Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 05/02/2001MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE May 2, 2001 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Ray Martinez, Council Liaison - 416-2154 Tom Shoemaker, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Reagan Waskom, Nate Donovan, Steve Ryder, Randy Fischer Board Members Absent Linda Knowlton Don Rodriguez, Bonnie Pierce, Phil Murphy Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Tom Shoemaker, Terry Klahn, Sarah Fox Guests Joe Martin, Citizen CSU Students Agenda Review Oxbow memo Boating on Fossil Creek Radon Program Update, Sarah Fox Fox presented background information on the Radon Program. She said when a review of the program was requested there were problems because they had never set a goal, or established objectives. It was decided to establish a goal, which is to reduce radon risk and increase the number of residences who are taking action (mitigation) to reduce exposure. Waskom: Is there much discussion about the level of 4 picocuries per liter of air? We're comfortable with four. There was talk about it being lowered, but most of the studies are in support of health implications of four. The EPA says there is no safe level, similar to second hand smoke. They're not going to raise the level. Donovan: Why is the data so hard to get? Are there objections that it's proprietary? Yes, or they don't keep track. There've been recommendations ofsome type of City certification program for mitigatory. With certification we could require the data. Donovan: If you require it you can structure your form, or reporting procedures. Now it's like throwing darts. Natural Resources dvisory Board • May 2, 2001 Page 3 shows otherwise. If the point we want to get to is mitigation, we may want to prove the negative. • Donovan: I like that, at least it's a disclosure. If the buyer does something about it or not is up to them. There's a state law that ifyou know the level you're supposed to give it. We went to Council's Health and Safety committee in March. They didn't provide any clear direction. We're waiting for the City Managers direction as to when they'd like to have this scheduled for a study session. • Ohlson: I like the fact the emphasis is on action, but it's way too weak from my political viewpoint. It's because we don't want to upset the realtors. I would appreciate a memo coming back to the NRAB saying these are the seven or eight points made, and why, or why not, they were acted on. • Ohlson: I strongly disagree with public money going to mitigation. Money can be used to get appropriate certification and testing, and follow up so the public has the proper information. Unless there was mitigation for low income, I would want to use tax dollars to make sure we have an effective program. • Waskom: I agree. • Fischer: I would recommend Council get this on the policy agenda, and scheduled for a study session. Some felt at the health & safety meeting that this isn't as important as other issues. • Ohlson: We don't know what it will finally look like. We don't need another presentation, we just need to see what changes are made. • Waskom: We need to get a memo to Council to get this on the agenda. • Ohlson: The motion should reflect that, depending on what changes are made between now and when it goes before Council is why we're not making a recommendation. Anything less than point of sale testing isn't something I'll sign off on. • Fischer: Would it be appropriate to advise Council to direct staff to prepare recommendations for Council action based on comments from the Board and others. • Shoemaker: We'll give you an update when we have something for Council. • Ryder: I would suggest an introduction to address the scope of the problem, how many people a year are affected. Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan, Meegan Flannigan • Ohlson: I'm surprised the results of this survey turned out so favorable. The way these things usually work is that people who feel strongly against something are more likely to take the time to fill out a survey. • Fischer: Do you feel the questions about activities bias the survey toward people who are interested in recreation, instead of people who are interested in land conservation? The whole thing is geared toward recreation on those lands. That was not the intent. Natural Resources Advisoi; Board May 2, 2001 Page 4 • Fischer: The reason I bring it up now is having to do with regional trails. I'm opposed to the use of the open lands money for regional trails. People were being led to the conclusion there should be regional trails by that survey. • Donovan: There's a larger issue of whether there's a preference for full public access. • Ohlson: When you do surveys in the future, make sure it doesn't happen, we don't want to skew things. • Shoemaker: On Figure 10, there's a comparatively low amount of money allocated to prairies and grasslands. There's a long way to go in having the public understand the value of those areas. There's a fundamental disconnect in people minds about what constitutes wildlife habitat. • Fischer: There's a disconnect in Figure 14 too, buying land for regional trails. People don't understand we could spend $100 million building regional trails, and never preserve an acre of the real wildlife habitat. • Fischer: Is this board going to be asked for formal input, or be able to give input on the master plan? This is the preliminary map, we'd like to know if there's anything major. We'll probably comeback with the final plan. • Shoemaker: If you do recommendations they need to be to Council • Ohlson: Are the agricultural lands that are identified based on scientific evaluation, or because they have the most value? We're working with LESA, the land were identified by the Agricultural Advisory Board. • Fischer: I agree with Kelly. It's not feasible that land at the intersection of I-25 and Highway 34 will remain ag land. It's indicative of the lack of understanding of land values. We have to make sure these plans reflect something that's possible. I would love to see farmland preserved, but it doesn't help when towns annex to the interstate. • Ohlson: This is the most important program in Larimer County, just