HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 09/17/2014NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
DATE: Wednesday, September 17, 2014
LOCATION: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1-A
TIME: 6:00–8:30pm
For Reference: Joe Piesman, Chair 970-691-6697
Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison 970-221-6265
Present:
Joseph Piesman, Chair
Harry Edwards
Alexa Barratt
Robert Mann
Liz Pruessner
Rob Cagen
Absent:
Joe Halseth
John Bartholow
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison
Staff Present:
Eric Rubenstahl, Recycling Aid
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director
Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner
Guests:
David Tweedale, citizen
Call meeting to order: Joe Piesman called the meeting to order at 6:04pm.
Member Comments: None.
Public Comments: None.
Review and Approval of August 20, 2014 minutes
Liz moved and Harry seconded a motion to approve the August 20, 2014 NRAB minutes as amended.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
Edits: page 3, last line 1st paragraph, “dam”; page 5, last paragraph on benefits, “for example reducing CO2”;
page 6, 2nd paragraph “according to Bruce all but one…” change “has” to “have”
AGENDA ITEM 1—Nature in the City
Lindsay Ex, Sr. Environmental Planner, reviewed the initial findings from the Inventory and Assessment for
Nature in the City and briefly described a Visual Preference Survey being designed for a survey of the
community that will be administered this fall.
Lindsay requested member responses to initial findings. They do not have ecological findings yet, but will
present what staff plans to analyze. 80% of Americans are living in an urban environment, so access to
nature is happening in a city environment. Our City has a long history of protecting nature. Our development
patterns are changing and focusing more on density and infill. They have had concerns about new buildings
taking up entire lots and not providing open space. As we move toward build-out, how do we maintain
access to nature? The project started in January with a triple bottom line inventory and assessment and
ecological data was collected this summer. Key economic questions include how access to nature affects
property values, how it affects business attraction and retention, and what ecosystem services these areas
provide. Proximity to open space commands a 20-30% premium for residential. Premiums are higher in
urban areas, rather than rural. However, the premiums in Fort Collins may be closer to 10% based on
interviews with local realtors’ input. Our commitment to nature has paid off based on their conversations
with many business associations and primary employers. From a social perspective, access to open space has
shown to significantly decrease body mass index and is a positive factor in mental health. People are happier
in places with more species diversity. There is often a disparity in access based on income. The number one
response for where people access nature is in the City parks, followed by natural areas. The standard they are
using is a 10-minute walk to access, in order to encourage and facilitate use. They are working with a
wildlife management class on plans for a number of sites. The group may be able to present to the board. The
primary barriers to accessing nature are time and access, such as having to cross busy intersections. People
are mostly looking for exercise and play when visiting nature. When they asked what values they should
promote the main answers were to escape from the urban environment, a place to find beauty and peace,
connectivity to nature, and personal or group exercise. Staff collected demographic data on respondents.
North Fort Collins Business Association said more open spaces and beatification are needed in north Fort
Collins. Other feedback included a desire for better way-finding and achieving the goals without too much
cost. From an ecological perspective, staff sampled 166 sites across 9 land use types, including schools,
parks, Natural Areas, residential open space, non-residential open space, ditches, trails, urban agriculture,
and Certified Natural Areas/Natural Habitat Buffer Zones. They partnered with CSU on this inventory. They
found 88 species of birds and 33 species of butterflies. They are comparing species richness, total detection
per site and proportional detections. They are looking at how land use, site area, distance to water, distance to
Growth Management Area, impervious surface, development density, vegetation cover, and number of
humans as points of comparison. The 10-minute walk is a similar distance to the average foraging distance of
pollinators as well. They will also develop indicator species that will tell us if we are on track or not and
analyze impacts of projected densities. Staff also conducted a literature review which indicates that native
species diversity declines with increasing urbanization, while non-native species increase to a certain point
and then decline. Some loss can be mitigates by native plantings.
From a strategic planning perspective (phase two of the project), staff will discuss lighting retrofits in older
areas to improve conditions for nocturnal species and night sky viewing. Staff has identified key policy
issues to be addressed including continuing current policies for master planning, connectivity, increasing
wildlife habitat, ditches, clarifying existing code, urban agriculture, coordinating with Climate Action
Planning, and mowing/weed control policies. After planning, they will develop guidelines using a visual
preference survey that will be available online. The visual preference survey has three overarching goals:
2
compare people’s preferences for sites to species’ use of the sites; understand what physical elements
contribute to the feeling of escape; and utilize simulations to determine what is most important to achieving
people’s values for nature. The simulations show current conditions versus added vegetation diversity and/or
pedestrian accommodations.
