HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 11/28/2018NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
November 28, 2018
222 Laporte Avenue, Colorado River Room
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 6:01 PM the meeting was called to order by Nancy DuTeau.
ROLL CALL
• Board Members Present:
• Luke Caldwell – Co-Chair, 2018
• Nancy DuTeau – Chair, 2018
• Drew Derderian
• Elizabeth Hudetz
• Jay Adams
• Danielle Buttke
• Bob Mann
• Board Members Absent:
• Barry Noon
• Ling Wang
• Staff Members:
• Katy McLaren, Staff Liaison, Interim Climate Program Manager
• Honore Depew, Sustainability Services
• Ryan Mounce, City Planner
• Community Members Present:
• Jullian, CSU Natural Resource Student (wanting to learn more about
policy work)
2. AGENDA REVIEW
3. COMMUNITY MEMBER PARTICIPATION
• N/A
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• There was a correction on October’s minutes made by Elizabeth (#6, under business,
board member reports: City Council members had voted no on prop 112, then decided
to not take a stand) *amend that they initially voted no, but they decided on the 11th. Met
with Mayor Troxell but realized that didn’t reflect what the city stood by. With
modifications, Elizabeth motioned to approve the October 2018 meeting minutes as
amended. Luke seconded. The Vote passed unanimously. (7-0).
5. NEW BUSINESS
a. Regional Wasteshed Planning
Honore Depew, Sr. Sustainability Specialist, reviewed the recommendations in the final
Solid Waste Infrastructure Master Plan (SWIMP) and a draft Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA), outlining infrastructure and policy commitments between Larimer
County and Fort Collins.
• Staff seeking direction from City Council on December 11th to move forward for formal
consideration of these measures for increasing diversion of construction debris and
organic material. NRAB reviewed these recommendations at its July meeting, and a
letter of support from NRAB to Council is requested, prior to the Dec. 11 Council work
session.
o On the December 11th work session, staff will be asking Council if we should
move towards adoption of master plan or towards formalized agreement that
has been discussed. Can send in materials up to the week before the work
session.
• Direction Sought:
o Does Council wish to consider a resolution supporting the Solid Waste
Infrastructure Master Plan?
Will be presented at the Regular Hearing on January 15th.
o Shall staff prepare an intergovernmental agreement for Council review
formalizing commitments in the master plan?
For Work Session on February 12th
• Strategic Goals Impacted:
o Achieve Solid Waste Goals by 2020 and work towards 2030 Goals
o Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) by 2020 and continue progress towards
2030 Goals
o Maintain and grow diverse employment opportunities
• The city’s only public landfill is supposed to reach capacity within the next few years.
2025 has been the anticipated year for meeting capacity, but now it’s been moved up
to earlier. Due to hail damage from the summer, abundance of shingle dumping is
taking up space that was not planned on.
o Looking into how to reuse shingles, but there is a lot involved.
• Strategic Plan
o Nearly a third of what residents threw away were recyclable materials.
• Larimer CO Investments:
o Proposed Facility: S. Taft Hill (current entrance off Trilby, new off Owl Creek
Road with composting from the north)
o No tax revenue used, no capital expenditure from the City
o Total cost will be $58M+ generated from user fees
New Landfill: $13.6M
• Year in operation: 2023
Central Transfer Station: $15.8M
• Will have an enclosed building with recovery possibility and
more safety considerations with the trucks leaving Carpenter,
Trilby to I-25 to dump. Would only be an operational transfer (no
mom and pops businesses)
Recycling Center Upgrades: $3.0M
• The larger it becomes, the more likely a third party would come
in to assist.
Yard & Food Waste Composting Facilities: $11.8M
• This is an open wind row that gets turned periodically. Food
waste would be enclosed to eliminate smell. CSU is doing this
on a larger-scale. As opposed to landfilling, when producing
compost, someone will buy it, so we need to be thinking of use
of these byproducts. About 30% waste is left, so working on buy-
back to close the loop.
• What about water? There is a lot of water that is a byproduct of
food waste. Biosolids: Have there been any talks of
considerations including biosolids?
o Depew: People are aware but there have not been
discussions of this. Could be a consideration down the
road. Have pushback from Fort Collins Sustainability
group: potential toxins associated with human health and
what goes into the soil, so would be some pushback with
composting what goes back into the food growth.
• Elizabeth: Currently don’t have any food waste pickups; only
have yard waste pick up.
Depew: Not cost-effective at the time, but once
the location is closer, could be feasible. Grocers
are all composting, a few restaurants are.
