Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Packets - Council Packets (1551)
AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 18, 1999 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM 1. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) to obtain legal advice relating to Tortolita v. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. 328365/1-CA-CV 00-0022 and related matters. 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) to obtain legal advice relating to possible intervention into the City of Tucson v Grant Woods and Pima County et al, defendants, [Committee to Incorporate, Inc. and Committee to Incorporate the Town of Tortolita, defendant-intervenors] (Pima County Cause No. 32-0926) 3. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) to obtain legal advice relating to possible settlement with Pulte Homes regarding construction of a median cut on Rancho Vistoso Boulevard in, at or near Neighborhood 5, Parcel T, in Rancho Vistoso RESUME REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE UPCOMING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS — TOWN MANAGER The Mayor and Council may consider and/or take action on the items listed below: ORDER OF BUSINESS: MAYOR WILL REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE MEETING CALL TO AUDIENCE —According to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the Town Council may only discuss matters listed on the Town Council Agenda. Matters brought up by the public under "Call to Audience" cannot be discussed by the Town Council as they have not been placed on the agenda. Any items must be addressed to the whole Council, not a specific member. In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. 8/18/99 Agenda, Council Regular Session 2 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Consideration and/or possible action) A. Minutes, August 4, 1999 B. Finance Report for Month Ended June 1999 C. Resolution No. (R)99-82 Acceptance of a License Agreement to clarify the maintenance and construction responsibilities for the First Avenue storm drains associated with Home Depot D. Resolution No. (R)99- 83 Accepting that portion of Woodburne Avenue between Arrowsmith Drive and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard as a public street E. Resolution No. (R)99- 84 Accepting the Final Location Report for the La Canada Drive Extension from Tangerine Road to Moore Road F. OV12-97-24, Giant, Phase I of the Plaza at Rancho Vistoso, Public Art G. Substitute Assurance Agreement between Nancy Properties and Lawyers Title of Arizona as Trustee of OV12-92-09 Naranja Ranch I Lots 84, 125-131, 141-150, 132, 133, 135-140, 160-170 H. Notice of Completion, Project No. WOV#1-0199 OV-1 Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Interconnect Priority A, Main Extensions I. Notice of Completion, Project No. WOV#1-0399 OV-1, Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Interconnect Priority A-Miscellaneous PRV and Valve Installations 2. LEGISLATIVE REPORT - SAM POLITO 3. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY SPONSORSHIP OF THE CHAMBER'S GREAT PUMPKIN FAT TIRE BIKE RACE AND FESTIVAL 4. RESOLUTION NO. (R)99-85 AWARD OF BID FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ORO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING AND AUTHORIZING THE TOWN TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT 5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-46 REVISION TO SECTION 109.1, USE AND OCCUPANCY, OF THE 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 6. PUBLIC HEARING-ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-22 OV8-99-2 COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY FOR SPRINGBOARD, A TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR ABUSED, ADOLESCENT WOMEN, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD (CONTINUED FROM MAY 5, 1999) 8/18/99 Agenda, Council Regular Session 3 7. RESOLUTION NO. (R)99-86 APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PIMA COUNTY REGARDING THE UTILIZATION OF COUNTY BOND PROCEEDS TO DEVELOP THE ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY 8. COMPENSATION STUDY FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL 9. ANNUAL ANALYSIS OF ZONING CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN 10. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION, AUTHORIZING INTERVENTION IN CITY OF TUCSON V GRANT WOODS ET AL, [COMMITTEE TO INCORPORATE, INC. AND COMMITTEE TO INCORPORATE THE TOWN OF TORTOLITA, DEFENDANT- INTERVENORS] (PIMA COUNTY CAUSE NO. 32-0926) 11. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PULTE HOMES REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A MEDIAN CUT ON RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD IN, AT OR NEAR NEIGHBORHOOD 5, PARCEL T, IN RANCHO VISTOSO TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT ENGINEER'S REPORT FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS CALL TO AUDIENCE- According to the Arizona Open Meeting Law, the Town Council may only discuss matters listed on the Town Council Agenda. Matters brought up by the public under "Call to Audience" cannot be discussed by the Town Council, as they have not been placed on the agenda. Any items must be addressed to the whole Council, not a specific member. In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 08/11/99 4:30 P.M. Ih 8/18/99 Agenda, Council Regular Session 4 A packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Council meeting in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8:30 a.m. — 5:00p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk, at 297-2591. INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Town Council during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Town Council on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Town Clerk. Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. Please step forward to the podium when the Mayor announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. 1. Please state your name and address for the record. 2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Council. Please organize your speech, you will only be allowed to address the Council once regarding the topic being discussed. 3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 4. During "Call to Audience" you may address the Council on any issue you wish. 5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present. Thank you for your cooperation. A DRAFT MINUTES ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 4, 1999 ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Richard Johnson, Vice Mayor Fran LaSala, Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member EXCUSED: Paul Parisi, Council Member EXECUTIVE SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM MOTION: A MOTION was made by Vice Mayor Johnson and SECONDED by Council Member Bryant to go into Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Loomis announced that Finance Director, David Andrews and Economic Development Administrator Jeff Weir would be present for Item 1. Town Manager Chuck Sweet and Town Attorney Dan Dudley would be present for Item 2. Town Manager Chuck Sweet, Town Attorney Dan Dudley, Oro Valley Police Chief Werner Wolff and Human Resource Director Jeff Grant would be present for Item 3. The Executive Session was called for the following purpose: 1. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) to obtain legal advice relating to Economic Development Incentives in Relation to the Lodging Industry. 2. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(3) to obtain legal advice relating to Tortolita v. Town of Oro Valley Cause No. 328365/1-CA-CV 00-0022 and related matters. 3. Pursuant to ARS 38-431.03(A)(1) personnel matters relating to finalization of job description/recruiting plan for Police Chief Position(FY 1999-2000) Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: A MOTION was made by Vice Mayor Jounson and SECONDED by Council Member LaSala to adjourn the Executive Session at 7:18. Motion carried, 4-0. RESUME REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:20 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 7:20 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis,Mayor Richard Johnson,Vice Mayor 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 2 Wayne Bryant, Council Member Fran LaSala, Council Member EXCUSED: Paul Parisi, Council Member PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Loomis led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. UPCOMING MEETING Town Manager Chuck Sweet reviewed the upcoming meetings. He announced that on August 20th, between 7:00 a.m. and noon there would be a Red Cross blood drive in the Council Chambers. CALL TO AUDIENCE Rosalie Roszak, 10797 North Glen Abby Drive,thanked the Council for responding to the needs of the children in the community and for offering the 1.5 million dollars for the new school site at First Avenue and Tangerine. She asked everyone to open their hearts in support of the new proposal. Pamela Munroe, 1341 East Equinox Place, stated that the Amphi School District has had difficulties in the past in choosing a responsible site. She asked what kind of value would she be getting for her tax dollars. She stated that she had concerns with giving 1.5 million to a board that had not displayed responsibility in purchasing land; that the school site would be adjacent to homeowners; the hillsides would be destroyed and more than a million dollars would be invested to level the land. In concluding, she stated that the traffic flow would be overwhelming. Alan Lathrem, 1750 West Tangerine Road, suggested extending the left tumbay at Tangerine Road and La Canada Drive so that it runs through the intersection. Doug McGee, 11836 Cassiopeia, stated that he was concerned about the rezoning for the new school site. He added that he hoped Council would have second thoughts and urged Council to reconsider their decision. He stated that as a recourse, the alternative would be to call for a referendum. Richard Feinberg, 1451 East Triton Place, stated that the high school would be tremendously destructive and hoped that Council would reconsider the 1.5 million dollars for the school. He added that the traffic would be beyond comprehension. Mayor Loomis moved Item 2 to follow the Call to the Audience. 2 ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE REPORTS - SENATOR ANN DAY, REPRESENTATIVES STEVE HUFFMAN AND DAN SCHOTTEL 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 3 Senator Ann Day, and Representatives Steve Huffman and Dan Schottel addressed the audience and gave a brief overview of the following topics. • State Shared Revenues • Incorporation/Annexation Legislation • Arizona Department of Transportation(ADOT) Funding Process and Staffing Levels • Resolution Relating to Save-a-Plant Program and Department of Agriculture Issue • New school site Vice Mayor Johnson encouraged the legislators to try to not run the local government from Phoenix. Council Member Wayne Bryant stated that he was confused about the stipulation regarding the Save-a-Plant Program. He inquired that if the fees are not paid would the developer mow them over and destroy them. He also asked if the Department of Agriculture would lose programs because of the fee implementation. Mr. Huffman explained that the reason this is being considered was because several programs that the Department of Agriculture supports are conservation related and other programs are is not funded by legislature, therefore, there needs to be some kind of balance. Mayor Loomis thanked Senator Day, Representatives Schottel and Huffman for coming and wished them much success in their upcoming legislative year. 1. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of Vice Mayor Johnson, Mayor Loomis removed Item E and Item H. At the request of Council Member LaSala, Mayor Loomis removed Item F. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approved the Consent Agenda Item A,B,C,D and G. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Bryant. Motion carried, 4-0. A. Minutes,July 12, 16, 21,1999 B. Police Report,June 1999 C. Building Safety Division Activity Report, June 1999 D. OV12-96-14 Approval of Substitute Assurance Agreement for Tangerine Heights E. Resolution No. (R)99-76 Authorizing the Town to contract with Curtis Lueck& Associates to study the Town's development impact fee ordinance and re-evaluate the fee structure (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) F. Resolution No. (R)99-77 Approval of the application for additional funding for transit/transportation via House Bill 2565 (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 4 G. Resolution No. (R)99-78 Approval of a cooperative purchase agreement with the City of Tucson for the possible purchase of replacement vehicle(s) for Coyote Run H. Approval of agreement with El Tour de Tucson for the 1999 El Tour de Tucson Bicycle Ride (PULLED FOR DISCUSSION) E. Resolution No. (R)99-76 Authorizing the Town to contract with Curtis Lueck& Associates to study the Town's development impact fee ordinance and re-evaluate the fee structure Vice Mayor Johnson requested that staff explain to the citizens what the Towns future plans were for using the impact fees. Paul Nzomo, Civil Engineer, explained that the Development Impact Fees are used only for System Capacity Improvementsand named the following projects: • Linda Vista Road at the Oracle Road intersection • First Avenue and Naraja left turn(will begin this month) • First Avenue safety improvement project from the bridge to Tangerine Road • First Avenue to Lambert Lane to install lights project(schedule to begin in September) • Naraja and La Canada to install lights project(schedule to begin in September) MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to approve Resolution (E )99-76 authorizing the Town to contract with Curtis Lueck& Associates to study the Town's development impact fee ordinance and re-evaluate the fee structure. Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. Motion carried, 4-0. F. Resolution No. (R)99-77 Approval of the application for additional funding for transit/transportation via House Bill 2565 Chuck Sweet, Town Manager stated the Brent Sinclair would address this issue. He explained that staff had requested this item be pulled due to a change in the dollar amount. Brent Sinclair, Community Developer Director reviewed the staff report. He explained that these monies are used in Oro Valley specifically to provide transit services to the residents. Mr. Sinclair explained that this year the Town of Oro Valley is expected to receive $67,323.95 for the fiscal year 1999/2000, however in the past week, the amount has been increased to $96,177.00. Mr. Sinclair explained that this is a 25%matching grant. He added that staff requests that Council amendthe current grant request to receive the entire grant increase. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve Resolution(R)99-77 thus approving the submittal of the application with the numbers changed to reflect our current allegation as opposed to our past allegation of House Bill 2565 grant, with the understanding that the Town will be responsible for certifying annually that the match has been or is being expended on the proposed project(s) and apply for Federal STP 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 5 funds through the House Bill 2565 grant process. Motion SECONDED by Vice Mayor Johnson. Motion carried, 4-0. H. Approval of agreement with El Tour de Tucson for the 1999 El Tour de Tucson Bicycle Ride Vice Mayor Johnson explained that the reason that he requested pulling this item was because it was a great program. He requested that if the Town do something in association with the 1999 El Tour de Tucson. Council Member LaSala agreed suggested that the Town could possibly incorporate the in with the 25th Anniversary celebration. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to accept the agreement with El Tour De Tucson for the 1999 El Tour de Tucson Bicycle Ride and to waive all related fees. Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. Motion carried, 4-0. Mayor Loomis moved Items 5, 6 and 7 forward on the agenda. 5. PUBLIC HEARING—OV12-99-07 GRADING EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR LA CANADA/LAMBERT COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE) Community Development Director Sinclair explained that the applicant has requested a continuance on this item until August 18th. Mr. Sinclair stated that if this item is not to be heard tonight, staff recommends continuing this item until September 1st. Mayor Loomis explained that this item has been advertised as a public hearing. Mayor Loomis open the public hearing for those citizens in the audience who wished to speak and suggested they consider coming back on September 1St. Bonnie Harris, 1212 West Desert Greens Way expressed the following concerns; 15 acres of property would be mowed down; there would be a tremendous amount of traffic; this issue has not been brought before the La Canada Trust even though this land is part of the trust. Debbie Vellella, 10341 North Oak Knoll Lane asked what kind of landscaping was being done. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye, expressed that changing the regulations and ordinance should be tough and that this would make it more difficult to destroy the natural desert environment. Karen Stratman, 1707 Placita, stated that the Development Review Board has not developed a good plan as of yet. She stated that maybe this plan should be different. 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 6 Jerry Roberts, 10280 North Camino Valder Flores, stated that the developer should take the time to speak with the residents. George Jae, 10262 North Hacienda Harm, asked why a decision could not be made tonight since no one spoke out in favor of the grading. Russ Pearson, 10240 Camino Valde Flores, stated that he felt that someone was trying to get in the middle of his backyard. He encouraged Council to conduct a study to make sure that the exemption is granted on the basis of need. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to continue Items 5,6 and 7 until September 1, 1999. Motion SECONDED by Mayor Loomis. Motion failed 2-2, with Council Member LaSala and Council Member Bryant opposed. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to deny the applicant's appeal of the grading exception, OV 12-99-07. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Bryant. Council Member LaSala stated that he was not sure why this item is being continued since the developer hasn't submitted any information and asked staff why this item could not be voted on tonight. Town Attorney Dan Dudley stated that there were no requirements that Council grant a continuance merely because the applicant asked for a continuance. Mayor Loomis asked the applicant why they have requested a continuance. Charlie Hulsey, the WLB Group, representing the applicant, stated that one of the concerns that was presented at the last Development Review Board (DRB) meeting was the need to gather more information from the residents. He explained that WLB had been collecting suggestions from the residence to make the site plan more acceptable. He added that a hard copy had not been prepared. Council Member Bryant stated that he was in attendance at the last Development Review Board(DRB) meeting and there had been no compromise from the applicant. Council Member LaSala suggested that the applicant have one month to meet with the residents to get these issues worked out. He asked that Mr. Hulsey commit to meeting with the citizen because he would like to see this work. Council Member LaSala further stated that he was not aware of another plan and did not have a problem with withdrawing the motion if another meeting is scheduled. Motion carried, 3-1, Council Member Bryant opposed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to reconsider. Motion seconded by Council Member LaSala. Motion carried, 4-0 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 7 MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to continue this item until September 1st . Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to continue Items 6 and 7 until the first meeting in September. Motion SECONDED by Vice Mayor Johnson. Motion carried, 4-0. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:52 p.m. 6. OV12-99-07 LA CANADAILAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE) (CONTINUED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1, 1999—SEE MOTION UNDER AGENDA ITEM 5) 7. OV12-99-07 LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE COMMERCIAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND LAMBERT LANE) (CONTINUED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1, 1999—SEE MOTION UNDER AGENDA ITEM 5) 3 OV12-99-2 WOODBURNE AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED ON WOODBURNE AVENUE BETWEEN MOORE ROAD AND ARROWSMITH DRIVE) Brent Sinclair, Community Development Director, stated that staff has reviewed the proposal and found it to be in conformance with the Land Use Plan, but has some conditions to be added relating to drainage and traffic. He stated that staff is requesting, if this item is approved tonight, that the school system would provide to the Town a drainage report and a traffic report. Architect Ron Easley, gave a brief presentation of the landscape plan and identified the following amenities. • the facility is design to accommodate 800 students, grades K-5 • the facility is approximately 71,000 square feet • the courtyard is securable through a series of gates • a nature walk has been developed on the grounds • uses a lot of the existing vegetation to provide additional screening and protection for the homes in the area and that the wash will be used as a buffer between the residents and the school • there will be no night lighting for any of these facilities • the multipurpose room is 5900 square feet 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 8 Mayor Loomis asked if there would be any weather protection for the children waiting for pickup. Mr. Easley replied"no". MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approved OV 12-99-2, the Woodburne Avenue Elementary School Development Plan, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibits «A» as recommended by the Development Review Board. A 1. A drainage report shall be submitted for review by the Town Engineers office. The report shall include an encroachment analysis for any encroachment into the wash east of this project. 2. A traffic report shall be submitted for review by Town Engineer's office. The report shall include the effect of this project to the existing roadway system, striping on Woodburne Ave and traffic circulation and conflicts. 3. Lot boundary calculations are required. 4. Development plan showing existing/proposed spot elevations shall be submitted for review and approval. 5. Provide a typical parking space cross-section for both regular and handicap accessible. 6. Delineate sight visibility triangles on the development plan. 7. Clearly label and dimension all points of access. 8. Call out dumpster location on the development plan. 9. Amphitheater Public Schools should work with the neighborhood and Oro Valley on both and off site traffic management. Motion SECONDED by Vice Mayor Johnson. DISCUSSION: Council Member LaSala thanked Dr. Kathy Esposito and Ron Easley for considering the concerns of the neighbors and developing a school that is going to be a true community school and something the community can be proud of. Motion carried, 4-0. 4 OV12-99-2 WOODBURNE AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LANDSCAPE PLAN (PROPERTY LOCATED ON WOODBURNE AVENUE BETWEEN MOORE ROAD AND ARROWSMITH DRIVE) Community Developer Director, Brent Sinclair reviewed the staff report. He stated that a lot of the vegetation was salvaged and actually reused on the site. He added that the staff found this item to be in substantial compliance with the Town Codes and Ordinances, and staff therefore recommended approval. 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 9 MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to approve OV 12-99-2, the Woodburne Avenue Elementary School Landscape Plan, as recommended by the Development Review Board. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Bryant. Motion carried, 4-0. 8. RESOLUTION NO. (R)99- 79 ADOPTING AN INCENTIVE POLICY FOR THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY RELATING TO THE LODGING INDUSTRY Jeff Weir, Economic Developer Administrator, reviewed the staff report. He explained that in the budget session on May 26th, staff was directed to bring changes and qualifications forward at a future Town Council meeting. He explained that there were many changes that were suggested and they have been incorporated. He stated that staff is asking Council to authorize the guidelines. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Weir confirmed that there would be not changes to the bed tax or that the changes would not affect any businesses at this time. Mr. Dudley stated that there was an amendment to the proposal that needed to be addressed. Mr. Weir stated that the proposal had been amended and read the following: "The adoption of Exhibit A, Town of Oro Valley Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines, attached herewith, provides examples of items that a lodging operator/owner may request consideration for". John Fuller, Manager of Sheraton El Conquistador, thanked the Council for their consideration. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to amend and approve as amended Resolution (R)99- 79, approving the Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines which provides examples of items that a lodging operator/owner may request consideration for and amends said resolution to reflect same. Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. AMENDMENT: Council Member LaSala suggested amending the motion if appropriate to direct staff to begin the same type of policy for other industries in town. He explained that this could be used to the Town's advantage to attract other businesses to Oro Valley. Vice Mayor Johnson agreed to the amendment. Motion as amended carried, 4-0. ***Reconsideration of Item 8 took place after Item 9.*** MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to reconsider the motion made on Item 8. He explained the apparently he needed to withdraw his amendment because it was 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 10 beyond the scope of the discussion. Motion SECONDED by Mayor Loomis. Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: Council Member LaSala requested to REMOVE his amendment from Vice Mayor Johnson motion. Motion SECONDED by Vice Mayor Johnson. Motion carried, 4-0. Vice Mayor Johnson approved the motion. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to amend and approve as amended Resolution (R)99- 79, approving the Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines which provides examples of items that a lodging operator/owner may request consideration for and amends said resolution to reflect same. Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. Motion carried, 4-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-42 RELATING TO AMENDMENTS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-101 DEFINITIONS,AND CHAPTER 14,ARTICLE 14-1,NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED FROM 07-07-99) Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator and Melissa Shaw, Planner II gave a presentation reviewing the history and timeline of the ordinance. In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr.Nodine stated that the language could be changed to read" The request shall include a mitigation proposal, not to include in lieu fees, and rationale and justification for the proposal". In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Nodine explained that as a part of the motion, staff would be presenting to Council a full report in 6 months on the implementation and the effectiveness. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Nodine recommended that in the paragraph on page 12, Sec. 14-109, at the end of the paragraph in Section B to add language to read"fines exceeding $100,000 may be assessed". Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Bill Adler, 10720 West Eagle Eye Place, stated that the citizens should have the opportunity to participate and that there should be citizens on the committee. Hector Conde, 14040 North Lobelia, stated the he would like to see the set-aside method used, in addition or in lieu of the present methods. It is considerably less cumbersome and more efficient for both developers and the Town. He added that he had grave concerns about the short term of the assurances. He explained that some vegetation, such as s do not transplant easily and that coupled with the lack of expertise, makes transplanting viable plants dangerous. 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 11 In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Nodine explained that if a saguaro dies after the assurance is given back to the developer, the homeowners association would be required to replace the saguaro. In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Nodine stated that the homeowners association is expected to replace the plant. He explained that if there was a question about whether or not the saguaro would survive, a landscape consultant would be hired to evaluate the viability of the plant prior to giving the assurance. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve amendments, including changes listed above as numbers 5,6 and 7 and those changes described as "immediate changes" and depicted in Attachment#3, to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 2, Section 2-101, Definitions, and Chapter 14, Article 154-1,Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation plan Requirements, as presented in attached Ordinance No. (0)99-42, set direction to staff to evaluate and report on the implementation and effectiveness of this ordinance with six months of its adoption, with the following revisions and/or conditions: striking the in-lieu fee and adding Development Review Board and Council review of the plans. Motion seconded by Council Member Bryant. Dan Dudley suggested adding an amendment to the title of the ordinance to read"and providing penalties". Mayor Loomis suggested also amending to Ordinance to include and punitive fines exceeding $100,000 as was discussed. Council Member LaSala and Council Member Bryant accepted both amendments. Motion as amended carried, 4-0. ***Reconsideration of Item 8 took place after Item 9.*** MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to reconsider the motion made on Item 8. He explained the apparently he need to withdraw his amendment because it was beyond the scope of the discussion. Motion SECONDED by Mayor Loomis. Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: Council Member LaSala requested to REMOVED his amendment from Vice Mayor Johnson motion. Motion SECONDED by Vice Mayor Johnson. Motion carried as amended, 4-0. Vice Mayor Johnson approved the motion MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to amend and approve as amended Resolution(R)99-79, approving the Lodging Industry Incentive Guidelines which provides examples of items that a lodging operator/owner may request consideration for 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 12 and amends said resolution to reflect same. Motion SECONED by Council Member LaSala. Motion carried, 4-0. Mayor Loomis recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:10 p.m. 10. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-44 AMENDING CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11-3-N OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE REVISING THE SPEED LIMIT FOR TANGERINE ROAD FROM THE WEST ORO VALLEY TOWN LIMITS TO FIRST AVENUE Paul Nzomo, Civil Engineer, stated that staff is recommending that the speed limits from Tangerine Road from the west of the Oro Valley town limits to First Avenue be reduced to 40 mph. Vice Mayor Johnson asked if there were any statistics available to support this recommendation. Mr. Nzomo explained that staff has collected information from the residents in the area reporting numerous large trucks moving through the area at very high speeds. Council Member Bryant suggested enforcing the speeding limit on the trucks that use Tangerine Road. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Alan Lathrem, 1750 West Tangerine Road, stated that he would hate to see the speed limit dropped and suggested one way to solve the truck problem is to put a weight limit on them. He concluded stating that he could not see any compelling safety reasons at this time to drop the speed limit. Jeff Wetherford stated that according to the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials the following should be taken under consideration: (1) The confront level of the driver.(2) The distance that a driver can see. (3) That a vehicle is able to come to a complete stop. Emily Sleigh, 14017 West Copper Queen Way, stated that the weight limit idea is appropriate and the speed limit at 45 is also appropriate. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. Dan Dudley stated that he had concerns that the town may be out of compliance with the Engineering Standards and the American Association of State Transportation Official Standards (ASHTO). He explained that it would make the town venerable for a civil case in the event someone is injury on the road due to driving over the permitted speed. In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Nzomo stated that this area of road is not a state-regulated road. 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 13 Council Member LaSala stated that the people drive very fast, trucks are terrible and the road is not conducive for what happens on that road. He suggested caution on this item. Vice Mayor Johnson suggested continuing this item for further study. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to CONTINUE. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Bryant. Mayor Loomis suggested that this item be brought before Council the second meeting in September. Motion carried, 4-0. 11. PUBLIC HEARING—OV12-94-32 SUNRIDGE II RECREATION AREA IN- LIEU FEE PROPOSAL (PROPERTY LOCATED ONE MILE WEST OF LA CANADA DRIVE AND % MILE NORTH OF TANGERINE ROAD) MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to continue this item to allow proper posting. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Bryant. Motion carried, 4-0. 12. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-45 OV9-99-51 PARCEL #224- 23-0120 AND PARCEL#224-24-0130,TRANSLATING RECENTLY ANNEXED LAND KNOWN AS THE HALLAQ PROPERTIES, FROM PIMA COUNTY CB-1, TR AND CR-2 TO ORO VALLEY C-2, R-6 AND R1-10,WITH CONDITIONS (PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAMBERT LANE AND LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD Brent Sinclair stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to September 1st and that a letter has been presented to Council and Staff. In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Sinclair stated the reason given is that they want to meet with the different property owners surrounding the area. Mayor Loomis opened the public hearing. Richard Tracy, 10674 North Sand Canyon Place, President of the LaCanada Homeowner Association stated that it would be appreciated if he could be notified of any meetings that occur. Barbara Smith, 13600 North Como Drive, stated that the Hallaq Property people were smart in asking for a continuation since there may be a court decision made sometime this fall. Mayor Loomis closed the public hearing. MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to continue this item to September 1st . Motion SECONDED by Council Member Bryant. Motion carried, 3-1, with Council Member LaSala opposed. 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 14 13. OV13-98-33 ORO VALLEY RETAIL CENTER SIGN PACKAGE AMENDMENT LOCATED ON PARCEL D OF THE ROONEY RANCH PAD,AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORACLE ROAD AND NORTH FIRST AVENUE Brent Sinclair reviewed the Council Communications In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Dan Dudley explained that the ordinance is in compliance with federal law and that the Town is limiting the size of their logo and not the use of color. David Jones, representing Payless Shoe Stores stated that this sign would have the least visibility on the road and that it would not appear any different than any other sign in the shopping center. In answer to a question from Vice Mayor Johnson, Mr. Jones stated that his client would be willing to compromise if they are allowed to used their sign colors as displayed in the federal trademark registration for Payless Shoes. He explained that Payless Shoe Stores are required to display their trademark. Council Member LaSala would like to see some kind of a compromise between the Town and Payless Shoe Stores. Richard Feinberg, 1451 East Triton Place, stated that he was not anxious to live in a neighborhood with a Payless Shoe Store. He asked the Council to act boldly and not to lower the Town's standard. MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to DENY Oro Valley Retail Center Sign package amendment for Payless ShoesSource, finding that it does not comply with the Town's Sign Code. Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. Motion carried, 4-0. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT—Chuck Sweet announced that Paul Nzomo's wife gave birth to a baby boy. ENGINEER'S REPORT—Paul Nzomo stated that Linda Vista& Oracle Road intersection improvement started today. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT—No report. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT—No report. POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT—No report. WATER UTILITY DIRECTOR'S REPORT—No report. 8/04/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 15 COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS —Mayor Loomis welcomed Vice Mayor Johnson back from vacation. CALL TO AUDIENCE Bill Wolever, 620 West Kachina Ridge Place, wanted to inform the Council on the fine job that the Engineering Department and Building Department were doing and that they were conscientious and good people to work with. Emily Sleigh, 14017 West Copper Way complimented the Council for voting no on Item 13. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to adjourn at 11:10 p.m. Motion SECONDED by Council Member LaSala. Motion carried, 4-0. Respectfully submitted, • 5z/,‘,1„,) inda ersha, Administrative Secretary I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Council of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 18th day of August, 1999. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this day of , 1999. Kathryn E. Cuvelier, CMC TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: David L. Andrews, Finance Director SUBJECT: Finance Report For Month Ended June 1999 SUMMARY: Attached to this communication is the Finance Report for the Month Ended June 30, 1999. GENERAL FUND: The following selected points are based on preliminary pre-audit figures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1999: General Fund revenues exceeded budget by $774K. This is primarily due to better than expected construction related activity. Sales tax collections from construction exceeded budget by $690K. W Residential building permit fees exceeded budget by $306K. State/county shared revenues exceeded budget by$47K. t;$ Fund balance increased by $1,968K. Overall, most departmental expenditures were under budget. Other Funds State shared fuels taxes are expected to be under budget by approximately$56K. Townwide roadway impact fees, alternative water impact fees and water connection fees revenues exceeded budget. COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PAGE 2 OF 2 Oro Valley Water Utility q> Retained earnings at year-end is $547K. q> Water revenues exceeded budget by $175K. qt> Capital expenditures are $845K at fiscal year end. 0,A.Rid 2 adLe,,,2____ David L. Andrews Finance Director al4144Atzer-- Chuck Sweet Town Manager CC: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager All Department Heads Town of Oro Valley GENERAL FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through June 30,1999 Percentage of Year Completed 12/12=100.0% 1998/99 Percentage June Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: Local Taxes $ 476,964 $ 4,120,101 $ 3,723,000 110.7% State/County Shared 332,146 4,039,530 3,993,000 101.2% Fines 18,868 210,450 233,000 90.3% Licenses&Permits 122,198 1,396,431 1,001,000 139.5% Charges for Services 36,809 217,316 208,950 104.0% Federal Grants 51,859 408,455 505,592 80.8% State Grants 35,795 308,943 267,754 115.4% Interest Earnings 40,359 373,869 240,000 155.8% Miscellaneous 5,182 23,368 23,300 1 100.3% Financing From Leases - - 129,000 0.0% Carryforward 5,343,655 TOTAL REVENUES 1,120,180 11,098,463 15,668,251 107.5% EXPENDITURES: Town Council 4,857 61,806 68,197 90.6% Town Clerk 18,973 241,477 217,995 110.8% Magistrate Court 30,777 352,061 363,499 96.9% ( Town Manager 30,846 332,655 351,895 94.5% Economic Development 46,532 228,028 305,215 74.7% Finance 18,641 270,122 300,964 89.8% Legal 33,217 236,262 355,652 66.4% Community Development Administration 5,896 177,905 201,453 88.3% Planning&Zoning 60,660 636,929 891,524 71.4% Parks&Recreation 122,715 614,921 632,654 97.2% Police 419,845 4,450,601 4,670,354 95.3% Police-Capital Contingency - - 147,795 0.0% Building Safety 57,995 455,375 415,701 109.5% Custodial&Facility Maintenance 15,354 93,569 189,050 49.5% General Administration: Operations&Maintenance 13,665 248,718 277,147 89.7% Improvements _ - 7,746 6,000 129.1% Vehicles&Equipment 8,315 116,771 53,500 218.3% Land - 6,488 174,000 3.7% Transfers to Other Funds - 599,040 2,936,746 20.4% Contingency/Reserve 3,108,910 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 888,288 1 $ 9,130,474 $ 15,668,251 72.7% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 231,892 $ 1,967,989 FUND BALANCE AT JULY 1, 1998 $ 5,902,090 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 7,870,079 Town of Oro Valley HIGHWAY FUND Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through June 30, 1999 Percentage of Year Completed 12/12=100.0% 1998/99 Percentage June Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: State Shared Fuels Tax $ 142,245 $ 1,389,723 $ 1,577,000 88.1% Other Revenues 8,960 107,550 57,500 187.0% Financing From Leases - 34,781 45,000 77.3% Carryforward of Fund Balance 1,376,490 TOTAL REVENUES 151,205 1,532,054 3,055,990 91.2% EXPENDITURES: Personnel 51,883 526,379 570,868 92.2% Operations&Maintenance 67,696 388,778 386,750 100.5% Street Improvements 9 28,161 150,000 18.8% Capital Improvements 74,010 60,064 499,000 12.0% Equipment&Vehicles - 39,373 79,000 49.8% Lease Purchase Payments 6,215 45,466 51,100 89.0% Contingency 1,319,272 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 199,813 $ 1,088,221 $ 3,055,990 62.7% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ (48,608) $ 443,833 FUND BALANCE AT JULY 1, 1998 $ 1,462,087 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 1,905,920 Town of Oro Valley OTHER FUNDS Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through June 30, 1999 Percentage of Year Completed 12/12=100.0% 1998/99 Percentage PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FUND June Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: Local Transportation Assistance Funds S 1,279 S 144,488 S 145,000 99.6% Other 1,390 43,207 30,320 142.5% Carryforward of Fund Balance 72,632 TOTAL REVENUES 2,669 187,695 * 247,952 107.1% EXPENDITURES: Personnel 9,598 107,897 145,982 73.9% Operations&Maintenance 7,262 64,622 58,430 110.6% Equipment - 4,316 7,500 57.5% Contingency 36,040 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 16,860 5 176,835 $ 247,952 83.4% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ (14,191) $ 10,860 FUND BALANCE AT JULY 1, 1998 $ 91,290 CURRENT FUND BALANCE 5 102,150 1998/99 Percentage TOWNWIDE ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT June Y-T-D Total of Budget IMPACT FEES Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: PAG Reimbursement $ - $ - 5 500,000 0.0% La Canada Drive Improvements - 7,593 - 100.0% Interest-Investments 18,851 264,546 178,000 148.6% Development Impact Fees 148,653 1,560,857 1,165,000 134.0% Carryforward of Fund Balance - - 4,307,464 TOTAL REVENUES 167,504 1,832,996 6,150,464 29.8% EXPENDITURES: Outside Professional Services 530 6,142 - 100.0% Improvements 20,313 255,320 1,723,000 14.8% Contingency - - 4,427,464 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 20,843 $ 261,462 $ 6,150,464 15.2% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 146,661 $ 1,571,534 FUND BALANCE AT JULY 1, 1998 $4,591,238 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 6,162,772 Town of Oro Valley OTHER FUNDS Budget Compared to Actuals Report Through June 30, 1999 Percentage of Year Completed 12/12=100.0% 1998/99 Percentage ALTERNATIVE WATER RESOURCES June Y-T-D Total of Budget DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: Development Impact Fees $ 41,850 $ 354,690 $ 234,000 151.6% Interest-Investments 2,465 31,022 10,000 310.2% Carryforward of Fund Balance 411,377 TOTAL REVENUES 44,315 385,712 655,377 58.9% EXPENDITURES: Outside Professional Services 16,735 52,259 120,000 43.5% Improvements - - 535,377 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 16,735 $ 52,259 $ 655,377 8.0% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 27,580 $ 333,453 FUND BALANCE AT JULY 1, 1998 $ 480,680 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 814,133 1998/99 Percentage ORO VALLEY WATER June Y-T-D Total of Budget CONNECTION FEES Actuals Actuals Budget Completed REVENUES: • Connection Fees $ 67,925 $ 523,188 $ 349,000 149.9% Other 2,841 38,844 - 100.0% Carryforward of Fund Balance 232,223 TOTAL REVENUES 70,766 562,032 581,223 96.7% EXPENDITURES: Improvements - 230,299 20,000 1151.5% Debt Service Payments 14,759 30,104 73,290 41.1% Contingency 487,943 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 14,759 $ 260,403 $ 581,233 44.8% REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 56,007 $ 301,629 FUND BALANCE AT JULY 1, 1998 $ 124,466 CURRENT FUND BALANCE $ 426,095 Town of Oro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Budgeted Income Statement Through June 30,1999 Percentage of Year Completed 12/12=100.0% 1998/99 Percentage June Y-T-D Total of Budget Actuals Actuals Budget Completed OPERATING REVENUES: Water Revenues $ 290,291 $ 4,607,046 $ 4,432,113 103.9% Other 19,891 216,242 171,000 126.5% TOTAL REVENUES 310,182 4,823,288 4,603,113 104.8% OPERATING EXPENSES: Cost of sales&services 295,363 2,548,148 2,118,974 120.3% Depreciation&Amortization 100,454 1,205,451 1,204,224 100.1% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 395,817 3,753,599 3,323,198 113.0% OPERATING INCOME (85,635) 1,069,689 1,279,915 83.6% NONOPERATING REVENUES(EXPENSES) Interest Income 20,193 265,823 200,000 132.9% Interest Expense 124,246 1,481,921 1,487,400 99.6% TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) (104,053) (1,216,098) (1,287,400) 'NET INCOME $ (189,688) $ (146,409) $ (7,485) RETAINED EARNINGS AT July 1,1998 $ 693,180 $ 467,271 CURRENT RETAINED EARNINGS $ 546,771 $ 459,786 CAPITAL BUDGET Machinery&Equipment $ 5,925 $ 42,314 S 44,500 95.1% Vehicles - 111,313 133,500 83.4% Meters 8,995 78,615 56,300 139.6% Wells 51,696 60,264 320,000 18.8% Booster Stations - 10,915 468,000 2.3% Transmission/Distribution Main 177,359 334,924 302,188 110.8% Reservoirs 5,849 30,826 721,000 4.3% Hydrants - - 40,000 0.0% Telemetry 8,549 115,544 15,000 770.3% Structures 35,323 60,118 85,000 70.7% TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET $ 293,696 $ 844,833 $ 2,185,488 38.7% Town of Oro Valley ORO VALLEY WATER UTILITY Statement of Cash Flows Through June 30, 1999 Total Actual Budget Cash at July 1, 1998 $ 4,081,805 $ 3,435,714 Total Cash Collections 8,738,827 4,848,113 Total Cash Payments 6,487,437 6,131,861 Net Change in Cash 2,251,390 (1,283,748) Current Cash Balance $ 6,333,195 $ 2,151,966 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Steven Faaborg, Civil Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Resolution (R)-99-82 Acceptance of a License Agreement to clarify the maintenance and construction responsibilities for the First Avenue storm drains associated with Home Depot SUMMARY: The Home Depot project, presently under construction on the northeast side of First Avenue west of Oracle Road, requires the installation of three private 42" storm drains to transport run-off under First Avenue, and eventually, to the Canyon del Oro Wash. This License Agreement allows for the construction and maintenance of the storm drains and appurtenances within the Town's right-of-way, along with the responsibility for utility locates requested through Arizona Blue Stake. This license would also clarify maintenance responsibilities for private landscaping at the development's entrances, also located within the Town's right-of-way. FISCAL IMPACT: None _ZECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Public Works has no objection to the approval of this agreement. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve Resolution (R)-99-82 OR I move to deny Resolution (R)- 99-82 ATTACHMENTS: 1. License Agreement form signed by a representative of Home Depot U.S.A., a Delaware Corporation 2. Resolution No. (R)99-82 14) • / ngineer Town Manage � 7 RESOLUTION NO. (R)99-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, ACCEPTING A LICENSE AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THREE 42" STORM DRAINS AND APPURTENANCES ALONG WITH LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE FIRST AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley, through the Department of Public Works, is not responsible for the construction and maintenance of private storm drains, landscaping and other private facilities within the public Rights-of- Way; and WHEREAS, the design of the storm drains for the Home Depot retail store being developed at Rooney Ranch encroaches into the First Avenue right-of-way; and WHEREAS, landscaping elements at the entrance to the Home Depot within the First Avenue right-of-way are called for; WHEREAS, no agreement presently exists to clarify the operation and maintenance of said storm drains and landscaping; and WHEREAS, Home Depot U.S.A. is willing to enter into such an agreement with the Town of Oro Valley; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: 1. That the License Agreement granted in the attached document is accepted. 2. That the Mayor is authorized to execute the License Agreement on behalf of the Town of Oro Valley. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 18 t klay of August , 1999. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Date Date LICENSE THIS LICENSE made and entered into by and between the Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona, a Body Politic, hereinafter called the LICENSORS and Home Depot U.S.A. , Inc. , a Delaware Corporation. hereinafter called the LICENSEE. WITNESSETH: THAT WHEREAS, the licensors are the owners of the land hereinafter described, said land having been dedicated as FIRST AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN ORACLE ROAD (also known as State Route 77) AND THE CANADA DEL ORO WASH AS ANNEXED BY THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND BEING A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T12S, R14E, G & SRM, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA WHEREAS, a portion of said right-of-way is requested to be encroached upon by HOME DEPOT USA, INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION Licensee requests authorization for the encroachments. WHEREAS,the Licensee required from the Licensors to encroach into said right-of-way; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar and the faithful performance by the Licensee or his heirs and assigns; the Licensors do hereby grant and demise to the Licensee,his heirs and assigns, a permit, license and privilege, for the period of time hereinafter mentioned and subject to the conditions hereinafter contained, to enter in upon the following described land of the Licensors,in Exhibit"A" attached. THIS LICENSE is subject to the following terms and conditions,to-wit: 1. This license is granted for the purpose of Installation and maintenance of three Private 42 inch storm drains with appurtenances and for private landscaping at development's entrances within the Town of Oro Valley Right-of-Way for North First Avenue just West of Oracle Road. 2. The Licensee shall only be permitted to use the aforesaid land for the stated purpose. 3. This license shall be irrevocable by the Licensor unless Licensee has failed to perform its obligations hereunder and such failure is not remedied within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice from the Licensor (or if such failure requires more than thirty (30) days to cure, then the Licensee shall have such additional time to cure such failure provided the Licensee has commenced to cure the failure within thirty (30) days and thereafter diligently pursues same to completion). 4. That when said License is revoked, the Licensee will remove the encroachments from said right-of-way, at no expense to the Licensors and to the satisfaction of the Licensors and will restore the right-of-way to the pre-license condition or as may be mutually agreed. 5. That nothing herein contained shall be construed as granting title to the land belonging to the Licensors, or as vesting in the Licensee any right of entry to said land after the termination of this License. 6. This License may be transferred to the Licensee's successors and assigns upon written approval of the Licensors subsequent to written request of the Licensee unless sooner revoked as provided for herein. 