The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackets - Council Packets (1543) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL BUDGET STUDY SESSION May 24 , 1999 5:30 p.m. ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE BUDGET STUDY SESSION -AT OR AFTER 5:30 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. FOLLOW-UP ISSUES FROM MAY 20, 1999 BUDGET REVIEW SESSION 2. WATER UTILITY (45 minutes) (Pages 455 — 503) 3. WATER CONNECTION FEES (15 minutes) (Pages 504 - 509) 4. ALTERNATIVE WATER (15 minutes) (Pages 510 — 514) 5. WATER COMPANY ACQUISITION (15 minutes) (Pages 515 — 517) 6. REVIEW OF BUDGET ISSUES FROM THIS EVENING'S MEETING AT OR AFTER 7:00 P.M. 5. REVIEW OF THE NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SALVAGE AND MITIGATION ORDINANCE ADJOURNMENT A copy of the Manager's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999/2000 is available for public inspection in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours of 8:30 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk at 297-2591. POSTED: 5/21/99, 4:30 p.m. LH TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: May 24, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL FROM: Melissa Shaw, AICP, Planner II SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION ORDINANCE BACKGROUND: In January, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission initiated amendments to the Native Plant, Landscape and Bufferyard Ordinances, listed as Item Eight of the Commission's 1997-98 work plan. As specified in the work plan, this amendment is to improve the current ordinance by enabling a higher degree of enforcement and ability to achieve its purpose. A technical advisory committee of landscape architects, developers, natural resource consultants and other government representatives was formed (list attached) and met monthly with staff beginning in February 1998 to discuss the amendments. Two citizen representatives were on the committee although only one attended the meetings. The review was divided into two phases, one for the Native Plant Salvage Ordinance and the second for review of the Landscape and Bufferyard requirements. The attached draft shows the proposed revisions to the Native Plant Salvage Ordinance. The Landscape and Bufferyard requirements are currently under review. STUDY SESSION GOALS: 1. Review the draft ordinance. 2. Consider the different options and alternatives that are a result of public comments, andp rovide direction to staff regarding same. 3. Address concerns/issues of Council members. 4. Discuss the next step in the process. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ORDINANCE: "Preserving and protecting the existing Sonoran desert landscape...preservin native vegetation...[and]. . g g requiring salvage and use of native vegetation" are the primary objectives of this ordinance (see Sec. 14-101, Purpose). The proposed amendments strengthen the purpose statement by balancing the impact of development p p on native vegetation with the Town's desire to preserve the Sonoran desert. The following are specific elements of the ordinance that are proposed to achieve its purpose: site resource inventory (SRI), significant vegetation (SV), mitigation, understory vegetation, and technical protocol for plant salvage. While this and other zoning code ordinances can mitigate the impact of development on sensitive land, the native plant ordinance is not intended to be a mechanism to curtail development.. The implications of some public pic comments regarding preservation go beyond the purpose of the native plant ordinance and cross into the scope of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands ordinance (ESLO). (The ESLO process began on May11, 1999, and the first public meeting will be held on June 9, 1999.) Public concerns are summarized onpag e 4. Attachment 3 includes a complete list of comments from a public meeting on April 20, 1999. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 2 of 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION AND PUBLIC MEETING: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a study session on December 1, 1998, andublic hearings regarding P g g g the draft amendments on February 2 and March 2, 1999. The Commission moved 5 to 1 to forward the ordinance to Council, with conditions. An excerpt from the minutes is attached. Theublic hearing gProcess generated substantial public interest and comments, and a public meeting regarding the ordinance was held on April 20, 1999. The meeting comments are summarized and discussed in detail below and in Attachment 3. One of the Commission recommendations was that the ordinance be implemented on a 90-day trial period, with an evaluation of its effectiveness presented to Commission and Council. Staff anticipates a large number and wide range of development submittals in the next several months, beginning in June, that would provide a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of the ordinance. Staff believes that the draft changes si ificantl y improve the existing ordinance. It is important to consider implementing the ordinance prior to the upcoming P g peak of development activity. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE EXISTING ORDINANCE: The proposed revisions constitute a substantial change to the current code. In fact, the draft includes very little of the current format and language. With the draft ordinance, all new verbiage is demarcated in capital letters. Revisions made to the ordinance since the public hearing are based on Planning Commission conditions and are depicted with italics. Other revisions include minor edits and clarification. It is important to note that significant changes to the format of the ordinance will likely occur with the upcoming comprehensive code review process. The major changes to the ordinance are summarized below. • Title. Existing: Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan Requirements. Draft: The ordinance is now titled Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Plan Requirements. The title Native Plant Preservation, Salvage, Disturbance and Mitigation Plan has been suggested as well. • Purpose Statement. Existing: Focus is on protection and preservation of Sonoran Desert, and salvage of protected native plants. . Draft: Partly rewritten in relation to the goals of the General Plan, to better reflect preservation of the Sonoran Desert as the main purpose of the ordinance (page 1). • Plan preparer qualifications. Existing: Must be prepared by registered landscape architect. Draft: The minimum qualifications of the plan preparer have been expanded and include arborist, biologist, horticulturist and botanist, in addition to landscape architect(page 3). • Site Resource Inventory (SRI). Existing: Not required. Draft: The proposed SRI is perhaps the most significant change to the existing ordinance. It is required in addition to the current native plant salvage plan. The SRI is a key tool to the preservation aspect of the ordinance intended, and will be used in a similar manner as the environmental portion of the site analysis r required for a rezoning. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 3 of 5 Submittal of the SRI will be required during the preapplication stage, prior to formal submittal of thelat or developmentp plan. It will be a tool that developers and town staff will use to evaluate the natural conditions of a site to promote designs that maximize preservation of significant vegetation. See the process chart . attached. SRI requirements begin on page 3 of the ordinance. • Significant Vegetation (SV) Existing: There are no requirements in the existing Native Plant code to separately identifysignificant vegetation. Draft: Significant vegetation, identified by the SRI, is "characterized by specific plant communities, and/or unique plant occurrences and/or unique individual specimens that demonstrate...areas of special value to the Sonoran Desert ecosystem". The draft code emphasizes preservation in place of SV byestablishinga . . . . higher minimum mitigation threshold for disturbed or destroyed SV plants than for plants that are not . significant. The proposed code also offers incentives for preserving SV that permit reduction in lot size when a superior effort is made to preserve in place SV. Page 4. • Mitigation. Existing: Currently, 50% of all plants that are rated as medium or low transplantablity, regardless of g condition and that are not salvaged are mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. Draft: Two sets of mitigation requirements are proposed. One set is for significant vegetation where it is identified on the SRI but not preserved in place. This addresses the large, old trees and other plants that normally are not salvaged due to size and age and requires mitigation at a higher ratio (3:1) with larger replacement trees (48".and 36" boxed) than the standard mitigation requirements. The second set is for the native plant salvage plan. Mitigation is at a 1:1 ratio of the same size and species for any plant that meets the salvage criteria but is not salvaged. The intent of this change was to require salvage of healthy and viable plants while minimizing the requirement to mitigate plants that cannot be transplanted or that are p diseased or dying. Pages 6, 8. • Understory vegetation. Existing: Not required to be planted or preserved. Draft: Requires that 5 native understory plants be planted for each tree or plant replaced. A list of 71 native understory plants has been included. Pages 6, 8, 15-16. • Compliance/Fines. Existing: The fine schedule is located in this chapter, and is based on size of plant destroyed. Draft: The penalty schedule will be moved to the ingeneral fee and penalty schedule. A tiered approach will pp be used, based on area graded, addition to size of plant destroyed. This will account for areasg raded. prior to inventory. Page 12 for updates. • Technical Protocol for Plant Salvage. Existing: None required. Draft: A section has been added (14-106, page 11) to address Plant Salvage Protocol. This section states that there will be specific plant salvage technique requirements published in technical bulletins. The technical bulletins must be written. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 4 of 5 • Protected Native Plant List. Existing: There are 17 plants listed on the protected native plant list. Each isrotected byeither the Native p Plant Law or Endangered Species Act. Draft: The list has been expanded to 21 with the addition of acacia and netleaf hackberry. Flexibilityhas been �'Y built in for the salvage of prickly pear and cholla cacti when they are abundant. Although Pima Countylists 24 g protected native plants in their ordinance, a representative from the State Department of Agriculture assisted the g Town with expansion of the Oro Valley list, based on knowledge of species of plants that exist in this area. • Definitions. Draft: New definitions for mitigation, significant vegetation and incentives are included. PUBLIC COMMENT: Comments from the public meeting are summarized, including a staff response, in Attachment 3. Three comments that are departures from the current draft, and that could result in significant changes are summarized and discussed in greater detail below. There have been no major changes to the ordinance based on the public comments, pending Council direction to staff as to resolution of the major issues. 1. Incentives to preserve significant vegetation. Comments were made that it is inappropriate to use the "carrot p carrot and stick approach" and that incentives should not be part of the code. Compliance should be mandated. Conversely, there was a suggestion to offer incentives beyond density bonuses, such as building permit fee reduction. Incentives were introduced into the code, at the suggestion of the advisory committee, as mechanisms that provide developers with flexibility to create innovative site design when there is significant vegetation to be preserved. Incentives do not change minimum salvage requirements but strive to encourage preservation beyond the minimum. The suggested incentives permit clustered development by allowing for smaller lot sizes or greater floor area ratio, but do not permit overall . density increases. 2. Approval process for determination of mitigation ratios for significant vegetation. As written, the draft code provides a standard formula for mitigation of significant vegetation, and that approval of mitigation pp g plans is administrative. Currently, Native Plant Salvage Plans are administratively approved.roved. Prior to March, 1998, all Native Plant Salvage Plans were reviewed by DRB and approved by Council. Based on recommendations from a Council-appointed ad hoc committee on development review, the approval process was changed to administrative. The change was recommended because approval of the salvage g plans was routine, the change saved DRB, Council and staff time. A comment was made that mitigation of significant vegetation should not bepP or redetermined approved p administratively but should be determined by incitizens, that is, the DRB. If adopted, the process would p change so that each instance where significant vegetation was disturbed, the DRB would review the plan and consider it based on certain findings (the suggested findings are now listed as objectives, on g pages 3 and 4). Under this scenario, the ratios outlined in the draft (page 6) would be guidelines for the DRB to use in determining the mitigation requirements. TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Page 5 of 5 plan and consider it based on certain findings (the suggested findings are now listed as objectives, on pages 3 and 4). Under this scenario, the ratios outlined in the draft (page 6) would be guidelines for the DRB to use in determining the mitigation requirements. 3. Option for mitigation remedy. On page 7 is a paragraph titled mitigation remedy. A comment was iny made "do not use lieu fees". Mitigation remedy is similar to in lieu fees in that it permits alternatives . . . to mitigation requirements when the number of replacement plants exceeds that which will fit on the site. The difference is that a mitigation remedy is not limited to fees in lieu, and allows alternatives to be proposed and considered by citizens. The process proposed is review by the DRB and approval or pp denial by the Town Council, at a public hearing. STAFF COMMENTARY: The purpose of this ordinance is to preserve and protect significant Sonoran Desert vegetation that is integral to the character of the Town. Although the current ordinance is effective, the proposed amendments were written to have a greater impact on preservation, salvage and mitigation. Timely implementation is important, particularly in light of an anticipated peak of development activity in the next few months. Staff appreciates the Council's attention and direction regarding this ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft, Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Plan Ordinance 2. List of Advisory Committee Members 3. Summary of public comments from April 20, 1999 Public Meeting 4. Sign-in sheet from April 20, 1999 Public Meeting 5. Flow chart of process 6. Excerpt from March 2, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission minutes 7. A sample of letters received regarding the ordinance F:\ZONECODE\ZCR114\98AMENDS\TOWNCOUNCILSTDYSESSIONI _W7Z &y4teir A/tem/E- Pl..