Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 10/29/2009 • A • P`LY MINUTES '{{} ORO VALLEY fes# { } ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL) PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #8 P°UNUED� OCTOBER 29, 2009 KACHINA CONFERENCE ROOM 11000 N. LA CANADA DR. PAC Members Present: Bill Adler Doug McKee Steve Solomon Philip Kline PAC Members Absent: Don Chatfield Steve Taillie Chet Oldakowski Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present: David Williams Joseph Andrews Bayer Vella Mary Davis Karen Berchtold Arinda Asper Guest: Joe Hornat 1. Meeting called to order at 4:05 p.m. 2. ESLO Code Review Strategy Mr. Vella explained that at today's meeting, PAC members would receive a 42-page ESL Ordinance draft for review and discussion at the next meeting. Updated drafts will be distributed in advance of future meetings. Today, the PAC will discuss the ESL Overview and Purpose Statements. Mr. Adler asked how"cultural resources" fits into this ESL discussion. Mr. Vella explained that while the ESL PAC is working on all elements, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is addressing the cultural resources aspect. The ESL draft has a placeholder for Cultural. Mr. Williams added that if the process is viewed as a flowchart, the HPC's cultural resources work will parallel the PAC work on the rest of ESL Mr. Adler said he was concerned because this body needs to review the HPC draft so that both efforts have the same approach. The HPC measurements and definitions are different than ESL. Ms. Davis said she agreed that we should review HPC's work, but that the decision to work independently was made by the HPC Chair, who attended the first ESL TAC meeting. Mr. Vella said that if the HPC work does not fit seamlessly with the ESL work, any discrepancies will be addressed by staff and the consultant. Mr. Adler said that the term "significant" has a federal definition that applies only to cultural historic resources. Mr. Solomon asked if we have a definition. Ms. Davis said that we don't have that now but we will, and Mr. Williams said that a definition could be included. Ms. Davis said that a discussion on Cultural Resources will be included in a future ESL PAC agenda. 1 3. The First Draft: Delivery and Overview Mr. Williams presented the PAC with the first draft of the ESL Ordinance and accompanying materials, which he discussed and explained as follows. • Table of Contents o Section A, the intent of the Ordinance, is based on the County's Plan but will be customized for Oro Valley. o Section C addresses open space requirements. o Section D addresses Use and Development Standards. o There is a distinction between III (Regulations for Development under the ESL Conservation System) and IV(Regulations for Development on ESL with Zoning Prior to ESL Adoption) o Section F, Maintenance and Violations, will include ways to ensure that areas are protected. • Table III -1 (Lists the amount of open space required under each category and in what category the resources belong) • Conservation Systems Categories (color table)—derived from ESL TAC definitions, and based on Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. • 42-page ESL Ordinance Mr. Solomon expressed concern that on the color table, rock outcrops are in the Critical Resource area. Mr. Williams said that categories can be added or removed, as long as they are in alignment with Town code. Mr. McKee said that rock outcrops are not in the Core Resource Area Category. Mr. Andrews explained that the discussion of these topic is not on the agenda. The draft is for the PAC members to take away and review, so they can bring up questions and concerns in future meetings. Ms. Davis said that we will need to be very clear in future agendas, to ensure that we can properly discuss concerns. Mr. McKee said that the agenda items still need to be broad. Mr. Andrews stated that agendas need to be specific as to what will be discussed. Ms. Davis said that this discussion is a good first step. Mr. Vella said that future meetings will be dedicated to specific topics such as "Applicability" and "Conservation Systems," and we will have as many meetings as are needed. Mr. Adler said that our meetings will need to be longer. Mr. Andrews offered to assist with agenda drafting, and suggested that meeting end times be left open. Mr. Kline asked if the Town could provide food at these longer meetings. Ms. Davis