7. That the Licensee assumes the responsibility and all liability for any injury or damage to said highway, or to any person while using said highway in a lawful manner caused by or arising out of the exercise of this Permit or License. 8. That all work done shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Licensee. 9. The Licensee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Licensors, its officers, departments, employees and agents from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, claims, demands or damages of any kind or nature arising out of this contract which are attributed to any act or omission of the Licensee, it's agents, employees, or any one acting under its direction, control, or on its behalf, or any act or omission of the Licensors, its officers, departments, employees and agents, whether intention or negligent, in connection with or incident to this license. 10. The Licensee will obtain a $1,000,000.00 public liability insurance policy to cover those encroachments within the Licensors right-of-way. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the requirements of additional insurance coverage in the event the Licensors so require. The Licensee or the Licensees successors shall maintain the said policy throughout the teen of this License. This License will become null and void if the insurance lapses. A certificate of insurance will be supplied to the Licensors with the stipulation that the Insurance Company will notify the Licensors in writing, an intent to cancel the liability insurance. This notification shall be required no later than thirty (30) days prior to cancellation and Licensee is required to remove all encroachments at their expense within sixty(60) days of notification. 11. The licensee will abide by all applicable local, state and federal ordinances, statutes, and regulations. 12. Approval of this License is subject to compliance with all conditions and provisions of the approved plans and specifications, which by this reference are incorporated and made a part hereof. 13. Encroachments will be maintained by Licensee and shall not interfere with safe sight distance. Licensee will be responsible for Blue Stake locations of all underground encroachments, including,but not limited to, electric lines and irrigation systems. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,these presents have been: 6 altl'\ Executed by LICENSE this Al day of 3 , 19 9 9 . LICENSEE: HOME D '! U.S.A.,INC., a Delaware corporation / At itit) BY (_...--C 1--- / Printe. 1 ame: Daniel R. Hatch T. e: Senior Corporate Counsel STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss County of Orange ) 34.LOga ette CC(a ( a on J 1999, before me, �Q a � V� � � Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared Daniel R. Hatch, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument, the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ;• ,6,44-. JEANNETTE MCCLAIN COMM.s 1213933 44v itaki-A c cam,: �-- ; -7r// . AueY PUBLIC-CAL/FORMA,. ORANGE COUNTY ti �'1.':''� COMM.EXP.MARCH 25,2003'+ Not Public in and for said state - - - - - - - - - - - - LICENSORS: The Town of Oro Valley By: ATTEST: Mayor Date: Clerk of Town of Oro Valley APPROVED AS TO FORM Town Attorney D TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Steven Faaborg, Civil Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Resolution No. (R)99-83 , accepting that portion of Woodburne Avenue between Arrowsmith Drive and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard as a public street. SUMMARY: Paving has recently been completed on the portion of Woodburne Avenue between Arrowsmith Drive and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. The Vistoso Partners have requested that the Town now accept that portion of Woodburne Avenue for maintenance. The right-of-way has been dedicated to the Town of Oro Valley. The Department of Public Works staff has reviewed this portion of Woodburne Avenue and find that it meets the requirements for acceptance as set forth in the Town Code, Chapter 7 Article 7-9-1 Acceptance of Deeded or Dedicated Streets, Drainage-ways and Rights-of-way. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. (R)99- 83 , A resolution of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona accepting that portion of Woodburne Avenue between Arrowsmith Drive and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard as a public street. FISCAL IMPACT: Approximately $4500 per year, including signage, sweeping, striping, crack-sealing and surface maintenance. RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF: The Department of Public Works recommends approval of Resolution No. (R)99- 83 accepting that portion of Woodburne Avenue between Arrowsmith Drive and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard as a public street. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. (R)99- 83 , accepting that portion of Woodburne Avenue between Arrowsmith Drive and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard as a public street. or I move to deny Resolution No. (R)99- 83 , accepting that portion of Woodburne Avenue between Arrowsmith Drive and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard as a public street. 411111111 D-.a ent Hea. Town Manager RESOLUTION NO. (R)99-83 AN RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, ACCEPTING THAT PORTION OF WOODBURNE AVENUE BETWEEN ARROWSMITH DRIVE AND RANCHO VISTOSO BOULEVARD AS A PUBLIC STREET WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona recognizes that the Vistoso Partners desires to dedicate to the Town and has requested formal acceptance for maintenance that portion of Woodburne Avenue between Arrowsmith Drive and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard; and, WHEREAS, the developer has constructed the Woodburne Avenue with the intent that it be dedicated and turned over to the Town of Oro Valley for maintenance; and, WHEREAS, all conditions for repair and maintenance prior to acceptance, as set forth by the Town Engineer, have been met for that portion of Woodburne Avenue; and, WHEREAS, The Mayor and administrative officials of the Town of Oro Valley are authorized to take steps necessary to accept this street on behalf of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona; therefore, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA AS FOLLOWS, THAT: 1. The Town Council hereby approves the acceptance of that portion of Woodburne Avenue between Arrowsmith Drive and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard as a public street. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this18t�iay of August , 1999. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor Date ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Date Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney Date E TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: William A. Jansen, P.E. Town Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution (R) 99- 84 , a resolution accepting the Final Location Report for the La Canada Drive Extension from Tangerine Road to Moore Road BACKGROUND: The Town of Oro Valley began the planning process for the extension of La Canada Drive from Tangerine Road to Moore Road in May 1998. Since that time, the Town's consultant developed a Transportation Action Plan which discussed various possible alignments of the road extension. This plan was presented at public meetings held on September 24, 1998 and December 9, 1998. This Transportation Action Plan was presented to Mayor and Council at a Study Session on November 30, 1998 at which time three (3) alternative alignments for the road were presented. The draft report with a recommended location alignment was then presented to Mayor and Council at a Study Session on June 14, 1999. The final report is submitted for Mayor and Council approval. The recommended alignment is alternative B-2 as defined in the report. This alignment is recommended for the following reasons. 1. This alignment has the least negative impact on the adjoining property owners except for the Alden property through which the alignment passes. 2. The alignment is located primarily within the Oro Valley Town Limits. 3. The alignment has the least impact on natural and riparian areas. 4. It is one of the least disruptive of the alternatives on existing residences in terms of noise and other traffic related impacts. 5. It provides one of the most direct routes for major traffic demand between La Canada and the Rancho Vistoso development. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution(R) 99- 84 2. Final Location Report, La Canada Drive Extension, dated July 28, 1999 prepared by Curtis Lueck& Associates. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for right-of-way acquisition and planning and design is contained in the Town's CIP program and the Pima Association of Governments' 2000-2004 Transportation Improvement Program. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: The Public Works Department staff recommends the acceptance of the report and its recommendations. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Town Council may wish to consider one of the following motions. I move to approve Resolution (R) 99- 84 accepting the Final Location Report, La Canada Drive Extension and approving the recommended B-2 alignment as described in the report. or I move to deny Resolution(R) 99- 84 A )1tir De ent Head ��► Town Manager 1-- RESOLUTION (R) 99- 84 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ACCEPTING THE FINAL LOCATION REPORT FOR THE LA CANADA DRIVE EXTENSION FROM TANGERINE ROAD TO MOORE ROAD WHEREAS, ORO VALLEY is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, is vested with all the rights, privileges and benefits, and entitled to the immunities and exemptions granted municipalities and political subdivisions under the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the United States; and WHEREAS, the extension of La Canada Drive is needed to provide an additional arterial corridor to accommodate the additional traffic that will result from the continued growth of the Town; and WHEREAS,Focus 2020: Town of Oro Valley General Plan states that an alternative roadway connection to Rancho Vistoso is a key element in meeting the travel needs of the growing Rancho Vistoso Community; and WHEREAS, the TOWN COUNCIL deems it necessary in the interest of providing for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY to provide public streets and roads to accommodate the traffic demands of the Town. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: 1. That the Final Location Report, La Canada Drive Extension dated July 28, 1999 prepared by Curtis Lueck& Associates is accepted by the Town of Oro Valley. 2. That Alternative B-2 as defined in the Report is the preferred alignment for the La Canada Drive extension. 3. That Town Staff is authorized to commence the necessary actions required to acquire the needed right-of-way and initiate the other recommendations contained in the report as necessary to accomplish the roadway extension. PASSED this 18th day of August , 1999, by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk Dan Dudley, Town Attorney Date Date „„,,,,,.„.._;;:.::::„.,•,:i.:::: ,,,::::::: r;.,-,,,,,,:,,,k,,;,.--,Aii,I,:ii.::::.,Tiifi..,-:,,,ii;z:',:„;,-.',;t'-;.t.!?,,0:;:!-;,:-i'r..ii,,,,-i',..;lr;'i--':',r,: ;,i),,-,,':-,-,::;-,:,.',:-:'I'-.'•:',i!',4'i',:::-' -';.:--;jirr:-j-:-r--,_,,.:i,..':,:::: '-:,-:,::'_':,-.:;:' .-..ilisoivilitili:';'ilit'-0::;i'l.,-,:,:ii!--.. 4: :;;•:;:'-„. ':',;,-.:;,:i..;-.),;---,-.,.;;,;. :•.:,:,,,:-,,::;:::',,,,:;,,,,E,;,.,::.,,,.,.,:,,,,.. .,,,„,,, „zriitif,-i,i-; !- -,.,',:-::,,;ii-;,:,':,::',',--;-;'-',,i',:;::',',!,-111-11ttipitlir',4i,!,.1i:,. ,,,,,i,,:-;.:: ,'„,,i,-;;::::',.i:-:-.:,--,?,:,,,i,,,,..i,:-...,,,,;:r-':,::::,,,,;:,,,,,::.,:„..,;,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,.,:,::...,,,r,,,::,,,,,,:::::::,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,:_,,,_,,,..„„.,,,,:,::.,,,,,,,,,,,..,,;,,_ v.,.,,,:::,74qgiltttllitilligli-,:ffk!t:.-:,;-.:::-:,-:::: :-,":::':i'-,.-''::;:E,::;:l:,.il'i,'il'i;-,::iIll:Z11.-rf'r:-i.!i-,,';-';t:-,:r''):--:_,-:-,..:y:t.,,-.:,-:.::,,::,'-''',--,,1::4-,::;;,,:i':'t::'::i::;::f.,,I,',-,:i,:-,:;:',:.'::::;:: ::; .:.:,,i-::::,,e::.e; .:;:,.:.'::''_::;:;;,:-.,',-,,,,i::,,..:: :':.:-i..-':,::, -''-t„„n'.,xt',!.::-!-i-; ::',--';lw,,1:-,t'I',c'tti*;.'iffg.gtl.i'irf.tfii,'ii-il-i'::',,,,-;::;•:!'it,i:;;:i:ik:,-y,!r„_-'::--''.',.(:':':'::':-'':;'1,!),;:::Ig--:',1:.:f,- ::;,.,iiqif--il..::--,,::'l:;i',.:,--',;;-.-,,!,:-,, _-'.,j4''-,A''.;'-,,;'.:::,i:-:;;Ii'.;',.,',::i-'-:P;'i-ii,::.::3-';',.!:i-r:',,,,',::,:':•:-:::''-:'..-,'-:i:.:c.--',,,-::; -.=:.,::,,,,,-,,,,,:::.;,:. .,, ''.T,';.'•,',,:!-,f:':4:'i',',:r;f:,;)..:!?:'''O':'g:tiji:'':::'-r-ji,::;::::;;.I:,:'I•:;:;:.';''-'c::',:g':Z,'If" .-, ii-:;',1','S:';'!::Z'",:::;:';F:;:'A::','?•)'7L4,--':':':"-r:::'''''..''L_- ,1 ,-,:'!"-"::';,,,1%;::•:::;::: :Iri;:':•;:i4g11111#1,41gi'::71:1'';'::::','-! ::::i1;.•::''''''' ';'''''':1::::1''''''''''''''''''.1-''''' -''-'-•-' •-'-,:-,,,,,44,,,--;--...q,-,,-.4.,,,,r,,,,r,y-e-:;,,,,--•.,,,,,, •' ,.-,,t,;,',,,i;,,Aj-,,.;,--,.,,,,,,A,,-:,,P-;e-4.,',",s,•,--,,,f-,:r,;:;,„-iy::;----- - ' -'.' -' ' - :-.--•:"I',Illiik,iii'-,:":4:i1t!:;t:i817-i':::.:-'-;';I:t7•':":4-3:':”.'- .,,-;--r-T,',::7'!'iti::::,?:•,,0!..:..,r,*:•.!,''''-:'''' .- • :,, :--".-,,,.,,..,..,--,,,,,,,,::::, .!.t.i'ili;17• 1',Wit-44.ii.ik:.'iliril.,i•-;:,;!:::::i4-,k.:!:1?.f.,.-'',:<:;:.:1-''''''''''.. , ''-.':''':':;;T':::'-''''''::''';':'f':'"4q!* V'-;M;f'i-?::qA.!-'1:,i:':;?j:,,,,,::.',,T,:-i.,',i,:-':'',.•:!:,-,,':,- , :,,.'..':',:,• lima 1 tocatiON ilePo n 0146 Drive t . ..., ,,,, p...- . 0, - , 4E111 Extension if,;-) ,,q, 4t. ' : A . A ,', i, ' .,*',',—',,. , AA , ':',;."'!: 6 '':;„:::-..,,,,,,,,;,. . ,'. ioad A's 4'00N D E CI °' ,,„,,i . ', ' t'r, ., '•:,,-;::',- ak, ' 4 -%. ji,, ritompL,..... iing Boa to ,, ,,i ,if '111 ,:ii ..,... 'I...,.. ,-•.•,-,4'.':4''*.!! '-,.., -..-:' ;.'?•' ...• ;-• - ......„, • _ .. . 1, pt :•ti...., -1999 , juill 28' - ? ela, LI hi , „..t.• ,,,, • Associates & Inc. Curtis LueckEngineering,Inc DJA RECON Consultants,ft, st.Inc.Southwest.Hydro-Science Engineering Final Location Report Town of Oro Valley La Canada Drive Extension, Tangerine Road to Moore Road Prepared for Town of Oro Valley Prepared by Curtis Lueck & Associates with DJA Engineering, Inc. RECON Consultants, Inc. Hydro-Science Engineering Southwest, Inc. July 28, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY 1 STUDY AREA 2 RECOMMENDATION OF TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN 2 Transportation Action Plan Public Open House 4 Proposed Improvement 4 Justification of Project 4 Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes 5 Metropolitan Transportation Plan(MTP) 6 Alignment 6 Mitigation Methods 6 Implementation 8 2. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS 9 DESCRIPTION OF ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES 9 Roadway Corridor Study Area 9 Project Termini 9 Roadway Alignment Alternatives 12 3. COMPARATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS 19 NUMBER OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES/IMPACT ON FUNCTION OF PARCELS 19 IMPACT ON NATURAL AND RIPARIAN AREAS 23 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION DIFFICULTY 26 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST 28 NOISE MITIGATION 32 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 33 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 36 ....reftrx, 1%77,1C-r „ en,5:3 • N'''`‘,A J.: bA\:;'k'z Sii-oltif : 1...',.- , ii<>0 ‘../ . LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 'I Study Area 2 Exhibit 2 Area Views 3 Exhibit 3 Arterial Roadway System and Traffic Volumes 5 Exhibit 4 Proposed Roadway Cross Section — Initial Phase and Ultimate Condition 7 Exhibit 5 Roadway Corridor Study Area 10 Exhibit 6 Alignment Alternative A. 13 Exhibit 7 Alignment Alternative B1 14 Exhibit 8 Alignment Alternative B2 15 Exhibit 9 Alignment Alternative B3 16 Exhibit 10 Alignment Alternative C 17 Exhibit 11 Study Area Parcels 21 Exhibit 12 Major Drainage and Riparian Areas 24 Exhibit 13 Planning-Level Cost Estimate for La Canada Drive Extension 30 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study Growth in Oro Valleycontinues to generate additional traffic on already-congested arterial roadway ri l corridors. Rancho Vistoso, a master-planned community located in northern Oro gradually, is being built out, resulting in increased traffic and n estion alongthe First Avenue and Oracle Road corridors. There are currently cog . onlytwo access points to Rancho Vistoso: Rancho Vistoso Boulevard at Tangerine Road, and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard at Oracle Road. Previous Oro Valley planning studies show that an alternative route is necessary to help relieve traffic demands on these corridors. The Town of Oro Valley originally perceived the need for an alternative travel corridor in 1994 during subregional planningstudies. Also, as part of Focus 2020: Town of Oro Valley General Plan, which was completed in July 1996, an alternative roadway connection to Rancho Vistoso was identified as a key element in meeting the travel needs of the growing Rancho Vistoso community. Thero osed extension of La Canada Drive from Tangerine Road to Moore Road p p wouldp rovide this alternative access to Rancho Vistoso in northern Oro Valley, and is the subject of this Location Report. This Location Report for the La Canada Drive extension has been prepared generally following the guidance of the Pima County Community Participation Partici ation and Mitigation Ordinance (No. 1992-69).1 As a first step in s the development of the Location Report, a Transportation Action Plan, or TAP, was prepared in September 1998 and is described in further detail in the following sections of this .re ortThe TAP provides a summary of the major social, environmental, and p design considerations that were evaluated as part of the study. This Location Report, based on the TAP and on a comparative study of reasonable alternative alignments, provides a recommended final roadway alignment for the extension of La Canada Drive from Tangerine Road to Moore Road. The Location Report includes a general overview of anticipated environmental, community, p transportation, and other impacts for each alignment. The report has been prepared with citizen and stakeholder input, and addresses in p particular the followingaspects of the study: 1) the proposed project is a completely new roadway on a new alignment; 2) the project may have significant right-of-way needs andro ert impacts along the selected alignment (the Town of Oro Valley p p Y currently owns no right-of-way along the alternative alignments); and 3) there are significant alignment choices to be made between the identified project termination g 9 points based on traffic operations, cost, and community impacts. 1 The Town of Oro Valley does not have an ordinance governing roadway development, and so the County policy, which has been used on numerous projects, is being followed here. ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ PAGE 1 Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Study Area The study area for the La Canada Drive extension is located along the northwest edge Tangerine Oro Valleybetween Tan erine Road and Moore Road, a distance of one mile. The study area is bounded approximately 1/4 mile to the west and 3/4 mile to the east of the unimproved La Canada Drive/King Air Drive, and 1/3 mile to the north of Moore Road and 1/3 mile to the south of Tangerine Road. The area consists primarily of private land within both Oro Valley and unincorporated Pima County. The study area for the La Canada Drive extension is presented in Exhibit 1. Area views of the study area are presented in Exhibit 2. Recommendation of Transportation Action Plan Transportation Action Plan for the La Canada Drive extension was completed i A pn September 1998• Thepurpose of the TAP is to define the project limits and to p the describe the major design features and general corridor area for proposed improvement. The La Canada Drive Transportation Action Plan recommended that a LocationReportprepared be to identify a final right-of-way alignment as the next step in the development of the project. The TAP indicated that the selection of a final p alignment should be based on a comparative study of reasonable alternative alignments. Exhibit 1 Study Area KRElirO:ans-l'I‘Vrit-..:1;.:;•%?,:it'r:- M., :,:fivA*T.1,,;tiI,;i:r"/, .,1:::17.1,0',". :,, I-1:2' ... % . ',' '..- 1. 4 . '::: •.' 1 ' - : ' .'!:'I'; k7414',:3054a4):*-r&:14'?':;;;;'''--,:://'T . '. I 16.' ..:':'..''.:.: ':'A.'Y''. •..,. . -'4'4, .': .-,:i. ,''':- . . - 1 , V,%:',roc.i?'• "..+,f1,;. t.d.•~ a '�,:�'' ., �. :,..,',' lig-:•:•, di , •• •:. 1, . Tilf.:i 10,46,R,;;...2,,,,,,,,_,....,,,H-g.... y.'�•.:�'. ]fs.' !1i 3�• '•t��K. r• • r L:'. • , .�'.-r r� ,,'�#' r t���r• ^ „-'��'p`1/� '+ � ' 7 tiri�S :fr . 1� 1 +�.,.ek'.i. a-.y 1.y lir+,,. t , ,c ,l, ',' . >, ,.i, . r Y ,,,tt,itr'Y 7 }i ::t rr:t-' 1s. - "t,�'r7�1.-.,•r,lr+<11.'lrf,,. Ai tt•,,.t �)�f'it'l�i. tl . , 1, n r rr? ,. v ;;T'�A r<6,•et. !,,,4 � ' l .�v !�'�- ✓r. r�.. . � ��'• ( �"�'{:t,,,:;a11•i``•��/Jr/-r• ��,. ,-t'-�- A'�!, ,Jt::� ;{.r ,' } t __,...4;40,4'.... .-, ., ;t,.. ,ri,'.t'3L: 'te :i,itkit N;�"�,iK,r� :.,,,I's ".i,!6i ?: ,t' 3-- •;.,r7,. .1. .�A 1 '� - .,,i.1``'M•,v b0,1 y. t._r ( 4i �i'VI,:ti t��{t4446 , lc 1 t ir To ri�•C.?' �'J4�i�"1 • 1L�t•� y t syr`' : ',.l R 't - # �- + 77 ,;./ sic , ,� a c�io 4 , �tij,,r r�4 � r a7i � ^�' J t • �' AI�� + +Y S '�tr� J',��'.w�' /.'`� 'i' �-, ;�t .+);,.v• i,-9- i,Y' •IY •. ;,..'i:, ." ,,�.ii 1 .)• . /. + ' j. t.,- N' >�r `'- rl . 1�.c . . � r +.1'•::ilk.:,,,,,.... '(•i- sr A1' at t a,Z t l Y'..fl:....Y }ti..^. f�Jir _ ..0-f'.. ,7.FL.�,.vtY+7. /' r•. .:•. r.,';',,-.g G.dr+`;'r rad_.” !' .� ,i. f . _`. t �'A':.{ L,Y,. .,T."::.;:: <{. ''1; •` J ,titt,i '' i i cr4 ;P'§',::.45.4 1 �yfr�y lt'r'�5�,!fi•'' ;40ii,,J 1'' `.rv4 <, >. c���.�'•,r��'.;:.� t t y,.> >�,a�l ,''''',2..--71,- 1.• � 1 {s• ,:. -4.1!i:. ,I-1 1 p',.:‘,--.::.. ..-,-+ �r, - i:.i�• A rf r t ', .�',.��.+. a;r t 'IL' -' /,1 t. .,,,,,i,,:,;•-_,:4;;',1. , ,,,..;:z.:.4.,,,,,,-.. sisia-f-.,::,:._-,. .,,,... 4.,.• ...Q. _:-)., ,- ..F.mr.,... . i :,-..4--,..;,...-,:.: .,.;. . ', , j,. . .,, ' :, ., :-. . . .,,,,.- - .•.4-,.,,::-. ..: -;;,' ,...',, -,,, • , i,,.•,� 1 •l.� .`Y 1',�I�., y7�'�Oy. i ( r' �-.(� .r .. r' •, 11 �', 0'o ...,,,,,,,,,,,e, 14 ... ,...,,,,,,,,,4,..,-,:i 4 ya 4, • . .. .... - '.- 1 : . ,_ --,: , 1„•... -.. ..,, . ,.• , . .• ,...,,,,,i,-..,,, ii.,.... ,,,,. .• :\ -,451,:-.41,' Ct~:t!:4.y.r,y�( �^i��-'l S j`.,,- - . y ` ti 1{ ,,` .':VaIIoy !'1l .\l` �, .•lr,u,��r�_y�yj,,j^�`!'�� ;:~l .-i•.i•F I.`y rY..-Jam'r'1•:r",t.... J t +: ` V.-'ti r ..;` • „'T:•"Iw`MC'1. `��i .t;rt*?r"C:.a. �y1r o� ` �' .'e,►}° �a 'a .,:...,,,.-..,-,_, Ii... � Pi dC 1\t '/• ( "••,):�k+'..y ' ':..*:1:1''',1;i::',•••-;;WP:T :*'::,,,,'!'. :-.,"'"::(7:-.::4-gi:.,--,,::',•:-..,,,,,- ,' .•:. 11-,. • '2401"1141C: t;r �\�l i .j ,n 1 �r l•�, r ,�' 1+� Sr. .i 1 �� R. �', �� - 'ry -�i'�� .t ;4'' ,..,,i4.: Ct .t Yi• A,lr i-. it i, i a, r,X'•�� , .+ "I..••.-+ ,,•y - ♦+`}r i~ is 't idl.: Irt.. t. rN: r : • :r t Vi i.,,}. �• -.-3#4� `i ....,,:.;.,,,,z,:-.4.2-.),-,;.1,4„,..- c �� �( x. tee; ._ , '�,:,.�'i. S •. ';1' .,•'•'; f�� i:�S:' iG t�,,�t , �• 1 r I+y 7 gtrS rf `O . K �y.��1 �� �� � -10-4 -r... t +`r f• ,, •:'.$f.,,�.1��'.�r4�;j}f`�.(2-.t („,...- • ', • > 4.�a art,.,�, a"A-•., '+w.. .nrr i.� jhe' Road ,r•'.::d• �,a.,fir:•',Y4•' �Y ..„., r F_.,J.,...4. •.°' ,r:..4...'- .. ..-�•:„ .4v Jy.,.,�.-rr., -.;.,;;i4---!,-.-- - m, «..,-:...,yn t� .'j.,+• . ':{ •,i, :1 .q, -l� rv+ilt�.. "'Y' ,,,s 'fir�,,.. �. .Yrl.��„`m• '»�` •` a' .t � '],� •tom .I..���444,'',.`ry �"•. ...S •ate r�}r*.�c!''� ! �61+ �� ��'t.�T! ^.• 1�.rr i a�' �'�� ��:+� .Yy,.l.• '!M���iSRC ♦,i )'' t r, ar ,--... .y Y,v a 3 » 'i:,•4• .a f i �',. a. ;;i r• �'!�'3!r h r{r.'��. ,yc. .. ��'�� .•:.:�h�:,r/t�yf''aroyl..;'•,•,,�•��-y{t•,,tt. :��?t•:;•:A.11).,..,14:::‘,.,y;; � ';�..j.,f..j�:��.5�•i`.yj,,Yt' '���� ,J.;.‘;.::....�,�l Jry��,C.'�.�'";a'fa,�;�,,.�(Mr>y4�.,��.�r•7 9`..t - 3 .TL•�v+'A:.•? `..,, -,"SY{.t• Yji.t"'+ 1, t a .; f '.�,ri ;. ., ..,-Z.,,,tyv y.r •1• .•-, r:t.tY'. C 1,,..'f S l 3 F- �•'`_.V_(`•'„,r1 J,:r, '. F1.'' , �: ir:f'!:C .e ,. y'MM sW1.•. y.;:{• > t• ? �'C ,r. ' ,1?�>t. Mi���� \ •,Jr .,�+, l' 4.1,f '.'�J t le ils, ,4 1' > C.! �,?� 1\ ter; *i i ?,:y .`, •'::i'5'.!, ......•ii✓` w R'r '�•, , , f�.•„ .► �,t 'k .e f,.t,''.. ! y,Y•C r l ,-.=-.1.4r,,, _ ;. '•.1 , t•' r 'r , ',(Ni---( Illmv,fv.r:',r'..---.',:..,--‘ -1„l'i„+ :,. �'r ', f dr ..t'f. ;( r ,,,, `' .. yr ttlz. :•A*.i ., „,• r w r° r c!i- +..,-..L ir 'WI r F • '•i`i fi i,14•;4-�;d”-'4.4.'....`,1.41' ?,.it{:.' t di\..t•+ " Sc`l-- rV Ti * lOP ' �"1. fi:.',q1'. _ _ . .•,s K �.tt*I y�• i� .$1 ty,�i ��N�r. ✓+i1 P1(+��F ♦ '�r {t�.h."' '� ,,,1•6. �. 4,1140.,16‘,..,44:,,,-,,t,. .:r�1 y fit:i.,r.• 'y',l".rr. '1 • ;; � it'..- 7 r .- .�r •,r ..•!a:"aelA, .;, a i ''+� `, ••N"•�.i \ + !s��•,�,r> Le- r i I ,.Aa. M rs'\ .!1 :,t-(• r�J , •,. /'/'(.,,;..``1 I'ill j, 1'+I•'rl,:`! ,ry•�:-,...,..4,,-„,,,,...,.,','.4.,„,-A,, - j J'�� `..,:.,;(.N L.vlt_ �Y� ,� '. �,t.. ‘ ~� , �•► «(s W:I� �'.7t �`9�r��,.�7 r .��" .�''� 1 ll r .•-,"0'`' ~ltf+; f' .�= p EG,' t 1_.:,,,,,...:: ,:mi- ID .. ,T. ',op. -‘ _Q.„cc. ' -.4_,, '- -. -,,-„,„___ i- ,, s , _ _____ , _ . , - __---7,7_,Z_____-_,-_-_,__, --.i ' '4" 'S 4r----„„---„:-_--,_ -_- . ,,___,_ *..,.. - _ gi,i,:_,,, o _ >_C :41 s, _ z Cwt ® 2' U cn 1.„—„, , ir cn,.1-2) I 1...--- ,____-_-- -----;_---= ---_,_- _ I- -_—,.:--,-.-_,-.= li r =r $-U i cc n",,-_-77-----zw- .. _-=-, -- .--—. ----'----_-7---F--_-_--1:11:-., it,:.;_. _....,„ (DT ______Tii-_-_ - a e . i,.t - -:-f- -7-i--,__-,-__-..t , :, -_ , _-_-_ -----_-_-- '1. 4-J.;•-•_„. ,_:, co>, --------- ri- - 'i . o -4E,L- _ :. t. ; ° _.' . i -,--_,-,-, ,---.ci I-.. i-_,-,,,,,..,,,,„...*:- ((if,' 2 c 7-------- EU) _' a5 - , i --I= ti=. ,,,;*. -_,- --,..--,--- :77.1.- 4.--riv a) ,., , -t -o -: 4, J, a- c� - - - -- - '.''V'4.= --- ,- 'ptft:-, -: ;' _i - _. -_ _ -ems _;} _ mil:' _ - �5� 11 -= -, _„__ _ - _ i . -a - � _ - E __-7_!k_ ___ :,- --,-4,--=4 F -_-..-44, ;- it,_,,,,,,_-_-,..„-_,,__,,,;,....,,__-„m• ''-. .' ;r -L at - a �S C Ar a' *sal' m O i--'-'r---- r a a f c _ as cts • CE_ O(I)_a �'s • . - - f '- _ LO ill 1 0 CC a , ,....,„ka'V ' 0 - ••.r.-,?..'.,:'.., :_, ::_:',. - aaS I— f a = -_ i7 4 yy , , 0 g _ _.. „ - ..- _, .L , - ,'. s Q if , rms F _. =. ,--, z - _ _. - - (1:), p1Ra3t aft aff�1.) I .ig t fib le--'''''::t-=.4. r 4 .I..., , :i- :, ;It 4 _� �. v. i_._,__ k -_ ' 11104 It -- 4L - , .0:3. _c,0, 1 C > 0 �°� —711 -R e�. I oC co c_c3) g-..,'"-A 'obifn t .` ` 0 ±73 __, C(1S tea-_`_ . -_, #,t # __ SS �� Q _s. of • _- '1 ali le ..... .....i . ygto .moi\ -:,.,„., _, a,7::#t '-' 14 OD oeui pi i= �+ :::--*'---', °PEA 2 N ybg moi' L C , .:,,,1 :'.1'-' :.7n; Ili..11 > _,._ ;,, , _ — ‘,-_:„...;-, ,,_, ,,,,, ,.-.„ . , .,-,, ,,.1)EY)cz e.,,.._ Taw ,i,) .-..it.,,, '-- , .ti • ai_ A 4 ,, _"V —1,- - --. zi,,-,---- „... „,A. ,,, ,,,, ..., -,T„....11:::1 ' _.:t --, '--44 i .i, _ .._ ,,2 ,i,?..,., ,,,. 0. „a' at ` 44 PAGE 3 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Transportation Action Plan Public Open House The final Transportation Action Plan and invitations to a public open house were sent to more than 620 area citizens and stakeholders for informational purposes and to seek .in utThe public open house was held on September 24, 1998 at the Oro Valley p Town Hall. Background information and preliminary findings on the project were displayed and handed out, and Town of Oro Valley staff and project team staff were available to answer questions about the study. The public meeting was in an open format, with a brief presentation on the project and discussion of potential impacts on arearo erties. The project team explained that preliminary alignment alternatives P p would be developed and evaluated in the next phase of the project, and that the team would work with area property owners in this process. Proposed improvement As described in the TAP, the proposed interim cross-section is a two-lane paved roadway with paved shoulders. The extension is planned to be built in phases, with initial construction of the two-lane roadway coinciding with advanced acquisition of 9 adequate right-of-way to accommodate a future four-lane roadway. When warranted q by traffic conditions, La Canada is planned to be widened to a four-lane divided cross- section with raised median, landscaping, multiuse lanes for bicycles and emergency parking, sidewalks or multiuse paths, utility corridor, curb and gutter, drainage facilities, and a traffic signal at the intersection of La Canada and Tangerine Road. Thisp hasing concept is very similar to the portion of River Road from La Canada Drive to La Cholla Boulevard, which is scheduled to be widened to four lanes by Pima County within the near future. Justification of Project Based onp revious travel demand modeling by the Town of Oro Valley, traffic on First Avenue and Oracle Road will increase to the point that the roads and intersections cannot be widened within the available right-of-way to adequately handle future traffic volumes. For instance, portions of First Avenue would need to be widened to 6-8 lanes, and Oracle Road to 8 lanes. Construction of the La Canada Drive extension was shown to divert more than 10,000 vehicles per day from the two corridors, resulting in more manageable future volumes.2 Existing and projected traffic volumes in the immediate vicinity of the study area are shown in Exhibit 3. Traffic volumes projected for the La Canada Drive extension will primarily result from 3,336 projected dwelling units and resort hotel and golf course planned for construction in Rancho Vistoso directly north of the La Canada Drive Extension.3 Advancep roject planning and preliminary design for the La Canada Drive extension is included in the Oro Valley Transportation Improvement Program. The La Canada extension will provide additional travel opportunities for residents of northwest Oro Valley and will further develop the Oro Valley roadway network. The extension will reduce traffic on the overloaded First Avenue and Oracle Road corridors and improve safety, and will include facilities for alternate mode usage. 2 Additional information is available in the documentation for the Oro Valley Travel Demand Model,also by CLA. 3 Rancho Vistoso Planned Area Development Plan,revised July 10,1996. ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ PAGE 4 VI •U U „_,_,., _. _,_ __,_.. is _ ,Ys_ -,-,,:,--,41,A, •- r=. ,.- f =.fF -_' _-,�. _ :.�__ - _ - - s ,� ' -_7,,‘,-_,(_0--6_ ,„ ' .. a ,i,g,ig ----' %„bog?y,---,_._:=-.17e,,.._';',,,.!:.tg:-:..a 1 : .: ® 5 w r. -.-- 0006z'Y-:.-1-.A.- 4r,Prf', --_'!... -,,,, ,-; ,_ L. ,. .,,,!:=,...;_.-7.'14.`,:7.41,4,A.,11:-..?"4, :0, _. i�-_ g ... -6at _Fc.F$'- •E;--__ _ ��� ..yz :=_ .` _ - - s - 1-- - _. `•_•_•- - -#� 1 .8 ti g hi4 0 3 2 8 g -F_'-: Ei t i } 74-).* - -il 1,-----.-'-'---_:''-:,---,'47)::,---'=':-- m .' .t. =..= 74,Aa , -.. - - - �,�� -- =3600 -_- f 4• .a _„......4 .1,. ._...40 ' • _ i . f• e_� �;i a . -._ ' .= . — ''-'1:4:1W=1",tit* .'.4'.' .'-'5:91P'1'--r:-'7':4,--,4 a O $kms - •_ -_,..y...1.:-ii.'7,-„,---. .,,...-i'-„i=-!) "_'''''' , -N.'e '-'- _ . ,...: -___ -__:1--., ----.:!-!-:f.; ----5;.--,14.724k.f-1.i'-' V ,--',;_:, -, tP- -....-_- .-. . .ezN- • __,-7-=:-.,,,_ _ _ �* £ter �a-, aF F 4 €, = _ *` �- ig is �_ - - y- :--.1.:4 _.---"' • i 1 Y �. a _ . 3 _ a°�="� •..-F }+lam�.3r-44.41.:,,..41t!, `�-. __ - __.___ � � a - _ •�i -• -f �E - --rt �a _ _ 1,.=-4-4 :as•= � ! ��d -"- _ ..�` 'f '�}i 'fes�� •44 _"!F 44 ;F -_ • � _ •{ F s -E 2P . _�-_ � _� =�`i � � > - •_ _ -= _ .,rte•--;_ _ �.'r - rs• ��£=•, -.---,71.!:-..: :-`_ :`- '_ =i Via` `� - U.-ifir"':1-.::0---7,:lE _ . _ - ��` - - �� J�� � _ #-a C . 4.1.!-P-4,z-zi:-. 2::-..,s704-=----:_::;_.- =. :,._,---,-: _-. _ � #��,-.. �- -:n n � ���_- -yam � _�� � �` -'115-4,:%.„.„....'2'. - ��`�`_ `�;-.--;;,:-L- _- ___ ..-- 3 ���_•.�_ ,--7___.- t-,-,._. r!'=__1> ,...---4,-- >._-;-4.-...- t •' -.. • ' ._. , _ ,, - .e,-. ---€ - i - _ s= _ Ii i. .4 ....,.: '..'7_,-''4., '`._-.:_.-..:::''-'':-',,,'_=-. - t :: ::-..::_,..-i----_, ---f-.:*-:_-.-*, .9- `::-..---: ,.._. i _ t., _ ....,„ , _ -. ..'9=• �;_ .=';'-':.-='141----;,_-!:.= �_ -+fir'=' - -- �.� +_ jif} -•�-. z-...,2%.-, E3 ....q -�1E c ��!'•��.--=Y �_l.,. ,-,--.1:::::- zd}ye.t -.------'.- ".-.717$14.' `=Fc•.: _ - - _ '.� F�_: •���=1!#._ j _ • t > __ .E a sa � - '- '-_,---7-..0_::,- � i.aa i� i____„--:.::_,,-- a'-F_ ����f- �. O 1.7:1".14..i.:1;:-7",?,-,- � Y'§2�..._'_ `_.f-a-_- - _..-.-,,- -,-.!:.-,*-:.:TAT.- oaf� a.•� .•�'. / Y/ �_ � �s _- •�_ -= 1 E - - -- - ,„1 ju �� is.r.O. _ i -''.s a �-� j;i =-O% = _-_ - -f==` •- €4-•sem'- €� .. ` € '''*'--:-_-_;-.4.--'_:?1-_-----*----.;;:.i.,..:74 .,,, * "J epttet:-:'1:1 !--li I f _ . ; _� t 0 > aF}�.-te. --4:--- - - � - ._ f _ _�_ *'.>-' •-�.__.-- _-_•, �, •_ _ s= i 'moi . f- .--.--,!.• f i=_' s .'.a•a z- E.a' ;-_- �a>_ -`--,''"11'*: _ - •-a:4,i,:4-.1,441...4564.0..--_ .-- fr - __-!= --.� -'` a ol J �r -ice: .; - +s. -�-. . E .t.. _'.$ E..._ i €�`Y F- "� -%-.41,-;:',--,,---t--: g F.`• -` iili-je.---' - ! _- 4 �.., , _...f�. .•. i . ..�'�T.4'. _.,. _ - - "f. a ';.�'.� ,!.-.6,--,7-!1.---.- 7�_7 i-�•'�F .-Fi-�" _ ' F .5 ..-fes •t,-=.•i ,_a � ,,A c -._` -.. '_ �•'_." 6€� - `mss ,rAi,--..;__;;,-.itq-plia,i,..„,,,. : , . . ,., i!y #;`fes.:-. 7_ '."•.r"E E r17i i '= �FEg _ i - Q O -.;,-,.........,,..cd, a,E34 F .t `ir --Mfrs s{.a :, .-•. .,=,.. „-_,....-....__._. • .'''',I.---"04".„ # ! } • ; �•=�l •� �Fa; = �q #-. `- "'`moi .- ' tt +l at'--:::',&AL-kirik-5-tefii.2:-ii?li.,1477N-:.:-, _ E� 1!7 oort, Vi 11. �f�_� 4%..--'-' _ ���! i ��{�. . a -3� = �*,�_ _i±nircialltill � F � �t ... i,'.•• r' air_# r .,�_,r-�. -,..t;-.4,-':'''''t;' - _ tAt � _ '+" �i ��i. �'aha� �' „��,...71,..1.e._ i- •�`�. 'ts.==•� � �� ` = _. �. ! s• 4,44:7_4,,,,,,r,,,----,,----£ 4 �, (OOSt�£�Ott o0 oI OQ€ 104 , *2, ._wi,,,•*�`!, -R i..� , 'i 4F-s 3= �.i= `-�-..1'�c.._ $ _ at a 1 U- :' -) ,ct * w Cil ge fiat i g 60 vg 1 at = E 's -If -a 3. v -ti ' T... m -4-c 1 -,t .. -.., t .... - -,-,,. = ... 12 .,. .... . wz. ... . _ . .... . _ . . el 4....1 lit. 24 .4,... --.:-. r, c . Ta 414 - v ;., . .=. 7_, 0 . el ft-r = tee • `wini ir. � '' '-tea '7.ri� aril , 44 4- i ,*,..) •,,,C „iv, dtimil 001.1 !lb 40 = 44.4 fa Us wriagi *g ion tin/ -- _ _ 4 - -- ,,,..7,.,• tra fir4 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ PAGE 5 Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 etro olitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Metropolitan has included the La Canada Drive extension in The Pima Association of Governmentsthe Pima Transportation Plan. the PAG MetropolitanThe MTP was approved by p �ggg, As part of the regional planning effort, the roadway Association of Governments Regional Council on May 27, , extension was evaluated in PAG's regional travel ation tans demand model and in a financial analysis. The local jurisdiction transport p and overall MTP were found to be financially feasible. Proposed Design Features The proposed improvements for the La Canada Drive extension include the following design features: • Cross Section—Two-lane collector roadway (initial) with 5-foot paved shoulders, stop control at Tangerine Road, and 150 to 200-foot right-of-way to accommodate Four-lane minor arterial roadway (future) with raised medians, build-out condition. 8-foot multipurpose lanes, 5-foot sidewalks or 10-foot multiuse paths, utility corridor, curb and gutter, drainage facilities, and a traffic signal at the intersection of La Canada and Tangerine Road. • Speed n —50 mph; posted for 40 to 45 mph. • Design Vehicle—WB-50 (tractor with trailer). • Landscaping - Native and low-water use landscaping in median and border areas. • Drainage Drainage a facilities to accommodate 100-year storms; all-weather crossing major of major washes for both interim and build-out conditions. • Noise Mitigation-- Mitigation iti ation p rovisions evaluated for the roadway impacts will include larger building setbacks and noise abatement measures. The proposed design features for the two-lane initial roadway and four-lane ultimate roadway are presented in Exhibit 4. Alignment is constrained on both the north and south ends due The potential roadway alignment to the location of existing and planned developments and connecting roadways. For the route to be contenuous �oadwa y � it needs to connect with the existing La Canada Drive at , Tangerine Road, and with the current Moore Road section line. There is some alignment within the middle section based on current and flexibility for the roadway g planned land uses. Alignment alternatives are evaluated with particular attention to traffic operations neighborhood and safety, nee hborhood and environmental impacts, and cost. Mitigation Methods Environmental — Preservation of existing cultural and natural resources will be an important consideration in the proposed extension of La Canada Drive. Potential impacts and mitigation methods will be identified in a subsequent environmental g Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report to be prepared with the initial project's engineering design.ineerin desi n. Environmental considerations include impacts on riparian areas, drainage ways, and sensitive plant and animal species including the Pygmy owl, and on archaeological and other cultural and environmental resources. PAGE 6 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ o U U U -- li 55S iir leb'''z'S 'ft mil x W o us nA • 1 � .5 Iwo oimil 1111. .4 Ma w Ili = zN U 4% O ,..--,___4 .L fC d Y 33 S cn� o - ) 0 U ._0.111.1 lind . immil a T r O c T T 41 1) 7:'. § C O (') L - O r N IF:-__:, I cE 2 1 17) et Mill .--0h T ;t Ii O _. ..ile ; ..,„„._-- „._, :it1 41.0.11 C f F.. Q =OW I r = T ri = "i7.? --4' t E4 1 ,17-i---- - a T , cit,-,,,, ,_,,.,-,-k, _ , m _______,k - -v Ig 'di rs ain -c-min- 4 1 sow LnmJT' - r; ell) 2 -J = ~ (C- tQ fd.% N, I Si T a� =,.(s f= co c - i -- N� O r O u L (CSI e z N J ~ > I S ~ g.,- ■I O o �' L TIME g2 1.0J 1 I ail -I 1 O .0 C t - c'7, I -_,--..>"'"--7_ %ha %RV .U atr .. a- . . • Y N ii ) j 7,3'Nig En, O IRS SW la iiii) fie lab -- al 1 ..... _74 p 2 • 4 41.4 evri teta all i" _. _ ►tel _E171-17---7 ---:;_-_-7----_-=_ � _ fir_ Q 2 E, s PAGE 7 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Neighborhoods project—The existingroject area is sparsely developed, with platted subdivisions yet to be built. A residential development is proposed for the northeast corner of Tangerine Road and La Canada Drive. During the design process, significant effort will be made to address the needs and concerns of affected property owners and residents. Existingadjacent driveways will be connected to the roadway wherever feasible, and access points will be considered for future connections. Mitigationprovisions rovisions for the roadway impacts will include drainage facilities, and the provision of noise abatement measures will be evaluated. Alternate Modes— Five-foot paved shoulders for bicycle travel and graded outside shoulder areas for pedestrians are typical features of the initial two-lane cross-section. The future four-lane cross-section includes typical features such as 8-foot wide multiuse lanes and 5-foot sidewalks or 10-foot off-street paths. The multiuse lanes are for emergency bicycle use and parking, and provide pull-out area for potential future Y bus stops. Alternate modes that will be considered in this study include bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian, neighborhood electric vehicle, and other modes of nonmotorized travel. implementation Intergovernmental Agreement Application (IGA) —An IGA may be necessary between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County if the roadway alignment crosses outside of the Oro Valley town limits. An IGA with ADOT is required for the La Canada Drive intersection with Tangerine Road. Funding Sources— Funding for the La Canada Drive extension will likely come from a variety of sources including Pima Association of Government Regional Roadway Funds, Town of Oro Valley roadway funds and development impact fees, and potential right-of-way dedications by developers. Preliminary Project Cost Estimate —The cost for the initial two-lane roadway, including right-of-way,ri ht-of-wa , is estimated to be approximately$2.5 million. Build out of the four-lane roadway will cost approximately $1.5 million in addition to the initial phase. A more refined cost estimate will be prepared as part of the Design Concept Report for the project. Timing — Right-of-way acquisition can begin upon project approval, with construction 9 Y of the two-lane facility anticipated within the next 3 to 8 years. Construction of the four-lane roadway is anticipated within 8 to 15 years. ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ PAGE 8 Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 2. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS The primary purpose of the Location Report is to recommend a final right-of-way study of reasonable alternative alignments. The roadway alignment based on a s y alignment alternatives need to consider existing and future land uses, neighborhood impacts, environmental and topographic conditions, and other significant issues. Valleyowns virtually no right-of-way within the project study area. The Town of Oro Alignment alternatives that allow for reasonable cost right-of-way purchase or owners will strongly influence the feasibility of dedication of right-of-way by property � the L a Canada extension. Opportunities exist to secure cost-effective right-of-way due undeveloped nature of the study area. Topographical constraints, to the generally P particularlyinvolving riparian areas and washes within the study area, also infiuence Coordination and development of intergovernmental agreements project feasibility. with PimaCounty are also necessary for alignments that require right-of-way within the County. These and other constraints and opportunities are evaluated in the following sections of this report. Description of Roadway Alternatives Roadway Corridor Study Area planned on existing and land uses, topographic constraints, and connectivity to the existing roadway system,stem, a roadway corridor study area has been defined for the primary objective extension. The rima objective at the southern terminus of the corridor is to connect at the existingLa Canada intersection with Tangerine Road. Between Tangerine Road and Moore Road, there is greater flexibility in locating the roadway either along or near the section line dividing Sections 34 and 35 or up to approximately 1/2 mile east of the section line. At the northern terminus of the proposed extension, the roadwaymay connect to Moore Road either along the section line or at somepoint upto approximately 1/2 mile east of the section line. The roadway corridor study area is presented in Exhibit 5. Project Termini Critical to the extension of La Canada Drive is the location of the desired connecting project Tangerine of ro the ject at Tan erine Road at the southern terminus and Moore Road at the northern terminus. Southern Terminus terminus of the project, the section line dividing Sections 34 and 35 of At the southern TownshipRange South, Ran e 13 East shifts to the east approximately 100 feet from the existing n terminus of La Canada Drive at Tangerine Road. The existing intersection cannot be shifted eastward the full distance to align with the section line due to the construction of the U.S. Postal Service post office on the southeast quadrant of the There is potential to shift the intersection eastward slightly, but probably intersection. PAGES ©1999 CURTiS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Cn U U U AUG+G A Q al� .5'J § A L�: Z 1W.Te a, ¢z.5 e) 4 1 & w oU G U opg 7.;:--------E-----1'4.- ' -'' ------ -*-4 --- ------,-----------1----- _ = 4 , -i ,.,„ :' 9= ;�� _�� ....%.- : _ ieli.„, _ -- - ter:=.'� _---k-_ , -.1,-7 .-- --:- . - r _11.-.„1.\\,.., — ,wort,a� =, ,----..--- ,- _„ -__,,,,,,„,, _ _ __ , Ve-,,., '',.'„,_ d Ailkakot ',,,. '-' '''-'-- '- fir 4b --' - 1 = , a , ,,,, r....,....raipirtilmili 0_a I.- _ ,,_7 t b., -'-. ' -;,.'' 04 ' 4 ii .Alee"i.,' - _ _ _ _ �_ < atilt _ ....or. irs,.11, :.' : ' I *iik iii 1:1..--/—z'e l'iibz 4.....j77 ,__ .._„____ tom EII1_:-_ �_ 1_- - r € � = -.�- � .r.:.- - , - _ - - is �f ¢ ' - � _ f = :z --'t- ¢ £ _ i ...1.7.:Tilky't-4,1,41,-- 2 __--w------ ----'----=--- _- -_▪ --- ,.___ ,..7 -:, .,.. 1 .2 :t::1:-47 ittiiittik- } - ' _ Au.--. ■sr sr ,�` 'fit -_: --__ .,,,,,i.,----,--iix---------;_ir_ _ - 4 _ ,, ....,.,- '-'=.--:‘I 1 k ka 11,_'11 II iklii LNI - -'"t-- --- '' ""1 ..,:' .k‘\..7: zt = _ s _ = _ _ a =g_ -- -,'.-A.1 -,- - 1.-L i _-: . -. ____. ______„„45.-____ 1- am . ! Of _. � � `� � � g= �: � .-` ,� �_ a= _�= - six _ s - - -- ' ' - s - ` - - i --,- ' - <10 is s _ a r a , s i 4 : - _L moi$_. s"_yvp,-. •g .- .E-. % = o - - - ;. �� � j1,i �l A G' i � z 1 i - w.+ -t ..r w.r 'fir = ne , t Z ..— ..v = . ''' 2 t rl lilt ik) 'lag . = , 1 TIMe,—A •q •q Zat = = 7tft " ' 1 fillj N ; ..V ton vlegkx * \ . * ii I Aft fli 1"1 .... u a *WI WIlab °Int paid al !4Pamil pp* mi pal i'vD, at 4 4, *it .... ,.... 4,,.) 04 z.p ..,__....,%, _.,,, 3 .0......„, ....,-)-k A 1 44 - .ate + ab _ � = 4 , e. , ko ._ --mss _ _: _ - _ �_= �_._ _ - _ _ -- _ -- z, z _________________,___________ , _,. ___ . , - &�. 4 O fi 4� PAGE 10 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 due to the access requirements of the post office. A roadway a maximum of 30 feet alignment that is to follow the section line north of Tangerine Road would require M either off-set intersections or construction of a reverse "S" curve in La Canada north of Tangerine. Town of Oro Valley Tangerine Road Corridor Plan and Overlay As established in the District (December 1997), intersection straightening to eliminate off-set conditions is a principal transportation policy olic for improved safety along Tangerine Road. Therefore, an offset intersection condition at this location is not desirable. Also, movement of the existing intersection to the west is problematic because of surface drainage ex 9 the alignment considerations and because it would move further into unincorporated Pima County. The existingintersection location, with minor shifting to the east if feasibleis therefore recommended as the southern terminus of the project. , Northern Terminus Several alternatives exist at the north end of the corridor to tie in with a planned four- lane extension of Moore Road west from Rancho Vistoso and a planned four-lane access road that will serve future Rancho Vistoso development north of Moore. The planned road is to intersect with Moore Road approximately 1/4 mile east of the existing section line dividing Sections 34 and 35. A traffic model run was performed erformed to forecast traffic demand on the La Canada Drive extension. Model results indicate that traffic demand should be higher for the future access road to Rancho Vistoso to the north than the future Moore Road extension to the east. The location of the northern terminus, therefore, should emphasize north- south traffic movement over east-south movement. Threerima locations for the northern terminus of the roadway have been p rY developed and are considered within this report. The three primary locations are as follows: • Awestern terminus that involves connecting La Canada Drive to Moore Road along the section line. The connection at this location would involve a "T" intersection where La Canada Drive meets Moore Road. • An eastern terminus that aligns directly with the Rancho Vistoso access road. Moore Road would "T" into the La Canada Drive/Rancho Vistoso access road intersection. Moore would then continue westward as a two-lane paved roadway and connect with the existing paved Moore Road at King Air Drive. • A central terminus that connects La Canada Drive and Moore Road approximately 1 000 feet east of the section line. This terminus would involve a curvilinear s alignment wherebyLa Canada Drive would curve eastward to connect with Moore g Road. Both Moore Road to the west of the alignment and the Rancho Vistoso access road would"T" into the La Canada/Moore Road curve. Traffic movement between Moore Road and La Canada would therefore receive priority under this terminus alternative. Each of the terminus locations is presented graphically in the following sections of this report. PAGE 11 O 1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Roadway Alignment Alternatives Ninerelimina alignment alternatives were developed and evaluated for the p rY 9 proposed La Canada extension. Alternatives were based on minimizing impacts on existing structures, on existing as well as future land uses, and on riparian areas. The nine alternatives were evaluated by the project team and Town staff in terms of property impacts, right-of-way requirements, riparian impacts, traffic operations, and P Y P total cost. Based on this preliminary review, four alternatives were chosen for further evaluation by project the roject team and Town staff. A fifth alternative was developed after consultation with the Mayor and Town staff. This alternative was presented to Mayor and Council and discussed at a Town Council Study Session held in June 1999, and is reflected in this report. Discussed below are the five alignment alternatives. The alignments are presented graphically in Exhibits 6 through 10. Alternative A 1) Alternative A generally follows the section line dividing Sections 34 and 35 for the full distance between Tangerine Road and Moore Road, consisting of property both within Oro Valley and unincorporated Pima County. The southern 1/4 mile of the corridor would lie within the Oro Valley town limits. The roadway would be located on the east side of the section line for nearly the entire alignment. This alternative would involve a stop or signal controlled "T" intersection at Moore Road and La Canada Drive. Alternative B1 2) Three similar alternatives have been developed which follow the section line for varying distances and then transition eastward to connect with the Rancho Vistoso access road and Moore Road. Alternative B1 follows the section line for approximately 2/3 of a mile north of Tangerine Road, with a reversed "S" connection northeast to connect with Moore Road and the Rancho Vistoso access road. This alignment provides a direct connection to the access road, and provides emphasis on north-south traffic movement. Alternative B2 3) Alternative B2 is a variation on Alternative B1. The reversed "S" connection which B1 heads northeast from the section line would begin at a point further south than , approximately 1/3 of a mile north of Tangerine Road. At 1/4 mile east of the section line the alignment would head directly north to intersect with Moore Road and the access road to Rancho Vistoso. Alternative B3 4) Alternative B3 is also a variation. The reversed "S" connection begins immediately north of the section line. At 1/4 mile east of the section line the alignment would head north to intersect with Moore Road and the access road to Rancho Vistoso. O 1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ PAGE 12 Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28,1999 RANCHO VISTOSO (FUTURE) ;' RANCHO VISTOSO KING AIR .; ACCESS ROAD ---.4H-F-4„,__ :•• DRIVEJ).•-..i.A\-. - --- T ------ _ :t:,k M00 FI G UER DA, RICHARD __ ......_..._._.._._.«.............»........... ................__..._._._«._.._ .... ,NI i !. c !) P. & ELSA L. • • _...............__............«. , EXIST. 150' LEON, LUPE M. , . • °�-- � EASEMENT & BEATRIZ G. ,.y __ � WILHELMSE LEON, LUPE JR i I 't' --SECTION LINE ' HARRY TR : :& PATRICIA B. • ,i..,r....-----"-- .- 1, 1 „- F! EXISTING, PRIVATE, 30' LEON, LUPE M. �r»•• t-,. -1 ,, ' ":; WIDE INGRESS/EGRESS & BEATRIZ G. _ , , ' i. ---ice-••;_-<.,,/_ t i t: 1 ` t EASEMENT• • 10` TREMONT i 1 I ? h ' TRUST ,,,,,1°ry f HABER, KAI NEW 150' R.O.W. ......... , ,.......__ .,‘ , LI «........__...,.............------- 1.::175:77.70707757,NoilTrak715047475iTiciaiii:706,7.':, gra..�..txt.'::°�_«��,::,�� .5.�'a^:.:..k•>7,yb:�.''W�t;'R�iu<4Gi<K;wo.tt�`.`:ici�i?:>.�::k'3:;R.ry!:rr,::`%..... .........::�:��:....:::;'yi.9;�t:'rii,n.Y�,:WAG.•:'^Y:.. .. • f1 f SECT. 35, TOWN. =11S sr RANGE 13E SCHAFFER, ;'”'' /r PRISCILLA A. . ' f!/c' Esii . \t FIDELITY CURTISS, • NATIONAL ! ' i \CROSS, W H JAMES P., JR. � � TITLE �. � • BRINGH UR S T, r-.___.«........_.__._...._.......... s ,,r" , � SCOTT M. & • ( 1 f DEBORAH K. H .........._.._._____........_...... } I? \li ' CROSS, DANIEL • ❑ a „,, 1 ” 1 0 - L. & CATHY LEE `~ • `' ,va>.:: ,• 1 + f___......__«._ __._. ;. :� ,,.:,,::_::.;,:.,,.:•,;',; ;,mow..�::;�� \ _ ' KNO T T, RONNIE °E ". / D. & GEORG •E, • ,� r = t OR , 1 ; LINDA A. KAY, DAVID LEE JR. I ' ' ! i r t, \ GEORGE, JOE & ALDERSON ' Cl ALDEN `k7 & ROSEMARY KELLY SUE & KAY, :�A•'•-........_..C.•:.;,., ;. KARTER LEE _..............ANN C. i.►•_ ^z-•%'; : : arrn ' � nfj —.._w PROPERTY LINE, TYP. • a :'is �--.. MONTGOMERY, BILLY' `, C. & SUSAN E. i til ",; -- MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY ----_ ---`- TANGERINE HEIGHT LLC 4!•� �'�,: TANGERINE S, • 0 1 ?// ----17\L.P. TOWN BOUNDARY a /1 :: * ,! F• ......... 1; / EXISTING BUILDING, TYP. MILLER, RICHARD E. '--»--•--• , __...----"-•+r 1 f', / ,,.,..'' & SARAH K. ; I ,A j / EXISTING, PRIVATE, 30' er ! \ ' 0 ,;j( s ->�---WIDE, INGRESS/EGRESS ' I ./7 _-- "__ • EASEMENT \ j / i Ij • • PROPERTIES CURRENTLY ! 'j, 'r ;`J { PROPOSED, FUTURE R.O.W. UNDER CONSIDERATION, /1/ `'` '' j t EXISTING 100' R.O.W. OR IN NEGOTIATION, ' i •1 `',i•`` tr;: FOR ANNEXATION BY r • • .. , ORO VALLEY w mmw <,,, i-� ............ _ U.S.' . TANGERINE R i N E R 0 A D Exhibit 6 ALFRED & 1 USPOSTAL GRACE _Ay 14;. SERVICE i Alternative A EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE - -..' N.T.S. ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ PAGE 13 Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 RANCHO VISTOSO (FUTURE) RANCHO VISTOSO O KING AIR A`, ACCESS ROAD -Alb. DRIVE_.......__._....._................. 1`♦` MOORE ROAD tt wt. FIGUEROA, RICHARD iA ; ..r • �:�� _ ! 50' ._...,.., EXIST. 1 LEON, LUPE M. ,/`�' EASEMENT & BEATRIZ G. rr�--' SECTION • LINE .......................__.....