"Current Market Demand" Is The Primary Driver Of General Plan Amendment Approvals

Last week, the Oro Valley Town Council approved a general plan amendment by a 5-2 vote.  They amended the general plan to allow medium density residential construction on a very small 4.9 acre parcel at Moore and La Canada. The property was planned for neighborhood commercial.

The actual lot size is a bit over 5.0 acres. However, the applicant requested a designation change of less than 5.0 acres so that the request would be a minor general plan amendment, requiring a 4 vote majority. It it were 5 or more acres, the request would have been a major general plan amendment requiring 5 votes.  In this case, given the 5-2 vote, it would not have mattered.

Only Oro Valley planner David Williams stated opposition to the change. Williams observed that the general plan anticipated that people would walk to commercial services in the area once neighborhood buildout was complete. That is why the property was planned for neighborhood commercial.  Buildout is only now occurring.
 
The neighbors agreed with the change.  They don't wan't commercial property in the area. They would like homes, similar to theirs.  They are not interested in walking to services.

Council Member Garner agreed with Williams.  Garner noted that a change of this nature does impact the community because it is a reduction in potential commercial property and, consequently, potential future sales tax revenue.

Mayor Hiremath observed that there is no guarantee that the property would have commercial property or it that would generate sales tax revenue.  He also noted that, according to the developer, there has never been any commercial interest in the property.  Council Member Snider noted that there will be major commercial property on Tangerine which, as Williams noted,  about a mile away from this property. People can walk or bike there if they want.

On the surface, approval of this amendment seems to be a "slam dunk."  The neighbors want it. The market "demands" it.  There will be other commercial "nearby."

But, is it really a "slam dunk?"

What of the wishes of the voters who approved the general plan?  Where was the consideration of their vote?  They approved, in the general plan, a number of locations for neighborhood commercial so that people could get needed services within easy reach.

One of the things we have observed is that the criteria of "current market demand", which is one of the 4 criteria required for a minor general plan amendment, is the primary consideration of the current council majority when they approve a general plan amendment.  A second criteria is what the abutting neighbors want.  The original intent of the voters of the general plan that was approved by the voters is never discussed.  

Add to this the fact that there is no standard of "market demand."  It is whatever the applicant says it is.  The majority-4 accept whatever the applicant says.  At this hearing, for example, the "market demanded" single family homes. A few months ago, the "market demanded" apartments.  In some instances, the "market demanded" multiple uses of a site such that commercial and residential can be built upon it.  To the majority-4 it seems that "market demand" is whatever they are told by their supporters in the developer and real estate community.

Does this mean that the original intent of the general plan carries little weight to the majority-4?  It appears that way.  Mayor Hiremath has affirmed this observing, at one meeting, the the general plan is a guideline to be changed as conditions change. 

What does this mean to the 2015 General Plan. Does it mean that all the time and effort that the town plans to devote to this effort is really a waste of time?  Does it mean that the plan will only be "good" for a few years, since "market demand" ebbs and flows?  Should there be provisions added to the 2015 General Plan that make it more difficult for changes or that make intent more clear?

What do you think?
---

Desert Springs: Is This A General Plan Amendment You Want?

---

Is the pending Desert Springs general plan amendment something you want?

The Desert Springs property is a huge piece of land at Oracle and Tangering that has wonderful natural scenic beauty.  It abuts Catalina State Park.  Once it is built upon, it will never look the same again.  It is incumbent upon all of us to exercise our civic responsibility to provide our council members with our guidance regarding whether we believe that this general plan amendment is appropriate.

If you don't have an opinion on Desert Springs you should.

The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission conducted their first of two public hearings on the Desert Springs development.   Last week, we wrote in detail about this.

The staff is in favor of this general plan amendment.  Some who spoke at the hearing were also in favor of it. There were those, such as resident Bill Adler and non resident Carolyn Campbell of the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Preservation who were not in favor because they had not been included in any discussions with the developer.

Resident Carl Boswell spoke against the project on the basis that this request would simply enrich the developer because the property would then have a "higher market value.".  The property owner is, after all, not required at this stage to build what they're telling us they would like to build on this property.   Sun Chase could, for example, sell the property at a profit once the amendment is approved.  Carl ended his remarks noting that "these are changes that Oro Valley does not need."

This is not our first rodeo. We know that the only things that needs to be decided by town Council regarding this amendment is whether the amendment meets the following four criteria for general plan amendments:

1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification; and
2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility; and
3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community acceptance; and
4. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development processes.

Any other discussion, including those about the specific design and buffer zones, is irrelevant.  The only time that these items become even somewhat relevant to the decision of whether or not this general plan amendment is appropriate is when the council considers item number four on this list.

Several speakers noted that all residents of Oro Valley, neighboring communities, and users of the State Park will be impacted by this general plan amendment.  It is not simply a matter that should be left to the abutting property owners.  Nor is it a matter that should be left to environmental groups who represent all of Pima County.  Nor should it be left to a handful of interested residents.

No. This is a matter to which we all should pay attention.

The next neighborhood meeting on Desert Springs will be October 24 at 6 PM in town council chambers.  The next public hearing conducted by the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission will be Monday, November 5 at 6 PM in town council chambers.  Then, Desert Springs will be on the agenda for council consideration in November.

You can get smart about Desert Springs by reading our previous postings on Desert Springs; and by visiting the town's Desert Springs general plan amendment website.

---

Publisher's View: Say "No" To The Kai-Capri General Plan Amendment

The same old story...

We’ve seen a “ton” of general plan amendment requests during our 27 years of living in Oro Valley. Almost every request has passed. Almost every request was justified based on two factors: An increase in economic activity and the need for a change based on the petitioner’s perception of market demand.

Once again

Tonight, the Oro Valley Town Council will consider and then vote on the proposed Kai-Capri General Plan Amendment, an amendment that will convert commercial property to residential property. The request is being justified using the same old basis: The change will bring more people to Oro Valley and, thus, will add to economic activity; and the market really does want apartments, or casitas, or small homes or whatever the developer wants to put on the property… but not that for which it is planned and zoned… commercial use.

 

Failed "rooftops strategy"

Yes. More people do mean more economic activity. Yes. They will generate more sales and utility tax revenue for the town. But at what cost? More rooftops do not add to quality job growth. More rooftops do not bring the kind of high quality businesses the town wants. More rooftops do not add to our "small town feel."

That was why former Mayor Hiremath's “rooftops strategy” failed. Instead of attracting quality employers, more rooftops lead to more traffic on Oracle Road as people commuted to work. Retailers like Dick’s Sporting Goods and Big 5 closed up shop. Empty storefronts remained empty. Many still are empty. Just look at the Oro Valley Marketplace. All this happened while town population grew 10%. No. A bigger population is not going to save stores like World Market that are going to die anyway.

Market demand is always shifting back and forth

The second argument, a shift in market demand, is equally specious. The real estate market is always shifting. Residential is hot today because people are nesting in place due to the pandemic. Commercial is not hot because “people are nesting in place due to the pandemic.” A year from now it could all turnaround. And it likely will.

