Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/18/2017MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Location: Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Ave. Time: 6:00–8:30pm For Reference Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337 Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison 970-221-6317 Board Members Present Board Members Absent John Bartholow Ling Wang Elizabeth Hudetz Nancy DuTeau Luke Caldwell Katherine de Leon Drew Derderian Bob Mann Staff Present Staff Absent Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison, Environmental Services Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Bonnie Pierce, Environmental Regulatory Specialist John Stokes, Natural Areas Director Guests: David Tweedale, Land Conservation and Services Board Mike Pruznick, citizen Gary Wokner, Save the Poudre Mark Easter, Save the Poudre Tim Johnson, citizen Heather Bartmann, citizen Donna Braginetz, citizen Richard (Dick) Livingston, citizen Doug Swartz, citizen Call meeting to order: 6:01pm Agenda Review: No changes PUBLIC COMMENTS: • David stated that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to oppose the updated approach of Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) at their January 11th meeting, and that matters pertaining to NISP should be conducted in a public forum. David suggested that the board to vote against the updated process for NISP. • Gary argued that the proposed negotiations by the NISP is a bad process, which will create a bad product; refusing to give public notifications will result in no public input; and that the City of Fort Collins has spent 10 years restoring the river, and that work could be lost to bad public 1 | Page process. He stated that 3 weeks have gone by with no public outreach about the project, and encourages the establishment of open houses and public work sessions. Gary suggested that the board to vote against the NISP update. • Mark stated that the NISP policy is being formed behind closed doors, and that a major vote on the subject is approaching on February 7th. He shared his concern about City Council wanting to support NISP, and encourages the board to vote against the updated process for NISP. • Doug stated that he has seen many successful restoration projects during his 30 years with Fort Collins Utilities, and emphasized the importance of mitigation projects. He shared that the Save the Poudre organization is disappointed in the lack of movement by the City of Fort Collins regarding NISP. Doug recommended the board vote against the NISP update, and recommended to improve public process. • Tim compared NISP to a past issue brought to the board, which concluded in successfully bringing more trails close to the river. He shared his disappointment in the lack of outreach to the community. Tim encouraged board members to write letters to the City Council in opposition of NISP. Tim reminded the board that most projects have extensive public processes prior to making any votes. • Dick stated that he had attended meetings on the topic of water conservation in both Fort Collins and Greeley, and the difference was astonishing. He argued that terms such as “think regionally” and “mitigation” are broad and vague, disguising moral cause. Dick recommended the board vote against the NISP update. • Mike passed around handouts containing data about NISP. He stated that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) shows that NISP does not meet the demand for water, and that this gap should not be overlooked. He suggested that other systems could replace NISP, such as gray water and toilet-to-tap systems. Mike argued that the board does not have enough data to make an informed decision about NISP. • Heather made a point about the future children of Fort Collins not being able to witness Spring runoff in the Poudre if NISP is completed. • Donna shared two alternatives: Do we stop these big projects now, while the river is still in good shape? Or do we keep pushing new projects and destroying the river? Introduction of New Members: New member Ling Wang absent, introduction postponed. Approval of Minutes: Nancy moved and Luke seconded a motion to approve the December minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0 Corrections: Agenda Item 1 should read “Running Deer Land Sale” AGENDA ITEM 1— 2015 Building Code and Local Amendments Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official, provided an overview of the 2015 City Building Code and Local Amendments. Mike went over the 5 categories of building code that the City of Fort Collins adopts: Building (specific to commercial buildings), Residential (single-family), Mechanical, Fuel Gas, and Energy Conservation. These construction standards are updated every 3 years; there have been 14 code adoptions thus far. From March to December, a select team of experts from a variety of fields review construction projects and revise past codes based on guidance from the City Council. There was unanimous vote in favor of adopting these new amendments. Mike described the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) method that his team uses to test and revise code provisions. 