HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/02/1992MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
281 N. COLLEGE AVE. - CONFERENCE ROOM
JANUARY 20 1992
For Reference: Will Smith is the Chair of the NRAB - 223-0425
Cathy Fromme is the Council liaison - 223-9360
Tom Shoemaker is the Staff liaison - 221-6600
Board Members Present
Will Smith Hal Swope Steve Erthal
Christine Ferguson Chuck Davis Bill Miller
Tim Johnson
Board Members Absent (excused)
Deni LaRue Phil Friedman
Staff Present
Tom Shoemaker Julie Bothwell Edith Felchle
Greg Byrne
Guest Present
Marian Block, League of Women Voters
Minutes
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that the Minutes of
December 4, 1991 NRAB meeting be accepted as presented.
Old Business
NRAB Retreat
Ferguson stated that a small committee was charged with creating a
proposed agenda for the retreat. She presented an agenda for approval as
follows:
1. Discuss the Board's successes in 1991. (20 minutes)
2. Ask present and past Councilmembers why the Board is
significant. (30 minutes)
3.
How can
the
Board be more effective? (30 minutes)
4.
Look at
the
goals that have been developed and see
how to pursue
them to
be more effective. Focus on NRAB's vision.
(60 minutes)
5.
How can
the
Board be a proactive leadership force.
(60 minutes)
6.
Evaluate
the
retreat. (10 minutes)
For agenda item #1, the people that were suggested as possible
invitees: Susan Kirkpatrick, Nancy Gray, Ed Stoner, Kelly Ohlson, Cathy
Fromme, Gerry Horak. Of these people Ferguson suggested that no more than
3
two be invited. It also aas suggested that it might•'be helpful to hear
from people who do not necessarily have a strong environmental focus.
Smith said that the last retreat was done as a facilitated process.
The Board needs to decide if it wants to facilitate the process itself,
maybe by having one member take the responsibility for each section.
Felchle recommended that a board member not facilitate because it would
take that member away from the discussion. Shoemaker said that a staff
member from Natural Resources could facilitate or a City staff person who
is trained in facilitation could be called in.
Smith said he thought the agenda was excellent. He said he would like
to get the Council's and Staff's agendas for 1992. This is essentially to
review activities and see if there are things that the Board would like to
bring forward that are not currently on Council's or staff's work agenda.
Smith said that over the past several years staff has become a strong, well
respected division within the City so the Board is spending a lot of time
reviewing proposals, and not necessarily initiating new actions.
Smith asked if the timing was right for the retreat and if some kind
of retreat format should be used periodically, because it would be nice for
the Board to respond in a timely manner during the budget process.
Ferguson said that this was an excellent time to start influencing the
budget process since proposals begin in early spring.
Smith stated that relative to proposed agenda item #1, given the
process of SDIC, the Board really should invite someone like Ann Azari,
Loren Maxey, or Dave Edwards - someone with whom they may not have always
been in agreement. It would be good to hear their perceptions. Ferguson
suggested having one person who is less oriented toward the environmental
perspective and one who is going to charge the Board. She asked if the
Board could vote on the people they want to invite and then prioritize
them.
Swope commented that he still feels strongly that the Board would
learn more by taking a field trip and looking at things they do not know
about rather than to take things that are classroom type issues that can be
addressed in regular meetings.
Erthal said that he feels uncomfortable categorizing Councilmembers.
Smith replied that it would be nice to understand Councilmembers' visions
of the City and how that coincides with the Board's vision. Erthal
suggested an open invitation. Ferguson said that the purpose is not to
invite Councilmembers to the retreat; the purpose is to meet the goal of
learning how to be more effective. Erthal suggested inviting only past
Councilmembers, or only present Councilmembers, or limit it to only the
Council liaison.
Davis said that the Board should decide on context before deciding who
to invite. It may be a moot point if the Board collectively agrees that
the field trip might be more appropriate. Smith asked if the Board agreed
with the agenda as presented or wanted to look at something else.
Ferguson moved and Miller seconded that the Board have the retreat and
follow the agenda that was presented.
