HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 7/23/2009 w , Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)
S`'� Public Advisory Committee
Meeting #3
31,301.titlk-1 ENVIRONMENTALLY
ti SENSITIVE LANDS
�
*AMENDED AGENDA
Thurs.,July 23,2009
4-6 p.m.
/JO a Conference Room
11000 N. La Canada Dr.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of July 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes
3. Fieldwork Methodology
--Resource priorities
--Defining"Sensitivity"
4. *Team Report on Upcoming Activities
5. Future Agenda items
6. Adjournment
POSTED: 07 21 09 AMENDED: 07 21 09
10:00 a.m. 3:30 p.m.
cp cp
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
any person with a disability needs any type of accommodations, please notify the Town
Clerk's Office at(520)229-4700.
"Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council: In accordance with
Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-2 of the Oro Valley Town
Code, a majority of the Town Council may attend the above referenced meeting as a
member of the audience only."
• 0 II
ESL Public Advisory Committee Meeting Date: 7- ___3 - .02
(Please sign in next to your name)
Signature or Initials Name Email Phone Address
Ai----T5 � 1 -( i' ' ' Adler, Bill StFatha@aol.com 297-3730
in
Andrews, Joseph jandrewsorovalleyaz.gov
v.
r16
Berchtold, Karen kberchtold@orovalleyaz.go
Chatfield, Don DChatfield@sonoraninstitute.org 797-9713
J..,,l Davis, Mary mdavis@orovalleyaz.gov
Mb Hanson, Kelsie khanson@orovalleyaz.gov
Kline, Philipeor ekline ahoo.com 670-6150 x 224
Ai�� Pg g @Y
` ....._
McKee, Doug dmckee@gmail.com 575-6500
i ie , Lw.
J IA I ' I Oldakowski, Chet oldak@comcast.net 797-7161
I
Popelka, Paul ppopelka@orovalleyaz.gov
aLt_e__.0, Solomon, Steve canadavistas@comcast.net 297-4151
c Taillie, Steve steveandjudyt@msn.com 825-8804
Vella, Bayer bvella@orovalleyaz.gov
LiVU‘' (\IL5-0T, � Williams, David dwillliams@wildan.com S Z S wa w4...A-."�eM.t, /k ck-
.0;44e. 111
0fri/t --�
U)OOt7SL, & N,tcuv% —u�S . COWL. -5?5. '1117 OS-705"-
de4 .
Town of Oro Valley
• Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance
Informational Note: The following information represents updated standards and definitions for each of the environmentally sensitive resources to be addressed by the ESLO. Acknowledging existing Town of Oro Valley adopted codes,these definitions include additional
detail and updaed information based on extensive input by the ESLO Technical Advisory Committee. This science-based Committee worked with the ESLO consulting team's biologists from RECON to draft defintions based on most current best practices and procedures and
the best available information. For example,additional specificity regarding significant vegetation and riparian areas has been added to address acknowledged deficiencies in existing Town codes and procedures. The table also includes references to adopted General Plan
policies that provide direction in determining resources to be protected. The General Plan text and maps are available online at the Town's webpage at http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Assets/assets/pz/pdf/GeneralPlan+061505+final.pdf
Existing General Plan or Zoning Code Language Resource Value Proposed Definition or Criteria General Plan Policy Reference
Reference
Wildlife habitat will include all areas identifed as Significant Vegetation,Significant Rock Outcrops,Riparian Areass,or
Wildlife Linkages.Wildlife habitat areas will also include:
1)Locations of special-status wildlife species report to AGFD HDMS
2)Pima County Conservation Land System Biological Core,Multiple Use Management Areas,and Important Riparian
Areas Pima County SDCP,Nature
Wildlife Habitat-General Plan lists areas'occupied by special- Breeding,foraging,cover,and 3)Nature Conservancy Conservation Target#18(Tortolita Mountains) 11.2.1 Conservancy Ecoregion
1.0 dispersal habitat for common 4)Priority Conservation Areas for PVS 11.2.3 Assessments,Town of Marana HCP,
status species'and partnership in implementing SDCP and special-status wildlife 5)Perennial or intermittent springs 11.2.5 Pinal County Open Space Plan,
6)Cave,crevice,or mine shaft with a minimum cavity area of 220 cubic feet(approx 6'x 6'x6') USGS Cave Ecology
7)Designated Critical Habitat for ESA T&E species
8)AGFD Areas of Conservation Priorities;Species of Greatest Conservation Need;Socially&Economically Significant
species.