Two controls residents have over what happens in Oro Valley. 

One is the General Plan.

The General Plan is the vision of what residents want the town to be. The town spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to create it. Residents spent a million combined hours working on it. It took two years. It was overwhelmingly approved by the vote of the people in 2016. That plan includes a land use map that specifies how each area of the town will be used. The Kai-Capri property is designated for “commercial use.” It is ideal for commercial use. Unless there is some egregious error in this land designation, and there is not , there is no pressing need, no council imperative to turn over the will of the people.

The other is who residents elect to council

There is only one other way residents can control the future of the town. That way is by electing people to council who will uphold the general plan, protecting the wishes of the people as expressed in that plan. The residents elected those people in 2018, tossing out a Hiremath led majority that never rejected a general plan amendment. That council’s behavior was outrageous. That council approved two general plan amendments to the current general plan before the State ratified the election approval vote. To them, the general plan was merely a guide to be ignored as they wished. And they did ignore the plan countless times.

The will of the people as expressed in the general plan should over ride the will of a developer and town staff

It does not matter that town staff thinks that the plan should be approved because they think that it satisfies the five criteria for general plan amendment approval. That is their judgment. There are no hard and fast rules when it comes to the five criteria. A handful of unelected town staff members and a landowner should not be allowed to overrule the will of the people. The new majority, led by Mayor Winfield, and newly elected council person Tim Bohen, promised to uphold the general plan. We expect them to do that tonight by rejecting the Kai-Capri request. It is the right thing for them to do. 

Our message to council: Just say “No”.

---

Oro Valley Needs To "Implement" It's General Plan

Oro Valley needs to put effort into implementing all aspects of the town's next general plan.  We reach this conclusion after dialogue with several community leaders.

We got into the discussion because one of the leaders had attended last weeks planning and zoning commission meeting. The person observed that: "...none of the three applicants used specific policy statements from the General Plan to support their position. This is precisely what applicants have as their burden ... to show consistency with the General Plan." The individual also observed that none of the Commissioners did either!

Our zoning code charges the Planning and Zoning Department with the responsibility of "maintaining the General Plan".  They do. They keep track of each of the plan's aspects. They report the result of this analysis periodically. They also initiate minor and major amendments to the plan. They also remind those applying for a plan amendment to demonstrate why a change from the plan is essential.

Is this enough?

We ask because it is clear to us that the words in the plan are ignored and never discussed as part of the amendment process. For example, "One agenda item," notes one of our leaders, " - the Vistoso Highlands property - in Rancho Vistoso was perhaps revealing. The property is currently designated Neighborhood Commercial, and the amendment was to change that designation to Medium Density Residential. [General Plan] policy 1.5.4 that states: 'The Town shall ensure that areas appropriately zoned and planned for neighborhood commercial use are developed.'".

The individual further observed: "As this parcel has been undeveloped for twenty + years, some commissioners preferred to judge the issue on market demand. No market demand = no reason to pursue the designated use."

There are 3 problems with implementing the general plan at only the highest level:

• There is no mechanism built into the General Plan or the planning process that requires elected officials or town employees to implement the plan. The only area where there is possible enforcement is in “land use.” Otherwise, the rest of the plan is merely visionary. 
• The process for amending the plan easily allows for amending the plan. Minor plan amendments require a simple majority vote of council.   Major amendments require a super-majority.  From 2010-2012, it was easy to get super-majority approval. 
• Finally, we suspect that most who serve on council see the general plan as a guide.  As Mayor Hiremath has noted repeatedly, the general plan is merely visionary. It is not “policy.”   A guide can be ignored. Policy can not.

Our informal discussion group concluded that two things need to take place.

One, the citizens of the town of Oro Valley need to elect people who will commit to implementing the letter and the spirit of the general plan.  Then, they need to remind these elected officials that the general plan is something they expect to be implemented,  not merely a statement of direction and generalities.

Two, the general plan itself needs to include specific provisions that relate to the expectation that the plan will be used to create and implement policy. The statement needs to be  more assertive than what is in the Preamble to the 2005 plan:  "We intend that the Plan be followed and consistently applied unless and until conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification."   Seems that that clause is interpreted to mean "anytime after the plan has been approved by the voters."  Perhaps there should be a statement that no amendments will be permitted for 10 years!

Yes. The plan is a vision.  Like any good vision it needs to be converted to policy so that it implemented.

What do you think?
---

Council Members Burns, Garner and Zinkin Stand Up For You and and Your General Plan (Part 2)

This is part 2 of our posting on the Oro Valley Town Council deliberations on the Vistoso Highlands general plan amendment.  We posted part 1 yesterday.
---
Despite not having any support for the amendment from the Planning and Zoning Commission and from town staff and despite proceeding counsel from council attorney Kelley Schwab that the manner in which the discussions were proceeding was confusing and subject to misunderstandings...

Mayor Hiremath was determined to move this item hearing of Vistoso Highlands amendment.  He ignored Schwab's advice. He observed that the council could approve something verbally and that she could write it up later.

More confusion then ensued.  It seems that the Mayor had allowed the council to discuss this item after a motion to approve had been made by Council Member Hornat and seconded by Council Member Waters.  Oops!  The Mayor had neglected to hold the public hearing of the staff report and the applicant's request, which is customary in such hearings.

Council Member Hornat, perhaps perturbed that this discussion was taking too long, observed that he and most council members had read everything and that a public reading of the staff's report was not needed.  Nonetheless, he agreed to withdraw his motion so that this discussion could happen.

Town Planner Chad Daines then presented the staff report: "I am here to present the report. I will try to be brief." Council Member Hornat interrupted: "Oh, you will be."  Then, the Mayor and Hornat laughed.

After hearing from staff and the applicant, the council continued their discussion.

"Conditions have changed," Hornat said.

"Conditions have changed," Snider stated.

"If the majority of residents are ok with it" then the council should approve it, Hiremath said.  He continued: "The direction of this town has changed."

(We're not sure what Council Member Waters thought. He was silent during the entire discussion.  Was it that the topic did not engage his interest?)

Rather than focus on the generalized statement that "things have changed" since the general plan was adopted, Council Members Burns, Zinkin and Garner returned the discussions to matters of substance.

Council Member Burns sought input from council attorney Schwab on whether any restrictions imposed by the amendment would be legally severable, therefore not enforceable, if someone sued to remove one of the items and won.  Schwab's response was that she did not know. "It is unprecedented," she noted, "putting such detail conditions in a general plan policy document... This is unchartered territory from a legal perspective."

Adding special provisions to a general plan amendment is not unprecedented. The town added number of conditions to the Arroyo Grande General Plan Amendment.  Enforcement of these conditions occurs at the zoning approval level if the town chooses to do so.  There is no legal requirement that, when the rezoning hearing occurs, which could be several years in the future, the provisions will be enforced.  At that time, the land may be owned by an individual other than the person applying for the amendment, someone who may not like the restrictions.