Construction & Demolition Debris Processing Facility: $13.7M
• Fort Collins building code: over 2500 sq. ft. required to separate
out recyclables; there is support for mixed loads (through
mechanical and manual separation)
• Is there going to be a requirement for all construction?
o Depew: Yes, for 1,000 sq.ft. rather than 2,500 sq. ft.
• Intergovermental Agreement:
o Community Commitments
Build, own and manage new facilities
Maintain a hauler licensing program
o Municipal Commitments
Establish supportive policy for waste handling
Participate in a county advisory board
o All Jurisdictions
Coordinate data collection and education
• Proposed Policies:
o Construction and Demolition Debris
Flow Control for mixed loads, 10-year term
Jobsite convenience
Market development
o Mixed recyclables
Flow Control for residential and commercial “single stream” recyclables
Assured volumes attract investment
o Organics
Community Driven diversion policies for food scraps and yard trimmings
Readily recyclable at multiple locations
• Economic Impacts:
o Public-Private Opportunities
Transfer hauling and operation
o Construction and Demo
Jobsite Convenience
Mixed Collection
o Production Facilities
Maturing Markets
Raw materials for a circular economy
• Stakeholder Engagement:
o Stakeholder advisory group:
50+ diverse members
7 meetings over 10 months
Strong support for Coalition recommendations
o Four public open houses
o Multiple 1x1 Meetings with:
Private Haulers
Fort Collins Chamber
o Regional Elected Officials’ Dinner
• Possible Next Steps:
o Q4: 2018:
County Planning Commission adapts master plan
City Council considers supportive resolution
o Q1: 2019:
Cities and county adopt IGA
o 2019 and beyond:
Implementation
December 11th work session is the first step to see if Council will move forward.
• Will be asking:
o Does Council wish to consider a resolution supporting the Solid Waste master
plan? (Regular session Jan. 15th)
o Shall staff prepare an IGA for Council to review formalizing commitments in the
master plan? (Work session Feb. 12th)
• January 15th will hear back if they support the Master Plan. Feb. 12th would be first
meeting
o Nancy: should have everyone reread the letter to Council before approving it,
with revisions.
o Luke asked about the threshold.
Depew:75% of the population of Loveland and Fort Collins would be the
threshold; not including Estes Park because of their 4 million+ tourists
per year.
b. City Plan Scenarios
Ryan Mounce, City Planner, provided an overview and discussion of the three City
Plan scenarios which illustrate alternatives for the community’s land-use and
transportation frameworks for the future.
• City Plan purpose: to provide a vision and high-level policy guidance for the next
10-20 years with updates to:
o Comprehensive Plan
o Transportation Master Plan
o Transit Master Plan
Phases:
• Existing Conditions
o Trends, issues and opportunities, community priorities
• Visioning
o Update and reconfirm a shared community vision for the future
• Scenarios (where we are now)
o Evaluate different community scenarios to achieve vision
o A way to package together different options, more about the individual
elements in each
• Draft Plan & Policies
o Develop policies and plan document
• Adoption
o Share, reconfirm and update draft plan with the community
• Scenarios are a communication tool to share ideas about potential alternative
development and transportation patterns in the community. The goal is to understand all
scenario elements; not to select a single scenario.
o Scenario One: Baseline
Land Use
Commercial Corridors:
• Northeast, around CSU, around Mason corridor
• Big box stores, small businesses- not a lot would change
Transportation
• Roads: Congestion management projects; roadway network
expands to serve new development, prepare for autonomous and
electric vehicles
• Transit: Continued support of MAX and limited enhancement of
existing service
• Bike & Pedestrian: low-stress bike network buildout, continue
sidewalk improvements
o Scenario Two: Targeted Changes
Land Use: Redevelopment near N. College (mixed-use: low and medium
density residential development; less employment), higher density
redevelopment near downtown/CSU; pockets of higher intensity
redevelopment along College and Mason corridor
• Question: Will that provide more housing options? Convert
existing homes into duplexes?
Commercial Corridors
• Potentially could see 4-5 story buildings and utilize space for
buildings and parking
Transportation:
• Transit: Similar increase in levels or just a small increase.
Expanding bus rapid transit to W. Elizabeth and N. College, so
would have to reduce coverage elsewhere; higher frequency
service on more routes
• Roads: Congestion management and roadway network expands
to serve new development
• Bike & Pedestrian: enhanced bike/ped infrastructure; improve
connections to nearby amenities and transit
o Scenario Three: Broad Changes
Land Use: are there more opportunities there?