*Special-status species=SDCP Priority Vulnerable Spp.(PVS),AZ WFSC,and ESA T&E
3-Tiered Linkage: Beier et al.2006.AZ Missing
1)AZ Wildlife Linkages Assessment(Santa Catalina-Tortolita Mountains Linkage)as backbone Linkages,Tucson-Tortolita-Santa
Provides for dispersal,migration,2)Riparian Areas as connections across NOS,Town of Oro Valley,Arroyo Grande,and 11.2.9 Cataline Mountains Linkage Design.
undeveloped lands in Pinal County
2.0 Wildlife Linkages-Concept referenced in TOV Code Section 27.4 and genetic transfer for wildife 11.2.11 NAU School of Forestry,Pinal County
and plants 3)Upland linkages between Wildlife Habitat to Riparian Areass or directly to NOS
4)Connection to Marana HCP linkages if appropriate AG-3 Open Space and Trails Master Plan,
Town of Marana HCP,Pima County
5)RTA Wildlife Linkages
SDCP
4)Consider linkages to Pinal County Open Space#9 and Regional Park#7 as appropriate
1110
Red=Removed TAC Meeting
Blue=Added April 16,2009
Town of Oro Valley
Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance
Informational Note: The following information represents updated standards and definitions for each of the environmentally sensitive resources to be addressed by the ESLO. Acknowledging existing Town of Oro Valley adopted codes,these definitions include additional
detail and updaed information based on extensive input by the ESLO Technical Advisory Committee. This science-based Committee worked with the ESLO consulting team's biologists from RECON to draft defintions based on most current best practices and procedures and
the best available information. For example,additional specificity regarding significant vegetation and riparian areas has been added to address acknowledged deficiencies in existing Town codes and procedures. The table also includes references to adopted General Plan
policies that provide direction in determining resources to be protected. The General Plan text and maps are available online at the Town's webpage at http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Assets/assets/pz/pdf/GeneralPlan+061505+final.pdf
Existing General Plan or Zoning Code Language Resource
:_. Proposed Definition or Criteria General Plan Policy , Reference
ReferenceJ
Kevise and expand oetiniuons:
1)Hvdroriparian-any drainage with perennial surface water regardless of plant species
composition
2)Mesoriparian-any drainage without perennial surface water but any of the follcwing species:Arizona Walnut
(Juglans
major),Fremont cottonwood(Populus fremontii),Gooding willow(Salix gooddingii),Arizona sycamore(Platanus
wrightii),Arizona ash(Fraxinus velutina),netleaf hackberry(Celtis reticulata),or seep willow(Baccharis salicifolia)
3)Xeroriparian-any drainage not meeting above standard but with representative vegetation
volume 0.500 m3/m2 or greater-OR IF VEG VOLUME IS LESS-Storm flow magnitude
of.rn rig nr nraatar fnr a 1 rl(Lvaar avant
3.1)High Xeroriparian A-Generally associated with well-developed riparian areas.The trees present are generally 16
feet to 20 feet tall or taller.The vegetative volume per unit area within this habitat type is approximately 0.850 M3/M2
with much of the volume present within the dense over-story.
The diversity of species is relatively greater than that associated with Intermediate Xeroriparian B and Low Riparian C
Areas.Mesquite,Desert Willow,Blue Palo Verde,and Desert Hackberry are representative tree species within High
Xeroriparian A Habitat areas.
3.2)Intermediate Xeroriparian B-Typically occur along well-developed riparian areas.The principal distinction between Existing definitions for Riparian
Xeroriparian A and Xeroriparian B Habitats is that of plant size(height,trunk size,and total vegetative volume).Trees Habitat Chapter 31(definitions);.
in this habitat type generally range from 6 feet to 15 feet tall.The under-story is often more extensive than Xeroriparian
A Habitats due to a more open over-story canopy.