said light, simple meals could be provided if we anticipate going past 6 p.m. Mr. Adler asked if the ordinance will allow additions or code update amendments. Mr. Williams explained that the draft of design standards is not yet ready for review, but assured Mr. Adler that his earlier questions and concerns would be addressed. The intent is to revise the ordinance within the limits of Proposition 207. Mr. Adler referred to Section D3 (Design Tools and Incentives) said that incentives can still represent an opportunity. Mr. Andrews said that if a project is being considered under Section III, then it would be rezoning, and the issue would be what the Town can do as part of a rezoning. Mr. Williams suggested that a faster, more efficient process could be created to encourage rezonings. Mr. Adler suggested that the Ordinance could include the use of administrative decisions, as long as they are not used to circumvent the application process. 2 • Mr. Williams urged PAC members to read and mark up the draft, and return comments to him through Ms. Davis. Mr. Andrews reminded everyone to send emails directly to Ms. Davis or her delegate and not to blind copy anyone. Another suggestion was to bring comments to the meeting, and to review the document section by section. Mary agreed that concerns should be brought up section by section, so they can be discussed and recorded. Mr. McKee asked if the sequence or listing of what the PAC will be discussing could be provided with the next agenda. 4. ESLO Overview& Purpose Statement Ms. Davis explained that the Purpose Statement was derived from the PAC's input and the language previously presented by staff to Council. She added that it was very important to ensure that the Overview and Purpose Statement clarify ESL goals, and that they be in line with the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Mr. Adler said that the drafts use language that doesn't exist in other places, and asked if we intend to develop a glossary. The PAC discussed the first sentence, and more specifically the word "critical", in the Overview. Mr. Andrews suggested using the term "science-based." Mr. Adler asked why the word "conservation"was included when it wasn't part of the PAC's Purpose Statement. Ms. Davis said that the overview included some historical sequencing, and commented that we don't want the entire document to be driven by the wishes and decisions of the Historical Preservation Commission. Mr. Williams said he was hearing that the use of the words "protection" and "critical" in the Overview were viewed as suspect or troubling. Mr. Solomon said that the term "community sustainability" may have different meanings. Ms. Davis said that the term was used deliberately, but noted that it wasn't used in an enforcement context. Mr. Andrews said it is okay to use broad phrasing like that and for the meaning to change, and added that specific language is enforceable, whereas general language is not. (Meeting discussion was suspended while two PAC members took a short break and left the room.) The following changes to the Purpose Statement were proposed: • Trim the section down (Mr. McKee) • ESLS needs to be spelled out(Mr. Williams) • Section II, 2a: Remove "so" (Mr. McKee) • Section II, 1g: Replace "ensure"with "encourage" , (Mr. Solomon) • Why use "system" instead of"regulation?" (Mr. Adler)— Mr. Williams said he views this as an entire system, and is following the Pima County plan. • Use ESL "Regulations" instead of"system" (Mr. Kline) • Section 4b: refers to "peaks, ridges and highly visible slopes" but elsewhere it states that these are outside of Town boundaries(Mr. McKee) • Section 4: Use "preserve" instead of"conserve" or"protect" (Mr. Adler) • Mr. Williams clarified that the PAC wishes to use "conserve" or"protect" • Ms. Davis said that definitions would be introduced at the next meeting. • Ms. Davis and Mr. Andrews stated that the use of the word "protect" can still be used and is applicable in some form. 3 • • Section 3a: o Do not use the word "integrate" (Mr. Solomon) o Replace word "unique"with more applicable term (Mr. Andrews) • Section 6b: Statement that reduction of glare is "important to humans" is questionable(Mr. McKee) • Need to say that one purpose is to preserve cultural resources while still allowing access (Mr. Adler) Mr. Williams suggested that"manage" might be a better term. • Mr. Adler's use of word "balance" is good (Mr. Andrews) • Section 8a: o "Economic opportunities" may not fit into this discussion (Mr. McKee). o There is a strong correlation between keeping land values high and maintaining open space benefits (Mr. Kline) • Overall, the language used is balanced (Mr. Solomon). Ms. Davis asked the PAC members to email any additional thoughts to her by 5 p.m. Friday, Oct. 29, , which she will then forward to Mr. Williams. 