• i g and •ning Administrator Aor Town Manager CHAPTER 14 NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Article 14-1 NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION,SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS Sec. 14-101 Purpose ORO VALLEY'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IS THE UNIQUE SONORAN DESERT, AN UPLAND DESERT COMMUNITY FOUND ONLY IN SOUTHERN ARIZONA AND PARTS OF NORTHERN MEXICO. SEVERAL RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES INHABIT THE AREA, THE MOST NOTABLY CHARACTERISTIC OF WHICH IS THE SAGUARO CACTUS, A WELL KNOWN SYMBOL OF THE SOUTHWEST. This Article is designed to provide standards for the protection of native plants, WHICH PROVIDE HABITAT FOR ANIMALS, site stabilization and revegetation for all development projects within Oro Valley so as to ENHANCE AND PROMOTE THE NATIVE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OF THE TOWN These standards provide for the in-place preservation and protection of SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION AND THE SALVAGE OF PROTECTED SPECIES - . - - - -- - --- -- ---- -- •-- : -•- These regulations serve to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by: A. Preserving and protecting the existing Sonoran desert landscape, including RIPARIAN AREAS, organic and inorganic materials, rock outcroppings AND ASSOCIATED VEGETATION; B. Preserving native vegetation which is i stabilizES desert soils AND IS AN IMPORTANT HABITAT COMPONENT BY PROVIDING COVER, FOOD AND NESTING SITES FOR NUMEROUS DESERT WILDLIFE SPECIES - _:: _-: : : . : : :-_ • _ C. PRESERVING UNDERSTORY VEGETATION SPECIES THAT ENHANCE THE VALUE OF PRESERVED AND SALVAGED PLANTS D. MITIGATING THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION DISTURBED BY DEVELOPMENT. E. PROMOTING THE DESIGN OF GREATING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE DE iGNED T INCORPORATE THE EXISTING NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, ENHANCE THE EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION F. Requiring salvage and use of native vegetation, which is drought tolerant, requires less maintenance and uses less water =•- --•-- -_ _ - •_--- -_ • - -- - - - Sec. 14-102 Applicability A. The provisions of this article shall apply to all new development, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. B. All existing developments proposing expansion and/or a change in use shall comply with the provisions of this Article. C. Development of INDIVIDUAL single family lots in districts WITH LOT SIZE R1-20 AND GREATER SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FOLLOWING: SEC. 14-106, SEC. 14-109A. B. C., SEC. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 1 relocated on site, unless otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR D. - -- • - = - -•- =- ==- = •-- - == •: a -..• - : D. QUALIFICATIONS. THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY AND NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED AND STAMPED, SEALED OR CERTIFIED BY A QUALIFIED PRACTITIONER, WITH EXPERIENCE AND/OR FAMILIARITY WITH THE SONORAN DESERT ECOSYSTEM, AND ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS: I. A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REGISTERED WITH THE ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL REGISTRATION; 2. AN ARBORIST WITH INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE CERTIFICATION; 3. A BIOLOGIST, HORTICULTURIST OR BOTANIST WITH A MINIMUM B.A. OR B.S. IN A PLANT ORIENTED NATURAL RESOURCE FIELD - • t• A •. • '2- •-• • •.. . .• •. w• - .•••• •. •-•.• P• - • w- • • .•.. 1. Copies Required and Fees: a. 3 full sized copies of the Native P'a t PreservotioR and Salvage PIaes, folded to 8 11211 .•w •-• - -tee •• w. •. . • • • . .• ..... .. .-.•- .. • •- ..w • . •- .. • . • •- - ..• •. w • • • •w -• _•• !.1.• • -- • Sec. 14-104. SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS A. SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY 1. THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY (SRI) SHALL BE A PRIMARY EVALUATIVE DESIGN TOOL UPON WHICH THE SITE DESIGN AND SALVAGE PLANS ARE BASED. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SRI SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR PURPOSES OF SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN, AND SHALL DESCRIBE AND IDENTIFY NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE, AS LISTED BELOW, INCLUDING AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. PRESERVATION OF PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS AND SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHALL BE A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION. THE SRI SHALL STRIVE TO MEET THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES: • THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSED REQUIRES THE MINIMAL NATIVE PLANT DISTURBANCE, DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 3 • DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR CREATIVE PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGN. • MITIGATION PROPOSED MAINTAINS AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT NATIVE PLANT VEGETATION AND ANIMAL HABITAT WHILE PRESERVING SITE STABILIZATION. • MITIGATION PROPOSED INCORPORATES NATIVE VEGETATION OF A SIZE, QUALITY AND TYPE CONSISTENT WITH THE SRI AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, CONTRIBUTES TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE REMAINING NATIVE VEGETATION, AND THE DEVELOPMENT. TO PROMOTE THESE OBJECTIVES, STAFF WILL REVIEW THE SRI SUBMITTED WITH THE PREAPPLICATION OR ONE MONTH IN ADVANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION DISTURBED BY DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE MITIGATED (DISTURBED PLANTS SHALL BE REPLACED) AS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 14-104.0 BELOW. THE NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN, DEVELOPED FROM THE SRI, SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. • - •.. .- • - . -- - -•- •- :2 •. _ -- •-- COu ncil. 2. THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY SHALL BE BASED ON AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE (SCALE OF 1"=40') THAT IS NO OLDER THAN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUBMITTAL. A SCALE SMALLER THAN 1"-40' OR OLDER DATE MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BUT IN NO CASE MAY THE SCALE BE SMALLER THAN 1"=100'. THE SRI SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING, CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AND DISTINGUISHED: a. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, AS DEFINED HEREIN; NATURAL AREAS DEFINED AND PROTECTED BY THIS CODE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE, RIPARIAN HABITAT, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND; 100-YEAR FLOOD LIMITS, ROCK OUTCROPS, THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND A LOCATION MAP. b. DIFFERENTIATE THE AREAS ON THE SRI AS FOLLOWS: SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION WITH HEAVY SOLID LINES; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREAS WITH HATCHING INDICATING 15 AND 25 PERCENT AND GREATER SLOPES; RIPARIAN AREAS WITH DASHED LINES; 100-YEAR FLOOD LIMITS WITH ALTERNATING DASHED AND DOTTED LINES; ROCK OUTCROPS WITH LIGHT SHADING. 3. STAFF REVIEW OF THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY WILL BE COMPLETE WITHIN 10 DAYS OF EITHER THE PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE OR SRI SUBMITTAL. ANY PROJECT SUBMITTED WITHOUT PRIOR STAFF REVIEW AND RESPONSE TO AN SRI SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCOMPLETE. B. SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION (SV) IS CHARACTERIZED AS & SPECIFIC PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND/OR UNIQUE PLANT OCCURANCES AND/OR UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL SPECIMENS THAT DEMONSTRATE, THROUGH THE PRESENCE OF CERTAIN CRITERIA, AS LISTED BELOW, AREAS OF SPECIAL VALUE TO THE SONORAN DESERT ECOSYSTEM. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev.5/99 4 1. PLANT COMMUNITY IS AN AREA OF VEGETATION DOMINATED BY ONE OR MORE SPECIES. CLIMATE, ELEVATION, SOIL TYPES AND OTHER FACTORS ULTIMATELY DETERMINE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF PARTICULAR PLANT COMMUNITIES. EXAMPLES OF A PLANT COMMUNITY DOMINATED BY ONE SPECIES ARE DESERT GRASSLAND AND CREOSOTE BUSH ASSOCIATION, OR A GROVE OF TREES, FOR EXAMPLE MESQUITE BOSQUE. THESE COMMUNITIES CAN FORM ALMOST PURE STANDS OF SINGLE SPECIES. EXAMPLES OF CODOMINATE PLANT COMMUNITIES ARE COTTONWOOD-WILLOW AND PALOVERDE-SAGUARO ASSOCIATION. PLANT COMMUNITIES CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS BENEFICIAL, UNIQUE AND/OR VALUABLE TO THE DESERT ECOSYSTEM. 2. UNIQUE PLANT OCCURANCES ARE AREAS OF VEGETATION THAT EXIST IN CONTRAST TO THE MAJORITY OF THE SURROUNDING VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY DUE TO EITHER MICROCLIMATES OR AVAILABILITY OF WATER SOURCES. EXAMPLES ARE STANDS OF IRONWOOD TREES OR RIPARIAN AREAS. 3. UNIQUE PLANT REFERS TO ANY NATIVE TREE, SHRUB OR CACTI WITH EXTRAORDINARY CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AGE, SIZE, SHAPE, FORM, CANOPY COVER OR AESTHETIC VALUE. AN EXAMPLE MAY BE CRESTED SAGUAROS, A RARE, MASSIVE , ANCIENT TREE OR TREE WITH AN UNUSUAL SHAPE. 4. CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION INCLUDE THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING, IN ADDITION TO BEING CHARACTERIZED AS A PLANT COMMUNITY, UNIQUE PLANT AND/OR UNIQUE PLANT OCCURANCE: a. PLANT SPECIES THAT ARE NATIVE TO THE AREA b. PLANT SPECIES COMPOSITION IS TYPICAL FOR THE AREA c. PLANTS ARE GENERALLY HEALTHY AND WILL SURVIVE FOR 5 OR MORE YEARS. d. PLANT DENSITY IS NORMAL FOR THE SITE CONDITIONS (SOIL, SLOPE, ORIENTATION, WATER AVAILABILITY). e. MATURE SPECIMENS OF INDIVIDUAL TREES AND/OR COLUMNAR CACTUS SPECIES ARE PRESENT. f. NOXIOUS/INVASIVE SPECIES ARE FEW AND NOT VISUALLY PROMINENT, SUCH AS DESERT BROOM, TAMARISK, MEXICAN PALO VERDE, AND TREE OF HEAVEN. g. GRADING OR CLEARING HAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED THE LANDSCAPE IN THE AREA. h. CONSTRUCTED NON-NATIVE LANDSCAPES DO NOT QUALIFY AS SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. 5. PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHOULD EMPHASIZE CONTIGUOUS GROUPS OF NATURAL AREAS AND SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, OTHER NATURAL AREAS PROTECTED BY THIS CODE, SUCH AS RIPARIAN HABITAT. C. APPLICABILITY AND MITIGATION. 1. IF ALL PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS AND AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 5 ARE PRESERVED IN PLACE, ONLY A NATIVE PLANT SALVAGE PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA. IF ANY AREA OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION IS PLANNED FOR DEVELOPMENT, MITIGATION IS REQUIRED, AND CREDIT WILL BE GIVEN- ON A PROPORTIONAL BASIS FOR SIGNIFICANT 2. IF NO STANDS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION EXIST, MITIGATION STANDARDS OF SEC. 14-105 SHALL APPLY TO ANY PROTECTED NATIVE PLANT ON THE SITE. 3. MITIGATION RATIOS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. a. MITIGATION OF TREES SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE RATIOS BELOW. OTHER PROTECTED PLANTS SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE SAME SPECIES AND SIZE OF THAT DESTROYED. b. IF 70 TO 100% OF SV IS DISTURBED, MITIGATION OF TREES DESTROYED OR REMOVED FROM SITE SHALL BE AT A 3:1 RATIO (3 TREES REPLACED FOR EVERY 1 TREE DESTROYED), WITH 30% OF REPLACEMENT TREES 48" BOXED SPECIMEN TREES OF THE SAME SPECIES. AND THE REMAINDER 36" BOXED OF THE SAME SPECIES AS THAT DESTROYED OR REMOVED.. c. IF 50 TO 69% OF SV IS DISTURBED, MITIGATION OF TREES DESTROYED OR REMOVED FROM SITE SHALL BE AT A 2:1 RATIO, WITH 50% OF REPLACEMENT TREES 48" BOXED AND 50% 36" BOXED SPECIMEN TREES OF THE SAME SPECIES AS THAT DESTROYED OR REMOVED. d. IF 30 TO 49% OF SV IS DISTURBED, MITIGATION OF TREES DESTROYED OR REMOVED FROM SITE SHALL BE AT 1:1 RATIO, WITH 100% OF REPLACEMENT TREES 36" BOXED SPECIMEN TREES OF THE SAME SPECIES AS THAT DESTROYED OR REMOVED. e. IF 0 TO 29% OF SV IS DISTURBED, THERE SHALL BE NO MITIGATION REQUIRED, EXCEPT FOR IRONWOOD TREES AND SAGUARO. f. FIVE UNDERSTORY PLANTS FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL NATIVE PLANT LIST, SEC. 14-112, EITHER TRANSPLANTED FROM ONSITE OR NURSERY PLANTS, WILL BE PLANTED FOR EVERY MITIGATED TREE. g. THE PERCENTAGE OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHALL BE MEASURED AS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE GROUND COVER AREA. 4. WHEN AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION ARE NOT PRESERVED IN PLACE, SALVAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED; HOWEVER, FOR THOSE PLANTS SALVAGED FROM AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, MITIGATION IS NOT REQUIRED. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR 100 PLANTS IDENTIFIED AS SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION THAT ARE NOT PRESERVED IN PLACE, THOSE THAT MEET THE SALVAGE CRITERIA IN SEC. 14-105.B.3, WILL BE SALVAGED. IF 10 ARE SALVAGED, THE 90 REMAINING SHALL BE MITIGATED. IF THE PLANT DOES NOT SURVIVE THE FIRST 42 18 MONTHS OF TRANSPLANTING AFTER LANDSCAPING IS COMPLETE, MITIGATION STANDARDS, AS LISTED ABOVE, SHALL APPLY. D. PRESERVATION INCENTIVES. IN ORDER TO PROMOTE PRESERVATION, DEVELOPMENT STANDARD INCENTIVES ARE OFFERED TO PERMIT CLUSTERING OF DEVELOPMENT. IN . APPROPRIATE INTERIOR LOTS WOULD BE THOSE LOTS NOT ON THE PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND NOT ADJACENT TO A NATURAL RESOURCE AREA. 1. IF 71 TO 100% OF SV IS PRESERVED, A REDUCTION UP TO 20% IN SIZE OF Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 6 APPROPRIATE INTERIOR LOTS OR AN INCREASE OF UP TO 20% IN FAR IS PERMITTED. 2. IF 51 TO 70% OF SV IS PRESERVED, A REDUCTION UP TO 15% IN SIZE OF APPROPRIATE INTERIOR LOTS OR AN INCREASE OF UP TO 15% IN FAR IS PERMITTED. 