,020 sf.

Those two falsehoods should make you question how many other items in the report may also be false.

Page 48 of the WLB proposal states…“This residential development, with its relatively low proposed land use intensity…will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.” That is false. 6500 square foot lots is less than half the size of even the smallest lots to the east at Ironwood Canyon and it’s 20 times smaller than the 3 acre lots directly to the north. How is that compatible?"

Councilmember Mary Snider’s absurd comment

Snider tried to blame approving small lot sizes and cluster homes on quote...

“...the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance [ESLO] which the citizens of our community drafted and this council approved in 2011 or 2012. We’re following the direction of what the community has said they want us to do in conserving more open space…Sometimes people might not understand why we’re getting slightly smaller lots, but we’re getting more open space.”

My rebuttal
Really, Mary? You think that residential lots that are half the size of the adjacent lots to the east and 20 times smaller than the adjacent lots to the north are slightly smaller??!! You need to be replaced with a council member who can do basic math and who cares about the property values of ALL Oro Valley residents, not just the ones who live along the golf courses.

Also, it was not the citizens who wanted cluster homes on tiny lots. You failed to mention that the ESLO Committee included members of the development community including Councilmember Steve Solomon (a developer) who acted as the Town Council representative for the ESLO Committee.  As usual, they got what they wanted and the citizens were ignored. The ESLO concept that citizens had in mind is vastly different from what was adopted. Why do you think the citizens continually complain about the constant rezonings for postage-stamp sized lots?

It’s disingenuous of you to say that you’re following the direction given to you by the community when you have never taken that approach when it comes to approving General Plan amendments and rezonings. The General Plan was written by the community, giving the Town Council direction on what the citizens want for our town, yet you have had no problem approving one General Plan amendment and rezoning after another. In fact, in 2016, you approved a General Plan Amendment just 8 days after the new General Plan was ratified. Citizens worked on that plan for two years and you began dismantling it in 8 days. So spare me your sanctimonious, “We’re following the direction” of the citizens.

Councilmember Joe Hornat’s absurd comments

Hornat Comment #1. “I’m a little defensive about when people tell me that we haven’t followed through with the process. The P&Z folks who rejected this, or denied it, never even brought up the number of houses or the size of the lots. They were concerned with traffic. I submit that they denied it, but not for the reasons that have been brought up here.”

My rebuttal
Joe, you were present when Town Planner, Milini Simms gave the Town’s Power Point presentation on this rezoning, shortly before you made your comments. She stated that this rezoning…

“…was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6th. They did recommend denial. The main focus of that meeting was compatibility to the surrounding area and traffic along Naranja.”

The compatibility had to do with the tiny lot sizes not being compatible with the surrounding homes. You were present at that P&Z hearing, so you were well aware of what had transpired that evening.

Hornat Comment #2: “Is this really that much different than what is across the street on the East side? We can play with the numbers all day long. We can look at the pictures. It’s not that much different. It might even be better. I don’t want to get into a numbers game. That’s just ridiculous.”

My rebuttal
Yes, it’s much different than what’s across the street on the East side. As I outlined in my speech (were you listening?) 6500 square foot lots is less than half the size of even the smallest lots to the east.

Other differences include:
• mass grading vs. custom grading
• 2-story homes vs. 1-story homes
• 10 feet between homes vs. 50 feet between homes
• lot widths of 50 feet vs. lot widths of 100 feet
• connecting walls vs. no connecting walls

Why do you listen attentively to the applicant when they discuss their numbers? They present their numbers (lot sizes and number of homes) as they try to convince you that their numbers are compatible with the surrounding numbers. But for some reason, it’s not until the residents speak about the numbers not being equal that you decide that you don’t want to “get into a numbers game.” What's really ridiculous is how the Town Council repeatedly gives more weight to the presentations of the applicant/developer and the Town Staff than they do to the presentations of the citizens.

I’ve come to expect ridiculous comments from Mary Snider, but your comments at this meeting had me wondering if perhaps you had died recently and the council is now propping up your body at the dais in the manner of Weekend at Bernie’s.

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.