Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Follow-up to Water Quality Presentation
No action.
II.
Subject:
Briefing and Discussion: Land Preservation
The Committee asked staff to bring back land preservation principles or
statements from other cities.
III.
Subject:
Next Meeting:
June 5, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 280
Agenda: Briefing and Discussion: Energy and Resource Conservation
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter, and
Don Lochman
3:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
2. Documents: Stream Classifications and Impaired Streams
3. Presentation: Land Preservation
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked those in attendance
to introduce themselves. He then turned the meeting over to Julie Burch.
I.
Follow-up to Water Quality Presentation
Ms. Burch advised the Committee that at the conclusion of the last meeting, Council
member Foxx requested water quality policy statements from other communities for
review similar to the air quality statements. These statements continue to be provided as
information at this point. They are just sample statements that have been adopted in
other cities. We will take your comments to create environmental principles for
Charlotte.
Foxx:
If you have any comments you can raise them now or email them to staff.
There is no pressure. We will talk about these in more detail after these
educational meetings.
Carter:
I thought the Seattle statement was the most inclusive and flexible in
addressing issues. It would be a good basis for us to use to create our own
framework.
II.
Briefing and Discussion: Land Preservation
Garet Johnson then began the presentation on land preservation (copy attached).
Burgess:
The definition on the context slide that says “make the most efficient use
of land and mitigate development impacts” assumes land is used at the
highest and best use, but I don’t think that’s always what we want to do.
Johnson:
In your framework there was a list of about a dozen things like preserve
open space, reuse brownfields, reduce building footprint, increase
connectivity for neighborhoods, so I’ve just kind of summarized them as
land use objectives making the most efficient use of the land we have and
making sure as we develop we are doing it in an environmentally sensitive
way.
Burgess:
I don’t disagree with anything on the list. I’m not sure the most efficient
use of land is the way to say it.
Johnson:
That might not be the way to summarize it.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 3
Burgess:
To me the most efficient use of land is to load it up. I don’t think that’s
what we meant to say.
Johnson:
I was trying to capture that whole list.
Lochman:
You show a population growth of 168% some portion of which is
annexation and I’m sure you all know that. By definition when we reach
the point we’re pretty much annexed out, we will be using less land per
unit of population growth.
Johnson:
We won’t have any more land to annex. This is showing that as we’ve
grown and annexed that area that we’re annexing, I believe, is probably
less dense.
Carter:
You mentioned clustered new housing and you also mentioned infill
development. Are those competing goals?
Johnson:
In terms of infill development, it really depends on how you define it.
When we were going through the General Development Policies, we
defined it as within Route 4. We are expanding our definition because we
are seeing it happen in that next ring so to speak. Clustering new housing
in terms of the definition that was in the policy framework, the houses
might be clustered on a portion of the site and leave part of the site as
open or undisturbed area.
Carter:
To provide useable open space?
Johnson:
It depends on what your goal is. You might want it to be undisturbed
from an environmental perspective, you may not want it to be useable but
your goal could be to have useable areas for activities.
Carter:
I would press that we look at that definition of within Route 4 as our infill
development target because we have several cases tonight that will be
infill outside Route 4 like Forest Road and I think we are going to be
challenged and I certainly would like to be challenged in District 5.
Lochman:
From 1995 to 2005, you’ve got a relationship between single family and
multi family. But if you look at the last two or three years would it be
your assumption that the relationship would be different because we are
more closely developed now?
Campbell:
In terms of the density? Just a clarification, Ms. Johnson, the 4,131 units
is just for one year?
Johnson:
Correct. The table just shows 2005 subdivisions approved. Just a
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 4
snapshot of one year. The information below it on the chart gives you an
average.
Lochman:
Oh, okay. It’s just 2005. That’s okay then.
Carter:
Do you have a slide that shows the analysis for the other years?
Johnson:
Like 2004, 2003? I don’t have that now, but I can do that.
Carter:
I would be curious about that.
Mumford:
How does the 17,000 acres acquired by Park and Rec compare to other
communities like Wake County?
Johnson:
I don’t know if anyone from Park and Rec is here but what the plan had
set as a goal was 19 acres per 1,000. That was their benchmark. I don’t
know if they are still working towards that. What they told us with the
GDPs was they were still good tracking with that. They set goals for
different sizes of parks and I think we are doing better at some of the
bigger parks versus the smaller ones in terms of their targets.
Campbell:
What we need to do is look at some other communities of comparable
sizes to see if we are really tracking and benchmarking ourselves
appropriately with 17,000 acres already preserved versus what Wake
County is doing. We can come back with some follow-up information.
Mumford:
I was familiar with Wake’s plan last year and it’s pretty aggressive and
obviously we have different development patterns like for our centers and
corridors so it might not be extremely relevant. It would help us to
understand one county’s 100 acres per 1,000 and what we’re doing with
19.
Johnson:
We collected some of that during the Environmental GDPs and we can
look at it some more. We are including Parks in infrastructure now. We
can get more information on that.
Burgess:
Can you get us the amount of the 17,000 that would be in the City of
Charlotte.
Johnson:
Yes. Within the City of Charlotte or within the sphere?
Burgess:
The sphere.
Carter:
Has Park and Rec exhausted their budget? Somehow I feel they have
exhausted their land acquisition budget.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 5
Johnson:
I’m not sure.
Carter:
We heard an interesting lecture last Monday from the dais on where the
corridors are and if we could be very sure of our definition of where the
corridors are would be very helpful to all of us.
Campbell:
We will clarify that.
Foxx:
I think the City needs to do a better job of communicating with the
citizens to promote higher density development. Citizens think it will be
too high in their backyard, they don’t understand. But, in a macro
perspective it is clear that there is an environmental upside to vertical
development versus horizontal development.
Johnson:
When you look at the research, there are a lot of benefits to higher density
development and it is much easier to communicate that and understand it
when you are not talking about a specific rezoning.
Mumford:
There is an awful lot of discussion right now about what have the actual
revenues of the City been over the last 5 to 10 years, what has the growth
rate been and then you get to the nexus of those is growth is not paying for
itself. At some point I would like to know the societal cost of growth.