Miller asked how long the retreat would be if it included a field
trip. Smith explained that the motion as stated does not include a field
K
trip. Erthal stated it liked the idea of a field'Strip and asked that it be
optional. Ferguson stated that she liked the idea of it being optional.
Erthal added a friendly amendment that the Board take a field trip and
make it optional. Ferguson and Miller accepted the friendly amendment. It
was approved unanimously. Swope abstained because he feels that these
things can be handled in regular meetings.
Smith asked if January 25 was still an acceptable date for the
retreat; he said he has a conflict and cannot attend on that date. He
recommended the Education Committee set the retreat up in the format that
was decided on and choose the speakers so it should not have to be
discussed at another meeting. Ferguson stated that although she is not on
the Education Committee she would not mind having full responsibility of
planning the retreat.
Ferguson commented that Johnson had suggested that the Board ask City
staff to look at doing an annual orientation toward life on a Board for all
Boards and Commissions: the roles, responsibilities, expectations, and
limitations. Smith added that new -member packets could include a clearer
description of what the role of the Board is. Johnson stated that
different Boards have different charters. Smith replied that the
difference of each Board though is explained because each Board has a
section in the packet, but he feels there could be a clear description of
the legal limits to the actions of boards. He feels the clearer
description and a meeting of all new members to the boards might be useful.
He stated that it gives Council a chance to recognize the people who have
volunteered their service and it gives everybody the opportunity to come to
an understanding of what they are supposed to do.
Shoemaker said that the Clerk's office would welcome a critique of the
Boards and Commission Manual by individuals of Boards.
Johnson suggested that when the NRAB has new members appointed, and
after they have attended one or two meetings, an orientation committee and
a staff person meet with the new members and ask what questions they may
have.
Erthal moved and Johnson seconded that the retreat be held January 25,
1992. Smith said that he could not attend. The motion was defeated
unanimously because the Chair cannot attend.
Ferguson moved and Erthal seconded that the retreat be held February
22, 1992. It was unanimously accepted.
Shoemaker replied that if the Board wants staff to help in making
plans etc., please call. Also, let staff know soon if they want a
facilitator. He also added that staff needs to have some input relative to
the location for the retreat because there are budget limitations.
Miller asked if the water plant was available for the retreat.
Felchle will check with Mike Smith.
Smith said, relative to the list of people that have been considered
for potential comments, that since the Board is frequently asked to review
things, maybe the Board could send a page with two questions to people that
the Board believes have a interest in their activities, asking "Is the
Board effective or significant. If not, what would make the Board so."
3
There are a number of diizerent individuals in the cDmmunity so it does not
have to be limited to the list that was suggested. Felchle said she would
have to check to see how it falls within the limitations of the Board
needing to speak only through Council. Smith said that he would like some
clarification on the issue.
Davis suggested that Gerry Horak and Ed Stoner not be considered since
they heard from them in the past.
Erthal said he thinks a survey of what the Board has been doing is a
great idea; however, it should be sent to all Councilmembers. If it is
sent to developers, it should be sent to all developers, etc. He feels
that singling out certain individuals is not a wise thing to do. Johnson
replied that at the last retreat the Board had two members from past and
present Council and they took them as representatives of the Council that
they served on. If the Board is comprehensive about the invitations they
would not get through the list of people. From a time standpoint, it
cannot be done.
Smith recommended that the planning committee take care of it.
Update on Intermediate Processing Center (IPC)
Shoemaker handed out a letter from Mayor Kirkpatrick to the Larimer
County Board of Commissioners supporting the IPC and the selection of New
England Crinc for construction of the IPC. He said that there is one more
decision point: once the contract is negotiated, the Larimer County
Commissioners need to make a final decision. He noted that Ferguson had
expressed some concern at the December 4 meeting as to whether the City was
appropriately following the IPC. Shoemaker assured her that the City is
actively involved.
Greg Byrne, Development Services Director, expressed the high regard
that Mayor Kirkpatrick holds for Shoemaker and staff as shown by the fact
that she would ask him to draft the letter and attend the meeting with her
on an important issue like this.