__....... z a ; WILHELMSEN, LEON LUPE JR• ,•' f HARRY TR & PATRICIA B. TREMONT t •i TRUST Cb : __ _' EXISTING, PRIVATE, 30' LEON, LUPE M. - WIDE, INGRESS/EGRESS & BEATRIZ G. i,` EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE, TYP. ; '! -y:\ i' it 1 ! HABER, KAI ..... ..:x;�:'m>::wy:•. `irit�.�....}•fi:,.n;;tt..2.•.y.:xvi•':f.: :zir�&:r.�.t!iv:.vi> "rn;iv`. f < I ..................... .. ...._.. ..�..—H;.vu w,.:: ,,,,:..:xpr.;; RG,y:}3'^L';�As s.: :,,:: ,Y .4i.%,,, fx. ''..i�nrr::.Nirvi:�.....,..:: ..':i:iCY :..:::lv,Y... ............ ..:::. SECT. 35, TOWN. 11S s f E ~A" ' I RANGE 13E ' / j . , t • SCHAFFER, ;:d ,: `! r PRISCILLA A. 'J,R, f /•;/` ; TOWN _ 4,r -•...._....._NEW 150' R.O.W. • Ilyii : BOUNDARY __._.� ..«. ...__.._......._.._.__ al -"'xriI ; CURTISS, CROSS..... ..W..H JAMES P., JR. 3 i / , 4 BRINGHURST, 4 FIDELITY ' SCOTT M. & -i ( . NATIONAL E' \ ,//DEBORAHK• '1 TITLE ! o Ev .............._.«.___......._....... 7 !i , CROSS, DANIEL ..._•. ❑ 0 i t i t , t L. & CA THY LEE li 2 .._.. __.-....._....___ ___...__.._......_.... ___ ......... - _ ____/r i 1 _._..r__�-'--.__ ._ ._.._._......................^. KNO T T, RONNIE El ,} - D. & GEORGE, '4:‘ 1 LINDA A. • KAY, DAVID LEE JR. I 1r4: "4/. I/ \ GEORGE, JOE & ALDERSON, ',,ALDEN, "1 `, & ROSEMARY KELLY SUE & KAY, /./. i ANN C.41 '-- KARTER LEE .44 t`;' ....ti...�..,...� >::' :u�f�«4 iQ f5,C2<;f��A''>K 3��fit♦t,�5 fr' j 1�` 7,,' • ..,: w..S'i.4.n .tSff!.,ti 4`!:w ynlN / 7 1 ! TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC '. 0 c':"(`', MONTGOMERY, BILLY C. & SUSAN E. • i i ,: '�---- MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY i ',i, • �` �'�;� • , E \� •• _ % "►,i TANGERINE LIMITED • ,%---7\PARTNERSHIP `` EXISTING BUILDING, TYP. MILLER, RICHARD E. . i • 1) ,---- lit; ' S E r & SARAH K ; '�,i ,/ EXISTING, PRIVATE, 30' , /' ,1" _ - WIDE, INGRESS/EGRESS `,y;, ,;. - EASEMENT /�, ,�,_.;•---- 1 , * / '''. u t.- 1.... -.1 L...-, ..,M. 3 . PROPERTIES CURRENTLY r , :W i ~~~ -~ - ---'- PROPOSED, FUTURE R.O.W. UNDER CONSIDERATION, E .,;,N, EXISTING 100' R.O.W. • OR IN NEGOTIATION, It f FOR ANNEXATION BY ' ' 1. • ORO VALLEY "" TANGERINE ROAD SCI UTO, ALFRED & U.S. POSTAL T Exhibit 8 GRACE ___,FLA_ SERVICE I Alternative B(2) EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE-- N.T.S. ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ PAGE 14 Final Location Report, La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 RANCHO VISTOSO (FUTURE) RANCHO VISTOSO :,. KING AIR �� ACCESS ROAD DRIVE J . _..._......_-._...... ........._..._ROAD ....................-...._........_..... TMO. .,,,,-,_;--,...:,,,,,L__/„.:::,,-_,..:-_-_,_.....,.. ____,, - . - . ,---- - . - —__:.4.---. ORE FIGUEROA, RICHARD « • P. & ELSA L. 1 EXIST. 150' t LEON, LUPE M. f':', EASEMENT ,,I '`, SECTION LINE & BEATRIZ G. •: is WILHELMSEN, `: ,`'; : HARRY TR LEON, LUPE JR. TREMONT ;x.: & PATRICIA B. • _ .........._... TRUST �,,,,�.._._., EXISTING, PRIVATE, 30' LEON, LUPE M. ,>:�� WIDE, INGRESS EGRESS I1 J �....«.._. INGRESS/ if EGRESS BEATRIZ G. '; - EASEMENT i' , PROPERTY LINE, TYP. '� :i ' HABER, KAI • • I ,, :, ;:: d 4'„�C::'w :{U • '.�• ':� rk:y> ----.............. L,,,....-m,..mmzn,,.o.,,...-am.,..,.,g,„„..,o,��p':��t%r.�s....:...,.,......t.�.,...�..: �y� •.�..;>.�i'r:r'.�;,�<;y�.'kp.:.:,.;','air;'�x•:3�,n"% ��`.:T':{` , SECT. 35 TOWN 11S z. f'' RANGE 13E r" I SCHAFFER, u • • f ._ PRISCILLA A. l '!i'' _ • NEW 150' R.O.W. TOWN . BOUNDARY [1 .�_............_._............'_............._--...»...__......... CURTISS, ' I ` CROSS, W H I JAMES P., JR j • Tel ` FIDELITY .- I BRINGH r;` NATIONAL i' 1 SCOTTM. &_.......__.._ _..._......� [ 1 a: r. // : � '•,� ,;, �._...-....-___......_.............__.. DEBORAH K. k TITLE , ��,,r' v. •k CROSS DANIEL ---•• i ❑ D `'"' CATHY LEE ��.�.r-:�,,.:.<•w., Y..�:;:::;>, �... __ .77' ''' 11 ft. \ 7 : L. & .::....... ':�:' ........ _I\ .1._ i_ .. 1 . _ . ._..._........ "...""' - 4`. KNO T T R ONNIE ,:��' �'�':,ili D. & GEORGE, LINDA A. KAY, DAVID LEE JR. I .`'A // , t GEORGE, JOE & ALDER SON, ,A'LDEN y,>,- `'` & ROSEMARY KELLY SUE & KAY, , _1 } '... ._.....�ANN C.-;,� ,, _.., ;y,r. t+ KAR TER LEE ;"' // • • ....._.. ..........._ f �, TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC • ! a i - 1 ,..:‘,..,, • MONTGOMERY, BILLY . i, ~'' MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY • C. & SUSAN E. - `'`�� #► /.Vii;.,/' ........................_.---/',` •-..--1! f Nis, TANGERINE LIMITED U ' --' \PARTNERSHIP •., Al ; -"� , ,+ EXISTING BUILDING, TYP. MILLER, RICHARD E. �' ' I , EXISTING, PRIVATE, 30' & SARAH K. � 1 � G . 0 //: -•'} M';y---..--WIDE, IN RESS/EGRESS ,, � ---�_,._._._._.--- EASEMENT \ I 7 ir., liuop * i /1 /• 1.--- //, lil </----71;"0,---"'' I PROPERTIES CURRENTLY D, .............................._ ___. PROPOSE FUTURE R.O.W. • UNDER CONSIDERATION I ;:r.., EXISTING 100R.O.W. •• OR IN NEGOTIATION, 1 i'' FOR ANNEXATION BY I I .:.:. I y .. • ORO VALLEY _........... .-._...._..._..-.-................._ .--.............._........_........:.:::'. ;:::r,:;t{aF-.t•,.)»:b. 1' � ::..- .... .. '.' .... I ...TANGERINE ROAD Exhibit 8 SCI UTO, ALFRED & ! U.S. POSTAL GRACE _0_,,,',:,„,, SERVICE Alternative B(2) EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE - -\ N.T.S. PAGE 15 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 RANCHO VISTOSO (FUTURE) RANCHO VISTOSO,_ ..-, i KING AIR ' ACCESS ROAD DRIVE_..................._._..... _ ``'i ':,\\ w».___............. _ ._..._............_...... .--__.................... ...............•......-............-.-._._.„...-..-...._...............».._..... MOORS R ....:.....:. :............ •'"=.—........;-.77---77' F• ".......'::,:-......'''/...."-- ......._.___.... ....... FI G UER OA, RICHARD --»•�- ',,i;4. r P. & ELSA L. , . k : i ,`• ,/ EXIST. 150' • • LEON, LUPE M. !EASEMENT • I SECTION LINE • • & BEA TRI Z G. WILHELMSEN, • i. •- �/� •.., � LEON, LUPE JR. r ',`, HARRY TR A. PATRICIA B. : :,:r _......__..... S H:iEXISTING, PRIVATE, 30 LEON, LUPE M. IR WIDE, INGRESS EGRESS & BEATRIZ G. ._--•-• EASEMENT I ,• r rs 4 t •s.. PROPERTY LINE, TYP. ' TREMONT ( - '�• • /' TR UST ; ; HABER, KAI • :1 I i a. t rraynioits:^ xttovamtmS= o:5. i 0: A 1 SECT.• 35, TOWN. 11S ` / '�i i' i RANGE 13E S CHAFFER, • PRISCILLA A. j ;'_%'�� --' J 1;.! NEW 150' R.O.W. TOWN ': \`, FIDELITY BOUNDARYNA _.»._.._.._...._ .._..._...__..... CURTISS, ` ',TITLE 1� JAMES P., JR • f \,.CROSS, W H,r BRINGHURST, --- »..................._...... _.._..... . SCOTT M. & • I I �' i ._._......._....._ -..,» DEBORAH K. a ......_..... • <'; , ` CROSS, DANIEL -_._ ❑ o `4;: LEE .:..�: ... .. CATHY .._._.._._.... ::::.:.:: ----•\-•-•• ----•/-•••-•---------1.-- -- - --------••• _. .. .._ :..:..:..::.:::::.}::.......:::.: .::.:..;:, ............. , .:........ • .._. ___-__... :>< KNO T T, R ONNIE • i "f" t �--D. & GEORGE, • is r r •• { 4 LI / `;;k`% 1 LINDA A. •• • \ �iV KAY, DAVID LEE JR. p ,i. I;. i GEORGE, JOE •• & ALDERSON, r & ROSEMARY { ti ;; ' KELLY SUE & KAY ANN C.';>; `' KARTER LEE ' • t'` `; ' O •„ -'• TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC x • MONTGOMERY, BILLY 'f:.,:„., ;• 1 ``� � ___••_•'-- MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY • C. & SUSAN E. • # y J ;E •:c�,,r�lE_- { • wx / ! ' 1 / /./;,i,J t i',..' / 411,.1 1 r, • _..-_.._.._............_.._._.! _.__...._...__s ___ _ —,:'!4:,__ • TANGERINE LIMITED 0 ----,.�1 -'7\P A R T N ERSHIP, t-�' f»M EXISTING BUILDING, TYP MILLER, RICHARD E. : ; i • %' / 3 '''� / EXISTING, PRIVATE, 30 & SARAH K. � ' / Q ! :// - •� -'WIDE, INGRESS/EGRESS __----________.—;4-••••-•-• __ EASEMENT • • ,; ., ..................:.._.._.......PROPOSED, FUTURE R.O.W. PROPERTIES CURRENTLY I ``< r; ; UNDER CONSIDERATION, ' W-- -f EXISTING 100' R.O.W. OR IN NEGOTIATION, - • FOR ANNEXATION BY 1 3 ; OROVALLEY :........... ,...»...............:......... r ,,'._ )i TANGERINE ROAD Exhibit 9 SCIUTO, ALFRED & ! U.S. POSTAL GRACE _41+ SERVICE Alternative B(3) `: N. .S. EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE ---3 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ PAGE 16 Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 RANCHO VISTOSO (FUTURE) RANCHO VISTOSO KING AIR `��� ` ACCESS ROAD �' -\,, : _..._.._..._._........_..-.110.—El, ROAD A D DRIVE ....A................................. FIGUEROA, RICHARD » '.• P & : /• � EXIST. 150 .. /r EASEMENT• LEON, LUPE M. I ''''' ' EASE r r ACE & BEATRIZ G. - // „� WILHELMSEN, LEON, LUPE JR1 �.`:J f R� SECTION LINE HARRY TR & PATRICIA B. ,/;` »w»......».w.._........._....._..._ w« . ./ f /( I: - EXISTING, PRIVATE, 30' LEON, LUPE M. i —\ ;rm.—WIDE, INGRESS/EGRESS & BEATRIZ G. 1 1 . ~ "”" ' EASEMENT I r§ f ••• • f l j t�' PROPERTY LINE, TYP. — TREMONT ► HABER, KAI • it s TRUST • '~" f ! _. :,:..,H.;.:,:;,; .:,err:.•:,..tiw:;rF..: <�!xJi!�/d(��"v:S?•a pn �,..,;,r�°! w.._........_......_.... ':��!•.:CY'n:".�:::....,v;...;:.rq».:...:y.., 'H:y'.,xf:::::•::.YC::40,v.,:,:: '-lL�iiU���/d!5�:%, �//�:%rnr::.,^..h�:... 1 ill ! ' SECT. 35, TOWN. 11S • `its, • - ;; RANGE 13E : SCHAFFER, `'`> ! s i -1 PRISCILLA A. i3 '•�.5/ —•�,' ,/ } CURTISS,. \\\ \ : • ' 1 JAMES P., JR. l 1 °` CROSS, W H� ::M FIDELITY ! t BRINGHURST, - <n NATIONAL 1' <\', 1 1 SCOTT M. & • I I `ll TITLE '' '+ `\ _. __ ..._—----1 ....w_w; DEBORAH K. I ' 1 CROSS o ..r•�� �• DANIEL ='```IN il 11 � � Ss.:sf L. :01, & CATHY LEE ,.A:::.,�.,<..:... , .::.:::.:..:.:: . �A:� __ ___a ......_................................ :n•�r>'.:r"::«:us:::•' wa'^<• ..';til%i:�a�';::��'''" 7.._. ............ "y.. 1 KNOTT RONNIE M! • • I '., I 1 L—D. & GEORGE, • 1LINDA A. •• ALDEN, :ANN C...`` 1 KAY, DAVID LEE JR. o ": I GEORGE JOE • & ALDERSON, K.y 3 I �7 & ROSEMARY • KELLY SUE & KAY, ; • KAR TER LEE .. I. 1,..___ _.........._.a ;, ;:" : 1.:4 • • 0 I II ., 'a•'° MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY } vy i#;'t •• MONTGOMERY, BILLY} I ' • & SUSAN E. C. + - __......__._._......_...__.............._....._... __• NEW 150' R.O.W. , ! t. w �" �:;;; ss,i.:4 TANGERINE TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC • • ❑ -' -"'` L.P. TOWN BOUNDARY--—4----____ / ,,?;;.:--- ' I * fir- I i EXISTING BUILDING, TYP. MILLER, RICHARD E. --= ,, -- # EXISTING, PRIVATE, 30' • & SARAH K. �\ - Q :,, / „...,Ir ! INGRESS/EGRESS--WIDE, ��"�� EASEMENT • { 1 PROPOSED, FUTURE R.O.W. PROPERTIES CURRENTLY v° } UNDER CONSIDERATION, 1: !:,r,' . EXISTING 100 R.O.W.OR IN NEGOTIATION, ''"+ I I 1 vit • FOR ANNEXATION BY :.: :l ORO VALLEYt ... : . .: . ... •w ( : . 7-77. ....•. 1, . TANGERINE ROAD_ Exhibit 10 SCIUTO, ALFRED & !1,. U.S. POSTAL GRACE ,I.A SERVICE Alternative C EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE - N.T.S. ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ PAGE 17 Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Fr 28, 199 Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July Alternative C and TangBrine Road, and intersection of La Canada Alternative C begins at the alon an alignment located 5) northeast and then northg then immediately curvesthe north end of the alignment, S mile east of the section line. Moore Road. approximately 1� a curved connection east to " a would then transition with La Canad Canada would be emphasized between Moore Road and La Traffic movement the west of the alignment and the alternative. Both Moore Road to - the La with this hof the alignment would "T" into Rancho Vistoso access road Hort Canada/Moore Road curve. maybe based upon one of these recommended right-of-way alignment independently The final � ments, or an alignment developedp alignments, a variation of these align alignment Council review and comment on the recommendeds has based upon Town alignments to varying degree within this report. Each of the potential - t-of-wa impacts, containedinterms of property impacts, right-of-way advantages and disadvantages and other important issues. These and environmentalimpacts, access, neighborhood issues are evaluated in further detail in the following chapter. PAGE 18 0 1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension g Tan erine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Comparative Impact Assessment and Analysis 3` within the has varying impacts Canada Drive alignment alternativesthese impacts was Each of the La a process to compare p wa corridor study area, and thereforeamongthe five roadway right-of-way alignment from employed to select a preferredg alignment are as follows: alternatives. a Assessment criteria for selecting preferred on function of parcels and • Number of affected propertiesimpact • Impact on natural and riparian areas • Right-of-way acquisition difficulty • Project construction cost • Noise mitigation • Traffic operations alignment alternatives in relation to each of the criteria are evaluated The impacts of the matrix of the assessment P of the evaluated in the following sectionsreport. A summary criteria and how the alternatives were rated utilizing these criteria is presented below. ROW* Project Natural & DerectTraffic Riparian Acquis. Constr. Noise Alignment Parcel - - Operations Total Impacts Difficulty Cost Mitigation Alternative Impacts 4 14 2 2 4 A 1 1 4 1 11 2 1 1 11 B1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 14 B2 3 3 2 1 B3 2 3 2 3 21 C 4 4 4 4 *ROW = Right of Way a were rated 1 through 4 for each c om arison ofy In order to develop a c the alternatives they comparison the evaluation criteria, with ties possible. The ratings are described as follows: (1) - Low negative impact (2) - gHigher negative impact than (1) (3) - gHigher negative impact than (2) (4) - gHigher negative impact than (3) m Number of Affected Properties/1 pact on Function of Parcels particularly 'nn act of alternatives on properties, pa Y This criterion is used to evaluate the � pinterms of existing and affected and how they are affected how many properties are � s because of where they are located uses. For instance, some alternative future land property to become unusable fordevelopment on aparcel, may cause a portion of thep P note also that as natural open space. It is important to or unsuitable for set-aside proposed roadway in terms of existing and future uses receive benefits from the pro p PAGE 19 O 1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension 9 Tan erine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 parcels, which is desired bysome of the area property the improved access to owners. approximately 25 parcels that t Assessor's records, there arepp Town of According to Pima County studyarea, including within the fall within the roadway corridor is privately lie all or partially Pima County. Each of these parcels Oro Valleyand unincorporated Pirn There are existing structures from 3 acres to over 48 acres. owned, and range in size on several of these parcels. The barns, and including houses, b , other buildings located study area parcels are presented in Exhibit 11. Alternative A impacts8 parcels ls owned by 5 owners, Alternative B1 impacts 9 parcels owned by 7 owners, Alternative Hers Alternative B2 impacts 11 parcels owned owned by 6 ow � owners, and Alternative C impacts 9 parcels B3 impacts 8 parcels owned by 5 own , p by 6 owners. The alternatives have varying impacts on the functionality or usefulness of the parcels,re articularly with respect to existing versus future land uses. These impacts a p described below. Alternative A roadwayright-of-way comes within crosses 8parcels and the ultimate Alternative A 219470180 (Miller property), residences on parcel numbers 100 feet of threeexisting ria hurst property). Alternative A also property), and 219450140 (B 9 cel 219510010 (Alden other existing residences on par within approximately 500 feet of threeand comes lip 219470040 (Kay property), 219470050 (Montgomery property),_ act on numbers causes low overall negative imp 0 (Cross roperty)- Alternative A ast side of the 21945015 p roadway crosses. Located on the e future uses for most parcels that the r Y occupies a larger proportion southernmost end, 9 section line except at the Alternative A to otherparcels. This parcel is one of the Alden parcels comparedthis of land area of Road. Approximately 1/2 of approximately 1/3 mile north of Tangerine four-lane located ppbythe full right-of-way of the future four-acreparcel would be occupied occupies less located within the study area, the alignment roadway. For other parcels liaccess to area of any of the parcels. The anment provides g and than 1/4 of the land section line between Tangerine Road properties immediately east and west of the Moore Road. Alternative B1 100 feet of the Miller, Alden, and 1 impacts 9 parcels and comes withins Alternative B p feet of the Montgomery, Kay, and Cross Brin hurst residences and within 500 Alternative B1 9 el 2/3 of a mile north of Tangerine Road, residences. At approximatelyp (FidelityNational Tale property) and traverses parcels 21949004 for transitions east andthis alternative, there is the potential 0 (Tremont Trust property). With e Tremont 21949003 and the southeast corner of th the northwest corner of the Fidelity parcelowners. However, the unusable for development by the property parcel to become interest in a possible trade of property owners of these two parcels have expressed sides of the prop Y wouldprovide access to the parcels on both the two corners. This trade parcels. Otherwise property owners would the center of the the wash running through likely need to construct bridge or culvert structures in order to provide all-weather the access to both sides of their parcels. At the northeast end of the alignment alternative impacts PACE 20 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 RANCHO VISTOSO (FUTURE) f KING AIR ;: ° MOORE ROA.................._......_................. D , RIVE � � �� FIGUEROA, RICHARD (21945001 D) \\' ` <` P. & ELSA L. ••.... yl'ILHELMS : EN, (21945001A) l SECTION LINE :,:R HARRY TR LEON LUPE M. ,� :. ' ►:'° (219490010) LEON, BEATRIZ G. _ ........ ... , TREMONT • LUPE JR. • (2194 5 0 01 E) • :Vi _ & PATRICIA B. '"` , TRUST • r.._...«.. I (219490030) :` BOUNDARY ,:.:. TOWN LEON, • LUPE M. -274 \ ,• & BEATRIZ G. • (2194 5 0 01 G) i,r>f? • is 'x:ls • PROPERTY LINE, TYP I ;` !' f:<'V (219490020) ...._..... 1 --7,7,577,757,51717,4757,7357,77-77,Fwemilli i '< j"'! FIDELITY SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP v NATIONAL 13 E SCHAFFER, .' TITLE 11S RANGE PRISCILLA A. ti f • (219450040) (219490040) CROSS, W H • (219490050) ..........__;..........._. !'---c---—\--- -- i JAMES P., JR (219450013) • �,,I (219490080) , I E: r : :.............. BRINGHURST, I I 'r ' _._.._....._ M. & d SCOTT .t • (219450014) :, I. DEBORAH � ............._. ... ... _ i; i � Q (219490090) (219450015) 1 O) _...._...._... __......_......... • ( 195100 �• � D DANIEL _... _._ ._... .........«. ........ .....................__............ CROSS, _....._.... 4 l IEA THY LEE __.......... ::.::::::::'::::,':::::......:.:: ___ NO RONNIE L & C .:...:.... :.::.:...::....... __,_ _ .... _.. ...._._..: ;hry /-D. & GEORGE, 0 �� �><:5:�� LINDA A. I E �`. `'� •``j`"`_ (219490070) • 219510020) yti� 1 3 '*ALDEN, ` GEORGE, LEE '`` '' ROSEMARY KAY, DAVID JR ANN C. & • & ALDERSON, 219470040) (219490060) KELLY SUE & KAY, • KARTER LEE , 21970060) • 1 70060) 1I a,l ( 9 (219510030) - --- - MAJOR DRAINAGEWAY • MONTGOMERY, BILLY 4 1••• E. • x • • C. & SUSAN j...._.;. • (219470050) �...__.._.. ___..... t.` -N sl TANGERINE y• •• 0 VI ,• .,>--- n, • (2 19470180 •• : ; RICHARD E. ' ' r; (219510050) MILLER, ( r '•- TANGERINE HEIGHTS, LLC & SARAH K i.,,:,,, ///,.,;, (219510070) (219510040) , , �, t 1 • (219470170) (219510060);11 • TANGERINE ROAD ! •..::' .. Y5>.r,�.ttt .7=2,1::,..;•;i:": Exhibit 11 GRACE SCIUTO, ALFRED & U•S. POSTAL Existing Property GRACE ,..I1U y-.. SERVICE (224070020) � As Per Pima County Assessor EXISTING LA CANADA DRIVE--�---------' - L__ PAGE 21 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 ert and the roadway right-of-way comes parcel number 219490020 (Haber property), within 600 feet of the Haber residence. Alternative B2 of the Alden Alternative B2 impacts 11 parcels, requires the demolition or relocationmes within 200 feet of the Miller and right-of-way co residence, and the roadway 9 within 500 feet of the Knott/George residences. The alternative also comespa , limiting Georgealternative largely impacts the two Alden p and Haber residences. The uses for the remainingland area of the parcels. essentially shifts the impact from the compared with Alternative B1, the alternativemile north of As P the west side of the section line 1/2 m�[ Bringhurst residence located on mile east of the section line at George residence Tangerine Road to thelocated 1/4 mil g alternative also largely impacts the tel Tremont approximately 1/2 mile north of Tangerine. The while reducing the impact on the southeast corner of the Fidelity property Tremont the alternative with Alternative B1. For Fidelity and property as compared as compared with Alternative does not owners within the provide a wash crossing for the two properties the highest number of properties and B1. This alternative impacts 9 on the east side of the but also provides access opportunities to parcels study area, study area which are currently difficult for owners to access. Alternative B3 right-of-way comes within 200 feet comes within 500 Alternative B3 impacts 8 parcelsroadway feet of the and the pThe alternative also of the Miller and George residences. �ve does not directly impact and Haber residences. The alternate Alden, Knott/George, impact the Tangerine Limited Partnership Aldeng the two parcels, but does heavily parcels. B1 and B2, the alternative essentially shifts the impact compared with Alternatives of As p west side of the section from the residences located on theline 1/3 mile north section line at George residence Tangerine Road to the Ge 9 located 1/4 mile east of the impacts the southeast mile north of Tangerine. The alternativep approximately 1/2 degree corner of the Fidelity property to a slightly lesser g ree than Alternative B2. For Fidelity and Tremont, the alternative does not provide a wash crossing fort e two properties as compared with Alternative E31. Alternative C right-of-way C impacts 9 parcels and the roadway 9 ht-of-way comes within 100 feet ofCe. The es and within 500 feet of the George resides the Miller and Alden residences alternative causes the least impact of the three alternatives on existing residences.tin the highest impact on parcels in terms of fragmenting However, the alternative causes g or set-aside as the amount of available land for development the parcels and reducing heavily affected, particularly in the open space. The Tremont property is h Y natural p a second roadway connection to Moore Road northern section of the parcel where constructed across the parcel. The alternative does not provide would need to be access across both sides of the wash in either the Fidelity or Tremont property. Alternative C reduces the viability of parcels 219510060 and 219510050 (both owned alignment. The which are affected heavily by theg byTangerine Limited Partnership), Road at a distance wash for nearly 1/2 mile north of Tangerine alternative parallels the PAGE 22 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 wash. The narrow strip of land between the alignment and of about 100 feet from the can be designated as natural open unusable for development. The strip to rotect the wash is below, p the ability of this narrow strip space. However, as discussed p riparian habitat and wildlife from the roadway impacts is in question due to the close proximity of the alignment to the wash. Summary alternatives on the parcels where the provides the least impactprovides the Alternative A of the five ernative impacts the 8 parcels and all nment is located- The alt tive rovides a wash roadway g function of the parcels. The alterna p least negative impact on the at the north side of the parcel, the Tremont Trust property, for crossing for only one p , parcels; however, it provides a wash crossing Alternative B1 impacts 9 p } property. B2 impacts 11 parcels but ' and Tremont Trust parcels. Alternativepotentially for both the Fidelity 't and Tremont Trust parcels, and p Y provides a wash crossing for the Fidelity only8 parcels and Alternative B3 impacts Tangerine Limited Partnership property. the Partnership property. However, it wash crossing for the Tangerine Limitedthat provides a Partnership property to the extent heavilyimpacts the Tangerine Limitedthe property owners. the property may be unusable by p p approximately one-third of p p crossingfor the Tangerine impacts 9 parcels and provides a wash willlikely Alternative C However, this alternative li y ' ited Partnership and Tremont Trust parcels. it will render large Lim because greatest impact on the function of the parcels cause the p portions of land unusable by the property owners. Impact on Natural and Riparian Areas riparian the impact of the alternatives on naturalandp This criterion is used to evaluate P alignment study area, designated riparian habitat located in theg areas. There is one P approximately 1/4 mile to the east. designated riparian habitat located app Y es with another P wash drainage as well as tributary wash riparian habitat consists of a major 9 This are shown in Exhibit 12. The pattern and designated riparian habitat of Major drainage small, result in and confluence of washes, large andfairly well defined areas water flows only during These are washes that exhibit surfacere riparian vegetation. exhibitperennial surface water flow, they a storm events. Although they do not Oro Valley's significant and of high wildlife habitatvalue. considered to be biologically 9 "Riparian Habitat Protection Overlay District" protects these washes. ' the removal of significant amounts of The construction of the roadway will require in less removal, while on the vegetation. Roadway segments upland areas will result_associated vegetation will result in greater wa segments crossing Wildlife will be roadway dense, wash-associated ' resources will similarly vary. removal. The impact on wildlife to avoid loss of wildlife plant altered or displaced and their movementdisrupted. In order revegetated with native species. Crossings t areas that are disturbed should beg cations. habits , should be provided in appropriate to for wildlife underneath the roadway s at the intersection of La Canada and In the case of the multi-trunk saguaro cactu It is located should be Tangerine, all due considerationgiven to preserving it in place.imatel with the centerline of La in the Tangerine Road right-of-way aligned approximately retaining it within a median area should be fully Canada Drive. The possibility of ret 9 t in a verylow potential size, age, explored. The saguaro's and multiple trunks result PAGE 23 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ .r 8 -5 A'3 pg 41 x, ta(1,..)c �+ dz.E b ® 41 U U N U O 'O s.. T . _ _ , : _ ..... 1.4,,,ilik _ ,_ tri..,i,_-'_-t_-1174=__%-_ ,'-r‘.1,_-_e'ri '4: 1 -------1- -' --'--"--- ,_—-_ - -'*------- ' " 14 - -. --10111,5 ja _ s AV dimu - - - ' - Ett '-' ' - Illjp:"" 4. ;i - ' 117 -4? A a ' i . __—_—_ , i - --..-___ :-__--!_,_- r _ r-'---- , _- , - - --------_% - ,,,,,, .....111) ..... _.---._. -.1-: :..-_, , = ,-Itili= __„-- ---., ---, 7._..‘ --. ,--- - - T.- - '4,--,,-.' of 1. . . 7"..-- ir- r ,r .. ,...1,•....% .i.ralb . i a ` s iii_ 0 tx ll-' - - ',, „ Atilif t '-a gm ". - - -1'...._---m - - ' '' ."-- ' - ; ',-- : - _ Isitt: - _- ,:-I,:. _ ____-___::;-_ _-:.--- , _ _,..-. .? ___--, :7:-.2„,t sriliisio,sell -, g 3 z = a _ -_- - - = i g = - f � � ter }'.- �` r _ - ,i-r- -7c1:7-0'_1.001% a a � 1-7 f _ _ = I-.,.'-'r ar - _ , Sam "� � e '411 '` _ �� �_ g ��_'- _ _ :i - % -1Z----/-; 4 � �- - _ _: _ � -='. x3- 1 - s_ _ - - - -_..:- - _ - - - - ' i - _ = R a_ r I-:-r._n . _ i � fr •a _ r €fit € _ _.- -_ - - _ -- , -' s r l'a _: - N'. # fes. a ,y ga y <0 Ta s E -.. . c e z ate_ �� f �Y _____ _____ ..., i a ` - i#a F.. _.-c. E e -_� _ _ .4=� a , _ r.a+ ea .T In fia iimi tv i,! Wit, ska 1 . — 1 .. — sib ,n .. „.„ ,,,, , 1.7.1 .ii 1 li i 1-. = i ft I ilia _.., 14 tilt 1 r o 2 .7., ,..-. i Isal 1 :-_,: aged l' 1 i ..7.,.) Aimillon libli 0.11* fig C-:---i ni 411t IONNi a Inn •fib . glit 1r l Lz_ r-- ...... VIAS 4 ,,E....) 0 __ ___________________ ____ ___ ._ „ , -:„_: -'7%,_11'3/41- r 1_,,,,---.7,1118:1:4 -.."---::-.-;' mss— - _ — _ X7 - PAGE 24 ©1999 CURTIS LU &ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 The loss of this recognizable successful transplant and subsequent survival. and should be for p � le to the Oro Valley community, a plant would be very visible landmark avoided if in any way possible. ural and riparian areas are described in The impacts of the roadway alternatives on nat p the sections below. Alternative A As it fo !lows avoids crossing the designated riparian the section line, Alternative A the improved At this location, it is actually p habitat until the north end of the alignment. habitat. Currently, the wash Road to La Canada that crosses the extension of Moore unimproved Moore Road at-grade " at the north end is impacted by the p e ree and habitatcrosses the road at approximatelyg crossing. The wash at this location a 45 degree at a right angle. more impact to the washg angle, resulting in than if it crossed p Realignmentangle to achieve more of a 90 degree of the wash and/or roadway to actical due to reduce environmental impacts and drainage structure costs appears impr additional property impacts. has the least impact on natural and riparian O f the five alternatives, Alternative A horse with sections of established dirt roadways, habitat. The alternative overlaps Road. Most of Alternative between Tangerine trails, and easementsRoad and Moored which have less vegetation and lies alongthe upland segments of the studyarea, A also utilizes the existing unimproved ' "ve natural and wildlifethan the wash areas. The alternative thereby alignment of Moore Road, th Y reducing the extent of new impacts on riparian habitat. Alternative B1 and riparian habitat impacts. Because it crosses Alternative B1 has moderate natural p riparian area and habitat at a location further south, where the r p the designated riparian on natural and riparian out, Alternative B1 has a slightly higher impact wash widenisan entirelynew wash crossing compared to habitat than Alternative A. Also, this species. higher impact on dense, established plantp Alternative A and therefore has 9 the wash at approximately aright-angle, be designed to cross The alternative can g As the alternative nears the north in reduc g the overall impact on the riparian habitat. overlaps with an existing reduced because it end of the alignment, impacts are Of the five alternatives, d roadway Y that is also a 60-foot wide easement. Alternative B1 has the second lowest natural and riparian habitat impacts. Alternative B2 and riparian habitat impacts as Alternative B1. Alternative B2 has very similar natural p mile north of riparian habitat approximately 1/2 The alternative crosses the designated ation based upo n review of aerial photos Frompreliminary investigation Tangerine Road. at this location is approximately equal and on site visits, it appears the riparian habitatB 1. Alternative B2can also crossed by Alternative in extent as the location where it is lessening the cross the riparian be designed to habitat at approximately a right-angle, overall impact. PAGE 25 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Alternative B3 Alternative B3 causes greater impacts on natural and riparian habitat compared with closely 81 and B2. The alternative c y parallels the habitat until it crosses the mile north of Tangerine Road. From preliminary wash at approximately 1/3 site visits, more significant based upon review investigation of aerial photos and on s p riparian impacts are anticipated as compared to Alternatives B1 and B2. Alternative B3 can be designed to i ht-an le cross the riparian habitat at approximately a rg 9 lessening the overall impact. Alternative C impact of the five alternatives on natural and Alternative C has the most significantp impacts the the alignment study area. This alternative heavily riparian habitat within g the wash at close proximity. For riparian habitat due to the length at which it parallels " nment between Tangerine Road and Moore Road nearly the entire length of the alignment 100 feet. r� the alternative parallels thearian habitat at an average distance of p roadway and riparian habitat could be designated as Although this area between the ro Y en spacethe proof the roadway will have greater impacts acts on the natural op p , p alternatives, which provide more distance viabilityof the riparian habitat than the other a , the wash. Where the Alternative C alignment crosses between the roadway and the B1 and B2 wash, the impact at this location is similar to the impact of the Alternative crossings. Summary A has the least impact on natural and riparian Of the five alternatives, Alternativert roadways, horse alternative overlaps with sections of established d.� habitat. The p ore Road. Most of Alternative trails, and easements between Tangerine Road and Mo vegetation and wildlife than the wash areas, and A lies along an area which has less g dirt road. the Moore Road section of the alternative is located along an existing higher impact on natural and riparian habitat Alternatives B1 and B2 have a slightly 9 � s ared than Alternative A. These alternatives have entirely new wash crossing comp have higher impacts on dense, established plant with Alternative A and thereforeg species. Alternativegreater B3 has impacts than Alternatives B1 and B2 due to its Alternative C has the close proximityto the wash for 1/3 mile. Of the five alternatives, highest impact on natural and riparian areas due to its close proximity to the wash for nearly the full length of the alignment. Right-of-Way Acquisition Difficulty owns verylittle right-of-way within the study area and The Town of Oro Valley therefore this criterion is a primary factor in the recommendation of a roadwayof alignment. The criterion addresses the difficulty in acquiring right-of-way in terms affected and the ability and willingness of property the number of property owners owners to work with the Town on dedication of right-of-way. Consequently, this cost and Town staff resources associated with criterion also addresses the anticipated go right-of-way dedications and purchases versushaving to negotiating agreeableg through the alternatives using process. Evaluation of the thEs criterion discussions with property owners directly affected by is based in part on meetings and di the alignment alternatives. PAGE 26 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Alternative A should face relatively low difficulty in the Of the five alternatives, Alternative A major The alternative lies along a section line, where acquisition of right-of-way. County. This alternative, while not been built within Pima roadways typically have potentially ne ative property impacts providing some of the access advantages or the p Y 9 of the other alternatives, provides access to the edge of parcels while keeping negative roadway impacts also at the edge. each of the parcels located immediately west The alternative also provides access to ythose Count as of the section line in Pima � well as noise and other impacts to outside the Town of Oro NearlyM properties. 2/3 of a mile of Alternative A is located when the Moore Road extension and La Canada Valley jurisdictional boundaries, difficulties This mayresult in greater right-of-way acquisition Drive are combined.compared to the other alternatives, which are mainly located within Town boundaries. property owners who own the parcels on which the In preliminary discussion with prop Y able but not alternative would belocated, this alternative was deemed accept necessarily preferred, by each of the owners in terms of pursuing negotiated right-of- way agreements. Alternative B1 have the lowest difficulty of the five alternatives in terms Alternative B1 is estimated to A for the Right-of-way acquisition of securing right-of-way. isition is equal to Alternative g t an additional parcel and half of the alignment. The alternative affects southern g property owner alignment at the northeast end of the (parcel number 219490020, the discussedpreviously, this alternative can potentially Haber property). However, as and both sides of the wash for the Fidelity and Tremont properties, provode access to is therefore attractive to the owners. The access is based on the ability of the two ofportions of the property or to establish local property owners to negotiate a trade � ted interest The owners have indica roadway easements across each other's property. r y in pursuing an agreement if this alternative is selected for preliminary design. Approximately 1/3 mile of this alternative is located outside of Town boundaries. Alternative 82 higher difficulty than Alternative B1 for right-of-way Alternative B2 may have slightly g Iden property is entirely impacted by the alternative and would acquisition. The A P p y therefore necessitate complete acquisition. However, the property owner has a mutually-beneficial acquisition of the property by indicated willingness to negotiate y the Town. The alternative may cauSe greater impact to the Fidelity property than access agreement or purchase of a portion of the Alternative B1, and requires an g The southeast Fidelity togain access to both sides of the wash. Alden property by F Y less desirable for development of the Fidelity Y property is impacted and may be s ace to the owner. However, this portion of or may not provide useful natural openspace land is at a high elevation with scenic views, and may be usable by adjacent property owners. 219490060, the George property) as well as the An additional parcel (parcel number final right-of- way by the roadway, depending upon the9 Haber property are likely impactedfor the Tangerine Limited way align ment. The alternative provides a wash crossing 9 PAGE 27 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 199 . attractive to the property owner. Approximately shiproperty, and is therefor Partnership 1/4 mile of this alternative is located outside of Town boundaries. Alternative 83 " u!t than Alternatives B1 and B2 for right-of-way Alternative B3 will have higher difficulty be corner of the Fidelity acquisition. The southeastproperty is impacted will will not provide useful naturel open ace to the owner. for developmentp P unavailable as well as the Haber property are likely As with Alternative B2, the George property The a depending upon the final right-of-way alignment. impacted by the roadway, P alternativeprovides rovides a wash crossing for the Tangerine Limited Partnership property. impacts the Tangerine Limited Partnership property, However, the alternative heavily u to 1/3 of the property unusable for development or other potentially rendering p purposes. Alternative C difficultyin securing right-of-way. The alternative Alternative C will have the highest Tangerine Limited Partnership, Fidelity, and Tremont properties. heavily impacts the 9 Because it is located close to the designated riparian habitat, the alignment renders a unusable for development. As noted sizable portion of each of the properties ! habitat due to the previously, this additional space does not provide viable nature g impacts from the roadway. Also, although the alternative provides access to both rshi property, it does not provide access to both sides of the Tangerine Limited Partnership P p P s for the Tremont properties. The owners and representative sides of the Fidelity and P owners have indicated that this alternative is problematic for allowable uses of their properties. Just over 1/4 mile of this alternative is located outside Town boundaries. Summary "vel low difficulty for securing right-of-way, but it is Alternative A should have comparatively not the preferred alternative of the property owners and may encounter more of the alternative is located outside Town boundaries. difficulties because much right-of-way,securing B1 and B2 both have low comparative difficulty in alternativesprovide advantages that are attractive to the primarily because both s is located within The majority of the length of these alternative property owners. j� Town boundaries. Alternative B3 has high right of way impacts on the Tangerine Alternative C faces the greatest difficulty of right-of-way Limited Partnership property. Partnership, acquisition because of the serious negative impacts on Tangerine Limited used b this alternative. This alternative is largely Fidelity, and Tremont properties ca Y located within Town boundaries. Project Construction Cost evaluate each of the alternatives in terms of a planning-level This criterion is used to and Phase 2 and ri ht-of-way costs for the Phase 1 (2-lane) estimate for constructiong (4-lane) roadwaycross sections. It is the intention of the Town of Oro Valley to part of Phase 1. The Town for the 4-lane section as purchase the full right-of-way plans to build the projectoverall phase in two phases rather than in one due to a will not initially warrant a 4-lane cross section and number of factors. Traffic demand the Town therefor does not intend to expend limited resources prematurely in this PAGE 28 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Canada south of Tangerine Road is considered location. Additionally, widening of La The to existing and anticipated a higher priority by the Town due " traffic demands.than one is constructing La Canada Drive in two phases rather incremental cost of estimated to be approximately 6 percent of the overall project costs. and are presented in Exhibit 13. Estimates are Cost estimates have been developed � presented for Phase 1 and Phase 2 as well as for the combined costs of the two phases. - s has similar elements included in the total project Each of the alignment alternatives es a traffic signal at The roadwayg cost estimates. cross section for Phase 1 includes " Drive, two paved lanes, paved multi-use shoulders, Tangerine Road and La Canada landscaping, drainage improvements, and noise walls where warranted. Purchase of section is also included �n right-of-way for the full 4-lane crossPhase 1. Right-of-way costs are estimated based on the roadway length and 150 foot average g right-of-way topography, impacts on structures and other factors, requirement. Depending upon the right-of-way requirement can vary. On two of the alternatives the right-of-way cost estimate is significantly higher hi her due to property and structural impacts. to was used for utility relocation that is the same for A preliminary lump sum estimate native because detailed evaluation of utility relocation needs will need to be each alter , performed as part of the roadway design. in Phase 1 assume approximately 15 percent of Design engineering costs included improvement costs. This cost includes all estimated total roadway and drainage environmental, drainage, and civil engineering design costs for the interim 2-lane cross section and for the ultimate 4-lane cross section. section for Phase 2 includes an expanded traffic signal at The roadway cross widened roadwa , four Tangerine Road and La Canada Drive to accommodate the Y paved lanes, paved multi-use lanes (shoulders), curb and gutter, sidewalks, noise walls where warranted, and a raised median. Drainage landscaping, additional improvements include accommodation of drainage at roadside, mitigation of drainage impacts on adjacentproperties,erties, and provision of minor and major culverts. p As part of Phase 1, each of the alternatives includes paving of Moore Road as a 2- lane between KingAir Drive and the Moore Road/ Rancho roadway with dip crossings Vistoso access road intersection. In Phase 2, Alternative A includes expansion and repaving of Moore Road between KingAir Drive and the Moore Road/Rancho Vistoso access road intersection to a 4-lane paved roadway with culvert crossings of the washes. This 4-lane expansion of Moore Road is necessary to accommodate traffic Rancho Vistoso access road intersection and the Moore between the Moore Road/ Road/La Canada Drive intersection. Under Alternatives B1, B2, B3, and C, Moore 2-lane roadwaywith dip crossings between King Air Drive Road is retained as a paved and the Moore Road/Rancho Vistoso access road intersection. It is retainedisprojected as a 2- lane cross section because traffic to almost exclusively utilize the new La Canada Drive alignment. in combinedphase project costs, planning-level estimates range When compared from approximately $5.46 million to $6.39 million among the five alignmentnment alternatives. These costs are discussed over the following pages. PAGE 29 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Exhibit 13 Estimate for La Canada Drive Extension Planning-Level Cost Cross Section • Phase 1 (2-lane) and Phase 2 (4-Lane) Tangerine Rd.to Moore Rd., (Cost in Millions of 1999 Dollars) Total Project Right-of- Utility Construct. Cost, Phase Phase 1: Roadway Drainage/ Design 'on Culverts Eng. Way Relocat. Admin. 1 2-lane Sect Att. A $1.16 $0.06 $0.50 $0.78 $0.05 $0.18 $2.74 Alt. B1 $1.15 $0.06 $0.49 $0.86 $0.05 $0.18 $2.79 Alt. B2 $1.15 $0.06 $0.49 $1.11 $0.05 $0.18 $3.04 Alt. B3 $1.15 $0.08 $0.50 $1.54 $0.05 $0.18 $3.50 Alt. C $1.13 $0.08 $0.50 $1.68 $0.05 $0.18 $3.62 Total Project e/ Design Right-of- Utility Construct. Cost, Phase Phase 2: Roadway Dratnag g Admin. 2 4-lane Section Culverts Eng. Way Relocat. Alt. A $1.90 $0.33 $0.22 N/A N/A $0.33 $2.79 Alt. 131 $1.81 $0.33 $0.21 N/A N/A $0.32 $2.67 Alt. B2 $1.81 $0.33 $0.21 N/A N/A $0.32 $2.67 Alt. 83 $1.81 $0.40 $0.22 N/A N/A $0.33 $2.76 Alt. C $1.78 $0.44 $0.22 N/A N/A $0.33 $2.77 Total Project Cost, Phase Phase 1 Design Right-of- Utility Construct. 1 & 2 plus Roadway Drainage/ g Phase 2 Section Culverts Eng. Way Relocat. Admin. Combined Alt. A $3.06 $0.39 $0.73 $0.78 $0.05 $0.52 $5.53 Alt. B1 $2.96 $0.39 $0.70 $0.86 $0.05 $0.50 $5.46 Alt. B2 $2.96 $0.39 $0.70 $1.11 $0.05 $0.50 $5.71 Alt. B3 $2.96 $0.48 $0.72 $1.54 $0.05 $0.51 $6.26 Alt. C $2.91 $0.52 $0.72 $1.68 $0.05 $0.51 $6.39 PAGE 30 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Alternative A estimated cost at$5.53 Alternative A has the fourth highest overallmillion due to the.s estimated that compared to the greater length of the alignmentother alternatives. It P remnant property not have property impacts that will renderP P this alternative will unusable to existing or future property owners. Alternative B1 estimated cost at$5.46 million of the five alternatives. Alternative B1 has the lowest it with FidelityNational Title and Tremont Trust representatives, In discussions appearscan negotiate a trade to allow the owners likely thatpropertyg thetwo owners e wash and to enhance the developability of the access across both sides of the o ert area, as discussed in the Right-of-Way Acquisition ulsition Difficulty remaining corner pr p y section presented previously. Alternative 82 highest estimated cost at$5.71 million due to right-of-way Alternative B2 has the third requirements. It is assumed in this estimate that the Town of Oro Valley will need to part of this alternative and will have to relocate purchase the entire Alden property as or demolish structures which are currently located on this property. Right-of-way costs may somewhat be recoverable, however, if the Town is able to negotiate sale of the Title, remnant parcels to Fidelity NationalTangerine Limited Partnership, and/or other potential buyers. Alternative 83 Alternative B3 has the second highest estimated cost at$6.26 million due to right-of- way and drainage requirements. It is assumed in this estimate that the Town of Oro portions will need to purchase large a of the Tangerine Limited Partnership property due to the impacts of the alignment. P Y Alternative C overall estimated cost at$6.39 million due to right-of- wayAlternative C has the highest ro impacts of e re property Y and drainaguirements. This alternative has the greatest ert q for this planning-level all the alternatives. It is assumedestimate that the propertyrian area will have to be the roadway Y alignment and the designated rips Valleyfor the entire length of the alignment. Impacts purchased by the Town of Oro riparian s alternative are estimated to render the property between the p arian area from this and the roadway alignment unusable to the owners. Summary construction cost estimate for the Alternative A has the fourth highest planning-level th than ultimate roadway cross section at$5.53 million due to its overall greater len g B1 is estimated to have the lowest overall cost at the other alternatives. Alternative to negotiate a due to the strong feasibility of impacted property owners9 $5.46 million mutually beneficial trade of property. Alternative B2 has the third highest cost at$5.71 impacts on the Alden property, although it appears likely million due to the full property that adjacentproperty owners may be interested in purchasing the remnant land or the parties.can resell the land to other interested Alternative B3 has the second PAGE 31 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 ro impacts on Tangerine Limited hl hest cost, primarily due to the extensive property erty due to the g has the highest estimated cost at$6.39 million Partnership. Alternative C 9 highest right-of-way costs and highest drainage costs. Noise Mitigation noise to evaluate each of the alternatives in terms of estimated This criterion is used and resultant noise impacts caused by the future roadway on existing structures, mitigation requirements. within the studyarea are relatively low. Traffic noise from Ambient noise levels M of Tangerine Road Tangerine Road and the existing portion of La Canada Drive southg proximity to Tangerine Road, but can be heard at locations affect locations in close pr Y within 1/2 mile and further. Other traffic noise in the area is limited to low volumes of vehicles accessing the residential properties. increase in the short term due to construction-related Future traffic noise levels will increase the ion term from roadway traffic. Noise levels at locations adjacent acent activities and in g significantly increased as a result of the new roadway (i.e., to the roadway will be sig Y increased by approximately 10 decibels or more) since no roadwacurrently exists and ambient noise levels are relatively low. Between one and three existing impacted by the traffic noise, depending on the final residences would be directly p alignment oY f the roadway. This assumes direct impacts on those homes located within approximately 300 feet of the roadway. wa Administration (FHWA) guidelines, noise abatement According to Federal Highway es should be considered at locations where future noise levels at residential measures approach or exceed 67 decibels, or increase 10 decibels or use areas are predicted to pp measures include over existinglevels. Representative traffic noise attenuation more locatingthe roadwayfurther from residential locations (i.e., greater than 300 feet), depressing the roadway, and constructing noise barriers such as 6-foot high walls ato existing residences. Noise mitigation for future along the right-of-way adjacent � of the future residents or residences is generally considered to be the responsibility the subdivision developers. levels should be modeled based upon predicted peak-hour The future traffic noise traffic volumes determined and the horizontal and vertical roadway alignment, as by effectiveness of noise barriers should be modeled at adjacent preliminary design. The residential locations. The noise barriers should then be incorporated into the final improvements, and integrated with the landscape treatment. design of the roadway Aesthetic treatment of any recommended noise walls should be a priority. Alternative A Alternative A has direct noise impacts on three existing As it follows the section line, feet of the Miller, The roadway Y alignment comes within approximately 300 The roadway also comes within Alden, and Bringhurst residences. 