Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (2021)Stine, Michelle From: Sirois, Andrea Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 11:23 AM To: Standish, Michael; Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Dave Perry Explorer Article Sincerely, Andrea Sitois Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Councfl Town of Oro Valley Direct Line: 520-229-4714 From: Susann Ventzke <sventzkel@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 11:18 AM To: Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Dave Perry Explorer Article E WARNING: External Sender. Read Carefully. Report phishing. Dear Mayor and Members of the Council, I am a homeowner in the Vistoso Highlands community adjacent to the Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve. donated to the purchase of the previous Vistoso Golf Club for the main purpose of maintaining or restoring the pond and creating an Open Space for residents of Rancho Vistoso. The pond was the "Crown Jewel" of Oro Valley, now it is a blighted eyesore. I am aware of the Dave Perry Explorer article and I absolutely reject the claims being made by Archeology Southwest. It was the Town of Oro Valley who dictated that golf courses in Rancho Vistoso utilize reclaimed water for their ponds and water features, which has been the case for several years now. These reclaimed waters are regularly utilized in public park ponds and lakes which are, by their nature, frequented by the public. The claims by Archeology Southwest that the proposed plan to restore the pond would be creating a disposal of hazardous and toxic materials into the land on the Preserve and creating an unsafe condition for the public are outrageous, inflammatory and clearly a misrepresentation of environmental law in their attempt to quash the fruition of this long-awaited project. I urge the Council to reject the false claims being made by Archeology Southwest and to progress with restoration of the pond that is clearly allowed under the governing Conservation Easement. Respectfully, Susann Ventzke Stine, Michelle From: Sirois, Andrea Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 11:22 AM To: Standish, Michael; Stine, Michelle Subject: FW: Support of approved pond restoration within the Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve Sincerely, Andrea Sirois Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley Direct line: 520-229-4714 From: christine moffett <christinemoffett60@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 11:19 AM To: Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Support of approved pond restoration within the Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve WARNING: External Sender. Read Carefully. Report phishing. el IoThis is the first time you received an email from this sender (christ1nemoffett60(a)gmail.coml. Exercise caution when clicking links, pening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. I am one of many residents in Oro Valley who contributed money to secure preservation of the property now known as Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve and did so with a strong assurance that the former irrigation pond would be restored "in whole or in part " as stated and authorized by the Conservation Easement documents. I urge the Council to move forward with the project as approved and without delay. Archaeology Southwest's claim that utilizing reclaimed water is "dumping hazardous waste" in this planned recirculation and aeration system pond is misleading (false) and begs the question as to how that claim bodes for our cities golf course and other park features currently utilizing reclaimed water. Further, reclaimed water is approved, under Arizona law, for use in lakes, ponds, irrigation systems and other public -facing applications. Enough with delaying and attempts to sabotage this project, it is beyond time to break ground on the restoration of the pond area of Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve for which there has been overwhelming resident support. Respectfully, Christine Moffett Oro Valley Resident Stine, Michelle From: Sirois, Andrea Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 9:44 AM To: Stine, Michelle; Standish, Michael Subject: FW: Support for Pond Restoration and Rebuttal of Mischaracterizations Regarding Reclaimed Water Use If it's a part of agendas.. Sincerely, Andrea Sirois Executive Assistant Town Manager, Mayor and Council Town of Oro Valley Direct Line: 520-229-4714 From: Joe Bell <ipajbell@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 9:30 PM To: Town Council <council@orovalleyaz.gov> Subject: Re: Support for Pond Restoration and Rebuttal of Mischaracterizations Regarding Reclaimed Water Use WARNING: External Sender. Read Carefully. Report phishing. This is the first time you received an email from this sender (ipaibellCd)gmail.coml. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. March 19, 2026 Dear Mayor and Members of the Oro Valley Town Council, I write to voice my strong support for the Town Council's approved plan to restore the former pond within the Vistoso Trails Nature Preserve. I would also like to rebut misinformation that representatives of Archaeology Southwest presented in a recent Tucson Local Media story. 1. The Conservation Easement explicitly authorizes restoration of the pond. The governing Conservation Ease ment`permits.restoration of the former irrigation pond "in whole or.in part." This is not.an ambiguous provision - it is a clear, affirmative authorization. Any claim that restoring the pond violates the easement ignores this clear language and attempts to reinterpret the agreement in a manner that would nullify one of its stated allowances. 2. The pond historically operated with reclaimed water. The pond previously functioned using reclaimed water prior to its closure. The current plan simply restores that condition in a more limited scope. Assertions that this represents a new or improper use are incorrect. The historical operation of the pond confirms that reclaimed water use is consistent with the property's established management and with the expectations of the parties to the easement. 3. Grade A/A+ reclaimed water is a highly treated, regulated resource - not waste disposal. Grade A and A+ reclaimed water are the highest quality classifications under Arizona's regulatory framework. These waters are specifically approved for use in Lakes, ponds, irrigation systems, and other public -facing applications. Describing their use as or "disposal of hazardous or toxic materials" is factually and legally wrong. It disregards the regulatory system that governs reclaimed water and the widespread, accepted use of these water sources throughout Arizona. 4. The "hazardous materials dumping" claim is a misapplication of environmental Law. Representatives of Archaeology Southwest rely on the designation of certain substances, such as PFAS, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to argue that any water containing trace amounts of those substances constitutes hazardous waste. That is not how environmental law works. The presence of a regulated substance at low -Levels does not convert treated, permitted reclaimed water into hazardous waste, nor does it transform.a lawful reuse project into prohibited dumping or disposal. 5. The pond will be a managed, engineered system - not a "static reservoir." The Kimley-Horn project plans explicitly describe pond recirculation and aeration systems designed to - maintain water quality and prevent stagnation. Characterizing the pond as a "static reservoir" is patently false. It ignores the actual design of the project and misrepresents how the system will function. 6. The project advances the Preserve's conservation values. Restoring the pond will enhance habitat diversity, support wildlife, improve the scenic landscape, and provide meaningful recreational and educational benefits. These outcomes are directly aligned with the 2 Conservation Easement's stated purpose. Claims that the project undermines conservation values are not supported by the facts. 7. Policy concerns should not be confused with legal violations. Emerging contaminants such as PFAS are an important area of ongoing research and regulation. However, generalized concerns do not establish that this project is unlawful or inconsistent with the easement. No site -specific evidence has been presented demonstrating that the proposed use of Grade A/A+ reclaimed water will -create a measurable risk to human health or the environment. Conclusion The Town's plan to restore the pond is explicitly authorized, historically consistent, and fully aligned with Arizona's regulated water reuse practices. The arguments in opposition rely on misinterpretations of both the Conservation Easement and environmental law, as well as unsupported technical claims. The Town Council should move forward with confidence in its approved plan. Respectfully, Joe Bell Oro Valley Resident