Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Follow up to “Blue Sky” Discussion
No action.
II.
Subject:
Proposed Post-Construction Controls Ordinance
No action.
III.
Subject:
Next Meeting – Special:
Monday, July 9 at 10:00 a.m. in Rooms 270/271
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter and
Don Lochman
3:30 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda
2. Presentation: Sustainability and Environmental Business Practices (CMU)
3. Presentation: Discussion on Post Construction Controls Ordinance
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked those in attendance
to introduce themselves.
I.
Follow up to “Blue Sky” Discussion
Council member Foxx reminded everyone that at the last meeting, the Committee had an
open-ended conversation on subjects they would like to take back to the full Council
relative to the environment.
Julie Burch said staff took the list of ideas from May 21 and prepared a quick response to
each item that was included in the agenda packet. Staff wants to get a sense from the
Committee about any additional information that might be needed, next steps, what items
should be pursued, and if possible, maybe prioritize the list. This is just a first cut. Staff
is not going to review each item today, but asks the Committee to please do so over the
next few weeks.
Doug Bean will be making a presentation today about some of the proactive steps
Utilities is already taking with water and wastewater. They are on the cutting edge with
the environment as it relates to air and water quality. Utilities is an example of good
things we are already doing as an organization.
Council member Foxx said he counted 28 ideas from the last meeting. It would be great
if we could implement 28 ideas, but that’s not going to happen. We need to do some
prioritizing; we also need to talk about the Committee schedule going forward. It would
be advantageous to prioritize this list for staff so they can be working on a parallel track
with upcoming meetings.
Julie Burch added that looking at the list and the Committee schedule, you can see, for
example, the Post Construction Controls Ordinance relates to open space and brownfields
(also on the list) was just referred to the Committee. There may be some additional items
after the briefing to include. She then turned the meeting over to Doug Bean.
Doug Bean began his presentation on Sustainability and Environment Business
Practices (copy attached).
Carter:
[Rain Gardens] There were statements that came out of a study by
Cambridge Partners that our soil is not conducive to rain gardens due to
the clay sediment. Are you finding that to be true?
Bean:
We have had no experience with that yet.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 3
Hammock:
We have found rain gardens have worked okay. It could be a construction
issue; the soil has not yet stabilized. With proper, attentive care we find
they work well.
Carter:
How much maintenance are you doing? How much does it cost you?
Bean:
We don’t have enough experience yet to properly answer.
Foxx:
[Operations] Does the EPA program focus only on departments like CMU
or does it apply to other City departments?
Bean:
Now, I think primarily it is us and stormwater.
Carter:
The focus on sustainability is escalating; I have seen that with NLC.
Bean:
We have signed on in support of the EPA initiated program.
Carter:
NLC is endorsing it.
Burgess:
[Sustainable Development] Are you doing some construction now?
Bean:
Yes, the pump station at Briar Creek.
Burgess:
How do you manage the odor?
Bean:
10 years ago, we covered everything and started sending the solids to
McAlpine for treatment. By sending them through the pipe we were able
to eliminate the odors on site.
Burgess:
But, now you have odors at McAlpine?
Bean:
Yes, but we are doing some of the same things to minimize them.
Mumford:
I applaud your efforts. Is this something you and your management just
decided to do; because we are not doing things citywide? How come you
guys are out in front?
Bean:
What we have said at Utilities is we talk about protecting the environment
being core to what we do, so we have been seeking ways to further that
mission.
Mumford:
Do you track this on the balanced scorecard?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 4
Bean:
No, many of these initiatives are in our balanced scorecard, but as you
know they are just now becoming Council initiatives. Until you had an
environmental focus group, we were doing this without Council direction.
But, I hope this fits right in with what you are trying to do and you can
take credit for it.
Foxx:
I think there is some benefit to Council to making intentional choices like
green buildings. I’d be interested in looking at the analysis that went into
making that decision for large projects we have going on now. In the
future, Council may have a policy to build green buildings. Are there
other thoughts?
Carter:
I was just up in Minneapolis and saw their forced filtration plant. They
were very proud of their end product that is 99.9% pure, but they had
some redundancy. I am sure you do too, but they are not as green as you
are and this is something I really want to applaud.
Burch:
This is just one example; we have some other areas where we are doing
some innovative things. You may recall last summer we did some
introductory presentations of other areas and we can go back and update
those presentations at some point in the future. This is meant to be part of
the response as we move forward. We can bring this list back at a later
date for priority or other discussion.
Foxx:
I have a process question about how we get this list of 28 things down to a
more defined list of priorities. I’d be open to thoughts from the
Committee about how we do that.
Mumford:
One thought is to look at the things we are already doing. To some
degree, we are addressing some of these. Maybe we take that category
[things we are doing], take another category that looks at things that are in
the short term feasible for staff or by cost or scope and then maybe there
are some outside ones that are long term, potentially expensive, and we
put those in another category and look at it that way.
Burch:
We didn’t have an opportunity to do that in time for this meeting. We
tried to get some basic information.
Mumford:
I would suggest we look at some quick successes, some things that need
more focus, and some things that may happen over the next year that we
don’t want to forget.
Carter:
I would add the impetus of joining with the County and the State.
Foxx:
I think CM Mumford has made a good suggestion for our direction. Next
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 5
time, let’s look at the tiers as he has suggested and come up with a
workable framework. I think it would be valuable to the Committee to
figure out what the City is doing in each area, like, Engineering and
Property Management, Neighborhood Development. It might take longer
to compile, but I’d like to see what the City is already doing.
