Bits and Pieces

"Crimefighter" focuses on internet safety for kids

This month's edition of "Crimefighter," a publication of the Oro Valley Police Department, focuses on internet safety for kids. The article provides a list of internet use guidelines for you to share with children and a list of basic guidelines for parental supervision. The article includes links for additional safety tips and videos. You can read the entire newsletter from the link we have provided.  You may want to sign up for "Crimefighter" and other Town of Oro Valley publications.

Aquatic Center Reopens

"The Oro Valley Aquatic Center has reopened after a temporary closure in December for improvements to the pump room, circulation and filtration, along with general maintenance and cleaning. The previous pool filters had reached the end of their useful lives and were replaced with modern, deep-bed filters. Although not noticeable to the eye, these filters allow for finer filtration to ensure a high standard of water quality for swimmers. To accommodate for the size of the new filters, the Aquatic Center’s pump room plumbing was expanded to the east. This new area will soon be enclosed and resulted in no loss of deck space for the public." (Source: Town of Oro Valley Media Release)

OVCN is on a "mission"

This past Sunday, Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene minister Chris Collins informed congregants that the Planning and Zoning Commission had not approved the Church's rezoning request.  Collins expressed his disappointment but emphasized his resolve to turn this setback into a victory.  OVCN sees their request in entirely religious terms. The defeat of the measure by the commission was based on the commission's conclusion that the sports complex which will sit on the property adjacent to the church is simply not suited for the character of the neighborhood of which it is a member. It also is not suited to the 2016 General Plan. The next hearing on the request is March 1. We expect a large turnout.

OVCN-A matter of perspective for some

A long dialogue on Nextdoor voiced poster opinions on the OVCN rezoning request. One of the posters included a map [panel right] to support their assertion that the size of the OVCN sports complex will be small in relation to the size of the "existing high school, park and swim complex." That is correct. However, it's not relevant to the rezoning request.

What we found interesting was the picture the commenter posted. The picture they posted is the one on the bottom right of the panel. It severely visually understates the impact on the adjacent neighborhood, as show on the picture on the top, because it includes a very small portion of the residential area. Even the map on top, which is the one the town uses, understates the area impacted.  There are many homes to the south and further west that are concerned about the impact.

 

We have to give the commenter credit for deceptiveness. The map is rather clever way of implying that the rezoning is a not "big deal".

Oro Valley issues call for Board and Commission Vacancies

The Town of Oro Valley is accepting applications from residents who are interested in serving on a Town Board, Commission or Health Care Benefits Trust, which was just recently approved by Council. These volunteer groups provide an opportunity for residents to be active in Town government.  These are:

• Health Care Benefits Trust
• Historic Preservation Commission
• Planning and Zoning Commission 
• Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee
• Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Board

You can apply here.

Council approves drive-thru use for NW Corner of Naranja and La Canada

This past Wednesday, the Oro Valley Town Council voted 6-1 to approve a drive-thru use for a multi-use facility that will be built on the NW corner of Naranja and LaCanada. The drive-thru use had been opposed by some residents because it will increase traffic at an already busy intersection.  Paul Oland, representing the applicant, pointed out that the uses for which the property are currently approved would result in even more congestion than his client proposed. Read about that project here.

Shannon Road pavement and reconstruction project begins Feb. 21, drivers should expect traffic delays 

"The Town of Oro Valley will begin the Shannon Road pavement and reconstruction overlay project on February 21. During construction, Shannon Road from Lambert Lane to Naranja Drive will be limited to one lane of traffic with speed reduced to 25 mph. Drivers should expect delays. Please see details below. The project is expected to finish by April 14." (Source: Town of Oro Valley Media Release)

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Local builder violates Town Code and recklessly destroys 10 saguaros in Oro Valley

As someone who has been actively involved in Oro Valley development issues for over 10 years and is fed up with the wanton destruction of our beautiful desert by developers who value profit over wildlife and conservation, I was intrigued by a discussion that took place during a council meeting last year involving Vice Mayor Barrett, Councilmember Pina, and Planning Administrator, Bayer Vella.

The discussion involved a residential development known as Saguaros Viejos. Vice Mayor Barrett was concerned about the possibility that more saguaros would be removed than what is allowed by the Town.

Council and Staff discussion
Barrett: What is the penalty for saguaros that are supposed to be preserved in place but are taken out?

Vella: The penalty is laid out in Code. It’s a formula – the height of the saguaro, the number of arms, there’s a set fee amount. If that occurs, a fine would be levied and the applicant would have to replace the saguaro. The code specifies that it has to be the same size and species, so if a 24-foot high saguaro is pushed over, there would be a fine levied and they would have to find another 24-foot tall saguaro.

Barrett: Is that even possible to transplant a 24-foot saguaro?