450 to 500 feet of ome Kay, and Cross residences. The ability to depress the roadway on the Montg ry, each of the alignments) is limited but should be assessed in this alignment(as well as g roadway design. Approximately A roximatel 2,000 feet of noise wall may be required to reduce noise impacts on the existing houses. PAGE 32 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Alternative B1 approximately equal noise impacts on existing residences as Alternative B1 causes appy Y Alternative A. The same three residences directly affected by Alternative A are As with Alternative A, the roadway comes within 450 to impacted by Alternative B1. A 500 feet of the Montgomery, Kay, and Cross residences. At the northern 1/4 of the some impact towards the Haber residence located alignment, the alternative shifts p � nment is mile east of the section line. However, the roadway alignment approximately 1/3 located � nearly500 feet from the Haber residence. Similar to Alternative A, approximately 2,000 feet of noise wall may be required to help reduce noise impacts on the existing houses. Alternative B2 direct noise impacts on three existing houses, the Miller, George, Alternative B2 has p and Haber residences, and comes within 450 to 500 feet of the Montgomery and Knott/George residences. The Alden residence would require relocation or demolition as part of this alternative. If the house were relocated on the existing property, additional noise mitigation ation would be required. Relocation of the Alden residence on the property is not likelydue to the right-of-way impacts of B2, which will occupy over 50 percent of the buildable area of the property. This alternative may require a minimum of 1,500 feet of noise mitigation. Alternative B3 p Alternative B3 has direct noise impacts on three existing houses, the Miller, George, and Haber residences, and comes within 450 to 500 feet of the Knott/George residence. This alternative mayrequire a minimum of 1,500 feet of noise mitigation. Alternative C Alternative C has direct noise impacts on only one existing structure, the Miller upon the final right-of-way alignment, the alternative may also residence. Depending p come within 300 feet of the Alden residence. The alternative therefore has the least noise impact on existingresidences of all of the alternatives. The alternative may require from 600 to a 1,000 feet of noise mitigation. Summary Alternatives A and B1 have the highest noise impacts of the three alternatives, directly impacting three existing residences and requiring over 2,000 feet of noise mitigation g each to help mitigate traffic noise. Alternative B2 has less noise impact, directly impacting three existing"stip residences and requiring approximately 1,500 feet of noise mitigation. Alternative B3 directlyimpacts three existing residents, also requiring approximately 1 500 feet of noise mitigation. Alternative C directly impacts only one , existing residence, requiring less than 1,000 feet of noise mitigation. Traffic Operations This criterion is used to evaluate the alternatives in terms of their operational characteristics, includinghow directly the major traffic generators are served, what turningmovements and stop controls may be required, and traffic safety PAGE 33 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 lues provide sharp contrasts in traffic operational characteristics. The five alternat characteristics. Alternative A least direct alignment for traffic operations of the five Alternative A will provide the necessitatin the longest travel distance for traffic moving between alternatives, 9 Canada Drive. The alternative also requires relatively Rancho Vistoso and La inefficientcho Vistoso access road and and difficult turning movements for traffic moving between the Rancho Moore Road, and between Moore Road and La Canada the Rancho Vistoso Drive. The heaviest traffic movement is anticipated to be between Canada Drive. In both the southbound and northbound directions acess road and La this traffic will berequired to make two turning movements. Traffic between Moore Road and La Canada Drive will be required to make one turning movement. in traffic impacts at the intersection of La Canada This alternative will also resultmajorr Drive and the Drive and Moore Road and will impact existing traffic utilizing King Ai the west of the intersection. It will also result in noise and two-lane Moore Road to safety impacts at this intersection. The intersection of Moore Road and La Canada Drive would likely require signalization as the roadways are upgraded to four lanes. q g Alternative Bl Alternative B1 will result in verydirect traffic flow between Rancho Vistoso and La Canada Drive. The alternative serves the heaviest traffic movement by aligning o Vistoso access road. One turning movement is required for directly with the Ranch traffic movingbetween Moore Road and La Canada Drive. Moore Road west of the intersection of Moore Road and La Canada Drive will receive limited improvement to a paved roadway, thereby helping reduce the attractiveness of this as a two-lane " through-route. The intersection of Moore Road and La Canada Drive would likely require signalization as the roadways are upgraded to four lanes. q 9 Alternatives B2 and B3 Alternatives B2 and B3 will have equivalent traffic operational characteristics as Alternative B1. Alternative C Alternative C will provide reasonably direct access between Moore Road and La Canada Drive, but will result in relatively difficult access between the Rancho Vistoso access road and La Canada Drive. Traffic movement between Moore Road to the east of the alignment and La Canada Drive is emphasized with this alternative. Heavier traffic demand, however, is anticipated between the Rancho Vistoso access " Drive. This traffic will be required to make one turning movement road and La Canada at the intersection of the access road and Moore Road, which will likely require are built out to four lanes. Operational difficulties will signalization as the roadwaysthe close proximityof the arise due to the location of the intersection on a curve and to intersection with the next intersection located south along the curve. This is the intersection of La Canada Drive with the two-lane extension of Moore Road to the west of the alignment. PAGE 34 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 Summary distance of the A results in the longest travel five alternatives and presents and at at the intersection of La Canada and Moore Road difficult turning movements the intersection of Moore Road and the Rancho Vistaso access road. Alternative A impacts on existing traffic utilizing King Air Drive and the also sharply increases traffic � two-lane Moore Road to the west of the intersection. Alternatives B1, B2, and B3 for the main traffic movement, which is between the provide the most direct routing M Vistoso access road and La Canada Drive. The alternativesprovide very little Rancho tin intersection of King Air Drive and Moore Road. additional impact on the existing Alternative provides �C less direct routing to the Rancho Vistoso access road than and has two closely spaced intersections located on a Alternatives B1, B2, or B3, on the existing alternative also provides very little additional impact curve. This intersection of King Air Drive and Moore Road. PAGE 35 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 4. Recommendations extension of La Canada Drive from Tangerine This Location Report for the proposedf the Pima County Road to Moore Road has been prepared following the guidance o Community ParticipationMitigation and Miti ation Ordinance (No. 1992-69). The Location Report conclusions and recommendations are listed below. Conclusions • Analysis of existing traffic demand on the 1st Avenue and Oracle Road corridors in these roadways are already operating at or near capacity. Oro Valley indicate that Projected p develo ment and resultant traffic demand in Rancho Vistoso will lead to traffic congestion on these corridors. There are currently only two increased 9 access points to Rancho Vistoso: Rancho Vistoso Bo ulevard/1St Avenue at Rancho Vistoso Boulevard at Oracle Road. Previous Oro Tangerine Road, and planning subregional conal studies and the 1996 Town of Oro Valley General Plan have shown that an alternative route is necessary to help relieve traffic demands on the Oracle Road and 1st Avenue corridors. • Extension of La Canada Drive between Tangerine Road and Moore Road was identified in the Town of Oro ValleyGeneral Plan as a feasible connection that will provide a reasonable alternative route to serve Rancho Vistoso. The extension will provide a direct north-south connection to the northwest area of Rancho Vistoso, which isp lanned to be developed over the next 15 to 20 years. • A Transportation Action Plan was prepared for the proposed La Canada Drive extension, recommendingthat an initial two-lane roadway be constructed between Tangerine Road and Moore Road. The TAP indicated that sufficient right-of-way, an average of 150 feet wide, should be purchased in anticipation of upgrading the roadway to a four-lane divided roadway when traffic demand warrants the increased capacity. The TAP also recommended provisions for alternative modes g of travel and mitigation of noise impacts from the new roadway on existing residential use areas. The TAP recommended that a Location Report be prepared to identify a final right-of-way alignment all nment as the next step in the development of the project. • As part of the Location Report, nine preliminary alignment alternatives were developed and evaluated. These were reduced to five main alternatives which received more detailed analysis in terms of the number of affected properties and impact on functionparcels,of impact on natural and riparian areas, right-of-way acquisition difficulty, project ect construction cost, noise mitigation, and traffic '� operations. Based on these criteria, each of the alternatives has various advantages and disadvantages when compared with the others. The final recommended alignment results from a comparative assessment of the alternatives utilizing these criteria. Recommendations • Implement Alternative B2, or a close variation of this alternative, as the preferred alignment based on the criteria evaluation performed as part of the development of PAGE 36 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ Final Location Report,La Canada Drive Extension Tangerine Road to Moore Road,July 28, 1999 each alternative is feasible, Alternative B2 is preferred the Location Report. While impacts reasons: (1) the alternative does not have major negativepfor the following properties except the Alden property, and each of the affected each of the affected propertyowners have indicated they are willing to accept or even prefer this p alternative due to its access advantages; (2) the alignment is located primarily Ile jurisdictional limits; (3) it does not have Town of Oro Valley ave mayor impacts cost and good and riparian areas; (4) it has a reasonable planning-level o n natural p with respect to resale of right-of-way; (5) it is one of the feasibility of cost recovery least disruptive of the alternatives on existing residences located outside the Town other traffic-related impacts; and (6) it provides one of limits in terms of noise and the most direct routes for the major traffic demand between La Canada and the Rancho Vistoso access road. • Initiate preliminary design activities and prepare an Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Report in general accordwith federal, State and County (i.e., Pima County Ordinance No. 1992-96) guidelines. • Initiate discussion with property owners to acquire an average 150-foot right-of- way, way, subject to the results of a drainage study to define in greater detail the associated right-of-way requirements in excess of or less drainage system and g than 150 right-of-way Right-of-way should be acquired using the preferred g ht-of-way alignment recommended in the Location Report, with modification as appropriate to accommodate the needs of affected property owners. • Develop new aerial photography and topographic mapping to support preliminary to conduct a drainage study. A drainage study should be engineering design and performed to refine drainage concepts and specifications for the recommended alignment. • Continue coordination and consultation with the public and affected property 9 planning owners through all and design phases of the project. • Coordinate with privatepublic and utilities regarding utility relocation and opportunities to relocate aerial lines underground, where feasible. • Identify funding sources andprogram ram funds for planning, design, and construction g activities. • Construct a two-lane initialroadway cross section, possibly within the next 3 to 8 a four-lane cross section as traffic demand warrants. The years, upgrading to typical roadway cross section recommended in the Transportation Action Plan should be constructed. PAGE 37 ©1999 CURTIS LUECK&ASSOCIATES TUCSON,AZ TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Valerie Feuer, Senior Planner SUBJECT: OV12-97-24, GIANT, PHASE I OF THE PLAZA AT RANCHO VISTOSO, PUBLIC ART BACKGROUND: The project, known as The Plaza at Rancho Vistoso, consists of a 47,200 square foot, six-segmented, building across the southern end of the property, and four small, freestanding buildings ranging in size from 3,500 to 6,720 square feet in size. One of the smaller buildings comprises Phase I of this development, a Giant Convenience Market on a site of approximately 2 acres. The owners of Giant have now selected an artist, Bruce LaFountain, a Chippewa sculptor, who has won top honors from museums and Santa Fe's Indian Market competition. SUMMARY: Per Section 4-504F of the OVZCR, all new commercial related projects shall contribute 1% of the project cost towards public art. The art contribution must be certified in compliance with the dollar amount prior to ssuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The attached public art proposal has been reviewed and recommended Jy the Public Art Review Committee (PARC). The bronze sculpture selected for this site, titled "Spirit Within," stands six and a half feet tall. The sculpture will be located near the store, at the northwest corner. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Public Art for Giant, the Plaza at Rancho Vistoso, as recommended by the PARC. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve OV 12-97-24, Public Art for Giant, the Plaza at Rancho Vistoso, attached herewith. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Reduced Copies of the Proposed Public Art 43L 2. Location Map Pl. d oni,g Administrator ity De •lopment Direct „,„ die Alff Town Manager F:\ov\ov12\1997\12-97-24\pubarttc.doc • „-. :F. ''--•''‘-•: ' :- .:..=skx y r`-�- _ -- _:-tet - k - :._ '., .- :. .. _ . ..-. c,-_--_--): ., *7. 'r! ._.- __: ,meg - i<,-f=� _,:� - - -• -._ I�` _. -.-,�„.. ,_,.._:. . -r-�a.�- �;k as ms=s .mss':-�-a,=- }.t t - FY.�.€' ° S -t y - _�t ' _, _""... -_i# : _F -_a =:,V a_ z _ # fx. �-fit. _L`- '_€• i- _s€= - =1 =k..:_ -„--_;-:2 - .. s -s"+-.i .__,. -#�-_ _;: - Ems+ - - _ •: • .: - -. .�:��.:- , � � ,. ..- '-- �----^--�- _` --_-„_- `--� _�--�` - --_ - s�-' 3-J --•mss. _� .!•• ..,-F �.F=_, _.,.��,.: - - � _,,„-f� ,t.� �=-. ---- - --- -_-- � _mac=-:, - - _=k'#+ ` - • - •�-•�._:. --:. r.zx•._.__*.v,- � -P_-.tints fit.-s+3- .3-=a:$`>i=--��s.._-.,_�_ :- '- - - - �''_! �,�:'_ - .,-�=s - t” is-_.-t- eE-- __ _=f- _,z - ---_ _ • -a= p3y_. �+a -- :x� -'�-,.�t� - t.P�:=-- 3-' i-_ i_�.=-- -..-- F _ - - _ _ _ _ - �'{ _} ..- yX.� _._ -.. - -'_- ." ��_;-1,,..77.,•-•-•,.4=:-.17,,- - � � �€::- • -r=_ ,.t r�-_._'..3,-= _# ._._ -_ -s.--.•'f- -.-.. =—: ? ._. - -_ a _ _ 1= -i .::€ - .€4''-'' . _• ,..-� €---�.s,mss. =4 �-k.- � -_�- -'_kru`€.:�=,:3€-_'.�"-rs=..=._- _.:$_ --�t� s �-s _--k -�.,. -,.r.__.-__:: =:i�,n� _-"-_ ' +4=s= .��,--...-.,_. -�=g=__-.- � _- _ 1 € -_ ,'� .,, � ..__..�./.._;:-.-_•- � t ;st:. -_-�#. _- _ = - -*�_�.-., � _ - ac- - _ -= ,-,7 i k`�L�-4=, -_ *. " ,' d-- ,s., _ ----- - _ _- -- tea-. - 3 - - - ,*€•-€- - ,_ -1-•_--_• ,.=a,x ,r t<:t.:,-max �,t. -:a�.�3-ac-._. „ ._-s -_ � - - - _:�` ••€ - - -_ a� , 3=_.._. :. _V: t- _-�:-.__ -.._._ * _�.��_- _ -`' - -: rpt:`-- �_ _ - _ _ __# -"`s-�" ` _€ -.-� .,.--= -.?:t, "S=s. �_. _-.-- gip_. -----F- • -' -_ -- - - ,3 t; a _ ` __ -'_ - .=n t,._te. ;_,, . ,-: _,_* - _ ,_ - r,r, . _ >t-,,, ,. - -..g3t t`= � -f : 3 - .=tom- F�:`.___: t-k*. - ,-'- -- - - . _`## v ,r. +.� ,_. �_ -tet ti_- --. -•"z._ .. -- �--- - K,*.,_ • - f=.- -••_.t{, ---_�`}:�a?��- = _� _.. ;��.- �- -- -.=t -- �� _ � _ � c a err"' - - _ ,.-::l.',_,,-'-;- �� .i ,_. ate==� --� =e�.t= �t�=tet"-� �-ti+�..._ -_._ �---_,�--- __ - . . - _ _ �;a't�_� ___.9=i. 4I- / i-r-fps=a..=-... € : .;* --_� #-__ - - -£ - # a• •, ' ����a*F'r;;' i+jam�_--€-�-t�:���_�'�'� �:'-- s -��€��-.= ._-�_�€ei - -•- ` _ �.. *tom - s: .'�' �t�_}•� �• �• _ Fad �_ ��- t at - s, _ � -- _ - �.i1.;..=.-ter _,., �- '=' - -.- € - Ta 'f _'} ' • • -,-.4- ,,,,-:....`7,--,=_.:.,,,- -_--= .•--- -E ) s- F'_._ x-+.� - _ - - --is `t • t �� �'} s-g - _-_ - * - - _ =-_as=s - _t -• €LL €,s}a "f•-j"•may=k_ _'•_ - f,_` 'i - - a _ 3r. _ �_ €7�-_ }.y .'t'- r`s:?•_,._ 1,0 . -7. \� - -.-:_,::::,-•,:• --4.0!-:'-'7, 4-..----•••-:-147::. -- t-+tu�-� �a _��_� - -11 - - - - �£ i ris= :��_� -a:s=-[:��x3ia .kms-sem 3}s-7f _♦ k t; -• -_ • `�'_ _•€ -t _: = _{# _ , s! 4IY)s 'Fye - 3`I, 3 F- -s-i '.i -_ { =s#..€,4 _ `t:ss 3 +£ ��= €€r-.� ��_.=�t�� __ �-77t- I.: - _ _ __ _ =ct Ott, =_r� \' ',.--..-- - __.,,,,,.=,:-.,.,--,45,..,,,..=.::,c,-,& .: .'I 7,3.-7--17 --.•-•.-. 1;-. .d.-//././ .- .. :I#) =iy� �� Sf i f 4 e?t F E :igiV--7-''''':''''''. -i- ' i ',:.' ' -7:- ...: '' ' - - ---•'*''-'-'-':'"f'7;''''''"-''''''''—- .,...,_..,:,.,.("„.„:„.„,„. .,.,_:_,..,,,,,,--,H.:.-_,_ : .F..,: F -:,-- *--'-t';j-i-.;:'.--''.:-;-ft'''ar:frk,:*P*'::_4''F,:,r,'''T'''Ii-:-r.''B?:4,- :-%'-''''•;'-j :':'-':;:':'''''::'''A':':':-'..'. '--•-• - .,,„,..,.......-;-•=::,." :;174,7,-14 --.•-,---- '-.- • , ' - �'/'t€ �-�*Sze�� - • a_ - it _:, ,„,._ ..„-/, . . . ..._ ,..,:„._..„.„,„_.„.„___:__ .: ., _. ������ ma; s - + _ 'h � • -. ,..,, .-,- .: ____.,..•.... ... .,___..„,„:_..,.,.:....,,:_.,.,,,.„.,,.„.f.,.. . ..: ., •.._,._.,.... ,,,:T_...,.,.,,•7.-a,-;,.----- as a -s - r+ �## , '� r - S _.„_•.•.:.. ..,...k 3 _ _ g • s . k * fii4 fit. ' +1 _� * f • :._-moi :-. h _ ,. '_,. ,s tg•, ' _ x Y 1=_ 3 fi'k f • tea*' - , .t t r .j..t."'•'-'---- - - _,„_, ' - : �'' f ` /iI �s - I Pel � .-- • _ _?F...----.--,.*-1, ------,;.--;,- ."=i,-:4-e„:-.` } t t' r(' - _-. s€ F e { E _ - - _ r 7 . F= X41 --4-e-IN'..--;-,-.:-.. .. i,_it•A,-44i,„-,:,.. ' . _ —j � • i, _ ce€ € - k, - _ r ±.-4- . tom -gam _ k € 3 t -r t,}____,,,,,,,,....„.„--,-..--_,-,..„,..----•-..,,,--- ...... R _ - - •` 7c l gam'- _ y=- 4-;:-:ti-1°5:-'7--:';'-'1"--', '''. :I'S.-;': '.''.: ''''''' - =F 3 '3-���,-sc _ _ _ t ... ,mss f�'s� - � -_ ��j .-- � s _ _ - r r _ _t,,,,,,,,,,,,---r _ .s, - _-' - €_ 1,-*-:;•,--••,:_z-_:;-7 . i — - , - fir* - - •- -• � - � _ _ - -_ �_ _. F €tet�= --# , - _ - - _ - -- �- -;',,__%2--,44.,t.,•.; t-r-' . "1 iii( ''':--'„ '',- -, • 1144T1',...2;".',:::'.-7:::-'.-,''''_--;.--,•,:.,_. . -.'•-'4., -.11:1- .;--:,,,??4-i'-:=.-•''':-;'.•,,.- 71'-,t'fi _ t rte- ' _ :. = t / ._ -_#-was-- z`:.- _ _ ? IL >?t- e Ft s fs f 'gr = , €€ ' .: . _ ,, , t ----,",,- -&—A4.,_—..;.„,,,,,,,_,,,,„t,„_, r.,..,... ,-. .'..- ..„.' =_._.._.,•:.,,,_,„:44.,„•,;,5,,,,,..,,,,,,-_-,-,,--, ._,.....,_______....,.,,_:,, _ . . ..,_,_._._,..:„.,.._-,,,„-: _„,,to_,.4_,*,: - -, - -` oaf •��-€ ��- 4 � _ -. - -_ .:,..„:„.,,,,,,:,,,..,-4_,..:_-_,,:_,.-- :;, f i 3 i .„,-, •-1:i_3ii.i.,--.--,,,--,K.:,_t-.-'•--•-z,"---'-' ' '- }`a-_ € a - rr • 3 7e-# gy' - .., ,-,g �.----' 41.v,:- - #�,---_-,v__.,„,,-;,..,-, - - > , t _.� tom� � x ter ,z_Z� * -_ ,===,,,Z,.-,- .-;--,,,, _ -- _ -s -_ . s n st r _ �#- ` ... _- # ¢ a __ _- t €` r - .- ,:';';`.=-;-1',-L-,4';:.1-,;4. -ii,iaLL'-f.±ttiif;;:_.'::,..,::;,,j7-_:• .4 -k--i*:SW-ifiti-: ••',: ..•'..' '.---;.'.:::'.::,_S-1.'''''-':':':i'''_-C..1:v.,... -_•,.,-±•=:•:.:.'..7. ,...;7,..i-:::, ,MT:i.;1-;.;-,.i;- ••'-',:ri -i7*-141*117;:+1.- 1,7';Mt,T,7:•'-'-±411 9-4 1 i=''.4'.--- _"„r__ _ - �- s::::-T-$7,--------------7,77-,----.-:-.--- -.-4':';---;4-.-Q--.i,'-.T.-.11- - _.- - { - � - gam m - s4 _ -. _ __ _.s ,SE ---x -.<_._ -* 3-- _ _ "-3._ _ s _ . - - = 4-• _# _ a aj -:-:J:',',-At;*''i-g:: ::-::--- -_ f .; Hca.= c+ - s. .....„!ks-- \ \ k 1,7,-;,,tit.4*.,,,_:,,„:•-:,,,- .. .z. .„._:;:,_:;„,,,,„,„:„...,- , 4- --, ,. --\i. \ , -.1;;-1,44_,_-,,,.--4,,;t,,N,--.=--- / • --::- ,. .,,,,,,,_4,,,- _ ,; ::f_:. ;:j _. „.. i"� - _'�" i - -tette a x •. {, ; .sem��� �_ � r '_ #� -e. s �� _ 'g-' �_� .1 ;s� 'S�Frt rs,�.� sfi a . ' £ } i � _.-�t�., .',t.;-----,--,,_—_, �. - _(::-/U,5? � - --"'Y ,3' , i'tea r �", _ �i"''#moi- -` `� - -- _ �_� �.,Y ' ;_ 5 F _--t' -ik--4.-7,4"-''IV4A: - ,_ = . :12: ,- Wit - t .:i '-'_',L,4,-;-:,'.1'-'-' ='fir, fi ,. s F �__,�•s r , �"4"�. s - _ -- -3�-l.�!rtiPODI'''5:11'...,:;'''.1:::::' a 1 -ice{:.' <`�=y_: _ - _ = __ - '-'-' 4'.7; 1,1:7-.'-:':*:. "-+��� :i7,31t;tt,, l'''',.,-;:.;;;;;:t;;:;;;.,1-:::::..: , ir---1:: �-�eta _ - _' - � , � ��_ ; x 7�f�1. i _f' - __ - 3' _ } ` #_ fjt _- _ �- } ; _ r�_ / _(# _ - _ 7;e ._ . "3� }�'`fir` -,--7,-..,,,..4.,•_ .'',.:9'.',..i :�"_. ex r#sib-t-7.-:;),:-'-',' "If . -% - - -_.+ .,. �_--•_ - _' ;. , a _j..- _, .-rte-_ _: �_� __ __ - - - - €-ii•,� •,�--_ - :..- '�£.-'s '--:_. ,_ --.. '-� :{,-- _rte` _ - _ _-_ - - � •. .,,:.. - .��` t�. , ':',iti= ,;-,-,-, ' - --‘----:--- I --:-,:, F- ---. l•-----E=_ ---;Y::, :- {{ S`ar`i' ." -_., . ' _+ -,Y=., _ .r - i + _ _• -.._:,-,_,--i,_-,,,f1j---_,, ,:-4.1",e-'.-;-,_-: r., --,-....f -:",l -.oir.;„'-'.-.;?:::,_.: ' k ,__, 4 Al - a ...,4 ...,,_„.. ,, = t .--.- i - - .',.'i!'-'al:-.)-fli,7---It'_--,A2,---''' :--'I \I :4•7 IT' ----: --'‘ '- - ,, :, • 1-,-.4-_:. s r _# f 4,-A-__ . ..--:. .-...-- ,„ 14",r1:::--;_,,5- . .a.:'_-_--1,--4.:';,--VV--,01k,- --346!.1 a�_ # °7 .+�-4-,-----::',,,,,,,,,.,;r ---- J r, -- a_ -_• '�=pY- of ((! J f - - - - •4.--__-- - , „.. ,-- _ 3/47. �� _��� � �v is <� �� � _.,„ _--_ -- ,, ` 3 I _ - '�., .' cam - _ 3' \ - 3 , - : ‘ ‘ F _ = ..: � � Y `'it t�� ,10:„,-;--T-- t ry / �_� '-'-'-----;;.-,-,-----,--s- � �_ _ �. v, - j - _ _ „r r-.-ice+ .- _ _ [8:7'-51.-,W4?*.:::;7'i----2*- T:4-'=,-'4:_'-'-:.--':- '�_�a=� -g� �- •ar � ��x � _ � -_.��` �`''rte`_ 4 f spa _ { r` -, ` Lii!tF:4',-1-%;_-t-a,--1-4x,-:=_-,-, F.1----_-:-:- _-.Zi.-'-±Z;:eq-,-,.-_-_-.E",;:::-___-::__ . : . '771,-.45-*,-74--_--4;u=i==_;--,==_:-_;-:--z=4;,'-=_*_,t,:----_: __ - „,,,, `sem __ £P-'1" ----;1*-ft"''''':--24:-7-11t-,-J'--::';';f'-t'-----1t:':7:--,-.--,1-r- ':-OC6-7-i-J: 1 4 _ _ r -_- ' ni-.-,;-..,- • - / --e ,, ,_„_„5„;--i--I_,_ _,-----.---_-_.__ -;r1--7--- -,'-'-'-- * . ' ' ' 1_, ---__7_,=_',A.-*A-:-.4--- -:-------_-_,_- . ---7 e.' 1;'-'z:---;--=7:'-1" '- - , .-__._ ,„_-.-_-_„ _ .,,,,,,,,,,,---_ = . _EA:„__,,,,_,„...-,..--,7_,?_,,,,- _ _- __--_7 ' � -__:--,—::__-'1, -'''''_'- _ =rte- _�' _ - - - a € �,__-,e__,:„..,,,-,43,4,,,,,,,� _•. -;_..4-:-;-_,-_','L-:1-7',:41:-__t.‘tii_i-':Vt -----___— ,___,,,•__•:,„,,,,,,,i,„,,,a-,,_„„,„1„t4„,,, , -_---_---,--:,",-_,:--:-._:,------,-,-,- =,Ne,--;iiike.: -?z' ,._ ._ ,_,..,____,,, __ - c t - is= ��_ t ci. _ :,Aiii- --_;-- ------i-1----;„:'_?_-,:.'.--'-'f-kff.';--_f-47-7;'-ii-L.-- -------_-,=-=7- 47;1_54 - ' ' ----,--_ =-'-.2:-; :sem .- ptte—=.11-707MRTI-tl-ft==-3T_-__,-7J,----:'-i'=i=_- 7- - Eik _,..-- -iii-IttA, _ � a € �-�_ �'�_���.-fes -� _ --.4-7-::::,:--T-.-- _.,.,_- ...,:-:,,%'-77,-„,_:- .1-7-ty_.%,-il.'-'- '_,---_---_,L-;:- .-i'ji-Zi _ ,__,, __ _' __-- _s,_.- -_,_--: _I-1;:1_44:-4-c--'''-'-C----:_73 -7**--d.„M=.- 'k*-'-'-''' _,-.._� .:_ �£�_ �� Fes= = _ -- _-_ ' _ - -_ .- F- __.`:- -- _ _ !#-tea -__��_ '-- ii;:- -- -,'..,:_ 44t1-7:_71,___: 7-t--:-__±7_ -- -_ - -' - �--� -i �._ AZA - r • AUG 06 '99 02:54PM P.2/2 V . . t T A T Z K O U T 6 77 (ORACLE ROA D . a11 emir 1 • i 1 1 I0 1 / t 1T;1i i 6 77 � 1 1 1 ! ! S! i 1 1 Q i 1 i i j J i. ♦ - .....00.1........ -t--M M- 7 } ' 1 III I /1 i `. • 1 1 ' 1 ! .....] -----....... .. ......._........_------- . i O 1 - / 1 • I -' 1 A eh wit. , 4 r , �� 4 j it... 1i 101, , , in ,_____ a "lb lu it _ ; j A — i I 53 1�1I 11' 0_ ±._ t 1- ap? Nv:20,4., 1 1 1 4e14 < i 1 Z i , i gi-- 1, 1 , E•-11 1 1 i 1 1 e _.,,,,,___, 1 -v M .—� ..� 1 A �y—fir, �.�.�— +�--� ..�.�i * . -- -----1 1 , i ! 1 1 i IL i i I. 1 t ......___________, . c 1 , I , , 1 , 1 . . , 1 t 1 1 1 i 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 B I % 1 • ` I 1 1 12 Mk*Ii MIMI TTT - * HOrPINe GENT5R eN r Y ICOA - ------- - a-- •- .....r-1> t: 1.irw J 1.1.-1C7:71 G66 T-60-L0 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Shirley Gay, Assurance Clerk SUBJECT: SUBSTITUTE ASSURANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NANCY PROPERTIES AND LAWYERS TITLE OF ARIZONA AS TRUSTEE OF OV12-92-09 NARANJA RANCH I LOTS 84, 125-131, 141-150, 132,133,135-140,160-170 SUMMARY: Lawyers Title has taken over as the trustee for Naranja Ranch I from Fidelity National Title. Therefore, they request approval of a Substitute Assurance Agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has no objections to this request. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Town Council may wish to consider the following motion: move to approve OV 12-92-9 Naranja Ranch I lots 84,125-131,141-150, 132-133, 135-140, 160-170 Substitute Assurance Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Substitute Assurance Agreement 1 -)7LPl. W Zoning Administrator 764.3:1K. Community Develop. : t Director '<; // Town Manager F:\INDIVID\SAG\TCCREL.DOC TOWN OF ORO VALLEY "SUBSTITUTE" ASSURANCE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS BY THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into the day y o f 19 , between NANCY PROPERTIES I c,an Az, ltd 11ab � g6Aas Beneficiary under Trust No. 7918—T (referred to in this Agreement g ent as "Subdivider"); LAWYERS TITLE OF AZ INC. , an , a Arizona corporation, Trust No. 7 918—T "Trustee"); � , as Trustee under (referred to in this Agreement as "Trustee"); and the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a municipal corporation, (referred to in this Agreement as "Town"), herebyconfirmg n )' and agree as follows: 1.01 Trustee, pursuant to the land trust agreement described in "B" Exhibit is the owner of a certain parcel of land described in Exhibit "A", which is located in the Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona. 1.02 The parties to this Agreement wish to establish specific terms,s, conditions and guidelines for compliance with the provisions of ARS Section 9- 463.01(C)(8) and Chapter 4, Article 4-9 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. II AGREEMENT a 1.03. In consideration of the Town approvingfinal plat for the e proper ty described in ExhibitA , commonly referred to as Subdivision Name Naranja Ranch 1 * � , Lots through , and Common Areas , Oro ValleyCaseOC112-92-9 Trustee and No. , the Subdivider specifically agree to all those conditions and requirements set forth herein. q 2.01. Property Description: The property which is the subject bject matter of the ,f Agreement is all that property described in Exhibit A which isannexed annexed to and made a part of this Agreement. 2.02. Assurances. Pursuant to the requirements of ARS Section - l 9 46�.�?,(C)(S), this Agreement is submitted as an assurance for the completion of P subdivision imp,-nvemcnts including streets, sewer, water, telephone, tili as and electric utilities,i g ties, dlailjagc tend flood control improvements and monuments and property corners as more lully dc scribed in *Lots 132, 133, 135 through 140 and 160-170 Exhibit "C" attached hereto and as required pursuant to applicable Federal, State,, County and Town ordinances and regulations. These subdivision improvements are required q by the Town of Oro Valley, the improvement standards of the Director of Water, Pima County Wastewater Management Department, the gas and electric utilities and State Statutes and regulations, which requirements are in effect on the date of execution of this Agreement. 2.03. Limitation on Transfer of Title. The Trustee shall not conveytitle to of any the property described in Exhibit "A" without obtaining prior written approval from the TownpP in the form of a Release of Assurance signed by the Town Engineer. The Trustee may act in full faith and reliance upon the Release of Assurance. A Release of Assurance shall only be provided the Trustee by the Town upon satisfactory completion P and formal acceptance by the Town of the required improvements. The Trustee's only duty under this Agreement is not to convey without first obtaining a Release of Assurances. 2.04. Contracts for Sale. The limitation on the conveyance of title contained in paragraph 2.03 notwithstanding, the Trustee may enter into contracts for sale of the property described in Exhibit "A", provided such contracts clearly state that the conveyance of title to the property is subject to the limitations contained in this Agreement. The Trustee shall, prior to entering into such contracts for sale, provide the Town with a copy of the form of contract containing the disclosure of limitation on the power to convey. 2.05. Bulk Sales. The limitation on the conveyance of title contained inara ra h P g P 2.03 notwithstanding, the Trustee may sell and convey all of thero ert described in P P Y Exhibit "A" in one transaction to a single purchaser, provided that theP urchaser shall, prior to conveyance, have submitted to the Town satisfactory assurances for the completion of the required improvements. 2.06. Conveyance Out of Trust for the Purpose of Encumbrance. The limitation on the conveyance of title contained in paragraph 2.03 notwithstanding, the Trustee may y convey all or part of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the Subdivider or Beneficiary of the Trust solely for the purpose of encumbering property thethe by recording of mortgages or deeds of trust, provided the property is thereafter immediately reconveyed into the Trust. 2.07. Completion of Improvements. The required improvements shall be completed within two (2) years of the date that the Town Council approved the final plat. This period for completion of improvements may be extended subject to Town Council approval and applicable Town ordinances where Subdivider is prevented from completing the improvements by act of God, strike or similar event or circumstances beyond its control or when such extension is determined to be reasonable andP rudent by the Town Council. Any such extension granted shall not exceed one (1) Y ear. 2.08. Substitution of Assurances. At any time duringtheperiod described above in paragraph 2.07 for the completion of improvements , if such time for completion of the required improvements has been extended by subsequentof q agreementthe parties, at any time on or before such extended date for the completion of improvements), P ), Subdivider or Trustee may offer substitute assurances. Such assurances shall be in a form and amount acceptable to the Town and shall be subject to review and J approval by the Oro Valley Town Council. 2.09. Inspection and Acceptance of Improvements. The Town mayprovide p de for the inspection of the required improvements to insure satisfactory completion.letion. The Town will not accept dedication of the required improvements, nor release, in whole or in part, any property subject to the Agreement until the improvements have been satisfactorily completed and accepted bythe Town pEngineer. 2.10. Partial Release of Assurances. The Town mayprovide the Trustee Release with a of Assurance for a portion of the lots created bythe subdivisionplat . attached as Exhibit "A", provided that all of the improvements required in connection q with such lots have been satisfactorily completed and accepted bythe Town and provided p ed further that such improvements can be used and maintained separatelyof the improvements p roveme nts required for the entire subdivision plat. For example, temporary cul-de-sacs should be provided for incomplete streets; water, sewer, gas, telephone and electric facilities should be capable of independent operation; and adequate access for public safety vehicles should beprovided. 2.11. Failure to Complete Improvements. In the event that Subdivider fails to complete the required improvements within the period provided inaragra h 2.07 above, the P � P parties agree that the Town may initiate a process to re-plat that or ortion portions P of the property described in Exhibit "A" for which the improvements have not been satisfactorily completed. The purpose of such plat initiated bythe Town will l be to return the property to approximately the same boundary configurations of record ' recording � . �, existing before of the subdivision plat described in Exhibit "A". Prior to initiating any action to re-plat theortion of property P p p y for which improvements have not been completed, the Town shall provide the Trustee and Subdivider with thirty (30) days written notice of the Town's intentre-plat.to re plat. The notification shall be sent by first class mail, shall be deemed received uponmailing mailing and shall be sent to the following addresses: 1880 E. River Rd. #120 5255 E. Williams Circle #1050 Tucson, AZ 85718 Tucson, AZ 85711 Trustee Subdivider 3 The Trustee and Subdivider, as record owner and subdivider, respectively,p y, agree that they will execute such plat returning relevant portions of the property to the P P y approximately he same boundary configuration of record existing before recordingof the plat described in Exhibit "A". The parties hereto have executed this Agreement this day of , 19 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY a municipal corporation MAYOR COUNTERSIGNED: As Town Clerk and not personally APPROVED AS TO FORM this day of 19_. Tobin C. Sidles, Town Attorney PER/FDIVIrDER: Nancy ones IL.L.C. -1,)-4.&% ,,, . ea,L,-,' BY: , ROBERT D.. (LA PK AS: Managing Partner STATE OF ARIZONA) ) ss COUNTY OF PIMA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this 10th day of August , 1999 , by ROBERT D. CLARK as Managing Partner o f NANCY PROPERTIES I, L.L.C. , an Arizona limited liability company. :011111diMiiiiiiiiiii4W;r1==.,. ' 0 -.-', :LIC September 20, 1999 -„-- d.�`,�'�°�"., .'�Q.�.' _.�;�., ”i=-rCiAL SEAL -` B. ARELLANO Mycommission expires (t(i,,,;-:-it..=;), �� r.- �`� ��AI �A NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA 4117PIMA COUNTY `' - " tvh cafr wires Sept.20,1999 4 • • .l TRUSTEE: Lawyers Title of Arizona, Inc., an Arizona Corporation as too under 7918-T AAA Agile& fra idtiliroyce 11 -Mda Ass _ Vi cP President STATE OF ARIZONA) COUNTY OF PIMA ) This instrument was ledbefore me this day o _ 1999 by Joyce ._. Rodda Asst. Vice Pres. of Lawyers Tit1: of Az. Inc. , an Az. Corp.as the act of said corp. ,as.•Trus tee. -' .it-..S eM��-1%°.�•../\`,1'.�„fir_•4„ , .'ORIS J. CLARK, ; NOTARY pus ;; ,:t �� + Y PUBLIC PIMA COUNTY ExDfr A Mar. 7. .i1r/✓t, /�c•!',.stY 1+.1',I•�..�'S.W+A_.y a t,.'i,rr ,. My Commission Expires Legal Description Lots 132, 133, 135 through 140 and 160 through 170 of Naranja Ranch I, a subdivision of Pima County, Arizona, according to the map or plat thereof of record in the office of the County Recorder of Pima County, in Book 45 of Maps and Plats at page 23 thereof; and as amended by Declaration of Scrivener's Error recorded in Docket 9665 at page 1496 and recorded in Docket 9727 at page 886. EXHIBIT "C" Subdivision NboNaranja a Ranch - � 1 OV Ca` N°- = OV 12-92-9 'I no. = 7918-T The folies #provements and cmditions are Assuirce aart of the attached nit- I. Paving of the streets included i a _ Ruan Architects and En_inccrs Jobs F-93-014 2. A publ is water item satisfactory to the Town of Oro Val l:n,_te- --- 3. A sanitary sir system satisfactory to Pince Management. County W st te ' 4. A telefcbcne distribution system satisfactory catio s.. to L Test 5. An elect is distribution system sat t Pto �scn Ftectx-ic G. Fire is and other fire appurtEnances satisfactory Rural Metro tZsfacto� toFid the 7. A natural gas distribution system sati.sf actory to Southwest Gas ( zporation (if gas is being utili7ed in the subciivision) - $- Utility trenches and civil using utilities. appurtenances satisfactory to the 9. Installatioa of aU street signs and r-eet strip 10• The Professional Engineer of Record - � X31 certify, in wr3 t�. that all i is, whether private or public, have been. constructed, pled, installed, etc_ in substantial withoxmance approved plans for this �f �- � Ctrtifications ' writing, to he received1 f ] 10= Val�. � x' �f ��ie '�'� of Valley prior to anybuilding - permits and/or final inspection and to release of Exhibit 'r C" - page 2 11. The Soils Egineer of rid or other Registered Prof esio al Civil Engineer with expertise in the areas of soils engin ening shall certify, in writing, that all materials utilized on this development are in conformance with the accepted plans and specifications. Certifications, in writing, are to be received by the Town of Oro Valley prior to the request fox .1ding remits and/or final inspection, and release of as es. 12. The Soils Engineer of Record or oto Registered Professional Civil Eligineer with expertise in the araa of Soils Ehgineering shall certify, in writing, that all sails operations for this cvvelcpriant were performed in acccoclance with the reocannThdaticus as set forth in the. Soils port and any amendments thereto, by Ryan. eery& Arch i tects Job No. 12019 dated Jams , Certification, in writing, is to be received by the Tbwn Ehgineerof the i of aro Valley prior to the reavest for zny building genrnits and/or final inspection and the release of assurances. 13. As-built shall be provided to the Tbwn of Cro Valley Public repartment prior to ful release of assurances. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY "SUBSTITUTE" ASSURANCE AGREEMENT FOR COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS BY THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into the day of 19 betweenAz ltd. nab c ' Nape-fir Prnnert i PR T, T�_T _ _ ,alleckirm, as Beneficiary under Trust No. 7918-T (referred to in this Agreement as "Subdivider"); Lawyers Title of Az. , Inc. , a Arizona corporation, as Trustee under Trust No. 7918-T (referred to in this Agreement as "Trustee"); and the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, a municipal corporation, (referred to in this Agreement as "Town"), g n ), hereby confirm and agree as follows: 1.01 Trustee, pursuant to the land trust agreement described in Exhibit "B" is the owner of a certain parcel of land described in Exhibit "A", which is located in the Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona. 1.02 The parties to this Agreement wish to establish specific terms, conditions and guidelines for compliance with the provisions of ARS Section 9-463.01(C)(8) and Chapter 4, Article 4-9 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised. II AGREEMENT 1.03. In consideration of the Town approving a final plat for thero ert described P P Y in Exhibit "A", commonly referred to as Subdivision NameNaranja Ranch 1 Lots * through * , and Common Areas , Oro ValleyCase No. 12-92-9, the Trustee and Subdivider specifically agree to all those conditions and requirements set forth herein. q 2.01. Property Description: The property which is the subject matter of the e Agreement is all that property described in Exhibit "A", which is annexed to and made apart of this Agreement. 2.02. Assurances. Pursuant to the requirements of ARS Section 9-163.01(C,(8). th's Agreement is submitted as an assurance for the completion of subdivision irl 1,_,l �v t,I11E.3 � � I1tS including streets, sewer, water, telephone, gas and electric utilities, drainac e and flood control improvements and monuments and property corners as more fully described } in *Lots 84, 125 through 131 and 141 through 150 Exhibit "C" attached hereto and as requiredursuant to applicable P pp ble Federal, State, County and Town ordinances and regulations. These subdivision improvements required meats are required by the Town of Oro Valley, the improvement standards of the Director of Water, Pima County Wastewater Management Department, the gas and electricutilities utilities and State Statutes and regulations, which requirements are in effect on the date of execution of this Agreement. 2.03. Limitation on Transfer of Title. The Trustee shall not convey title to any of the property described in Exhibit "A" without obtainingprior written approval from the Town in the form of a Release of Assurance signed bythe Town Engineer. The Trustee may act in full faith and reliance upon the Release of Assurance. A Release of Assurance shall only be provided the Trustee bythe Town uponsatisfactory completion and formal acceptance by the Town of the required improvements. g Pg a The Trustee's only duty under this Agreement is not to convey without first obtaining Release of Assurances. 2.04. Contracts for Sale. The limitation on the conveyance of title Ie contained in paragraph 2.03 notwithstanding, the Trustee may enter into contracts for �, sale of the property described in Exhibit "A", provided such contracts clearly state that the conveyance of title to the property is subject to the limitations contained in this Agreement. The Trustee shall, prior to enteringinto such contracts for sale, provide the Town with a copy of the form of contract containingthe disclosure power to convey. of limitation on the 2.05. Bulk Sales. The limitation on the conveyance of title contained rained in paragraph 2.03 notwithstanding, the Trustee may sell and conveyall of the property ' described in Exhibit "A" in one transaction to a single purchaser, provided that • the purchaser shall, prior to conveyance, have submitted to the Town satisfactoryassurances for completion of the the P required improvements. 2.06. Conveyance Out of Trust for the Purpose of Encumbrance. ' The limitation on the conveyance of title contained in paragraph 2.03 notwithstanding,ng, the Trustee may convey all or part of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the Subdivider bdivider or Beneficiary of the Trust solely for the purpose of rP encumbering the property by the recording of mortgages or deeds of trust, provided therois thereafter Pe rty immediately reconveyed into the Trust. 2.07. Completion of Improvements. The required improvements q p shall be completed within two (2) years of the date that the Town Council approved This the final plat. This period for completion of improvements may be extended subject to Town Council approval and applicable Town ordinances where Subdivider isrevented from rom completing the improvements by act of God, strike or similar event or circumstances beyond its control or when such extension is determined to be reasonable andrud Town eat by the I own Council. Any such extension granted shall not exceed one1 ( ) year. 2 2.08. Substitution of Assurances. At any time duringtheperiod described above in paragraph 2.07 for the completion of improvements (or, if such time for • completion of the required improvements has been extended by subsequent agreement of parties, � the parties, at any time on or before such extended date for the completion of improvements), Subdivider or Trustee may offer substitute assurances. Such assurances shall be in a form and amount acceptable to the Town and shall be subject to review and J approval by the Oro Valley Town Council. 2.09. Inspection and Acceptance of Improvements. The Town mayprovide p e for the inspection of the required improvements to insure satisfactorycompletion. The P Town will not accept dedication of the required improvements, nor release, in whole or in part, any property subject to the Agreement until the improvements have been satisfactorily completed and accepted bythe Town p Engineer. 2.10. Partial Release of Assurances. The Town mayprovide the Release Trustee with a of Assurance for a portion of the lots created bythe subdivision la . plat attached as Exhibit "A", provided that all of the improvements required in connection n with such lots have been satisfactorily completed and accepted bythe Town and provided p ed further that such improvements can be used and maintained separatelyof the improvements rovemen p is required for the entire subdivision plat. For example, temporary cul-de-sacs should be provided for incomplete streets; water, sewer, gas, telephone and electric facilities should be capable of independent operation; and adequate access forpublic safetyvehicles be should provided. 2.11. Failure to Complete Improvements. In the event that Subdivider fails to complete the required improvements within the period provided inaragra h 2.07 Q P � P above, the parties agree that the Town may initiate a process to re-plat thator ortion portions of the P property described in Exhibit "A" for which the improvements have not been satisfactorily completed. The purpose of such plat initiated bythe Town will ill be to return the property to approximately the same boundary record configurations ofexisting existing before recording of the subdivision plat described in Exhibit "A". Prior to initiating any action to re-plat the portion of property for which ch improvements have not been completed, the Town shall provide the Trustee and Subdivider with thirty (30) days written notice of the Town's intent - to re plat. The notification shall be sent by first class mail, shall be deemed received upon mailing po mailinb and shall be sent to the following addresses: 1880 E. River Rd. #120 5255 E. Williams Circle #1050 Tucson, AZ 85718 Tucson, AZ 85711 Trustee Subdivider 3 The Trustee and Subdivider, as record owner and subdivider, respectively,P y, a gree that they will execute such plat returning relevant portions of thero ert to P p y approximately the same plat configuration of record existing before recordingof the l at described in Exhibit "A". The parties hereto have executed this Agreement this day of , 19 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY a municipal corporation MAYOR COUNTERSIGNED: As Town Clerk and not personally APPROVED AS TO FORM this day of 19_. Tobin C. Sidles, Town Attorney (13] VLOPE'/$UB VIDER: N ro,. ='` 1e . L.L.C. 0,-UAA.,:, 1,,,,LOA..7 B : Robert D! Clark AS: J'' nagi ng Partner STATE OF ARIZONA) ) ss . COUNTY OF PIMA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this 10th day of August , 19 99, by ROBERT D. CLARK asManaginq Partner of NANCY PROPERTIES I, L.L.C. , an Arizona limited liability company 4iiimoi..._....:iiiiH.......iii_________________ ..1....._.,...._ • PUB September 20, 1999 ---- My commission expires �t�`�`T OFFICIAL SEAL``\'\ � ,, c MARIA B. ARELLANO Y it,',:-;-'-` te" NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA '',3 #s*--.":aP!MA COUNTY f 91' My Comm.Expires Sept.20,1999 4 . . TRUSTEE: Lawyers Title of Arizona, Inc., an Arizona Corporation as T t toe under 7918-T A-ef 4 WI& daltaz .,*•°..VSITS B • Jo c- M. Podda •— Asst. V e Pres .•en STATE OF ARIZONA) COUNTY OF PIMA ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this 9' day of(LL , 1999 by Jovcall. Podda as Asst. Vice Pres. of La ers Title of Az. , Inc. , an Az. Corp. , as the act of said coro. , as Trustee AINO...."/".","". •.0,41...".".".„0,10,0,0,0,• 7.: 4, CFF" SEAL , D NO " • ' PUBLIC ORIS J. CLARK NOTARY PUELiC-API ONA .‘; PAA COUNTY W 7.20a0 My Commission Expires Legal Description Lots 84, 125 through 131 and 141 through 150 of Naranja Ranch I, a subdivision of Pima County, Arizona, according to the map or plat thereof of record in the office of the County Recorder of Pima County, in Book 45 of Maps and Plats at page 23 thereof; and as amended by Declaration of Scrivener's Error recorded in Docket 9665 at page 1496 and recorded in Docket 9727 at page 886. EXHIBIT "C' Subdivision t - • Naranj a Ranch 1 OV 12-92.--9 Must No. - 7918--T The following is and edit' Assurance Pigpm hent: ons are made a part of attached 1. Paving of the streets in in _ _ Ryan Architects and Engineers Job #G93-014 T � of Oro ar 2. A public water system satisfact to 3. A sanitary sir system satisfactory • Management. to Plaid buntr Wast to . distribution4. A telephone system satisfactory t tions 5. An electLIC distribution � � sat� sfaoto� to � Fl ectxic Power 6. Fire 1. rants and other fire Rural Metro satisfactory to theFi t 7. A r3atural . 9� distribution system satisfactoryto Southwest Gas Cbrpora�-� (if has utilizedis being . in the s��v� lsion) . 8. Utility firelichela and civil 4ppurtenarices . use utilities. at�sfactc� to the 9. Installation of all street signs and street striping. 10• The Professional Ehgineer of �c ��' certify,zf�� ,in w r it '�at all i� is, whet private or have ��Plaaed, installed, etc_ in substantial conformance plans for this 1 , Ctiftpans, in�it'�. to be receivedby the Zn �; of � o01-0 Valley prior to any �rn�stfor building permits and/orf1ralinspection t f releaseof Exhibit "C." - page 2 11. The Soils algineer of recod or otber Registered Profesional Civil Engineer with expertise in the areas of soils engineering shall certify, in writing, that all materials utilized on this development are in confanaance with the accepted plans and specifications. Certifications, in writing, are to be received by the Town of Oro Valley prior to the request for huilding remits and/or final inspection and release of assurances. 12. The Soils Engineer of Record or other Registered Professional Civil Eligineer with expertise in the area of Soils Engineering shall certify, in writing, that all soils operations for this developavnt ssereperforged in accordance with the recanrendatacns as set forth in Ebel Soils report ami any amenddents thereto, by Ryan Architects & Eiggicers, job No. 12019 , dated January 19 , i993 Certification, in wTiting, is to be received by the TOwn Engineer of the T&An of Oro Valley prior to the request for any building permits arid/or final inspection and the release of assurances. 13. As-tuilt drawings shall be provided to the 'kn of Oro Valley Public Reeks Department prior to full release of assurances. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Froy Cota, P.E., Interim Project Manager SUBJECT: Notice of Completion Project No. WOV #1-0199 OV-1 Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Interconnect Priority A, Main Extensions BACKGROUND: In accordance with prior approval from the Mayor and Town Council the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Staff distributed, through the office of the Town Clerk, various sets of contract plans and specifications to local contractor's and reference agencies. Four (4) bid proposals were received for this project. Bids were opened by the Town Clerk at 2:00 p.m. on April 30, 1999. The following is a summary of the bids that were received: 1. Tricon Contracting $159,785.00 2. NAC Construction $108,483.00 3. Hunter Contracting $128,504.00 4. P & H Contracting $178,161.00 The bid proposal was accepted and awarded to NAC Construction on May 5, 1999, in the amount of$108,483.00 at the regular Town Council meeting. SUMMARY: A. The above-described work was completed in general conformance with the plans and specifications. The work has been inspected by the Town staff and is recommended for acceptance. B The initial contract award amount was $108,483.00. It had been anticipated that change orders were to be needed to complete this project. A private water company installed the existing water system in the OV #1 area years ago. The records for the existing pipeline and valves were for the most part lacking, sketchy or inaccurate. Therefore, as the contractor dug in to expose pipeline and valves to make the necessary tie- ins there was repeated extra work involved in locating, exposing, and replacing the old facilities. The extra pipe and valves were charged off at the bid prices. The extra work involved in digging, traffic control and other miscellaneous work, such as extra meter services lines, was charged off to the Force Account bid item, which is based on time and materials used. The total contract amount to complete the project, including the change orders,was $124,331.20. C. After the Notice of Completion is recorded; the Town will release the final ten (10) percent of the contract retention to the Contractor. ATTACHMENTS: A. Final pay estimate from NAC Construction B. Notice of Completion TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Accept the work constructed by NAC Construction for Project No. WOV#1-0199 OV-1 entitled "Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Interconnect Priority A,Main Extensions. B. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion. C. Direct the Town Clerk to record said Notice of Completion within ten (10) days of the Town Council's action at the Office of the County Recorder,Pima County. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to accept the work constructed by NAC Construction for Project No. WOV#1-0199 OV-1 subject to the Town of Oro Valley Utility Director's recommendation. Or I move to deny • • : Utility D ire c l r Town Manager ATTACHMENT C (for Recorder's Use) NOTE: To be recorded with the County WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO Recorder within 10 days after acceptance. Town Clerk Town of Oro Valley 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE is hereby given by the undersigned owner, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, that a Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Project described as: Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Interconnect Priority A, Main Extensions Has been completed and was accepted by the undersigned awarding authority on the date specified herein. CONTRACTOR ON THE PROJECT: Name: NAC Construction Address: 8359 W. Tangerine Rd. City/State: Tucson, AZ 85653 SURETY FOR CONTRACTOR'S BOND IS: Amwest Surety Insurance Co. 5230 Las Virgenes Rd. Calabasas, Ca. 91302 Tel: #818 871-2000 The Real Property upon which said work as performed is in the Town of Oro Valley, County of Pima, State of Arizona, described more specifically as follows: An area roughly bounded by the Canada del Oro Wash on the north, Hardy Rd. on the south, La Canada Drive on the West and Oracle Rd. on the east. DATE: The Town of Oro Valley (Date of Completion) (Name of Political Subdivision) DATE: August 18, 1999 The Town of Oro Valley (Date of Acceptance) (Name of Political Subdivision) STATE OF ARIZONA) By: ) SS. Mayor COUNTY OF PIMA ) By: Town Clerk I hereby certify that I am the of the Governing Board of the , the political subdivision which executed the foregoing notice and on whose behalf I make this verification; that I have read said notice, know its contents, and that the same is true. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at: Arizona on 19 . Town Clerk, Town of Oro Valley t . .. '- `. ':'.'-''' '.' "' :, `';•'•,s; ',1.;'s,"1 '; •;' ;,,1-1 A,., ,-;,7, ,sl,,, :I ,','' ,'-'7 2,-,%,', ;-:A;f3 2;;;;;;;7',;-,-.,,-•_••,-•;;:::;',:f.;W; -,-,-;:•? ;', ;'; , ;";'? I ' , i I , 13 3 13,g: 5 , 0 --,..... ..(0 00-4 CD Cr1 4,03 r,..) --,01 cn tn 4,0)!1\3 ......8 cr,cn 4,..03 N.)--.' 0, :I Z . li cli. •-2 g ,'<`) 0 2 51 1 2 ,_,— c, (-) T rn i j:, 6 _. 3 a c, .1 s rn , . 0 C° m --i--i Z,co 0?° x it(I) 2 rn -I > ii; .--, -r (c' z FTI X 0 IN) ci9 - oc, 0 x c m (-01> >-.-11--, > m---.1 i r- ' RI__I -<x -A'r- r- 0) o ,,"r-. 0,r- x , < r- 0 ';:-1 x <0 9 1 1:3 m -2 P ,.., ..._. rrt ,, - a ,,(f) m-, --I > ' (f) 71), 6 b m<m< 9 u) 70(f) Z > 0 -I C , ' --I ..;'.0 4 0 > 3 . 0 l ° 0 ; Z m 0 --‹ ---i -. ••• 5- 9, ''' „.-..' > 0> 0 > K< i rn I , rii : (t 1, -g i, !"-- n - r- r- >b I z m (I) 0 c 20 • c7i , o, !2, --, tj --1 -i ii --4!X m >An --‹'-• --. .fl g IL 11 1 0 12 2 -I !> 'r- 0 i o '-'•11 . (ii i 0 -1-:-r` M M r-i 111 M III u)at r- r-MI m(i)!i m I-- r- m cA al r- C 0 • ?,-' 51; (D: a u)0 ›› (f)!›› )#.-‹›,-, '1 (I)› › -<,› m (1) ,>> --4>m z z I I I 1 X 22\ r'J 4' i I i (fi, a ..4. 5- g o -Fi , ,,, .. a 0 > 5 . z ! a•:13 2. , m -„,- . 6 ,3 _ cy,....., , I -1 .....1, C)a .i,(,.) CO'(fl a) a) (0, 0 0 C3)0 CP(000--• (:)(.0 1,..) (3 0 al 00,0 0 0 3,0)•-, 0 ! 03 NJ 0 a) 0.) 1 0.) 0 0 0 IV I CID N.) 0 0 (3 03!0 -4 0-,1_.., • , IN) o 0 co 'cri o o 0 cli 0.) n.) 0 o o OP(0 03 I C!0 Z ni T., x I I-2- -,c H (TR!<rn g , I ' 2 C) .g ''' 5:1 I 1 I . 0.• 1 1 03 m iz - -,-_-; 5. ,c0 a, cn— I—-.' •-•,'Cr).";-.... cn cn co , cA),NI CD --4 cn ',-.. , r.) -4 ' It -:•,1 0 ,-.. :Nip".:::: (.0 o31-6 iv-th b o ID b 1,0-6 a) c.,)---x ri.J-43 -a)b'01 0.) In-a) 0•' —i 2, 1° :co (.71 00 (3)0cn!000nl001a) al 0 0 0 CO,(0 r,) --.1o0c) criwoo c, IN) , 1 _, , o 5.,,.) a ai, c)a (3)a 0 i a C3 0 0 Cr)1,-Di. 0 -, a 0 o a) c. al --.1 0 c) 0 o (c)03 Z, 0 • 23 0 CD CD b 6 6 6 blb 6 b 6 b 6 Ca CD CD CD CD 010 0 0 CD CD D 0 6 6 -i' 7J I i i0 0 cioopool000chocc) 00000100 0000 0 0 , 1 , I 1 , 0 I . ' I r- H Co 71 r H , , . 