Burgess:
Maybe we could have a 10-minute presentation from each department at
each meeting. It would be a kick-off report. I thought today’s
presentation was outstanding.
Burch:
We can update you on what we did a year ago. We had a presentation
then of what is being done in the City. We also have the issue of your
meeting schedule. There are some heavy topics before the Committee and
brownfields was just referred.
Lochman:
I think we could just get a list by department of each particular issue that
has been addressed, just bullet points. I am more concerned with what we
are not doing and how we improve.
Burch:
The Focus Area initiatives will help us improve. We have a baseline of
information that you can look at today. But, we are just embarking on
things like green products; this is a work in progress.
Foxx:
Why don’t we table this issue for now and take it up under schedule. We
are already looking at possibly needing six meetings on the next issue.
II.
Proposed Post-Construction Controls Ordinance
Julie Burch reminded the Committee they had a presentation on the stakeholders’ process
at their April 23 meeting. This issue was then referred to Committee. We have prepared
a notebook to help you keep up with the information. A copy of today’s powerpoint is
behind the first tab. There is a lot of information to absorb. Ms. Burch then turned the
meeting over to Darryl Hammock.
Darryl Hammock began his presentation [copy attached].
Lochman:
[Impaired Streams] You mention “State/Federal requirements push us to
progressively reverse this condition”; however, later in the presentation I
noted you said State requirements are inadequate to meet our needs. Isn’t
this a contradiction?
Hammock:
We have to meet minimum standards set by the State, but those standards
don’t always meet our goal. We try to be more proactive than reactive.
Carter:
Is the dividing line the river basin?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 6
Hammock:
Yes, a creek or river basin.
Carter:
Does the blue line represent a healthy stream?
Hammock:
The State monitors the streams in red. The blue streams are not monitored
by the State.
Carter:
Do we monitor those?
Hammock:
Yes, we monitor those locally. Mallard Creek (blue) does not meet the
standards.
Burgess:
What about Paw Creek and Reedy Creek?
Hammock:
They are okay; the area around them is not well developed yet.
Foxx:
Is there a causal connection other than impervious surface?
Hammock:
It could be agricultural. By removal of the buffers and cutting - this
usually goes hand-in-hand with development.
Foxx:
There is also a velocity issue?
Hammock:
Yes, the increased sheer stress can cause the vegetation to rip away.
Carter:
[Stakeholder Consensus Meets These Four Local Objectives] In number
three “help reverse stream impairment,” do we have to advance beyond
our normal control responsibility?
Hammock:
There are some new State minimums for new development that do not
apply to existing development. Long term we need to consider how we
retrofit redevelopment.
Carter:
[State Minimum Requirements] Who has to “ensure perpetual operation
and maintenance of structural controls?”
Hammock:
That depends on us. Other municipalities leave it to the homeowner or
property owner for maintenance. The stakeholders recommended partial
municipal funding for repairs through the stormwater fee. It will be a
decision for Council.
Burgess:
The first bullet says “all” new development. Does that apply to just one
home or to large developments?
Hammock:
I believe it is any development over one acre.
Burgess:
But, it could be one residence on one acre?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 7
Hammock:
It comes into play during the permitting process, but I think it is more
three or four homes on one acre.
Burgess:
So, more like a subdivision?
Hammock:
Yes.
Burgess:
But, it could be as few as three homes?
Hammock:
I need to confirm the trigger point, but I don’t think it is one house on one
acre lot.
Carter:
[Stakeholder Recommendation exceeding the State Minimum to Meet
Local Objectives] What is the recommended percentage for undisturbed
open space?
Hammock:
It varies, but usually there is 10% to 17½ % of the site undisturbed. I
think commercial sites are 10% and single-family residential sites are
17%.
Burgess:
How does that compare to the current tree save?
Brewer:
We now have a 10% residential tree save.
Burgess:
So, we are increasing to 17½ %?
Hammock:
We will go into that with more detail at a subsequent meeting.
Burgess:
I’d like to go back to the slide showing the six towns and their adoption
status. We are the only entity that has not signed on, why are we signing
on two years from now?
Hammock:
We are considered a Phase 1 community and our schedule differs from the
Phase 2 communities. They had to have their NPDES by 2005 and
renewed in 2007. We have until 2009.
Burgess:
When does Mecklenburg County have to have theirs?
Hammock:
Now, June 30.
Burgess:
I was at a COG meeting with Jennifer Roberts a few weeks ago and the
County approved the huge increase associated with these controls.
Hammock:
They did. All the towns, but Cornelius approved an accelerated level of
investment.
We have done cost analysis of ten development scenarios and plan to go
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 8
into those in more detail with the Committee at the next meeting.
Burgess:
So, again all seven entities have signed on.
Rozzelle:
That is accurate. Cornelius is the hybrid, but they have all set the bar
high.
Carter:
Do we know what the impact will be of South Carolina vs. North Carolina
with the state of water and IBT? I’m curious of your opinion.
Hammock:
I don’t know what the outcome of that was.
Lochman:
I think you have spoken well to cost and obviously this will have some
positive results. My experience has been there is less effort put into
defining cost, so when you bring back the definitions it will be important
for me to know who did the analysis and how they did the analysis. My
concern is the economic impact. I’m not suggesting anything; I just want
to know about the analysis.
Hammock:
We have lots of detailed information on the cost analysis we can get to
you.
