Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/19/2023Page 1 07/19/2023 – MINUTES Natural Resources Advisory Board REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, July 19, 2023 – 6:00 PM 222 Laporte Avenue, Colorado River Room 1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:18 PM 2. ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present – • Danielle Buttke • Dawson Metcalf (Chair) • Drew Derderian • Kelly Stewart (Vice Chair) • Kevin Krause • Lisa Andrews • Matt Zoccali b. Board Members Absent – • Barry Noon • Bryan David c. Staff Members Present – • Honoré Depew, Staff Liaison • Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager • Cassie Archuleta, Air Quality Program Manager • Kristie Raymond, Environmental Planner • d. Guest(s) – • None 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Drew motioned and Kevin seconded to approve the NRAB May minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 6-0 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Sustainable Funding Revenue Measures – Ginny Sawyer (Policy and Project Manager)/ Travis Storin (Chief Financial Officer) will provide context Page 2 07/19/2023 – MINUTES and background on two potential November ballot measures to raise awareness amongst board members prior to August 15 (if referred to ballot staff can no longer proactively present/discuss). City Council will discuss at July 25 Work Session. (Discussion) • Discussion | Q + A • Kevin – Q – So for the Parks and Rec piece, just to reiterate or clarify, this item is just for the maintenance needs including aquatics but for new capitol, new items that are in the plan… Ginny – A – No, this would count. Kevin – Q – This includes new? Ginny – A – 5 Mills does. 3 Mills is what is needed to cover the park maintenance and replacement the additional two is where we are looking at. In the immediate future we’ve got the Southeast Community Center. In like five years, Mulberry Pool is probably going to die. So, we are going to need to do something. Any other “new” in the plan we would actually have some funding to drop on. Kevin – Q – So that is what I was going to ask. How specific is that additional 2 Mills tied to those specific efforts or needs? Ginny – A – We worked on that ballot language today. It says new or existing recreation facilities, or something similar. We can share those Council materials once they are out. Kevin – Comment – In my world that would matter and be important to other needs. Ginny – Comment – We did not say anything like pickleball courts or bike facilities. We just said new recreation. Kevin – Q – So that is not something that is in the upcoming work session? Ginny – A – Not necessarily. Kevin – Comment – So if there was an opportunity of input from different interest groups or needs, it still could maybe be helpful ahead of it? I am just thinking out loud. Ginny – Comment – I think people would want to think about getting it passed so we probably would want to be more general at this point in saying this would help to provide major maintenance and new facilities. Honoré – Comment – The wording I have is bullet one is fund replacement, accessibility, maintenance, and upgrades to parks, recreation, and aquatic facilities. Bullet two is to fund construction of indoor and outdoor recreation and aquatic facilities. That is close to what Council will see next Tuesday. • Ginny – Comment – I will tell you while I have you, because it is confusing, at this point Council has referenced three charter changes, charter clean ups. One addresses the candidate’s qualification. Basically, it is saying if you have a felony, you can still run for Council. Another one is a referendum clean up trying to match dates should we ever get a referendum in the charter. It is kind of technically complex. Then another one is looking to move residency requirements. Our City Manager, department heads, and certain titles have residency requirements. We’d like to take that out of the charter and put it in the City Code so that City Council can make exceptions if needed or change that. The City Manager requirements will stay in the charter. Right now, it is disappointing if we lose the best candidate because they live in Wellington. I think it’s unrealistic for people to be like, “oh you have to move three miles if you want this job. Good luck finding a home. For now, the requirements would stay the same and we put them in the code but then we could change them more easily than once a year, opportunity to go to the voters Page 3 07/19/2023 – MINUTES and ask. They also talked last night about possibly referring a ballot measure that says should Council look at the occupancy requirements and consider changing them. That language hasn’t been crafted but I think they might put something like that on the ballot as well. • Honoré – Comment – I think one important thing is that the funds can also be passed through directly to residents. That’s hopefully part of one of the speaking points that come forward as well. Ginny – Comment – I will also say I mentioned that once this gets referred, City staff is kind of out of it. We are just taking interested parties names to do one more meeting a little like this to run through speaking points in case there are folks that may be interested in promoting either of these items once they are referred. If you have any interest in being part of that let Honoré know, and he can pass your name onto me. b. Oil and Gas Operational Standards – Cassie Archuleta (Air Quality Program