Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/08/1990M MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AUGUST 8, 1990 - 7:00 PM Board Members Present Dave Dubois Christine Ferguson Deni LaRue Board Members Absent Joyce Berry (excused) Charles Davis Tim Johnson (excused) Staff Members Present Mike Davis Joe Frank Bob Komives Bob Wilkinson Others Present Madonna Kukay Bill Miller Will Smith Ward Luthi (excused) Harold Swope (excused) Edith Felchle Susie Gordon Tom Shoemaker Minutes Minutes from the July 11 regular and July 26 special meetings were unanimously approved as submitted. Announcements Planning is still underway for a picnic at Swift Ponds. Staff Reports Transportation Plan Update: Rick Ensdorff was unable -to make a presentation this meeting and will be rescheduled for the October meeting. LDGS Audit: Joe Frank from the Planning Department and Bob Komives, a planning consultant on the LDGS Audit, presented an overview and recommendations of the project. A copy of the first draft of the audit was distributed as well as a list of implementation measures by category and issues. The second page of the implementation measures was of interest to the Board because it identifies lead or affected boards. The LDGS audit is a project on the 1990 Policy Agenda set by City Council. This has been the second audit of its performance since the LDGS was developed in 1981. The 1986 audit asked the same kinds of questions regarding the performance of the system and improvements needed. The Audit's 15 week schedule, beginning in February, did not allow time to conduct extensive public involvement. Planning compiled a "statement of anticipated issues" for review and comment by a select group. Three hundred people were targeted to identify problems, including former Planning and Zoning Board members, developers, homeowners, chairs of various boards and commissions, members of environmental groups, Citizen Planners, and the League of Women Voters, and others with experience with the LDGS. The project was completed in four phases. Phase I was the development of the mission statement and work program. In Phase II, data were collected and two neighborhood surveys were conducted. Information was analyzed in Phase III and a "First Projection of Audit Results" was drafted in Phase IV. The Planning and Zoning board will host a public meeting on the audit August 20th and Council will review the project at a work session on August 28th (along with the EMP). An important finding was that people generally feel that the LDGS is a good tool that should be retained. Frank emphasized that a. The LDGS is not a implementation tool; it to reflect new policies b. There are areas where conduct community -wide tinker with the LDGS. C. The LDGS is a potential EMP. policy document, but an is flexible and can change and issues. it is more appropriate to review of policies than to implementation tool for the The audit report has identified six categories of issues. They are 1) community -wide and cumulative impacts of development, 2) City land -use policy, 3) design, 4) infill and neighborhood compatibility, 5) predictability of land use, and 6) predictability of decisions. There was concern expressed during the audit about the environment, especially in areas of air quality and recycling. It is difficult to make changes to the LDGS regarding environmental concerns until the EMP is more established. The community has had the last ten years to live with the LDGS. Now there are 25,000 new residents who need to learn about the LDGS and become involved in it. For example, the issues of high density/mixed use continue to be debated. The community is not experiencing growth like it did in the 701s. Growth/no-growth is an undercurrent in the audit but they received only a handful of comments on it. Frank observed that quality of growth is the prevalent issue now. When asked if alternative transportation was an issue that had been raised, Frank noted that it is related to urban dw design which covers recreation, air quality, density, and pedestrian access. Shoemaker noted that bicycling and other forms of alternative transportation are the most frequently raised issues in the Transportation Plan. Wilkinson commented that environmental and economic impacts should be part of LDGS evaluations. Komives remarked on the need for the EMP and Transportation Plan to be completed before the audit makes recommendations on those issues. LaRue agreed that it made sense to wait until the EMP and Transportation Plans had been developed before making LDGS recommendations to Council. Miller noted that coordination with other plans should be added as a task in the work program. When time frames of the three plans were questioned, Shoemaker noted that all three will be presented at Council's August 28th worksession. He predicted that they will be sent back to the boards and commissions before Council action. Mike Davis offered some background on the three plans. Council set 48 policy agenda goals for 1991, 23 of which were in Development Services' area. Twenty of those goals will be completed by February 1991: the other three are the LDGS audit, the EMP, and air quality control measures. City Council demanded that audits be presented on these goals by August 1990. From there, they will determine priority tasks to be completed by February 1991, as well as considering additional resource allocations. Frank restated that the LDGS audit is just an identification of issues and is quite different from the EMP. Komives commented that the LDGS continues working on a daily basis with development approvals needing to be made. Ferguson commented on confusion that exists within the community about what all the policies are, responsibility for their implementation, and identifying who is responsible for eliminating conflicts. Frank stated that it is the key thrust of the LDGS audit to clear up that confusion, and that the public involvement process needs to be clarified. Ferguson asked how citizen opinions are best heard - do citizens have to join an organized group rather than express themselves as individuals? Frank referred to the Prospect/Shields neighborhood association as an example of public input. Ferguson asked about poorer and less organized neighborhoods, whether the opinions of less powerful people get heard? Frank commented that he has not been really pleased with the audit report because it doesn't answer some of these questions, especially concerning environmental issues. Ferguson asked why there are so many lead board designations for the Planning and Zoning Board in the implementation list? Frank stated that the reason is that the Planning and Zoning Board ultimately has the final say on any development issues. It is inconceivable that the Planning and of Zoning Board would ask the Natural Resources Board to take the lead on some issues. However, the system is structured so that the Planning and Zoning Board does have final say. Smith commented that the topic of boards' responsibilities was raised several months ago because they are trying to obtain a clearer identification of board roles. Davis noted that there will be another meeting of.the board chairs that will focus on communication between boards and working together. In his opinion, staff should act in a support capacity to the boards, not as a filter. EMP Update: Wilkinson handed out