Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for October 2, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Floodplain Management Ordinance Information Update
No action.
II.
Subject:
“Cool Cities” Initiative
No action. Staff was asked to bring information back to the Committee at
the December meeting.
III.
Subject:
Next Meeting
November 6, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 280
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter, and Don Lochman
Pat Mumford
2:35 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
2. Proposed Floodplain Ordinance Revisions – Financial Impact Summary
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 18, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
I.
Floodplain Management Principles
Council member Foxx called the meeting to order and advised that no action was
expected today. This meeting is to receive another update from staff. Julie Burch turned
the meeting over to Dave Canaan for the first agenda item. A copy of his presentation is
attached.
Mr. Canaan reminded the Committee that following the September 18 meeting, staff was
asked to notify the neighborhood associations of the floodplain management ordinance
revisions. A 750-piece mailer went out with a request for comments by October 10.
Since the start of this process, four comments have been received. We’ve heard from
Chantilly, South Bridge (SW Mecklenburg County) asked for someone to attend their
general meeting, a neighborhood off Rich Avenue was thankful for the information and
Merry Oaks – Briar Creek wanted information to include in their newsletter.
Carter:
I have another one for you. Ted Fillette from Wonderwood, off of
Randolph Road.
Canaan:
We’ll contact him.
Foxx:
I would like to thank staff for the quick turnaround in getting the notices
out. This is a great example of government working together. I was
worried folks would say they didn’t know about the proposed changes, so
I thank you for getting out the notices. And, we are still looking for
comments through October 10, so any feedback would be helpful.
Canaan:
If you receive any direct contact, please give it to us.
Mr. Canaan continued the presentation by reviewing the list of proposed ordinance
changes that have no anticipated financial impact to property owners:
•
•
•
•
•
Floodplain Development Permits
ƒ BOCC to consider new floodplain permit fees
ƒ FY08 Budget Process
Variance to Development in the Community Encroachment Area
ƒ Could save $150-$350 ZBA fee
Property Owner Notification
Permit Time Limits
Flood Increases on Existing Buildings
The following changes may have a financial impact to property owners:
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 18, 2006
Page 3
•
•
•
•
Access to Buildings During a Flood
ƒ Non-exempt Homeowner - $0 - $600 per 1 ft of fill soil
ƒ Non-exempt Large Development - $0 - $1,200 per 1 ft of fill soil
• Could require site layout adjustments
Floodplain Fill Certification
ƒ Homeowner - $300 - $800
ƒ Large Development - $0 - $2,000
Parking Lot Requirements
ƒ Non-single family, $0 - $35,000 per 1 ft of fill soil (per acre of parking)
• Could require site layout adjustments
• Could impact the feasibility of parking lots within the Community
Encroachment Area
Levee Requirements
ƒ Costs vary dramatically
• Could require levee location adjustments
• Could impact the feasibility of a levee
• Annual maintenance costs
• Unanticipated future maintenance costs
Carter:
Where would we be directing fill, within the FEMA floodplain or the
community encroachment area?
Canaan:
In the floodplain.
Carter:
But, you could be increasing flood heights elsewhere?
Canaan:
Yes, but this is mainly for development within the floodplain.
Carter:
Regarding levee maintenance, what would be the cost each year?
Canaan:
It depends. Levee owners are required to perform an annual inspection
and certify that the levee is okay. Any changes would require notification
to the surrounding property owners.
Carter:
What do we do if a Homeowner’s Association evaporates and leaves a
levee not maintained? Is that detailed in the ordinance?
Canaan:
There is no language about that, but if we find a levee is causing more
harm than good and there is no one to take responsibility, we could breach
the levee.
Carter:
What is the cost of that and who pays? What is our legal obligation?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 18, 2006
Page 4
Canaan:
We will follow-up with that information.
Foxx:
I think we have received sufficient information overall on the proposed
changes, we just need to get the final input from the community.
Mr. Canaan continued with the results from the Chantilly Study. The proposal assumes
Cavalier has been acquired and demolished and we are able to “make the bathtub bigger”.
We found that there would be little impact on flood heights in Chantilly (less than an
inch) and putting a culvert through the railroad embankment increases flood heights
downstream. We still have four or five follow-up items with Mr. Sprinkle and Mr.
McAuliffe.
Foxx:
Thanks to you and the community for following up on this issue.