3. If 34-4) 50% OR LESS of SV is preserved, NO REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE OR INCREASE IN FAR - - -- - -• = - • - • - • ° is permitted. peTT'T"Ti IL<r d. E. MITIGATION REMEDY. WHEN A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND MEETS OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CODE, BUT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN REGARD TO SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, SUCH AS WHEN A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF A SITE IS COVERED WITH SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION AND MITIGATION RESULTS IN PLANTS TOO NUMEROUS TO FIT ON THE SITE, THE DEVELOPER MAY REQUEST APPROVAL FOR A MITIGATION REMEDY. THE DEVELOPER MUST MAKE HIS/HER REQUEST TO THE TOWN FOR A MITIGATION REMEDY BEFORE OR CONCURRENT WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL. THE REQUEST SHALL INCLUDE A MITIGATION PROPOSAL, AND RATIONAL AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSAL. THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD (ORB) SHALL CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AND MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR ITS DECISION AT A PUBLIC HEARING. SEC. 14-105. Native Plant Preservation, Salvage AND MITIGATION Plans REQUIREMENT •' . . • A. A NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION FROM THE SRI, AND RELATED MITIGATION, SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ON THE PRESERVATION AND SALVAGE PLAN. ANY AREAS OF DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHALL BE INVENTORIED AND MITIGATED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH BELOW. B. Determination of transplantability. THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS SHALL APPLY TO ANY PROTECTED NATIVE PLANT SALVAGED, REMOVED FROM SITE OR DESTROYED. Sec. 14 106 Determination of Transptantability A- 1. Transplantability shall be indicated on the Native Plant Preservation, Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan submittal and may be reviewed, at the discretion of the Planning & Zoning ADMINISTRATOR, by a third party plant salvage specialist, as provided for in Sec. 14-103.D. The evaluation of protected native plants shall be based on the guidelines in THIS Section. 2. ALL PROTECTED TREES WITH A MINIMUM CALIPER OF 3", OR PROTECTED MULTIPLE TRUNK PLANTS WITH A 3" COMBINED CALIPER MEASUREMENT OF THE THREE LARGEST TRUNKS, AND ALL PROTECTED CACTI, SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE NATIVE PLANT INVENTORY. ALL CALIPER MEASUREMENTS ARE TO BE TAKEN ONE FOOT FROM GROUND LEVEL. 43 3. All plants THAT MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA SHALL BE EITHER PRESERVED IN PLACE OR SALVAGED. • - -- - -• 11-•-,11 •-_ .- . - -- -- •- _ - - - - - - - - •- - - - - - - - -2-2 Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev.5/99 •' -2" -== •••'• -•_- •O •- - - - • • - sk. a. Plant health is good to excellent with no major infestations or apparent diseases. PLANT HEALTH IS DEFINED AS A PLANT IN A SOUND STATE, FREE FROM DISEASE AND IS EXPECTED TO SURVIVE FOR 5 OR MORE YEARS. b. THE plant IS OF A SIZE AND age • to suggest a likely chance of transplant survival c. Plant is undamaged and is conducive to box or spade transplanting (upright branching). d. Soils can be excavated, are cohesive and seem APPEAR capable of supporting a boxed or spaded rootball. e. Surrounding topography permits access with the appropriate equipment needed to box or spade and remove the plant. f. Adjacent plants do not pose a likely interference with root systems or interfere with plant removal. g. THE OVERALL FORM AND CHARACTER IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SPECIES AND IS A VALUABLE SPECIMEN FOR LANDSCAPE OR HABITAT PURPOSES. 11 11 rating. • nde 11 -a. Plat health is poor. Generally, the results of sovere mistletoe infestations, other _ -• or Rot CORduCive to transplaRtation. This d. Local topography limits access by the appropriate equipment where necessary, (i.e., C. MITIGATION OF PROTECTED NATIVE PLANTS NOT IN AN AREA OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. ANY TREE, SHRUB OR CACTUS THAT MEETS THE SALVAGE CRITERIA SHALL BE SALVAGED, AND EITHER RELOCATED ON-SITE OR UTILIZED ON ANOTHER SITE WITHIN THE TOWN. ANY TREE, SHRUB OR CACTUS THAT MEETS THE SALVAGE CRITERIA AS SALVAGEABLE BUT IS DESTROYED SHALL BE REPLACED ON A ONE TO ONE RATIO OF THE SAME SPECIES AND SIZE AS THAT DESTROYED. FIVE UNDERSTORY PLANTS FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL NATIVE PLANT LIST(SEC. 14-112)WILL BE PLANTED FOR EVERY MITIGATED TREE. D. ALL NATIVE PLANTS SALVAGED FROM A SITE (OR A PLANT COMPARABLE IN SIZE AND SPECIES SALVAGED FROM ANOTHER SITE) SHALL BE UTILIZED IN THE CORRESPONDING PROJECT LANDSCAPE PLAN. E. Said plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR DiFester or his/her designee Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 8 F. NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN STANDARDS. THIS PLAN SHALL BE PROVIDED ON an aerial photograph (SCALE 1: =40',AND NO OLDER THAN TWO YEARS FROM SUBMITTAL DATE)showing the location of all protected native plants within the AREAS OF THE SITE TO BE DISTURBED. All existing native plants shall be preserved in their original location except within those areas permitted to be graded. Large and/or unique native plants within areas proposed for grading shall be preserved in place, unless otherwise approved by Town Council. • :•• -: w - -- • -•- !•' : '= _• - '=• • A preliminary plat/development plan BLUELINE acetate-overlay at the same fAinifiliNTI scale AS THE AERIAL PHOTO of 1" - 40' SHALL ALSO BE PROVIDED. THE STANDARD PLAN FORMAT DESCRIBED BELOW SHALL BE FOLLOWED:designated the-fe : 1. ON THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, IDENTIFY THE PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS AND AMOUNT OF TOTAL AREA TO BE GRADED. WITHIN THE GRADING LIMITS IDENTIFY THE FOLLOWING ON THE SALVAGE PLAN: a. AREAS OF PRESERVED SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, AND OTHER VEGETATION PRESERVED IN PLACE CLEARLY LABELED AND IDENTIFIED WITH SOLID LINES. b. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS, IN SQUARE FEET, FOR TOTAL AREA DISTURBED, AREA PRESERVED AND THE TOTAL SITE AREA. c. THE LOCATION AND DISPOSITION OF ALL 3" CALIPER (INDIVIDUAL OR CUMULATIVE MEASUREMENTS AS DEPICTED IN Sec. 14-405.b.2) OR GREATER NATIVE TREES, AND ALL CACTI, AS LISTED ON THE PROTECTED NATIVE PLANT LIST. SEPARATELY IDENTIFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: • All existing native plants to be SALVAGED AND relocated to other locations on the premises. • All existing native plants to be SALVAGED AND removed from the premises and replanted elsewhere. 1 . •-w • w • . w- .- - -w d. Provide a detailed analysis of the documented inventory. Describe the criteria used to determine which PROTECTED plants and groups of plants will be preserved in place, transplanted or destroyed. --•..-- : -; '- -- • _ . *--• - - .- .- • - • - THE FOLLOWING INVENTORY FORMAT SHALL BE USED: i. PLANT NUMBER, CORRESPONDING WITH THE IDENTIFYING NUMBER ON AERIAL PHOTO. ii. SIZE AND SPECIES iii. DISPOSITION OF ALL TREES AND CACTI WITHIN THE LIMITS OF GRADING (I.E., PRESERVE, SALVAGE, DESTROY, RELOCATE ON OR OFF- SITE) iv. IF DESTROYED, REASON FOR SUCH DISPOSAL e. Location of temporary holding nursery IF RELOCATED PLANTS ARE to be used ON SITE . f. PROVIDE A TITLE BLOCK AND SIGNATURE LINE AND DATE FOR PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S SIGNATURE, AS FOLLOWS: TOWN OF ORO VALLEY NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN APPROVED BY: Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 9 PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE g. GENERAL NOTES. INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: "ADDITIONAL PLANTS MAY BE DEEMED SALVAGEABLE BY THE ZONING INSPECTOR,AND SHALL BE SALVAGED". ii. "ANY BOXING PRIOR TO THAT TIME WHEN THE APPLICANT MAY APPLY FOR A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE APPLICANTS OWN RISK". iii. ON ALL SUBDIVISON PLATS WITH ZONING R1-20 AND LARGER LOTS: "ALL HEALTHY PALO VERDE, MESQUITE, IRONWOOD, SAGUARO, AND BARREL CACTI SHALL BE SALVAGED AND USED FOR ON-SITE LANDSCAPING". e-- - - -• - - --_z _se_ - _ . e .. • - - - • ••• * = - - VsiGr446-13C-GieGt67 1. Limits of grading. 3. The amount of afc G. All significant vegetation mitigation and NATIVE plant MITIGATION requirements, AS DOCUMENTED ON THE NATIVE PLANT SALVAGE PLAN, shall be INCLUDED WITH THE PLANT SCHEDULE OF the landscape plan, AS REQUIRED IN SEC. 14-205.B. H. In no case may native UNDERSTORY PLANTS be removed, destroyed or relocated from an existing stand of native plants which is to be preserved in place. THE PERIMETER OF THE AREA PRESERVED IN PLACE SHALL BE DESIGNATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 14-110. I. Protected native plants (--: __ __ - - - _ __--. - - •_ determined to be transplantable shall be salvaged when they are located within areas designated to be graded. ANY SALVAGED PLANT UTILIZED ON SITE SHALL EITHER BE SPADED DIRECTLY INTO THE NEW LOCATION OR STORED IN A TEMPORARY HOLDING NURSERY. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND/OR TECHNICAL BULLETINS AS MAY BE ADOPTED BY THE TOWN. -- _:-2 : _- • --_ :_ --_'-._'•_: •- - -•-== -- -• - =-- • = 2-'1-- • - 2 = -= --=---== = All temporary nurseries shall: a. Provide fertilizer to promote plant health. b. Provide automatic drip irrigation systems. c. PROVIDE ROUTINE WATER AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANTS IF AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION IS NOT POSSIBLE. d. NURSERY PLANTS THAT DIE DUE TO NEGLECT SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE SAME SIZE AND SPECIES OF THE SALVAGED PLANT. J. Native plants afe to be transplanted on-site and shall be used within those areas designated as"common Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 10 area" or landscaped area SUCH AS BUFFER AREAS, STREETSCAPES, AND PARKING LOTS that - - ---- _ --: • : -- -: - -: - -- = - and within the front yards of residential lots, OR OTHER AREAS AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL. K. ANY SPADED OR BOXED TREE TRANSPLANTED ON SITE THAT DIES DUE TO NEGLECT OR LACK OF MAINTENANCE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE SAME SIZE AND SPECIES OF THE ORIGINAL SALVAGED TREE,AS REQUIRED BY THE SALVAGE PLAN. L. The limits of grading shall be staked in the field, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 14-110. Disturbance outside the approved grading limits shall not be permitted. SEC. 14-106 PLANT SALVAGE PROTOCOL A. NO PLANT SALVAGE SHALL BEGIN UNTIL APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. AFTER APPROVAL OF THE NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN, THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPROVE LIMITED BOXING OF TREES. SUCH BOXING SHALL BE AT THE APPLICANTS RISK. NO PLANT MATERIALS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE APPLICANT MAY APPLY FOR A GRADING PERMIT. WHEN THE FINAL GRADING LIMITS ARE ESTABLISHED, ANY BOXED TREE OUTSIDE THE LIMITS WILL BE REESTABLISHED IN PLACE AND ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY EQUIPMENT WILL BE RE-VEGETATED. ALL AREAS TO BE PRESERVED IN PLACE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM GRADING WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SEC. 14-110. B. THE TOWN OF ORO VALLEY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH AND MODIFY TECHNICAL BULLETINS SETTING REQUIRED PROTOCOL FOR BOXING, SPADING AND SALVAGE TECHNIQUES. Sec. 14 105 Standards I - 2- • - •• • •• •••- •• •-•• ••• • • - •• - • - •-• Sec. 14-107 Review Procedures and Certification A. The Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR , upon receipt of the Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans, will immediately record receipt and date of filing and check it for completeness. If incomplete, the submittal shall be rejected and the APPLICANT subdiv+de+ notified within 10 working days of the date the Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans were received. If complete, the Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR Director will review the Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans and refer copies of the submittal to all appropriate persons/agencies, who shall make known their recommendation, in writing, to the Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR Difectef. Sec. 14-108 Approval Procedures A. The Planning and Zoning Administrator, or a Designee, SHALL REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS ALL SUBMITTALS WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS OF RECEIPT. STAFF will assemble all recommendations and provide review comments WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF if-any, to the applicant. THE APPLICANT SHALL RESPOND AND RESUBMIT THE PLAN. REVIEW OF THE RESUBMITTAL SHALL BE COMPLETE AFTER 10 WORKING DAYS OF THE RESUBMITTAL. If the Native Plant PRESERVATION, Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan meets THE seele requirements OF THIS ARTICLE, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, or a designee, shall affix his/her signature upon the approved Native Plant Salvage Plan. The Planning and Zoning Administrator approval of the Native Plant Preservation afi4 Salvage AND MITIGATION Plans shall Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 11 constitute authorization for the APPLICANT eubdiviec to proceed with Landscape, Irrigation and Buffer Yard Plans, to be prepared in accordance with Article 14-2 of this Code. Landscape plans must be in conformance with the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plans. B. The applicant AND/OR AFFECTED PARTIES MAY APPEAL THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION --- -:_-- - ---'- _- -_--' •- to the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Davelawaaat within 20 days from the POSTMARK date of the decision letter. Such appeal shall be in writing in care of the Planning and Zoning Administrator, and shall SPECIFY WHAT RECONSIDERATION IS REQUESTED TOGETHER WITH JUSTIFICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION _ - •- - -- --'•'-• - -- --- _ • - •- -- - . The Planning and Zoning Administrator shall schedule the appeal for a DRB-BOA meeting, and the DRB BOA, at its meeting, shall uphold, modify or over-rule the decision of staff. The decision of thea BOA shall be final. C. The Planning and Zoning Administrator may require assurances to guarantee the completion of and compliance with the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan. If required, the APPLICANT Develapef shall deposit with the Town Clerk one or more of the approved forms of monetary assurances in the amount equal to 120% of the costs estimated by the APPLICANTS registered Landscape Architect OR QUALIFIED PERSONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 14-103.E, and approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Administration of this assurance shall be in accordance with Sec. 4-904. Sec. 14-109 Compliance A. Failure to comply with the requirements of the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan shall MAY cause immediate revocation of all permits. New permits shall MAY not be issued until the required fines are paid to the Town for the purposes of replacing and maintaining protected native plant materials as required in the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan. B. The Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR giceotof shall detefmine ASSESS fines based on the THE APPROVED FEE AND PENALTY SCHEDULE. (EDITOR NOTE: ITEMS 1 — 4 BELOW WILL BE UPDATED WITH AND MOVED TO THE FEE AND PENALTY SCHEDULE A TIERED APPROACH TO FEES BASED ON AMOUNT OF AREA DISTURBED WILL BE USED.) 1. Protected Native Trees AND SHRUBS - $300.00 Per caliper inch, measured 1 foot above ground level FOR TREES AND 6"ABOVE GROUND LEVEL FOR SHRUBS. 