Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Planning and Zoning Commission (165)       AGENDA ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION October 27, 2020 Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/96910409940?pwd=TlJFZU1QaWkzZHFqeThqZi9wTS9ndz09 To attend via phone only, dial 1-346-248-7799, enter Meeting ID: 96910409940, then enter Passcode: 331480 Executive Sessions – Upon a vote of the majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission may enter into Executive Sessions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statues §38-431.03 (A)(3) to obtain legal advice on matters listed on the Agenda.        SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   CALL TO AUDIENCE - at this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Commission on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual Commission members may ask Town staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Commission may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "Call to Audience." In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 13, 2020 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES   2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 23, SECTION 25, CHAPTER 31 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE TO REGULATE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IN RESPONSE TO POTENTIAL VOTER APPROVAL OF PROPOSITION 207   3.DISCUSSION ONLY REGARDING A 2020 STUDY ON APARTMENTS THAT IMPLEMENTS ACTIONS FROM THE GENERAL PLAN AND PROVIDES INFORMATION TO THE GOVERNING BODY   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY)   ADJOURNMENT     POSTED: 10/21/2020 at 5:00 p.m. by pp When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Commission meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.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 the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Commission meeting at 229-4700. 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 Commission 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. In accordance with Amendment #2 of the Mayoral Proclamation of Emergency issued on March 27, 2020, the following restrictions have been placed on all public meetings until further notice: 1. In-person attendance by members of the public is prohibited. 2. Members of the public can either watch the public meeting online https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas or, if they would like to participate in the meeting (e.g. speak at Call to Audience or speak on a Regular Agenda item), they can attend the meeting and participate via the on-line meeting application Zoom: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/96910409940?pwd=TlJFZU1QaWkzZHFqeThqZi9wTS9ndz09 or may participate telephonically only by dialing 1-346-248-7799 and enter meeting ID:96910409940 and passcode: 331480 prior to or during the posted meeting. 3. If a member of the public would like to speak at either Call to Audience or on a Regular Agenda item, it is highly encouraged to email your request to speak to jancona@orovalleyaz.gov and include your name and town/city of residence in order to provide the Mayor/Chair with advance notice so you can be called upon more efficiently during the Zoom meeting. 4. All members of the public who participate in the Zoom meeting either with video or telephonically will enter the meeting with microphones muted. For those participating via computer/tablet/phone device, you may choose whether to turn your video on or not. If you have not provided your name to speak prior to the meeting as specified in #3 above, you will have the opportunity to be recognized when you “raise your hand.” Those participating via computer/tablet/phone device can click the “raise your hand” button during the Call to the Public or Regular Agenda item, and the Chair will call on you in order, following those who submit their names in advance. For those participating by phone, you can press *9, which will show the Chair that your hand is raised. When you are recognized at the meeting by the Chair, your microphone will be unmuted by a member of staff and you will have three minutes to speak before your microphone is again muted. 5. If a member of the public would like to submit written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration prior to the meeting, please email those comments to jancona@orovalleyaz.gov, no later than sixty minutes before the public meeting. Those comments will then be electronically distributed to the public body prior to the meeting. If you have any questions, please contact the Commission’s recording secretary at jancona@orovalleyaz.gov. Thank you for your cooperation. “Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council, Boards, Commissions and Committees: In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-4 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the Town Council, Board of Adjustment, Historic Preservation Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Stormwater Utility Commission, and Water Utility Commission may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the audience only.”    Planning & Zoning Commission 1. Meeting Date:10/27/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: N/A SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 13, 2020 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve (approve with changes), the October 13, 2020 special session meeting minutes. Attachments 10-13-2020 Draft Minutes  D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL SESSION October 13, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM            SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER Chair Gambill called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Hal Bergsma, Commissioner Jacob Herrington, Vice Chair Neal Herst, Commissioner Ellen Hong, Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, Commissioner Celeste Gambill, Chair Absent: Skeet Posey, Commissioner Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney  Vice Chair Herrington joined the meeting at 6:08 p.m.   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Gambill recited the Pledge of Allegiance for the Commission and audience.   CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Council Liaison Melanie Barrett provided updates on recent and upcoming Town Council meetings as related to Planning items.   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 SPECIAL SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, seconded by Commissioner Hal Bergsma to approve the September 8, 2020 meeting minutes as written.    A roll call vote was taken:  A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye    Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   2.PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED 1ST AVENUE AND TANGERINE ROAD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR A 13.44-ACRE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED SOUTH OF TANGERINE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 0.2 MILES EAST OF 1ST AVENUE A. TYPE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE TWO KAI-CAPRI SPECIAL AREA POLICIES TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES ON A VACANT COMMERCIAL PARCEL (2001085) B. REZONING TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF A VACANT PARCEL FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL TO R-6 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (2001306)       Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location map - Applicant's request - Key considerations - Background and history: General Plan and Special Area Policies - Background and history: Rezoning - Previously approved tentative development plan - A. Applicant's request: General Plan Amendment - A. Your Voice, Our Future General Plan - A. General Plan Amendment criteria - A. General Plan Amendment criteria analysis - B. Applicant's request: Rezoning - B. Proposed tentative development plans - B. Existing vacant commercial parcels - Public participation - Public participation: views - Conditions of approval: General Plan Amendment - Conditions of Approval: Rezoning - Your Voice, Our Future General Plan and Zoning Code Conformance - Summary and recommendation Paul Oland of Paradigm Land Design, representing the applicant, provided a presentation that included the following: - Master planned community for the entire Capri property, including the trail system - Current tentative development plan and improvements provided by the rezoning - Subject property was graded when Tangerine bridge was built - Surrounding commercial areas are more viable - Examples of currently struggling commercial areas - Valbridge report on retail, industrial and R&D, multi-family and senior care uses for subject property - Proposed access drive - Traffic impact study results - Proposed tentative development plans - Class A apartment vacancy rates - Valbridge report conclusions - Visibility - Distances from neighbors - Trail system    Discussion ensued among the Commission, applicant and staff. Chair Gambill opened the public hearing. Alexis Prust spoke regarding Agenda Item #2. Chair Gambill closed the public hearing. Mr. Oland addressed the speaker's question.   3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST TO PROVIDE AN IN-LIEU FEE FOR THE REQUIRED PUBLIC ART AT THE GOLDER RANCH FIRE STATION, LOCATED ON WOODBURNE AVENUE NEAR THE TANGERINE AND FIRST AVENUE INTERSECTION       Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Background information - Applicant's request - Special circumstances - Summary and recommendation The applicant, Assistant Fire Chief Patrick Abel with the Golder Ranch Fire Department, provided a presentation that included the following: - Site plan and history - Reasons for in-lieu fee request Discussion ensued among the Commission, applicant and staff.    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Hal Bergsma to approve an in-lieu fee of $7,000.00 to satisfy the public art requirement for the Golder Ranch fire station, located on Woodburne Avenue based on the finding it is in conformance with the Zoning Code.    A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye    Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   4.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE FOR A MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LINDA VISTA BOULEVARD AND ORACLE ROAD       Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following:  Principal Planner Milini Simms provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location and approved site plan - Design elements - Facade Articulation, Scale and Mass - Colors and materials - Surrounding architecture - Summary and recommendation Applicant Paul Knitter with The Felten Group, provided the residential architecture presentation that included the following: - Architectural design narrative - Features of surrounding architecture - Color schemes - Plans and elevations Applicant Ed Marley with Swaim Associates, provided the commercial architecture presentation that included the following: - Architectural design narrative - Features of surrounding commercial architecture - View of site from surrounding areas - Materials - North building features - South building features - Renderings Discussion ensued among the Commission, applicants and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Commissioner Neal Herst to recommend approval of the proposed conceptual architecture for the multifamily and commercial development on Linda Vista and Oracle, based on the finding it is in conformance with the Design Principles and Standards in the Zoning Code.    