Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/03/2003MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE December 3, 2003 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Nate Donovan, Arvind Panjabi, Kelly Ohlson, Randy Fischer, Clint Skutchan, Ryan Staychock Board Members Absent Phil Murphy, Linda Knowlton Phil Murphy has resigned from the board effective immediately. This is Kelly Ohlson's last meeting as a member of the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: John Stokes, Terry Klahn, Mark Sears Stormwater: Kevin McBride Utilities: Bob Smith Building & Zoning: Felix Lee Review and Approval of Minutes The minutes of the November 5, 2003, meeting were unanimously approved as written. The minutes of the November 19, 2003, meeting were unanimously approved as written. Stormwater Quality Program, Kevin McBride McBride said he wanted to get the Board more familiar with the requirements of State and Federal permits, which include pubic involvement. • Ohslon: This talks abut removing the sources, I'm not quite clear on that. • McBride: It's talking about illicit discharges, or discharges that are illegal. • Fischer: Do we contribute financially to the household hazardous waste collection site? • McBride: Through marketing and advertising. • Donovan: What are the disincentives? Will the City go out and stop it? • McBride: It's the same as any other ordinance. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 3, 2003 Page 2of10 • McGaha-Miller: There's ticket writing authority. It could end up in court, but we usually try to work it out and get them to fix it themselves. • Fischer: Do City staff people go around and look at what is coming out of the outfalls? • McBride: Yes. • Ohlson: The City usually comes up with great policies and often times the inspection and enforcement breaks down. Do we have adequate staff to check construction sites? • McBride: We believe we do. There are two inspectors covering town on a full time basis. We actually put a hold on every building permit in the City until there is an initial inspection. • McGaha-Miller: We visit the sites frequently. It's the same inspectors that inspect for soil amendments. • Ohlson: We've wanted to know if two or three of the major streams and the Poudre River are monitored, and what are the benchmarks. • McGaha-Miller: We monitor the urban streams, and sites on the Poudre. What's an appropriate benchmark? The numbers are very variable. We're still looking at trends. • Ohlson: There has to be some real science, it's not a value laden thing. • McGaha-Miller: It's easier to apply real science criteria to the larger rivers. It's pretty tricky. • McBride: There are graduate students monitoring streams through the front range all of the time. If was had a good way, and a scientifically agreed upon benchmark that would be great. We're working to answer the very questions you are raising. That's the problem, what do we use a benchmark? We can collect a lot of data, but until there's a way to analyze it, it's not that useful. • Ohlson: Could the board get a two page memo about what the City's doing now? It appears we're not quite where we need to be. Most citizens would say this is a legitimate expense, to monitor rivers and streams. • Panjabi: What are your biggest challenges in terms of meeting your goals? • McBride: I think we're doing pretty well. The City is recognized as being pretty far out in front, having a Stormwater Quality Management program. Implementation has been smooth compared to many places. • Donovan: Which urban streams are you monitoring? • McBride: Springcreek, Boxelder and Fossil Creek. • Skutchan: You've mentioned the studying that is going on. Will we have access to the ongoing information? We'd like periodic updates. • McBride: We'll be back as soon as we have input from the USGS. • Ohlson: What have you guys had to change other than bells and whistles? I can't imagine that you weren't ahead of the curve. • McBride: Discharges are what we're after. • McGaha-Miller: Everything else is in place. We have the public education with the children and adults who are interested down, but we haven't done much in the way of business outreach. We get the same nuisance calls over and over. • Fischer: I was at a Poudre River Watershed Forum at least two years ago, but have heard nothing since. What the status of that? Natural Resources Advisory Board December 3, 2003 Page 3 of 10 McGaha- Miller: A group of stakeholders funded an extended survey a couple months ago. They're trying to gauge if there's enough interest to get a watershed program together. Floodplain Regulations & Master Plan, Bob Smith Smith said that in the past six months we've been to many NRAB worksessions and talked about flood plain regulations and the Stormwater Master Plan. We've shared facts about what we're changing, and what we're recommending become more