New Business
Framework for Environmental Action
The Framework for Environmental Action was included in the mailout
packet for the Board to read through and come to the meeting with
individual comments and questions.
Shoemaker said that staff hopes to present a resolution to Council
January 21 recommending that they accept the Framework for Environmental
Management Plan as a guiding document for environmental planning for Fort
Collins for the next several years. In order to do this, staff is asking
for comments, questions, and recommendations from NRAB, Planning and Zoning
Board, Water Board, Storm Drainage Board, and Air Quality Task Force.
Shoemaker stated that if someone has specific comments and/or
questions, his intent would be that they be recorded in a letter to Council
and when he goes before Council he would inform them how the comments and
questions were responded to. He added that the caveat to that is the
possibility that a Board may have concerns that are serious enough that
they feel it should not be presented to Council at the present time or a
recommendation may be made that cannot possibly be implemented within the
4
time frame. •
Shoemaker refreshed the Board on the history of the document by saying
that two years ago the concept of a comprehensive environmental plan was
put out by Council. Staff identified upfront that it was going to be a
long, involved process and what was needed was a framework for developing
an Environmental Management Plan. Staff spent a long time in public
involvement and outreach to find out what was on the minds of citizens. In
mid -course, Council expressed concern that staff was focusing too much on
process and not enough on taking direct action. So approximately a year
ago, the Board reviewed an action plan along with six high priorities.
Staff took that to Council in November of 1990; the resolution was adopted
and staff has been proceeding along those lines. One of the action items
was to complete the framework for the environmental planning efforts. It
has remained a priority, but the action items were a higher priority so it
has been on the "back burner" for some time. In the last few months Staff
has completed the framework and it is now ready for review by Boards and
Council.
Ferguson stated that the project continues to be impressive, and she
is amazed by the work that Shoemaker has brought to bear to take this
incredibly integrated and complex thing and try to break it down into
manageable chunks. She would like to better understand the purpose of the
present stage, because she remains concerned that she does not see the
"teeth" in it. It is great at identifying millions of elements that needs
to be tracked and monitored. She does not see yet the transition to where
they control. She asked if it was not yet at the stage where enforcement
is talked about. Shoemaker replied that there are no teeth in the document
and all the recommendations are phrased in the context of consider new
policies, evaluate how they are doing, etc., because it is Shoemaker's
judgement that it would be inappropriate to propose the policies at this
point in time. what they are attempting to do here is say, "Here are the
most important areas where they really need to take a look at those
policies, ordinances, etc.," Then for each item the community needs to
evaluate whether "teeth", or education is needed, or just what is the
appropriate response to the policy issues. It is at that stage where a
decision would be made by Council as to whether the City would follow a
regulatory process or an education process.
Johnson stated that the tables in the document seem complex. He would
like to hear how they are going to be presented to Council so that they can
absorb it quickly and easily.
Ferguson moved and Miller seconded that the Board begin discussion.
It was accepted unanimously.
Shoemaker stated that the basic thing to start off with is that, in
order to figure out where you need to go, you need to figure out where you
are. This document is analogous to the LDGS audit that was conducted, only
it looks more broadly at environmental policies and environmental programs
throughout the City. The LDGS audit fits here as one means of implementing
environmental policies.
The document being presented attempts to do the following things:
First, it responds to one of the findings that was made: it is very
difficult to grab hold of environmental programs, policies, ordinances,
etc. of the City of Fort Collins at the present time. The average citizen
has a hard time grasping all the material. Section two of the report is
5
intended to do this. It--s an extensive directory or what is currently in
City Ordinances, City Policy Plans, and various Council Resolutions.