A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye    Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   5.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL MODEL HOME ARCHITECTURE FOR THE CAPELLA PARCEL M RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED SOUTH OF NARANJA DR. AND WEST OF LA CHOLLA BLVD., 2000548       Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Three architectural styles - Side elevations: Elevation B - Rear elevations - Surrounding development - Summary and recommendation Applicant Ginger Kneup with Richmond American Homes, provided a presentation that included the following: - Capella Parcel M overview, including compatibility with potential buyers and surrounding area - Site plan - Context photographs of nearby homes - Model renderings and floor plans - Color palette Discussion ensued among the Commission and applicant.    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Neal Herst to approve the Conceptual Model Home Architecture for the proposed four (4) model homes for Capella Parcel M, subject to the conditions in Attachment 2, based on the findings that the request complies with the Design Principles and Design Standards of the Zoning Code.    A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye    Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   6.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL MODEL HOME ARCHITECTURE FOR A NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED NORTH OF MOORE ROAD AND EAST OF LA CANADA DRIVE ADJACENT TO LA CHOLLA AIRPARK       Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location - Three architectural styles - Side elevations - modern and desert classic - Rear elevations - Surrounding development - Summary and recommendation Applicant Jeff DeSpain with Fairfield Homes, provided a presentation that included the following: - Overview - Site plan - Four-sided architecture - Surrounding area photos - Color packages - Feature highlights - Four floor plans - Three elevations Colleen Holland, general manager of Vistoso Community Association spoke on agenda item #6. Discussion ensued among the Commission, applicant and staff.    Motion by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington, seconded by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon to approve the Conceptual Model Home Architecture for the proposed four (4) model homes, subject to the conditions in Attachment 2, based on the findings that the request complies with the Design Principles and Design Standards of the Zoning Code.    Further discussion continued among the Commission and staff.    A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Aye Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Aye Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye    Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   7.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INITIATE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS IN RESPONSE TO POTENTIAL VOTER APPROVAL OF PROPOSITION 207       Principal Planner Milini Simms explained the background and need for the initiation of the code amendment, based on the potential passing of Proposition 207 on the November 3 ballot. Discussion ensued among the Commission and staff.    Motion by Commissioner Daniel Sturmon, seconded by Commissioner Hal Bergsma to initiate the zoning code amendments in response to potential voter approval of Proposition 207 for compliance with State law.    A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Bergsma - Aye Vice Chair Herrington - Nay Commissioner Herst - Aye Commissioner Hong - Nay Commissioner Sturmon - Aye Chair Gambill - Aye    Vote: 4 - 2 Carried  OPPOSED: Vice Chair Jacob Herrington  Commissioner Ellen Hong   PLANNING UPDATE (INFORMATIONAL ONLY) Principal Planner Michael Spaeth provided updates regarding the Vistoso Golf case, upcoming neighborhood meeting and agenda items on the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.   ADJOURNMENT      Motion by Commissioner Hal Bergsma, seconded by Vice Chair Jacob Herrington to adjourn the meeting.    Chair Gambill adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.     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 Planning and Zoning Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 13th day of October, 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 14th day of October, 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist    Planning & Zoning Commission 2. Meeting Date:10/27/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: 2002507 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 23, SECTION 25, CHAPTER 31 AND ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE TO REGULATE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA IN RESPONSE TO POTENTIAL VOTER APPROVAL OF PROPOSITION 207 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conditional approval, subject to the passage of Proposition 207, the “Smart and Safe Arizona Act” in the November 3, 2020, election. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to consider zoning code text amendments (Attachment 1) to regulate recreational marijuana in response to potential voter approval of Proposition 207. Proposition 207, the “Smart and Safe Arizona Act”, is on the November ballot to authorize the sale, use, cultivation, processing, transport, manufacturing, testing etc. of recreational marijuana. If approved, the proposition would go into State-wide effect once the vote is certified. Therefore, it is imperative the Town update all applicable codes before possible passage. Separate amendments to the Town Code will be considered by Town Council to regulate the business and individual use of recreational marijuana (e.g. legal age limit, licensing types and amount of personal use plants). However, revising the Zoning Code is also necessary for the Town to regulate recreational marijuana to the same standards currently applied to medical marijuana. The proposition prohibits jurisdictions' from regulating recreational marijuana stricter than they currently regulate medical marijuana. Medical marijuana was added to the Zoning Code prior to voter approval in 2010. Existing requirements for medical marijuana that are proposed for recreational marijuana, include the following:  Location: Establishments (dispensary and cultivation) are only permitted in commercially zoned (C-1 and C-2) properties that meet the following distance requirements (for map, see Attachment 2):  Must be at least 2000 feet from other marijuana establishments Must be at least 1000 feet from churches, libraries, public parks, schools (includes dramatic, dancing or other similar establishments where kids are enrolled) and substance abuse treatment facilities Operations:    Limited hours of operation from 7 AM- 10 PM Must be in a permanent building and cannot have a drive-thru Limited to a maximum floor area of 2,000 square feet  For consistency with the proposed Town Code amendments, recreational marijuana establishments may only operate in cooperation with a medical marijuana establishment that shares the same location. Additionally, the following activities are prohibited as permitted by the proposition:  Door-to-door delivery of marijuana  Marijuana testing facilities (testing marijuana for potency or contaminants) Consumption of marijuana on the premises of a dispensary or associated off-site cultivation location.  In summary, the proposed code amendments (Attachment 1) are in response and preparation of potential voter In summary, the proposed code amendments (Attachment 1) are in response and preparation of potential voter approval of Proposition 207. The proposed code amendments are necessary to regulate recreational marijuana and medical marijuana equally. The proposed code amendments are within the parameters allowed in Proposition 207 and meet several of the public safety goals and policies in the General Plan. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval, subject to the passage of Proposition 207 on the November 3, 2020 election ballot.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Proposition 207, the “Smart and Safe Arizona Act”, is on the November 3, 2020 ballot to authorize the sale, use, cultivation, processing, transport, manufacturing, testing etc. of recreational marijuana. If approved, the proposition would go into State-wide effect once the vote is certified. Therefore, it is imperative the Town update all applicable codes before possible passage. The proposed code amendments were developed in conjunction with proposed updates to the Town Code (considered only by Town Council). The proposed Town Code updates address business and individual use regulations such as, licensing types, legal age limits, and amount of plants. In addition to updating the Town Code, the Zoning Code also needs to be revised to regulate recreational marijuana to the same standards currently applied to medical marijuana.  If approved, enactment of the proposed code amendments (Attachment 1) is conditional on the passage of Proposition 207 on the November 3, 2020 ballot. Key elements of the proposed code amendments are provided below.  DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS Proposition 207, prohibits the Town from regulating recreational marijuana stricter than it regulates medical marijuana. Medical marijuana was added to the Zoning Code in 2010, when it was approved by the voters. In compliance with the parameters established in the proposition, the proposed code amendment regulates recreational marijuana to the same standards currently applied to medical marijuana. Notable elements include:  Location: Marijuana establishments (recreational and medical) are only permitted in commercially zoned (C-1 and C-2) properties that meet the following distance requirements (for map, see Attachment 2):  Must be at least 2000 feet from other marijuana establishments Must be at least 1000 feet from churches, libraries, public parks, schools (includes dramatic, dancing or other similar establishments where kids are enrolled) and substance abuse treatment facilities Operations: Limits business hours from 7 AM- 10 PM  Must be in a permanent building and cannot have a drive-thru Limited to a maximum floor area of 2,000 square feet  Although the Town is limited to regulating recreational marijuana to the existing standards for medical marijuana, the proposition allows the Town to only permit recreational marijuana establishments when they are operated with a nonprofit medical marijuana establishment that shares the same space. For consistency with the proposed Town Code updates, this provision is also included in the proposed code amendment. As permitted by the proposition, the following activities are also prohibited:  Door-to-door delivery of marijuana Marijuana testing facilities (testing marijuana for potency or contaminants) Consumption of marijuana on the premises of a dispensary or associated off-site cultivation location The following definitions were also added to clearly delineate recreational and medical marijuana uses and establishments.   Recreational marijuana use- marijuana used for enjoyment rather than as a medical treatment. Marijuana Establishments (includes both medical and recreational marijuana dispensaries and associated off-site cultivation)   Recreational marijuana dispensary- A single retail location, in cooperation with a medical marijuana dispensary, that acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures and sells marijuana and marijuana products to consumers. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed code amendments were reviewed for conformance with the Your Voice, Our Future  General Plan. By limiting the locations and restricting the use to specific business hours, square footage and registration type, the proposed code amendment meets the following goals and policies:  Goal J: A safe community with low crime, safe neighborhoods and positive relationships between law enforcement and community members. Policy TS.3: Protect vulnerable populations (e.g. children, seniors and those with disabilities) and provide security of community members through community and police support. Policy TS.5: Coordinate community safety and land use planning in order to reduce sources of conflict and nuisance crime through design, regulation and management. Goal X: Effective transitions between differing land uses and intensities in the community. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice has been provided as follows:  All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing Public hearing notices were posted: In the Territorial Newspaper At Town Hall On the Town website  SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION In summary, the proposed code amendments (Attachment 1) are in response to potential voter approval of Proposition 207. Separate amendments to the Town Code will be considered by Town Council to regulate the business and individual use of recreational marijuana (e.g. legal age limit, licensing types and amount of personal use plants). However, without also updating the Zoning Code, the Town cannot regulate the recreational marijuana to the same standards currently applied to medical marijuana. The Zoning Code amendments include limiting recreational establishments by location, hours of operation, building type (permanent with no drive-thru) and square footage. In consistency with the Town Code amendments, the proposed code amendments requires recreational marijuana establishments to operate in cooperation with a nonprofit medical marijuana establishment that shares the same space. It also prohibits any establishment from delivering marijuana, testing marijuana for potency or contaminants, or consumption of marijuana at a dispensary or associated off-site cultivation location. Staff finds the proposed code amendments are in conformance with the parameters provided in Proposition 207 and the General Plan. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval subject to the passage of Proposition 207 on the November 3, 2020 election ballot. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider the following motions: I MOVE to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed zoning code text amendments to Section 23, Section 25 and Chapter 31 to regulate recreational marijuana, subject to the passage of Proposition 207 on the November 3, 2020 election ballot.  OR  I MOVE to recommend DENIAL of the proposed zoning code text amendments to Section 23, Section 25 and Chapter 31 to regulate recreational marijuana based on the finding ____________________. Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS  ATTACHMENT 2- POTENTIAL AREAS FOR MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS  AMEND the following in Section 23, Section 25, Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough 1 TABLE 23-1: PERMITTED USES Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Other SPECIFIC USE TYPE R1- 300 R1- 144 R1- 72 R1- 43 R1- 36 R1- 20 R1- 10 R1 -7 S D H 6 R- 4 R- 4R R- S R- 6 C- N C- 1 C- 2 PS T- P P O S NOTES AGRICULTURAL USES Commercial Stables C C C 25.1.B.4 Farms and Ranches C P C C C C C C 25.1.B.10 Marketing of Products Raised on the Premises P 25.1.B.18 Medical Marijuana Dispensary Off-site Cultivation Location, Designated Caregiver Cultivation Location, Designated Qualifying Patient Cultivation Location P P 25.1.B.19 Plant Nursery C C P COMMERCIAL USES Medical Marijuana Dispensary ESTABLISHMENT P P 25.1.B.2019 AMEND the following in Section 23, Section 25, Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough 2 Section 25.1 Requirements for Specific Uses This section applies to all non-residential uses, excluding parks. The requirements specified herein are in addition to those in the corresponding zoning district. B. Requirements for Specific Nonresidential Uses 19. MEDICAL MARIJUANA USES ESTABLISHMENTS a. STANDARDS FOR ALL MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS i. ALL STORAGE FACILITIES FOR MARIJUANA STORED OR GROWN ON SITE MUST PREVENT THE EMISSION OF DUST, FUMES, VAPORS OR ODORS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. ii. THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES ARE PROHIBITED: a) OPERATION OF A MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY b) ANY AND ALL DELIVERY OF MARIJUANA AND/OR A MARIJUANA PRODUCT OR DERIVATIVE c) CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA ON THE PREMISES OF A MARIJUANA DISPENSARY OR DISPENSARY OFF-SITE CULTIVATION LOCATION iii. MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF TITLE 8 (BUSINESS RESTRICTIONS) OF THE ORO VALLEY TOWN CODE. b. Medical Marijuana Dispensary A permitted use subject to the standards below: i. Supplemental Application In addition to the standard required permit application, an applicant applying for a medical marijuana dispensary must complete a supplemental application that includes all of the following information IS REQUIRED: a) If the application is by an agent for the owner, the authorization must include an explicit acknowledgment from the owner that the owner knows that the proposed use of the property is as a medical marijuana dispensary b) The legal name of the medical marijuana dispensary. ESTABLISHMENT. AMEND the following in Section 23, Section 25, Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough 3 c) The name and address of each principal officer and board member of the nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary AFFILIATED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT. d) A copy of the operating procedures adopted in AND NARRATIVE DEMONSTRATING compliance with A.R.S. Section 36-2804(B)(1)(c) AND THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS ADOPTED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES. e) A floor plan showing the location, dimensions and type of security measures AND NARRATIVE demonstrating that the medical marijuana dispensary will meet COMPLIANCE WITH the definition of “enclosed, locked facility” contained in A.R.S. Section 36-2801(6). ii. Development Standards a) A RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY MAY ONLY BE OPERATED IN A SHARED LOCATION WITH A NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY. b) A medical marijuana dispensary A DISPENSARY SHALL be located in a permanent building and may not be located in a trailer, modular building, cargo container, or motor vehicle. c) A medical marijuana dispensary shall be THE PROPERTY SHALL BE set back a minimum of two thousand (2,000) feet from all other medical marijuana dispensaries measured from the parcel boundaries. d) A medical marijuana dispensary shall be set back a minimum of one thousand (1,000) feet from a public, private, parochial, charter, dramatic, dancing, music, or other similar school or educational or activity facility where children may be enrolled, measured from the parcel boundaries. THE PROPERTY SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF ONE THOUSAND (1,000) FEET FROM THE FOLLOWING USES, MEASURED FROM THE PARCEL BOUNDARIES: 1. PUBLIC, PRIVATE, PAROCHIAL, CHARTER, DRAMATIC, DANCING, MUSIC, OR OTHER SIMILAR SCHOOLS OR EDUCATIONAL OR ACTIVITY FACILITIES WHERE CHILDREN MAY BE ENROLLED 2. CHILD CARE CENTERS 3. LIBRARIES OR PUBLIC PARKS 4. CHURCHES AMEND the following in Section 23, Section 25, Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough 4 5. RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE DIAGNOSTIC AND TREATMENT FACILITIES OR OTHER DRUG OR ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FACILITIES. d) A medical marijuana dispensary shall be set back a minimum of one thousand (1,000) feet from a child care center, measured from the parcel boundaries. e) A medical marijuana dispensary shall be set back a minimum of one thousand (1,000) feet from a library or public park. f) A medical marijuana dispensary shall be set back a minimum of one thousand (1,000) feet from a church. g) A medical marijuana dispensary shall be set back a minimum of one thousand (1,000) feet from a residential substance abuse diagnostic and treatment facility or other drug or alcohol rehabilitation facility. h) A medical marijuana dispensary may SHALL not have a drive-through service. e) The maximum floor area of a medical marijuana dispensary SHALL NOT EXCEED is two thousand (2,000) square feet. f) The secure storage area for the medical marijuana stored at the medical marijuana dispensary shall not exceed four hundred (400) square feet. g) The permitted hours of operation of a medical marijuana dispensary are between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. iii. Permit Conditions ISSUANCE: The Town may include any conditions it finds necessary to conserve and promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. The Town must include the following permit conditions for issuance of the medical marijuana dispensary permit: AT A MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS MUST BE SPECIFIED ON THE PERMIT FOR ISSUANCE: a) An expiration date that requires reapplication or renewal of the permit after a specified period of time. a) A requirement that the medical marijuana dispensary meets security requirements adopted by the Arizona Department of Health Services. SECTION 25.1.B.19.B.i.d. AMEND the following in Section 23, Section 25, Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough 5 b) A requirement that the storage facilities for the medical marijuana stored or grown on site prevent the emission of dust, fumes, vapors or odors into the environment. SECTION 25.1.B.19.a.ii. c) A requirement that the medical marijuana dispensary is prohibited from permitting anyone to consume marijuana on the premises. SECTION 25.1.B.19.a.iii.c. e) A requirement that the medical marijuana dispensary comply Applicable sections of Title 10 (Offenses) of the Oro Valley Town Code. C. MARIJUANA CULTIVATION i. c.Medical Marijuana Dispensary Off-Site Cultivation Location A permitted use subject to the standards below: a) i. Supplemental Application In addition to the standard required permit application, an applicant applying for a medical marijuana dispensary must complete a supplemental application that includes all of the following information IS ALSO REQUIRED: 1. a) If the application is by an agent for the owner, the authorization must include an explicit acknowledgment from the owner that the owner knows that the proposed use of the property is as a medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation location. 2. b) The legal name and address of the affiliated medical marijuana dispensary. 3. c) The name and address of each principal officer and board member of the NONPROFIT medical marijuana dispensary affiliated with THE ESTABLISHMENT the off-site cultivation location and the name and address of each medical marijuana dispensary agent. 