Maybe in the corridors with high density the assumption is correct that
there is less infrastructure cost associated with that than single family
costs in the suburbs? Not to say that either one is better than the other but
trying to drill down and really understand the cost aspect of growth and
then I think that helps us in rezoning cases when to some neighbors it
seems we are just putting up houses after houses everywhere they want to
go. If that is feasible? I know that is a very general, complicated
question.
Johnson:
Different types of development have different costs. In terms of looking
at the benefits of density, the research talks a lot about how much it costs
to service something that is developed at four dwelling units per acre
versus something developed at twelve dwelling units per acre. It is like
four times the cost to service the four dwelling units per acre. Whether
you believe the research, and I’m sure there is research that says different
things, but all of that really helps us figure out the balance. It is
complicated. Some of that we did look at with the GDPs, but we will look
at it more in developing the next chapter and we can bring some of that
information back to this Committee if that is appropriate.
Lochman:
How will you go about finding the answer to Council member Mumford’s
question? What is the methodology? It sounds extraordinarily
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 6
complicated.
Johnson:
The only way I could answer the question being a planner is with what the
research shows. Bringing in research from different areas what they have
found. I don’t know if somebody from Budget or Finance might be able
to look at Charlotte in particular and how much growth pays or doesn’t
pay for itself or how much it costs. I couldn’t explain that.
Lochman:
The only thing I could think of doing would be to take a couple of slices
of different parts of town, some low density area in South Charlotte, and
try some area closer in with more infill development. I think it would be
interesting if it could be done.
Mumford:
I’m not looking for a pre-conceived answer to this to say this supports the
argument that single family development is bad and costly and downtown
development is good because you don’t have to build roads. We just need
to be able to speak more intelligently about centers and corridors and other
benefits of development. Sometimes these things very quickly get to
drawn to conclusions and both sides put on their battle armor. That’s not
what we’re after. We’re after raising the issues and understanding them
better, then developing a policy.
Campbell:
I think it is not an either or low density single family or high density. This
is about adding choices. If we continue to build low density single family
what will it cost to deliver services? If we go to another development
alternative, are there any cost savings? I agree with Council member
Mumford this is not low density versus high density, but how do we
provide lots of choices and how do we minimize the cost of providing
public services. Do you want us to test a real life case in Charlotte or for
us to research the overarching literature? There is a lot of information out
there we found with the GDPs.
Mumford:
I think the County Commission and City Council are going to need to
understand how to equitably pay for growth. This is another piece of data
that will help us in that debate. It is a very emotional issue and can be
subjective to look at. I think a deeper view would help us dialogue better
going forward. Some people think we just need impact fees. That is
going to come up. Folks need to understand what they mean.
Campbell:
That is how a lot of the literature is put out there.
Lochman:
I think back to a consultant we had from St. Louis four or five years ago
and that was the first time someone said to me point blank growth does
not pay for itself. I don’t really understand that. If taxes are being paid
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 7
that didn’t exist before why can’t that amortize? Isn’t growth a good
thing? You can look at a place like Gary, Indiana where there is no
growth. But, I understand there is a cost associated with growth.
Burch:
Rebecca Yarbrough from COG is telling me the Brookings Institute has a
study available.
T. Morgan:
John Connaughton from UNCC did a study on multi-family and singlefamily development three or four years ago that included Mecklenburg,
Union and Gaston counties.
Foxx:
Can you find the presentation that Council member Lochman is talking
about?
Burch:
I think that was at one of the Council retreats?
Lochman:
Yes, in Charlotte.
Burch:
I will see if we can find it.
Foxx:
I have a question about wetlands. Is there anything in our process or
ordinance that specifically lays out preserving wetlands?
Campbell:
They are only identified in the rezoning process.
Drake:
Council chose several years ago not to “politicize the regulation of
wetlands” because we already have State and Federal regulations. The
current requirement is to identify them in front of the rezoning process
where there can be public input, etc. It is not a big issue in rezonings.
Carter:
Who governs the established wetlands? I remember a proposal some time
ago for the City to become involved with the Corps of Engineers because
of their backlog. This Committee might want to discuss training our
officials to assist the State and Corps of Engineers.
Foxx:
It is interesting because it is an area where Federal and State regulations
intersect. Do we have any sense of, in terms of mitigating site impacts,
what all of those regulations are? Can you give me a sense of how they
work in terms of wetlands?
Johnson:
I’m not the best person to answer that, but in terms of wetlands we
recognize the federally recognized ones in addition to that you can have
other wetlands on site.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 8
Hammock:
Through the stormwater program, we identify wetlands and there are State
regulations that are triggers of a certain number of square feet or a certain
number of acres that can be impacted before triggering the more rigorous
environmental approval process. The trick is making sure the person
disturbing the wetlands goes through the proper channels to get the
permits versus just removing them without someone’s knowledge. There
are a lot of small wetlands around and those are the ones we don’t always
know about. They are smaller quarter acre wetlands. There is a Federal
trigger and a State trigger and there are mitigation fees for both of those.
Drake:
Through the rezoning process, it appears they respect by and large the
wetlands. They try very hard not to exceed the thresholds that are
generally allowed without going to the next level. They really make an
effort to stay at that lower level. By and large the wetlands are respected
at least on paper.
Burgess:
Is it the opinion of staff that we need to strengthen our wetlands policies?
Hammock:
There could be some benefit to looking at a partnership with the State or
the Corps of Engineers. I know that the Asheville Regional Office
handles the western half of the State. We deal exclusively with Asheville
and they often travel here to look at development sites. I think they have a
limited ability to inspect/enforce. I think they pick the biggest battles and
meanwhile, some wetlands could be lost. We could see what our staff and
what their office think about a partnership.
Foxx:
Should we keep a running list of issues for this Committee to study?
Burgess:
Could you provide us with a good basic article on wetlands?
Lochman:
I know this issue was explored in depth with Dottie Coplon a few years
ago, so we do recycle some of these issues.
Carter:
Do we have any incentives for non-impervious development like
driveways?
Johnson:
In terms of open space revision in the zoning ordinance?
Carter:
Yes.
Johnson:
I don’t think the intent of the zoning ordinance is really from that
environmental perspective in terms of undisturbed open space. I think we
are getting at that more through the Post Construction Control or Tree
Ordinance. I think the intent of the maximum built upon area is more the
size of the development.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 9
Drake:
It’s to the original zoning goals of adequate air and light on individual
lots.