McAuliffe:
I would like to acknowledge the 15-20 residents from Chantilly that are at
the meeting here today.
II.
“Cool Cities” Initiative
Julie Burch then asked Christa Wagner, from the Sierra Club, to begin her presentation
on the “Cool Cities” Initiative (copy attached).
Lochman:
Why are they pledging a 7% reduction in levels? Who determined that
number?
Wagner:
That number was determined through negotiations. Climatologists agreed
that was a significant target.
Lochman:
Is that a 7% reduction citywide or for City-owned activities?
Wagner:
You would be signing on to pledge to achieve this reduction in City
operations.
Lochman:
I would think even if we converted the entire City fleet that would be a
minuscule reduction compared to all the cars in the City. Duke Power has
a lot of cars. I’m confused why this would not be citywide, but a
municipal activity. I’m fine if its City-owned vehicles, but that would not
be 7% of emissions citywide.
Wagner:
The government could set a target with their own initiatives.
Burch:
But, part of the resolution includes the community as a whole?
Wagner:
Yes, not just City operations but things like community recycling.
Lochman:
We will not get at a citywide target by only mproving municipal
government.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 18, 2006
Page 5
Foxx:
We don’t have the capacity at this point to know ways to reduce
emissions. We need to learn some techniques.
Lochman:
[Green Vehicles Slide] What savings are to be had beyond fuel costs for
hybrid vehicles? It says $800 to $1,200 including $400 for fuel.
Wagner:
David Friday, the City’s Fleet Manager could probably give you more
detailed information, but it relates to projected re-sale value.
Lochman:
But, isn’t there a premium to buy hybrids in the first place?
Wagner:
Yes, but you realize those savings in about 2 ½ years for a Civic and 5
years for a Prius.
Lochman:
Beyond fuel, you are paying a premium for the car and receiving only
$400 in savings for fuel. What other savings are there?
Burch:
We can bring you back some more information on that, a one-page
analysis.
Foxx:
How have other communities tried to get their arms around these global
initiatives such as greenhouse gas emissions.
Wagner:
A lot of communities have their internal operations evaluated by staff.
The State Energy Office has some free resources and there are some other
fee-based services that can provide some ongoing support for your
programs.
Carter:
Some communities have partnerships with universities. Perhaps UNCC
might work with us.
Wagner:
I would be happy to contact UNCC to find out. Seattle produced a
document that specifically lays out Seattle’s targets and how they plan to
implement them.
Foxx:
From my standpoint, I want to support this, but I want to give staff some
rope to look at resources for tracking and the cost to develop and
implement strategies. Council needs more information. I recommend that
we direct staff to look at resources for tracking greenhouse gas emissions
and bring us back some ideas to develop a strategy.
Lochman:
Don’t we have to meet the federal standards by 2010?
Wagner:
The State Energy Office is looking at the non-attainment areas and would
be interested in helping those that are forward looking in their initiatives.
Lochman:
I’m talking about some things that are already being applied. There is
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 18, 2006
Page 6
nothing wrong with the 7%, but the things we are doing are just nibbling
around the edges. You need to give us hope for 2010. What we’re talking
about is fine by me, but I don’t understand the 7% total versus some
percentage of the City’s contribution. Its fine, I just don’t get it. I do
think it’s important and I see some room for symbolism in the community
by us taking the lead.
Burch:
I don’t think you need a motion. Staff can go back and look at operations
and cost impacts if Council were to consider adopting this resolution.
Then, you can decide.
Foxx:
Is 7% the City target or overall community goal? If it’s the overall
community goal, how do we accomplish it?
Burch:
The resolution lays out some of the possible targets on page 3, section C.
Wagner:
There are initiatives already being done in the community such as
recycling and composting that would be included in the tally. If Charlotte
is considering this, you should explore your own resolution and you can
work with different numbers. You should determine a clear, specific goal
and timeframe.
Lochman:
Related to cost, how much do you spend? This is a difficult task to
determine when you are looking at 7% community goal and the vast
percentage of cars are not in the City fleet. Anything else is just nibbling
the edges. I am interested, but how do you go about this, what is the cost,
what is the cost benefit?
Foxx:
The County adopted this resolution.
Saul:
We wrote our own resolution with modifications the Board of County
Commissioners felt comfortable with.
Burgess:
If we modified this one what is the baseline? What are we reducing 7%?