4. d) A copy of the operating procedures adopted in AND NARRATIVE DEMONSTRATING compliance with A.R.S. Section 36-2804(B)(1)(c) AND THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS ADOPTED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES. 5. e) A floor plan showing the location, dimensions and type of security measures AND NARRATIVE demonstrating that the medical marijuana AMEND the following in Section 23, Section 25, Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough 6 dispensary will meet COMPLIANCE WITH the definition of “enclosed, locked facility” contained in A.R.S. Section 36-2801(6). b) ii. Development Standards 1. a) Medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation location must be ALL ACTIVITIES MUST BE CONTAINED INDOORS located WITHIN in a permanent building and may not be located in a trailer, cargo container or motor vehicle. 2. b) A medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation location THE PROPERTY shall be set back a minimum of two thousand (2,000) feet from all other medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation locations measured from the parcel boundaries. 3. c) A medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation location THE PROPERTY shall be set back a minimum of one thousand (1,000) feet from THE FOLLOWING USES, MEASURED FROM THE PARCEL BOUNDARIES: a. a Public, private, parochial, charter, dramatic, dancing, music, or other similar schoolS or educational or activity facilitIES where children may be enrolled. b. CHILD CARE CENTERS 4. d) A medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation location shall be set back a minimum of one thousand (1,000) feet from a child care center. 4. e) The maximum floor area of a medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation location SHALL NOT EXCEEED is two thousand (2,000) square feet. 5. f) The secure storage area for the medical marijuana stored at the medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation location shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. 6. g) A medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation location must be contained indoors. c) iii. Permit Conditions ISSUANCE: The Town may include any conditions it finds necessary to conserve and promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. The Town must include the following conditions for issuance of AMEND the following in Section 23, Section 25, Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough 7 the permit for a medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation location: AT A MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS MUST BE SPECIFIED ON THE PERMIT FOR ISSUANCE: 1. a) An expiration date that requires reapplication or renewal of the permit after a specified period of time. 1. b) A requirement that the medical marijuana dispensary meets security requirements adopted by the Arizona Department of Health Services. SECTION 25.1.B.19.C.i.A.4. 2. c) A requirement that the storage facilities for the medical marijuana stored or grown on site prevent the emission of dust, fumes, vapors or odors into the environment. SECTION 25.1.B.19.a.ii. 3. d) A requirement that the medical marijuana dispensary is prohibited from permitting anyone to consume marijuana on the premises. SECTION 25.1.B.19.a.iii.c. 4. e) A requirement that the medical marijuana dispensary comply Applicable sections of Title 10 (Offenses) of the Oro Valley Town Code. ii. c. Medical Marijuana Designated Caregiver Cultivation Location. A permitted use subject to the standards below: a) i. Development Standards 1. a) All conditions and restrictions for medical marijuana dispensary off-site cultivation locations except that the designated caregiver cultivation location cultivation area is limited to two hundred fifty (250) square feet. 2. b) More than one (1) designated caregiver may co-locate cultivation locations as long as the total cultivation area does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet. 3. c) The designated caregiver location must comply with the security requirements of A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28. iii. d. Medical Marijuana Qualifying Patient Cultivation Location. A permitted use subject to the standards below: a) i. Development Standards AMEND the following in Section 23, Section 25, Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough 8 1. a) The qualifying patient cultivation location must be located in the C-1 or C-2 Commercial District as a permitted use or as an ancillary use to the qualifying patient’s primary residence. 2. b) Medical marijuana cultivation as an accessory use to the qualifying patient’s primary residence must not be detectable from the exterior of the building in which the cultivation takes place. 3. c) The qualifying patient cultivation location must comply with the security requirements of A.R.S. Title 36, Chapter 28. Chapter 31 Definitions MARIJUANA USE MARIJUANA IS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS, AS DEFINED IN A.R.S. § 13-3401 WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, AS WELL AS THE SEEDS FROM THE PLANT, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT OR ITS SEEDS OR RESIN. MARIJUANA DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, THE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS, OIL OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEEDS OF THE PLANT THAT ARE INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK OR OTHER PRODUCTS. TYPES OF MARIJUANA USES INCLUDE: Medical Marijuana Marijuana used for a medical use as those terms are defined in A.R.S Section 36-2081(11). RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA MARIJUANA USED FOR ENJOYMENT RATHER THAN AS A MEDICAL TREATMENT. MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT AN ENTITY LICENSED BY THE STATE OF ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO ACQUIRE, POSSESS, CULTIVATE, MANUFACTURE, SUPPLY, SELL OR DISPENSE MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS. TYPES OF ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDE: AMEND the following in Section 23, Section 25, Chapter 31 of the Zoning Code. Additions shown in ALL CAPS, Deletions shown in strikethrough 9 Designated Caregiver Cultivation Location An enclosed facility, that does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet of cultivation space, where a designated caregiver, as defined by A.R.S. Section 36-2801(5), cultivates marijuana if the designated caregiver’s registry identification card provides that the designated caregiver is authorized to cultivate marijuana. NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA Dispensary A not-for-profit NONPROFIT entity, defined in A.R.S. Section 36-2801(11), that acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, transports, supplies, sells or dispenses marijuana or related supplies and educational materials to cardholders. RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY A SINGLE RETAIL LOCATION, IN COOPERATION WITH A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY, THAT ACQUIRES, POSSESSES, CULTIVATES, MANUFACTURES AND SELLS MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO CONSUMERS. Dispensary Off-Site Cultivation Location The additional location where marijuana is cultivated by a medical marijuana dispensary as referenced in A.R.S. Section 36-2804(B)(1)(b)(ii). A SINGLE OFF-SITE LOCATION WHERE MARIJUANA OR MARIJUANA PRODUCTS ARE CULTIVATED, PROCESSED, PACKAGED, STORED OR MANUFACTURED BY A MARIJUANA DISPENSARY, BUT FROM WHICH MARIJUANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED OR SOLD TO CONSUMERS. Qualifying Patient Cultivation Location An enclosed facility, that does not exceed fifty (50) square feet of cultivation space for each location, where a qualifying patient, as defined by A.R.S. Section 36-2801(13), cultivates marijuana if the qualifying patient’s registry identification card states that the qualifying patient is authorized to cultivate marijuana. LEGEND Commercial-1 zoned properties Commercial-2 zoned properties Schools, Public Parks, Churches, Libraries or Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities 1000 foot buffer Streets Town boundaries Lambert Tangerine NaranjaLa ChollaLa CañadaMoore Potential Areas for Marijuana Establishments Marijuana establishments are only permitted in commercially (C-1 and C-2) zoned properties that are at least 1000 feet from schools, public parks, churches, libraries or substance abuse facilities.    Planning & Zoning Commission 3. Meeting Date:10/27/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Case Number: Not applicable  SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ONLY REGARDING A 2020 STUDY ON APARTMENTS THAT IMPLEMENTS ACTIONS FROM THE GENERAL PLAN AND PROVIDES INFORMATION TO THE GOVERNING BODY RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide background information about an apartment study (Attachment 1), commissioned by the Town. The study is the first step in implementing actions from the voter approved, Your Voice, Our Future General Plan to support diverse housing types in Oro Valley. The purpose of the study is to provide information to assist the governing body in evaluating the housing mix and future apartment proposals. The Town is currently processing several apartment proposals and more are anticipated.  The study was completed by an independent consultant, the Real Estate Consulting Group (RECG). With over a decade of experience, the company specializes in market research, analysis and forecasting. To identify the scope of the study, RECG interviewed Town staff to understand the recurring concerns perviously raised by residents during public meetings recently and over the years. Based on the information provided, the study is divided into 6 sections to objectively analyze data to answer the following questions:  Section 1: What is the demand for and supply of apartments? Section 2: Do apartments command significantly lower rents over time due to deterioration? Section 3: What are the ages and income of renters in comparison to homeowners? Section 4: Do local schools have the capacity to support more apartments? Section 5: Do apartments significantly contribute to overall crime? Section 6: Is crime higher in apartment communities than single-family residential subdivisions? Key findings addressing each question are in included in the Executive Summary of the report (Attachment 1). This item is being presented to the Commission for information and discussion only.  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: The Town commissioned an apartment study (Attachment 1) to implement actions from the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan and provide information to the governing body. The study was completed by an independent consultant, the Real Estate Consulting Group (RECG). With over a decade of experience, the company specializes in market research, analysis and forecasting. This apartment study is the first step in completing actions identified in the General Plan. Ratified by the voters in 2016, the community identified a need for diverse housing types to meet the needs of the current and future population (Goal D and Policy CC.7). The General Plan directs staff to conduct a housing study and create a housing plan accounting for any changes in demographics.  