Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 04/30/2002MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. April 30, 2002 For Reference: Eric Levine, Chair 229-5225 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison 226-4824 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present Nancy York, Jim Dennison, Linda Stanley (5:00 p.m.), Cassie Archuleta (5:30 p.m.), Katie Walters, Conrad Van Dyke, Everett Bacon, Eric Levine, and Mandar Sunthankar Board Members Absent None Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Lucinda Smith, Sally Maggart, Brian Woodruff, Michelle Pawar, Sarah Fox, Sandy Hicks, Theresa Vandendriesche, and David Shohet Guests Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison Richard Stone, CSU student The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. Staff Introductions Susie Gordon, Program Manager, Solid Waste/Recycling and Air Quality Programs Sarah Fox, Environment Planner and Business Outreach Sandy Hicks, Environmental Planner Theresa Vandendriesche, Youth Outreach, Education David Shohet, internship for his BS at CSU Carbon Monoxide Redesignation, Brian Woodruff Brian Woodruff said that he is seeking a recommendation for Council on the proposed redesignation. He distributed copies of the proposed resolution. Discussion: • Levine: Concerned that staff support is not as strong as I would like. Has City's legal staff reviewed it? It is not a legal matter. Levine: Would there be another IM (inspection/maintenance) program? There are a various range of programs to do with vehicle technology and staff is looking at tailpipe emissions and how to replace the I/MProgram with the next generation -type thing. Dennison: How many tons per day were being saved by the basic IM program? Roughly 10 percent of the mobile source component. Dennison: If the AQCC are tasked to prevent a significant deterioration of air quality, it seems that they would keep the IM program until such time as an equal or better could be substituted. • Walters: Is the ten percent included in the EPA model and will it be taken into consideration with the next project? Yes. • Walters: Will there be a new vmt (vehicle miles traveled) model between now and 2003, and would it jeopardize funding for the Mason Street Corridor? Yes, it could, but once we get new vmt projections and if it looked like this plan was in jeopardy, we could begin to revise it right away. Woodruff explained the Synopsis of the Maintenance Plan as written in the Agenda Item Summary. Key points include: • Third bullet: Because projections show the emissions budget may be exceeded in 2026, the State is committing to bringing back a program that is either basic IM or equivalent in that year. • Fourth bullet: Transportation planners will have to work with vehicle emissions limited to 77 tons per day. • Fifth bullet: The Health Department commits to work with the City and the MPO to find a feasible replacement program; City could have its own program if it makes sense to do so. • Sixth bullet: Deals with outstanding issues including the fact that wood stove emissions may be revised once new survey data are in (-- June 2002). New data may show wood stove emissions could be reduced to 'h, because of fireplaces being used less. Discussion: • Stanley: Can the 77 tons per day in 2026 only be reached with an IM program or equivalent? Yes. • York: The woodsmoke emissions could increase if we fall upon hard economic times. • Levine: The State is not being honest in picking the base year, vmt numbers, population numbers, and throwing out model 5b in preference to model 6 in order to come up with numbers they want. • Bacon: If the woodburning number is revised, how does that effect vehicle emissions? It changes the overall emission budget and gives more room. • Bacon: If vmt revision is done with the new census data for the maintenance area, will conformity still be required? Yes. • Bacon: Is there some trigger to look at this now? The MPO and the City have a joint project to update the socio-economic data, and those numbers should be available in 2003. If the numbers go higher, we can alert the AQCC that the maintenance plan might not be viable. • Stanley: Is there an alternative IM program? The City is planning to hire a consultant to do an IM feasibility study and look at alternatives. It may be possible to use onboard diagnostics or roadside remote sensing that could bring about a five to ten percent benefit. • Stanley: How quick would the feasibility report be done? The RFP is out and a consultant could be hired in a few weeks. The report could be done by September and the project has to be completed by the end of the calendar year. • Levine: I am worried about the legal challenge. That is partly why we are doing a feasibility study to ensure it is legally sound. The City Attorney's office is in the loop on the project and will remain so. • Stanley: The whole process is distasteful. It appears that everything has been done in order to ensure we meet the number on the paper, not ensuring better air quality. I feel like recommending against it. If Council does not like the plan and directs Kurt Kastein, Au Quality Advisory Board April 30, 2002 Page 3 Council's MPO representative, to vote against it, the State would be embarrassed. But the AQCC believe they have the necessary authority to prepare documents and send to EPA for approval anyway. • Walters: The whole problem with this situation is that in many cases federal programs are great, but we are further ahead than other states, and it is frustrating to be held back when we have programs working for us and we do not have the authority to enforce the programs. The wording for Alternative 1, stating that the City should act expeditiously, is important but we still need to state our dissatisfaction about being made to do something we do not necessarily want to do. • Levine: Would like to ask Council to recommend a better, more accurate base year. You could. But be aware that Colorado Springs presented a plan that was rejected because they did not use a base year far enough back in history. • Dennison: Colorado Springs may not be as progressive as Fort Collins in telling the legislature what is