The discussion continued.  Council Member Zinkin expressed his concern that the general plan is the governing document when it comes to amendments and that it should not be so lightly considered.  He referred to the general plan: "The general plan is an agreement with 41,000 people.  Where are our priorities. This [the general plan] gives us direction for all elected and appointed officials to base their decisions," he quoted from the general plan.

On and on it went until the vote: 4-3 in favor. Zinkin, Burns and Garner voted against, therefore upholding the general plan.  This major amendment failed because a 5-2 majority was required.  The majority was so surprised that it failed a super majority that they asked for a roll call vote.

Even after that vote, Mayor Hiremath wanted to continue the application.  Scwhab told him that the discussion was over.  The motion had failed.  There is no reconsideration unless 2 of the 3 dissenting members agree to do so.  That is not going to happen.

We're not making this stuff up.  Simply watch the entire hour discussion contained in the video minutes.  If you have a different take, please let us know.
---

Zinkin Stands Up For The People

---
The following remarks of Mike Zinkin were read to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last evening. These remarks relate to Mike's opposition to the mixed use general plan amendment.

As you can see, Mike stands with the people.
---
"I am a citizen of Oro Valley.  I repeat: I am a citizen of Oro Valley.  It is important to understand that because it is the citizens of Oro Valley that helped write the General Plan, and it is the citizens that ratified the General Plan.  Our town attorney has stated that "The General Plan drives code."

In November of 2003, 60% of the town's voters disapproved a General Plan proposal, primarily because it contained a land use designation called "mixed use."  The citizens wanted the term better defined. The modified proposal of the General Plan excluded the mixed use designation. The voters ratified this plan on November 8, 2005. This is now the General Plan we are discussing.

On page 11 of the General Plan there is a chart which denotes whether a General Plan amendment is major or minor.  On the vertical access are existing land use categories. On the horizontal axis are the proposed new designations.  Pages 23 and 24 of the plan define the land use designations. Neither axis lists a designation of "mixed use".  On pages 23 and 24, there is not definition of mixes use designation.

What this agenda item is proposing is not an amendment of the General Plan, but rather a re-write of the General Plan. Neither the learned Oro Valley planning staff, nor you, the Planning and Zoning Commission, have the authority to re-write the General Plan.  Only the citizens of this town have the authority to re-write the General Plan.

If there is an applicant that desires to develop any mixed use area, and we all know there is, and who it is, then the applicant should be lobbying the town to draft a change to the General Plan and go to the voters to ask for approval of this change.

Please do not rely solely, totally on the staff's recommendation.  It was the staff that failed to advise you of the correct wording in the Vistoso Pad that lead to you incorrectly approving an apartment zoning on land that was not so designated.  It was a concerned citizen that had to bring this to the attention of the town.

It the town staff really represents the General Plan, they should be conducting open meeting trying to sell the public of the need to modify the General Plan. They should not be here trying to sway seven volunteers to do something that is in the purview of the 41,000 citizens of Oro Valley.

I realize that this commission is only advisory to the council; but, in this case, the final decision must come from the citizens, the voters.  It this body believes that there should be a re-write of the General Plan, then forward that recommendation.  There is an election schedule for May15 that could be used to give the citizens an opportunity to add or reject a new land use designation.

Remarks of Mike Zinkin
January 3, 2011
---

Council Members Burns, Garner and Zinkin Stand Up For You and and Your General Plan (Part 1)

Last week, the Oro Valley Town Council heard 3 general plan amendments.  Read our posting to learn more about the details of each request. The Olson property amendment was approved 7-0.  The Miller Ranch amendment was continued.  The Vistoso Highlands amendment was rejected.

This is the first part of a two part posting on the Vistoso Highlands amendment.
----
Council Members Burns, Garner and Zinkin stood up for your general plan at last Wednesday special town council meeting.  Because of their vote, the Oro Valley Town Council did not approve a general plan amendment for Vistoso Highland. The amendment would have changed land use from neighborhood commercial to residential.  In the form that it was being discussed, it also would have moved Oro Valley into unchartered legal waters.

It took a while to get the final vote.  This is because of the bizarre manner in which Mayor Hiremath conducted the discussion.  Clearly in favor of approving this amendment, he did everything he could to keep it alive and then to cajole, coax or otherwise intimidate council members to support its approval.

Lest you think we're "off the rails," here's what happened.

The applicant started the discussion of the amendment by requesting that the item be continued.  The applicant requested the continuance for 3 reasons:  The request had not been approved by Planning and Zoning Commission; it was not recommended for approval by town staff;  and the request was probably not going to achieve the needed super majority approval by council.   In the end, the applicant was right.

Rather than leave it at that, Mayor Hiremath opened the discussion to a public hearing.  His reasoning was that some residents had come to this meeting to specifically state their opinion on the amendment.  Six residents spoke on the request.

Others would have spoken. However, Mayor Hiremath had recommended that one not speak if they were merely going to repeat what others had said.  So much for an "open" public hearing.

The primary concern of those who spoke was not with the land use change.  In fact, they wanted the land used changed to residential. However, they wanted changed to residential only with specific restrictions to which the applicant had agreed. They would approve of the amendment if these restrictions were part of the amendment.  They would not approve of the amendment if it did not include these restrictions.

Restrictions passed as part of a general plan amendment, other than a density per acre restriction, are not enforceable, noted town planner David Williams.  Restrictions of land use other than a density per acre restriction can only be enforced at the rezoning stage.  Williams recommended, several times, that the restrictions be considered during rezoning hearings as this is where enforcement does occur.  So, at best, the conditions, if included in the amendment, are guidance for use during rezoning hearings.

Apparently the fact that the restrictions would not be enforeceable did not matter to the majority-4: Mayor Hiremath and Council Members Hornat, Snider and Waters.  They were eager to hear this item and to approve it.  In fact, the Mayor was so eager that he asked the applicant if they wanted to reconsider their request to continue the item. The applicant then agreed to move forward with the request.  A mistake on the applicant's part, as it turns out.

Council then began to discuss the amendment.  Council Member Zinkin observed that the general plan does require space for neighborhood commercial and that taking this 25 acre parcel out of commercial land use is in contrast to the plan. "This is an ideal location for commercial."  Council Member Garner asked how the request met the criteria for changes to the general plan.  Council Member Snider said she was in favor it it. Council Member Hornat had motioned and Council Member Waters had already seconded its approval.  They were ready to close the discussion.

As the conversation proceeded, it was clear to town council Kelly Schwab that some council members simply wanted to push this amendment forward without clear definition.  Carelessness creates the possibility of mistakes that could not be easily corrected.  Schwab recommended that the council continue this amendment so that town staff could further review it under guidance from the council. She was concerned that the discussion was far too vague; that members would be voting on an item on which they did not have the same understanding and agreement.

