HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 8/6/2009 Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)
Public Advisory Committee (PAC
t4i
r.f..v.:.•::... .:
Meeting #4 41-*1
rgvrrv.';!,
Thurs.,August 6,2009
4-6 p.m.
Kachina Conference Room
11000 N. La Canada Dr.
1. Call to Order
2. Review of July 23, 2009 Meeting Minutes
3. Fieldwork Methodology: continue discussion from July 23 meeting
--Resource priorities
--Defining"Sensitivity"
4. Team Report on Upcoming Activities
5. Future Agenda items
6. Adjournment
Posted: 08 04 09
10:00 a.m.
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."
ESL Public Advisory Committee Meeting Date: (-P AAA D°(
(Please sign in next to your name. Add in your phone number if you want it included and it's not already listed)
Signature or Initials Name Email Phone Address
Jj , /,/ Adler, Bill StFatha@aol.com 297-3730 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place (37)
/ Andrews, Joseph jandrewsorovalleyaz.gov
IrVo
/ (CK
Berchtold, Karen kberchtold@orovalleyaz.�o
d
/ tii, . 1 id , I p1ivirawar;troti,hatfield, Don DChatfield@sonoraninstitute.org 797-9713
if
111
� u avis, Mary mdavis@orovalleyaz.gov 229-4712
Hanson, Kelsie khanson@orovalleyaz.gov
/ 1
/// r
L,_, --
_41m,/ it,_,--(,„.y....„4---
� Kline, Philip pgeorgekline@yahoo.com 670-6150 x 224 12951 N. Yellow Orchid Dr. (55)
j l
4(//i)119 /1LA"-' McKee, Doug dmckee@gmail.com 575-6500
�
/ gc, ` Oldakowski, Chet oldak@comcast.net 797-7161
Popelka, Paul ppopelka@orovalleyaz.gov
/ ,--% CT' Solomon, Steve canadavistas@comcast.net 297-4151
''" ";Pii L.::- C. (
"j Taillie, Steve steveandjudyt@msn.com 825-8804
...k
Vella, Bayer bvella@orovalleyaz.gov 229-4810
Williams,/ 7 Zit--
Davwams wildan.com
./ 1-;=.... ti
id dwillliams@wildan.com 30 c715
I1 Woods, Lori Ijwoods@recon-us.com 327-9977 525 W. Wetmore Road, Suite 111
��1,t LL0ct' (857050
/ Ig, ttri\molt(ezts/ 6-1&-Nnt-IPEco&3-a.c&isi 1z7. 9q77 i,
•
t...,4„EY
Au?
°ti
MINUTES
041,6ORO VALLEY
40.010,
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL)
PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #3
°VNDED A9l AUGUST 6, 2009 SEN RONMENAN`DS
KACHINA CONFERENCE ROOM
11000 N. LA Ci4VADA DR.
PAC Members Present:
Bill Adler
Don Chatfield
Philip Kline
Doug McKee
Chet Oldakowski
Steve Solomon
Steve Ta i l l i e
David Williams, Consultant, Willdan Engineering
Lori Woods (Recon Environmental)
Colby Henley (Recon Environmental)
Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present:
Joe Andrews
Arinda Asper
Karen Berchtold
Kelsie Hanson
Bayer Vella
1. Meeting called to order at 4:04 p.m.
2. July 23, 2009 Meeting Minutes approved with no changes
3. Fieldwork Methodology (continued discussion from July 23, based on ESL Table)
• Mr. Williams explained that with the committee's input, he wants to identify those most
sensitive or unique features and plug them into a priority table. He said there are three
important things to consider and focus on:
o Evaluation of natural resources and cultural resources
o Cumulative effect—does an accumulation of resource priorities make them more
significant?
o The philosophy of the committee
• Ms. Woods introduced Colby Henley, of Recon Environmental.
• The group discussed rock outcrops (5.0 on the Table). Mr. Adler asked how a "significant
rock outcrop" can be defined and whether it would be more significant if it had historical
markings, since a rock is probably not sensitive unless it has historical markings, and historical
features would be evaluated differently than vegetation. Mr. Solomon questioned the basis of
the 100 square foot definition of a significant rock outcrop, unless the rock has markings or
serves as a habitat. Mr. Oldakowski asked if identification of a 10' x 10' rock outcrop was work
intensive, and Mr. Solomon responded that identification is easily done with proper surveying
technology.
