HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/02/1994i
•
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
281 CONFERENCE ROOM - 281 N. COLLEGE
FEBRUARY 2, 1994
For Reference: Bill Miller, NRAB Chair
Chris Kneeland, Council liaison
Tom Shoemaker, Staff liaison
493-7693
221-2950
221-6263
Boardmembers Present
Bill Miller, Hal Swope, Katy Mason, Will Smith, Lisa Howard, Tim Johnson,
Phil Friedman
Boardmembers Absent (excused)
Craig McGee
Staff Present
Tom Shoemaker, Susie Gordon, Rob Wilkinson, Kevin McBride
Approval of Minutes
It was moved and seconded that the minutes of the January 5, 1994 NRAB
meeting be approved with the following change: Page six, paragraph three,
second sentence should read, "At the same time, there are some areas that
are classified as natural areas, but because of restrictions on the way
they are laid out staff does "not" think that there is much value in trying
to acquire them."
Stormwater Ouality Program
Kevin McBride, Stormwater Drainage Utility, gave an overview of a
report on a Storm Water Quality Management Program and requested the
Board's input. He said the Natural Resources Division will be a primary
coordinator to determine how the City manages its watersheds.
The program has three parts: 1) a management plan to establish what
staff will do, 2) a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit that will be run by the State (after reauthorization of the Clean
Water Act, around 2002), and 3) an education program.
McBride described the timeline for the program. Initially, staff
assessed a number of data sets, starting with 1971 student reports for
Spring Creek, up to data the City collects now. They looked closely at
information collected by the US Geological Survey in 1986-87 for three
sites along Spring Creek. It was compared to stream standards set by the
State for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and fecal coliform. No
violations were documented, although McBride pointed out that data was
never collected during storm flows, when problems are most likely to occur.
McBride explained that this information for Spring Creek was entered
into a data base and compared to other sites, including the Poudre River
and a "fresh water chronic" model. They concluded that there is not a long
term problem for fish. Of the priority pollutants sampled, only three data
points came out too high. Fecal coliform bacteria levels is the standard
most often exceeded but we don't really have a good handle on it yet,
McBride said. There are no national standards for fecal coliform, as there
are for air quality, so how well we do depends on the goals we set.
Friedman asked why fecal coliform levels rise during wet weather.
McBride said that it is speculated to come from animals (geese, dogs, etc.)
and soil bacteria.
McBride presented slides to illustrate concerns about water turbidity
and sedimentation. He said anecdotal reports indicate that the number of
fish in urban streams is declining, probably due to putrification from
nitrogen and phosphorous pollution. Water pollution seems to be coming
from everywhere, he went on; from commercial sites like parking lots and
fueling facilities; residential sources' fertilizers, pesticides, and
poorly maintained cars; and household hazardous wastes. Oil washing off
pavement is a big culprit, McBride added. A sheen of oil on the water is
the best indication because tests don't always measure detectable levels.
Other slides showed water quality impacts from poor materials storage
at industrial sites, lack of erosion control during construction, rain
wash -off from paving operations, and illicit discharges from older sites
where poor connections were made to the sanitary sewer. These can be
costly to clean up, McBride noted. Another major contributor to storm
water problems is thought to be air pollution, especially the nitrogen
oxides from automotive exhaust.
McBride stated that staff is at the point of beginning to develop
alternatives for storm water management. At the same time, the monitoring
program (which includes sampling from three sites for storm events, base
flow, and ecological health) is ongoing.
Staff will report water quality to the State, but the content of those
agreements is what needs to be decided. Right now, the plan is to follow
permit outlines. Non -point sources are a big issue, but the permit is
based on protecting water quality to the maximum extent practicable and
each municipality has to decide what that is for itself.
McBride asked four questions about the management report: are the
alternatives presented in the report understandable; do they represent the
range of options appropriate for further discussion; should a subcommittee
be formed for development and selection of alternatives; and what
additional information is needed for the selection process?
McBride described the alternatives, explaining that each is intended
to require an increasing level of management effort. Alternative #1
protects designated uses (set by State Water Quality Control) such as
agricultural and recreational uses. It implies that much more analytical
work would be done to quantify impacts. Alternative #2 emphasizes
education to minimize pollution, such as pollution prevention programs.