Lindsay showed a video, “What Does Nature in the City Mean to You?” The full video is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2IF2cs4W4&list=UU9yI7q_1fhS4KpfQp74mokQ.
There is a Building on Basics (BOB2) offer to support Nature in the City (CNL6). Funding would be used to
retrofit existing sites, potential acquisition, and improvements of arterial intersections. There is a photo
contest ongoing as well.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Bob said we should consider what it is we are trying to escape, and what are we seeking. If we are
only ten minutes away, we have not really gotten far from the urban environment.
• Joe said that being able to walk or bike to nature gives a different feel than getting in your car to
drive to nature.
• Bob said the idea to have this as part and parcel of our City, and having that encounter wherever we
go, is important.
• Liz said to make sure this happens while our community experiences growth. For her, what she is
seeking is escape from noise and heat. That is difficult in the urban environment. She added that
costs could be kept down by reducing paved surfaces and structures.
• Eric said that canals give off cooler air. This is what we are highlighting. We want to cue people to
these areas without having them used to death.
• Lindsay said that is part of the idea of having these experiences available close to home. Not
everyone will have to go to the Poudre River to recreate. We can look at our ditches and streams to
see how they can provide opportunity for access to nature.
• Liz said that a pocket of nature in the middle of an urban corridor is a lovely thing to find, but is very
different from a natural area. We want to incorporate the pockets of nature in the built-out areas, but
keep the natural areas as natural as possible. Comparing these very different aspects is difficult and
she suggested the survey try not to compare against this entire continuum.
• Eric added that a huge part of this is timing and context. They are both beautiful, but are apples
versus oranges. Going outside during your lunch break and being able to access nature is different
from what you want to access on the weekend. When you are talking about pocket spaces in the
urban area, what are you looking for?
• Rob said that he has been to the Portland park shown in the picture and the river is just three blocks
away, and yet he always felt he was in the city. His idea is nature is not a park surrounded by high
rises, where you are still experiencing city noise. Lindsay said you will never feel you are in the
wilderness in the middle of the city. We need to balance the various perspectives.
• Bob said the River Charles in Boston has intersections, traffic noise, pedestrians, picnicking, etc., but
it is still a different feel than being in the city. He has a friend who planted a green roof on his
brewery and it has become a retreat for his employees.
3
AGENDA ITEM 2—Downtown River Master Plan
Board reviewed memo endorsing the Poudre River Plan as presented to the NRAB in August.
Joe said that John and Liz drafted a memo supporting the Downtown River Master Plan. Liz added that the
board had a long discussion with John Stokes and felt positive about the plan.
Liz moved to accept the drafted recommendation included in the memo. Bob seconded.
“The NRAB recommends that Council adopt the Poudre River Downtown Master Plan as revised.”
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
AGENDA ITEM 3—City Budget Items, BFO Offers
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director, provided an update to the Budgeting for Outcomes
process, which sets the City’s two-year budget once adopted by Council on November 4. NRAB’s short-list of
preferred “offers” from June was reviewed in the context of the list of currently top-ranked projects.
Lucinda showed a graph of offers the board recommended. Joe added that the projects the board
recommended totaled nearly $2 million, while the unfunded projects are less than $500,000. Lucinda said
Phase II of the community recycling center will be partially funded out of reserves. Staff will evaluate site
alternatives. A regional organics/compost transfer facility was not recommended for funding.. A slightly
different iteration exists as a BOB2 proposal as an inclusion with the recycling center. The Environmental
Planner position did not get through the budget lead team, but Council is interested in this to support the
Zero Waste goals that have been adopted. The Integrated Pest Manager position also was not recommended
in the City Manager’s recommended budget. Poudre River Restoration proposed $500,000 annually, but has
been recommended for $125,000 annually. This would allow one restoration project in 2016, with planning
in 2015. The NISP analysis has been recommended for close to full funding, as was the In-Stream Flow
Specialist position. The Downtown Poudre Project is being recommended to receive $1 million in 2015.
