Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 10/20/2014AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2014 DATE: MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 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 Jim Dennison Absent: John Shenot Rich Fisher Staff Present: Melissa Hovey, Staff Liaison Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support Mary Pat Aardrup, Healthy Sustainable Homes Program Manager Tessa Greegor, FC Bikes Program Manager Councilmembers Present: none Guests: none Call meeting to order: Tom Moore called to order at 5:35pm. Public Comments: None Member Comments: None AGENDA ITEM 1: Approval of Radon Grant Appropriation Mary Pat Aardrup, Health Sustainable Homes Program Manager presented the draft ordinance for appropriating funds for the radon program. Mary Pat explained that this grant has been ongoing for 10 years. They have already been awarded a grant from CDPHE and will go to Council to appropriate matching funds for the Radon Program from the Environmental Services operating fund. Members were given recent information and radon test kits for their own homes. Over the last few years a study has been conducted about non-mitigation of known radon. The study will give staff a better idea of who is mitigating and who is not, and what the radon levels are. Results are expected in December 2014 and a determination as to how to move forward with this program will be 1 made early 2015. It was noted that the entire state of Colorado has been determined to be Zone 1, which designates the highest priority radon zone. Comments/Q&A • Tom Moore asked about radon mitigation for new construction. Mary Pat said that is part of the construction process, but these kits are for older homes that do not yet have mitigation. • Tom Moore asked if Healthy Sustainable Homes inspections test for radon. Mary Pat said yes. Melissa added that the kits are supplied to participating home owners, including in new homes. • Dave said he had a home energy audit and was told that the fan he has for radon mitigation is overpowered. Is there anything in regulations for new home construction to have lower wattage fans? This could provide energy savings to the city. His auditor told him the systems are effective without the fan. Melissa added that this should be tested. Some systems may be effective passively, but that is dependent on the levels. Greg moved to approve recommendation of appropriation of funds for the Radon Program. Dave seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. AGENDA ITEM 2: Draft Bicycle Master Plan Tessa Greegor, FC Bikes Program Manager, presented information on the draft Bicycle Master Plan. Board members considered drafting a recommendation to support the plan. Public comments are open until November 5. There is an online form, or board members can email her directly with comments on the draft master plan. Staff is in Phase 4, looking toward December 2 as anticipated Council adoption date. Public outreach has been extensive including open houses, bike to work day, etc. The draft plan is succinct, but there is much more detail included in the appendices. The vision is to have a world class bicycling city for all ages and abilities. Outcomes include increased bike mode share, reduced crash rates, zero fatalities, reducing GHG emissions, etc. Targets are focused on comfort, safety, ridership, and connectivity. The plan looks to focus programming, include partnerships, and invest in infrastructure. Each target includes key actions. One new program is a modified drivers’ education program that includes bicycle safety education. Another recommendation is enhancing end-of-trip facilities at key locations. Bike share is a new program in the plan, and staff would like to establish a comprehensive counting program. Recommendations for policy include ones related to traffic standards, street design standards, traffic laws, development and zoning codes, and maintenance. A primary goal is to create a comfortable, safe and connected network. Staff looked at level of comfort of every street and performed a bicycle demand analysis. The 2020 Low Stress Network involves leveraging existing streets and spot improvements. The Full Build Network is a long term (25-50 year) plan. Spot treatments will improve specific crossings, way-finding will direct people to destinations and paths, buffered bike lanes are proposed, and four to five protected bike lane demo projects could be completed. The plan is aggressive yet realistic, implementable, and phased logically. Staff used a quantitative approach to evaluation and used the triple bottom line analysis to rate corridors and programs. The plan includes cost estimates and prioritization for intersections, corridors, and streets. Staff will pursue local funds as well as state and federal grants. 2 Comments/Q&A • Tom Griggs said he is impressed with how nicely the visibility of bicycling has been over the last few months. He appreciates that safety has been made a priority in the plan. He wonders about the system for rating and prioritizing projects. Does that include a method to re-prioritize projects after demonstration projects are completed and studied? Tessa said a lot of flexibility has been built in to the plan to respond to opportunities. • Tom Griggs added that there was a point about education to 8000 students about bike safety. He thinks it is best to target populations that have less access to that information. He can discuss this in more detail with her offline. He asked whether the triple bottom line comes from the budget process. Melissa added that it comes from the Sustainability Service Area and is a tool that encompasses economic, social, and environmental factors and mitigates negative impacts. It is a comprehensive way of comparing alternatives for projects. • Dave said he did not see anything about enforcement in the