acceptable. The national CO standard dates back to 1969 and should be reviewed every five years, and the State has no moral authority to tell us that we cannot keep our air as clean as it is today. We can say that we will support the revision to SIP contingent on keeping IM until something equal or better comes up instead of not keeping it because it's not practical any more. What does "practical to keep" mean. It means the basic IM program has run its course and equipment is now approaching the end of life. If the program is to be continued beyond 2003, emissions testing stations would have to upgrade equipment. • Levine: Are oxy fuels off the table? Yes, because of federal legislation. • Levine: Is there any way to get rid of polluters without the IM program? The IIM Feasibility study will look at substitute programs, possibly a hi -emitter identification using remote sensing. • Dennison: Would there be any problem with making support of the SIP revision contingent on keeping IM until an alternative is found that is equal or better? We would have to come up with alternative plan language saying we commit to retaining the IM program until equivalent program found. This could be included in Part I of the Maintenance Plan but it is not enforceable (only Part II is federally enforceable) and it could stretch the AQCC's sensibility on the issue. • Archuleta: Some information about whether stations want to update the testing equipment should be included. Interested parties are aware of this through the regional IM committee and North Front Range Task Force. • Levine: Are boardmembers in favor of an additional recommendation to Council on the document? • Sunthankar: Include solutions as well as concerns and recommend remedies so air quality does not get worse. • Van Dyke: Looking at another model year would be a possible suggestion. • Levine: Retain some type of tailpipe emission program. • Stanley: Leave the IM program in place or find an equivalent program for equivalent reductions. • Archuleta: Can radar be used on emissions? The clean screen program looks at clean vehicles. The IM study will bring forward information about alternatives, emission benefits and costs. • Dennison: Is there a way to say to the AQCC that we will not support the plan until an alternative can be found? The State has authority to adopt the plan without our consent. If the new vmt numbers show the plan is no longer viable, we can comment directly to the EPA without asking the AQCC. This would be a last resort and we should not make contingency plans along those lines. • Levine: This is really Council's decision and it is good advice from staff that if we push too much, the AQCC might renege on it. Woodruff explained that the summary statement is, from staff s perspective, based on the best deal we can get from AQCC. It calls for continued effort on IM, the State working in partnership with the City to identify feasible programs, and IM lasting until 2004 and possibly longer. We have a partnership deal that we did not have before February and we are happy with this. Jim Dennison made a motion to recommend that Council and the MPO vote favorably on the redesignation request and maintenance plan, contingent on the State of Colorado making a commitment to keeping the basic I/M program until an equivalent program is implemented. The Air Quality Advisory Board recommends that the City and the MPO investigate alternative approaches to I/M and implement any such programs that are appropriate. The Board reiterates its previous concerns as stated in its memo dated as well as additional concerns expressed in the memo dated Mandar Sunthankar seconded the motion. After lengthy discussion, the motion passed with a vote of 6-1, with two abstentions. Conrad Van Dyke abstained due to a conflict of interest, and Everett Bacon abstained because he supports the efforts of staff and does not want to keep pushing at the expense of the recommendation made by staff. Katie Walters voted against the motion. ELECTION OF OFFICERS This will be put on the May agenda. INDOOR AIR QUALITY ISSUE PAPER This will be put on the June agenda. REVIEW OF MINUTES The March 26, 2002 minutes were approved unanimously. SECONDHAND SMOKE Because of the lengthy discussion on CO Redesignation, there was not enough time for an in- depth discussion. Lucinda Smith reported the following activities: • A study session is scheduled for June 4 • A meeting with restaurant and bar owners has been held. Comments from the meeting are on the City's web site. • The League of Women Voter's sponsored a panel discussion on Channel 27. Comments from boardmembers: • A public hearing would be good for bar and restaurant owners to hear what ordinary people have to say and vice versa. • The employee information is powerful. Air Quality Advisory Board April 30, 2002 Page 5 • Have not heard a good argument beyond worker safety. • Economic analysis is interesting. Should be of interest to bar/restaurant owners. • Agree with neutral thinking. • Will discuss at next meeting. SHORT DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Schedule changes and board involvement in the Air Quality Plan update. Lucinda said that staff would like to modify the scheduling of the four year update to the Plan to coincide with the City Plan update. She proposed changing that to a two year update to be done at the end of 2002, with minor modifications taken to Council in March 2003. Boardmembers supported the change. 2. Brief refresher on meeting protocol and Robert's Rules of Order. This was not done. Agenda Planning Review Council six-month planning calendar Future agendas May — Second Hand Smoke, Regional Transportation Authority; Radon June — AQAB Review for Council; ClimateWise update Clear Bike rack The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. ACTION LIST — from ADrii 30.2002 meeting ACTION ITEM WHO BY... DONE 1. Provide Eric with a copy of Board pervious Lucinda May 1 memo on CO redesignation 2. Draft CO redesignation memo for submission Eric May 2 to Council, following Board review (May 6 at the latest 3. Circulate radon CD (provide by Conrad Lucinda May 6 VanD ke) to staff 4. Prepare LUTRAQ summary for the Board's Brian May 20 packet