Foxx:
There is a slide about local redevelopment versus new development. Is
there a definition to separate those two? One could argue that infill
development permitting is really new development.
Hammock:
We can get that to you, but a quick way to look at it is if it is woods today
and you pave it, that’s new development. If it is a parking lot today and
you put a building on it, it is redevelopment.
Lochman:
Regarding the State minimums, it seems municipalities throughout the
State no longer operate to the minimums.
Hammock:
Concord is a good example of a city that is working outside the
minimums. But, a lot of the smaller communities are adopting the
minimums and complying with the law. They are different from
Charlotte.
Burgess:
Have we looked at any other technologies to capture water, like cisterns?
Hammock:
There are some choices we have not discussed. The State has a list of
approved bmps that meet their goals and give local municipalities some
extra flexibility. We need more data on some of those; we don’t typically
approve things that don’t work. I haven’t had any experience with
cisterns. There are nine bmps we propose using locally and nine
management strategies, so there is some flexibility.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for June 18, 2007
Page 9
Burgess:
I think we should give a credit or bonus points to encourage alternative
choices.
Foxx:
That was on our list of 28.
Burgess:
We give points for meeting with staff, but I think it is important to get the
development community thinking and then give them credit.
Foxx:
Mr. Hammock, thank you for your presentation.
III.
Next Meeting
Council member Foxx then brought up the issue of scheduling. There are at least two
more presentations needed on the Post Construction Controls Ordinance and the
Committee is not scheduled to meet again until September.
The Committee agreed to schedule a July and August meeting as follows:
Monday, July 9 at 10:00 a.m. (before Housing & Neighborhood Development)
Monday, August 27 at 1:30 p.m. (before Transportation)
Meeting adjourned.
Environment Committee
Monday, June 18, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Patrick Mumford, Vice Chair
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Don Lochman
Staff Resources:
Julie Burch
AGENDA
I.
Follow-up to “Blue Sky” Discussion
Staff Resources: Julie Burch and Key Business Staff
At the May 21 meeting, the Committee brainstormed several ideas and suggestions
for further development of the City’s environmental initiatives. Attached is the list of
those ideas as well as a staff response to each. Staff seeks guidance on the next steps.
As part of the response, Doug Bean, Utilities KBE, will make a brief presentation
about proactive environmental practices in water and wastewater operations.
II.
Proposed Post-Construction Controls Ordinance
Staff Resource: Daryl Hammock, Engineering and Property Management
The Council received a briefing and referred the proposed ordinance to Committee on
April 23, 2007. Staff will provide more detailed information and context about the
proposal as the Committee begins its review to develop a recommendation for
Council. Members of the PCCO Stakeholders group have been notified of this
meeting.
III.
Summer Meeting Schedule/Future Agenda Topics
There are currently no meetings scheduled in July and August. In addition to the
topics under discussion above, the Council has referred the topic of Brownfields to
the Committee.
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders PCCO Stakeholders
Environment Committee
“Blue Sky” Discussion of May 21, 2007
Preliminary Staff Response
I.
II.
III.
Green Space
Source: Planning
•
From a planning and zoning perspective, the City focuses on ensuring
development proposals meet guidelines and regulations for providing on-site open
space
•
Tree save, swim buffer, and greenway dedication are the three main tools
Planning currently uses to preserve open space
•
See Attachment 1 for more detailed information on green space including local
initiatives that address open space preservation and potential strategies for
increasing open space preservation.
More collaboration with County and CMS
Source: City Manager’s Office
•
One current example of collaboration on the environment with the County
includes the private-public Clean Air Works! initiative to reduce emissions,
especially on high ozone days
•
City staff will be working with County environmental staff to gain the benefits of
their expertise as we develop the inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from City
operations.
•
A representative f Mecklenburg County is a regular participant in the City’s
Environmental Cabinet staff meetings
•
Staff will continue to explore additional opportunities for collaboration with both
the County and CMS.
Catalog Brownfields in Charlotte
Source: Economic Development
•
IV.
Per Council’s June 11th referral, staff will brief the Committee at a future meeting.
Create an Award(s) for Environmental Stewardship
Source: City Manager’s Office
•
Staff will put together a list of current awards programs related to the
environment. With that information in hand, additional opportunities to recognize
private, public and non-profit contributors to a better environment can be
identified.
V.
VI.
Green Buildings
Source: E&PM
•
Energy monitoring at facilities maintained by EP&M has occurred since 2002.
•
Energy audits have taken place at a few large City facilities (conducted by the
State Energy Office for $600 apiece)
•
Some recent examples are provided in Attachment 2
Green Infrastructure
Source: E&PM
•
VII.
Staff will provide additional information at a later date
Green Development
Source: Planning
•
Zoning and subdivision ordinances have little guidance on building materials
because such things are not viewed as being in the purview of land use planning
•
The Environmental chapter of the General Development Policies (GDP-E)
recommends that environmental impacts of development be considered and
minimized during the site design process
•
See Attachment 3 for more information and a list of potential future strategies
VIII. Need to be Environmentally Creative (like Millennium Park in Chicago) and
recognize that actions need to make economic sense
IX.
X.
Can the Charlotte area become a home for green industries/technologies, i.e., a
center for sustainability?
Source: Economic Development
•
The City provides assistance to two organizations, Carolinas EcoCrescent and
Green and Greater Charlotte, that promote recruitment of green industry and
sustainable business practices
•
Economic Development has joined both organizations and participated in their
programs
Land Trust/Conservation Easements
Source: City Attorney’s Office
XI.