• Mixed-use redevelopment along N. College; higher density
redevelopment near downtown and CSU; consistent higher
intensity redevelopment along College and Mason corridor; low
and medium density residential development in NE Fort Collins;
more residential and mixed-use development with less
employment; infill and redevelopment along Harmony and
Mulberry (long-term)
• Citywide or select areas: allow accessory units and ‘duplexes’ (2-4
units) in neighborhoods; existing home conversions to duplexes
o Question: Could you do anything more with duplexes?
Commercial Corridors: more infrastructure, different than what we are all
used to
• More emphasis on mobility options and expanded infrastructure
Neighborhoods:
• Elizabeth: NE quad of map where they’ll be developing… North of
Water’s Edge: very toxic things underground with potential
explosives underground
o Mounce: Would be looked at and resolved during proposal.
If there were very large areas of this, would be looked at.
Will look at gas development, water sources, etc. Will
follow 500 ft. for residential, 1000 ft. for high density for
oil/gas
o Near Waters Edge: community just west of Budweiser
plant, where the city is expected to see the biggest growth.
Transportation
• Transit: expand bus rapid transit to W. Elizabeth, N. College,
Harmony; higher frequency service on more routes; greater route
coverage; expand regional connections
• Roads: congestion management; roadway network expands to
serve new development; address emerging trends
• Bike & Pedestrian: greater support for bike and pedestrian
infrastructure; improve connections
• Scenario Indicators:
o Scenario #1: New Job Capacity: 77.300; New Housing Unit Capacity: 47,200
Residents within ¼ mile of enhanced bike facilities: increase of 38%
19% within ½ mile of BRT; 71% within ¼ miles of all transit except
regional routes
GHG Reductions: 4%
Per capita household building energy reduction: 7%
• Mounce: This is a reflection of what it is current
• Nancy: 7% neighborhood: takes into account EDU’s?
o Mounce: Takes into account areas like Scotch Pines
Per capita household water consumption reduction: 2%
o Scenario #2: New Job Capacity: 62,800; New Housing Unit Capacity: 50,300
Residents within ¼ mile of enhanced bike facilities: increase of 72%
32% within ½ mile of BRT; 85% within ¼ miles of all transit except
regional routes
GHG Reductions: 6%
Per capita household building energy reduction: 15%
Per capita household water consumption reduction: 6%
o Scenario #3: New Job Capacity: 78,000; New Housing Unit Capacity: 69,100
Residents within ¼ mile of enhanced bike facilities: increase of 98%
51% within ½ mile of BRT; 93% within ¼ miles of all transit except
regional routes
GHG Reductions: 9%
Per capita household building energy reduction: 29%
Per capita household water consumption reduction: 14%
• Mounce: The numbers are high because it’s the theoretical
maximum capacity; we have been creating more jobs than
structures.
o Elizabeth: What kind of jobs are you talking about?
Mounce: Can’t say what kind of jobs these would
be, but it would be based on land use. If industrial,
more warehousing; we know generally how that
income structure would be based.
Eliz: Scenario 3 would make a larger city than what
we’ve been planning for, but it would provide better
transit.
In each of the scenarios, do we currently have the water rights?
• Mounce: Different depending on area- it changes. Have had water
workshops and learning from Denver Water in their growth. They
have found that water usage is similar with growth because
outdoor water usage will lessen, but with more growth, more
indoor water use. Demand for water in the city is still water coming
out of a watershed, but how do we account for that?
• Set regulations on new construction, what is allowable, more fixed
water usage give more control on how to incorporate new
technologies.
o Katy: Fort Collins has different water districts, limiting the
amount of control the City has over conservation and use
Elements of a preferred scenario:
Desired feedback:
• Level of support for different land-use and transportations
options
• Impacts, benefits, etc.
Community Feedback Heard from over 1,000 people on what they’ve heard on the scenarios
• General Areas of Agreement:
o A lot of support for moderate/ big changes, especially if they involve GHG
reductions, transportation improvements, housing and equity
o Strong support for higher density development in commercial corridors to support
transit
o Strong support for greater diversity of housing types in new housing
developments
• General Areas of Tension/Concern:
o Appropriate amount of change in established neighborhoods
At some point will we run out of vacant land?
Is this pushing people out with our climate action goals?
o Responsibility and ability to meet future housing demands: What are the regional
impacts?
o Displacement impacts in commercial corridors (residents/businesses)
With higher levels of density, how will that impact parks or residential
streets? How do we accommodate the important areas of the community
for residents?
o Change in community character and resources to serve a larger population
o Impacts and level of service on parks, natural areas and sensitive lands (if there
is a higher density/more people)
o Increase high-frequency routes while maintaining coverage:
Most people did not like that. A lot of people rely on the service. While a
lot of people don’t use the service, those who do do not want the change.
o Role of transportation services in our transit system
Micro-transit
o Mismatch between desired transportation system and the funding/land-use
changes to support it
o Strong support to achieve CAP goals, but the most aggressive scenarios did not
meet assumptions for vehicle miles traveled reduction
• Other Comments & Themes:
o Additional density or higher population should be tied to addressing community
priorities (not for its own sake)
o Concern about rapid changes in community feel; loss of existing ‘vibe’ of Fort
Collins
o Impact funding decisions on residents and businesses
o Board Feedback: Seems like everyone wants scenario 3 for transportation but
they don’t want all the population density or the money it takes to implement that.
