Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/19/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. February 19, 2004 For Reference: Linda Stanley, Chair 493-7225 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison 226-4824 Sarah Fox, Staff Liaison 221-6312 Board Members Present Everett Bacon, John Long, Ken Moore, Linda Stanley, Mandar Sunthankar, Katie Walters, Nancy York Board Members Absent Jim Dennison, Cherie Trine Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Sarah Fox, Lucinda Smith, Liz Skelton, Brian Woodruff Guests Tom Moore The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m. Minutes With the following changes, the minutes of the January 15, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved: • York: Page 4, 8ch bullet change second sentence to: Ideally, it would be nice if we could do 1500 ft; that's more than I/4 mile. Radon/IRC Update Brian Woodruff updated the board on the Radon/IRC issue, specifically concerning the recent Council study session. Linda Stanley also gave a summary of the meeting regarding the cost of radon systems. • Bacon: Have we all mitigated? Who here has mitigated their house? The reason that I ask is that I feel like a bit of a hypocrite requiring radon mitigation in new homes that might not need it when I haven't even done it for my own house. • York: Have you tested? • Bacon: Yes, it was high, but it wasn't above four. It was a nonzero amount. • York: But it was under 4? • Bacon: Yes. • York: Good, for you. • York: Did you read this article in the Forum? I called to find out how he did it. He mentioned that he was in discussion with you, Brian. • Woodruff: This article in the Fort Collins Forum is by Leo Mormon. He is a mitigator with a background in physics. He has equipment which he says will determine how Air Quality Advisory Board 11/15/2004 Page 2 of 9 much radon is going to be in the house before it is built. He places this equipment within the footprint of the house after it is excavated. He is measuring the flux of radon through that surface. He uses a computer model of the house, along with this flux measurement, to estimate how much radon is in the house. He says he can predict and that information can be used to decide between active, passive or nothing. I've encouraged him to pursue his work, but not in context of the City's regulation. The information we had in the past is that you can get highly variable results. Actual tests of actual building sites show you can get 100 times more radon on one part of the site than another does. • York: It is a $200 test. He said people don't know how to put in passive systems. He would favor nothing, rather than putting in a faulty passive system. I don't know how the building code will govern that. Will you cover that in the ordinance? • Woodruff: That is an issue in enforcement and inspection. That situation will improve. In the past, we had the radon inspection done by the people installing the system. We required a training class, passing a test and then they were certified. We have anecdotal information from a person who went in to activate and found some done wrong. Now the City's building inspectors are doing inspections. We will have more consistent results with that. • Bacon: Regarding the pretest, it is my understanding that the radon from the ground changes over time. How relative is a test taken before a house is built as opposed to 20 yrs down road? • Woodruff: Radon emissions from the soil vary over time. They are driven by the source strength of radium in the soil and the atmospheric pressure. It is a cycle of 3-4 days. • Stanley: So that's why we need to do a longer test? • Woodruff: Yes. I don't think it changes over the life of the building that much. There is a question of how this particular strategy is going to play out since Leo Mormon is promoting this idea and it is getting close to decision time. I'm encouraging him to apply for a grant to do a pilot study. Maybe in a few years we can replace our regulation with a new method that's better. • Stanley: There haven't been validity studies other than own his own, right? You would have to scientifically test it. • Moore: What really counts is what is inside the living area, how permeable the walls are, how strong the gas pressure is, the thickness of the foundation of the slab, determines how concentrated the radon is. I think you would have to have a computer program to factor in all that stuff. Has it been proven? • Stanley: And has there been independent testing? • Long: What was the related cost for active and passive systems? • Woodruff: It is $1000 baseline for a passive system and another S300 to activate it. The are some variations based on the foundation style. • Stanley: I think that cost will go down over time. One of the things that they said are making it more expensive is putting the pipe up and how difficult that