Carter:
We might want to add something considering the negative affects on
stormwater. Just a lot of benefits to our community.
Campbell:
I think we were just looking from zoning ordinance regulations that we
really were looking at light and air and there were other ordinances that
would take into consideration the amount of impervious cover so that we
do not begin to layer conflicting regulations.
Carter:
I just want to make sure it is addressed though.
Burgess:
In two of the rezonings tonight there was a note from the staff on the tree
surveys and saving trees on the site. Is that something we may change or
recommend? I had never seen it before and there are two cases that
mention tree surveys.
Johnson:
We require a tree survey.
Drake:
No. The Tree Ordinance requires it in the front set back of most locations
but we have tried to go beyond that and it is really an extension of the
draft Post Construction Ordinance in that it calls for increased tree saves
from what is in the Ordinance now. In order to get those, we want them
shown on the rezoning site place, so we need to show them. We need to
know where the trees are to know where the tree save areas should be. So,
we are requesting additional information on tree surveys to find the trees.
Burgess:
In one other zoning case in particular, they gave a density bonus. What if
the tree area couldn’t be developed like it is sloped beside a creek? It
doesn’t seem fair to give them a density bonus if they are developing the
rest of the land.
Drake:
That is the way the ordinance works. They are still preserving the tree
canopy.
Campbell:
There are other benefits than just not building on the land.
Drake:
They can also transfer density out of a floodplain. The ordinance is full of
things like that.
Johnson:
We want to make sure the open space area has the most environmental
impact. It might be slopes, creeks, older trees, but we are not just saving
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 10
for the sake of saving we want to get the most environmental bang. That’s
what we are trying to get at.
Carter:
Do you use satellite overviews as part of the survey?
Drake:
No. We get more detail by using actual GPS on individual trees. We
survey within the property.
Carter:
Do we send personnel out?
Drake:
No, they do.
Carter:
Do we verify?
Campbell:
No.
Drake:
We use aerial photos, but we do not have enough personnel to field check
each site.
Foxx:
I know we will talk about LEED more at the next meeting, but do we
routinely look at that certification when building?
Burch:
For City facilities? Probably not, but we do look at the most energy
efficient ways to design and construct buildings.
Burgess:
Isn’t it an additional cost?
Burch/
Campbell:
Yes.
Bean:
It is not a significant increase in construction cost, but it is with consultant
costs. You have a case study to look at because we are constructing a
LEED building now.
Burch:
We will use the lessons learned here moving forward.
Carter:
Under protecting natural resources and real estate policies, do we look at
the value of the land through an environmental matrix? Do we have an
inventory?
Johnson:
I don’t think anything like that exists.
Burch:
Our inventory goes through the PCAC’s asset management sub-committee
but I don’t believe they look with an environmental lens. They keep track
of location, size, when it was acquired, etc.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 11
Carter:
I think it would be interesting to ask for an evaluation.
Burch:
That would take quite some time.
Bean:
You have been purchasing property around Mountain Island Lake, which
relates back to that second bullet. We have over 1,000 acres and recently
purchased a farm that will produce affluent. We are taking proposals now
to manage the property. But, you have allowed us to purchase land for
watersheds, etc.
Johnson:
Before the City disposes of property, all departments look at it to see if
there might be environmental advantages.
Burgess:
Regarding trees, I heard the City lost over 70,000 trees since Hugo that
have not been replaced. At the Arbor Day Celebration, Teresa Earnhardt
offered a certain amount of money to plant and maintain trees. Would this
be part of the budget process? Also with the urban street guidelines that
require a planting strip, it is not a regulation that a tree has to be planted.
Should we require a tree if you have space for a tree?
Foxx:
That is something we should put on the list to consider.
Johnson:
In the Tree Ordinance there are requirements to save in the right-of-way
for commercial development. The revisions might include a requirement
of tree saves anywhere on the site.
Foxx:
Where are the Urban Street Design Guidelines going?
Campbell:
They are in Transportation Committee right now.
Steinman:
We have two or three issues, some clearly environmental that may need to
be referred for further discussion like creek crossings and impervious
surface. There are various staff and consultant efforts underway right now
but it will go back to Transportation Committee some time.
Foxx:
Are there areas where there is a role for this Committee? If members of
Council figure Transportation Committee is the best place that’s fine, but
if there are some clear environmental issues then is our role just plenary or
would we have some other role? I would ask staff to help us with that
decision.
Burgess:
I would like to see some history on tree saves on commercial property.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for May 15, 2006
Page 12
Drake:
We are in discussion on that issue now.
Johnson:
The urban forest studies show we have lost 22% of our tree cover between
1984 and 2001 and we can gather that for you. The target canopy is 45%
to 55% and we were at 52%.
Carter:
Regarding infill development are we tracking recycling, building waste,
concrete, asphalt reuse? There are good issues with that on Independence
Boulevard.
Campbell:
We will be discussing that as part of the Energy and Resource
Conservation presentation.
Burch:
We will talk about reuse of building materials.
Burgess:
Some cities are planting self-sustaining vegetation on rooftops. How does
that work? What is the expense?
Burch:
We will also address that in the next presentation.
III.
Next Meeting:
The next meeting is Monday, June 5 from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. in Room 280.
Agenda:
Briefing and Discussion: Energy and Resource Conservation
Meeting adjourned.
Environment Committee
Monday, May 15, 2006 – 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
Debra Campbell
AGENDA
I.
Follow-up to Water Quality Presentation – Julie Burch
As requested at the May 1 meeting, attached are examples of Water Quality policy
statements from other jurisdictions. This information is provided as background to
the Committee for any guidance they may wish to provide to staff in drafting
environmental principles.
II.
Briefing and Discussion: Land Preservation – Debra Campbell and Garet
Johnson
Staff will provide an overview on Land Preservation and its importance to Charlotte
and the region.
This will be an interactive presentation in which Committee members are encouraged
to ask questions and engage in discussion throughout. Staff will be asking the
Committee for preliminary guidance for drafting of the environmental principles.
III.