Need to analyze how this will reflect the future of the community.
Would still have to support growth its own way. Just upon transit, wouldn’t
pay for itself.
Luke: Could really increase mixed-use spaces rather than just residential,
which increases community, spending locally… high density will be key to
do that. The city could this use as a tool: each pixel of density is a city
block, it would provide transparency to developers as well as potential
buyers to those properties as to what to expect. Identify problems for
what to expect. Look at what density level is desired in each area.
Consider this when talking about townhomes in certain areas, including
what you have to cut back on, as well as reducing yard space. You’ll see
people pushed to the parks since their yards won’t be big. Really need to
establish funding of restoration and maintenance of amenities because
the use will only increase. With looking at the overview pictures, need to
be reassessing the parking requirements to reduce and maximize the
parking areas.
Elizabeth: Eco-Districts: More of that, especially in business areas and
around housing to increase more intentional communities. That increases
a community.
Nancy: one of the strategies to reduce greenhouse miles is to have
grocery, restaurants, etc. nearby, but those are hard to reduce for
employment.
Ryan: If only we could provide all the jobs for Fort Collins residents, but
we are unable to do so.
Huge social justice issue with transportation. A lot of those people cannot
afford to live near both the transport and their job. There are other ways
to supplement nature and increase exposure to nature, as well as
increase people to bike or walk further. Need to include consideration for
more carbon impacts. Whatever we do, we won’t stop people from
moving to the Front Range. Scenario three is more like a European city:
know their neighbors, more connected with community. Change is going
to happen, not new scenarios that are too dramatic that will still increase
overall life quality.
Elizabeth: Agreed on European feel. Make it more like Pearl Street that
you can drive across slowly. When you walk more, you’re healthier, more
interactive as a city.
o Nancy: Tiny House Community?
Ryan: There are many fees associated: foundation, sewer system, capital
fees, not proportional to actual impact of the size of the residence; would
have to meet all the requirements of a single-family size home.
How are they different from a trailer house?
Ryan: Some of these communities have a communal bath, kitchen
facility. [In the end, quite different and almost as expensive]
• Next Steps:
o Not so much on a specific scenario, but more of what exactly people want
o Develop and gather feedback on preferred direction (with more specifications)
o Carry forward, revise, or add new policies
o Draft document:
February/March: community review of draft document
March: final changes based on community feedback
April: Council consideration of adoption
• NRAB Questions:
o What additional info and updates would the NRAB like to see moving forward?
Bob: Feels like building codes trail behind city planning. Tend to reflect
more exceptions to standard building codes. They do not try to take us in
the direction we want to go. There are building codes that we would have
to modify: water use, fixtures we use, how power is supplied. Not sure
how to do it but, would like to see more correlation and see what the
coding changes we would need. Same with parking.
More urban tree canopy you have, the more people walk or bike and the
less speed people drive.
• Ryan: more on land use code and tree planning. Most of the
community is already build out. If we want to achieve, have to use
what is already built out. What’s there already is what we already
have. There still are big opportunities, but given these plans, we
will have reached capacity in a sense. There are many different
levels it could happen at.
o Luke: Is that really fair? Once we reach that buildout,
people will tear down older structures and still rebuild or
build out. Success of the MAX: highlights that investments
like that do get used. Those options are going to be much
more needed and required for more people. Consider:
move into a more regional transit-based transportation plan
especially when looking at how to invest money into new
trails and biking. This would require more taxes but would
also free up what the city pays towards transportation.
o Ryan: could they take more a regional role to assist?
Does the NRAB wish to make a formal recommendation next Spring on
the City Plan?
• Luke: The March meeting is the last opportunity to provide a letter
of recommendation.
o February 20th is their next meeting, followed by March
20th.
o Ryan: Hoping April 19th would be the adoption date.
6. OTHER BUSINESS (Note taker had to leave early-items 6 and 7 were not recorded)
a. Board Member Reports
• ____
b. Six Month Calendar Review
• ____
c. Additional Announcements
• ____
7. ADJOURNMENT 8:15 PM