HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/16/2015MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Location: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1A
Time: 6:00–8:30pm
For Reference
Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison 970-221-6265
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
John Bartholow, chair Kelly McDonnell
Joe Halseth
Nancy DuTeau
Bob Mann
Harry Edwards
Luke Caldwell
Staff Present
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner
Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Planner
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager
Guests:
Jonathan Carnahan, Citizen Planners
Grace Minez, CSU PhD candidate
David Tweedale, citizen
Call meeting to order: John called the meeting to order at 6:00pm
Agenda Review: No changes.
Public Comments:
Jonathan Carnahan—Citizen Planners’ goals are around sustainable growth, homelessness
advocacy, affordable housing, environmental issues, etc. Goal to video all board and commission
meetings, work sessions, etc. Hoping this board will take up the Gardens at Spring Creek project.
Concerns that there was a raptor program in the area and will involve a gifting of City property to a
for-profit music venue.
David Tweedale—Energy report from Natural Areas. They are putting more electricity onto the grid
than they are using. Have purchased three hybrids and one fully electric vehicle, with charging
station. They have the most energy efficient building in the City and are in process of building
another that will be even more efficient.
Approval of Minutes:
Harry moved and Bob seconded a motion to approve the November minutes as amended.
Motion passed, 5-0-1. Joe Halseth abstained.
1 | Page
Corrections: pg 5, “to ensure fully removed” should say “to ensure that the site is at or below
acceptable limits”
Pg 6, outreach about the Trolley Car Barn
Pg 7, change to “cooperatives to have CSA farmland owned by community and leased to farmers”
Also of note that there was a train derailment at same site as spill discussed in last meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 1—Land Use Code Updates Related to Natural Resource Conversation
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, and Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner,
presented ideas about changes to the LUC that have emerged from various plans, e.g., Downtown,
West Central Area Plan, analysis of Mountain Vista area, Nature in the City, Urban Agriculture
Ordinance, Climate Action Plan.
Potential Land Use Code Changes
Discussion about amending regulations for promoting natural resource conservation. It’s time for
CAP and Nature in the City to move into implementation. Take concepts and apply toward working
with development community—guidance or regulation? City has habitat protection standards within
land use code. Wetlands and significant features have buffer standards. Reviewing how well the
buffers have worked. There will be a series of case studies to look at quality of habitat, unintended
consequences, and consistency in code interpretation. Emerging issue in landscaping—objectives
include using native plants, low water use, low maintenance plants, protecting habitat, providing
shade, etc. Requirements for shade trees reduce carbon and reduce heat island effect. However, some
techniques are not as attractive, such as crushed rock, or conflict with other goals. Responding to a
changing climate is challenging also. Seeking ideas to resolve conflict between aesthetics and water
use. With CAP and Nature in the City, may come up with options for people in development industry
to achieve a variety of community goals. For example, get parking reductions if implement
mitigation strategies such as transit passes, car sharing, etc.
Mountain Vista Subarea
Council directed staff to look at Mountain Vista area and see how to implement urban agriculture
objectives and Nature in the City. Held design charrette with property owners to talk about better
trails, access to nature, and retaining urban agriculture. Will be fleshing out options over next few
months. One idea is a living corridor that has urban agriculture, stormwater, and habitat. Will look at
codes to make sure can allow desired outcomes.
Design Manual
Code versus guidance. Have a design manual from 1997 that helps people to use the code, gives
rationale, and offers techniques. Parking lots, pedestrian connections, etc. Now thinking of other
elements such as stormwater, fire code, bicycle parking, etc. Expanding design manual with better
graphics and illustrations. Showing how to do better stormwater management, cluster development to
provide more open space. What other types of guidance should be pursued for resource conservation?
Ex: Have design guidelines for architecture.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Are the three places presented examples or the case study?
o Examples. First step is inventorying what buffers we have. Looking at how well
meeting intent of land use code. How are they being maintained, especially as
properties change hands.
• If a buffer is specified, is the intent specified?
2 | Page
o Standards are in size and performance. Requirements for lighting and other
considerations. Intent to maintain in native landscape and to protect resource. Very
specific language.
o What would be solution if an area is not well maintained? Punitive?