Next Meeting:
June 5, 2006 – 2:00 p.m. in Room 280
Agenda: Energy and Resource Conservation
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
Wayne Weston
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders
Merek Smith
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
Laura Brewer
PCCO Stakeholders
Water Quality Statements of Other Cities
Examples of references to water quality
in local policies, principles and goal statements
Mecklenburg County Environmental Leadership Policy
•
The Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners desires that County government operate
in a manner that conserves and protects our air, water and land resources, become a model of
environmental stewardship for local governments, business and industry in our region, and
use and apply the County's existing and future resources wisely for the benefit of its citizens.
Raleigh
•
Recognize the interdependence of water bodies and their associated slopes, vegetative cover
and wetlands, and their crucial functions of moderating flooding and climate extremes,
preserving soil and water quality, and filtering pollutants.
Seattle
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Protect and improve the quality and function of the city’s air, land and water resources
because of their relationship to human health, wildlife and the region’s natural heritage.
Recognize and enhance the value of Seattle’s aquatic areas . . . for their contributions to the
quality of life in Seattle.
Promote both public and private opportunities to improve water quality . . . so that these
habitats are healthy for native wildlife and people.
Improve the environmental quality of each of the city’s aquatic areas, including a long-term
plan to restore and sustain Seattle’s creeks. Consider in these plans or strategies the use of
incentives, regulations and other opportunities for action.
Take steps to improve water quality and the health of the city’s aquatic areas, such as by
eliminating the use of chemicals that have negative impacts on aquatic or human health,
especially on City-owned property or rights-of-way.
Pursue the long-term health of Seattle’s creeks, shorelines and other water bodies by taking
actions that address flooding, water quality, habitat and barriers to fish passage.
Strive to achieve flows in creeks that will support a variety of aquatic life and that will control
flooding and property damage caused by unregulated flows.
Strive to minimize the number and extent of combined sewer overflow events occurring
annually in the City.
Portland
•
•
•
Protect the quality of the air, water, land and other natural resources.
Ensure environmental quality and understand environmental linkages when decisions are
made regarding growth management, land use, transportation, energy, water, affordable
housing, indoor and outdoor air quality and economic development.
Use resources efficiently and reduce demand for natural resources, like energy, land, and
water, rather than expanding supply.
1
Water Quality Statements of Other Cities – 2
Vancouver, Washington
•
•
Enhance and protect surface water, stormwater and groundwater quality from . . . impervious
surface runoff, improper waste disposal and other potential contaminant sources.
Ensure safe and adequate water supplies, and promote the wise use and conservation of water
resources.
Santa Monica
•
Protect and enhance environmental health and public health by minimizing and where
possible eliminating . . . the levels of pollutants entering the air, soil and water . . .
Denver
•
•
•
•
Denver will work to ensure that water quality is addressed in the very beginning of the site
development process so that stormwater quality BMPs (best management practices) are better
and more cost effectively integrated into site designs.
The same stormwater quality management expectations and practices that apply to (the
private sector) also apply to projects that are the responsibility of Denver
Denver will work to remove obstacles to innovative stormwater management approaches . . .
Denver will continue to actively participate in regional water quality management efforts . . .
Boulder
•
Continue to reduce water quality impacts of city operations on the environment.
Austin
•
Provide effective management of our water resources for the community in order to protect
the public health and environment . . . (the goal) is to prevent, detect, evaluate and reduce
water pollution in order to protect water quality and aquatic life in Austin's creeks, lakes and
aquifers.
Chicago
•
•
The City of Chicago will continue to conserve, protect and restore our region’s invaluable
natural resources by identifying opportunities for water conservation, wisely managing storm
water, and sponsoring local and regional legislation to protect our lakes and rivers.
The City of Chicago will continue to encourage healthy environmental practices in the City
by educating both children and adults about the benefits of . . . water conservation
Louisville
•
•
•
Improve water quality throughout the metro region in order to preserve and enhance biological integrity and to support human use and contact recreation . . .
Protect the drinking water (by) preventing the degradation of water quality due to water
pollution and erosion (and) protecting the surface and subsurface areas within and
surrounding new and existing developments that have the potential to be used as sources for
community water supply systems.
Understand and successfully manage the impacts of development on the carrying capacity
of the region’s river/stream corridor system . . . Minimize the potential for and impacts of
flooding, and effectively manage storm water.
Water Quality Statements of Other Cities – 3
Richmond
•
•
Richmond’s water resources will meet the Clean Water Act goals.
Continue to pursue implementation of all appropriate and pertinent recommendations
concerning stormwater management and groundwater and drinking water protection as
described in the Richmond Master Plan Environmental Element.
Atlanta
•
The vision of watershed management is to treat “all things water” as a single overarching
entity . . . treating everything that affects an area’s water resources – from greenspace to
impervious surfaces, from rainwater to sewage – as a single, interconnected unit makes more
sense than treating it as an isolated system of lakes, rivers and puddles.
Tampa
•
•
•
The City of Tampa will comply with, and assist with, the implementation of the (Southwest
Florida) Surface Water Improvement and Management Implementation Program. The City
will address those portions of the SWIM program for Tampa Bay and other local surface
waters which can reasonably be accomplished by the City.
The City shall continue to apply a comprehensive planning-based approach to the protection
of wetlands ecosystems . . . (and) the City shall continue efforts to achieve a measurable
increase in functionally restored wetland acreage.
The City shall strive to reduce potable water demands consistent with state and regional
targets through the conservation, reuse and enhancement of groundwater and surface water
supplies, and shall prevent environmental degradation.
Toronto
•
•
•
•
•
•
Protect what is healthy: self-sustaining fish and wildlife populations, habitats and
biodiversity; parks, trails and greenways; clean air and water . . .
Anticipate and prevent pollution of air, land and water.
Reduce Toronto’s “ecological footprint” and strive for greater self-sufficiency by conserving .
. . water . . .
Remediate contaminated soils, groundwater and sediments.
Restore hydrological cycles, watersheds and river systems.
Consider interconnectedness among air, land, water and living organisms, including humans.
Ottawa
•
•
•
•
A green city strives to preserve water quality and quantity.
The goal is drinking water that is safe to consume; healthy groundwater aquifers; and rivers,
creeks and lakes that support healthy aquatic environments.
Development in harmony with the environment means using developed spaces wisely to make
the best use of existing infrastructure and to minimize disturbance of existing green spaces
and subwatersheds. It means considering natural cycles such as water . . . prior to development, to protect their function and integrity.