1. Saguaro cacti-$200.00 per foot OF MAIN TRUNK AND$200.00 PER FOOT OF EACH ARM 2. CRESTED SAGUARO - $400.00 PER FOOT OF MAIN TRUNK AND PER FOOT OF EACH ARM. 3. Other Protected Native Cacti - $300.00 per specimen UP TO 12" CALIPER AND $50.00 PER EACH CALIPER INCH OVER. Determination of fines, pursuant to this section, shall be based upon the type, size, density, distribution and condition of plant materials that existed on the property prior to the violation, or upon inspection of the remains of destroyed plant materials or other physical evidence as may be available. C. -- --"' = --""- -=- -= - = - - - =- -= = THE DEVELOPER SHALL replace - - -- - - - - -- removed or damaged plant materials WITH LIKE SIZE AND SPECIES, by-tordinance and to SHALL maintain AND GUARANTEE (IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 14- Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 12 108.0)THE replacement plant materials for a period of 3 years. •=-• '-•- , -°. = •= =••• ---=-- D. Prior to issuance of any permits for development of the property on which the violation occurred, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with a landscape installation and maintenance service and the Town to ensure replacement and 3 years maintenance of the replacement plant materials. Any fines in excess of the amounts specified in the agreement to replace and maintain plants shall be refunded. Sec. 14-110 TAGGING, LIMITS OF GRADING, PLANTING ORIENTATION,AND Inspections All protected native plants scheduled to remain in place or authorized for destruction, removal or relocation by the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan GA must be tagged and numbered IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN, prior to an on-site inspection by the Town staff _-2 .-- !- - 22"-• '- •- :2- =. Salvage operations shall not commence until the Zoning Inspector has performed an inspection and given approval to begin salvage. A. Tagging AND FENCING shall be completed as outlined below: 1. Tags shall be AFFIXED TO ALL PLANTS SCHEDULED FOR TRANSPLANT, AND NUMBERED ACCORDING TO THE SALVAGE SCHEDULE. 2. LIMITS OF GRADING. PLANTS TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND ALL AREAS TO BE LEFT UNDISTURBED SHALL BE STAKED AND ROPED WITH POSTS AND TW/NE AND RIBBONS WIRE. METAL FENCE POSTS SHALL BE USED AT ALL CORNERS. AN AREA THREE FEET BEYOND THE DRIP LINE OF ALL PLANTS AND GROUPS OF PLANTS SHALL BE STAKED AND ROPED. 3. THE SOLAR ORIENTATION OF ALL CACTI TO BE TRANSPLANTED SHALL BE MARKED WITH WASHABLE PAINT AND REPLANTED WITH THE SAME ORIENTATION. 4. Tags required by this section shall BE EITHER WIRE OR PLASTIC CONNECTORS WITH PLASTIC TAGS, NUMBERED WITH PERMANENT MARKER AND affixed in a visible location on the plant. The initial inspection will be performed once tagging is completed and the Zoning Inspector has received an inspection request. TREES TO BE SPADED SHALL BE NUMBERED WITH AN "S" PRECEEDING THE NUMBER AND TREES TO BE BOXED SHALL BE NUMBERED WITH A "B"PRECEEDING THE NUMBER. 5. Once affixed, the tags shall not be removed until the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan is implemented and Town staff, in accordance with Sec. 14-210 has performed a final inspection. 6. All areas designated to remain as natural open space shall be fenced or taped off for protection during the grubbing and/or grading operation. The APPLICANT SHALL BE is responsible for maintaining this "no disturbance" boundary line and no plants shall be salvaged from this protected area. B. INSPECTIONS. 1. No permit for grubbing or grading of a site may be issued prior to the completion of THE initial on site inspection. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 13 2. For single family lot development, the Zoning Inspector shall verify limits of grading and the relocation of any salvaged plants in accordance with the approved site plan. 3. A follow-up inspection shall be performed which verifies the required on-site relocation of salvaged plants to their new locations or the holding nursery, and the required in place preservation of native plants. SEC. 14-111 ORO VALLEY PROTECTED NATIVE PLANT LIST A. ALL SITES PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE INVENTORIED FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF NATIVE PLANTS: LATIN NAME COMMON NAME LEGAL PROTECTION ACACIA GREGGII CATCLAW ACACIA ACACIA CONSTRICTA WHITETHORN ACACIA Carnegiea qiqantea Saguaro NPL-SR Carneqiea giqantea Saguaro, CRESTED FORM NPL-HS Castela emoryi Crucifixion Thorn NPL-SR CELTIS RETICULATA NETLEAF HACKBERRY Cercidium floridum Blue Palo Verde NPL-SA Cercidium microphyllum Foothills Palo Verde NPL-SA Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii Blue Barrel Cactus NPUESA-NPUHS Ferocactus wislezenii Fishhook Barrel NPL-SR Fourquieria splendens Ocotillo NPL-SR Mammillaria thomberi Thornber Clustered Pincusion NPL-SR Opuntia fulgida var. fulgida Chain-fruit Cholla* NPL-SR Opuntia phaeacantha var. discata* Desert or Engelmann Prickly-Pear* NPL-SR Ol n eya Tesota Ironwood NPL-SA/HR Peniocereus qreggii Desert Night-blooming Cereus NPL-SR Prosopis pubescens Screwbean Mesquite NPL-HR/SA Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite NPL-HR/SA Tumamoca macdougalii Tumamoc Globeberry NPL-SR Yucca elata Soaptree Yucca NPL-SR Ziyphus obtusifolia var. canescens Greythom KEY: NPL= Plants regulated by the Arizona Native Plant Law HR= HARVEST RESTRICTED SR= SALVAGE RESTRICTED SA= SALVAGE ASSESSED ESA= Plants protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act HS= HIGHLY SAFEGUARDED *=SEE"B" BELOW. B. *THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PRICKLY PEAR AND CHOLLA MAY BE ESTIMATED BASED ON A SAMPLE INVENTORY, SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. IF AN ABUNDANCE OF CHOLLA OR PRICKLY-PEAR EXISTS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY DETERMINE THE PERCENTAGE OF SALVAGE REQUIRED FOR THESE PLANTS. Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev.5/99 14 C. NO SALVAGE OF PLANTS REGULATED BY THE ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT LAW MAY OCCUR WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SEC. 14-112 ORO VALLEY SUPPLEMENTAL NATIVE PLANT LIST(UNDERSTORY) A. FIVE PLANTS SELECTED FROM THIS LIST (EITHER TRANSPLANTED FROM THE SITE OR NURSERY PLANTS) SHALL BE PLANTED WITH EACH NURSERY OR TRANSPLANTED TREE REQUIRED FOR THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY AND NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLAN. LATIN NAME, COMMON NAME OCCURANCE/LEGALPROTECTION ABUTILON INCANUM, INDIAN MALLOW C ABUTILON PARISHII, TUCSON INDIAN MALLOW UC SR ACACIA ANGUSTISSIMA VAR. HIRTA, FERN ACACIA UC ACACIA CONSTRICTA, WHITE THORN ACACIA CW ACACIA G R EG G I I, CATCLAW ACACIA C AGAVE CHRYSANTRA, GOLDEN-FLOWERED AGAVE UC SR AGAVE PALMERI, PALMER AGAVE UC SR AMBROSIA AMBROSIOIDES, CANYON RAGWEED C AMBROSIA DELTOIDEA, TRIANGLELEAF BURSAGE CW ANEMONE TUBEROSA, DESERT WINDFLOWER UC ANISACANTHUS THURBERI, THURBER DESERT HONEYSUCKEL UC ASTROLEPIS COCHISENSIS, COCHISE SCALEY ASTROLEPIS UC ASTROLEPIS X INTEGERRIMA, HYBRID CLOAK FERN UC ASTROLEPIS SINUATA, WAVY ASTROLEPIS UC ASTROLEPIS STANDLEYI, STANDLEY ASTROLEPIS UC BACCHARIS SALICIFOLIA, SEEP WILLOW C BAILEYA MULTIRADIATA, DESERT MARIGOLD C CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYLLA, FAIRY DUSTER C CELTIS PALLIDA. DESERT HACKBERRY C CLEMATIS DRUMMONDII, TEXAS VIRGIN BOWER UC CLEMATIS LIGUSTICIFOLIA, WHITE VIRGIN'S BOWER UC CONDALIA WARNOCKII VAR. KEARNEYANA. KEARNEY CONDALIA C COURSETIA MICROPHYLLA. BABY BONNETS UC CROSSOSOMA BIGELOVII, BIGELOW RAGGED ROCK FLOWER UC DASYLIRION WHEELER!, WHEELER DASYLIRION UC SR DICHELOSTEMMA PULCHELLUM VAR. PAUCIFLORUM, SMALL- FLOWERED COVENA C SR DODONAEA VISCOSA VAR. ANGUSTIFOLIA, HOP TREE UC ECHINOCEREUS FASICULATUS VAR. FASICULATUS, BUNDLE HEDGEHOG CACTUS C SR ENCELIA FARINOBA, BRITTLE BUSH C EPHEDRA TRIFURCA, LONG-LEAVED JOINT-FIR C ERAGROSTIS INTERMEDIA, PLAINS LOVEGRASS UC ERICAMERIA LARICIFOLIA, TURPENTINE BUSH C ERIOGONUM WRIGHTII. WRIGHT BUCKWHEAT UC GLANDULARIA GOODDINGII, GOODDING VERBENA C GOSSYPIUM THURBERI, DESERT COTTON UC HIBISCUS COULTERI, DESERT ROSE MALLOW C HYMENOCLEA MONOGYRA, BURRO BRUSH C Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 15 HYMENOCLEA SALSOLA, BURRO BRUSH C HYPTIS EMORYI, DESERT LAVENDER UC JATROPHA CARDIOPHYLLA, LIMBERBUSH UC JUSTICIA CALIFORNICA, CALIFORNIA CHUPAROSA UC KRAMERIA PARVIFOLIA, RANGE RATANY C LARREA DIVARICATA VAR. TRIDENTATA, CREOSOTE BUSH C LYCIUM BERLANDIERI VAR. PARVIFLORUM, BERLANDIER WOLFBERRY C LYCIUM FREMONTLI, FREMONT DESERT THORN C MARAH GILENS1S, BIG ROOT UC MENODORA SCABRA, YELLOW MENODORA C MIMOSA BIUNCIFERA, WAIT-A-MINUTE MIMOSA UC MIMULUS GUTTATUS, SEEP-SPRING MONKEY FLOWER UC MUHLENBERGIA PORTER!, BUSH MUHLY C MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS, DEER GRASS UC OPUNTIA ARBUSCULA, PENCIL CHOLLA C SR OPUNTIA FULGIDA VAR. MAMMILLATA, SMOOTH CHAIN-FRUITED CHOLLA C SR OPUNTIA KLEINIAE VAR. TETRACANTHA, FOUR-SPINED PENCIL CHOLLA UC SR OPUNTIA LEPTOCAULIS, DESERT CHRIST14AS CHOLLA C SR OPUNTIA SPINOSIOR, CANE CHOLLA C SR OPUNTIA VERSICOLOR, STAGHORN CHOLLA C SR PELLAEA TRUNCATA, SPINY CLIFF BRAKE UC PENSTEMON PARRYI, PARRY PENSTEMON C POPULUS FREMONTII, FREMONT COTTONWOOD (OVERSTORY TREE) UC PSILOSTROPHE COOPERI, COOPER PAPER FLOWER CW SALIX GOODDINGII, GOODDING WILLOW(OVERSTORY TREE) UC SAPLNDUS SAPONARIA VAR. DRUMMONDII, WESTERN SOAPBERRY (OVERSTORY TREE) UC SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS, JOJOBA UC SPOROBOLUS CONTRACTUS, SPIKE DROPSEED UC SPOROBOLUS CRYPTANDRUS, SAND DROPSEED UC SPOROBOLUS WRIGHTII, SACATON UC TIOUILIA CANESCENS, SHRUBBY T1QUILIA UC TRIXIS CALIFORNICA, TRIXIS C ZINNIA ACEROSA, DESERT ZINNIA C (ORO VALLEY OCCURRENCE: CW=COMMON WIDESPREAD/C= COMMON/ UC=UNCOMMON) Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised Rev. 5/99 16 Town of Oro Valley Native Plant Salvage and Landscape Plan Requirements 1998 Zoning Code Revisions and Updates Committee Listing Mr. Mark Brosseau Tucson Mountain Park Pima County Parks and Recreation Mr. Jim Dawson Vistoso Partners Ms. Lisa Harris Harris Environmental Group, Inc. Fillmore Hirohata Hughes Development Mr. Peter Rumney The Planning Center Officer William Kendall Law Enforcement Officer Arizona Department of Agriculture Plant Services Division Mr. Donald McGann McGann and Associates Mr. Todd Mumma TMHS Vicente Sanchez-Martinez Planning Division, Pima County Development Services Ms. Pam Stevens Oro Valley Mr. Richard Underwood AAA Landscaping Mr. Mark Weinberg Diamond Management Ms. Lori Jones Woods RECON Consultants, Inc. Attachment #3: Summary of Public Comments from 4/20/99 Public Meeting After the Planning & Zoning Commission approval of a draft update of the Native Plant Salvage and g Preservation Ordinance, staff conducted a public input meeting on April 20, 1999. Many of the comments can be grouped into four categories: disagreements in regard to approach, refinement of definitions, concern about issues that are beyond the scope of a plant preservation/salvage ordinance, and lack of understanding that the ordinance does address the participant's concern. In particular, staff requests Council guidance with regard to disagreements in approach. Staff has met with several citizens on an individual basis to resolve issues. It is important to note that the Planning & Zoning Commission previously considered issues like the use of incentives and role of the Administrator/DRB. The following is a list of comments received, followed by the applicable section(s) of the draft Ordinance. and a brief staff commentary: Disagreements with regard to approach 1. Public: Carrot and stick approach may not be appropriate. Use a car speed limit approach. Draft Ordinance: 14-104D: MITIGATION RATIOS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION..... 14-105B(3): All plants THAT MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA SHALL BE PRESERVED IN PLACE OR SALVAGED. Commentary: The goal of the Ordinance is maximize preservation of significant vegetation in an equitable manner. Within the draft ordinance, a minimum threshold of salvage IS required; however, there is a hierarchy of incentives to encourage efforts beyond the minimum. Several participants were concerned that the Town would be providing a bonus to achieve an aim that developers should accomplish anyway. One participant P recommended eliminating mitigation criteria and establishing only a predetermined threshold of salvage for areas of non-"significant vegetation". Such a system could be administered in a manner similar to the grading ordinance. An inability to achieve the predetermined threshold would require DRB approval. 2. Public: Develop other incentives beyond density bonuses. Draft Ordinance: 14-104F: In addition to mitigation, a reduction in interior lot size or increase in floor area ratio (far) is permitted when significant vegetation isp reserved in place.... 4/20/99 Public Meeting Notes Page 2 Commentary: There are other incentive methods. The City of Tucson, for example, offers a reduction in building permit fees for residential infil projects. Offering a similar fee reduction for exceptional plant salvage efforts may be an option. 3. Public: • Judgements/decisions should be made by citizens—not staff. Oversight by citizens. • Include more consideration of citizen viewpoint in the purpose statement. • Mitigation should not relieve salvage requirements. • Mitigation remedies should not be codified and/or determined administratively. • Case by case review without codified standards could create arbitrary review. • Only permit mitigation in exceptional circumstances. Should determine the percentage of mitigation on a case by case basis. DRB is a good outlet to review mitigation. There will be special circumstances. Draft Ordinance: 14-104A1: TO PROMOTE THESE OBJECTIVES, STAFF WILL REVIEW THE SRI SUBMITTED WITH THE PREAPPLICATION OR ONE MONTH IN ADVANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SUBMITAL 14-104C(3): MITIGATION RATIOS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION 14-104E:...THE DEVELOPER MAY REQUEST APPROVAL FOR A MITIGATION REMEDY...THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SHALL CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AMD MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR ITS DECISION AT A PUBLIC HEARING. 14-105E: Said plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR or his/her designee. 14-105F:...Large and/or unique native plants within areas proposed for grading shall be preserved in place, unless otherwise approved by the Town Council. 14-105F-g(ii): ANY BOXING PRIOR TO THAT TIME WHEN THE APPLICANT MAY APPLY FOR A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE APPRROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE APPLICANT'S OWN RISK 14-105J: Native plants to be transplanted on-site shall be used within those areas designated as "common area" or "landscaped area SUCH AS BUFFER AREAS...OR OTHER AREAS AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL 14-106A: NO PLANT SALVAGE SHALL BEGIN UNTIL APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR... 4/20/99 Public Meeting Notes Page 3 14-108A:...The Planning and Zoning Administrator approval of the Native Plant Preservation Salvage AND MITIGATION Plans shall constitute authorization for the APPLICANT to proceed... 14-108B: The applicant AND/OR AFFECTED PARTIES MAY APPEAL THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR'S DECISION to the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT... 14-108C: The Planning and Zoning Administrator may require assurances to guarantee the completion of and compliance with the approved...plan. 14-109B: The Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR shall ASSESS fines based on THE APPROVED FEE AND PENALTY SCHEDULE. 