The Solomon Chronicles. Part 2. Voting Record 2016-2018

With the Town Council election on the horizon, LOVE will be presenting a series of articles entitled, “The Solomon Chronicles,” highlighting the abysmal record of Councilmember Steve Solomon who is running for re-election. This weekly series will highlight his 4-year record of incivility and his interdependent relationship with local developers. This series was written by a LOVE contributor and contains a synopsis of previous LOVE articles plus new information.
- - -
Today’s article presents excerpts from Councilmember Solomon’s voting record from November 2016 to April 2018 and focuses on his repeated catering to developers.

Solomon thumbed his nose at the citizens on his first night in office
November 16, 2016. Solomon was sworn into office. That very same night, he voted to approve a Major General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map at Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Vistoso Highlands Drive (17 acres) FROM Neighborhood Commercial/Office TO Medium Density Residential.

Why was this important? Solomon’s vote was noteworthy because it came just 8 days after the new 2016 General Plan had been approved by Oro Valley voters! Think about that. A plan that was 3 years in the making (September 2013 – September 2016), a plan written and approved by the people of Oro Valley to reflect OUR community values, was altered by Steve Solomon (and the rest of the former Hiremath council) during their very first meeting. On his very first night in office, Solomon’s first order of business was to thumb his nose at the citizens. This would be a harbinger of what was to come.

Apparently, all those Oro Valley voices coming together to present a clear vision of what we wanted for our town was of no value or importance to Steve Solomon.

Approved the grading of rolling hills
November 16, 2016. Yes, we’re still on the same night and he wasn’t done yet. Remember the beautiful rolling hills that were once present on the east side of First Avenue? Town Code does not allow grading of hills by more than 6 feet. Solomon voted to allow a portion of those hills to be graded down 12-15 feet to accommodate the residential development known as Sanctuary at Silverhawke.

Approved a storage facility at the historic Steam Pump Ranch
March 15, 2017. Solomon voted to allow a 107,544 square foot, 3-story storage facility containing approx. 750 storage units at the historic Steam Pump Village despite residents speaking against it during the Public Hearing. Residents pointed out that it was not consistent with the vision, guiding principles, goals and policies of the General Plan. One of those residents pointed out that even the Town Staff found that it met ONLY ONE of the 10 goals in the General Plan.

Additionally, this area was slated to be part of the Main Streets district which was to include areas for shopping and dining along the CDO wash…another reason that a 3-story storage facility was not appropriate for this area.

Tangerine North Annexation, Shannon 80, and Big Wash General Plan Amendments
December 6, 2017. Despite a huge resident turnout at this council meeting and strong vocal opposition from residents, Solomon voted to approve ALL of the following:

• Tangerine North Annexation. Solomon voted to approve a General Plan Amendment to extend the Oro Valley planning area boundary to include 302 acres currently zoned for 3.3 acre residential on the north side of Tangerine (between Coyote Crossing and Thornydale) and to give it a new designation of Master Planned Community. In other words, say goodbye to 3.3 acre minimum lot sizes.

• Shannon 80. Solomon voted to approve a General Plan Amendment to change the land use on 76 acres on the east side of Shannon Road FROM Rural low density residential TO Low density residential-1. He then voted to approve the rezoning from R1-144 to R1-36. However, due to ESLO criteria, the minimum lot size actually allowed is just 8,750 square feet! This is totally incompatible with existing homes in that area which are custom homes on lot sizes of 144,000 sf and larger (3.3 acres and up).

• Big Wash. Solomon voted to approve a General Plan Amendment to change land use and zoning designations for 108 acres of undeveloped land in a FLOODPLAIN located along Honeybee Wash and Big Wash to allow 408 homes on lot sizes of 7,200 sf lots and 5,400 sf lots on mass-graded sites.

Saguaros Viejos
April 4, 2018. Despite this parcel (west side of La Cholla between Glover and Naranja) already having been rezoned from R1-144 (144,000 sf) down to R1-20 (20,000 sf) just two years earlier, Solomon voted to approve yet another rezoning down to even smaller lots of R1-7 (7,000 sf).

This pristine desert parcel (85 acres), originally zoned for 3.3 acre rural residential lots with no mass grading, will now be built as 7,000 sf lots with mass grading and cookie-cutter 2-story homes. This is not compatible with the surrounding homes, including custom homes on 3.3 acre lots and semi-custom homes with an average lot size of 18,500 sf. Numerous residents spoke in opposition to this rezoning.

Solomon’s legacy – 588 acres of pristine desert irreparably transformed
This is just a small sample from Solomon’s first 18 months in office! It reveals that his loyalty is not to the people, but rather to wealthy land speculators and developers. For anyone who still doesn’t know this, Steve Solomon is also a developer. He is the owner of Canada Vistas, a real estate development/homebuilding business.

NOTE: Councilmember Bill Rodman who is also running for re-election also voted to approve all of the above general plan amendments and rezonings. Do you want to re-elect these two incumbents and give them another 4-year long license to continue rezoning what little land is left of our once beautiful Oro Valley desert landscape?

