Guest View: Mike Zinkin – Is the Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance (ESLO) just another Disingenuous Ordinance?

 

Chapter 27.10 of the Town Code established the ESLO
Its purpose states that: “The environmental sensitive lands (ESL) regulations implement the Oro Valley General Plan by conserving natural, scenic, hillside, and cultural resources. This has been accomplished in a comprehensive manner by accounting for environmental, archaeological and historic resources, economic development, and housing policies.”

Just as we saw in the Town’s Water Ordinance, the words mean nothing. Just as the Town preaches for its citizens to conserve water while at the same time wasting millions of gallons on golf courses, the Town preaches environmental regulations that help destroy the environment.

Town West is using a sentence in the ESLO as a vehicle to circumvent the General Plan and increase water waste.
Town Code Chapter 27.10.F.2.c.iii.h is titled, “Mixed Use.” It states that: “Residential uses that are functionally integrated, including access, nonvehicular circulation and amenities, with commercial or employment uses may be approved within commercial zoning districts.”

The Marketplace is a commercial district, therefore the ESLO potentially allows for residential use. Apartments are a form of residential use. The key words are may and potentially. This is what staff calls an ask. The decider is our elected body (the Town Council). Of course, our current Council has chosen to “kick another can down the road” by continuing this application to a future date.

Apartments and Hotels use much more water than retail and restaurants
Every store and restaurant has restrooms, and the restaurants also wash a lot of dishes. They use water... potable/drinking water. Now let’s use the ESLO and change the businesses and restaurants to apartments and hotels. Both of these entities have multiple bathrooms, showers, and dishwashers.

One can only imagine how much more water is utilized by the apartments and hotels when compared to commercial businesses and restaurants. Yet this is allowed under the Town’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance. That’s correct -- the ordinance that is supposed to conserve natural resources is being used to exponentially increase the use of natural resources.

Is this disingenuous? Why can’t our elected leaders understand this?

- - -
Mike Zinkin and his wife have lived in Oro Valley since 1998. He served on the Oro Valley Development Review Board from 2005-2009, the Board of Adjustment from 2011-2012, and the Town Council from 2012-2016. He was named a Fellow for the National League of Cities. He was a member of the NLC Steering Committee for Community and Economic Development and a member of the Arizona League of Cities Budget and Economic Development Committee. He was an Air Traffic Controller for 30 years. Mike has a Bachelor’s degree in history and government from the University of Arizona and a Master’s degree in Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education from California State University, Northridge

Oro Valley Council To Set Strategic Priorities Tonight

Two year horizon

Tonight, the Oro Valley Town Council will review and set strategic priorities for the town for the next two years. The document they are reviewing is called “The Strategic Leadership Plan.” It covers a two-year period of time. The plan sets priorities in seven areas (See panel that follows).
  
Part of the budget process

Approving the strategic leadership plan is part of the process that Town Manager Mary Jacobs developed while she was working with Mayor Hiremath. At that time, Jacobs used the council’s annual January strategic leadership retreat to introduce the concept of developing operating priorities based on that counsel‘s interpretation of the intent of the general plan. That is what the leadership plan includes. The last leadership plan was developed two years ago. The Winfield Council was in office for less than two months. COVID-19 had not yet happened.  So a new plan really is appropriate given these changes in circumstances.

Planning a "post pandemic" Oro Valley 

One of the goals of the plan is to transition the Oro Valley economy to a post pandemic era. Of course, no one knows what that will be so the plan will provide directions to proceed but not necessarily direction that the town will proceed in areas like economic development and in activities to attract retail and hospitality businesses to the community. These businesses that have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic.

Focus on ESLO

Another area focus is to look at the towns “Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance (“ESLO”). It was passed in 2011. You can read its history here.

To some extent the ESLO is a barrier rampant, unbridled growth. This ordinance was approved by counsel encourage the wise use of land, avoiding the obliteration of hillsides for example. One of the objectives of the proposed strategic leadership plan is to evaluate the ordinance in relationship to “unintended consequences”. We’re not sure to what unintended consequences they refer, since these not stated in the document. It seems that perhaps the ordinance, if evaluated at all, should be evaluated against what it has accomplished. That is: How has the ordinance prevented the wanton distraction of land?

Funding police pension key financial focus area

In the area financial sustainability, and objective is to find a solution to the funding town's public safety retirement fund (PSPRS). This fund is managed by the State. Oro Valley’s pension is. underfunded.  Oro Valley would lead the entire state if it funded its plan completely, since 95% of our communities have severely under funded there public service pensions. The State should lead this effort for all communities.  For example, the State has the financial capacity to fund the plan and deduct each town’s share over, say 20 years, from State shared revenues.