Within Intermediate Xeroriparian B Habitats,the vegetative volume per unit area is typically 0.675 M3/M2.Mesquite, 1)Handbook for Developing
Ironwood,Blue Palo Verde,Catclaw Acacia,Desert Broom,and Desert Hackberry are representative of this habitat type Watershed Plans to Restore and
Riparian Areass-TOV Code Section 24.7 Riparian Habitat Wildlife habitat,nutrient cycling, Protect Our Waters(Draft),October
3.0 Overly District:Defines riparian habitats based on likelyspecies erosion control,water quality, ,• 11.2.3
Y P q tY, 3.3)Low Xeroriparian C-Typically occur along minor Riparian Areass and along the p..npheral edges of major Riparian 2005,EPA 841-B-05-005
composition,general density/size,and vegetation volume flood moderation12.1.1
p tY 9 Areass.The typical vegetative volume per unit area in this hat+'tat type is between 0.500 and 0.675 M3/M2.Whitethom 2)Center for Watershed Protection
Acacia,Catclaw Acacia,Desert Creosote Bush,Bunchgrasses,and Bursage are typically found within Low Model Ordinances
Xeroriparian C Habitats. 3)Regional Ordinances(Pima
4)Vegetation volume will be determined using Pima County protocol(under development) County,Town of Marana,City of
Tucson,City of Scottsdale
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING BOUNDARIES: 4)TOV Code Chapter 17 Floodplain
1)If Hydroriparian,Mesoriparian,or Xeroriparian(>0.500 m3/m2): &Erosion Hazard Mgt
A contiguous line along the canopy margins of the predominant overstory vegetation species parallel to a riparian area,
where the lateral distance between canopy margins of individuals of the predominant plant species is less than two
• times the height of the tallest individuals.Where the distance between canopy margins parallel to the channel are
greater than two times the height of the tallest individuals,the boundary will be the top of bank of the channel.Where
no top of bank is apparent,the 10-year flow event shall be used
2)Boundary between Meso and Xeroriparian habitat types-any gap between Mesoriparian indicator species of 1,000 ft
or greater will indicate a transition to xeroriparian.Mesoriparian boundary will be at indicator species'canopy
3)In braided riparian systems where'islands'may occur,these shall be included as part of the riparian area.The
boundaries of parallel riparian areas separated by 200 ft or less shall be merged.
4)If Xeroriparian(<0.500 m3/m2)with storm flow of 50 cfs or greater,the boundary will be the top of bank or the 10
year flow event where there is no discemable top of bank
Criteria for determining upstream starting point of Riparian Areas(headwaters):
1)Where storm flow is 50 cfs or greater for a 100-year event
Red=Removed TAC Meeting
Blue=Added April 16,2009
•
Town of Oro Valley
• Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance
Informational Note: The following information represents updated standards and definitions for each of the environmentally sensitive resources to be addressed by the ESLO. Acknowledging existing Town of Oro Valley adopted codes,these definitions include additional
detail and updaed information based on extensive input by the ESLO Technical Advisory Committee. This science-based Committee worked with the ESLO consulting team's biologists from RECON to draft defintions based on most current best practices and procedures and
the best available information. For example,additional specificity regarding significant vegetation and riparian areas has been added to address acknowledged deficiencies in existing Town codes and procedures. The table also includes references to adopted General Plan
policies that provide direction in determining resources to be protected. The General Plan text and maps are available online at the Town's webpage at http://www,orovalleyaz.gov/Assets/assets/pz/pdf/GeneralPlan+061505+final.pdf
Existing General Plan or Zoning Code Language
• Resource Value Proposed Definition or Criteria General Plan Policy Reference
Reference
Sianificant Vegetation-Characterized as unique plant occurrences and/or unique individual specimens that
demonstrate,through the presence of certain criteria,as listed below,areas of special value to the Sonoran Desert
ecosystem. (Plant Communities removed)
Additional Criteria:
4.0 Sianificant Vegetation - TOV Code Section 27.4 lists Plant 1)Plant species that are native to the area
Communities,Unique Plant Occurrences,and Unique Plants 2)Plants are generally healthy and will survive for five(5)or more years.