Alternative #3 sets a higher level of ecosystem management. It represents
a certain level of the rhetoric because there isn't enough staff now for
enforcement, as does alternative #4, which proposes a comprehensive
ecosystem management program of education, design standards, and
2
enforcement, with potential to actually limit development when necessary.
McBride stated that we know what needs to be addressed; the Framework
for Environmental Action is a good point of reference for deciding who's
going to regulate what, and to what extent, i.e., control measures, elicit
discharges, landfills, industrial sites with SARA Title III reporting
requirements, constructions sites, and hazardous materials transportation,
disposal and storage (TDS) facilities.
Miller asked if staff will increase the interface that occurs with the
County. McBride said they interact whenever drainages overlap.
Miller recommended taking a stronger look at sedimentation. McBride
said we are as far ahead as any Front Range city on erosion control.
Smith stated that the wording of the alternatives is understandable
but there is confusion around the examples. More details would be helpful,
although mitigation engineering techniques may not be of high interest. He
added that it is important to identify monitoring methods. McBride agreed
that there are a lot of technical questions to be answered, but what staff
most needs right now is policy direction. What level of expectation do
citizens hold for this type of program?
Swope suggested that the City take a stronger position when reviewing
development proposals because consultants often give inaccurate information
about the problems associated with P.U.D.'s impervious surfaces and poor
drainage. McBride responded that better engineering solutions can be
required, such as designing ponds for longer sediment settling, that force
more attention on run-off water quality concerns. However, there are
philosophical issues that staff needs guidance on. For instance, if we
stop using concrete "trickle pans" there are implications for continuing to
put in manicured, bermed landscaping. McBride agreed that the standards
for reviewing developments aren't very well refined by any design criteria.
Swope stated that City staff should testify if designs are inadequate.
Miller suggested that,,although it may be difficult to accomplish,
designs should prevent impervious surfaces from being linked, as they are
in shopping mall parking lots. He asserted -that it would bring a focus to
the problem and help make the public more aware if there is a big mound of
trash sitting in lots after it rains. The run-off pollution after storms
from industrial and commercial sites constitutes a serious waste problem.
McBride said the EPA is pushing pollution prevention a lot now, in
contrast to regulations that increase the City's level of effort and
enforcement, and which are much more costly.
Mason requested that more information be provided on the costs of the
Storm Water Management Program alternatives and how they would be funded.
Friedman agreed that it would help to have some ballpark figures, adding
that the costs of the null alternative should also be provided, including
penalties for non-compliance.
Friedman told McBride that the alternatives are understandable. He
stated that it would be beneficial to meet with the Stormwater Advisory
Board if there is a concrete agenda and a way to arrive at conclusions.
Howard asked what is involved in enforcing a water quality program.
McBride said it means inspecting development sites for compliance with
erosion control standards. Fines can be taken out of developers' escrow
accounts and used to correct problems.
Shoemaker stated that there shouldn't be a distinction between city-
wide objectives; all City programs should be used to help meet the over-
arching goals of the community. McBride noted that as we start to review
existing storm water master plans, there will be more overlap between
natural areas and river planning. The question is how far should we go
with our watershed planning and management?
Swope voiced his preference for alternative #4, saying we need to
strive for improvement and that it's too important not to spend money on.
He stated that we've been following the other alternatives to date.
Miller asked McBride to re -word alternative #2 by using the word
"reduce" instead of "minimize." He agreed that there will be overlap
between natural areas and places like detention ponds and wetlands.
McBride stated that the Design and Mitigation Manual will be important to
work with.
Johnson pointed out that the issues are similar to air quality, where
"the enemy is us." The worst pollutants should be identified, divided up,
and prioritized so we can go after them first. McBride said they may use
the outline in the regulations, which start with facilities that are most
likely to create the worst problems.
Mason said she agrees that we should aim at alternative #4, but the
development community may regard it as too extreme. She asked if there is
an alternative #5 that would make #4 look less extreme. McBride responded
that alternative #1 means that basically we're doing nothing. The main
difference between #3 and #4 is that the Storm Drainage Utility is charged
with protecting wetlands and waterways, and authorized to develop programs
and budgets accordingly. Some might regard this as going beyond the charge
in our charter, stepping into NRD areas, he added.
Miller summarized that alternative #4 should be the goal. He
suggested restating "seek to ensure" more strongly as "will ensure". The
details of monitoring and enforcement responsibilities can be hammered out
later, he said.