Accomplish a healthy water environment that supports natural processes and will help to
protect, restore and enhance the health of City rivers and streams for today and for future
generations.
Water Quality Statements of Other Cities – 4
■ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Current Goal Statement
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic
ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide
healthy habitat for fish, plants and wildlife.
Previous Goal Statement
Clean and Safe Water: All Americans will have drinking water that is clean and safe to drink.
Effective protection of America’s rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifer, and coastal and ocean waters
will sustain fish, plants and wildlife, as well as recreational, subsistence, and economic activities.
Watersheds and their aquatic ecosystems will be restored and protected to improve public health,
enhance water quality, reduce flooding, and provide habitat for wildlife.
May 2006
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Braswell, Wanda G.
Friday, May 12, 2006 12:45 PM
Anthony Foxx (foxxCharlotte@aol.com); Nancy Carter
(n3157w@yahoo.com); 71170.3036@compuserve.com;
patrick.mumford@wachovia.com; sburg346@aol.com; Don Lochman; Burch,
Julie
Levine, Mindy; Elkins, Susan
FW: Pilot BMP studies, by Municipality
Attachments:
Stream Classifications.doc; Impaired Streams_County.pdf
Included in this email is information Council member Carter requested. I will include a
hard copy in your Friday packet.
Wanda Braswell
704-336-3123
______________________________________________
From:
Hammock, Daryl
Sent:
Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:48 PM
To:
Elkins, Susan
Cc:
Richards, Tim
Subject:
FW: Pilot BMP studies, by Municipality
Susan,
Attached are digital versions of three things Ms. Carter asked for at the last Environment
Committee meeting.
1. Listing of progressive water quality programs and related information (below)
2. Map of impaired streams with Council Districts
3. Definition/explanation of stream classifications
Let me know if I left anything out. I will deliver a couple of hard copies of the map.
Daryl
Stream
Impaired
assifications.doc (44reams_County.pdf (8
Some progressive programs, including ones that perform restoration, developed
partnerships, and research the best storm water management practices
Seattle, WA
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/stormwater/index.htm
Prince Georges County, Maryland
http://www.co.pg.md.us/Government/AgencyIndex/DER/ESD/cip.asp?nivel=foldmenu(7)
Austin, TX
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/waterq.htm
Caltrans / California
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/stormwater/swppp_training.html
NCDOT
http://www.ncdot.org/environment/stormwater/
Greensboro, NC
http://www.greensboronc.gov/Departments/Water/stormwater/
Charlotte, NC
http://stormwater.charmeck.org
A few locations with Post Construction Controls Ordinances, or similar water quality
ordinance protection
Seattle, WA
Baltimore, MD
Santa Monica, CA
Gwinnett County, GA
Cary, NC
Huntersville, NC
And numerous other locations in Florida, Maryland, Georgia, California
Industry Resources
The Center for Watershed Protection http://www.cwp.org/index.html
EPA- Water http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/water.html
EPA - Smart Growth http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/
Charlotte streams are designated as “Class C” waters. This is not to be
confused with a grading system, as can be seen below. The local lakes
are classified as “WS-IV”, water supplies. Most of the streams in
Charlotte are “impaired” for Class C uses. This means they are not
meeting the criteria set forth for the class. In addition, Lake Wylie is
listed by the state as impaired, but the exact causes of its impairment
are unknown.
DWQ PRIMARY SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html
All surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a primary classification by
the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ). All waters must at least meet the
standards for Class C (fishable / swimmable) waters. The other primary
classifications provide additional levels of protection for primary water
contact recreation (Class B) and drinking water (Water Supply Classes I
through V). To find the classification of a particular water body you can either
use the BIMS database or contact Alridge Renn of the Classifications and
Standards Unit. To view the regulatory differences between the currently
implemented classifications for freshwaters, click here for the freshwater
classifications table. To view the regulatory differences between the
currently implemented classifications for tidal saltwaters, click here for the
tidal saltwaters classifications table.
Class C
Waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic
life propagation and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C.
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place in an
infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on
watershed development or types of discharges.
Class B
Waters used for primary recreation and other uses suitable for Class C.
Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water skiing,
and similar uses involving human body contact with water where such
activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis. There are
no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges.
Water Supply I (WS-I)
Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes for those users desiring maximum protection for their
water supplies. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-I
waters are those within natural and undeveloped watersheds in public
ownership with no permitted point source (wastewater) discharges. All WS-I
waters are HQW by definition.
Water Supply II (WS-II)
Waters used as sources of potable water where a WS-I classification is not
feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-II waters are
generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds and only general permits
for discharges are allowed. All WS-II waters are HQW by definition.
Water Supply III (WS-III)
Waters used as sources of potable water where a more protective WS-I or II
classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C
uses. WS-III waters are generally in low to moderately developed
watersheds. General discharge permits only are allowed near the water
supply intake whereas domestic and nonprocess industrial discharges are
allowed in the rest of the water supply watershed.
Water Supply IV (WS-IV)
Waters used as sources of potable water where a WS-I, II or III classification
is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-IV
waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or
Protected Areas, and involve no categorical restrictions on discharges.
Water Supply V (WS-V)
Waters protected as water supplies which are generally upstream and
draining to Class WS-IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their
employees with drinking water or as waters formerly used as water supply.
These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-V has no categorical
restrictions on watershed development or wastewater discharges unlike other
WS classifications and local governments are not required to adopt
watershed protection ordinances.
Please see the Water Supply Watershed Protection home page for more
information regarding waters classified as water supply.
Class WL
Freshwater Wetlands are a subset of all wetlands, which in turn are waters
that support vegetation that is adapted to life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
These waters are protected for storm and flood water storage, aquatic life,
wildlife, hydrologic functions, filtration and shoreline protection.
Although there are no restrictions on watershed development or types of
wastewater discharge in wetlands, impacts from these actions must be
justified, minimized, and often mitigated. No water bodies in the state
currently carry the Class WL designation.
Class SC
All tidal salt waters protected for secondary recreation such as fishing,
boating and other activities involving minimal skin contact; aquatic life
propagation and survival; and wildlife. Stormwater controls are required
under CAMA and there are no categorical restrictions on discharges.