Manager) will provide an update regarding current oil and gas operations and potential for additional regulations in Fort Collins in advance of a Council Work Session scheduled for September 12. (Discussion) • Discussion | Q + A • Lisa – Q – When you say disappear, do you mean abandoned or what does that mean? Do they just walk away from it and not mitigate in anyway? Cassie – A – No, there are standards to it. They call it plug and abandon, but it means they surrender the mineral rights, and they have to fully reclaim. And there are ongoing concerns about plugged and abandoned wells that Kristie will touch on too. They don’t just completely disappear. There is some underground infrastructure that remains no matter what. These things are reaching down thousands of feet. • Kevin – Q – What would those advocacy groups say at this point that they want to see? Is it just that there should be that monitoring place, on going, and we should layer on that step. I think your point is the pace at which the State is moving is so different than it was a year ago. Do they have a list of exact requests at this point? Cassie – A – There is a list. One of the highlights of this is financial assurances; are there enough financial assurances to say they can afford to plug and abandon their well. That can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you’ll hear different numbers around that. The State just last April, adopted financial assurance requirements and so did Larimer County. You have some redundancy. So, they say, “hey what if the state doesn’t do it.” There is an example of one of them where we come back and say it is already there. What’s in the approved plan by the State is enough and there is pushback saying City get your own; have your own assurances. There are other examples. Air quality monitoring is one where the State already requires three months, for example, of monitoring when you get a new site. The County requires a lifetime if you are building next to residential areas. If the county were to implement that, has to have whole database structures, tracking, and infrastructure resources for that and it will only apply to new wells. So, we are saying we have some monitoring Page 4 07/19/2023 – MINUTES resources within our City budget and we can apply that to existing wells. So those are some examples of where it is kind of nuanced and we haven’t heard anything yet but that’ll move us toward objectives any faster. You can always say it has six months monitoring to six years. You can always strengthen that but we’re looking for the impact too. Kevin – Q – In the case of that one with their quality monitoring and the county requirement is that incorporated and unincorporated or would that only be in unincorporated? Cassie – A – County is unincorporated, so that is one of the edits we are asking the County; can you make that apply here. The State is, of course, the whole state and every new well. Kevin – Comment – so that is covered assuming the trust in the county level with the state level also having something. Cassie – Comment – Yes, assuming it would ever matter, because even for the County it is only triggered for a new well application. Anything existing is grandfathered in. So even if we had it, it is a question of if we would ever even use it. Kevin – Q – Is there monitoring in play at either of those levels ongoing for the State or County for legacy wells. Just identifying these problems like the field, you mentioned. How would that be identified other than somebody’s nose essentially that started it. Cassie – A – Often that is what gets someone out with a camera. Somebody notices something and a complaint is filed. State will send somebody or an advocacy group, like Earthworks has their own cameras. That is why we bought the County a camera so we can have closer resources to respond in a timely matter. The thing we are working on right now is called fence line monitoring. It’s not a super robust thing, but its this trace of molecular organics that if you have a peak, you can react to go check it out with the OGI camera. So, it’s like a continuous nose that’s out there. Kevin – Q – So that would be for all sites, or near all those existing 17 or so wells. Cassie – A – They are planning one next to the tank battery These other ones we have never heard a complaint or concern about in the history of those wells because they don’t do much. Kevin – Q – So it is a coupling of there are not new wells happening and the legacy ones are kind of clustered. They are either these (ones shown on screen) or getting fence line monitoring. So, your point is we are pretty covered. Because I agree, I mean, we should never have the point where someone’s nose is the indicator because there’s a huge problem and who knows how long it has been going on. That is not a good scenario. • Danielle – Q – Can you elaborate on the complaints about the OGI camera? What gaps exist in monitoring plugged and abandoned wells relative to operating ones? Cassie – A – Plugging and abandoning involves wells out of services. There’s no more production there. There is some cement that is poured down in the casing and there are a lot of regulations to how you can do that. Concerns are cracks over time. What if there’s pressure that comes back up. People continue to be concerned about plugged and abandoned wells. The State is looking more closely at that because emissions from plugged and abandoned wells are not well quantified. For us the County has gone and facilitated checks