HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 9/9/2009 I
OJt..t` Y ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL)
PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Y �
JOINT STUDY SESSION with MAJOR LANDOWNERS
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
°uNDEO Asi KACHINA CONFERENCE ROOM ENVIRONMENTALLY
M SFNSITIVF E.ANDS
11000 N. LA CANADA DR., ORO VALLEY
3 - 5 p.m.
MINUTES
PAC Members Present:
Bill Adler Chet Oldakowski
Don Chatfield Steve Solomon
Doug McKee Steve Taillie
Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present:
Mary Davis Paul Keesler
Karen Berchtold Arinda Asper
Bayer Vella
Landowners Present:
Shane Stephens Richard Maes
James Kai Tim Bolton, State Land Department
Also Present:
Joe Hornat Lourdes Medrano, Arizona Daily Star
PAC Members Absent:
Philip Kline
1. Meeting called to order at 3:03 p.m.
2. Joint Study Session Discussion
• Ms. Davis explained that the purpose of the joint study session was to give the landowners an
opportunity to express their concerns and ask questions, and for all to share information.
Staff's role is to listen, take notes, and answer questions. Ground rules were discussed and
observed by all. Mr. Vella told the group that the Town was at the front end of this process,
and the intention is to engage the landowners before the drafting of the code/ordinance
begins.
• The PAC Statement of Purpose was presented to the group:
Our purpose is to preserve Oro Valley's significant and sensitive environmental resources
for current and future generations. We will do this through a balanced approach,
relying upon clear, science-based criteria and using innovative methods while
respecting property rights.
• Introductions were made.
1
• Mr. Adler offered the historical perspective that the basic foundation of this ordinance is to
simplify the planning process. Developer Mark Weinberg suggested this ordinance some time
ago, although Mr. Weinberg did not refer to it as an ESL ordinance. Mention of the proposed
ordinance was included in the 1996 General Plan. The ordinance's purpose was to consolidate
regulations pertaining to the environment.
• Ms. Davis asked the landowners how they defined "sensitive. Mr. Maes said it was the same
as the Town's definition, but to what degree. It includes wildlife, washes, hillsides, etc. He said
that it is fine to consolidate into one ordinance, but often ordinances are written because of
problems encountered and throughout implementation the requirements keep growing. He
said his main concern is that all individual elements might become too cumbersome and
inflexible, and that developers need some flexibility. Mr. Maes added that methods of
evaluating large and small projects are different, but there tends to be more flexibility on larger
projects, making it more difficult for developers with smaller projects. As an example, the Kai
property will be looked at differently than the Arroyo Grande project, which he assumed would
be sold to one developer. Responding to this last comment, Mr. Bolton said that it is not a
certainty that the Arroyo Grande land would be sold to only one developer.
• Ms. Davis clarified that ESL can only apply to existing Town boundaries and to future
annexations. Some existing ordinances are contradictory, and the drafting of the ESL
ordinance is partly to address these inconsistencies.
• Mr. Chatfield said that when Mr. Weinberg first suggested what is now referred to as the ESL
ordinance, it was because during the planning process to lay down a roadway, three parts of
the codes were in conflict, and Mr. Weinberg's aim was consolidation. Mr. Chatfield said as a
Town resident, he would love to see Arroyo Grande become part of the Town.
• Mr. Adler asked the landowners how they personally would decide whether something is
sensitive enough or could withstand some development. Mr. Maes suggested that interested
parties look at developed properties that have successfully integrated the development
requirements. He questioned why there is a need to have a setback beyond the 100-year flood
plain, and said that ordinances can't be written based on broadening the area beyond the 100-
year flood plain. Not all washes are environmentally sensitive, and if an ordinance is too
cumbersome, developers won't be interested. Mr. Chatfield said that the flexibility and
sophistication that Mr. Maes is looking for are the types of elements the PAC is looking to
address, and that while the Town has not been sufficiently responsive to development goals in
the past, the PAC is aspiring to change that. Mr. Solomon added that the PAC shares Mr.