1
• Ms. Woods said that the rock outcrop size issue was discussed at the TAC, which clarified that
the 10' x 10' size was arrived at on the scientific basis that it provides habitat to insects and
reptiles. The identification can be somewhat difficult to pick out but can be done on a survey.
Mr. Williams said that the Scottsdale definition of a rock outcrop of 20' x 25' has stood up to
challenges and is based on visual significance. Mr. Solomon questioned the logic of
establishing a significance of a rock outcrop based on habitat value for insects and reptiles
which are abundant in the area. Mr. Chatfield clarified his preference to focus on the wildlife
and habitat rather than on archaeological features. This is not about moving rocks, but rather
about how the features affect the wildlife. Mr. Vella explained that these sizing designations
are not casual estimates; they are based on science, and added that one rock outcrop may not
be so important, but becomes increasingly important if it is part of a habitat system. Mr.
Henley said that one species needing extra attention is the desert tortoise. Ms. Woods added
that gila monsters are also a very sensitive species. Mr. Williams emphasized that the 10' x
10' rock outcrop size criteria was based on scientific data that shows this is the size that
supports some type of habitat.
• Mr. Solomon commented on the trouble he foresaw in applying this criterium to both large and
small lots, and whether 5 distinct smaller priorities would carry as much weight as one single
higher priority. He also asked if, when determining if an area is habitat, consideration was
given to whether the rock outcrop being evaluated is determined to be the main (whole) habitat
or only a portion of it.
• Mr. McKee said that if an outcrop is on a small lot, it needs to be seen as part of a bigger area.
Mr Andrews cautioned that if all lots have features which are deemed sensitive and make the
lots unbuildable, the Town will be faced with having to buy the land.
• Ms. Woods explained that the TAC scientists were told what resources had been identified
and asked to give some quantifiable measure of the area of rock. She said that the scientific
studies looked at multiple species in terms of habitat conservation. Ms. Berchtold added that
when evaluating a smaller outcrop, consideration is given on how this small outcrop affects the
whole area.
• Bayer commented that the committee was getting ahead of the discussion that needs to be
taking place at this time, and that it should focus on the significance of the resources. Mr.
Andrews said he agreed with Mr. Vella that the group is delving further into these issues than
is needed at this time. He added that it sounds like a rock outcrop isn't necessary a top
priority, but if a stream is found then it would be a high priority.
• The group discussed riparian areas and water courses. Mr. Adler asked if we evaluate
riparian areas in terms of visual impact or in terms of what critters live there? He added that
the Code currently allows a 15 foot trample zone, which destroys the ground next to the
riparian areas.
• Mr. Henley stressed the importance of looking at the protection of riparian areas as water
courses, and offered an explanation of the tree-like structure that forms the basis for riparian
protection. Connectivity is defined by the identification of larger water courses and the
extension to smaller courses (identified as carrying 50 cfs). Recon staff walked and mapped
out forty to fifty miles of washes. An aerial photo was displayed showing how the main water
courses flow into the smaller channels. Mr. Williams and Mr. Henley explained that the PAC
would need to apply priorities, that not all features would be preservation features, and that
category one priority could be based on the type of vegetation. Mr. Henley and Mr. Andrews
explained that the riparian areas would be categorized based on the need for preservation of
the resource.
• Mr. Solomon cautioned that upon development, post-development water flow must remain the
same as pre-development. He also said that if a 50 cfs wash just flows to an arterial, and the
water flow can be addressed post development, then that is okay.
• Mr. Adler said he was have difficulty overlaying the table information onto the map information
and asked how we could take a position regarding the prioritization of the 50 cfs washes. Mr.
2
Henley explained that when mapping the lower xeroriparian areas, the mapping team had to
decide where a wash starts, and the definition that was arrived at as the starting point of a
wash is the 50 cfs. Ms. Berchtold added that the lower xeroriparian area is important
because it contributes to the hydrology of the whole system. Mr. Henley further explained that
because of vegetation needs and the amount of bedrock in parts of Arroyo Grande, some
areas are important riparian areas even though the vegetation is sparse.
• Mr. Solomon asked about indicator species, and Mr. Henley and Mr. Williams agreed that
indicator plants, which indicates the presence of shallow water, are important.
