Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/19/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. August 19, 2004 For Reference: Linda Stanley, Chair 493-7225 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison 226-4824 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present Jim Dennison, Ken Moore, Linda Stanley, Cherie Trine, Katie Walters, Nancy York Board Members Absent Everett Bacon, Jim Dennison, John Long, Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Lucinda Smith, Liz Skelton City Manager's Office: Tom Vosburg Guests None The meeting was called to order at 5:37 p.m. Minutes With the following changes, the minutes of the July 15, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved: • York: (Page 4, Municipal Government's Fleet Summary, Fourth Bullet) Change speaker name to "York" • Trine: (Page 7, IRC, 24`h Bullet) Delete entire comment Possible Expanded Board Function in Development Review Tom Vosburg reviewed the possible expansion of the board's role with regard to development review. • Stanley: We had written a memo to Council in support of some expanded role for the boards. At the time we were not necessarily in favor of something formal. • Dennison: If a board has a way to weigh in on development review, would the board act on whatever criteria it dreamed up as to whether a project was acceptable or would there be set criteria? How do other boards work, do they have guidelines? • Vosburg: Only two boards deal with development review: Landmark Preservation Commission, and Planning and Zoning. They do have clear criteria. Planning and Zoning Board is constrained by the code, and they need to follow the code in evaluating a project. If they deny a project, they must cite which aspects of the code it fails to meet. It is the same with staff review. It has to be contained in code or else it could be considered arbitrary and capricious. Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 2 of 16 • Dennison: Naturally, some of those are not perfectly defined? They are subject to some interpretation? • Vosburg: Correct. Something Planning and Zoning has gotten skilled at is coming up to speed with the code and understanding what are the critical parts to use when you don't like something. There are parts of the code where there is fairly broad language. There are other parts of the code where it is clear; things are spelled out numerically, and black -and -white. • Dennison: Coming up with standards like that, in the context of air quality, might be somewhat challenging. If it hasn't been done elsewhere; you can't just go and download a list of criteria that should be used. • Walters: Well it's the set of models and the States' preliminary process. If they can't get a permit, they can't function. That's the ultimate decision and that's why this is a little sketchy for air quality. • Dennison: Possibly not insurmountable, it has its special challenges. Are any other municipalities any where in the country embarking on this? • Vosburg: Broadly I believe there are other municipalities that have other boards besides Planning and Zoning involved in development review. Whether specifically there is local evaluation of projects for air quality compliance against some criteria, it's not clear there. I do know this question about, how do we evaluate an individual project from an air quality standpoint has come up in the past, most recently with the Wal-Mart project. Staff response to the question was that it is very difficult to test an individual project from the air quality perspective. In theory you could input land use characteristics into the model with one development scenario and then change it to a different one. With Wal-Mart we said at our comprehensive planning process, we test the whole model and ask, "does this whole land use scenario meet air quality goals?". If the answer is yes, then the second test in development review is, "Is this project consistent with the assumptions for this part of the plan?". With Wal-Mart we say "did we plan this much retail in that area? If we did then it is consistent with the land use scenario. Wal-Mart can only go to places where we have modeled retail development. • Smith: The only other thing that I know that communities do is some have mandatory new source review criteria. A project that would come in for development review would have to meet certain criteria related to its air pollutions emissions. It's not going the next step to evaluate the impact on air quality, but it is going farther than just the state standards. We don't have that right now, but it is one other possible way that the City could have a quantitative way to weigh in on development review projects. • Vosburg: The critical point you raised is how the board would evaluate the project, absent criteria in the code. You couldn't, and neither could staff. This board could be very helpful in coming up with the criteria. Once those are in the code, the question would be does staff need any help applying them. If there is an additional role where the board could assist the staff and add value; that could be an argument for why the board's involvement is helpful in applying them. • Walters: My concern is that the purpose of the boards is to advise City Council on projects and I'm afraid that for us to get involved in something directly with the City is outside our initial definition of what the board is supposed to do. • Dennison: Well aren't they talking about changing it? • Walters: Yes, but I don't know that that's proper to do that. The boards are supposed to advise Council. Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 3 of 16 • Dennison: So we'd be mixing two purposes? • Walters: Right. • York: What I recall original discussions was that when there were variances or modifications that it might be one of part of the criteria. • Vosburg: That could be one thing for limiting the types of projects. Those are situations where Planning and Zoning Board are making a more evaluative judgment. • York: I wonder even why we are discussing this - what are the potential benefits? From our point of view it is health and quality of life issues. NRAB incorporates more habitat and protecting natural resources. What is so unfortunate about the dynamics of the City of Fort Collins; you understand that the Home Builders Association and the economic development interests, nobody wants their hands tied in the least and none of us wants to add costs to a project. There is this enormous paranoia — I feel it in my bones — it is a knee jerk opposition on parts of some of the chamber. In that whole thing you have to look at the pros and cons of what might develop. If I myself, if I were head of City I would want to seek out valid information from whatever corner it came from. People having different perspectives add to the whole dimension of the being able to address a problem. • Trine: If we were to advise the Zoning board, but how would they take advise if it's not part of the code? • Vosburg: That is a critical issue for this board. If there aren't standards, it's really hard for you to be able to weigh in as to whether those standards are being met. • Trine: My gut feeling is that I don't personally want to be involved in every development project. My purpose being more on what the City is doing on the big, overall picture. We've been involved on the big level, not the micromanaging level. I can see where there is a variance, for example if it is environmental, they could seek advice; but how would they use it? If it was really specific to do with the environment and we could helpful in some way, then we could figure out what we could do to figure out how that would work. • York: We could drive it. • Stanley: Like on the previous memo that we wrote: "AQAB supports language as written as of April 29, 2003 because it gives the opportunity to weigh in on land use and planning matters that will significantly affect air quality. For example: the location of gas stations or plastics companies." At that point in time we weren't thinking of specific cases. With all that is on our agenda, the fact that we've had trouble getting people here to some degree, we often times go late, it will take a lot of staff time possibly to do some of these; I personally think it's nice to have the ability to do it, but being a like staff review agency, I'm not sure we could do that in terms of time and resource constraints. On the other hand, with neighborhood group, my concern there is flagging the issues and who is responsible. I don't want to take important staff time to be looking at this too. Air Quality staff has a lot of important things on their plate. • Vosburg: My personal opinion for this board in particular, is if you put your energy in policy development review or new source review, then the conversation changes. If there aren't project -specific criteria, there really isn't a role for board in quasi-judicial evaluation process. • Walters: At that point we're able to suggest and recommend to Council that this be put in; than that would transfer to the City anyways. Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 4 of 16 • Vosburg: Yes, and it goes to staff, and "boom" it's in development review; you have to evaluate how to support staff for that. Then the question becomes, is there a role for board to support staff? • Trine: Maybe if we set certain triggers, like we just talked about, to have it come to us? Would that work? We could give input to Council or staff? • Walters: I feel more comfortable advising the Planning and Zoning Board rather than staff because they are of same purpose. They are also recommending their opinion to Council. • Vosburg: No, they are a decision making board. • Walters: Oh, OK. • York: That would be the same though. • Walters: Yes. • Dennison: Is the idea that there would be some criteria we would advise them as to whether or not is passed or failed those criteria? The question would come up, why not just let them decide if it meets or fails the criteria? • Walters: I guess that's what this new source review program is; it will transfer that ordinance to staff and we wouldn't... • Dennison: Right, then staff will be doing calculations and saying whether it's above or below standard. The board can't get into a lot of interpretation of the data. If it has to be clear cut anyway, then maybe Planning and Zoning ... if we could come up with the new criteria... Planning and Zoning Board could still implement it. • Vosburg: There is a lot of different types of standards in the code. Some of them are very clear, like the intersection spacing needs to be a certain number of feet. I think where some of the issues come up with NRAB is that there are provisions for deviating from those objective standards if a more subjective determination is made that even though doesn't meet it quantitatively, that it still works. That requires some informed judgment. Once you get into that informed judgment phase then the argument can be raised about: can we trust staff and is Planning and Zoning Board equipped to double check staff? Planning and Zoning is the one being asked to make the finding that the change in the buffer standards still meets the objective of the standard. That's where Planning and Zoning wishes they could talk to NRAB to help make this judgment. That's the same thing with LPC and architectural review. It's like, yes they are sort of structured in form judgment; is this historic or not? True, someone who has really studied historic preservation probably has a better personal opinion about what is historic. But it is not like putting a ruler down on a piece of paper. • Trine: What things might they ask us? Where do they need our advice? • Vosburg: Well first, policy setting. It seems that air quality would lend itself to inherently informal evaluation as compared to the informed judgment. • Stanley: hi air quality, with the models a lot of times we talk about assumptions. • Vosburg: I think that there could be a role in small jurisdictions, where Council members also have administrative roles. The people who are involved with Council wear a lot of hats and a lot of the technical work is also done by Council. That's not how Fort Collins is. You can't always count on the board members always having that level of expertise as the board members turn over. 1 think that's how they do LPC; in order to get on you have to demonstrate a certain background in architecture and historical preservation. And then you are this board of experts. Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 5 of 16 • Stanley: If I were on NRAB, I would argue for something like an advisory board to Planning and Zoning Board. There are decisions that are made. They would be very good in reviewing some of these things and interpreting. And in that case it seems they should be more of an advisory board than a staff review agency. You already have the staff to do that and the citizens are acting more as check in that case. That makes more sense to me and it would be more of an advisory board. They wouldn't be taking a vote. But with the AQAB; I'm struggling a little bit. I'd like to be able to get involved and say what I don't like because of impacts on air quality, but we don't have criteria or a model. • Walters: Maybe the neighborhood model would work in that case. It seems like that's an outlet for passionate people to get their opinions heard. • Dennison: That brings up that issue you brought up earlier. Because we are supposed to advise City Council. And we're not supposed to have our independent opinion. We've run into a couple of cases where City Council wasn't really accepting our advice. I know there were some of us that wanted to write a letter to the editor of the Coloradoan and say why do they have us here if they're not going to accept our advice? We can't do that. Because we're supposed to help them, not discipline them. I think we'd run into the same conflict with the Neighborhood model. We can always go to the Neighborhood as an individual anyways. Convening ourselves at a neighborhood meeting; it wouldn't happen enough to be effective on many projects. If I were on the NRAB I would be for looking into this proposal more. I'm thinking of things like wetlands or rivers, about impacts where development has site specific impacts that pertain to NRAB. But air quality impacts are not site specific. • York: They can be. Like dry cleaners and gas stations. • Dennison: Yes. But I don't imagine we could come up with criteria significantly more stringent than EPA's existing source criteria. What would we do, implement the same ones? Or would we take EPA's criteria and divide by ten because we want to be cleaner than that? We'd get sued left and right. If you couldn't show it was risky and why weren't EPA's numbers good enough? It would be tough, but I won't say it can't be done. Gas stations and dry cleaners can't emit more than X amount of things that they have; standards set by the EPA, right? Would we have additional standards? • Walters: The issue is enforcement. It's hard to enforce. • York: But we're talking advice. • Walters: I understand that, but there are all these rules in place so that sources don't emit more than should, but some end up emitting more than they should because the agencies can't keep up with the enforcement. The rules are there and they should work in theory, but the ability to enforce is the key. I think that's where this is coming from. Dry cleaners, if they are running them properly they shouldn't be emitting anything. • Dennison: That's existing sources though. • Walters: But even in new development. If they're going through the permitting process, I don't know that we can set more stringent rules. They are following the permitting process; nothing says that they are actually going to emit what they say they will emit. I run into this every • Stanley: I remember way back when during Wal-Mart I believe the board wanted to put in input but then got in trouble for it or something? • Vosburg: It was the same thing about being outside your scope or your charge, you could be personally liable if the project fell through. Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 6 of 16 • Dennison: They tried to sue the City Council members personally. • Stanley: What were you going to advise on? • York: I was off the board at that time. • Dennison: Somebody said "we could do a little box model". I think we were grappling with what kind of criteria might be applicable. We knew it would bring in more traffic, more trucks, and people from Nebraska would come here. It was our feeling that this would conflict with Air Quality Plan's requirement that we continually improve air quality. Our feeling was that would be shown by any modeling done because of the size of the project. All we could do was advise City Council. • Smith: Did the board have some interest in reviewing the traffic study associated with the proposal? • Dennison: There was a question about whether the traffic study was done using all the right assumptions. • Walters: That goes back to projects fall under what the City has planned for zoning. • Dennison: There is an indirect air quality aspect about those projects. Somebody told me the runoff from the new Wal-Mart parking lot changes the local hydrology and now they had mold in their basement. It's actually very conceivable. • Walters: Wal-Mart is involved in a national lawsuit with EPA regarding storm water runoff. • Trine: Wal-Mart was a variance situation? • Vosburg: No they were by the book. It was scrutinized closely. Council investigated staff; they brought in special council to look at the City Attorney, City Manager and Land Director about whether or not they made the right call about what set of rules to use to evaluate Wal-Mart. They fully met the Land Development Guidance System and I think the analysis was we held them against City plan as well. They still would have passed. The City Plan did indicate that site for intense commercial development. • Stanley: I'm thinking about this more NRAB than air quality, but I was talking before about how the the advisory board made more sense than the staff review agency, I think it would be important for whatever is presented, not to have a full blown presentation of all the issues, it would be kept specific to whatever that is, because Planning And Zoning Board is supposed to be the one that integrates. I would think staff would be responsible for that piece, to decide what we hear about. • Walters: I don't see a necessity for us to review blueprints when only one piece applies to us. • Stanley: It keeps other things out of the picture. • York: I think that we should try setting some criteria. If I wanted to build a new old- fashioned cleaners, I couldn't locate it in my neighborhood. • Vosburg: Right, there are permitted uses and non -permitted uses. There could be a mix. • York: Maybe that's what we should look at too, because it's involving where there is residential and commercial together, if maybe we should weigh in on something like that, because it's a health issue. Not that anybody will pay attention to it, because they don't. For instance, the distance between heavily traveled streets and residences; the powers that be overlook that. • Stanley: That's really policy rather than individual development pieces. • York: I like the idea of policy. Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 7 of 16 • Vosburg: What I have heard today is definitely not option two. Is AQAB interested in pursuing in being involved in this issue as one of the boards and which model makes the most sense? I've heard definitely not option two, but some support for option three, the advisory to Planning and Zoning Board. • Walters: The other thing is whether or not we want to be involved is what authority we have to stop projects. There are no criteria that we have to say: "you didn't meet it, you can't go ahead because this air quality issue has come up". That will be the key as to whether we can get involved and have a reason to be involved • Stanley: If we advise Planning and Zoning to deny a project because it won't improve air quality, that doesn't have to be followed? If we advise Planning and Zoning to deny a project because it won't improve air quality, the City will get sued because, would this principle hold up? • Vosburg: City Plan document is an advisory plan document but the Land Use Code is the regulatory document that is used to evaluate projects. There are a lot of principles about creating a pleasant pedestrian environment and supporting a mix of lifestyles. So plenty of projects fail to meet the principle test. In theory, when you look at the Code what we are hoping is that you can point to principles and say, "that principle is something that is written in the code". It doesn't read like the principle, but we are trying to operationalize it. The problem is some of those principles are more fully operationalized in the code more than others. Air quality is hard to figure out a way to do it. That's the intent of the zoning map; it is supposed to match the structure plan very closely. Because it is the structure plan, in theory, that strategic arrangement of uses and densities and certain patterns, is supposed to be a better air quality outcome than what might come about with nondirected development. • Stanley: If some plastics company wanted to build a factory here, I would hope that we would get input on that. I can't imagine our role as being as great as some of these other boards. It would be like somebody said with certain triggers. • Dennison: We're always in a catch-22. If we had an advisory role for certain projects, then what criteria would we use, and could the City even accept our advice and deny the project. There was a capital emission but it's still legal per EPA standards. • Stanley: There could be something in there to use to deny it. • Dennison: I wonder if we are headed towards the idea that maybe we should be reassessing whether there are any objective criteria that should be applied to development review that are more specific or stringent than those currently being used. If there are no criteria, this is a mute point. If there are, depending on what they are, that could be an indicator as to what model works best. They could just be added to City plan or code. It is hard for any of us to get our hands around it until we have an idea about what concrete situations we will face. • Stanley: We should have been doing this last year with City Plan. • Smith: I recall that this did come up with the board. Brian Woodruff talked with the board six years ago; just generally this question of are there criteria that could be looked at in the for development review process air quality. • Dennison: Here is a crazy idea: you could have something that said "if a company will use more than a small amount of a chemical that appears on a certain list of carcinogens, than notwithstanding EPA and CPHE compliance, they also have to do a site specific risk assessment. Au Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 8 of 16 • Vosburg: What you are talking about there, that's not development review, that would be during the building permit. That never even goes to Planning and Zoning. • York: You mention the denial, it is more asking for modifications, or to mitigate or improve the situation. I hope we do look into policy setting and establishing criteria. I was thinking of having certain measurements looked at that aren't being currently considered. • Vosburg: Where I'm at in the process is I'm trying to prepare this for a Study Session with Council on October 12`h. I expect to write up a document that articulates these models and then the different considerations and a summary of what I've been hearing from folks. I'd be happy to come back. Prior to that study session I think you have the opportunity to draft a letter to go to Council. • Dennison: One other idea: if we're in an iffy area, and another board is not, it would make sense to let the other board be the guinea pig. Start with the easier aspects of it and it could be expanded later. If we even didn't do it in this round, but another board did, that doesn't mean the door would be closed. • York: We already have the ability to do the policy? • Vosburg: Yes • Smith: Have you been to any other boards? • Vosburg: I went to NRAB first; you guys are the second board. Emissions Testing and Ozone Lucinda Smith summarized her findings and requested input from the board. • Dennison: The certain points up there that they didn't do; did they justify why they didn't do them? • Smith: Had a very specific reason for every one. They mostly related to the availability of the mobile six model to accommodate this. • Dennison (Re: I/M Benefit on VOC Inventory): That is a ten percent reduction, but it doesn't necessarily translate to a ten percent decrease in ozone? • Smith: Correct, it is only 8.5, I believe. • Dennison (Re: I/M Benefit on ozone): What is the standard ozone level? • Smith: To meet the standard you must be below 85.5. • Dennison: What is the ozone in rural areas? • Smith: The background level? It could be as high as 40-60 ppm. • Dennison: What are the measurements? • Smith: I don't know that it's often measured in rural areas. • Dennison: Like in the middle of Wyoming • Smith: I know Centennial used to be 