HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/21/2015MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Monday December 21, 2015
Location: 215 N. Mason Community Room
Time: 5:30-8:00 PM
For Reference
Ross Cunniff, Council Liaison 970-221-6679
Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 970-224-6085
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
John Shenot, Chair Greg Miller
Mark Houdashelt, Vice Chair Tom Griggs
Jim Dennison
Vara Vissa
Rich Fisher
Robert Kirkpatrick
Staff Present
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Department Director
Cassie Archuleta, Environmental Planner
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager
Guests:
Vicky Weber, note-taker
Tom Moore, citizen
Call meeting to order: John called the meeting to order at 5:38 pm
Agenda Review: No changes.
Public Comments: Deferred until later in the agenda
Approval of Minutes:
Rich brought up clarification about haze and nitrogen dioxide. No changes were proposed.
Rich moved and Jim seconded a motion to approve the November minutes.
Motion passed, 5-0-0.
AGENDA ITEM 1—West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan
Amy Lewin, Senior Transportation Planner and Rachel Prelog, FC Moves Intern, presented an
overview of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan and asked the Board’s input on
alternatives for the future of the West Elizabeth Corridor.
Background: Enhanced travel corridors are “uniquely designed corridor designed to incorporate high
frequency transit, bicycling, and walking as part of the corridor.” May include: bus rapid transit,
enhanced cycling and walking facilities. The project has a goal to connect the Foothills campus with
main CSU campus and MAX. Currently the project is moving into evaluating different designs for
the corridor.
1 | Page
Community Engagement: To research the issue the West Elizabeth ETC project visited CSU classes
and events, conducted surveys, created a WikiMap, visited city boards and commissions, and held
listening sessions open houses, tours, focus group meetings to determine stakeholder issues. Existing
concerns include varying traffic (4400-18000 vehicles per day), perceived speeding, challenging to
make turns, conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists and sight distance issues. Elizabeth is the highest
transit ridership corridor: busses are overcrowded; there are not enough amenities (shelter, bike
parking) and not enough service at specific times (late night, weekend, summer). Main pedestrian
concerns are: lots of crossings, lack of facilities, sidewalks are not ADA accessible, some sections
lack sidewalk, hard to cross Elizabeth street. Main cyclist concerns are: high number of cyclists,
high number of crashes, inconsistent bike facilities.
Vision highlights: Each section of the Elizabeth ETC should be unique to the segments of the
corridor, promote safety and comfort for all users, encourage and prioritize public/active
transportation, support interconnectivity of all modes and be a beautiful and vibrant environment.
Evaluating Design Approaches: Final plan will likely include a combination of the following three
approaches: Approach 1) Transportation systems management. Near term and lower cost
improvements. Highlights: transit signal priority, bus queue jumps, consistent bike lanes, complete
ADA compliant sidewalk Approach 2) Traffic Calming. Highlights: Transit signal priority, bus
queue jumps, high frequency efficient traffic on West Elizabeth and Plum Streets, Roundabouts (also
easier bus turnaround), protected bike lanes raised next to sidewalk (see Bike Master Plan), complete
ADA compliant sidewalk 3) MAX on West Elizabeth all of the above amenities plus BRT on West
Elizabeth with stations like MAX instead of standard bus stops. This change would also include the
above improvements in approaches 1&2.
Alternatives Open House (Dec 3): Successful with lots of feedback.
Next Steps: Refine and evaluate design approaches, work towards recommended design. Take the
recommended design to compare against no action, additional outreach early 2016.
Discussion/Q&A during presentation:
• Vara: What about the gap between bus drop off and the buildings at the Foothills campus?
It’s a significant distance on dirt roads, which still may be a barrier to people using transit
over driving.
o Amy: We are considering it.