or less stringent. We didn't hear any significant issues that you had. We've made a few tweaks. If we don't hear any significant issues from Council we'll turn the table into an ordinance and bring it back to Council for their consideration. Floodplain Regulations • Staychock: It's less restrictive on development that is in place. If someone wants to do an addition do the restrictions step up? • Hibbard: Residential structures are the highest risk. We're being more restrictive about them. • Ohlson: You guys were at a work session last time. You guys should have notes from our last meeting. We didn't have anything? • Hibbard: We took some notes. There's not much in the way of comments we could identify. • Ohlson: We want to make sure the purpose of the City is not to open up more land for development. • Fischer: You're correct. I don't remember any real major changes on the flood plain regulations. My preference would be something like a task force. I'm not sure why you decided to go the route you did. • Donovan: Refresh our memory on the current issue, the product corridor. Why is that still being proposed to be eliminated? • Hibbard: All of these regulations have nothing to do with the regulations on the Poudre River. This action does not change any of those. • Hibbard: As part of the adoption of the E. Mulberry Corridor Plan, Council suggested we review the Poudre River regulations in the future. We haven't started that yet. No action was taken on the Floodplain Regulations Master Plans • Hibbard: We've talked about the flood plains in the Boxelder basin. The master plan recommends no new facilities. The rest of the basins are capital projects being proposed. Each master plan has components for flood control, riparian habitat protection and enhancement when appropriate. There are paragraphs about water quality. • Hibbard: The NRAB had questions about changes in wording to reinforce some of the commitment toward habitat and water quality. I think we've pretty much tried to weave into the Stormwater Master Plan everything we can that has to do with water quality and habitat protection. In response to your questions, we haven't made any substantive changes. It's not because we don't agree, but it's part of the fabric of what we've done here. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 3, 2003 Page 4 of 10 • Hibbard: We've been asked if these master plans make un-developable land developable. The answer is, in some cases they do, but that's not the goal of the master plan. The flood control perspective is removing structures from the flood plain. As it relates to Dry Creek, there are many, many homes and mobile homes in Dry Creek that we'll protect with the project. There's also land that's vacant that is currently in a flood plain and some of that will come out. We can't work on protecting existing structures without taking of that vacant land out of the flood plain. There are no projects to remove vacant land from out of the flood plain. Some ask why Boxelder is not included in this master plan, it's mostly vacant. We don't see a need to protect something that doesn't need protecting. It balances with the I-25 Corridor plan. • Hayes: There is a master plan, but there are no flood control projects. • Hibbard: We likely may come back with additional recommendations for Boxelder or the upper Cooper Slough. If we come with projects in those basins we'll be back in front of you. • Ohlson: The way I'm remembering it we spent some time on this. I'm sure we had some feedback. • Hibbard: We heard what you had to say. We think we've addressed your concerns. They are addressed through existing City policy and language. We also respect the fact that if you don't think it's strong enough, or if we haven't raised the bar high enough, those comments need to go to Council. • Fischer: I did think that habitat protection and enhancement was lacking in the document. • Hibbard: If you feel that what we've presented is lacking that's a valid comment that needs to go to Council. We will try to show Council how we think it is addressed, but in the end it will be their decision. • Ohlson: The tone that night was positive. We weren't changing the laws, we were just trying to send a message of values. • Hibbard: I'm not trying to change that tone. If you still think this is not addressing your concerns we'd like to hear it. We can go back and see if we can convince you. • Ohlson: If we vote on this tonight I can't support it. I thought we had some legitimate edits. • Donovan: Should we make a motion to recommend, or should we wait till we review the documer�t again and make specific suggestions? • Hibbard: We're going to study session on January 13. • Ohlson: We could still make that. • Hibbard: Depending on what we hear from Council we may have to go back and work on this for a while. • Ohlson: What I'm struggling with is you agreed