The "buildout" bogeyman to drive annexation

Also included in the objectives in the financial area are to more fully understand what the “build out” of the town actually means financially. There are some on council who have said that the town will need a property tax to support itself is buildout is achieved. They assume that the town can’t find more efficient ways to deliver the same level of service. It also a promotes a “grow or die” philosophy. Thus, one of the areas the plan discusses is the continuing pursuit of high priority annexations.

 

Could be the final opportunity for some council members to opine

What the town Council decides this evening matters because it sets what town will pursue past the next council election. It may well be the last time that some members of council will have the opportunity to shape the future. I hope they do so and that they will do so wisely.

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Councilmembers Snider and Hornat offer absurd reasons for approving a recent rezoning

Click HERE to read the absurd comments that Mayor Hiremath made during the same Council Meeting when discussing this rezoning in the LaCholla/Naranja area.

Today’s article focuses on the absurd justifications made by Councilmembers Snider and Hornat to explain their approval of that rezoning request…rezoning 85 acres of pristine desert on the west side of LaCholla from R1-20 (minimum 20,000 square foot lots with custom grading) to R1-7 (minimum 7,000 sf lots with mass grading).

Prior to their discussion, I spoke at the podium, pointing out the false information that had been supplied to them by the applicant and the Town Staff…false information that they would use in formulating their decision. Below is an excerpt from my speech:

"I’d like to begin by stating that The WLB proposal contains misinformation. Page 5 states that the existing land use east of the property at Ironwood Canyon has “a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.” That is false. The smallest lot size is just under 15,000 sf and there are only 2 lots of that size. The majority of lots are between 18,000 and 23,000 sf.

In your Council Packet, Item C3 states that the largest lot in Ironwood Canyon is 28,884 sf. That is false. The largest lot is 33,020 sf.

Those two falsehoods should make you question how many other items in the report may also be false.

Page 48 of the WLB proposal states…“This residential development, with its relatively low proposed land use intensity…will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.” That is false. 6500 square foot lots is less than half the size of even the smallest lots to the east at Ironwood Canyon and it’s 20 times smaller than the 3 acre lots directly to the north. How is that compatible?"

Councilmember Mary Snider’s absurd comment

Snider tried to blame approving small lot sizes and cluster homes on quote...

“...the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance [ESLO] which the citizens of our community drafted and this council approved in 2011 or 2012. We’re following the direction of what the community has said they want us to do in conserving more open space…Sometimes people might not understand why we’re getting slightly smaller lots, but we’re getting more open space.”

My rebuttal
Really, Mary? You think that residential lots that are half the size of the adjacent lots to the east and 20 times smaller than the adjacent lots to the north are slightly smaller??!! You need to be replaced with a council member who can do basic math and who cares about the property values of ALL Oro Valley residents, not just the ones who live along the golf courses.

Also, it was not the citizens who wanted cluster homes on tiny lots. You failed to mention that the ESLO Committee included members of the development community including Councilmember Steve Solomon (a developer) who acted as the Town Council representative for the ESLO Committee.  As usual, they got what they wanted and the citizens were ignored. The ESLO concept that citizens had in mind is vastly different from what was adopted. Why do you think the citizens continually complain about the constant rezonings for postage-stamp sized lots?

It’s disingenuous of you to say that you’re following the direction given to you by the community when you have never taken that approach when it comes to approving General Plan amendments and rezonings. The General Plan was written by the community, giving the Town Council direction on what the citizens want for our town, yet you have had no problem approving one General Plan amendment and rezoning after another. In fact, in 2016, you approved a General Plan Amendment just 8 days after the new General Plan was ratified. Citizens worked on that plan for two years and you began dismantling it in 8 days. So spare me your sanctimonious, “We’re following the direction” of the citizens.

Councilmember Joe Hornat’s absurd comments

Hornat Comment #1. “I’m a little defensive about when people tell me that we haven’t followed through with the process. The P&Z folks who rejected this, or denied it, never even brought up the number of houses or the size of the lots. They were concerned with traffic. I submit that they denied it, but not for the reasons that have been brought up here.”

My rebuttal
Joe, you were present when Town Planner, Milini Simms gave the Town’s Power Point presentation on this rezoning, shortly before you made your comments. She stated that this rezoning…

“…was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6th. They did recommend denial. The main focus of that meeting was compatibility to the surrounding area and traffic along Naranja.”

The compatibility had to do with the tiny lot sizes not being compatible with the surrounding homes. You were present at that P&Z hearing, so you were well aware of what had transpired that evening.

Hornat Comment #2: “Is this really that much different than what is across the street on the East side? We can play with the numbers all day long. We can look at the pictures. It’s not that much different. It might even be better. I don’t want to get into a numbers game. That’s just ridiculous.”