1 i -ti L< 0 0 nT in 0 , Z q3 in --I Z --t ,,,(1) H 1 0 ! > 0 In w > , 1 Ib ,..) — I':rn< (3 IN) ! 0.) IQ 0 0 ' "r1 . -, • , (7. , , ...1 a) 0.) I C .' fn 1 C O0 -13 73 I 1 1\.) 0) 1 c.,.,) a) ....... .-4 to --, ch.) 10) X 1 ril T1 Z' 3:) m ' ,, a) NJ ' 1,.) 0) -A 1 -,1 4, a) (A) 0 ' ril in < 'o o ci "cri- 6-, -x 4, -.cA)N.)'o) Iv 0 :-.1 4-, ---,1\)!-,0) a co li-- .--,, cri u-. o r- c< H Hi -,..., 0. I -6 ci 5 0 i I it M r-M M (/)M i-- I- r-RI m(A ni r- r-im m cn m r• C! H m i m m I C i , 0 0 >> (I)>> -<>rn m 0> >-<'>m 0 > -1 > m zC) i 73 to 1 HIO c , 1 , 0 i ! . I . 1- 0 I , ....,. i -A , ' I 0 ATI ° .....A -1 ' NJ IN) I " ' N) , C --4 1\3 1,1: --, I 4, -A-1 NI ".00 CA), a) , 03 C.A)1 N)0 .....1"--'• 03 03 (0 ( 00i 01 4 4 , 03 a)-1 03 0-1 -4, , i 03 01 0 03 , . I.--, 4, , -- (I) c.,)--,i cof)crl c.,..) N.) .1,- Z m in 0 --.,a ((3 i co Na , (3 (n10 0 0 r.) -,-.co 4,- I a)0 0 co;to cn -0-0 0(fl a) 0 H 0 H co al a co --, ,00ac)0000i000rviv!0) o oc.000mioN) oc000000 I M •,.--, 6 -.." 1 6 i iv 6 6 6 er.b 6 b 'o 1 6--c) b b iz)b 0 .C:) -4.0 .b b i b b 'b 6'0 6 CI, 6 'cr , z iI r,\.) 01,)! col 0 ,00000000!0000000 100000100 00'000,10o I __I 1 '.) . 1 1 • , i • Z I • 0 > 11-13 H i i , m i , m 0 cp 0 o o 0 o 01 0 a cio cp o a o 000 000 oa00000 I,a -1-3 , 0 -,---r- rn rn r-Irn rn rh Go rn r- r- r-in m(f)m r- r- mmU3mr- C, 0 --',„H I I , w 0 >> (ol> >>-< >71 71 0> > -<'>71 0>> -‹ > m ' z -T., -0 co 1i ' -I-7 m- Qui 1 , 1-, < rn z >1;1 ‘•-•,' o * , , K I > -33 r- -, 00 1/4,* , , f ' Zi 1 1 -11 K , 0 0 *00 'o a 0 CD C) 0 0 okpo0oopo , c) 0000!00 CD 0 0 C)600 . <''‹ o ,b :0 0 i 0 0 0 0 C:) 0 0 bl 0 0 b 0 6 10 .C:) 6 0 b b .01.0 6 bbbbbbb '0 *00 ,o0a000oo1oopooi00 000CD0100 00000cDo n g; (7) • Q 1 , . , - TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Froy Cota, P.E., Interim Project Manager SUBJECT: Notice of Completion Project No. WOV #1-0399 OV-1 Town of Oro Valley\Vater Utility Interconnect Priority A-Misc. PRV and Valve Installations BACKGROUND: With prior approval from Mayor and Town Council the Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Staff distributed, through the office of the Town Clerk, various sets of contract plans and specifications to local contractors and reference agencies. Two (2) bid proposals were received for this project. Bids were opened by the Town Clerk at 4:00 p.m. on April 30, 1999. The following is a summary of the bids that were received: 1. NAC Construction $ 89,730.00 2. P & H Contracting $105,600.00 The bid proposal was accepted and awarded to NAC Construction on May 5, 1999 in the amount of$89,730.00 at the regular Town Council meeting. SUMMARY: A. The above-described work was completed in general conformance with the plans and specifications. The work has been inspected by the Town staff and is recommended for acceptance. B The initial contract award amount was $89,730.00. It had been anticipated that change orders were to be needed to complete this project. The existing water system in the OV#1 area was installed years ago by private water company. The records for the existing pipeline and valves were for the most part lacking, sketchy or inaccurate. Valves were difficult to locate and some were impossible to operate. Therefore, as the contractor went about inspecting and replacing valves and PRV's there was repeated extra work involved in locating, exposing, cleaning, and replacing the old facilities. Much of the extras involved extra digging, traffic control and searching for existing facilities. Also, four extra 8" valves and twelve residential PRV's had to be installed to effectively switch the private system over to the Town Water System. All these extras plus other miscellaneous work was paid for under the Force Account bid item,which is based on time and materials used. The total contract amount to complete the project, including the change orders was $103,238.25. C. After the Notice of Completion is recorded; the Town will release the final ten (10) percent of the contract retention to the Contractor. ATTACHMENTS: A. Final pay estimate from NAC Construction B. Notice of Completion TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Accept the work constructed by NAC Construction for Project No. WOV#1-0399 OV-1 entitled "Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Water Main Extension (2700 Zone). B. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion. C. Direct the Town Clerk to record said Notice of Completion within ten (10) days of the Town Council's action at the Office of the County Recorder,Pima County. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to accept the work constructed by NAC Construction for Project No. WOV#1-0399 OV-1 subject to the Town of Oro Valley Utility Director's recommendation. Or I move to deny 4 .... vAi. - c.......vytiL - Utility P• or Al lid.., 414. i I i Town Man,ge ATTACHMENT C (for Recorder's Use) NOTE: To be recorded with the County WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO Recorder within 10 days after acceptance. Town Clerk Town of Oro Valley 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE is hereby given by the undersigned owner, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, that a Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Project described as: Town of Oro Valley Water Utility Interconnect Priority A-misc. PRV and Valve Installations Has been completed and was accepted by the undersigned awarding authority on the date specified herein. CONTRACTOR ON THE PROJECT: Name: NAC Construction Address: 8359 W. Tangerine Rd. City/State: Tucson, AZ 85653 SURETY FOR CONTRACTOR'S BOND IS: Amwest Surety Insurance Co. 5230 Las Virgenes Rd. Calabasas,Ca. 91302 Tel: # 818-871-2000 The Real Property upon which said work as performed is in the Town of Oro Valley, County of Pima, State of Arizona, described more specifically as follows: An area roughly bounded by the Canada del Oro Wash on the north,Hardy Rd. on the south, La Canada Drive on the West and Oracle Rd. on the east. DATE: The Town of Oro Valley (Date of Completion) (Name of Political Subdivision) DATE: August 18, 1999 The Town of Oro Valley (Date of Acceptance) (Name of Political Subdivision) STATE OF ARIZONA) By: SS. Mayor COUNTY OF PIMA ) By: Town Clerk I hereby certify that I am the of the Governing Board of the the political subdivision which executed the foregoing notice and on whose behalf I make this verification; that I have read said notice, know its contents, and that the same is true. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at: Arizona on 19 Town Clerk, Town of Oro Valley , r _. I-, J ., n x...,J, `I r ) c I (- �J=-.� , " ni it i I I .I I;.' r,�ap.-•., ) ::J ,: !,:.� ( CV 11 1 Cl 1 t•1 I C�1:,-;3 i) J M i)l7 M M(7 7 !I' •f):f ,(),f)1:>•f>:fJ if),f) iJ .L 1 i 1 1`.i 1 1 n ="7, � w X m o . 0 •1 —{ Z 1 wz 9. a) o -'m o c 3 z 1 0 j�D ° . m ~ 5.- o A y I! P O C) N C ? - .°'. `� c �' -a —I O -a �J Z X n I P _ ° O � M23rnrn MIX0 1 crnii) Orn H. 0 .%\• . o8NFT° . H XC < 5-o V m S' ' , 8o >Dr � n0) w7J �?, , Drn= Ix L� zw 0 Q o zi s. rn H H-0 : n C� ,-q,.3..)O i > 1 G)--1 m xi (-' z �o 3 a 3 Z ,0rn nm-A> 9' wm93 I O to-n Izn S 2 = =orn < CCCr i Z z nzi.� D 1� D D O I D O m m ▪ 1 D uu 7o po c)< r-r, r r- () I r 6 g 4 5 4 s ; H wv�,�I'- rnrnnirn—�'i i -0 DOD ' rn rn 00 > a g o v g m n. < ° .1 �' rn D 0 I 0 H Xrn ct a -° Z o ° ° • z Aa ° ig. ,� IzO u zn m Z O 7J N m rn _Q rn .1 �I r- H z 3 � � N � I i 8- a arrn mrnlmrnmrnrnm i CO' i �. COD DDIDDDDDD ZZ Ei W n g 4 c o Iil r. - � Im c Q a N a N I j CO m K g 3 oO00NUl-JCt1 CnNc < E -' 0 0 00000'0)001N10(31 -0 > Lk N N y 000000010000 i I-- D 8 D o 00 oo!oo obo I C ,\� I�2 a.- o oopio oobooio ---j W-1 in C) C1 3 3 I N m z m o - 0 00 N-- N I! D m g ,i A 8 3 t0 o 1 CO -.I N N -� N 0 '�1 0000C)0100 01 NI..a 0 N • �' o 0 0 CD 0) 0 0 C CA)0 00CD0000CN 000 II Z ( ' o' o ocobo .c5000 Ii H 0C30o0o0a000a0,0 I! ' 0 0 I C j I r r; I r- H Ii rn rn r m 0 ' 0z x m -•0 -1 H I'� mm 7J -a m O C z -'p D w it 0 o -0 N I C I .. 0) 0 10 ) 0cid on D z A] m N I' r H rn C 0 cn —I- V - 0- — 01 D F --<o � O c 5 0 r- rn rnr>lrnrnrnrnrnm I C -n I m c I) D DDDDADDD z � 0 u) 1 O C 1 I O ml -7 ► o w N C -�iz1 z E7. N • 01 0.1 clitut0- 1 m �► N 0 0 0 Cr) IN 0 Cal I H Q N3 4 03 0!\30000 .01.100Q10010 i-n N 01O Cat 0 0 0 Cy 0 0 Q 0 0I0 5 , *2 I I O' � 00 O ' j IZK 1 I I r I I -G i i rn I i -� I r` i l I nil 1 , i I i i i rn 0© a0aCD0a0o0io I C) ' 0! r`r rn rn rn rn rn rn rnrn rnrn I C H �' 660 >> >D7� D> DDD i L ..0 � th0 CD --fm 0Cr.* I I I Z:I, C rfl Z i* ! I r ,I j 001 r:Z -n C rnj O z :-<�_ ► � -A O O C 0 * 0 0 0 ,000(::I0 I 0© 0 0 o 1 G o * oia 001OQaooboOOoo�C> 9 CD o 800 c�oo!o0000Q000 � %r j I .i: :. �i :,. 4-\\----0,-(Nt\ 1., POLITO ASSOCIATES Government Relations Consultants a Date: August 18, 1999 To: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager From: Sam Polito Subject: August 18th Report to Mayor and Council. Below are some of the issues of major interestto the Town of Oro Valley from the 1999 Legislative Session. §tate Sharedllevenues Due to a concentrated effort led by the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, the state legislature and the governor continued the current 15.8 rate for shared revenues. While we avoided a $20 million cut to cities and towns in the 1st year of the bi-annual budget, there will be a $20 million cut in shared revenue (15.0%) in the 2"d year and in every year thereafter. The impact of this reduction will be approximately $7 million a year to the City of Phoenix, and $2.5 million a year to the City of Tucson. 1 am sure there will be a major effort over the next two years to try to get this cut restored. The best hope we have to achieve this goal is a significant "pro cities" shift in the Legislature in the year 2000 elections. There was an additional $2 million in state revenues allocated to only cities and towns having a population less than 60,000. This is only for year 2. Incorporation There were at least two bills and other variations which attempted to validate the Tortolita and Casas Adobes incorporations ex post facto. None were successful in the House ofRepresentafives, where they-had the-best chance. However, l'm sure we will continue to struggle with this issue. PFeempfion We must be constantly vigil so that the state legislature does not preempt the ability of cities and towns to govern. For example: the billboard industry attempted to have legislation passed that would prevent cities and towns from regulation non-conforming uses. The bill failed to pass the legislature, but only failed by 15 to 14 in the Senate on the last night of the session; HB 2275 would have prohibited law suits against firearms manufactures and prohibited cities and towns from passing any ordinances regulating firearms. Governor Hull vetoed 75 W. Linda Vista Blvd. • Tucson,Arizona 85737 • (520)297-2457 • Fax(520)797-0186 this bill citing concerns about local preemption; SB 1395, HB 2368 and HCR 2019 would have legalized the use and sale of fireworks or asked the voters to do so. Two bills passed the House, all three died in the Senate; HB 2549, requiringwritten consent of property owners in order to down zone died in the Senate, and HB 2702 which would have required cities and towns to abide by st to lobbying regulations died in the Senate. I do not see major attacks on state shared revenues this coming year or the next. However, as the next bi-annual budgetis put together,, if there is any slowing of growth in revenues, one of the few places that the legislature would have to ts_alance the budget will be state shared revenue. Therefore I see this funding having the potential of being vulnerable to additional erosion in the next few years. I would also see continuing_legjslative pressure on local 1urisdictions in a wide range of areas. We need to work to strengthen the Governor's resolve on g � preemption issues as the federal government pushes more responsibiiij :to the states wecanb..e sure that the state will push these responsibilities on to counties and.of course tQ.some extent the cities_andlowns.. ___lt is_essentiaL hat the cities and towns of the state inform the Governor, as well as � f resent and yture P 4 legislators on the fiscal problems of the municipalities. 13 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY K- COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 08/18/99 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Jeffrey H. Weir, Economic Development Administrator SUBJECT: Town of Oro Valley sponsorship for the Great Pumpkin Fat Tire Bike Race and Festival. SUMMARY: The Chamber of Commerce has requested consideration by the Town Council for a$ 3,000.00 sponsorship for the Great Pumpkin Fat Tire Bike Race and Festival. Last year the Town provided a$ 1,000.00 sponsorship. This event continues to grow in participation and prominence. More riders enter each year. The exposure for Oro Valley is highly positive. Added to this year's event is a Festival that will offer activities for children, seniors and rider companions that do not race. This event is associated with the Town of Oro Valley and our sponsorship is important. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Mr. John Bowers, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce. FISCAL IMPACT: Based on the Council's decision. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that an increase over last years $ 1,000.00 sponsorship be approved. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A. d&L Jeffr I . Weir Economic Development Administrator Mn A David L. Andrews Finance Director / i P" weep Town Manager . ?. - • . ' ' '. .. • . . : ':-. * .. .. . ' . . . • ... .. . . ..; . .. ,Iiiiii. .:144(1111i . . * . , . .• • • • . . . . .. . . . . .... • Illy Serving the communities of Northern Pima County ., Its Good For Business! - ' . ' .• . • . • • • ••. . . .. .. .•• . • •• . . . ‘. . .. . • - • •., • • , • - . . . . •. . . . • - . . • . _ . • ,.. . . - . . • . . . ... . . • . . . .• -• • • . • ..,, • . • . . . . • Jeff Weir . August•2,•1999 - • • • • Director.of Economic Development. • . • • - • Town of Oro Valley • . :: • 11000 N.•La Canada Drive _ • . • Oro Valley, AZ 8573.7 •. • • .., • • • Dear Jeff': . • _ • • :; - . :- . • • ' • On behalf of the Chamber's Great Pumpkin Fat Tire Bike Race and Festival Committee,•I would like to request that we be placed on the agenda for the Town Council's August 18 meeting:: ' • • At that time we plan to present a request that the Town of Oro Valley again become'a• •: :• -•• • - - sponsor ofthe Chamber's event being planned by that•committee. . • • •. - • • The Bike Race is an event the Chamber has:conducted for several years This year,- • : . •• •m • • • order to stimulate more community participation,we are•adding a bike-oriented.Festival.' We , .: • • • believe this will bean:important addition to the selection'of Community•activities available.to.-.- . . Oro Valley.citizens. • , :. • . .' ' Thank you for your. consideration•in helping us schedule a spot on the.August 18 agenda • so that we may present our proposal to the Council. •-. • Since - • • -;� Bowers, CCE . . . xecutive Director- • • . .• • • CC: • Mike Cadden ' . - • •.• f : • Brad Steninger' • q • '1.--.- x • ', - . ��ii�� ,,� • 22 y;'tP t w C `,"+f ��� TS��yy u C�� •S'w '� �'y2�Y: AC Yp •• Anq k K • • :: -- ' ' . -: . . -. . . , ''• 1,�'�� �� � � ":1,,,, 4.: Y ,tw �`- --: . aim.v; .�. . , .,:,,,, • , 4-148 • - 200 West Magee Road,Suite 120 • Tucson,Arizona.85704 . • : Telephone: 520-297-2191 ••:Fax:'520-742-7960 .. Q."A MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL •er FROM: Jeffrey H. Weir, CED • Economic Development Administrator DATE: August 16, 1999 SUBJECT: Great Pumpkin Fat Tire Bike Race and Festival sponsorship. CC: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager and Dave Andrews, Finance Director. Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. John Bowers, CCE, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce requesting a $ 3,000.00 sponsorship for the Bike Race and Festival. Also attached is a copy of Partnership Benefits for the Town of Oro Valley as a sponsor. This is the initial year for the festival and certainly will add to the attractiveness of this event. The Oro Valley Police department will once again participate in the Bicycle Safety Program. I have approached Mr. Dave Warner, Public Relations Specialist, and requested providing the Town of Oro Valley 25t. Year Celebration water bottles for each rider. Dave and I will work with the Chamber to maximize the exposure for the Town prior to and during this important event. Attachments: 1. Letter from Mr. John Bowers dated August 11, 1999. 2. Proposed Civic Partnership Benefits to the Town of Oro Valley. -- . . . . . ... . . . .. • •AA..: •-• .- ... . .. .. .. .• - . . . .: . . . . , .. • • • . • • ,• .- . . . . . • . . . . . . -,.d. .. . . . . . . . . .. . • . . . . • ...„, . 111111.1• BER ' . . ‘ -.- . .. . ..*.... .: • ' . .--. .. . -. ,'• ' _• •• - . .. :-. :',.. .. :-. .:............ --... A‘l 1 1. . . . . . . . . . . . • • . .Serving the communities of Northern Pima' • .. •. i ' . - _ . .. . It's Good For Business1 . . .. . • - • - -.. - - . .- . . . . ,. . . . . . - . i . . .• . . . . .- .• • .• . • .• . . • •• • .. . ..- . - • . August 11 1999 ..* •. . . . . . . • . .. . • . . . . . ' -. . . '• .. • . • Mayor Paul Loomis • •• • .. • •• . •. ' . • • . . • . . Towno•f Oro.-Valley r .. - • 11000 N:•La Canada Drive - • •- •• • : • - • •' • • - -•: � • . • • Oro Valley,AZ 85737. • .• . - • •. .. •• • - . •• - • • • • • Dear Mayor Loomis.and Council • • • • On.behalf of the Chamber of Northern Pima:County,1 I respectfully request ' ' • •• • • • participation by the-Town:of Oro Valley as a•sponsor'for the Chamber•'s 1999 Great: •. .. . . Pumpkin Fat-.Tire Bike Race and Festival. We•request that the Council consider a • '•.- • . •• • •. • • • • onsorshi for the Town In the amount of$3,006. -. •.- . . • •• -• • • • .. : • *The Bike Race&Festival•represents'a major recreational event-for our • • .'.-▪ - • •,community: It involves participation by the business community,:mountain cycling • - • -••• - • •• •organizations, Catalina State Park,the Town of Oro Valley,•Golder•Ranch Fire - •. • •• '" . • , Department and interested.community organizations and individuals: • . . • . . .. Although the'Chamber has presented'the•Great•Pumpkin Race for years, this.year ' .. ' a.new element has been addedto enhance its'appeal to recreational:bike riders and to- • • ; -.•- . •• • non-riders. The Fat Tire Festival,.to be held in conjunction with the race:will feature a- . • • • : • day7long day-long :venue of venders and outfitters; community • food booths and other • • : • •: • - activities. A special family and kids'bike fide will also be held.. • . ' • . We believe that the addition of the Festival•effectively.creates.a.totally new event:- - for our.-area. .:A-great deal of emphasis will be.placed on kids and families. Among other • things,we•are working with the Oro.Valley Police department.on bike safety • • .: :. : • • • presentations-for the kids present: .The.,bike race will still be the primary draw, but we•-• . •• . . . - • hope to:-make it the cornerstone for a full•day of family-oriented fun for:residents of Ore .. •:• • - . : ... - Valley and Northern Pima.County:. .• • •• • • ,• - - ::• The race this year will be-a one-day event, on'Saturday; October 23. We_have•. -'• • . • moved the Race&•Festival from the.traditional halloween weekend When.it has . . . ▪• :I.:. 'previously.been held,.to eliminate,the:possibiht of a•conflict v ith_.th_a.ora V_ afley .. _ • • ,4 . • . •Council Jazz Festival, scheduled for October 30-31 ,�,t D r•p •' ; `; •. - ••. eruus"Weaver parr. •., . �� - "1 * .I •;,:,,, •••....-•:4\ #--...;‘1.. •'-FA:.1 "•. r-'` 4401:• . ;`:•V-..'•:'') --.. . . ... .. - • • • . ‘ !fir {• • 200.West Magee Road,Suite 120.• Thcson;.Arizona 85704. • • . • Telephone: 520-297-2191 • Fax:520-742-7960 • • • • . . • . . • • A . . , . . • • ,(11 .• • . .. . . . • . . . . ......, . A . . . . . • . ir • Serving the communities of Northern Pima Coiaitj► • it's Good For Business! . . . • . . . - -. . . ' The Town of Oro.Valley has previOusly been a sponsor for the event • • participating most recently with a $1,000 sponsorship last year. The Bike Race and.• Festival Committee believe that with the addition of the festival, year's this event will . provide substantially increased benefits to the community, well worth the increased cost of providing the Festival portion of the program: Northwest Medical Center has agreed • to be the Premier Sponsor, and Norwest Bank has also signed on as•a sponsor. We • • • expect to draw at least 300 riders and 500-1,000 Festival participants.ants. • . . ••. • . • p p . We invite your-consideration of our request for $3,000 this year,.on the basis of ' : • - • the increased level of activity related to the event,the increased.em hasis on kids and • families, and the opportunity afforded the Town of Oro Valleyto help present a major. recreational event directed to its residents and neighbors.. We appreciate your help•in producing this exciting event and look forward to your participation • • Respectfully submitted:, . • . - • • - . . • - . • ph • • - .. • or-- / ..... . • . • . . . . . : . . . •. , - i ... - : Bowers, CCE •. • - - • - . • • • • Executive Director • _ _ • • . •• • • • ▪ • • • .,. :. . .. A . . . • • - . zir.:1 - • ' • • . . • --;;`'s...A. .- —I—.-1 ' ;,.- .4. •.:-,:;,.., - - . . .. . -,,,,,, „,.. .---,. ,..-„,.:. ,;,.. -.1. ..:,. • ,,!. ..:. ••-73. . • • •, . ... ,,.,. . je, ..„, . .:...i ,. ::::, i ;'.:- t.;.:::: .-....1.,,.y.22.., , : -. ' . •-• k7:-% -, , • • • 200 West Magee Road,Suite 120 • Tucson,Arizona 85704 - Telephone: ,20-297-2191 • Fax 520.742-7960 - : • • .. '.iiii ill • . . .. . • • t . . . • . . - . . -.ill . : .. • • . . • i . • . . •• . Serving the communities of Northern Pnna County . .. .• • • T Its Good ror Business! • . . • : . • . • • . . . . .. . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . • . • . . , . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . • • • . - . • . . . . .. . . . . .. . • . . . - • ' • • . • •• . .• . . . . • . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . . . • • •• . • • • . - . . - • • . . • .• . • . . . . - . . . . - - .. .. . . - •• Proposed Civic Partnership. . - . . . - . • . . • - . • • • . . - . • Great Pumpkin Fat Tire Bicycle Race and Festival • • , ' • ... • . . . . • . . , . . . . . . • • . . . . . • • . • - • . - •• . . . _ . . . • Presented to: The Town of Oro Valley : - Direct Benefits: • • ;: • • • •. Full page ad in Race Day program • : • • Mention in all press releases:and promotional materials : • ` : _ • • Logo.imprinted on T-shirts • • . - • : •• • .._ • • O Logo.. all TV spots .• •• Logo on Race Day banner - • • • _• • •• •• • Free registration for Race team(4 riders, if desired) , . • ' • • • : • Eight Race•Day T-shirts. - '• • . . . :.. •: • - • • Booth at Festival on Race Day • • Indirect Benefits: • • • Participation in a community event of loon standing .the Race • • '• • • • . ! .:'Participation in a new event directed to Oro Valley. families • • - • and.their neighbors,the . ' :• , • Festival • . • _ :„' ' Venue to teach bicycle safety to youngsters attending' • • • • A recreation-oriented event re-scheduled to eliminate conflict with a cultural,event;:• . •. •' • • • The Oro Valley Arts Councils' Jazz Festival _ ••: • • • • : Participation as a partner with state•and local agencies;areabusinesses, and civic and business associations . - • ' . • • : .• . • • . ".' ` :3. -. ,a. .•0.1.71 3,-..7)Z, ::,',,,Pe.. - • • - • • . .• -1! . -..,*--.- • . -..- -, ...Ill ';`,:-A V., ' 1. ?:**.`A -...-.1,-.-, - - -: ,-, -9: . , • •�• � '.�,_,•.. _y�� r•••"-• ..•e .;tet i, �"i � w` `. e .r R ��� • .•.. , 40 •nom •�. •..♦ ' yi•t• 'M..„.4)‘ .t . ' . •-- - • • --;-: ••:-F-...-7,i •-•F ' . • 200 West Magee Road::suite 120 •Tucson,Arizona 85704 : Telephone:520-297-2191• Fax:.520-742-7960-. 4 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: H. Brent Sinclair, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Award of Bid for the Construction of the Development Services BuildingAdoption and Adoption of Resolution No. (R)99 85 Authorizing the Town to Enter into a Contract BACKGROUND: During the summer of 1998, the Town Manager established the Facilities Steering Committee to consider needs for additional Town Hall facilities and renovations. A contract was executedAssociates with Sakellar Associates Architects and Planners to prepare a building program and analysis. One of the recommendations of the architectural analysis was the construction of a new Development Services Building to house the Public Works Department, Communit Develo ment Administration,Y p stration, the Planning and Zoning Division, and the Building Safety Division. Preliminaplans call for the OroUtility Valley Water Utility to locate within the current Community Development Building. g SUMMARY: On July 20, 1999, the Town released a Notice Invitin Sealed Bids for the construction ruction of the Town Hall Development Addition. A total of 7 bids were received by the CommunityDepartment partment in response to the Invitation. On Tuesday, August 10, 1999, bids were opened and read aloud. The base bid includes, ' . . . . , but is not limited to, site demolition, site improvements, building addition, slabs, structure, plumbing, ' mechanical, and electrical work. This does not include an estimated $40,000 for the addition of a fire loop that will serve the new Town Hall Addition and the proposed Library. The following is a summary of the bid proposals: VENDOR PRICE Giles Construction $1,085,000.00 Richard Lambert $1,159,500.00 Concord $1,181,000.00 M. Lang $1,237,100.00 LVH $1,246,300.00 Merit Builders $1,248,509.00 Valdez and Sons $1,338,768.00 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff is currently reviewing the bids and will provide a full report to the Council prior to the meeting. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to APPROVE the award of Contract No. OVCD-99-01 to ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution(R)99-85 (Will be available prior to Council meeting) 9_ / , Co ' 0 y 'i evelop -nt Dire ctor OF Town Manager F:\INDIVID\LMT\TCC\BidAward.tcc TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: H. Brent Sinclair, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Award of Bid for the Construction of the Development Services Building and Adoption of Resolution No. (R)99 85 Authorizing the Town to Enter into a Contract BACKGROUND: During the summer of 1998, the Town Manager established the Facilities Steering Committee to consider needs for additional Town Hall facilities and renovations. A contract was executed with Sakellar Associates Architects and Planners to prepare a building program and analysis. One of the recommendations of the architectural analysis was the construction of a new Development Services Building to house the Public Works Department, Community Development Administration, the Planning and Zoning Division, and the Building Safety Division. Preliminary plans call for the Oro Valley Water Utility to locate within the current Community Development Building. SUMMARY: On July 20, 1999, the Town released a Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for the construction of the Town Hall Addition. A total of 7 bids were received by the Community Development Department in response to the Invitation. On Tuesday, August 10, 1999, bids were opened and read aloud. The base bid includes, but is not limited to, site demolition, site improvements, building addition, slabs, structure, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical work. This does not include an estimated $40,000 for the addition of a fire loop that will serve the new Town Hall Addition and the proposed Library. The following is a summary of the bid proposals: VENDOR PRICE Giles Construction $1,085,000.00 Richard Lambert $1,159,500.00 Concord $1,181,000.00 M. Lang $1,237,100.00 LVH $1,246,300.00 Merit Builders $1,248,509.00 Valdez and Sons $1,338,768.00 files Construction was the apparent low bidder; however, they have officially requested to be removed from consideration for this project. Both staff and our consulting architect, Dino Sakellar, have reviewed the TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 proposal and the circumstances surrounding the bid. We are in full concurrance that it would be mutally beneficial to both parties to grant their request for removal. The result of this action would mean that Richard E. Lambert Ltd. Would be the apparent low bidder with a proposal of$1,159,500.00. References for this contractor have been checked out and the evidence suggests that this company is qualified to do the project. RECOMMENDATION: A. Staff recommends the award of bid to Richard E. Lambert Ltd., the lowest responsible bidder for $1,159,500.00; and, B. Direct staff to prepare a Notice of Award to the lowest responsible bidder and transmit said Notice along with the Contract Agreement and Bond for execution; and, C. Direct staff to issue the Notice to Proceed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Agreement upon receipt of the Contract Agreement. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to APPROVE the award of bid to Richard E. Lambert Ltd., the lowest responsible bidder, for a total project cost of$1,159,500.00; and to approve Resolution No. (R)99 - 85 authorizing and directing staff to enter into contract with Richard E. Lambert Ltd.. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution (R)99- Co 7lAui---1. unity Develo•ment Director 4A41. 1 i'4 Town Manage le F:\INDIVID\LMT\TCC\BidAward.tcc • RESOLUTION NO. (R)99- A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL ADDITION WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley has received bids for the construction of the Town Hall Addition; and, WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley desires to enter into a Contract with Richard E. Lambert Ltd., the lowest responsible bidder; and, WHEREAS, the contract should include, but is not limited to, site demolition, site improvements, building addition, slabs, structure, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical work; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary for the preservation of the peace, health and safety of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona, an emergency is declared to exist, and this resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA: 1. That staff is authorized to contract with Richard E. Lambert Ltd. to provide services for the construction of the Oro Valley Town Hall Addition. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this day of , 1999. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney 5 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: 8-18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Terry Vosler Building Safety Administrator SUBJECT: ORDINANCE (0)99-46 , REVISION TO SECTION 109.1 USE AND OCCUPANCY, OF THE 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE BACKGROUND: The tool which the Building Official uses to control the uses and occupancies of the various buildings and structures within the Town of Oro Valley is the certificate of occupancy (C. 0.). The Uniform Building Code makes it unlawful to use or occupy a building or structure unless a certificate of occupancy has been issued for that use. Furthermore, the Code imposes the duty of issuing a certificate of occupancy upon the building official when the building official is satisfied that the building or portion thereof complies with the code for the intended use and occupancy. The same tool is generally used by the Planning & Zoning Administrator, the Public Works Director and the Water Utility Director. The Uniform Building Code has one exception for the requirement of a C. 0., in single family residences, private garages and carports. Most municipalities delete this exception to allow the municipality to verify that all requirements they may have are completed before occupancy is approved. Some examples of the final checks made are; the placement of erosion control and rainage control measures to prevent flooding of the structure and neighboring structures; verification of street, sidewalk, curb and gutter placement and construction per Town standards; the installation of required water meters and backflow prevention devices to protect the Town's water supply. Without these final checks being performed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, it is very difficult and at times costly for the Town to obtain resolution on any outstanding nonconforming issues discovered after the structure is occupied. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends that Mayor and Council approve Ordinance (0)99- amending Section 109.1 Use and Occupancy of the 1994 Uniform Building Code by deleting the exception for Group R, Division 3 and Group U Occupancies. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council may wish to consider the following motion: I move to adopt Ordinance (0)99- 46 , amending Section 109.1 Use and Occupancy of the 1994 Uniform Building Code, deleting the exception for Group R, Division 3 and Group U Occupancies. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. (0)99- 46 2. Exhibit A: Town of Oro Valley Amendments To The Uniform Building Code Sec. 109.1 as proposed. Exhibit B: Section 109 of the 1994 UBC as proposed to be amended. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 Buildi g fety Administrator 4jJ)frd°-: Community Developmen Director aka Town Manager ORDINANCE NO. (0)99-46 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, (0) 99- ; FIXING THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF; AND REPEALING ANY OTHER ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley adopted Ordinance (0) 99-46, includes a document known as the "Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edition" and amendments thereto; and WHEREAS, it has become necessary to further amend said document; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. That this ordinance is hereby declared to be a public record and three copies of this ordinance are to remain on file in the office of the Town Clerk. SECTION 2. That the Town Council has determined that to preserve the peace, health and safety of the residence of the Town of Oro Valley that an emergency exists and this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. SECTION 3. The Ordinance (0)95-85 know in part as the "Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edition" and Town of Oro Valley Amendments to the Uniform Building Code", is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 109 - CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 109.1 Use and Occupancy. No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. 1d . . . '• • .- • - . •- Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. SECTION 4. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be repealed to the extent of such conflict. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 18th day of August , 1999. Paul Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniel Dudley, Town Attorney EXHIBIT A Adopted: (0)95-85 Date: 1-1-96 EXHIBIT A 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AMENDMENTS CHAPTER 1 (on page 9 of amendments add the following section after Sec. 108.9) Sec. 109.1 Use and Occupancy. Delete exception. EXHIBIT B ECTION 109 - CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 109.1 Use and Occupancy. No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. EXCEPTION: Group R, Division 3 and Group U Occupancies Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. 6 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18th, 1999 £0: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: David Marsh, Planner I SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING : ORDINANCE NO. (0)99- ,OV8-99-2 COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY FOR SPRINGBOARD, A TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR ABUSED, ADOLESCENT WOMEN,LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY % MILE WEST OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD. — CONTINUED FROM MAY 5th, 1999-ADDENDUM SUMMARY: Since the submittal of the Staff report to Town Council for this item, Staff has received an additional letter from the neighbours. The letter, and its associated numbering, is in reference to the Springboard response letter to the Klingler letter dated June 14th, 1999, which was attached to August 18`h Staff report. ( TTACHMENTS: 1. Klingler letter dated August 7th, 1999. 1 g g ay' 4)1eL Planni d Zoning Administrator 47. 3 Community evelo•is ent Director 010,1 Town Manager F:\OV\Ov8\8-99-2\CUPTC3Addendum.rpt.doc Rev. Snow Peabody, Executive Director Springboard and Mark W. Stone, Center Director t;) Springboard Shelter Home ,:7'."-W' -;}-ITA7,7 3 IX P.O. Box 5966 Siz&D.L1 kauick 3644 N. Nufer Placei61.4 Arizona 85705 °` Tucson. nod:4u phone: 887-8773 fax: 887-8786 August 7, 1999 Dear Rev. Peabody and Mark W. Stone, We are writing to you regarding your written response to our proposed conditions. dated June 14, 1999 and also your verbal response at our last meeting with you and Oro Valley, in June. 1999. We'd like to clarify a few things and ask you to respond to our concerns. First, all neighbors in our area are still strongly opposed to your choice of location for the Springboard Shelter Home. Those reasons have been discussed thoroughly. As we are the neighbors closest to your proposed location and thereby the ones most strongly impacted by it, we are trying to work with you to mitigate any impact your facility will have on our home and neighborhood. We are not trying to tell you how to run your business. The whole purpose here is to try and compromise by establishing certain conditions which will help everyone ease into your locating in our neighborhood. We were frustrated and disappointed after the last meeting with you in June. We are hoping to resolve some of these problems before your hearing on August 18, 1999. If we cannot arrive at a more satisfactory position, we will request a continuance of the August 18 hearing and ask for additional meetings and time spent on further negotiations. We are not trying to delay your plans. as we would like to get beyond this situation also. However, at this point, we feel we are too far apart to end our discussions. We are available for more meetings, if necessary, or we can correspond. if it looks as if correspondence proves fruitful. In your response letter dated June 22, 1999 you state in your first paragraph: "....agree to open the new Home with 8-12 residents for the first 2 years. After 2 years of successful operation we would begin, over the next 3 years, to increase the bed space to 20 beds maximum ever for the Home.- Whereby we request you open with 5-8 beds, which is 3 more than our original request. This is a BIG COMPROMISE for us. Also, we want the maximum to remain at 10. " After the first 2 years of successful operation" as you have stated, you could add the additional beds. We would like this clarified to state the `successful operation' which means No negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Upon returning from our month long trip in July we requested a copy of your newest proposed plot plan. We are not happy with this plan dated July 29, 1999. We requested in condition number 1, that you place your `home' where the ramada was shown on your original preliminary site plan. Your answer, in writing, was that you would try and do that based on engineering and architectural guidelines. We see that you have removed the ramada, but instead of placing your `home' there, you have put your detention/retention basin and a septic tank in the location we have requested for your `home.' We do not understand why; it does not seem to us that it is necessary for these two things to be there. We ask that you reconsider and locate your `home' in the area we have requested. We are also unhappy with the new layout of the church, as it has moved the parking lot, with it's lights too close to our home and property line. At what times do you feel the parking lot lights will be on and can you agree to limit it to those specific times? Please move your parking lot to the south and east of your church building, along Tangerine Road, to keep as much darkness as possible in the desert north of you. Please reconsider changing the location of your driveway, back to where it was originally, near the west end of your property; it is now too close to Como Drive and will create a traffic and safety problem pulling out onto Tangerine Road. Please remit a copy of any changes to your plot plan to us, as well as Oro Valley Planning. This will save you time, as we were not aware of your new plan and did not receive a copy, until we requested one. Number 4 of conditions: Since you cannot lock in anyone. and you propose a yard at the rear of your 'home,' what will enclose the yard? Can it be dense cactus for screening, or will your fence provide screening? Thank you for number 5. Number 6: This is unacceptable to the neighbors. Number 7: Submit the names of your residents to the Oro Valley Police Department, in lieu of fingerprinting. Number 8: This is one of our main concerns. We are still in favor of two buildings, with you building the second one after you have shown no adverse impact on the neighborhood. The second option we could accept, if the first isn't possible, is a `U' shaped building, proposed by Larry Klingler at our last meeting. The reasons given by you for not being able to separate the buildings was due to financial, staffing and the use of common facilities(kitchen, etc.). You say you separate the new girls from the current residents, but work the new residents in with the current as quickly as possible. We have no objection to this. We are just trying here to ease your • -,- presence into our neighborhood with a certain number of girls in the beginning, to be increased. In the 'U' shaped building, you would build the second phase at a later date, as you indicated you couldn't financially afford more than 10 girls for the first few years. We do not see a problem with showing and getting approval for the entire 'U' shaped building, but adding the second phase after a few years when you have raised the money and are ready for more girls. This gives the neighbors time to see how things are going on and know there is no negative impact in our area. Also, we want to emphasize that the maximum number of girls to be limited to 10. Number 10: Again, of major importance is that the neighbors most strongly impacted remain part of any review committee;this is for the development plan and also for future semi-annual review with the Oro Valley Police and Planning Departments. Number 11: We would like these terms stated in the conditions for the CUP. Number 12: Of utmost importance. Please reconsider agreeing to this request. Number 13: It sounds as if you do not want to take any responsibility for problems. The neighbors feel if you want to come into our area. you will be held responsible for problems. Number 15: Our condition is a `must.' We do not feel any of our requests are unreasonable, unjust or impossible to fulfill. We realize no one party will achieve everything, and ask for as much of a win-win situation as possible. We believe we have made the BIGGEST concession by agreeing to your presence and trying to work with you on conditions. Thank you for your time in this vepl important matter. (e/Ct Claire and Larry Klingler 12151 N. Como Drive ? _ " Oro Valley, Arizona 85742 Phone& fax: 742-5510 copy: Town of Oro Valley Community Development Department Attn: Mr. David Marsh& Mr. Bryant No dine Mr. Chuck Sweet, Town Manager For distribution to Oro Valley Mayor and Council 6 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18th, 1999 — TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: David Marsh, Planner I SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING : ORDINANCE NO. (0)99- ,OV8-99-2 COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY FOR SPRINGBOARD, A TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR ABUSED, ADOLESCENT WOMEN,LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 'A MILE WEST OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD. — CONTINUED FROM MAY 5th, 1999-ADDENDUM SUMMARY: Since the submittal of the Staff report to Town Council for this item, Staff has received an additional letter from the neighbours. The letter, and its associated numbering, is in reference to the Springboard response letter to the Klingler letter dated June 14th, 1999, which was attached to August 18th Staff report. iTTACHMENTS: 1. Klingler letter dated August 7th, 1999. A.)eL 1 g g Planni d Zoning Administrator 7/7,13 Community 4velo••1 ent Director i Town Manager F:\OV\Ov8\8-99-2\CUPTC3Addendum.rpt.doc 442 Rev. Snow Peabody, Executive Director Springboard and Mark W. Stone, Center Director Springboard Shelter Homelirrq P.O. Box �- 966 �d,,1 kau.ZA 3 644 N. Nufer Place ' Tucson. Arizona 85705 nod.�n.c phone: 887-8773 fax: 887-8786 August 7, 1999 Dear Rev. Peabody and Mark W. Stone, We are writing to you regarding your written response to our proposed conditions. dated June 14, 1999 and also your verbal response at our last meeting with you and Oro Valley, in June, 1999. We'd like to clarify a few things and ask you to respond to our concerns. First, all neighbors in our area are still strongly opposed to your choice of location for the Springboard Shelter Home. Those reasons have been discussed thoroughly. As we are the neighbors closest to your proposed location and thereby the ones most strongly impacted by it, we are trying to work with you to mitigate any impact your facility will have on our home and neighborhood. We are not trying to tell you how to run your business. The whole purpose here is to try and compromise by establishing certain conditions which will help everyone ease into your locating in our neighborhood. We were frustrated and disappointed after the last meeting with you in June. We are hoping to resolve some of these problems before your hearing on August 18, 1999. If we cannot arrive at a more satisfactory position. we will request a continuance of the August 18 hearing and ask for additional meetings and time spent on further negotiations. We are not trying to delay your plans. as we would like to get beyond this situation also. However, at this point, we feel we are too far apart to end our discussions. We are available for more meetings, if necessary, or we can correspond, if it looks as if correspondence proves fruitful. In your response letter dated June 22, 1999 you state in your first paragraph: "....agree to open the new Home with 8-12 residents for the first 2 years. After 2 years of successful operation we would begin, over the next 3 years, to increase the bed space to 20 beds maximum ever for the Home.- Whereby we request you open with 5-8 beds, which is 3 more than our original request. This is a BIG COMPROMISE for us. Also, we want the maximum to remain at 10. " After the first 2 years of successful operation" as you have stated, you could add the additional beds. We would like this clarified to state the `successful operation' which means No negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Upon returning from our month long trip in July we requested a copy of your newest proposed plot plan. We are not happy with this plan dated July 29, 1999. We requested in condition number 1, that you place your `home' where the ramada was shown on your original preliminary site plan. Your answer, in writing, was that you would try and do that based on engineering and architectural guidelines. We see that you have removed the rama& but instead of placing your `home' there, you have put your detention/retention basin and a septic tank in the location we have requested for your 'home.' We do not understand why; it does not seem to us that it is necessary for these two things to be there. We ask that you reconsider and locate your `home' in the area we have requested. We are also unhappy with the new layout of the church, as it has moved the parking lot, with it's lights too close to our home and property line. At what times do you feel the parking lot lights will be on and can you agree to limit it to those specific times? Please move your parking lot to the south and east of your church building, along Tangerine Road, to keep as much darkness as possible in the desert north of you. Please reconsider changing the location of your driveway, back to where it was originally, near the west end of your property; it is now too close to Como Drive and will create a traffic and safety problem. pulling out onto Tangerine Road. Please remit a copy of any changes to your plot plan to us, as well as Oro Valley Planning. This will save you time, as we were not aware of your new plan and did not receive a copy, until we requested one. Number 4 of conditions: Since you cannot lock in anyone, and you propose a yard at the rear of your `home,' what will enclose the yard? Can it be dense cactus for screening, or will your fence provide screening? Thank you for number 5. r Number 6: This is unacceptable to the neighbors. Number 7: Submit the names of your residents to the Oro Valley Police Department, in lieu of fingerprinting. Number 8: This is one of our main concerns. We are still in favor of two buildings, with you building the second one after you have shown no adverse impact on the neighborhood. The second option we could accept, if the first isn't possible, is a 'U' shaped building, proposed by Larry Klingler at our last meeting. The reasons given by you for not being able to separate the buildings was due to financial, staffing and the use of common facilities(kitchen, etc.). You say you separate the new girls from the current residents, but work the new residents in with the current as quickly as possible. We have no objection to this. We are just trying here to ease your 1 -)- presence into our neighborhood with a certain number of girls in the beginning, to be increased. In the 'U' shaped building, you would build the second phase at a later date, as you indicated you couldn't financially afford more than 10 girls for the first few years. We do not see a problem with showing and getting approval for the entire 'U' shaped building, but adding the second phase after a few years when you have raised the money and are ready for more girls. This gives the neighbors time to see how things are going on and know there is no negative impact in our area. Also, we want to emphasize that the maximum number of girls to be limited to 10. Number 10: Again, of major importance is that the neighbors most strongly impacted remain part of any review committee; this is for the development plan and also for future semi-annual review with the Oro Valley Police and Planning Departments. Number 11: We would like these terms stated in the conditions for the CUP. Number 12: Of utmost importance. Please reconsider agreeing to this request. Number 13: It sounds as if you do not want to take any responsibility for problems. The neighbors feel if you want to come into our area. you will be held responsible for problems. Number 15: Our condition is a `must.' We do not feel any of our requests are unreasonable, unjust or impossible to fulfill. We real1ze no one party will achieve everything, and ask for as much of a win-win situation as possible. We believe we have made the BIGGEST concession by agreeing to your presence and trying to work with you on conditions. Thank you for your time in this ve important matter. / eAt Claire and Larry Klingler 12151 N. Como Drive ? _ ez„„,:;e1,,,d Oro Valley, Arizona 85742 Phone& fax: 742-5510 copy: Town of Oro Valley Community Development Department Attn: Mr. David Marsh& Mr. Bryant No dine Mr. Chuck Sweet, Town Manager For distribution to Oro Valley Mayor and Council TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 6 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18th, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: David Marsh, Planner I SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING : ORDINANCE NO. (0)9922 ,OV8-99-2 COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY FOR SPRINGBOARD, A TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR ABUSED, ADOLESCENT WOMEN,LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TANGERINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF LA CHOLLA BOULEVARD. — CONTINUED FROM MAY 5th, 1999 BACKGROUND: Copper Mountain Assembly of God is requesting a conditional use permit for the proposed Springboard residence, a temporary shelter for a maximum of 20 abused, adolescent women and supervisory staff. The Springboard residence will consist of several bunk bed rooms, a kitchen, dining room, living room, and several offices for counseling purposes. The project will be located on the northern portion of the Copper Mountain Assembly of God property, and if approved, will be built in conjunction with the church and recreational facilities on site. The site itself is located at the corner of Tangerine Road and Como Drive, on the north side of Tangerine approximately 1/4 mile west of La Cholla Boulevard. This item was continued from the April 7th, 1999 and May 5th, 1999 Town Council meetings. NATURE OF REQUEST: The CUP application before the Council this evening is an unusual one, as there are no provisions for a `community service agency' under the OVZCR. The origins of this request are part of the translational zoning process for the Copper Mountain Assembly of God property. As a condition of approval of the translational zoning of this property, the applicant was granted by the right to apply for this CUP, which is permitted under Pima County. While the OVZCR has no definition of `community service agency', the Pima County Zoning Code defines the term to mean : "an organization such as an orphanage, home for the aged, YMCA, Boy Scouts, CYO, YMHA, Campfire Girls, or any similar organization organized as a non-profit corporation or supported in whole or in part by public subscription and primarily established to serve the social and welfare needs of the community or any part thereof, and not organized for the personal profit of any individual, group of individuals, or corporation." SURROUNDING LAND USE: The subject property is located on the north side of Tangerine Road, approximately V4 mile west of La Cholla Boulevard. It is bounded on the west, north, and south by SR/ R1-144 low density residential, and on the east by the Church of the Apostles property,a proposed church use. Tangerine Road borders the southern property line. P TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 4 COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 3-2 USE PERMITS Use permits may be granted when the determination has been made that the granting of such conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. In arriving at this determination, the factors to be considered shall include the following: 1. Damage or nuisance arising from noise, smoke, odor, dust, vibration or illumination; 2. Hazard to persons and property from possible explosion, contamination, fire or flood; 3. Hazard occasioned by unusual volume or character of traffic. The first factor is generally not applicable to this type of use. Although it is possible that the Springboard residence may generate more noise than the typical rural residential properties surrounding it, it is highly unlikely given the clientele of the shelter, on-site supervisors, and the nature of the activities on site. Neighbors of the existing Springboard facility have reported no noise nuisance incidents, and a member of the Tucson Police Department responsible for the area has stated to Staff that they have had no negative reports about the facility. Moreover, there will also be a minimum 40' natural landscape buffer between the residence and the adjoining property to the north. The second factor is not applicable to this use. Regarding the third factor, traffic volume and character are not expected to change from the proposed church use for the property. Parking will be provided for the shelter, and the number of vehicles entering, exiting and parking will not significantly increase from those of the proposed church use. In addition, the characteristics of the proposed use must be reasonably compatible with the types of use permitted in the surrounding area. It is the opinion of Staff, given the nature of the facility and its limited size, that the proposed shelter is reasonably compatible with the surrounding rural residential properties. Three property owners who reside immediately adjacent to the existing Springboard facility in Tucson have stated to Staff that the facility has not had a negative impact on the neighborhood. Moreover, the proposed facility will be limited to a maximum of twenty residents. In the course of reviewing public comment on the above referenced CUP application, Staff received a copy of a Tucson Police Department report for the existing Springboard residence in Tucson. The Oro Valley Police Department was asked by Staff to review the police report. The Chief of Police initially recommended denial of this application. Upon further review of the application and the existing Springboard Home, the Police Department have changed their recommendation to approval. Both the TPD and OVPD reports were included as attachments to the May 5th staff report. It is important to note three aspects in regards to the police summary: 1)the majority of the cases reported in the police summary are not criminal cases; 2) that the Springboard reports all incidents to the police, as they are required to by the Department of Economic Security; and 3) all the cases mentioned only occurred on-site, and did not affect the neighboring properties. Staff has concerns over the compatibility of the proposed Springboard residence with the types of use permitted in the surrounding area; however, it is Staff's opinion that these concerns can be dealt with through additional conditions for approval. Staff has added conditions which will require that no persons with criminal records or criminal charges pending be admitted to the proposed Springboard home, and require a minimum of two TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 4 Springboard staff to be present at all times. Status offences, as defined by A.R.S., are exempt from this condition; status offences being those offences which can only be committed by a minor, such as truancy, running away, and failure to obey a reasonable order by a parent or guardian. An additional condition will also require that the CUP be reviewed annually by a committee consisting of the Planning and Zoning Administrator, the Oro Valley Chief of Police, a representative of the Springboard facility, and a representative from the neighbourhood. The annual review would allow the committee to recommend to Town Council to revoke the CUP if any of the conditions were violated, or if any incidents have impact on the neighboring properties. The number of beds in the facility would also be phased over time, with a maximum of ten beds for the first two years, and expansion to twenty beds maximum upon successful completion of the second annual review. GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE: The current, adopted General Plan Land Use Map designates this property as rural low density residential (0.0 — 0.3 Dwelling Units per Acre), an area where single family detached residential development in a rural manner is appropriate. The relatively low impact of the activities of the Springboard residence should not be in conflict with the rural character of the area. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT: All property owners within 600 feet of the site were notified of this public hearing. On March 6th, Staff received a letition of protest with 29 signatures from property owners in the area. The petition dealt with two separate issues: opposition to the Springboard CUP, and the increased grading limits proposed as a condition of the translational zoning for this property. The signatories of the petition could have been expressing opposition to the CUP, or the increased grading limits, or both issues. A neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant and Staff on March 25th at Town Hall in an effort to respond to the neighbor's concerns. Of the 16 persons who attended the meeting, only three were from neighboring properties. At the April 7th Town Council hearing, a petition of protest was presented to the Council by the property owners in the area, with a total of 54 signatures. A petition of support with 46 signatures was also presented at the hearing; however, it is important to note that the majority of the supporting signatories do not reside in the area of the proposed Springboard home. Both of these petitions were included as attachments to the May 5th, 1999 staff report. At the time of submitting this report, Staff has also received 23 letters against, and 44 letters in support; again,the majority of letters in support do not originate in the area surrounding the proposed Springboard location. On April 27th, 1999, Vice-Mayor Johnson facilitated a meeting between the applicant and representatives of the neighbors surrounding the proposed Springboard facility. At this meeting both parties agreed to request continuance of this item at the May 5th Council meeting to allow for them to further discuss four specific issues. These issues were: 1) the intake and referal process used by the Springboard facility; 2) access onto Tangerine; 3) police issues, with particular emphasis on runaways; and 4) security issues. The various parties have met several times over the summer, and correspondence relating to these discussions are attached to this report for Council's review. The Springboard representatives have agreed to move the proposed building towards Tangerine Road, and .everal other conditions; however, the neighbours are still opposed to the facility. Staff has added several conditions in response to some of their concerns. COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TOWN OF ORO VALLEY Page 4 of 4 'LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6—0)with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the request for conditional use permit for compliance with Article 3-2, Use Permits, and we recommend approval, subject to those conditions attached herewith as Exhibit A. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. (0)99- 22 9 OV8-99-2, Copper Mountain Assembly of God Community Service Agency Conditional Use Permit with the conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith. OR I move to approve Ordinance No. (0)99- 22 , OV8-99-2, Copper Mountain Assembly of God Community Service Agency Conditional Use Permit with the conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached herewith, and the following added conditions: . OR I move to deny Ordinance No. (0)99- 22 , OV8-99-2, Copper Mountain Assembly of God Community Service Agency Conditional Use Permit, finding that . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. (0)9922 . 2. Exhibit A—Conditions for Approval 3. April 27th, 1999 memo from Chief Wolff 4. P&Z Administrator memo "Notes from April 27th Springboard meeting" 5. "Concerns and Questions regarding Springboard" and reponse letters 6. "Proposed Conditions for Springboard" letter from the Klingler Family, J - 14th, 1999 7. Springboard reponse letter to Klinger letter dated June 14th, 1999 8. Concept Site Plan and Location Map f,‘ )()CL, PlanniWid Zoning Administrator 7i;tAr.3.-(4. Co • ity Develop', - t Director / , ' 4 anager .4:\OV\Ov8\8-99-2\CUPTC3.rpt.doc ORDINANCE NO. (0)9922 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA, RELATING TO ADOPTION OF A OV8-99-02 COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH SPRINGBOARD, A TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR ABUSED, ADOLESCENT WOMEN AND FIXING THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF; PRESERVING RIGHTS AND DUTIES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASSURED AND PROCEEDINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEGUN THEREUNDER. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley permitted the Copper Mountain Assembly of God to apply for a conditional use permit for Springboard under the conditions of approval for the property's translational zoning, OV9-99-21; and WHEREAS, it has become necessary to adopt a Conditional Use Permit to allow for Springboard, a temporary shelter for abused, adolescent women; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, having considered said Use Permit; and having held a public hearing on March 2d, 1999; and having made its recommendations to the Town Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts (0)99 -2 2 and conditions of Exhibit "A". Three copies of the Conditional Use Permit are on file in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona. SECTION 2. The effective date of the Conditional Use Permit shall be thirty days after the adoption of this ordinance by the Town Council. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of the ordinance or any part of the Conditional Use Permit adopted herein is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 1 SECTION 4. That all ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be repealed to the extent of such conflict. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 18th day of August, 1999. Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney F:\OV\OVCASES\8-99-2\CUP.ORD.doc 2 EXHIBIT "A" 0V8-99-2 CONDITIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD / SPRINGBOARD COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY 1. All structures constructed for the operation of the Springboard residence shall comply with the R1-144 regulations for accessory buildings. 2. The total number of beds for the Springboard Home shall be phased. No more than ten (10) beds shall be utilized during the first two years. Upon successful completion of co the second annual review, the total number of beds may be expanded to a maximum of twenty (20). 3. No person with a criminal record, or criminal charges pending, shall be admitted to, or reside at, this facility. Status offences are exempt. 4. There shall be a minimum of two supervisory staff on site at all times. 5. The abutting property owners shall be notified, by the applicant, of the development plan review process. 6. All alarms on-site shall not be audible to adjoining property owners. 7. Buffer yards shall emphasize `non-pedestrian friendly' vegetation, such as cacti. 8. This CUP shall be reviewed annually, in concurrence with the DES review, by a committee consisting of the Planning & Zoning Administrator, the Oro Valley Chief of Police, a representative of Springboard, and a representative from the neighbouring properties. Should the reviewing body determine that the CUP should be revoked, they shall submit a recommendation of termination to the Town Council for their action. Violation of any of the above conditions, or any incidents having impact on the neighboring properties may be grounds for termination of the CUP for this facility. ai ttt Sr 7 11000 N. La Canada Dr. OP Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 WERNER S.WOLFF,Chief of Police Phone (520) 742-5474 FAX(520) 797-2616 ;t A IAA UNDE0 ORO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT "INTEGRITY, PRIDE, EXCELLENCE" MEMORANDUM TO: BRYANT NODINE S. WOLFF FROM: CHIEF W. � 6-)410 DATE: APRIL 27, 1999 RE: SPRINGBOARD SHELTER HOME On April 6, 1999 I submitted a memorandum in which I recommended that the Conditional Use Permit for the Springboard facility be denied. This decision was predicated on the scant information at hand and the fact that our Department had less than a week to review the request. The postponement of the decision to grant or deny Springboard's request to establish the home in Oro Valley gave our Department time to conduct an in-depth investigation. Detectives from our Department were detailed to conduct a neighborhood canvas as to whether the facility had caused any problems for the neighborhood (see attached report); incidentally, Mr. Gary J. Kendrick, a concerned citizen, conducted the same canvas with identical results. A meeting was held between Ms. Claire Klinger, Mr. Bill Allbright, Mr. Kendrick and myself on April, 14, 1999. At that time, several items of concern were expressed. Some questions, such as the background information of staff members, past and present - including Police Reports - could not be addressed due to the Federal Privacy Act, which precludes law enforcement from making criminal history checks for non law enforcement personnel. The request for emergency response calls to the Springboard facility for the past ten(10)years could not be met due to the Tucson Police Department only keeping hard copies of written reports for a period of five (5)years -reports detailing incidents for the past five years are included with this package. Reports beyond the stated five years were shipped to a warehouse and are extremely difficult to retrieve, as it requires numerous man-hours to accomplish. On Monday, April 19, 1999 I met with representatives of Springboard, which included the Executive Director, Reverend Snow Peabody, and the Center's Director, Mr. Mark Stone. During the meeting, some of the concerns on funding, operation and intake were addressed. The Center does not receive funding from anyother source than donations or charges to the parents, if they are able to pay for the girls' stay. Department of Economic Security(D.E.S.) does not contribute to the construction cost, the land purchase or the facility maintenance. D.E.S. is only involved in the licensing for the facility. In that regard, I spoke with Mr. Fred Sanders, who is the licensing specialist and who, incidentally, has written a letter in support Page 1 of 3 of the home. He stated to me that he feels that Springboard is one of the premier facilities in his jurisdiction and that he has never had any problems with it. Mr. Sanders also stated that as part of his job, he makes unannounced visits to Springboard and has never found them in violation of any licensing requirements. No court-referred cases are sent to Springboard. Parents of Oro Valley children have used the facility and Springboard is an inter-denominational facility. On Friday, April 23, 1999, when I made an unannounced visit to Springboard, I found the home to be spotless. The home had a total of four (4)young girls, who were engaged in a home study course at the time of my visit. The girls seemed to be very open to questions and were quite pleasant to converse with. Mr. Stone gave me a tour of the home and explained their security setup to me. I was also informed that Springboard is to build a facility large enough to house twenty(20) girls, but that the immediate occupancy would not exceed eight (8) to ten(10) abused girls. The final concern of Mr. Allbright, as to Mr. Marsh' research on the alcohol and drug abuse and the shelter accepting girls from outside Pima county - which is done on rare occasions-is based on the information gathered by Mr. Allbright, Ms. Klingler and the reports generated by the Tucson Police Department. Detective Novak contacted Officer Hector Reyes, the Crime Prevention Officer assigned to the Northside Substation, in reference to the Springboard facility. Detective Novak was informed that the Springboard facility generated little or no problems for the Northside District. In conclusion, having satisfied myself with the information gathered by members of our Department, myself and looking at the factual side of this issue, I am reversing my previous recommendation and recommend that the Conditional Use Permit be granted with the following conditions: (see attached page) Page 2 of 3 EXEIIBIT "A" OV8-99-2 CONDITIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL COPPER MOUNTAIN ASSEMBLY OF GOD/ SPRINGBOARD COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY 1. All structures to be constructed for the operation of the Springboard residence shall comply with the R1-144 regulations for accessory buildings. 2. The number of beds in the facility shall be limited to a maximum of twenty (20). 3. No person with a criminal record - status offenses excluded - or criminal charges pending, shall be admitted to or reside at this facility. 4. There shall be a minimum of two (2) supervisory staff on site at all times. 5. This CUP shall be reviewed semi-annually by the Planning& Zoning Administrator, the Chief of Police and two (2) members of the community. Violation of any of the above conditions or any incidents having impact on the neighboring properties shall be grounds for termination of the CUP for this facility. Page 3 of 3 • Interoffice Memo k. Date: 4/12/99 To: Sgt.Joe Corona,V f From: Det. Herb Williams,V37 RE: Springboard Facility On 04/09/99, Det. Andrew Novak, V71 and I conducted a walk-thru in the neighborhood of 3600 block of N. Nufer. We made contact with five out of six neighbors. Listed below is a synopsis of our conversation with each resident: 3669 N. Nufer/Chrystal Jenkins-Ms. Jenkins advised she does not notice the Springboard Facility and that she has had no problems. She has observed a high number of police, fire, and ambulance vehicles. 3659 N. Nufer/Ms. Heiligs-Ms. Heiligs advised the Springboard Facility has become better since it became all females. Prior to this,there was a lot of profanity. There has been no damage or thefts and her only complaint is the spotlight from police vehicles when they are trying to locate the Springboard Facility. She also said that people who come to visit speed down the street. 3653 N. Nufer/Mr.Wade-Mr.Wade advised he has had no problems. He advised parking is a problem when everyone tries to come and visit the Springboard Facility. 3643 N. Nufer/No answer. 3660 N. Nufer/Ms. Ruelas-Ms. Ruelas advised, "I love those people." She was not opposed to the facility. She also stated prior to the facility becoming females only, there was a lot of problems with noise and police cars coming for runaway kids. 1024 W. Thurber/I spoke with a male subject who has lived at this address for 40 years. He is not opposed to the facility even if they were to move it next door to him. He has had no conflicts or problems and feels it is very quiet. hgw//kar 4/12/99 k.k'EY• ; r • ei SO P11000 N. La Canada Dr. Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 Phone (520) 742-5474 FAX (520) 797-2616 WERNER S.WOLFF, Chief of Police ��. � ' " �� •- „BTM it :041N` ''UNDEO.vi ORO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT "INTEGRITY, PRIDE, EXCELLENCE" MEMORANDUM TO: Chief Werner olf I FROM: Sgt. Joe Corona *wir; RE: Springboard Facil' ly DATE: April 5, 1999 On 04/05/99, I reviewed all cases and miscellaneous incident cards generated by Tucson Police officers called to the Springboard Facility at 3644 N. Nufer Place between 04/08/97 and 03/09/99. No police reports were generated in the incidents involving sick/transports, public assist/welfare and miscellaneous/public. We were unable to account for one of the listed runaway juvenile reports. The following is a synopsis of the police reports by date. All reports involved females under the age of 18. Year Date Time Incident 1997 4/08 1703 Runaway Juvenile/Stolen Vehicle Synopsis Juvenile arrived at facility in father's vehicle. Juvenile was reported runaway and had taken the family vehicle without permission. No charges were pressed in this incident. The juvenile and vehicle were released to the parents. Year Date Time Incident 1997 11/20 1914 Mental Case Synopsis Juvenile, age 17, threatening suicide. Transported to Palo Verde Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Chief Werner Wolff April 5, 1999 Page Two Year Date Time Incident 1998 01/08 1520 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile, age 15, marijuana/alcohol abuser ran away from the facility. Year Date Time Incident 1998 03/04 2144 Aggravated Assault Synopsis Two juveniles, ages 14 and 15, attacked the 55 year old facility caretaker, first by spraying her with a fire extinguisher and then striking her in the head with a skillet. A third juvenile who had knowledge of the planned assault was also arrested. The plan was to knock out the caretaker and flee the alarmed facility. All three juveniles were transported to juvenile detention. Year Date Time Incident 1998 03/23 0920 Criminal Damage Synopsis Juvenile with history of violent outbursts broke a foot locker. Juvenile arrested and transported to juvenile detention. Year Date Time Incident 1998 06/06 2032 Disturbance Synopsis Juvenile did not commit any criminal violation. Program manager agreed to let her stay until contact was made with her probation officer. Year Date Time Incident 1998 06/07 2136 Disturbance Synopsis Officers responded to possible suicidal subject. When officers arrived, juvenile was sitting on roof. Juvenile had been causing a disturbance for several hours. Her probation officer could not be reached. Juvenile was transported to juvenile detention. Chief Werner Wolff April 5, 1999 Page Three Year Date Time Incident 1998 06/27 2000 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile, age 15, admitted to home for counseling, not court ordered. Failed to follow rules and was given sanctions. Juvenile left facility. Legal guardian made the runaway report. Year Date Time Incident 1998 10/26 1554 Mental Case Synopsis Juvenile, age 14, grabbed a butcher knife, tried to cut her wrist and stab herself in the stomach. M.A.C. team responded and juvenile was transported to Palo Verde Hospital. Juvenile is court ordered to the facility and has a probation officer. Year Date Time Incident 1999 02/02 1312 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile left for 50 minutes. Handled by staff. Year Date Time Incident 1999 03/09 1605 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile, age 13, a chronic runaway (alcohol and drug abuser), ran away and was found on 03/10/99. Was taken to Center for Juvenile Alternatives. 04/06/1999 15:43 3878786 PAGE 01 ••�, I+ '1'• ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY DMBION FoR CHILDREN,YOUTH,AND FAMttSES 717 s.Ahriman Tucson,AZ 88711 (520)3184716 Jan*Doe Hull Dr. Linda J. Blessing, DPA GOVERNOR DIRECTOR April 2, 1999 Oro Valley Town Ball 11000 N.La Canada Oro Valley,AZ 85737 Re: Springboard, Inc, Dear Mayor dt Council Members, I am writing to inform you that Springboard, Inc., currently operates an Emergency Receiving Satellite Home (shelter) in Tucson at 3644 N. Nufer Place. This home is licensed for six (6) child,ages 8•l 8 years,and is for females only. Springboard, Inc., is not licensed by D.Q.S. to serve as a drug rehabilitation center for children. The children. wha are placed at Springboard come from a variety of backgrounds but have typically been abused andlor neglected in some way. Springboard, Inc.. has been providing services to childroo in Tucson for over 20 years. During that time, Springboard has maintained excellent relations with their neighbors and with professionals in the community. If you need further information regarding Springboard, or clarification regarding this letter, pkase do not hesitate to contact me at 318-9715,Ext, 118. Thank you. Sincerely, Fred Sanders Community'Child Care Licensing Specialist Z.Q 3stld Zb NQSxi S ZZ96-8 TE-8ZS t D:E I 6b5 t/T.ta/bA Mei-rioraridtirri ...<•:JL:•:•i:^>;:Lp:ii3iSi:iii?»:!i}Y:•»:-Yif:::433":it t4:-JOJC .rSt-iS. ................:...-.......ro....rv.n...u.F•.w:t-wvr�--rai,v�tiin:;w.v��ofwKir�S'•.�v.:%1Y�rS:.i�'.ii0�.4:>.:i:.w.]� To: Chief Werner Wolff From: Sgt.Joe Corona Date: 04/28/99 Re: Amends to April 5, 1999 The following is a synopsis of the police reports by date. All reports involved females under the age of 18. Year Date Time Incident 1994 03/16 0110 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile was placed in Springboard Home after problems at home.Juvenile got in trouble for talking and then ran away. Springboard reported a missing kitchen knife.Juvenile denies taking the knife and does not want to hurt herself. Springboard and parents would not accept her so juvenile was detained at PCJCC. Year Date Time Incident 1994 05/20 2250 Disorderly Conduct Synopsis Three juveniles disrupted activities at the Springboard Shelter.Juveniles using profanities and situation could not be resolved at the shelter.Juveniles were arrested and transported to PCJCC. Year Date Time Incident 1994 08/28 2200 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile became upset for unknown reason and left with another juvenile.Juvenile broke window.Unknown if reportee will prosecute. Year Date Time Incident 1994 08/28 2200 Juvenile Runaway • �'<.fD�Y�?�'it•. wl �<:i oAyc )..votC x�1,y,)vx'•>t»rrj�u<' �.`,q,R W �}`$+xw rc�r M) �" `�»34yz O T{ ^S'r''• k�S• `••.r$ Y Pl�� �yiY-,Lv' .y� .:�, �;y�\\Ji` } .R ••• , } • t-» ..4��'S )^ <£ x a`rr�. :vo E a. 4 ) < ``3!._ Tt•}�p}u''��03 Y o v x a � '<ff�4•J. �- .. S.c o�<,.liy,�.w�1.)^ 6.t < ♦ Y�a � x,�•-atm } \ . �- ? rx Rr .ti f,yx.i`.�<a +of }.•. 3 :f'y S t� 3.- ti "a`'�4.<3� -h. exs _y� b.iM,A Y x.� )X..: 5 :)�.,.)£! :vt ,tro'a x`T -•o)a ,.<kx � ,.::5'f :`,.tv � .h� �� fist'w1}io....orv.cv�.o...........uc-.>•w.�WF�'A''.:usd.:...i...ox...w.aysa-ino..<.::a 4k...a,,.\\.a..aCa aw. -.dt.tta�c.4?A�..S?a.L1.ziR:...<o.-::,..At .::...a.,.:a:aw. <v..#roLYc•:v.\t xd.'.,.ac`�ibeX'?�..��2....<.r.�A::XN;dk:<.t;: April28, 1999 Synopsis Two juveniles acting incorrigible and using obscene language with directors. Two said they were going to runaway and left in an unknown direction. Parents were going to be notified. Year Date Time Incident 1994 09/05 2050 Disorderly Conduct Synopsis Juvenile at Springboard with direction of PCJCC.Juvenile became disruptive at residence and was out of control. Juvenile is not welcome at Springboard. Juvenile will be prosecuted for disorderly conduct. Year Date Time Incident 1995 01/15 1355 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile wanted to leave Springboard and go home.Juvenile left and was unable to be located. Juvenile is under psychiatric care and on anti-depressants. She also has suicidal tendencies.Juvenile turned herself in at the main station and reported a sexual assault,while she was a runaway. She will be returned to Springboard.Parents were notified. Detectives are investigating case. Year Date Time Incident 1995 01/18 1302 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile court ordered to Springboard.Juvenile upset and ran away.Juvenile can become violent. Year Date Time Incident 1994 01/19 1400 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile returned home.Refused to back to Springboard. Juvenile ran away again and is in violation of probation. PCJCC will accept her if located. Year Date Time Incident 1995 02/27 1530 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile mad for being disciplined for smoking pot at Springboard.Juvenile ran away. Year Date Time Incident 1995 03/19 1830 Runaway Juvenile 2 April28, 1999 Synopsis Juvenile ran away from Springboard. She was in custody for drug use.Juvenile located and transferred to Center for Juvenile Alternatives.They detained juvenile. Year Date Time Incident 1995 03/21 1930 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile placed into Springboard by mother. She was put on restriction and then ran away.No information reference her location. Year Date Time Incident 1995 04/12 1913 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile ran away from Springboard.Father was notified.Her medical problems are unknown. Year Date Time Incident 1995 05/27 0630 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile missing and was seen to the rear of 3198 N Flowing Wells. Juvenile taken into custody and was originally court ordered to Springboard and returned to that location. Year Date Time Incident 1995 05/27 0630 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile missing and then seen at rear of 3198 N Flowing Wells. She was took into custody. Juvenile was originally placed into Springboard by parents. Springboard refused to take her back. She was paper referred. Year Date Time Incident 1995 11/04 2030 Other Offenses Synopsis Court order violation reported by victim. Suspect driving near residence and has been arrested before for violation of court order.Reportee's daughter and suspect plan to runaway together. Juveniles were arrested as runaway's and returned to parents. Year Date Time Incident 1995 11/09 1334 Runaway Juvenile 3 April28, 1999 Synopsis Juvenile was upset because she could not use the phone or smoke. She grabbed belongings and ran out. She is a frequent runaway. Year Date Time Incident 1995 12/08 2312 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile,with two other female juveniles left shelter and haven't returned.Juvenile on probation for CCW on school grounds. She has a history of alcohol and drug use. She is also gang related. Year Date Time Incident 1995 12/08 2325 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile left the shelter and hasn't returned.Juvenile on probation for Possession of Drugs and Domestic Violence. Year Date Time Incident 1995 12/08 2335 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile left and did not return.Unknown where she went. Year Date Time Incident 1995 12/16 1500 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Victim and reportee were fighting and victim became upset and left. Victim has a history of being suicidal. Victim's location unknown and has no prior runaways reported. Year Date Time Incident 1995 12/17 1730 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Runaway was at Teen Challenge.Juvenile said she ran away because her mother got drunk.Juvenile had a small bruise on her lip,right eye and right hand. She was released to her Godmother. Year Date Time Incident 1996 03/17 0212 Narcotic Drug Laws 4 April28, 1999 Synopsis Juvenile was taken to hospital due to hallucinating after ingesting marijuana that also contained PCP. Evidence was collected and juvenile was arrested. Juvenile was then paper referred to her mother. Year Date Time Incident 1996 05/23 1235 Disorderly Conduct Synopsis Juvenile arrested for Disorderly Conduct after becoming upset about not being able to go home from Springboard. She threw things and used profanity towards victim.Juvenile was transported to Pima County Juvenile Court Center and booked. Year Date Time Incident 1996 07/10 2359 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile court ordered to Springboard.Juvenile ran away in company of another resident. Her probation officer was notified.An attempt to locate was entered. Year Date Time Incident 1996 07/10 0015 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile ran away from the Springboard home.An ATL was entered and the juvenile was not located. Year Date Time Incident 1996 07/23 1127 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Runaway juvenile was located.Juvenile was paper referred and released to Center for Juvenile Alternatives. Year Date Time Incident 1996 08/28 1900 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile was located and she advised that she was placed into Springboard by her mother.Mother was phoned. Mother refused to pick up her daughter.Juvenile was transported to PCJCC. It was later known that juvenile was court ordered to Westbridge Psychiatric Center and taken out by her mother and placed into Springboard. Juvenile did not violate court order since her mother had removed her.There were no probation violation. Juvenile was transported to Center for Juvenile Alternatives. Mother will respond and pick her up. Year Date Time Incident 1996 11/16 1510 Juvenile Violations 5 April28, 1999 Synopsis Juvenile left Springboard after being argumentative with staff. Springboard located her,but refused to keep her. She was transported and paper referred to Center for Juvenile Alternatives. Year Date Time Incident 1996 11/16 1846 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile ran away from Springboard. Juvenile has Cerebral Palsy and is diagnosed as being Bi-Polar. She is on Lithium. Juvenile not located. Year Date Time Incident 1996 11/16 1846 Runaway Juvenile Synopsis Juvenile ran away from Springboard.Location of juvenile is unknown. 6 () V --qg - 6 L ,,LEY qR ° s 4 ° TOWN OF ORO VALLEY s � r T 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT x a� • Building Safety • Parks and Recreation k ,. t'': l rt>-%.,t; Planning and Zoning • Transit Services -*fie,.,,, .,::,..: '--"- igOVP 'cO `„ 1gl PLANNING&ZONING DIVISION (520)797-9797 UNDER TO: Springboard Meeting Participants FROM: Bryant Nodine, Planning and Zoning Administrator DATE: May 13, 1999 RE: Notes from the April 27th Springboard Meeting In preparation for our meeting next Tuesday, May 18th at 10:00 a.m., I have prepared the following from my meeting notes. Please accept these items in lieu of an agenda recognizing that some have already been addressed and may not need to be discussed any further. Police Issues: Runaways Identify the items on the police report. Where were the runaways found? What actions did they take while running away? Security What kind of response time will the police provide? Other police coverage? How is the house alarmed? Town Issues Land Use Should a CUP be issued? Is this an appropriate land use according to the General Plan and Zoning Code? Tortolita Should the Town be taking any action in light of the possibility of further court action? Development Plan Is the building layout and design appropriate for the proposed use? Will the site include recreation so residents of Springboard can have activities on site? Traffic Access onto Tangerine may create safety issues. How will this be handled in the future? How will potential safety concerns be addressed? Springboard Issues Procedures How are intakes and referral handled? Who is accepted? Are these local kids or is this serving Phoenix? Review Who checks and certifies Springboard? What criteria are used? c: David Marsh F:\OV\Ov8\8-99-2\4-27 Meeting Notes.doc APRIL 27, 1999 SPRING BOARD MEETING ATTENDEES SGT. JOHN PATLA 1019 W PRINCE ROAD TUCSON AZ 85705 MARK STONE 3644 N NUFER PLACE TUCSON AZ 85705 SNOW PEABODY 3644 N NUFER PLACE TUCSON AZ 85705 REVEREND BILL SEALE PO BOX 65312 TUCSON AZ 85728- 312 LARRY AND CLAIRE KLINGLER 12151 N COMO ORO VALLEY AZ 85737 JAY KENDRICK 12250 N CAMINO DEL PLATA TUCSON AZ 85742 BARBARA CRAIG 2600 W LIMEWOOD DRIVE TUCSON AZ 85742 VICE MAYOR DICK JOHNSON ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL • Concerns and Questions regarding Springboard From Concerned Neighbors • I.Question for Oro Valley. 1. Why is Oro Valley against waiting, (to make sure the Courts rule in their favor on Tortilita Issue), before going ahead with deviations from the General Plan, Zoning Changes, and controversial CUP's? 2. Why is this facility not considered a"Community Residence". 3.If it is not under"Community Residence"guidelines.Why are you not referring to the " Community Residence" guidelines, as a measure of definition for this facility? It would match a"Community Residence"more closely than anything in your guidelines. 4. If you would limit a " Community Residence" of Senior Citizens to eight, including staff. Why would you allow 20 Troubled Youths,plus staff?(Please Explain) 5. What is your position on the La Cholla Air park Safety Issues, which were addressed by Mr. Sid Morse(President of La Cholla Air park)? 6. How do you justify this CUP being an appropriate land use according to the General Plan and Zoning Code? 7.Can you please address concerns about the access to Tangerine Road in the future. -How would facility be accessed? 8. Based on the five year TPD Report, the following is what we could expect on any given average year.... -24 Runaways -4 Assaults • - 1 Criminal Damage -4 Disorderly Conduct -2 Mental Issues - 1 Drugs on facility - 1 Attempted Suicide -4 History of Drug Abuse/Alcohol -2 History of violent behavior residents -39(911 calls). *4'* We can further expect 317 girls to be sheltered per year. A. Is this a concern to the council? B. What are your concerns,based on this report? C. If this is not a concern, (since it is not close in proximity to your residence )can you please offer some reason's to help the neighbor's feel more comfortable. D. Would you feel comfortable having these girls,going on group walks around your property line if you lived here?(Based on the Police Report above). Should the girls recreation be limited to the ten acres?Or should they be allowed to walk the desert, and dirt roads around property owners homes?We were told this facility was alarmed to comfort us,yet they plan on group walks near, and around neighbors homes. What is the Town Councils position on this concern? 9.What impact will the closure of the Desert Hills Facility have on this proposed facility? IL Questions for Chief Wolf. 1. Why are you not concerned with a"high number of police, fire, and ambulance vehicles in the proposed area,and why shouldn't the neighbors be concerned? 2. Why should the neighbors not be concerned about floodlights being shone in their windows, trying to locate runaways? 3. How can you compare a six bed facility in a high density, high crime, low income area, to a 20 bed facility in an extremely low density, low crime, high income area, and conclude that the impact is not a problem?Please explain your logic. 4. In your 5th Condition for approval, you stated that, " any incidents having impact on the neighboring properties shall be grounds for termination." Don't you feel that the majority of neighbors signing a petition is already a negative impact? 5. Please compare the two neighborhoods in regards to density,crime, income,and lifestyle. Are they a good comparison to base your recommendation on? 6. Based on the one year average, of the 5 year TPD Report. Please explain why whYwe as neighbors shouldn't be highly 'concerned, and against this facility. Please explain why you are not concerned for the residents safety,and personal property?(Please Explain) 7.All things considered,would you object to this facility being placed next to your residence? 8. Why would you recommend a 20 bed facility? Is this based on reasoning, or simply because this is what they are asking for? f � • SII.Ouestions for Springboard Staff. 1.Please explain the following apparent contradictions: A. In your letter dated March 12th, 1999 to neighbors you stated, "Springboard is not an alternative to incarceration for criminal offenses, nor a residence for criminal offenders, or a residence which provides drug and or alcohol rehabilitation" There have been 8 juveniles sent to Springboard by the court system, 7 juveniles were accepted with drug, and alcohol abuse history, 3 juveniles were accepted with a history of violent behavior,and 2 incidents where drugs were found in the possession of the juveniles at the . facility. (Please Explain) 2. In your letter you stated, " DES further requires that Springboard not provide shelter to youth who are a danger to themselves or others, withdrawing from substance abuse, or those who are unwilling to sign an agreem::lit to abide by the Shelters rules" During the five year TPD Report there have been 6 assaults, 2 reports of criminal damage, 7 disorderly conducts/disturbing the peace issues, 5 attempted suicides, or history thereof, 3 juveniles accepted with a history of violent behavior, and 7 juveniles accepted with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. There were 17 juveniles that were sent to Pima Count Juvenile Correction Center from Springboard for committing rule violations, and 37 runaways from the facility. There was also the iron skillet incident on 1-15-95, and an apparent more recent assault on Mrs. Sommers( Social Worker). During this five year period you had 42 emergency calls involving 61 juveniles. Please explain these apparent contradictions,we truly don't understand? 3. In your letter you stated, " Springboard has an unblemished record with DES who re-licenses the facility every year". A How do you call this an unblemished record? B.Please explain why this shouldn't deeply concern neighbors. C. This kind of activity is commonplace, in your current location. It is highly unlikely in the proposed location. 4.In a newspaper article in the NW Explorer dated,May 13, 1999.Ms.Elaine Sommers,a social worker states, " The agency accepts girls enrolled either by parents, or Pima County Juvenile Court". This statement is in direct conflict with the comments previously made by Reverend Peabody, , when he said that Springboard does not accept juveniles with a criminal record, or that are court ordered to the facility. (Please Explain). i 5. During Chief Wolff's visit last week, why were their only four girls in the home. We have been told there are long waiting lists?Why isn't the current facility fully utilized? 6.If there is such demand,why have you not considered keeping the current facility opened? 7. Have you tried to expand your current facility on Nufer, there is significant open land next to your facility? 8.Explain how on one hand the facility is alarmed,yet on the other hand you say they can leave at will?This is confusing? • 9.Will the girls be limited to the proposed location, or will they be participating in walks around neighboring properties? 10.Please explain in detail the process used to screen potential victims. It doesn't appear to have been successful based on who you say is allowed, and who you actually get? 11.Did you do any research prior to purchasing this property? -Were you aware of the strong community resistance to facilities such as this? - Was your original plans for a church only, and the facility relocation later desired? -Have you ever considered other locations which would be more appropriate? -Does it concern you that even if you get a CUP,the majority of the neighbors will be bitter about you forcing this on them?Are you concerned about this at all? We ask these questions with all sincerity in hopesthat you can helpus better understand the contradictions, and concerns. We have taken the time to put our questions, and concerns in writing,and would ask that the responses be returned in writing at our next meeting. Thanks in Advance, Concerned Neighbors NO-EY 4/9 ep ` iSYY ° TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT y` • Building Safety • Parks and Recreation } • Planning and Zoning Transit Services PLANNING&ZONING DIVISION 11,000 N. La Canada Drive,Oro Valley AZ 85737 °UN D ED' Phone: 797-9797 Fax: 742-1022 June 17th, 1999 Subject: Concerns and Questions Regarding Springboard from Concerned Neighbors—Questions for Oro Valley Dear Concerned Citizen, Thank you for your time and effort in submitting a series of questions in regards to the Springboard project. We pride ourselves in being open and accessible to the public, and appreciate your input in the review of the Springboard Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application. We hope that the answers to your questions listed below will provide you with the information you desire and address your concerns over this project. Question One There is no zoning change or deviation from the General Plan for this property. The right to apply for a CUP for the proposed Springboard use is a zoning right that the applicant had in the County Suburban Ranch zone prior to annexation by Oro Valley. When translating the zoning from County to Oro Valley, the applicant retained that right. Because the applicant still has the right to apply for a CUP we must, legally,process the application. Question Two Your letter raises several questions over why Springboard is not considered a "Community Residence", and why the Planning & Zoning Staff is not evaluating the project under the "Community Residence" guidelines. The rationale for not evaluating the project based on these guidelines is straightforward. First, a "Community Residence" is defined in the Oro Valley Zoning Code (OVZCR) as "a dwelling unit shared as the primary residence by the disabled, or disabled elderly persons, living together as a single housekeeping unit in which staff provides on-site care, training or support for the residents ". As the Springboard facility will not house disabled or disabled elderly persons, the facility is not deemed a "community residence". Second, under the OVZCR "community residences" are permitted in all residential zoning districts, and there is no requirement to obtain a conditional use permit through a public review process. By evaluating the Springboard project as a"Community Service Agency",as it is referred to by the Pima County Zoning Code, a CUP must be obtained via the public review process to operate the facility. This public review process allows for more input by F:\OV10v8\8-99-2\ConcemedNeighborsResponse.doc 1/3 any citizens expressing concern over the project, and enables the Town to place conditions on the CUP in order to better regulate activities at the proposed Springboard facility. Question Three We have considered the Community Residence guidelines. In the approach related to expanding the facility in phases, we have considered starting at a size close to that which would be allowed in a Community Residence. Question Four There are no limits in the number of residences in the "Community Service Agency" CUP guidelines. The limits to the CUP use are developed during the review process. It is our position that the conditions which staff applied to the CUP enable the facility to hold more than six residents without creating negative impacts on the community. Furthermore,we have recommended that the permit be subject to revocation if there are negative impacts. Question Five In regards to your question relating to safety issues and the presence of La Cholla Air Park, Staff has received conflicting information at this time,and are continuing to research this issue in further detail. Unless we receive additional information that indicates otherwise, we consider the area safe for all uses. Question Six The proposed Conditional Use Permit is appropriate land use in terms of the General Plan. The Springboard facility is of a residential scale, and is no more intensive in use than the two or three residences which could be developed on the site under the current General Plan designation of Rural Low Density Residential (0 to 0.3 Residences per Acre). Moreover, by limiting the total amount of disturbance on site to 30% for both the Copper Mountain Assembly of God and the Springboard facility, the proposed development will conform with the intent of the Urban Growth Boundary shown on the General Plan Land Use Map. Question Seven In terms of access, the proposed Springboard facility would have direct access to Tangerine Road via an access drive for the immediate future. When Tangerine Road is widened by the Arizona Department of Transportation, it will become a limited access highway. The Copper Mountain Assembly of God and the proposed Springboard facility would access Tangerine Road via Como Drive,which would become the access point for all properties in the area. F:\OV\Ov8\8-99-21ConcemedNeighborsResponse.doc 2/3 Question Eight A. Please direct this question to the members of Town Council. B. The police report we have received indicates there has never been an impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. C. Staff is addressing conditions in this regard. D. Yes, I would feel comfortable having them walking in my neighborhood. However, staff will require that they have recreation on site and, certainly, they should not be allowed onto private property. I cannot speak for the Town Council in this regard. Question Nine The closure of the Desert Hills Facility will not impact the proposed Springboard facility, as the home will not house persons with serious mental illness or psychological distress. Thank you for your time and effort in submitting your questions to us, and appreciate your input into this public review process. I hope that this letter has answered your questions, and I look forward to hearing from you in the immediate future. Should you have any further questions or concerns,please feel free to contact Valerie Feuer or me at(520)797-9797. Sinc ely, a/Z it))LS B Nodine,AICP Planning&Zoning Administrator c: All Springboard Meeting Participants F:\OVA0v8\8-99-2\ConcemedNeighborsResponse.doc 3/3 sq: P\-LEY '4 A QP/ °""ti • 711000 N. La Canada Dr. 114)d fir_ , Oro Valley, Arizona 85737 NERNER S.WOLFF, Chief of Police A <r ► Phone (520) 742-5474 FAX (520) 797-2616 f ` r ORO VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT "INTEGRITY, PRIDE, EXCELLENCE" MEMORANDUM TO: BRYANT NODINEE FROM: CHIEF WOLFF r \TE: JUNE 1999 RE: Response to Concerns & Questions regarding Springboard from Concerned Neighbors 1. I would be concerned in an area of high density however these vehicles respond to a need which is really no more than can be expected in a concentrated neighborhood. The facility which is to be established in an area of very low density would not create as much commotion as in an neighborhood where the houses are almost abutting each other. I think it would have a minimal impact on the neighborhood where the Springboard facility will be locating. We are also assuming the number of runaways would continue. 2. Judging by the report made by my detectives only one neighbor complained about floodlights being shone in the windows and that was not to locate a runaway but to find the Springboard facility. It is not the policy of the police department to shine lights into windows to locate runaways. 3. My question would be "Are we comparing apples to oranges?" We are making a presumption that crimes now occur at the facility in question whereas the majority of the incidents documented by the Tucson Police Department deal with juvenile runaways. My logic is that there will be less than a minimal impact in the area where the facility is to relocate. 4. I cannot accept the logic that the signing of a petition by the neighbors is a negative impact. We have not given the facility a chance to prove or disprove itself. 5. I really cannot answer this question. I think we are not looking at this in a constructive manner. Memo: B.Nodine Page 2 RE: Springboard Neighbor Concerns & Questions " June 8, 1999 6. I am always concerned about the residents safety and personal property. Although I do not understand your question of'1 year average, of the 5 year TPD report, E:. again let me say of the Tucson Police Department's report the majority of the calls had to do with juvenile runaways and at no time was it shown that runaway juveniles constituted any crimes against property or persons. 7. No. 8. As I stated previously I do not recommend an immediate 20 bed facility. There are certain conditions they must meet prior to them expanding to the 20 beds. Please see my previous recommendations. • • I Response to Oro valley Neighbors DATE: May 24, 1999 SUBJECT: Response to questions asked by neighbors in Oro Valley FROM: Rev. Snow Peabody,Executive Director and Mark W. Stone,Center Director 1. Please explain the following apparent contradictions: A. In your letter dated March 12, 1999 to neighbors you stated,"Springboard is not an alternative to incarceration for criminal offenses,nor a residence for criminal offenders, or a residence which provides drug and or alcohol rehabilitation." There have been 8 juveniles sent to Springboard by the court system, 7 juveniles were accepted with drug,and alcohol abuse history, 3 juveniles were accepted with a history of violent behavior,and 2 incidents where drugs were found in the possession of the juveniles at the facility. (Please Explain) Springboard is not a drug rehabilitation center for drug addicts. However, many adolescents coming to us have experimented with drugs and/or alcohol. If they are withdrawing from substance abuse, Springboard does not accept them, but refers them to a drug rehab (screening forms are attached). Springboard does accept a small percentage of adolescents from Juvenile centers. However, these are usually status offenders rather that those facing serious criminal charges. Springboard is not a lock-up facility for delinquent juveniles to be detained. A youth may be on probation for status offenses. 