to all of our changes and they were not made. • Fischer: My recollection is like Kelly's, that we'd get a version with changes. • Fischer: I have a concern about the funding of the basin master plans. The people who will benefit from the projects should pay. Do we want to retrofit the entire City of Natural Resources Advisory Board December 3, 2003 Page 5 of 10 Fort Collins to the 100-year standards, and do we want to think about a different way of funding this. • Ohslon: I agree on both counts, but the train has left the station. They're going to do the Rolls Royce version. • Hibbard: We did look at the 50-year option, and will be presenting it to Council. The pay as you go funding mechanism plan was approved by City Council. They can change the City-wide approach. • Fischer: In perspective, I own property in Denver. The yearly stormwater bill is $30. I wondering if this is something we want to commit to. • Ohslon: I proposed a hybrid system, where the basins who have more, contribute more. It's not us versus them. I think a more rational policy would be a 2/3 and 1/3 sharing. Council's complaining the fees are too high, but its based on plans they approved. • Ohlson: We have to distinguish between having wet carpet, and mobile home parks being wiped out. • Stokes: Did you ever do an analysis of if it's cheaper to buy out properties in flood plains as opposed to building control? I'm thinking of Dry Creek. • Hayes: We do look at that. To implement some of our projects we have to buy out property. We get feedback from other City departments. • Hibbard: We do have buyout in the Poudre River. We have a few collaborative projects with the Natural Resources Department. • Ohlson: I don't care if by doing master plans it creates developable land as an offshoot. It should be neutral. You need to protect the things that need protected. They should stand on their own. • Hibbard: On North College they're looking at re -development. Another thing about financing, the next step is to recalculate our development fees. That component will be designed to have new development buy into the infrastructure that is built. We'll be reviewing the structure of our development fees when we know what Council's pleasure is. • Fischer: That's why it makes sense to do it on a basin by basin approach. • Hibbard: We can come back to the board in January. • Fischer: I would ask that board members come prepared to make specific recommendations or changes so we can expedite this whole process. Residential Building Code, Felix Lee Felix Lee made a presentation on the update. • Donovan: How much do active systems reduce radon compared to passive? • Woodruff: Active systems reduce it by 87%, and passive systems reduce it by 47%. • Ohlson: In the future I would encourage you to have an Electric Board member when there are appropriate things. • Lee: In terms of developing the provision, we worked with Utilities. • Lee: Moisture protection deals with indoor air quality as it relates to health and the production of mold spores. We took provisions that were done as a package from a Natural Resources Advisory Board December 3, 2003 Page 6 of 10 task force convened in Denver working on moisture for several months. We came up with a package recommending amendments to the IRC that would assist in averting problems with moisture. • Fischer: I appreciate the concept, but if the home owner doesn't properly maintain the fan a poorly maintained system could promote problems. • Woodruff: The fan is installed with an indicator device so you know if its running or not. • Lee: This would service both purposes, radon and moisture issues. • Panjabi: Where is this a problem? Is it everywhere? • Lee: It's selective. Certain subdivisions have expansive soils. • Fischer: There's the issue of now you're conditioning a larger area. There's continuous movement of air into that area. You're exchanging that air all of the time, it will take more energy to heat that. • Lee: There are tradeoffs, health and safety and energy usage. • Woodruff. The flow isn't very great, it's a trickle of air. • Ohlson: I went on a house tour. This is a serious issue. Is this recommendation watered down from your best recommendation? • Lee: No, in fact the Denver task force has softer language about the appliances. The recommendation staff is making is not a consensus recommendation. • Lee: Staff is recommending a passive radon system. I believe a passive system in most cases is adequate, based on research. • Ohlson: The Air Quality Board would differ. Why do they draw a different conclusion? • Woodruff: They based it on a number of factors, and it was a split vote. Mostly they were saying if you're going to get better benefits why not go all the way. The board did not have full information about the operating cost picture. • Ohlson: If you had a radon problem in your house, would you do an active