Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 03/20/2023 1 03/20/2023 - Minutes Air Quality Advisory Board REGULAR MEETING Monday, March 20, 2023 – 5:30 PM 222 Laporte Avenue, Colorado River Room 1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 PM 2. ROLL CALL • Board Members Present – • Greg Boiarsky • Wayne Chuang • Greg Clark • Mark Houdashelt (Acting Chair) • Sandra LeBrun • Gavin McMeeking • Dan Welsh • Board Members Absent – • None • Staff Members Present – • Cassie Archuleta, Staff Liaison • Jason Komes, Senior Specialist, Air Quality • Guest(s) - • None 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Greg B moved and Sandra seconded a motion to approve the February minutes, as amended. Motion passed unanimously 7-0. • Mark moved and Sandra seconded a motion to approve the December minutes, as amended. Motion passed unanimously 7-0. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS • Lawn and Garden Electrification Update 2 03/20/2023 - Minutes • Jason shared that the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) is now offering grants to contractors of public entities for electrification of equipment. The City is not applying for the grant, but they are engaging with City contractors and offering help with the applications. The City has $70k approved by Council towards the purchase of electric equipment over the next two years. • Jason also participated in a Regional Air Quality Council working group for electrification of lawn and garden equipment. The RAQC is proposing changes and restrictions to the usage and purchase of gas-powered equipment and is seeking feedback. • The RAQC is also initiating their regional rebate called Mow Down Pollution in April with a few changes from previous years. They are allowing for other types of equipment to be purchased instead of just lawnmowers and offering reduced rebates for folks who don’t have a piece of equipment to recycle. They are also looking at rolling out another Fall Mow Down Pollution program. 7. NEW BUSINESS • O&G Updates • The Board reviewed recommendations related to O&G Land Use Code (LUC) updates and considered potential for additional recommendations. (Action) • Mark met with staff and Councilmember Julie Pignataro. His takeaways include: • The distinctions between the different types of regulations (e.g., LUC and operational standards) were not clear to Council. • Staff does not have the “authority” to make changes to code between 1st and 2nd readings, but can bring suggested/proposed changes to Council for consideration, and Council decides if the changes are appropriate. The Board can still provide their recommendations and those would be considered prior to adoption of the new LUC. • The Board reviewed the last recommendation letter (memo) they prepared for Council to see what recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed LUC and what the Board still wanted to recommend. • The Board discussed the previously recommended moratorium. Since there are no pending or anticipated new O&G permit applications for the foreseeable future, a moratorium appeared unnecessary. However, because there are a lot of new regulations being considered around the State, a moratorium could be useful until there is a better understanding of regulations for new O&G developments at the local level. • The Board discussed their recommendations for setback requirements and had previously recommended that no waivers/variances and no off-ramps be allowed. The Board decided to reiterate its previous stance by recommending that specific code 3 03/20/2023 - Minutes language be adopted that disallowed a number of potential variance options. • The Board’s recommendation for 2000’ setback from property boundaries, which would be consistent with Larimer County’s regulations, was not included in the most recent proposed LUC revisions, and the Board still wanted this change to be made. The City adopted the State’s setbacks and added requirements for other sensitive spaces like trails and natural areas. While the State allows for modifications to setback requirements, the City does not/would not allow setback modifications. • The Board mentioned that the previous recommendation that O&G development should only be allowed in industrial areas was not specifically stated in the most recent proposed LUC revisions and that the Board would like to retain that recommendation. • The Board discussed the LUC’s allowances for pipeline siting and they felt the new proposed language met most of the Board’s previous recommendations. • The Board discussed legacy O&G operations and the growth management area and how the new LUC would apply. Legacy O&G operations in operation prior to code changes that are compliant with existing LUC and regulations could continue to operate; however, if they wanted to add, modify or move their operations (other than plug and abandon), these changes would be subject to the new LUC. The City is also working with the State for clarification on financial assurances and the plugging/abandonment of low- or non-producing wells. • The Board recommended providing incentives for operators to decommission the wells. Prospect Energy submitted their assurance plan required by the State, but it only covers about half of the cost of what the state says Prospect Energy should cover. The City is pushing back on Prospect Energy’s financial assurance plan, which becomes an incentive for the operator to just plug and abandon the well if the higher financial assurance is required to continue operation. • The Board discussed concerns about who