40. • Dennison: Where is our extra 30 coming from? You said half was from mobile sources and half from out of state sources. Is that right? • Smith: Right. Something that's not shown here is the natural sources. That overshadows this by 5 times. We're just looking at what we can deal with. • Dennison: If natural sources are 5 times what is made by man, how would rural be 40 and we're at 70? • Smith: I'm not going to be able to answer this thoroughly. The chemistry is complex. When you add nitrogen oxide into the mix, in some cases it promotes formation; in Au Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 9 of 16 others it promotes rapid decay. Ozone can travel as a large mass. There are lots of factors. • Dennison: If IM would only reduce a small fraction of the PPB, there is a tremendous amount of VOC emissions that will still happen, IM cant help in any way, right? That whole purple thing? • Smith: There are ways. A major way is reducing the fuel volatility; that is reflected in this model. Another thing reflected in this model is the tighter emissions standards and the fuel changes in the future; the low sulfur. All of those federal... • Dennison: But they're already built in there? It looks like over a ten year horizon they're putting a dent into it but there is still quite a bit of mobile source emission there. • Smith: So you're asking what else can be done in the mobile source arena? • Dennison: If we are at 70 and everybody else is at 85; if we could get down below 70 by some other action. • Smith: I agree, primarily because ozone affects people below the standard. • Dennison: Are there any other strategies that we can take globally? • Smith: That is the whole question. That's one of the thing that I had on the second to last slide. As soon as we say "We want to reduce VOC emissions to lower ozone. What should we do? Is it even related to an emissions program, or should it be something else?" One thing that came up is the possibility of stage two vapor recovery. The Health Department did modeling for the Ozone Action Plan and ruled that out. Apparently new cars have effective onboard recovery systems. Their analysis of the Ozone Action Plan included measures of reducing fuel volatility and minor adjustment to the Clean Sweep program, which were the only two things they did in the mobile source category. • Dennison: What are the emissions that make that up? • Smith: I just got a detailed emissions inventory from the State in all categories. Commercial Lawn and Garden is about 8% and residential is 2% and wood burning is a high percent, but it is not an issue for ozone because it's in the winter. I could get you a copy to see how each category is broken out. The question is what strategies can be used to address those? On road mobile sources is one of the biggest categories. The emissions program is one of the next things. • Trine: I think it would be helpful, instead of lumping them together and saying IM only would reduce it this much, break it out and make those percentages of what it could actually affect. IM isn't going to affect most of that anyway. • Smith: Forget the green bar, which is non -mobile... • Dennison: But some of those still can't be done. • Stanley: It makes it look bad when that bottom one it's not affecting. It would be good to present them both. • Dennison: The data, we're indicating that even if we get rid of the little bit that IM might be able to deal with; the ambient ozone level will be scarcely affected. • Trine: I think it would be more accurate if you looked at just what it could possible do, and what it does. • Smith: I see. Fit it into the right piece of the pie. The graph is from the state. It could be presented that way, as well, for a different way to show it. • York: It's $35 per repaired vehicle? • Smith: Yes, it is $35 times all the number of failed vehicles we assumed are repaired. Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 10 of 16 • Trine: It's $147 average to repair? I've never spent more than $80. • Dennison: You could also argue those cars needed to be repaired whether they failed or not. • Smith: I assumed that they gathered the repaired cost. I can find out how they came up with that average. • York (Re: Cost for IM Program): This here, Colorado Spring is not in it. • Smith: Correct. It is North Front Range: Weld and Larimer. • Stanley (Re: Air quality benefit from I/M): That backsliding is lower bound because they didn't consider other effects like cars that might not be removed from the area. • Smith: Yes, and that is on the next slide. • Dennison: Do you know what they use for assumptions for population growth in fleet? The last time they used a dubious number for the fleet mileage. • Smith: I believe they used a higher number, on the order of 3.9% growth rate in VMT. It is in the technical documents, which are available to everyone online. • Trine: It goes back to that percentage being of the total VOCs; all these changes are small but they all add up, but if you take each of them and compare to the big picture it looks small. I don't know that it is advantageous to do it that way. • Smith: I had the same reaction when the State presented the report to us. But, you must look at what the information says and be prepared to defend any choice that we make. If it will only make this much benefit, somebody will uncover that. • Trine: In addition they should also be breaking it up and taking the VOCs from mobile sources that can be affected by IM and breaking each thing out so can look at the all the different things and get an idea of if you added up all the small changes, what kind of change it would be. • Smith: I could do that. • Trine: This didn't look at the health benefits. Those are huge costs to society that they've ignored. • Stanley: There is no any benefit "number". • Smith: It is hard to quantify. The information could at least be presented in context. • Trine: You could take the figure on asthma... • Smith: I don't know if you can quantify the relationship between VOC concentration and asthma. • Dennison: I don't think you could do it in a weekend. Somebody might have already done it. • Stanley: I did an econometric model where the dependent variable was a health measure and one of the other variables was the ozone. • Dennison: If EPA has done a risk assessment, it may be available. If it hasn't been done, they would spend 5-10 million doing the study. • Smith: I think even to point to research. It would be reminiscent of the radon issue. If we really want to do something, we can try to quantify these other issues or at least point them out, but we also have to deal with the cost per ton. These numbers came directly from the Ozone Action Plan work and documents. • Dennison: This doesn't analyze other possible VOC reductions for non -mobile sources. Maybe there are none. Like, you said that the 8% of VOCs come from Commerical lawn and garden. Is that reflected here? Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 11 of 16 • Walters: This is a cost per ton. Is there a BACK or RACHT program for mobile sources? • Smith: No. • Walters: The reason why all the gas and oil stuff is so feasible is that there is the best available control technology program, and they have the monetary cutoffs as per ton for what we should be reducing. When I see that number, I can see why they want to get rid of it. The industry is going to be the most conducive to that type of control. • Dennison: You're never going to sell something that costs 100 timers more per ton of reduction. I'd recommend looking at the reasonableness of their modeling, and if this is the best that can be done we should take these numbers at face value. Isn't there a possibility of looking at other strategies for reducing ozone -causing VOCs in our local area? • Smith: Yes, this begins to be an attempt to do that. For example, what isn't calculated yet is: what if we expanded the basic program? Obviously the benefit goes up. There was not consensus on the cost analysis that the State did about cost of the full extended program, so I didn't want to just plug in their cost. The Regional Inspection Maintenance Committee felt that it was too high. Another one would be, and I honestly think this is where we should go, we should be looking that really tries to focus on the 5% of polluting vehicles and will be much more cost effective. The easiest thing for the mobile source realm for tailpipe emissions is a local smoking vehicle program. I haven't yet identified what the relationship between visible smoke and VOCs are. I should look at this again. Those are some of the other things that could be added to the list. Maybe we could have incentive programs or standards for Commercial Lawn and Garden equipment? • Stanley: Lucinda, I'm wondering if we shouldn't continue this in September? What does the board think? This is very important. I'd like us to have a significant conversation about it. • Smith: You do have time. We just had this 2 month extension. The party status decision wouldn't happen until mid -December. That would give me time work with my staff to flush out more of the High -emitter program and Smoking Vehicle program. • Dennison: Were you alluding to the idea that some of the costs for that equipment or support for ongoing program cost, that the state might be willing to fund some of it if we let them drop the IM. • Smith: No, I think I only meant that they potentially might not oppose us at the commission or at the legislature if we were willing to take on a program locally. • Dennison: On the High -emitters and Smoking Vehicles, maybe come up with some estimates of potential reductions. • Smith: Sure. Health Department and District Roles in City Decisions Cherie Trine requested a discussion on the specific health groups that are overwhelmingly chosen for advisory groups for the City of Fort Collins and the possibility of expanding the health group options when seeking health -related advice. • Trine: Is anyone interested in this topic? • York: I want to understand the parameters. Are we talking the Latimer County Health Department and Poudre Health District? Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 12 of 16 • Stanley: Just for some background: you were saying that one of the problems you think that we have in City is that these people from Poudre Health District and Larimer County Health Department often get chosen for task forces and advisory groups and coming up with legislation, policies and recommendations, so they guide that to a large degree, and at the same time they have the role of making recommendations to City Council at policies separately. So they have two roles. • Trine: My real concern is the public is being cut out of the process. They claim to be experts and the City looks to them for advice and in doing so they ignore what the public says because the public is uninformed and doesn't know anything. So I'm concerned about the democratic process. I thought that specifically the City could say if the Poudre Health District and the County Health Department were going to offer advice separately, that they not also be part of this `advisory group' for the Natural Resource Department or that it be balanced in some way. Just that they not be the sole source of information to be relied on. • York: Can you get down to specifics? Like for instance, the radon situations. They were requested to give the formal recommendation and evaluate. • Trine: We requested them to? • York: The Department requested it. • Trine: And now, the (Natural Resources) Department is forming an advisory group too. • Smith: I think that is where there is some confusion. We are not forming a health advisory group. We did have one meeting with regional health professionals and it included representatives from the Health Department and the Health District of Northern Colorado, but it also included representatives from 5 or 6 other groups. That was a one time thing where we asked them several questions related to the Air Quality Plan. Did they think our priority pollutants was right, did they think the work in the plan for indoor air quality was adequate, were there opportunities to partner that would benefit both of us, what were their objectives, and did they think we needed some additional monitoring, like real time fine particle monitoring? Those were the specific questions that they gave us feedback on. Although we do want to foster relationships with a variety of health professionals, we do not have a task force; it was not a group. That's probably not been crystal clear, what our intentions were. But we were not forming a task force; it was a one time thing. • Trine: When we first talked, it was more of an