2 | Page Changes to International Building Code (IBC) are mostly edits for clarity. Other changes include the movement of the “Fire Containment” section to the IBC, allowing the Fire Department to fight smaller fires and included further detail of building use and square footage; the lowering of sprinkler system requirements for smaller multi-family buildings from the full 13 to 13R; and a new requirement for all commercial buildings to use dark-sky lighting methods on mounted lights. The Code update in 2012 banned vinyl siding on buildings due to fire hazards, and although the vinyl siding industry was not pleased with the ban, the committee proposes to continue the ban while considering compromises such as adding sheet rock behind vinyl. Changes to International Residential Code include enforcing a 3-foot boundary between small sheds and property lines to reduce fire hazards between sheds; a requirement for habitable loft spaces in homes to have a fire escape option; an adjustment to exhaust policies for gas cooking appliances; and establishing PV ready and EV ready homes. Other considerations by the committee include gray water systems, asbestos awareness, and public outreach. Going to City Council March 7, with a second reading on March 21. Staff is requesting board support. Discussion/Q&A: • What is grey water; can it be used for landscape? o Grey water is the process of collecting used water from washing machines, showers, and sinks, and recycling it through a cleaning process for further use. It can be used for landscape and flushing, but it still needs to be treated for a period of time. • Do older buildings need to meet the new code, or are they grandfathered in? How do you determine which buildings must meet this new code? o All new buildings need to meet code. Old buildings only need to meet the new code upon remodeling or a change of occupancy type, such as from a residence to a restaurant. • Are there any codes related to landscaping and/or irrigation? o Only the requirement that the collection of rainwater and the irrigation systems in a landscape is that gutters must carry water 5 feet from the foundation. • Are there any codes referencing the sub-metering of multi-family dwellings? o No, that topic is specific to utilities. • Bob suggested that the NRAB only has expertise on two sections of the Building Code, and therefore does not feel it is appropriate for the board to make a motion. • Nancy proposed that the NRAB write a letter to City Council about the specific amendments that relate to the board, such as grey water, EV, and dark sky initiatives. Elizabeth moved and Drew seconded a recommendation to write a letter to City Council regarding grey water, EV, dark sky, and other sections of the Building Code amendments that are most relevant to the interests of the NRAB. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0. ACTION ITEMS: Bob Mann will draft the memo to Council. AGENDA ITEM 2— Update on Northside Revitalization Project Bonnie Pierce, Environmental Regulatory Specialist, provided an update on the Northside Revitalization Project. This project is part of an EPA Brownfields Assessment $500,000 grant awarded to the City in 2015. The target area of the project has been expanded due to difficulty recruiting sites within the original boundary. Original proposal targeted an area north of Old Town, with a focus on contaminated sites. The project currently has 5 approved sites. With two years left on the contract, the goal is 20 sites. The Brownfields Project Team consists of 18 members from 8 different departments. Larimer County and DDA are partners on the project. 3 | Page Major project steps: collecting data, identifying goals and priorities, EPA site eligibility, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA), Phase II ESA, and Public Outreach. The brownfields program is the only non-regulatory program by the EPA. It is always public information; a report does not have to go to the EPA before going public. The EPA Brownfields Assessment recently received two additional grants. More information at northsiderevitalization.fcgov.com. Discussion/Q&A: • Is the assessment intended to identify extra expenses? o That is one of the benefits of this assessment. The purpose of brownfields programs is to remove barriers in order to reuse property. This assessment also encourages property owners to follow federal laws. • 5 sites have been approved; does that mean they have been identified as brownfield sites? o Yes, but remember not all identified sites are actually contaminated. • Who decides the value to the community? What criteria are used? o The value is determined by our team, as well as our partners, Larimer County and DDA. Months were spent creating a list of criteria in different categories, based on different perspectives (economic health, floodplains, etc.). Environmental, social, and economic criteria are scored by the team (~60 points total). The highest scored criteria are made priorities. AGENDA ITEM 3— Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) Update John Stokes, Natural Areas Director, provided information about a potential opportunity to explore a proposed new approach to this project. NISP is a proposed water storage and distribution project that includes Glade Reservoir, which is adjacent to the Cache la Poudre River, northwest of Fort Collins. NISP is currently in the NEPA permitting process. John pointed out that Gary Wokner was taking a video of his presentation, and asked if everyone in the room was comfortable that. No one opposed the video. Recommendation for City staff to meet with Northern Water to discuss City’s key goals and issues related to NISP, while regularly reporting to City Council. John mentioned that this update does not reflect a change in City policy, as Save the Poudre representatives may say. Proposal of a negotiation strategy. The strategy would make it more likely to achieve City goals of river health. Northern Water desires a collaborative relationship with other organizations. The State of Colorado has a criterion of 2500 CFS per three days. Northern Water desires to achieve 3300 CFS per three days. The Poudre River is heavily diverted already, with about 15 companies utilizing it for various projects. Fort Collins is a small player in the regional conversation of river health. Discussion/Q&A: • Fish and Wildlife (FW) will be doing mitigation plan; are you talking about not conversing with FW, and going directly to Northern Water about the technical aspects? o It is a requirement to develop a FW mitigation plan. After the plan is developed, FW must take it to Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The federal side is a different endeavor. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) can make their own mitigation requirements. • You are proposing to talk to Northern Water and ACE about mitigation? o With ACE, it is less of a conversation and more of a reaction to their requirements. In 2008, Northern Water was accused of not having enough mitigation information; which was because mitigation happens after the impacts of the project are agreed upon. In 2015, Northern Water attached a ~50 page mitigation chapter to its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). • Can CPW propose ideas to Northern Water? o Yes. 4 | Page o The permit is issued prior to mitigation being developed. There has been pressure to do mitigation concurrently with permits, which could improve outcomes, but is not a requirement. Northern Water is developing mitigation alongside CPW, and trying to complete it by the end of the year. o ACE decides on the final alternative. They make that decision before they see mitigation information. After the permit is approved, mitigation is required and managed. The Natural Areas Department oversees the entire systematic force of this project, and we can bring a positive influence to the mitigation process. • Is Northern Water invited to the discussions? o There will be an open house, but most decisions will be made prior to other input. • Were the speakers accurate about ½ of the Poudre’s water being diverted from the river already, and that there will be an additional ½ taken away later? o About 2/3 of the water is out of the river now, and this project will take away a third of the remaining 1/3. • This project is intended to address future water needs? o Yes. • About 1/3 of city water goes to lawns. Encouraging alternatives to lawns, such as xeriscaping, could help reduce that. Do we have any voice about that, or is it all up to the ACE? o It is up to ACE, but our organization has influence as a stakeholder. We have the power to oppose what ACE does. For example, if they receive a permit that we do not believe they should have received, we can oppose that. • How many people need this water, and in what year? o 255,000 people in Fort Collins in the year 2050. We have not thought about populations or need outside of Fort Collins. • Greeley has excellent conservation strategies, and is not involved in this project. o The projected need for water exceeds what the NISP would provide. Individual conservation efforts would not provide enough water. • If we improve our conservation efforts, would that change the equation of what the future need is? o There are documents that answer that question, specifically the State of Colorado Water Plan and the Western Resource Advocates, which is less oriented to water development and more toward conservation. o In 2008, Council advised limiting their information about the impacts of Fort Collins on the entire project. • For the Windy Gap project and others, what did they come out with that was better in their minds? o John will send Luke links to that information. The better alternatives included various types of mitigation, structures, bypasses, etc. • In the negotiations, what would you be asking for? o Conveyance Refinement would deliver 14,000 acre-feet of water from the Poudre to a pipe near Mulberry Water Treatment Plant. This would have water quality implications on Fort Collins. This project could be negotiated. Other new mechanisms for delivering water to the Poudre could also be negotiated. Residence time of water in Horsetooth could be negotiated. Could negotiate restoration improvements on the river; wetlands, riparian forests, etc. • What would Northern Water do in return; and what would they ask from the City of Fort Collins? o They may ask something from the City, unsure what. They could ask the City to promote the project, and to be positive about it. • In a project in Grand County, Trout Unlimited was removed because they were the strongest opponent. There were mixed feelings in Grand County as well. o Staff needs to be objective; their job is to be dispassionate, and to advocate for the City. He sees this project as an opportunity to benefit a lot of people. 5 | Page • What is the worst case scenario if we don’t do this? o ACE wants to go through the process and achieve the minimum of river health. o Other agencies don’t have the same values as us. The Gray Mountain right is the big water right on the river right now. Northern Water could claim it, or another agency could claim it in the future. Many agencies are trying to take this water to Denver.  Example: Thornton buying land in Fort Collins in order to collect the water and take it to their city.  Thornton is going around permits, unlike NISP, and provides no opportunity for public input. • If the City did negotiate, Northern Water could just create “side” agreements, which would not be officially incorporated into ACE permit conditions. o Best case scenario is that the negotiations are enforced • Why hasn’t this been publicized? Where are you in this process? o During the meeting in June, Council was not comfortable with the negotiations. Only recently did we begin to explore negotiations again. • If the negotiations proceed, what is the accountability that the public can expect? o This has not been thought through completely. The current plan is to meet with Council and then circle back to boards. • We have other opportunities to negotiate. We aren’t afraid of staff going to Council. It’s the next step we are afraid of. • What do we lose by waiting to make a motion? o Fort Collins might have the most to lose, but I think we should wait. o Respect the shared vision of the staff and their job to protect the river. Jumping from discussion to negotiation makes me feel blindsided. I know what we need, but not what we have to give as a City. Elizabeth moved to recommend denying the adjustments to the approach of the Northern Integrated Supply Project. Bob seconded the motion Motion passed, 5-0-1. Nancy abstained. Katherine left before motion. AGENDA ITEM 4—Other Business Approve Draft End-of-Year Memo to Council Nancy moved and Bob seconded a motion to approve the End-of-Year Memo to Council as presented. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. Katherine left before motion. Meeting Adjourned: 8:45 pm Next Meeting: February 15, 2017 6 | Page