14-110: Salvage operations shall not commence until the Zoning Inspector has performed an inspection and given approval to begin salvage. 14-111B: Inspections Commentary: None 4. Public • Permit should be revoked if grading plan is violated. • Review"shall"vs. "may" language. • Based on the extreme need to protect the remaining undeveloped land (only approx. 20%), the language in the ordinance is too soft. • Punitive fines; raise the level of fines. • Delineate punitive measures for every possible type of violation. • Provide a mechanism to help fund enforcement efforts. Fund staff positions to enforce. • Do not use in lieu fees. Draft Ordinance: 14-109: Failure to comply with the requirements of the approved Native Plant Preservation -Salvage AND MITIGATION Plan shall MAY cause immediate revocation of all permits. New permits shall MAY not be issued until the required fines are paid to the Town for the purposes of replacing and maintaining protected native plant materials as required in the approved Native Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan. The Planning and Zoning ADMINISTRATOR Director shall determine ASSESS fines based on the following schedule APPROVED FEE AND PENALTY SCHEDULE. Commentary: There was a serious concern that developers would simply view the proposed sanctions as a"cost of doing business". Many requested that the fines be structured to provide a clear deterrent. 4/20/99 Public Meeting Notes Page 4 Flexibility regarding permit revocation was proposed within the draft ordinance to utilize tools like stop work orders. In lieu fees are not permitted. The punitive fine amounts depicted within this section will be moved to a comprehensive fine section. The revised fine section will be reviewed by Town Council at a later date. 5. Public: Can we eliminate exemptions? Draft Ordinance: 14-102C: Development of single family lots in districts WITH LOT SIZE R1-20 AND GREATER SHALL BE EXEMPT... Commentary: None 6. Public: If plants cannot be salvaged on-site, a developer should be required to replant all displaced vegetation within Oro Valley. If he/she wishes to replant outside of town, then they should have to receive permission from DRB. If vegetation cannot be replanted onsite, can we designate specific areas within the town where salvaged plants could/should be planted? If it cannot be replanted onsite, developers should contribute salvaged native plants to new town parks. Draft Ordinance: 14-105C: MITIGATION OF PROTECTED NATIVE PLANTS. ANY TREE, SHRUB, OR CACTUS THAT MEETS THE SALVAGE CRITERIA SHALL BE SALVAGED, AND EITHER RELOCATED ON-SITE OR UTILIZED ON ANOTHER SITE WITHIN THE TOWN... 14-105E: Said plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Administrator or his/her designee. 14-105J: Native plants to be transplanted on-site shall be used within those areas designated as "common area"..., OR OTHER AREAS AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL. Commentary: None Refinement of definitions 1. Public: Further define "healthy." 4/20/99 Public Meeting Notes Page 5 Draft Ordinance: 14-104B(4c): PLANTS ARE GENERALLY HEALTHY AND WILL SURVIVE FOR 5 OR MORE YEARS. 14-105B(3a): Plant health is good to excellent with no major infestations or apparent diseases. PLANT HEALTH IS DEFINED AS A PLANT IN A SOUND STATE, FREE FROM DISEASE AND IS EXPECTED TO SURVIVE FOR 5 OR MORE YEARS. Commentary: None 2. Public: Develop a scientific means to assign caliper size. 3" caliper threshold seems arbitrary and too large. Use 2" size in order to preserve more vegetation. Draft Ordinance: 14-105B(2): ALL PROTECTED TREES WITH A MINIMUM CALIPER OF 3-, OR PROTECTED MULTILE TRUNK PLANTS WITH A 3" COMBINED CALIPER MEASUREMENT OF THE THREE LARGEST TRUNKS, AND ALL PROTECTED CACTI, SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE NATIVE PLANT INVENTORY. ALL CALIPER MEASUREMENTS ARE TO BE TAKEN ONE FOOT FROM GROUND LEVEL. Commentary: Within the current ordinance, a 2" caliper size is specified. The proposed threshold was established by considering the following criteria: a. There is a high availability of plants <or=to 4" in plant nurseries. b. Marana and Pima County utilize a 4" threshold r c. Members of the Technical Advisory Committee asserted that a 4" threshold was desirable; however, a compromise of 3" was deemed acceptable. Staff was unable to obtain a scientific rationale for determining whether a 2", or 4" caliper size is optimal. Ms. Lisa Harris, Harris Environmental Inc., reported that the size difference within such a small range is negligible. 3. Public: Provide a clear and usable "significant vegetation" definition. Minimize need for interpretations. Draft Ordinance: 14-104B: SIGNIFICICANT VEGETATION (SV) IS CHARACTERIZED AS SPECIFIC PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND/OR UNIQUE PLANT OCCURANCES, Commentary: The definition of Significant Vegetation is extensive. It was crafted by the Technical Advisory Committee, which included Lisa Harris, Harris Environmental, and several Landscape Architects. 4/20/99 Public Meeting Notes Page 6 Concern about issues that are beyond the scope of a plant preservation/salvne ordinance 1. Public: • Require developments to conform to the land. • Define purpose of the ordinance: Restrict/Eliminate development vs. Create harmony or middle ground. Draft Ordinance: 14-101: Purpose 14-101E: PROMOTING THE DESIGN OF CREATING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO INCORPORATE THE EXISTING NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, ENHANCE THE EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION Commentary: The first phrase was proposed by a citizen who requested that it be added to the Purpose section. This concern will be addressed in a comprehensive manner with the formation of an Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance. With regard to the second phrase, a balanced approach is a primary goal. 2. Public: • Establish stronger link between ordinance and wildlife protection. Address wildlife corridors; habitat issues. • With buffers, don't create islands; develop corridors. • Consider potentially valuable vegetation on the edge of subdivisions. • Environmentally sensitive lands should be addressed on a regional basis — not a parcel by parcel basis. This ordinance addresses only one site at a time. Expand SRI to address a more regional context. • Should protect rock outcroppings as habitat. Draft Ordinance: 14-101B: Preserving native vegetation which...IS AN IMPORTANT HABITAT COMPONENT BY PROVIDING COVER, FOOD AND NESTING SITES FOR NUMEROUS DESERT WILDLIFE SPECIES. 14-104(2a): AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION, AS DEFINED HEREIN; NATURAL AREAS DEFINED AND PROTECTED BY THIS CODE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE, RIPARIAN HABITAT, ENVIRONMENALLY SENSITIVE LAND... 14-104B(5): PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION SHOULD EMPHASIZE CONTIGUOUS GROUPS OF NATURAL AREAS AND SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO OTHER NATURAL AREAS PROTECTED BY THIS CODE, SUCH AS RIPARIAN HABITAT. Commentary: In a year, an Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance will be drafted. It will 4/20/99 Public Meeting Notes Page address each of the aforementioned issues in a comprehensive manner. 3. Public: Encourage the use of salvaged and/or drought tolerant vegetation in new developments. Ordinance: Existing Landscape Ordinance Commentary: None 4. Public: We need to address erosion areas. Plants prevent mudslides. Ordinance: Existing Grading and Hillside Ordinances Commentary: None Lack of understanding that the ordinance does address the participant's concern 1. Public: There seems to be a focus on just trees. Other types of desert vegetation should be considered. Address understory. r Draft Ordinance: 14-104B: SIGNIFICICANT VEGETATION (SV) IS CHARACTERIZED AS SPECIFIC PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND/OR UNIQUE PLANT OCCURANCES, Draft Ordinance: 14-103C: Preservation of SIGNIFICANT native, on-site vegetation, ...., shall be a primary objective of site planning for development... Draft Ordinance: 14-104D(5): FIVE UNDERSTORY PLANTS FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL NATIVE PLANT LIST, SEC. 14-112, EITHER TRANSPLANTED FROM ONSITE OR NURSERY PLANTS, WILL BE PLANTED FOR EVERY MITIGATED TREE. Draft Ordinance: 14-105H: In no case may native UNDERSTORY PLANTS be removed, destroyed or relocated from an existing stand of native plants which is to be preserved in place... Commentary: None 2. Public: Only plants that are salvageable are inventoried. This criteria should be changed to include all vegetation being inventoried. 4/20/99 Public Meeting Notes Page 8 Draft Ordinance: 14-104: SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 14-104A(2): THE SITE RESOURCE INVENTORY SHALL BE BASED ON AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE... Commentary: None 3. Public: Clustering should be supported if it really creates open space. Draft Ordinance: 14-104D: Preservation Incentives. Commentary: None 4. Public: This ordinance should be applicable to existing development where vegetation was preserved and/or already exists. Draft Ordinance: 14-102B: All existing developments proposing expansion and/or a change in use shall comply with the provisions of this Article. Commentary: None 5. Public: Because approximately 90% of plants should survive the transplant process —when it's done right -- the salvage process should be closely monitored to maintain a nigh survival rate. Draft Ordinance: 14-104C(4): IF THE PLANT DOES NOT SURVIVE THE FIRST 18 MONTHS OF TRANSPLANTING AFTER LANDSCAPING IS COMPLETE.... 14-105I: ANY SALVAGED PLANT UTILIZED ON SITE SHALL EITHER BE SPADED DIRECTLY INTO THE NEW LOCATION OR STORED IN A TEMPORARY HOLDING NURSERY...ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND OR TECHNICAL BULLETINS 14-105K: ANY SPADED OR BOXED TREE TRANSPLANTED ON SITE THAT DIES DUE TO NEGLECT OR LACK OF MAINTENANCE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE SAME SIZE AND SPECIES OF THE ORIGINAL SLAVAGED TREE, AS REQUIRED BY THE SALVAGE PLAN. 14-110A & B: Tagging AND FENCING shall be completed as outlined below:.. Inspections... Commentary: None F:\ZONECODEZCR\14\98AMNDS\042099notes.doc .f4....- \ , , - SIGN IN SHEET Public Meeting Native Plant Preservation Salvage 86 Mitigation� Ordinance April20, 1999 PLEASE SIGN IN. NA k E I I 'A . , / . REVIEW PROCESS FOR NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION, SALVAGE AND MITIGATION PLANS (NPPSMP) Site Resource Inventory (SRI) Submittal At the p reapplication conference or 1 month in advance of submittal I Staff Review and Comments of Site Resource Inventory. Site design with consideration of existing conditions and Significant Vegetation Complete within 10 days Developer prepare plat or development plan, and Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Plan for submittal. Incorporate SRI and significant vegetation mitigation into NPPSMP Submittal of NPPSMP with preliminary plat or development plan Staff review and comments of NPPSMP Planning and Zoning Administrator Approval F:`,ADMIMORG-FLOVINNSPNEW.DOC MARCH 2, 1999 AGENDA, P&Z COMMISSION MEETING 16 4) Future timeshare of units shall be prohibited. 5) Rental signage will only be allowed on site and must conform to the Oro Valley Sign Code. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED, CHAPTER 14. NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION. SALVAGE AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 2J DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED) Mr. Nodine, AICP reported that this item was continued from the February 2, 1999, Commission meeting, in response to questions raised during the public hearing. Since the hearing, the Native Plant Salvage and Landscape Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met and discussed the concerns raised during the hearing. Staff also met with a representative from SAl-lEA regarding the ordinance and their recommendations. The recommendations made by the TAC, and other items raised regarding the proposed amendments, are discussed in detail below. Mr. Nadine, AICP summarized that the comments provided during the public hearing are numbered and underlined, and that staff and TAC members response are included. Most comments and editing recommendations from SAHBA are have been incorporated within the ordinance. Additions to the zoning code based on these comments are referenced directly in this report, and additional deletions are in double s t1rikeout. 1} The definition of significant vegetation for the site resource inventory needs to be more specific (Sec. 1-L-104.13).. T ne tecHnical advisory committee (TAC) reviewed various approaches to this definition, including that used in the Oracle Road Scenic Overlay District (ORSCOD). The ORSCOD approach defines significant vegetation as any (protected) tree with a trunk diameter o' inches or greater, measured 2 feet above ground level, or each cluster of 3 or more trees within 10 feet of each other with trunk diameters 2 inches or greater, plus all saguaros and grouping of existing plants unique to Oracle Road scenic corridor. The TAC considered this approach too limiting, as well as having the effect of requiring additional inventory. The current definition is a combination of specific criteria and ge neral characteristics, the intent of which is to provide flexibility and a "big picture" effect. Specific plant identification willtake place with the Native Plant Preservation. Salvage and Mitigation Plan. Several members of the TAC provided the wording of sections of this definition. 21 The site resource inventory requires a site visit at least 30 days earlier than the current process. Site visits to encourage better consideration of existing natural characteristicsP rior to site planning was the focus of this new requirement. In response to this comment, the TAC recommended loosening the requirement for a current (2 year old or newer) aerial photograph so that Planning and Zoning Administrator may approve an older photo based on specific requests. >> The ordinance should include specific criteria as a basis for in-lieu fee exceptions (Sec. 14-104.B.71: there should be no exceptions made to the ordinance: and incentives MARCH 2, 1999 AGENDA, P�?'Z COMM:SS:ON NIEE T ING 13 91 The appeal of a decision by the Planning. and Zoning Administrator should be to the Board of Adjustment. This section was recently changed based on recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on development review. The Ad Hoc committee specifically stated that, because plant salvage plans would be approved administratively, the appeal P . rocess should be to the Development Review Board (DRB). However, review of the zoning code showed.that hearing appeals is not within the current listed functions of the DRB. If the Commission determines that an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision in regard to plant salvage should be handled by the DRB, staff recommends initiation and notification to the appropriate section in Chapter 1 of the zoning code. 101 Other. Sec. 14-102, Applicability, and Sec. 14-105.E.1.f have been revised so that salvage of plants on non-massgraded (custom) lots are specifically addressed by specific sections and notes on subdivision plats. 