Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/15/2022 NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR December 15, 2022 6:00 – 8:00 pm Via Zoom 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 1 CALL TO ORDER 6:02pm ROLL CALL • List of Board Members Present – − Dawson Metcalf (Chair) − Kevin Krause (Vice Chair) − Danielle Buttke − Drew Derderian − Lisa Andrews − Matt Zoccali − Barry Noon − Kelly Stewart • List of Board Members Absent – Excused or Unexcused, if no contact with Chair has been made − Avneesh Kumar − Victoria McKennan • List of Staff Members Present − Honore Depew, Staff Liaison − Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Senior Project Manager − Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner − Katie Collins, Water Conservation Specialist − Mariel Miller, Water Conservation Manager − Danielle Reimanis, Senior Specialist • List of Guests − Lisa Andrews, Board Member starting in January 1. AGENDA REVIEW 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a. None NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 2 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – AUGUST a. Dawson moved and Drew seconded a motion to approve the November minutes. Motion passed unanimously. 6-0 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Future of Hughes – Sylvia Tatman-Burruss (Sr. Policy and Project Manager) gave an update on the engagement process so far and the feedback received through focus group conversations. Staff also engaged the Board in a series of questions regarding potential future uses of the property. (Discussion) − Discussion | Q + A − Dawson – Q – Some of my students were doing some work around this conversation, in doing community engagement with methodology survey with them. A lot of what they were hearing was a notion of co -management practices thinking about indigenous communities and what that looked like. I know you made a mention of that in one of the previous slides. I am curious to know if there has been a little more conversation there and what that conversation looked like in the past. I know there was a website at one point about it and then the website came down so just curious in that space. Sylvia – A – Unfortunately I have not been involved in that conversation for a while. We have a new Indigenous Engagement Specialist that has been hired within the City Manager’s Office recently. I think she is going to get plugged in on this project. With conversations I had with that team this week is that this may not be the piece of land of interest for an indigenous community center but that there is still interest for one within the community. I think they are looking to have that conversation probably mid-January or so. We would really hope to get that feedback incorporated into the scenarios for Council then. − Dawson – Comment – The only other piece that is burning in my memory was the notion of people wanting it to be a natural area and I know there are some challenges with that regarding terminology and legal pieces but that was the other conversations we got a lot of feedback on. Sylvia – Comment – We have engaged with our Natural Areas staff and the natural area restoration on this site would be pretty costly. Usually sites are purchased that already have some really great features there or something there to preserve. That may take away from their ability to purchase those types of properties in other areas of the community. I think that is something we are grappling through right now. − Matt – Comment – In a previous slide I think you sort of summarized what you had heard and that is very similar to the things I have heard about this NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 3 site. I also think it is important, I talked with Honore and Dawson offline about this, but I don’t think it impacts too much of tonight’s discussion but I want to be open and honest. The company I work for did the environmental assessment for the City of Fort Collins on this property. I did the site reconnaissance and am familiar with some of the site conditions. If it ever gets to a point where there is some perceived conflict of interest, I want to have an open conversation about that. Then I am going to jump ahead a little bit to my personal view on the site. These areas where we have a transition from the plains to the foothills are really unique. I understand its challenges around it not being a pristine site and I get it. I know there has been a lot of use but there may be an opportunity to sort of preserve that type of corridor. I know it is a small site that is bounded by development, roads, and past use but it does present a really unique opportunity for that transition ecotone area. − Kevin – Comment – I would agree with that, with the added context being especially that the property is different than natural areas parcels typically have been from my understanding, since it was previously developed and has a footprint/significant remnants of the previous use. This makes it more favorable in considering a conversation to recreation in a nature -oriented setting, rather than the extensive effort required to fully restore the property. It is a great opportunity to take advantage of the transitional area while offering a unique community recreation hub that is outdoor focused-meeting the requests from the community. Specifically, doing so in a manner that is not just putting in large amounts of e.g. non-native turf that would require extensive amounts of water like a traditional park may. As indicated by community members, we have significant lack of recreational bike focused, park type, infrastructure in the city compared to ma ny others. This was highlighted in the parks and recreation master plan community outreach, where two labels of bike-related priorities emerged from community members. One being “mountain bike courses” and the second being “bike parks”. Despite several requests to staff by multiple individuals to combine these items, they were