Sustainable Theatrical Lighting was not recommended for funding. Next steps for the budget are: September
23 public hearing and work session, October 7 public hearing, October 14 work session, October 21 first
reading, and November 18 second reading.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Joe suggested crafting a simple resolution on projects recommended for funding and volunteered to
draft the text.
• Bob said it is more beneficial to Council if we do some prioritizing now that we have input on what
the Budget Lead Team and Manager’s budget are. There are projects we want to re-emphasize that
were not recommended for funding.
• Bob said all three initiatives (47.2 Climate Adaptation Planning, 47.6 Community Recycling Center,
and 47.7 Regional Organics Composting Transfer Facility) are integral to moving to zero waste. If
we don’t fund these, we wait two more years to begin. If we wait four years to get a recycling center
or a composting facility, you are delaying significant progress.
• Joe said Poudre River Restoration, the Downtown River Project, NISP, and In-Stream Flow
Specialist position all go hand in hand as well. There are a lot of projects that are on both the BFO
4
and BOB2 lists, but some can only be funded by one and not the other. What does staff want us to do
with that? Council will need to look at what gets funded in BFO to see what to put into BOB2.
• Lucinda added that BOB2 funds come in over 10 years, so you cannot be sure when projects will be
implemented. Also, BOB2 requires creating a package that the community can embrace.
AGENDA ITEM 4—City Budget Items, BOB2 Packages
A package of 45 capital projects that have been proposed for funding from a renewed Building on Basics ¼-
cent tax (BOB) was reviewed to identify projects of particular interest to the board.
Lucinda gave an overview of BOB2. It is a renewal of a ¼ cent tax for 10 years. The projected revenue is
$79 million over the next10 years. The three Environmental Health projects are Climate Action projects, a
community organics composting and recycling facility, and Poudre River Enhancements. The river
enhancements include the kayak park, improvements to Martinez/Legacy parks, and the area between Linden
and Lincoln. Each project includes capital and operations and management (O&M) costs. O&M would only
be provided through BOB2 for a limited time. Based on the timeline, there are multiple opportunities for the
board to weigh in. Additionally, individuals can give input online.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Bob asked if having the recycling center funded in the budget would eliminate it from BOB2.
Lucinda said if it was funded in the BFO, staff could continue to ask for the composting transfer
station funding in BOB2 and this would affect the site choice.
• Bob said the benefit of BFO funding is that we know when it becomes available. We might get into
BOB2, but not get funding for four years. This delays our Climate Action goals.
• Joe asked for a recommendation reiterating support for the 11 projects.
• Harry said that Fort Collins can be a cultural center and the theatrical lighting is a way of showing
support for that. By comparison, the Arvada Center attracts top entertainment. To attract top
entertainment you need to have top facilities. We all enjoy going there and benefit from what they
do. He would like the board to continue to support this project.
• Joe said we are advising Council and therefore free to continue to recommend our list, singling out a
few.
• Rob asked where the cultural offers are housed. Joe said the lighting is in the Environmental section,
as it is for sustainability. Rob suggested that the Parks and Recreation board could also offer support
for that project as it culturally focused. We could reach out to that board to ask them to also support
the project. That could carry more weight with Council if two boards support it.
• Rob said during a previous budget cycle the board he served on participated in the public hearings
and attended all Council meetings and was able to get approval of funding for the Gardens as a result.
The board should prioritize projects in order to give better support at the public hearings.
Liz moved and Harry seconded the following motion.
The Natural Resources Advisory Board is pleased to confirm our previous recommendations of June 2014
endorsing funding of the following projects through the 2015/16 BFO process.
5
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
• Rob asked Lucinda if her experience is that asking for two half chunks of funding, rather than a
single payment would make it easier to fund. Lucinda said the Lincoln Center cannot get the project
started without full funding. Rob said the Senior Center remodel banked funds over time, until they
had enough to start the project.
• Lucinda said that is the intention for the Poudre River Restoration project as well.
• Alexa said it is worth noting that the flood last year really changed the river and most other
communities are not getting away with spending only $500,000.
• Bob said our work is to advocate for specific projects, not to worry about the dollar amounts.
• Joe will draft the memo to accompany the recommendation and have the board review it via email.
• Joe said there has been discussion to take the Vine/Lemay intersection out of BOB2, because it
would take half of the total funding.