So, we have, at this point in the discussion, a Mayor and 3 council members who want to push this amendment forward. They want to do it against the advice of their town attorney, who wants them to "take a breath" and document what they are talking about. They want to approve it with no support from the Planning and Zoning Commission. They want to approve it despite lead town staff saying that restrictions at the general plan level are simply not enforceable.

What happened next? Tune in tomorrow.
---

Guest View: Mike Zinkin ~ The mayor’s Halloween “trick”

The Council meeting on September 19, 2018 included another amendment to the General Plan.

“Discussion and possible action regarding an amendment to the General Plan future Land Use Map from Commerce/Office Park (COP) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) for a 15-acre property located at the northwest corner of Rancho Vistoso Blvd. and Vistoso Commerce Loop."

It was six weeks before Halloween but the mayor was already wearing his disguise
During the discussions, Mayor Hiremath erroneously educated the members of the council that this was not an amendment, but, rather, an option that would add MDR to the current land use of COP.

Mayor Hiremath stated:

"I want to make it clear to this council that the General Plan Amendment request that's being asked today is NOT to put up residential but is to offer ANOTHER POTENTIAL USE...This gives the new council flexibility...It's going to be up to them whether they want to have that flexibility to choose residential…or to let it remain tech park...If the future council decides that they don't want to go residential, then too bad, it just has to remain tech park. However I think this council owes it to the next council to afford as much flexibility on all the available properties left."

A blatant misrepresentation on the part of the mayor
The facts were revealed in a follow-up communication between an Oro Valley resident and the Planning and Zoning Administrator who described exactly what the council voted to approve that night:

“Town Council formally changed the General Plan designation to Medium Density Residential…By code and state law, a rezoning must be in compliance with the General Plan designation. So a presumption to favor approval of a residential rezoning has been established.”

As you can see, this was not an option for a potential use. This was a land use designation change from COP to MDR. The only option for the incoming council to decide is what form of residential will be allowed on this property.

Mayor Hiremath was his usual disingenuous and deceitful self. He had no regard, as usual, for the People’s input into the General Plan and was likely communicating for the applicant and campaign donor, Rodger Ford of Anthem Equity Group, who donated a total of over $7,000 to the re-election campaigns of the incumbents and to YES on 454 in support of the Naranja Park Bond.

Councilmembers Rodman and Solomon were complicit

Solomon said:

"I want to confirm what the mayor had said...if we approve this tonight, all we'd be doing is allowing the option for residential? It could still have the current zoning placed on it? It basically gives us more flexibility on this parcel?"

Keep in mind that Solomon is a developer and fully knows what a General Plan amendment entails. Rodman is a former member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and also knows the ramifications of a General Plan Amendment. Yet neither of these individuals attempted to correct Hiremath’s explanation. Hiremath has been mayor for 8 years. He also knows how a General Plan Amendment works. None of them are ignorant on this issue which makes it highly suspect that this was done deliberately.

The Town Attorney and the Town Staff also never corrected the mayor. Perhaps this was because the mayor had already torn into the Planning Director and the Economic Director for recommending that the council deny the land use change.

Snider and Pina voted against it (the first time that Snider has voted against the mayor in her 8 years in office and the first time that Pina has voted against the mayor in her 2 years in office). Therefore, if Solomon and Rodman had been honest and not acquiesced to Hiremath’s deception, the amendment would not have passed. They (along with Hornat and Waters) knew exactly what this was but they went along with the mayor’s disguise.

Hiremath, Hornat, and Waters will soon be gone, but Solomon and Rodman have another two years left on their terms. Let’s hope that the new mayor and three new councilmembers who were elected to provide a new direction, will steer these two individuals in a direction that is pro-citizen rather than pro-developer.

Energy General Plan Amendment: Foolishness

---

Tonight there is the second hearing on a proposed energy general plan amendment. This is the last hearing before the measure moves to town council. The  hearing is being conducted by the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission.  The idea of inserting an energy element into the general plan was approved for further evaluation by the town council in April.  Since then, town staff, with the aid of others, and after several neighborhood meetings, has proposed a 5-page amendment.

The proposed energy amendment is solely about renewable energy.  It includes:

• Ensure new residential, multi-family, and commercial buildings, as appropriate, are constructed with cost effective measures to accommodate future solar systems. (14.1.8)
• Develop design guidelines and incentives to encourage the passive and active solar orientation of lots during the planning stages of new subdivisions (14.1.9)
• Establish design guidelines to address the positioning of pole-mounted solar systems. (14.1.11)
• Adopt the most up-to-date International Energy Conservation Code in concert with regional jurisdictions and stakeholders.(14.2.3)

It even includes an education plan for the town to engage.
---
Here are are three reasons why this propose general plan amendment should not be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission:

1. A general plan amendment should be done only for something that requires urgent remediation.  This is not the case with this proposed energy amendment to the general plan.  There is no urgency at all.  In fact, the town is not required by the State of Arizona to include an energy element to his general plan until the population reaches 50,000.  We are at least five years from that.  So, we ask, where's the fire?
2. A cost effective renewable energy technology has not yet been developed. It is not feasible to ask homebuilders to build to a future standard technology that does not exist today.
3. The amendment will substantially increase the cost of construction both residential and commercial in Oro Valley.  It will put Oro Valley at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to attracting commercial and residential construction.  This is just the opposite of what most on council want to do.

There is also a fourth reason that this proposed amendment should not be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.   It is that the area of renewable energy is subject to political debate.  Not everyone is in agreement that doing these things are necessary or that they make sense.   Adding this element to the general plan requires getting approval of the voters, not the opinion of a few.

---

---

Why The Energy Amendment Didn't Pass

---
Last Wednesday, the Oro Valley Town Council held a public hearing on a general plan amendment that would add a new element to the General Plan:  The Energy Element.  The item failed 5-2.   A second motion to include this item in the 2015 General Plan also failed.

The amendment touched on things such as the color of a roof; requiring construction to have solar compatibility in new or remodeled residences.  Suggesting how a home should be oriented vis a vis the sun in order to maximize "energy efficiency".

The concern by some on Council was that these ideas will eventually turn into mandates.  This they believe to be true even if "they" tell us "it ain't so."  There are some who do not like mandates, whether it be the Government telling you to use hazardous light bulbs that use mercury; or a homeowners association dictating the color of you house.

The discussion of this amendment began more than six hours into the council meeting.

Council Member Bill Garner "cut to the chase." Adding an energy element is not required until the Town reaches a population of 50,000. Oro Valley's current population is 41,000.  In addition, he asked why the town is spending its' time on things that we are already doing in the community, since some of the items in the amendment are already being done by residents and businesses in the town.  "We are putting mandates in.... We are (already) as a community being sustainable."

Mayor Hiremath noted that he was troubled with what he saw as mandates in this amendment:  "If all the woulds, were shoulds," He noted  "I'd be more comfortable with it."   He noted that these ideas increase the cost of new homes by $1,000.  "A non mandated policy would be a much easier transition."