about the only one of any value. I never envisioned the massive amounts of money for agriculture preservation. There needs to be an overlap, contribution to buffers, wildlife movement corridors and visual separators. There's only so much money, we should be able to capture more than one value. • Ohlson: I hope the trails aren't one size fits all. Hopefully you're using science with your trail placement. • Fischer: Are open lands monies being used for trail construction, how does that work? Partnering, so far the easements for the regional trail connection have all been free. We haven't had to buy an easement, but open lands dollars would be used. • Fischer: Are we talking about "Cadillac" trails? They're natural surface trails, but wider than the standards. • Craig: Have you worked with a volunteer corp to build and maintain the trails? We have a volunteer coordinator trying to f nd groups to adopt trails for annual maintenance. We hope to get all of the trails in Horseshoe Mountain Park adopted. • Ohlson: When you put in trails, do you assume mountain biking, or is it case by case? It's case by case, there's no rock climbing at Devil's Backbone. • Ohslon: On one of the questions, wildlife came up the highest value. Always keep in mind the wildlife is important, and recreation should work around it. It seems to be people first and the resource second. Natural Resourcestvisory Board • May 2, 2001 Page 5 • Donovan: I would opt for a broader definition of ridgelines. • Ryder: Is there a component of the plan that talks about management and costs? There will be a section that will address long term management issues. • Ohslon: There are a lot of players in the Fossil Creek issue. My personal opinion is not to fold, and not allow any boating, including canoes. • Ohlson: I love this report. In the future I'd put the flash more up front, you get to the acquisitions pretty early. It would be good to start with the photos. • Shoemaker: I'd like to make a comment relative to the planning effort. I wish I had suggested this be accompanied by an objective assessment of wildlife habitat. Maybe there's a component of the plan that could be built in that calls for ongoing assessment for areas of the County. I worry that we may be missing some places that should be looked at. • Donovan: How do we go about the process of identifying areas for acquisition? Is it a haphazard process? • Shoemaker: It's a very good process, but as with anything, it's based on a level of existing knowledge. We need to do a better job of inventorying what's important out there. • Ohlson: The citizens of Fort Collins don't really care if it's city or county. I don't believe we're restricted. If you come to the City for partnering, I'll be a voice saying yes. We've been told not to lose parcels because of a lack of money. We'll be defining "special places" in the master plan. We need to figure out how we can practically use that in concert with the land use code. There's a process for nomination of "special places ". Land owners can nominate their parcels. They'd also come up with a mitigation process if it's proposed to be developed. The County planning staff would review for impacts and be sure the mitigation steps were being met. • Ohlson: So people can apply for "special place" status and get tax dollars? The purpose is to figure out how to best protect special places in Lorimer County. The incentive might be the small grant program. • Ohlson: Do we try to make sure people don't enhance and turn around and sell it for lots? I hope we try to get a gut level feel for people who are invested and serious. • Donovan: There are other tools that can be combined with that, deed restriction, conservation easements. • Fischer: From my perspective I feel a little like we're being left out of the process. I feel as a board we have a lot to offer. I would appreciate some way we could get more involved in the process, I don't know what that might entail. We can't do recommendations to the commissioners. I wish there was a way we could have more concrete input into this process. • Ohlson: Fort Collins is the largest contributor to the funding and the largest population base. We should have been plugged in earlier and more often. • Donovan: I would suggest a way for this board to get involved is through the newly formed Colorado Open Space Alliance. I've been involved in this update process on an individual level, not necessarily on a board level. Our job as a board is to advise Natural Resources Adviso, 3oard May 2, 2001 Page 6 Council, but all nine of us can act individually. It's tough for the Open Lands Program staff to fit us in with the whole process. • Shoemaker: It's not unusual for the City of Fort Collins to make formal comments on County plans. It might be useful to have a study session on this plan with the City Council so that they're aware of it, and understand what's going on. • Fischer: There's a big concern about the boating issue on Fossil Creek Reservoir. • Shoemaker: The commissioner gave direction to staff, and made a request to the City of Fort Collins to revisit this and make recommendations as to the feasibility of non - motorized boating on Fossil Creek. It's counter to the plan and to the IGA between the two. We're working on pulling information together. We're looking at water quality issues, potential implications in terms of districts, and the implications for resource values. The game plan is to pull together and summarize the professional recommendations. Then we'll come to the board for your recommendation to City Council, and the Open Lands Advisory Board, and the Latimer County EAB, who would make recommendations to the Commissioners. Then, and only then, would Fort Collins have the discussion if we're interested in opening the IGA. The target is the 3`d week of June to have recommendations. • Fischer: I don't know the actual details of the IGA. I would hope the advisory boards recommend against changing the IGA. • Shoemaker: The IGA specifically references the management plan which says, no boating — period. We're going to review, and provide the information requested. We've been careful to say we're not opening the IGA. We'll need folks like the NRAB to give their opinion at the