Maes' concerns, and that a priority matrix system is being considered, which would mean that
not all "finger washes" would be preserved.
• Ms. Davis said that as development becomes more contentious, code requirements have been
applied on a case by case basis. With ESL, values would be placed based on established
priorities and would be the tools used when applying the priorities to a project. There are
about 20 properties within the Town of 40 acres or more; these would benefit from an ESL
ordinance. All these properties are hard zoned and approximately 70% of them are candidates
for rezoning. The goal would be to respect the Conceptual Plan that Town Council adopted, to
honor the discussions held with State Land, and to identify elements that need further study.
Mr. McKee said that all existing codes would apply.
• Mr. Vella said that one idea is to make this a two-tiered process. One component would be to
rezone; another would be to develop at the current zoning —using existing code, simplifying
the process and creating incentives towards preservation.
2
I
• Mr. Kai expressed his concern about the difficulty in establishing sensitivity in areas that are
less vegetated and in connecting areas.
• Mr. Bolton explained the reason for creating an ESL is partly based on three components:
o biology (relating to the habitat)
o morphology (grading and engineering), and
o aesthetics (how it looks)
• Mr. Adler said that biologists have told us that the degree to which development crowds a
fragile area creates a deterrent to sustainability. Biologists say that in order to preserve the
three components named by Mr. Bolton, we can't build up to the edge of the habitat, but need
to graduate the disturbance, and we need to come up with a balance. Mr. Chatfield added that
when we think of it as science-based, we ask"what science?" and "what scientists?" and
added that what he would like to do is move past the "us vs. them" mentality to a shared
community basis to agree on. This is what the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan aims to do.
• Mr. Maes said that the University of Arizona herpetologist Matt Goode has done grant-funded
studies of toads, snakes, and lizards in Stone Canyon for several years. The studies, which
compare pre- and post-development lizard populations, have shown positive results. The
number of gila monsters and lizards has either remained constant or has increased, with
development not adversely affecting their numbers. Animals were found to relocate
themselves and wildlife as a whole has done very well, with deer, mountain lions not being
affected. Ms. Davis said that Matt Goode's scientific studies are being used to define
sensitivity on this project. Mr. McKee commented that what we can take away from this is
that the code/ordinance ought to recognize that these animals can relocate themselves. Mr.
Solomon said we might look at this in terms of gauging disturbance at the finished stage of a
project. Mr. Oldakowski said that if certain vegetative preservation is done along the way, it
helps the overall preservation of habitat.
• Mr. Maes invited interested parties to drive through a development where biologists were
consulted on how many ironwood trees per acre made it a sensitive area. The biologists
established a threshold of 4 trees per acre. A roadway had to go through the sensitive area,
and the developer restored the area nicely by quadrupling the number of ironwood trees. If an
ESL ordinance were to dictate that an area is off limits, problems will arise.
• Mr. Oldakowski said that ESL should not discriminate between large and small areas, but
instead come up with one definition.
• Mr. Maes cautioned that the town cannot survive and prosper based only having one-acre lots,
and the definition of"sensitive" needs to be carefully thought out.
• Ms. Davis said that based on comments being offered, landowners need to be assured that:
o If the ordinance is going to be science-based, they need to understand why the science
is necessary
o The ordinance needs to be flexible; and
o The challenge is to get away from a "project by project" basis or mentality
• Ms. Davis asked what incentives would help to preserve significant features of the property
and enhance the development value of the property. Mr. Maes referred to a past project where
he was told that he could have more density, but he wasn't interested in that, so the incentive
didn't help. He said that there needs to be flexibility, and that one set of"language" does not
3
cover all. He asked what other"donations" the Town could offer. Mr. Adler said that a change
in use might open up opportunities, and that mixed-use might be another consideration. In the
past mixed-use was not looked upon favorably, but now planners are more open to looking at
mixed uses.
• Mr. Maes recalled that at one time Town Council said there were too many commercial- and
industrial-zoned properties, and some of these properties were converted to residential. Later,
they realized that there was too much residentially zoned land. Mr. McKee added that things
change, and what is good today might not be good tomorrow.