1 Mr. Nodine, AICP lthat the proposed c alnaes to the Native Plant Salvage ordinance explained were developed to be in compliance with General Plan Policy 1.1, to "preserve Oro Valley's natural Sonoran Desert environment and scenic resources, which are an important para of the community's quality of life". The concept of;reservation has been the focus of the revisions. tr. Nodine, AICP expressed that Planning :n concurrence with the Native Plant nt Salvage and Landscape Technical Advisor; Ccrn ;Lev. recommends that the Commission forward the amendments to Chanter 14, 4. ,�t icle 14-1, +_1• •he Native J lant Preservation, reserYation, Svage and Mitigation Ordinance, to the Town Counci a recommendation endation for approval. Mr. \+odine, -UCP added that Mr Adler subri.. •ec a letter 1e-ga ciin..g. his Findings regarding .he Native Plant 5alti aga. Mr. N odine. ,Li.c 'tat a letter o_ response to Mr. Adler was also to �e submitted for the file. Mr. Nodine. AICP acknowledged Mr. Adler s ta..ng that staff appreciates his interest, comments and concerns. Ms. Melissa Shaw, AICP Planner II summarized the background of the members of the . that Advisory Committee that sevelai Landscape Archite,..s, who have worked with the : own. a Wildlire Biologist. a.epras�n_.a.ti`e aw Enforcement Office from :lis area. representative from the Development Co l mi....... and representatives from staff. n answer to vice Chair Wiant is question. l ovine. AICP explained that he fel: that most of the changes were going to be minor and that-Lis i em could be forwarded to the Town Council for approval. Chair Douglas expressed his concern for the definitions and some of the terms used. Mr. N cline. AICP confirmed that the definitions are concise and consistent. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARCH 2, 1999 AGENDA, P&Z COMMISSION MEETING 19 Mr. Don McGann, 6814 North Oracle Road, member of the Technical Advisory Committee commended staff for a good job on the very difficult process of amending the Native Plant Ordinance. He stated that on behalf of the Committee they do support the ordinance and encourage the Commission to move this item forward to the Town Council. Mr. McGann added that he would like to encourage Council to review and inspect the ordinance in 9 months to 1 year. This would allow the Ordinance to be fine tuned and or amended as needed. Mr. McGann stated that he would like to suggest changing a couple of minor things. The first would be to change the plant measurement or the caliper of the tree to 4 inches of the 2 largest trunks. Typically measured 2 feet above ground and not 1 foot above ground. This would keep up with the industry standards. He also suggested that the submittal date for the submittal of the site resource inventory could be changed. Mr. McGann would like to see both the development plan and the site resource plan submitted at the same time. The last item would have to do with the language of the current code that any plant deemed valuable by the Planning and Zoning Administrator shall be salvaged. Mr. McGann explained that he would like to see the language changed with reference made to any protected native plant and the authority should 'cc for high salvage potential, not just any plant. Mr. McGann summarized that he would recd n,rend that this item be forwarded to the Town Council. Karen Rogers. 1815 East Starrnist Place, concerned citizen of Oro Valley, would encourage the adoption perhaps with the editorial changes that Mr. N odine. :ICP has suggested. Ms. Rogers continued that it is a good step in the right direction toward preservation of the Sonoran Desert. She added that this worksdevelopersbuilder�� ordinance with and n � : er to reach a win-win c`::aro while protecting Oro Valley's unique landscape. Patti Estes. 11700 North J of Drive, Oro Valle.- feels that the changes that are being proposed for this ordinance are good if they, in actuality, preserve native vegetation in its natural state and result in the least amount of clearing that is necessary for building a home and its necessary infrastructure. She added that she liked the reference to the General Plan and the citizen's desire to preserve the Sonoran Desert. There are many wood points liked the language of the sire resource inventory. Ms. � explained thatas . Estes explained a the under-story is very important oacat.se tilis creates a very high Habitat or v'.c.. e value. Ms. Estes expressed 1 r concern for *~e She and fines. Sh e also suggested that stiffer fines should be imposed on violators. . i i Dawson, Vistoso Partners, served on the Technical Advisory Committee and had the opportunity to work with staff on this ordinance. Mr. Dawson would like to see this ordinance go forward. He stated that he too, has suggestions regarding the language. For exarnpie, the under-story is important; however he disagrees with preserving ten trees in place when there are nothing but rat nests and Cholla skeletons beside a driveway that leads up to a S 150.000 home. Mr. Dawson concluded that the Site Resource Inventory is a valuable design tool. e. would. like to see more time added for salvaging vegetation. Mr. Dawson suggested that a clearer definition and a way of measuring by volume, the rock outcroppings would make it easier for people to understand. Exactly what items need to be shown on the aerials that are submitted for the salvage operation, he added that staff has agreed to do this. 1999 AGENDA, P .7 COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Dawson expressed that he is still opposed to inventorying Prickly Pear and Cholla cacti, since there are so many of them. He explained that he would like to keep using rope, twine and ribbon for fencing the vegetation. He conveyed that due to weekend visitors he does have concern using wire fencing material. Someone could clip one of the wires on a wire fence putting a big the liability on Vistoso Partners. Allen Wright, 1005 West Wilkenson, concerned citizen, stated that overall he does like the plan. He added that he has concerns over the inventory time, and feels that these should be extended. He concluded that as a penalty he would like to see the building stopped until the heavy fine has been paid. Mr. Wright summarized that there should be more caution exercised when talking about the more mature trees, a Palo Verde with a 3" caliper could be anywhere from 25 to 50 years old. Hector Conde, 14040 North Lobelia stated that details for assurances need to be specific. For "' ♦ ed" r c �rec" Also the Assurance is set at 120% of cost. This `.ample, If required" should be "is 1 eu uil�.�. . is a small fine to a developer. Mr. Conde exp alined that he felt that the developer would rather av the fine than to follow the ordinance. Mr. Conde expressed that he felt that there were man...- concerns a ;.concerns that still need to 2,e worked out. He thanked the Commissioners for their time. Mr. Hulsey, ► 1361 Nort:.Twin Spur Cour.. a citizen he exp:essed His concern _ d---g' the ordinance in general. He explained that ic- :ct :r2 is to process plans :hough the tow . _V stated st .�^.:. .t bother him w nen 1e reads ads soreth r z .r: seems .0 have e peen duplicated in another er ordinance. he conveyed .to the Commissioners .at this ordinance overlaps the Riparian Ordinance. the HDZ Ordinan.ce and four or =-ve other ordinances. 1 ie stated that the SRI sl.oL.c. ♦♦o tied with the development ocment plan. :e added that the 1 o n i s not da ..c:_: ..�, submitted • �, �..,...i added�. � to spm c, , c1 :He review-um around time. Mr. Fiulse added at the Town is requiring that the SR: ce conduct: • a registered professional, but when this s sub mined to the Town for review,, :sere is not a registered professional to review the submitted SRI. Bill Adler, 10720 North Eagle Eye Place expressed that he felt that the remaining changes that needed to be made to this ordinance were very critical and vital. He added that there were letters that were passed out. belatedly that attempt to address reference that he had made. Mr. Adler added that the SRI should be a requirement. no: an objective. Mr. Adler stated fnat incentives should not be used and feels that incentives and in-lieu fees should not be an option. Mr. Adle: .=^ar_zed that the Town should take control and change the plans. not move the plants .:.d _rets. Mr. Adler stated that he would like t._e Technical Advisory Committee to incl die more citizen input. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Mr. Nadine, AICP suggested that this could be amended then brought back before to the VV � Planning and Zoning Commission, before it is sent forward to the Town Council. In answer to Commissioner McCook's question, Mr. Nodine, AICP explained that there could be a time limit to evaluate this ordinance, then bring it back to the Commission after fne probationary period and re-evaluate. Q C•I 'lV 999 :GE. Dom-, P .Z CCNIMISSICN \IEE Tis; Chair Douglas shared his concerns and recommended to the Commission that this ordinance should be continued to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Chair Douglas explained that he does not feel that it is necessary to reconvene the Technical Advisory Committee. MOTION: Moved (Wiant) recommended to be continued to the next Commission meeting in April. Motion dies due to lack of Second. Chair Douglas expressed that he is not comfortable recommending that this item be sent forward to the Town Council and recommending approval. He stated that there are just too many issues that need to be addressed and resolved before He would feel comfortable recommending this ordinance to move forward to the Town Council. MOTION: Moved/Seconded (McCook. Briggs ) and carried by a 5-1 (Vice Chair Wiant voted against the motion) vote to approve zoning code amendment to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 14, Native Plant Salvage and Landscape Plan Requirements, Article 14-1, Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Requirements, with the following modifications: 1.) That there be a review time limit to test the ordinance for 9 months, then ret-urn to the Planning and Zoning Commission with recommendations if needed. MOTION AMENDED: Commissioner McCook amended the test period from 9 months to 3 months for the proposed amendments to the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised, Chapter 14, Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation requirements and Chapter 2. Definitions 2.) Also include findings listed in letter by Melissa Shaw - "The findings Mr. Adler suggested be used for mitigation approval fit well into Section 14- 104.A.1, Site Resource Inventory Standards and Requirements. Staff suggests that the first q paragraph be amended as follows: The SRI shall strive to meet the following objectives: The preliminary plat or development plan proposed required the minimum of native plant disturbance, destruction or removal Destruction or removal of significant vegetation does not substitute for creative plat or development plan design. Mitigation proposed as nearly as possible maintains significant native plant vegetation and animal habitat while preserving site stabilization. Mitigation proposed incorporated native vegetation of a size. quality and t,-pe consistent with the SRI and, where appropriate, contributes to the enhancement of the remaining native vegetation, and the development. MARCH.-, 1999 .-\GEND? T,�•Z �'O 1.+1iSS:O`` �.1LET:'�G Change Sect 14-104.C.3, as follows: In-lieu fee. Change reference to "in-lieu fee'' to "mitigation remedy", as determined by the 11 Town Council. Delete last sentence of paragraph referring to basis of in-lieu fee be an estimate of the value of significant vegetation. Regarding Mr. Adler's.recommendation to change the approval process from administrative approval,t ative to DRB/Town Council a roval, as we stated in meeting, staff was directed by Town Council, based on recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee on Development Review that this approval process specifically be administrative. In regard to Mr. Adler's questions on the effectiveness of incentive zoning, this type of zoning is used in San Francisco and New York City, as well as other cities, and "seems successful in encouraging the desired results when used in metropolitan areas". Although we do not have specific example of the effectiveness in a small town, it has been stated that incentive zoning "has potential otential in non-metropolitan jurisdictions as a tool that allows great flexibility in land sue decisions". The desired result of this incentive, encouraging the preservation of significant vegetation in exchange for smaller lot size or increase FAR, is a tool the Town may use in the public interest of preserving open space." S. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE REVISED. DESIGN GUIDELINES Mr. OCIe reported hat the ..e...=- contain :,o 11 text and rlVanirs. J '..�` ••----` standards for site planning., architecture, laa`+v`4v� `o and signage for both residential an commercial proiects The goal of til &, - iso to provide�•ide a sensetoCr: '�l1 1`r 1 � `.-`r L V• � '`�-►i`.►�... -�.v n n`. \/i j 1 1...\.v r..v�v�.►�/ ♦ r V a . I,•al ley, based lJ n �he c o ll, unity'S v as i�..r�1. He stated that the interest of time h he ''•-o V-:r .-k a to �1lwc Valerie f+e1 T er for Town o 1 Oro Valley ey w1 has been 'o�' n g o llltll. 1 .7.-,n the Y � who �G.'.J l.'�..ii '••1. �i��` on *'� T''� �+ v..i e.. Senior �i c.il Wil.`.. r the work plan proiect with the consultant Steve g{?. Feuer stated that Mr. aeaio g r .a- present a slide presentation regarding the Desin Guidelines. presentation v v v Commissioner Partridge expressed his concerns about some of -Lie lang` age. He suggested that V a r V ....v ththere should be more consistency in L e_...