Section two also includes a summary of existing City programs with respect
to all the elements of the environment in Fort Collins. The second
purpose of the document is to focus on broad issues in terms of
environmental policies in Fort Collins asking "where do we need to go",
"what are the broad issues?" There are gaps in the policies, they are not
comprehensive. In a lot of cases there are no implementation plans. So,
this begins to sort out which areas need additional policy planning and
which areas are in good shape. For example, natural area policies really
need to be adopted. They are well on their way with the Natural Areas
Policy Plan. Shoemaker added that they need to develop an Air Quality
Plan, Natural Areas Plan, a new Energy Conservation Plan, etc. in order to
set the direction for the future. The converse is the City has not been
inactive. There has been a lot activity with respect to ozone depletion,
recycling, hazardous materials risk reduction, as examples. These programs
and policies have been reviewed relatively recently. There may be small
gaps, but a huge amount of work is not needed. Shoemaker said that the
chapter on future directions is looking at broad issues and those fall into
additional policy work that is needed to answer questions about where the
City is going. It also looks at some tools, and it basically says that we
may not do enough for financial incentives; we need to look more at that.
We do not have an effective impact assessment protocol and we do not take
enough measurements of the environment in order to have concrete data on
which to base policies.
Shoemaker said that the third area of future direction focuses on the
need to do a better job of public information and involvement to improve
citizen awareness of what is going on, what the conditions are, and what
needs to be improved. With public involvement, Shoemaker said that they do
not really involve people in the discussion as much as they should to bring
people with different perspectives together to develop solutions to issues.
Finally, future directions includes some broad issues and some organized
management questions. Basically, the City has a decentralized organization
for environmental management; the Natural Resources Division has a large
load of environmental management responsibilities, but the Water Dept.,
Planning Dept., and other departments also have important roles. That is
good, but departments often don't coordinate like they should, so the
framework says the City should have some interdepartmental teams to work on
environmental issues. Shoemaker added that the document also says that
staff needs to look constantly at ways the City can be a leader in
environmental management. Every time there is a policy or program that
asks others to do things, the City should look at ways to take action in-
house.
Shoemaker said the last part of the document is what the Board has
seen before, with some minor modifications. It is a work program that
says, "okay, out of all the broad issues, who is actually going to do it,
what is the product likely to be, and when can we expect to see it?"
Johnson replied that Shoemaker had hit some of the points very well.
Smith suggested going around the table and hearing comments from each
member:
Swope commented that he was concerned with measuring surface water.
He stated that Fort Collins does not even know what the word water quality
is as far as surface water is concerned. He did not see anything in the
Framework that strengleened the fact that they rely need to address the
business of measuring the quality of surface water. Shoemaker replied that
in the context of the report in section two, table two is a summary of what
they are doing right now. There is not a lot, but Swope's general concern
would be addressed in the action agenda on page 4-4 under surface water,
and 5.1. Even though it is not stated explicitly, the intent is to develop
a surface water quality program including monitoring. Another statement is
included on page 4-20 where the need to evaluate existing data collection
and management procedures is identified. Shoemaker added that the intent
was to look at all 29 environmental elements to see if the City is
collecting appropriate information to allow them to see how they are doing
in all of those 29 elements.
Johnson said that he was pleased that they have this program. It has
taken a long time, but he feels it was worth the wait so they now have a
baseline for environmental management. In the future, as they look back on
individual issues, they can come back to this and see where it fits into
the whole. He stated that it was great work.
Erthal stated that he felt it was a job well done. He commented that,
in a few sections, environmental quality and economic health are talked
about. He would like to see physical health looked at to see what is being
done to ensure that environmental concerns related to health are included
in the analysis of costs. Where the document talks about costs and trade-
offs, he suggested looking at the cost involved in not following some very
strong environmental policies. He stated that overall it was a great job;
he would like to see more action related to ozone depletion too.
Ferguson stated that she agreed with Erthal. Her review was
restricted to looking at the action plan and there was no provision for a
financial assessment of the cost of growth. She feels that Staff
"chickened" out by not putting in something about evaluating the effects of
population growth, as well as demographics and the financial assessment of
what those cost are. So, she feels that the document should include the
language that lets them talk about growth. She also wondered about
enforcement elements and accountability, so that when the document is
completed, it does not get put on a shelf along with the other documents.