Class SB
Surface waters that are used for primary recreation, including frequent or
organized swimming and all SC uses. Stormwater controls are required
under CAMA and there are no categorical restrictions on discharges.
Class SA
Surface waters that are used for shellfishing or marketing purposes and all
SC and SB uses. All SA waters are also HQW by definition. Stormwater
controls are required under CAMA. No domestic discharges are permitted in
these waters.
Class SWL
These are saltwater wetlands located landward of the mean high water line
or contiguous with estuarine waters. See 15A NCAC 7H .0205 and .0206 for
full definition of coastal wetlands. A general description of wetlands can be
found at UWL. There are no water bodies in the state that currently have this
classification.
CHAP EL
EF
F
M
CC
O
Y
ORD
IE S F
HO
AS BURY
T
BE A T
Impaired Streams
R
VE
S
EA
TF
L
IE
D
HAMB RIG HT
L
O
O
H
SC
EL
L
O
EE
K
CR
RD
LL
A
N
D
GR
OR
NC
EL
L
W
CO
k
TH
HA
W
G
R
BU
IS
R
AR
IT Y
CR
VE
RO
G
N
k
REA
IL
SO
W
IR
LL
HI
T
IN
SM
EW
AT
TH
IL
D
TR
A
5
I-4 8
WS
reek
Legend
DE
N
RO
SH
A
KS
O
PA
R
BL
A
Br
iar
SHA
R
BR
I
ON
AR
AM
K
EE
k
Cr
ee
H
OR
NE
E
GL
SE
I
ittle
rL
KINGS
ENS
QUE
YN
W
SE
L
H
UT
CA
LD
AH
AM
OLD
N
Su
ga
r
GR
AH
AM
Cr
ee
k
Irw
in
Cr
ee
ON
TR
Y
Up
pe
EK
S FO RD
SOUTH
PA R
K
EW
N
R
CA
MC
KEE
5
I-4 8
Impaired Streams (303d Listed)
N
Mc
mu
CA
lle
RM
nC
EL
ree
IS
INGT O
PO
LK
D
FA IRVIEW
H
JO
E
TH
ID
L
WE D D
EL M
N
LA
le C
r Mi
AT
SA
R
RD N
SA RDIS
ER
E -M
k
D
E
PIN
L
V IL
EF
OE
ne
pi
l
cA
M
e
re
C
K
AL LEN BL AC
NAT ION
L
7
IL
I-7
H
W
IE
I
BR
N
S FO
RD
T
YE R
S
XA
ION
IN
AM
A
KE RR
-M
LA W
S
ENCE
N
I-4 85
TO
NAT
AL BE MA RL
E
RUS
M
HO
HA
NY
EG
AL
L
EL E
CRE
STE
OLD
EL
NE
CE
L LA
PA V IL
IO
N
O
TR
Y
OLD ST
ATES
NE
VI
E
KDA
L
OA
VIS
TODDVILLE
LIT TLE RO CK
k
N
LS
O
Cr
ee
WI
SA
M
Pa
w
WA
CAB A R
E
AL
ST E E
LE C
REE
K
CE
VE
ES
T
T
O
DW
AR
R
DI
PRO VID
NS
I-4 85
H
JO
ILLE
NS
ZOA
Fou
EW
G
IL
FA
V
IR
ST
W
NR
L
NON
PT
O
PE
N
NR
SH
O
T RA
MO
Lake W
ylie
H
A
LE B
R
SA
EW
P INE V
DOW
S
IN
R
VI
N
US 521
k
WIND
MA
V
N
ee
Cr
E
O
RO
RO
SHA RON
HOUS
WES TING
D
EDE
D
HEB
HOOD
NYM
EN
ER
A
SH
OO
CK
N CH
URC
E LL
E
INS O
NEW
SA M
AL
CEN
ROB
P
E
D
RO
CA
M
NC
H
k
Cree
DE
C
dy
Ree
EN
N
RUN
PL AZ A
HICKORY GR
OV E
YN
COLONY
OW
CH
W
A
EP
AR
R
PH
DO L
ON
R
D
IN
L
SE
M
RAN
LA
W
K
SH
A
RNE
OD
YB
AR
IV E
MILTON
KIL B O
WO
LE
D
N
SC
A
3R
T
AY
D
EA
S
TW
EA
T
7T
H
W
AR
R
YR
S
EA
EH
TO
NT
LA
Y
TR
SHOPTON
r
ga
Su
CARO
RK
YO
OR
KM
O
R
ET
N
M
O
T
ON
N
T
TY
V
UN
IN
DS
SO
IF
P ORTE
G
PT
O
O
VI
DA
AZ
PL
E
TH
E
TH TH
36 MA
R
TH
YO
R
S
M
BE A
SA NDY
IN
O
HUR
E
AK
M
EK C
AK
Y
RE
M
CRE
K
PE
RY
D
M
IE
W
SH
US E
MA
VILL E
LE
ST AT ESVIL
EE
A
ES
R
FE
O
WILKINSON
DIX
EO
PIN
WE ST ING HO
CH
D
LE
ST
CK
GRIE
OR D
OLD CONC
ASBURY
OO
EE
CL
AN
-GRIE R
RO
HOS K
INS
NW
FR
H
AS
WE
IT Y
US 29 BY-PASS
ES
LL
GLE
TUCKASEEGEE
D
BRO WN
U
CINDY
CINDY
YC
S IT
E
ZZ
I-8
5
BIL LY GRAHA M
OW
RO
I-8
5
OL
DD
N
AUT E
ER
NIV
K
BA C
EE
CR
LE
AP EL
MOORES CH
N
IS
AR
A
KD
TH
OL
LY
RR
29
H
E
OA
IR
UN
O
HA
G
SU
H
MO
85
KS
C
IB
B
US
RC
O
A
PE
R
HT
I-4
O
N
G
Cree
k
HU
BR
VE
Malla
rd
WT
T
EC
RY
BE L
LHA
SE
OM
R
FE
N
EV
L
SA
ES
LL
LA K
IE W
SUG AR CRE EK
E
ZZ
k
SU
D
NE
REA M ES
RO
n
Lo
r ee
gC
GE
W
LL
RID
ANA
O
BR
HO
SV
CE
T
ER
NT
NDER
N
VA
M
HU
Y-
A
AL E X
L
IL
PL E
A
S AN
TP
LA
INS
0
Miles
1
2
4
Named Streams
ER
ST
Major Roads
¯
cmgc-osx-001:\swtechteam\adodd\Data\WaterQualityData\Impaired Streams_County.mxd
Land Preservation
Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
May 15, 2006
Presentation Outline
§ Definition & Context
§ Growth Trends
§ Issues and Challenges
§ Key Land Preservation Initiatives
§ Key Thoughts/Questions
Definition and Context
Land Preservation:
§ Conserving and protecting tree
cover and open space;
§ Buffering sensitive natural areas
and watersheds;
§ Protecting wetlands and other fish
and wildlife habitat; and
§ Supporting land use objectives that
“make the most efficient use of
land and mitigate development
impacts.”
