HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 5/6/2010 s t.;
..;r Agenda
ENVIRONMENTALLY
`;.::.. ..; Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) SfhiSITIVE LANus
Public Advisory Committee (PAC)
Thursday, May 6, 2010
4 p.m.
Hopi Conference Room
Development Services Building
11000 N. La Canada Dr.
1. Call to Order at or after 4pm
2. Approval of the April 29, 2010 PAC Meeting Summary
3. Discussion of Section E. Cultural Resources Category
• Existing vs. Proposed Code
• Key Issues
✓ Applicability
✓ Determination of Significance:
✓ Treatment Plan
✓ Approval Process
✓ Accidental Discoveries
✓ Relationship with other ESOS
✓ Other
4. Next Steps
• Cultural Resources and HPC Review
• Next ESL Chapters to Review: 1) View sheds 2) ESL Maps
Posted: 05 05 10
9:30 a.m.
cp
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."
-S - J
DRAFT
MEETING SUMMARY
Town of Oro Valley
Atie
Yst ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL)
£ � PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING # 27
May —6, 2010, 4 6 p _Y
HOPI CONFERENCE ROOM
11000 N. LA CANADA DR.
PAC Members Present:
Bill Adler
Doug McKee
Steve Solomon
Susan Simms
Don Chatfield
Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present:
David Williams
Bayer Vella
Karen Berchtold
Also present:
Pat Spoerl
1. Call to Order -
Meeting called to order at 4:12 pm
2. Approval of PAC Meeting Summaries:
Changes to April 29 summary were noted and accepted.
3. Discussion of Section E. Cultural Resources Category
Staff reviewed the proposed process for review of cultural resources (CR). The group
discussed the step in which Planning and Zoning Administrator (P&ZA) accepts the
determination of significance. Steve Solomon suggested that timelines for the review
process be included.
Bill Adler expressed concern that the opinion of the cultural resource professional must be
respected —and most P&ZA's are not qualified to make a determination.
David Williams stated that the P&ZA is actually reviewing for clarification and
completeness when a cultural resource profession submits an opinion. Bayer Vella
explained that the PZA will not be in the position to actually make a "determination". Bayer
Vella and Pat Spoerl both explained that the subjectivity of the analysis does not always
enable a clear cut opinion —and sometimes there are disagreements among cultural
resource professionals. Bayer Vella explained that If there is a concern with the opinion,
the P&ZA may request a second opinion from a cultural resource professional (CRP). Pat
1
Spoerl clarified that if the P&ZA disagrees with the determination, they should also consult
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review and comment. SHPO will either
concur or do not concur; they do not approve.
Bayer Vella proposed the draft be clarified to state:
1. Acceptance by P&ZA
2. If the P&ZA disagrees with the determination, he/she is to consult with SHPO
and/or another CRP.
3. Add definitive timelines
There was consensus among the PAC members to include the aforementioned changes.
Applicability
Bayer Vella reported that staff met with Joe Andrews, Town Deputy Attorney, to review
concerns with this section. Staff proposes that the applicability language from the existing
draft be used, in large part due to Proposition 207 concerns. The CR section would not
apply to development of custom or single family homes. The majority of these sites would
have already been inventoried for CR through subdivision review. PAC accepted this
approach.
Treatment Plan
Staff requested feedback on the Standards and Approval process sections.
Pat Spoerl, who was a member of the HPC ESL workgroup, stated she believed that group
intended that HPC should not review the treatment plan, and that paragraphs (3) and (4)
on page 8 should be deleted.
Steve Solomon asked if preserved in place option was followed, who would pay for it?
Bayer Vella and Joe Andrews explained if there is a request for a substantial portion of
property, such as Steam Pump Ranch, it must be paid for by the public.
Bill Adler believes public access needs to be addressed, and Bayer Vella agreed the
Treatment Plan must address this issue. A criterion will be added to the Treatment Plan
standards.
Bayer Vella asked the PAC if they thought the HPC should be able to review a P&ZA
decision on the treatment plan. All PAC members accepted this approach; however,
criteria must be provided. Also, criteria are needed for appealing a treatment plan.
Timelines are needed. For HPC and P&ZA review; 15 day review period and 30 day
appeal period were suggested.
Accidental Discovery
Pat noted these occurrences are rare because a site survey has already been completed.
2
Jl a
Steve Solomon expressed concern about the time delay discoveries would cause to a
project. One remedy would be to allow applicant to develop the rest of the site; essentially
"localizing" the shutdown of the site and include a time limit for development of a survey,
determination of significance, and treatment plan when warranted.
PAC accepted the approach suggested by Steve Solomon.
4. Next Steps
Topics for next meeting:
1. Relationship of Cultural Resources with Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)
2. ESL Maps
The group adjourned at 6:02 pm.
Prepared by:
Karen Berchtold
Acting Principal Planner
F:\PROJECTS\ESLO\PAC\PAC 27 5-6-10\ESL PAC 5-6-10 draft meeting summary.doc
3