•
Staff has deliberated and discussed this concept with the Catawba Lands
Conservancy and could not identify any obstacles to donating land within City
limits.
•
Property owners need to consult with their own accountants or tax experts to
determine what restrictions or limitations may apply.
Recycling Reforms
Source: SWS
•
XII.
The Environment Focus Area Plan contains an objective to implement SingleStream Recycling for residential units by July 2009. Staff is doing additional
analysis of the costs and benefits and will be reporting to Council this fall
Youth/Lower Income Communities and Environment
Source: City Manager’s Office
• Staff will provide information about what is currently being done in the school
system and other areas of the community at a later date
XIII. Lead Based Paint Initiative
Source: Neighborhood Development
•
The City’s Lead Based Paint Program recently received a “Green” rating from
HUD and has been recognized as one of the leading LBP programs in the nation.
XIV. Neighborhood Based WIFI
Source: BSS
•
The City’s strategy is to facilitate the private sector’s entry into our marketplace
•
Staff is holding meetings with potential partners to assess the will for creating a
formal alliance and issuing an RFP
Staff is also examining the business processes associated with access to the City’s
right-of-way along with pole attachment requirements in order to make entry into
the market easy for potential investors.
•
•
XV.
A City provided WIFI network would require at least $20 million in initial capital
investment and $5 million annually
Performance Contracting
Source: E&PM
•
Performance contracting is having a private firm design and install new heating,
lighting, etc. equipment at their cost. The private firm takes the risk that resulting
energy savings will recover the cost and bring profit.
•
This is a good solution under certain circumstances, such as if current equipment
is very old or if funding doesn’t exist to regularly replace equipment
•
The City’s proactive energy management program in place for the 4 million
square feet maintained by Engineering & Property Management, most of those
buildings have equipment in good to excellent condition, produces significant
energy savings to the City each year.
•
For more information, see Attachment 4
XVI. Affordable Housing
Source: Neighborhood Development
•
The City could decide to give bonus points in project selection for projects
exhibiting LEED characteristics.
XVII. Look for ways to stay on cutting edge of air and water quality
technology/approaches
Source: City Manager’s Office
•
All KBUs make an effort to stay abreast of new technologies in their given areas.
•
At the June 18th Committee meeting, Doug Bean from Utilities will make a brief
presentation to the Committee about several innovative approaches to
environment in his area.
XVIII. Prescriptive vs. Flexible regulations
Source: City Attorney’s Office
•
City Codes that address environmental issues offer flexibility on how one meets
the basic regulations
•
A developer with a new and innovative approach is allowed to approach staff with
the new idea and, if it meets the burden of proof, staff will approve it and the
developer may use the new approach.
Attachment 1
I.
Green Space
Source: Planning
Committee: “Where and how are we preserving land/greenspace?”
Current Approach & Application
From a planning and zoning perspective, the City focuses primarily on ensuring
development proposals meet guidelines and regulations for providing on-site open
space. Tree save and SWIM buffer requirements, along with greenway dedication are
the three main tools the Planning Department currently uses to help preserve open
space. The draft Post Construction Controls Ordinance (PCCO), as proposed by the
PCCO Stakeholder’s group, currently has an open space component.
When considering open space preservation, it is important to remember that all
property within the City’s jurisdiction is zoned for development, with the lowest
intensity use being residential development at a density of up to 3 dwelling units per
acre. Likewise, the City’s land use plans typically recommend that specific parcels
remain as open space only if:
1) They are owned by the City/County or some other entity that finds such use
designation acceptable (eg. Land Conservancy); and/or
2) There are plans to purchase the property for such use; and/or
3) The land is located within the floodplain.
Some existing local initiatives that address open space preservation include:
•
•
•
•
•
Floodplain Acquisition – a grant driven program initiated in 2000 that has
removed flood damaged structures out of the floodplain. Following demolition,
some areas remain open and grow under natural succession; some areas are
restored with stream restoration, wetland creation, or stormwater best
management practice structures.
Floodplain Regulations – restrict development within the regulated floodplains to
allow more areas for natural and beneficial uses of the floodplains. Currently,
development is heavily restricted, on average, in approximately 75% of the
floodplain area.
Water Quality Stream Restoration and Pond Restoration Programs – these
programs not only result in tree and vegetation planting, but also protect that
space in conservation easements.
Greenway Master Plan, Parks Master Plan, Nature Preserve Master Plan – these
plans were developed by the County and address open space, park and recreation
needs in Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Central Carolina Conservation Corridors Summary - a GIS map prepared by
Mecklenburg County for northern Mecklenburg County identifying critical
wildlife corridors so that they can be protected and the natural habitats can be
sustained.
•
Open Space Framework - a conceptual plan intended to act as a reference and
guide for preserving land for a wide range of open space benefits. The Framework
contains consensus-based principles and criteria to be used by the region’s open
space organizations to achieve the vision of an interconnected, multi-faceted open
space system by the year 2020. Covering a 14-county, 2-state region, the
Framework focuses on 6 types of open space: 1) Natural habitat; 2) Wetlands &
floodplains; 3) Farmland & timberlands; 4) Rural heritage & scenic areas; 5)
Urban greenspace; and 6) Parks & recreation.
Potential Strategies for Increasing Preservation of Green/Open Space
• Provide for open space requirements within the draft PCCO or some other
development regulation.
• Ensure that as the tree ordinance is updated, it includes appropriate tree save
and tree planting requirements.
• Devote more resources to floodplain acquisition.