•a all and should throughout the enth e ere a!r `••`� `• PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Vice e \ 1air T\1cit stater -t-^t he would liketo -nm Technical Ad` .sory Cor. J. t_V V for their t • har d work and dedication. Chair Douglas stated shall and should be are epeated throughout the document. VOICETRAK FACSI MIL E To Melissa Shaw Date 4/19/99 Town of Oro Valley Fax No. (520)742-1022 No. Pages 1 (including cover) From Bill Adler Our Fax No. (520) 886-4997 Comments Regarding the revisions to the Native Plant ordinance, as mentioned, to be clear in the Town's purpose, Sec 14 - 101, I am suggesting the addition of the following statements: G. It will be the intent of this chapter to require land use plans to conform to the land, and the existing natural environment, and not to force the land to adapt to the proposed use H. It is recognized that the Town's residents are responsible for the stewardship of Oro Valley's natural resources. At every opportunity, residents will have the opportunity and responsibility to judge and determine the suitability of plans which disturb, cause removal or destruction of existing natural resources. I. Where a conflict occurs between proposed land use and the preservation of significant native plant vegetation, the needs of the community to preserve shall prevail. r /' ( P.O. Box 13464•Tucson. AZ 85732 •Tel. (520) 886-4545 FFCM : TMHS FAX NO. : Feb. 24 1959 04:28PM P= TMHS • ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 196 West Simpson Street Tucson.Arizona 85701 520/882-9655 Fax 520/882.4307 Post-its Fax Note 7671 Date z.Zy•`fit pages). } To kibtallif r44/°f- ROM February 24, 1999 co./Dept.c,.441 4 ov 01co. 4Ptu�e Phones z.9651.6 5� Planning and Zoning Commission FaX a ' Fax• Town of Oro Valley Planning Department 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley,Arizona 85737 RE: Native Plant Preservation Ordinance Dear Commission Members, I am writing in regards to the proposed Native Plant Preservation Ordinance. As a member of the Oro Valley Review and Update Committee, which worked closely with staff members to formulate the draft in the current form, I respectfully request the approval and subsequent adoption of said ordinance. Currently my firm performs numerous native plant surveys within the greater Tucson metropolitan area and we are quite familiar with all current governmental regulations relating to these surveys. In my opinion the proposed ordinance for Oro Valley is one of the better ordinances to date, understanding that no ordinance will satisfy all disciplines or organizations. I would suggest adoption of this ordinance with a six-month review period whereas certain aspects of the ordinance could be improved once a working knowledge of them is gained. Please feel free to call me if I can be of further assistance in this matter. Respectfully, TMH ociates, Inc. Todd C. Mumma Principal r - . PuRisL •-• .. RONM'ENTAL 1749 E. 10th St •Tucson, Arizona 85719 February 23, 1999 5 2 0 6 2 8 7648 • F a x 520 628 1458 Dennis Douglas, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Dear Mr. Douglas, RE: Proposed Native Plant Salvage Landscape Ordinance I am writing to support the passage of the new proposed native plant salvage landscape ordinance. My company has developed several native plant salvage plans and riparian mitigation plans for the Town of Oro Valley. I am also a member of the City of Tucson's Landscape Advisory Committee. I was a member of the ordinance's task force. Over the past year the task force, together with Town staff, worked very hard to develop the current native plant salvage landscape ordinance. I believe the ordinance, as written, will guide the town's development and help create the sense of place that is Oro Valley. I strongly recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the Native Plant Salvage Landscape Oridnance. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, L: . 's &.. resident \N1LL1AM D. ADLER 10720 N. Eagle Eye Place, Oro Valley, AZ 85787 February 19, 1999 Mr. Bryant Nodine Director of Planning Town of Oro Valley J 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 83737 RE: Revisions to ZorLni g Code Chapter 14 � Dear Bryant, Following our phone conversation Thursday,ursday, I am providing a first effort � , substituting �� it for:or the ore `.eter=runeu tig ion ii section C. My intent is to replace administrative decision-making with citizen decision-making ;n t Lis remedial section of the ordinance. • Mitigation Plan submtteci DRB. Per.entaL'e, of disturbance ratio v ` , remain as guidelines. • 1 indingcDRB m st find that all are met to acrove mitigation or , approval accordingly: • Preliminary Plat or Development Plan proposed recuires the I L 1 minimum of native Giant u ba ce, destruction or removal • Destruction or removal of significant vegetation does not subsL_.....:e for creative plat or develop _t plan� design :r ~ • ;i I; s as nearly as Possible maintains significant native ti11t�,.,�.pion pro_ e Plant vegetation animal _.a :_tomt w -_�sl e Preserving `I1e stabilization 1 O Mitigation r_o ^s .:i ~Lor. i~a Les native vegetation of a size, _•s , �- c ti,w_ .-• a.� type consistent with the site =esource inventory and, where appropriate, contributes to the enhancement of the remaining native vegetation, and development. I will continue to oppose incentives as methods to induce compliance, such as fees-in-leu, credits or changes in FAR or lot size. I also will continue to 7.2.707:0e punitive lines `Vric`Z may in excess or ``i00„000 ,AThicn is consistent the grading ordinance. This is a very quick effort as Fm running late for mN% plane. Si cer-•_: v r J 11700 N. Joi Drive 1 1999 Ora Valley, AZ 85737 March 9, 1999 Mr. Bryant Nodine, Director �. Planning and Zoning Department Town of Oro Valley 11000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 Dear Mr. Nodine. The following are some comments I have regarding the proposed amendments to the Native Plant Preservation, Salvage and Mitigation Plan as it was heard at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March rd. From what I have read, it seems that the changes are geared toward two goals- more preservation of plants and better compliance with the code. When this plan is passed by the Council, you and your staff should be able to say that the changes will result in greater preservation of native vegetation for the v purpose of scenic beauty and habitat for wildlife. I agree that a Technical Advisory Committee made up mostly of developers. landscape and planning professionals (nine out of thirteen') is beneficial to try to achieve better compliance. Asking them what they want to comply with is an entirely different matter. There needs to be a separate group to explore the preservation side of the issue. Such a committee would have to be made up of the citizens who live here and who want to preserve the natural and scenic character of the Oro Valley and the Sonoran Desert. It is their quality of life that is a stake and it is their interests that the Town is supposed to protect. (I would like toou oint out that y P _ would achieve the best rate of compliance by requiring the least amount of preservation, so the two goals cannot be explored simultaneously.) Here are some of the changes which I feel are positive additions to the code: 1. Emphasis on preservation of plants in place. It should be made clear that this applies to assemblages of plants, not just large trees or saguaros. 2. Emphasis on preserving understory which is vital to wildlife. These cacti. scrubs, vines, and grasses are important in their own right, as food and cover, even if not associated with a large tree or saguaro. 3. Requirement of a Site Resource Inventory which, as written, would give the staff an opportunity to direct development away from sensitive areas to less sensitive ones. However, the development consultants present at the hearing seem to treat it as an opportunity to box trees early. Am I confused as to the purpose of the SRI? 4. Specific fines for specific infractions. However, the fines are so low that maybe this should be moved to the list under negative things about the amendments. Did the TAC come up with the level of fines that they wanted levied upon themselves, too? 5. Addition of acacia and hackberry to the list of protected plants. These plants are premier wildlife plants, providing protective cover and food. However, it was mentioned at the hearing that if the specimens were too spreading that then could be p . _ deemed unsalvageable and destroyed. It is their very density that makes them good for wildlife. Replacing them with nicely trimmed nursery stock will not simulate the natural Sonoran desert. That is true for all of the trees and scrubs listed. These are the changes that I feel are detrimental to the preservation mandate of the code: 1. Increasing the"tree inventory and salvage requirement from two inch caliper to three inch caliper(or even four, as was suggested by many members of the TAC). If members of the TAC and the development community don't want to have to salvage the trees, then they should leave as many of them alone as possible. What kind of preservation is achieved by relaxing the requirements? 2. Incentives and fees should not replace strict compliance. The incentive to preserve native vegetation should be the enhancement of community values and increased property values. That should be incentive enough. The Catalina Foothills have some of the densest native vegetation and some of the highest property values. We must insist on the preservation reservation because that is what the citizens want. The fines for .. destroying vegetation should be truly punitive. It should be bad for business to destroy vegetation, not the cost of doing.business. Why is Oro Valley so afraid to take a strong stand on an issue that has an overwhelming majority of the citizens behind it? 3. Lessening of the salvageability requirements. Now only plants listed in the "high" category have to be salvaged or mitigated. There is great opportunity for this requirement to be abused (see the hackberry acacia example in number 5 above). If the plant is not dying, it should be salvaged or mitigated. whether or not its form is pleasing or whether it is easy to get to with equipment. Maybe more effort would go into preservation and salvage this way. 4. Exceptions made for in-lieu fees when a large portion of the property contains significant vegetation. If this is the case. then maybe the property should be treated in a way to maximize protection, not just have the developer pay a few hundred dollars per specimen plant. "The plan should be required to fit the land, not have the land fit the plan," as Mr. Bill Adler put it. 5. Failure to comply with this plan shall result in revocation of all permits until fines are paid. Let's make it clear and simple and easy to comply with. The following are some comments made at the hearing that I vigorously dispute: 1. "Natural understory is ugly and consists of cholla sticks and packrat nests. These are not suitable for a main roadway into a community. We should be allowed to replace the natural understory with healthy nursery stock." As far as I know, neither cholla sticks nor pack rat nests would be considered understory vegetation. They do qualify as a natural part of the Sonoran desert, although they would not be predominate in any development. Young nursery stock takes many years of irrigation to grow and become hardy in a desert environment. The natural understory does not waste water. 2. "Understory is dangerous and harbors venomous creatures. It should be eliminated for v the sake of children." Last I knew, children grew up just fine in the Rancho Verde and Tangerine Meadows/Hills areas of Oro Valley and in the Catalina Foothills. Children love the desert and its creatures. If their parents are afraid of the natural desert, then they should choose a home in a subdivision that has already been completely stripped of its natural vegetation. v There are plenty of those available in Oro Valley and in Tucson. J My goal in providing you with these comments is to preserve more of the natural desert for the benefits of-the citizens and wildlife. I moved to Oro Valley for its natural beauty J as did many of the residents who worked on the General Plan. I will continue to strive to make the desires of these citizens known to you. J Sincerely, Patty Estes C: Don Chatfield Paul Loomis Melissa Shaw Hector Conde Bill Adler 6' -x--99 Hector 0. Conde 14040 N. Lobelia Way, Tucson, AZ 85737 (520) 825-7342 5/1/99 Mr. Bryant Nodine AICP Planning and Zoning Administrator Oro Valley Az Dear Bryant: According to your request, I reviewed the data from two recent native plant inventories and found the totals and percentages of native trees in those locations. The numbers are: First and Oracle Total Salvaged Discarded Palo Verde 123 11 91% Mesquite 530 12 97% Total plants 653 23 94% Riverfront Park Mesquite 53 25 47% Blue Palo Verde 182 99 54% Foothill Palo V 42 19 45% Total Plants 277 143 48 . 6% As you see (from two samples) , numbers vary. Trees with various calipers are: Tot 2" 3" >10" First and Oracle 653 2 . 7% 14 2 207 31% Riverfront Park 277 2 8 10% 31 11% 74 26% It is hard to understand why there are practically no trees of less than 2" and 3" caliper at First and Oracle. Also why there are so few trees with a small caliper in general. I would like to recommed that a new inventory be performed by an independent source at 1st and Oracle. If you look at the trees with no intention of transplanting, they appear to me as normal desert trees. One has to admit that almost all desert trees are not luscious. But they have survived for years. To do this, they have a minimum number of small leaves, to avoid transpiration and conserve water, and that makes them look of poor health. It is hard to believe that so many trees are not healthy. It may be true, however, that many may not survive transplanting. Probably, the reason more trees are not being considered is that, from the point of view of a landsacpe architect, those trees are not as good looking as a nursery tree. A botanist, on the other hand, may find them healthy enough for our desert. This is a small sample and my considerations may be more emotional than scientific. It would be appropriate to request guidance from a desert botanist. Sincerely, Hector Conde COMMENTS ON THE NATIVE PLANT ORDINANCE By Hector Conde, 4/28/99 Some of the comments are shown as cases that illustrate how a more detailed analysis of the Ordinance is in order. My requested changes in the ordinance are: 1.- Not enough attention has been directed to the effect of the Ordinance on the biota of the region. Some of the present town code allows for treatment of the native plants without any consideration for their effect on wildlife. This situation may not remedy what has happened in arhat has happened in areas of the town that are heav populated and may not revert some of the damage already inflicted. But the Town still has locations where prime habitat for endangered species exist, where wildlife corridors may be protected and where preserves can be established. One example that has all the aforementioned items is the development presently taking place in Neighborhood 11, Stone Canyon II. Upon analysis of the County maps, the report of Harris Environmental and data from WLB, one comes to the conclusion that the area is prime pygmy owl habitat. The fact that the tests performed did not show any owls on the property, only may relieve the owner from prosecution, but does not relieve anybody from the responsibility of conserving the habitat intact. The development plans proposed to this date include the destruction of a possible wildlife corridor, namely the unnamed wash and the disappearance of an ironwood bosque. The mechanism for that destruction is the result of the notion that a landscape architect has the scientific authority to decide on the interaction of flora and fauna. In this case, a wash, considered by biologists as a wildlife corridor, will be transversed twice by a two lane automobile road, a driveway, and a golf cart cement trail. Most of these would eliminate the usefulness of the wash as a wildlife corridor. Furthermore, the Ironwood bosque, not far from the wash, is supposed to be transversed by a two lane road. To mitigate, the landscape architect proposed to move many of the ironwoods. This would comply with the ordinance and also would destroy the pygmy owl habitat. This scenario may repeat itself in other locations in the newly annexed sections of town, also pygmy owl habitat. And there is not only pygmy owls to consider, but wildlife in general. When it comes to pygmy owls, the Town should consider very seriously the effect of the recent ruling by the appellate court of the 11th. Cir. in the case of "Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County". In that case the county officials were held responsible for the destruction of the habitat of the sea going turtle. Since the Town of Oro Valley has publicly expressed its opposition to enforce the Endangered Species Act, it may be sobering a reconsideration of the Town stance and opportune to take some cautionary measures to avoid costly lawsuits and liabilities. 