Even the LDGS gets applied in questionable ways in her opinion, i.e., Toys
R' Us received credits because it does not have direct access to College
Avenue, yet the traffic gets tied up in both directions as a result of Toys
R' Us. Ferguson asked if that was really an appropriate application of the
credit points in the LDGS. She said she does not want to have all the work
go into the framework and have it be applied in ways that leaves the
community wondering about what all the work is producing. Ferguson also
commented on the local air quality issue 1.3, "adopt an ordinance to limit
the use of wood burning fireplaces in new construction." She feels that
the use of wood burning stoves or fireplaces should be restricted period
when appropriate, like the Greeley and Boulder ordinances. With the
Transportation Plan, she stated that woodburning is an issue, but it is
known that cars are the real issue. It needs to be understood what is
going to be done. Ferguson continued by saying that she did not see
anywhere in the document the discussion of protecting habitats for
endangered and rare species or for regular species, i.e., deer and foxes,
that live in the open space on Spring Creek, for other animals, and for
humans. In 8.0 where it talks about open space, she would like to advocate
the establishment of an "acres per person" policy.
Davis commented that Erthal touched on a lot of his issues. The
importance of baseline data cannot be under estimate3: It is a case in
point, he said that someone in the Chamber of Commerce made a suggestion
for an economic development strategy that focuses on retired people. He
said that it may or may not be a good strategy, but it is helpful to have
information on the trade-offs, costs, and benefits of advocating that kind
of a strategy. It may entail environmental cost as well. He feels that it
is helpful to have a full range of cost, not just on the environmental
side, but for other issues that have environmental impacts as well.
Miller complimented the idea of the public information documents made
available to people to help public awareness. He feels that is a big gap
at the present time and that most people in the community are not aware of
how much is going on environmentally, as shown on page 10 and 11, section
3.
Smith asked how the document is going to interact with other plans.
Is it going to set priorities for the development of other plans, or is
this basically serving at the present as a summary of the current thinking.
How is it perceived as being used. Shoemaker replied that in large measure
actions that are identified in the action plan, section four, are under
way. In a sense, it is a summary and an update on where they are on
environmental planning, or efforts to improve environmental management in
the City. It is a living document and that Shoemaker's expectations is
that they will update the action plan on an annual basis. As to how the
planning and policy ordinance interact with the rest of it, as an example
the Natural Areas Policy Plan, section nine, the action plan which the
Board reviewed the draft form which is all habitat, it is not forgotten.
It will be a part of the comprehensive plan, so once adopted, the policies
will have equal weight with any other plan in the City. Shoemaker
explained that one of the things that needs to be improved is that, when
they develop policy plans, they have to have action plans, budget, etc., to
go with them, that is something that has not always happened in the past.
Byrne commented that another thing that has occurred in the past is a
tendency to take on a program or action without evaluating the underlying
policy. He also added that Shoemaker has identified several areas where
work is underway, but there is no policy in place to direct the work. So
how do you know if it was done right? This document identifies some of
those areas.
Smith said that what he is looking for is how the document actually
directs the efforts of all the other plans that are coming into place,
because that is substantially what a framework is to do, it is to set those
priorities and say this should be happening and that should be happening.
It is not clear to him how the document enacts or enables other plans to
come forth because he feels that Council will say that they want to do this
and they want to do that. Shoemaker answered that if it is accepted by
Council, then that carries a fair amount of weight for departmental work
programs. and development of work programs. But there will always be, the
potential that Council will say, "no, we want to work on something else."
Miller stated that this would identify issues, but Council essentially
will establish their own workplan and fund those elements in the workplan.
Shoemaker replied that it is a highly interactive process in terms of staff
developing the work plan and Council developing a work program from that
every two years. And, Boards provide continual information to Council on
what is on the minds of the community.
Ferguson asked if the framework was the "boss plan" of all the other
3
plans such that the LOS, Transportation Plan, HIPardous Materials Plan,
are all subordinate to the direction established by the EMP. Shoemaker
said, "no." It means that for those plans that are identified to occur
because of this, this sets out some guidance and some direction of how
those ought to occur. Ferguson asked what the relationship of the EMP and
the LDGS was. Shoemaker replied that essentially the concept that this is
proposing is that there is not one big thing called an "EMP", but the
content of the big EMP is embodied in a series of smaller documents that
can come forth more expeditiously (Natural Areas Plan, Air Quality Plan,
Energy Conservation Plan). Once adopted there will set City Policy and
could be implemented, in part, through the LDGS. In other words, there
will be revisions to the LDGS if the Natural Areas Plan is adopted. The
LDGS and other ordinances are tools for implementing overall City Policies
just as City purchasing requirements might be a tool.