The information provided in the report is intended to assist the governing body in evaluating the housing mix and future apartment proposals. The Town is currently processing several applications for apartments and more are anticipated. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: To identify the scope of the study, RECG interviewed Town staff to understand the recurring perceptions and concerns previously raised by residents during public meetings recently and over the years. The study aims to evaluate these perceptions and concerns by objectively analyzing data to answer the following research questions as they relate to Oro Valley. RECG collected data from national and local sources (e.g. the US Census, Eller College of Management and the Oro Valley Police Department) to complete the study.   Section 1: What is the demand for and supply of apartments? Section 2: Do apartments command significantly lower rents over time due to deterioration? Section 3: What are the ages and income of renters in comparison with homeowners? Section 4: Do local schools have the capacity to support more apartments? Section 5: Do apartments significantly contribute to overall crime? Section 6: Is crime higher in apartment communities than single-family residential subdivisions? Key findings addressing each section is provided in the Executive Summary (Attachment 1) of the report.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In summary, the apartment study (Attachment 1) was commissioned by the Town as the first step in implementing housing study related actions in the General Plan. The purpose of the study is to provide information to assist the governing body in evaluating the housing mix and future apartment proposals. The Town is currently processing several apartment proposals and more are anticipated. Based on the recurring perceptions and concerns previously raised by residents over the years, the study aims to answer questions regarding the demand, supply, performance, school capacity, key demographics and crime as they relate to apartment communities in Oro Valley. Key findings and conclusions are included in the Executive Summary of the report. This item is for information and discussion only.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- RECG APARTMENT STUDY FOR ORO VALLEY  Town of Oro Valley Apartment Study Fall 2020 Prepared by: 1 | P a g e Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................3 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Research questions ................................................................................................................................... 3 Key findings ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................6 Background information ........................................................................................................................... 6 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Data limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Structure of the report .............................................................................................................................. 8 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................................9 Section 1: What is the current demand and supply of apartments?...................................................... 9 Demand analysis ................................................................................................................................... 9 Population growth ................................................................................................................................ 9 Employment growth ............................................................................................................................. 9 Home ownership patterns .................................................................................................................. 10 Housing affordability ........................................................................................................................... 10 Supply analysis .................................................................................................................................... 10 Section 2: Do apartments command significantly lower rents over time due to deterioration? ....... 11 Oro Valley apartment properties’ performance ................................................................................. 11 Section 3: What are the ages and income of renters in comparison to homeowners? ...................... 13 Renter demographics and housing characteristics ............................................................................. 13 Section 4: Do local schools have the capacity to support more apartments? ..................................... 15 Household and apartment unit size .................................................................................................... 15 School capacity.................................................................................................................................... 15 Section 5: Do apartments significantly contribute to overall crime in Oro Valley? ............................ 16 Higher-density development and total crime ..................................................................................... 16 Section 6: Is crime higher in apartment communities compared to single-family residential subdivisions? .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Higher-density development and single-family residential crime ...................................................... 17 Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Exhibit 1 – Economic Forecast vs. Apartment Forecast .......................................................................... 18 2 | P a g e Exhibit 2- Apartments Average Rent Per Square Foot ............................................................................ 18 Exhibit 3-Apartment Vacancy Rates........................................................................................................ 19 Exhibit 4- Living Arrangements ............................................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 5- Number of Members in a Household ..................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 6- Apartment Unit Mix ................................................................................................................ 21 Exhibit 7- Part I Crime 2019 .................................................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 8- Part I Crime 2018 .................................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 9- Part I Crime 2017 .................................................................................................................... 24 Exhibit 10- Part I Crime 2016 .................................................................................................................. 25 Exhibit 11- Part I Crime 2015 .................................................................................................................. 26 3 | P a g e Executive Summary Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide information to assist the governing body in evaluating Oro Valley’s housing mix and upcoming apartment proposals. The study is the first step in conducting a housing inventory (Action item 135) to meet the goals and policies of the Town’s voter-approved General Plan, Your Voice, Our Future. An independent consulting firm, the Real Estate Consulting Group (RECG) was commissioned by the Town to conduct the study. RECG specializes in market research, analysis and projections. To assist both the public and private sector, the firm publishes a monthly report highlighting different trends in office, commercial, residential and multi-family development. With over a decade of experience, RECG collected pertinent data to identify the demand and supply for apartments in Oro Valley and objectively analyze some of the common concerns. Methodology RECG used both quantitative and qualitative data to complete the study. Data was collected from both national and local sources (e.g. US Census and OVPD). Town staff provided RECG with the current and anticipated amount of apartment proposals. Recurring concerns previously raised by residents during public meetings recently and over the years were also provided by Town staff to identify the scope of the study. Research questions The Town is currently processing five requests for new apartment communities and at least two more are anticipated. According to Town staff, several concerns have been voiced by residents during the public meeting process for these and previous applications for apartments. These concerns include the following:  Perception that the market for apartments is minimal.  Perception that existing apartment communities in Oro Valley struggle with high vacancy rates.  Concern that apartment communities deteriorate to problematic levels over time.  Concerns regarding impacts of perceived young and low-income tenants to the community.  Concerns that local schools do not have the capacity to support apartment communities in Oro Valley.  Perception that apartments significantly increase an area’s crime rates.  Perception that more crimes are reported in apartment communities than in single-family subdivisions. The study aims to evaluate these common perceptions and concerns by objectively analyzing data to answer the following research questions as they relate to Oro Valley: Section 1: What is the demand for and supply of apartments? Section 2: Do apartments command significantly lower rents over time due to deterioration? Section 3: What are the ages and income of renters in comparison to homeowners? Section 4: Do local schools have the capacity to support more apartments? Section 5: Do apartments significantly contribute to overall crime? Section 6: Is crime higher in apartment communities than single-family residential subdivisions? 4 | P a g e Key findings Section 1: What is the demand for and supply of apartments? FINDINGS  Oro Valley apartment demand is high and experiencing the strongest rent growth in the region.  Oro Valley’s current apartment supply is limited (15.3% of all housing units) yet performing well. SUPPORTING DATA (pg. 9-10)  The average monthly rent is $1,123, a 29% growth in the last five years during the same time as the inventory grew by 27%.  Oro Valley is projected to add 200 - 250 new households a year along with 175 – 200 new jobs. An estimated annual housing demand of 200 – 400 new housing units (single-family and multifamily combined) is projected through 2050. Oro Valley is roughly 85% built-out with a limited supply of vacant land.  Oro Valley currently has 12 apartment communities totaling 2,961 units. The vacancy rate is 5.4% implying that properties are generally fully occupied.  In the last decade, the Town of Oro Valley has grown to a population of 45,184. Downsizing empty nesters and early career professionals are increasing demand for apartments, which provide affordable, flexible and low-maintenance options for both groups. Section 2: Do apartments command significantly lower rents over time due to deterioration? FINDINGS  Oro Valley’s older properties (20-36 years old) continue to report low vacancy rates and rising rent. This indicates that age of a property does not necessarily mean decline in quality, appearance, safety or performance. SUPPORTING DATA (pg. 11-12)  The vacancy rates for older apartments (1984-1999) have historically been low or declining even as new apartment communities open.  