• Mr. Bolton commented that incentives work sometimes but not always. Performance-based
rezoning might be a better way to go, as it creates a lot of flexibility.
• Mr. Adler said that he doesn't favor a cookie-cutter system, and has learned that if we are to
get along we need to work with the market, by looking at what is doable, rather than refer to an
old formula. Mr. Maes said that the process now has the flexibility to look at a project and to
modify it, and we don't need an ordinance to do this. Mr. Adler said he supports the kind of
approach that can be flexible.
• Mr. McKee asked Mr. Maes if he felt the current code discourages flexibility. Mr. Maes said
that the current code allows for requests to change the use and the zoning. He referred to Mr.
Adler's 5 findings of fact, said that would be difficult to maneuver, and commented on how the
General Plan has been amended three times. Mr. McKee asked Mr. Maes if there was
anything in the code that discourages flexibility, and Mr. Maes said there was nothing that he
could recall. Mr. Solomon said that if more flexibility is incorporated, it would be more
performance based than it is now.
• Mr. Chatfield stated his understanding of Mr. Maes' concerns, which is that there is
discouragement regarding incentives, as incentives tend to work best on large parcels. He
added that transfer of development rights (TDRs) are in the PAD but not in the General Plan.
• Mr. Maes said that in other larger cities, municipalities will add assets such as water lines and
roads, but he isn't sure that would work here.
• Mr. McKee said that the Kai property is a good example of where he felt incentives would
work, because it is a difficult property to develop.
• Mr. Vella said one option would be to amend the zoning code to provide more flexibility to
property owners and try to preserve more by increasing density or managing building heights.
Mr. Kai said that would be of interest to him because we don't have that now. To do anything
would require rezoning, and even the General Plan has a lot of restrictions.
• Ms. Davis said that she would like the landowners to think more about this, and to bring any
future additional thoughts to the PAC.
• Mr. Maes commented that one innovative plan which yielded positive results was the Ventana
Medical Systems project, which included the trade of some property and required cutting down
a hill and building a park.
• Mr. Maes then pointed to a project that did not involve much flexibility: the relocation of the
TEP substation on the WAPA line. Mr. Maes questioned why flexibility is not being exercised
in this case, as the project does not interfere with wildlife and few vehicles access it. Mr.
4
Oldakowski said that the one-mile restriction was based on wildlife science, and suggested
that we have the scientific community tell us what this affects. Mr. McKee said that he believed
the scientific community had done this. Mr. Bolton said he agreed on the issue of flexibility,
and that anytime there is a substation issue, the ACC requires alternative options and there is
concern about the location of wildlife corridors. Mr. Maes said that this issue is keeping plats
on his property from being filed, and added that throwing out actual scenarios is a good way to
begin dialogue.
• Mr. Adler asked Mr. Maes if he would disagree that there is a type of space that is sensitive to
disruption and shouldn't be touched. Mr. Maes said he believed there are spaces that need
protection. Mr. Adler clarified that the question is not so much that we draw the line, but where
we draw the line. In terms of flexibility, can we do something on the remaining portion of the
property? This brings the conversation back to the idea of mixed use, and how we can
compensate developers. Mr. Maes suggested the inclusion of language that states that
incentives be considered to address problems or challenges. Mr. Adler said that this would
involve adopting an attitude of"we are willing to consider alternatives" in order to expedite or
consider changes, and not just because of the current bad economy. This would not mean
capitulation on either side. From there we could proceed to the formalities.
• Mr. Chatfield said that the challenge to the PAC is that the flip side of flexibility is vulnerability.
• Mr. Kai asked if under this proposed system, a project would still need to go to Town Council.
Mr. Adler said that incentives would have to go to the community. This would be contentious
but necessary. Mr. Adler added that the Code would need to convey this but he isn't sure how
that would be done.