- - -
The Solomon Chronicles: Part 3. “Who funded Solomon’s 2016 Town Council campaign?” will be published next Wednesday.

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 ~ Town Council deems man-made golf course views as more important than natural desert views. Part 2.

Below is my rebuttal to comments made by Mayor Hiremath at the April 4th Town Council meeting when discussing the rezoning of Saguaros Viejos. Scroll down below this article to read Part 1 (including the mayor’s comments) that LOVE published on Thursday.

My rebuttal
Mr. Mayor, I’m well aware that you had the opportunity to purchase the golf course property but not the Saguaro Viejos property and you knew that I was well-aware of that, so your answer appears to be nothing more than an attempt at creating a diversion to avoid answering the actual question.

The question was why does the Town Council believe that they have “an obligation” to preserve man-made golf course views to protect the views and property values for one group of residents but no obligation to preserve natural desert views to protect the views and property values of another group of residents? Why the concern for one person’s views and property value but not another’s?

In your response, you admitted that there were already entitlements on the golf courses for single family homes and that you wanted to prevent a developer from building those homes which would destroy the golf course views of hundreds of residents. But when it comes to those of us with desert views, you (and Councilmember Solomon) are always quick to say that the landowner has a right to develop homes on his land because the entitlements are already there and there’s nothing you can do.

Well, in the case of Saguaro Viejos, there was something you could do. You could have denied the rezoning for 7,000 sf lots. The current entitlements on that parcel were for minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet with custom grading (no mass grading). The Town Council (your council) already approved a development plan for that parcel in 2014 for one-story semi-custom homes on lot sizes ranging from 1/3 acre to 1.5 acres and no mass grading. You could have stuck to that plan.

Mr. Mayor, if you and Councilmember Solomon care so much about preserving the views that people paid for when they bought their homes, why didn’t you paraphrase Councilmember Solomon's comment from the July 2017 Golf Study Session about preserving golf course views and tell the applicant:

“We have to be very sensitive to what happens to that parcel because you’ve got homes backing up to this land. They bought to have desert views. We can’t just go off and put in 7,000 square foot lots with 2-story homes and mass grading. I mean that’s just not acceptable…We have an obligation to maintain, at minimum, the current 20,000 square foot minimum lot size and the conceptual site plan that those neighbors agreed to and the Town Council approved in 2014.”

Summary
The quotes from Mayor Hiremath and Councilmember Solomon regarding protecting residents’ views [published in yesterday’s article below] clearly show that they are implementing land use/rezoning policies that favor one group of residents over another. This is yet another example of the low moral and ethical standards of this Town Council.

Four of them are up for re-election in August. We need to vote them out and elect people who will treat all citizens equally and with respect and who will place citizens’ desires above the requests of the wealthy developers who repeatedly fund their election campaigns.

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Town Council deems man-made golf course views as more important than natural desert views. Part 1.

During the April 4th Town Council meeting, I spoke during the Public Hearing portion of the Saguaro Viejos rezoning (a rezoning that will destroy the pristine desert views that many residents paid for when we purchased our homes.) Below are past quotes from Town Council members that I used during my speech. These are followed by the mayor’s feeble attempt at a response.

Mayor Hiremath quote from the 12/17/14 Town Council meeting explaining why they needed to purchase the golf courses:

“Lastly, and not least, the overriding factor to me personally, it’s controlling the destiny of 330 acres in the middle of MY TOWN where I have residents who are going to be adversely affected by it.”

He was referring to the fact that if someone else purchased the El Con golf property, they could convert the golf courses into single-family residential homes, thereby destroying the golf course views of residents who paid for those views. The mayor was clear that he wanted to protect the homes along the golf courses from development that would be incompatible in their backyards.

Councilmember Solomon quote from the 7/12/17 Golf Courses Study Session when they were discussing the possibility of closing one or all of the golf courses:

“We have to be very sensitive to what happens to the areas that we no longer use as golf courses, because you’ve got homes backing up to these areas. They bought to be on a golf course. We can’t just go off and put in new residential development or commercial development. I mean that’s just not acceptable…We have an obligation to maintain, at minimum, an open natural desert setting for those homes.”

An obligation?
I then challenged them to explain their rationale. “If you vote to approve this rezoning, you’re going to have to explain how you have an obligation to protect the man-made views of one group of residents, yet you have no obligation to protect the unspoiled natural desert views of another group of residents.”

Mayor Hiremath’s response
“So to respectfully answer one of the speakers who asked me to explain the difference between this property and the acquisition of the 320 acres. We had the opportunity to purchase it and on those acreages there were single family entitlements, so if the Town had not purchased it, a development would occur and the Town of Oro Valley would have no recourse in stopping them because single family entitlements were already entitled.

With THIS particular property, [Saguaros Viejos] the Town does not have the opportunity to buy it. Private development owns it and therein lies the difference. So in one instance we did have the capacity to jump in and were offered the opportunity to buy it to preserve those views and that’s the distinction.”

Part 2, my rebuttal to the mayor, will be published on Friday.