The average rent of older communities (1984-1999) is roughly 23% lower than the average rent reported for newer communities. However, three of the older communities are still designated Class A properties and the other five are designated Class B properties (older yet well maintained).  Class B apartment communities reported an average rent growth of 34%.  The average rent for the oldest apartment complex (36 year old), Sundown Village, is $1,228. This is slightly higher than the Town’s average apartment rent of $1,123.  For comparison, the average rent for the Sunrise Ridge Apartments, located in the Catalina Foothills and built in 1980 (40 years old) is $1,623. This indicates apartment communities in desirable locations maintain a high performance. Section 3: What are the income levels and age of renters in comparison to homeowners? FINDINGS Oro Valley renters (living in all housing types) have higher incomes than renters in the region and are generally either young professionals or empty nesters. SUPPORTING DATA  Combined, the 55+ age groups represent 42% of the renter population compared to the 25-44 age groups, which represents 37% of the renter population. 5 | P a g e (pg. 13-14)  Oro Valley renter households have a median income of $51,092 (higher than the median income for teachers, police officers, librarians and other administrative professionals). This is lower than Oro Valley’s median household income of $76,046 yet comparable to the Tucson region’s median household income of $51,037.  The average monthly rent of $1,123 in Oro Valley is substantially higher than the average rent in Tucson of $846.  Although apartments in Oro Valley are more expensive than others in the region, they provide a more affordable alternative to homeownership for empty nesters and young professionals. Apartments are roughly $1,057 less per month than the average monthly mortgage, which in 2019 was $2,180. Section 4: Do local schools have the capacity to support more apartments? FINDING Renter household sizes tend to be smaller, with fewer children, resulting in less of an impact on schools than new single-family homes. SUPPORTING DATA (pg. 15)  Renter households in Oro Valley have an average household size of 2.2 people per household, compared to 2.3 people per owner occupied households.  90% of Oro Valley’s apartments are 1- 2 bedroom units.  School capacity is verified through all rezoning applications. Per Town staff, this is the typical process for most apartment requests. Section 5: Do apartments significantly contribute to overall crime? FINDING Crimes from apartment communities do not significantly contribute to overall crime. SUPPORTING DATA (pg. 16)  Over the past five years, apartments have accounted for 13% of all Part I (more serious offenses) residential and non-residential crimes in Oro Valley. Section 6: Is crime higher in apartment communities compared to single-family residential subdivisions? FINDING Crimes in apartment communities are proportionate to crimes occurring in single- family residential subdivisions. SUPPORTING DATA (pg. 17)  Per unit, apartment communities had less crimes reported than single-family homes when compared over a 6 month period. Conclusion Based on the projected population growth, limited amount of vacant land and performance of existing apartment communities (for specifics, see key findings above), the market for apartments is high in Oro Valley. It is expected to remain high as long as these three factors are prevalent. This report finds the common concerns surrounding apartment communities are not substantiated by the data in Oro Valley. In general, apartments provide more compact housing and also contribute density needed to support existing and future retail development. Additionally, apartments help to diversify housing opportunity to meet the demands of a diverse population, ranging from young professionals to empty nesters. Based on the income and age of renters in Oro Valley, it is reasonable to surmise that residents are renting by choice. Overall high-density housing could contribute to broadened housing options able to contribute to viability of commercial nodes, support projected employment growth and accommodate current and future residents in Oro Valley. 6 | P a g e Introduction The purpose of this study is to provide information to assist the governing body in evaluating Oro Valley’s housing mix and upcoming apartment proposals. An independent consulting firm, the Real Estate Consulting Group (RECG) was commissioned by the Town to conduct the study. With over a decade of experience, RECG collected pertinent data to identify the demand and supply for apartments in Oro Valley and objectively analyze some of the common concerns. The study is the first step in conducting a housing inventory to meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Your Voice, Our Future General Plan (ratified by the voters in 2016) envisions a community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining opportunities and housing types that meet the needs of current and future residents (Community Goal D) by supporting the development of diverse housing types (Policy CC.7). To meet this goal and policy, the General Plan specifies the conducting of a housing inventory to plan for the present and future housing needs of the community, while considering changes in demographics and overall growth (Action 135). Background information In the last decade, the Town of Oro Valley has grown to a population of 45,184 and evolved from a predominantly snowbird/retiree destination to a maturing community for all ages. In 2017, Real Estate Consulting Group projected annual housing demand of 200 – 400 new housing units (single-family and multifamily combined), based on projected population growth through 2050. Oro Valley is also roughly 85% built out within its current town limits. Oro Valley has 12 apartment communities totaling 2,961 units. Multi-family realtor investors created a nationally recognized scale to classify apartment communities (see descriptions on next page). Seven of the communities in Oro Valley are designated Class A, or properties of the highest quality that are well- located, new or recently renovated. The balance of the communities are Class B, or properties that are older (some over 30 years old), renovated yet in good locations (see chart below). Oro Valley Apartment Inventory Property Name Address Year Built Units Class The Canyons at Linda Vista 9750 North Oracle Road 2016 228 A Encantada at Steam Pump 11177 North Oracle Road 2014 288 A Villas at San Dorado 10730 North Oracle Road 2014 274 A Oro Vista 1301 West Lambert Lane 2006 138 A Golf Villas 10950 North La Canada Drive 1999 231 A The Place at Rock Ridge 10333 North Oracle Road 1995 319 A La Reserve Villas 10700 North La Reserve Drive 1988 240 A Pusch Ridge 9901 North Oracle Road 1998 144 B Overlook at Pusch Ridge 8851 North Oracle Road 1986 424 B Saddle Ridge 450 West Cool Drive 1985 248 B Catalina Crossing 9095 North Oracle Road 1985 97 B Sundown Village 8215 North Oracle Road 1984 330 B 7 | P a g e Apartment developments are permitted in the Multi-family (R-6), Residential-Service (R-S) and Commercial-Neighborhood (C-N) zoning districts as well as various Planned Area Developments (PADs). The Town currently has roughly 95.5 acres of vacant land zoned for apartments. The sites range in sizes with an average size of 5 acres. For comparison and context, the average size of the existing apartment communities is 12 acres. The Town is currently processing five apartment proposals and anticipates more due to the lack of available vacant land and the projected population growth. Since many of the remaining parcels zoned for apartments are small, most of these proposals require a rezoning request. Apartment requests currently under review Project name or location Acres Units Oro Vista Apartments- Lambert and La Cañada* .9 19 Linda Vista Luxury Rentals- northwest corner of Linda Vista and Oracle* 10 64 1ST and Tangerine 13 167 Oro Valley Village Center (previously known as the Oro Valley Marketplace) 19 602 Westward Look- Ina and Westward Look Drive 13 184 Anticipated requests Project location /name Acres Units HSL on Oracle and El Conquistador 18 304 Property on the southwest corner of Linda Vista and Oracle 20 408 * Existing zoning allows apartments Class Characteristics A Luxury and less than 10 years old Desirable locations High rents and low vacancy rates Professionally managed B Older yet renovated Good locations Medium-high rents and normal vacancy rates May or may not be professionally managed C Over 20 years old and in need of renovations Less desirable locations Low rents and low- income renters May or may not be professionally managed Vacant land zoned for apartments Zoning district Acres Multi-family (R-6) 28.9 Residential-service (r-s) 14.7 Commercial- neighborhood (c-n) 18.8 Capella PAD 33.0 La reserve pad 6.6 Rancho vistoso pad 3.5 Total 95.5 8 | P a g e Methodology RECG used quantitative and qualitative data to complete the study. Data was collected from both national and local sources. Sources include:  U.S. Census – American Factfinder 2013-2018 projections  National Multi-Family Housing Council  Real Data (Real Estate Analysis)  Economic and Business Research Center (EBRC - Eller College of Management, University of Arizona  Pima Association of Governments  Oro Valley Police Department  CityProtects.com  Apartments.com Town staff provided RECG with the applicable General Plan policies, zoning information and the current and anticipated amount of apartment proposals. Recurring concerns previously raised by residents during public meetings recently and over the years were also provided by Town staff to identify the scope of the study. Data limitations To identify the age and income levels of apartment dwellers, the U.S Census American Community Survey (ACS) was the only source available. The U.S. Census defines renters as occupied units which are not owner occupied, whether they are rented for cash rent or occupied without payment of cash rent. Based on this definition, the data includes renters of all housing types (single-family, duplexes, apartments, etc.). For comparing crime incidents reported in single-family residential subdivisions, CityProtects.com was the only source available. The crime incidents collected are limited to a 6-month timeframe and the subdivisions chosen were based on size and location. Structure of the report The data analysis portion of the report is divided into sections to answer the six research questions: Section 1: What is the demand for and supply of apartments? Section 2: Do apartments command significantly lower rents over time due to deterioration? Section 3: What are the ages and income of renters in comparison to homeowners? Section 4: Do local schools have the capacity to support more apartments? Section 5: Do apartments significantly contribute to overall crime? Section 6: Is crime higher in apartment communities than single-family residential subdivisions? Each section includes the applicable data, a detailed analysis and the sources of information. 