Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/23/1995MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY Board REGULAR MEETING 281 CONFERENCE ROOM - 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. JANUARY 23, 1995 For Reference: AQAB Chair, John Fooks - 229-5225 Alan Apt, Council Liaison - 224-9798 Brian Woodruff, Staff Liaison - 221-6604 Board Members Present John Fooks, Susan Bilo, Harry Edwards, Bill Eckert, Pete Perkins, Eric Levine, Tom Wyatt, Rob Cagen, Lynne Baker Board Members Absent None Staff Present Brian Woodruff, Sally Maggart Guest Kelly Ohlson, citizen The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. Public input John Fooks introduced Kelly Ohlson, who handed out copies of a January 7 Coloradoan article headlined "Fort Collins air quality best in years." He noted that the air quality conclusions were based on violations of federal carbon monoxide standards and carbon monoxide is only one of the pollutants. He proposed that the city move toward better air quality monitoring, better reporting, and becoming more assertive and proactive in communicating with the public. He felt there is a need to educate the media that carbon monoxide is not the sole determinant of air quality. Kelly requested that the Board get better information out to the citizens. He said that he met with the newspaper's editorial Board and that meeting resulted in a second article headlined "More driving to offset dip in exhaust." John asked what the source of the pollution index is in the newspaper. Brian explained that the daily carbon monoxide and ozone levels monitored at the intersection of Mason and Laurel are automatically reported to the Coloradoan and Channel 14 news just prior to their respective deadlines. The index is based on the national Pollutant Standard Index (PSI), with a range of 0-50 good, 50-100 fair and above 100 poor. The highest eight -hour average CO and the highest one -hour average ozone are reported, consistent with national standards. Visibility data is also reported, but the news media have chosen not to use it. Air Quality Advisory Board January 23, 1995 Page 2 John noted the need to include reporting as an item in the Board's work plan, in order to heighten communication with the news media. Rob Cagen suggested forming a committee to draft a response to the article that better reflects the Board's feelings about air quality. Kelly agreed a letter is appropriate. John thanked Kelly for his comments and said the article will be addressed in the Work Plan and Process Committee reports later in the meeting. Review and Approval of Minutes On a motion by Rob Cagen, the minutes of the December 19, 1994 meeting were unanimously approved. congestion Management Plan (CMPI John asked the Board for discussion and approval to send a letter to council. Eric asked Brian for the follow-up information he had requested at the last meeting. Brian noted that on Page 49 the sequence of VMT numbers is counter -intuitive. Transportation scenarios D, E and F reflect increasing spending on alternative modes and less spending on additional lane -miles. One would think that would reduce VMT, but it does not. The reason is that with fewer new lane miles traffic becomes more congested and people travel out of their way to find less congested routes. Eric asked how much of the plan is educated guess work and how much is based on accuracy. Brian said the technical work is based on a computer model that accurately reflects how drivers respond to congestion. He said professional judgement is involved in the model input assumptions, eg. the number of trips per household, the length of the trips, and how people respond when alternative modes are available. He added that this is standard fare in transportation planning, which is not a "hard science." Brian noted that the CMP committee concluded that none of the scenarios would meet congestion and air quality goals, but an alternative that might work is the activity center concept. Eric thought approaches other than land use should be investigated. John expressed concern that the alternative fuel issue was not being addressed. He also thought the costs of transportation should reflect the real cost of driving, noting that streets are paid for by all taxpayers not just drivers. He said another concern is health effects. He said the plan promotes a grid -type street network, so vehicles can move around better, but research has shown that cancer rates are higher with a grid design. He agreed that activity centers with free flowing non -congested traffic between them would reduce congestion and miles. Brian noted that council will decide on February 7 whether to adopt the CMP as a working document. He noted three actions to be taken by council: 1. Adopt the CMP report as a conceptual congestion Air Quality Advisory Board January 23, 1995 Page 3 management plan; 2. Instruct staff concept and urban design guidelines; to public .input process. to work on the activity center 3. Decide on how to continue Harry Edwards suggested that a one page addendum listing the assumptions made in each of the matrix scenarios would make the report easier to read and understand. Eric agreed. Rob noted the Board could say to council that they do not understand the report and recommend it not be adopted at this time. John said there is very little objectionable in the Chapter 8 findings and recommendations. Tom Wyatt agreed that Chapter 8 is okay, but he said it is difficult to understand where the data comes from. Pete asked for something easier to understand. Lynne noted that Brian and Susie have been making presentations in the community on the plan. Brian noted that this presentation was made to the Board a couple of months ago. Bill said he is uncomfortable with the plan not meeting air quality goals and suggested a no growth ordinance. Lynne said the Congestion Management Plan is an attempt to move forward and begin the process of meeting air quality goals. Rob felt there is a need for better clarification in the first seven chapters. Tom