• Harry would like to strongly endorse the Climate Action projects. There is a deadline set for reducing
greenhouse gases (GHG) to zero and there is no way to get there from where we are now. We are
dependent on burning coal for electricity and fuels for vehicles. These are our two main contributors
to GHG.
• Bob said this is a matter of applying funds to what we know can make a difference now.
• Joe said all three of these projects have a good chance of being approved by the public.
• Lucinda said staff will work on new naming for the Climate Action plan projects to better appeal to
the public.
• Rob asked how projects are prioritized as funding comes in. Lucinda is unsure, but will get more
information and share it with the board through Susie Gordon.
• Bob would like to focus on the BOB2 projects that are most important and relate to this board.
• Rob said that regarding the Southeast Community Creative Center, the community has made it clear
that they want the center to have a pool. He heard that Council elected to have meeting rooms and art
space, and the people will be livid if they do not get a pool.
• Harry said if they insist on a pool, they may get nothing instead. Also, there are a number of private
pools run by HOAs in that area.
• Rob said they are very seasonal because none are indoor and not everyone has access.
• Joe said if you alienate a large part of the community who wants that, you have a harder time getting
this to pass.
• Joe compiled a list of BOB2 projects that the board would like to endorse: Environmental proposals
1 through 3, plus Nature in the City.
• Rob asked Joe to reach out to Bob Overbeck to advocate for these projects.
Bob moved and Liz seconded the following motion:
The Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends including in the BOB 2.0 funding package the
following projects:
ENV1 Climate Action Projects
ENV2 Community Organics Composting & Recycling Facility
ENV3 Downtown Poudre River Enhancements
CNL6 Implementing Nature in the City
6
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
AGENDA ITEM 5—Other Business
Review City Council’s 6-Month Planning Calendar
• Joe said directing next steps in Colorado oil and gas should be discussed further. Part of the
moratorium was going to be studying how fracking would affect public health, environmental affects,
and quality of life.
• Lucinda said Laurie Kadrich, or another staff person, could come speak to the board. Council funded
hiring consultants to determine impacts of fracking and storage of waste products on public health
and property values. The studies are nearing completion. The City Attorney’s Office and staff groups
will have to review the study before it goes to Council.
• Lucinda added that she has requested the board have the Climate Action Plan on its agenda for
November and January.
Announcements
• Bob said he is concerned about the disposable bag issue. If there are sufficient signatures to bring this
before the public in the spring, then the City staff is taking the next six months focusing on
implementation of something that may or may not occur. We should take a position on that to
Council, saying that we recommend deferring the implementation date to six months beyond the
ballot date. Right now it is to be implemented April 1. We have an opportunity to assist staff; we
don’t have enough staff to waste that kind of time.
• Joe added that when you legislate through petition you incur many unintended consequences.
• Bob volunteered to bring a draft recommendation to the next meeting.
• Joe said he attended the Black Footed Ferret release at Soapstone Natural Area. Approximately 75 to
100 people attended. Almost half were Fish & Wildlife personnel. Colorado will release about 50 at
Soapstone and another 50 at two other sites. He asked Natural Resources to have someone present to
the board on the bison project.
• Eric added that the fence is already under construction.
• Harry said the Climate Action Committee met on August 22. There has been work done on
forecasting CO2 emissions and the graph shows there is no way the City can meet the goals that have
been set without cutting back on using coal for electricity and gasoline and diesel for transportation.
The question is what are we going to do? The projects we have just heard about are a good start.
More people on the board are coming to realize this point. Rich Fisher expressed the sentiment of a
few when he said that we need to be focusing on the two main sources of carbon emissions rather
than being out in the weeds. Those need to be done also, but we need to stop burning coal. We can
use natural gas as a bridge fuel. The committee did not discuss replacing natural gas for space
heating. Lucinda added that the analysis on this is to come. Harry added that John Phelan said
Rawhide is the most efficient, cleanest, most reliable coal-fired plant in the state; why do we want to
shut that down first? Harry understands this perspective, but also understands that we need to start
somewhere. We need to switch to electric vehicles, unplug electronics, and everything else.
7
• Joe added there was an article in the New York Times on Germany’s rapid march toward using
renewables.
Adjournment: Alexa moved to adjourn. Harry seconded. Meeting adjourned at 8:49pm.
Approved by the Board on October 15, 2014
Signed
____________________________________ 11/03/2014
Dianne Tjalkens, Administrative Clerk II Date
8