ongoing thing, I thought. • Smith: Not from the staff perspective, but I don't think that was very clear. • Trine: The other part I am concerned about is, for example, public health individuals, even EPA, it is a political position. When they tell you how much risk there is, they are weighing industry interests vs. public health benefits. It is often not very accurate. You are getting a political vision of safety, and then we are again taking it to another political arena of City Council. It's not a pure health perspective, which maybe a non- political entity would have a better shot at. But, definitely coming from Poudre Health Service District, it is going to be through a political lens and be distorted in some way. • York: Are you distinguishing between the Poudre Health Services District and Larimer County Health Department. • Trine: No, I think they're both from the same side of the coin. • Moore: Wasn't there some language that we were looking on, "to seek.."? Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 13 of 16 • Smith: Yes, "To seek the expertise of a diverse range of environmental health professionals and other related professionals". It was very broad. • Moore: Maybe that's what originally gave you the idea that they were going to form a group. • Smith: I know Brian Woodruff asked Cherie to give some suggestions. But it was not to form a standing group. • Trine: I gave him the names of some people. • Walters: I think the point was to form a relationship with these people, so if there was something in the future the Department needed an expert opinion on, they had a relationship with experts and professionals in the field. • Trine: Will you be keeping a record if you do have meetings? A written record. • Smith: Yes, we do have that. • Trine: I have requested information from the County Health Department and they refused, on account of privacy. The City is great and will answer questions and provide documents. The County is horrible, as member of public; I don't want them to replace our public process. That was my main concern. • Stanley: I see your point. Those two entities, and maybe other, tend want to want to politicize and are conservative in terms of recommendations they make: very safe and often times relies on not -cutting -edge science. I am very interested in health and read a lot of articles, and they come out with something that regular medical science will say it is "hooey" and then 5 years down the line, everybody is doing it. • Dennison: And of course, a lot of times it turned out to be "hooey". • Stanley: I can barely think of an instance of things that I've read that have been well documented and scientific studies, that they were calling "hooey" that didn't turn out to be true at some point in time. • Dennison: Yes, it depends by what you mean by cutting edge. A guy I knew used magnets to cure people's allergies. hi their own journals they said every scientific study that tested it couldn't find the mysterious energy, but the doctors said they had 80% success rate. You've got to be careful with this stuff. • Stanley: Yes, you do. I do think these institutions are going to be as conservative and safe as possible because they are political. • Trine: This is an example: Our Health Department is recommending that children have DEET applied to their skin in massive quantities, even though children don't get very sick from West Nile Virus; they certainly don't have encephalitis (children under 20) or meningitis (children under 15). 15-20% of that DEET is absorbed through the skin. What is driving that decision? I happen to think it is political. • York: Political to be safe or to follow an old adage; you don't mean political to make kids sick? • Trine: I mean political like Bush is in office. • Stanley: I would imagine too they want to take what is the safer road for them in terms of them getting blamed for whatever. DEET effects are unknown and way down the road. You can't actually go back and say "this caused my cancer". But you can link a mosquito bite and West Nile. • Trine: They've got all these numbers and they are not sharing them. For example these triggers, they are looking at total mosquitoes, they are not looking at infected mosquitoes; I think that's illegal. Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 14 of 16 • Dennison: This is a recommendation (for DEET) from the County Health Department? • Trine: Yes. It's in all their literature; in Spanish, in English, it's national... • Dennison: That's straight from the CDC then. Your issue is with CDC, not the County. • Trine: Well the County is the CDC, basically. • Dennison: You have to go back to CDC's methodology. Did they go through an appropriate risk assessment methodology or not? Perhaps they did. • Trine: I have never seen CDC use good science. • Stanley: We have certain views here on how much they should be involved, how do we as they Air Quality Board get our input in, to ensure that there is a broader view taken. • Trine: That's exactly ... yes. • Stanley: Part of that comes from what was written into the Plan. • Trine: If it is a one time meeting and it is done, then this isn't very relevant. If it is an ongoing thing, asking them to guide their decisions, then I think it is a problem. • Vosburg: I think there is a big governance question about when City gets involved with health issues. I think we have to talk about the governance issues with West Nile this time around. This year we executed really well around larvacide, but now this trigger stuff is weird. We had one plan going in to the season, but we ended up adulticiding anyway. Now we are in the situation where I wait every week for the call from Adrian and she goes "looks like they are up over 50 so let's spray another area". We in are in this box where Council said to do what Adrian says; we don't have budget for it. Regardless of the health effects, it feels really weird that we are responsible for implementing it. There is no accountability. Either we need to take responsibility for the health and not look to the County or back away from the table and say we're not involved; it is a public health issue and you are the Health Department. They would need to take responsibility for the decision and fund it and administer it. • Trine: I would not like to see that. They don't follow their own CDC guidelines. They