Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/01/2001MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE August 1, 2001 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Ray Martinez, Council Liaison - 416-2154 Mark Sears, Staff Liaison - 416-2096 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Don Rodriguez, Bonnie Pierce, Phil Murphy, Randy Fischer, Linda Knowlton, Nate Donovan Board Members Absent Reagan Waskom, Steve Ryder Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, Edith Felchle Utilities: Gale McGaha-Miller, Brian Janonis Guests Ray Martinez, Mayor Eric Hamrich, Councilmember Joe Martin, Citizen Agenda Review Add: Winter Park Land Exchange, Gale McGaha Miller Cathy Fromme Prairie Monitoring Easement, Edith Felchle Felchle provided some background information and a brief update regarding the easement request. Discussion • Fischer: In the packet materials it says that I asked for this item to be pulled, and that's true. The reason is I would like to set a precedent that we don't get information like this between meetings when we don't have a chance to review and discuss it. I have some concerns about the monitoring activity. In actuality there are some significant impacts on the natural area. Primarily due to the fact that they use vehicles to access the monitoring wells. People see them out there and it gives them the wrong impression. I would request that in the future we not circumvent this board when it comes to easement requests. We want a chance to discuss these things. Every time we grant an easement, it could in the future come back and have Natural Resources Advisory Board August 1, 2001 Page 2 significant impacts, and unintended consequences. If they have to drill a new well in the natural area what do they do with the drill cuttings? What do they do with the purge water, they have to evacuate a significant amount of water? If it's contaminated are they leaving it on site? There is purge water, and they are putting in on the site. There is no evidence the purge water is negatively impacting where they pour it. The options are more vehicle trips back and forth. • Donovan: What's the volume of the purge water? • Fischer: I don't know the depth, or the size of the borings, but it wouldn't be inconceivable to get a 55 gallon drum from each well. • Fischer: There has to be strict adherence to the laws and regulations relating to drill cuttings and purge water. We need to make sure the purge water is below the cut off levels. When they're out in the field and dumping the purge water how do you know the levels until after you test the sample. I agree that probably dumping the purge water on the ground won't have impacts, unless there are high levels. Do we get current monitoring results? • Fischer: When I read this over I didn't see requirements for restoration standards if they have to drill a new well. The standards aren't spelled out, the restoration has to be our agreed upon per our standard at the time. • Fischer: We should require some restoration standards. The reason for not putting in real specifics is we don't know at what time there may no longer be a need for monitoring. We might have better standards then. • Fischer: I was thinking about the installation of new wells, if needed. Does the City ever accompany people out there? No. If the contamination was setting off an alarm we would, but for routine monitoring I'm not sure why we would, unless they're impacting the natural area above what they should. • Sears: This is somewhat of a joint project. We feel they're on the same side we are. They're not going to intentionally impact the natural area in a great way. • Fischer: I wouldn't say that I think they'll intentionally do stuff. My understanding was they were using contractors. If that's not true, some of my concerns are not as important. There is wording that contractors have to follow all the requirements too. • Fischer: I have concerns about what recourse there is if the County doesn't follow the agreement, it's pretty loose. It says the County shall give notice to the City if the County becomes aware the area is endangered. Shouldn't we have the converse as well? This document puts the responsibility on the County. What you're talking about can be done without it being in the agreement. • Fischer: Based on what they're saying they have quarterly groundwater sampling, and monthly water level measurement. When they do the water level measure would it be too much to ask them not to drive in? I will check on that. My understanding is they need more equipment. • Ohlson: That was my main issue. Not everyone is as cooperative as the City. Please check and see that it is really necessary for them to drive. Our job isn't to maximize their profits, if they have to walk a bit, so be it. • Martinez: Nor is it our job to minimize their profits. If they go in there once a month, is that damaging? Natural Resources Advisory Board • August 1, 2001 Page 3 • Fischer: It could be, especially if it's wet. We didn't schedule an exact date, we left the dates, open so they could wait until it's dry. • Ohlson: There's also wildlife impacts. Anything we can do to minimize the impact on the wildlife is good, if they don't need the truck it shouldn't be out there. • Fischer: There's also damage when it's dry, the vegetation gets damaged when it's dry. • Pierce: Soil compaction will accomplish that. • Donovan: There's no provision for a one-time damage occurrence. What happens if there are other damages to the prairie from an accident? There needs to be something in there to require them to mitigate. • Sears: We didn't try to put all the teeth in we could. It's not like working with a utility. There's a very close relationship. • Donovan: On page 4, paragraph D, change it to say "without exception". • Donovan: It needs to be in writing that contractors