instead perceived in the planning process as separate types of needs, even though the community members did not see it this way. In fact, if you do combine those two priority areas in the planning feedback document, the total is 18.9%, which actually makes it the number one need identified by the community during the parks & recreation master plan outreach. It would have beat out community gardens, dog parks, natural areas and so forth. I am engaged with the bike community but also with parents who are not necessarily in the bike community but have kids who want to bike, young kids who are not in the sport yet with parents who don’t necessarily do that. To have a place close to town with different levels of NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 4 access without having to get out on significant trails which is often not possible for parents is where the need is. So many facilities exist for other sports and activities but there is a large gap here. As Sylvia mentioned, these activities compliment each other and, particularly, in a unique natural environment/transition space would get kids connected with the outdoors. It is a great opportunity for our community. I will say that I am almost here in this seat on the Board because of biking. That is what years go got me outside and, ultimately, engaged in sustainability. It is a unique space with great chance for our community for things that have been asked for, for a long time. I think it is important when this is brought to Council to remind them that in 2020 a whole lot of kids, young adults, young women came and spoke directly about what biking has done for them in their lives especially during the pandemic and there being lack of space to do that in Fort Collins. That was so inspirational. − Danielle – Comment – I don’t have much experience with this site beyond personally hiking during burrowing season to look for burrowing owls, never successfully unfortunately. I was kind of surprised by the suggestion/recommendation to have a wildlife rehab center built there both because there is quite a bit of existing infrastructure in the city for these purposes and as not mentioned this site is being at this transition ecotone is highly erodible. Additional infrastructure there to me, doesn’t seem ecologically like a great fit. That is not a very climate friendly design simply because there isn’t mass transit going there, there are not bus systems going there and there are not other ways the employees or other people that would be visiting to get there. Driving more car-based transition to that site goes against what I would envision a natural area’s goals and vision would be. The fact that it is degraded to me means that it is even more at risk of being even more erodible and having other impacts there. I also think there is some great prairie dog habitats in that space and prairie dogs continue to be pushed out of other suitable habitats along the front range. It being again, in a transitional ecotone puts it in a really great place to host a higher diversity of predators that would not otherwise be viable in these locations, even if it is a sma ll patchy habitat. So that unique aspect and the close proximity that humans have to observe these species in that particular site is also really fantastic. − Kelly – Q – I was wondering if you have reached out to any of the groups among the disabled community. I think there was an article a couple of months ago maybe in the Washington Post about these all-terrain wheelchairs that are popping up along state parks across the county. That makes me think that with the uniqueness of this site and the opportunity we have here, that it might be a cool way to give access to the disabled community. That would maybe be my one suggestion if you haven’t already. NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 5 Sylvia – A – Ginny Sawyer, we are tag teaming this project and she is presenting to the Disability Advisory Board tonight to really figure out are there types of trails or features that they would specifically like to see on this site. We have heard some issues certainly and the issue of ADA accessibility or just appropriateness or what they really need or want o ut of recreation to get a better understanding of that. − Sylvia – Comment – We didn’t have the disc golf folks at the recreation conversation. We have reached out to some folks on this kind of older stakeholder outreach list, and I think we are going to be able to get with the disc golf folks. We are going to meet with PATHS (Planning Action To Transform Hughes Sustainably). They are the folks who put together the ballot language, so we are going to meet with them soon. We are really filling in the pieces and parts right now and again, haven’t done that big outreach push yet. If you talk to folks and they ask why they haven’t heard about this, it is because we just haven’t done that yet. You can also feel free to reach out to me with anyone else you think we haven’t gotten to. − Dawson – Q – What does the engagement around youth look like potentially going forward with this decision making? Sylvia – A – That is a great question and might be a little tricky for us as I don’t know if the Youth Board is super active or if that is happening right now. I think that would be an easy place for us to go. I think we will be reaching out to the Nordic skiing folks at PSD, some of the contacts for Bike Fort Collins, and other places like that but if you think of groups that would be helpful that would help us as well. Kevin – Comment – So maybe just clarifying that PSD had a representative at least at one of the focus groups and some of the other youth focus groups were there too at least when I was there. A baseball focused individual was there too. Sylvia – Comment – We may not be doing specific outreach to engaging youths specifically but that may be something we could look at as we get a little more specific about those uses. − Sylvia – Comment – I am going to move onto the