could be to find the right path. Once people get used to it, that cost would go down. • Bacon: The issues of quality of installation are a big one to me. When you have mitigators who do that for a living and do a pre and post test and you know that there is some effectiveness to the installation. When you have builders who don't care, or Au Quality Advisory Board 11/15/2004 Page 3 of 9 know, or have expertise in radon mitigation, and there is no pre and post-test, you don't know. Will the City have that on the checklist? • Stanley: There is code about how it has to be done. It will have to be inspected. • Walters: There is no sense of doing any of this if there isn't an inspection. The energy code has had problems too ... maybe this will be their 2"d chance. • Stanley: Will it be easier to inspect than the energy code? • Woodruff: Yes, it is simpler. The other thing about cost is that the City has decided to agree with builders that it costs $1000. What we are costing out is the current practice, which is only about 10% of homes that go in with a system. The current practice is the builder hires a mitigator to come out and do it. So everyone of these is a custom job. • Walter: They are subcontracting, so there is more overhead. • Woodruff. Yes. That is my opinion: the cost is bound to come down when builders realize they can't pass all the costs to the customer; it eats their profit margin. They will find ways to cut cost. • Stanley: It was difficult in that meeting to say it will cost less in year or two after builders have had practice. I'm not out there on the job everyday, and Brian isn't either, but it is the economies of experience. • Long: I'm more concerned with new home construction subcontractor work not being up to code and it will still pass. I had my house blown -in with cellulose and the guy said that half of the houses down south, are not doing what they are supposed to do. The enforcement is a big issue. • Bacon: The only way to enforce this is to do post-test afterwards and see how many are failing. • York: The $1000 is minus the gravel underneath the slab and that is because 90% of houses are built with the gravel, right? • Stanley: That was because they were worried that the City would require larger gravel than they usually use, but it's not, it's '/4" so they said it was OK to take that out of the figures. • Woodruff: I would reiterate that my opinion is that costs are on the high side. It costs $1000, and that's what reflects current experience. • Stanley: I put that in the memo to Council; that I felt costs would go down with practice. I'll send you a copy. We need to figure out if we are changing our recommendation, or making another one, or leaving what we have. We have written three memos so far. • Bacon: Will they have enough votes to pass anything? • Stanley: I think they ultimately will have enough for passive. • Sunthankar: The City is aware of our opinion. • Sunthankar: Brian, what is your opinion on where it is right now? • Woodruff: Just what is here on the page ... what we did was ask them which options they were interested in coming back for a vote. Several mentioned two or three options. They have expressed interest, which is not the same as saying they would vote on it. My hunch is 4 votes passive and I'm not sure on active. • Bacon: Is there a post-test required? • Woodruff. No, not in the passive proposal. The building would require a placarded so that the homeowner could see the information on what system installed. No test is required, but it would be good idea to test. Air Quality Advisory Board 11/15/2004 Page 4 of 9 • Bacon: So it is just like we have now when you change ownership on a house. • Sunthankar: If the passive were approved, what percentage of homes that are above minimum level would come down? • Woodruff: I can't answer that. The range is fairly large, about 20-80%. • Walters: If it's right at 50%, then some houses have 14 Pico Curies and some have 6. If you have 14 and it goes down by half, you are still above the recommended limit. • Stanley: I thought at one point in time we had some number — 40% reduction — on average. And with an active system it is 87%. We don't have the full distribution of what radon results are in the City. • Woodruff: The average test comes in at a little over 7. So if the average house is reduced by half, it would average below 4. • York: The EPA has said that even lower levels are hazardous. • Stanley: And Janet Johnson put up a table about that during the meeting. There is risk at 3, 2, 1... that are still quite significant. The EPA has said 4, but that doesn't mean that there is no risk below 4. • Woodruff: The EPA is clear on their information to the public that there is no level that is safe. If you mitigate to below 4 you are helping your chances. • Bacon: The EPA also takes a test with windows and doors closed. A 4 during the