• Require that future development be restricted in a greater percentage of the
floodplain.
• Consider using the Open Space Framework as a guide for the City to partner
with the County to acquire land for open space purposes.
• More aggressively partner with the County to implement greenway plans.
• Complete an inventory of environmentally significant areas and seek ways to
preserve those areas identified as priorities for preservation.
• Consider revising the City’s policy on sale of surplus property to retain
ownership of land that could serve as community open space.
Attachment 2
V.
Green Buildings
Source: E&PM
Committee: “City needs to be more aggressive and lead by example”
Listed below are some examples of recent energy improvements or tests:
1. Energy monitoring of City facilities maintained by Engineering and Property
Management since 2002. This information is used to determine what energy
improvement projects will be implemented annually. First projects were ones with
the largest savings and shortest payback period.
2. Since the late 70’s, the City has experimented with and utilized different
technologies and used energy efficient products in building designs and and
building construction. When certain experimental systems are judged to save
energy and are cost effective, they are used in other facilities.
3. We strive to balance environmental friendly design with capital costs and life
cycle costs, to provide the best options possible within available funding.
4. Water atomization system at the Mint Museum of Art. The system eliminated
steam boiler used for required humidification. Mint was cited in a recent
publication as example of art museum with low utility cost. Low watt halogen
exhibit lighting was also installed.
5. Gasification technology for carcass disposal at Animal Control. Installation of this
technology was cooperative effort between Engineering – Building Maintenance
and NCSU. This technology is commonly used on poultry and hog farms. The
City is using it in a municipal setting and working with NCSU and the
manufacturer to debug and make ready for use by animal control operations.
Natural gas consumption of this type burner is < 60% (conservative estimate) than
what we currently use in our standard crematory type unit.
6. Installed microturbines in 2002(paid for by Duke Energy and Piedmont Natural
Gas) at Fire Station 23. Cooperative project used microturbines manufactured in
California. Units were fuel efficient when running but reliability and availability
of qualified service was a problem. Duke, PNG and the City decided to sell the
units. The City may try this technology again now that the microturbine industry
has a stronger local base.
7. The CMGC was relamped in 1998 to T8 lamps with electronic ballast. The only
incandescent bulbs in the CMGC are used on dimmer circuits.
8. The City is currently installing solar assisted hot water heating in Fire Station 39.
9. The use of automated building controls and the City’s ongoing comprehensive
efforts to save energy costs by - sound construction/design decisions - sound
maintenance and operation - have enabled the City to have a EUI (energy use
index) of 65Kbtu/SqFT.
This is compared to 131Kbtu/SqFt for NC State Government facilities –
102Kbtu/SqFt for Federal government facilities and 87Kbtu/SqFt for South
Atlantic Facilities (data reported from Energy Information Administration)
Committee: “Conduct energy audits of city facilities”
1. The North Carolina State Energy Office provides funding for energy audits through
a grant. Through them Charlotte gets quality energy audits for approximately $600.
E&PM has completed audits at the CMGC, Old City Hall, CMUD – Brookshire
Blvd., CMUD General Commerce Drive, CMPD Headquarters, etc. We implement as
many of the suggestions as practical taking into consideration - budget, payback and
any pending renovations or moving schedules.
Committee: “Look for opportunities for green roofs (CMGC?)”
1. Discovery Place was the first opportunity to retrofit a roof to green due to the
additional weight of a green roof. E&PM will continue to look for opportunities to
green our roofs.
Committee: “Switch over to CFLs.”
1. The City has installed energy efficient fluorescent fixtures in most City facilities.
Most facilities have fluorescent ceiling mounted fixtures. The City does not mandate
CFLs in desk lamps.
Committee: “What has Raleigh done?”
Charlotte keeps up with practices of other municipalities and the State through our
association with the NC State Energy Office. Staff will provide more information
about Raleigh at a later date.
Attachment 3
VII.
Green Development
Source: Planning
Committee: “30 developers in the area who do energy star building . . . any way
to give incentives for this type of development, i.e., green development?”
Current Approach & Application
Zoning and subdivision ordinances include little guidance in terms of building
materials. Planning policy, too, has met considerable resistance from the
development community to addressing such issues.
In developing the draft General Development Policies for the Environment (GDPE), considerable debate occurred over the issue of green buildings. While the
draft policies do not speak specifically to green buildings, or the use of green
materials, they do speak to “sustainable sites,” also part of the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. The
GDP-E stakeholders recognized site design as being within the purview of land
use planning, while building design was not. Rather than suggesting incentives for
sustainable sites, the draft GDP-E recommends that environmental impacts of the
development be considered and minimized during the site design process.
The Mecklenburg County Building Development Commission (BDC) has
proposed a fee incentive program for sustainable designed and implemented
projects. The proposed program requires legislative approval and a bill has
already passed in both the House and Senate to allow the program to be
implemented. Development of the program details is expected to be underway by
the end of summer. The program would ultimately impact building permit fees in
the way of a rebate for completed sustainable building projects.
Potential Future Strategies
• Promote participation in the BDC Sustainable Design Fee Modification
Program
• Communities across the country have taken various approaches to providing
incentives to encourage green development. Examples of the various types of
incentives include:
- Expedited plan review
- Communication/education/promotion about green projects – For example,
one community provides builders signs to post at the job site that informs
the general public of the builder’s commitment to environmentally
responsible building. They also provide “green logos” for advertisements
and elicit media exposure for green projects.
