Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Review of Charge to Committee
No action.
II.
Subject:
Overview of Policy Framework
No action.
III.
Subject:
Public and Private Sector Approaches to Development Environmental
Principles
No action.
IV.
Subject:
Council Discussion and Direction for Moving Forward
Committee approved four policy areas: air quality, water quality, land
preservation; and energy and resource conservation.
V.
Subject:
Future Meeting Schedule
Committee agreed to meet the first Monday of each month from 2:00 p.m.
to 3:30 p.m. and the third Monday of each month from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00
p.m.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter, and Don
Lochman
10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Agenda Package
Presentation: Environmental Policy Framework
Presentation: Best Practices
Handout: Representative Environmental Policy Statements of Local Governments
2006 Meeting Schedule
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
Page 3
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx opened the meeting with a welcome and asked those in attendance
to introduce themselves. He continued that the formation of this Committee was a step
forward by the Mayor and City Council in recognizing the importance of the environment
for our future. The areas of air quality, water quality, land preservation; and energy and
resource conservation are all important to our public health, quality of life and help
economic development thrive.
As background, the previous Council asked staff in 2005 to draft a policy framework to
help shape initiatives related to the environment. In January 2006, staff brought this draft
framework to Council for approval. Council then formed an Ad Hoc Committee, of
which Council member Foxx was Chair. The other members, Mayor Pro Tem Susan
Burgess, Council member John Lassiter and Council member Pat Mumford, unanimously
agreed to recommend in February 2006 that new standing committee be formed for the
environment.
The Council agreed and also created a new focus area for the environment. What that
means is the environment is one of five priority areas for Council along with Community
Safety, Housing & Neighborhood Development, Economic Development and
Transportation. Today, we are going to discuss the charge of this Committee and our
role.
I.
Review of Charge to Committee
Julie Burch asked the Committee to refer to their notebooks for a copy of the charge
which highlights two primary goals. The short-term goal for the Committee is to
recommend to Council adoption of a set of City environmental statements or principles.
These principles would encompass the overall environment; they would be very broad.
The long-term goal would be to develop a Focus Area Plan for the Environment. Focus
Area Plans typically have five initiatives which are specific goals or measurable targets.
Staff will be working with the Committee to help craft those for presentation to the full
Council at the annual retreat next February.
Other roles for the Committee include:
• Ensure the impact on the environment is considered in development of major policies
under review by other Council Committees.
• Review environmental issues that Council wishes to refer to a Committee but may not
fall neatly into the charge of one of the other Committees.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
Page 4
•
Be a source of proactive ideas related to the environment by advising the full Council
and requested referral to the Committee.
Foxx:
There have been some questions about how the Environmental GDPs
relate to this new Committee. I think we need to think of this in
concentric circles. We’re starting with the broad principles. There are
lots of things the Environmental GDP group worked through but those are
a smaller subset of this overall goal. We do not want to be duplicative
with our work. We want to put everything together to craft our policies.
Carter:
Will the GDPs come to us or ED/Planning?
Foxx:
It is the intent of this Committee to come up with broad principles. We
need to develop areas of substantive engagement. I think that will come to
our jurisdiction eventually, but for now it may be putting the cart before
the horse.
Burch:
In an ideal situation, the broad principles would have already been
developed and we would be looking at the specifics under those
principles. But, we are starting where we are. There are three major
initiatives already underway [Environmental GDPs, Urban Street Design
Guidelines, Post Construction Controls]. The Environmental GDPs have
not been referred yet by Council. It is not the intent of staff to turn over
the work already done by the stakeholders. We want to use that work as
input into the Committee’s work. I would like to ask Garet Johnson to
briefly relate the process we have been following with the GDPs, not to
take us off task though.
Lochman:
It seems to me we have already developed the broad categories: air
quality, water quality, land preservation; and energy and resource
conservation. Can you give me an example of a broad policy that is not
already encompassed in those categories? It appears that most of what we
would address relates back to those areas already.
Burch:
It is up to the Committee to decide if those are the four basic categories.
We want your guidance. There could be six categories or three categories
out of staff’s work on the draft framework.
Lochman:
It seems to me these are already broad and encompassing most things. We
can look at the specific actions underneath each heading.
Carter:
There are some statewide issues such as recycling that touches some
different areas. Those are concepts well.
Foxx:
I’m trying to understand your question.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
Page 5
Lochman:
We have already identified broad areas of concern. I think they are
sufficiently broad to cover the GDPs or recycling. They already fit smart
growth. I think we can work within the confines of those four categories.
My question was where would we go beyond those?
Foxx:
I think we will see that in the presentation today; the process for going
forward with air quality, water quality, land preservation; and energy and
resource conservation. We will craft a statement about the City’s
approach to those broad areas.
Burch:
We will also look at what some other cities have done.
Foxx:
We will look at their approaches to the environment.
Carter:
One other thing is construction. How we look at construction versus
citizens. That is a broad area.
Burgess:
Well, recycling, green/LEED buildings could fall under energy and
resource/conservation.
Foxx:
I think we will have ample opportunity to discuss these issues. My intent
is to spend the next four meetings on each topic of air quality, water
quality, land preservation; and energy and resource conservation.
Burch:
Is everyone comfortable then with what happens with the Environmental
GDPs?
Mumford:
I’d like to make one point of clarification. What was the expectation of
the stakeholder group? My experience with stakeholder groups is their
work always goes through a Committee and then back to Council. Did the
GDP stakeholders think their report was going to straight to Council?
Weren’t the GDPs always going to some Committee for approval before
going to Council?
Burch:
I think it would be helpful to have Garet Johnson give a brief description
of the process.
Johnson:
The stakeholders have been meeting for a couple of years. They wrapped
up their discussions on January 18 with a revised set of policies. We told
them we were going to put the draft on hold while we look at how the
Environmental GDPs relate to the Urban Street Design Guidelines as well
as the Post Construction Controls Ordinance. We needed to see if there
were any conflicts. We planned to spend February reviewing the policy
for conflicts, making changes in March and looking to a public hearing in
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
Page 6
April. We are still working on the coordination, so we are a couple of
months behind. There has been no public meeting scheduled yet. We still
need to review the policies, then they will go through Planning to the
Planning Commission for approval and then to a Council Committee.
