Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 04/16/2008NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting April 16, 2008 DATE: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 LOCATION: 215 N. Mason - Conference Room 1-A TIME: 6:00pm For Reference: Alan Apt, NRAB Chair 221-9875 Ben Manvel, Council Liaison 217-1932 John Armstrong, Staff Liaison 416-2230 Board Members Present Alan Apt, Glen Colton, Linda Knowlton, Heather Manier Joe Piesman, Liz Pruessner, Rosemarie Russo, Clint Skutchan Board Members Absent: Ryan Staychock Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: John Armstrong, Alexis Hmielak, Mark Sears, Daylan Figgs, Susie Gordon Call meeting to order Alan Apt called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Introduction of Guests Ben Manvel, Roger Hageman, Peggy Hageman, Brittany Hageman, Karen Horner Agenda Review None Alan Apt welcomed new NRAB member Heather Manier. Heather stated she was happy to be on board. She graduated from CSU in the Recreation Department, has worked for a non-profit organization and is currently a stay-at-home mom but wants to get more involved in community issues. Review and Approval of Minutes: March 19, 2008 Liz Pruessner pointed out her name had been misspelled in the minutes. Joe Piesman moved and Liz Pruessner seconded a motion to approve the March 19, 2008, minutes as presented with the correction of the spelling of Liz Pruessner's name. Motion passed unanimously Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment: I-25 Gateway Area Alan Apt reminded the group that City Planner Clark Mapes has previously presented to the NRAB. There were no expectations for a recommendation this evening. He just wanted to come back tonight to answer any questions or concerns the NRAB may have about the proposal. He will return to the NRAB one more time in May for the NRAB's recommendation. The issue will go to Council June 3. Clark discussed the Harmony Corridor Plan Amendment: I-25 Gateway Area. He gave a brief summary of the plan plus aspects of the plan that he had not previously presented to the NRAB. • The amendment is in response to input and changing conditions since the original plan was developed in 1991. • The amendment would include a vision of the area that had not been addressed in 1991. This vision would combine a dense multi -story mixed -use suburban pedestrian district with the Arapahoe Bend Natural Area and a reshaped gravel mine on south of Harmony Road. • Clark pointed out that, in a 100 year flood, this location on the Poudre river valley would spill out of the river and cross I-25, flooding Harmony and I-25. The planned amendment would reshape the floodway. The floodway will be channelized with water to remain in the channel and will be a major element of the development. • There have been changing conditions across I-25, including a proposed Wal-Mart and Timnath regional commercial development. • The Harmony Corridor would have enhanced transportation. A CDOT study proposes rapid transit up Harmony from the park and ride and feeder transit leaving to Greeley, Timnath and Windsor. Regional bus service would extend along Harmony to south Mason and connect with a commuter rail and feeder transit as an enhanced travel corridor. • The planned amendment is a combination of open lands and development. The subject area is set between 2 natural areas, Arapahoe Bend and Eagle View, and the Fossil Creek and Poudre River trails. The plan amendment proposes to connect the trails. • The main aspect of the vision is to reshape the entire landscape on the south side of Harmony Road where the gravel pits are and redevelopment of the current businesses to incorporate them into the new development. • One aspect will be a mixed pedestrian district with consolidated parking. That is where transit can work because once you arrive there you can live and walk around without having to drive. • Buildings up to 6 story mixed -use buildings will be allowed that could include commercial on lower and office or residential on upper stories. • The water edges would consist mostly of naturalistic river valley landscaping, grasses, shrubs and trees. Other stretches of water can be punctuated with walkways and people places and created lagoons and canals that run directly through developed area. The final impact would be a "riverwalk" type area. The NRAB discussed Clark's presentation and asked questions. • Joe Piesman asked if the water in the canals and lagoons would be standing water and, if so, he suggested Clark discuss this with the people who monitor for mosquito control. o Clark clarified that the water would not be stagnant, but would be migrating and that after completion of the project, there would actually be less water than there is now. He also stated it would be the developer's responsibility to maintain the water quality. • Joe wanted to know more about the transportation hub; would it be city developed and therefore city property and who would be funding it. o Clark explained that the main aspect of transit is higher frequency service along Harmony, potential planned service either on I-25 or Mason and cleaning up and the current park and ride expanded as a transfer center to slightly north of the current location. o Clark stated the transit along Harmony would be up to the City. The regional transit isn't spelled out, however. RTD is the concept for the Hannony Part. Clark did not know who would fund a commuter rail. • Glen Colton had watched the presentation before Council and