HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 5/13/2010 {p .4J Agenda
<i
�t4'.'S YF!.Q't3'f+c�&'.A6 M.•..x.Z
Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) s ``
Public Advisory Committee (PAC)
Thursday, May 13, 2010
4 p.m.
Hopi Conference Room
Development Services Building
11000 N. La Canada Dr.
1. Call to Order at or after 4pm
2. Discussion of Section E. Cultural Resources Category
• Overview of PAC direction provided on May 6, 2010
• Relationship of Cultural Resources with other ESOS
• Next Steps in Review of the Cultural Resource Category
3. ESL Resource Categories, Open Space Standards, and Specific Mapping
• Review of Resource Categories
• Open Space Requirements
• Mapping: SDCP, ESL Resources, General Plan, and ESL Planning
Map
4. Next Steps
• Next ESL Chapters to Review: Scenic Resources and Mitigation,
Maintenance, & Enforcement.
Posted: 5/12/10
10:30 a.m.
rg
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."
a `► •
DRAFT
MEETING SUMMARY
--""*"1
Town of Oro Valley
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL)
Rt. {° PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING # 27 �c
E yxi MOW��6�'f eke'-N t£1L£
"iCk o a AO" May13, 2010, 4— 6 A
p
HOPI CONFERENCE ROOM
11000 N. LA CANADA DR.
PAC Members Present:
Bill Adler
Doug McKee
Steve Solomon
Steve Taillie
Susan Simms
Don Chatfield
Philip Kline
Oro Valley ESL Team Members Present:
David Williams
Bayer Vella
Karen Berchtold
Joe Andrews
Also present:
Pat Spoerl
Dan Zweiner
1. Call to Order-
Meeting called to order at 4:04 pm
2. Discussion of Section E. Cultural Resources Category
Bayer reviewed key topics from last week's PAC review of this topic.
Relationship of Cultural Resources (CR) with other Environmentally Sensitive Open Space
(ESOS)
Bayer noted that staff no longer believes that providing a defined rank of resource priorities
to guide preservation of ESOS is the best strategy.
Pat Spoerl reinforced that the determination of significance is "accepted." A treatment plan
may propose different treatments.
Bayer noted that if cultural resources are located in an area where there are no other
Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) resources, the process is clear. If CR is combined
with other ESL resources, the means to select resource priorities can be a challenge.
1
b
Bayer reviewed the ESL categories and presented a possible approach:
• Resource Management Area: CR Treatment Plan takes precedence
• Core, Critical, Wildlife Linkage categories: Treatment Plan + Avoidance + Mitigation
Pat reiterated that because a treatment plan provides options, it allows for some evaluation
in conjunction with other ESL resources.
Steve noted that doubly penalizing developer should be avoided; such as requiring
developer to mitigate a CR, and then restore the site.
Pat stated that if CR site is in an ESL open space preservation area, it is less of a concern
because it won't be disturbed. Unless there will be an impact to CR, preference is usually
to preserve in place.
The scenario for when CR sites are outside of the ESL open space needs to be
addressed. The group agreed there is not one fixed solution.
Pat noted there shouldn't be much conflict between CR and wildlife corridors or riparian
areas. Slopes generally do not contain major CR sites; however, ridge tops and rock
outcrops are often CR sites.
Bayer reviewed some major principles:
1. Combine ESOS/Cultural Resources to secure both
Steve observed this may not be so easy because riparian areas are not generally
settlements. The group agreed it is not possible to address every circumstance through
ordinance language; generalized criteria are needed.
2. Conserve cultural resources
Pat noted that in the past, a general strategy has been to excavate CR. What needs to be
determined is how much value lies in the context of the CR, or the resources preserved in
the site. Also, the cultural resource professional developing the treatment plan needs to
get direction on existing zoning and resources.
The group inferred from this that master planning is critical. For instance, the treatment
plan for the various CR sites at Rancho Vistoso should have been master planned, and
this should be noted in the ordinance.
Bayer Vella asked if a general statement should be crafted to direct the P&ZA, for
instance: "Conserve the value of the resources to the greatest extent possible."
This should be balanced with factoring in the develop ability of the site; similar to language
in existing CR ordinance.
2
Bill Adler disagreed, noting that development in sensitive areas where there are also
cultural resources may need to be at a lower density.
Bayer Vella observed that a treatment plan will need to account for all potential
development impacts - it all comes back to balancing the two goals.
Don Chatfield commented that the current code may not allow enough interpretation.
Bayer Vella reviewed the current draft language pertaining to credit for ESOS. If CR area
is preserved in non-ESL area, it results in a one-to-one credit to use ESL area. Does this
make sense? The developer does not get "extra credit" for preserving overlapping
resources.
The group discussed how resources should be prioritized. Don said protecting ESL
resources is more important than CR ones. Steve disagreed, noting that CR can be a one
of a kind resource. Philip observed it also depends on how large the CR area is.
The group agreed that the one-to-one credit may not make sense, but some other type of
relief needs to be defined.
David Williams asked Dan Zweiner what percentage of CR sites is preserved in place. Dan
responded that the percentage is small.
PAC agreed that the process for defining resource priorities should not pit one resource
against another. PAC directed staff to develop incentives to offset "preserved in place"
requests when resources exist outside of ESOS.
4. Next Steps
Topics for next meeting:
1. Incentives to offset "preserved in place" requests when resources exist outside of
ESOS
2. ESL Maps
The group adjourned at 6:00 pm.
Prepared by:
Karen Berchtold
Acting Principal Planner
3