Council Member Hornat noted that there is no reason to mandate anything.  He noted that when the market will justify the costs, the ideas will be implemented. "I cant' support this. This just goes way too far... Our energy element, if we ever have one, should be two sentences:  We think its a good idea. Be aware."  Later, he noted that "we have no business of being in this business," referring to the business of regulating individual behavior.

Council Member Zinkin, a supporter of energy conservation, noted: "We are two years away from having the voters approve an updated General  Plan. Let them decide on this."  He stated that he does not view the amendment as a mandate; rather he sees it as a document stating the vision of what Oro Valley would like to see in energy conservation.

Council Member Burns spoke in favor of the amendment, feeling that the amendment is about "energy conservation."  He did not consider the amendment a manage.  It would be a mandate only if it was approved by the voters in an updated general plan. He believe that the amendment, if approved by Council, should only be considered a guide and a vision; that it should not become "law."

Council Member Waters did not speak on the matter. Council Member Snider asked questions to clarify the meaning of portions of the amendment.

The public hearing segment of the program was sparse, with only three speakers enduring the long 6 hour 30 minute wait to speak on this issue.  One, from the Southern Arizona Home Builder's Association ("SAHBA"), noted that the ideas in the amendment suggested the possibility of future mandates.  One, resident Bill Adler, said that the amendment is a "direction document" that could be ignored if the council wished as, he alleges, council has ignored other parts of the general plan.  Resident Shirl Lammona noted the many unintended consequences that government regulations in this area cause.

Clearly, there is room for understanding on both sides of the issue.  Was this amendment a "directional document" stating a vision; or was it a document upon which code would be based?  

"If the town is supportive of this, then they will support it," noted Council Member Garner, speaking of it's possible inclusion in the 2015 General Plan update.

We would like to see new version of the energy element; one that states it as a vision; one that, in no way, suggests that it requires mandatory action and building code inclusion; one that does not appear to be a mandate; one that is created by residents who bring differing views to the document.  We would like to see this version included in the 2015 General Plan Update. Then, let the voters decide.
---

Oro Valley Council Considers La Cholla- Naranja Major General Plan Amendment Wednesday

The Oro Valley Town Council will consider a major general plan amendment for a multi-acre property locate on the west side of LaCholla Blvd. The amendment is to accommodate a master planned community that will be called LaCholla Commons.

The property is currently zoned for single family residential homes. It is 196 acres. It extends from a bit north of Naranja to Lambert Lane.

The council heard this request in December. At that conclusion of that public hearing, the council continued the item and directed the applicant to meet with a community group of residents, Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan, to address their concerns.

Click To Enlarge

According to developer Greg Wexler, the project will have a major economic impact on Oro Valley. At the meeting in December, he estimated that the project would have a $350 million build-out value, provide $20 million in construction fees to Oro Valley, and provide $1 million to the Amphi School District over the  8 year life of the project.

At the December council meeting, Mayor Hiremath suggested a continuance to answer the following:

• A discussion regarding the buffer on the Southside of the southern property;
• A more in depth traffic analysis;
• Further clarification of whether the site needs senior living; and
• Further clarity on what is the intent of the church for the 2 parcels that it own

As previously reported, the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended in November approval of this plan by a 6-1 vote. You can read our posting on the significance of this amendment, as presented at that meeting here.

Oro Valley resident Bill Adler has often reminded the town that the General Plan defines land use. It is not law. It is policy. It is a directional guide, interpreted literally by some and philosophically by others. A general plan policy only becomes law when it is translated into a zoning code.

Still, a development must comply with the use to which the land is planned in the General Plan. At present, this is the voter approved plan of 2005. Thus, the applicant's request to change the planned use from single family residential to planned community.

According to Adler, any amendment to the general plan should occur only when it serves the "greater good." That means different things to different people.

There are four defined criteria for  determining if a general plan amendment is warranted. These too are subject to a variety of interpretations. In addition, in the past satisfying, in the minds of council, any one of these satisfies the need for approving an amendment. The one that is almost aways given by council for a change is "market demand."

The approval of this amendment Wednesday will not end the development approval process. Next up will be a request to change the zoning of the property to master planned community. Then, once that is approve, there is the required approval by council of the conceptual design. So, those who wish to opine on La Cholla commons will have opportunities to do so over the time.

Winfield "Changed Position" By Voting Yes On The Kai Capri General Plan Amendment

Fails to seize his role to represent the views of the residents
Three Oro Valley Town Council members voted in favor of the Kai-Capri General Plan Amendment ("GPA") last week. One of them was Mayor Winfield.

That amendment would have allowed residential use on a commercial property. Last week, in a LOVE editorial, we discussed why we opposed the amendment. 

Thinks area needs more residents to support local business

Mayor Winfield supported the measure because he sees a need for more residents living in the area to support the businesses there. He concluded this after touring the area with the Director of the Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce, Dave Perry.  

Winfield believed that residents wanted this amendment to pass

Winfield "...was surprised by the low level of public participation. There certainly wasn’t any significant opposition to this effort as so I can only interpret that as being that there was community support. I would have liked to have seen for those that are opposing this to join us in this journey earlier in the process,” because town staff and others spent a lot of time on this.  

The Mayor has his facts wrong

Our fact check revealed that opposition was expressed by residents early in the process (source). There were 23 pages of comments as of September 15. All but four speak in opposition to the plan. We also know that there were many emails in opposition that were sent to council after September 15. 

Reneges on an election pledge

At the meeting, Winfield stated that the General Plan as something that can be changed. “Plans are not static. Plans are dynamic. Things change.” He believes that it was the intent of those who created the plan that details, such as land use, be determined by the GPA process.    

Winfield's view of the role of the General Plan is opposite of what he told us when he was running for council in 2018. Then, he said that one of his goals was to "...champion the General Plan." He also told us at that time that he was opposed to never-ending General Plan Amendments, rezoning approvals and the hyper-growth rate the town was experiencing. 

Trusts that staff to uphold the General Plan

As to upholding the will of the people as shown in the General Plan: “There’s no one who upholds the General Plan more than our staff does. And I want to applaud them for making our General Plan a priority.”

You can listen to Winfield's complete remarks in the panel at above right.

---
Tomorrow, read and listen to the measured remarks of Vice Mayor Barrett as well as the remarks of Council Members Bohen and Nicolson in opposition to this GPA.

Guest View-Shirl Lamonna: Mixed Use's "Trojan Horse"

---
The following are remarks delivered before the Oro Valley Town Council on June 6. The remarks were made in response to item 3 on the agenda. The objective of that item was to make it easier to make amendments to the general plan.  Under this item, many more land parcels would be subject to minor and not major general plan amendment criteria.  A minor amendment requires a 4 vote council majority. A major amendment requires a 5 vote council majority.