3)Noxious/Invasive species are few and not visually prominent,such as desert broom,tamarisk,mexican palo verde,
and tree of heaven. OVZCR Chapter 31#301,Significant
4)Grading or clearing has not substantially altered the landscape in the area. Vegetation
5)Constructed non-native landscapes do not qualify as significant vegetation.
1)ASDM-Biological Survey of
Ironwood National Mnt
4.1 Unique Plant Occurrences-General description in TOV 2)Tumer and Funicelli.2004.
Code Section 27.4 with examples Demographic changes and epidermal
11.2 2 browning in two protected populations
Keystone species;Important of saguaro cactus(Camegiea
Sianificant Saguaro Stands-Listed in General Plan,but no forage plant for bats and nesting gigantea).Desert Plants 20(1):16—
• :inition structure for cavity-nesting birds Unique Plant Occurrences are areas of vegetation that exist in contrast to the majority of the surrounding vegetative 23
and raptors community due to either microcimates or availability of water sources.
Add specific definitions:
4.1.2 Significant Ironwood Stands-Listed in General Plan,but no Important bird habitat 1)Significant saguro cacti stands=80 or more saguaro of any size occuring within 1 acre.
definition 2)Significant ironwood tree stands=30 percent or more average cover within a 1 acre area.
3)Significant palo verde tree stands=50 percent or more average cover within a 1 acre area.
4.1.3 Significant Palo Verde Stands-No current language Important bird habitat
4.1.4 Sianficant Ocotillo Stands-No current language Important nectar source for Add specific definition:
hummingbirds Significant ocotillo stands=50 ocotillo of any size within a 1 acre area.
Unique Plant refers to any native tree,shrub,or cacti with extraordinary characteristics such as,but not limited to age,
size,shape,form,canopy cover,or aesthetic value.
111 Expand examples and use as specific definitions:
Unique Plant-General description in TOV 1)Saguaro cacti over 15 ft.tall with 2 or more arms OVZCR Chapter 31#301,Significant
4.2 Societal and wildlife values
Code Section 27.4 with examples. 2)Crested saguaro cacti of any size Vegetation
3)Native tree with 12 in basal caliper and over 12 ft.tall
4)Native'nurse'tree with 3 or more saguaro cacti under or within its canopy
5)Plant listed as Threatened or Endangered under ESA or Highly Safeguarded by ADA
Red=Removed TAC Meeting
Blue=Added April 16,2009
c -e
t .
Town of Oro Valley
Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance
al Note: The followin information represents updated standards and definitions for each of the environmentally sensitive resources to be addressed by the ESLO. Acknowledging existing Town of Oro Valley adopted codes,these definitions include additional
Information 9
detail and
ed information based on extensive input by the ESLO Technical Advisory Committee. This science-based Committee worked with the ESLO consulting team's biologists from RECON to draft defintions based on most current best practices and prose ures an
the
defi
cies in
es an
res. The table also includes referens to
best available information. For example,additional specificity regarding significant vegetation and riparian areas has been added to address acknowledged
ne at httexisting
/www o oval a daz.go vAssets/u sset pz/pdf/Genera Plan+061505 fnal pd�opted enera !an '
policies that provide direction in determining resources to be protected. The General Plan text and maps are available online at V
e s webPa9 P Y
enera -an-o icy Reference
Proposed Definition or Criteria Refpceere
Existing General Plan or Zoning Code Language Resource Value ��!
i...... .. .. Goode et al.2004.Effects of
Provides habitat and thermal Add specific definition:
destructive collecting practices on
5.0 Significant Rock Outcrops-Listed in General Plan,but no regulation for wildlife,particularly 1)Rock or boulder pile measuring at least 100 sq.ft.in area and a minimum 3 ft.above the surrounding ground level. reptiles JWM 68(2):429-434.
definition. reptiles 2)Scottsdale specification is 20'x 25' NO SIZE GIVEN
Community visual quality
Slope catagories mapped Hillside Development Zone-TOV
Current Thresholds: Code Section 24.2
15%-density requirments start
Slope stability 25%-triggers additional open space 1.1.2 Consistency with current code is
6.0 Topography-Hillside Areas Community visual quality 33%-minimal development 1/36 ac priority. Are new thresholds needed
for AG or elsewhere?