Growth Trends
Past Population Growth
§ In just 15 years, Charlotte has grown
from 396,000 persons within its
corporate limits to 651,000
540,000
315,000
1980
651,000
396,000
1990
2000
2005
Growth Trends
Future Population Growth
§ Within our “Sphere of
Influence” we are likely
to add another 330,000
people by 2030
§ This is equivalent to
adding the population
of St. Louis, Cincinnati
or Pittsburgh
980,000
651,000
2005
2030
Growth Trends
Past Growth Consumed A Lot of Land
§ Charlotte’s
population grew
168%
§ Charlotte’s land
area increased by
274%
Pop.
168%
Land
274%
%Change 1960-2000
Growth Trends
2005 Subdivision Approvals
Type of
Subdivision
Number of
Lots/Units
Acres
Single Family
4131
1678
Multi-Family
2858
327
From FY 1995 – FY 2005:
§ Average SF subdivision density was less than 3 d.u.a.
§ Average MF subdivision was about 10 d.u.a.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!! ! !
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!!
!! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !!! ! ! !
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!! !
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
! ! ! ! !!!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
! !
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
! !
!
!! !
! !
!
!!
! !
! !
!
! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
! !! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!! !!!
! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
! !!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! ! !!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
! !!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! !!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!!
!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!!
! !!!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!
! !!
!
!
! !!
!!
!
!!! !
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! ! !!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
! !!
! !
!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
! !!
!! !
! ! ! !!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! !! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
! !! !
! !!
!!! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!! !
! !! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!!
!
! !
!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!!!!
! !
!! !
!
!
!!
!! ! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !!!!
!
!
!
!!!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!! !
!
!!
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!!
! !
!
!! !
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
! !! !
!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
! !! !!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !! !
!! !
!
!! !!!!!! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!!! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
! !!! ! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
! !!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! !!! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
! !!
!!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !
!! !
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
! !!
! ! !
!!
!
! !!
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! ! !
!
!! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!!
!!!
!
!!
!!!
!! !
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
! !!
!
!
! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!!
!! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!! ! !!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
! !!
!!!!
! ! ! ! !!
!
!!
!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !
!!
!!! !
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! !!
!!!
!
!! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
! ! !! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !!
!
!
! !!
!!!
!!
!
!
! !!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! !! ! !
! !!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
! !
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
! !! !
!
! !
!
!!
! !!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!! ! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!!
! !
! !!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! ! ! !! !!
! ! ! !!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!! ! !
! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
! !!
!! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!! !
!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
! !
! !!
!!!! !
!!
!
!
! !!!
!
! ! !! !
!
!!! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
! !
!!! !
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
! ! !
!
!!
!! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!! !
! ! !!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!!!
!
!
!!! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!! ! !
! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! ! !!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !!!
!
!!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
! !!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
!! !
!
! !
! ! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
! !!
!
!
! ! !!!
!
! !!!!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!! !
!! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!! !
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
! !!! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!!
! ! !! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!! !
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !!!!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Past Growth Was
Predominantly
Outward
Permits Issued
2000 to 2005
Charlotte's Sphere
Centers
Transit Corridors
!
Non-Residential
Building Permits
!
Residential
Building Permits
Questions?
Issues and Challenges
1. Protecting Natural Assets
(including what are they, where are
they and are we doing enough to
protect them . . .)
2. Using Land Efficiently (including
infill, redevelopment, brownfields,
compact development, higher intensity
locations . . .)
3. Designing Sites To Minimize
Environmental Impacts (including
smaller building footprints, natural
vegetation, open space, pedestrian
orientation. . .)
Issue 1: Protecting Natural Assets
Key Initiatives
§ what are they
§ where are they
§ are we doing
enough to
protect them
§
§
§
§
§
Parks Plan
Greenway Plan
Nature Preserve Plan
Natural Heritage Survey
Wildlife Inventory
Issue 1: Protecting Natural Assets
Key Initiatives
Mecklenburg County Land Acquisition
(for parks, greenways and watershed protection)
1900 – 2004: $138,605,000
5000
4512
4500
4632
§ what are they
§ where are they
§ are we doing
enough to
protect them
Land Acres
4000
3817
3500
3000
2837
2500
2000
1500
1000
409
500
41
35
149
97
193
145
0
19001909
19101919
19201929
19301939
19401949
19501959
19601969
19701979
19801989
19901999
20002004
Issue 1: Protecting Natural Assets
Key Initiatives
Tree Ordinance:
§ Requires tree save in setback for commercial
development
§ Requires 10% tree save in single family
development with incentives in zoning
ordinance to increase tree save up to 25%
§ Revisions currently underway
§ what are they
SWIM Buffers:
§ where are they
§ Requires protection along some streams and
river edges, primarily for water quality
§ are we doing
enough to
protect them
Draft Post-Construction Ordinance:
§ Requires open space (tree save) based on
how much of site is built on (impervious)
Issue 1: Protecting Natural Assets
Key Initiatives
§ Floodplain Ordinance and Floodplain
Acquisition
§ Strategic Open Space Framework
§ Voices & Choices Green Assets
Inventory
§ what are they
§ where are they
§ are we doing
enough to
protect them
§ UNCC Open Space Indicators Project and
Piedmont Green Plan
§ Land Conservancies
§ Mountain Island Lake Initiative
§ Carolina Conservation Corridors
§ NC Wildlife Federation's Wildlife and
Industry Together (WAIT)
Questions?