of these. We have done soil sampling Page 5 07/19/2023 – MINUTES and soil gas sampling around these, and we have detected nothing that can be attributed to oil and gas wells. Somethings attributed to agriculture is what we’ve found. You can use the OGI camera at a plugged and abandoned well but all you are going to find with that is if there is an active gas leak at that well and we use that mostly for our tank batteries. What we’re concerned about most with the plugged and abandoned wells is any water or soil contamination, especially since these were never gas wells to begin with. These have been oil wells and now they are zero pressure oil wells. Danielle – Q – What about water monitoring and injection wells? Cassie – A – We do have water monitoring at plugged and abandoned wells, injection and all active wells. I can look into that one more Daniel. There is no City requirement for monitoring around the injection wells. Nor did the City permit the injection wells. These predated any City activity. Danielle – Q – What about the complaints about the OGI cameras? Cassie – A – I can speak generally to what complaints are. We think the OGI camera is a really good thing. It’s expensive and its hard to come by. So that was a big investment. Well relatively. It was about $100,000 for the City to buy that for the County. The limitations of an OGI camera is what we’ve talked about. You have to be there with the camera to detect the leak, so it is not continuous monitoring. The camera is not. Kevin – Q – But you said the camera was triggered by the complaints. It has to be like we have to go check this out and then you mobilize the team that you’re working with at the County that has been trained to do that. Cassie – A – Yeah, so there can be a responsive inspection or a proactive one. The County is also regularly going out and checking. Neither one of those continuous but we’re trying to do more proactive ones now that they have staffing. Kevin – Q – So I guess to the point of plugged and abandoned, is there ever a cadence to which they will just go out with the camera once every five years to make sure there’s nothing unexpected happening. Cassie – A – Yes, the County is proactively inspecting those. The State does not have plugged and abandoned auditing requirements. As far as the rest of it, the operator has to do leak detection and repair plan. I think that one’s annually. We have an intergovernmental agreement with the County, and I believe we set up a 3-month Candance with that, but I will have to double check on it. That was part of our agreement. We will buy you a camera and you do some inspections of our wells. Kevin – Q – Are plugged and abandoned included? Cassie – A – Yes. Kevin – Comment – Theres not only mistrust in the state level but there’s certainly mistrust in operators’ longevity. To say great, they have this plan but then they’re gone because they have a bunch of legacy assets, so they are not there to do that. That is where I think a lot of the mistrust and conversation wise is that we can’t rely on that thing. It’s just good to get that. Cassie – Comment – Another mistrust I will add is before Senate Bill 181 the mission of the State regulatory body was to extract minerals, now their mission is to do that in a way that’s protective of the environment. That is a little nuance in language. They were pretty aggressive and preempted some of our local jurisdiction, so a lot of the mistrust comes from that as well. Page 6 07/19/2023 – MINUTES • Danielle – Comment – It seems like there may be an opportunity for messaging around reporting possible smells, visible leaks, etc. from wells to the public. Cassie – Comment – Yes, we have some highlights on the oil and gas City website. The State has resources for that but what we’ve talked about too is how do we get the people most impacted the best connected. We’ve talked about things like going to the HOA in the area and even doing door hangers to just say things about how to report leaks and spills. Kristie will talk a little bit about people moving in and notifications that come to people who are moving into houses in those areas to make sure they are aware there are oil and gas wells. • It is going to Council for discussion on Sept 12th. Cassie mentioned they are trying to figure out gaps now and if Council wants redundancy and if we should be investing City resources in that. • Kevin – Comment – To that point and maybe this is a well-known thing for City Council, for Broomfield who I think you said adopted further at the city level is it because the county level does not have the same level to where Larimer has gone for example? Cassie – A – I’d say it would be more to the fact that they have over 100 wells, often in close proximity to residences, and they adopted their regulations before the State had finished going through theirs. There’s a little bit of everyone going all at once, so there is going to be a lot of redundancy there and they also have to own some mineral rights, so they get some money back from their oil and gas. They use that to hire the staff that works in oil and gas. Most places have fully devoted staff for oil and gas because they have hundreds of wells, and it makes sense. Here we have a handful of old ones and it’s an add on for your air quality and planning folks so we just don’t have the resources, but that can be a question for Council on the resources to do more with oil and gas. • Matt – Q – Is there a lot of speculations for new wells that you have heard