and subcontractors are expressly subject to the workings of this easement. • Rodriguez: How much latitude does the City have to postpone their visit? We left that soft, we didn't say specifically. We left it so they could select the least damaging time. We're trying to make it easy for them to do the right thing. • Pierce: What's the nature of the contamination? Volatile organic compounds. • Fischer: I think we're more or less in agreement that we need the easement. Hopefully some of our suggestions will be incorporated. I don't see this as being controversial. How would you like to handle your recommendation to Council? • Sears: We don't need a memo, we can put in the agenda item summary that the NRAB reviewed and recommends it's approval. • Ohlson: I wouldn't be comfortable saying we approved it. We could say we approved it contingent on these issues being addressed. Even if you guys chose not to incorporate our suggestions I would like Council to have the benefit of our thinking. • Murphy: Can you go back to the County and see if they can agree with the suggestions? • Fischer: Is there a way we can get a revised copy of the agreement? • Murphy: I would like to hear if our suggestions were put in, and if not, have a brief reason. Felchle will email the changes to the board members. Ute/Longivew Farm Declaration of Covenants, Edith Felchle Felchle said she just found out this won't be on the August 21 agenda as planned. It's a work in progress for a lot of complicating reasons. It will go in September. Properties that have been purchased with GOCO grant funds require a declaration of covenants. These kinds of things normally would be in a conservation easement. The County said a conservation easement won't work for them. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 1, 2001 Page 4 Discussion • Ohlson: Why won't a conservation easement work? It was their legal opinion that the County couldn't do that. • Donovan: There are different opinions if it's possible, or just a preference. This accomplishes the same thing. • Ohlson: I didn't see any rules in here pertaining to certain classes of pesticides being allowed or disallowed. We own the property, we need to set the rules. There needs to be protection of wildlife and those kinds of things. There are many references to the management plan. The management plan doesn't get to classes, but it does refer to IPM, and says an IPMplan will be drawn up. • Ohlson: What about various issues relating to wildlife species? If the site was being returned to native prairie, what might be done to make it attractive to wildlife might not be appropriate for agriculture. Those concerns are addressed as they need to be considered. Are there some changes to the management plan you'd like to see? • Ohlson: I would like to see a copy of the management plan. • Knowlton: What are you looking for from us on this topic? Ifyou feel the material and protections are adequate a vote saying you approve would be good. Ifyou don't feel there's enough protection, then I'd like to see what additional comments you have. • Ohlson: I don't want to sign off on something when we haven't looked at the management plan. I would hope that City and County staff would try to pound out these issues. I'm not happy about the County taking over a management plan if they assume they can't do conservation easements. • Sears: We feel this is just as strong as a conservation easement. As the City, we feel comfortable with a conservation easement, but the County doesn't. There's not much difference in the outcome if you use a declaration of covenants, or a conservation easement. • Rodriguez: Can we create a template for sustainable agriculture on these farms? • Ohlson: I'd like to know what comes of our concerns and questions. Felchle will bring this back to the September 5, 2001 meeting. City of Fort Collins/Forest Service Land Exchange, Gale McGaha Miller When I was here previously talking about Joe Wright Reservoir, I mentioned this parcel. This land exchange has received a decision notice of no significant impact. Kelly Ohlson expressed concern that we wouldn't be doing anything that would allow Winter Park to engage in activities that would violate this boards natural resource values. And, the answer is no, it will not do that. According to the decision notice it does the opposite. Discussion • Ohlson: I believe the wetlands in that parcel are one of the higher rated kind of wetlands. What protections, other than "we hope you take good care of it", are there? My understanding is Winter Park has agreed to Best Management Practices. • Ohlson: Are there any stated buffer distances? I didn't see that in there. Natural Resources Advisory Board • August 1, 2001 Page 5 • Ohslon: Can you get it in there? Try to get a buffer zone relating to the trails. Locate the trails in the most appropriate manner. • McGaha Miller: Are you asking me to pursue minimum buffer distances between the trails and wetlands, and the trails and sensitive habitat? • Ohlson: Yes. I would appreciate it if the whole board could read this and get comments back to you. • Ohlson: Where will the money go? Back into the general water fund. Plus, we don't have a little piece of land we have to check on. It's going to be a little bit of freedom for us, not having to watch dog that parcel. • Ohlson: I'd like to acknowledge in a memo that we appreciate this coming back to us. Sometimes we get avoided. For years and years we've asked to be included in a timely manner. We should acknowledge this. McGaha Miller will try to address the concerns and bring this issue back for the September 5, 2001 meeting. Coyote Ridge and Cathy Fromme Prairie Water Line Easements, Mark Sears The easements are for the same water district, and are identical, except for the locations. Both of them have been to this board before, and are ready to