Issue 2: Using Land Efficiently
Key Initiatives
Centers and Corridors- growth
management strategy to focus growth in
strategic locations.
Growth “targets” for centers and corridors
included in the Transportation Action Plan:
§ 70% of new multi-family units
§infill
§ 75% of new office development
§redevelopment
§brownfields
§higher intensity
locations
2000-2005 Development in Centers &
Corridors
§ 70% of multi-family permits
§ 84% of office permits
Issue 2: Using Land Efficiently
Key Initiatives
§infill
§redevelopment
§brownfields
§higher intensity
locations
General Development Policies
§ Phase I: Includes policies to evaluate
locations for higher intensity development;
design guidance; and transit station
development principles.
§ Phase II: Includes policies to mitigate land use
and development impacts.
Issue 2: Using Land Efficiently
Key Initiatives
Planning for Higher Density
Development:
§ Efficient use of land and
energy; and provision of
infrastructure and service
§infill
§redevelopment
§brownfields
§higher intensity
locations
§ Reduced growth in VMT per
capita and expanded
transportation choices
§ Potential for more open
space
• ~27,000 acres planned for
> 4 dua residential
Issue 2: Using Land Efficiently
Joint Use/Planning
§infill
§redevelopment
§brownfields
§higher intensity
locations
Key Initiatives
§ Coordinate plans
§ Share vision
§ Leverage resources
§ Enhance public service
§ Reduce land consumption
and VMT
§ Save money
Library, Police and Job Link
§ Planning Commission convenes monthly task
force meeting to discuss issues relating to joint
use of public facilities, facilitate new joint use
opportunities and communicate/share
information
Issue 2: Using Land Efficiently
Key Initiatives
§infill
§redevelopment
§brownfields
§higher intensity
locations
Brownfields
§ ½ of all NC Brownfield Agreements NC are in
Charlotte
§ Charlotte pioneered development of dedicated State
staff to expedite local projects
§ Assisted owners of 13 sites: over 36 acres
revitalized, $36,000,000 projected in new investments
and 860 projected new jobs
§ Leveraged $375,000 in private assessment funds
and over $593,000 in projected private clean-up costs
Issue 2: Using Land Efficiently
Key Initiatives
§ Area Planning
§ Transit Station Area Planning
§ Business Loan & Grant Programs
§ Smart Growth Funds, Gap Financing
§infill
§ Tax Increment Financing (T.I.F.)
§redevelopment
§ NC Rehab Code
§brownfields
§ Big Box Study
§higher intensity
locations
§ Corridor Revitalization Program
Questions?
Issue 3: Designing Sites to
Mitigate Impacts
Key Initiatives
Compact Development Sites
§ Minimizes the building footprint
• smaller building
footprints
(including access roads and parking) as
much as possible, while still providing
an appropriately sized development
§ Creates less site disturbance,
• natural
vegetation
potential for more open space, can
support alternative transportation
• open space
§ Zoning ordinance allows small
lot, “neotraditional” type
development and cluster
development
• pedestrian
orientation
Issue 3: Designing Sites to
Mitigate Impacts
Key Initiatives
Natural Vegetation
Native plants require less water
and fertilizer and sustain
biodiversity. (Alien invasive species
• smaller building
footprints
• natural
vegetation
• open space
• pedestrian
orientation
can displace native plants, block
navigation and flood control, clog
water intakes, alter soil chemistry and
hydrology and increase erosion )
§ SWS uses only native vegetation in stream bank
restoration
§ Park & Rec has grant to restore native plant
communities; also has plan to rid invasive species
from natural heritage sites and nature preserves
Issue 3: Designing Sites to
Mitigate Impacts
Key Initiatives
Zoning Ordinance Requires Private Open Space:
• smaller building
footprints
• natural
vegetation
• open space
• pedestrian
orientation
§
§
§
§
§
ate
priv
50-65% of lot in single family
s
e
d
Inclu , patios,
30-50% in multi-family
s
yard ming
30-50% of residential in office
swim , plazas,
s
pool
40% of residential in business
,
Varies in MUDD, UMUD and TOD/TS etc
Zoning Ordinance Revisions Underway:
§ Replace open space requirement
with a maximum built upon area
requirement corresponding to lot size
Issue 3: Designing Sites to
Mitigate Impacts
Key Initiatives
Mass Grading
• smaller building
footprints
• natural
vegetation
• open space
• pedestrian
orientation
Increases amounts of sediment running off site;
disturbs vegetation and soils; soil compaction
reduces water absorption and makes it difficult to
re-establish vegetation; loss of trees
§ Erosion and sedimentation control ordinance
regulates land-disturbing activities to control offsite sedimentation loss. (Does not limit mass
grading.)
Issue 3: Designing Sites to
Mitigate Impacts
Key Initiatives
§ Tree Ordinance
§ Post Construction Ordinance
§ Sidewalk Requirements
• smaller building
footprints
§ Connectivity
• natural
vegetation
§ Area Plan Design Guidelines
• open space
• pedestrian
orientation
§ GDP – Design Guidelines
§ LEED Certification – CMU, Library
Questions?
Key Thoughts/Questions
Protecting Natural Resources:
§ What is City’s Role?
§ Should we be looking at our real estate
policies to encourage keeping and/or
acquiring property for environmental
protection?
§ Should we be focusing more resources on
identifying our natural resources and
understanding their importance?
§ Should our regulations require more
protection?
Key Thoughts/Questions
Using Land Efficiently:
§ Should we be doing more to encourage/
incent infill and redevelopment and/or
discourage greenfield development?
Designing Sites to Minimize Impacts:
§ Should our regulations do more to address
environmentally sensitive site design?
§ Should the City be doing more in terms of
LEEDS-type development?
§ Should the City be doing more to lead by
example?
Thank
You
Growth Trends
§ Mecklenburg County lost
over 22% of its tree cover
between 1984 and 2001
(Source: American Forests
Urban Ecosystem Analysis)
§ Since 1980, Mecklenburg County has been losing
open space at the rate of 5 acres per day (Source:
Open Space Institute of the Carolinas, UNCC,
Mecklenburg County State of the Environment Report
Growth Trends
Infill &Redevelopment
§ Infill (within Route 4)
accounted for about
5-10% of new
construction (12% of
land area)
§ Almost ½ of all
redevelopment is
within Route 4