There will be another public hearing and then back to Committee for a
recommendation to the full Council. There will be at least three public
hearings for the community, approval by the Planning Commission and
ultimately City Council. There appears now to be some confusion, but
this is how we handled the first phase. Our area plans follow a similar
process.
Burch:
The body of work created was significant and we will be briefing the
entire Council who then can decide the appropriate Committee referral.
Johnson:
In the first phase, there was some concern about Committee time.
Carter:
Will you be circulating a summary or a formal statement?
Burch:
The GDPs are still in process, we want to reassure the stakeholders that
the significant work they have done is not going to be undone with this
initiative.
Burgess:
I think the GDP schedule fits nicely with this Committee’s capacity to
handle it. They aren’t going to be ready until we have gotten our work
done.
Johnson:
It will be May at the earliest before we complete the coordination. We are
at least two months behind schedule. We are also working with a
consultant.
Burch:
The consultant is going to be creating different scenarios that show the
impact on development. So, there is more work going on. By early fall,
they should be ready for this Committee.
Carter:
I’d like to know the background of the consultant.
Burch:
The consultant has not been selected yet. Darryl Hammock can provide
some additional information.
Hammock:
We are looking at two consultants. Debra Campbell and Jim Schumacher
are working with CityState to show us the cost of having no policy. It will
be somewhat difficult trying to determine the cost of bad water or bad air.
The other consultant is an engineering consultant and we are looking at
Land Design (prime) and US Infrastructure (sub). This will give us site
level best management practices.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
Page 7
Carter:
Will they be able to give us recent issues addressed in other areas?
Foxx:
I trust the process that is already in place. I think we need to stay on
course with the agenda.
II.
Overview of Policy Framework
Julie Burch referred the Committee to the second tab in their notebook for a copy of the
Draft Policy Framework. She then began a presentation on the Environmental Policy
Framework (copy attached).
Lochman:
It continues to blow my mind that the tax policy never shows up on the
chart related to forces impacting Charlotte’s economic development.
Mumford:
You could also add cost of living.
Foxx:
Did this come from a Council committee?
Burch:
It’s from the Economic Development Strategic Plan and is merely a
graphic showing the various forces.
Lochman:
I have asked three or four times about having the tax policy added. It
never changes.
Ms. Burch then turned the presentation over to Keith Henrichs to discuss the part of the
presentation entitled “Why have an Environmental Policy?”
Burch:
From the staff perspective, we wanted to take the framework and tweak it.
This gives us a starting point that we can tool to the next level.
Burgess:
I think this is a fine tool. I am very visual. This is well organized and
gives us something to work from. I think this will give us the guidance we
need.
Burch:
Keith Henrichs brought this all together for us. He interviewed a lot of
staff on “what’s the issue” and “what are we doing”. There was a lot of
staff involvement in putting this together from the Environmental Work
Team (now Cabinet). We have reps from the County and COG working
together now to support this group.
Foxx:
I would also like to thank staff for their time and effort.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
Page 8
Burgess:
I think you should add someone from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools to
the Cabinet. They have the largest bus fleet in North Carolina and I think
they could bring a lot to the table.
Burch:
The Cabinet is primarily an internal staff group with COG and the County,
but we could ask CMS to join.
Burgess:
Or, at least if they could send someone to answer questions.
Carter:
Could you also identify a member of our Delegation that we could send
information too? A member of the Delegation with some interest might be
a great asset.
Burgess:
On the Cabinet?
Carter:
No, just someone to flow information too.
Burch:
I think we can figure out a way to do that. Or, if we want to get them
information on a specific topic. We have interaction with staff on many of
these issues.
Carter:
I think we need at least one interested member of the Delegation too.
Burch:
We can also use the existing Governmental Affairs Committee.
Foxx:
I think that is great idea in the interim process.
Carter:
I don’t want it to be a one-way flow of information. They can bring topics
back to us too.
Foxx:
Ms. Burch, can you have someone figure out how to involve the State and
also figure out what is going on at the Federal level?
Burch:
Certainly.
III.
Public and Private Sector Approaches to Development Environmental
Principles
Keith Henrichs then began his presentation on Best Practices (copy attached). Mr.
Henrichs referred the Committee to the third tab in their notebook for a full copy of the
report.
Mr. Henrichs referenced a third handout entitled “Representative Environmental Policy
Statements of Local Governments” (copy attached).
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
Page 9
Burgess:
I want to be on the list of best practices one of these days.
Foxx:
I would like to ask members of our Committee with experience in creating
an Environmental Policy to take a few minutes to describe that process.
Council member Mumford?
Council member Mumford said the process was a little different for the private sector.
This is something Wachovia embarked on about 18 months ago. Some of the issues
originated from environmental activists on lending policies, and some from the impact
project financing has on the environment. In the past, when Wachovia looked at
environmental issues they were looking at addressing a specific issue. In the course of
that, Wachovia came to realize the environmental impact they have as a company. Over
45 million square feet of space, they consume energy, buy paper products, recycle. They
began to take a comprehensive look at environmental polices because there has been a
climate change. They usually look at what is going on in the industry. What is
happening with the World Bank doesn’t obligate Wachovia to make changes. But, they
did an internal assessment and realized they were doing a lot of good things, but had
nothing in a policy. Wachovia will soon be adopting environmental polices in forest
protection and climate change.
This is not a fad; these are issues that must be addressed. Wachovia also has to balance
policies with cost. They looked at whether or not they wanted to comply, compete or
lead. Wachovia did not want to be on the front end, but did want to be competitive.
They care about their reputation. They want to build buildings that are sustainable and a
good business investment. They are looking past the first year to the total lifecycle.
There is a business case that can be made that isn’t radical. This region understands the
environment and has the resources for these products and services. It is a good economic
development decision. Note: Council member Mumford is the Environmental Group for
Wachovia.