Ferguson asked who is going to be the accountable entity that looks at
the LDGS and realizes that it is in conflict with the direction established
by the EMP. Shoemaker said that as each element of the document goes
forward there is an essential task saying, "how do we implement these
policies." The LDGS is one of several ways, and it needs to be looked at.
There are several points that relate specifically to the LDGS and one of
the most important is to review the manner in which the LDGS does or does
not function as an impact assessment mechanism.
Shoemaker commented that, at present, there are simultaneous reviews
going on at the staff level, executive team level, board level, and at the
public level. The flag that he would raise is if he receives a message
from any of these groups that says, "wait a minute, there is a big
problem," then he would have to talk with Byrne about maybe not presenting
it to Council on January 21.
Byrne said he has heard from many people in the community that many of
the planning documents and the comprehensive plan of the community are
inaccessible to people in a meaningful way and that it is not coherent.
Things get adopted as an element of the comprehensive plan, but no one can
show you the plan. He said they would like to bring some consistency of
nomenclature, definition, and perhaps something akin to a "Dewey decimal
system" to the comprehensive plan. For example if the Transportation
Department adopts the Transportation Plan; it is element 5.0 of the
comprehensive plan and it uses the same terms internally that the
environmental element, the land use element, the economic element would all
use. It is a large job, but it can be achieved. Byrne, Shoemaker, Tom
Peterson, (Planning Department) and Rick Ensdorff, (Transportation
Department), who are all directly involved in producing planning documents,
have started the discussion about how to make the documents more accessible
and more coherent so people can say that they understand how the framework
is structured, and know where to go for the information.
Smith said what kept coming up in the Board's discussions is economic
analysis. He asked if they have to go up one more level to get it all
integrated now. Byrne replied that in terms of the economic element, there
is not much economic development work that goes on within the City
organization. The Economic Affairs Office reports to Byrne and it is a
very limited role in terms of economic development work, ninety five
percent of that takes place outside the City organization and is basically
not funded by tax dollars. The LDGS is the tool for implementation of the
comprehensive plan, it is not the plan.
V1
Ferguson stated that -the EMP is a vision of whe`fe we want the
community to be and how we want it to be. She feels that a description
cannot be made of Fort Collins without talking about how many people are
going to live here.
Johnson said that, if the Board feels that this is a good plan, they
should not forget about it themselves; the primary responsibility lies with
the Board to keep it in front of them, to look at projects that are being
done by the City, and ask where it fits. If it does not fit, then ask "why
doesn't it?" He would like to add keeping the framework out in front of
the community to the charge of the Board.
Shoemaker explained that what they were looking at before was that the
comprehensive plan should set the vision for the community. It is
implemented in variety of ways. They then had the EMP as an element -of the
comprehensive plan, which in turn had a bunch of elements. He said that
what he has tried to do is say that there does not need to be plan on plan
on plan; they have a comprehensive plan and that should set the vision for
the community. The 29 elements that relate to the environment should be
part of the comprehensive plan. As structured by the City, for better or
worse, the comprehensive plan consists of a variety of elements. At the
highest level are the goals and objectives, then there are a number of
specific plan elements, the land use policy plan, the plan for the downtown
river corridor, eastside and westside plan, etc. Shoemaker stated that
what they are saying in the framework is that within that structure of the
comprehensive plan there should be a variety of other specific plans that
address environmental concerns. Ferguson asked if this plan was on the
same level as the Harmony Corridor Plan. Shoemaker replied that the
Framework says what plans need to be produced on essentially the same level
as the Harmony Corridor Plan, etc. Goals and Objectives give the broadest
definition of what the vision of the city is. Then there should be more
specific elements of that comprehensive plan to really clarify that vision.