stated he thought this is a great vision of a project if it were located in the right place in Fort Collins. However, he felt the proposed plan is not the right place. His concerns were: o This is totally out of context with the Arapahoe Bend ponds and HP site and not consistent with the past city plan. Six -story buildings would change Fort Collins and block mountain views. It seems inconsistent with what he thinks Fort Collins' vision is all about. o He also does not like altering flood plains. o The fact that Timnath's development plans are what they are makes it even more important for Fort Collins' side of I-25 to maintain a natural gateway. o Arapahoe gravel pits attractive wildlife. Gravel pits in Denver are kept more natural. o This would be a huge up -zoning from FA 1 with little benefit to the community — only to the developers. It should remain open space or low density mixed development. • Liz Pruessner asked if reworking the floodplain would affect Eagle View natural area or diminish water quality with lawn care pesticides in runoff water. o Clark pointed out the water won't run to Eagle View, but Liz was concerned it would eventually make it back to the Poudre River. • Liz asked how Timnath has changed the floodplain on the west side of I-25 and if it would flood on the Fort Collins side. o Clark said Wal-Mart will sit on a filled -in portion of the floodplain, but should not flood our side. Timnath's plan was worked out with FEMA. • Linda Knowlton expressed her opinion the plan defies good planning to locate high density cluster on the very edge of the city, not the inner core. However, she thought the proposed development will be linked with Wal-Mart across the interstate and the area would become a little town. She thought it would be better to leave the area more natural. Clint wanted to know what type of modeling regarding density levels has been done to get development such as this. He also did not like the fact that height of the buildings could be six stories.. o Clark did not think anything such as units per acre would be a factor here. Density could be calculated, but the main thing Clark will be proposing is the pedestrian district to take priority over car travel which makes transit feasible. Clint was concerned this type of development could occur in other corridors along the edge of the city. o Clark pointed out there is not the same convergence of factors elsewhere as there is at the Harmony gateway because of the transit factor. The Transportation Department feels this plan would fit with the plans for transit and might help catalyze revenue to help pay for the service. Clint wanted to know if the proposed plan included any improvements to the natural areas. o Clark stated there may be some to Eagle View. o Mark Sears stated the developers could take an irrigation canal and make it look more natural. The developers said they would relocate the canal in exchange for the fill. Some funds could be made available for underpasses under Harmony Road to Arapahoe Bend. • Clark pointed out this area is not in the City now. They do have a request to annex it. There is an ownership team that wants to do this in Fort Collins and they have said they would do this for the fill exchange. It is not in the plan but it might be worked into an annexation agreement. • In answer to a question from Clint, Clark stated the plan will be described as green building and LEED equivalent. He did not know if there would be any sales tax income to the natural areas, but there will be a lot of property tax generated for the city. • Alan Apt asked what the sequence of events would be regarding annexation. c Clark stated this Harmony Corridor plan amendment would have to be approved first, then annexation or an annexation agreement. Essentially the amendment will include the equivalent of zoning. • Alan also asked, if the amendment and zoning changes go though City Council, what would preclude another big box store going in. He wanted to know what specifically will be allowed or excluded from this site. o Clark stated the plan does not put a size on retail, but specifies that any retail has to be part of a mixed use or multi -story building. • Glen Colton asked if there would be standards on setbacks from I-25. o Clark stated that there will be extensive setbacks that emphasize the river valley landscape with groves and thickets of trees and shrubs in order to portray a naturalistic river valley. El • Glen stated that part of what Fort Collins is doing is reacting on fear of the unknown and should be operating on the facts. He suggested staff present to Council what is likely to happen, including annexation. o Clark stated Fort Collins is more careful with financial incentives than Timnath would be. There is nothing staff is not saying and there is nothing more to know except whether or not Timnath would work with the developer and annex the area. They could extend their GMA, but their town board would have to make the decision. It's not automatic. Clark Mapes thanked the NRAB for their input and will be back in May for their recommendation. Adoption of 2006 International Building Code, including 2007 ASHRAE 90.1 Commercial Energy Code Mike Gebo from the Building Department addressed the NRAB. He had previously addressed the group regarding the adoption of the 2006 International Building Code and was back tonight to discuss an addendum to the code and get a recommendation from the board. • The 2006 International Energy Conservation Code attaches the 2004 