test might be lower in real life. • Stanley: Shall we let recommendation stand? Would anybody like to talk to a Council member? • Walters: I certainly will do that. • York: Bertschy has said he wants active on all homes with basements, passive for all others. • Stanley: Do we have numbers on basement vs. non -basement and radon levels? • Woodruff: Radon levels are about twice as high in basements. We know how many houses were built without basements in the last few years: over half. That doesn't get to the issue of how effective the cost -benefit ratio is, since that option is not on the table. • York: What is the cost of the test? • Fox: $3.50 for short term, $13.95 for long term. • Woodruff: Short term is for 3 days. Long term is for anywhere from 3 months to 12 months. Long term is the better test to do. It is fairly easy to do yourself. • Bacon: I don't like the idea of someone selling me mitigation whether I need it or not. • Moore: Our current recommendation is that we recommend active system, but passive as a minimum. • Stanley: I said passive as a minimum with testing and activation with a high test. Ken Moore made the following motion: That we stay with our current recommendation to Council. The motion passed unanimously. • Stanley: I will send a reminder of our recommendation to Council, just saying that we looked at the new materials from the work session. • York: Remind them too, that there is no safe level. Air Quality Advisory Board 11/15/2004 Page 5 of 9 Capital Sales Tax Proposal (Themes) Board discussion on possible Air Quality themes for the Capital Sales Tax proposal • Stanley: I asked other boards what they did, and they said they just made recommendations based on what they want to see in the packages. • Fox: Since '93 we have had over 70 projects funded through the Capital Project Tax. • York: Last night I went to the Transportation Board as liaison for this board. They are basing their recommendation on the multi -modal approach. They are doing 56% streets, transit 10%, bike 15%, and pedestrians 6%. I think we should suggest alternative transportation as one of our themes. • Bacon: How about congestion relief measures? • York: Tom Frasier was there. The Transportation Board put in one for $4,613,000 for new replacement vehicles. Tom was saying this doesn't give us any new routes, but for another $4,000,000 we could get another route. A route costs $170,000; that's the first I heard... • Bacon: Is that operation only? • York: That includes everything for a route. • Bacon: Including the cost of the bus? • York: No, the cost of bus is like $270,000. • Bacon: Does the $170,000 include the amortization costs? • York: I honestly don't know. Other people said it was higher. John Fischbach said it was $260,000. I asked Tom, he said it was $170,000. I said I'll be conservative and say $200,000. I think that would be something we could encourage. Lucinda handed information to the Transportation Board about where visibility is coming from. 18% is from gas powered vehicles, diesel is 11% and road dust is 19%. I was thinking we could point out some of these levels of pollutant that we could skirt around. • Fox: I think what they want are broad themes, not too specific. • Bacon: It sounds like the Transportation Board went as far as to identify specific projects. • Fox: They have a whole different process. They have been involved for over a year. • Bacon: But what is going to go to the public is projects. We tried it differently last time and it didn't work. It's clear to me that they will take projects to the public. • Fox: They haven't decided yet. • Bacon: I haven't heard anything to contradict that. • Fox: I'm sure they'll do projects, but we've been ask to iidentify broad themes. • Bacon: The reason I say that, is there is one project that is near and dear to my heart which is the Mason Street Corridor. To me that is a theme as well as a project. • Long: With this discussion on adding a route; that's not really going to solve any problems. We need to increase ridership. • York: That's the chicken and egg idea. The routes that go where people want to go reach maximum capacity. There isn't a bus that goes to medical center on East Harmony. I think we ought to promote bike and pedestrians too. • Walters: I think that's what Everett is saying; that Mason Street idealizes that approach. • Bacon: To me, Mason Street is the golden egg in the chicken and egg. • Walters: Could we do Mason Street with a separate heading for congestion management? Air Quality Advisory Board 11/15/2004 Page 6 of 9 • Stanley: I like idea of making sure one of our themes is multi -modal. I don't know if Mason Street will ever get off the ground because people are so afraid. • York: What Tim Johnson said: I think the way to go with Mason Street is to get the bike and pedestrian down and then to look down the road. Who knows how people