of? Cassie – A – None and the process is several years from what we understand from identifying a reserve that we want to tap into and making the case. Now they have to do alternative site analysis and you can do horizontal drilling, so you don’t have to be right above a resource to tap into a resource. It would almost be impossible to make a case that we need to be in this residential area to tap this resources and we are on the edge of a basin so there is not much to access here. Weld County is more in this base. So, there is no speculation that anyone is interested. That said though, our land use restrictions that we just got in place are pretty strict and places like Colorado Oil and Gas Association and American Petroleum Institute are seeing it as an example that they don’t want other communities to do. So even though there is no speculated development, we are still hearing some challenges from oil and gas advocacy groups. • Kevin – Q – With regards to injection there is such a high volume of water attributed with some of the horizontal and other drilling techniques, including injection that must occur there. Does anyone know what those water sources are? One thing we think about a lot Page 7 07/19/2023 – MINUTES obviously is being thoughtful of the use of water. Would there be any other regulations related to using City water for this purpose? Cassie – A – Oh, sure. For our specific oil filed, this is the water flood injection. Another water use conversation is hydraulic fracturing. For water flood injection they recirculate the water, and there’s some produced water and underground water. So, they are not introducing any new water is what they tell us. They just recirculate it. For hydraulic fracturing and the huge amounts of water used there in places like Weld County, the State is looking at more and more regulations about how you dispose of that and whether you have to treat it. If we got new wells in the City and they wanted water, they would have to go through our whole development review process. Housing developers are having trouble finding enough water, so they have to disclose and negotiate pay like any other development. Kevin – Q – I didn’t know if all sites have to have water onsite or if they try getting that injection water is there an opportunity to be like no you can’t do that from here at all? That just seems like a mismatch I am curious about as far as using water from certain sources for that purpose wherever they may take place like if you go over the County line. Cassie – A – It is one of the big concerns for Weld County staff is how much truck traffic is involved especially in the preproduction phases when the water is getting introduced. They don’t need a continuous supply is the thing. So does it make sense to pipeline the water. c. Oil and Gas Reverse Setbacks (New Development Near Existing Wells) – Kristie Raymond (Environmental Planner will seek feedback on development standards for oil and gas. Known as “reverse setbacks” these standards were last updated in 2018 and are organized in the Land Use Code. The City of Fort Collins currently requires new residential lots be a minimum of 2,000 feet from all oil and gas facilities. This process seeks to update the reverse setback development standards to reflect recent changes in state regulations and lessons learned over the past 4 years. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the board ahead of City Council’s First Reading of an Ordinance on September 5. (Action) • Discussion | Q + A • Dawson – Q – (Regarding the plugged and abandoned wells) even that is consistent with the 2,000 ft? Kristie – A – Yes, once it was updated. Dawson – Q – Even if its not be taken out? Kristie – A – Because per the COGCC is more restricted. However, I will get into the proposal where we differentiate. • Lisa – Q – So the developer would do the monitoring? Kristie – A – The developer would do the monitoring. That is where it gets tricky when some people are like monitor forever. The developer leaves eventually, so who is doing that? • Dawson – A – Clarification question for me. When we say buffer zone and we’re saying the 150, 500, and 2,000 ft that means both building a home and also the addition of a new well. Kristie – A – No, I am not talking about new wells. The well is already there. So, my piece is what can we allow development to do around a well that is already there, drilled and abandoned, producing injections, plugged and Page 8 07/19/2023 – MINUTES abandoned. Ideally, we would like drilled and abandoned to be plugged and abandoned but the wells are already there. I do development review. When someone brings a development proposal in that’s what I’m looking at, the code. This is just a code clean up that’s already there, just revising it. Kristie clarified the difference between a setback and reverse setback. • Lisa – Q – Is that the norm that the developer does the monitoring? Kristie – A – Well, not everyone requires monitoring. If it is currently operating, the developer does the monitoring. Not all cities require monitoring. Kristie shared a slide what other cities have. A lot don’t require it, that is just something we have required. We found that five- year timeline wasn’t really doing a lot so do you do one year, 50 years? Ideally, we would like someone to come in and plug and abandon these drilled and abandoned wells. • Kelly – Q – What is the approximate cost to plug and abandon a well? Kristie – A – It varies based on depth of the well. Cassie – A – And