Not that far in thinking. Will determine biggest issues. If wide spread weed
control issue, may need to have weed control plans for developers. If owner is
not meeting commitments could have violation notice, but would look first at
own side on how responding.
Example: Developer recreated a wetland on site, had invasive species.
Worked with owner on weed management over successive seasons. Property
owner was sympathetic. Through case studies getting idea of how effective
we have been.
• Hierarchy for different developments/areas would be helpful. Would allow developers to see
priorities of the City.
o Can work with local development company and landscapers to refine.
• Work with Institute for Built Environment at CSU—some of newer things like rooftop
gardens and green walls would give multifamily and urban projects some options.
• In neighborhood have seen two adjacent HOAs. One has taken care of detention pond with
native plants and habitat protection. The other has been less diligent. Being taken over by
Russian olive. Not as attractive. May get to point with water that paying people to remove
lawns.
o Already doing that. City has grant incentive program to help pay for native plants to
create a certified natural area. HOA has to weed and water, but reduce mowing costs.
• Once something is developed, there are regulations for management, but how do you sustain
over time? May not come under development review for decades. Is there staff that reviews
properties now? Options for long term?
o Private property comes down to code or zoning enforcement, which is complaint
driven. Don’t have staff to be proactive.
Inspections after development. Landscapers are trained for blue grass
maintenance. Want to train work force to successfully develop these
landscapes.
o Have education for HOAs so when make a change in who does their lawn care, they
are aware.
• Developers develop at lowest cost, and not necessarily what community wants to do.
Friendly and illustrative, but might not get us where we want to be.
o Can use in conjunction with regulations. Give options in negotiation.
• Point system?
o Prior to 1997 had a point system menu. Was not carried forward because of low
degree of predictability. Projects met points, but neighborhood hearings showed lack
of support. Could be application for something like that for certain aspects.
• Look at new recycling ordinance and RZW design for waste bins. Huge problem in Old
Town. Can be proactive in providing design guidelines.
o Have some design standards for trash enclosures, but does not include shared facility
such as in Old Town.
o Have minimum standard, but could include additional positive elements, great
examples, to raise the bar.
o Check in with haulers. Make sure haulers can get to enclosures.
• Does plan include meeting with specific HOAs?
o Part of initiative is to meet with neighborhoods. Also have neighborhood districts
project starting to help communication between the City and neighborhoods.
Will also make it easier to reach HOAs.
3 | Page
o Experience as property owner—when a home is purchased, buyer signs agreement
with HOA. With some there is an agreement to hire professional landscaper to design
landscaping which must be approved by control committee. How can the City get
involved in that process?
City would not be involved with private development.
Would be involved earlier in development review process.
o Support there being a master list of HOAs. From emergency standpoint also
beneficial.
• Developers can meet letter of code and remain far from intent.
o Often takes many iterations of plan to get to intent. With design guidelines can give
them more information upfront.
• Appreciate that thinking of ways to reduce minimum amount of parking per occupant.
Flexibility is good as well, especially in more urban areas.
• Do you have staff to be more flexible? Will developers have to spend more time on projects?
o If done well, could reduce time by making path more clear for developers.
Public Comment on CRC
Jonathan Carnahan: Appreciate compost, yard waste, and requirement for restaurants to recycle.
One issue with restaurant composting is that DBA would complain about leaving food waste outside
of restaurants, but cannot keep inside due to health codes. City code supersedes DBA rules. Will not
be done unless there is an ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM 2—Community Recycling Ordinance
Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Planner, reviewed final recommendations going to Council on
January 19, including: requirements for licensed trash haulers to make recycling part of basic
services to multi-family and business customers and to provide curbside yard debris collection upon
request to residential customers; and, requirements for restaurants and grocery stores to use food-
scrap composting services starting 2018.