will vote? I think we should recommend that we stay away from road widening and look more to improving intersections for the flow and safety. • Stanley: There are so many existing deficiencies in terms of intersections. There are more of those than money to spend. • Bacon: The Master Transportation Plan is not a road widening plan. The reason I included congestion relief measures is because it doesn't just focus on specific types of improvements; it gets to the source of the problem which is congestion causing air quality problems. I don't want to preclude road widening from being on that list because there are some strategic ones. As our community changes we are going to need more connections or we are going to have congestion that causes worse air quality. I don't want to pretend like this area isn't going to grow. That's why I called it `congestion relief measures'. Maybe we support the Transportation Plan in its multi - modal components. I won't vote for anything that specifically excludes road widening. • Walters: The key is to boost expenditures on alternate forms of transportation. Transportation could decide on road widening. We all feel like money is spent on roads and not a lot of money is being spent within those roads. That would include TransFort, bike lanes, and pedestrian lanes. • Stanley: I would like to see that the Downtown Pedestrian Plan be implemented. • Bacon: That's a great theme. That's a group of projects; it's not just downtown, it is also connections to downtown. The theme would be downtown vitality. • Long: It sounds like multi -modal forms of transportation to reduce congestion is the theme. • Walters: That's what our last four have been transportation. • Bacon: But downtown vitality is different. • Walters: I wonder if we could say `Transportation: for example... Mason Street, etc'. Detail what we're looking for. It is vague as to how broad or specific we are supposed to be. • Bacon: I would suggest Air Quality Control Measures. • Walters: What does that encompass? • Bacon: The inspection and maintenance program. That's not a transportation issue. • Stanley: I wonder about monitoring. We only monitor specific types right now. That would be a small percentage. • York: The opacity test for off -road diesels would qualify. • Walters: When I think Air Quality Control Measures, 1 think fugitive dust plan. I don't connect that to inspection and maintenance. • Bacon: The things I connect to a Air Quality Control Measures, in a transportation perspective, are technology, transportation systems management, and travel demand management. • Stanley: Speaking of capital and air quality, what about cleaner buses? It sounds like they are moving in that direction, but are always out of money. It could be a popular issue. Air Quality Advisory Board 11/15/2004 Page 7 of 9 • Moore (T): The words Air Quality Control have a different message than maybe congestion reduction strategies. Most of what you guys were talking about was strategies to reduce emissions. That might be more palatable for a theme. • York: Could we do `reduction in vehicle emissions'. That would be TransFort, new routes, cleaner fuels... • Moore (T): There is interesting dichotomy when talking transportation speak, when you refer to congestion mitigation means getting the a lot more cars through the same amount of space. The problem is you reduce congestion, but those cars are still running. • Bacon: What I care about is emissions reductions. To me, VMT is a good thing. It is good for the economy. The cars are so clean these days that it doesn't matter; more cars are fine. Growth is happening. • Moore (T): I respect that. I'm suggesting that maybe you define congestion mitigation as strategies that explicitly deal with bicycle and pedestrians. • Bacon: I'm not willing to do that. I remember why the tax failed the last few times. The general public wants to see roads there. • Moore (T): I'm just presenting an alternative. I was wondering if the congestion and cars issue might be phrased as a `service improvement'. Then congestion mitigation in terms of bikes and pedestrians. • Bacon: That is not a good definition of congestion mitigation. Those things don't relieve congestion. • Stanley: If we try to improve traffic congestion; it is going to get worse sooner or later. • Bacon: It would be worse if we do nothing. • Stanley: If we take that case; I think people start learning new behaviors, whether it is forced or we have a chance to adjust. Given the limited amount of money, I already know there will be roads. In my opinion I don't want to say `build more roads or widen the roads'. I want to speak up for alternative modes because nobody else does. • Bacon: I agree with those things. The best transit systems in this Country get 2% of the trips. In the peak hour they get 5-7%. One level of service is 10%. The best transit system we could implement