edition of ASHRAE 90.1 Commercial Energy Code. However, the Building Department wants to use the 2007 edition of ASHRE 90.1 partly because it is more restrictive in insulation values. • Because the IECC says you can use either IECC or ASHRE, the Building Department wants to take the 2006 IECC and apply it to multi family buildings up to 3 stories and the 2007 ASHRE 90.1 for multi -family buildings over 4 stories and to commercial buildings so there is no confusion or overlap • Clint Skutchan asked in what areas would the standards be less than the older code. o Mike responded that right now ASHRE 2004 wouldn't require insulation in walls below grade and the roof would require less R values, plus some lighting requirements o Mike stated that when a builder builds a building he has to comply with the energy code in one of two ways: the prescriptive method = doing what's in the code, or by performance = plug data into the computer and getting a pass or fail. Inputting data from both IECC or ASHRE would allow them to pass by using the lowest standards. By separating IECC and ASHRE the resulting buildings would have higher standards because of this separation. • Alan asked if the new code guarantees the net energy used would be lower. o Mike stated the code does not address energy savings. • Joe wondered if builders would use higher standards if they had incentives of expedited approvals. o Mike explained that is not the way things are done. What is adopted are minimum codes and that is why they want to move up to the 2007 ASHRE code. Our whole approach is to stay current with the current codes. Each new code that comes out steps the code up from the minimum standards. We promote exceeding beyond code but the city can't make builders do that. In answer to a question by Clint, Mike Gebo stated his handout shows a comparative cost analysis. In the overall picture there will be a minimum cost increase, however, it impossible to say because there are so many variables. Glen suggested staff includes energy savings in the proposal to City Council, however Mike Gebo stated ASHRE does not address energy savings. Clint stated he would not support the motion because he did not have a chance to read and understand the code before tonight. Liz Pruessner moved and Rosemary Russo seconded a motion that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends the Fort Collins City Council support the adoption of the 2006 International Building Code, including the 2007 ASHRE 90.1 Commercial Energy Code. Motion passed 6 - 1 With Clint Skutchan opposing. Hageman Earth Cycle Lease / Running Deer Natural Area Natural Areas Program Manager, Mark Sears outlined the issue before the Natural Resources Board. • The Hageman Earth Cycle lease is for a 15 acre portion of the Running Deer Natural Area, acquired by the City in the late 1990's. It has been leased to Roger Hageman and Hageman Earth Cycle for the last 7 years. During this time the lease has been reviewed by the Natural Resources Advisory Board and Land Conservation and Stewardship Board and renewed and extended several times. • Last week, on April 16, 2008, the LSCB reviewed the current proposal to extend the lease and voted 4-3 to recommend the Fort Collins City Council deny the lease due to environmental concerns. • Staff is making the same presentation tonight to the NRAB to obtain their recommendation to renew/not renew the lease. • Mark Sears explained the Natural Resources staff recommends the lease be approved for 10 years (one year lease with nine extensions) because Hageman Earth Cycle is the only business in town that provides recycling of organic materials and are therefore diverting 55,000-60,000 yards of it from the landfill. The staff also feels environmental issues or concerns can be addressed with the terms of the lease. Senior Environmental Planner Daylan Figgs presented some background on the Running Deer lease to Hageman Earth Cycle from the City of Fort Collins and stated he felt it was serving the community well. • Daylan explained the staff recommendation to renew the lease was based on many things, one of which is the storm water management plan. Mr. Hageman has installed some measures to control water that are consistent with flood water issues. 0 A condition of the lease is to do environmental analysis and monitoring of any contaminants to the property as a result of the presence of Hageman Earth Cycle's business on the property. o Late in 2007, Hageman Earth Cycle was cited for composting without a permit by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. o The citation issue was resolved but, because it is an industrial site and there were some concerns about possible contaminants to the groundwater, the City did a limited Phase 2 analysis to understand what was going on, if anything. o The parameters of the analysis were recommended by Walsh Environmental. They were standard EPA tests for semi volatile compounds, pesticides, nitrates and fecal coliforms in the surface water, soil and groundwater Temporary monitoring wells were drilled and the storage facility soils and pond water were examined. o The results revealed the groundwater is fine and there is no indication any materials from Hageman Earth Cycle is leaching into the groundwater. ■ All monitoring wells had nitrates in them, but the levels were consistent throughout the entire property. ■ Surface water had pesticides, but was also fine. Nothing exceeded the state standards. ■ Some of the tests done did not have state standards to