Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 11/17/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE November 17, 2004 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Joann Thomas, Clint Skutchan, Linda Knowlton, Gerry Hart, Nate Donovan, Randy Fischer, Ryan Staychock Board Members Absent Rob Petterson, Glen Colton Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, John Stokes Guests Anne Hutchinson Linda Hopkins Agenda Review Nate Donovan said that since Tom Vosburg is here he'd like to talk about the development review proposal. Public Comments Linda Hopkins: Thanks for the open house earlier tonight. It's a comfortable, interesting way to get public comment. I appreciate that citizen participation has been added to your agenda. I feel strongly it's imperative for sound government that all meetings are open and receptive to public input. It needs to be a consistent agenda item. I first became aware in a conversation with Natural Resources staff on the land use code when I asked if it would be appropriate to come and talk you, and was told that you don't take public input. I know I could have called Nate, and that you are respectful of public input, but it needs to a regular item on your agenda. Once citizens know it's a regular item you can attract a crowd. It's an opportunity for folks who are curious. The board could educate the community. My suggestion is it doesn't have to be topical. There could be a limited amount of time for comments. What you will get are questions, concerns, rewards and kudos. That's valuable. I spoke last night at Council that I think public boards, who Council appoints and sets their charge, should be required to have an element of citizen participation in regular meetings. Work sessions may have a different purpose. My understanding is nearly every other board has regularly scheduled public input, and I would encourage the NRAB to do that as well. After years of not having an agenda item, Natural Resources Advisory Board November 17, 2004 Page 2 of 5 staff and the board could benefit from the Bleiker's training. You learn specific skills in the appropriate way to engage the public. I don't think every ranting and raving should send a staff member off on a memo. I don't know that citizen input should generate a new work load. Donovan: One thing Linda and I talked about is if the public input is a time for dialogue, or just comments given to the board. Fischer: Different boards do it differently. Just because we don't put public participation on the agenda, we have had members of the public address us. I was a member of the Water board. When I went back to make a comment I was refused an opportunity. The Water Board does not take public comments. The P&R Board does have it, but it's a very narrow opportunity to give comments. No one on the board can interact. I would rather do it the way we do. If someone has something they'd really like to address, they have that opportunity. I don't favor the idea of having a free for all conversation with people in the audience. Ho kins: I don't know that it has to be confrontational. Maybe there is a procedural way that B&C's want to engage the public in debate. I would like comments to be taken and incorporated in some way. Dialogue can have a tendency to become argumentative. Knowlton: Given the apparent very wide differences between boards, the City needs to look at amending our charter or by-laws so that each board has something in there that says you will take public comments. Knowlton: John, I'm appalled that a staff member would say that. It's totally untrue. We need to make sure that the public is aware they can, and always could, come to this board. Donovan: In defense of the staff member, maybe they don't know the informal practice. Hopkins: They were working hard. I don't want to make excuses or punish staff. To put it on the agenda is the easiest and most respectful. Stokes: It's fine. Should we have it during worksessions, or just regular meetings? We need to be mindful of how we manage our time, and set a discreet amount of time. We should set a limit. Hopkins: The time limit is rational. Skutchan: I agree wholeheartedly. I would like to see uniformity. Personally I would like to see it done up front. The informality has made it uncomfortable in the past. Guidance up front is useful. Stavchock: This discussion addresses a very broad issue applicable to a lot of municipalities across different political boundaries. We as a public, do not have an arena where we can deliberate issues. We should allow public deliberation times to where they can have more objective discussion to these issues. Donovan: We made the decision in mid -October to have public input. I wouldn't want to limit all public comment to the first part of the meting. If they don't get here before the time I wouldn't want to say they can't speak. Skutchan: I would like to see it at the front of the agenda items themselves, not necessarily at the beginning of the meeting. Natural Resources Advisory Board November 17, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Raptor Buffer Standards John Stokes said that four members of council asked us to propose a modification to the section of the code that has to do with raptor buffers standards, 3.4.1. A lot of that code revolves around creating setbacks from natural features, riparian areas, valued nesting habitat. Last spring and summer we went through a process to modify that section of the code. The most controversial issue was the raptor buffer standards. We made some changes that didn't necessarily sit well with council, and some staff. Four members of Council asked us to make changes and bring them forward. Twice a year the code goes through a change process. This particular change would be brought forth in December. • Hart: Council has its own agenda associated with this. Is the problem with protecting the bird, or with the specification of standards of so many feet? • Stokes: It's not a problem with protecting the bird. The problem is with the language in the code. • Hart: It seems that we need some sort of performance standard to stay away from nesting areas. • Stokes: That is a performance standard during the first nesting season. • Moore: There is a performance standard that talks about preserving the tree. • Fischer: To address Jerry's questions, there are performance standards. The code clearly states that the distances in the tables can go up or down depending on the resource. People are