5. Review of October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Minutes approved with no changes. 6. Future Agenda Items The PAC will proceed to review the Ordinance draft by section, following the Table of Contents. The next meeting will be at 4 p.m. (ending time will be left open) on Thursday, November 12th, in the Hopi Conference Room. 7. Meeting adjourned at 6 p.m. Prepared by: Arinda Asper Senior Office Specialist 4 s .. -1 I. Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Overview The Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) regulations are a biologically-based systems approach to the protection and conservation of critical resources. The Town of Oro Valley's General Plan establishes goals and policies for Sonoran Desert Protection,Natural Resource Conservation and Cultural and Visual Resource protection. These environmentally sensitive resources include wildlife habitat, riparian areas, interconnected open space, significant vegetation, rock and boulder outcrops, peaks, ridges, steep slopes, cultural resources and scenic corridors. This ESL System (ESLS) is designed to bring together existing Town codes and regional policies, providing a comprehensive structure for the Town's conservation categories. The Town has mapped environmentally sensitive resources, and established a conservation system based on scientific analysis, regionally adopted conservation policy and relative resource values. In order to accurately and consistently apply the ESLS, clear standards for defining, identifying and mapping these key resources in the Town are included in the ESLS. The protections for critical resources identified by the ESLS are based on five basic tenets of current conservation biology: • Perpetuating the comprehensive conservation of vulnerable species • Retaining those areas that contain large populations of vulnerable species • Providing for adjacency and proximity of habitat blocks • Preserving the contiguity of habitat at the landscape level; and • Retaining connectivity of reserves with functional corridors. The ESLS is designed to balance the public health, safety and welfare goals of the community with agreed-upon biological, cultural, and visual priorities to create a holistic system for protection and management of identified resources. Implementation of the ESL System carries broad local and regional significance with regard to community sustainability and the conservation of the sensitive resources that endow the Oro Valley area, giving it a distinct and valued character. C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1BE\ESL Overview-Purpose edited(2).doc r 1 1)jk i II.Purpose Theoal of ESLS is to identify and address the Town's natural and cultural resources g in a comprehensive manner. The preservation, restoration, and maintenance of environmental resources require an integrated approach. The Town's open space, biologically significant areas, scenic and cultural resources must be defined, prioritized and addressed holistically, using clear, science-based criteria and innovative methods while respecting property rights. The Environmentally Sensitive Lands System(ESLS) is designed to achieve agreed- upon preservation and conservation goals, in conjunction with protecting the public health, safety and general welfare by: 1. Conserving the Sonoran Desert a. Provide a holistic and systematic approach to resource conservation based on the current science of conservation biology. b. Understand biological systems function with a comprehensive focus on interrelated resources and the need for landscape preservation connections to ensure the continued viability of animal and plant communities. c. Implement the vision of Pima County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan for conservation of biological corridors, critical habitat and riparian areas. d. Conserve Significant Resource Areas (SRAs) identified by the General Plan. e. Protect and manage environmentally sensitive open space areas. f. Pro -_- ion for key and essential habitats. t. Ensure %e long-term survival of the native plants and animals by .. aining ecosystem functions necessary for their survival. h. Preserve, salvage and replace native vegetation, to stabilize desert soils and provide food and protection for desert wildlife. i. Encourage the preservation of wildlife habitat and wildlife friendly design through improved site design. j. Preserve the Sonoran Desert landscape, including riparian areas and rock outcroppings. 2. Preserving Land Values a. Preserve the Sonoran Desert landscape and scenic views th, are critic. to attracting residents and visitors. b. Encourage riparian habitat conservation and in-place preserva i s n o native vegetation, an integral part of the Sonoran Desert that enhances property values, quality of life and community lifestyles. 3. Conserving Cultural Resource a. Provi.- ; . -.ervation t T unique a► haeological and cultural resources fr•' integrate - ith the co s- . . .• - of other significant resources. b. • sn 'a- e potential effect of development on historical and prehistoric resources. C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKIBE\ESL Overview-Purpose edited(2).doc 4 t 4 c. Preserve exceptional resources in place, if possible, and develop mitigation strategies when needed that preserve the Town's rich cultural heritage. 4. Conserving Visual Resources a. I• =- d protecting scenic corrids •' -•'• - s . 'rotect v .ua y important areas including peaks, ridges and highly visible c Protect • .rk skies an nig s y visa i i y. d. . -rve public park viewsheds. 5. Guiding and Enhancing Urban Design a. Ensure interconnected open spaces. b. Provide direction for site and building design to protect sensitive • resources. c. Use context sensitive design. 6. Promoting Living Quality �►� a. Protect the visual resources identified by the General Plan. b. Conserve natural open space areas that provide direct and important physical and psychological benefits to human beings to reduce glare and to break up the monotony and soften the harsher aspects of urban development, while addressing community-wide natural resource conservation goals. 7. Protecting lives and property Protect human life and property from recognized hazards including steep and unstable slopes and soils, flood and erosion hazards. 8. Supporting Sustainable Growth a. Effectively apply comprehensive and systematic management and conservation of sensitive resources. Application of ESL principles of interconnected open space and resource protection and conservation provide the best opportunity for holistically sustaining the resources that create the quality of life and economic opportunities attributable to the Town of Oro Valley. Applying the ESL Conservation System to properties that are being rezoned and to properties desiring to develop under existing zoning regulations serves to implement agreed-upon community conservation goals. b. Provide incentives to encourage property owners to utilize the ESL Conservation System when determining preferred uses and specific development designs for private property where environmentally sensitive resources exist, thereby furthering conservation efforts. c. Recognize and respect existing zoning standards and promote compatible development utilizing best environmental management practices. C:\Documents and Settings\aasper\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKI BE\ESL Overview-Purpose edited(2).doc ORO VALLEY ESL CONSERVATION SYSTEM CATEGORIES A. Major Wildlife Linkage Category (100% conservation) Resource Name Description Dataset Name Notes extends into the town and coincides with Big Wash and CDO riparian Large mammal corridor Paul Beier Study OV_wildlife_link.shp areas. B. Critical Resource Area Category (95%) Riparian Areas(all) Includes all types of riparian areas OV_riparian.shp AG_riparian.shp Degraded areas or missing segments in existing Minor wildlife/riparian linkages riparian corridor system included in riparian datasets Rock Outcrops n/a not yet received town boulder info Peaks and Ridges only exist outside the town currently n/a Unique Habitat Resource Unique habitat features AG_habresources 50ftBuff.shp includes caves and the seep c. Core Resource Area Category (80%) Pima County Biological Core Areas Based on County CLS, Biological Core PC_clsadopt biocore.shp Threatened and endangered species mapped Do we keep this in case T&E gets T&E Wildlife Habitat habitat areas. none currently listed designated? Unique stands of desert vegetation including Unique Stands of Vegetation _saguaro, ironwood, palo verde and ocotillo OV_sigveg.shp AG_sigveg.shp Unique individual native plants including saguaro Unique Individual Plants and native trees included in AG_sigveg.shp dataset D. Multiple Use Management Area Category (66%) Need to edit dataset to drop Pima County Multiple Use Areas Based on County CLS, Multiple Use Management PC_clsadopt multuse.shp developed areas. E. Scenic Resources Category (three levels of protection) Oracle Road Overlay District ORSCO OV_oracle_scenic_overlay.shp Most restrictive Tangerine Road Overlay District TRCOD OV_tangerine_scenic_overlay_quarl moderate requirements Major Roadway Scenic Corridors General Plan identified roadways OV_Scenic_all_buff.shp match TRCOD requirements Town Park Viewsheds General Plan specified public parks OV parks_quartermibuff.shp building height only? F. Cultural Resources Category (resource dependent) Review preliminary inventory.Case by case determination of appropriate Individual resource sites Need to be identified by survey prior to grading Not displaying known sites protection/dispensation G. Hillside Areas (conservation varies) AG_per slope_15_clip.shp 15-24.9%slope areas moderately sloped areas OV per slope_15_clip.shp AG_per slope 25_clip.shp 25%and greater slope areas steep slopes and hillsides OV per slope_25_clip.shp Table Ill-1 Categories and Conservation Thresholds for Sensitive Lands ESL Malor Critical Core Multiple Use Cultural Vi= Hillside Conservation Wildlife Resourc Resource Management Resourc Resourc Ar- Category Linkage e Area Area Area es es Conservation 100% 95% 800/0 66% Resource Resource Resource Threshold Dependent Dependent Dependent ESL Resource Type 1.0 Wildlife Unique Critical Habitat f.; `'':' Habitat Habitat (T&E) Speci-^wv` Resource Habitat PCf t ::. ..'i s Areas U�` ng..., >#:, t: PC Bio t r` ..s ': E:,.: . .:�f:.:'. l•+'4, �'':}iii. Core . : y:... Mngmn } Area :: .-4:41,..,:,... `ry'�:W4k'i<2.. ..,.i�fh�: '.`{:"�..4:G^Y+: 2.0 Wildlife Identified Othere Linkages large identified \,,.,-,'''IT''..'- , mammal minor corridors links . .y 3.0 Riparian All :: }:. \.is r: :., Areas }` :�,. v "K::,, ,. Riparian ��:. � ���•�..:: :.:.: Areas -,:',:,5,,-;:,44.,;,.:\;,_„\s,.. .::. 4 0 Significant iqu T.." •: .h..,.�.i{ '� ). 4-}pit'+K:'yr:;'t:•.,.:„,?:" !.-s Vegetation Y: p{-/ }":. ,.,S:at'n7ige:::,','. s° Indi .Nuals 5.0 Rock vt . A i Outcrops 0.1,....,,...,g.§ r .:a;: Y�4�- \ N kikfoti ^�� +?C`''': :x \..\,C +tiv -0.,`"`.^fit'{. E t 3 :�r ^rte\ �k' 3J2. 6.0 To i}` } :::.. p {a & Significan Je s and :;, f Rich ;\t z? t Slopes .�; fix <..v: ":�'::• (>25%) fModerate i J .-.7:';'-.. :::.:.: Slopes (15-24%) 7.0 Visual , s`{: f{Y Scenic K Jf.,, Resources :f} ''`$$} Corridors t: :,,-: Park Viewshed s 8.0 Cultural All cultural Resources resources 10.2 . 7 J �) ENVIRONMENTALLY 77 12 SENSITIVE LANDS ESLS Table of Contents I. Overview I1. Purpose III. Regulations for Development under the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Conservation System A. Intent B. Applicability 1. General 2. ESL District and Maps 3. Exceptions 4. ESL Application Incentive without Rezoning 5. ESL Application Incentive for Rezoning C. Environmentally Sensitive Lands Conservation System 1. Conservation System 2. Conservation Categories A. Major Wildlife Linkage B. Critical Resource Areas C. Core Resource Areas D. Multiple Use Management Areas E. Cultural Resource F. Scenic Resources G. Hillside Areas 3. Open Space Requirements A. Natural Undistributed Open B. NUOS Reduction C. Density Incentive for Increase in NUOS D. Types of NUOS E. Distribution of NUOS D. Use and Development Standards 1. Use Restrictions 2. Intensity of Development 3. Design Tools and Incentives A. Density Transfer B. Amended Development Standards C. Cluster Design Option D. Design Standards and Guidelines E. E. Approvals Required F. Maintenance and Violations IV. Regulations for Development on Environmentally Sensitive Lands with Zoning Prior to ESLS Adoption A. Purpose B. Applicability C. Riparian Habitat Overlay District D. Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation E. Oracle Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District F. Tangerine Road Scenic Corridor Overlay District G. Cultural Resources Preservation H. Hillside Development Zone I. Other Existing Code Sections Potentially Included