measure them. • The soil showed levels of benzoate, pryene, some combustible organic materials and pesticides that exceeded residential levels. There were no identifiable sources for this. However, they could have been brought in with yard waste. They sent this report to Colorado Public Health and Environment, but haven't gotten feedback yet. It will be incorporated into the study. ■ Arsenic that exceeded residential and commercial levels was also found. Walsh and Department of Public Health and Environment explained it is quite common in western soils. It could easily be a background level of arsenic. • Fecal coliforms was found in ponds, probably from manure. However, it was not found in the groundwater, as there is a large layer of clay keeping it from penetrating the groundwater. • Nitrates were found in surface water, but within acceptable range. ■ Neighbor Tom Pierce provided some water samples in which he found some manure issues which indicates manure on site may be migrating ■ Daylan Figgs explained one other concern about the potential migration of manure had been expressed from the storm water people because this facility is in the floodplain and has a moderate risk of flooding. • Because Natural Resources does not want manure migrating off site into the wetlands they will put in lease a condition that there will be some containment in case of surface flow of materials. Also the leachate ponds will have a hard bottom so there is no leaching downwards. They would be managed, filled and monitored. They also want to establish as many vegetative buffers along with berms, etc. Their management approach will maintain the soil and water sampling over time and compare this data to baseline so any contaminants are added in greater quantities. Daylan Figgs explained the terms of the current lease proposal for Hageman Earth Cycle. • The lease was extended to ten years (a one year lease with nine one-year renewals) because there will be expenses to Hageman to put in the containment and monitoring requirements and the longer time will allow them to recoup some of the expenses. • The lease value is set by real estate staff at fair market value and will escalate 5% annually, taking in account for inflation. The Natural Resources Advisory Board discussed Daylan Figg's presentation. • Rosemarie Russo asked if the CDPHE are just looking at sampling or are they looking at design and operational standards. o Daylan explained the CDPHE will look at what WALSH said. As far as design, this facility is not regulated by the CDPHE because it is not a composting facility, but the city staff storm water engineering people will. o The citation in 2007 has been corrected and Hageman is not allowed to compost on site. As long as there is no composting no further action has been required. Soil sampling and engineering will be paid by Hageman and EPA methodology will be followed. • Linda Knowlton recalled that she was on the NRAB the last time they approved the lease with Hageman Earth Cycle. At that time the NRAB asked City staff to find another location for this type of activity, stating this would be the last time they renew the lease and wanted to know what the City has done to this end. o Daylan stated Roger Hageman has looked for another site and he is not sure at what level the city has been searching. To date no other site has been found that is suitable for this operation and affordable to Hageman Earth Cycle. • The Group discussed why another site has not been found where Hageman Earth Cycle can be located. o Mark Sears pointed out the Natural Resources staff has not been actively involved in the search. o Susie Gordon pointed out the type of land they need is very unique with unique zoning requirements, and is very difficult to find within the city limits. o Clint asked why the Resource Recovery Farm would not be a good location. ■ John Armstrong stated the city did engage in conceptual planning in 2004-2005 to identify multiple ways the Resource Recovery Farm could be utilized. Discussions about the building on the site ranged from dismantling to restoration, but the planning didn't progress beyond concepts; the predominant concern being cost. In response to questions from Joe Piesman, Daylan Figgs confirmed the soil had some very persistent contaminants that were most likely brought in from yard waste. Regarding fecal coliforms in water, Daylan clarified the conditions of the new lease will require containment and treatment of it. Hageman will pay for it and the City will monitor and approve it. Joe Piesman asked if the $100/acre price is a fair market price or does the lease take into consideration Hageman Earth Cycle is providing a valuable service for the City. o Daylan responded it is based it on the raw land rental cost escalated to current day dollars and rate of return. No consideration was given to the service being provided. o Mark Sears clarified the lease would be about $18,000/year, equated to the land worth of $19,000 acre and is in the ballpark with the other comparable land within the City. Glen Colton pointed out that recycling within the City is becoming more popular and that other recycling businesses have been denied residence on City property and wondered why the City is allowing Hageman Earth Cycle to be within the City and the others can't. Also, he wondered if it's the City's responsibility to find Hageman a new property. o Daylan explained this is a unique situation because Hageman was on the property when the City purchased it. o Mark