plan. He often sees violations of the law and this creates antagonism between bikes and cars. How do we enforce? Tessa said there is information in the appendix about current enforcement, partnering with Police Services, educational outreach and free lights. Dave said the education is there, but if you have 20-30% more bikes on the road and people continue with current behavior, we will have greater problems. He suggests having someone play devil’s advocate for the plan to look at it from the perspective of someone who is generally opposed to sharing the road with bicyclists. • Melissa asked if Police Services were involved on the technical team or another element of the plan. Tessa said yes; however, staff was not ready to recommend additional enforcement. A lot of the infrastructure improvements will lead to increased safety. Dave suggested having bicycle mounted Police for enforcement. He thinks including enforcement in the plan will help take care of the anti- bicycling people. • Dave said the maps are confusing. He does not understand the codes that are used, and noted some specific inconsistencies. He will send Tessa specific comments before November 5. Tessa will look at improvements. Dave added that the plan has many good attributes for bicycle advocates. • Jim said helping to increase bicycle use in Fort Collins could be one for the most significant things this board could advocate for to improve air quality. He would like to understand the metric of 85% of people being within a ¼ mile of a low stress route. Tessa said if your residence is within a ¼ mile of a low stress route, that route should continue to north-south or east-west. • Jim asked if these things all need to be fought for at each project. Tessa said there are standard development guidelines for new and retrofit street construction and this is part of the complete streets model the City has adopted. Melissa said this is part of the reason for having a visionary plan. When they want to do the Lincoln Corridor, or another, the Bicycle Plan prevents having to fight for the improvements. • Jim asked about funding. Tessa said there is funding in BOB, and staff is looking at implementation funding from BOB2.0. Some funding for implementation and specific projects are also going through the BFO process. Staff will continue to pursue grants as well. Melissa added that BFO offers are better supported when there is a plan as back up. • Greg said the plan is great. He thinks Dave is right that the plan needs to also speak to the non- bicycling community. He does not see enforcement included. He rides through campus and downtown daily and sees a number of violations regularly. He thinks the non-bicycling community will want to see some specifics in the plan to keep bicyclists from breaking the law. 3 • Tom Moore asked about planning level costs. There are really large numbers on the graphs. He wonders if people will want to spend $5 million to improve bicycling on one street. Tessa said it is a range looking at grade separations, moving gutters or sidewalks for many miles, and other factors. These are expensive, but there are other ways to implement protected bike lanes. • Tom Moore asked about mileage charts. Do the categories overlap? Tessa said yes. In some cases they are upgrades to the 2020 network. He asked if staff could add an air quality goal. Tessa asked for a suggestion. Tom said the board could write one. He also asked about infrastructure and what it refers to. Tessa said it could be intersection improvements, cycle track, bike share buildings, etc. • Tom said the status quo of putting bikes right next to cars is the plan. He is scared when riding his bike because people are driving distracted, even on “low stress” streets. What if we didn’t put any more bike lanes on the streets? We have air quality exposure data to support that. What is the appropriate engineering of existing bike paths? It seems strange we don’t have specific standards to provide a margin of safety on bike paths. Could we do more projects that separate cars and bikes? • Jim asked if there are a lot of opportunities to separate. Tom Moore said you could look at the entire Spring Creek Trail from an engineering perspective and see how to move more bikes safely. • Jim said he assumed there are only a small number of places where a new bike path could be added. Tessa said there is a robust paved trail master plan that will enhance the current system and expand to create the missing connections. As development goes in, the trails will be built. The bike plan is focused on connections to the trail system, not proposing new trails. This is for a denser system to get people from their homes around the City. The trail system is a fundamental element. Adding the on- street safety is to enhance connection to the trail system. • Greg said that ties into the 0% fatality goal. • Tom Moore said he did not previously understand that there is a separate plan for bike trails. He thinks it is important for the non-bike community to understand that these services are here. He thinks the cost for putting cars and bikes together seems rather large. He would like to see the Paved Trails Recreation Plan. • Jim said you cannot go wrong with a plan that improves the bike availability in the City. Greg proposed a motion to support the plan. Jim seconded. “The Air Quality Advisory Board supports the Bicycle Master Plan, with due consideration of the boards’ discussion.” Motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. • Melissa asked about the bike counting and whether that data could be used to develop an air quality goal for the plan. Tessa said there are passive 24-hour infrared counters, and manual counts are done at intervals as well. The plan would include installing additional counters including a “totem counter.” She will help Melissa gather the needed information. A grant was received to fund the totem counter. • Melissa verified that the board is willing to draft an air quality goal. AGENDA ITEM 3: Draft Dust Manual Melissa Hovey, Sr. Environmental Planner, led a discussion on the first draft of the Dust Manual. Board members provided feedback and suggestions for clarity and improvement. 