Burgess:
We have another Charlotte company out there with the leaders and that is
Duke Energy with carbon dioxide. In 1990, when I was with the Board of
Education, we put a permanent task force in place on the environment.
We used the employee newsletter to get information out there and solicit
ideas. There are a lot of staff people that may have great ideas and we
need to harness those ideas and recognize them. Make sure we talk to
employees.
Foxx:
We could take that to the Cabinet.
Burch:
We are not starting on a totally blank page. We have four priority areas
and we would like this Committee to give us permission/guidance to
pursue those.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
Page 10
Foxx:
If staff decides you need a full-time coordinator for this, maybe not
immediately, but in the future, we would be open to discussing that.
Burch:
I think it would be premature to do that now. We need to establish the
principles. We can certainly see if we need a position in the future.
Carter:
With the National League of Cities and North Carolina League of
Municipalities, I was chair of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee
last year. This year, I am on the Strategic Legislative Committee. We
have environmental positions, guidelines and lobbying points that are
significant to consider. Last year with NLC we discussed alternative
fuels, ANWR, forest lands, open space, and burn-off policies. With
NCLM, we discussed stormwater, stormwater standards, and beach
erosion. I think those policies could be helpful and I could forward that
information to the Committee.
Foxx:
I would welcome looking at your material. Could you send it to Julie
Burch for distribution to the Committee?
IV.
Council Discussion and Direction for Moving Forward
Council member Foxx asked if the Committee minded discussing the process before
confirming the policy areas. He reiterated his goal for the Committee is to spend one
meeting on each of the four areas. The staff group that has done the most work on that
area will make a presentation to the Committee, which will be the dominant part of the
meeting. The last half hour would be used to draft statements and give staff direction.
No decision will be asked for, just preliminary consensus and staff will then have an
opportunity to craft something for approval. At the next meeting, the language from the
previous meeting will be discussed. By the fifth meeting, the Committee will have a
preliminary idea of the principles. So, the group will be working all along drafting a set
of principles.
No objection by any members of the Committee.
Julie Burch continued that staff would be making presentations in a common format.
There would be a statement of the issue, problems, major activities to address, pending
policy initiatives (i.e. Environmental GDPs), leading edge and food for thought ideas.
We will reference any known legislative initiatives.
Carter:
I would also like to know the cost of inactivity and the cost of action. I
think it would be interesting to watch that unfold.
Burch:
We can attempt to do that; we’ll have to draw on other locations.
Carter:
It just might be interesting.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 5, 2006
Page 11
Burch:
The cost of not doing will be hard to put together.
Lochman:
I think we need to be careful with that.
Burgess:
There is some cost associated with public health. With air quality, you
could look to Smoke-Free Charlotte. Both hospitals have looked at indoor
air quality issues.
Foxx:
I would like to ask for a motion confirming air quality, water quality, land
preservation; and energy and resource conservation as our four policy
areas.
Motion:
Second:
Council member Lochman
Mayor Pro Tem Burgess with a note that energy and resource conversation
is a catch-all.
Motion passes 4-0: Foxx, Mumford, Burgess and Lochman (Council member Carter out
of the room).
V.
Future Meeting Schedule
After much discussion the Committee agreed to meet the first Monday of each month
from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. and the third Monday of each month from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00
p.m.
The next meeting is Monday, April 17 from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in Room 280.
Note: Mayor Pro Tem Burgess will not be available for the May 1 meeting.
The full schedule is attached.
Meeting adjourned.
Environment Committee
Wednesday, April 5, 2006 – 10:00 a.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.
Review of Charge to Committee – Anthony Foxx/Julie Burch
II.
Overview of Policy Framework – Julie Burch/Keith Henrichs, Consultant
III.
Public and Private Sector Approaches to Developing Environmental Principles –
Julie Burch/Keith Henrichs
IV.
Council Discussion and Direction for Moving Forward:
a. Confirmation of four policy areas: air quality, water quality, land preservation;
energy and resource conservation
b. Process for development of draft principles
c. Future overview sessions for each policy area
V.
Future meeting schedule – All
Please bring your calendar!
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders
Council Committee on the Environment
April 6, 2006
Review of Charge
Short-term goal: Recommend for Council adoption a set of City environmental
statements or principles.
Timetable: Two months or less.
As part of developing a set of environmental principles, below are matters are for
consideration and discussion by the Committee:
- Confirmation of the draft environmental framework and the four areas of concentration:
Air Quality, Water Quality, Land Preservation, Energy and Resource Conservation.
- Current environmental policy initiatives underway, including those with extensive
stakeholder processes, e.g. Environmental chapter of the General Development Policies
- Other public and private agencies and initiatives involved in environmental matters
- Level of community comment and feedback on the proposed principles.
Background:
The Council approved the new Committee and the development of environmental
principles at the February 2006 retreat. The principles will be drawn from the draft
environmental policy framework presented by City staff in early January, “best practices”
of other cities and in the private sector. The adopted principles will become the
foundation from which staff will draft a proposed Environment Focus Area plan for
consideration and recommendation by the Committee.
The adopted principles will also provide context for developing the scope of policy issues
to be addressed by the Committee on the Environment.
Long-term goal: Review and recommend for adoption by Council the new Focus
Area Plan on the Environment.
Timetable: Fall 2006
Background: The City Council formally approved the establishment of the Environment
as a Focus Area on March 6, 2006. The new Focus Area Plan will be developed using the
established format for the other Focus Areas (Community Safety, Economic
Development, Housing and Neighborhood Development, Transportation). By
completing the Focus Area plan this fall, it can be ready for presenting to the full Council
at the annual budget retreat in February 2007.
Other Long-term goals:
The following other roles were approved for the new Committee at the February Council
retreat:
•
Ensure the impact on the environment is considered in development of major
policies under review by other Council Committees.
•
Review environmental issues that Council wishes to refer to a Committee but may
not fall neatly into the charge of one of the other Committees;
•
Be a source of proactive ideas related to the environment by advising the full
Council and requested referral to the Committee.