explained it's a question Council should answer. Hageman provides a service not being provided elsewhere. Coincidentally, it's on City land managed by the Natural Resources Department. He also mentioned Natural Resources has other land leases for various purposes such as agricultural and grazing. Glen also voiced his frustration that the City is reluctant to require curb side pick up of yard waste and compostables. He would be more inclined to support Hageman Earth Cycle's operation if there was a city-wide program. In answer to questions from Heather Manier, Daylan stated Hageman pays for annual testing. If the tests indicate the levels have changed, and they may because of the volatility of things, the EPA will step in. The lease states that when Hageman leaves the property there would be an exit cleanup and the land would be put back to natural status. Liz Pruessner had some questions about the testing process. Liz suggested also testing upstream and downstream in a larger testing scenario because there is so much variability. o Daylan explained if the tests standards weren't met every year, the lease would be terminated. The testing will be done on site only. However, they have the option to move the sampling. He pointed out the further away the sampling, the less it reflects what's going on the property but they can look at other sampling including earlier records for the Resource Recovery Farms. • Ben Manvel pointed out the City has a solid waste study going on currently. The outcome of the study could result in more organic matter being collected and wondered what the impact would be on Hageman's lease. o Daylan stated the lease would be in place until either party chooses to end it. • Joe Piesman wondered, if Hageman was not on the property, what would Natural Resources do with it. o Daylan Figgs pointed out it would be incorporated into the Running Deer Natural area in some fashion and returned to native vegetation. o Mark Sears stated there may not ever be any trails built on the Hageman property when it is incorporated into Running Deer, but would be left natural. Roger Hageman addressed the Natural Resources Advisory Board. • Roger stated he would rather not be located on City property, however he has not found another suitable location because of his unique parameter requirements. o His operation needs to have a location that is closer to his customers, as people do not like to drive outside the city. Distance is also an issue relative to the high price of gasoline for his truck fleet. o He needs to have acreage. o The land needs to be affordable. He is also in competition with the City and others to purchase affordable commercial property within the City. o He needs access to an abundance of water for dust control. o Roger has contacted 25 realtors to search for such a property but so far none they have showed him meet these criteria. The current property is still the best so far. • Roger stated Hageman Earth Cycle provides a valuable service to the City and residents of Fort Collins. He tries to accommodate people and gives a quality product. However, he must be able to sell the product that he takes in. o Last year they took in and moved 66,000 cubic yards of organic matter (that would fill a football field 5-6 stories tall) o They have 38 contracts to sell lots of material down the Front Range to Denver and into Nebraska and Wyoming. They also work with every mowing contractor in Fort Collins. • Ben Manvel asked Mr. Hageman if his business could handle a substantial increase to perhaps a factor of 10 if the City's trash study encouraged everyone to take their organic waste to Hageman Earth Cycle. o Mr. Hageman replied his business has the potential to do much more than they're doing and felt it could easily take the increase since he has enough contracts in Denver to move the material. o Regarding Prospect Road, Roger is frustrated his trucks have to wait for the traffic congestion to pass before they can be dispatched. He's willing 10 to work with the City, but would like to see the road safety improved and is thankful there hasn't been an accident. The NRAB addressed Roger Hageman with questions. • Liz Pruessner asked Roger how he came to lease the property o Hageman explained he was in the process of buying it when the Fort Collins Natural Resources bought it because he couldn't compete with open space funds. He lost the chance to develop the land the way it should have been customized for his business. He has been very frustrated leasing the property but would like to find another appropriate property. • Glen Colton asked Roger if he has ever approached Larimer landfill about co - locating with their facility because it seems a logical fit. o Roger stated he had contacted them several times but the County didn't have the money to recycle out there. So they gave up on it. Glen • Linda Knowlton wondered if the City ever considered selling it to Hageman. o Roger stated he has tried to buy it many times, but each time the City Council was not agreeable. o Susie Gordon pointed out the issue of co -locating has come up before, but it comes down to Larimer County operating the landfill as a business center. They aren't ready for that and are very sensitive with their permit and don't want to jeopardize it with the Health Department. Until you can demonstrate financial viability it will not happen. • Clint Skutchan asked Mr. Hageman if this lease is feasible for him and can his business absorb the costs and still be cost effective. Also, has