Ordinance revision project started in June. Have had public meetings, visited B&Cs, community
advisory group with citizens and haulers, had Council Work Session. Given instruction to work more
with haulers on details and bring all aspects back for first reading January 19. Having additional open
house with ordinance language December 17. Single family homes would have a change in price
difference between size of trash carts to 50% or 80% (haulers want 50%, staff recommend 80%). For
single family homes, all haulers would be required to provide optional seasonal yard trimming
collection (separate fee). In 2 years, all organics (yard trimmings and food scraps) collection would
be required for single family homes. Also discussing when organics collected weekly, haulers could
provide every-other week trash collection. Greenhouse gas reductions modelling includes
transportation. Recommending bundling trash and recycling for multifamily and commercial over
next 18 months. Would require 33% of service level to be recycling. Example: If have 6 cubic yard
bin for trash, would move to 4 cubic yard trash and 2 cubic yard recycling bin. Same amount of
waste. Option to purchase additional recycling. Prevents haulers from providing bins that are
insufficient for size of business. In two years will require collection of food scraps from retail food
establishments.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Why do haulers prefer 50% price difference?
o Majority of cost is in trucks, fuel, and personnel. Without Pay-as-You-Throw
ordinance, would likely have unlimited trash and additional fee for recycling. In that
case only about 20% of households recycle. The Pay-As-You-Throw system’s
economic incentive makes a significant difference in recycling.
o By reducing cost difference there could be decrease in recycling?
4 | Page
Modelled by consultant. Estimations are that going from 100% to 80% will
have negligible change in amount recycled. If decrease to 50% price
difference, modelling shows residential diversion could have 4% decrease.
• Not a big difference.
• But if going for zero waste, doesn’t fit goal.
o Haulers would choose what they charge for hauling yard trimmings, but when bring
in food scraps and yard trimmings, it will be bundled with basic trash and recycling
service.
• Four buckets?
o All three haulers collect recycling using single stream, but City just requires which
materials have to be collected rather than how collected. Haulers could decide to
collect organics separate from yard trimmings. Most communities that do this have 3
carts – trash, recycling, organics – with the yard trimmings and food scraps going in
the same cart.
• Potential emissions reductions from smaller trucks and fewer trips with every-other week
trash collection?
o Haven’t modelled fuel reduction.
• What we should be saying is that certain items must be recycled in Fort Collins. Have only
said this with electronics and cardboard. Strong believer in mandating in this instance.
o Challenge of banning recycling from bin is that onus of enforcement lands on the
City. Don’t have staff to enforce this type of ordinance. Some communities use this
tool in conjunction and can consider later if needed. In Vail, they required recycling
service, but not a size of container or service ratio, and found it left many gaps for
insufficient recycling.
• Consider launching a pilot program in a part of the city and use results to fine tune proposals?
o For both organics options, the recommendation is to include them in code now, but
have them go into effect in two years. Many details to work out, including equipment.
Codifying now gives cue to market. Allows private sector to build infrastructure.
May have pilots after ordinance passes to further figure out details.
Positive results from pilot could help strengthen community adoption.
• Variance of space constraints and/or not generating recyclables. All multifamily will generate
recyclables.
o Trying to foresee situations that may arise. More likely to be in business situation.
o Regarding space variance, they can give up a parking space for a dumpster, or spread
out carts.
Application for variance process allows staff to work with site and make
recommendations.
Variance must be renewed annually.
• 50/80 split?
o Haulers set own rates and will not set rates that don’t cover their costs.
o With smaller differential, households more likely to select larger bin as it doesn’t cost
much more. Haulers in advisory committee have said with larger recycling bin, and
smaller trash can, people put trash in recycling.
However, Fort Collins has a very low contamination rate.
o Trash prices are likely to increase. Cost to deliver trash to landfill is increasing 5%
(tipping fee) in 2016, there is currently a tip fee for recycling, and organics will have
a tip fee as well. As costs go up and add services, with 100% differential, largest trash
bin price gets substantial. Creates incentive for smaller bin, but could be prohibitive
to those that actually need the largest bin.
• Are there codes in place for new development to allow space for all bins?
o Since 2004, building code requires adequate space for recycling designed into
enclosures. Hearing from haulers that may need revision.
5 | Page
o Doesn’t work for existing properties. In some places very cramped and still an issue
to resolve.