was concerned the planning process would be attacked if it cannot be understood, but he liked the recommendations. Eric moved to support the Chapter 8 recommendations with the caveat that since the data does not support the recommendations and none of the scenarios are going to achieve the air quality goals, the Board will look at additional strategies that affect air quality and make future recommendations to council. Susan Bilo seconded the motion. The motion passed (7-1), with Harry Edwards opposed. Harry said the analysis is incomprehensible, and it is premature to vote on the conclusions and recommendations in the absence of analysis and results. The Board agreed to have staff draft a letter to council that includes the minority opinion and fax it to Board members for comment. Pete suggested putting in the letter that this was a difficult decision. Committee Reports PROCESS COMMITTEE: Pete Perkins handed out a packet that he, Susan Bilo, and John Fooks had prepared. The first page describes a "generic" process, the second page focuses on what council expects from the Board, the third page is a breakdown on the Air Quality Advisory Board activities, the fourth page looks at the Air Quality Action Plan review, and the fifth page diagrams a process for responding to Council -requested document reviews. Pete cited the State Implementation Plan (SIP) as an example. Brian explained that SIP is an official document on carbon monoxide Air Quality Advisory Board January 23, 1995 Page 4 compliance that is required by the federal government. The Governor appointed the North Front Range Planning Council as the lead agency to prepare local aspects of the plan. The North Front Range Planning Council uses the Air Quality Advisory Board as a citizen's advisory committee on SIP matters. Brian offered to make a presentation on SIP matters at a future meeting. The process committee will continue to meet. The Board thanked committee members for their good work. WORK PLAN: Committee members Tom Wyatt, Harry Edwards and Bill Eckert met along with Brian Woodruff. Brian passed out a rough draft on Staff/Board work -plan coordination. He noted that staff and Board assignments received from council are parallel. Tom supported the staff work plan as presented and asked for more detail on timing, to help formulate a month -to -month work plan. Brian suggested some concrete activities the Board could include in its work plan that would support the staff work plan. For example, the annual $30,000 Clean Air Colorado contract typically goes into education projects. Next year's contract will be drafted soon, and staff plans to ask for Board input on suitable education projects. Pete said this is proactive and relates to what the Board should be doing. Brian cited new source review project as another example of plan coordination. The project is supposed to answer, "What shall be required of new air pollution sources." He said this is a major effort for 1995 and will be worked on in conjunction with City Plan. John noted the Transportation Board work plan includes a time frame and believes that would be helpful. Tom said the work plan committee will meet again February 7 at ASCSU. AOAB Bylaws Bill asked if "biennial review of air quality indicators" could be changed to "annual" in Section 1, Paragraph b. Brian said that it could, and that the Air Quality Action Plan specifies the review "at least biennially." He advised against this however, since there is a lot of work involved in preparing an emissions inventory (one of the indicators), and the indicators may not be meaningful on an annual basis. Bill withdrew his request until he can talk further with Brian. John asked for excerpts from the minutes of the Air Quality Task Force as to why it was set up biennially. Eric noted Article V, Section 4 should be changed whereby materials are received a week in advance of the Monday meeting. He also noted that in Article XI, Section 1 there are five standing • Air Quality January 23, Page 5 Advisory Board 1995 committees and he did not think nine Board members could support them. Brian said this can be revised. John recommended forming committees based on current issues. John asked if there were any objections to referring the bylaws to the Process Committee. There were no objections. Susan requested time on the next agenda to do a short presentation on the Transit Development Plan Advisory Council. On a suggestion from Lynne, Brian agreed to do a SIP presentation in February. Bill asked for five minutes on the next agenda related to Eric's report on radon. Brian noted that Linda Devocelle, staff contact on radon, will be asked to attend the next meeting and make a presentation. Also, finalizing and approving the work plan will be included on the agenda. Brian handed out information of air quality ]?ills introduced so far in the state legislature. John Fooks and Tom Wyant had to leave at 6:45 p.m. Rob reminded the Board that Kelly Ohlson spoke earlier in the meeting specifically on a concern about the air quality article in newspaper. He felt the response time is now, not February or March. Rob suggested creating a committee to write a response, to be reviewed by Board members and signed by the chair. He volunteered to be on the committee. After more discussion, it was decided it would be better to give the press information on a regular basis in order to avoid misleading information. Because of the President's Day holiday, the next meeting will be February 27. The meeting ended at 7:00 p.m. ACTION LIST 1. Staff to draft a letter to Council on the CMP, including the minority opinion, and fax it to Board members for comment. 2. The Process Committee to continue to meet. 3. The Process Committee to review the proposed by-laws. 4. Staff to provide more detail on timing, to help formulate the board's month -to -month work plan. 5. The Work Plan Committee to meet February 7 at ASCSU. 6. Staff to provide an excerpt from the AQTF minutes regarding why review of air quality indicators was set up biennially.