in this City would not change our requirements for roads one iota. At best, it would improve our level of service one grade letter on selected streets. To put blinders on and say that alternative modes will solve our problem is false. They are a part of the solution. Look at Boulder — they did what you are saying you want to do and they have the worst congestion in state. • Walters: What Linda is saying is that we know that the Transportation Board will recommend roads. What we are saying is we should emphasize alternate modes. • Bacon: No. We are air quality, not alternative modes. • York: But what reduces air pollution? • Bacon: Congestion mitigation. Traffic signal and intersection improvements are much better at reducing emissions. • York: If you have more vehicles... • Bacon: You are going to have more vehicles. • York: You will have more road crap, more tire wear. You would increase more traffic, more vehicles. • Bacon: I bet everyone in this room drove here. We are all hypocrites. I'm a big alternative modes fan, but I'm realistic and realize it's not going to solve the problem. Air Quality Advisory Board 11/15/2004 Page 8 of 9 • York: Downtown is almost at `F' as far as level of service. We need to have other means to get downtown. • Bacon: You are not going to change the letter grade of `F' with alternative modes. • York: We could. • Bacon: You can't. I can't support anything that specifically excludes road widening. • York: We're talking about reducing air pollution by increasing alternative transportation in and about downtown, more bus routes, and Mason Street. • Walters: I'd like to include things for programs that may not survive because of budget cutbacks. Is there something for us to do with hybrid vehicles? • Bacon: Zero is zero. All those engine's emissions are almost zero. You don't need a hybrid. • York: I like the idea of continuing the lawn mower program. • Stanley: I think the Transportation Board put the overpass for Drake in their recommendation. • Bacon: Multi -modal grade separations seem like a great thing to have on the list. • Moore (T): Those are really capital intensive. • Bacon: Isn't that what we are doing; capital? • Bacon: How big is community choices? They are providing $9 million for bike lanes alone; we're talking big money already. • Moore: Didn't we have in a packet that cars are most efficient at 35 mph? That might be good to include. • Stanley: The timed lights are great. It makes such a difference; it's a joy to drive there now. • Bacon: Can I quote you on that: "It's a joy to drive"? • York: Did you get down alternative fuel pumps? What about buses going to biodiesel. I talked to Tom Frasier and he said they didn't get the grant. It went to 12 school districts around the area. • Long: The grant was awarded to the RAQ. • York: Is there anything we can do about wood burning? • Bacon: I don't know what the Transportation Master Plan does to address sidewalks. I would go for a sidewalk program. • York: That's part of what the Transportation Board is doing too. • York: Cherry Street is incomplete. • Sunthankar: What about the new theatres and the Performing Arts Center? How does that affect transportation? • Stanley: Badly. But that's a good point. As that area becomes more developed... • York: Build another parking structure. • Sunthankar: Require that every theatre have a parking space for every seat. • Walters: Or they subsidize transportation. • Stanley: Is the Harmony corridor on the west side; is that already going to be funded at some point? • Fox: I believe so. • Bacon: Those are very critical connections. • York: On this list from the Transportation Board, one of them is Harmony from Seneca to College. It is $3.2 million. I don't think that should go on our list. Air Quality Advisory Board 11/15/2004 Page 9 of 9 • Bacon: I agree with Linda. • Stanley: It needs bike lanes and sidewalks. What kind of bike plan do we have? I think implementing the bike plan would be good. • Walters: That's why I said boosting expenditures in alternative modes. • Stanley: A bike and pedestrian plan would be something that the people will want. • York: More bikes allowed on the busses would be good too. • Stanley: I can try to write these things up and send them out. When are they due? • Fox: End of February. Updates Stanley: We are going to hear the West Nile Task Force Report next March. It is going to study session for Council. We need to make a recommendation before the formal action. Committee Updates • Moore: I believe there was an Air Quality Control Commission meeting yesterday. I haven't heard anything about it yet. I have an I/M committee meeting tomorrow so I suppose I will be hearing about that. • Stanley: We do have an Air Quality Plan Subcommittee meeting March 4th. Meeting adjourned 7.15 PM Submitted by Liz Skelton Administrative Secretary I ,�qnprjmd by cr� Nvch 16, O L J5