4 Melissa provided handouts. The objective of the effort is to prevent fugitive dust though best practices, education, and training. Our current City codes do not provide much support. There are gaps and areas of confusion in our local and state codes. However, the City does not want to burden development or inspectors. There is potential for a minor land use change, major municipal code change, and changes to specific City documents to comply with the dust control manual. The Manual will be adopted by Council. The City is training inspectors to enforce dust control. The City will also provide licensed contractor training and outreach to the general public on items that affect their behavior. The draft Dust Control Manual needs to be vetted through the attorney’s office before the board can review it. She will email the draft before the November meeting. Melissa will also convene a stakeholder group of affected parties in November and December. Code changes and the manual have to go through two readings by Council in January and February and staff can be trained before the next dust season. She provided an outline of the manual which lists the types of activities that are sources of fugitive dust. Only large development areas greater than 5 acres would have to submit a dust control plan with their development construction application. Any developer with an air permit will also have to submit a copy. Comments/Q&A • Greg asked what stockpiles are. Melissa said piles of dirt or aggregate that could be held at a landscape company or construction site. These can be sources of fugitive dust emissions. • Jim asked for insight into what is meant by “prohibit off property transport of fugitive dust.” Melissa said it will be based on visible emissions. Jim asked if there will be pushback from contractors. Melissa said so far it has been received well by contractors. These changes are not unexpected. • Jim asked if staff was able to get help in writing this from other existing manuals. Melissa said she reviewed 35 manuals from the Rocky Mountain area. • Tom Moore wondered if there needs to be a definition of who is responsible. A general contractor could say he doesn’t know they are doing abrasive blasting, for example. He suggests adding a section on responsible parties. Melissa said she hopes that is covered in the direct code. The dust control manual says, “…any person who…shall implement…” The end of the code explains violations and penalties. Tom Moore said he thinks there needs to be direct responsibility between those overseeing the site and those doing the work. Melissa said this is covered by separating the activities. The management best practices describe the responsibility. • Tom Moore asked if road construction should be on this list. Jim said it could be included in “earthmoving activities.” Melissa will check on this. • Tom Moore said infrastructure maintenance activities of the City and others, such as digging trenches, should be included. Melissa described everything included in the “earthmoving activities” category. • Jim asked if in comparison to other plans, does Melissa think our list is as robust? Did they have different ways of splitting categories? Would there be merit in a miscellaneous category? Melissa said she does have that category. There are many ways to break this down, but she has tailored this to the types of activities that occur in Fort Collins. The list is comprehensive. • Tom Moore said he would like to think of the timeframe of projects. When an area is disturbed daily, best practices are only as good as their ongoing implementation. Melissa said we have engineering inspectors and building inspectors, stormwater inspectors, general code compliance inspectors, etc. The City does not have one that will be solely responsible for this. She needs to get internal support for having all inspectors trained for dust control. This board has a special role for reviewing and providing comments as the board that brought this issue to Council. 5 AGENDA ITEM 4: Current Communications with City Council Tom Moore, AQAB Chair, led a discussion on continuing efforts to communicate with Council on several issues including status of AQAB-recommended BFO offers, “super” board meetings, and a possible joint meeting with the Transportation Board and Bicycle Advisory Committee on: a) giving input for the content of the Transportation/Air Quality Impacts Manual, b) the proposed Bike Plan and air quality/health/safety/ topics, and c) advice from the Boards to the Climate Action Plan – Citizen Advisory Committee. Tom said the Transportation Air Quality Impacts Manual got discussed by Council despite being below the line as result of raising the issue with Ross. It has been added back into the budget. This is a success of better communication. Super board meetings are continuing and there is no further direction to reduce number of boards or combine, but really to focus on the seven key outcome areas. The triple bottom line is an overlaying principle. He will continue to attend super board meetings, though he does not view them as very productive. In interest of communicating effectively with Council, Tom has laid out the idea of a joint meeting with the Transportation Board. He would like to discuss the Transportation Air Quality Impacts Manual with the Transportation Board. Our mission includes collaboration with the Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Transportation Board. We can have one meeting per year with them. A quarter of GHG emissions are from transportation fuels. We can have a discussion