McBride thanked the Board for their comments, saying this is the kind
of feedback that staff needs. He will provide them with a matrix and
another presentation as staff develops more information, and will set up a
meeting for the NRAB with the Stormwater Advisory Board at a later date.
Boudre River Issues
Johnson discussed the river -walk feasibility study. NRAB members met
last week to walk the area of the river between Mulberry Street and
Martinez Park. Tim drafted some ideas that were raised to give a starting
point for a vision statement for the entire area.
Wilkinson passed out an ownership map of the area northeast of
downtown and an aerial photograph that was taken in 1956.
Shoemaker announced that a 25-acre parcel at Lincoln and Mountain was
approved for acquisition by Council last night. The site abuts the old
pickle factory.
4
j Smith asked if R B's vision for the area w•
replied that it should, with a copy to Mike Powers.
people have need to be included so they can finish a
focuses on the downtown area in March.
go to Council. Johnson
Other ideas that
vision statement that
Swope said it should include strong recommendations to purchase the
oxbow area (on Linden Street) from Kiefer concrete and adopt an ordinance
to prevent filling the site. He said we can't risk letting some of these
areas get developed and should recommend specific sites for acquisition
including the Power Plant, areas around the Aztlan Center, the old pickle
factory, and possibly land off East Lincoln Street to provide access to the
river. Johnson suggested the Texaco storage place could have good access.
Swope stated that the ponds behind Swanson Nature Area would be a good
restoration project. Shoemaker said NRD is considering spending some
natural areas money on it, and asked the Board what it should look like.
Miller said it may hard to have good public access to the ponds;
unfortunately, the natural gas plant is probably permanently located there.
Smith commented that, while there are notable exceptions, many of the
sections along this part of the river are already under City ownership.
Johnson said the oxbow is probably the most degraded downtown section but
if the river were diverted toward it the area could be restored. Shoemaker
said he didn't know of any overtures towards purchasing the site; no
serious offer may have ever been made due to lack of funds.
Shoemaker said Mike Powers commented recently to him that the business
community wants to see an anchor for a performing arts center downtown and
according to the feasibility study the oxbow site is the best location for
it. Mason pointed out that a performing arts center would have the effect
of drawing more traffic, thereby increasing impact on the area. Smith said
the amphitheater should more logically be sited at CSU because it is the
"gravi-center" for Fort Collins.
Shoemaker said Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) regulations
strongly affect any river projects; it may be useful to ask Stormwater to
talk to the Board about it. He noted the River and Open Lands Guidance
Team will meet Friday to get started again.- Blair Leist, was hired as Kari
Henderson's replacement and may be involved in the project.
Swope asked if GO Colorado grants could be used to purchase the oxbow
site. Shoemaker said that, except for trails, they are not yet accepting
requests from local governments. He added that the DOW may not be able to
submit requests either.
Johnson said that if there aren't too many differences between ours
and the feasibility folks' vision, maybe the oxbow site is the only issue
and asked if others agreed. Mason said she agreed with Johnson's notes;
the visions may not be significantly different, other than Bruce Hendee's.
Miller said there didn't seem to be much land available for purchase to
make a river -walk such as Hendee envisions.
Johnson volunteered to redraft the River Vision Statement so the
committee can get together and work on it. Mason suggested expressing
concepts that access, continuity, and links to the river would enhance the
downtown area. Swope said the vision must emphasize the need to protect
the river wetlands. Smith noted that what's been developing on the north
side of the river are not so much the developed parks on the south side of
2
the river, which provide a breaking zone between the river and downtown.
Growth management committee Report
Smith explained that information is still needed on LUTRAQ planning,
but he came up with a list of suggested activities in four categories:
1. Density man of the city to make it easier to see things visually,
such as relative densities and where development is occurring.
2. Measures that would be required from development applicants,
including information on densities and land usages.
3. Adherence to density goals.
a. Current policies review.
5. Fort Collins/Loveland Corridor.
Smith asked Shoemaker what the appropriate action is to take, what is
a time -frame for actions, and how the committee should follow-up on this?