1)Agree-upon visual resources identified-Oracle Road and Tangerine Road Scenic Corridors-visibility mapping built
from DTM;building height contour line;corridor widths(TR=300';OR=300';visual analysis(grading,plant palette,
mitigation) 1.1.4 Oro Valley General Plan 2005
Visual Resources-General Plan guidance and TOV Code for Visual character of the Town 2)GP scenic corridors-300'? (includes Calle C,First,La Canada,La Cholla,Lambert,Linda Vista,Moore,Naranja, 11.3.1 Digital Data-Lidar,digital terrain
7.0 Scenic Corridors,Peaks,and Ridges Views from parks and corridors Palisades,Rancho Vistoso,Shannon) 2 model-TSSW
3)Other protected view points-public parks and all elevations above 3,200 feet-modeling needed 11.4.1
4)Unique plants defined above that provide aesthetic value in addition to natural resource value
5)Exposed rock face or bedrock extending 15 ft or more above surrounding ground level
Cultural Resources-General Plan guidance and TOV Code Utilize Nation Register of Historic Places definitions and criteria supplemented as necessary to address OV conditions. 10.1.2
"ction 27 7',ontair c..,.rii.ysis requirements for records Unique archaeological, Historic Preservation Commission will lead the review and acceptance of definitions,criteria and conservation targets 10.1.3
8... '
'rnecic.iiaiu surveys and mapping of resources,and mitigation historical,and cultural resources for culturalcalresources. Extensive information from the SDCP will be incorporated in the cultural resources protection
lplans pp
-----• Surface and subsurface
hydrologic resources;water Oro Valley Floodplain Management
9.0 loodoiainr supply; 100 year flood limits for washes of atleast 50 cfs will be used to delineate the sensitive resource area. 12.1.1 Oroinance
• Linkages and connectivity of
ooen soace/habitat areas
TAC Meeting
Red=Removed
Blue=Added April 16,2009
t
Q0J PS-LEY ''9 0 MINUTES
ORO VALLEY
Altt ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL)
PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #3
ONMNTALLY
`'VNDED��1a JULY 23, 2009 ESENSITIVE LANDS
HOPI CONFERENCE ROOM
11000 N. LA CANADA DR.
PAC Members Present:
Bill Adler
Philip Kline
Doug McKee
Chet Oldakowski
Steve Solomon
Steve Taillie
David Williams, Consultant, Willdan Engineering
Lori Woods (Recon Environmental)
PAC Members Absent:
Don Chatfield
Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present:
Joe Andrews
Arinda Asper
Karen Berchtold
Mary Davis
Public Attendees:
Tim Bolton (Arizona State Land Department) —attended meeting on behalf of Ms. Muench. He
was welcomed, and reminded that he could not participate at this meeting on behalf of the
State.
1. Meeting called to order at 4:05 p.m.
2. July 9, 2009 Meeting Minutes approved with no changes
3. Fieldwork Methodology
• David Williams introduced Lori Woods, of Recon Environmental. Ms. Woods, who is
working with WIlldan Engineering on this project, gave the committee an overview of her
background in biology field work. Recon Environmental is a full service environmental
firm that places emphasis on natural resources, and has done extensive habitat
conservation planning in the region.
• Ms. Woods recapped her firm's emphasis on this project and its progress to date. This
process, which began last Spring, has involved looking at a variety of elements being
considered by Oro Valley and identifying those elements already considered to be
environmentally sensitive to determine if they apply or need further definition. The
information gleaned was used to start the field work on State and Town lands. This field
work, which is nearly complete, placed an emphasis on water courses, and involved
1
visiting sites, doing field inventories, and using GPS technology to establish lines around
significant ESL elements. Terra Systems Southwest is developing the Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) mapping, which is not yet finalized. The end work product
will be a combination of inventory work and already identified elements, and will include
a set of maps with lines showing riparian areas. Ms. Woods provided a handout that
details the process, timing, and next steps —see "Overview of Criteria Development and
Inventory Process."