Current Policy Initiatives with Implications for the Environment
March 2006
(Council Committee assignments in parentheses)
The four categories below are those presented in the draft Environmental Policy
Framework. Some initiatives are listed under more than one category because they
impact more than one aspect of the environment.
Air Quality
Center City Transportation Study (Transportation)
Environmental chapter, General Development Policies
Regional Air Quality Board Pilot Program to Reduce Ozone/ air quality conformity
Revisions to Tree Ordinance
Transportation Action Plan (Transportation)
Urban Street Design Guidelines (Transportation)
Land Preservation
Catawba River
Center and Corridors Growth Framework (Transportation)
Dilworth Land Use and Streetscape Plan (Economic Development & Planning)
Environmental chapter, GDPs
Industrial Uses Adjoining Residential (ED & P)
Post Construction Controls Ordinance
2006 Quality of Life Study
Revisions to Tree Ordinance
Transportation Action Plan (Transportation)
Urban Street Design Guidelines (Transportation)
Water Quality
Catawba River
Duke Power FERC Relicensing
Environmental chapter, GDPs
Post Construction Controls Ordinance
Energy and Resource Conservation
No policy initiatives at this time; action items only.
TOWARD AN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
for the City of Charlotte
City Council Workshop
January 3, 2006
Purpose of this Workshop Discussion
•
City Council received a presentation on environmental concerns at its policy retreat in
April, 2005. The City Manager proposed and City Council concurred, that a policy be
developed to help guide future decisions related to the environment.
•
An interdepartmental “Environmental Work Team” reviewed environmental policies
and best practices in other major cities, and drafted a “policy framework” as a start for
Council to determine an appropriate and effective role for the City in environmental
issues.
•
The purpose today is to introduce discussion of the draft policy framework and to
receive direction from City Council on further policy development.
DRAFT
Why discuss an environmental policy?
“Safeguarding the Environment” is a corporate value and part of the City’s Smart Growth
principles and Balanced Scorecard.
The City does not have an adopted policy which identifies the City’s role and level of
involvement in environmental issues.
This year City Council will be asked to consider five major proposals which have
environmental implications for our community:
• Post-Construction Controls Ordinance
• Urban Street Design Guidelines
• Environmental component of the General Development Policies
• Centers and Corridors refinement
• Transportation Action Plan
Other environmental issues include highway and transit capital funding implications for air
quality non-attainment; possible budgetary impacts of rising energy costs; and the prospect of
stronger State controls on impaired streams and the limits this could potentially place on
utility extensions and development.
The attached Best Practices Report found ‘long-term sustainability’ to be an established goal
for many of Charlotte’s benchmark cities. Results indicate many cities have adopted
environmental policies and comprehensive plans supporting environmental initiatives.
Charlotte is one of the fastest growing communities in the U.S. Balancing growth and change
while protecting the environment enriches the quality of life and gives the City a competitive
advantage in economic development.
What could this policy mean for how the City operates?
An environmental policy would give guidance and direction to staff on environmental issues
such as air, water, land, energy and resource conservation. It would also provide direction in
budgeting and zoning decisions, preparing annual Key Business Strategic Operating Plans,
capital needs forecasting and interdepartmental project coordination.
An environmental policy would guide staff in its collaboration with Mecklenburg County, the
business community and other partnership groups, including Sustainable Environment for
Quality of Life (SEQL), and the Regional Planning for Air Quality Board.
Environmental Policy Discussion
1
What could an environmental policy include?
The policy could include a broad statement setting out the City’s purpose in promoting a sound
quality of life, a healthy environment and economic vitality for future generations.
The core of a possible environmental policy could be the “policy framework” displayed in the
following pages. The framework addresses three questions:
1. POLICY AREAS - what does the City want to affect?
•
•
•
•
Air Quality
Water Quality
Land Preservation
Energy and Resource Conservation
2. ROLES - how will the City do it?
• Corporate Role – The City will “lead by example,” and adopt sound environmental
practices in our internal operations.
• Community Role – The City will deliver public services, regulate as appropriate, and
promote sound environmental practices in the community.
3. LEVELS OF INVOLVEMENT – to what extent will the City act?
This is the critical component in which City Council would choose the appropriate
approach in each policy area or issue. Each level would mean a progressively greater
commitment.
• Compliance – The City will meet the requirements of all environmental regulations.
• Proactive – The City will go beyond minimum requirements.
• Leadership – The City will use “best practices” for optimal environmental health.
The purpose of the following policy matrix is to frame discussion on the various levels of
City involvement in environmental matters.
•
The focus of the framework is to identify existing and potential City practices that meet
the levels of ‘Compliance,’ ‘Proactive,’ and ‘Leadership’ approaches. In addition, the
framework also identifies current and future environmental activities that serve a
‘Corporate Role and a ‘Community Role.’
•
The activities listed within the matrix are examples only and are not meant to be a
complete listing.
What are the next steps?
Council is asked to review the draft environmental policy framework and provide staff with
feedback and guidance.
Environmental Policy Discussion
2
AIR QUALITY
Background
The Clean Air Act establishes air quality standards that are enforced by the EPA. In 2004, the EPA
designated the Charlotte region a “non-attainment area” for failing to meet ozone pollution standards.
Ozone exposure is harmful to human health and also damages natural ecosystems and vegetation.
The region must take action to reduce ground-level ozone pollution by 2010, or risk the imposition of mandatory
regulations on new or expanding businesses. The region must also take action to demonstrate it is in “conformity”
with air quality standards or risk sanctions that could include the loss of highway and transit capital funds. The
implications for Charlotte’s quality of life and economic growth are clear.
Auto emissions are the major source of pollution, especially in an urban area with the spread-out development
pattern characteristic of Charlotte. Reducing per capita “VMT” (vehicle miles traveled) is the only means available to
the City to impact the transportation modeling that helps make the case for future conformity. The long run solution
is better land use; specifically, implementing the Centers and Corridors strategy (adopted in 1998 by City Council as
Charlotte’s growth management strategy). Individual rezoning and land use decisions that are consistent with that
strategy will support air quality.