enforces O&G operational standards. The State and County are enforcement arms of the operational standards, and the City has purchased a thermal imaging [or FLIR] camera for the County to aid in timely leak detection. • The Board felt that their previous recommendation about pipeline setbacks had largely been addressed except that they would still like the wording “as appropriate” removed. The Board was glad to see that dwelling tenants were added to notification requirements and that neighborhood meetings were required. • The third section of the Board’s recommendation memo to Council touched on enforcement and additional regulatory options available for local governments under SB-181. From what they could tell most of it was not added to the proposed Land Use Code. • The Board expressed confusion on operational standards and LUC 4 03/20/2023 - Minutes requirements. Cassie clarified that municipal code would be the vehicle for regulations and enforcement of operational standards. Land Use Code addresses if and where development can occur. • The Board discussed their recommendation for additional financial assurances and inquired how they are applied in other communities who adopted local financial assurances. Cassie offered that the State oversees financial assurances. Currently, there is not clarity on how other communities that have adopted their own financial assurance requirements are managing their programs, as they adopted these financial assurances before the State had developed theirs. The City has requested a hearing with the State on an existing O&G development plan that appears to have insufficient financial assurances. Depending on the outcome of the hearing, the City may pursue additional financial assurances, and this will inform if the City should adopt additional financial assurance requirements going forward. • The Board discussed, and inquired about, the efficacy and format of the recommendation letter/memo. Cassie stated that the Board should be clear about what the objective of the memo is. Staff has been hearing that there are not enough regulations or that they are weak. They are hearing that redundancy is wanted because of lack of trust with the State. Staff based their engagement with State rule- making around gaps in enforcement and regulations, but if redundancy is also a goal, the Board should be clear on that. Staff is also saying that adding operational regulations between readings would not be recommended, as they would require developing a regulatory enforcement program which would not be customary between 1st and 2nd readings. If this is what Council wants to do, another work session and more public engagement would be needed. The Board discussed that it is not about redundancy but about being stronger than the State and having more local requirements. • The Board discussed, and inquired about, different options on how Council could move forward. Cassie offered Council could adopt what was approved during the 1st reading or with minor modifications. If they want anything major, they could pull back and do another 1st and 2nd reading and do a full process. A whole regulatory program would be considered a major change. City staff is proposing that Council treat operational requirements separate from proposed LUC and recommend Council adopt the proposed LUC. • The Board discussed if waiting on the ruling of the hearing was warranted and expressed concern about delaying the process. • The Board discussed that their recommendations should center around air quality and that detection and notification should be the highest priority. • The Board voted unanimously to go past 8:00 p.m. and push the rest of the agenda to the next meeting as they want to get the memo wrapped up. • Mark recapped what he heard and how the next memo will flow. The 5 03/20/2023 - Minutes Board discussed if they want to include a recommendation around adopting the Land Use portion or pushing for adoption of a more comprehensive package of regulations. The Board discussed the current Council being supportive and thought that, if putting additional regulations in place was going to take longer than November, it may be advantageous to put adoption of the final regulations off until after City Council elections. • Mark motioned that the Board memo include a statement recommending that Council not adopt the zoning and setback regulations at the second reading and instead continue working to deliver a full package with additional (operational) standards. Sandra seconded. Motion passed 5-1-1. • One Board member who voted “no” stated they would rather lock in the Land Use Code and not delay the process. The Board acknowledged the importance of zoning and setbacks. The Board also agreed to include a comment about the public process and making sure the final version is vetted before going to Council. The Board also wanted to expand on the language about water supply and to demonstrate it will not negatively impact the needs of the surrounding community. They would also like them to include where they are getting it, what they are using it for, how much they are getting back and where all the water is going. • Mark will draft their second recommendation/memo and send it out to the Board for basic corrections. He will also work with Cassie to set the agenda for next meeting since they had to delay some items. 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORT 9. STAFF REPORTS 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. ADJOURNMENT • (8:17pm) Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on 04/17/23