• In response to Mr. McKee's question, Mr. Williams and Ms. Woods said that the lines
were accurate to within a foot.
• Mr. McKee expressed concern that in five years, those lines won't change but the
vegetation will, resulting in the field work's eventual inaccuracy. Ms. Woods replied that
this issue has been debated in many communities and will always be open to
discussion. The Town can take the report's information verbatim or can open the issue
up for discussion each time a developer comes in. There is no real way to get around
this because the field work (particularly regarding plant materials) is based on human
judgment and the vegetation is always changing. The methods currently used are the
best efforts that the industry has established.
• Mr. Andrews suggested that two forms of field identification be established; one would
identify and document what is actually there, and the other would pinpoint and identify
what is going to be preserved.
• Mr. Adler commented on the difficulty in enforcing an ordinance that is vague, and stated
that the problem is that riparian areas need be enhanced and restored. This calls for
judgment, which is based on science. Ms. Woods replied that the maps provide the
information on what is out there; it is up to the Town to decide what to do with the
information and what to preserve and protect. To the extent possible, the inventory will
identify the areas that need be restored. Ms. Woods added that she is looking to the ESL
PAC to pose these kinds of questions and to provide guidance on how to prioritize
areas.
• Mr. Williams explained that the ESL TAC input represents the best science available.
When information on a table is questioned, those questions will be directed to the TAC.
The purpose of the ESL PAC is to look at the definitions, with the goal of prioritizing the
resource categories.
• Ms. Woods and Mr. Williams introduced the "ESLO Elements Table" which separates
environmentally sensitive resources into nine categories. They elaborated on the
categories, and invited comments and questions from PAC members. Points
discussed:
o 1.0 Definition/Criteria # 1 is reported to Arizona Game and Fish and is
important.
o 1.0 Definition/Criteria #3 (Target 18) might merit further discussion, although
it is not in the Town area.
o Mr. Adler commented that identifying peaks and ridges is as important as
identification of slopes, and asked how much weight visual issues carry. Mr.
Williams said that a number of policies speak to this. We can identify and map
peaks and ridges, but don't know how they will be protected. Mr. Adler
explained that his concern stems from past discussions when decisions about
peaks and ridges have been made arbitrarily, and added that his concerns apply
to sensitive peaks in the context of scenic corridor— based on prominence, rather
than height. Mr. Solomon said that a ridge is often a primary area for building,
and asked how realistic is it for the Town to enact too many restrictions (on
slopes, peaks, ridges, and where there are saguaros). Mr. Williams said that the
areas where building is occurring may not be as significant as the peaks
2
4 Z
identified in Pima County, and added that in other communities with significant
peaks, building is done on the hillsides. Mr. Williams said that for implementation
of the General Plan, this is the type of input this process is looking for. Mr.
McKee said that if there are going to be further restrictions on peaks, the Town
will need to expand the allowance to build on hillsides. Mr. Solomon said that it
is important to assign a priority to the different elements.
o Mr. Adler commented that the Rancho Vistoso PAD allows for trades, which has
the effect of destroying sensitive areas. Mr. Williams responded that if the
practice of trades bothers Mr. Adler, the exemptions and exceptions will really
bother him, as the Town has a more restrictive code.
o Mr. Andrews said that the Town can't require too many restrictions unless it is
prepared to pay out on the constitutional issues that would likely arise. Mr.