• You want to emphasize public transportation, walk, cycling. Are you trying to reduce
vehicle traffic?
o Amy: Improving transit will encourage people to change their mode of transportation
• What is the proportion of people going to campus or not going to campus?
o Amy: Many go to campus due to the CSU transit center. It is difficult to get from the
CSU transit center to the MAX. Others would take transit through corridor if offered.
Lots of students bike commute to campus. Serious cyclists also take Elizabeth.
Families tend to avoid Elizabeth as they don’t feel safe.
• What is the cost that CSU is supporting?
o Haven’t gotten to that point yet. CSU does funding for Transfort specific to the
campus area. No specifics at this point.
Discussion/Q&A after presentation:
• John: I would be excited to see a project like this to test the recommendations of the
Transportation Air Quality Impacts Guidance Manual.
• Rich: This would make sense if you outline the goals for air quality. What are the objectives
for POV, bikes, transit, walking. Do you have a mode split in mind?
o Amy: Estimates in corridor understanding report. Haven’t set target for mode split.
Interested in where we think we can go. Manual will help us quantify the research.
Not really that large of an area. Traffic has to go somewhere. Are we
reducing a problem here and then making a problem elsewhere?
• That’s why we’re studying a larger area than just Elizabeth under this
analysis.
2 | Page
• Mark: There are times now where Transfort runs at 10 minute intervals with trailers. How is
BRT going to better serve the vast number of students going at once?
o Amy: revamp routes and plan for future. Could go back and forth between higher
ridership areas.
o Rachel: Higher capacity with articulated busses, consolidate the routes and efficiently
go back and forth
o Amy: There is a big rush before classes start. There are changes in traffic patterns for
MWF vs TR classes which could be accounted for in planning and scheduling.
• Vara: Would there be more people taking Elizabeth if it were a good option for people?
Cannot study Elizabeth in isolation; must consider the effects on adjacent streets
o Rachel: There is a potential to draw ridership. We are considering a Park and Ride at
CSU foothills campus to increase ridership. Hard to quantify the impacts.
o Amy: We have a mode split goal citywide that we track through the American
Community Survey. There is a goal for non-SOV travel.
• Robert: Is the study a tiered model or quantified option? Here are several plans what do you
want?
o Amy: Anticipate phasing in improvements gradually. Ideal to quantify the study
o Mark: Impact is more than just this road (Elizabeth).
• John: About the ETC concept: If the goal is to increase transit/cycling/walking, would you
do things that inconvenience POVs?
o Amy: That is under consideration.
John: Examples?
• Amy: Could change to a bus only lane and one lane in each direction
for POV traffic.
John: A lot of people who would use transit don’t because of complicated
schedules and long wait times. Did you mention something about real-time
updates? May encourage transit use.
• Amy: Could be on the table, similar to MAX. Transfort has beefed
that up user information with texting to get stop information and the
app. Knowing there’s a bus every 10 minutes can also make it easier.
• Mark: I have a concern with using Transportation Impacts Manual because a lot of it is
focused on serving people already riding the bus not convincing more people to ride
bus/bike. Air quality impacts are a little iffy. Serving existing populations better isn’t a huge
impact for air quality.
o Amy: Lots of transfers between busses/MAX are a barrier to new ridership. We want
to provide a better pedestrian and bike network. People don’t feel safe at intersection
near King Soopers on Taft and Elizabeth.
AGENDA ITEM 2—Dust Control Project
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Program Manager, presented updates to the fugitive dust control
ordinance and manual that is going to City Council for a work session February 9th and a first
reading on April 5th.
Updated project timeline: Goes to Council for a work session on February 9th with a first reading
April 5, 2016. Implementation will happen between November 1, 2015 and January 1, 2017. Same
enforcement deadline – dialogue with City Council about concerns and discussion of implementation
time frame.
Cost assessments: (handout provided) Breakdown of which dust reduction measures have no
additional costs, minor cost increases: O&M/operations part of other requirements, Orange: high
O&M/low operations and low O&M/high operations costs. Red: High O&M and operational costs.