have not done anything right. Adrian ought to be fired for what she has done; it's a crime. • Stanley: Did they do any larvaciding? • Vosburg: They did a little larvacide to fill in the holes between Fort Collins and Loveland and Tinmath. • Walters: The real issue is that the City doesn't have a public health department and we have to rely on County because that is their jurisdiction. • Vosburg: We're getting more and more involved with health issues, like radon and smoking. We care, but it's not traditional area of City jurisdiction. We could say, "Handle it County", but then we give up a seat at the decision making table. It is hard for us to say we know more than them. • York: We need other options for authority. Because we know the information we are getting from the Health Department is conservative and traditional. • Dennison: How much of this is harder here because of the contrast between the average political bend in the City vs. County. • Trine: Here is an example: the Health Board is appointed by our commissioners every 5 years so there is no accountability there, and then they hire and fire the County health director. There is no public accountability. For a City resident to deal with these health experts... I'm not expert but I can a read study. Why can't we have voice in it? • Stanley: The public should be able to make the risk decision, given the information. Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 15 of 16 • Dennison: They will argue that they are doing that through City Council. • Stanley: But because we follow what County does... • Dennison: County was elected too. • Stanley: Not by people in Fort Collins. People in Fort Collins, if it was just held by them, they wouldn't have elected them. • Trine: If they would give people the information. I ask for information and only the County has it. The City, CDC, and State don't have it. The County won't give it to me. What do you do? I can't get it out to the public. I would have to sue them to get it. • Dennison: Could you give us a quick example? • Trine: The ages of the people who died last year — highly secret. I did a Colorado Open Records Act Request; Adrian told me they won't compile the answers for me, I have to ask for the document, but they won't give me the document because of privacy. They are supposed to black out the private information. • Dennison: There is no County FOIA? • Trine: It's Colorado Open Records Act. • Dennison: So you can get anything? • Vosburg: You can get any public document; there are certain things that they can charge for. • Dennison: They should be giving her that document after they black out sensitive information? • Vosburg: I'm not an expert on the issue. • Trine: This isn't a public process. You should be able to ask and get information. • Stanley: I'm not sure how to pursue with this. Should we get a heads up when health issues come up that the City is seeking input on (for air quality)? • Trine: Can we make a recommendation to Council that they not use the Health Department? • Vosburg: We've got to do some process on West Nile after the season. • Trine: Can I work with you on that? • Vosburg: Sure. • York: It's more than West Nile though. • Vosburg: Yes, it is a governance issue. What is our role on health? It is a local choice by the City how strongly we care about health issues and to what extent we want to be involved. For instance, air quality is typically not a City issue. It is not unthinkable that the City could decide to have a health focus and capacity and adopt policy. • Trine: Even if it was a board. At least we would have more access. • Walters: That would be a stepping stone. • York: We have to recognize the medical profession is traditional too. • Trine: The County Health Board has all kinds of people, not just doctors. • Walters: Their position is to make the best decision for so many different people and situations; it is hard to make a decision that is best for everyone. Updates York: The passive radon has been passed. We need to push for testing of those, to make sure it is properly installed and being effective. Stanley: The Building Department is supposed to be looking at that. Air Quality Advisory Board 8/19/2004 Page 16 of 16 • York: Larimer County requires a test before giving the certificate of occupancy and that they occupants are informed too. That should be a minimum. • Stanley: That was one of the options that was given to Council. I talked to Brian and Felix, and there was a lot of behind the scenes stuff. One of the things they were interested in was a test in some point in time. There was a lot of opposition by City staff because it is difficult to do the test prior to people living there. If you made it after the people occupied it, the City doesn't have anything to do with it once a permit is given. Most people got talked out of it. • York: I mentioned it to my Council person, David Roy. He said to wait until after. • Dennison: It would be hard to change it now. • Stanley: It's something that the IRC would have to be amended to include some sort of test. I would hope the City informs new home buyers that they should do a test. • Smith: That is still going on. • York: This is important enough to work on it a little. • Dennison: They passed the passive system. That is a major step in the right direction. • York: I think we should work on it; it is important enough. Am I in the minority? • Stanley: We'll put it on the agenda in the next couple of months. • Stanley: I wanted to say "kudos to Ken" for Council! Thank You. You did a great job. It would be interesting to do an experiment where people agree to do testing and get us numbers about how these passive systems are doing. • Smith: I could see that being as an item in the grant; some statistical study of homes, assuming the homes are built in time to have the systems installed. • Stanley: We'll put it on the agenda for an upcoming meeting. • Smith: I should mention: you all should have received invites to the Rawhide power plant and an email about the Sustainability Community Workshop. Also, Sarah Fox has resigned. She is now working for the High Plains Environmental Center in a business outreach position. • Dennison: You are the liaison again? • Smith: I am. Meeting adjourned 8:17PM Submitted by Liz Skelton Administrative Secretary I mod, 01 // " 161F b� � b�d dn)( 10/ r3/a f