Vella: That’s not something we encourage. The survivability rate above 24 feet is very poor. Our aim is to prevent that by requiring fencing around each saguaro.

Here’s where it gets interesting.

Pina: Historically, has the Town ever incurred any violations…in dealing with saguaros?

Vella: I’m disappointed to report that the answer is yes. It has occurred once in my time with the Town (19 years). Fines were levied and replacements of the saguaros were required.

Pina: And when that situation occurred, was it intentional or was it a situational deal, but at the end of the day you still have a violation?

Vella: I can’t speak to motive but there was a significant violation. It was a very serious issue.

I contacted the Town for more information
Upon hearing that this was a significant violation, I contacted Mr. Vella and asked for the name of the builder, the location of the violation, in what year it took place, how many saguaros were destroyed, and the amount of the fine that the builder received. The answers were as follows:

• The builder was Fairfield Homes
• The location was the Enclave at Stone Canyon
• The violation took place in 2015
• 10 saguaros were destroyed
• The fine levied was $335,288 (later refunded by the Town; see below)

I followed-up with a Public Records Request. I asked to see all correspondence between the Town and Fairfield Homes (and the engineering firm, Cypress Development) and documentation that the fine was paid in its entirety. When the documents were ready, I met with Mr. Vella at his request to review the documents. What follows is what I learned in that meeting.

The violation
The entire 13-acre site was graded in order to accommodate the approximate 8,000 square foot lot sizes. Although this grading is allowed when the average lot size is less than 15,000 square feet, the violation occurred when the builder ignored the native plant salvage requirements and just bulldozed everything to smithereens. (My words, not Mr. Vella’s).

The saguaros that were leveled were all between 12 and 20 feet in height. (According to information obtained from Saguaro National Park, this places the age of those saguaros at 50 to 75 years old!)

Intent of the Code
The Code’s intent is not to get money into the Town coffers. The intent is to force the builder to replant the destroyed vegetation since that is what’s most important to the residents living in the area of the Code violation. The Town will also not issue any home permits until the builder either pays the cash fine upfront or until after the plant restoration is completed.

There are two separate fines
• A non-refundable punitive fine for grading the site without permission.
In this case, the builder was fined $27,788.

• A separate fine for the destruction of native plants, which is refunded after the restoration.
In this case, the builder was fined $335,288 which was later refunded by the Town.

However, the cost to replace the saguaros is entirely on the builder. In this case, it cost Fairfield Homes approximately $77,000 to mitigate the damage. They also did $32,000 of off-site restoration in other areas of Stone Canyon.

The builder’s final cost was $136,788.

I’m sure that $136,788 was a drop in the bucket for Fairfield considering that new homes in The Enclave at Stone Canyon are priced in the $700,000 range.  The Enclave

But shouldn’t someone be behind bars?
In December 2017, a local resident speaking during a Public Hearing, stated that developers were working at night destroying large saguaro cactus. When he contacted the Town to report this violation, he was told that they didn’t have enough staff to monitor these operations.

Below was Councilmember Steve Solomon’s response to this resident.

“...and it’s not fair for you to come in here and make up stories about Oro Valley blading down saguaros in the middle of the night. That’s an outright lie. That doesn’t happen. It’s never happened. If it did happen people would be behind bars.”

That’s an outright lie
Solomon always speaks with such authority that anyone who does not know his history of stating falsehoods as facts would just assume that he’s telling the truth. I know his history so I emailed him for clarification of his comment. What specifically would land the person behind bars? Destroying the saguaros by mistake or secretly destroying them at night when no one was watching? I also asked him to point me to the specific code that states that this violation would result in jail time.

Not surprisingly, Solomon refused to answer my questions, stating only that his comments were “self-explanatory.” Not one to give up easily, I asked him again, this time informing him that his answer (or lack thereof) would appear in this Guest View. This time he responded, “In the Town’s history of 25+ years…the illegal destruction of saguaros occurred only ONCE.” He never said, “I was mistaken” or “I misspoke.” He also failed to provide proof that this violation would land the person behind bars.

Keep in mind that he made the assertion that “It’s never happened” in December 2017, two years after the aforementioned Fairfield Homes violation occurred.

Shannon 80 area residents beware!
I asked Mr. Vella if Fairfield Homes has been allowed to continue building in Oro Valley despite this significant violation. Unfortunately, the answer was yes. (I would think they would have been told to pack their bags and get out of Dodge forever.)

Where else are they being allowed to build? Well, it turns out that David Williamson of Fairfield Homes is also the person who purchased the property known as The Shannon 80 (east side of Shannon Road, south of Naranja). The last I knew, the plan is to build 80 single-family homes on that parcel. Keep in mind that when the Town surveyed this property, they found that the highest density of Ironwood trees in Oro Valley was located on this parcel.

I wonder how many Ironwood trees Fairfield will destroy. For those who are new to this area, Ironwood trees can live to be 800+ years old!
---
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, 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.