- Technical assistance and design guidance
- Facilitation of building design charrettes
- Financial incentives including grants and reduction of fees (e.g., plan
review, building permit)
Committee: “How do we preserve the terrain of Charlotte so that it is not all
graded flat?”
Current Approach & Application
The draft General Development Policies for the Environment (GDP-E), provide
policy guidance to help ensure that environmentally sensitive areas, including
steep slopes and treed areas, are protected and/or development impacts mitigated.
Additionally, the policies promote environmentally sensitive site design and
include “minimizing site disturbance and related erosion and sedimentation” as a
characteristic of such design.
Potential Future Strategies
• Ensure that as the GDP-E are adopted, they include adequate guidance for
discouraging mass grading. This could include adding a policy to directly
address preservation of steep slopes, something that was not acceptable to the
stakeholder group during the policy development process. Defining the term
“steep slopes” was a particularly controversial part of the stakeholder
discussion.
Attachment 4
XV.
Performance Contracting
Source: E&PM
Engineering & Property Management has reviewed performance contracting as an option
for realizing energy cost savings.
Performance contracting is contracting with a private firm to evaluate, design, and install
new heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, lighting and other energy saving
improvements, at their cost. The private firm takes the risk that resulting energy savings
will recover the capital and financing costs of the equipment and a profit, while the City
commits to operational and temperature parameters in the buildings, independent
measurement and verification of results, and investment grade energy audits required by
financing entities. The most direct benefits of performance contracting are that the City
would be able to reallocate the funding being used for HVAC and other energy
improvements, and perhaps realize a small portion of the energy savings. In contrast,
making self-funded, regular energy improvements would allow the City to realize all of
the energy savings.
Many public agencies use performance contracting. Our review indicates it is a good
solution when certain conditions exist, such as:
•
•
•
Mechanical and lighting equipment is at the end of, or past, its service life, and in
poor condition;
Energy costs exceed $1.50 per square foot per year (benchmark from the North
Carolina State Energy Office); and
Funding and management resources are not available to regularly replace and
upgrade equipment in-house.
For example, a study was made of a Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools performance
contract covering 1.3 million square feet of space. The equipment cost was $5.6 million
with projected energy savings of $553,000 per year. “Extra” costs associated with the
performance contract are approximately $2.4 million, including finance charges,
measurement and verification by the contractor and an investment grade energy audit. A
local, independent Professional Engineer concluded that the total, life cycle cost to the
school system was greater using a performance contract than it would have been to make
the improvements themselves. However, given the circumstances of obsolete equipment
and very limited capital investment resources, it was reasonable for the school system to
make the improvements through a performance contract.
Some four million square feet of space in over 100 City facilities are maintained by
Engineering & Property Management. A comprehensive energy management program
was begun 9 years ago:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The average annual cost of energy is $1.15 per square foot. For comparison, the
Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) lists the average cost of
utilities for a standard office building in 2003 in Charlotte as $1.33 per square
foot.
83% of the City facilities operate at least 2 shifts – many (such as fire stations)
run 24 hours/7 days a week.
Annual appropriations of approximately $400,000 are used to replace and upgrade
mechanical and lighting equipment. Equipment in each building is replaced at the
end of its service life to minimize overall life cycle costs. As replacements occur,
one-quarter to one-half of the funding is used for upgrades to more efficient
equipment that will result in energy savings in all future years.
Annual savings from improvements total $180,000 (efficiency improvements +
rate corrections). Within only a few years, the annual energy savings will be fully
recovering the annual $400,000 costs of capital improvements.
Last year’s rate structure analysis included a review of enterprise fund accounts
and an additional $380,000 in savings was realized.
By keeping equipment in good to excellent condition, making use of the full
service life, and incurring only incremental costs for more efficiency when
replacements occur, the City realizes all energy savings and avoids performance
contracting costs, such as financing, audits, and contract administration.
In conclusion, performance contracting can be a good method for replacing energy
equipment under the right circumstances. However, due to the City’s proactive energy
management program in place for the 4 million square feet maintained by Engineering &
Property Management, most of those buildings have equipment in good to excellent
condition, producing significant energy savings to the City each year. Performance
contracting will always be an option for improvements when the circumstances of the
individual building might make it the best overall solution.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Utilities