• Mr. Adler commented that a 50 cfs wash may be important but may not necessarily need to be
preserved.
• Ms. Woods sketched out an example of wash variations.
• The group discussed density issues. Mr. Adler asked if we could, by ordinance, transition
density, and could we identify how much density and how close to the roadway it should be.
Mr. Solomon said that there is an argument that, when an area of.5+ acre home sites is initially
destroyed, animal presence and activity diminishes, but as the area is developed, those
animals return. Mr. McKee said that there is also the science that says that increased density
reduces animals, with birds being the exception.
• Ms. Woods explained that birds, insects and small mammals benefit from having low density.
Mr. Henley said there are differing scientific opinions regarding wildlife corridor development
standards, ranging from 1 to 40 acres per house. One scientist claims that the density limit
that should be applied to preserve wildlife is one house per 40 acres. In Pima County, the
standard is one house per acre, which allows for mule deer to inhabit the area.
• The group discussed floodplains. Ms. Berchtold asked how a flood plain, which is the last
item on the table, relates to a 50 cfs stream. Mr. Henley said it depends on whether the
development is structured (walls vs. no walls), as well as on the effect the landscaping has on
the design.
• The group discussed wildlife linkages. Mr. Williams asked what features hadn't yet been
discussed. Ms. Berchtold mentioned topography and visual resources, and Mr. Kline
mentioned wildlife linkages corridor.
• Mr. Woods clarified that the map only identifies where the wildlife linkages are. Mr. Kline
asked if the wildlife corridor mapping is still valid. Mr. Williams said that Arroyo Grande is
probably unchanged, but other areas may have changed due to development. Mr. Vella said
that ADOT is designing wildlife bridges to restore some linkages. Ms. Woods said that the
PAC could get an update from the TAC on this issue. Mr. Chatfield said that the Sonoran
Institute is working on the design of wildlife linkages. Statistics show that in a region where
these designs were correctly implemented, in conjunction with the use of fencing, the rate of
road kill dropped by 90%. The designs include over- and underpasses.
• The group discussed grading and slopes. Mr. Williams discussed the issue of grading and
slopes, and explained that the first consideration is public safety. Once that initial
consideration is met, the progression is to made decisions on the restrictions to be imposed.
Mr. Adler asked if there are any analyses to support the idea that the value of the land
improves when ridge top development is restricted. Mr. Vella explained that our number one
objective is to get through the Table. Mr. Chatfield added that the PAC was being briefed on
the categories.
• Mr. Solomon asked if mines create habitat and are therefore considered important. Mr.
Henley said that animals can't discern between natural and man-made features, so the man-
made features are as important as the natural ones in terms of preserving species.
• Ms. Woods added that grading also affects preservation.
3
• The group discussed significant vegetation. Mr. McKee, referring to item 4.0 (Significant
Vegetation —grading or clearing) on the Resource Table, asked if there was any variance
given on how long ago the clearing or grading happened. Mr. Williams explained that if the
area has been cleared, it can't be designated as significant vegetation or resource, but it can
be identified as a degraded area that needs restoration. Mr. McKee asked what happens if the
area re-establishes itself. Mr. Williams said that the categorization is not intended to be
viewed as an indication that once cleared, the significant vegetation no longer applies; it does
apply.
• Mr. Solomon asked if plantings are significant based on their abundance (be it one saguaro or
1000 saguaros). Mr. Henley said there is no clear answer on this; in the case of saguaros, the
determination is best made based on the age, size, cavities and transplantability of the
saguaro(s). Mr. Henley added that a difficult argument, and one which should be addressed
with the TAC, is the question of what is more significant— an isolated saguaro or a stand of
saguaros, an isolated outcrop or many? Mr. Vella explained that with a single saguaro, the
determinant is likely the "wow" factor (crested saguaros, ones with multiple arms or massive
size), whereas with a cluster of saguaros the determinant is regardless of size.