Largely contained in parking lot and open area dust generating activities. Colored boxes indicate
required best management practices (note that for some, e.g., parking areas), only one best
3 | Page
management practice is required. Grey boxes indicate where at least one additional best practice shall
be implemented if the required practices are unsuccessful at preventing off-property transport of dust.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Jim: At the last meeting of the dust working group you presented some quantitative data.
Didn’t see in tonight’s packet.
o Lindsay: If the board is willing to have it on the agenda one more time we can discuss
the broader outline of the logic behind the numbers.
Jim: At the meeting prior we had a qualitative assessment, but last meeting
we had a percent of project cost. If it’s perceived as expensive it won’t pass.
Presented three scenarios for using the dust plan and determined what the true
cost would be. Three projects estimates 1%. It came in at 0.7% but a
contractor said it would be closer to 2%. This is alarming because there is no
way to tell how realistic the numbers were.
• John: We don’t have to make a recommendation tonight
• Lindsay: There are other options to provide to the council.
• Lucinda: Enforcement phasing is an option from the manual.
• Vara: In our earlier discussions was there a way for the city to help with a library of things to
borrow/rent to be compliant?
o Lucinda: we could consider it but the fugitive dust working group hasn’t considered
that considered yet.
• Mark: Tonight we are discussing the timeline and recommendations from the board before
the work session rather than first reading.
o Lindsay: If the board wants to provide recommendations on options to consider it
should come before the work session and a recommendation on passing should come
before the first reading.
• Rich: What exactly are we discussing tonight? The manual?
o Lindsay: Yes and the implications of adoption.
Rich: This has been in the works and the committee has commented a lot.
Seems unlikely we have more comments. What is at issue that requires board
deliberation?
• John: Whether or not the board will make a recommendation on
adoption of an ordinance that would require use of the manual as well
as timing of implementation and enforcement.
• Jim: This program has been in the works for a year. One week before it’s going to council
the city attorney’s office hasn’t finished it yet. I find that a little strange.
Public Comments: Tom Moore
Thanks to the board and city staff for having me here.
Comments on Dust Control Project:
1) Timing: Pretty egregious. The 2013-14 council workplan clearly specified that the dust control
plan going to be done by now. No enforcement until summer 2017 is a significant delay.
2) Enforcement: There are still outstanding questions: duration of event, how will city staff enforce,
who can complain, who’s culpable (contractors and/or subcontractors). There is a perception is that
we’re moving too fast because there is no manual, which is ironic. We need to stop studying this and
move to enforcement.
3) Barriers: Cost is real, but we should think about not on a cost basis but of the benefits this plan
would have. This is one of the best places to live in the country, passing this should be a slam dunk.
It is not a cost but a part of living in Fort Collins. This would motivate city management and
departments to get competitive bids and seek low cost for implementation of control measures.
4) Sources: Do the sources of fugitive dust need more motivation than is planned: training, friendly
outreach? What is the frequency of the control measure? Based on project, level of activity?
Comments on West Elizabeth ETC:
4 | Page
5) West Elizabeth should have zero greenhouse gas emissions.
Discussion/Q&A:
• Rich: What is at issue? What are you brining forward and what do you want from the board?
o John: This meeting agenda was set with the understanding that city council wouldn’t
have a work session but take a vote in two weeks. My understanding that we would
have an ordinance to review, but we don’t have one to review. We would be making a
recommendation to council on how they should vote on the ordinance. There are
other issues on which we could make recommendations to council or not.
• Rich: Have we made a recommendation on this?
o John: The manual has been updated since we last made a recommendation.
o Rich: We should vote on “Does the board endorse this version of the manual?”
Jim: City attorney’s office is drafting ordinance. We want to know how the
ordinance matches with the manual.
Lindsay: City attorney’s office doesn’t typically share ordinance until it goes
to Council.