Sustainability and Environmental
Business Practices
June 18, 2007
Environmental Efforts
Under Way at Utilities
‹ Green
buildings
‹ Land preservation
‹ Resource conservation
‹ Environmental education
‹ Community awards
‹ Operations
‹ Sustainable development
Green Buildings
Environmental Services Facility
Expect to be first City LEED-certified building
Irwin WWTP
ESF
Green Buildings
Sugar Creek WWTP
Exploring green roof technology
Green Buildings
Exploring LEED-certification for other facilities:
‹ Administration
‹ Field Operations, West Tyvola
‹ Sugar Creek Plant expansion
‹ Long Creek Plant
Land Preservation
Meadow project at Irwin Creek WWTP
Migratory bird habitat and native plants
Land Preservation
Passive recreation at Sugar Creek WWTP
Bird watching and walking
Land
Preservation
Lake Norman Intake
Lee S. Dukes WTP
for watershed protection
McDowell WWTP
Lake Norman Intake
Resource Conservation
Reuse of Treated Wastewater
Tradition Golf Course
Resource Conservation
Reuse of Treated Wastewater
Opportunity: Mallard Creek Park
Resource Conservation
Reuse at McDowell Creek
Opportunity: City-owned agricultural property
Resource Conservation
Reuse at wastewater plants
Conserves drinking water
Resource Conservation
Land application of biosolids
Recycling on 10,000 acres avoids storage in landfills
Resource Conservation
Recovering digester methane
Methane gas powers on-site digesters
Resource Conservation
Recovering digester methane
Partnerships and grant for methane recovery at McAlpine
Resource Conservation
High-efficiency vehicles
hybrid, low-fuel, electric
Resource Conservation
Rain Gardens
Storm water BMP at McDowell Creek WWTP
Environmental Education
to about 10,000 people in FY07
Photo by Trent Pitts
Photo by Trent Pitts
Blue Planet Water Environmental Center
Environmental Education
National Drinking Water Week
School kick-off and symposium for 960 students
Environmental Education
‹ School,
community presentations & festivals
Environmental Education
‹ School
service projects: water-efficient
landscaping and other water-related projects
„
„
„
„
„
„
Tuckaseegee Elementary
Hornets Nest Elementary
Thomasboro Elementary
Hidden Valley Elementary
Westerly Hills Elementary
Bruns Avenue
Community Awards
Poster, Photo and T-shirt contests
Environmental Excellence Award
Water Star Awards for innovative water conservation
Operations
‹ Environmental
Management System
(ISO 14001) Certification at Mallard
Creek WWTP
‹ EPA Green Infrastructure Initiative
‹ ICMA Forum on Sustainability
‹ Energy efficiency
‹ Recycling
Sustainable Development
Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
Greenway
LEED elements
Storm water management
Adaptive reuse
Green roof
Land use planning
Vegetative buffers
Joint use with community
Land conservation
Public education
Sustainable Development
Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion
G
re
en
wa
y
Sugar WWTP
Clariant
Sustainable Development
Long Creek WWTP
Mount Holly
WWTP
Long Creek
Pump Station
U.S. National
Whitewater
Center
Sustainability and Environmental Business Practices
Post-Construction Stakeholders’ Group
Name
Mark Cramer
Chris Micci
(alternate)
Chuck
DiLullo
Dale Stewart
Dan Duval
Edna Chirico
(alternate)
Rusty
Rozzelle
Rich Keagy
Dan Latta
(alternate)
Jim Bowen
Roy
Alexander
John
McLaughlin
Mark Loflin
Rick Roti
Tim Mead
Amy
Ringwood
(alternate)
Mark Houle
Tim Bahr
Affiliation
REBIC
Address
1201 Greenwood
Cliff, Suite 310
Charlotte, NC 28204
REBIC
1201 Greenwood
Cliff, Suite 310
Charlotte, NC 28204
Southern Towns
2834 Patten Hill Drive
Matthews, NC 28105
Charlotte Chamber 223 N. Graham St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Marine
8701 Mallard Creek
Commissions
Rd. Charlotte, NC
28262
Marine
P. O. Box 680486
Commissions
Charlotte, NC 28216
Mecklenburg
700 N. Tryon St.
County & Towns
Charlotte, NC 28202
Home Builders
5265 Parkway Plaza,
Association
Suite 130 Charlotte,
NC 28217
Home Builders
Haden Stanziale 421
Association
Penman St Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28203
UNC-Charlotte
9201 University City
Blvd. Charlotte, NC
28223
SWAC
2538 Jeff St.
Charlotte, NC 28205
CMU Advisory
309 East Morehead St.
Committee
Suite 160 Charlotte,
NC 28202
Char.-Meck.
9128 Royal Highlands
Planning
Court Charlotte, NC
Commission
28277
Sierra Club
7322 Versailles Lane,
Charlotte 28277
City of Charlotte
7124 Chapparall Ln.
Property Owner
Charlotte, NC 28215
City of Charlotte
UNCC 9201
Property Owner
University City Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28223
Subdivision
P.O. Box 7007
Steering
Charlotte, NC 28241
Committee
Commercial Board Cambridge Partners
of Realtors
2102 Cambridge
/NAIOP
Beltway Dr. Suite D
Charlotte, NC 28273
Work Number
(704) 940-3171
Email
cramer@rebic.com
(704) 940-3171
micci@rebic.com
(704) 969-7984
chuck.dilullo@us.endress.com
(704) 376-7777
dstewart@landdesign.com
(704) 547-0683
ext 116
groupfive@usa.net
(704) 393-4010
echirico@chiricohuber.com
(704) 336-5449
rozzers@co.mecklenburg.nc.us
(704) 329-0900
rkeagy@stantec.com
(704) 373-0534
dlatta@hadenstanziale.com
(704) 687-3130
jdbowen@uncc.edu
(704) 672-6977
sueroy@prodigy.net
(704) 373-7125
jmclaughlin@brwncald.com
(704) 537-1541
mloflin@carolina.rr.com
(704) 973-4583
rroti@carolina.rr.com
(704) 568-0445
tdmead@aol.com
(704) 687-4054
ahringwo@email.uncc.edu
(704) 556-1990
march@y-wh.com
(704) 731-5524
tim.bahr@cambridgepartners.net
Discussion on Post
Construction Controls
Ordinance
Environment Committee
June 18, 2007
Regulatory Framework
‹
‹
Clean Water Act - 1972 -“The objective of this
Act is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s
waters.”
NPDES Program administered by State DWQ
– 1990’s Municipal Storm Drainage
…develop and implement programs to control non-point
sources of pollution….
