Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/27/2003MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO February 27, 2003 Linda Stanley, Chair Sarah Fox, Staff Liaison, 970-221-6312 Eric Hamrick, City Council Liaison, 970-226-4824 Board Members present: Linda Stanley, Everett Bacon, Jim Dennison, John R. Long, Kenneth Moore, Mandar Sunthankar, Cherie Trine, Katie Walters, Nancy York. Board members absent: None Natural Resources Staff present: Sarah Fox; Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner; Zoe Shark, Education and Outreach Coordinator; Lucinda Smith, Senior Environmental Planner Council Members resent: None Also present: Student observer from CSU Linda Stanley called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. New Business Minutes Katie Walters moved to accept the January 21, 2003, minutes as submitted. Ken Moore seconded, motion carried unanimously. Radon Mitigation in New Construction -- presented by Brian Woodruff and Zoe Shark. The City's Building Code is being brought into conformance with the International Residential Code, scheduled for adoption by City Council in July 2003. As part of that update, Natural proposes to mandate all new homes be radon resistant. The proposal requires inclusion of the basic components of a passive radon reduction system -- gravel beneath the slab, polyethylene between slab and gravel, sealing and caulking, vent pipe running from beneath the slab through the roof, and junction boxes to power an inline fan and warning device if needed -- in all new residential construction. Such an ordinance was requested by Council and is part of the Air Quality Action Plan. The estimated cost of the proposed passive system is between $300 and $500 per unit, and is expected to lower indoor radon levels by 50 percent. Inclusion of the fan, which makes the system active, is estimated to cost an additional $200 and to further reduce radon levels by an additional 35 to 40 percent, for an overall reduction between 85 and 90 percent. The proposed ordinance leaves the installation of the fan to the discretion of the homeowner, but requires all necessary wiring and clearances be in place to allow for such installation. Radon mitigation in existing homes costs an estimated $1000 to $2500, and the ordinance requiring radon information be provided to buyers of existing homes has resulted in increased testing and mitigation. Under the current voluntary system, fewer than 10 percent of homes built in Fort Collins in 2002 -- 73 of 1200 -- incorporated radon -resistant construction methods. The proposed ordinance contains no performance standards or testing requirements, and deals only with single-family detached dwellings. Single-family attached and multiple dwelling units will be addressed in a subsequent upgrade of the Building Code, in about six to nine months. Zoe Shark distributed a copy of an educational handout and asked for suggestions of other groups that could benefit from a presentation. The City is also soliciting public input, and Natural Resources will make a presentation on radon -resistant new construction to City Council at its May 13 study session. Board discussion centered on two themes: how best to make the case that such mandatory requirements would protect the health and safety of the residents of Fort Collins, and whether it would be better to require a fully active system in the Building Code. In addition to figures presented by Mr. Woodruff showing the number of lifetime cancers expected with and without mitigation, based on National Academy of Sciences standards and methodology, the Board suggested including the costs of treating cancer and value of life contrasted with probability of death to illustrate the benefits of the radon -resistant construction requirement. Given the high cost of medical care and the likelihood of death from this type of cancer, the benefits of radon mitigation are many times higher than the cost per cancer avoided. However, Board members were concerned that the assumptions made by staff in calculating the cost per cancer avoided were too conservative in terms of radon exposure and average lifetime of a home. For example, the average lifetime of a home was assumed to be 70 years and the average median exposure in 24,000 new dwellings was assumed to be 2.5 pCi/L. However, the lifetime of a home is likely to be longer, especially with today's building codes, and the exposure to radon without mitigation is likely to exceed a median of 2.5 pCi/L. Thus, actual cost per cancer avoided will be significantly less than the staff estimated cost per cancer avoided ($56,000). Mr. Woodruff will contact Linda Stanley for direction on the best studies and sources for figures. Requiring radon mitigation during new construction is significantly cheaper than mitigating once the home is built. In addition, owners of existing homes now mitigating radon levels at the time of resale are not receiving the benefits of their investment in mitigation. • Sunthankar: If the fan only costs an extra $200 and reduces levels almost as much as the pipe alone, it doesn't make sense not to require it. • Dennison: Homeowners need to take some responsibility; installing the fan can be a do-it-yourself project, but they also have to pay attention and maintain it and replace it periodically. • Trine: I wouldn't take care of it. I'd just think I was protected with the passive system and never get around to installing a fan. • Walters: There's the issue of affordability -- $300-$500 sounds better than $500-$800 -- and a 50 percent reduction is better than nothing. • Moore: We could require the minimum, the passive system, and strongly recommend the active system. Make sure it's set up so the changeover would be very minimal. Nancy York moved that the Air Quality Advisory Board recommend City Council require active radon mitigation measures for all new residential construction in the Building Code. Cherie Trine seconded. The motion passed with 6 votes for, I against and 1 abstention. Ken Moore stated he was not against requiring radon mitigation, but preferred mandating a passive system in the Building Code; Everett Bacon arrived during discussion and did not feel he should vote, and John Long arrived after the vote was taken. The Board thanked Mr. Woodruff and Ms. Shark for their efforts on the radon issue. Short Discussion Items Mason Street Recommendations Nancy York moved that the Air Quality Advisory Board recommend Council secure funding and expedite completion of the Mason Street Corridor project. Katie Walters seconded. • Ms. Walters: I understand the transportation tax will be on the ballot in April, but if it doesn't go through, Council has to find the money somewhere. • Mandar Sunthankar presented an edited version of the letter to the Mayor and City Council originally drafted by Ms. York for discussion. He explained that he had removed some of the technical detail to keep it to one page. • Ms. York noted that the information removed dealt with health concerns, violations of the vehicular emissions standards, increases in vehicle miles traveled and economic issues. She felt it important to remind Council of the impact of air quality on the health of Fort Collins residents. • John Long suggested referencing the relevant health -related studies and attaching them as an appendix to the one -page letter to Council. • There was concern among several Board members over citing an increase in project cost from $7 million to $66 million. It was decided to drop the specific figures in favor of a general reference to costs increasing over time. The Board voted unanimously to send the one -page version of the letter, with changes as discussed and supporting information on health impacts attached as a separate document, to City Council. Linda Stanley will incorporate the changes and circulate a final draft to all board members via e-mail before submitting it to City Council. Update from February 20 joint meeting with NRAB Sarah Fox and Linda Stanley reported that the consensus of members of both boards was not to merge at this time, and that a separate board should be established to deal with Open Lands/Natural Areas issues. Once the new board is formed and functioning, in about six months or so, it might be appropriate to revisit the issue. Follow up from February retreat Sarah Fox discussed a letter from Carrie Daggett of the City Attorney's office addressing questions of permissible Board functions that arose at the retreat. Inspection and Maintenance Feasibility Study Update -- presented by Lucinda Smith. With two competing facts -- policies on the books that require continual improvement in air quality and the likely phasing out of both the two -speed idle emission test and oxygenated fuels program at the end of 2003 -- the City has been exploring alternative methods of reducing mobile source emissions. The I&M Feasibility Study generated a list of possible alternatives in August 2002, but a top alternative has not been selected. The Governor's office has sent a strong message that there is no state support for any regulatory approach. Therefore, only voluntary options are being pursued, including: • Smart Signs/instantaneous remote sensing testing • Limited onboard diagnostic testing at change of ownership • Continuing the Emissions Repair Guide • Car care events at large employers • Combination of education, outreach and testing Ms. Smith outlined the administrative cost per car repaired, citizen support and pros and cons of the different programs. Staff also spent some time looking at a local regulatory smoking vehicle program, which would use City employees to issue warnings and citations to vehicles with visible emissions. Denver and Boulder both have similar programs in place, and the enforcement mechanism already exists in City Code. Surveys and focus group show significant citizen support for the City keeping emissions from increasing. Greatest support for mandatory testing at change of ownership to continue. More, but not more than 50 percent, willing to pay for regulatory rather than voluntary programs. Seventy-seven percent felt Fort Collins should retain emissions testing even if not required by the state. Recommended next steps: • spend three more months researching a local regulatory program, especially how to fund it and enforce it without the assistance of registration; • reduce costs of voluntary programs; • bring regulatory smoking vehicle program to Council; • gain regional support for programs; • have a preferred alternative before anticipated public hearing to terminate the AIR program at state capitol. Ken Moore had a number of questions and concerns about the technology underlying voluntary programs and the willingness of citizens to comply without regulation. • Walters: I think we would all like to see some sort of regulatory program; it's the only way it will help Fort Collins. • York: We have a number to call to report smoking vehicles, and need to make it more accessible. We need to continue to emphasize impact of air quality on health. Part of our job is to raise awareness of the health impacts of vehicle pollution. • Trine: The City should fight more to have a local program, and not just consider it a lost cause. • Dennison: There is citizen support to maintain air quality, we know air quality will degrade because of this elimination, and there are options that [the legislature] are preventing us from doing at the same time they are saying they cleaned up Colorado's air. This City should be vocal on this issue, but I don't support doing anything utterly futile. • York: We should undertake some action, to educate our political and administrative figures. • Moore: North Front Range Emission Task Force is reforming among emission testing facilities. • Trine: Maybe we could give some kind of credit for passing your emission test? The question is can Fort Collins come up with a local program we can enforce and pay for? Do we have the authority to collect a fee? Could we cooperate with the County, which will be losing money when the AIR program is discontinued? Lucinda will come back in May or June with more concrete recommendations, and will bear in mind the Board's support for regulatory approaches. AQPP Update -- presented by Lucinda Smith and Brian Woodruff. The 2000-2003 Air Quality Action Plan calls for the entire Air Quality Plan to be updated by the end of 2003. Staff will be merging the Air Quality Policy Plan and the Air Quality Action Plan into one City-wide document, the Air Quality Plan, to establish a community vision for air quality as well as specific policies and objectives. This will require significant outreach to other departments, boards and commissions. The Plan should be updated every five years in sync with City Plan, with AQP Principles and Policies incorporated into City Plan as part of the current update process. Council will be asked to approve part or all of the Air Quality Plan by resolution. Under this process, the AQAB will be dealing with policy issues more than specific action. Ms. York was concerned that significant changes in air quality can take place in five years, and would like to see "triggers,' like those in City Plan, that would require action between updates if certain levels are exceeded. However, Ms. Walters pointed out that increased VMT, while a City Plan trigger, has resulted in no action. Mr. Woodruff said triggers can be incorporated into AQP. There were questions about how the AQAB can interact with other boards to gather input and support for the AQP, in light of Carrie Daggett's letter. Mr. Woodruff pointed out that in its charter, the AQAB is obligated to coordinate with the Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Transportation Advisory Board and the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board. AQAB will discuss in detail next month how to create liaisons with other Boards and Commissions. Carrie Daggett will be invited to that meeting to clarify some issues for board members. Next meeting March 27, 2003, 4:30 p.m., 281 N. College. Meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Kate i Marchh 8, 2003