Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/10/2014AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2014 DATE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2014 LOCATION: Community Room, 215 N. Mason Street TIME: 5:30–8:00 pm For Reference: Tom Moore, Chair 970-988-4055 Ross Cunniff, Council Liaison 970-420-7398 Melissa Hovey, Staff Liaison 970-221-6813 Present: Tom Moore, Chair Dave Dietrich Gregory Miller Tom Griggs Rich Fisher John Shenot Absent: Jim Dennison Staff Present: Melissa Hovey, Staff Liaison Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support Councilmembers Present: Guests: Nathan Foley, CSU student/Environmental Services intern Mark Houdashelt, citizen Call meeting to order: Tom Moore called to order at 5:35pm. Public Comments: None Member Comments: None Review and Approval of November 17, 2014 minutes Delayed to January meeting. Chairman Comments: Tom would like to discuss the Bicycle Advisory Committee liaison role later in the meeting. AGENDA ITEM 1: Climate Action Plan Strategies and Tactics The Board discussed strategies and tactics developed to date for the Climate Action Plan, the intersection of those with strategies previously suggested by the Board, and an update on the Board’s involvement with the Citizen Advisory Committee. 1 Melissa directed members to handouts. Tom Moore presented possible recommendations to Council regarding the Climate Action Plan (CAP). Melissa added that Council gave direction to staff at the work session, including what Council expects to have presented at the February meeting. The document to be presented will be a framework that will be followed by an implementation plan. Comments/Q&A • Dave asked Rich’s opinion of the process. Rich said RMI has been creative and offers solutions used around the country. Technically, there is much that can be done. The questions, though, are nontechnical: economics, behavior, choice, etc. If people need to act, how do you continue motivating them? • Dave asked more about the Citizen Advisory Committee. Rich said it included a broad spectrum of participants and everyone at the table believes something needs to happen. Yvonne Myers (Columbine Health Care) was articulate about how the community will view this. She said they will ask, “What is in it for me?” • Melissa noted that two members responded to the survey provided. Staff was trying to determine whether to stress the strategies that put most of the burden on Platte River, or the strategies that are more for the average person. Can we get 90% electric vehicles by 2030? That is in the model right now. The feedback received from the survey was varied. A huge piece of the plan that has not been worked on yet is community engagement. We’ve heard clearly that mandates are not the first choice. • Rich said motivating leaders in the community is key. If you are a CSU fan, you listen to the leaders at CSU, which brings in a segment of the community. Then you bring in HP and their employees. If the new senator came on board, he would have a following. As long as it is only perceived as “green” or “techy” it won’t fly. • John said motivating people to take action when they can choose otherwise is one element, but if the leadership views this as setting aspirational goals that they don’t believe will be achieved, that should be looked at further. • Rich said air quality in this country from 1970 to today is vastly different. Did our economy take a blow from making these huge strides? Economically we haven’t noticeably paid a price. If you look at what kinds of changes we have already made in narrower areas, there is no reason to believe that with some strong leadership we can’t reach these objectives. • Dave said most of the things Rich mentioned were changed at the federal level. Laws were passed and challenged. Federal regulatory action is required for us to achieve this and we would be further along if the government was taking action. You have to have electric vehicles and increased solar. If there is not a law, motivation is hard to get going. • Greg asked what Council said at the work session. • Melissa said two feel very strongly about the aspirational goals. The rest have been more cautionary and have discussed changing the goals to be more easily achievable. However, a city that is leading the way will attract the innovation and funding to achieve the goals. • John said his notion of rational and reasonable is not inconsistent with the goals. Part of the community engagement is focusing on leaders in the community. Ultimately it comes back to budgeting and Council decisions. If you support the goals, will you support the ordinances and budget items to achieve them? Even if there wasn’t climate change, these are positive actions that improve quality of life. • Tom Moore said he talked to Lucinda about cost and motivation. Costs and co-benefits need to be quantified. 