next slide to give you my contact information. I think that is the best way to reach out to me, by email. You can of course contact Honore as he knows where to find me. Let m e know what questions you might have as we start to really develop these scenarios. I think we are looking at March for Council. If we can’t come back for a Board meeting before that time, we can certainly share materials with you and get that feedback. That Council meeting with be a work session and will be a very preliminary conversation. Any scenarios we would refine we would certainly come back to this Board and others to get your feedback. I really appreciate the time tonight and look forward to more conversations in the future. NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 6 b. 1041 Regulations – Kirk Longstein (Senior Environmental Planner) shared what has changed in the proposed revisions to 1041 regulations since NRAB’s last discussion of the topic in October. (Action) − Discussion | Q + A − Dawson – Q – I know in October there was potentially discussion around a memo of the Board taking a position and now with this new version and these updates, I am curious what the board feels or is thinking with some of these new updates. − Danielle – Comment – I am really excited about the change from needing to document substantial changes to essentially any documenting any adverse impact. I think of course it would always be great if that mitigation option wasn’t there because mitigation is so circumscribed by our very limited knowledge, our very short-term thinking, and our approaches when we know that is virtually impossible to recreate an intact ecosystem and/or functioning ecosystem. There is a lot of rich literature of how mitigation options are sometimes even detrimental but almost always significantly subpar to the original habitat and/or impacted space. However, I recognize this is part of typical environmental policy and approaches in the United States so likely something the City doesn’t have much bandwidth to change. I am really excited to see Barry joining us too. Honore – Comment – He has been on since 6:15 but I don’t know if he is actively participating due to an illness. Danielle – Comment – I really value Barry’s input on this given his extensive expertise in these areas and I strongly defer to a lot of his comments and suggestions particularly in this area. Honore – Comment – He also indicated he submitted some written comments to you earlier this week, Kirk or in some way gave you direct feedback. Kirk – Comment – Through the working group meeting. Barry did you also send me an email? If so I didn’t get an email but we did have a long conversation on Tuesday. Honore – Comment – Maybe that is what his is referring to. He said “I provided my perspectives on the 1041 to Kirk earlier this week.” Kirk – Maybe captured in notes, Dawson, I think you have those as well. Dawson – Comment – I do, a couple of things that Barry brought up that I think were really on point here was this notion of cumulative effect and impact. I had to leave the meeting a little early but I know that was a major point for him when thinking about what decision and versions we go with going forward and how those impacts are measured and evaluated. − Dawson – Q – Kirk just for my better understanding, as we are looking at these drafts with and without geographic limitations that are on the site and NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 7 everything, is one of the expectations to hear more of the version we would ideally work with. I am a bit confused on these two versions that are there. Kirk – A – Maybe I can take one of them down off the website but based on Council’s feedback, we are using geographic thresholds as kind of the baseline and the one without geographic we are not using. Our next step is to compile all the feedback from boards, commissions, and working groups. Lots of comments have also come into City leaders and Council. Compiling those and start to figure out what changes and start making policy decisions on what we are changing and what we are not. It is likely there is go ing to be a version three. The challenge is I am really looking for policy direction from you all based on writing actual code. That is not traditionally what community members provide feedback on. I think we are including this draft language out there to be completely transparent with our stakeholders and the direction of where we are going but the most important feedback is policy direction, the idea around cumulative impacts and how we want to include those types of things. The code is there for a reference, use it as a tool; when submitting comments you can refer to those sections. A memo that is really formatted in a policy direction would be super helpful. I also want to share the definition of adverse impacts. Cumulative impact is baked within the definition here, but we do not include a specific metric of how we would be evaluating that. I think that was something that we were talking about in our last working group around to what extent. Go look at the definition of adverse impact; it is baked in there. So, thinking about the process by which we would be reviewing a project in the intake, we would be applying the definition. The definition also includes in the very last line, it says cumulative in nature. We don’t include a framework for cumulative analysis similar to the NEPA process, but it is in there. We would be taking that into consideration as a part of the full permitting process. There wouldn’t be a full analysis required at the point of submittal approval. That is how it is currently, if you want to advocate for additional type of analysis, definition, or more specificity around that, I encourage you kind of dig into that. That is what I heard from Barry as well, is wanting more definition in that regard. − Dawson- Comment – I do feel strongly in regard to the purview of this Board and the purpose of 1041 regulations going forward and making, of