• Mr. Vella said that the existing code includes flexibility. It's been tried a handful of times,
though incentives were very mild. For example, on the Kai property, this flexibility would be a
valuable tool, allowing clustering. He added that his hope was that no one leaves this room
thinking that density is out as an option, as it is a very useful incentive to some developers and
properties. Mr. Adler said it remains up to the developers to decide if their plans are doable.
• Mr. Chatfield pointed out that on the Logan's Crossing project, the developer was offered a
clustering incentive, but the neighbors said no. Mr. Solomon added that if neighborhood
opposition is great, the Town Council will cave in.
• Mr. McKee asked how can we "pre-sell" a project to the public? Ms. Davis said that tools to
accomplish this are holding open houses, involving the media, using our website and doing
public outreach.
• Mr. Kai asked what was being presented at the open house. Ms. Davis said that notices were
mailed to all 21,000 Oro Valley households. The Open House will have information on what
ESL is, who is involved, and the project goals and schedule. Information stations will be set
up, with materials from the Historical Preservation Commission on the Cultural Resources
Inventory, with information on Prop 207 and resource definitions. Future open houses are
being planned. Ms. Davis added that all PAC meetings are open to the public.
• Mr. Adler said that the community has to understand the impact of Prop. 207, that we can't
simply impose, and that there is difficulty in implementing. Citizens need to become interested,
because if they become aware of Prop. 207, they may then become more interested in the
ESL ordinance.
5
• Mr. Solomon said he believes the public thinks they have the right to say what can and can't
be built next door, but they are not willing to pay for it.
• Ms. Davis thanked everyone for a great meeting and discussed the next steps:
o Open House
o Draft Ordinance
o Continue meeting with PAC &TAC
• Mr. Adler suggested sending the meeting minutes to the landowners (including those that
weren't here today).
• Mr. Kai asked if he could direct any future comments to Mary; she responded yes.
3. Meeting adjourned at 4:51 p.m.
Prepared by:
Arinda Asper
Senior Office Specialist
6
4
I
Conservation Lands System
As Amended June 21, 2005
Regional Plan Policy 6 Environmental Element
B. Natural Resources
1. Conservation Lands System
The Environmental Planning Element calls for analysis, policies and strategies to
address anticipated effects of implementation of plan elements on natural resources.
Policies and strategies under this plan element are designed to have countywide
applicability. Conservation actions are to be encouraged, and protection of biological
resources is considered an essential component of land-use planning.
The Conservation Lands System (CLS) is designed to protect biodiversity and provide
land use guidelines consistent with the conservation goal of the Sonoran Desert
Conservation Plan (SDCP). The overarching purpose of the SDCP is to:
Ensure the long-term survival of the full spectrum of plants and animals that are
indigenous to Pima County through maintaining or improving the habitat conditions
and ecosystem functions necessary for their survival.
The CLS was constructed according to the most current tenets of conservation biology
and biological reserve design. The CLS:
•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.
The collective application of these individual tenets produces a CLS that retains the
diverse representation of physical and environmental conditions, preserves an intact
functional ecosystem, minimizes the expansion of exotic or invasive species, maximizes
the extent of roadless areas, and minimizes fragmentation. Implementation of the CLS
not only conserves those biological resources that exist today but, because of its
landscape focus, preserves the future ebb and flow of resources essential to a healthy
functioning ecosystem. The seven CLS conservation land categories reflect relative
values of biodiversity for various lands across the landscape.
Based on the science of the SDCP with participation and oversight by the SDCP
Science Technical Advisory Team (STAT), seven CLS conservation land categories
(CLS categories) were created, defined, and mapped. Each category has an associated
conservation guideline policy.