The City is working on several other fronts, as well. Charlotte undertakes the technical work to meet EPA
requirements. The City promotes programs like SmartRide that encourage people to reduce auto reliance. The City
is developing Urban Street Design Guidelines that will help neighborhood connectivity, reduce distances traveled
and make the use of alternate modes viable. The proposed Center City Transportation Plan will emphasize multimodal transportation. Perhaps most significant is the new mass transit system (and planning for transit-oriented
development in nearby areas) that will give people more transportation alternatives.
Policy Approach
(various levels of possible
environmental involvement )
CORPORATE ROLE
COMMUNITY ROLE
(City’s internal operations.)
(The City doing its job for citizens.)
Policy Level I: COMPLIANCE – We will meet the requirements of all federal, state and local environmental regulations.
At minimum, the City
complies with federal, state
or local environmental laws
and regulations.
examples of applicable regulations
• Purchase public transit vehicles that meet
EPA emission standards.
examples of applicable regulations
• Prepare transportation air quality conformity
report.
Policy Level II: PROACTIVE – We will be proactive and go beyond minimum requirements to protect the environment.
Existing
The City’s current practices
or programs that exceed the
‘Compliance’ level..
examples of existing practices
• Two hybrid buses in service to date.
• Testing diesel particulate filters on bus fleet
and partially implementing ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel.
examples of existing practices
• CATS provides a system of transportation
choices for the community and region.
• Support federal and state initiatives to reduce
pollutants from power plants and motor vehicles
exceeding national air quality standards
• Participate in ozone alert days.
Potential
Possible initiatives that
exceed minimum required
and are desirable in order to
improve the environment.
examples of potential practices
• Purchase only low emission vehicles.
Environmental Policy Discussion
examples of potential practices
Apply land use and transportation policies
to reduce VMT, vehicle emissions and
pollutants.
• Strengthen connectivity requirements in
zoning and subdivision ordinances.
•
4
Air Quality
•
Expand public transit service.
Policy Level III: LEADERSHIP – We will use “best practices” to assure our community’s long-term environmental health.
Existing
City’s current practices that
are considered to be model
or “showcase” projects
making the City a leader in
this area.
examples of existing practices
• Earned EPA and DOT designation as a
”Best Workplace for Commuters” with the
City SmartRide program.
Potential
These are possible “best
practices” that would help
assure long-term environmental (and economic)
health and sustainability.
examples of potential practices
• Buy all hybrid vehicles for CATS where
the application is feasible and proven.
• Install emission reduction technology on
bus fleet where the technology is proven
viable.
examples of existing practices
• City Council adopted Centers and Corridors
Growth Management Strategy in 1998.
• CATS “Employer Transportation Coordinator
(ETC) Program” increases ridership by working with employers to offer CATS passes at
reduced prices.
Environmental Policy Discussion
examples of potential practices
• Implement Smart Growth Principles
adopted by City Council.
• Implement Transportation Action Plan and
related initiatives, including Urban Street
Design Guidelines and multi-modal Center
City Transportation Plan.
• Calculate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per
capita associated with area plans and
zoning petitions.
5
WATER QUALITY
Background
The City is responsible for protecting the quality of the water system, including the watershed
for the drinking water supply. The availability of drinking water has two emerging challenges.
First, growth in the region will require greater collaboration among jurisdictions to ensure distribution of adequate
supplies. Second, drinking water itself is just one of three competing uses: serving human needs, generating
electricity, and preserving aquatics and fisheries. Federal law gives each equal weight. As a result, there may be
less water available in the future for people and electricity, just as the population and power needs are expanding.
The City also treats and discharges wastewater back into the environment (local creeks) and must assure
adequate wastewater treatment capacity to minimize sewer overflows.
The City has lead responsibility for controlling storm water runoff and for the quality of the streams within the city
and its extra-territorial jurisdiction. Uncontrolled storm water runoff from impervious surfaces negatively impacts
streams and lakes by degrading water quality, choking biological process and habitat, and causing flooding and
property loss from soil erosion. Over half of local streams are categorized as “impaired” by the State under the
Clean Water Act. Increasing pressure from various state, federal and wildlife agencies will necessitate actions to
be taken to stop and reverse these conditions.
Clean, stable, undisturbed streams are components of an economically viable and environmentally sustainable
community through reduced long-term costs, and a high quality of life. Efforts aimed at compliance tend to be a
“reactive” approach to regulations as mandated; actions at this level are likely to allow further environmental impacts
to occur, and not fully prevent impairment – impairment will simply take longer to occur. Proactive efforts to prevent
increased runoff impacts will avoid much more costly watershed restoration in the future and avoid additional costs
to meet drinking water standards. Best practices at the leadership level are likely to minimize overall program costs
in the long run, and result in high quality of life and economic sustainability.
Policy Approach
(various levels of possible
environmental involvement)
CORPORATE ROLE
COMMUNITY ROLE
(The City’s internal operations.)
(The City doing its job for citizens.)
Policy Level I: COMPLIANCE – The City will meet all requirements for federal, state and local environmental regulations.
At minimum, the City
complies with federal, state
or local environmental laws
and regulations.
examples of applicable regulations
examples of applicable regulations
• Obtain project-specific permits for stream
• Drinking Water Treatment – the City complies
impacts on City projects. (EPM)
with all state Operating Permit requirements for
water treatment.
• Wastewater Treatment – the City complies
with all state Operating Permit requirements for
wastewater treatment.)
• Wastewater Collection – the City complies
with all state Operating Permit requirement s for
wastewater collection.
• Storm Water Discharge – the City complies
with NPDES permit requirements and is
responsible to the State for water quality within
Charlotte and its ETJ area.
• Local regulations include Post-Construction
Controls Ordinance, Pollution Control
Ordinance, and Erosion and Sediment Control
Ordinance.