system, or a passive system? • Woodruff: Home retrofits are always active. There is no option for passive in a retrofit. • Woodruff: In a new house I would want a passive system. It's very easy to test. If you're satisfied you're done. There's no advantage to an active system without knowing in advance. • Stokes: I like the passive system because it is prescriptive, but it's also choice based. You can add a fan, its all set up. It's regulatory on one side, but its choice on the other. • Ohlson: I have no problem with the recommendation. I do have a problem with Council. The first email on this was in 1987. I'm happy we're moving there, but we could have had this 5-10 years ago. I could easily live with and support the recommendation. • Fischer: If you go all the way and have a requirement to pre -wire, why not put the fan in? • Woodruf: When you bring in the affordable housing part, all of these things add up. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 3, 2003 Page 7 of 10 • Fischer: Cost does not equal price. The price of a new home is driven by the market, not by the materials. • Skutchan: Why are we talking about this in the first place? • Lee: It's been on the agenda for many years. • Skutchan: Why does the government have to institute this? Why go through this process? • Byme: It's a policy choice on the part of the community. • Skutchan: So those of us not freaking out, we just have to go along with this? • Lee: You work through your representative. • Skutchan: I probably have an entirely different opinion than most of you. We're getting to the point that we'll require things instead of suggesting them. • Lee: We don't do any suggesting. • Ohlson: Felix, are you supportive of the recommendation going to Council? • Lee: Absolutely. • Woodruff: It's prudent. Look what's happening. Houses are being mitigated right and left. It's cheaper to fix the house while its being built than as a retrofit. Why wait? Get it taken care of while the house is being built. Kelly Ohlson made the following motion for discussion purposes: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board support the active radon mitigation program. The motion was seconded by Nate Donovan. • Donovan: In your study did you look at ranges of radon levels around the City? • Woodruff: There have been about 7000 short term tests that we're aware of. About 70% of those are above 4pc, with the highest frequency being between 4 and 10. • Donovan: When we bought our house we installed an active system. This is a public health and safety issue, and a policy issue. I asked the test be done and made it a condition of sale. My realtor discouraged it. There's a lot of disincentive in the real estate industry because they believe it will screw up deals. • Fischer: It's a huge public health issue, even if you're inclined to be a non -government type of guy. It impacts the bottom line of your paycheck. The cost of one cancer caused by radon is hundreds of thousands of dollars. With radon you're talking one excess cancer in a couple hundred people. There isn't a question about excess radon exposure. If we have a system that is 99% there and we only need $300 to complete it, the logical thing is to complete the system. • Skutchan: I don't want to come out as whole heartedly against it. My three criteria are access, expertise and choice. I believe in the brochures, and the expertise is available. I think education is the key concern. • Donovan: The purpose of this regulation , if its enacted, is to protect the health and safety of people who are likely to do nothing about it. • Fischer: I believe most home owners will not do anything. • Ohlson: There is a balance of personal responsibility. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 3, 2003 Page 8 of 10 The motion was defeated with one vote in favor (Fischer), and five votes opposed (Donovan, Panjabi, Ohlson, Skutchan, Staychock). Nate Donovan made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Board recommend to Council that they accept staff s recommendation to install passive radon systems in new homes. The motion was seconded by Ryan Staychock. • Skutchan: Passive is a good way to go. There's an element of choice. • Ohlson: At some point it needs to considered why it's not a point of sale on used homes. The motion passed with five votes in favor (Donovan, Panjabi, Ohlson, Staychock, Fischer), and one vote opposed (Skutchan). • Fischer: I would recommend that we hold off on the energy code and have Felix come back in January. We can make our recommendation on the radon thing, but lets take a little more time on this. A lot of these technical details I don't understand. • Ohlson: The enlightened builders are going so far beyond. • Skutchan: On the face value I would agree. But, I would like to be able dedicate more time, and get the expertise. • Ohlson: Our memo should reflect we ran out of