a. General Application of CLS:
CLS category designations and Conservation Guidelines policies apply to land uses
and activities under the jurisdiction of Pima County and Pima County Flood Control
District. Application of these designations or guidelines shall not alter, modify,
decrease or limit existing and legal land uses, zoning, permitted activities, or
management of lands. These policies apply to new rezoning and specific plan
requests, time extension requests for rezonings, requests for modifications or
waivers of rezoning or specific plan conditions, including substantial changes,
requests for Comprehensive Plan amendments, Type II and Type III conditional use
permit requests, and requests for waivers of the subdivision plat requirement of a
zoning plan. Implementation of these policies shall achieve the level of conservation
necessary to protect a site's conservation values, preserve landscape integrity, and
provide for the movement of native fauna and pollination of native flora across and
through the landscape. New applications subject to this policy will be evaluated
against the following conservation guidelines for the CLS categories, where
applicable, to determine their appropriateness:
b. Important Riparian Areas:
1) These areas are characterized by hydro-riparian, meso-riparian and xero-riparian
biological communities. Hydro-riparian communities generally exist in areas
where vegetation is supported by perennial watercourses or springs. Meso-
riparian communities generally exist in areas where vegetation is supported by
perennial or intermittent watercourses or shallow groundwater. Xero-riparian
communities generally exist in areas where vegetation is supported by an
ephemeral watercourse.
Important riparian areas are valued for their higher water availability, vegetation
density, and biological productivity. In addition to the inherent high biological
value of these water-related communities, important riparian areas including their
associated upland areas provide a framework for linkages and landscape
connections. Important riparian areas are essential elements in the CLS.
2) Conservation Guidelines - At least 95 percent of the total acreage of lands within
this designation shall be conserved in a natural or undisturbed condition. Every
effort should be made to protect, restore and enhance the structure and functions
of Important Riparian Areas, including their hydrological, geomorphological and
biological functions. Areas within an Important Riparian Area that have been
previously degraded or otherwise compromised may be restored and/or
enhanced. Such restored and/or enhanced areas may contribute to achieving
the 95 percent conservation guideline for Important Riparian Areas.
c. Biological Core Management Areas:
1) This category identifies lands that fulfill the five tenets used to construct the CLS
and which provide greater biological diversity than Multiple Use Management
Areas. These areas are primarily distinguished from other lands within the CLS
by their potential to support high value habitat for five or more priority vulnerable
species as identified by the SDCP.
2) Conservation Guidelines - At least 80 percent of the total acreage of lands within
this designation shall be conserved as undisturbed natural open space. As such,
land-use changes will result in 4:1 land conservation (i.e., four acres conserved
for every one acre developed) and may occur through a combination of on-
and/or off-site conservation inside the Biological Core Management Area or
Habitat Protection Priority Areas. For purposes of this policy, Habitat Protection
Priority Areas are those such areas referenced and mapped as part of the 2004
Conservation Bond Program. The 4:1 mitigation ratio will be calculated
according to the extent of impacts to the total surface area of that portion of any
parcel designated as Biological Core Management Areas. Development shall be
configured in the least sensitive portion(s) of the property. Area(s) of undisturbed
natural open space will be configured to include on-site conservation values and
A
t
preserve the movement of native fauna and pollination of native flora across and
through the landscape. Land use and management within these areas shall
focus on the preservation, restoration, and enhancement of native biological
communities. Land uses appropriate for these areas must retain and improve
conditions for on-site conservation values, preserve the movement of native
fauna and pollination of native flora across and through the landscape, and
preserve landscape integrity. A transfer of development rights may be used in
order to secure mitigation lands.
d. Scientific Research Areas:
1) This designation identifies lands currently managed for scientific research: the
Santa Rita Experimental Range and the University of Arizona Desert Laboratory
(at Tumamoc Hill). Land uses and management within these areas focus on
balancing conservation, restoration, and enhancement of natural communities in
support of scientific research on the environment and natural resources (e.g.,
monitoring ecological change, measuring effects of experimental grazing
methods).
2) Conservation Guidelines - Scientific Research Areas should continue to be
managed for the purpose of scientific research on the environment and natural
resources. Scientific research activities should minimize any long-lasting impacts
that may affect adjacent or nearby CLS lands. Any land-use changes subject to
Pima County jurisdiction should achieve the conservation goals of the underlying
CLS category.
e. Multiple Use Management Areas:
1) This category identifies those lands that fulfill the five tenets used to construct the
CLS, but which are not as biologically rich as those lands designated 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.