My rebuttal
Yes, it’s much different than what’s across the street on the East side. As I outlined in my speech (were you listening?) 6500 square foot lots is less than half the size of even the smallest lots to the east.

Other differences include:
• mass grading vs. custom grading
• 2-story homes vs. 1-story homes
• 10 feet between homes vs. 50 feet between homes
• lot widths of 50 feet vs. lot widths of 100 feet
• connecting walls vs. no connecting walls

Why do you listen attentively to the applicant when they discuss their numbers? They present their numbers (lot sizes and number of homes) as they try to convince you that their numbers are compatible with the surrounding numbers. But for some reason, it’s not until the residents speak about the numbers not being equal that you decide that you don’t want to “get into a numbers game.” What's really ridiculous is how the Town Council repeatedly gives more weight to the presentations of the applicant/developer and the Town Staff than they do to the presentations of the citizens.

I’ve come to expect ridiculous comments from Mary Snider, but your comments at this meeting had me wondering if perhaps you had died recently and the council is now propping up your body at the dais in the manner of Weekend at Bernie’s.

Short Stuff: Last Week's Council Meeting

Here's some of the "stuff" that we have not reported that occurred at last week's Oro Valley council meeting:

• The Oro Valley Youth Advisory Council is making its plans for this year.  One short term idea presented to council is a youth-senior tech day, where they would help seniors learn technology.


• As we reported previously, the council did approve measures to bring its governance in concert with the change in election timing.  All council members will serve through November of the last year of their term.  The Vice Mayor position can now be occupied by any council member, regardless of when their term ends. (See our prior post)

• Council Member Hornat spent 3 minutes refuting a letter of Council Member Zinkin's that appeared in the Explorer, a regional free, advertiser paid paper.  Hornat read the parks and recreation budget into the record.   Council Member Hornat stated that Council Member Zinkin of funding a recall effort against Hornat and Council Member Snider.  This recall effort took place in the summer of 2011.  Watch the video on the right.  It is Hornat in "attack mode."

• Council approved 7-0 an actuarial study to see if the town wants our elected officials to join the state retirement program for elected officials before the program requires them to provide for their own retirement through a defined contribution program.  "Its pretty comical when you do the math," noted Council Member Snider. She noted that it may cost the town more to administer the program than it was worth.  "It also requires five years all tenure in your position," noted council member Hornat. "Perhaps that's why Oro Valley Never had..." a retirement program for elected officials.

• Approved  by a 7-0 vote the translation of Pima County zones to the equivalent Oro Valley zones for the annexed area known as Oracle/Ina.  There were 3 exiting zones that were converted to comparable Oro Valley zoning codes.

• Approved amendments such that the Environmental Sensitive Lands Ordinance can be applied to general plan all general plan amendments.

---

Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission Approves Moore Road Plan Amendment

The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission held two public hearings last week on a minor general plan amendment and on a text amendment to apply the Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance ("ESL") to areas not yet annexed to Oro Valley (nee: Desert Springs).
---
The first hearing was about a small parcel located on the northeast corner of La Canada and Moore Road. The property, a bit less than 5 acres, is currently zoned for commercial. There is a small piece of the property that is not being changed that will likely be a common area that will not be built upon.

The request is to develop it for medium density residential, similar to what is already in this neighborhood.  There is no commercial in that area.  The property is not a source of revenue.  If approved, the owner will submit a rezoning request.

It is not "clear-cut" as to whether or not this property should be amended to residential.

The public hearing on this matter was one person, Resident Bill Adler.  Bill questioned why "market demand" is the right formula for changing the zoning in a master planned community since the community was, by definition, master planned by professional planners.  Therefore, a change of this nature simply to reflect today's market demand is "arbitrary." He asks:  "What happens to our trust in planning when we are regularly making changes in land use maps?"

As one commission member noted:  "We wanted to encourage people to walk to services... It hasn't happened yet [in that area]...Are we taking away this opportunity..." by amending the general plan?

Oro Valley Planner Williams noted that Rancho Vistoso  "... was envisioned as a self-contained residential area... However, it is not as the plan it was 30 years ago... Our concern is the distribution of retail..." in the community.  I think it is an excellent site..." for commercial.  He also noted that he would put a range of uses on this parcel if he were to do the planning for it today.

The commission voted 5-0 to approve the amendment based on the fact that the property has been open for commercial used for many years with no development.  In other words, their "yardstick" was current market demand for the property.
---
The second hearing was a measure to clarity how the ESL applies to a general plan amendments and how it applies to land being considered for annexation by Oro Valley.  This clarification was requested by council.

One resident spoke during the public hearing portion, voicing concern that the measure, as written, did not fully account for land use map and zoning requirements.  "This is complicated," resident Bill Adler observed during this public comment.