about this in a joint meeting. Comments/Q&A • Greg asked about communication with the Transportation Board. Tom Moore said the Transportation Board is receptive. • Jim wondered if the joint meeting would take the whole meeting time, and whether there would be presenters who would present to both boards. Melissa said a large portion of Climate Action Plan will be devoted to improvements in transportation. The last Climate Action Plan Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting included a draft list of strategies, and several are around transportation. This board can weigh in with the Transportation Board and emphasize co-benefits. These strategies are going to be finalized in November and December. AGENDA ITEM 5: Updates and Announcements Climate Action Plan—Citizen Advisory Committee • Tom Moore said Rich will attend the CAC meetings. Asphalt • The Board submitted comments. No response has been received from CDPHE yet. They will be emailing responses before the next AQAB meeting. • Jim clarified that City Council submitted the board’s comments as their comments. • Melissa is meeting with PSD and the County to do public exposure air monitoring around the facility. May collaborate with MMM and an air quality monitoring company to do some baseline testing. 6 Oil and Gas • Melissa said a judge overruled our moratorium. City Council filed motion to stay. Also filed a motion to appeal. • In March Council approved money for the City to respond to criteria in the ballot measure. The City has commissioned consultants to review available data for property values and how they have been affected by oil and gas, as well as health impacts. • Melissa was asked about oil and gas air monitoring done by the City. The City has conducted oil and gas air monitoring and staff is writing the report, which will be made publicly available with property value and health impacts. All of this will go to Council before becoming publicly available. Council will decide next steps and will be more informed on the status of the appeal. AGENDA ITEM 6: 2015 Work Plan The board discussed its priorities and goals for 2015 in the context of the two currently empty AQAB seats and Board turnover and began to draft its 2015 work plan which is due on Nov. 30, 2014. Melissa will bring a draft next month. She said the Economic Health department is revising its strategic plan and has five themes in the plan. One of the themes is regional collaboration. This board could let the department know how ozone nonattainment affects economic health. A discussion could be had with Josh Birks regarding ozone nonattainment and how this issue could be included in the economic health strategic plan. • Tom said the work plan only needs a few declarative statements. One item should be to comply with the requirement to interact with other committees/boards. He would like to include ozone action and research around the impact of transporting hazardous materials though town by train. • Melissa added that the Air Quality Plan needs to be updated for 2016, which means it needs to be worked on in 2015. • Jim said he can present information on the air quality impacts of methamphetamine labs if the board would like. • Jim added that he is concerned about asbestos issues in the demolition of buildings. State regulations require removal of asbestos, but there is a potentially low percentage that has asbestos correctly removed first. If a state permit is issued, the developer complies, but commercial and residential remodel permits are the issue. There is little enforcement. Some municipalities make it part of the permit review to verify that the owner or contractor made sure asbestos was removed during remodel. This municipality seems to have policy that is more lax. Melissa said this issue could be taken up within the fugitive dust codes. Tom Moore said this could be included in a larger discussion of redevelopment. • Tom Moore suggested including meeting with the Council liaison two or three times per year in the work plan. • Dave said a lot of documents have the language to reduce VMT. That is directed to reducing fossil fuels. There are more electric vehicles on the road. Redefining VMTs could be a potential topic. • Tom Moore would like to focus on the Transportation Air Quality Manual in the work plan, and this could be a place to discuss VMT. • Melissa said reducing fossil fuel consumption for transportation, and embedded energy in infrastructure for any type of vehicle are goals. There is still a net benefit for reducing VMT, but it is 7 good to separate the terminology around infrastructure versus fossil fuel consumption of vehicles themselves. • The Board discussed how to get to full capacity. Melissa will contact the City Clerk for more information and board members are encouraged to actively solicit new members. AGENDA ITEM 5: Other Business Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) Meeting • Dave attended last month’s meeting. The committee discussed the BFO process and projects. In general they were not displeased with what went through. They also heard the draft Bicycle Master Plan presentation by Tessa. He cannot attend the next Bicycle Advisory meeting. • Greg asked if there is still a police officer on the BAC. Dave said there was an officer in attendance, but enforcement actions in the draft plan were not discussed. • Dave asked if we have statutory requirement to attend the BAC. Melissa said the BAC is to have a liaison from the AQAB by resolution. • Greg said his experience with BAC is that liaisons do not always attend the meetings. Review of City Council 6 Month Agenda Planning Calendar • Budget • Bicycle Master Plan • Climate Action Plan Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:02pm. Approved by the Board on November 17, 2014 Signed ____________________________________ 11/18/2014 Dianne Tjalkens, Administrative Clerk II Date 8