Shoemaker said he will try to provide a detailed report describing how
these items do or don't fit into the work plan. He commented that Council
is concerned with how staff responds to them, which has highlighted a
communications problem. A positive outcome was the formation of a Growth
Committee including Janett, Apt, and McCluskey that meets weekly. The
LUTRAQ, Corridor, and Neighborhood Committees are helping to staff the
committee. They have lots of short-term projects, including how to
accomplish increased densities. Much of the work comes out of the
Congestion Management Plan process.
Shoemaker said the question on issues like densities, mixed use, fixed
urban growth boundaries, and amendments to overall development plans (ODPs)
isn't "can we?", but "how can we?" Staff is not getting much information
on what kind of public process Council wants to see. Shoemaker said he
would like to send the minutes and agendas of the committee to NRAB and
other Boards. Smith said the lack of information creates a vacuum, and
that perhaps the Board should express their concerns in a letter.
Shoemaker said Council may need a chance to form their opinions around
these issues before they share the information, but there is a tremendous
amount of work is under way currently. There is also a very strong need
for staff to work directly with Council. Shoemaker suggested that Miller
or Smith talk to Kneeland. Smith agreed to contact Kneeland.
Miller said he has taken calls from neighbors who are unhappy about
Fossil Creek Estates. They have formed a group to protest to the P&Z Board
and Council about the proposed densities. Miller noted concerns about
development on the fringes of natural areas, transition areas, and what is
happening to natural areas and wintering raptors that use the sites. He's
not sure if NRAB wants to take a position on it. Management plans aren't
ready yet but these issues are coming up.
Shoemaker said management planning is intended to address the City's
land but not other people's land. It's a high priority to decide how much,
and how, to regulate developments in natural areas that won't be acquired
by the City and these issues are on staff's work plan. Although the Design
and Mitigation Manual is comprehensive, we need to consider land use before
we can work on designs. Shoemaker noted Council's comment on the need for
better communications. It's difficult in situations that are under appeal,
21
but there may be design issues that could be worked on.
Shoemaker commented on remarks that were made about staff's lack of
concern and regard for the Fromme Prairie and raptors. He said the natural
areas program should help bring folks together; these comments must be
taken seriously but not personally. Staff has made a lot of assessments,
but they could have created a clearer written record. Shoemaker admitted
that staff sometimes makes mistakes, but people shouldn't say we don't care
about these areas.
Other items:
Johnson will attend a meeting on the water treatment plant and report
back at next month's meeting.
Smith inquired about the status of the waste hauling bill. Shoemaker
responded that CML feels this will not be easily defeated, and therefore
should be amended instead. The amendment could eventually help support
proposals for City services to be provided by the private sector. A vote
would still be required by the legislature. Geoff Wilson from CML is
providing daily contact and staff is following the bill closely.
Miller stated that a bill has been introduced that needs support which
gives counties the ability to raise the threshold for development approval
to 160 acres.
Smith discussed a letter in the newspaper against the Development
Review Overlay Zone (DROZ). He suggested that the City write a letter to
support DROZ. Swope agreed; Commissioner Hotchkiss claims the City forced
them to do it, so the City should provide support. Miller reported that
the County Environmental Advisory Board is holding an open house March 4-6
at the Home and Garden Show to try to get in touch with the community.
Friedman said the NRAB should try not to become a target for critics who
are attacking the County because it risks damaging NRAB's credibility and
goodwill in the community. Shoemaker said the DROZ wasn't a unilateral
decision but the County tried to accelerate it and got "caught in a
buzzsaw." Miller said there are some members of the development community
and Board of Realtors who realize the importance of sensible planning and
increased open space.
Shoemaker said the Corridor planning effort is continuing and a Task
Force has been formed to follow the process. They will meet on February
15, 7:00 p.m. at Norlarco on Whaler's Way, and bimonthly thereafter.
Shoemaker noted that the City assigns five staff people to the Corridor
project while the County sends two staff, and Loveland sends one.
Friedman said the Education Committee has a letter ready requesting
nominations for the Environmental Award and a draft nomination form. The
schedule is to accept nominations for schools until April 5, vote May 4,
and make the award June 5 or 9. The General Public award will be made at
the Environmental Fair, when the school winner will also be acknowledged.
Friedman discussed HB 1084, which prohibits transfer and release of
wildlife from one area to another. He said it sounds as though urban -
captured animals would have to be killed. HB 1030 is another bill which
proposes to repeal Amendment 10, which banned spring bear hunting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
7