Several residents spoke against this measure, including John Musolf and Bill Adler.  Shirl Lamonna delivered the following remarks:
---
We’re all familiar with the story of how the Greeks built a large wooden horse, hid their soldiers inside of it. When the horse was dragged into Troy, the soldiers crept out and conquered the city.  There are changes before council that would simplify changes to the General Plan and Zoning Code.  These changes would make it easier to make amendments to the general plan, by raising the threshold for defining a major plan amendment from 5 to 20 acres.

Such a change is a Trojan horse for "Mixed Use" in Oro Valley.

In deference to the new council members, let’s review how we got here.  As you may know, in 2003 the Council tried to pass a General Plan that included a designated land us of "Mixed Use" despite numerous public hearings where residents objected. That plan was soundly rejected by the voters.  A new plan was not approved until all references to Mixed Use were removed.  

Fast forward to 2011:

I’m sure you all remember the controversy over the proposed apartments on parcel 7-I; the applicant attorney’s desire for an alternate approach to secure the rezoning.  Miraculously, a few weeks later, the Zoning Commission held their first meeting to make changes to the major and minor amendment process to add a Mixed Land Use element to the General Plan. 

A number of Oro Valley residents spoke in opposition that nite.

The Zoning Commission asked Town Staff to secure public input and to address several of their concerns.  We discussed Mixed Use and general plan amendments at 3 of the 4 subsequent Community Outreach meetings.  Panelists were recruited from Phoenix and Flagstaff to tout the benefits of Mixed Use. In my opinion, no one who was originally opposed was convinced that Mixed Use was needed or would be good for Oro Valley. 

The Urban Land Institute’s Handbook on Mixed Use was recommended reading at our first outreach meeting.  It states: “It should never be assumed that a mixed-use concept will lead to greater financial returns or a better urban environment.  Mixed use developments can be failures on either or both counts just as easily as other projects.”

Other recent research shows that mixed use development doesn’t always solve the problems that planners and developers hope it will solve.  For example: high density mixed use development and lower levels of automobile use are not always linked.  Parking can be an issue.  Retail space often remains vacant.  Even Ross Rulney [a developer], when given an option to wait for Mixed Use several weeks ago, declined and chose to stick with only his apartment plans [Northeast Corner of Oracle and Linda Vista].

Oro Valley is not Urban. We do not have the climate, population density, universities, young professionals or public transportation that might make a mixed use concept feasible elsewhere.  Why until today, we didn’t even know how many vacant parcels were in the town or their acreage.  Now we know that changing the acreage threshold to 20 acres leaves only 36 vacant parcels out of 211 (17%) to be reviewed as a Major Amendment. If these changes go thru, most rezoning applications will be approved. Make no mistake: the intent of these revisions is to add mixed use - to get these projects approved quickly and to stifle input from a community that is opposed to it.

I will close with a quote from Sunday’s Arizona Daily Star titled: "Tucson Mayor and Council Disregard Constituents’ Desires": “Somehow the current Mayor and Council view governance as a process that suspends the concepts of representing the interests of the entire community …  The arrogance needs to end.”

A vote to approve the amendments to the Zoning Code and the General Plan is a vote against the citizens of Oro Valley.  Let’s keep representative government in our town and let voters decide on these issues with the next General Plan update.

Leave this Trojan Horse outside the gate.  
---

The Kai Property: Here We Go Again

The town is hosting a neighborhood meeting on a request to rezone 117 of the 271 acres of the Kai Property to medium density residential.  This request is to accommodate 195 single family homes. The rezoning is to reduce lot requirements form acre lots to 7.000 square foot lots.  The property is located between Palisades, First Avenue, and Tangerine Road.  We describe what we think this property will be in a July 2012 Bits and Pieces posting.

Every few years, owner Herb Kai requests a change in zoning from low density residential, as approved in the 2005 General Plan.

Our blog contains a history of these events (Search Word: Kai).  In 2010, we noted that, over a 5-year period, owner Herb Kai had requested a general plan amendment for "...among other things, offices, shops, restaurants, housing and a continuing-care center for seniors..."  We also noted, at that time, the display of political signs on his property, nicely visible to travelers on First Avenue.  There were two sign's apiece for Mayor Hiremath, and Council Member Waters and Hornat.  Council Member Snider needed no sign. She has already been elected to council.

At that time, Oro Valley resident, Alan Dankwerth, was quoted as saying that, the blog, by noting the placement of these signs on the property, was implying that "...if elected, these three, since they were permitted to place their signs on the property, will help the Kais, should they request, to obtain an amendment to the general plan." (Source)

Yes. That is exactly what we implied. In fact, we did more than imply, On May 10, 2010, we asked: "Perhaps Satish cut a deal with the Kai's to support rezoning their property on 1st Avenue?"

Dankwerth further observed that "Changing an existing zoning designation of this type requires passage of a major amendment. Two-thirds or five town council members must approve it.  Prior to its reaching the council, two public hearings are held by the Planning & Zoning Commission, as well as two neighborhood meetings. There is a public hearing at the town council meeting should the request get that far."

The present request is not being viewed as a request requiring a general plan amendment.  Rather, they are viewing it as a rezoning of the master planned community. Thus, at the moment, the town is arguing that no general plan amendment is required.

Whether or not this request requires a general plan amendment or a zoning change matters.  A major general plan amendment requires a 5-vote council majority.  A rezoning requires a 4-vote council majority.  And, given past political support by Kai, we suspect that, absent enormous public outcry, the majority-4 in council will approve it.

At the moment, this determination matters more than what is actually being planned for the property.
---

Guest View- The Roszaks: Why Does Oro Valley Have a General Plan, if It Is Not Going to Abide By It?

In the past 20 years, Oro Valley has completed two General Plans. Hundreds of citizens dedicate their time and effort to make this possible. A General Plan Update currently in progress will be completed during 2016. This updated plan will require voter approval prior to adoption.

Despite the update currently in progress, a Major General Plan Amendment which will significantly impact neighboring communities is currently proposed for 194 acres. These are located at the Southwest Corner of La Cholla Boulevard and Naranja Drive. The land area extends from Naranja Drive south to Lambert Lane and along the west side of La Cholla Boulevard. It surrounds the Casas Church. This general plan amendment requires a 5 person majority Town Council approval.

To sum, the existing general plan allows a Range of 124 to 319 dwelling units to be built on the property. Current zoning allows 1 house per 144,000 square feet, consistent with neighboring residential areas west and south.

The property owner’s most recent proposal is seeking to allow 500 residential units, plus 28 acres of Commercial Uses at the Northwest and Southwest Corners of La Cholla and Naranja. Up to 570 units could be built if commercial is not developed. This is a Significant Increase from the existing general plan vision. The developer has further proposed 5,500 to 7,000 square foot lots for the bulk of the residential area. Much smaller than currently allowed, and smaller than any surrounding developed areas, including Canada Hills on the east side of La Cholla Boulevard where more typical lots range from about 8,000 to 15,000 square feet.

Their requested changes defeat the spirit and purpose of the 2005 General Plan, without regard to decisions and rules formulated by the genera plan committee and adopted by vote by Oro Valley residents.

