Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Environmentally Sensitive Lands Task Force - 10/29/2009 (3) �Att EY qqi os �o MINUTES ti ORO VALLEY y 'E> 'tl•kl' k Y ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS (ESL) , PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #8ENVIRONMENTALLY. OCTOBER 29, 2009 ci:,w2crwr ANC, KACHINA CONFERENCE ROOM M 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