2 • Melissa added that these pieces have not been developed yet, but are underway. Council does not expect a full-blown CAP in February at this point. The City organization needs to be authorized to implement. They need tools and resources. • John said this is where Council made the right decision in funding the air quality impact assessment tool. It is a good example and we should make sure it addresses multiple pollutants including GHG emissions and ozone precursors. He would like leadership and the community to understand that when you talk about costs it is compared to something. The board can contribute to this discussion. What is the baseline scenario? What are the changes that are coming whether the City wants them or not? When we talk to the community and ask are you willing to pay this much more to get the result, these things need to be part of the discussion. For example, you pay $5 more on utility bill monthly for desired results, but if you do nothing, you’ll still be paying $4 more per month. • Dave said leadership needs to make these decisions with a long term view. The City has to have 90% electric vehicles and show the payoff to convince the public to participate. Melissa added that staff heard clearly from Council that we are not to burden the public with anything the City will not do. Lead by example. • Tom Moore said if we are going to build a new stadium, something will happen to Prospect Road regardless. These other processes are going on. Can the City address more than one question about a decision at a time? Can there be a group to track implementation and measure progress? The Air Quality Advisory Board is a logical group to help with this. There needs to be oversight of what the City organization is doing. • Melissa let the board know that a public statement can be made at the CAC meeting on Monday, and there is another work session in January at which members can speak or submit comments. Lucinda will also attend the January meeting. • Tom Moore suggested the board prepare a draft set of recommendations to discuss and vote on in order to have something for Council’s February meeting. • Rich said the board can synthesize comments from its meetings. The CAP will be establishing goals without having what is key in making this work. The tendency is figuring out reducing carbon tons at Rawhide and how many electric vehicles are needed. But his recommendation is to make a strong point about the non-technical aspects. • John added these strategies are affordable and technically feasible, but how do you make it happen? Some the City can control, but most it can only influence. • Rich said the argument of this City being an island doing all this work, even if we went to zero next week, what does this do to the global budget? So, we have to ask why we are doing this. If the commitment to citizens looks onerous, we must answer that question for them. • Melissa said these issues have been raised in community meetings. • Rich said it is the right thing to do, we are setting a good example, we are a leadership town, and the end cost will not be much more. Melissa said the end result is actually a savings. We need to get over the idea of sacrifice. You drive a car, it can be electric or gas. It’s not that extreme. There will be significant front end investment, but the savings will be great. The “what if” costs for if we don’t do this have not yet been calculated. • John said part of the answer to all the “why” questions is to help with air pollution. Nearly everyone knows someone who has asthma. This is a big part of the answer. • Tom Moore said the investment now continues to pay back over time. Staff needs to provide examples of long term civic investments and the returns. 3 • Melissa added that this model has $20 per month investment per person for a decade and then realizes a return on investment. There will be increased costs for coal, regardless. • Tom said getting the savings across to the public is complicated. However, burying the power lines was a decision the City made. Staff can use this choice as an example. We can also attach some air quality related benefits. • John said we might want to advise the City to not obsess over the what, but the how and why, in the plan. • Tom Moore asked the board what it feels is the best investment of its time for making comment on this subject. • Tom Griggs said the board has been identifying goals and obstacles and has come to the conclusion that we now need to change people’s behavior and the focus should be on the tangible and real benefits to adopting the goals and strategies, and implementing. • Rich said a benefit of speaking at the Monday night meeting would be the potential influence on the committee. Additionally, he suggests presenting a statement to Ross Cunniff to bring to Council. • Greg said our emphasis needs to be about “why.” • Dave said when he is asked about solar, he goes straight to the why. He tells people he is making a seven year investment and will have free power afterward. • Greg asked if the “why” questions are coming from Council. Melissa said yes, and they are asking how. However, that is not where staff is focused right now. • Dave said when we get the “why” right, the community will put pressure on Council to make changes. • Melissa noted that the co-benefits to air quality have not had the emphasis they could. • Tom suggested the board make comments on the draft plan as well when it is released. • Rich agreed to write a statement and get member input via email. Rich moved that he be authorized by the board to draft a recommendation to be read at the Council work session, that will be edited and approved by the board via email. Tom Griggs seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. AGENDA ITEM 2: Proposed