A neighborhood group representing nearby property owners has been meeting with the developers, town planners and a council member facilitator for some time, addressing their concerns. These negotiations have stalled. The project proposal has not reached community acceptance. The developer stands by his smaller lot sizes and up to 570 unit subdivision.

Under the current general plan, the developer has the right to build 120 to 319 single family homes on this land, but not the 500 to 570 proposed.

Another Major Issue for the Canada Hills area is the development’s proposed main road. The current mappProposal shows this road connecting directly into Canada Hills Drive, a private road, with cross over traffic between La Cholla Boulevard and La Canada Drive. It is also the community’s main thoroughfare for pedestrian use. It is used by walkers, bicyclists, parents with strollers, golf carts, golf cart crossings, and school buses. The street has a 25 mph speed limit and was not designed for heavy traffic.

The developer has not come up with any definite solutions to the traffic problems that his development will create. Proposals use language such as “Ultimate alignment entirely subject to Town Engineer review and approval”. The community deserves an answer prior to approval. The extension of a through road with potential of 1,000 to 1,200 additional vehicles driving through is an unacceptable negative impact to the Canada Hills community.

This general plan amendment request is on the Oro Valley town Council agenda for public hearing and final approval tonight. Residents concerned about this proposal should contact the Mayor and Council Members and attend the Council Meeting.
---
Rudy and Rosalie Roszak have resided in Oro Valley/ Canada Hills since 1992. Rudy is a former Oro Valley Council Member. Rosalie worked on the General Plan/Focus 2020 in 1995 /1996 and on the General Plan Update Revision Committee in 2004/2005

Tonight's A Busy Night For Council

Tonight, the Oro Valley Town Council will consider four important items: A staff update on the implementation of the 2016 Your Voice Our Future General Plan; discussion and approval of town board and commission council liaison assignments; the election of the Vice Mayor for 2021; and consideration of the Kai General Plan Amendment. Here's a peak at what is in store.

General Plan Update: 71% of implementation tasks completed

The Town Manager is required to provide an annual progress report on the progress on general plan action items.  There are 310 action items in the plan.  Town Manager Jacobs will report that the town has accomplished 71% of these, either as separate tasks or through ongoing operations. Approximately 75% of the remaining tasks are in progress. 

Proposed board and commission liaison assignments present little change

The proposed council liaison assignments are shown in the panel at right. There are two changes. New members Bohen and Green will replace the assignments of prior members Pina and Rodman, respectively. Bohen will liaison with the Water Commission. Greene will liaison with the Stormwater Utility Commission.

Vice Mayor Selection

The Vice Mayor serves in the role of Mayor when the Mayor is absent.  Melanie Barrett is the current Vice Mayor. We suspect no change here.

"Silverhawke" General Plan Amendment and Rezoning

The town is required to hear general plan amendments by year end. There is one this year. We previously reported on a proposed general plan amendment for the property that in north of and abuts the Silverhawke Development.  It is bounded by Tangerine and First Avenue. 

This property is owned by the Kai Family. They contributed $3,500 to Council Member Solomon's campaign this year.   

Since the first public hearing in October, the applicant revised their request such that approval of the amendment will only require a simple council majority, and not a super, five-vote, majority. 

The applicant is presenting five land use options (shown above, left panel) for the land use rezoning request. This request will only be viable if the council approves the general plan amendment. Council approval of the zoning request will give the landowner the right to pick from any of these options without future council review. 

You can read the details of this proposed amending and the accompanying rezonig here.

---

Oro Valley Town Council Considers Three Major General Plan Amendments Tonight

Tonight, Oro Valley Town Council will hold a special session to consider 3 major general plan amendments.  We have discussed each of these in various postings as the requests proceeded from neighborhood meetings and to 2 Planning and Zoning Commission hearings.   Council is required to hear major general plan amendment requests by the end of the year in which they are requested. They are not required to decide, however.

The request are:

• NW corner of Tangerine and La Canada:  The request is to change the approved land use for  a portion of the property to medium density residential from rural or low density residential. (Olson Property)
• NW corner of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Vistoso Highlands Drive:  This is part of the Rancho Vistoso PAD. The request is to change the land use designation of the property from Commercial (C-1) to a Residential use. (Vistoso Highlands)
• North side of Moore Road between Yellow Orchid Drive and Mystic View Place. The request is to change the land use designation of the property from Low-Density Residential (LDR) to medium density residential. (Miller Ranch)

Approval of an amendment requires a 5-person council majority.

From Less To More Residential

All of these requests are to increase residential properties in Oro Valley. All are primarily being justified based on "current market demand."  Two of the three are being submitted by the same design firm. The applications are very similar.

How Will The Council Consider The General Plan

These 3 applications been vetted through a vetting process. There may be little "neighbor" opposition.  If there is, we should hear it tonight.

If there is little neighbor objection, one might conclude that approval of these amendments should be a "no brainer".   After all, the applicant has asserted that market demands it and the neighbors no longer oppose it.

However, approval of a major general plan amendment requires more than that.

There are 5 criteria that the council must consider when assessing a general plan amendment:

1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification.
2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility.
3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community acceptance.
4. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning
5. The proposed cha change will conform to the Goals and Policies set forth in the General Plan development processes.

It is up to the council to weigh these criteria in forming their judgment on each requested amendment.
---

Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission Moves Desert Springs Amendment Forward

---


Did you know that 22 years ago the town recommended that the Desert Springs property designated land use was for resort use?  Did you know that is how it is designated in the Oro Valley General Plan?

Last night, the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission recommended changing it.  By a 4-3 vote (Commissioners Swope, Rodman and Buette saying "no") the commission recommended substituting its judgment on how this land should be used for the judgment of the people.  That's right.  Four appointed commission members decided that what you voted on in 2005 no know longer suited the times.

The four made the decision without the benefit of detailed market studies and analysis demonstrating that the situation had truly changed during the past eight years.  They did it on the basis of a recommendation by town staff.  They did it based on a lengthy presentation by the developer.     They did it with the full knowledge that in just two years you would have the opportunity to vote on it if it will put in the General Plan to 2015.

No need to wait. Their vote says that know better than you, the people who approve the general plan.

The decision on what happens with this property and whether the amendment actually passes  is now up to the Oro Valley Town Council, four of whom (Council Members Burns, Hornat, Snider and Waters) listened to the 3 hour 15 minute discussion that proceeded this vote.

Don't count on the State Parks Division to help you with the decision. Their position is that landowners have the right to use their property and that the State's job is to mitigate the impact.   In other words, they do not opining on the use of any property.

Don't count on the abutters, Taglante Estates, to stand in the way of this change.  The developer has been in talks with them. These abutters said last night that they were satisfied that their "concerns" have been met. 

What they don't understand is that none of the promises the developer has made to them need to be met once this amendment is approved.  "Details" regarding sightlines and buffer zones are not decided until after the applicant begins the process of actually building something on the property.   