course if the Board agrees, a memo in direction of some policy here and making some decision that bring in this cumulative impact along with some of those things. Something that was really important to me was thinking about corridors, connectivity corridors, around these natural areas, and other points of impact from your map that you have shown us, those are some of the things I know Barry and I discussed in our conversation with you, Kirk, earlier. That is something I would like to make a point in a memo but of course with what the NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 8 rest of the Board thinks. − Kirk – Comment – Another point that I was discussing in a meeting that I want to bring into this is geographic thresholds. Everyone likes that there is some predictability in that we have done some mapping around. In my opinion it is old; it is from the early 2000’s. Our landscape has changed quite a bit so it does need a refresher in that regard and it is not an end all be all. What we have heard across the board is not liking the application of geographic thresholds at the front end of the process as a determination for whether or not a permit would be required, applying the geographic threshold is too limited in scope. All projects should be included from coast to coast here, within our jurisdiction, so applying those geographic thresholds kind of shrinks the belt a little bit too tight and loud. The feedback I have been getting over the last couple weeks is we like the geographic threshold and we like the idea that CBW is applied high priority habitat buffers in the SP181 requirements. We have a lot of really great data out there to kind of tell us where our critical habitat is in connectivity corridors and can we shift that to just the general review criteria for all permits moving in but not use it as a filter for applying a full permit but rather moving it in to the general new standards. That is something that is being kicked around by these boards and potentially you all want to weigh in on it. − Dawson – Q – I know, as Danielle mentioned earlier, Barry has been bar far one of the more experts on this issue and kind of leading the direction of conversation on this Board. I personally would love to hear more from Barry and I know Barry cannot be here with us now being under the weather, but I, depending on what the Board feels here, would like to move forward with the memo and bring Barry as a major author in that first draft. How does the rest of the Board feel? Danielle – A – I second that. Dawson – Comment – I guess I should say I motion. − Kevin – Q – Dawson can you clarify the content you were hoping to see, the position that we would be putting forth in that? Dawson – A – I think it needs to include the point of support for the adverse impact as well as understanding, bringing in, and defining further the cumulative impact as well. I think we need to make the decision around how we feel about the geographical threshold at the beginning in reference to what Kirk was just mentioning and seeing how the Board supports or does not support that point. Those were the three highlighted points I had in my notes. Kevin – Comment – Thank you, that makes sense. I guess is it worth trying to hash out the geographic threshold piece to some reasonable degree, to get that position clear and in the draft? I think that makes sense from my perspective overall. I would like to support we need that to draft successfully. NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 9 − Kirk – Comment – What I am looking for is there are a couple big questions. To be completely frank, water providers have some really great questions. Whether it is a 12 inch pipe or a 20 inch pipe, the limits of construction are going to be very similar so those impacts are very similar. Pipe size diameter as a threshold, in my mind isn’t really jiving if we are talking about natural resource protection. I am really looking for creative thinking around how do we strike a balance, how do we provide some predictability, how do we fall into this while also making sure we are applying some standards and some protection standards. Project size threshold is great. I would love to hear a little more if anyone has any experience around some of these larger infrastructure projects to understand what kind of impacts you all are concerned or worried about. Then we can start to size or at least provide some sort of filters. Geographic thresholds in the review standards make sense to me but we probably want to put some more definition into that. If we are applying the natural habitat features and these other geographic polygons to review standard, what are we reviewing, what is the standard, what is the metric? I have heard some criticism around restoration ecology and mitigation. Is there something else we would like to see then when we would be reviewing impacts to our natural habitat? Keeping in mind a lot of this infrastructure is within an urban setting. − Danielle – Comment – I am much more familiar with MEPA which is a very different process because it says let’s look at everything, look at adverse outcomes and make sure everything passes through that lens. Obviously, things that don’t have sensitive ecosystems, important public health infrastructure, social infrastructure, or cultural infrastructure are going to pass through that process really quickly but it is a great framework for insuring a standardized approach is taking for insuring that it is really looking at adverse impacts and not necessarily where people’s voices are loudest, where there is more prominent infrastructure, or more visible resources that are present. It also requires a public input aspect to it. People complain about it a lot. It is a very onerous bureaucratic process but it does serve a purpose and makes sure a standardized approach is taken. Kirk – Comment – I have heard a lot of people refer to 1041 as a mini-NEPA. We have a lot of wetlands that do not have a federal nexus. We