We are already doing a lot of these things. I think it is very appropriate
for us to see what we can do and perhaps even add this to our lobbying
platform. Most of the cities that adopted this are managed by strong
Mayors, so if Council passes this would we direct the Mayor to sign it?
Burch:
The County did not adopt the US Mayors Resolution.
Saul:
We modified it to say we support efforts, but a lot of these items we are
already doing. We didn’t directly commit to anything.
Burgess:
So, we would modify it to say we will strive to meet or exceed?
Burch:
You could say in part C, we strive to meet or exceed … and list the
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 18, 2006
Page 7
following.
Lochman:
Obviously, the City is not going to impact global warming.
Haynes:
One of the big advantages is energy efficient methods to save money.
Energy efficient light bulbs will drop your electric bill. At the municipal
level, purchasing hybrid vehicles is doing our part for the ozone. We
really get the impact when we reach out to the public to help them
understand they have a stake in this too. We need to get more
involvement with the public. Light bulbs, recycling, fuel efficient
vehicles do have a lot of benefits.
Blotnick:
The North Carolina Global Warming Commission is meeting tomorrow
and if the State sets some goals, they will be asking you to do the same.
Carter:
We need to take a stance in a leadership fashion. We are leaders in the
corporate community and we can make a difference. One of our true
challenges though is our rate of growth. We don’t want to outpace
ourselves. Some cities are using incentives. There are some good things
we can do that do not have a high cost, but do have a high impact.
Foxx:
I think we need to look at targets we can meet. I think incentives are an
interesting opportunity, for example, supporting green buildings. We need
to look at creative ways to help. Does staff feel comfortable with the
rope?
Burch:
In the County’s resolution there was no numerical target?
Saul:
Right. The State is working on an inventory.
Burch:
I think staff can look at this from the standpoint of the US Climate
Protection Agreement and see what we are doing today, costs and
operational impacts rather than looking at alternative wording.
Foxx:
Right. We may go in a different direction.
Carter:
Could we look and establish a base from 1990 what we were doing?
Burch:
For City buildings?
Carter:
The rate of growth has increased significantly from 1990 with folks that
live, work and commute here.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 18, 2006
Page 8
Burch:
Some of this will take quite a bit of time. I think before we look at that
baseline information it would be good to know if the full Council endorses
that. We can put together a preliminary assessment.
Carter:
Doesn’t the County have some figures we could use?
Saul:
No, we don’t have that. The State is doing the inventory.
Burch:
This is complex. How much does staff need to do before a
recommendation? The Council can decide on the resolution and then drill
down further on the wording.
Foxx:
Are there some resources out there you could use without devoting a lot of
time? Next time could you bring us more information on cost, what we
are doing now, and give us some options for the future?
Burch:
We would need a couple of months to pull that together.
Foxx:
Let’s plan for the December meeting.
III.
Next Meeting:
The next meeting is Monday, November 6, 2006 from
2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. in Room 280
Environment Committee
Monday, October 2, 2006 – 2:00 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.
Floodplain Management Ordinance Information Update – Dave Canaan and
Tim Richards
1) Neighborhood Mailing - At the September 18 meeting, the Committee asked that
neighborhood associations be notified of the proposed revisions to the floodplain
management ordinance. The mailing went out to approximately 750
neighborhood leaders on September 22. Staff will provide a summary of
comments received to date.
2) Cost Impact of Ordinance – This information was requested on September 18.
3) Results of Additional Studies - Additional study of the Briar Creek – Chantilly
area has been underway as a result of updated technical data and ideas posed to
staff by area residents. Staff will provide an update.
II.
“Cool Cities” Initiative – Christa Wagner, Sierra Club
At the August 28 meeting, Council referred the “Cool Cities” initiative to the
Committee for review and recommendation. Christa Wagner, with the local chapter
of the Sierra Club, will provide an overview of this national initiative. The
Committee is asked to provide staff guidance for next steps.
III.
Next Meeting: Monday, November 6, 2006 at 2:00 p.m.
