Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 10/15/2009 (2) 11, tl'4410> ENVIRONMENTALLY ri rp. �C�F��;-,1 SENSITIVE LANDS Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting #7 Thursday, October 15, 2009 4—6 p.m. Hopi Conference Room Development Services Building 11000 N. La Canada Dr. Objective: To fully understand the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan as it relates to ESL 1. Call to Order 2. Review of Sept. 3, 2009 Meeting Minutes 3. Discussion regarding the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP), with Guest Speaker Sherry Ruther, Pima County Development Services 4. Review of field mapping for Town areas, with focus on SDCP policy areas 5. Updates on Resource Definitions Table 6. Future Agenda items Next meeting: 10/29— commence review of draft ordinance 7. Adjournment Posted: The Town of Oro Valley complies with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Clerk's office at 229-4700. "Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council: In accordance with Arizona Open Meeting Law A.R.S. X38-431 et seq, a majority of the Town Council may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the audience only." • 1 yA'`EY Ap, MINUTES , ORO VALLEY ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL) PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #7 QUNDEO a1 OCTOBER 15, 2009 } HOPI CONFERENCE ROOM 11000 N. LA CANADA DR. PAC Members Present: Bill Adler Doug McKee Steve Solomon Steve Taillie PAC Members Absent: Don Chatfield Philip Kline Chet Oldakowski Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present: Colby Henley, Recon Bayer Vella Arinda Asper Guest Speaker: Sherry Ruther, Pima County Development Services Guest: Joe Hornat 1. Meeting called to order at 4:01 p.m. Mr. Vella explained that this would be the last meeting of an educational nature. The meeting's purpose was to lay out the groundwork for PAC to receive the Ordinance draft, and the discussion will focus on discussing the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). 2. September 3, 2009, meeting minutes approved with no changes. September 9, 2009,joint session minutes approved with no changes. 3. Review of Field Mapping for Town Areas, With Focus on SDCP Policy Areas Mr. Vella explained that discussion of Agenda Item 4 would be first. Mr. Henley displayed three maps: 1) Scenic and Slope 2) Riparian, Linkages & Significant Vegetation, and 3) Habitat Layers Mr. Henley discussed Map#2 (Riparian, Linkages & Significant Vegetation). This map's riparian area strongly reflects the existing code. Changes relate to scale issues, updated development, and the creation/addition of some linkages. The two most prominent vegetation stands are groupings of ironwoods and palo verde trees; only the most concentrated pockets of these species are defined, although there are additional, less concentrated pockets throughout the mapped area. The map doesn't include rock outcrops and saguaros. Mapping was based on aerial and ground surveying. 1 Mr. Henley discussed Map# 1 (Scenic and Slope). This map's view shed categories reflect the General Plan, and show the protection around parks and arterials within the Town. Two classes of slopes are shown. In response to Mr. Solomon's question about how"view shed" is defined, Mr. Vella explained that these areas are laid out in the General Plan. Mr. Vella said that there may be a need to establish tiers of significant view corridors. Mr. Adler said that the General Plan refers to views as having "character"which is subjective, but it essentially means what we want to preserve. If we put in intrusive structures, we are changing that character. This is what the General Plan was trying to achieve. Mr. Vella explained the difficulty encountered in applying the Oracle and Tangerine road overlays to Oro Valley Marketplace. Mr. Henley discussed Map#3 (Habitat Layers), and explained that the conservation land system consists of the biological core and multiple use management areas. Ms. Ruther said that the expectation from the data collected on road kill and wildlife crossing is substantial, and if the opportunity for wildlife to safely cross roads can be substantially increased, we would be contributing to the preservation of that wildlife. Mr. Henley said there is a lot of information on this map, which is why a systems approach is being used. Mr. Vella added that the next step in the mapping effort is going to a simplified version, similar to Pima County's approach. 