appropriate time. • Craig: I'm glad to hear the City is standing strong. If it's in the IGA, make them beg. I've also heard that if they end up with boating we could lose some side monies to help with habitat. Some agencies will wash their hands of the whole area. • Shoemaker: Those same agencies have said they'll weigh in, we're still waiting for the letter. I-25 Subarea Plan Recommendation, Tom Shoemaker Ken Waido's process is to start developing a preferred alternative. It won't go to Council until June or July. Our task is to try to get comments to Ken, rather than Council, and try to shape the outcome of the final preferred plan that goes to Council. Ken said he'd take comments till about mid -May. Fischer: When Ken was here a month ago was the first time we saw the new alternative. I've since had a chance to look at these carefully, and think there are some things we might want to comment on. I went to P&Z work session on Friday. This alternative is characterized as the NRAB's alternative. They haven't done any cost analysis, or transportation analysis. They don't characterize it as a real alternative. Ohslon: We've got to weigh in. Many people think this is the biggest decision made in Fort Collins in twenty five years. We should be referring to the whole I-25 plan, not just the subarea plan. Natural Resourcesievisory Board • May 2, 2001 Page 7 • Ohlson: Staff has a responsibility to present as fairly as possible. This whole thing has a stench about it, it's going in a certain direction. Every single aspect is trying to move it in that direction. • Ohlson: I personally believe the GMA should be pulled back to the west side of I-25. I suppose I could be convinced about the commercial strip along the other side of I- 25. I prefer having the community stop on the west side for the optimal size of community for delivery of service. It's a natural eastern boundary.. • Fischer: I agree with you. We should not move the GMA any further east, and I wouldn't be opposed to retracting. What I would like to do is give specific comments. • Shoemaker: You could weigh in on what lands within the study area are worth some kind of land protection. Also, what tools make sense to explore to achieve that. • Craig: It sounds like an important thing to say is you are looking at what you feel is the optimal size of the community. • Ryder: My feeling is that shrinking the GMA and de -annexing is difficult, if not impossible. I don't feel a need to risk credibility. If they want to expand the GMA, let's get something for it. Let's figure out a way to protect the land around there. I don't like the subarea plan, it's a transportation plan with land uses thrown in. There are lands inside the study that are important to protect. • Ohlson: I don't think we should worry about our credibility. We need to focus on our values, and not worry about what others think. Shrinking the GMA is different from de -annexing. We could shrink the GMA without de -annexing. • Ryder: Let critique what's being proposed. There's a lot to hate in there. Adjournment The meeting adjourned to work session at 9:30 p.m. Natural Resources Adviso., i3oard May 2, 2001 Page 2 A number of states have certification programs. We'd prefer a state run policy. Until then, we need something to measure our success. We've recommended changes to the building code, there's supposed to be an update in 2001. It would require mitigation in all new construction. It's much cheaper to install in new construction than in existing construction. We're also going to revise the brochure. Per the survey, people don't remember getting it. It's supposed to be given prior to contract, but it usually comes with the closing papers. The big real estate companies make you sign a form saying you got it. We'd like for buyers to have to send a card in saying they received it. • Ohlson: Why don't you make sure the realtors have to give it out pre -closing? Their whole life is making the sale. If we're serious about it, why don't we do something that's enforceable? It should be in their hands at the appropriate time. We're talking about the number two cause of lung cancer in this country. This is a serious issue. Some other ideas were to try to find funding for a pilot program. If we went in and provided a test, what would it take to get them to the next step? • Waksom: Are there any builders putting in active systems? Some are putting in passive systems. • Ryder: Is there a requirement in the building code when finishing basements? That did come up, that when getting a permit to f nish a basement to require mitigation. • Ohlson: Are the lives of people in multi -family housing worth less than others? There's no standard building code for multi family housing. When the program started out we were only looking at single family housing. We need to lower everyone's risk, but there's not a standard code. • Ohlson: I'd recommend working with speed to get that part of the building code, we need to protect those folks too. In number seven it says to continue to study the feasibility to require point of sale radon testing. I'd be more comfortable if we had some kind of date set that would require a vote by Council. Who decided we'll continue to study that? Staff, and the AQAB. The testing is hard to support, and it's hard to guarantee the results are accurate. Testing needs to be done under certain standards so the results are accurate. • Ohlson: Maybe the number one recommendation should be to get appropriate standards and testing requirements. We're looking at going beyond the testing, and actually fixing the problem, instead of fighting the battle with the testing. • Shoemaker: A lot of this has to do with variability in the testing conditions. People who are living in a home test under the conditions which they live. An unoccupied home won't give the same result. A summer test may not give the same result as a winter test. . • Fischer: In the lead program, point of sale disclosure is required. You can avoid testing by saying yes, there is probably lead paint, or you can test to find out. That seems a possible solution. We're in a Zone 1 area and the average radon levels are high. There's no reason to suspect they'll be lower unless you provide a test that