Those take the form of neighborhood plans, or corridor plans, and there
should also be functional plans which address certain issue areas, e.g.,
open space, natural areas, air quality. There currently are big gaps.
This is the vehicle to plug those gaps.
Shoemaker said the document attempts to identify critical areas where
more specific policy guidance is needed.
Swope said that he wondered if it would make it more readable to put
the crucial things that need to be done in italics or some way that it
would jump at the reader.
Erthal stated that maybe there is a need for more ordinances to
enforce the guidelines. He wants to see some teeth in it, some
enforcement, and a few more ordinances to implement policies.
Smith said that there were a lot of comments around the elements that
are in the document. The framework intends to say, "here is where we want
to go, but here is why we are not getting there, because there are still
gaps". The concern is that the document does not have any procedures or
prescriptions and/or teeth to make those things happen. He explained that
what he heard is that it is a catalogue of things. The Board may want to
comment on the relative priority of the items in the catalog. How
important are they, how much effort should be put to them, and how soon
should they take place.
10
Shoemaker commen& that on page three therAks a content outline of
what they think really needs to be included in policy plans. They need to
spell out what they are going to do and be more complete than they have in
the past. The comment about priorities is an important one and at present
staff is operating under the following priorities: air quality, surface
water quality, natural areas, Poudre river, hazardous material risk
reduction, hazardous waste source reduction, energy conservation, and how
the City does its own business with city environmental practices. Those
priorities were set in November 1990 by the Council and then updated this
year in the policy agenda.
Smith stated that to him it would work better as two separate letters
and/or comments around this.
Ferguson commented that she thinks one letter would be better. Since
they would already have Council's attention on the letter about the
framework, it would be a good idea to have a paragraph of praise; then
continue with page one and page two the appreciation and approval of the
framework. Also include what the Board thinks is missing in the document.
Close the letter by talking about whether the intent of the document is
what the Board thinks it should be.
Erthal said that the intent is great, but he wants to see enforcement
and implementation.
Johnson stated that he likes the framework and looks forward to a lot
more work on individual issues that come before the Council and the
community. It is going to take time to push through everything that is in
there, but it is the nature of how the board operates. He also added that
he agrees with Erthal on enforcement, but the comments need to be made with
respect to each individual issue. 45 things cannot be swept in all at once
without discussing each one cleanly before the community. It would all get
thrown out.
Swope said that he thought it was an excellent document and does what
is intended. He feels that the Board is trying to put some intensity into
it that was not intended. He is for enforcement, but you cannot enforce a
plan until you have a plan and this is stretching what needs to be done.
Miller agreed with Swope and said that you do need the plan. And then
enforcement would come up with the individual ordinances that would evolve
once the plan came about.
Davis agreed with both Swope and Miller in that the process has to
follow policy.
Ferguson stated she thinks the catalogue idea is a good analogy. It
would be helpful to her and the community to understand it if the other
plans were mentioned since this is not the "boss" of the other plans, but
fills in some of the gaps. If the action plan shows where the open space
policy or the natural area policy fits, that would complete the picture for
people.
Johnson moved and Ferguson seconded that a letter be sent to Council
strongly approving the Framework for Environmental Action. The letter
would be based on some of the comments that were made, but the most
important thing for the community is to have a plan in place and the Board
thinks the framework is a good plan.
11
Erthal would like 4r=forcement.
Smith stated that this is infinitely more detailed than something very
similar that has been through Council earlier in the year. He said one of
the caveats that most of the groups had concerning the whole Transportation
Plan was that it was a plan that detailed a lot of nice discussion, but
everybody was missing the action plans. In many ways he feels that the
framework is like the Transportation Plan, but Staff got down to a lot more
specific details without necessarily having the intimate details of
enforcement. So, in terms of what was done it was a phenomenal job in
light of what was done with another plan that was already brought forth.
The motion was passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed for a three minute break.
Colorado Rockies Regional Cooperative
Shoemaker distributed a document and asked the Board to review it and
come to the January 15 meeting with comments.
Shoemaker explained that the City has been invited to join with CSU,
Division of Wildlife, National Parks Service, Boulder County, City of
Boulder, and a host of other organizations in a cooperative to try and
work together to improve ecosystem management in North Central Colorado.