4. Discussion Regarding the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) with Guest Speaker Sherry Ruther, Pima County Development Services Ms. Ruther gave a Powerpoint presentation on the SDCP. The PAC was provided a copy of Pima County's Conservation Lands System, as amended June 21, 2005. The goal of the SDCP is to ensure the long-term survival of the full spectrum of plants and animals indigenous to Pima County through maintaining or improving the habitat conditions and ecosystem functions necessary for their survival. This goal is not necessarily based on counting the number of animals inhabiting the area, but rather an ecological monitoring system to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Success or failure is not based on the mere number of animals or individual species because there is more veracity in looking at a series of components. Ms. Ruther explained that the Conservation Land System (CLS) is a multi-year effort based on 5 keynote tenets of conservation biology and biological reserve design: • Perpetuates the comprehensive conservation of vulnerable species; • Retains those areas that contain large populations of focal vulnerable species; • Provides for the adjacency and proximity of habitat blocks; • Preserves the contiguity of habitat at the landscape level; and • Retains the connectivity of reserves with functional corridors. Ms. Ruther said that the CLS is going to incorporate the ebb and flow caused by nature or man-made circumstances affecting wildlife. Mr. Adler said he saw a discrepancy with the Oro Valley Code, which uses the word "enhance." Ms. Ruther said that the CLS approach does not say that a gentle hand can't be used to enhance the ecosystem. Mr. Vella added that enhancement applies more to correct some type of human influence. Mr. Adler said he was concerned with the idea that enhancement is a proactive approach because humans are going to damage public areas. Mr. Vella said that the PAC would need to discuss management issues later on. Ms. Ruther explained that the scientific approach to coming up with the tenets was based on tons of data that can be deconstructed, if needed. Not all areas of Pima County have equal importance, so they are designated as important to non-important. Pima County's process started out much like the ESL project. It was based 2 • • on very specific raw data, with 56 species, riparian and springs locations, and vegetation . Layering of data resulted in a very complex set of maps. Pima County took a very persistent and dedicated approach in adopting policies and guidelines, and developed criteria for how to interpret the data: • The white areas on the map are developed • Light green areas depict multiple uses, with 3 or 4 priority species. • Dark green areas depict biological cores, with a minimum of 5 priority species. • Purple areas are critical landscape linkage, and depict the most threatened areas and not all of the existing linkages. The Multiple Use Management areas, depicted in light green on the Pima County map, a re the most prevalent areas in Oro Valley. The category identifies lands that fulfill the five tenets used to construct the CLS, but are not as biologically rich as Biological Core Management Areas. These areas are primarily distinguished from other lands within the CLS by their potential to support high value habitat for three or more priority vulnerable species as identified by the SDCP. Arroyo Grande was mapped based on this same approach. Applicants are required to inventory property, and the starting point is 66 2/3%. The ordinance is constructed to allow some trading. It took 5 years to come up with the SDCP draft, and the County began implementing the plan in January 2002. It is working very well, and allows for case-by-case consideration. Pima County does not want it codified because that would mean that issues would go to the Board of Adjustment, and then possibly to court, and biology should not be decided in a court setting. Pima County is waiting to see what the cons are. The Board of Supervisors has been very loyal to the development of the SDCP, perhaps because the same Board members who enacted it are still in office. Currently, Pima County is adjusting the application of the SDCP through rezonings and General Plan amendments. Mr. Vella said that the Town of Oro Valley is headed toward implementation through code, but also to allow for some discussion, so it would be part policy with some flexibility. Ms. Ruther believes the Town's approach is doable. Mr. Adler referred to page 7, number 3, and said that the case-by-case method becomes subjective. Ms. Ruther said that it becomes a balancing act: biology vs. economic interests. Ms. Ruther also pointed out that the SDCP does not include the Native American Nations. Ms. Ruther said that Oro Valley's plan will be more specific and more defensible because the biology and field work is being done up front. She also said that this is cutting edge science in the country. 5. Future Agenda Items Mr. Vella said that the draft code would be presented next week. The PAC will spend the next six to twelve meetings (as long as it takes) on the draft. The draft will be sent to the PAC by mail or by email. 6. Meeting adjourned at 6 p.m. Prepared by: Arinda Asper Senior Office Specialist 3