2. In your letter you stated,"DES further requires that Springboard not provide shelter to youth who are a danger to themselves or others,withdrawing from substance abuse, or those who are unwilling to sign an agreement to abide by the Shelters rules." A. During the five year TPD Report there have been 6 assaults,2 reports of criminal damage,7 disorderly conducts/disturbing the peace issues, 5 attempted suicides, or history thereof,3 juveniles accepted with a history of violent behavior,and 7 juveniles accepted with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. There were 17 juveniles that were sent to Pima County Juvenile Correction Center from Springboard for committing rule violations,and 37 runaways from the facility. There was also the iron skillet incident on 1-15-95,and an apparent more recent assault on Mrs. Sommers(Social Worker). During this five-year period you had 42 emergency calls involving 61 juveniles. Please explain these apparent contradictions,we truly don't understand? Springboard does refuse to provide placement to youth who are a danger to themselves or others. Many times a youth will be evaluated by mental health experts to determine this. The "five year report" from TPD referred to in your concerns is attached with this response. There has been only 1 assault on March 4, 1998 (not January 15, 1995). In fact this was the only assault ever to occur since Springboard's doors opened in 1976. This is an amazing fact when considering the violence among youth in our society. - 1 — May 24, 1999 Response to Oro Valley Neighbors There was only 1. count of criminal damage. This occurred on March 23, 1998 when a girl was upset and stepped on a storage trunk belonging to Springboard. Many youth, especially during their first 2 weeks, are in denial of their life controlling problems. Springboard chose to call 911 simply to have an officer come to assist in reasoning with the girl. If the girl calms down, fine. If not, they may be transported to Juvenile Hall. Springboard did not press charges for the damage but had the girl and her parents pay for the $25.00 trunk. There were 4 counts of disturbing the peace. These were calls similar to the above mentioned girl who were in denial of their need to get help and were disturbing the daily activities within the Home. As the neighbors have already mentioned verbally and in letters, Springboard has not been a disturbing neighbor in the least. All of these reports did not effect the neighbors in any way. The TPD report has I suicide attempt occurring on November 10, 1997. This was judged a superficial attempt by SAMHEC. There was a second attempt on November 11. At this time was evaluated to be a higher risk to attempt suicide again and therefore was transported to Palo Verde Mental Hospital. She returned to Springboard on November 17. Springboard is not a lock-down facility. The youth must sign a form stating they will comply with the rules and participate in daily activities upon intake. During the first 2 weeks, they get homesick or do not want to face their pain. Unfortunately they may choose to runaway due to their denial and irrational fears. None have run away and committed crimes against any neighbor. All have either returned to their home, come back to Springboard or have entered other programs. 98% of the youth staying past 2 weeks successfully complete the 90-day program. Out of approximately 500 young people being cared for during this time frame, the 26 runaways represent 5.2%. This is a smaller percentage when you consider that 8 returned to complete the program. This leaves over 95% who did not runaway! The "iron skillet" incident is the same 1 assault on Elaine Sommers on March 4, 1998. Elaine Sommers still works for Springboard and loves her role in mentoring youth. (Please see attached report from TPD dated January 1995 — May 1999.) - 2— May 24, 1999 Response to Oro Valley Neighbors 3. In your letter you stated,"Springboard has an unblemished record with DES who re-licenses the facility every year." A. How do you call this an unblemished record? B. Please explain why this shouldn't deeply concern neighbors. C. This kind of activity is commonplace, in your current location. It is highly unlikely in the proposed location. The responsibility of DES is to govern agencies which provide residential care for children who are at risk of being or who have been abused, neglected, abandoned, or exploited (dependent children), as well as delinquent children and unmarried minor mothers and their children. The licensing standards Springboard is governed by is covered in a manual 165 pages long. These standards are to ensure the girls who come into our Home are not abused and neglected, but are well cared for seeing that their needs are met. During the 23 years of Springboard's existence, we have complied with these standards and so we can say we have an unblemished record with DES. Since 1976, Springboard has been licensed, with good standing through the Arizona Department of Economic Security. There is an Annual inspection that takes place with DES, Pima County Health Department, and the Fire Marshall. There are also inspections that may and have occurred which are unexpected. As the DES officials stated on May 18, 1999. Springboard has had and continues to have A+ ratings with these agencies. In light of the answers given on your questions concerning the TPD report and the DES reports, Springboard does indeed have an unblemished record. Even in the few serious cases, Springboard's staff has acted responsibly and professionally, never in a negligent or an illegal manner. Also, none of these incidents affected any neighbor in any way. The fact that Springboard reports these incidents and involves local law enforcement in handling them should be looked at as a positive action rather than a negative/blemished one. If we are permitted to operate in Oro Valley we are willing to be subject to review by the Oro Valley Police Department even though we have never been required to be reviewed by TPD in our 23 year history. 4. In a newspaper article in the NW Explorer dated,May 13, 1999,Ms.Elaine Sommers,a social worker states, "The agency accepts girls enrolled either by parents,or Pima County Juvenile Court." This statement is in direct conflict with the comments previously made by Reverend Peabody,when he said that Springboard does not accept juveniles with a criminal record,or that are court ordered to the facility. (Please Explain). Springboard does occasionally receive children from the Pima County Juvenile Court. However, they are not children who are being charged with serious criminal offenses. We are even willing to screen these on a stricter manner in the future location. - 3— May 24, 1999 Response to Oro Valley Neighbors 5. During Chief Wolff s visit last week,why were their only four girls in the home. We have been told there are long waiting lists? Why isn't the current facility fully utilized? On the day of Chief Wolfs visit of Springboard, 2 girls had returned to their homes and 2 more were set up to be received. The new girls had to have physical exams by a doctor which many times there is a short lapse of time in such cases. There are some days where 7 or 8 girls may be enrolled. I will make our waiting list available to review in order to substantiate the numbers. 6. If there is such a demand,why have you not considered keeping the current facility opened? Springboard has considered keeping the current facility opened. However, the necessary funds are not available. Springboard must sell the current home to pay for a larger Home in a rural setting. 7. Have you tried to expand your current facility on Nufer,there is significant open land next to your facility? The current property is already being utilized to the full capacity according to local zoning codes. If Springboard could have a 20-bed facility on Nufer Place, other sites would not have been considered. 8. Explain how on one hand the facility is alarmed,yet on the other hand you say they can leave at will? This is confusing? Springboard was blessed to receive an excellent alarm system donated by a local company in 1990 when a burglary took place while the staff and girls were attending a baseball game. Springboard's TV and VCR were stolen. The alarm not only protects from the outside elements but also serves to discourage running away as an option. If a girl runs away, the staff will know by the alarm. Girls are not locked-up or detained physically. 9. Will the girls be limited to the proposed location,or will they be participating in walks around neighboring properties? As Chief Wolff has found as well as a concerned neighbor, the Springboard girls have gone on walks in the current neighborhood without any negative incidents. Trained staff always supervises the girls. We are willing to keep the walks limited in numbers not to exceed 10 people at a time. They have never nor will they ever be allowed to enter private property. - 4— May 24, 1999 Response to Oro Valley Neighbors 10. Please explain in detail the process used to screen potential victims. It doesn't appear to have been successful based on who you say is allowed,and who you actually get? This process has been explained in detail under numbers I and 2 with attached forms. This process has been successful due to no neighbor being affected by students. When the few problems occurred, they were handled within the Home or at least on its property in a responsible and professional manner. 11. Did you do any research prior to purchasing this property? A. Were you aware of the strong community resistance to facilities such as this? B. Was your original plans for a church only,and the facility relocation later desired? C. Have you ever considered other locations which would be more appropriate? D. Does it concern you that even if you get a CUP,the majority of the neighbors will be bitter about you forcing this on them? Are you concerned about this at all? For the past 21/2 years, Springboard has looked at many other locations. This location was chosen in conjunction with the Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of God. By joining hands with Copper Creek Assembly of God Church, Springboard and the Church are saving thousands of dollars in development, building, licensing, and other costs. When purchasing the property, we never dreamed of neighbors being bitter with our operations. Ultimately we believe this is where God wants this Home and His approval is what we seek. We know people are concerned, even like they were at the beginning at the Nufer Place location. Soon after Springboard became a safe haven for children in crisis the neighbors were very supportive. Attached are 2 letters from the closest neighbors. We trust the answers and documentation p resented here as well as at public hearings, helps others in understanding the mission and operation of Springboard. All we ask is foryou to allow us to come and continue the 23years of documented success in helpingchildren in serious need of love and counsel. - 5— May 24, 1999 STAFF USE ONLY INTAKE EVALUATION FORM SPRINGBOARD HOME FOR YOUTH IN CRISIS Date P.O. Box 5966/Tucson, Arizona 85703 (520) 887-8773 Time Youth DOB Race Caller Agency Phone Guardian Phone: HM WK Address Phone: City State Zip Situation Guardian willing to counsel? Yes No Sexual Abuse? Yes No Handicapped? Yes No Probationary Delinquent? Yes No (Check with Juvenile Court) Workers Involved? P.O. Phone C.W. Phone Pastor Phone Other Phone Suicidal? Family History? Foster Homes? Residential? Shelters? Communicable Diseases? Drug Use? Violence? Mental Hospital Care? Thefts? Arrests? Promiscuity? Other? Plan? Receptive to help/change/Springboard? Met entrance criteria? Yes No ",i,,._ If"no" give reason: Teen Challenge of Arizona, Inc. Counselee Information Name Date Age Address City, State, Zip Phone Ethnic origin Sex Number of Brothers Number of Sisters Marital Status: ❑ Single U Married ❑ Separated ❑ Divorced ❑ Remarried Parents' Marital Status: U Single U Married ❑ Separated U Divorced U Remarried Religious Affiliation: Childhood Current Residence: U With parents Transient a Own Residence d Other Referred by: Is this person under treatment for mental disorders?(example:manic depressive,schizophrenic) Explain: Is this person on any prescribed drugs for mental disorders? Explain: Nature of Problem:Include drug use(type/extent of use/dependency),alcohol,emotional,marital,etc.) Action Taken: ❑ Set schedule of weekly counseling sessions ❑ Counseled (one-time only; list counsel given in Comments Section) a Resident Program candidate ❑ Referred to ❑ Other (list in Comments Section) Comments: Counselor Revised 02/24/97 PARENT USE PERSONALITY TRAITS Please check on each line the term which best applies. No interest in Small evidence Avera e Shows growth I. Spiritual Life of spiritual g and separated Deeply spiritual Do not know spiritual growth spirituality living vn g , Aimless Vacillating in Average or Well-formed 2. Purposefulness trifler u ose potentially Self-directed u ose Do not know p rP purposeful p Requires Requires some Average— Shows good Anticipates 3. Initiative constant q Occasional g needs; Do not know supervision direction initiative initiative Resourceful P Irresponsible; Shows some Thorou 1 Capable of p 4. Responsibility Usually reliable y much Do not know p Careless dependability dependable responsibility Difficult to Performs Goes beyond Seeks additional 5. Industry handle Needs prodding assi ed tasks `What is required work Do not know cooperative 6. Influence On Detrimental Passive, no Varyin Consistentl Unusually g positive y wholesome Do not know Others influence influence influence good influence influence 7. Acceptance By Avoided by Just tolerated by Liked byothers Well-liked by Sought after by Do not know Others others others others others r Aiwa s a Tries, but Assumes Inspiring and 8. Leadership y usually fails at occasional Good leadership successful Do not know follower leadership leadership leader 9. Emotional Too emotional Excitable Usuallywell- Consistently Of unusual emotional Do not know Qualities Apathetic Unresponsive. balanced well-balanced stability 10. Personal Unattractive. Not repulsive, Average Attractive; Unusuall y but careless in Do not know Appearance Careless in dress dress appearance Neat attractive Date Signature Relationship to applicant Address ;QL0010 ,DDRESS INC LIST DATE SORT. SQL iaV. 19 , 1999 Tucson Police Department Records Management System Incident List, SPECIFIC ADDRESS PARAMETERS : Dates : 01/01/95 - 05/1 ./99 Times : 0000 - 2359 HRS Crimes : ALL TYPES Address : 3644 N NUFER Sorted By: DATE/TIME Mask House Numbers? : NO For: SGT PATLA FOR MARK STONE Co -nt : SPRINGBOARD �cd Date Case Numbr Time Crime Class Incident Location 595 9501150336 1231 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 1111895 9501180243 1210 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 022795 9502270423 1415 2901-RAJ/PARENT,GRDIAN 3644 N NUFER PL 031995 9503190609 1748 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 032195 9503210706 1930 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 041295 9504120533 1837 2901-RAJ/PARENT, GRDIAN 3644 N NUFER PL 052795 9505270174 0513 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 052795 9505270189 0610 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 110495 9511040720 1859 2605-OTHR OFNS/MISDMNR 3644 N NUFER PL 110995 9511090282 1148 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTIOilT 3644 N NUFER PL 120895 9512080892 2206 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 120895 9512080901 2212 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 120895 9512080954 2307 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 031696 9603160791 2159 1801-NARC DRUG/POSS 3644 N NUFER PL 052396 9605230280 1024 2401-DOC/DISTRB PEACE 3644 N NUFER PL 071096 9607100592 1851 2902-R.AJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL *1096 9607100823 2357 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 2396 9607230244 1031 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 082896 9608280456 1533 2901-RAJ/PARENT,GRDIAN 3644 N NUFER PL 111696 9611160444 1335 2802-JV VIOL/HLTH,WLFR 3644 N NUFER PL 111696 9611160616 1746 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 111696 9611160620 1748 2902-R.AJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 012197 9701210667 2045 6102-MISC/PUBLIC 3644 N NUFER PL 020597 9702050383 1519 5303-PBLC ASST-WELFARE 3644 N NUFER PL 032897 9703280376 1346 6102-MISC/PUBLIC 3644 N NUFER PL 040897 9704080488 1710 0704-MV THEFT/OTH REC 3644 N NUFER PL 092797 9709270908 2208 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 092997 9709290989 2239 5303-PBLC ASST-WELFARE 3644 N NUFER PL 101897 9710180538 1559 2401-DOC/DISTRB PEACE 3644 N NUFER PL 102097 9710200873 2245 2901-RAJ/PARENT,GRDIAN 3644 N NUFER PL 111097 9711100647 1932 4202-SICK/ATMP SUICIDE 3644 N NUFER PL 111197 9711110381 1310 4201-SICK/TR.ANSPORT 3644 N NUFER PL ' 12097 9711200676 1914 4101-MENTAL/TRANSPORT 3644 N NUFER PL 010898 9801080415 1525 2902-R.AJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 030498 9803040777 2144 0403-AG ASLT/OTHER 3644 N NUFER PL .ptd Date Case Numbr Time Crime Class Incident Location 07398 9803230213 0926 1402-CRM DMG/VANDALISM/ ANDALISM 3644 N NUFER PL J0698 9806060017 0020 5703-DSTRBNCE/NO/ CRIME 3644 N NUFER PL 060798 9806070729 2136 2401-DOC/DISTRB PEACE 062798 9806270702 2011 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION N NUFER PL RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 102698 9810260487 1554 4201-SICK/TRANSPORT 3644 N NUFER PL 022799 9902270362 1312 2901-RAJ/PARENT G RDIAN 3644 N NUFER PL 030999 9903090510 1610 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 042299 9904220889 2300 2902-RAJ/INSTITUTION ION 3644 N NUFER PL 042299 9904220890 X302 2902 RAJ/INSTITUTION 3644 N NUFER PL 44 rows selected. 6u1-7?-v,44,4) ri-zet4j - , ,/ /.4-(�/.�/-( 887 - 399 rev-r- 6.e/ c/z/ __,_ Qc.c-O ' 2:cr-S--->0,c___-- j1 -3,/,,/ _ / 7--/ Z ,, ____,7 i _ 2-7/___ 77/r_- __‘,4,,e.„ 44 -. .—-.-k-e--6------ ",tr .______ --0,-----‘z---L-e-e _ __ IyL- ' ' --./{-- ___ _ /_-_—,2_,,z-,- __,-(:,/ 4-______t_y ,....2,e._‘____ _--,--,-,-7 _____,Z-z_z_i 'r - - 4/e-‘-i.zi- /71 ,--i;2 . - _4>_ 4<-2Y-t( Y - - _�,� _ _ _ ls�- - -( a:// ‘ / ,,----, ..__.:,z ..__e__... ..„, _.. /,,--- t, i-e---- ---z-L__,,e..,4-- - _____-e,e.,_ _____e,„_e___ 4,r,,,../41-,Ze-do,--- -/-y 7_,,t. ,...e:/ r' G-z.e___„--(,____-_-Z/: ,----z_,_i i ,- -'i"' ? /0" „:-_;i4 Y _/____ _-0e.. ._: , .. _„... ,„ ii 4,„,..,,, - _. - ,/ ,,,z,,_,-,_ -___---- -,_ ____ef:. ,1Z--- ... --- --r ,..Y , ___., - Z 7-0(-4.7- „ 7, _____ ______,-, ..-/ 1 , - A.,...- --7-. ‘z_iv<5..,-4.67. ____. -1:1- -- ---..Z IrZ;14- -e-, ---te-0- 4 -*CV --7/42.5_t"-_ -___. Z. <' _ _ -1-17.-Z-,. - ,_, "_.:y''.----- _- qv -. - - < ___ &--- -.L'" - - -- -- --- -rte+'✓_ -� r�ZZZ / ---- I , ,i&S/ C ,_.e.,,,--__ -_________ __.g..} 6--e----z,., _____--aie_i_ __. ..4.(,.-e- __ /€"__--e,____ --Liz-. - -'/'te''''-f"-(-1-- -‘-ZjZ__6,:/ - _,,V / , - . --e , --Y i -Y g t --7, "L;Z ___, 7' . fr-e-r___,.- --- - zif: z,-,_,L_ ce__ o_.„,,..„6 (-7-7 ( 6P'z ____ - s _____ --- -- - -- - --- /_ - -- - - - ,- -Z -1z- 7 .7._,,,. ,_, --_, -, __ I ✓ PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR SPRINGBOARD HOME LOCATION June 14, 1999 From Larry& Claire Klingler(with input from other concerned neighbors) 12151 N. Como Drive Tucson, AZ 85742 phone/fax: 742-5510 Include Police Chief Wolffs' recommendations for conditions with the following changes: The number of beds in the facility shall be limited to a maximum of 10. This CUP shall be reviewed semi-annually by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, the Chief of Police and two (2) neighbors of the group of seven(7) homes nearest the Springboard Facility. Violation of any of the above conditions or any incidents having impact on the neighboring properties will require termination of the CUP for this facility. Additional proposed conditions: 1) Locate the Springboard Home where the `ramada' is shown on the Copper Mountain Assembly of God's Preliminary Site Plan(southwest corner of subject property). Retain 40' buffer shown to west of Ramada and locate subject building as close to the detention/retention basin as possible. Locate all other buildings and parking along the south boundary of subject property, directly east of Springboard Home; the objective here is to relocate the 'open space' to the north half(back) of subject property. 2) Create a minimum three (3) foot wide, dense cactus fence, using prickly pear, cholla, barrel and other cactus to create a barrier around subject property, except along Tangerine Road. Use existing trees, or add additional trees as needed to form a privacy screen, which will screen any home to the north of Springboards' 9 acres. 3) One staff working at Springboard will stay awake at night and remain within close proximity to the girl's bedrooms, with an additional staff member allowed to sleep in staff quarters within Springboard house. 4) Any exterior doors leading to the outside will be enclosed in a fenced, or walled area that will have a gate which can be locked, or have no exit from the fenced/walled area. All gates will be locked at night. 5) Any alarm will be silent to the neighbors. 6) All walks and outdoor activities, will take place on the subject property (approximate 9 acres), or in conjunction and with permission from the Church of the Apostles, which may locate to the East of the Springboard property, or the girls may be driven elsewhere. This is to prohibit any -2- walks or activities from taking place in the immediate neighborhood. 7) Have each child fingerprinted at Springboard with names and fingerprints being forwarded to the Oro Valley Police Department, who will verify that each girl has no prior criminal record as stated in Chief Wolff's conditions. 8) There will be one building for each 5 beds, plus 2 staff. Phase one will consist of one building located where the `ramada' is shown as previously stated herein. Phase one can open immediately with 5 full beds, upon obtaining an occupancy permit from the town of Oro Valley. After 2 years and 4 semi-annual reviews by neighbors, OV P&Z and the OV Police Dept., if Springboard can show no adverse impact on neighboring properties, Springboard may build home number 2, Phase 2, north of& adjacent to their existing home, or there may be a staff unit built between the two homes, as long as the farthest home to the north remains on the south half of the 9 acres. Springboard will be allowed to open second home with 2 beds and one staff, whereby there will be a total of seven(7) occupied beds. At the end of 3 years, if Springboard can show no adverse impact on neighboring properties, Springboard may fill second home to capacity, providing a total shelter to 10 girls. This is 4 additional girls than Springboard is allowed at its' present facility and will be the maximum ever allowed at this new location. 9) Oro Valley agrees to abandon Como Drive, returning the sixty (60) feet of land to the Church of the Apolstles and the Klinglers.' Said Como drive will become a private road used for the benefit of the Church of the Apostles, if they locate on the forty (40) acres East of Springboard Home and at the intersection of Tangerine Road and La Cholla Boulevard and the Klinglers,' located at 12151 N. Como Drive, or their heirs, successors and or assigns of either party to the private road, providing said road does not become overburdened.. 10) The Klinglers' and one additional nearby neighbor, will be involved in the development plan of the subject Springboard property, with the town of Oro Valley. 11) Any buildings on Springboards' property will be of such appearance that it will look like a church with nice homes adjacent to it. Said church and homes will never become an eyesore or fall into disrepair. 12) Any changes to the Oro Valley General Plan, Zoning codes, or Urban Boundary, will not ever allow additional building on Springboards' 9 acres. The north one-half will always remain open-space with a kept-up landscape boundary. 13) Springboard agrees to be responsible and liable for any damage arising to any of the neighbors' homes/properties, should said damage be caused by any resident of Springboard. Springboard may look to the parents of any resident who caused said damage for compensation. -3- 14) Any and all conditions attached to any Conditional Use Permit issued to Springboard will be legally binding. 15) This Springboard Home will always be limited to the female sex. Should any court of jurisdiction find this illegal, instead of allowing males, the home will be forced to close. There never will be a Teen Challenge Facility, or any other type of facility replacing Springboard Home for Girls at this location. Response to Proposed Conditions Regarding the Springboard Shelter Home Enumerated in the June 14, 1999 Submittal by Larry & Claire Klingler June 22, 1999 Opening Paragraph: We at Springboard do understand that neighbors are concerned with our program relocating in their area. Therefore,we are willing to allow the Oro Valley Police Department along with the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Administrator to review the program each year along with the review done by the Department of Economic Security. We trust that the neighbors will appreciate this and that many of their concerns will be met by involving 2 more agencies in this review process which has never been required in our 23 year history. We understand that these professional agencies will consider the impact of the program on the neighbors by seeking their input already. We do further agree to open the new Home with 8-12 residents for the first 2 years. After 2 years of successful operation we would begin over the next 3 years to increase the bed space to 20 beds maximum ever for the Home. It will not be necessary to build a second home because the design of the Home allows us to phase in to our maximum number of residents. Springboard's answers to the following questions are in bold type: 1) Locate the Springboard Home where the `ramada' is shown on the Copper Mountain Assembly of God's Preliminary Site Plan(southwest corner of subject property). Retain 40' buffer shown to west of Ramada and locate subject building as close to the detention/retention basin as possible. Locate all other buildings and parking along the south boundary of subject property, directly east of Springboard Home; the objective here is to relocate the 'open space' to the north half(back) of subject property. We are amenable to placing the Springboard Home as close to the southwest corner of our property as is developmentally feasible. We will follow the recommendations of our engineers and architects as well as the Development Review Board. The Oro Valley Town Council must give final approval to all proposed development. 2) Create a minimum three (3) foot wide, dense cactus fence, using prickly pear, cholla, barrel and other cactus to create a barrier around subject property, except along Tangerine Road. Use existing trees, or add additional trees as needed to form a privacy screen, which will screen any home to the north of Springboard's 9 acres. We are required to conform to the Town's requirements pertaining to native plant preservation and salvage, landscape, irrigation and buffer yards. We are also required to conform with regulations placed upon those lands within the Tangerine Corridor Overlay District. We are amenable to providing dense, native plant "barriers" and "screen", but these must conform to the specific requirements set forth by the current zoning code and be approved by DRB and the Town Council. 3) One staff working at Springboard will stay awake at night and remain within close proximity to the girls' bedrooms, with an additional staff member allowed to sleep in staff quarters within Springboard house. The Department of Economic Security (DES) already requires at least one staff be awake with another in the Home as well. Therefore, this request poses no problem for us to comply. 4) Any exterior doors leading to the outside will be enclosed in a fenced, or walled area that will have a gate which can be locked, or have no exit from the fenced/walled area. All gates will be locked at night. DES does not permit a resident to be in a locked area. Also, this request would violate fire codes. (Springboard is required to have a fire safety inspection each year as part of the DES annual inspection). 5) Any alarm will be silent to the neighbors. We will gladly comply with this request. 6) All walks and outdoor activities will take place on the subject property (approximate 9 acres), or in conjunction and with permission from the Church of the Apostles, which may locate to the east of the Springboard property, or the girls may be driven elsewhere. This is to prohibit any walks or activities from taking place in the immediate neighborhood. There are already activities the residents are transported to each week. In lieu of the fact that the walks have been a success in the current neighborhood, combined with the fact that the residents will always be in 2 separate supervised groups of no more than 10 at a time,we do not feel the need to comply with this request. We will not trespass on private property at any time. 7) Have each child fingerprinted at Springboard with names and fingerprints being forwarded to the Oro Valley Police Department, who will verify that each girl has no prior criminal record as stated in Chief Wolff's conditions. There are several reasons why this request cannot be followed: (a) Violation of privacy rights on behalf of adolescents and their guardians. DES advises against this due to confidentiality. (b) The Police Department will be doing its review. We trust their professionalism in monitoring Springboard's policies and practices. 8) There will be one building for each 5 beds, plus 2 staff. Phase one will consist of one building located where the 'ramada' is shown as previously stated herein. Phase one can open immediately with 5 full beds, upon obtaining an occupancy permit from the Town of Oro Valley. After 2 years, and 4 semi-annual reviews by neighbors, OV P&Z and the OV Police Department, if Springboard can show no adverse impact on neighboring properties, Springboard may build home number 2, Phase 2, north of and adjacent to their existing 2 home, or there may be a staff unit built between the two homes, as long as the farthest home to the north remains on the south half of the 9 acres. In our previous discussion we have mentioned that financially we must have one Home. We have also discussed how even when, after 2-5 years of operation, the 20-bed maximum is reached residents will always be divided into 2 distinct groups. (New intakes and Phase 2 residents). At the beginning, there will be 2 distinct groups of 4-6 residents with each group supervised by designated staff. This means that even when the Home is serving 20 students, they will be in 2 separate groups of 10. 9) Oro Valley agrees to abandon Como Drive, returning the sixty (60) feet of land to the Church of the Apostles and the Klinglers. Said Como Drive will become a private road used for the benefit of the Church of the Apostles, if they locate on the forty (40) acres east of Springboard Home and at the intersection of Tangerine Road and La Cholla Boulevard and the Klingers, located at 121151 N. Como Drive, or their heirs, successors and or assigns of either party to the private road, providing said road does not become overburdened. The Town of Oro Valley has declared direct Access to Tangerine Road for Copper Mountain Assembly of God and Springboard "temporary". Future expansion of Tangerine will possibly require disallowing this direct access, either off the property or by way of Como Road. If the Town agreed to item#9 and direct access to Tangerine Road was also revoked the church and Springboard would lose all access. 10)The Klinglers and one additional nearby neighbor will be involved in the development plan of the subject Springboard property, with the Town of Oro Valley. The Arizona District Council of the Assemblies of God, Inc. holds title to this land and reserves the right to plan and administrate the development of this land. As already stated, the DRB and Oro Valley Town Council have specific guidelines and procedures that direct all proposed development. 11)Any buildings on Springboard's property will be of such appearance that it will look like a church with nice homes adjacent to it. Said church and homes will never become an eyesore or fall into disrepair. We will follow the counsel of our District leadership and the directives already set in place by the Town of Oro Valley who will govern our development. Our stewardship and care of the property and its building shall be governed by the dictates of The Holy Bible. We are committed to excellence and receiving God's approval. 12)Any changes to the Oro Valley General Plan, Zoning codes, or urban Boundary, will not ever allow additional building on Springboard's 9 acres. The north one-half will always remain open-space with a kept-up landscape boundary. See response to #10. 3 13) Springboard agrees to be responsible and liable for any damage arising to any of the neighbors' homes/properties, should said damage be caused by any resident of Springboard. Springboard may look to the parents of any resident who caused said damage for compensation. Anyone can be found liable for injuries and damages if found negligent by a court of law. 14)Any and all conditions attached to any Conditional use Permit issued to Springboard will be legally binding. Our understanding is that the final conditions mandated by the Mayor and Council will be binding in order for us to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and to continue to have the CUP renewed through the annual review process. The legal aspect would have to be answered by the Oro Valley Town attorney. 15) This Springboard Home will always be limited to the female sex. Should any court of jurisdiction find this illegal, instead of allowing males, the home will be forced to close. There never will be a Teen Challenge Facility, or any other type of facility replacing Springboard Home for Girls at this location. Our understanding is that this adolescent female facility is what we are requesting the CUP for and if ever we would change that,we would have to apply for a different CUP. Our intention is to always have a female center in this location and Springboard is a subsidiary of Teen Challenge. We are aware that we would have to reapply for another CUP if we were to change from a female facility to any other type. 16) Longer term stays are to be encouraged. Our program is a 90-day residential term for each resident. Our program goal is to get the students back to their own home and back to their natural setting as soon as possible. This is one reason why our program has been most effective for many years and we would like to continue that success in this new Shelter Home. 4 Ilierimiumurniumffolt 1 161•••• ! 1 i LL'- --''[ i'11--4-71/\T/\ly I 1 1 I I I N/ \1 r / V ''cl I 1 ' 1 1 111 MOS ' Hen i 1 1 1 i / ! 14111.111lii:r1721111111111:777111 LL / ,, , , , \ , , 1 ., mum= filik/ a) 1 1 1 , 7--- ''lestii Illti 4.441 i 1 w , 1 im, ot., A7 i 1 , 1 1 62 LI ii.la* , 1.1•4 ' ,ftit / 73 I !I I L... 1 Silt Mt /—1 CZ 11 , _8 1 • 18- sour ••• Fr - II 1.4 pr jaamigib 0) : , • . , , ,, WIIIIIIN41 C . , . • T-. 1 , ft°761 Nrt j 111111.■ - _ . E LL wed -- , , -- -- i- grilii to \ IV / ' (I) `--TriTi- g ' 1 il , 39-7 - h,./ 1 _ 1 [ ,/Nil z 0 MItillliii girl!' 8 4— _e%-I4, , IMPilir IE. 0 1 1 penein09 elioqo ei >.% 0 1 w 1 1 I w i 1 r 1 1 1 .4, 1 ‘... a) i u) ul 8 < >i ,-, 1 :4-, ritagi c -Id ginilig "al ...„..............,,,,..,„„._ ,+.., E__,_,___,___±_____ I I ...........,.._..._., . 6 C1 1 1 i L_ -1 E , 8 f--- 1 . \ i c., i ( ___,......., 1 ,, . c ! m 0 i _I > °° I n I a I m 1 , m I I z 1 I ' 1 I I z w i4 °Lr'141 o 0 i --:%4 - -c - -- - I----rA 1 -- ___Tvc. r \_, \_, # 00' I --,A !I N -N / _ i ON SP� 1.�� / r:11 � I l /� 7 � •, ��1�! 111 t _1 ' _.-1_ 1 m � "ro � ,51'605 .LZ,10.00 s lb , -{i \ , lost;(r------- - -- --- ©_ Vi 1 0 - 1 I Igt, 0 ...' ';1 r 1!!1 I II j ‘ 1.77/A:449\ 11 eigaiggir .,te ,vt. 1 : 11 ___---- t- 1 ' / 'L., ..1 :IA'ill;.:! 1 t iii :rt-, iliii:iiiiiii:ciiigidl (------'' 1 e,,s,0 ,k w 6-'2) Ili.:,-;„..._,-;i:-,44.. 1-..., i J ,,,A , , i, ............„:„... -------- --414',' i. jiik*A ( ,',", . ; ,1-i;!Iiill ! ; :li-j /7,, ,.,„:,,,,,,: , .:., ,,,, _, .04, ,,_-. A45 , -- ........-7.V, ''' ',-..._____ '../ / 111' ) Pli# z, .4 �f� .111� �1I, riV �/./ •• __A010,...,. 1 ir 2 i._-.7/ ,:, El to. ® 11 .1',1:';i1- 1 '1. ///://, /'t�i�s ,,' A / , ,-,i- -....v.w.,,,,Ak...... 1111k:',"" /r,/ ' i*, 1 i- • : ,:,.:.:I fiVA:VMSOVI:;!:t*,*' .I. lilli ,i,-, i/2'41 ,,,woo AP illbip5eFeitV it .1 k i ' 0, fr i I z ., , Ari ippwsp,4%, , -x-,/,,. # P SW• -AP 4 i i V it`7*41 0 . .4., ,/ ,v,41. gi i , \ Of k r,' i ,,,i i,1 A.- Ak ii .I :1' 4 'I' Id '' 1 : ... ;7, # ki. _(„, Z / \ ...t .y / - .. 1.1 _11 (.t A -.. •,• i ihM:IVOillk z'''- t 11/-.' -.,, g t.,2 c ( ' 11 . ( \I ilit: : ! .:, 4,, i :i t,';:\.,'14./ " .. .................. 444104W '1"4 41 IP I i 0 rx (1, .,,,• ..................,„,.......A.... „,.. , •.:, ,.,.....„..„............„............„.„.....„,,,•„..,..,, : ., . .„.....,...„,„.......„...„...,........,...„,...•,.,„,„..D. , 0 , cL i r,,,:. ..,0.00s.....0.5....,..,,,......, ,, -) -,, vii, .., i A:./..::i,4,__' ''''',s1t.4:0';:io.,::ik::,:,,..,-* la*i• I ' "1.) i*;11himme , , .4,,,...4.-,-..ogitivit f - , fOig.11111111 ' ' kik ) 'PA! . , ai ' Il IPP.4t C ' ) / i'l / s 1- on ::: . Fl ' & ., _ ) 1 ' 4,1 / '',i ' . ,1 prA., .-,) ' tit,,,,,t4d- -,,,,h'. ..4" IV'. •" 114 , 1 + i 1,11 z„,i) . te,, Li\ „ , ,.. i. ? os...,,s_ . vo ....› _A ! :;:, _,!.,, N m a Eli t. Lilt ii ! I 1 . Ny y k - - Jm1r'.. � -N. -I' ( I r' a 1!.),0'0 N 00.00'4 I0 iini ilft.iiituiiiii.... ____ 24 . ---.. .Nu,_._ ,-..., ,—..,...._r tg - j. �-.- v i/16TH LINE 1 alga:\I MOM,-'--- - - A.- f q:I t.i V 0 I . Z -, • •- - Ai .04 .1: p .. ` 1 7 - �� it'll c) ;a 1 V4i � g.y T., n M " , n to Cn O OD Q O�;1'1 Q O V� g'1311 atwgia 8_•' =N O cnm m m w C r S, r K -.� oN "o '7 gag) a!� mD� m 3 0 ° .n - 111 3 Q. w cz D ! i. a C 0m E o w. 3wN ro _: a Groor� N> wA iS I m 3,4 • 1 t{ i,��a 0,1..\p\`� {�� OV oOW�cpp0 A fpV7.W 1pW tp�J� 1 1 1 1 m 1 0 1 m , -.+ 1 . 1 T 1 1 1 1 z 1 1 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 7 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: H. Brent Sinclair, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. (R)99- 86 APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PIMA COUNTY FOR LIBRARY BOND PROCEEDS TO DEVELOP THE ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY BACKGROUND: In the 1997 bond election, Pima County voters approved funding to establish a new northwest branch library. On August 5, 1998 a Library Technical Advisory Committee (LTAC) was appointed by the Oro Valley Town Council to facilitate discussions regarding the construction of a new Library on Town-owned property located adjacent to the Town Hall Complex. After several meetings the LTAC put together a draft IGA for the design and construction of the Oro Valley Public Library, which the Council reviewed and approved at the July 21, 1999 meeting. This IGA covers only the first base of the project, and will secure the $2 million dollars in County bond funds for this project. SUMMARY: The IGA, after receiving approval from the Town Council, was reviewed by the Pima County Board of Supervisors at their August 3, 1999 meeting. The Board had several concerns and asked that revisions be made to the IGA prior to their approval. They have continued their review of the IGA to the Board's August 17th, 1999 meeting, subject to receiving a revised version from Oro Valley. The revisions mainly relate to the ownership of the building and of the land. The changes are shown with strike- outs for language Pima County wanted to delete and capital/bold letters for new language to be incorporated. RECOMMENDATION: In order to implement Phase I of the Library Project,the Town must execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima County. If the revisions incorporated by Pima County meet with the Councils approval, it is staff's recommendation that the IGA be approved at this time. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 2 L SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to APPROVE the Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima County, as revised per the Pima County Board of Supervisor's, for the receipt of Library Bond proceeds, in the amount of$2,000,000, and to set forth the responsibility of both parties for the design and construction of the Oro Valley Public Library. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. (R)99-86 2. Proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with Pima County g- e 4 ni Deve o- ent ! rector Town Manager F:INDIVID\LMT\LIBRARY\IGA2.tcc I RESOLUTION NO. (R)99- 86 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, MODIFYING THE PROPOSED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGEEMENT ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. (R)99-81 BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY AND PIMA COUNTY FOR LIBRARY BOND PROCEEDS TO CONSTRUCTION THE NEW ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY WHEREAS, the Town of Oro Valley has the authority to enter into contractual arrangements with other governmental agencies in order to provide services to its residents; and WHEREAS, it has determined that it is in the best interests of the Town and its citizens to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Pima County regarding library bond proceeds for the construction of the Oro Valley Public Library; and WHEREAS, the approval of the modified intergovernmental agreement will further this goal by allowing Pima County to provide the funding for the construction of a library, which is hereby determined to be in furtherance of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the attached modified Intergovernmental Agreement is hereby approved. 2. That the Mayor and the Town of Oro Valley and all necessary administrative officials are hereby directed and authorized to take all necessary steps related to the execution of said agreement. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona this 18th day of August , 1999. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY, ARIZONA Paul H. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn E. Cuvelier, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dan L. Dudley, Town Attorney INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PIMA COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY FOR THE ORO VALLEY PUBLIC LIBRARY DATED 5 199 Town of Oro Valley Community Development Department 11000 N.La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 Telephone: 520.797.9797 Facsimile: 520.742.1022 1 Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley for the Oro Valley Public Library This Intergovernmental Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1999, by and between Pima County, a body politic and corporate of the State of Arizona ("County") and the Town of Oro Valley,Arizona, a municipal corporation ("Town"). Recitals A. Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley desire to develop community library facilities. B. County and Town desire to provide for the construction, development, maintenance, operation, and use of public library facilities (the "Project") at the Southeast corner of Naranja Drive and La Canada Drive in Oro Valley,Arizona. C. County and Town desire to define the terms and conditions under which the Project is to be designed, engineered, constructed, financed, operated, and maintained. D. The Pima County Board of Supervisors included the Project in the Bond Improvement Plan for the May 20, 1997 Special Bond Election. E. The County bonds authorized in the May 20, 1997 Special Bond Election allocated $2,000,000 for the Project. F. Construction of the Project is anticipated to commence on or before July 1, 2000 and is estimated to be completed approximately 10 months after the start of construction. G. County and Town agree that the Town shall design and construct the Project. H. County and Town may contract for services and enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action pursuant to A.R.S. Sec. 11-952. I. County and Town are authorized by A.R.S. Sec. 11-952 to enter into a cooperative agreement for the establishment, development, maintenance, or administration of a public library. J. The Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted guidelines for bonding disclosure, accountability, and implementation of County bond program projects within other jurisdictions in Pima County Ordinance No. 1997-3 5, Section VIII, and Pima County Code Sec. 3.06.080. NOW,THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, stipulations, and conditions hereinafter contained the parties hereby agree as follows: 2 1. Purpose. The purpose of this agreement is to set forth the responsibilities of the parties for the design and construction of the Oro Valley Public Library as described in Exhibit A of this Agreement (the "Project"). 2. Financing of Project a. Total Cost of the Project. The total cost of the Project is estimated by the parties to be $3,995,000. The final cost of the Project shall be the actual sum necessary to complete the Project. b. County share. County shall pay$2,000,000 from County bond funds for the Project, including approximately$20,000 for public art. No County funds in excess of $2,000,000 may be expended for the project. c. Town share. Town shall pay any and all costs of the Project in excess of allocated County bond funds, including the costs of any change orders approved by Town for unanticipated work. Town's share of the total cost of the Project is estimated by the parties to be $1,995,000, of which approximately$19,995 is for public art. d. County deposit in escrow. Town shall give County at least 45 days prior notice that Town will release a Request for Proposals to architectural and engineering firms to prepare preliminary architectural and programmatic documents. Within 30 days of receiving notice,County shall deposit $330,000.00 in an interest bearing escrow account from which Town can draw for payment. Any interest earned by the escrow account shall remain with the County. Town shall give County at least 45 days prior notice that Town will advertise for bids on a construction contract for the Project. Within 30 days of receiving notice, County shall deposit$1,670,000.00 in an interest bearing escrow account from which Town can draw for payment. Any interest earned by the escrow account shall remain with the County. Following completion of construction,Town shall determine the actual cost of construction and public art. e. Permits. At no cost or expense to the County,Town shall provide or pay for all permits and sewer connection fees required in connection with the Project. f. Transaction privilege tax. Town agrees that the construction pursuant to this Agreement shall be exempt from any transaction privilege taxes levied by Town. 3. Town Obligations. a. Design and construction. Town shall administer the design and construction of the Project. To that end,Town shall prepare the consultant contract for design, select the consultant,who will create construction contract documents, bid the construction contract, choose the contractor, and supervise and inspect the construction of the Project. Town shall provide County with copies of all technical documents and drawings required for design of the Project. 3 b. County participation. Town shall provide County the opportunity to participate in and provide advice on all major items (ç'rogramming, schematic design, etc)that affect the design and operation of the Project. Town shall include in its contract for design a requirement that the consultant closely coordinate with County relating to the design of library facilities. Such design requirements shall be approved by Town prior to incorporation in the design. c. Working drawings and specifications. Following completion of the Project design, the working drawings and specifications shall be provided to County for approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. d. Public participation. Town shall manage all public participation processes deemed necessary by Town and County for design and construction of the Project. County shall be invited to participate in the public participation process. Town shall coordinate all public meetings on this Project in compliance with Board of Supervisor's Policy, 3.5 - Notification to Board of Supervisors of Public Meetings to be Held in Their District (See Exhibit A), and Administrative Procedure 3.8 implementing Policy 3.5 (See Exhibit B). e. Official dedication or opening ceremonies. Town shall coordinate all official dedication or opening ceremonies for this Project with the County Supervisor in whose district this Project is located. f. Town point of contact. Town shall provide a unified point of contact to County for this Project. All communications to County shall be forwarded through Kate O'Rielly,Community Resources Director. g. Town ownership. After completion of construction,Town shall own 58%50% of the 15,000 square foot Project facilities, : - - -:. --. --:.. :- - '. AND ALL OF THE UNDERLYING LAND;COUNTY SHALL OWN 50% OF THE PROJECT FACILITIES. this is based on funds supplied by both entities. h. Compliance with County laws. Town agrees to comply with the provisions of Pima County Ordinance No. 1997-3 5, Section VIII, and Pima County Code Sec. 3.06.080, "Implementation of County Bond Projects in Other Jurisdictions". (See Exhibit C). Compliance with the County's MWBE Program. Town agrees to comply with the provisions of Pima County Ordinance No. 1997-44, Chapter 20.20, Professional Services Contracts and Chapter 20.24,Construction Contracts. (See Exhibit D). 4. County Obligations. a. Design assistance. County shall review and comment on all engineering studies, technical data and specifications provided by Town pursuant to this Agreement for the design and construction of the Project under a schedule mutually acceptable to County and Town to ensure timely progress and completion of improvements. 4 b. County point of contact. Mike Tuinstra,Pima County Facilities Management Director shall provide a unified point of contact to Town for this Project. All communications to Town shall be forwarded through the Town Manager or designee. c. County inspection and approval. County may jointly inspect the construction with the Town. Town shall allow County personnel reasonable access to the Project site before, during, and after construction, provided that County staff coordinate visits in advance with Town staff associated with the Project whenever possible. 5. Pygmy-Owl Survey The parties mutually agree that the site for the library is in close proximity to an area designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as critical habitat for the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl. Because of this proximity,the parties agree that consultation with the Service on this project and its potential to adversely impacting critical habitat is imperative. The parties agree that County shall initiate this consultation,with the full participation of Town. The parties also agree to abide by decisions of the Service regarding factors such as the need,timing and number of pygmy-owl surveys or whether design and construction of the project should proceed under the auspices of the County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. 6. Town Operation and Maintenance. a. Operation and maintenance. Upon completion of the project,the operation and maintenance costs for the project shall be negotiated through a separate IGA between the Town of Oro Valley and the Pima COUNTY Public FREE Library District. b. Facility use by County residents. Town agrees to make the Project facilities and collection available to all residents of Pima County without restriction or preference to jurisdiction of residence. 7. Indemnification a. Mutual indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, each party to this Agreement shall indemnify,defend and hold the other party,its governing board or body, officers, departments, employees and agents,harmless from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, claims, demands,liens, losses, fines or penalties, damages, liability,interest, attorney's, consultant's and accountant's fees or costs and expenses of whatsoever kind and nature, resulting from or arising out of any act or omission of the indemnifying party,its agents, employees or anyone acting under its direction or control,whether intentional, negligent, grossly negligent, or amounting to a breach of contract, in connection with or incident to the performance of this Agreement. AS THE TOWN RETAINS COMPLETE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE UNDERLYING LAND, TOWN REMAINS COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL LIABILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAND, INCLUDING ANY ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS OR CONDITIONS. TO THE 5 FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW,TOWN SHALL INDEMNIFY,DEFEND,AND HOLD COUNTY HARMLESS AS TO ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OR DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAND AS FULLY SET OUT ABOVE. b. Preexisting conditi�.To the Best extent permitted by law, each party to this ° :• i i: -: -- : • i• : i • i:• :� : .., •• •- i-- i :•! •- i. - - - • •• -- -- :• • i :• i it• ••:• c. Notice. Each party shall notify the other in writing within thirty (30) days of the receipt of any claim,demands, suits, or judgments against the receiving party for which the party intends to invoke the provisions of this Article. Each party shall keep the other party informed on a current basis of its defense of any claims, demands, suits, or judgments under this Article. d. Negligence of indemnifying party. The obligations under this Article shall not e. Survival of termination. This Article shall survive the termination, cancellation, or revocation,whether in whole or in part, of this Intergovernmental Agreement. 