time and didn't get to the energy code. Ryan Staychock left the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Nate Donovan made the following motion: Move that Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend Council supports staffs recommendation on interior moisture control. The motion was seconded by Kelly Ohlson. The motion passed with four votes in favor (Ohlson, Donovan, Panjabi, Fischer), and one vote opposed (Skutchan). CDOT — Rest Area, Mark Sears Sears said that CDOT is proposing to exchange a 27 acre piece of property along I-25 for a thirteen acre piece of property south of the Welcome Center. The appraisal hasn't been completed, but it looks like a fairly even swap. • Ohlson: Does staff believe this is a slam dunk. • Stokes: Yes. We're not seeking board action, this is informational. • McKenzie: The reason it's a slam dunk is its prime riparian area, next to the Poudre River. • Skutchan: Is there an opportunity for an education area with the existing facilities? • McKenzie: No, the problem is access. • Ohlson: Is the reason the acreages are different because that's what CDOT owns now. • Sears: The values will balance in the transaction. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 3, 2003 Page 9of10 • Byrne: We think it will be close. It will be balanced out. We wont give up more than what we get. The monetary value will balance, but we're getting Poudre River frontage. • Ohlson: What were staff s "red flags"? • Sears: I sat through their charette. They've incorporated berms, but when you're in the natural you may see the top of semi. That was one of our biggest concerns. • Sears: We really didn't want the trail in any way incorporated into the design of the rest area. We didn't want people from the rest area using that trail. • Sears: The only ecological value is Boxelder Creek. In the City regulations we require a 100-foot buffer. They're going to use mostly native vegetation and grasses except in the areas of the islands. • Ohslon: Does the land switch make sense from the habitat sense? We've got to design it right. There has to be attention given to all of those issues. • Byme: CDOT is spending real money to get this right. • Ohlson: Mark, are you supportive of this? • Sears: Yes, very supportive. The 27 acres we're getting is not only beneficial form a wildlife standpoint. It's a half mile of undeveloped area which joins the archery range, so there's a nice, long stretch of undeveloped land in the I-25 corridor. • Skutchan: I'm looking at access. How will this affect future interchanges? • McKenzie: This project is not tied to the interchanges except for lights. • Ohlson: If you were forced to draw a pro/con chart, what would be a con? • Sears: The con for the Natural Area program is that there will be a rest area next to Running Deer Natural Area. And another crossing on Boxelder Creek is not a positive, but it wont have a huge impact. It's not a sensitive location. • Stokes: I would say that right now both sites are hampered by human impacts. This consolidates those impacts and reduces the number of acres affected. And there's a condition they have to restore the 27 acres that we're getting. It's a net benefit to the value of the natural area. • Sears: We'll make sure they use the right native species. The other benefit is that even though they're not giving us the land on the east side, that rest area will go away too. That's a gain. The State Patrol will stay. • Ohlson: I think it's great you're bringing it to us early, that's appreciated. Does anyone on the board see why this shouldn't proceed? • Fischer: I have some major concerns. I see major traffic snarls at the Prospect/I-25 interchange. I'm not sure that's something we want next to the natural areas. I'm a little concerned that we don't have control of the land north. • Panjabi: The biggest concern I see is what that will do to the interchange. It's already pretty gnarly. • McKenzie: The function of the rest area is determined by the area traffic and not by the rest area traffic. It would gain a couple signals that are already needed now. In some point in the future the whole interchange will begin to fail. That will happen whether or not the rest area is there. • Ohlson: If you hired an objective wildlife biologist would they say, no question, take the deal. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 3, 2003 Page 10 of 10 • Panjabi: I'm not convinced about that. • Ohlson: Maybe there should be a field trip • Sears: We have a field trip planned for Riverbend Ponds on the 11`h. We will add this site to the field trip. • Fischer: You mentioned flood plain issues with the new facility, and storm drainage. • Sears: The site we're swapping is mostly in the flood plain. We're working with stormwater to resolve those issues. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by Terry HIahn Admin Support Supervisor