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

LOVE identifies the “Local Investment Group” that is requesting a General Plan Amendment on the Manning Property (Shannon Road)

LOVE has obtained the following information regarding the Manning Property

This parcel is currently being considered for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use/rezoning to accommodate 108 homes clustered on 6,250 square foot lots.

This parcel is currently zoned for rural low density residential 3.3 acre lots.

Parcel Numbers: (Book-Map-Parcel)
224-21-0020         224-21-0030        224-21-0040        224-21-0050

Legal Class
Vacant/Agriculture/Golf

Sale Date and Price
February 2016
Sale Price $2,200,000 / Time Adjusted Sale $2,377,275

New Owners
Shannon 77 LLC
700 E Broadway Blvd., Suite 200, Tucson, AZ

Manager/Member Information Listing:

Gurpreet Jaggi
CEO of First Magnus when it  filed for bankruptcy in August 2007.  Read about the First Magnus bankruptcy filing here.

Gurpreet Jaggi
G&R 2009 Family Revocable Trust (Gurpreet S. Jaggi and Reema Sawhney, Trustees

David Williamson
Real Estate Developer, Fairfield Homes, 6420 E. Tanque Verde, Tucson, AZ

Garry Brav
President and Founder of BFL Construction
Multi-million dollar commercial projects throughout Tucson and Southern Arizona
Single family and Multi-family residential developer
bflconstruction.com

SJ Holdings, LLC
c/o Gregory Gadarian (Gadarian Law Offices)
2200 E River Road, #123, Tucson, AZ 85718
Steven Scott Albert
Julie Mariane Albert

Indus Holdings, LLC
c/o Matthew Thrasher (Thrasher Law Offices)
1785 E Skyline Drive, #131, Tucson, AZ 85718
---

Shannon Road-Manning Property: Neighborhood Meeting Summary

On Tuesday, April 25th, a Neighborhood Meeting was held regarding the proposal to change the Land Use of the Manning Property (76 acres at Shannon Road and Owl Vista Place) to allow the development of 108 homes to be clustered on 6,250 square foot lots. (Current zoning on that parcel is for large lots of 1 home per 144,000 square feet.) Approximately 40 neighbors were in attendance.

Information provided by the Town and the Applicant (WLB Group)
This is the 4th rezoning application on this property. All previous applications were withdrawn after vocal citizen opposition citing that the proposed developments were not compatible with surrounding homes and would also have detrimental impacts on the environment, water, schools, drainage, and traffic.

The property now has a new owner, known at this time only as “a local investment group.”

The current proposal calls for the clustering of homes on the northern half of the property (near Ironwood Ridge HS) while leaving the southern half of the property (adjacent to Owl Vista) as natural open space due to the considerable amount of ironwood trees on the southern portion of the property.

This parcel is surrounded by custom homes on 3.3 acre lots (and larger) west and south of the property. The plan calls for several hundred feet of buffer between the development and the homes to the south on Owl Vista. There will be a 300 foot buffer on the western edge of the property along Shannon Road. There will be some buffer on the northern and eastern edge of the property as well but the amount was not specified.

The entire Right-of-Way on Shannon is Town controlled. The ROW ends at Lambert Lane. The Town does not control that intersection. Additionally, all streets west of Shannon are part of Pima County and not Oro Valley.

Neighbors raised the following questions:
Are you allowed to come back at a later time and develop the southern portion of the property?

No, we cannot deviate from the plan once it’s approved by council. (Caveat: They can come back later and ask for a rezoning on the southern portion and develop it separately. There is nothing preventing them from doing this at a later time.)

Voters just approved the General Plan in November. Why are you already asking for a rezoning?

All property owners are allowed to request land use changes. It makes more sense to go through the standard amendment process rather than to change it during the General Plan process.

Why can’t we limit the number of rezoning applications to maybe 3 in 10 years? How many times do we have to do this before we get peace in our neighborhood?

That has to be taken up with the Arizona General Legislature.

There are ironwood trees on the northern portion as well. Why is it OK to build there and not in the southern portion which also has ironwood trees?

The Town identified the lower half of the property as being more dense with ironwood trees.

What kind of light can we expect from this development? Stadium lights from the school already block our night skies and the stars during football season.

It will be Dark Skies compliant. There will be no street lights. Schools do not have to abide by the Dark Skies ordinance.

If we file a formal protest, where does the boundary begin?

150 feet from the property boundary to be amended.

What fees does the Town collect on these developments?

There are small application fees and review fees. There is also a construction tax. Then there are larger fixed fees—impact fees, due to impacts on our police department and roads. These fees are applied to the Town’s infrastructure.

Why would the Town vote no and dismiss this project when it means that it won’t collect these fees?

No answer given.