have a lot of other ecotypes that would not be covered by NEPA that we would be bringing in reviewing and mitigating. It is kind of the benefit of 1041 so we can define our jurisdictional limits around those habitat protections. − Dawson – Comment – As a Board here, I think there is still a lot of us to define in thinking we are not the experts in the infrastructure perspective of this, but I think we do have a lot of experience and can make a strong recommendation towards the policy that will go forward to the City. I guess I NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 10 am leaning toward motioning for us to write a memo that considers the support of the adverse impact, support for the geographical threshold, and understanding the impact it can have to those natural habitats and understanding it in those buffer zones. I am leaning toward that as my motion. I would greatly accept any feedback from the rest of the Board in helping to define that though. Kevin – Comment – I would love to I just don’t feel like I have the technical experience-based need here. Some of us just don’t possess to add much value and I would add myself to that bucket, so I don’t feel like I can. Matt – Comment – Dawson I like that approach and I don’t want you all to take that as I am saying that is good enough b ut I think given all the things that are happening with these larger projects, with the other reviews that might be going on whether that is at the federal level or what not. We have to provide City staff some guardrails for where these things will apply. It seems to me those geographic definitions within the boundaries of the water treatment of the water projects, the transportation provides that maybe it would be adjusted to the future to encompass more if that is possible but I think this is a really good starting point. Dawson, I think what you laid out is a reasonable approach and I would support a memo going forward saying this Board is in favor of that kind of policy decision. − Dawson motions and Matt seconds for NRAB to put forward a memo that includes support for the adverse impact, support of the geographic threshold, define that more and adverse cumulative impacts. Motion passed 6-0-1. − Kirk – Q – Would that memo be voted upon in January and submitted as part of the January meeting? Dawson – A – Yes. Kirk – A – So if there are any changes between now and then that you would want to add to your memo, would you be able to do that? Because there are going to be some changes in the next couple of weeks that you may want to add. Dawson – A – I think in the point of us coming back to that conversation we can add things to that memo during discussion at the next meeting. That would be where we actually approve it, so I think we do have that space. Honore – Comment – Yes you voted tonight to take action on the creation of a memo someone can then draft it, people can add to it, and in your January, meeting is when you will need to finalize it in a public forum like this. I don’t think it requires a second vote at that point. Once you have coted now to approve a memo you just have to finalize it. Kevin – I mean technically it could be finalized as long as it didn’t change in substantial form. Unless we are just voting to draft it and not submit it right now. I don’t know if we needed it but if the timeline connects, we could wait to submit it and submit it under existing business if that fits and feels like it no longer serves based on this set of focus areas then you could vote not to submit it. I think typically when we write the memo, we know the substance of the content it will be by one of a few then reviewed NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 11 by all and then finalized. − Kirk – Comment – Not to put another fly in the ointment but it is a fast timeline and Council materials will be going out. The Council meeting is February 7th so my materials would be published on the 2nd, and I would be submitting by the 25th. If the memo does want to advocate for a change or something it would be helpful if you all could just share it at some point. I don’t know how we have done that. The Air Quality Advisory Board had a discussion to post a memo to get it done. Sorry to hijack your meeting, just letting you know some of these timeline logistics that are difficult with this project as well. Honore – Comment – NRAB meets on the 18th of January so that should be okay if they haven’t fully finished and can submit it directly to the Council liaison or to the full Council and cc you so you can also include it in the packet. c. Xeriscape & Soil Amendment Policies – Katie Collins (Water Conservation Specialist) shared draft recommendations for updating Fort Collins code related to xeriscape and soil amendment. This topic will be presented at the Jan 10 City Council work session. Staff sought general feedback from the NRAB to inform the direction of this proposal. (Discussion) − Discussion | Q + A − Dawson – Q – I have a question with the xeriscape incentive program, how many people per year are able to take part in that and is there a goal to increase that? Katie – A – This year, 2022, we wrapped up our biggest year yet. I think we did 94 projects and that program continues to grow. We have received another grant to support that program, a $100,000 grant to support both the residential and commercial side of the xeriscape incentive program. I guess I should clarify that this program is available to residential and commercial properties. We completed 94 residential projects, and we completed 7 commercial projects this year. We are always looking for more money and more ways to incentivize folks to replace turf with more water wise landscaping. − Danielle – Comment – I apologize especially to our veteran Board members because they have hear me say this 5,000 times but I ge nerally really support this direction. Improving soil is critical. I also think having maximum turf standards in place is also critical. Not only because of