Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 09, 2023 <br />Page 12 of 15 <br />Brauneis says that some of the whereas statements are misleading, and he is <br />not convinced it will lead to less gasoline consumption. Can you share the ones <br />that seem important to you? <br />Krantz says the staff ordinance mentions about 2% electric vehicle adoption in <br />Boulder County as opposed to 1 % in the entire state. That statement does not <br />support the need for reducing gas stations. It needs to include statements that <br />show the intent of the petition's proposed ordinance such as the goals of <br />reducing fossil fuels by 2050, the climate crisis and air -quality crisis instead of <br />data from the Energy Office. <br />Moline asks if she can point to the ones that are sticking out. <br />Krantz mentions on "October 1, 2022, the Colorado Energy Office reports that <br />there are 66,599 EV's registered in Colorado." That is followed by three more <br />regarding the numbers of EV's. She does not feel that those give a compelling <br />argument of why we need to cap the gas stations. The whereas statements <br />proposed by the petitioner is stronger <br />Brauneis says he finds the City ones are stronger and that the petitioners <br />reasoning's are more misleading. He does not think we will prevent any carbon <br />dioxide from entering the atmosphere through this measure. <br />Moline says he would love to see the evidence that says that it will. <br />Krantz says that data does not yet exist but we could quantify would be the <br />amount of stationary and fugitive emissions from fueling and tank venting. <br />Brauneis mentions that the state has not done vapor recovery for gasoline filling <br />very well. He would love to see that. Costco did put something like that in <br />recently and people have issues with the pumps shutting off and can be more <br />finicky at times until you learn how to use them. A newer station is more likely to <br />have vapor recovery then we would be better off than with the old stations that <br />currently exist. He is not convinced that this cap will reduce fugitive emissions. <br />Krantz thinks that we could find an analysis that shows that it would. Would love <br />the city to be the first in the country to limit the throughput of our gas stations. <br />Moline says when you look at the whereas statements in the proposed <br />resolution, he is having a hard time with the third paragraph. He does not think <br />we can say that because of the lack of evidence. <br />Brauneis says it does not exist. There are no studies. It is phenomenal that we <br />are at 2% electric vehicle ownership in Boulder County. Limiting gas stations, <br />however - people will still buy gas and we know that. <br />Choi says while placing the cap on the number of stations or pumps are <br />admirable steps to reduce gasoline and diesel consumption but it's only effective <br />if there is a viable alternative. He feels like the ordinance as written does not go <br />far enough and does not think it is a long-term solution. It does go in the right <br />direction but it needs some enhancements and additional requirements. <br />Howe says any development that is created affects energy. The goal of this is <br />valid and when he reads the third paragraph, it seems like it is setting a clear <br />goal. He does not think we are limiting much and still allowing more gasoline <br />stations and development. That is why he thinks it is a healthy balance. We want <br />to move towards more electric. Regardless whether gasoline stations actually <br />