2) Conservation Guidelines — At least 66 % percent of the total acreage of lands
within this designation shall be conserved as undisturbed natural open space.
As such, land-use changes will result in a 2:1 land conservation (i.e., two acres
conserved for every one acre developed) and may occur through a combination
of on- and off-site conservation inside the Multiple Use Management Area or any
more protective category of the CLS, including Habitat Protection Priority Areas.
For purposes of this policy, Habitat Protection Priority Areas are those such
areas referenced and mapped as part of the 2004 Conservation Bond Program.
The 2:1 mitigation ratio will be calculated according to the extent of impacts to
the total surface area of that portion of any parcel designated as Multiple Use
Management Areas. Development shall be configured in the least sensitive
portion(s) of the property. Area(s) of undisturbed natural open space will include
on-site conservation values and facilitate the movement of native fauna and
pollination of native flora across and through the landscape. Land use and
management goals within these areas shall focus on balancing land uses with
conservation, restoration, and enhancement of native biological communities.
Land uses appropriate for these areas must facilitate the movement of native
fauna and pollination of native flora across and through the landscape, maximize
retention of on-site conservation values, and promote landscape integrity.
Additional conservation exceeding 66% percent will be encouraged through the
use of development-related incentives and may utilize undisturbed natural open
space on individual lots. A transfer of development rights may be used in order
to secure lands utilized for mitigation, restoration, and/or enhancement purposes.
f. Agriculture In-Holdings Within the Conservation Lands System:
1) This designation denotes those lands utilized for agricultural purposes and lands
where agricultural uses have been abandoned. Agricultural land uses, in
general, are more conducive to the movement of native fauna and functional
pollination processes than other lands supporting higher intensity uses.
Intensifying the land use of these areas could compromise landscape integrity,
promote the spread of exotic species, and otherwise compromise the biodiversity
of adjacent or nearby CLS lands.
2) Conservation Guidelines: Intensifying land uses of these areas will emphasize
the use of native flora, facilitate the movement of native fauna and pollination of
native flora across and through the landscape, and conserve on-site
conservation values when they are present. Development within these areas will
be configured in a manner that does not compromise the conservation values of
adjacent and nearby CLS lands.
g. Special Species Management Areas:
1) These are areas defined as crucial for the conservation of specific native floral
and faunal species of special concern to Pima County. Currently, three species
are designated as Special Species: cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, Mexican
spotted owl, and southwest willow flycatcher. Special Species and associated
Conservation Guidelines may be added or deleted in the future based on the
best available regional scientific information as developed by the Science
Technical Advisory Team and added to or deleted from the Special Species
Management Areas as shown on the CLS map. Such additions and/or deletions
will be processed as a comprehensive plan amendment. Land use and
management within these areas will focus on conservation, restoration, and
enhancement of habitat for these species.
2) Conservation Guidelines: At least 80 percent of the total acreage of lands within
this designation shall be conserved as undisturbed natural open space and will
provide for the conservation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat for the
affected Special Species. As such, land use changes will result in 4:1 land
conservation (i.e., four acres conserved for every one acre developed) and may
occur through a combination of on- and off-site conservation inside the Special
Species Management Area. The 4:1 mitigation ratio will be calculated according
to the extent of impacts to the total surface area of that portion of any parcel
designated as Special Species Management Area. Development shall be
configured in the least sensitive portion(s) of the property. Area(s) of undisturbed
natural open space will be configured to facilitate the movement of the relevant
Special Species through the landscape and will include those on-site
conservation values essential to survival of the relevant Special Species. A
transfer of development rights may be used in order to secure mitigation lands.
h. Critical Landscape Connections:
R
1) These are broadly defined areas that provide connectivity for movement of native
biological resources but which also contain potential or existing barriers that tend
to isolate major conservation areas. Specifically, these regional-scale areas are
located: (1) Across the I-10/Santa Cruz River corridors in the northwest; (2)
Between the Catalina and Tortolita Mountains; (3) Across the 1-10 corridor along
Cienega Creek in the east; (4) Across the 1-19 and Santa Cruz River corridors in
southern Pima County; (5) Across the Garcia strip extension of the Tohono
O'odham Nation; and (6) Across the Central Arizona Project canal in Avra Valley.