• The group discussed cultural resources. Mr. Adler expressed concern about the cultural
resources (8.0 on table) category being addressed by the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC). His concern is based on the ambiguity of the what is considered to have "character,"
and his opinion that science is needed to support the definition. Mr. Solomon said that the
archaeological component is more definable. Mr. Andrews clarified that if a property has
already been built on, ESL won't address the site. Mr. Williams said that he was not sure how
the HPC was going to interact with this. He agreed with Mr. Andrews that ESL won't address
some cultural resources (such as historic buildings). The HPC will advise on how to address
some of the cultural resources and will do an inventory of cultural resources. Ms. Berchtold
said that the HPC has National Historic Registry criteria to address a wide range of resources,
and their new chair is a archaeologist.
4. Team Report on Upcoming Activities
• Mr. Williams said that some of the questions being asked are the types of questions that
should be posed to the scientists (for example, is there any science that supports a particular
density along a corridor?).
• Mr. Adler said he is unclear on how much direction, and what level of input and detail, is
needed. Mr. Henley explained that the detail is beneficial, but not site specific. The concept of
transition is supported by the science, but the specifics or level of detail is not. Mr. Kline said
that the PAC will need to have some level of generalization. Mr. Williams asked the PAC
members not to be offended if he or TOV staff pull back on the discussion if it starts getting
into how this will affect development, as this will be discussed later.
• Mr. Adler said his understanding of the purpose of ESLO is to meld considerations into one
document, and all resources become a priority at some level. Mr. Williams said the PAC
needs to identify whether some resources are "ones" or"tens," and we first need to identify the
"tens." He cautioned that we don't want to diminish those resources of lower priority. Mr.
Vella suggested the PAC take advantage of the time we have with the Recon scientists and
ask them questions. Later, we will be looking to Mr. Andrews for the legal aspects of this
process.
• Ms. Berchtold talked about the next steps for ESL. The TAC, which hasn't met in 3 to 4
months, will be having a meeting next week to discuss mapping of in-town land only. After
that, several TAC meetings will take place. The joint PAC/Stakeholders meeting also is
scheduled for next week; Ms. Berchtold proposed postponement of this meeting, based on the
lack of response from the stakeholders and to afford more time to prepare for that joint
meeting. Mr. Williams said that the PAC needs to talk about the group's philosophy, so that
we don't hash out differences at the stakeholders meeting.
4
• Mr. Adler asked how the PAC members are to respond to questions about whether particular
features will be preserved. Ms. Berchtold replied that we are not at the point where we can
answer that question, as we are in the process of identifying resources. Ms. Woods
suggested that when questions like that are posed, the PAC's response could be to turn it
around and ask the public what they would like to preserve. Mr. Williams suggested that a
response could be that there are varying levels of protection, and those levels have not yet
been decided. Ms. Woods suggested the joint meeting needs to be advertised as an input/
outreach workshop. Mr. Adler said he was not comfortable answering question. He asked if
the TAC would be there and asked the purpose of the Open House. Mr. Williams explained
that the purpose is to share information, to inform all that resources have been identified, and
to explain what the Town is trying to do and is working toward. Mr. Chatfield suggested that
whatever the PAC does, it should demonstrate competence, rather than give the impression
that we are "trying to figure it out." Mr. McKee agreed with Mr. Chatfield, and further
suggested that we give information on what we are doing in identifying resources. Both Mr.
Adler and Mr. McKee said that they foresee potential problems if the audience starts asking
questions that the PAC cannot yet answer.
• Mr. Vella offered his perspective on two perceptions that might be viewed as contradictory.
One perception is that Oro Valley is superior in terms of regulation of development; the other is
that Pima County is further ahead in terms of preservation. Rather than being opposing or
contradictory, both perceptions are correct—Oro Valley does a superior job in regulating
development, and Pima County, with the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, is well ahead of
Oro Valley in terms of preservation.
5. Future Agenda Items
• Ms. Berchtold and Mr. Williams discussed the agenda items for the next PAC meeting
scheduled for August 20th. Agenda items will include: mapping results from fieldwork; the
Scottsdale initiatives. The agenda for the September 3rd meeting will include: the group's
preservation philosophy; how to interact with the stakeholders; and acknowledgment of
General Plan policies. It was suggested that the levels of protection, preservation and
conservation could be discussed with the stakeholders. It was also decided that the Joint
meeting would be rescheduled. The consultants will present their draft to the TAC on
September 17th
6. Meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
Pre'-red by:
. A,
Arinda Asper
Senior Office Specialist
5
141
L'"
2..;
f�
<:•. k':;:: 'e#res::;=:.