Lucinda: 1) Policy is evolving at the city about sharing the ordinance
language. Attorney’s office can make minor changes to the last minute.
However, the public wants to read the ordinance ahead of time. 2) In this case
the ordinance is 95% done and the language is very small: probably a page.
The gist of implementation is within the manual. Focus on the contents of the
manual not the ordinance.
Jim: People put in time for this to go forward, for attorney’s office to say it
shouldn’t be open to comment seems to be the opposite of what getting board
involvement is. We could accidentally support something that’s the opposite
of what we want to support – we should see the ordinance and manual before
voting.
John: We could recommend what the ordinance should say as a bridge to
avoid not having the manual but still making a recommendation.
Jim: Consensus: recommendation tonight or other time?
John: I want input in the recommendation, could conceivably do something
like I suggested, requiring mandatory use of the fugitive dust manual OR
recommend something else OR put on agenda January for future discussion.
Rich: Agree that we should push our recommendation to January meeting.
Would a draft ordinance have any teeth?
Lucinda: Yes. Civil or criminal penalty for violating municipal code. Burden
of proof higher for is criminal, more common to be civil penalty.
John: I favor putting this back on the agenda for January for a more structured
discussion.
Rich: If we have an ordinance available we could draft something before the
meeting.
John: We could draft a resolution for the board to consider. There could be
different versions if we’ve seen the ordinance or not seen it. I want this board
to weigh in on the issue before the work session.
Mark: Lindsay is asking us what we think is important. I’d like more info on
why Council is having a work session and which issues Council needs to be
discussed. Are they making substantial changes to the manual?
Vara: Are there last minute concerns for the city to polish addressing all
barriers to take a perfect manual and have these issues addressed?
Jim: Let’s take a recommendation next month and readdress after the work
session.
5 | Page
Lindsay: Part of the challenge is that council hasn’t discussed the issues.
There will be more direction from the February 9 work session.
Mark: Hopefully they examine the benefits as well as the costs.
John: We would want to put that in the recommendation. We could have a list
of questions that the board could make recommendations on prior to the work
session. Suggest two volunteers for first draft of recommendation as starting
point for our resolution. We will discuss the ordinance drafts in our January
meeting. Our recommendation is conditional on seeing ordinance language.
Want to see language ASAP.
Tom Moore, Public Comment: The Board adopted a resolution February 23
2015 making recommendations on this issue. You could recycle part of the
language.
John: Feel free to mine those documents for stuff to put in to this
recommendation.
Volunteers: Rich, Jim, Mark volunteer for a subcommittee to draft a
resolution for next meeting.
• Jim: Could we get cost figures before next packet?
o Lindsay: I will email them out.
AGENDA ITEM 3—2015 Annual Report – Review Draft
AQAB Members discussed their 2015 Annual Report to be finalized in January and submitted to
Council by January 31, 2016.
John: Report is about 1/3 drafted. It is not long and I have a template to draft it. The contents of
report will be:
• List of members.
• Formal actions taken (things we voted on). This could be connected to city strategic
objectives, but that’s not a requirement.
• Other major activities. A table of each meetings with what topic was discussed, presenters
and actions taken.
John will draft the annual report and circulate in advance of next meeting. AQAB will have a few
days after the meeting to revise and get to the clerk.
AGENDA ITEM 4—Updates and Announcements
Lindsay: Climate Action Plan
Lindsay discussed the recent CAP open house discussion meeting.
Q&A/Discussion:
• John: I couldn’t tell if format worked. Very crowded for the space.
• Vara: Talks encouraged discussion, we were looking for new people to come in. Not easy to
have conversations. Brian Dunbar was good but I wanted to know what the city was doing. I
wanted more systems approaches.
• John: Talked to chair of the energy board. Consider joint recommendations between
energy/air quality advisory board. Most of the things related to the Energy Advisory Board’s
work also relate to air quality.
o Jim: Great idea, any reason we can’t do that in our bylaws? How much effort is it to
get a consensus between the two boards? Is it logistically difficult?
o John: Good questions, I don’t have the answers.