8. Insurance. When requested by the other party, each party shall provide proof to the other of their worker's compensation, automobile, accident,property damage, and liability coverage or program of self-insurance. 9. Right of Entry. Execution of this Agreement by Town grants to County the right to enter upon Town- owned lands to inspect the Project. County staff will coordinate site visits in advance with town staff. 10. Public Art. Public art budgeted at $19,995 for the Town's portion and$20,000 for the County's portion, shall be included in the Project. Public art shall be approved by both parties per County program standards (see Exhibit E). 11. Books and Records. Each party shall keep and maintain proper and complete books, records, and accounts, which shall be open for inspection and audit by duly authorized representatives of any other 6 party at all reasonable times. All design and construction drawings, records, documentation and correspondence shall be the property of Town at the completion of the Project, except copies maintained by County for its records 12. Town Accounting of Town Project Costs. Town shall account for all Project costs to be paid by the County pursuant to this Agreement. 13. County Inspection and Audit. County employees may perform any inspection of the Project or reasonable audit of any books or records of Town in order for the County to satisfy itself that the monies on the Project have been spent and the Project completed in accordance with this Agreement. County staff will request a joint staff inspection of the Project site along with any related records on an as-needed basis. 14. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of the Project different from the standard of care imposed by law. 15. Legal Jurisdiction. a. Nothing in this Intergovernmental Agreement shall be construed as either limiting or extending the legal jurisdiction of County or Town. b. It is not intended by this Intergovernmental Agreement to, and nothing contained in this Intergovernmental Agreement shall be construed to, create any partnership,joint venture or employment relationship between the parties or create any employer- employee relationship between the Town and any County employees, or between the County and any Town employees. Neither party shall be liable for any debts, accounts, obligations nor other liabilities whatsoever of the other,including (without limitation)the other party's obligation to withhold Social Security and income taxes for itself or any of its employees. 16. Compliance with Laws. The parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, standards, and executive orders,without limitation to those designated by this Agreement. The laws and regulations of the State of Arizona shall govern the rights of the parties,the performance of this Agreement and any disputes hereunder. Any action relating to this Agreement shall be brought in an Arizona court. a. Anti-discrimination. The provisions of A.R.S. Sec. 41-1463 and Executive Order Number 99-4 issued by the Governor of the State of Arizona are incorporated by this reference as a part of this Intergovernmental Agreement. 7 b. Americans with Disabilities Act. All Facilities shall be constructed and operated in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1201, et seq. 17. Remedies. Either party may pursue any remedies provided by law for the breach of this Agreement. No right or remedy is intended to be exclusive of any other right or remedy and each shall be cumulative and in addition to any other right or remedy existing at law or in equity or by virtue of this Agreement. 18. Notification. All notices or demands upon any party to this Agreement shall be in writing,unless other forms are designated elsewhere, and shall be delivered in person or sent by mail addressed as follows: To Town: Mr.H. Brent Sinclair,Community Development Director Town of Oro Valley . 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona 85737-7015 To County: Kate O'Rielly,Community Resource Director Pima County Community Resources 130 W. Congress, 10`h Floor Tucson,Arizona 85701 19. Construction of Agreement. a. Entire Agreement. This instrument constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and all prior or contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, are hereby superseded and merged herein' . b. Amendment. This agreement shall not be modified, amended, altered, or changed except by written agreement signed by both parties. c. Construction and interpretation. All provisions of this Agreement shall be construed to be consistent with the intention of the parties as expressed in the recitals hereof. d. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof is declared invalid or void by statute or judicial decision, such action shall have no effect on other provisions and their application which can be given effect without the invalid or void provision or application, and to this extent the provisions of the Agreement are severable. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid or void,the parties agree to meet promptly upon request of the other party in an attempt to reach an agreement on a substitute provision. 8 e. Captions and headings. The headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to affect the meaning of any provision of this Agreement. 20. Waiver. Waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition herein contained shall not be deemed a waiver of any other term, covenant, or condition, or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition herein contained. 21. Force Majeure. A party shall not be in default under this Agreement if it does not fulfill any of its obligations under this Agreement because it is prevented or delayed in doing so by reason of uncontrollable forces. The term "uncontrollable forces," shall mean, for the purpose of this Agreement, any cause beyond the control of the party affected, including but not limited to failure of facilities, breakage or accident to machinery or transmission facilities, weather conditions, flood, earthquake, lightning, fire, epidemic,war,riot, civil disturbance, sabotage, strike, lockout,labor dispute, boycott,material or energy shortage, casualty loss, acts of God, or action or non-action by governmental bodies in approving or failing to act upon applications for approvals or permits which are not due to the negligence or willful action of the parties, order of any government officer or court (excluding orders promulgated by the parties themselves), and declared local, state, or national emergency,which, by exercise of due diligence and foresight, such party could not reasonably have been expected to avoid. Either party rendered unable to fulfill any obligations by reason of uncontrollable forces shall exercise due diligence to remove such inability with all reasonable dispatch. 22. Term and Termination of Intergovernmental Agreement. a. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective upon recording with the Office of the Pima County Recorder. b. Term. Those portions of this Intergovernmental Agreement pertaining to the construction of the Project shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the construction contract for Project by Town; however,the ownership, operation, maintenance, and liability provisions shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. c. Termination. 1. For cause. A party may terminate this Agreement for material breach of the Agreement by the other party. Prior to any termination under this paragraph,the party allegedly in default shall be given written notice by the other party of the nature of the alleged default. The party said to be in default shall have 45 days to cure the default. If the default is not cured within that time,the other party may terminate this Agreement. Any such termination shall not relieve either party from liabilities or costs already incurred under this Agreement. 2. At will. This Intergovernmental Agreement may be terminated by County or Town by giving 60 days written notice. Such termination shall not relieve either 9 party from those liabilities or costs already incurred under this Intergovernmental Agreement. 3. A.R.S., Sec. 38-511. This Intergovernmental Agreement is subject to the provisions of A.R.S., Sec. 38-511. 4. Non-appropriation. It is acknowledged that all obligations of the County and Town hereunder to make payments to or to incur costs for the specified Project shall be subject to annual appropriation by the respective governing bodies and to any limitation imposed by budget laws or other applicable state or local law or regulation, and are undertaken subject to and in accordance with such processes and constitutional limitations. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Intergovernmental Agreement,this Intergovernmental Agreement may be terminated if for any reason the Town Council or the Pima County Board of Supervisors does not appropriate sufficient monies for the purpose of maintaining the Intergovernmental Agreement. In the event of such cancellation,Town and County shall have no further obligation to the other party other than for payment for services rendered prior to cancellation. 5. Arbitrage. County may unilaterally terminate this Intergovernmental Agreement whenever the County determines violation of federal arbitrage regulations are likely to occur and may reallocate the Project funds to any project authorized by the bond improvement plan. 6. Legal authority. Neither party warrants to the other its legal authority to enter into this Agreement. If a court of competent jurisdiction, at the request of a third person, should declare that either party lacks authority to enter into this Agreement, or any part of it,then the Agreement, or parts of it affected by such order, shall be null and void, and no recovery may be had by either party against the other for lack of performance or otherwise. 7. Ownership of property upon termination. Any termination of this Agreement shall not relieve any party from liabilities or costs already incurred under this Agreement, nor affect any ownership of the Project construed pursuant to this Agreement. IF TERMINIATION OCCURS AFTER COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, TOWN WILL PAY TO COUNTY A SUM EQUAL TO 50% OF THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE PROJECT FACILITIES. UPON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT, COUNTY WILL TRANSFER ITS OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE PROJECT FACILITIES TO TOWN. 10 In Witness Whereof,County has caused this Intergovernmental Agreement to be executed by the Chairman of its Board of Supervisors,upon resolution of the Board and attested to by the Clerk of the Board, and the Town has caused this Intergovernmental Agreement to be executed by the Mayor,upon resolution of the Mayor and Council and attested to by its Clerk. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY PIMA COUNTY Mayor Chair,Board of Supervisors ATTEST: ATTEST: Clerk,Town of Oro Valley Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Intergovernmental Agreement Determination The foregoing Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley has been reviewed pursuant to A.R.S., Sec. 11-952 by the undersigned,who have determined that it is in proper form and is within the powers and authority granted under the laws of the State of Arizona to those parties to the Intergovernmental Agreement represented by the undersigned. Town of Oro Valley Pima County Town Attorney Deputy County Attorney 11 8 TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Nancy Mager, Chair, Mayor and Council Compensation Task Force SUBJECT: Compensation Study for Mayor and Council BACKGROUND: The Oro Valley Mayor and Town Council created the Compensation Task Force on January 6, 1999. Its mission is to review the issue of compensation for Town Council Members. Task Force members include Frank Butrico, Kit Donley, Nancy Mager,Nick Vale, and Tom Vetrano. At its first meeting, the Task Force met with Tobin Sidles to discuss relevant legal issues. Jeff Grant attended all meetings to provide staff support. In all, the Task Force met a total of four times. In addition, the Task Force sought public input through the media. Informal conversations were held with numerous residents, and 15 residents responded in writing or by phone to the Task Force's request for input. Of the 15, only four responded in writing that they did not feel compensation was warranted. Over two-thirds of the public input was in favor of some form of compensation for the Mayor and Council. Sentiments in favor of formal compensation ranged from paying $10 per hour to creating full-time Mayor and Council positions. Of the public polled, the Task Force determined that overall the public strongly supported compensation. SUMMARY: Using data provided by Jeff Grant from the 1999 League of Arizona Cities and Towns Salary Survey (Appendix A), the Task Force reviewed comparative data by: • Town size • Town budget • Size of town staff(and the utilization of a town manager model vs. "strong"mayor model) • Size of Town Council • Travel policy (allowance vs. reimbursement for all returned receipts) • Benefit levels for Mayor and Council Oro Valley is the largest city in the State of Arizona that does not compensate its Mayor and Council, and based on the data presented in Appendix A., it appears to be usual and customary for communities of similar size and structure to compensate town officials accordingly. The Task Force strongly believes in the uniqueness of the Town of Oro Valley. The Mayor and Council should be compensated for the professional standards Oro Valley citizens have grown to expect. The expectation of professionalism at this level must be strongly supported and maintained. Moreover, it is noted that the Town staff is compensated at a high level and is expected to perform in a professional manner. The Town Council .eeds to be held to similar standards. Appropriate compensation is consistent with such expectations. Furthermore, compensation at this level will likely increase public participation in Oro Valley governance, including voter turnout. We strongly believe that the Town Council should be a reflection of the diversity of the citizenry of Oro Valley. Public service in our Town should be something to aspire to, and not something to be taken lightly. Implementing fair compensation for the Mayor and Town Council is instrumental to attracting adividuals who may not have considered running for office previously. In addition, the Task Force believes compensation will help to better balance the composition of the Council in order to represent the entire community, and not just those who can afford to donate their time, energy and skills. The Town Council must be equipped to make high-level decisions that will have a lasting effect on our rapidly growing community. Oro Valley faces significant challenges in the very near future. It is incumbent upon us to seek access to the most talented people possible to help make these important decisions for generations to come. Compensation for the Mayor and Council will help provide Oro Valley with access to the deepest pool of qualified applicants who perhaps could not afford to consider to volunteer for elected office, but who can ultimately help lead our town into the 21st century. CONCLUSION: The Task Force recommends that the Mayor and Council be compensated as follows: $750 per month for each Council Member $950 per month for the Mayor The compensation level noted would include local travel expenses, thereby voiding the current stipend of$150 per month. Out-of-state travel would continue to be compensated through reimbursement of receipts. In addition, approximately half of the Cities and Towns surveyed in Appendix A also provide benefits for their :'ouncil Members. The Task Force feels that because of the part-time nature of the Oro Valley Council positions, benefits should not be provided, but that a portion of the compensation noted above is intended as an offset for the benefits. As noted above, the opportunity to provide input regarding this recommendation was highly publicized in the local media. Oro Valley is a community inclined to use the local media for communication and expression of opinion. Therefore, it is the position of the Task Force that this recommendation should not require public vote. Further, the Task Force recommends that a standing Task Force should be established to evaluate the level of Mayor and Council compensation every two years. This Task Force should be charged with continuing the practice of seeking public input in future years, as well. Additionally, it must be stressed that the task force itself is representative of the public and public sentiment. We also feel that submitting this issue to a public vote will be both costly and time-consuming, and that the issue of compensation would further politicize the election. It should be noted that the current Mayor and Council would not be voting for compensation for themselves, but rather for the new Council seated subsequent to the election in May 2000. ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A FISCAL IMPACT: $9400 for fiscal year 1999-2000, $47,400 per fiscal year thereafter (assuming the current lakeup of Mayor and four Councilmembers). TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor and Council Compensation Task Force strongly recommends that the Mayor and Council adopt the recommendation to pay the Mayor$950 per month, and each of the other Council Members $750 per month )eginning subsequent to the May, 2000 Town Council election. /24 { 2/1c, j `J r Nancy Mager, Chair, Mayor and Council Compensation Task Force MEMORANDUM DATE: May 28, 1999 TO: Kit Donley, Jeff Grant, Nancy Mager, Frank Butrico, Tom Vetrano and Nicholas Vale, Compensation Task Force Members FROM: Dan Dudley, Town Attorney RE: Compensation of Council Members You have asked some interesting questions relative to compensation of council members. The first of these is: 1) What is the definition of"New Council Members" as cited in the Arizona Revised Statutes regarding this matter? The controlling provision is constitutional in origin and not statutory. The provision refers not to "new members" but to an "increase in compensation" during a term of office. The provision is contained in Article IV, Part II, Section 17, which provides as follows: § 17. Extra compensation prohibited; increase or decrease of compensation during term of office Section 17. The Legislature shall never grant any extra compensation to any public officer, agent, servant or contractor, after the services shall have been rendered or the contract entered into, nor shall the compensation of any public officer, other than a justice of the peace, be increased or diminished during his term of office; provided, however, that when any legislative increase or decrease in compensation of the members of any court or the clerk thereof, or of any board or commission composed of two or more officers or persons whose respective terms of office are not coterminous, has heretofore or shall hereafter become effective as to any member or clerk of such court, or any member of such board or commission, it shall be effective from such date as to each thereof. The State Supreme Court has interpreted this provision broadly and has determined that the limitation on legislative authority contained in section 17 is not limited to the authority of the state legislature but is broad enough to include counties, boards and commission and even cities. (See Gay v. City of Glendale, 41 Ariz 207, 16P2d 216). Although there is no Arizona case applying section 17 to towns, in Gay, supra, the court's language appeared to be applicable "to all salary fixing bodies" including town councils. • The controlling language "...nor shall the compensation of any public officer... be increased or diminished during his term of office" has been interpreted in a very broad fashion to encompass the "increase of compensation" by any legislative body. Thus in Davis v. Hale 96 Ariz 219, 3 93P2d 912 (1964), it was applied to the legislative authority of a city council. Although the court has yet to apply it to a town council, the applicability is really not in serious doubt. (See State Consolidated Publishing Co. v. Hill, 39 Ariz 213P2d 525 (1931).) 2) The second issue raised is when would an incumbent council member's salary increase become effective? An incumbent's salary increase would become effective when the increase for any member of the council became effective. The applicable language provides in relevant part that with respect to any body "composed of two or more officers or persons whose respective terms of office are not coterminous... [that when the increase of any one member becomes effective] ...it shall be effective from such date as to each...". The effective date of any salary increase for all members would be on the first day of the new term of the next new term of a council member. (See Attorney General Opinion I90-094 (Oct 22, 1990).) The Attorney General's opinion, while not binding, provides guidance and protection for public officials relying on those opinions in good faith. (See A.R.S. § 38-446 and A.R.S. § 15-381(B).) 3) Can the Council adopt an ordinance to automatically increase salaries of council members based upon a defined set of factors? Yes, as long as the delegation is appropriately and narrowly drafted, it is possible to delegate such authority. Two other options which would be available would be an automatic increase phased in over a period of time or a mandatory review which must occur on an annual basis requiring that the council set the level of increase to at least track the cost of living. 4) What does the Council need to do to address unique situations? The council should adopt an ordinance and/or resolution providing for a proration of salary based upon length of time in office. The other unique situations are either addressed by case law or are better addressed as the unique situation arises. cl EXHIBIT A COST OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMPENSATION BY POPULATION of Council Mayor Salary Council Salary City/Town Population Members Annual $ Per Res. Annual $ Per Res. Total Cost 7 65 Mayor+ 6 13 200 0.18 9 7921 $0.13 $71,952 Peoria 4,5 y $ $ $ , Yuma 60,547 Mayor+ 6 $12,000 $0.20 $3,600. $0.06 $33,600 Gilbert 59,338 Mayor+ 6 $15,600 $0.26 $4,800 $0.08 $44,400 Flagstaff 54,480 Mayor + 6 $5,400 $0.10 $3,600 $0.07 $27,000 Sierra Vista 37,815 Mayor+ 6 $4,800 $0.13 $2,400 $0.06 $19,200 Lake Havasu Ci 36,285 Mayor + 6 $11,400 $0.31 $7,800 $0.21 $58,200 Prescott 30,606 Mayor + 6 $6,000 $0.20 $3,600, $0.12 $27,600 Bullhead City 26,940 Mayor + 6 : $4,800` $0.18: $2,400 $0.09 $19,200 Oro Valley 25,455 Mayor + 4 $0 $0.00 $0, $0.00 $0 Avondale 22,771 Mayor + 6 $4,800 $0.21 $2,400, $0.11 $19,200 Casa Grande 20,880 Mayor+ 6 $4,800 $0.23 $2,400 $0.11 $19,200, Nogales 20,655 Mayor + 6 $600` $0.03 $300 $0.01 $2,400 Apache Junction 19,525 Ma or+ 6 $7,200 $0.37 $4,800 $0.25 $36,000 Kingman 16,769 Mayor+ 6 $9,600, $0.57 $6,000 $0.36 $45,600, Prescott Valley 16,043 Mayor+ 6 a. $8,400 $0.52 $4,800 $0.30 $37,200 Douglas 14,780 Mayor+ 6 $3,600, $0.24 $2,400. $0.16, $18,000, Fountain Hills 14,146 Mayor+ 6 $4,800 $0.34 $3,600 $0.25 $26,400, Mean * 32,884 Mayor + 6 $7,313 $0.25 $4,043 $0.15 $31,572 Median 24,856 Ma or+ 6 $5,700 $0.22 $3,600 $0.12 $27,300 Mode N/A Mayor+ 6 , $4,800 N/A $2,400 N/A, $19,200, *Mean does not include Oro Valley data Mean * (Top 8) 47,572 Ma or+ 6 ' $9,150' $0.19- $4,749 $0.10 $37,644 Median (Top 8) 46,148 Ma or+ 6 $8,700 $0.19 $3,600 $0.08 $30,600 Mode(Top 8) N/A Mayor+ 6 _ $4,800, N/A $3,600 N/A $19,200 O 0 0 0 co 1111 O0 0 0 1 0 co 111 1,5 OTS a o a , X O c0 8 z o a z 1.-- 0co 1 0 — < ; , , 0 J ! I ' 0 in C3 03 a Z 2 O 0 a. I- >'' 1 o ,a z co CO V , A a. z a 0 _ o a. II- e Q • 0 o • U) o Z M a as LU a a To a u) 2 . a 16 O aaa. 0 2 0 . a 4 0 a N 4 a i g a 0 0 0 0 r =a 8 . . . . . . a o . a 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O GO CD wg' N O aaCV.r- r r �- do d� tf� 6A' Eft ANVIVS 1dnNNV EXHIBIT B COST OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMPENSATION BY STAFF SIZE Staff Size Mayor Salary Council Salary t City/Town Full Time Part Time Temporary Total Annual$ Per Staff Annual$ Per Staff Peoria 645 15 200 860 $13,200 $20.47 $9,792 $15.18 Yuma 633 76 345 1054 $12,000 $18.96 $3,600 $5.69, Gilbert 472 146 25 643 $15,600 $33.05 $4,800 $10.17 Flagstaff 569 30 206 805 $5,400 $9.49 $3,600 $6.33 Sierra Vista 277 75 35 387 $4,800 $17.33 $2,400 $8.66 Lake Havasu Cit\ 349 0 171 520 $11,400 $32.66 $7,800 $22.35 Prescott 401 6 34 441 $6,000 $14.96 $3,600 $8.98 Bullhead City329 10 40 379 $4 800 $14.59 $2 400 $7.29 , Oro Valley 156 10 2 168 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 Avondale 226 12 0 238 $4,800 $21.24 $2,400 $10.62 Casa Grande 225 12` 17 254 $4,800 $21.33 $2,400 $10.67 Nogales 290 4 9 303 $2.07 $300 $1.03 • og $600 Apache Junction 169 12 55 236 $7,200 $42.60 $4,800 $28.40 Kingman 247 37, 40 324 $9,600 $38.87 $6,000a $24.29 Prescott Valley 99 17 17 133 $8,400 $84.85 $4,800 $48.48 Douglas 180 2 60 242 $3,600 $20.00 $2,400 $13.33, 4 Fountain Hills 73 18 0 91 $14,800 $65.75 $3,600 $49.32, MEAN * 324 30+ 78 432 $7,313 $28.64_ $4,043+ $16.92 MEDIAN 284 14 38 352 $5,700 $20.85 $3,600 $10.64 MODE N/A 12 40 N/Al $4,800, N/A $2,400 N/A MEAN*(TOP 8) 459 ' 45 , 132 ' 636 $9,150 $20.19 $4,749. $10.58 MEDIAN(TOP 8' 437 _ 23 106 582 $8,700 $18.14. $3,60Q $8.82 MODE(TOP 8) , N/A N/A N/A N/A $4,800 N/A $3,600, N/A 'Mean does not include Oro Valley data O - - - o ti • 1a • ■ 1 0 0 co coTo I V C O 0 ca . o c In J • Co W i 1 U) Ni �- (J) , 1 t • o co0 LL W Q N I— � Cl) (1) c '.. 1 UL J Ca i • i H Z co 0O I o co I— M �'' e Q Z C W a. • 8 O • 2 i , ■ V 1 0 . 1 • . N Z. CO $ O tl 2 • O •� O 0w • ft :DI 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 (ft 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0_ 0 w • w c6 Ni cNi tA. a a te (7) (7) Eft (7) Ams 1v/nNNV EXHIBIT C MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMPENSATION BY TOTAL BUDGET Mayor Salary Council Salary City/Town Total Budget Annual $ Per Budget$ Annual $ Per Budget$ Peoria $219,000,000 $13,200 $0.000060 $9,792 $0.000045 Yuma $62,028,452 $12,000 $0.000193 $3,600 $0.000058 Gilbert $139,877,038 $15,600 $0.000112 $4,800 $0.000034 Flagstaff $106,973,191 $5,400 $0.000050 $3,600 $0.000034 Sierra Vista $77,816,277 $4,800 $0.000062 $2,400 $0.000031 Lake Havasu Ci $63,085,232 $11,400 $0.000181 $7,800 $0.000124 Prescott $108,000,000 $6,000 $0.000056 $3,600 $0.000033 Bullhead Ci $61,875,000 $4,800 $0.000078 $2,400 $0.000039 Oro Valley $38,823,040 $0 $0.000000 $0 $0.000000 Avondale $60,118,023 $4,800 $0.000080 $2,400 $0.000040 Casa Grande $40,900,000 $4,800 $0.000117 $2,400 $0.000059 Nogales $32,522,763 $600 $0.000018 $300 $0.000009 A.. e Junction $22,000,000 $7,200 $0.000327 $4,800 $0.000218 Ki •man $40,000,000 $9,600 $0.000240 $6,000 $0.000150 Prescott Van- $29,928,172 $8,400 $0.000281 $4,800 $0.000160 Dou.las $18,341,818 $3,600 $0.000196 $2,400 $0.000131 Fountain Hills $14,062,333 $4,800 $0.000341 $3,600 $0.000256 Mean * $66,785,373 $7,313 $0.000109 $4,043 $0.000061 Median $60,118,023 $5,700 $0.000095 $3,600 $0.000060 Mode #N/A $4,800 #NIA $2,400 *N/A *Mean does not include Oro Valley data Mean * (Top 8) $104,831,899- $9,150; $0.000087 $4,749 $0.000045 Median(Top 8) $92,440,882 $8,700, $0.000094 • $3,600 $0.000039 Mode(Top 8) #N/A $4,800 #N/A $3,600 *N/A 0 0 0 to N Eft • • 0 as o o ai O Cl, o — o c o N 8 6. C J , i O 1 i O �. ' O Z' I i O — 0 co 0 ›- to o = o m 2 M Z ct ...1 _ O O a J i- oo O to • o O Z` co o I W o a o 0 8• • ■ 8 0 0 o • o 2 • • a in • M • ■ • 1 ■ 1 • ■ ■ 0 Eft O a a aO a 0 a 0 a a a o O o O o GO tD �tN_ Oa S XN) d� ffEf) _t ! Ams-1VnNNV EXHIBIT D #of Council Mayor Council City/Town Population Members Annual $' Per Res. Annual $' Per Res. Total Cost Phoenix 1,149,417 Mayor + 8 $37,5001 $0.03 $33,996 $0.03 $309,468 Tucson 442,910 Mayor + 6 $36,000,, $0.08 $18,000 $0.04 $144,000 Mesa 338,117 Mayor + 6 $19,200 $0.06 $9,600 $0.03 $76,800 Glendale 182,615 Mayor+ 6 $35,004 $0.19 $17,496 $0.10 $139,980 Scottsdale 168,176 Mayor + 6 $25,476 f $0.1512 732 � $0.08 $101,868 Tempe 153,821 Mayor+ 6 $29,664 $0.19 $14,844 $0.10 $118,728 I I Chandler 132,360 Mayor + 6 $10,800 $0.08 $6,000 $0.05 $46,800 Peoria 74,565 Mayor + 6 $13,200 $0.18 $9,792 $0.13 $71,952 Yuma 60,547 Mayor + 6 $12,0001 $0.20 $3,600 $0.06 $33,600 Gilbert 59,338 Mayor + 6 $15,600 $0.26 $4,800 $0.08 $44,400 Flagstaff 54,480 Mayor+ 6 $5,400 $0.10 $3,600 $0.07 $27,000 Sierra Vista 37,815 Mayor + 6 $4,800 $0.13 $2,400 $0.06 $19,200 Lake Havasu Cit 36,285 Mayor+ 6 $11,400! $0.31 $7 800 $0.21 $58,200 Prescott 30,606 Mayor + 6 $6,000 $0.20 $3,600 $0.12 $27,600 Bullhead City 26,940 Mayor + 6 $4,800 $0.18 $2,400 $0.09 $19,200 Oro Valley 25,455 Mayor + 4 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Avondale 22,771 Mayor+ 6 $4,800 $0.21 $2,400 $0.11 $19,200 Casa Grande 20,880 Mayor+ 6 $4,800 $0.23 $2,400 $0.11 $19,200 Nogales 20,655 Mayor+ 6 $600 $0.03 $300 $0.01 $2,400 Apache Junction 19,525 Mayor + 6 $7,200 $0.37 $4,800 $0.25 $36,000 Kingman 16,769 Mayor+ 6 $9,600 $0.57 $6,000 $0.36 $45,600 Prescott Valley 16,043 Mayor+ 6 $8,400 $0.52 $4,800 $0.30 $37,200 Douglas 14,780 Mayor+ 6 $3,600 $0.24 $2,400 $0.16 $18,000 Fountain Hills 14,146 Mayor+ 6 $4,800 $0.34 $3,600 $0.25 $26,400 Paradise Valley 12,448 Mayor + 6 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Florence 11,390 Mayor+ 6 so $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Payson 11,004 Mayor+ 6 $6,0061 $0.55 $3,000 $0.27 $24,000 Winslow 10,780 Mayor+ 6 $4,800 $0.45 $2,400 $0.22 $19,200 Surprise 10,737 Mayor+ 6 $3,600 $0.34 $2,400 $0.22 $18,000 , Goodyear 9,250 Mayor + 6 $14,400 $1.56 $3,960 $0.43 $38,160 Eloy 8,915 Mayor+ 6 $4,800 $0.54 $3,600 $0.40 $26,400' Sedona 8,894 Mayor+ 6 $36,000 $4.05 $21,600 $2.43 $165,600' Safford 8,773 Mayor+ 6 $9,600 $1.09 $4,800 $0.55 $38,400 San Luis 8,026 Mayor+ 6 $4,800 $0.60 $2,400 $0.30$ $19,200 Page 7,950 Mayor+ 6 $4,800, $0.60 $3,600 $0.45 $26,400_ Camp Verde 7,465 Mayor+ 6 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Globe 7,058 Mayor+ 6 $2,400 $0.34 $1,200 $0.17 $9,600 Coolidge 7,055 Mayor+ 6 $2,400 $0.34 $1,200 $0.17 $9,600 Show Low - 6,988 Mayor+ 6 $4,500 $0.64 $2,700 $0.39 $20,700 #of Council [ Mayor Council CitylTown Population Members Annual $ Per Res. Annual $ Per Res. Total Cost Cottonwood 6,545 Mayor + 6 $3,000 $0.46 $1,8001 $0.28 $13,800 Bisbee 6,500 Mayor+ 6 $2,400 $0.37 $1,200 $0.18 $9,600 Chino Valley 6,278 Mayor + 6 $2,400 $0.38 $1,200 $0.19 $9,600 Somerton 5,824 Mayor + 6 $3,600 $0.62 $1,800 $0.31 $14,400 El Mirage 5,741 Mayor + 6 $3,600 $0.63 $2,400 $0.42 $18,000 Guadalupe 5,458 Mayor + 5 $2,400 $0.44 $1,200 $0.22 $8,400 , South Tucson 5,452 Mayor+ 6 $4,800 $0.88 $2,400 $0.44 $19,200 Marana 5,309 Mayor + 6 $0, $0.00 $01 $0.00 $0 Holbrook 5,070 Mayor + 6 $2 400 Y $0.47 $1,2001 $0.24 $9,600 Buckeye 4,857 Mayor + 6 , $3,000 $0.62 $1,8001 $0.37 $13,800 Wickenburg 4,765 . Mayor + 6 $4,800 $1.01 $2,400 $0.50 $19,200 Eagar 4,515 Mayor+ 6 $2,4001 0.53 1 200 Y � $ � $ $0.27 $9,600 Tolleson 4,436 Mayor+ 6 $6,480 $1.46 $3,600 $0.81 $28,080 Snowflake 4,120 Mayor + 6 $2,400 $0.58 $1,200 $0.29 $9,600 Benson 4,115 Mayor + 6 $2,400 $0.58 $1,200 $0.29 $9,600 Thatcher 3,957 Mayor + 6 $2,400 $0.61 $1,800 $0.45 $13,200 Litchfield Park 3,739 Mayor+ 6 $01 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Willcox 3,533 Mayor+ 6 $2,400 $0.68 $1,200 $0.34 $9,600 Superior 3,485 Mayor + 6 $3,000 $0.86 $1,200 $0.34 $10,200 St. Johns 3,360 Mayor+ 6 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Pinetop-Lakeside 3,301 Mayor + 6 $5,700 $1.73 $3,000 $0.91 $23,700 Colorado City 3,190 Mayor + 6 $21,216 $6.65 $120 $0.04 $21,936 Cave Creek 3,076 Mayor+ 6 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Queen Creek 3,072 Mayor + 6 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 + • , 1 Clifton 2,995 Mayor + 6 $2 400 $0.80 $1,200 $0.40 $9,600 Parker 2,950 $0.92 Mayor+ 6 $2 700 Y � $1,500 $0.51 $11,700 Youngtown 2,694 Mayor+ 6 $3,000 $1.11_ $2,400 $0.89 $17,400 Williams 2,690 Mayor+ 6 $2,400 $0.89 $1,200 $0.45 $9,600 Taylor 2,655 Mayor + 5 $3,000 $1.13 $480 $0.18 $5,400 Clarkdale 2,600 Mayor+ 4 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Kearny 2,455 _ Mayor + 6 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Carefree 2,286 Mayor+ 6 $00.00 $ $0 $0.00 $0 Sahuanta 2,173 Mayor+ 6 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 , Miami 2,040 .0 +Mayor 6 $1 800 Y $0.88 $900 $0.44 $7,200 Quartzsite 2,005 Mayor+ 6 $6,000 $2.99 $4,800 $2.39 $34,800 Mammoth 1,960 Mayor + 6 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Huachuca City 1,940 Mayor + 6 $1,200 $0.62 $600 $0.31 $4,800 Springerville 1,920 Mayor + 4 $4,800 $2.50 $3,000 $1.56 $16,800 Pima 1,850 _ Mayor r+ 4 $600 0.32 _ Y _ $ $600 $0.32 $3,000 # of Council - Mayor Council , v City/Town Population Members Annual $ Per Res. Annual $ Per Res. Total Cost Gila Bend 1,747 Mayor + 6 $4,800 $2.75 $300 $0.17 $6,600 Tombstone 1,405 Mayor + 4 i $3,000 $2.14 $1,800 $1.28 $10,200 Fredonia 1,250 Mayor + 4 $12,000 $9.60 $720 $0.58 $14,880 Wellton 1,126 Mayor + 4 $3,000 $2.66 $1,800 $1.60 $10,200 Patagonia 945 Mayor + 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hayden 910 Mayor + 6 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Duncan 735 Mayor + 4 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 _ Winkelman 676 Mayor + 3 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Jerome 460 Mayor + 4 $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Average 39,194 Mayor+ 5.73 $6,210 $0.16 $3,258 $0.08 $26,337 O •- m E E A 0 V W $ - 0 9- I- m 3 •• Ca •�,fCO CPS m > X d a a 0 W 0 0 00 0 0 0 II1iIIIìESi 4 • anti • > >- >- >- >- z AI va see, (1 >- >- 0- Pi6 I- of,b, qiit, , - ' _ Li- 44900 W 0� ti >i- >- >- >- Z r,0i ,rBiWm dit4 owawa >- Z >- Z >- z >- Z Z Z z 0 Of Z a S' >- >- >- zz z z >- zz z O T O >. Z c QU o a cn _ = >+ a) U = - IX 213 C .� C CTS 4 , _ 0 0 :7,- cu 4— 73 - 1- u) - ::::, cn .g. ›- :6 ca -= cu = .8 as a3 0 a) (1) as o co as Q .L O E _o 0) ` O = c cn co co c3 Tis f) E 0 = O 2 = O O •_ t� .w c O > as O 0. .c 0 O —) 0- >- CI,LI,cn,_1,a.im,Q,O Z < R. a. ca u-, lit 0 . > >► .§ C li h 13 ?► O CB N m U) 7 CD C E LL A t O COI— R IL' -5 ,,,,, s 4� a) a) 4) a) _ —4.rSct„ f/b ► E -E X LT-) 26 a CO w 'a✓ M N co) N tali, >- >- >- z Z Z Z Q 11041 —71) 8 c /76a E 2.' S ' .a) E c ie E 8 a a) '15 a) 4- >- >- >- Q) o (I)'5 ct r) a_ 0 0 ` J > O >. Z- c I- o >, c >- O #00 'f/t, o 0 0 /� O L 8 S o � r e— j TV; bl} 6I a o1 •,dip 40,e Tia 0 o 8 i:, I -14)149., Zi-, fi, I , •is w 10/ 'C,� III fpy x x X s V to 24 p d xII O. 4$ J vs%) W keilf> 4i0 g °40 941 I— ''94/ x xx I x XXX J ea C) 4t, Z '/0 in„ x x x x 0 C.) >, .• c ca 6 0 >,+ Z = = a) v — le o — ca U c > _ ce = u 5CtoC'p w 0 ca co CD a� as 0 co ca >' to •`.. a, a) cn a) U ..c C ca 76 V " 53 c 'L o E o D) L_ Y N _ 0 to • va P = Q = a) = .— � .CD co = > CO 0 �.= N 0 0 2 --) a. l>- 0 Lu-,cn __1 a. 03 < 0 z_< ,fa-,0 LI-_ TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 9 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: August 18, 1999 IO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: Melissa Shaw, AICP, Planner II SUBJECT: ANNUAL ANALYSIS OF ZONING CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND: The Council reviewed this item during the June 2, 1999 Town Council hearing. The motion at that meeting was to refer detailed discussion of the Analysis of Zoning Conformance and Action Plan to Study Session. A study session was held on July 12, 1999, and based on that meeting, Staff developed the Action Plan below. SUMMARY: The Zoning Conformance Analysis is a process in which threats posed by the conflict of zoningto orderly orY development, as set out by the General Plan land use designations are analyzed. This process consisted of three steps. The first was an analysis of all parcels in the Town to identify those with zoning not in conformance with the General Plan land use designation. Parcels were then ranked through a process that identified those with the greatest threat due to development. For each of the ranked parcels, problem statements were developed by own staff in Planning and Zoning, the Police Department, the Town Engineer, and Pima County Wastewater. The non-conforming parcels were judged by the significance of the threats to environmental and service systems Y posed by the zoning non-conformance, and ranked as a high, medium or low priority. From the list of possible solutions presented in the Code (Section 3-100.C.), a solution for each non-conforming parcel addressed bythis in analysis was proposed the "Action Plan Table". Five parcels were determined to be high priority, and these were the topic of discussion with representatives of the five parcels at the study session. The five high along priority parcels are ranked and presented in the table below. Rationale for the rankingwith a recommended action plan are also presented for each parcel. Zoning Conformance Action Plan Parcel Planning & Zoning Recommendations and Police Department Recommendations and Rationale for Ranking. Rank 1. 7636 Use performance standards to limit types of uses Requires traffic impact study. Employ & 7861 and scale down development, i.e., lower height CPTED to reduce potential criminal activity; inY standards exchange for increased coverage; design ingress/egress for safe through traffic. encourage strong neighborhood uses compatible with Town Hall, Library & offices. Address immediately because of potential development. ?. 8441 (Melcor PAD.) Change the zoning to medium No comment. density residential. Even with Lambert Lane improvements and possible Pusch View Lane TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 3 extension, commercial zoning is not compatible with residential. 3. 14090 Change General Plan to Parks/Open space to No comment. coincide with PAD. Add performance standards to clubhouse use in PAD and evaluate how viewsheds are affected and compatibility with Big Wash riparian habitat. There are no immediate plans for development of this parcel. 4. 14480 Recommend performance standards to tie May need to signal 1St Ave. & Tangerine. commercial use to surrounding neighborhood & Tangerine & La Canada need improvement proposed Cal-Mat site park facility. No action for vertical curve visibility & traffic signal. recommended until disposition (State Trust Land) Need roadway lighting along Tangerine of the site is known. Road, esp. at intersections. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the three major components of this analysis on May 4, 1999 and moved 7-0 to recommend approval of the problem statements, conflict priority list and action plan to the Town Council. rtECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ranked action plan, and for the Council to direct staff to begin working with the property owner of parcels 7636 and 7861 to develop performance standards that will implement the action plan. These performance standards will be returned to the Commission and Council for review and approval by November. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council may wish to consider one of the following motions: I move to approve the ranked action plan, and direct staff to work with the property owners of parcels 7636 and 7861 to develop performance standards in conformance with the action plan. These performance standards will be returned to the Commission and Council for review and approval by November. OR I move to approve the ranked action plan, and direct staff to work with the property owners of parcels 7636 and 7861 to develop performance standards in conformance with the action plans. These performance standards will be returned to the Commission and Council for review and approval by November. I also approve the following changes: OR TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 3 I move not to approve the ranked action plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Parcel location map 2. Excerpt from 6-2-99 Town Council minutes 3. Excerpt from 7-12-99 Town Council Study Session minutes F:PROJECTS\GP\CONFORM\GPC99TCRPT# / i iOrtL. Plannin! oning idministrator / , _gaol clib,, ifity Develo• a Director / AiiilL, ,41(' /- ' own Manager bGenrat Plon ormance _ IFiigh ri o a rce s . . . .... • ., . . ...,. . . , ... . . __ . . _ .. . . , f. . ., . ,__,.. • , , -.--_•-,..--.-: :„.,H...-.:,•_,,,...„--.2.--.-..,•,.„. 4. .. y, ..,_. -, -• ,-- •,.„,-.._,-, :,-,-.,,,,,,,:.,v,ii ,-:-_-__,„ I - , ,,?f SLY): .2 • ....., _ ,..,,,,,,,,,.,.., -.,7::....„.".---.,:,(...,-.„. i , . ...,.. -.,,. .. _.•.__, , , . E . .. ,... . ...4.,..,.. _,...„.- . ..• ,..-., .,,, , _,,. ..-.,. '',7.,.',.-:: '•,1,',:e'',..--.----,* 4,,,,, r i/ n, . _.-,. _. :::,..,' 5,,;72 ::,-Ii T$Y � ; :.,..r:•,--_,,;riff,',-:,:,`,€1,', lit -,,00 a j rTt 4 -- .iI�• x�s fe:h.. '•..., a.. • Aba.Road-_ 4; ; + ._,.. Y1Y , • b L y�I: - . ..-, — 4"."1 riiiy 7 ,.._,..____,.... ..... __,.., 1.-11.—* 1 ,a7.....71:77,,.._:,:::::::;t:.: -" :-. ' . ... :.*,....,_,..,„, ,,, _.. ,____j_ h. tri _ _ ;,,,,,- -- . -'1 "i1 , -. - • -,.. L t � , , _ ._ Jf X ._.. -. -._ ..•.. -. -♦.. _ „,,,,-;,.,..-: )b .ham :-.::;::;g:i;::,.1'..,,,.'-t,';--:-..-. ' ,-:;-;,-;;;-‘,7:.--,'JjA :.' ' -,----,.'',,----' - _ , -..:.:',4,1*,-",'5,:--:;‘,--.5--' "-:::n•-:.`:.:15-4-.-',;;.1:'F y y ` ,;:-....i, • d.. a; .r_ ••-•:416.116,„ �^ ' r i��g C• sr•F `li- L .. ♦i 4;f:.”, fit: _ ..--. • `' ti d .3 a 61 ..- •s -..., ,,,,.. :.',,,,.. ,. .:,-.,.•.:., ....„, - . -_-.. - ---:,:r4,,,,A,1% --_-,:te:,,,,,,^-•: cr' _,. . -- ff4t'-.. y S. ,' •1 _ ,.....,...,..,_;:, ,_,_,. ,_,,../.,..,i it,..i.::.., . ._:;,,,:./..\*,nbect,7 _ ,...„-,,.--;..„...,,.:._,:,,,...=2,.,./ •-_-_- ,- rilgbsd 4 a� '--. ._.__._.._._. -.___--,;,,-:::,::;_:•:1•-2J:2 _..--_._ _ .. _ � x.- _ x .-, -•.!, - w �'C':xrS'}[-.�✓.f •} '_�yVr�,`' _i'''',..,0_1•`-".-.,-::".,;• .yh�r f ice,.rV. ,,,,: ,-,,,,,....,.. ' -7,4v.p-,_ __ _----...",.;_,...,,,,,,\-- X J ,.,4},,,,d.:,t.Ory f- e f�o . ,, ... '+' �' - ._.. •` 1� __.. iSST}.` '�7�,fig, ''1 Ali y,^ •-.`K ,414-::1,1:--: •[r�`,.r'- . qa f�"rte amu[ T'}l �'-t- • r �%a „' �..ter+- "�_'��'���— _ slry-.. �_ ,K:' ,,,,a.,.:.1,,'+' t;�;,,= r �roi_lM'3e � + p • : ..• . `. . i ,-▪ ,-,,..,,..-1,,,,,, . - ....,,.:•_, ,--- 1 ..,, .tom• """� •S • _ - ____,,,,,,,,,,,......, __ :,--1._-,,-, Lis./.- - W - E stood; _ - S 0 +.' ..., ca; * ,:77'4';'..-..—'. ._ 0 1 2 Miles - 06/02/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 14 In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine stated that they have on the average, three to four violations of the Sign Code per week. He further explained that when staff does weekend "sweeps", they can have up to ten violations. CALL FOR THE QUESTION: Motion carried, 4— 1 with Council Member Bryant opposed. r 10. OV12-98-19 CANADA DEL ORO RIVERFRONT PARK LANDSCAPE PLAN ADDENDUM—SITE LIGHTING —LOCATED ON LAMBERT LANE, EAST OF LA CANADA DRIVE Parks and Recreation Director Ainsley Reeder reported that the Canada del Oro Riverfront Park Landscape Plan-Site Lighting has been reviewed by staff, the Development Review Board and residents and all agree with the plan as presented. In answer to a question from Vice Mayor Johnson, Don McGann, consultant, reported that the native plant salvage has been started so the project is currently underway. Discussion followed regarding field and parking lot lighting, light poles and their color and height. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve OV 12-98-19 Canada del Oro Riverfront Park Landscape Plan Addendum— Site Lighting. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. Mayor Loomis complimented Ms. Reeder and Mr. McGann for their work and efforts on the project. 11. ANNUAL ANALYSIS OF ZONING CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine reviewed the Council Communication. He reported that the analysis looks at how parcels with existing zoning conform to the designations as depicted in the Town's General Plan. He explained that problem statements were developed for each parcel, conflict priority lists and action plans were then created. Vice Member Johnson said that there were many issues to be considered and he recommended that Council refer this item to a Study Session to review priorities, legal issues, etc. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Nodine stated that the Zoning Code requires the Analysis to be performed on an annual basis. 06/02/99 Minutes, Council Regular Session 15 MOTION: Vice Mayor Johnson MOVED to refer the Analysis of Zoning Conformance to a Study Session to discuss high priority items first and then take the middle priority and low priority items and as each one is addressed, discuss the ramifications of the actions. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 5 —0. 12. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE FORMATION OF TOWN BUDGET AND BOND COMMITTEE Finance Director David Andrews reviewed the Council Communication and stated that on May 19, the Council discussed the formation of a Town Budget and Bond Committee. Issues raised at the meeting revolved around the proposed committee's scope of work, the appointment process, appointees' qualifications criteria and administrative costs. The issues have been addressed and staff is recommending approval of the formation of the committee. Council Member LaSala asked to add that no member could serve as Chair for more than two consecutive years. MOTION: Council Member LaSala MOVED to approve the formation of the Town of Oro Valley Oro Valley Budget and Bond Committee including the attachment labeled Exhibit"A", Rules and Operating Procedures, Oro Valley Budget and Bond Committee (attached to the end of the minutes), and direct the Town Clerk to initiate advertising to fill vacant positions. Also, add under"Officers" (Exhibit"A"), that no member of the Committee can serve as Chair for more than two consecutive years. Vice Mayor Johnson SECONDED the motion. DISCUSSION: Vice Mayor Johnson suggested that the Town Manager be charged to make sure staff time is not being over extended while working with the Committee. He stated that he felt that the Committee was a good addition, but would like to have a periodic review of the committee and its functions. Council Member Bryant commented that with all the issues before the Town, he was not sure quarterly meetings would be enough. He also stated that the Council should appoint members to the committee as was suggested in the original proposal. Motion carried, 4— 1 with Council Member Bryant opposed. TOWN MANAGER'S/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Town Manager Chuck Sweet reported that 59 applications were received for the position for the Community Development Director's position. Mr. Sweet reported that on June 10th there will be an informal gathering to meet the final applicants with interviews to be held on June 11`h 7/12/99 Minutes, Special/Study Session 2 STUDY SESSION—AT OR AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF T SPECIAL SESSION NOTED ABOVE (APPROXIMATELY 7:00 P.M.) CALL TO ORDER 7:25 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Paul Loomis, Mayor Paul Parisi, Council Member Fran LaSala. Council Member Wayne Bryant, Council Member EXCUSED: Dick Johnson, Vice Mayor 1. ANNUAL ANALYSIS OF ZONING CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN'S GENERAL PLAN Planning and Zoning Administrator Bryant Nodine reviewed the process for analyzing parcels within the Town and how they conform to the General Plan. He explained that the General Plan land use designations are used to determine future zoning of properties but conflicts may exist between existing zoning and the desiredattern of growth P described in the Plan. He stated that the annual analysis is required by the Zoning Code. Mr. Nodine reviewed ways that the Town ensures that zoning is in conformance with the General Plan. Some of these are: 1) Rezoning requests must be in conformance with the Plan, 2) Subdivision plats, development and architectural plans are reviewed in relation to compliance. 3) Zoning Code revisions must be in conformance with applicable General Plan policies, and 4) the Annual Analysis. Mr. Nodine explained that the Analysis first looks at how parcels with existing zoning conform to the General Plan. Problem statements are developed and then conflict priority lists and action plans are created. (Non-conforming parcels are ranked by degree of threat based on environmental, land use compatibility and service system issues.) Mr. Nodine reviewed the properties that were classified as high priority. Parcels 7636 & 7861 (Northwest and Southwest corners of Naranja and La Canada Drive): Zoned Commercial Office, Residential (PAD) with Medium Density Residential designation in the General Plan. Issues are compatibility with nearby residential use, lighting, building height and police issues. Proposed action is to create performance standards for protecting existing residential properties and encourage neighborhood compatible uses. Council Member Parisi stated that the rights of hard zoning have to be addressed but he suggested encouraging property owners to voluntarily change rather than putting artificial restrictions on properties. 7112/99 Minutes, Special/Study Session 3 In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Nodine explained that allowed commercial uses on the property could be convenience stores, gas stations, offices, apartments, etc. Mike Carlier, representing the property owners, stated that the owners have a degree of respect for the overall integrity of the General Plan. He stated that they are concerned with maintaining vested rights but they are willing to discuss types of uses for the site with the Town's staff. In answer to a question from Mayor Loomis, Mr. Nodine explained that the lighting would be addressed with the Town's normal lighting ordinance. Mayor Loomis stated that he felt that the Town could work with the property owners to create development guidelines to bring the parcels into conformance with the surrounding community. PARCEL 8411 (Melcor PAD, north of Lambert Lane) Zoned C-2 Commercial, designated Medium Density Residential in the General Plan. Issues are that it is surrounded by residential, no buffer, possible traffic impacts to Lambert Lane and environmental impacts to groundwater. Proposed action is to change zoning to medium density residential. Charles Hulsey, stated that when the plan was developed for the Melcor property, the El Conquistador PAD had not been approved and the property at First Avenue and Lambert Lane had not been planned. He stated that there was no plan for a convenient neighborhood center at that time and they hoped to create the neighborhood center by creating the commercial piece. In answer to a question from Council Member LaSala, Mr. Hulsey stated that the need for that commercial piece was probably not needed any longer. In answer to questions from Council Member Bryant regarding zoning for properties north and west, Mr. Nodine explained that there is CR-2, CR-5 and some TR zoning. He explained that the density decreases as you move north. He also explained that they would look at good erosion control in the area. PARCEL 14480 (Monterra Hills PAD, north of Calmat site) Zoned CB 1, designated Medium Density Residential in the General Plan. Issues are design and residential compatibility, sewer service and environmental impacts and limited Tangerine Road access. Proposed action is to tie performance standards of commercial use to nearby residential and proposed Calmat park facility. Terry Klinger, representing the owners, stated that they are looking at potential uses for the property. He stated that the parcel is 16.3 acres of CB-1 and 15.7 acres of TR zoning. (Mr. Nodine stated that the CB-1 zoning is the area that has a high degree of non- conformance.) Mr. Klinger stated that they will continue to study the property's 7/12/99 Minutes, Special/Study Session 4 infrastructure and uses for the site. He also stated that they are open to working with the Town on studying uses for the property. PARCEL 14090 (Rancho Vistoso PAD) Zoned C-, Club House and Natural Open Space. designated Medium Density Residential and Park/Open Space. Issues are that the site is bordered by riparian habitat, environmental impacts, and sewer service adequacy. • r Proposed actions are to change the General Plan to reflect Park/Open Space portion of P PAD, and to study and apply performance standards to evaluate viewshed impact and compatibility with the riparian habitat. Mr. Nodine and Charles Hulsey reviewed a map of the Rancho Vistoso PAD andP ointed out the areas of concern. Dick Maes, Vistoso Partners, stated that their concerns are with the continuous changes on the property and issues raised regarding riparian habitat considerations. He stated that a lot of studies were done on the property and they plan on following through with the v uses as zoned and planned for the area. He stated that they had no problem with building quality projects but intend to utilize the property as designated in the land use map. He also explained that the proposed golf course area is down in the bottom of the wash area and would not impact viewsheds. Mayor Loomis stated that the Town is very sensitive to developments' impact to viewsheds. Impact of development must be considered from all directions. Mr. Nodine stated that if the Council recommends carrying through with any of the proposed actions, staff would work over the next six months with the property owners to P . implement recommendations. CONSENSUS: Mayor Loomis stated that the first properties to work on were the Naranja/La Canada sites (Parcels 7636 & 7861.) The remaining properties could wait isP until the General Plan revised next year. r In answer to a question from Council Member Bryant, Mr. Nodine stated that if there was ample notice time. the action plan could come before Council bymid-August. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Council Member Bryant MOVED to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. Council Member LaSala SECONDED the motion. Motion carried, 4—0. Respectfully submitted, Roxana Garrity, Deputy Town Cle