ENVIRONMENTALLY
STNS€T€VF:LAND
Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)
Memorandum
To: Oro Valley ESL Public Advisory Committee
From: David Williams, ESL Manager(dwilliams@willdan.com;520-360-5790)
Date: August 5, 2009
Re: Practical Analysis of Incentives and Tools for the ESLO
As a follow up to a specific PAC inquiry, and as support for drafting the ESL Ordinance,
an assessment of various incentives and planning tools used in site design for
development has been initiated and are summarized in this draft memo. Additional input
is still being pursued.
Scottsdale Experience
The Scottsdale ESLO includes four distinct tools or mechanisms to encourage alternative
site design; three of them are called `Sensitive Design Options'. According to City of
Scottsdale staff, the use of these options can be dictated by individual project timing; i.e.
where the project is in the review process. Density transfers and Open Space incentives
can only be taken advantage of in the early design stages. At platting or construction
stages, amended development standards are the most often used incentives/option.
1. Density Transfer: This option allows the developer to move construction away
from sensitive areas on the site to more easily developed areas. This is commonly
utilized as opposed to off-site transfers, which have not been used. Amended
development standards are typically employed to facilitate the transfer across the
site. This is a key concept for the Scottsdale ESLO. Amended development
standards are the most popular incentive in the ordinance.
2. Cluster Option: Cluster design options are essentially not used under
Scottsdale's ESLO. As in Tucson, common-area based cluster design has not had
a demand.
3. Amended Development Standards: This is the most popular option in
Scottsdale. Amended standards can provide the flexibility needed to accomplish
private development objectives. Lot size reduction is the most common amended
standard. Could include building height, setbacks and other standards. Changes
to cut and fill limits and building height (limited to 24' in ESL areas) have
Draft 1 8/5/09
r4
•
:;)C.::•• i. •}Y, i.r v..moi,?}�.
*-14
,���.: ENVIRONMENTALLY
Str'.rs€'€V.LANDS
frequently been sought. Visual impacts are the key determinant in review and
approval of building height cases.
4. Open Space Incentive: If additional natural open space (NAOS in Scottsdale
terms) is set aside in accordance with several provisions, a density bonus of 20%
(possibly 25%) can be obtained. The additional units are calculated based on the
area of the additional open space. This has been used on several projects.
Developer/Builder Input
Several local developers and builders- members of the Tucson development
community- were contacted regarding potential ESLO tools and incentives. Below is
a summary of the information gathered to date. These suggestions, along with any
PAC input will be used in drafting Oro Valley ESLO incentives.
1. Maintenance of density. This may be the most important concern, that
ESLO compliance does not cause a loss in density of development.
2. Relaxation of 15% slope grading requirements. These slopes are generally
viewed as not very sensitive with regard to erosion and instability, allowing
their safe use would be an incentive.
3. Amendment of development standards including reduced lot sizes, setbacks
and increased height (Most expressed a view that increased height would not
be supported in OV. Scottsdale employs this on very low density custom lots
predicated on impacts to surrounding properties' views.) Other development
standards could be included such as parking.
4. Reduced processing time. Time is expensive (due to interest costs for
example) in the development industry and this consideration is important.
Certainty in processing time is also important. A developer may be willing to
employ ESLO protections, if it ensures certainty and/or reduction in
processing time. If ESLO carries additional processing time, it is a strong
disincentive.
5. Trade-offs for voluntary (non-required) protection in the form of relaxation
of other provisions such as vegetation salvage or revegetation.
6. Density Transfer(Donor and Recipient parcels). Seems to be viewed as
overly complex and having limited utility for only larger land holders.
Political difficulties with recipient areas were noted. Not much experience
with this in Tucson.
7. Density Bonus. This is a powerful incentive from the development
community perspective, but the uncertainty of additional processes (rezoning)
and time is a concern.
Draft 2 8/5/09
• .
c;.:.:,, .... .7
INPicasopl.
ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVi':LANDS
8. Very low density is compatible with certain sensitive resources.
Sometimes, low intensity development can be compatible in sensitive habitat,
slope or geologic areas.
9. Timing of fee payment. Again related to the expense of financing, if impact
fees or other Town development fees can paid later, perhaps at the time of
closing, a significant incentive would be created.
Draft 3 8/5/09