• Regarding having pilot programs, since there will not be a significant change in single family
right away there is no plan for a pilot. For multifamily there will be an 18-month phase in,
and about 60% have recycling already. The business sector will have the most significant
changes and will also have a phase-in process to allow haulers time to determine where to put
bins, what sizes, etc. Pilots may come in when food scraps and organics collection gets
started as there may be issues to solve around odor and pests, and additional trucks.
o Once organics phased in there is impact on waste water treatment—will have less
carbon going into the facility.
• Just city limits or whole GMA?
o Just city limits.
o Does that create difficulties as these areas are acquired by the City.
No. Often already served by same haulers.
• Haulers want to do same thing every place they haul. Training issue.
Current ordinance applies to open subscription and homes in HOAs, and so
would new ordinance.
• Bob drafted a resolution supporting ordinance and three primary changes. Tied into RZW and
CAP goals.
Bob moved to adopt the resolution as drafted. Nancy seconded.
Motion passed, 5-0-1. Harry abstained.
• How hauler disposes of organics is up to them. Most likely to go to biodigester?
o Two options in area. A-1 Organics in Eaton recently received permit to compost food
scraps. If yard trimmings and food are collected together will go there. Other is
Heartland Biodigester in Kersey. Accepts source separated food waste. Captures
methane in anaerobic process, and cleans it and is put into the pipeline as natural gas.
Compost from that facility can also be used as soil amendment. Food scraps from
commercial likely to go to the biodigester.
o Not recommending collection of organics from multifamily in this ordinance.
Working out details in simpler systems before bringing to multifamily.
• Materials going down garbage disposals are welcomed at waste water treatment facility.
They are using anaerobic digesters. Don’t want fats, oils, and greases. But other nutrients
enhance treatment. Microbes more effective at removing phosphorus when have more food
waste. Solutions are multi-faceted; not one or the other.
o Possibility of having a collection the treatment plan could pull from as needed?
Must be macerated. They are receiving food waste pulp from large scale
pulper at CSU.
Maintain a level that won’t go away by working with partners.
• Very possible.
Also have other waste water treatment facilities in GMA. What works here
won’t necessarily work for others.
• Financial impact on individual homeowners and businesses?
o Have been working on this data. Tricky to model costs with so many factors,
including many outside City control, as provided by private sector. Organics
collection is estimated at $8-12/month. Optional yard trimming service is currently
$13/month. Working with economic consultant around recycling and will have more
information later this month.
6 | Page
Key is that City does not control the price. Market based. Three haulers
bidding against each other. Don’t have districting, which has negative impact
on GHG.
o Council will expect answers on costs. Would not endorse without more details here.
• Organics collection GHG implications are significant.
o Over 50% of material currently going to landfill could be composted. Huge GHG
benefits from preventing it from being landfilled.
AGENDA ITEM 3—Climate Action Plan Update
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager, discussed development of the 2020 CAP Strategic
Plan, including: roadmap to achieve the 2020 goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%
below 2005 emissions; overall timeline of the planning process; and timing for when specific budget
proposals will be drafted/reviewed for the 2017-2018 BFO cycle.
CAP Framework is high level plan with potential strategies. Now developing roadmap to 2020 via
the 2020 CAP Strategic Plan. Have 10 teams: 6 project teams and 4 support teams. Project teams
include energy efficiency, alternative energy adoption, multimodal planning, RZW, water and land
use, and climate economy. Support teams are around metrics, financing, messaging, and piloting.
Unprecedented engagement at every level: executive team meeting biweekly, core team, strategic
initiative teams, community advisory committee, and community meetings. Current activities include
CRO, community solar garden, Lose-a-Watt, on-bill financing, etc. Midcycle BFO offers approved
include water reclamation biogas to Co-Gen, energy efficiency building code performance (evaluate
effectiveness of code), strategic initiatives for public-private partnerships, and communications. Will
be developing community dashboard for CAP including metrics. Platte River is being driven to
diversify clean energy supply through Clean Power Plan. Next steps include modelling, Council in
March for 2020 plan, website going live, and preparing for 2017/18 budget cycle.
Discussion/Q & A:
• What is on-bill financing?
o 2.5% interest loan financed on utility bill for efficiency upgrades. Also looking at
other mechanisms like payroll deductions for home efficiency projects.