some of the infrastructure, whether there are any pipelines that you’re also removing, and the age. We had an evaluation on that and averaged them all around $100,000. It’s a lot more for the ones that in involved in the battery because there’s so much surface disturbance there. Kristie – A – It’s different based on how deep the well, the age of the well; older wells have more issues. Lisa – Comment – But it sounds like if there were going to be a problem, it would be evident in the first year or so and there’s no need to monitor longer term. Kristie – Comment – There may never be a problem. Or there could be a problem in 100 years or one day. So that’s why we’re like you have to do five years because this well has been plugged and abandoned. Do one site assessment and see the levels there and if there are elevated levels then let’s clean it up before we do any development. • Danielle – Q – Given the alkaline and soils in this area, I suspect the risk of casing failure is abnormally high and that failures are not gradual but a queue. This would support ongoing periodic monitoring of plugged and abandoned wells perhaps once every five years. Has an interval for monitoring been discussed? Kristie – A – It has. There’s a lot of questions on who does the monitoring over a certain period of time, but it has been brought up at one of the stakeholder meetings and I’m sure Kirk has more discussions on this as well. I’m sorry, I don’t know what those exactly are, but I will make a note of that. Kevin – Comment – It’s kind of like we just don’t know what we don’t know scenarios but maybe what we do know is what Danielle pointed out or at least in some case studies we had one that was always being monitored every five years. That would be at least something to give a data point back should we be doing this for all because the cost. There are just unknowns. Kristie – Comment – I don’t know if they have all been plugged at the same time. They may be on all different time frames. • Kevin – Q – On your summary slide, for number two (allow modification of standards for active well buffers, no less than 500’) can you elaborate on what that is. Kristie – A – It’s modification of Page 9 07/19/2023 – MINUTES standards where we received a proposal on an injection well and they asked for that 500 feet and it can only go as far as a 500 foot for the producing and injection wells. Kevin – Q – Wouldn’t that be less than State standard? Kristie – A – Yeah, and I don’t know exactly how that works to be honest. Kevin – Comment – I am not clear why we are going there. Why don’t we just not have that, especially because it’s so specific. So as a developer it feels like I am going to go after that if it says there can be a standard down to 500. Great, that gives me a ton more viable developable land or units. I feel like if we’re going to 2,000 in the State why do we want to call that out so specifically. It feels counter unless I am not getting it. Kristie – Comment – The current language it has is the planning and zoning commission may grant a modification of standards pursuant to division 2.8 to reduce the 2,000 foot distance to no less than 500 feet provided the applicant provides a phase to environmental site assessment as part of the modification request showing that levels of oil and gas contaminants, if any, are within Federal environmental protection agency or State Health Department standards. The reasoning behind that is there is not a lot of scientific proof out there. Kevin – Q – Is that just for injection? Kristie – A – It’s not just for injection. It is put under both categories. But that is the reasoning I believe that it was added, is these injection wells, there is not a lot of literature out there saying that they post a lot of risk. Its more the risk is unknown. So, there wasn’t a lot either way. Cassie – A – The main risk we have talked about is what if the injection becomes a producing well. I know we touched on that. I mentioned the State stopped an application like that, but we still want to pay attention to worse case scenario. Since you are popping stuff into the ground there is not as much as an air risk. Just the mechanics of the well, we know there’s less risk from an injection well that is pumping water in rather than a producing well that is pulling some kind of product out. • Lisa – Q – What does that mean, an injection well? Kristie – A – Essentially water is injected in and there’s small reserves of oil left in there and it pressurizes and pushes the oil up. Then the oil and gas is separated out. It is a closed loop system. Lisa – Comment – Then they keep using the same water and contaminating the farm water. Kristie – Comment – The wells are sealed and done correctly, it’s a closed loop system. Lisa – Q – And it’s not fracking, this is something different? Kristie – A – It’s not fracking. It’s not waste water injection. If you look at scientific literature, that is what you keep coming up against. These enhanced oil recovery wells, there’s not a lot there because it’s just the water and then the gas gets separated out. So, it is a closed loop system. • Kevin – Comment – I guess my reaction is if we don’t feel like we know or that that could stop producing but it’s not plugged and abandoned so it’s still open. Maybe the infrastructure has a leak when it’s sitting there for five years, not producing. I feel uncomfortable with bearing on the side of we don’t know much because there is not much literature, so let’s go lower. Let’s protect and say