NAAQS for Ozone The Board discussed the implications of EPA’s proposed strengthening of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone announced on 11/25/2014. Tom Moore said the EPA is proposing to adopt a 65–70 PPB standard. The analysis shows the control standards, and the changes to air quality. There are maps and tracking that will happens. The Clean Air Act has a five year planning cycle, so in 2016 they would designate areas that violate the standard, and the planning would start there. The first plans would be due in 2021. Based on the time it takes to do the planning and implement the control, it is likely Fort Collins would be out of attainment for the next decade. There will also be a secondary ozone standard. It is likely mountain areas would violate the secondary standard due to high levels of ozone in the western mountains. There are many benefits to reduced ozone in terms of health costs and potential decrease in death rates. Melissa added the proposal is in the 90 day public comment period and this information can help prepare the board to have a discussion with the Economic Health Director about economic impacts of ozone non-attainment on Fort Collins. 4 Comments/Q&A • Rich asked if the EPA is accounting for stratospheric issues that contribute to non-attainment. • John said he read there is a plan to change the rules on how to deal with exceptions. • Tom Moore said exclusions are difficult to get, but atmospheric intrusion would be dealt with in this process. • John said the map shows areas that could be non-attainment areas and it looks to be all over the map, but the EPA is saying a lot of the rules in place will affect emissions and many areas will come into attainment via those rules. But not Larimer County. • Melissa added other oil and gas areas as well as Larimer. • John said he feels the proposed standards are in the range for protecting public health and we will not meet those standards without some additional work in the next decade. The rules in process are not enough to make our air healthy. We must do more. Whether or not they revise the standard, this is what the science is saying about our air. • Tom Moore said for our City, we might want to advise on what can be done within the City. Many things that can be changed are at the state and federal level. • Melissa said primarily mobile sources are responsible for ozone emissions. • John asked if staff comments go to Council. Melissa said they go to the City Manager, who decides if Council needs to see them. She added that this board can help shape those comments. • Tom said if we want to reduce ozone in Fort Collins, and have the City influence state legislation, we should make comments. • John said the EPA is making this decision based on science. He does not feel qualified to comment on where the ozone standard should be set, but he hopes the City wouldn’t develop comments questioning or opposing the rule based on the fact that we will continue to be in non-attainment or a sense that it will have a negative economic impact. It is a public health standard, and if we don’t pay the price to reduce air pollution, we pay the price in health. • Tom Moore said there are costs borne by the City. We need to think strategically about what implementation will be necessary to get into attainment. • Dave said the Climate Action Plan will help us achieve this. • Rich said the important part is human health and values associated with clean air. This is a values issue, rather than a science issue. What value do you place on missed school days and premature deaths being reduced? • Greg said there is a small percentage of the population that understands the science, but they understand the “why” issues. When you focus on that, you motivate change. • John said if there is a way to extract from the impact analysis our share of avoided health impacts that could be very informative for the community and our leadership. • Melissa said the county may have this data. • Greg asked how many monitors are in Fort Collins. • Melissa said there are two in town: one is on mason and Pitkin, and the other is at the Foothills campus of CSU, on north Laporte Avenue. The Rist Canyon one was discontinued last year. Tom Moore said there is also the Longs Peak Monitor in Rocky Mountain National Park. • Tom Moore said City leadership had never taken an advocacy position to change the status quo. It is time to stop just participating and start advocating. If we implement some of the climate action strategies, there are large sources regulated by the state that need more action. Transportation 5 planning is one of dozens of entities that participate. Our transportation analysis tool can help us determine where advocacy is needed. • Melissa said the City has taken a strong advocacy role in all vehicle emissions issues, and advocated strongly on oil and gas regulations. She would like more suggestions for where the City can take an advocacy role. • Tom Moore said Council needs to be strategically prepared to discuss the plan to solve the ozone non-attainment for the area as a regional issue. • John said this is tying together our big discussion. This is part of the answer to the “why” question. If we do what is in the Climate Action Plan, our emissions will be far below what the EPA thought when they drew the maps. Ozone