go to Council on the 21" Covote Ridge Discussion • Ohlson: How long will the pipe lines last? A minimum of fifty years, probably not 100 years. • Ohlson: That's where there could be real impact • Donovan: What's the width of the easement? The temporary is 100 feet, and the permanent is 30 feet. • Ohlson: What are their wants versus their needs. Is 100 feet overkill? One hundred feet gives that what they need. They'll restore what they disturb. • Murphy: What does a million gallon tank look like, can you give me some idea? It's a little taller and wider than a normal house, about 28 feet high, and 80 feet across. • Sears: To say we're in favor of this would be a stretch, but given the tank had to be put somewhere this was the least of the evils. • Ohlson: So this is probably the best we could do on this, is that about right? Yes. Cathy Fromme Prairie Discussion This request is from Old Harmony Road, east of Taft Hill, all the way down to Trilby. The city owns the vast majority of the land. We've reached an agreement to buy this property but doubt if we'll close before the easement. We'll negotiate to subtract the value of the easement off the purchase price. They want to put it outside of the evenutal road way. We're working with engineers to widen all of it to the east, so it wouldn't impact both sides of the road. They originally proposed 195 feet, but we talked them into 175 feet from the center line of the road to the center line of the pipe. That accomplishes getting it out from under the road, which is a benefit to them. It's a short term benefit to us, they're going to do a lot less harm, and have less impact moving to where the ground is flatter, and a little smoother. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 1, 2001 Page 6 • Ohlson: You think if we move it close to the road it might do more damage. There's a lot of drainage ways there. They didn't want to be under a culvert, and the City didn't want to have to lower a water line in the future. • Rodriguez: Are they going to be deeper at 175' than at 195'? They will be able to go in at 4.5 or five feet deep. • Fischer: I find it curious that when they have a free piece of ground to go across they jump out in the natural areas. When it's private property they extend the line right down the middle of Taft Hill Road. I'm starting to agree with Kelly that I'd like to negotiate with the City. They're the biggest whimps with regard to negotiation. Why not force them to go to Taft Hill? It's plainly obvious they see a natural area as free land with no value. They have an existing easement down the middle of Taft Hill. I don't think I'll be agreeing with this one. I looked at the work in Cathy Fromme Prairie last year, it's heartbreaking to see what that's turned into. It's totally unacceptable to me. Did they put seed down? With native grasses you don't see much for the first two years. Native grasses go down before they come up. • Ohlson: Will you be monitoring and following up? Are these agreements going to be signed? The others weren't signed. Are we out there when they re -seed? Do we confirm those types of things? To say we're out there every inch of the way, no. Are we ensuring they use the right seed, yes, and we ensure it's being installed properly. • Ohlson: What about the road thing, when it's private property they go down the road. We discussed that. There's other utilities in the roadway. There's not a lot ofroom to put in an additional waterline. They would have to shut the road down for several months. • Ohlson: There's room in the area where there's private property. If they had undeveloped property they could have gone on they would have. But, Randy's point is well taken. • Fischer: If it were a golf course they wouldn't be going out there. • Donovan: If you don't approve the final plans what will happen? Then we don't sign the easement. In most cases people will want the approval before they invest in that kind of money. With CFP their plans are close, but not finalized. They looked at alternatives early on. They did look at putting it in the roadway, but for a variety of reasons they're out 175 feet. They don't have many other options. They're in the process of having these lands appraised. They agreed to a standard appraisal. They will pay 50% of the land value for the permanent easement, and 10% of the value for the temporary easement. • Ohlson: Part of the problem is we weren't getting land purchases because Mark has been putting lots of time into easements, and none of that money is recoverable. The City has to get a legitimate reimbursement policy. • Sears: We would like to have your recommendation to Council for the meeting on the 21", The one thing I didn't address is our general resource protection standards. With all intents and purposes they're meeting those. They've never fought the intent, but they felt we should trust them. We've had to push hard to make sure our resource protection standards were covered on the plans, or in their agreement. Natural Resources Advisory Board • August 1, 2001 Page 7 Ohlson: It's not trust, it's that the players change. It's a good business practice to have it in writing. Fischer: The agreements have to be signed before they go to Council. Diane is adamant they have to be signed before they go to Council. We'd love to have that as a policy. The only latitude we have is a change between Is` reading and 2nd reading. Once it's approved, you can't tweak an agreement. Ohlson: As far as the Coyote Ridge easement, I'm not wild about it. But, I don't like the alternatives. Considering the big picture I'm willing to vote yes. On CFP, because of the private sector stuff, and going in the road, my own values don't allow me to support that one. I'm voting no on it. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board support the Coyote Ridge water line easement. The motion was seconded by Phil Murphy and unanimously approved. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board support the Cathy Fromme Prairie water line easement. • Ohlson: Why do you feel strongly enough to make that motion? • Knowlton: I haven't heard a feasible alternative. • Ohlson: How about the road? • Knowlton: I don't consider that feasible. • Sears: They do have eminent domain. They remind us of that at every opportunity. • Fischer: I'd like to see them have to use that. Until people get the message that they can't go around misusing our property, they'll continue to do it time and again. This is a big one, it's going to be a long process. • Sears: If we were to push them to go down the roadway, that would pit the City against the County, if it's even possible. • Fischer: They didn't seem to have a problem going down the middle before. The only reason they want to use the natural area is they see it as being free. I'm concerned that we're not getting compensated for staff time. Staff is being stretched to the limit. We need to start being compensated. I hope we never consider waiving those fees again. It's having a huge impact on our program. • Ohlson: I would hope the City would welcome a lawsuit on this issue. Lawsuits aren't all bad. There is an alternative. Where you get into trouble is where there's no alternatives. If this was a one time thing I wouldn't worry about it so much. The tragedy isn't right now, it's the restored prairies, when they go in and tear it up again. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 1, 2001 Page 8 • Fischer: I think we should vote against the motion because we need to send a message. It will be a good message. We voted for the first one because it follows the easement policy. • Rodriguez: On Coyote Ridge they showed good faith negotiation, I was impressed with that. It's a monumental shift in the way they do business. On the CFP I don't see much negotiation. • Knowlton: I'm not crazy about this one either. But, on Randy's point about the compensation, these negotiations began before there was a policy. • Fischer: That doesn't matter to me, the policy is in place now. • Rodriguez: It comes down to a matter of good, disrupting the community with road construction, as opposed to the natural area and the community good associated with that. The motion failed with one vote in favor and six votes opposed. Mark Sears said he has one more easement request, at Prospect Ponds, he'd like to discuss. This has been completely through development review and is ready to sign. They never bothered to ask for the easement. The impact is almost zero, it's a heavily impacted site. There's a future road planned that will impact it again. There are no obvious alternatives. • Ohlson: Does this set any series of events into motion, enabling something that we might not want to do? No, I don't see that. • Fischer: The easement policy establishes a time line. There's an expectation on the part of the applicant. If this wasn't such a small easement with no significant impact I wouldn't have brought it to you tonight. I'm trying to get it done as efficiently as I can. • Knowlton: So, if we approve this now it saves you time and you can concentrate on more significant things? Yes. Kelly Ohlson made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend adoption of the easement request. • Fischer: I don't know if I understand what we're doing here. • Ohlson: Is it a no brainer from a staff perspective? Yes, ifyou went out there you'd say it's fine. • Fischer: I'm not going to vote for it. People have to learn it's not acceptable behavior. It's the principal. • Ohlson: Mark, do you understand the process concerns? Yes, we don't want to condone this type of behavior. • Ohlson: The process questions are very real. I agree. • Rodriguez: Give this guy a cautionary note, make sure he understands this is not how we do business. I've done that. Natural Resources A�vlsory Board • August 1, 2001 Page 9 • Knowlton: Make sure this guy has a copy of the policy, if he doesn't have one, get one to him. The policy hasn't gotten much publicity with the developers yet. It will be good to get out and get this in front of them. The board voted to recommend the easement with 6 votes in favor and 1 vote opposed. New Business Eric Hamrick said that a couple weeks ago during the Pineridge discussion it was mentioned that you didn't want to disrupt traffic. He questioned why, when it concerns a natural area you can't disrupt traffic, but when it's for development, it's ok to disrupt traffic. Sears said that point of view was from the county commissioner's perspective. It goes with what Randy was saying earlier, they look at our natural areas as an easy way to go. Committee Reports • Linda Knowlton did a walkthrough of Pineridge for the Pineridge interpretive features. • Phil Murphy said there will be a Solid Waste Committee meeting Monday, August 6, at 4:00. • There will be a Natural Areas Committee meeting Thursday, August 16 at noon. Announcements • Sears: We need to stay tuned to the Fossil Creek Reservoir boating issues • Sears: We closed on the Duck Lake property on Monday. • Fischer: At CFP the silt fences the district put in have blown out and there are two inches of silt under the tunnel. • Hydrogen task force continues to meet. The report is almost complete. • Kelly Ohlson thanked Mayor Martinez and Councilman Hamrick for attending the meeting. Review Councils Six Month Planning Calendar • August 21: CFP and Coyote Ridge initiating resolutions. Randy Fischer asked about the timeliness of the board's memos. How are the memos received after the date of an item has been changed? Ray Martinez said it is his guess they get the memos, but requested the memos be emailed to Council too. Agenda Planning No comments. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.