it’s the same number. We don’t know what we don’t know so it’s the same number. We want to keep the population and the natural Page 10 07/19/2023 – MINUTES resources away from that. It’s in my direction and it doesn’t feel comfortable. • Lisa – Comment – I echo what Kevin said about number two. Why would you put that in there. This is the role but if you don’t like the role, here’s how you could challenge it. Why would you set that up and give everyone the opportunity to drag you into meetings and lawyers. • Matt – Q – Does number eight in the proposed rules (Add prohibition on detached occupiable buildings from existing buildings located within the oil and gas buffer) mean that if I am a homeowner or property owner within the oil and gas zone, I am not allowed to put an ADU on my property. Kristie – A – If there is an existing home within the buffer, you cannot add an ADU. You can add non occupiable buildings or structures. You just can’t add occupancy. • Danielle – Comment – Well service companies for residential water wells seem very experienced and confident in their assessments of how quickly water well casements degrade in Fort Collins soils, and they may be useful stakeholders to consult the considered interval monitoring. • Kevin – Q – I guess to Matt’s question on the ADUs and congregation areas, I haven’t had a lot of time to think about this but there are some nuances to that that feel strange. These people who own these properties are living there. To be like you can’t have a community swing set but they are living there 100% of the time, even though they are in a structure in that buffer, they are living there 100% of the time. They are in their house, in the buffer or in their backyard, in the buffer. So, it’s not congregated. I mean if there’s going to be an imminent explosion or something but if it’s just, we don’t want people to be near it like they are already near it. So as a homeowner, I feel like that would be tough. I would wrestle with that to be like, this is our house. So what is the difference? If I am right there at the swing set versus…I get the intent but similarly with ADUs, its like grandma’s living in the basement right now, she can’t live out back in the ADU but its already this known thing. As long as it’s a known thing that you live in this buffer zone. I hope you knew that before but if you’re trying to develop just a heads up that you are still in the Zone. I don’t know. That just jumped out as like you’re almost picking. Maybe their property values are already impacted in some way, just by being where they are but then to be like anyone else with a similar sort of property scale or neighborhood type can add ADUs, but you guys can’t. I mean they are already in the zone. Kristie – Comment – Or some of the neighbors can and some can’t. Kevin – Comment – Yeah, that’s a weird one. Kristie – Comment – Yeah that one is marked over many discussions. • Dawson – Q – Do we have any data around the number of households that are impacted by this jump? Kristie – A – No, but I can show you a map. For instance, proposed development on that vacant right side, that is impacted. • Matt – Comment – Kevin’s comments touched on my sentiments. If it Page 11 07/19/2023 – MINUTES can be shown through monitoring that this is safe, why impact the personal, proper decisions and values? Kristie – Comment – There still the risk of perception. There are a lot of holes in the literature currently. We just carried what we know at this point in time. Kevin – Comment – Maybe there is a difference between a developer and a property owner. As a developer you don’t have your vested interest. You have your vested interest but it’s a short-term thing. As a property owner you are already there. Kristie – Q – So how do you feel about an HOA putting a park in? Because I get what you are saying an ADU is maybe one person. Kevin – A – If it was an existing development, it would be hard. Its already there and there’s a development proposal for a neighborhood park, right? Because we are talking about reverse setbacks, not part of a brand-new development? Kristie – Comment – We are talking about both. It could be a brand-new development and they could say, okay we got the memo, no homes but we are going to put a park in this buffer. We are going to use that land to put a park in. Kevin – Comment – That I resonate with more. It’s the existing stuff that I’m uncomfortable with, where it’s my existing neighbor or homeowner wants to do “x”. Kristie – Comment – In some of these neighborhood’s wells have been plugged and abandoned to go ahead and allow more usage of the neighborhood. And more of that could be plugged and abandoned. • Kevin – Q – My only other question was to your point on changing the use from injecting to producing and the fact that it has sort of been tried and is an ambiguous area. Is there opportunity for City level regulation to say anytime a use change is proposed that that does put into effect whatever the new standards are. That feels like a loophole and if it’s not covered by the State or County, that feels like it is hanging out there. Kristie – A – That get complicated. Cassie – A – We had success in one case where we stopped it. Can they do it? Is there a challenge that would work? We don’t know. Our land use code gets trigged by a change in use. So, the new setbacks and zoning thing say that. That is regular setbacks, not reverse setbacks. So that also restricts the change in use. Kevin – Q – Is a change in use triggered by a change