the very real impact it has on reducing water usage but more importantly because we have essentially these social norms where we know is one of the greatest predictors of adoption of new policy practices and environmentally friendly behaviors. Along those lines, I think it is critically important that we remove as much turf as possible from city parks because we have essentially these social norms where we are setting the subjective and objective norm saying NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 12 this is the standard; this is what everyone should want. We have these huge, enormous swales of Kentucky blue grass in our city parks that are watered with extremely inefficient water systems that are run during the middle of the day. That is what citizens see, that is what citizens want, and that is what the social norm of the standard. Until we get rid of, amend or put some really significant changes in place in those city parks, I think we are kind of shooting our xeriscape incentive program in the foot. I absolutely love it and I recognized my back in the phot of the xeriscape party. I attend every year and I absolutely love the program but I think we are really inhibiting the effectiveness of the program because we are setting these social norms that go against what the xeriscape incentive program goals are. − Kevin – Comment – We don’t mind hearing it over and over. I am generally supportive of the direction it is heading. The education side I am trying to help range some of that stuff. You can call the fact that the cost savings isn’t going to save so much money. It doesn’t feel good, so maybe there are different ways to frame that for residents and those considering the program. Future costs or you go way further out so there are future trade offs right? So what is the likely hood I am going to have to be under restriction in scenario one vs scenario three. That might be meaningful. The other thing I am curious about but I can’t admit to knowing is certainly a lot of these turf areas, there is no hesitancy to drop down a lot of herbicides or pesticides every year. They come out and spray in spring and fall so maybe there is a story there too with all this to say we are saving hundreds or thousands of pounds of these chemicals each year but switching some of this over. I don’t know it could resonate in different ways and actually be a potential win if it is true. I guess my only other call out with turf restriction and I think it’s great and I am sure there are exception scenarios like where someone’s front lawn is actually their back. There should probably be some thoughtfulness that someone could be and most of the new developments are probably what you showed but there could be scenarios. I think go aggressive there sounds great. For commercial property it seemed like the most aggressive option was still at 12 gallons per square foot and just from a late person perspective that seems like a lot still. I guess I don’t know but wonder if that can be dialed in more. Katie – Comment – We will look into that. It is illustrating the 14,13,12 gallons per square foot and comparing that to the turf maximum. Thank you for bringing that up. It is important. − Danielle – Q – I don’t want to monopolize the conversation and I apologize if Kevin covered this, but the artificial turf is an interesting concept, and it is one where I instantly think of the plastic pollution that is typically left after and/or tracked away from the sites. Is there any data on turfs where that doesn’t happen in this incredibly UV intensive environment. Katie – A – We have NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 13 heard that those studies are out there. That is not something we have looked into too deeply but that is a comment that we have recently heard. That is something we want to follow up on. − Matt – Q – I tend to agree. When there is option A, B, and C, most of the time I land on the fence, and I am trying to appease everyone and say option B is the best but I like the idea on both the commercial and residential side of pushing a little more aggressively as Kevin mentioned. It is kind of crazy to me anymore in this environment here in the high plains that we have, in this town’s judgmental, everyone likes their property to look a certain way, but we are using water on pretty water intensive vegetation and landscapes. The photos from option C looked really appealing in a lot of different ways, just the way our community can look the water usage and those kind of things. I support generally pushing that direction and agree with Kevin that option C didn’t seem maybe as aggressive as it potentially could have been, although I don’t know what the right number is. I was curious about the artificial turf. You mentioned there would be a permit and I think maybe I missed it, but the permit is addressing some aspect of that turf installation that is not appealing to the community. What is that you are permitting for? Katie – A – What we are hoping to do with that with a permit is because we would require some standard for the quality of the product, the type of product and what it is. We don’t know yet. We have some work to do there but because we would be requiring some level of quality and quality installation, it would require the permit come with a plan that we could review. In a perfect world you go apply for a permit when you go to put artificial turf in your front yard and come to find out you are also required to irrigate your tree because your tree is important to get long term irrigation. So that is the intent of the permit, is to have the facetime and that recognition of those two big pieces we are requiring: the high-quality specs and the tree irrigation. − Matt – Q – On the irrigation piece it seemed like there would be potentially the need for an enforcement option around that. That could be really challenging, just staff capacity and implementation. Can you do me a short, and I know that is probably a long discussion