Attachments
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
SWAC Members
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders PCCO Stakeholders
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Floodplain Ordinance
Proposed Revisions
City Council Environment
Committee Meeting
October 2, 2006
Agenda – Floodplain Ordinance
6
6
6
6
Feedback from
Neighborhood Notifications
Cost Impacts of Proposed
Ordinance Changes
Chantilly Study Results
Overview of Current Flood
Mitigation Program
Neighborhood Mailer
6
6
6
6
6
6
September 18th Committee Request
Notification of Neighborhoods
Used CMPC List
Mailed September 22 - 750 pieces
Requested feedback by October 10th
Received feedback from 4 neighborhoods to date
Proposed Ordinance Changes
6 Floodplain Development Permits
– BOCC to consider new floodplain permit fees
– FY08 budget process
6 Variance to Development in the Community Encroachment Area
– Could save $150 - $350 ZBA fee
6 Property Owner Notification
6 Permit Time Limits
6 Flood Increases on Existing Buildings
No anticipated financial impact to
project owners
Proposed Ordinance Changes
(continued)
6
Access to Buildings During a Flood
6 Non-exempt Homeowner – $0 - $600 per 1 ft of fill soil
6 Non-exempt Large Development - $0 - $1,200 per 1 ft of fill soil
– Could require site layout adjustments
6
Floodplain Fill Certification
6 Homeowner – $300 - $800
6 Large Development - $0 - $2,000
Proposed Ordinance Changes
(continued)
6
Parking Lot Requirements
6 Non single family, $0 - $35,000 per 1 ft of fill soil (per acre of parking)
– Could require site layout adjustments
– Could impact the feasibility of parking lots within the Community
Encroachment Area
6
Levee Requirements
6 Costs vary dramatically
–
–
–
–
Could require levee location adjustments
Could impact the feasibility of a levee
Annual maintenance costs
Unanticipated future maintenance costs
Ordinance
Questions,
Comments, or
Discussion?
Cities Leading the Way
Environment Committee
Charlotte City Council
October 2, 2006
Christa Wagner
Sierra Club
704-374-1125
What is Cool Cities and the U.S.
Mayors Climate Agreement?
• Local Communities Making a Commitment to
Solve Global Warming
• Putting Proven Smart Energy Solutions to Work
• Saving Taxpayer Dollars
The Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement
• Launched by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels in
February 2005.
• Cities pledge to reduce global warming emissions
7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
• Unanimously endorsed by U.S. Conference of
Mayors
http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/
Right Now, 303
Cities from 46 States
Representing 50
million Americans
have signed the U.S.
Mayor’s Climate
Protection
Agreement
Smart Energy Solutions at Work
• Cities Around the Country Are Already Putting
Smarty Energy Solutions to Work to Reduce
Emissions, Cut Energy Use, and Lower Energy
Bills.
• Cities can Focus on 3 Clean Energy Solutions:
Energy Efficiency, Green Vehicles &
Renewable Energy
Solution #1: Energy Efficiency
• Energy Efficiency Means Using Less Energy Through
Better Technology.
– Make New Buildings More Efficient
– Energy Efficiency Retrofits to Existing Buildings
– Energy Efficient Street Lighting
– Public Benefits Funds (NC Green Power)
Examples:
Austin, TX: Efficiency retrofits at 40 schools are saving
$500,000/year with payback in less than 7 years
Chicago, IL: Efficient lighting at 105 fire stations saving
$250,000/year
St. Paul, MN: Comprehensive Energy Saving Program: $8
million per year
Solution #2: Green Vehicles
• The Technology Exists Today to Significantly Reduce Global
Warming Pollution from America’s Cars, Trucks, and SUVs
– Green Municipal Fleets
– Hybrid Vehicle Incentives
– Clean Buses & Public Transit
Purchasing over two dozen hybrids by
2006, more than tripling the city’s current
amount of hybrids.
Green Vehicles:
Charlotte, NC
Switching from a gas-only Ford Taurus to
a hybrid Toyota Prius or Honda Civic is
saving taxpayers $800-$1200 annually per
vehicle, including over $400 in annual fuel
costs.
Payback of the extra purchase cost within
2.5 to 5.5 years, depending on the model
chosen and miles driven.
Solution #3: Renewable Energy
• By Harnessing Natural Sources of Energy like the Sun and
the Wind, Renewable Energy Can Replace Our Reliance
on Polluting Fossil Fuels.
– Renewable Energy Standards
– Solar and Wind Installations
– City Utility Contracts & Other Incentives
Examples:
Chicago, IL: 10kW solar thermal array at one fire station is
saving $1,000/ year
Chesapeake, VA: Geothermal heating and cooling at a
middle school is saving $41,500 /year
Your Opportunity
• We encourage Charlotte to make a commitment
to addressing the threat of global warming with
smart energy solutions. Energy efficiency, clean,
renewable technologies and green fleets are
savings cities millions of dollars every year.