Andrews reminded the PAC that all land is currently owned by someone, and that
the takings law have two arms (regulatory and investment backed).
o Mr. Solomon said that the PAC needs to make sure that when the final ordinance
is done, we haven't restricted everything.
o Mr. Williams said that there will always be an allowance for a reasonable use of
the land, otherwise the Town should be prepared to purchase that land. There
are nine different layers of significant elements. The PAC has to be careful to
not write this ordinance so tightly that it is unworkable to the point that the Town
Council cannot waive it. Mr. Adler said that the goal should be to give citizens
the tools to protect, and that a tight ordinance is okay if we are trying to address
citizens' concerns.
o Ms. Davis commented that the ordinance needs to have clarity so that
developers know what they can and can't do. Getting PAC input and giving this
input to the TAC are steps in the right direction, to define what is "reasonable"
and what is "sensitive."
o Mr. Williams said that a Table of Priorities will be drafted soon.
o Mr. Adler questioned the "floodplains" definition under 9.0. Ms. Woods said that
we will need to decide what level we define as "sensitive." The Town's definition
of 50 cfs is well under the extent that FEMA's regulations cover. Mr. McKee said
that if the Town's floodplain definition is not the same as FEMA, we need to
clarify the difference.
o Mr. Oldakowski said that he is very comfortable with his property's restrictions.
o Mr. Adler commented on the past Trails Task Force, which involved Task Force
members walking through riparian and individually owned (HOA) lands. Mr.
Solomon said that people are very protective about their individually owned lots,
and that it is the common areas that are getting trashed.
o Mr. Adler said that the Town can cite people for damaging natural areas, but the
Town needs an enforcement mechanism. Mr. Oldakowski said that he has
observed that some problems have been enforced on, but that it depends on the
area and the HOAs involved.
o Ms. Woods said that as hard as it is to figure out what areas we want to address,
the real problem is in how to protect those areas.
o In response to Mr. Solomon's question, Ms. Woods explained that under
Category 1.0, number 4, PVS stands for Priority Vulnerable Species.
o Mr. Williams explained the difference between a spring and a wash: a spring is
artesian, coming out of the ground; a wash flows on the ground.
o Mr. Adler asked if under Category 4, it is important to identify what percentage of
a parcel the significant vegetation occupies. Mr. Williams responded that this is
being done regardless of parcel.
3
o In response to the question of whether any unique plant occurrences should be
called out (and risk unauthorized removal, as has occurred in the past), Ms.
Woods said that the plant preservation group would be able to pick up the unique
plant(s).
o Mr. Solomon asked how we can say which of the thousand saguaros are unique.
Ms. Woods explained that 80 or more within an acre is considered unique.
o Mr. Adler said that there has been ongoing discussion as to the relative success
in transplanting ironwood trees, and does not know if it is best to leave ironwoods
in place. Mr. Solomon said he had no problem transplanting approximately 100
ironwood trees, but conceded that his landscape person was very dedicated to
saving the trees. Ms. Woods said that opinions on this topic vary widely, and
she is not familiar with any definitive study.
o Mr. Kline suggested that a protocol for tree salvage be established. Mr. Williams
said that some aspects of the updated landscape code related to defining
significant vegetation may be referred to this group.
o Mr. Andrews suggested using terms such as "significant" or"sensitive" rather
than "unique" when referring to plants because the word "unique" has a very
specific meaning.
o Mr. Solomon questioned the definitions under 4.1.1, stating that that defines just
about every neighborhood and the definition is too vague. He offered scenarios
and calculations which differ from the definitions offered on the table.
o Mr. Andrews explained that transplanted vegetation does not apply. A
determination has to be made whether a lot is developable. If a lot is covered
with significant plants, it isn't right to prohibit any development and we must find
a way to regulate appropriately.
o Mr. Kline asked if Mr. Solomon's argument was valid. Ms. Woods said she was
interested in reviewing Mr. Solomon's scenarios and mathematical calculations
regarding the plantings. Mr. Oldakowski asked if we could get the map people
to do a comparison. Mr. Williams responded by reminding the committee that
we do not want this to be a policy group. If the committee thinks that the
numbers established by the TAC are wrong, then we would provide that
feedback to the TAC for clarification. Mr. Kline commented that we still need to
put lines on the maps. Mr. Andrews stressed the importance of verifying that the
science is right. Ms. Berchtold said that we have to separate definitions from
how it is applied; it is a matter of setting priorities.
o The committee discussed mitigation on individual lots. Ms. Woods said that
application of this on a small lot basis is difficult to grasp. The application is best
when looking at larger size lots. Mr. Solomon said it would be problematic for
either a single lot or a larger parcel.
o Ms. Davis suggested a break in this discussion, with the understanding that the
topic would be continued at the next meeting. This would allow the meeting to
progress so that all agenda items could be discussed.
o Mr. Williams and Ms. Woods said they had enough input to now go to the ESL
TAC.
• The next PAC meeting is on August 6th.
• The joint PAC and Stakeholder meeting is scheduled in the Hopi
Room on August 12th.
• The Public Open House is scheduled for August 20th.
o Mr. Williams said that by August 20th, the goal is to have the definitions and
priorities in draft format. The information will be shared in one-on-one meetings
4
with the Stakeholders. The information also needs to be sent to the State Land
folks for review.
o Mr. Solomon expressed concern that the information provided to the public would
change. Mr. Williams said that care would be given to how the information is
presented, as these are elements which will be identified as "protected" forever.
Mr. Andrews said that the policies will go into effect dependent on how the
ordinance is drafted.
o Ms. Davis said that additional details on the Scottsdale incentive would be
forthcoming.
o Karen reported that Assistant Planning and Zoning Director Paul Popelka and
staff are working with the Historic Preservation Commission on the scope and
priorities to establish a Cultural Resources Inventory, and have hired John
Ravesloot, with William Self Associates, Inc. as the project consultant. This
group is identifying areas where they need to coordinate with ESL. They are
finalizing definitions and criteria relating to ESL, and will be using the term
"significant" or"of significance" instead of"sensitive." That term will overlay with
the PAC effort. The HPC is also adopting National Historic Register criteria.
The progress on this has been slow, but underway now, and the group is
scheduled to finalize the definitions by August 3rd. Mr. Williams added that the
information developed by the HPC and the consultant will come to the PAC for
applicability. Mr. Williams noted that PAC would review the resources and make
determinations on what needs to be preserved. An example is pit houses— if
there is a multitude of pit houses, not all of them need to be preserved.
o Mr. Adler said that part of the inventory should include areas that are degraded
and cannot be preserved, but should still be documented.
o Mr. Williams said that the PAC would return to the priority discussion. Ms.
Woods firm, Recon, will continue with the field work and mapping. Mr. Williams
said that the Town Council's direction was to follow the Sonoran Conservation
Plan, and he is taking that as the primary approach to write the ordinance, and
also incorporating the Scottsdale approach.
Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Pr ared by:
r
Arinda Asper /4-14 .--)
Senior Office Specialist
5
1,EY qq%
oQ °y9 Environmentally Sensitive Lands
4
Ate
Overview of Criteria Development
���/NDED�91A And Inventory Process ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE LANDS
Public Advisory Committee Meeting
July 23, 2009
■ Process:
• Developing criteria for identifying ESL:
• Initial identification of ESL resource elements currently addressed by Oro Valley and
other entities (local, regional and state);
• Preliminary discussions with staff and team members;
• In-depth discussions at Technical Advisory Team meetings resulted in identification
of nine (9) general ESL resource elements and their fundamental resource values
(table handout)
• Field inventory and mapping:
• Site visits to field check existing mapped information on lands within the Town
• On-going field inventories and GPS location data for ESL elements within State
Lands (Arroyo Grande area). Focus on watercourses and associated vegetation.
• GPS data and other pre-existing GIS data being combined to develop summary maps
of all ESL elements and sub-elements
• Timing:
• March &April: ESL Criteria compiled and developed with staff, team, and
Technical Advisory Team
• June &July: Fieldwork and mapping underway (field work completed by end of next
week)
• August: Complete and refine mapping; identify priorities, establish rules
• Next Steps, input requested from PAC:
• Prioritizing ESL elements and developing protective rules for ESLO, according to the
appropriate level of protection and conservation, and/or tolerance for disturbance, and/or
ability to effectively mitigate for impacts, and other determining factors that may be
developed.
• Many priorities and protective rules have been established by the General Plan and
existing Town codes. Known conflicts and deficiencies as perceived by the PAC need to
be identified to ensure the ESLO truly represents a comprehensive set of rules for
sensitive resource management.
RECON