Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 03/26/2002MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. March 26, 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, Mandar Sunthankar, Linda Stanley, Katie Walters, Conrad Van Dyke, Everett Bacon, Eric Levine Board Members Absent Cassie Archuleta Staff Present Natural Resources Department Lucinda Smith, Zoe Shark Guests Several CSU students The meeting was called to order at 4:30. Terry Klahn, Brian Woodruff, Michelle Pawar, Staff Introductions Michelle Pawar, Brian Woodruff, Lucinda Smith and Zoe Shark provided the board with brief professional background information. Extend Meeting Time The following motion was made: Move that the Air Quality Advisory Board meeting time be officially extended to 7:30 p.m. The motion passed with 6 members voting in favor, and two members abstaining. Building Code Update, Lucinda Smith Smith said the board had asked for clarification about the process of how radon mitigation requirements would be folded in to the Building Code update process. She handed out a memo outlining the building code update process and generally identifying how mandatory radon mitigation systems will be considered. Discussion • Levine: Will the outreach be geared to various boards; B&Z, Natural Resources, Human Relations? I'm not positive what boards would hear this? Air Quality Advisory Board March 26, 2002 Page 2 • Levine: What is the time frame for this? If the schedule stays on track, the AOAB might want to look at it in Ma when the regional model code will be available. • Levine: Will staff provide code language for required mitigation? I'es, if there's not language recommended by the regional group. • Levine: Will staff recommend to Council that radon mitigation be put in the code, as a required City policy? • Pawar: We're not saying that at this point. It's our job as staff to get as much data as possible, including feedback from the Boards. Internally we've worked on this for years. It's imperative that we give consideration to the data we received from external groups. It will be a balanced approach. • Sunthankar: Staff can have a policy not supported by the community, and not take any action. My impression is that the department is supportive of radon mitigation. • Pawar: We're supportive of radon mitigation, but not ready to say it should be in the code. • Stanley: In the radon program review of March, 2001, under number 1, it says "amend the building code", but now we're not supporting that? • Pawar: We have a directive and mandate to work with B&Z. If we amend the existing building code we have to make sure we can enforce the amendment. If we can't enforce it, we lose credibility. • York: If there's going to be any errors, we should error on the side of health. So often it goes the other way. When you talk about cost benefits, health impacts should be rolled in. • Bacon: I never doubted there were health issues with radon, but the presenter said the evidence was inconclusive. • Dennison: The code enforcement aspect is important. • Sunthankar: I've been a strong proponent of mitigation during construction. I would like to see some scientific data. • Smith: May would probably be a good time for the board to revisit this. Levine wanted information on the number of new homes constructed and the percent with mitigation systems installed. Conrad Van Dyke will provide technical information to members and staff. Minutes With the following changes, the minutes of the February 26, 2002 were unanimously approved. Page 2, 4th paragraph: change "open houses provide a good opportunity" to "open houses provide only an opportunity". Carbon Monoxide Redesignation, Brian Woodruff Woodruff provided an update on the process and distributed a revised timeline. He said the board has the dual role of advising City Council and the MPO. Those reconnnendations can be made separately or together. Discussion • Levine: Does the MPO have a position on this yet? The MPO is looking to the City of Fort Collins to take the lead to formulate a position. The MPO staff is concerned about conformity, to show that total emissions fall below a budget amount. Their concern is that we establish an emissions budget that is workable for the next ten years. Air Quality Advisory Board March 26, 2002 Page 3 • York: Have we determined what will happen if we fall out of conformity? It would be awful if we could not show conformity, federal funds would be cutoff. The Transportation Planners are paying close attention. • Levine: Has the MPO crunched any of these numbers? The MPO provides information on how many cars are on the street. It's a combined effort. The Air Pollution Control Commission adds in the calculation of tailpipe emissions.. • Levine: The legislature didn't trust the Department of Health with making regulations, so they won't go overboard looking at public health too much. • Woodruff: The air quality will get worse, but it can't get worse than the federal standards. But any worsening is contrary to established City policy. The second issue is that the maintenance plan must contain a mobile sources emissions budget. The plan removes the inspection and maintenance (I/M) and oxy-fuels program and still meets the federal standard. The State Health Department has committed to working with the City to mitigate