What these abutters also may not realize is that the people with whom they have been negotiating may never actually build out the property. Instead, the property owner can sell the property a a nifty profit once it is general-planned for a more than doubling of home density on the property.  This profit, by the way, is earned because the development of a property of greater home density is of higher economic value.

Here are some of the comments made by the public at the hearing.

• "It is not the job of government to change land use to make it better for a developer"
• "Healthy land makes for a healthy population... Blading the land will simply disturb the animals and the plants and create stress for us all.
• This from a Sun City Resident: "My concern is light pollution. I like stars.  I don't think I will be able to do that if more lights are put in."
• From Oro Valley resident Pat Kinsman: We thought we would keep this land for the animals when we created the general plan.
• From Oro Valley resident Bill Adler:  "I have suggested that the commissioners should discuss density. Focusing on two units per acre at the maximum."
• "Open space is a treasure of Oro Valley."

Unfortunately, many of these comments have nothing to do with the criterial for seeking a general plan amendment.  The primary requirement is demonstrating that conditions have changed such that an amendment is appropriate.  

In speaking of the proposed amendment, some council members spoke of the right of a landowner to use this land.   (One, Commissioner Alan Caine, "laughed" at how people could even be concerned of the visual impact of the park on those who use the park.  After all, people are looking east, not west.) Others noted that the landowner has the right to build on it as it is currently planned.  So, they noted, there is no option regarding having this property be open land.

One Commissioner noted that this request represents a big change from the general plan in that it is a major change in usage and housing density. Yes, he noted, the owner of the property has the right to use the property as it is now in the general plan; however,  it is not the job of the Commission to recommend a change unless there is an egregious problem.  A problem that he did not foresee.

In our posting: "Desert Springs: Is This A General Plan Amendment You Want? we asked you to become knowledgeable of this requested amendment for this property that is adjacent to Catalina State Park.  After all, once this land is developed it is forever changed.

The real "decision" on this proposed amendment now moves to Town Council in December. You should be there.

---

Town Wants To Hear Your Thoughts On Two General Plan Amendments

The general plan review process begins today
Two proposed general plan amendments begin their march to town council for December consideration.

One amendment (Case #2000844) would convert the Vistoso Golf Course from golf course/recreational use to high and medium density residential use. The development plan includes a senior care facility.

The other amendment (case #2000882) would enable development of a senior care facility, multi-family residential or townhomes on the Kai Property, south of Tangerine and East of First Ave. The property abuts and will be part of the Silverhawk Development on on First, north of Palisades.

"Online" introduces a new process for soliciting resident input
The town Planning and Zoning Administrator created a process to get resident input so that the town can move these amendments forward during our time of social distancing. The process is unique in a time of uniqueness. Many residents believe that this process is not a legitimate, legal substitute for the town's requirement that a general plan amendment undergo one neighborhood meeting before its April 30 filing deadline. As we reported yesterday, their plea that the town delay the amendment filing until things return to normal was rejected.

The process of commenting and timing are identical for both proposed amendments
The process and the timing for soliciting resident input are identical for both proposed general plan amendments:

• Today
  The town posted an applicant informational video each proposed amendment. You can find it  the case link page above. The video includes a presentation from Town staff regarding key background information on the property, town review criteria and opportunities for public participation throughout the process, followed by a presentation by the applicant to go into more detail regarding the "what and why" of their proposal. 
• Today through April 23
  Residents are encouraged to provide questions and comments on the project of interest to ask@orovalleyaz.gov. The town will post all questions and comments on the project web page we have provided in the link above. The public can view these throughout the process. Residents can also call Jessica Hynd at 520-229-4711 with their comments or questions.
• April 30
  A second video with town staff and the applicant will be posted. This video will address the most common and frequent questions received.
• April 30
  If the applicant chooses to move forward with the application, the town will accept it as a valid general plan amendment filing . This step was not posted by the town. We believe it is true based on the town's filing requirement.
• May 21
  The town will host a a web-based, fully interactive Zoom.us 

The "normal process' resumes in August

The town hopes to resume the normal general plan amendment vetting process of two in person neighborhood meetings. One will be in August. The other will be in September. The meetings will be web based if social distancing is still required.

Two Planning and Zoning Commission public hearings will be held in October and November. "Public testimony is encouraged during the public hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission may take action by voting to send a formal recommendation to Town Council."

The town council will hear the amendments in  December. Town Council may vote to approve, deny or continue the application.

---

Mercardo Madarina: Yet Another General Plan Amendment Request

---



There is a general plan amendment being considered for  Mercardo Mandarina.   It is the northeast corner of Tangerine and LaCholla. The property is 27 acres.  It is currently designated as mostly neighborhood commercial office with some low density residential.  The owner wants to amend the low density residential portion of about 8 acres to neighborhood commercial office; then to rezone the entire property of yet a different commercial designation.

About 20 people have shown up to the two neighborhood meetings.  Neighbor objections have been regarding the specifics of the site, none of which are relevant to the decision on land use.  Once again, we wish to emphasize that land use designations do not define the specifics of what will actually be built on the property; just what could be built on the property.

For example, in this instance, there is a suggestion that a senior care facility will be located on this land. WLB, the design firm representing the owner, talked of commercial uses to include a fuel station on the property.

Two people spoke on the proposed amendment at the first public hearing held by the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission on October 16.  The Coalition for Sonoran Desert Preservation, Carolyn Campbell, discussed "environmental considerations regarding sensitive lands.

Resident Bill Adler discussed the "senior care and that kind of thing" property use designation that  WLB had mentioned.  Bill noted that there are a wide variety of "that kind of thing" possible uses when it comes to seniors!  He felt that the 5 acres that would be used for this would only be sufficient if it was for independent living.  Assisted living and skilled living would require more services and, therefore, more space.  Maybe as much as 20 acres would be needed for this use.

Bill's second point was that the request for this use is not even in a general plan category since, in his opinion, the land use designation neighborhood commercial does not include adult care facilities.  Since this is the core of the request, he recommended that the commission look into this further.

County resident and abutter Amber Smith represented residents who own 70 acres.  They support the  general plan amendment to neighborhood commercial. They do not support changing the designation to C1, which is "heavy" commercial use.  They simply do no see the demand for such services.  Nor do they want the disruption of an assisted living facility.

The specifics of what can be built on the property relevant to the land use designation that the general plan addresses only in relation to the third of the four major general plan amendment criteria:

1. The proposed change is necessary because conditions in the community have changed to the extent that the plan requires amendment or modification; and 
2. The proposed change is sustainable by contributing to the socio-economic betterment of the community, while achieving community and environmental compatibility; and 
3. The proposed change reflects market demand which leads to viability and general community acceptance; and 
4. The amendment will not adversely impact the community as a whole, or a portion of the community without an acceptable means of mitigating these impacts through the subsequent zoning and development processes. 

The developer has responded to the first three of these criteria.

If, the request, satisfies the four criteria then it should be approved. If it does not then it should not be approved.
---