9 | P a g e Data Analysis Section 1: What is the current demand and supply of apartments? Demand analysis Apartment demand is driven by population and employment growth, changes in effective income, housing affordability, and home ownership patterns. The most recent population and economic forecasts for the Tucson Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) obtained from the Economic and Business Research Center (EBRC - Eller College of Management, University of Arizona) are included in the Appendix (Exhibit 1) to provide insight into market conditions over the next several years. An analysis of Oro Valley’s population and employment growth, housing affordability and home ownership patterns follows below. Population growth The region’s population growth is fueled by job growth and retirees. EBRC is forecasting population growth at .7-.8% per year between 2020 and 2022 (see Exhibit 1 in Appendix). This represents an additional 23,300 new residents in Pima County. At 2.48 people per household, this equates to 9,395 new households over three years, 2,349 new households a year. Oro Valley’s population is forecasted to grow faster than the County as a whole, by 1.4% per year between 2020 and 2022, resulting in 200 – 250 new households per year. Employment growth EBRC is forecasting employment growth at 1 - 1.3% per year from 2020 to 2022, which represents an additional 13,100 jobs in the region. Oro Valley is forecasted to add 528 jobs during that same time period (see following chart). Most of these new jobs are being filled by young professionals aged 23 – 38 (millennials) who have a higher propensity to rent vs. buy, therefore there is an anticipated increased demand for more rental options. Apartments provide an affordable, flexible and low- maintenance housing option attractive to this age group and those new to an area. Source: Town of Oro Valley Economic Development According to Oro Valley’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, the Town has a primary goal to attract or expand a minimum of 20-30 primary employers, with a corresponding addition of 3,000- 4,500 new primary job opportunities, over the next 10 years. Oro Valley’s job growth will be stimulated by the opening of an Arizona State University campus set for the next two to three years and the University Of Arizona School Of Veterinary Medicine. In addition, Roche Tissue Diagnostics purchased an additional 54 acres to expand their 147,000 square foot facility. In general, the young professionals that 10 | P a g e staff these companies need affordable housing options close to work and walkable centers, with restaurants, entertainment and gathering spaces. As a result, employers report that many of their employees are living south of Oro Valley and commuting daily--there are around 8,000 commuters, according to Pima Association of Governments (PAG). Home ownership patterns Demographic shifts are driving demand for apartment living throughout the US and Pima County. Specifically, millennials who are moving into their first home, and empty nesters who are downsizing. The increase in Tucson MSA renter households is consistent with demographic shifts reported since the housing crisis. The percentage of renter households has increased from 35.8% to 39.7%. According to the U.S. Census, 25% of households in Oro Valley are renter households (includes all housing types). A low supply of existing home inventory (less than two months) is further driving demand for apartments. Housing affordability Apartments provide an affordable alternative to home buying. The total monthly payment for the average priced home sold in Oro Valley in 2019 was $2,180, whereas the average market rent for an apartment in Oro Valley was $1,123. Therefore, apartments provide an affordable housing option for young professionals/early career employees as well as down-sizing empty nesters and retirees. Supply analysis A review of the apartment fundamentals, such as occupancy and rent rates, indicates how well apartment properties are performing. Oro Valley currently has 12 apartment communities with a total of 2,961 units, 790 of which were completed in the last five years. This represents a 4.3% market share of the Tucson market apartment units. Oro Valley has 19,295 housing units and apartments represent a 15.3% share of all Oro Valley housing units. Oro Valley’s existing apartment properties are performing well with both an increase in occupancy and rents. As new Class A luxury apartments have come to market, existing apartment properties have been renovated in order to continue to attract tenants. Rents have increased 29% over the past five years and occupancy has increased from 93% to 96%. 11 | P a g e Section 2: Do apartments command significantly lower rents over time due to deterioration? Oro Valley apartment properties’ performance Performance indicators among Oro Valley’s apartment properties are very strong. Vacancy is low--the vacancy rate has dropped from 7.33% to 5.42% over the last five years (see Exhibit 3 and 4 in Appendix), and rents are up—average apartment rents have increased from $872 ($0.93 per square foot) to $1,123 ($1.15 per square foot), an increase of $251 per month (see Exhibit 2 in Appendix). This is higher than the average rent in Tucson of $846. Additionally, as the new properties have opened up at higher rents, owners of older properties have made improvements to their properties and increased rents accordingly. Source: Real Data The average rent of older apartment communities (1984-1999) is roughly 23% lower than the average rent reported for newer apartment communities. However, three of the older apartment communities are still designated Class A and the other five are designated Class B (older yet well maintained). Oro Valley’s oldest apartment community, Sundown Village reports an average rent of $1,228. This is slightly higher than the average rent for the Town of $1,123. Older apartment communities in the Catalina Foothills (36-40 years old) also report high average rents. Sunrise Ridge Apartments, built in 1980, have an average rent of $1,623. This shows apartment communities in desirable locations maintain a high performance over time. Rising rents and low vacancy rates indicate that age of a property does not necessarily mean decline in quality, appearance, safety or performance. Oro Valley Apartment Performance - Average Rents Property Name Year Built Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 The Canyons at Linda Vista 2016 228 $1,130 $1,214 $1,219 $1,357 Encantada at Steam Pump 2014 288 $1,229 $1,209 $1,287 $1,355 $1,342 Villas at San Dorado 2014 274 $1,264 $1,337 $1,222 $1,279 $1,385 Oro Vista 2006 138 $923 $1,047 $1,038 $1,214 $1,215 Golf Villas 1999 231 $929 $998 $1,190 $1,172 $1,364 Pusch Ridge 1998 144 $828 $846 $856 $882 $916 The Place at Rock Ridge 1995 319 $833 $896 $961 $1,042 $1,065 La Reserve Villas 1988 240 $847 $998 $923 $1,279 $1,147 Overlook at Pusch Ridge 1986 424 $648 $700 $730 $810 $861 Saddle Ridge 1985 248 $613 $671 $730 $791 $822 Catalina Crossing 1985 97 $661 $718 $735 $735 $773 Sundown Village 1984 330 $818 $728 $750 $947 $1,228 Average Market Rent $872.09 $939.83 $969.67 $1,060.42 $1,122.92 Catalina Foothills (Swan and Sunrise intersection) Average Rents Property Name Address Year Built Average Rent Elevation Apartments 4500 E. Sunrise Drive 1975 $920 Sunrise Ridge Apartments 4901 E. Sunrise Drive 1980 $1,623 Foothills Apartments 5441 N. Swan 1984 $921 12 | P a g e Compared with the Tucson market, the vacancy rate is similar (4.3% vs. 5.4%), however, average rents in Oro Valley are 35% higher than the market as a whole. Based on the low vacancy rates and increasing rent, Oro Valley’s apartment properties performance is strong. This indicates that the new properties have been properly absorbed and demand exists for additional new units. 13 | P a g e Section 3: What are the ages and income of renters in comparison to homeowners? Renter demographics and housing characteristics A review of demographic data will provide insights regarding the make-up and household characteristics of the renter (of all housing types) population in Oro Valley. As a whole, Oro Valley residents are older— with a median age of 53, due to a larger number of snowbird/retiree residents—than Pima County with a median age of 39. Oro Valley’s renter households, which make up 25% of the total households, have above average household incomes. They have a median household income of $51,092, which is more than the median salary for teachers, police officers librarians and other administrative professionals. Although it is lower than the Oro Valley median household income of $76, 484, it is comparable to the Tucson region’s median household income of $51,037. In comparing renter and homeowner households by age cohort in the following chart, renters account for a larger percentage of households in the younger age groups. Renters represent an average of 67% of households under 34 years of age vs. homeowners at 33%. In the 35-44 age cohort, homeownership increases and renters drop to 39% of the total households. Renter households decline further within the 45-84 age cohorts, then increase to 33% in the 85+ age cohort, due to elderly residents moving into assisted living facilities. It is anticipated that in the coming years, the percentage of renter households will continue to increase as rising home prices make homeownership less attainable to first time homebuyers. Source: ACS 5-year Estimates, 2013-2018 14 | P a g e The following chart illustrates the percentage of renter households by age group. As expected, more renter households are in the younger age groups, with the 25-34 age cohort at 18% and the 35-44 age cohort at 19%, then the percentage tapers off in the older age groups. However, the 55+ age groups still account for 42% of renter households in Oro Valley. Source - ACS 5-year Estimates, 2013-2018 15 | P a g e Section 4: Do local schools have the capacity to support more apartments? Household and apartment unit size According to the National Multifamily Housing Council’s tabulations of 2018 American Community Survey microdata, nationally, renter households are made up of singles at 62%, married couples at 20% and roommates at 18%. Only 22% of renter households have children in the home vs. 37% of all U.S. households that have children in the home. When looking at the number of members in renter households, 77% of households have two people or less in the home (see Exhibits 5 and 6 in Appendix). On average, 100 single-family owner-occupied houses include 51 school-age children. By contrast, apartments are attractive to single people, couples without children, and empty nesters, which is why 100 apartment units average just 31 children. The disparity is even greater when considering only new construction: 64 children per 100 new single- family houses vs. 29 children per 100 new apartment units. More affluent apartment renters have even fewer children (12 children per 100 households for residents earning more than 120 percent of the area median income, AMI), while less wealthy residents earning less than 80 percent of AMI still have fewer children (37 per household) than single-family homes. This holds true in Oro Valley, where in renter occupied housing units, the average household size is 2.2, compared with the average household size for owner occupied housing units at 2.3 people per household. The implication is that renter households tend to be smaller with fewer children. For that reason, 90% of apartment units built in Oro Valley are either one bedroom or two bedroom units. (See Unit Mix chart below and Exhibit 7 in the Appendix). With fewer children in the household, new renter households will have less of an impact on local schools than new single family