the loss of the I/M program. Representative Johnson will introduce a bill asking the State Legislature to "pre -approve" Fort Collins' Maintenance Plan, in concept. We'll testify it's a good bill since we have three assurances in a letter from the Health Department. Even though they're in a hurry, if there are serious concerns the Health Department will not recommend it forward. • Stanley: Does that mean the AQCC would not approve it then? No, it's not a commitment from the AQCC, but generally they do follow the Health Departments recommendations. • Levine: Is there any sense of the state's intention regarding programs that are more than the federal minimums? Is there any sense they're willing to retain a program at the state level, even though it's not "federally" mandated? The legislation mandates that programs be removed from the federally enforceable plan, if they're no longer needed. But, the state still has options. The Health Department will support the continuation of the I/Mplan until an alternative can be found to replace it, or, it's no longer practical. The thinking is the I/M program does have a shelf life that's pretty much expired. It has to do with a mismatch between testing technology and vehicle technology. After 2004 the equipment they use for testing would have to be upgraded; that's very expensive. • Stanley: Could the AQCC look at this letter from John Fischbach to Rep. Johnson and see implicit support by the City for the maintenance plan that is not really there? They would be making a mistake. This is a letter to the legislator saying we'll support his bill. The bill language is very simple. It says, if the AQCC adopts a plan for the City of Fort Collins, then they're authorized to forward it to the governor for signature without further review by the legislature. The content of the maintenance plan is before us to work out. • Levine: Have any other representatives been brought in? We have a legislative coordinator who works directly with the City Manager. His thoughts were to take advantage of the fact that Representative Johnson is from our area. We have received concessions from the Health Department that we would likely not have gotten otherwise. • York: It would be good if the others were informed too. They should be brought up to speed. The time to get our legislators involved is if there is a run on the City's authority to do a local program. That's a nightmare scenario, and would be the time to marshal the legislative forces. • Dennison: My perspective is the NRD and Brian have done a great job dealing with a very complex issue, and helping us understand it. They've also got some compromises from the Department of Public Health. I'm a little concerned about the language. The Health Department's words of support for continuing an I/M program in FortCollins are vague and Air Quality Advisory Board March 26, 2002 Page 4 could be broadly interpreted. Can it be strengthened when the actual language in the SIP is drafted? • Woodruff: Do you want to formulate your recommendation at the next meeting, or do you want me to come with some possible wording for you to consider? • Levine: If you could write it up and include it in the packet that would be great. • Bacon: Could I get some summary background materials ? Update on Second Hand Smoke, Michelle Pawar Pawar said the meeting with Council Health and Safety committee went well. We did receive some guidance and clarity. We're tasked with meeting with the restaurant and bar owners, and to continue outreach with that sector. We're also trying to identify other pockets where we haven't done outreach, so we can clearly demonstrate we're not favoring one part of the community. We're continuing to work with the City Attorney to draft an ordinance. Discussion • Dennison: What kind of open houses have you had? • Smith: I don't recall any open houses, I'll have to check with Sarah. We've been going to civic groups, other boards and stakeholder groups. • York: I think it would be a good idea to have open houses. • Pawar: The good news is the restaurant and bar owners are receptive with our efforts to meet. They're much more anxious to meet than we anticipated. It's a constructive time to be meeting with them. • Dennison: What was the sense from Health and Safety of what the ordinance should look like. They received copies of the model (gold) ordinance, 41amosa's and Montrose's ordinances. The committee was leaning toward the gold standard, but it's important to note there were only two members present. • Stanley: It's nice to see there's a lot of community support. • Bacon: I've been doing an informal survey of employees, and found that all employees I've spoken to do want a smoke free environment. Agenda Planning Review Council six-month planning calendar Future agendas • AQAB review for Council by July Monthly Feedback • Update on the LUTRAQ process (memo only) Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. ACTION LIST — from February 2002 meeting ACTION ITEM WHO BY... DON E 1. Provide copies of the MPO Travel Survey Lucinda April 22 Air Quality Advisory Board March 26, 2002 Pave 5 2. Provide electronic info on radon and health Conrad 3. Provide Everett with legislative history on Brian, or? CO redesignation (I haven't heard back from Everitt) 4. Provide written LUTRAQ summary Brian May 21