he looked at public and private angel investors and what can the NRAB do to help. o Roger stated it was questionable and a risk, however it's the least of the risks that are out there right now. He will need time to recoup the costs. o Roger stated he is open to any option that would work. He started in the lawnmower business 1988 and provides an economical service. • Clint wondered if the redevelopment of the Resource Recovery Farm would work for him. o Roger Hageman stated traffic restricts his business. His trucks can't leave until 8:15. The area would be nice if he could incorporate it into his business even though the building is not very efficient. He currently does more on a smaller piece of land. • Glen Colton asked if he would want to go into an industrial area such as the 750 zoned industrial acres at Prospect and I-25. o Hageman reiterated his operation needs at least 5 gallons of water per yard of waste and that area doesn't have that kind of well. He needs to have a well that won't be shut down in a drought. o If he moves is going to have a composting site. Right now he trucks material 6 miles away to a dairy to compost. The water well on Prospect is for dust control. • Liz Pruessner asked what would happen 10 years from now if there is a large increase of yard waste and Hageman is no longer in town. 11 o Roger stated the ball is in the City's court. He can't do any more with the current land because he doesn't own it. It's a perfect location and he could make it work if he owned it and had the right conditions. • Joe Piesman asked if a ten year lease suits Hageman's needs or the City's needs o Hageman stated he needs the extra time in order to amortize the extra expense. • Daylan Figgs stated Hageman Earth Cycle's current lease expires in July, 2008. • Glen asked Roger if he had talked to the county since they're trying to keep rural development alive. o Roger pointed out that he's competing with the City to purchase land. Tom Pierce addressed the NRAB and thanked the NRAB for the opportunity to submit two letters and make this presentation. In his opinion, it is time for Hageman Earth Cycle to find a new permanent home. He pointed out the discussion tonight did not address the fact that Hageman is on the taxpayer's land and the taxpayers should have access to it. • The NRAB asked questions of Tom Pierce. o In answer to a question from Liz Pruessner Tom stated he got his samples from a pond between the 2 areas leased by Hageman and took it to CSU for testing. o Glen wanted to know how Tom became interested in this issue. ■ Tom explained he bought the property next door to Hageman because his research showed Hageman's lease was about to end. However, the lease didn't end and Hageman is still there. He has had some dust issues with Roger, but they have been resolved. o Joe Piesman wanted to know if Tom had a vision for an alternative use for that site for the city. ■ Tom stated he had a conceptual idea for a yard art gallery, but it wasn't acceptable to zoning. Liz asked if Hageman was able to purchase the property would he be prohibited from doing composting because of zoning. o Mark Sears stated it would come in as a non -conforming use. Daylan clarified it would be a transition district that allows the use that was on the property when the zoning came into effect. Ben Manvel wanted to know if composting would be part of the grandfather lease. Daylan did not know. o For clarification Susie Gordon stated a "transition zone" is between the county and city. There are about 6-8 zoning classifications. Almost every other zone in the city allows composting with the exception of residential. Linda Knowlton moved and Liz Pruessner seconded a motion that the Natural Resources Board would recommend the Council approve the new lease for Hageman Earth Cycle for one year, renewable for nine years. Discussion: 12 • Joe Piesman suggested a caveat be added to the motion to say the proper containment of the lechate ponds should be included in the lease thereby emphasizing the necessity of "proper environmental safeguards in place." • Glen stated he did not see the point to having a lease. He suggested the City not string Roger Hageman along — Either sell to him or help him move within a year. • Clint agreed with Glen and added there should also be a caveat that the NRAB assist Hageman to find a new property for Hageman. The NRAB should give some resolution to this and get the best decision possible. • Alan Apt summarized that there were two ways to proceed with the motion: o Go with Linda's proposal with proposed conditions o Vote on what's on the table. • Clint stated he was on the NRAB before when the lease was discussed. To him, the degree of uncertainty isn't healthy for the business, community or the city. If the lease is extended for 10 years, he does not have hope for a resolution by the end of that time since the City has taken no action up to now to resolve it. He was also not sure what the best time period for a lease would be. • Glen suggested a one year lease with resolution at the end — either sell to him or he vacates. o Alan felt one year to resolve doesn't allow enough time. Five years is probably more realistic. He cautioned not to eliminate the only organic waste diversion the City has right now. • Linda Knowlton would like to see the City to talk with Roger about selling him the land. • Alan reminded the NRAB they were not making a decision here - only making recommendations to Council. • Joe wondered who makes the decision to