Neighbors presented the following concerns and comments:
All this talk about the water shed and traffic flow is a distraction. This proposal will never fit the character of this area. Shannon is rural. There are 5 acre properties on the west side of Shannon. This proposal is no more scenic now than the proposal we saw in 2008.

They argue that this is appropriate development because they have high density housing to the east. That’s not our neighborhood.

We moved to R1-144 zoning because we wanted a desert environment. We’re concerned about the loss of the desert and the wildlife. Traffic is already a nightmare every morning with IRHS traffic. We don’t need to add another 108 homes with another 200 cars added to this daily traffic.

Prove a hardship to the property owner if they’re not allowed to rezone the land to their desire. The new owners accepted the property “as is.” They knew the land use. They knew the zoning.

This proposal calls for bulldozing like at Capella Estates. You want to bulldoze one half of 76 acres. I’d rather see the entire parcel developed with the current zoning of 1 home per 3.3 acres with no mass grading.

The 7.5 foot side setbacks on each home is nuts. Deed the remaining land on the parcel to the Town so that this owner can’t come back later and ask for another rezoning and more development on the lower half of this property.

Will they listen?
The applicant said, “We’re here to listen.” But will they? Listening is one thing. Acting accordingly is another. Past history tell us that they will do whatever they think they can get away with.

If there is any friction on council about this development, the applicant will compromise in order to get the votes he needs. If there is no friction on council, there will be no compromise despite the valid concerns of the nearby residents. In other words, “Rural Shannon” residents will need to get some of the council members on their side.

Councilmembers in Attendance
In attendance at this meeting were Councilmembers Joe Hornat, Bill Rodman, and Lou Waters. Also in attendance were Planning & Zoning commissioners, Don Cox, Tom Gribb, and Bob Swope. Keep in mind that all six of them heard all of the dissent, opposition, and concerns of the residents in attendance. They heard the anger and frustration. They heard the loud applause after each resident spoke. Whom will they represent when the time comes to vote -- the citizens whom they were elected to serve or the developers and builders who fund their election campaigns?

The Process
This meeting was the first informational meeting after which the applicant will file a formal submittal with the Town. After that, there will be at least one more Neighborhood Meeting followed by two Planning & Zoning hearings. The first P&Z meeting is informational and the second is when P&Z will decide whether to forward this on to the Council for a vote. If they forward it to the Council, there will be a Town Council meeting which includes a Public Hearing prior to the vote.

You can learn more about this project at www.ovprojects.com

Mark your calendars. Shannon Road – Manning Property General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application

Proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for an approximately 78-acre property east of Shannon Road immediately south of Ironwood Ridge High School.

Current Land Use Designation
Rural low density residential 3.3 acre lots (144,000 square feet). Maximum one dwelling per 3.3 acres (23 homes total) with substantial setbacks between individual homes in order to maintain a rural character and retain the natural environment.

Proposed Land Use Designation
Low density residential-2. Maximum 1 dwelling per half acre (89 homes total). Includes “retention of a rural open character…minimum of [natural desert] disturbance with building envelopes on individual lots.”

Don’t let this description fool you into believing that the end result will be low density half-acre lots with minimal loss of natural vegetation. The devil is in the proposed rezoning details below.

Current Zoning
Large lot residential R1-144. (Equates to 144,000 square foot minimum lot size). Allows agricultural uses and promotes open space.

Proposed Zoning ~ The Devil is in the Details
Small lot clustered homes. Residential R1-7. (Equates to 7,000 square foot minimum lot size). Medium-high-density detached single-family residential development. This proposal also includes changing the allowed maximum building height from 18 feet to 25 feet, which will allow for the building of 2-story homes. It also allows side setbacks in between the homes of only 15 feet (7.5 feet per home).

Aerial View Of Proposed Site

Why This and Why Now?
What would make a developer think that they can get approval to build small cluster residential homes on 7,000 square foot lots in an established neighborhood of $500,000 to $800,000 homes on 3.3 acre rural residential lots? The answer is evident by the timing of the application. The pre-application was submitted in January 2017, coincidentally timed to be heard by our new 7-member pro-development council.

Keep in mind that this is not a small change. If approved, this change will completely alter the rural character of the Shannon Road neighborhood thereby lowering the property values of the existing surrounding homes.

Not My Neighborhood…Or is it?
If you’re thinking, “I don’t live on Shannon Road so I don’t need to concern myself with this,” think again. Every time a land use or rezoning change is approved in one neighborhood, it sets the stage for a similar land use/rezoning change in the surrounding neighborhoods. The developer’s excuse is always…”this proposal with 7,000 square foot lots and 2-story homes with mass grading is in keeping with the neighborhood immediately to the north (south, east, or west).”

We urge you to attend the Neighborhood Meeting on April 25th and make YOUR VOICE heard.

More information is available on the town website: CLICK HERE
---