development. School capacity Per Town staff, rezoning applications (typical process for apartment proposals) must show surrounding schools’ ability to accommodate the anticipated amount of future students. Applicants are required to provide a letter from the respective public school district (Amphitheatre) to verify this requirement is met. 37% 53% 10% Oro Valley Apartments Unit Mix 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed Source: Real Data 16 | P a g e Section 5: Do apartments significantly contribute to overall crime in Oro Valley? Higher-density development and total crime Oro Valley has a reputation for being one of the safest cities in Arizona, a reputation earned by the Oro Valley Police Department’s commitment to excellence. According to Safewise’s Safest Cities report, Oro Valley ranked #1 in safety in their 2019 Top 20 Safest Cities in Arizona report. According to an analysis of Oro Valley Police Department Part I (more serious crimes) crime data from 2015 to 2019 in the following chart, crimes that occurred within apartment communities represented an average of 13% of all residential and non-residential Part I crimes in Oro Valley. As apartment units represent 15.3% of the total housing units, the data indicates that less crime occurs within apartment properties than within the community as a whole. Additionally, the Oro Valley Police Department provides crime prevention to apartment complexes by educating tenants and managers. See Exhibits 8- 12 in the Appendix for the detailed data by apartment community by year. HomicideSexual AssaultRobberyAggravated AssaultResidential BurglaryNon-Residential BurglaryAll Burglary AttemptsLarceny/ TheftMotor Vehicle TheftStolen Motor Vehicle RecoveredArsonTotalsApartment Totals 0 2 0 0 4 2 1 57 4 1 0 71 Oro Valley 1 8 3 10 26 10 12 289 27 4 0 390 Apartment Totals 0 1 0 3 3 0 1 40 8 1 0 57 Oro Valley 0 6 3 11 33 20 11 335 18 6 0 443 Apartment Totals 0 0 1 3 2 4 0 38 3 0 0 51 Oro Valley 0 2 4 12 47 27 7 366 15 4 1 485 Apartment Totals 0 0 1 3 6 1 2 40 2 1 0 56 Oro Valley 0 4 7 23 40 23 9 369 28 4 1 508 Apartment Totals 0 1 0 2 9 1 2 37 3 0 0 55 Oro Valley 0 6 8 16 49 18 14 327 23 8 0 4692015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Oro Valley Part One Crime 2015 - 2019 17 | P a g e Section 6: Is crime higher in apartment communities compared to single-family residential subdivisions? Higher-density development and single-family residential crime In efforts to compare crime from apartments with single-family homes, data was also collected from Cityprotect.com over a 6 month (9/1/19-2/29/20) period. As shown in the chart below, there were 10 incidents of crime within the 12 apartment communities totaling 2,961 units compared with 59 incidents of crime within 16 single-family home communities totaling 2,958 units. These subdivisions were chosen to capture a similar amount of units and account for different areas of Town. As shown in the chart below, crime incidents in apartments accounted for 15% of the total incidents reported. The assertion that apartments in Oro Valley are hot spots for crime was not substantiated through this exercise. 18 | P a g e Appendix Exhibit 1 – Economic Forecast vs. Apartment Forecast Exhibit 2- Apartments Average Rent Per Square Foot Source: Real Data 19 | P a g e Exhibit 3-Apartment Vacancy Rates Source: Real Data Note: The average annual vacancy does not include properties in lease up period (the time period for a newly available property to attract tenants and reach stabilized occupancy). Source: Real Data Note: The average annual vacancy does not include properties in lease up period (the time period for a newly available property to attract tenants and reach stabilized occupancy). Property Name Year Built Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 The Canyons at Linda Vista 2016 228 n/a 84%26%5%5% Encantada at Steam Pump 2014 288 61%36%14%10%7% Villas at San Dorado 2014 274 23%7%7%5%3% Oro Vista 2006 138 6%3%6%3%3% Golf Villas 1999 231 6%6%5%5%3% Pusch Ridge 1998 144 11%6%5%3%3% The Place at Rock Ridge 1995 319 15%17%10%6%8% La Reserve Villas 1988 240 6%6%4%5%8% Overlook at Pusch Ridge 1986 424 4%4%6%5%7% Saddle Ridge 1985 248 5%4%4%4%5% Catalina Crossing 1985 97 6%5%4%4%5% Sundown Village 1984 330 7%5%5%7%8% Average Annual Vacancy 2,961 7%6%6%5%5% Oro Valley Apartment Performance - Vacancy 20 | P a g e Exhibit 4- Living Arrangements Source: NMHC tabulations of 2018 American Community Survey microdata, US Census Bureau Exhibit 5- Number of Members in a Household Source: NMHC tabulations of 2018 American Community Survey microdata, US Census Bureau 21 | P a g e Exhibit 6- Apartment Unit Mix Source: Real Data Property Name Units 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed The Canyons at Linda Vista 228 76 124 28 Encantada at Steam Pump 288 114 144 30 Villas at San Dorado 274 88 136 36 Oro Vista 138 32 82 24 Golf Villas 231 50 140 41 The Place at Rock Ridge 319 96 192 31 La Reserve Villas 240 64 148 28 Pusch Ridge 144 48 68 28 Overlook at Pusch Ridge 424 192 231 0 Saddle Ridge 248 136 112 0 Catalina Crossing 97 66 19 12 Sundown Village 330 144 160 26 Totals 2961 1106 1556 284 Oro Valley Apartments Unit Mix 22 | P a g e Exhibit 7- Part I Crime 2019 Source: Town of Oro Valley Police Department Apartment Complexes HomicideSexual AssaultRobberyAggravated AssaultResidential BurglaryNon-Residential BurglaryAll Burglary AttemptsLarceny/ TheftMotor Vehicle TheftStolen Motor Vehicle RecoveredArsonTotalsCanyons at Linda Vista Trail 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 Catalina Crossing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Encantada at Steam Pump 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 5 Golf Villas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 La Reserve Villas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Oro Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Overlook at Pusch Ridge 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 14 Pusch Ridge 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 Rock Ridge 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 7 2 0 0 12 Saddle Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Sundown Village 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 0 0 23 Villas at San Dorado 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apartment Totals 0 2 0 0 4 2 1 57 4 1 0 71 Oro Valley 1 8 3 10 26 10 12 289 27 4 0 390 Oro Valley Apartment-Wide Part One Crime - 2019 23 | P a g e Exhibit 8- Part I Crime 2018 Source: Town of Oro Valley Police Department Apartment Complexes HomicideSexual AssaultRobberyAggravated AssaultResidential BurglaryNon-Residential BurglaryAll Burglary AttemptsLarceny/ TheftMotor Vehicle TheftStolen Motor Vehicle RecoveredArsonTotalsCanyons at Linda Vista Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Catalina Crossing 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 Encantada at Steam Pump 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 6 Golf Villas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 La Reserve Villas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 Oro Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Overlook at Pusch Ridge 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 7 1 0 0 11 Pusch Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Rock Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Saddle Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 6 Sundown Village 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 2 1 0 14 Villas at San Dorado 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apartment Totals 0 1 0 3 3 0 1 40 8 1 0 57 Oro Valley 0 6 3 11 33 20 11 335 18 6 0 443 Oro Valley Apartment-Wide Part One Crime - 2018 24 | P a g e Exhibit 9- Part I Crime 2017 Source: Town of Oro Valley Police Department Apartment Complexes HomicideSexual AssaultRobberyAggravated AssaultResidential BurglaryNon-Residential BurglaryAll Burglary AttemptsLarceny/ TheftMotor Vehicle TheftStolen Motor Vehicle RecoveredArsonTotalsCanyons at Linda Vista Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Catalina Crossing 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 Encantada at Steam Pump 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Golf Villas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 La Reserve Villas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Oro Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overlook at Pusch Ridge 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 12 1 0 0 16 Pusch Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Rock Ridge 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 7 Saddle Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 Sundown Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 7 Villas at San Dorado 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apartment Totals 0 0 1 3 2 4 0 38 3 0 0 51 Oro Valley 0 2 4 12 47 27 7 366 15 4 1 485 Oro Valley Apartment-Wide Part One Crime - 2017 25 | P a g e Exhibit 10- Part I Crime 2016 Source: Town of Oro Valley Police Department Apartment Complexes HomicideSexual AssaultRobberyAggravated AssaultResidential BurglaryNon-Residential BurglaryAll Burglary AttemptsLarceny/ TheftMotor Vehicle TheftStolen Motor Vehicle RecoveredArsonTotalsCanyons at Linda Vista Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Catalina Crossing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Encantada at Steam Pump 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 8 Golf Villas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 10 La Reserve Villas 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 Oro Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Overlook at Pusch Ridge 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 10 0 0 0 13 Pusch Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Rock Ridge 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 Saddle Ridge 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 Sundown Village 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 Villas at San Dorado 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Apartment Totals 0 0 1 3 6 1 2 40 2 1 0 56 Oro Valley 0 4 7 23 40 23 9 369 28 4 1 508 Oro Valley Apartment-Wide Part One Crime - 2016 26 | P a g e Exhibit 11- Part I Crime 2015 Source: Town of Oro Valley Police Department Apartment Complexes HomicideSexual AssaultRobberyAggravated AssaultResidential BurglaryNon-Residential BurglaryAll Burglary AttemptsLarceny/ TheftMotor Vehicle TheftStolen Motor Vehicle RecoveredArsonTotalsCanyons at Linda Vista Trail 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Catalina Crossing 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 Encantada at Steam Pump 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 Golf Villas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Reserve Villas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Oro Vista 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Overlook at Pusch Ridge 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 11 Pusch Ridge 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Rock Ridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saddle Ridge 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 Sundown Village 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 2 0 0 14 Villas at San Dorado 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 Apartment Totals 0 1 0 2 9 1 2 37 3 0 0 55 Oro Valley 0 6 8 16 49 18 14 327 23 8 0 469 Oro Valley Apartment-Wide Part One Crime - 2015