focusing too much on the table values. • Stokes: The decision maker was able to change the buffers. We're focusing on two relatively common species. There's this mitigation that is perceived to be very onerous, and the buffers are quite large. Those are the core complaints. There's a lot of debate. We've had debate internally, and talked to biologists about focusing on those two species. A lot of biologists say it's bad to focus on one species, and that you have to look at systemic conservation. If you adopt that line of reasoning what we're doing with the open lands program and other protective mechanisms is a more whole ecosystem approach. There are all kinds of raptors. It is odd to focus on red tails and swainson. • Fischer: We have specific buffers for many of the other raptors. • Moore: There is a section that talks about special and sensitive species. If a ferruginous hawk did show up we'd go to the DOW and seek a recommendation. • Staychock: I think it's interesting that we're talking about going to the DOW. Throughout the process of amending the land use code we had the former DOW raptor biologist sitting in. He supported our amendments and was surprised that we were lowering the standards. We already have a raptor biologist who was part of the process. • Stokes: Keep in mind that what the DOW tells us is not binding, its advice. • Donovan: I'm concerned that we went through a big process, and a lot of study. It seems that if there's a good conservation reason to eliminate it, its ok. We don't need to endorse a staff recommendation. Based on the memo we made a mistake in the long process we went through. Does federal law and regulation only require protection of the nest through one season? Natural Resources Advisory Board November 17, 2004 Page 4 of 5 • Stokes: I can't represent myself as an expert. I think in our code we're saying you have to leave the tree. • Fischer: I was surprised there was nothing in the staff report to P&Z touting any benefits to the existing code. • Stokes: There are benefits to the existing code. • Fischer: Were they mentioned to P&Z? • Stokes: No. • Fischer: This makes it sound like Council is uniformly in favor of this. This is being pushed by two council members. There is almost majority support for the raptor buffers in council. • Stokes: We did get a specific request from four council members to do this. • Fischer: I'm only aware of two negatives. One is that the mitigation payment is too high. That's completely bogus. You cant buy land anywhere around Fort Collins for that. A lot of the development land we're talking about is valued at much, much higher than $10,000. I think it's cheap. We argued on the committee to make it higher. I'm sort of incensed by talk of how these buffers unduly interfere with the master street plan. This is a one sided argument. It hasn't given any credence to the benefits of the current code. Basically we being given the opportunity to give council an out by providing them this false compromise. Council should vote up or down. Dc we want raptors or do we want to get rid of them. City Plan says we'll integrate natural resources and natural features. It makes no sense to me that we would agree with any of this. None of this is being done for conservation reasons for the science. The science doesn't support this. Jerry Craig said that whatever you do, don't go any farther. If you do, you'll lose the birds. The science says the buffers should be large. This is being driven by ideology, and its bogus. Randy Fischer made the following motion: Recommend that we advise Council to not make any changes to the existing land use code. The motion was seconded by Ryan Staychock. • Hart: There needs to be something in the memo saying we don't think this is good science. And, the last changes represent the minimum necessary to keep a viable habitat. • Staychock: At first glance it appears the buffer radius is approximately fourteen acres, there's a vision the developer will have to pay that. That's not the situation. • Moore: The likelihood of a developer having an entire radius is small. • Staychock: We went through a rigorous process for six or seven months. The only time staff had a negative reaction was on the mitigation price. I don't remember any of these comments coming from staff. We were trying to help the developers, and get better conservation. Now it seems we're abandoning the conservation. The people of Fort Collins do feel it's important to keep the raptors. I'm perplexed this is in front of US. Natural Resources Advisory Board November 17, 2004 Page 5 of 5 • Skutchan: On the tree aspect, is that an added layer of protection beyond the federal protection? • Vosburg: Staff s intent is to say don't take the tree down unless its clear the bird isn't coming back. There might be other reasons to protect a tree, even if the bird doesn't come back. • Knowlton: If someone owns a parcel of land and there's a nesting tree, but there's not been a submittal, can they cut the tree down? • Vosburg: My understanding is yes. There's a lot of backlash to the concept of mitigation. People are offended, it's a philosophical thing. One council member made a pretty impassioned speech that something was deeply wrong. It's not about science, and its not about protecting the bird. • Donovan: It would be helpful if in the memo we could say something about the current rule of trees not undergoing development activity. • Vosburg: The problem is silent. When you read it and see it what isn't said you come to the conclusion that if it's not under review its like the dead aspen tree in your yard. • Vosburg: If you're genuinely interested in raptor protection you should talk about tree protection. It's difficult and complicated. As advisors to council you should move on a tree protection standard. • Knowlton: Council members don't understand the missing pieces. They think what ever is adopted here will take care of every situation. • Vosburg: Be mindful and think about how you will interact with Council on that. Think about how you frame staffs silence. We haven't been given any direction. We did bring it up and were told not to. Just because we didn't put it in here, doesn't mean we don't recognize its value, or that we don't support the concept. The motion passed with 6 members in favor, and one member (Clint Skutchan) opposed. The meeting adjourned to a work session at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Terry Mahn Admin Support Supervisor Approved: t D-.S- �CSUS