The goals of the work are to simply cooperate in terms of sharing
information, knowledge, and data to promote knowledge and understanding of
natural resources in North Central Colorado; to encourage wise use of these
resources; to promote sharing and database development; and hopefully to
enable cooperative regional planning. The emphasis of this regional
planning would be to protect ecosystems and maintain biological diversity
in the large region.
Shoemaker said that it is an idea that is loosely defined at the
present, but the scientific basis is that if we really want to conserve
biological diversity we have to look at it on a large scale and really have
to look region -wide. He stated that is certainly appropriate, and to try
and bring organizations together towards this common goal seems to make
some sense. A large motivation for this initiative comes from the Forest
Service here in North Central Colorado, which is turning its emphasis
toward non -consumptive forest uses, recreation management, ecosystem
management, etc. and wanting to do a lot more along those lines. Shoemaker
said that it has been reviewed at a staff level and staff feels that the
general goals of the cooperative are appropriate with what they are aiming
to achieve through the Natural Areas Plan. To provide that link to a
larger region would be appropriate. Shoemaker thought it would be quite
useful for the Board to take a look at it and hear comments and concerns
before the decision is made to present to Council a request that the City
join the cooperative agreement.
Ferguson asked if Shoemaker knew the criteria for inclusion of
communities. She would like to see Weld County as a participant because of
the Poudre and the shared watershed. Shoemaker replied that the criteria
were existing participants and people that would likely participate.
committee Reports
Transportation
Smith stated thaloin the past the committeekallenged the AQTF to a
competition for total bicycle miles ridden in 1992. The AQTF counter -
challenged the Board to leave their car home one day each week. The Board
accepted the challenge. The challenge will be January 15 through April 15.
Those meeting the challenge will be treated to ice cream by the other
group.
Announcements
Ferguson announced that the Land Use Planning Committee of Larimer
County had some openings. The Applications are due January 3 and she has
an application form if anyone would like to apply.
Ferguson asked Smith how it was working for him to attend the Council
meetings as the Board's representative. Smith answered that he is only
going to Council meetings when there is a Natural Resources item that
Council has addressed and may have questions on. Ferguson would like for
Smith to be ready to speak loudly when the Framework for Environmental
Action is presented to Council.
Felchle announced that the Environmental Series will begin January 22.
Dr. Grigg will be speaking on his positions relative to various water
issues. Felchle stated that it might be an excellent way to get some
perspective of what is happening in this area. She encouraged members to
attend.
Felchle announced that, on December 10, the EPA solicited applications
for Environmental Education Grants. Priority will be given to small grants
of $5,000 or less. Felchle wanted the Board to know that the City is
getting active on it quickly. Information went out to E-Team and people
with specific environmental education and communication responsibilities.
The deadline for the grants is February 8, 1992. Smith asked if
corporations can apply. Felchle said they cannot. Johnson would like to
see the spring symposium and the summer education program for children as
possibilities. Felchle said that an application for the Environmental Fair
is being considered.
Johnson announced that the U.S. Forest Service is looking at
purchasing the checkerboard lands between Fort Collins and Wyoming with
Land and Water Conservation Trust Funds. He explained that it opens some
very interesting possibilities, i.e., consolidation of land for better
accessibility. It also puts the North Fork of the Poudre in a good
position for consideration for wild and scenic designation.
Byrne said that Gus Swanson sent a letter congratulating Shoemaker and
staff on the winter issue of the Environmental Record.
Smith announced that Anheuser Busch is holding the second Northern
Colorado Corporate Environmental Forum February 11, 1992, from 12:30 p.m.
to 5:00 p.m. It is not limited to corporations. Bob Pelos is in charge of
organizing the forum. He can be contacted at 490-4504. His approach is to
have a speaker present a topic for approximately 10 minutes with discussion
following. Smith will have more information at the January 15 meeting.
Felchle announced that the January 15 meeting will be at City Hall
West, 300 Laporte Avenue in the CIC Room.
Adiournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
i*]