• We request council adoption of a Climate
Resolution, which will include a clear plan for
implementing a greenhouse gas reduction
program.
ENDORSING THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has previously
adopted strong policy resolutions calling for cities,
communities and the federal government to take actions
to reduce global warming pollution; and
WHEREAS, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the international community’s most
respected assemblage of scientists, has found that
climate disruption is a reality and that human
activities are largely responsible for increasing
concentrations of global warming pollution; and
WHEREAS, recent, well-documented impacts of climate
disruption include average global sea level increases
of four to eight inches during the 20th century; a 40
percent decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness; and nine
of the ten hottest years on record occurring in the
past decade; and
WHEREAS, climate disruption of the magnitude now
predicted by the scientific community will cause
extremely costly disruption of human and natural
systems throughout the world including: increased risk
of floods or droughts; sea-level rises that interact
with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land,
and damage structures; more frequent and extreme heat
waves; more frequent and greater concentrations of
smog; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol, an
international agreement to address climate disruption,
went into effect in the 141 countries that have
ratified it to date; 38 of those countries are now
legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on
average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and
WHEREAS, the United States of America, with less than
five percent of the world’s population, is responsible
for producing approximately 25 percent of the world’s
global warming pollutants; and
WHEREAS, the Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target
for the U.S. would have been 7 percent below 1990
levels by 2012; and
WHEREAS, many leading US companies that have adopted
greenhouse gas reduction programs to demonstrate
corporate social responsibility have also publicly
expressed preference for the US to adopt precise and
mandatory emissions targets and timetables as a means
by which to remain competitive in the international
marketplace, to mitigate financial risk and to promote
sound investment decisions; and
WHEREAS, state and local governments throughout the
United States are adopting emission reduction targets
and programs and that this leadership is bipartisan,
coming from Republican and Democratic governors and
mayors alike; and
WHEREAS, many cities throughout the nation, both large
and small, are reducing global warming pollutants
through programs that provide economic and quality of
life benefits such as reduced energy bills, green
space preservation, air quality improvements, reduced
traffic congestion, improved transportation choices,
and economic development and job creation through
energy conservation and new energy technologies; and
WHEREAS, mayors from around the nation have signed the
U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which, as
amended at the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors
meeting, reads:
The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
A. We urge the federal government and state
governments to enact policies and programs to meet
or beat the target of reducing global warming
pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by
2012, including efforts to: reduce the United
States’ dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate
the development of clean, economical energy
resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as
conservation, methane recovery for energy
generation, waste to energy, wind and solar
energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and
biofuels;
B. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan
greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes
1) clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a
flexible, market-based system of tradable
allowances among emitting industries; and
C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol
targets for reducing global warming pollution by
taking actions in our own operations and
communities such as:
1. Inventory global warming emissions in City
operations and in the community, set reduction
targets and create an action plan.
2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce
sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact,
walkable urban communities;
3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle
trails, commute trip reduction programs,
incentives for car pooling and public transit;
4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy
by, for example, investing in “green tags”,
advocating for the development of renewable
energy resources, recovering landfill methane
for energy production, and supporting the use of
waste to energy technology;
5. Make energy efficiency a priority through
building code improvements, retrofitting city
facilities with energy efficient lighting and
urging employees to conserve energy and save
money;
6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and
appliances for City use;
7. Practice and promote sustainable building
practices using the U.S. Green Building
Council's LEED program or a similar system;
8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of
municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of
vehicles; launch an employee education program
including anti-idling messages; convert diesel
vehicles to bio-diesel;
9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump
efficiency in water and wastewater systems;
recover wastewater treatment methane for energy
production;
10. Increase recycling rates in City operations and
in the community;
11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree
planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2;
and
12. Help educate the public, schools, other
jurisdictions, professional associations,
business and industry about reducing global
warming pollution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The U.S.
Conference of Mayors endorses the U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd annual U.S.
Conference of Mayors meeting and urges mayors from
around the nation to join this effort.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The U.S. Conference of Mayors
will work in conjunction with ICLEI Local Governments
for Sustainability and other appropriate organizations
to track progress and implementation of the U.S.
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the
73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting.