Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 04/07/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE April 7, 2004 No Quorum — No Action Taken For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Preent Joann Thomas, Linda Knowlton, Gerry Hart, Glen Colton Board Members Absent Nate Donovan, Arvind Panjabi, Ryan Staychock, Randy Fischer, Clint Skutchan Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Terry Klahn, Mark Sears, John Stokes, Doug Moore, Lucinda Smith Current Planning: Ted Shepard Guests CSU Students Review and Approval of Minutes There was not a quorum so the minutes could not be approved. Air Quality Plan, Lucinda Smith Smith said it had been expected that there would be a statement in City Plan regarding reducing the vmt growth rate to the population growth rate. At the Council review they shortened the vision statement and removed that. It's a useful and valuable long term goal, and we are considering it as a principal in the Air Quality Plan. • Colton: Was there a removal of the cost -benefit policy? It's not in the draft. • Smith: We considered a policy that says when purchasing vehicles and fuels the City will consider the cost benefit. • Colton: My concern is we might not go far enough with an explicit policy. It doesn't say we're willing to pay more to get cleaner air. • Smith: It could be a recommendation. • Hart: The removal of the goal for reducing vmt is significant. Having a principal won't carry the same weight. Natural Resources Advisory Board April 7, 2004 Page 2 of 4 • Smith: I feel it's appropriate to have it as a principal. It's difficult to achieve. It would be better in a vision statement, but a principal is a fundamental doctrine or function. It's a quantifiable measure. • Smith: First reading is scheduled for June 15. We should be able to keep that unless we get major revisions. One issue we're debating is should we ask them to adopt the whole plan, or just the policies? • Hart: This is very well done, I don't have any substantial comments. • Colton: As far as funding, other plans, like the Transportation Plan, identifies needs, and then goes through and puts a cost on it. If there are big things maybe it makes sense to identify costs, and how many things you'll be able to do with your current funding. • Smith: I see your point. • Colton: We haven't been able to meet the vmt goal for the last five years. There's no reasonable expectation we'll be able to meet it. Was it a conscious effort to remove it from City Plan? • Smtih: We're moving farther apart, we're certainly not moving in the right direction. It's happening all over the country, it's a national phenomenon. There's a community readiness study. Readiness is a concept or model that helps communities identify where they are with an issue, and what barriers there are. Then you can decide how to proceed. People have a love affair with their cars. We're committed to doing a pilot of the readiness study. • Colton: It would be interesting to have some sort of brain storming session. To me, schools of choice, big box stores, and even these multiplex theatres have an effect on vmt. • Knowlton: 4.2 and 4.4 oppose any action of the State legislature that restricts local authority. If the state drops the emissions project requirement, do you want the City to retain the authority to do it on its own? • Smtih: It doesn't say we want to expand our authority. This year and next year will be critical for the fate of the existing program and determination of what Fort Collins might do. The City will be active working with the state over the next two years. • Knowlton: I didn't see diesel in here. Is the City addressing diesel? • Smith: It's an important issue. The only place it's called out is under the air toxics. It is identified as a mobile source air pollutant. Maybe the strategies are weak on diesel. It might be appropriate to put diesel in here more specifically. • Knowlton: I would like to see that. The EPA is adopting new standards. Other communities are going beyond that and taking action now. Given the construction and the number of trucks on the road, it might help. Knowlton will talk to Nate Donovan to see if they want to do a memo before the Study Session. There's still time to make a formal recommendation before Council votes on it. Smith said she would like to come back to the Board on June 2. Natural Resources Advisory Board April 7, 2004 Page 3 of 4 Proposed Changes to the Land Use Code, Section 3.4, John Stokes John Stokes and Ted Shepard provided a brief background of the plan. • Knowlton: How much of a reduction in permitting time might this result in? And, how many fewer will go to P&Z? • Shepard: As far as a reduction in time, what we're proposing could probably save 4-6 weeks. I can't speculate on how many projects will not go to P&Z. • Knowlton: So there is no building in the 450' buffer? But, a trail or road could go through? • Moore: I doubt a trail would happen in there. • Stokes: We would allow the encroachment on a raptor differently in an activity center. The proposed developer could encroach into the entire 450'. They would have to mitigate and probably there would be a penalty. We would give them an out. We only have one place, maybe two, where that might be a possibility. • Colton: You'd go toward Soapstone, or other properties that currently have raptors? • Stokes: What we would do is write criteria to help the guide the applicant. • Hart: How practical is it to allow roads and trails in the 450' area? How much per acre for mitigation. Land is worth a lot, we need to make sure the City gets a fair amount. • Stokes: It's a tricky thing to do. The development community will feel put out. The environmental community will feel put out. Somewhere in-between I'm hoping we can find a number that makes people happy. • Hart: This process change sounds like a good idea on the face of it. It sounds like it makes sense. Other Business • Stokes: The PAYT amendments passed unanimously. • Knowlton: It's a mistake. We will probably get no compliance for two to five years. • Stokes: It's a process issue. Nate was upset because he felt like staff should have brought this change to the Board, and it's a point well taken. • Knowlton: There might be an opportunity before 2 d reading for us to go back to Council with another letter. I will talk to Nate. • Stokes: The BCC dollars, $4.4 million, sailed right through, that's good news. • Stokes: COPS was pulled from consent. We had a brief discussion and it passed. If we ever use it we will come back to the board. Committee Reports Natural Areas We talked about the Resource Recovery Farm for birds. We directed Mark to come up with a short term plan, and then figure out something else. We also talked about Riverbend Ponds, and easements. Announcements • The ACOE pulled the plug for the funding for restoration at Kingfisher Point. Natural Resources Advisory Board April 7, 2004 Page 4 of 4 Colton: We need to make sure that the fact that we paid for the trail improvements from Lee Martinez Park to Shields is out there, so folks know that it was paid for through open space contributions. Colton: When will there be discussion on the NRAB involvement in development review process? Stokes: We have a memo from Cameron Gloss to get to you. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor Approved at the regular meeting of the Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004.