extend the lease and what concerns go into it because the practice seems to have been more or less automatic. Specifically, what transparent examination is there of the valuation of the facility to the public, the City and the Natural Resources. • Mark Sears stated the issue as very complex. o He stated he couldn't speak on behalf of the City, but it seemed to him that, as long as Roger is in compliance with the lease, he didn't know why the City would suddenly not extend the lease. o He also pointed out that recycling organic waste is not an appropriate use of the property from the zoning and use standpoint, since the City bought it to be part of the Running Deer Natural Area. There is no guarantee if Hageman bought the property that he would be there forever. He could always sell it to someone else o Mark stated the reason that Prospect has not been evolving at this point is that it is contingent on the overpass being redeveloped. When that happens the complexion of the area will change and land use values will go up a lot. He could sell then. o The City extended the lease for five years and then for two years. At that time there was lots of documentation that the lease would end, however nothing has transpired 13 ■ Glen Colton stated the City could make it a part of the lease that the land could only be resold as open lands. Also, he stated this needs to get done and land values are as slow as they'll ever get right now. • Alan suggested they also discuss the possibility of a public/private partnership for this property. If the City doesn't want to sell this property, but decides this is the place where they want this kind of use, the City should partner with him and make this a first-class demonstration project that is properly buffered. o If the city does institute a mandatory collection of yard waste then it's important for the City to partner with someone. Roger can handle that type of volume right where he is right now. It's inappropriate to put a gun to Roger's head with a one year agreement. • The group discussed the possibility of a task force being formed to determine a realistic solution and timeline. o Clint stated he felt that resolving this issue was never a directive and questioned what would be a realistic time frame for a task force to come up with a resolution: 1 year, 2 years or what • Linda Knowlton projected that ten years from now a Natural Resources Board will be having the same discussion if nothing is done. How can the current NRAB move this along. • Alan suggested either renew the lease or recommend a public/private partnership and within 2 years do one or the other. • Clint suggested a definite directive be given with an urgency factor. Also, if there is no resolution by a deadline, that deadline should not coincide with the expiration of the lease. He suggested a five year extension to the lease. • Alan pointed out that the original suggestion of a ten year lease would help Hageman amortize the expenses he will incur to satisfy the terms of the lease. A shorter lease would cause an economic hardship for Roger and for that reason should not have the same environmental testing requirements. Alan Apt reminded the NRAB there was a motion on the table and stated the NRAB can either amend, dismiss or vote on it. Ben Manvel reminded the group the Council makes the final decision and they need only give a general direction to Council with this vote. The group discussed how to word the recommendation • Glen Colton asked what was the result of discussion of the Land Conservation and Stewardship Advisory Board. o Mark Sears stated the LCSB will be writing a formal memo opposing the lease from the viewpoint of natural areas stewardship. He pointed out the LCSB does acknowledge the value that Hageman Earth Cycle provides the city, but they were voting from a narrower perspective. The Natural Resources Advisory Board represents issues that are of broader benefit to the community. • Joe Piesman offered a friendly amendment to the motion to have a study be done to find a solution. After discussion, Joe withdrew the amendment. 14 Alan Apt called the vote: Linda Knowlton moved and Liz Pruessner seconded a motion that the Natural Resources Board recommends the Fort Collins City Council approve a new lease for Hageman Earth Cycle for one year, renewable for 9 years. Motion Passed. 6 - 2 with Glen Colton and Heather Manier voting against. Clint Skutchan moved to recommend the Fort Collins City Council renew the 10 year lease to Hageman Earth Cycle, but that a multi jurisdictional task force to be created to find a long term solution for yard waste recycling within two years. (Glen Colton made a friendly amendment to add "within two years" to the motion.) Motion Passed 6 — 2 with Joe Piesman and Heather Manier voting against. West Nile Virus Technical Advisory Committee update. Joe Piesman informed the NRAB that when Amy Dean resigned from the NRAB her position on the West Nile Virus Technical Advisory Committee became vacant. Joe has attended 3 meetings, but the process is too far along for him to formally join the group. Although Amy has left, she has agreed to review the final report. Joe addressed the board with a recap. o Joe recommended the NRAB watch the West Nile Advisory Committee at the City Council work session on April 22. They will be the first item on the agenda. o Alan Apt stated this issue may be outside of the NRAB's purview, but that if the NRAB wants to weigh in on the issue, watching the work session would provide very informative