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