Roads, other infrastructure services, and residential and commercial land uses
within these areas, depending on configuration, can result in habitat loss and
fragmentation that inhibits the movement of native fauna and interrupts the
pollination processes of native flora.
2) Conservation Guidelines: Land-use changes in these broadly defined areas
should protect existing biological linkages. Where they occur, barriers to the
movement of native fauna and pollination of native flora across and through the
landscape should be removed and fragmented corridors of native biological
communities should be restored. Opportunities to remove barriers and restore
corridor connectivity may arise as part of other, non-land use related activities
(e.g., new construction for or upgrade of infrastructure services). Such
opportunities should be pursued. High priority shall be given to identifying,
preserving, and re-establishing the connection between native biological
communities especially where natural connectivity is most constrained.
i. Adherence to CLS Conservation Guidelines
Adherence to Conservation Lands System Guidelines will protect against the loss of
conservation values and landscape integrity through in-place preservation and
restoration or enhancement of degraded or otherwise compromised natural
resources. Urban development will occur in a manner that retains conservation
values at both the micro and macro landscape scale by minimizing impacts to site-
specific sensitive conservation values, maximizing landscape continuity, facilitating
the movement of native fauna and pollination of native flora across and through the
landscape, promoting the long-term diversity of native flora and fauna, and
preserving the viability of the CLS.
j. Project Inventory and Analysis:
Application and review of requests for the establishment of land use policy
(comprehensive plan amendments) and the implementation of land use policy
(rezonings) that require approval by the Board of Supervisors (Board) shall include
an inventory and assessment of the site's conservation values and context within an
area-wide landscape as well as an analysis of the biological impact of the requested
land use change.
1) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
a) Applications for comprehensive plan amendments will, at a minimum, be
reviewed for the following parameters:
• The site's landscape context as it relates to the biological and built
environments; and
Y
• The proposed amendment's consistency with the existing infrastructure
service area or land use planning and infrastructure studies that address
the logical expansion of infrastructure services.
b) Requests for comprehensive plan amendments that seek to increase the
intensity of allowable land uses within the CLS may be approved provided
there is adequate demonstration that intensifying the land use designation
will:
• preserve the integrity of the CLS; and
• promote development that is consistent with the existing infrastructure
service area or land use planning and infrastructure studies that address
the logical expansion of infrastructure services.
c) Special area policies may be applied to govern or otherwise direct
subsequent rezoning to specifically address conservation of certain
landscape attributes.
2) Rezoning Activities
a) Applications for rezoning will, at a minimum, be reviewed for the following
parameters:
•The site's landscape context as it relates to the biological and built
environments;
• The on-site presence of or potential to support highly valued native floral
and faunal species; and
• The occurrence of physical characteristics that contribute to biodiversity.
b) Requests for rezoning that would result in new high-intensity residential uses,
commercial and industrial uses, or other high intensity land uses within the
CLS may be permitted provided there has been adequate demonstration that
the new land use will:
• preserve the integrity of the CLS;
• actively contribute to the conservation of highly valued native floral and
faunal species; and
• provide for development that achieves at least as much conservation as
development under the existing zoning.
k. Application of Conservation Guidelines:
1) The Conservation Guideline for the associated CLS designation shall apply to the
total acreage of the site that lies within the boundaries of that designation. If a
CLS designation applies to a portion of a site, Conservation Guidelines for that
designation will apply only to that portion of the site affected by that category.
For purposes of this policy, site is defined as a single lot or combination of
contiguous lots. If more than one CLS category applies to all or a portion of a
site, the more protective Conservation Guideline will apply to the affected portion.