Environmental Policy Discussion
6
Water Quality
Policy Level II: PROACTIVE –The City will go beyond minimum requirements to protect the environment.
Existing
Current practices or
programs that exceed the
minimum or ‘Compliance’
level.
examples of existing practices
• Protect streams near some City facilities with
storm water controls.
• Established a Stream/Wetland Mitigation
Bank (approved by Corps of Engineers and
EPA) allowing the City to apply credits
earned on certain restoration projects to
other local municipal stream or wetland
projects.
examples of existing practices
• Watershed Protection Program – the City
purchases land in critical watershed areas to
protect and preserve drinking water sources.
• Water and Wastewater Treatment – the City
exceeds state Operating Permit requirements
for numerous monitored parameters.
• Water Conservation Program –the City
sponsors a program aimed at overall stewardship of water resources and at appropriately
allocating the cost of non-essential summertime
consumption.
• Capital Investments – the City has significantly
increased investments in water and wastewater
infrastructure rehabilitation to protect water
quality and the environment.
• Surface Water Improvement and Manage-
ment (SWIM) Ordinance governs buffers and
limits the disturbance of streams and stream
buffers from land disturbing activities.
• Sediment and Erosion Control Program goes
beyond the State’s minimum requirements and
establishes more stringent standards.
• The zoning ordinance includes measures for
storm water detention to reduce flooding and
protect water quality.
• The City and County collaborate on aggressive
detection of point discharges that go directly to
creeks and threaten water quality.
Potential
Possible initiatives that
exceed the minimum
required and are desirable in
order to improve the
environment.
examples of potential practices
• Initiate watershed preservation and/or
restoration projects on public properties.
• Construct new City facilities with storm
water controls.
examples of potential practices
• Adopt Post-Construction Controls
Ordinance to anticipate special local
problems and to minimize long-term costs.
• Identify capital funds to address long-term
preservation and enhancement actions.
• Establish a “Capacity Assurance Program”
to validate wastewater collection and
treatment capacity for each new or
proposed development.
Environmental Policy Discussion
7
Water Quality
Policy Level III: LEADERSHIP – The City will use “best practices” to assure long-term environmental health.
Existing
Current practices that are
considered to be model or
“showcase” projects and
make the City a leader in
this area.
examples of existing practices
• Storm Water uses a buffer replacement
program for maintenance projects.
• Storm Water Integrates water quality
improvements in flood control projects.
examples of existing practices
• Under construction wastewater facilities that
treat wastewater to the highest standards of
biological nutrient removal.
• CMUD inventories all assets critical to water
quality a
• The City has an aggressive stream/water
quality monitoring program.
• Pilot projects being done to determine which
controls work best for Post-Construction
Controls Ordinance.
• A database is being developed to track and
monitor information useful for storm water
decision-making.
• The City participates in local and regional
water quality forums and professional
organizations.
Potential
Possible “best practices”
that help assure long-term
environmental health and
sustainability.
examples of potential practices
• Construct new CMUD Environmental Services Building to meet LEED certification
standards.
• Retrofit existing City facilities with storm
water controls.
• Expand Stream/Wetland Mitigation Bank
for developer use.
• Adopt Post Construction Controls
Ordinance to include preservation of
Open Space and use fee-in-lieu funds for
environmental enhancement projects.
examples of potential practices
• Capacity Assurance Review – a program to
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental Policy Discussion
determine if adequate capacity exists in the
early stages of the building permit process.
Critical Asset Evaluation – a process in
which CMUD analyzes critical assets and
proactively replaces assets in order to
protect water quality.
Partner with County on certain stream
preservation projects.
Become an “early adopter,” by anticipating
regulatory changes and positioning the
City to adopt quickly.
Develop Water Quality Master Plan.
Create comprehensive watershed
management plans and fund
implementation of plans to address
restoration activities.
8
LAND PRESERVATION
Background
Land preservation means protecting our natural environment as our community grows –
minimizing the negative impacts of development on the environment in order to ensure
Charlotte’s continued livability.
It means conserving and protecting tree cover and open space, buffering sensitive natural areas and watersheds from
intensive development areas, and protecting wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitat. It also means supporting
land use objectives that mix land uses, connect neighborhoods, use existing infrastructure, offer transportation
options, create walkable communities, promote infill and compact development, cluster new housing, re-use existing
buildings, restore brownfields, and preserve open space in a variety of forms.
Charlotte has taken proactive steps to protect the physical environment, beginning in the early 1990s with passage of
the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act in which local regulations exceeded minimum requirements. The Surface
Water Improvement and Management (1997) put buffers on streams. The Residential Tree Ordinance (2002) gives
incentives to protect the existing tree cover. The City is now developing a Post-Construction Controls Ordinance to
address storm water runoff and negative water quality impacts resulting from development. The proposed ordinance
is expected to be on City Council’s agenda in 2006.
The City Council has also adopted land use policies for managing growth in a way that supports environmental goals,
most notably the Centers and Corridors Strategy (1998) and Smart Growth Principles (2001). The updated General
Development Policies (2003) is now adding an Environmental component to address air, water and land issues
associated with growth and development. The Environmental GDP will also be on City Council’s agenda this year.
Policy Approach
(various levels of possible
environmental involvement)
CORPORATE ROLE
COMMUNITY ROLE
(The City’s internal operations)
(The City doing its job for citizens)
Policy Level I: COMPLIANCE – The City will meet all requirements of federal, state and local environmental regulations.
At a minimum, the City
complies with these federal,
state or local environmental
laws and regulations.
examples of applicable regulations
• Comply with federal and state wetlands and
stream protection requirements.
examples of applicable regulations
• Enforce federal and state wetlands and stream
regulations.
• Enforce state erosion and sedimentation
regulations.
• Included minimum open space requirements in
residential zoning districts.
Policy Level II: PROACTIVE – The City will go beyond minimum requirements to protect the environment.
Existing
Current practices or
programs that exceed the
minimum or ‘Compliance’
level.
examples of existing practices
• Donations of land for conservation purposes.