is a regional issue, and even if we reduce our precursors a lot, our levels may not go down a lot, but they will go down. • Dave added that if the City reduces emissions, but continues to have high ozone levels, that will point us to where additional changes need to be made. • Tom Moore said he works on regional modelling for emission. He showed maps and graphs of source categories. Oil and gas is a larger contributor than industry but motor vehicles are a greater emitter than both. • Melissa said when ozone is at its highest, it is locally sourced ozone, when it is not as high, it is primarily influenced by background emissions. • Tom Moore added that we will have more days influenced by regional emissions. In this area, concentrations are seen in the mountains. Tom added that while this data is older, the new data looks very similar. He suggested putting this topic on the January agenda. Also on the agenda is the Economic Health Strategic Plan. • Melissa will email the draft Economic Health Strategic Plan to the board. AGENDA ITEM 3: Updates and Announcements Fugitive Dust • Tuesday, December 16, is the stakeholder committee meeting for fugitive dust. This may be a one- time meeting. Melissa would like a board member to attend. • John agreed to attend. Melissa will email the announcement to the board. • Rich added that the West Nile meeting will be the same evening. CSU Stadium • Melissa provided a report that went to Council. Council agreed to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to work with CSU on a solution. The last page of the document is environmental considerations. Staff would like to continue working with CSU on impacts to air quality, solid waste and GHG. • Melissa said there was a group of CSU students who took on a project to design a net-zero renovation of Hughes and changes to Prospect. The concept was comprehensive. The project had been dropped, but the Save our Stadium Hughes (SOSH) people are considering resurrecting this plan, and would like to discuss this with the board. • Tom Griggs said this is his real idea of education and would like to see a presentation of the project. • Greg said the SOSH group is not done or giving up. Council was under pressure to weigh in before the Board of Governors meeting, but many legal strategies are being bandied about by the SOSH group. 6 • Tom Moore said the mitigation actions list is not a holistic approach. We have had these conversations over and over. You can’t just widen the street or add a turn lane. This takes a much more comprehensive approach. The board should consider recommending something larger. • John would like the board to remain engaged in this topic. At the end of the day, the university does what it wants, but if the advisory committee is persistent, it can get a lot of consolation prizes, which merits us continuing our work, to ensure air quality impact mitigation or even benefits. He would like the presenter to know in advance that the board will not be taking a position on the stadium itself. • Melissa added that air quality impacts have not been addressed to date in the stadium research and decisions. • Tom Moore asked Melissa the timeline for the Air Quality Transportation Impact Assessment Tool. She said beginning January 1 staff can start the work. Melissa will be looking for advice from the board on drafting the scope of work in the coming months. The Green Built Environment Program Coordinator position was also funded. The position description will be written soon and the position posted for hiring in February. BOB2.0 • Council took up the list of BOB2.0 projects at the last work session. Staff and other groups have been proposing projects for many months. Last night Council cut the list of projects down to $80 million. The updated list will be posted in the next few days. • Tom Moore added that there was an article in the newspaper with more information. Board Applicants • Melissa said the board has three applicants. Interviews are being conducted on December 16, and Council will approve interviewees that night. New members will begin in January. Bicycle Advisory Committee • Dave said there will be large turnover on the BAC next month, and one of the first actions they will take will be on BOB2.0. Annual Report • Due January 30. Melissa will bring a draft next month for vote. AGENDA ITEM 5: Other Business Review of City Council 6 Month Agenda Planning Calendar/Future Agenda Items • December 16: Bicycle Master Plan, Board Appointments, Capital Improvement Ballot Language • January 13: CAP Work session • January 27: West Nile, Colorado Department of Transportation I-25 Funding Report • February 10: Nature in the City Strategic Plan • March 3: Dust Control • March 17: West Central Area Plan Recognition of Dave Dietrich’s Years of Service 7 • Tom Moore said that Dave is term limited off the board. This is his last meeting. Dave has been an amazing resource to this board for many years. He has done a lot of work on air quality and visibility and his expertise will be missed. • Dave said the board should make sure when the stadium gets built it is covered with solar panels. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:04pm. Approved by the Board on January 26, 2015 Signed ____________________________________ 2/4/2015 Dianne Tjalkens, Administrative Clerk II Date 8