‹ “Phase 1” Cities (1993, >100,000)
‹ “Phase 2” 100 Towns statewide (2005, >10,000)
‹
‹
Charlotte and “Phase 1” cities
– NPDES Permit renewal in June 2007
– Requires post construction controls in June 2009
Environmental Impacts Resulting
from Development
Unmitigated storm
water runoff scours
creek banks, degrades
water quality, and
harms animal habitat
‹ Affects streams, lakes,
water supplies, and
quality of life
‹ Increased flows worsen
flooding
‹ Mitigating these
impacts is possible
‹
Environmental Effects of Current
Controls
These conditions result from the unmitigated
storm water runoff of impervious surfaces:
Stream erosion that results in property loss
and silt deposition that chokes streams
Citizens call Storm Water
Services to repair these
conditions
Impaired Streams
Most of our streams are
impaired
‹
Environmental Report Card:
– Streams not adequately
capable of sustaining fish
and aquatic life
– Streams not fit for
secondary human contact
‹
‹
State/Federal requirements
push us to progressively
reverse this condition
Stop behaviors that led to
this condition
Environmental Effects of Current Controls
‹
‹
6,000 unrepaired stream
erosion calls
Current protection level
resulted in stream buffer
loss and stream erosion
Existing Flood Control Regulations
– Provides some flood
protection
– Not aligned with local
standards
‹
Floodplain Ordinance
– Limits building structures in
harms way along Federally
Regulated streams
Regulated Floodplain
re
ek
Commercial Detention
Regulation
Br
iar
C
‹
Minor Tributary
Briar Creek Watershed and its
Tributaries shown in Blue
Existing Water Quality Regulations
‹
‹
‹
SWIM Buffer Regulation
– Protection from tree removal &
stream manipulation
– Does not meet state minimum
– SWIM alone will not protect
streams
Watershed Protection Overlays
– Provides some protection
adjacent to Lake Wylie &
Mountain Island Lake
– Incorporates structural controls
like ones required in proposed
ordinance
Cumulatively, these do not meet
state requirements, stop watershed
decline, or address flooding
problems
Lake Wylie is identified in the 2004 Catawba River Basin Plan as
Impaired and “nutrient enriched”. The State’s 1991 strategy did not
prevent the lake from decline.
Minor Tributary
Process to Date
‹
‹
‹
‹
Council directed
participation in stakeholder
process 2004-2006
Diverse stakeholder
participation
Consensus ordinance
recommendation reached
Each municipality to make
own decisions
Stakeholder Consensus Meets
These Four Local Objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
Comply with State Permit
Requirements
Address “Wildlife Agency” concerns
for the Federally endangered
species in the Yadkin Basin
Help reverse stream impairment
(Regulatory driver and permit
requirement)
Provide detention for control of
flooding and stream erosion
Status of Ordinance Adoption
Stakeholder
Recommendation
Mecklenburg
County
Stakeholder
Recommendation
with variation
Low Impact
Development
5
5
Cornelius
5
5
Davidson
Huntersville
Matthews
5
5
Mint Hill
Pineville
State Minimum
Requirements
Plus Buffers
5
Effective date for Towns is June 30, 2007
5
State Minimum Requirements
‹ Applies
to all new development (new
impervious surfaces)
‹ Remove 85% of pollution from
impervious surfaces using structural
controls
‹ Provide stream buffer setbacks on
most streams
‹ Ensure perpetual operation and
maintenance of structural controls
The State Minimum Requirement
Fails to Meet Local Objectives
State regulations are not customized to
local water quality conditions and
drivers
‹ The minimum does not address our
stream erosion problem
‹ The State minimum does not:
‹
– address flooding
– address existing water quality problems
– support growth in the Yadkin River Basin
‹
Jordon Lake Example
Stakeholder Recommendation
exceeding the State Minimum to Meet
Local Objectives
Wider stream buffer setbacks
‹ Requirements for redeveloping areas
‹
– Existing problems are caused by existing
development
‹
Added storm water detention measures
– Moderate size increase will address flooding
and stream erosion
‹
Undisturbed Open Space (Trees)
What are the drawbacks of not addressing
each local objective?
• Difficulty obtaining permits for
water/wastewater; slowed annexation;
decline of endangered species
• Increased cost to fee payers through
State mandated restoration programs
• Continued growth of flooding and
stream erosion problems
• Quality of life diminished / economic
impact / Less attractive City
Proposed Ordinance supports
Other City Policy
‹ Supports
draft policies of the
Environmental-GDP and
Centers/Corridors Framework
‹ Reduces growth of storm water
service requests
‹ Environment Focus Area Plan
– Protect natural ecosystems
– Support sustainability
Environment Focus Area Plan: Charlotte will safeguard the environment,
balancing environmental health, sound fiscal policy, and growth.
Policy Alignment
‹ Concern
over possible conflicts
between USDG, Environmental GDP,
and Post Construction Controls
‹ Costs of Post Construction Ordinance
and the cumulative costs of all these
regulations
Process Forward
Be thinking about:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Level of Proactivity
Who should provide maintenance
Applicability
First Meeting:
• Regulatory Drivers , Existing Conditions, & Local Drivers
Second Meeting:
• Proposed Regulations and What They Mean & Policy
Alignment
Third Meeting:
• Costs & Benefits
Future Meetings: TBD
Discussion
Daryl Hammock E&PM
Storm Water Services
dhammock@ci.charlotte.nc.us
704-336-2167
Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Stream Restoration
Examples
Structural BMP’s are often incorporated
into the landscape as amenities
Bioretention Areas
Constructed Wetland
Stream Buffers