6 | Page
• Lindsay: General feedback on Brian’s presentation was that “doing things well” resonated
with the business community. Plan is moving to modeling. Council work session is
scheduled for March 10th.
• Lindsay: The citizen advisory committees are equally split between
economic/social/environmental representation (triple bottom line).
• Mark: We should coordinate more with the energy board. We may have to get permission
from Council for official coordination.
o Lindsay: If we formed a coalition we would need to let Council know. It is in the
charter of many boards to have joint meetings so joint meetings should be OK.
o John: It could be formal or informal. If there are areas of overlap our voices are
amplified if we are saying the same things.
Transportation Air Quality Impacts Guidance Manual
Lucinda provided updates on the status of the Air Quality Impacts Guidance Manual.
• Lucinda: We are just about to finalize a contract with a firm. I can’t announce the firm until
the contract is finalized. We hope to be done by the end of the year. The firm uses really
innovative tools and a variety of consultants. The AQAB will be an integral part of this
project.
• Jim: Has this firm ever put together a similar guidance manual?
o Lucinda: They have done something similar. They have developed tools to do the
same kind of things for local governments in CO. Because the project is new there
will be some evolution over time. We will build flexibility into the contract.
o Jim: What is the cost?
Lucinda: $35k for manual $10k for training city staff.
o John: Will we get in kind contributions from consultants (ie, $55k of work for $45k)?
o Lucinda: No.
Staff Liaison Transition
Lucinda updated the Board that starting in January Lindsay Ex will be the staff liaison to the AQAB.
Lucinda states that she enjoyed her temporary role with the board.
• FYI: Last week’s Council meeting adopted the energy policy update unanimously. There
were changes made to energy policy based on some of the comments given to energy board. I
think it’s a better policy because of our input.
AGENDA ITEM 5—Future Actions and Agenda Items
Review of City Council’s 6 month agenda planning calendar.
Jan 19th is the first reading of community recycling ordinance.
• Vara: What are the most effective ways of composting?
• Lucinda: Ordinance doesn’t specify, just says it must be collected in 2 years.
• Vara: Will this affect how trash is collected, knowing how it is collected?
• Lucinda: Not too prescriptive of rates or types of services, as long as it goes to acceptable end
points, it’s the hauler’s business decision. Ordinance says they have to collect it and when.
Estimates are based on organics going to biodigester.
AQAB agenda items for January
• Work on annual report
• Consider fugitive dust recommendations (drafted by Mark, Rich and Jim)
• Hazardous material air quality discussion. Potentially able to schedule informal panel of fire
safety and emergency folks to discuss context of hazmats transported through Fort Collins.
o Jim: What documents could they provide to review before the meeting?
7 | Page
o Lucinda: Not sure, there are plans in place, the city has an emergency operations
manual and an emergency manager.
o Jim: What is the quantity of hazmats transported through Fort Collins?
o Lucinda: They might have that data.
• John: That will fill up the agenda: Monthly impacts of CAP and transportation air quality
impacts guidance manual. If we can’t get the hazmat panel on the agenda, we’ll shorten or
extend some topics. I’m having a meeting about indoor air quality issues as well.
o Vara: We should we consider something with internal air quality like smoking
inside/smoking in cars/ legal marijuana.
o John: We will address indoor air quality first 3-4 months of the year.
• Mark: Do you need help with annual report?
• John: I don’t think so. The rest is going through minutes for the past 12 months and coming
to actions or conclusions. I won’t need help until group discussion.
Abbreviations:
AQAB: Air Quality Advisory Board
BRT: Bus Rapid Transit
CAP: Climate Action Plan
ETC: Enhanced Travel Corridor
O&M: Operations and Maintenance
POV: Privately Owned Vehicle
SOV: Single Occupant Vehicle
8 | Page