2) Those conservation lands that are to be reserved from development, or which are
provided as mitigation, shall be conserved and managed, in perpetuity, for the
benefit of the natural resources. Various means may be utilized to protect
conservation or mitigation lands including, but not limited to, the transfer of
deeded property to Pima County, pending approval by the Board of Supervisors,
or other conservation entities and the granting of conservation easements. Land
conserved through application of the CLS shall be established as separate,
natural open space parcel(s) from the development area. Residents, or
associations of residents, of a development may not serve as the sole
administrator or enforcement entity for the management and protection of those
conservation or mitigation lands.
3) The authority to increase, reduce, exempt, or otherwise modify the full application
of the Conservation Guidelines for proposed land use changes that require the
setting of land use policy (comprehensive plan amendments) or its
implementation (rezoning) lies solely with the Board of Supervisors. Requests to
modify or exempt the full application of the Conservation Guidelines will be
deliberated on a case-by-case basis. Staff may review and make
recommendations on proposals that seek to modify the full application of the
Conservation Guidelines. The full application of the Conservation Guidelines
may be modified as part of a decision that establishes land use policy.
(comprehensive plan amendment). The full application of the Conservation
Guidelines may also be modified as part of a decision that implements land use
policy (rezoning requests). Applicants seeking to modify the full application of
the Conservation Guidelines must demonstrate that the proposed land use
change is consistent with the goals of the SDCP, does not adversely impact the
landscape integrity of the CLS, retains the ability of native fauna and pollination
of native flora to move through and across the landscape, and will protect and
enhance or restore conservation values.
a) Should the Board, as part of a land use policy decision, reduce or
otherwise adjust a comprehensive plan amendment from complying with
a Conservation Guideline(s), then the adjustment will be applied to any
subsequent implementation of that policy through rezoning. Applicants
seeking to reduce or otherwise adjust the full application of a
Conservation Guideline(s) as part of a proposed comprehensive plan
amendment or rezoning must demonstrate that the proposed land use
change is consistent with the goals of the SDCP, does not adversely
impact the landscape integrity of the CLS, retains the ability of native
fauna and pollination of native flora to move through and across the
landscape, and will protect and enhance or restore on-site conservation
values.
b) Should the Board, as part of a land use policy decision, exempt a
comprehensive plan amendment from complying with a Conservation
Guideline(s), then the exemption will be applied to any subsequent
implementation of that policy through rezoning. Applicants seeking to
exempt a comprehensive plan amendment or rezoning from compliance
with the Conservation Guidelines shall demonstrate that the exemption is
necessary to accommodate public health and safety.
CONSERVATION LANDS SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION STATEGIES
• Develop or revise Site Analysis inventory requirements for comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning applications to identify the presence of conservation
values and identify areas most suitable for development.
• Develop or revise Biological Impact Report requirements for comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning applications in order to analyze the proposed land use
change. Biological Impact Reports will evaluate and compare the effects of the
proposed land use against the effects of development without the proposed land
use.
• Standardize staff evaluation of comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning
applications to determine application's conformance with CLS, consistency with
existing or logical expansion of infrastructure, and long-term conservation of highly
valued natural resources.
• Develop guidance and criteria for restoration, enhancement, and mitigation
proposals. Forward guidance and criteria to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
• Develop site design guidance and other site planning recommendations for
environmentally-sensitive development.
• Develop and implement development-related incentives appropriate for use in
Multiple Use Management Areas. Incentives may, if appropriate, be established
through revision of allowable zoning districts, overlays, comprehensive plan land use
plan designations;
• Develop policies and procedures to govern transfer of development rights;
• Review and revise existing environmentally-related zoning code ordinances to create
incentives accessible to existing and legal land uses, zoning, and permitted activities
to promote broader support of CLS and goals of the Sonoran Desert Conservation
Plan. Ordinances appropriate for review and revision may include:
o Native Plant Preservation Ordinance (18.72);
o Buffer Overlay Zone Ordinance (18.67);
o Cluster Development Option (18.09.040);
o Conservation Subdivision Requirements (18.09.100);
o Hillside Development Zone Ordinance(18.61);
o Modification of Development Standards in Riparian Areas (18.07.080);
o Landscape and Bufferyard Ordinance (18.73); and
o Off-Street Parking & Loading Standards (18.75)