2.- Eliminate any incentives for compliance. This is an unnecessary offer to a petitioner. The Town does not need to give anything to have a landowner comply with an ordinance. It does not do it with the taxpayers for any other transaction and no exception should be awarded in this case. 3.- The Town may create, on the other hand, directives for clustering, if that platting method is used to create more large contiguous areas of open space, which it usually does. Clustering may prove beneficial to the builder and town, since it reduces the amount of infrastructure, like roads, underground lines and sewers. It should be used when a gain in open space or in salvaging of large native trees or cactii is obtained. 4.- The criteria set forth in 14-105 B2, "trees of minimum caliper of 3"... shall be included in the native plant inventory", should be reviewed. There is no scientific criteria shown for the change to 3" caliper as opposed to 2", as it stands in the old ordinance. As a matter of fact, some plants, like the catclaw acacia, may never reach that diameter. Some research should be conducted on the effect of plant caliper and the species affected on the number of plants that would disappear. Besides, there is no criteria set in the ordinance for the protection of shrubs and grasses. The inventory should be an opportunity to direct land use from sensitive areas to less sentitive areas. To that effect, the staff should require expert opinion. 5.- The Town should prohibit the use of any non-drought resistant tree, plant, flower or grass either in private or public land. An example of such use, which is also an example of the profligate use of water, are the monuments at the North and South entrances of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard. They are a deterrent to any campaign by the O.V. Water Utility to urge the constituency to conserve water. 6.- There should be very large penalties for non-compliance. The Town has experienced setbacks in some court cases. The ordinance should be worded in such a manner that no settlement in court could be reached. Also,criminal penalties should be leveled against people willfully destroying saguaros or ironwood trees. Penalties should be assessed as not to be just another business expense. 7.- The replacement plant material period should be extended to six years for saguaros and 5 years for large trees. 8.- Sec. 14-108 C should say:..."monetary assurance in the amount equal to 120% of the costs TO REPLACE ALL NATIVE VEGETATION TO THE CONDITION IT WAS BEFORE PLATTING, estimated...." 9.- A list of native grasses that should be used exclusively should be added. Bank protection should be accomplished with native grasses. A list of preferred native plants should be prepared as a guidance to better conformance to local plant families and terrain requirements. 10.- It was mentioned that replacing desert trees (which have roots sometimes as deep as 40 feet) would require permanent watering. This is not a solution. Nobody is going to do that. Forcing somebody or some organization to water a tree for life cannot be legislated. Desert trees should be left alone. Furthermore a 3 year limit on the responsibility of tree survival is not realistic. It does not match my personal experience, either. I had transplanted cactus die after 5 years. 11.-All lots greater than 3 acres should be assessed (before plats are considered by staff) by a licensed biologist, to ascertain what native fauna has to be protected, and what development standards have to be adhered to in order to protect it. 12.- In the purpose section of the Ordinance it should be stated that the protection of wildlife is intimately connected to their habitat, which includes native plants. 13.- Clustering should be a mandate when undeveloped lots larger than 3 Acres are platted. Exceptions may be granted when clustering is not possible. INVENTORIES OF 2" NATIVE PLANTS These are inventories of 2" caliper native plants performed at different developments: Tot PV Mzq All 2" 3" %(2") (Target)Rooney Ranch109 169 278 1 11 0.3 Rooney Ranch (Albertson)123 530 653 2 14 0.3 WLB Vistoso Vistas 248 39 287 0 1 0 TMHS Vistoso Golf Casitas 148 21 169 5 0 0.3 WLB Total 1387 8 Riverfront Park 182 224 277 28 31 10 commissioned byprivate parties, the last by the Town of Oro The first 4 where p Valley. Notes Pv: pato verde Mzq: mezquite All: sum of PV and Mzq 2": caliper of tree trunks of 2" diameter 3": caliper of tree trunks of 3' diameter %: ratio of 2" diameter trees to the total Rooney Ranch and Riverfront Park are adjacent to the CDO wash. Vistoso Vistas is in Neighborhood 7 Vistoso Golf Casitas in Neighborhood 11 Hector Conde 5/25/99 , Ititailkiloggium-- ,iii e_ek,t4 eT911V4.,,I,.1"., VOL r'...: " ' ',`'04 (141 . CC= .i.1 1 It.'.", liXi accm ..,..., - At) s ,)-(4-gq ....„,....:.„2.:.;.,......._.....,...._ . -J) --1-/t°1& p.t_ 4-j MEMO May 21, 1999 From: John Clarke (file councilmemo.doc) To: Mayor Loomis & Council .:. - !"..;:--7..:::1 L•�- "r1i SUBJECT: COMMENTS TO FY 99/00 OV WATER BUDGETS. Mayor& Council, Attached please find data related to headcount, salaries, revenues and expenditures for entities associated with OV Water for FY 99/00 as gleaned from the proposed FY99/00 budget. They are provided with the intent of furnishing Mayor& Council with a top management graphical summary of financial data contained in the Town's FY 99/00 Budget. The graphs examine each Fiscal Year as an entity unto itself. Revenues include FY 99/00 income for services provided and earned interest. With the exception of OV Water Connection Fees they do not include carryover funds or funds infused into the budgets through transfers from the general Fund or from Bonds. Assuming the data accurately reflects the Town's proposed Budget then manpower has increased 70% since de-privatization in 1996/97 and wages & salaries have increased 120%. Bottom line numbers indicate that operating expenditures have exceeded income revenues ever year since FY 96/97. Clearly OV is growing almost exponentially and many major projects such as a Fire District, Library, Waste Management, Tortolita Infrastructure etc.. may well be in OV's future and could make considerable demands on our revenues - particularly if expenditures are not closely controlled. It just appears prudent for the Town to pause and to this end the following is recommended: • Delay committing to any additional water related financial obligations until such time as the town has "digested" the water company purchases and has a clearer picture of the town's future Alternative Water Resources revenue stream and expenditure obligations. • Stand down from issuing $3,500,000 for the possible acquisition and operation of the Tucson Water System lying within the town's boundaries until such time as the seller brings the system up to code. • Eliminate Water Utility deficit spending by either freezing the number of employees to FY 98/99 levels and/or by increasing rates charged to consumers to match expenditures. Should Council or Staff wish to discuss the contents I am available at your convenience. Sin erely yours r1 R. {arks cc: huck Sweet, David Andrews, David Hook Atta ments: 6 1 H O I U) I 0z Co I H ! z 0 U -O a) <( 0) W / I I � i Ai.. L L I I .Q I ! II 1 I j (7, _1 O) 00 O) L'imm''''''"'"''''''m'"'"'"'"''''''''''''''mmmm."i I O) / , , J Ct W / I j Q 1 t CL I I I t � H a Q = Lii � > O � o O O V ► a4 O Q N i n W _1 i I ` I � H I i j I Ce II I Q _ II I 1 o I I •Q i I, ! I o N N j :1 1 1 1 m 1 1 7•••.im•.1"1..m 1 1 Imi 1...mi 1. 1111. ....'•••.."c,-: co I I rn d (D CD Q I a) N I ` j ! i 1 i N I j I 1 to 0 c*'' i 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o Ni 00 co Nr No c0 t0 d' U Z Q 2 I- 0 I in Q I 1 I Z I I w_ CL rn I o Q N -to rn CO cn _'N 4 _ _ _._._ _ _ 1 , 111, 1 /1' 1 , 1 1 , F.:: 11 1I I 4T) 0 I 1 2,3 CO q 1 O W I a� F— ad 1 1 / 1 , i , 1 0 j J W W I— H ! Ce Q o I I wI I— >-- Q 1 1 � , Q J Cl) o I I > � i ' 0 I O 1 co 1 Eo C i::::0 0 I Q I / V 0 i I i � I I I 1 .s >o I 0 CA CO 1 1 O (11 CU a_ 1 2 Q 1 1 i 1 ; di i i I I CD NII1.0 r co I O O 00 O O O O J O O O O O O O O X 000 0 p O O O Q to EA */* EA H4 V) Eft Ef? _ U J Q co U 0 .0 X 4) > L I E.- :, 1 I • � 1 Lorl I 1 O or (0 CL 1 1 II I 1 a I I Z C/) I 11X j .. �. �, I w I 1 \ > L11 CCJ...., , II 1 I I 1 10 CO 0 UJ a M z i w j !I Ce i X I j 7 w w t a � LU I I CL H � , 1 W J V Q ~ Lli i I > > O i O Zli LU o a UJ Ce *a 1 f .,._._, cr) I I i / , Z �� ,f � i 1 Ce I CM i Ili a) i j CC c a w ' w 1 N- a) tON °' a) i a o i , , , , di O O O O O O O � OI L-60OO O O O O O O O J I O O i X O O O O O O O N CO r`.. co !n c cl N d, j V, Eft EA 69 69 69 69 U I I W W Ct H 0 I a. a Z H Z 3 0 0 0 a w I 0 O N- 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 o 0 o N o 0 CD o CD 0 0 O CD 0 O o 0 0 o a 0 O O r ,- v-- r M O O r- 0 -c- r- 0 0 0 0 0 I�- N N I I i 1 O 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 00CDOCDC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O O r r 6 r N 0 0 r- ,‘ r- r r 0 O Da O O a) N >- F- D" — J 3 CL °° O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0J W � co0000000000000000N- r- � 1 H O O O N O N O O O O r O 0 0 0 O O O o r 3 a I CC W >- t I H Ui a W i 'J N I'� J O o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o'O L() 0 0 o O o a N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O cr) 0 0 0 0 OO > > 0 0 0 0 O O O N r O O r 0 O oG r o O C O r r 0 0 rt 0 I N * ' 1- L i i O QV) .,.r I ce L fl.. i p L °I E °3 C cn I O O a) a) L a) •L L L Cl. cn U U a) () a) a) I 0 0 0 za) L cn _ C C cu a) a) U = a) L. al •� () CU c •• a o a) a) cv L -a a) a) a) 0 o cn J I— — .- EEco z u) c � w � `t �' oo `�CB a, sy.) .--� ' a.� � � � ,(1) w 216- 0) ca O - }. CU — = = a)II2 -p a) a) > a) a) >1 w a) 2 F-- 5 D 5.010,0•O•a. a °,° 0Iu) F- J O Oi0,< a.l a in rn rn 4 N 6- J X t a I0 Z a 2 H 0 CoI a. Q z co W ct Q 0 a N - i i CO N 0 Co) O O O O O �- N-'4:1) \1 M I O M M �t O O t() O M O U) CV M J � C) CV N � � 00 N. Otf} � O N � O O b0r} � � co 60r} O O ti gl O�-- a) co ~ N in U, N ,- M O '� D (f} Ec\I U> U> U> (ft to to .... — c W _ r. _ _ _ r. - - - iiiiiiiiIiiiiiiiii H H iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii ;:i - - - - M O W - - - N o - - co - t� 00 - Co) Q W J _J ..:i.:.i.:::::::::::ii:i'V. ...:iiii.riiii.::::::::::::::eili..W:.g:;::::;,:i:e:iiii.E.::::::.::::ii....iiiii:igiiriii.iri::::: :10:i:::::::::::: Cfl - Ef} Ef? < ii:::::::iii:: iiii:::::::::::iiiiiiiii.ii.:::iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiillii.iiiiiiiiiigliiiiiiiiiiii-f-iiiiii.i::::77.1Ii::i.ii:::::::::::.i.::::.ii•":::::::::::::::::i.:::i:::::::;.:1::-.i.::::::i::::::::-•:::iiii.::::ii.::i::::::i.::::::.T::::::::::::::::.; > 0 tV) M O O O O M O co 00 O 1� M o O O 0 a L0 ( CD CO O CD O O M O O O O O O N O co L�&� O toOo O ,_ faboEf} Ef} to toEf} toEf} to M N Co) co e- N M �• U> Eft tn. !- U, to (To; 4,) teE, to teEft 1::::.::::i.::::::*@.:..V.:::::ii,iii::i'i::i::::::::.:::.:::i iii::::::14:iii.aiiiiiii i:iiiiiiiii i-2:::::::?:ii ifii:::'::::?::::iiiiii:::::::iiiii:ii:::ii;::::i':.:i;tiiiiiii-::::::::::.:.:iii i:::i:i:i:'::::.:iiii:.::::::::::':::::i:::::::=.:::ii::::::i iii::11:::.::::.:::::::::::::::::1:::::.::;:::::i:1:::::1:::1;1::iiiii i::::::ili:::::E.::::::1:::::::i:*:=7.::::::.:1:1:::I=iiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii:.::::Liiii:lii i:,.:-:iiii:::::Iiii Iiiiiii i:Irii,::::!::1::Hiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii:Iiii:ii iiiiii:::1 ii:=iiiiiii::ii l''' i Co) O - - - O Co) - _ - - Co) CD j:::::::::::::::rii.::.::::1::ii::::!::i:::.:....ii:::::::::•:::::::;::::i.i....i.::ititil::?:1:::::::.:iri:::::i::-Vi:::::::391::::-ii:::::I::::;i::::.::::::i::::::::i::::::::i:::: 1:::: ::::::::::::ii.ii..:i•::::::::il.::=1:::::::::: ::i::::::g:i::::.?::::::::i: ::::::::.::::::::: M w O Q .� — rn I V ce L Q Q w °9 172 I I 1 Lo' LL L-0 12 v, U L � •C L : o t •c.) a) u) a] I c .2 O U z L cn � c� a) U 0 w Na, au ova) a) > cL O •cv u) w l 2 .cn E a.) 2 v II 2 -g c) Cr) sti) 2 ;3 2 .-.,,, g a- E . a, cD. -;" (,). i— — _, awf, < . EE -F--,2 - - .— ,... "4= E —I -- c — -E.. >. w8 8 - Oc OOQ) dUwa; c3 Q _ _ +� n cn •,_ E U L n L c c a) Q CI o c = a) a) a� a) a) > W a) CD c a) _ H 00 (O0!0 < QOu) H000U2co < a. U J a U 0 X C) a) L a) 0 o 0 0 0 0 d- O 0 d- 0) I- O O C')) 0 0 0 0 10 00010000y:3- 0o O (N 0VI. CO 0 Ea O CLO O 0 0 0 00 0 0 01 01 1 0 CO I-- co- o d= id: LO- o C'i 6 Lri 6 r- in co- Lri L.6 r � 0 co CO U' M d- M d' x-- 14) 10 N- d- N "Cr N- _ N (0 —ti, co U' ti (A- Imo- Ne- r- r tf} 0) T-- VI ' "-s tom. 'ill r- U' U'U' tf} U' t U) tf} b9' Q Z (/) x W LU LIC 000000 d' 0 0 d' 0) r- 0 0 CM O 0 00101 co I c o o U' U' co U' O O O O M C3) O O O gNCD OO O M 00 M C'7 CO 00 00 OO N O I M' 0)K, nO �I gNLOC - L0001 � Md00 0 d- C)) ti t` (N 6F? d' --- 0) C3) o d• r CO N I.- d• N CO CO CD CD CA M U) M COM 6a d' -M O Ea U' t' U' Imo„ O) �-- r- r- r•-• to U) (ft bg U' U) U' U' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 O 0 O 0 O O O 0 O M ,- o O O O CO 0) O C3) 3) 10 d 00 O O O 00 O O O O 00 O C 0 0 - 0 � N OCD 0) 0) �- O dd (0 - ' O O O O 0) 0) I` - O I) ICO M N. CO CO J 10 10 U' M M CO d- MCO • CO CO CD d' CO d' d- I` N 00 CO - H C� COCN } �} } CO co r to d' M COEa Ea 6F} O M Ea U' {f} tf} d' U' U' CeJ_ LU i- i-- ,- 0 000 00N- ter- (0100000 N D Q 0 0 to to U' U' U' o r- O CO I,- O 0 U' t' CO r' Ce co ,- O T- 00 CO 00 t f) 10 r- O CO t0 LU CD d' O v- Cr) 16. O N d' d' O I- -- L. r- I (0 CO CO V. 0) O I (0 M Q W j N. N E C') VD 10 M E d- N 10 Nr Ea J *} U' Ca U' U' to Q > > I t 0 O CO 0 000 00 (0 N co CO 1r) 0 O O 0 �- in O } 6F} to 6F} to 1r) co 1r) co I� 0 to to to c0 Lc) IX N co O co N 0 1r) 1r) 1r) O N 00 O CO d• O CO M d- coM CO (0 0 0) N d' 0) CO N co O� r,i <0 N OI 0 '- U' ,_ e- !„..... T.. T... V:I r tf3 U' tf} �► I - • P Tr / I U) 4) • L a 0cn CI a 2 o a OE u) ♦♦ a L V > e N O O or. CO a a LI.CD o N - co o N co 0 va W I .I c � 2 I- ron c �., U D 0Scu Q Zcu C) C C O a f ...,CO _. c 0 0 0 w o c c U ;.. }. E coeoC c O. W N N E U U aci aci Q cv E Ec cl co C a 0,Q ♦ 0v 'v n pr, cu C) C) 0 o CU c to -E- F- c o o c CoioU U o N o)N cv N N CI 4 (1) ::q. -A ai E E a > > E N o o w p p 0 N °e5 ai ° Cr.) c V3 m c > � O O - ' U LL L N Q. 0 0 Q C X- W N D D D D O v O � DDD D D D O O w i Ci > > > � > > > o > > > > > s > S > o X ._ O 000,000100 - O0,0000,00, 0I-, >- LU w rt J PLLEY Aq,� Qp p Oy 9 . : FAX TRANSMITTAL TOWN OF ORO VALLEY 11,000 N. La Canada Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737 FAX (520)297-0428 DATE: TIME: TO: 4C) COMPANY: FAX #: FROM: es -7 Number of pages including cover ___ Hard copy to follow by mail [ ] yes [ ] no If you do not receive all pages please call at MESSAGE Administration 297-2591 Legal 297-5222 Magistrate Court 297-3205 Planning & Zoning and Building Codes 797-9797