background. o The committee is not prepared to present a final report, so Tess Heffernan will summarize where the committee stands. o Everyone has agreed on larvacide o They also discussed, but have not totally agreed on the public outreach and education program for adulticizing. It is very controversial. ■ There is general agreement on the committee that there can be conditions where aldulticizing is needed. ■ They have had a lot of discussion what the triggers would be. ■ It sounds like the decision has been made that when the recommendation comes from the Larimer County Public Health Commissioner that there is a public emergency of West Nile Virus, it will come to Darin Atteber y. At that point a City-wide action committee will make the decision to spray. • In the past it was a vote by each council person and done under time pressures. 15 • The new plan is that the City Manager's office will make that decision. o Joe pointed out that the time line from time when mosquito information is collected and the final testing of mosquitoes is done and the recommendation for spraying occurs is about 19 days. However, from the date the first person is bitten to when the first case of West Nile Virus is documented to when the first documented death from WNV takes about 38 days. o Adrienne LeBailly from Larimer County Public Health stated the data has to have human interpretation that takes into account things such as weather conditions, when the mosquitoes were collected, state data on blood screening and blood donors that are infected but do not have onset. At that point the County makes a recommendation. o One final thing the committee discussed was should there be an advisory board that Darin Atteberry has to go to when the county's recommendation to spray comes in. o In answer to a question from Clint, Joe stated the report is due by June 1, whether or not there is a consensus or majority vote. o Ben Manvel stated the Council was a little concerned if the contractors for larvacide and adulticide would be separated. Climate Task Force Update Alan Apt stated, as a board, the NRAB has sent several recommendations to council based on Climate Task Force activities regarding solid waste, redirecting renewable energy credits toward Fort Zed (zero energy district) and energy efficiency over new technology. Liz Pruessner stated she read the NRAB's resolution at the last Climate Task Force meeting which reinforced the CTF's decision to modify the goal and urged action as rapidly as possible. o The Climate Task Force went to the Council work session with the recommendation to modify the goal. It was discussed and kicked back to staff to make formal wording for the new goal that complies with state goal. ■ 20% reduction by 2020 based on 2005 levels. ■ 80% reduction by 2050 based on 2005 levels. ■ They also talked about having an annual goal. o Liz pointed out the CTF will have a few more meetings to develop more long term recommendation to include transportation and land use planning. Then they will give staff the package to develop along with implementation steps and a roadmap to a smart grid. Liz thought the Climate Task Force would come back to the NRAB in June or July to give a formal presentation with the final package. o Alan wondered if the NRAB could partner with the Climate Task Force to recommend actions that would have quick pay back for energy efficiency. 16 • Liz pointed out there were several things in their short term actions that could easily be on board by next year. Things such as a community -wide climate challenge would help get people involved and educated on what this is all about. She will send a copy of the short-term list to Alan. NRAB Sustainability Committee and City Sustainability Plan update • John Armstrong informed the NRAB an Environmental Planner/Sustainability Coordinator position will be filled by mid -May in the Natural Resources Department. This position will relate directly to the NRAB's new sustainability subcommittee. • John stated he would be the staff liaison to the committee until the committee determines the direction it will take. • The Sustainability Subcommittee will meet at 4:30 pm next Wednesday, April 23. The first meeting will be board driven. New Business • Clint Skutchan would like more information on city programs that focus on reuse. • Clint would also like to get reports that are presented at the NRAB meetings in advance of the meetings so he can review them before being asked to make a recommendation at the meeting where they are presented. • Alan stated he has asked for a report from Parks and Recreation regarding the use herbicides and pesticides. • John Armstrong reported that the Planning Department is coordinating the Second Annual Urban Design Awards which includes green building and are looking for board members to participate on this committee. The jury meeting will be Monday, April 21 at 2:30 pm in the City Manager's conference room. Glen Colton agreed to attend. Announcements Glen Colton announced he has a standing meeting every third Thursday of the month at 2:00 at the Mayor's office to talk with the Mayor and other environmentally minded people. If any of the NRAB members would like to attend, please contact Glen. Committee Meetings none Sustainability none Council Six Month Planning Calendar None Adjourn 17 Glen Colton moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by Alexis Hmielak Administrative Secretary I I Approved by the Board on 2008 Signed Administrative Secret I 6 ig-aV Date 18