around enforcement but how maybe that is being dealt with? Katie – A – Because we have advance metering infrastructure on our water infrastructure we can see daily, hourly water use. So, there is that piece there of enforcement where we can send push notifications or send an email, not calling anyone out specifically perhaps but say did you know you shouldn’t water during the day anymore and here are the reasons why, here are the benefits to watering at night. It’s not a violation or letter or what have you. I suppose the example I gave you was just a letter but its an opportunity for education . We do have the flexibility to offer something that is really automated and can be sent as a text or email NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 14 and that is through the My Water Portal. It should be said that would only affect utilities customers right now and what we are talking about here would affect everything within city limits. WE have those three major water districts. How do we enforce on those other two water districts? We are talking a lot about other carrots we could provide so maybe it is a little door hanger or some informational booklet in a freebee that says here are the reasons why watering at night is better for your landscape and better for your water bill. Those are the initial ideas but still work to be done. − Matt – Comment – I am sorry I am dominating the conversation. On the soil amendment piece when I worked for the City of Fort Collins, the inspectors were on the team I managed and they spent a lot of time on si te doing erosion control inspections and implementing the soil a mendment requirements. It was quite challenging, so I really like the idea of establishing that minimum threshold for the certification and inspection. I do wonder if particular Council Members will push back on this soil amendment. The policy came through Council years ago but I am supportive of that change just purely from a staff capacity perspective. I recognize Danielle about what you said about parks and everything. I think that is important and I am not trying to push back too hard on that. I think there is a balance there. I think community use and recreational value in the parks for whatever it maybe, soccer, frisbee. We have to have some areas of turf. We don’t have to; I think it is a nice community amenity and I think certain members of the community look to those areas to go, recreate, and do the things they love to do. That is a tough balance to find out. I will leave it at that. − Danielle – Comment – I think you are spot on, Matt. When there are multiple beneficial uses that benefit the community at large as opposed to just individuals, typically more affluent individuals, then it is a lot easier to justify that use. However, I do think there are tremendous advantages on high traffic turfs such as dog tuff that require being watered once every 14 days, that are still resilient to the high traffic, that is necessary for a lot of those playing fields. Again, we could make some really dramatic improvements in the way in which we water. We should be watering our city parks at night too. They should be on those big pivot heads that hit you on your bike unexpectedly if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. − Katie – Comment – If there is nothing else tonight, feel free to reach out and send me an email if you have any follow up. d. Rights of Nature – Finalize NRAB memo to City Council on draft resolution. − Discussion | Q + A − Danielle moved to approve the memo as written and Kevin seconded. Motion NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR 1 2 /15 /2022 – MINUTES Page 15 passed 6-0-1. Dawson will send the memo to Council tomorrow. 5. OTHER BUSINESS a. 2022 End-of-year Board Report − Dawson will share a draft of the 2022 End-of-year Report before the January meeting to be reviewed. They will vote in January. b. Board Member Reports − Kevin – Comment – I am happy to give a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) update. Last month’s primary agenda was to discuss the Vision Zero Action Plan which is a goal for zero fatalities and zero serious injuries as part of a broader movement nationally and internationally. There is an opportunity out there for feedback that you can partake in on the plan. I will send that out to the whole Board following this to make sure you have the opportunity. There was a great discussion there and was an opportunity for the Board to dive in but it is also open to the public in terms of providing feedback on how to accomplish that. For anyone interested or know anyone interested there are three BAC at large positions that are not open and posted due to completion of terms. That is something to be aware of. There was some other proposed, maybe not formally proposed yet, but discussion around the Active Modes Plan which is inclusive of more than just bicycles. There was thought on how to potentially realign the committee around active modes and for example become the active modes committee. So just some discussion around how to maintain appropriate alignment, contributing, and support members in that light. So those are the big things. − Danielle – Comment – I shared a link to a petition to the UN Biodiversity Conference: COP15 going on in Montreal and again there is a lot of talk about this. I do think it is important for us to do everything we possibly can, so I popped in a link to a petition to urge the various leaders to prioritize policies that preserve biodiversity, in case that is something folks are interested in. c. Six Month Calendar Review − Right now, on the NRAB calendar is lake and river impacts on water quality management policy. There are some other possible items. Dawson mentioned also adding the end of year report and a discussion around the 1041 regulations memo. The Board decided they would be interested in urban forestry and then pushing the parking topic to February. Honore will contact staff for both topics. 6. ADJOURN - 8:29 pm