the most recent draft of the public comment list and presented an overview of the first phase of the EMP. Staff has compiled community input, is evaluating internal goals and objectives, and will be focusing on prioritizing problems. Problem statements being drafted identify current status, related problems, solution tools, lead service areas, and resource allocations. A chart cross-references problems against each other to determine if they're inter -related. Using water as an example, Wilkinson explained that water issues have strong relationships with land issues and that he formed analysis clusters based on the question; "which things can be done without looking at other peripheral issues?" Wilkinson identified work that remains to be completed on prioritizing problems, determining whether the problem is already being addressed, and whether there are resources allocated to it. Shoemaker noted that Natural Resources staff does not have the power to shift resources but City Council does. Ferguson asked whether the NRAB can help in the prioritization process. Wilkinson stated that many people will need to look at and review the framework including the NRAB, City Council, and the public. He asked that the board spend the next month looking closely at the EMP Framework and possibly assign a special committee to this task. Ferguson suggested that the framework relate the staff and resources that are allocated to a project. Shoemaker agreed that this should be included on the matrix to show that the City is already working on many projects and that departments are being spread pretty thin. Old Business CFC Update: The CFC ordinance passed the first Council reading by 3-2. It will be presented for second reading on August 21st. Two accomplishments of this ordinance will be to: 1) encourage legislature to pass laws and 2) improve local effectiveness at reducing CFC emissions. The Air Quality Task Force agreed with Council that there was a need for more defined enforcement and adding 1/3 FTE to the proposed programs to accomplish this goal. The AQTF was given I precedence over the NRAB for providing Council with advice because the CFC issue had been delegated to them. The NRAB motioned and seconded to have a letter drafted and sent to Council supporting the CFC ordinance as recommended. When it was questioned whether industry reporting should be voluntary or mandatory, Shoemaker explained that the reason for the voluntary recommendation is that the technique of reporting is complex and that industry is already taking strong steps to reduce CFC emissions. There was agreement from the Board to keep industry reporting voluntary, with the exception of Ferguson, who felt that it should be mandatory. Recycling: There was a special board meeting to review the MRF and IPC recycling options. Staff went to City Council and were directed to 1) delay the ordinance on curbside until the September 18 Council meeting and 2) develop a staff paper and resolution by August 21 to send to Council so that the City's position will be on record. The wastestream reduction differences are not great between the materials recovery facility (MRF) and the intermediate processing center (IPC) systems. Both would accomplish as much as 35% reduction (including yard waste). Shoemaker commented on problems with potential markets that will occur if the MRF system is built. For example: Coors has a very low allowable organic content in bottles. Contaminated bottles are rejected and have to be sent to the landfill. Assumptions such as amounts of yard waste or organic content are critical to deciding between the MRF and the IPC. The IPC could achieve similar waste reduction levels and have a direct financial incentive. Miller felt that the MRF is not an effective way to recycle residential waste materials. Smith noted that at the last meeting it was moved to draft two letters to Council; the first to indicate NRAB's consternations with Council's recommendations and the other to make recommendations for the County. Smith handed out a copy of his draft letter which emphasized that the proposed curbside program has no track record. There is no other program with this structure existing in the United States at this time. Johnson will edit the letter and send it on to Council. The letter drafted to Larimer County recommended building an IPC with the flexibility to add a MRF facility at a later date. Shoemaker stated that if a successful source separation program exists, the gap can be closed between the reduction rate of the IPC and the MRF as well as creating a higher quality product. Smith noted that drawbacks to an MRF include burning up all the educational effort that has been done and that it lets people off the hook for responsibility in reducing the wastestream. Shoemaker commented that it would be useful to staff for the NRAB to make recommendations to Council, but that the letter to Council can wait until September to be sent. It was motioned and seconded to compose a third letter addressing what Council's letter to Larimer County should say. The letter will include a recommendation to go to a multi -tiered fee system at the landfill and support building an IPC with the potential for expansion to a MRF facility. It will also include a recommendation to co -locate a yard -waste composting operation. Mitigation Fund Expenditures: It was motioned and seconded to adopt the process outlined by Shoemaker for expenditures of the mitigation funds. The Land Use Committee decided it was going to draft a letter to Council requesting a need for an open space fund. Miller noted that Western Mobil may be cleaning up their site near the river on East Prospect for sale to industrial operation and wondered if this property could be a way to spend some of the mitigation money? New Business LaRue commented she felt not enough time is being allotted to different subjects on the board agenda. The 20 minutes assigned for the LDGS was not realistic; longer time allotments need to be considered. LaRue reported that Johnson volunteered to Chair the Board again for the next year. LaRue was nominated to co- chair but declined. She nominated Smith who expressed concern over not being in town during daytime hours. Board members did not feel this would create a problem. It was unanimously voted to retain Johnson as Chair and elect Smith as co-chair. LaRue noted that members need to be thinking about which committees they would like to serve for the next year. Members asked that they be able to invite their families to the Board picnic. This would create a problem with trying to follow the picnic with the regular board meeting. Shoemaker recommended rescheduling the picnic for another time. Smith stated that he wanted to organize a committee consisting of individuals from the larger companies in town, such as HP and Woodward Governor. It would be called the Northern Colorado Corporate Environmental Committee. The next NRAB meeting will be held September 5 at 281 N. College in the Development Services conference room. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 10:05 pm. NRAB ACTION ITEMS August 8, 1990 1. Draft a letter to Council supporting CFC recommendations. 2. Draft a letter to Council addressing their letter to Larimer County regarding recycling options at the landfill. 3. Reschedule board picnic. 4. Think about what committees to serve on for next year.