• What will work product of current effort look like? Framework includes specific measures
Platte River has considered.
o Platte River is installing community solar and working toward cleaner sourcing. Fort
Collins is one of four owners.
Unless get buy-in from Platte River, cannot meet goals.
Much will be driven by Clean Power Plan.
o For work product, teams will develop strategies that will go through a model. Will
develop business plans for those strategies, which will go to BFO.
Worldwide, delegates met in Paris and made similar goals. Fort Collins is in
leadership position. Goals from Paris are voluntary and plans will be
implemented by individual communities.
Something to celebrate. Monday’s event at Galvanize was well done. Very
well attended.
• Request quarterly update.
• Other than Platte River, what 2-3 things have best bang for buck.
o Energy efficiency in homes and businesses. Most commercial buildings will
redevelop every 10 years, so building code regulations can largely address these
building types. But housing renovations are less frequent. How can we address that?
Transportation is about ¼ of emissions, so great area for improvement as well.
Developing a new transportation master plan that sets up to meet 2050 goal.
• CRO has estimates for GHG reductions. 5%?
7 | Page
o Need 560K tons reduction by 2020.
o So, CRO reduction of 100K would be huge.
Yes.
Caution that modelling around compostable materials is still in flux. Potential
for sequestering carbon could actually be greater than predicted.
• What has been communication with state and getting their buy-in?
o Have been in preliminary discussions about Climate Futures Coalition with
neighboring communities. Can be more successful lobbying at state level in coalition.
Balancing how much rely on others with how much can achieve ourselves.
o Building toward meeting longer term goals by making those connections.
• Transportation is 28%? Amtrak regional partnership?
o Estimating GHG from transportation is difficult. How model and predict overall
GHG is under discussion. With upcoming transportation master plan, modelling
typically only project’s increase in VMT, and with this effort, we need to model
decrease.
o How does emission from cars get calculated?
Would need an expert to explain the modelling.
Individual citizens as opposed to trucks moving through town.
Also working on personalized app to tie individual carbon footprint to
specific actions to reach personal goal/s.
AGENDA ITEM 4—Fugitive Dust Memo
A proposal for making a recommendation to Council about fugitive dust control measures was
considered.
Nancy moved to adopt the resolution as amended. Luke seconded.
Motion passed, 5-0-1. Joe abstained.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Clarifying that what drove this was nuisance complaints, rather than being out of compliance
with regulations. Could be made clearer in the memo.
o Will edit memo to include this.
AGENDA ITEM 5—Annual Report for 2015, and Work Plan for 2016
Work Plan discussion postponed.
Harry moved approval of the 2015 Annual Report. Bob seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Natural Areas and Open Space is not the purview of this board. With creation of Land
Conservation and Stewardship Board (LCSB) that was moved.
Interact a lot on Natural Area issues. Interfaces with other citizen issues and
impact on community. Different dimension than LCSB covers.
Will consider comments for Work Plan.
AGENDA ITEM 6—Other Business
Report on Dec. 15 meeting with Jackie Kozak-Thiel
8 | Page
John and Bob met with Bob Overbeck about six weeks ago regarding roles NRAB should be playing
and concerns about whether applicants were confused about purview of the board or if thought were
applying for Natural Areas board. Also met with Jackie, CSO, to see how can further the
sustainability goals. She suggested looking at 2016 Work Plan on how to be more focused—perhaps
five targets. Solid waste, water, and CAP are already in pipeline. Look at areas that have historically
addressed to narrow the field and delve more deeply into topics. Jackie suggested not changing name.
Susie added that it would be good to modify description on website to be more clear about purview
of the board.
Stormwater and Poudre River bike trail hardening
• Susie will follow up on potential speakers.
Council 6-Month Planning Calendar
• Affordable housing issues upcoming.
Board Vacancies
• Council would have voted last night, but too busy. January 5 will appoint 3 people. Have
additional applications so should be able to fill all vacancies.
o LCSB is going through similar process of onboarding new members and determining
scope.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:42pm
Next Meeting: January 20
9 | Page