in the way the well is being used? Is that a change in use by city code today? Cassie – A – Yes, it is. The fear is what if the State challenges that. Kevin – Comment – Sounds like we have a vehicle, that shouldn’t be something people are going like, anytime this could…no it kicks in all those things. Kristie – Comment – and that is the primary reason why injection and producing are both at that same buffer. Injecting seems like there’s less risk potential but if it can switch… Cassie – Comment – Correct me if I am wrong but I think that is why the planning and zoning review was built in there. If there could be some demonstration of that modification. Then you put the illness on the developer to demonstrate that this isn’t going to change from a shut in or injecting well. • Danielle – Comment – I would argue that currently we can only show that it is safe for a single point in time. Considerable future risks exist. • Kristie – Comment – There is a planning and zoning hearing tomorrow and then brought to Council September 5th. Kevin – Q – Would there be opportunity, just with some of this discussion, is there Page 12 07/19/2023 – MINUTES opportunity to introduce either meeting minutes or anything to that Council discussion? Kristie – A – If you all have something you would like to write up and share to Council, that would be helpful; any comments or feedback you have. I know there’s stakeholder groups providing feedback as well. We’ve been talking to lots of different people. Kevin – Comment – I am not ready to support but I appreciate the early discussion and I think that it’d be nice to see where it goes. Kristie – Comment – The main piece of it is to clean and refine the current land use code. I do realize there’s some details that you still have questions about, and I don’t know how that would be worded on your end. Dawson – Comment – Maybe that’s what I am getting stuck on here too about this next step is based off a lot of points that people have brought up during this. I feel weird saying we as the Board general support it when we are thinking about other things. Danielle’s point is really sticking with me about the incremental monitoring. That is something I would want to push for personally. So that is where I am getting a little iffy about the general support piece. Kristie – Comment – Would you say there are some pieces you would support? Honore – Comment – Reviewing the minutes and the conversation you all had with your Council Liaison in May, with Julie Pignataro and you know different Council Members rely on Board and Commission recommendations to different degrees but certainly the likelihood that they would comb through the entire conversation may be limited. Something pointed that is clear and simplified that can be extracted and highlighted by staff would usually be the most influential and I don’t think that has to be a wholesale but if there are pieces of it that you want to make sure council knew that could also be teased in a memo. Dawson – Comment – I feel a memo makes more sense to me personally where we can make these defining pieces of what we support. I don’t know if other people feel differently about that. Lisa – Comment – What seems like we could say, I think we support the notion of moving from a 500 foot to a 2,00o foot limit. Dawson – Comment – I don’t think it would be best to even do that. Kristie – Comment – That part is the clean-up of the language, so it is less confusing for developers and staff. But then bringing it to that piece, you have the drilled and abandoned well in that 2,000 foot as well. You could say you support all but… Lisa – Comment – The concern about the impact of private property and how they’re utilizing it. For example, the playgrounds and ADUs. Kevin – Comment – So, we need to go through one through nine and see what level of support we have and then also any of the addons like monitoring to be explored or others like that. Dawson – Comment – and it makes more sense to me to do that in a memo. The Board discussed the logistics of the memo. Kristie will send draft code language to the Board. They will speak at the next meeting more on the memo. • Danielle – Comment – I will be more explicit. We purchased a 60- year-old home with three water wells and two of them were collapsed because of the alkaline soil degrading the casing, and every well company we spoke with said that was expected. I think incorporating a recommendation for interval monitoring, language acknowledging Page 13 07/19/2023 – MINUTES uncertainty and change based on evolving science, and support for current stated changes would be my recommendation. • The board will go through points one through nine (proposed changes) in the presentation to discuss if they support or don’t support the proposed changes during their next meeting. • Dawson motions and Kelly seconds to write a memo examining the summary of proposed changes, with considerations for an addition of making our suggestions on the proposed changes, with the additional element of adding a point of interval monitoring on sites. Motion passes unanimously 6-0. 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS a. None 9. STAFF REPORTS 10. OTHER BUSINESS a. Six Month Calendar Review • August • Finalizing O&G memo • Land Use Code landscape standard updates • Update on Land Use Code • September • Economic Health Strategic Plan • Downtown Parking • Advancing Transit Initiatives 11. ADJOURNMENT a. (8:21pm) Minutes approved by a vote of the Board/Commission on 11/15/23