SAHBA weighed-in with their support for the proposed amendment. The Coalition For Sonoran Desert Preservation, absent at "hillside destruction meetings" about which we have previously written, did come to this meeting, voicing their support for the text amendment, wanting to add two suggested items.  One of these it to accept and apply the land use maps prepared by the county of annexed lands and to not develop separate land use maps for Oro Valley in these areas. Their suggestions were later ignored.

Confused? So are we. So weren't many at the meeting.

One commission member noted that his "eyes were crossing" when he read the proposed amendment; that he didn't understand it until staff explained it to him.   Board member Cox noted that "things do change" so updates to the land use maps are good.  Someone noted: "If you apply every bit of the ESL before they are annexed, it could be a problem."

We agree.  This is a confusing topic.  One that deserves a better vetting than the 40 or so minutes in which it was "discussed" by the commission.

The commission voted 5-0 in favor of the amendment.  We think that they simply "gave up" trying to understand on what they were voting, never even considered any changes to what they were given, relied on staff's opinions, and voted to yes.
---

Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission To Consider Two General Plan Amendments

The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission will hold 2 public hearings when it meets next Tuesday. One is to rezone a property in Rancho Vistoso from neighborhood commercial to medium density residential. It is located on the northeast corner of Moore Road and La Canada.  The property is known as Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 10.  The other is a text amendment to the general plan for the environmentally sensitive lands ordinance (ESLO).

Developer WLB Management wants to build 19 residential lots on the Moore Road property. It is located among other residential homes.  Why the requests?  The applicant asserts taht "Over the years Rancho Vistoso has developed at roughly two-thirds of its originally envisioned residential density, and as such there is less commercial demand than originally anticipated for this area. ...If rezoned for residential land use, this property will be designed and constructed to the same high standards as the surrounding Rancho Vistoso neighborhoods." Town Staff's report states that there are compelling factors for and agains this general plan amendment.  If approved by town council, the developer will then request an amendment to the Rancho Vistoso PAD.

In March, town council initiate a request to town staff to clarify the requirements of the ESLO.  "The amendment clarifies that the primary environmentally-based Conservation Categories (Major Wildlife Linkage, Critical Resource Area and Core Resource Area) are to be considered during the GPA [General Plan Amendment] process to provide an understanding of the environmental resources on the property."  The staff's recommendations have been reviewed by a handful of developers and also the the Sonoran Desert Conservation Group.  It has not been discussed in a neighborhood meeting.  This public hearing is the first chance for the public to be heard.
---

Oro Valley Town Council Considers Extending ESLO

---

There is one item on the main agenda of tonight's Oro Valley Town Council meeting.  It is a motion to initiate a zoning code amendment "...to correct inconsistencies [regarding] the applicability of Environmentally Sensitive Lands regulations [ESLO]."  The item is procedural in nature.  It is to clarify how the ESLO should be applied to general plan amendment considerations.  The need for considering this came about in December during the review of the Desert Springs general plan amendment.  It is town staff's position that ESLO should be addressed during all land use cases.

If the Council approves this motion, then the Planning and Zoning Commission will review proposed changes and recommend actions to council.  We suspect that this will occur at an upcoming near-term meeting of the Commission.

Oro Valley's ESLO ordinance dictates land use in relation to the environment. There are six designations of land use (Map)

• Major Wildlife Linkage Category (100% Open Space) 
• Critical Resource Area Category (95% Open Space) 
• Core Resource Area Category (80% Open Space) 
• Resource Management Area Tier 1 (66% Open Space) 
• Resource Management Area Tier 2 (25% Open Space) 
• Resource Management Area Tier 3 (0% Open Space)

Areas that are not within the town's boundaries are not mapped.  Thus, a proposed annexation area, such as Desert Springs, does not have an Oro Valley ESLO determination

The ESLO dictates what can and can not occur in relation to disturbing the land.  It was developed and approved by the prior council in January, 2011(Ordinance No. (O) 11-01).  It is part of the General Plan.  "The ESLO establishes zoning regulations, guidance, and incentives to conserve sensitive resources in the town of Oro Valley through the use of geographic information system (GIS) mapping within the town of Oro Valley, along with integrating the Pima County principles defined in the already established Conservation Land System (CLS) Regional Plan Policy4 and the Multi-species Conservation Plan (MSCP), which is part of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan5 (SDCP)."(Source)

During the hearings on Desert Springs, the applicant did recognize that, once the town annexed Desert Springs, the ESLO would apply.  The applicant hired a consultant to discuss how ESLO would apply once the annexation had occurred.  The town, however, does not have the Desert Springs area mapped for ESLO since the area is not part of the town... yet.

So, tonight, the council will consider how to insure that ESLO considerations are applied in any general land-related amendment.
---