Potential
Possible initiatives that
exceed the minimum
required and are desirable in
order to improve the
environment.
examples of potential practices
examples of existing practices
• Adoption of commercial tree ordinance.
• Adoption of residential tree-save ordinance.
Environmental Policy Discussion
examples of potential practices
• Strengthen or expand tree ordinance
regulations.
• Expand erosion and sedimentation
regulations.
• Improve regulations on upland wetlands
(most affected by urbanization) which are
now unsatisfactory to both developers and
environmentalists.
9
Land Preservation
Policy Level III: LEADERSHIP – The City will use “best practices” to assure long-term environmental health.
Existing
Current practices that are
considered to be model or
“showcase” projects and
make the City a leader in
this area.
examples of existing practices
• Pilot projects using pervious pavement
(porous concrete that contains less sand and
more gravel and which may be suitable for
overflow parking areas and similar uses).
examples of existing practices
• Updating General Development Policies
(GDP) that guide land development.
• Preparing inventory and map of natural
resources to be protected.
• Lead the state in brownfield restoration
projects
Potential
Possible “best practices”
help assure long-term
environmental health and
sustainability.
examples of potential practices
• Assist in fundraising to preserve and
purchase open space areas.
• Reserve more land in City-funded
projects for open space, tree save areas.
examples of potential practices
• Implement Environmental GDP (now
under development).
• Adopt regulations to limit impervious
cover – establish landscaping, tree
canopy and impervious surface
(maximum or minimum) requirements
for land developments and surface
parking lots.
• Maintain tree canopy at 55 percent.
• Adopt regulations to increase open space
requirements.
• Develop Open Space Plan.
• Purchase and/or reserve land for open
space.
Environmental Policy Discussion
10
ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Background
Conservation in this context includes such practices as using energy efficiently, purchasing
environmentally-friendly products, using resource-efficient materials, introducing “green
building” technologies, and managing and recycling solid waste. Most of these conservation practices are related to
the City’s own operations, although solid waste is a citywide function.
In regard to waste management, landfill technology has improved to the point that landfill space is not as critical as it
was in the late 1980s. The focus has turned to reducing the amount of waste generated by consumers. Under the
Solid Waste Management Act, the EPA requires community goals for waste reduction. The residential recycling
program is a key to meeting those targets. However, in spite of the success in increasing recycling, our community
is generating more and more waste and the City’s theme remains to “reduce, recycle and reuse.”
The construction of “green buildings” by municipalities has proliferated in recent years. Cities across the country
are undertaking projects aimed at “LEED certification,” the standard for environmentally sustainable development.
The City of Charlotte has a “green building design philosophy” to use LEED principles on a selective, cost-effective
basis in new buildings. CATS and CMUD are using LEED criteria in the construction of new facilities. In renovations,
the City makes a practice of putting in updated energy-efficient equipment where feasible.
The City has a decentralized purchasing system but encourages departments to select environmentally-friendly
products from vendors. Departments are especially encouraged to consider hybrid or other approved low-emission
vehicles as replacement needs arise. The City fleet has a pilot program using alternative fuel (biodiesel), gears its
preventive maintenance program toward environmentally-supportive objectives, and actively advises departments
on environmentally-friendly equipment management practices.
Policy Approach
(Various levels of possible
environmental involvement)
CORPORATE ROLE
COMMUNITY ROLE
(The City’s internal operations)
(The City doing its job for citizens)
Policy Level I: COMPLIANCE – The City will meet all requirements of federal, state and local environmental regulations.
At a minimum, the City
complies with these federal,
state or local environmental
laws and regulations.
examples of applicable regulations
examples of applicable regulations
• Meet all energy and sustainability codes in
• Solid Waste Disposal Inter-Local Agreement
the design and construction of new and
renovated buildings.
• City/County Solid Waste Management Plan
Policy Level II: PROACTIVE – The City will go beyond minimum requirements to protect the environment.
Existing
Current practices or
programs that exceed the
minimum or ‘Compliance’
level.
examples of existing practices
• “Green Building Design Philosophy” used in
researching, utilizing and evaluating new
methods for energy conservation in new and
existing buildings.
• Continue to implement energy saving equipment improvements in building renovations.
• Environmentally-friendly products, with
emphasis on “Green Seal” products, in
purchasing decisions by City departments.
examples of existing practices
• Public transportation alternatives that help
reduce dependence on oil.
• Mecklenburg County’s “Enviro-Shopping”
source reduction program that encourages
households to select products which minimize
packaging waste.
• Continue recycling of toner cartridges, waste
oil and tires.
Environmental Policy Discussion
11
Energy and Resource Conservation
II: PROACTIVE (cont’d)
Potential
Possible initiatives that
exceed the minimum
required and are desirable in
order to improve the
environment.
examples of potential practices
• Continue use of Green Seal certified
products such as certain paint, carpet
and cleaning supplies.
• Purchase and use recycled anti-freeze in
CATS bus fleet.
examples of potential practices
•
Policy Level III: LEADERSHIP – The City will use “best practices” to assure long-term environmental health.
Existing
Current practices that are
considered to be model or
“showcase” projects and
make the City a leader in
this area.
examples of existing practices
• Increase purchase of hybrid vehicles (over
20 now in use or on order), subject to
departmental budget constraints.
• Use of biodiesel low-sulfur fuel for Fire
facilities, Utilities wastewater plants and
Street Maintenance facilities.
• CATS “anti-idling policy” for all buses and
service vehicles.
• New CATS bus maintenance facilities use
computer-controlled and monitored heat and
air.
• New South Tryon Bus Maintenance Facility
uses new hot water heating technology.
examples of existing practices
• Solid Waste Services operates residential
recycling program.
• Fleet Management participates in the Clean
Air Initiative, organized under Centralina
Counci of Governments Clean Fuels Coalition.
Potential
Possible “best practices”
that would help assure longterm environmental health
and sustainability.
examples of potential practices
• Design and construct all new buildings to
meet LEED criteria.
• Consider LEED certification on new CATS
facilities.
• Replace all existing major HVAC equipment with the maximum energy-efficient
product.
• Include “environmentally-friendly”
purchasing requirements in product bid
specifications and in calculating the total
cost of product ownership.
• Buy all hybrid vehicles for CATS where
the application is feasible and proven.
examples of potential practices
Environmental Policy Discussion
•
12
Cities and the Environment
—
Best Practices
Prepared for the
Environmental Work Team
October 2005
Contents
Introduction ...............................................................................................
1
Finding the Best Practices ...................................................................
2
Selecting the Cities .................................................................................
3
Comprehensive Models ........................................................................
4
Austin ..............................................................................................................
Boulder ....................................................................................................
Chattanooga .........................................................................................
Portland ..................................................................................................
San Francisco ........................................................................................
Santa Monica ........................................................................................
Scottsdale ...............................................................................................
Seattle .....................................................................................................
Tampa ......................................................................................................
Toronto ....................................................................................................
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Other Cities .................................................................................................
15
Atlanta .....................................................................................................
Boston ............................................................................................................
Chicago ...................................................................................................
Dallas .......................................................................................................
Denver .....................................................................................................
Jacksonville ...........................................................................................
Minneapolis ...........................................................................................
Phoenix ...................................................................................................
San Diego ...............................................................................................
Vancouver ..............................................................................................
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
Observations ..............................................................................................
21
Policy, Planning and Coordination ...............................................
Structure and Staffing .......................................................................
Core Functions ......................................................................................
Corporate Leadership ........................................................................
Community Leadership .....................................................................
Key Trends .............................................................................................
21
22
22
23
23
24
Cities and the Environment
‹
Best Practices
Introduction
The environmental movement in the United States began in the late 1960s with passage
of the Environmental Protection Act, followed shortly by Clean Air and Clean Water legislation,
and the declaration of the first Earth Day.
For the first two decades (the 1970s and 1980s), local government activities focused
almost entirely on compliance with federal and state laws, and promulgating local regulations
for environmental protection. It was a time for catch-up in dealing with accumulated pollution
problems.
It wasn’t until the early 1990s that cities, on the whole, became much more proactive,
launching a variety of programs to address specific problems or promote conservation practices.
For one thing, public interest and concern about the environment was mounting steadily
and becoming more mainstream. A UN resolution in 1987 had introduced the concept of
sustainability and in the next 10-15 years many large and medium-sized cities adopted “sustainability plans” and, in a large number of cases, created or reorganized departments and perhaps
hired a sustainability or environmental coordinator. Then, too, “livable communities” had become a catch-phrase and the connection was being made between quality of life – including
economic vitality – and the quality of the natural environment.
At the same time, the “reinventing government” philosophy was taking hold among cities
and there was a view that more could be accomplished by supplementing the regulatory role
with collaboration. The recession of the early 1990s had brought escalating protest by business
that environmental costs were putting jobs in jeopardy. Cities sought ways to strike a balance
and, in the process, became more assertive and creative in generating fresh approaches to protecting the environment.
Over the last 35 years (and especially the last 15 years), cities have developed a body of
expertise in wide-ranging aspects of the environment. All major cities are engaged in environmental action on several fronts. Some have carved out a special niche. Some, more than others,
have built environmental values into the corporate organization. Some, more than others, are
taking a big picture view of possibilities for environmental action. Many have adopted policies,
both broad and specific. Many have plans that try to pull together the pieces in a coordinated
way.
Introduction 1
Cities and the Environment: Best Practices
This report highlights selected cities that appear to have been successful either in taking a
comprehensive or coordinated approach to the environment or in earning recognition for
special expertise or innovative programs.
Finding the “Best Practices”
Of course, there is no objective way to identify “best” practices. There may be one way –
third-party Environmental Management Systems audits – but the number of cities with EMS
programs (described later) is limited and would omit cities that are otherwise well-qualified.
Cities were selected for this report for a number of reasons. The guiding criterion is
Charlotte’s interest in developing an environmental policy statement that is essentially broad
in scope. Accordingly, the search looked for cities that had:
(1) a policy statement adopted by the governing body;
(2) a coordinated strategy, as evidenced in part by the city’s organizational structure;
(3) a comprehensive environmental plan, or a major element of the city’s comprehensive land use plan; and/or
(4) a specific program or initiative that appears innovative or has been recognized by
peer cities, the EPA or public interest groups.
How do we know which programs are the most effective? Researchers who have done
studies make the point that it is really “too early” to evaluate programs because most are only
a few years old – at most, a decade – and environmental consequences are long-term.
The difficulty is compounded by other factors. City strategies do have some common
elements (air quality, recycling) but the balance can be highly individualized. Often programs
are customized to local problems (mosquito control in Jacksonville) or to meet state mandates
(waste management in Atlanta) or comply with federal enforcement (water quality in Austin).
Furthermore, each urban area has its own configuration of jurisdictions and municipal
responsibilities. The city may have specific statutory charges or limitations that determine
what it should, can or cannot do. Often, the county is the major player. In some cases a nonprofit entity, a chamber, a regional body, or a combination of the above, may take the lead .
Finally, there are limitations on the research. Site visits and interviews were not part
of this short study. The analysis was necessarily based on secondary data or on information
provided by the cities on their websites. In the latter case, cities sometimes helped or hurt
their own cause by the kind of information they included (or did not include).
In addition to city websites, key sources included: the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA); EPA Green Communities, ICMA’s Local Government Environmental Assistance
Network (LGEAN); various publications, notably Kent Portney’s Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously (MIT Press, 2003); and special interest groups such as The Trust for Public Land, SustainLane, and Urban Land Institute.
2 Finding “Best Practices”
Cities and the Environment: Best Practices
Selecting the Cities
Cities considered were primarily those in the same population range as Charlotte (such
as Seattle, Austin, Boston). In addition, some larger metro areas (Chicago, San Diego, Phoenix)
and smaller urban areas (Scottsdale, Boulder, Santa Monica) were included because they had
strong reputations that surfaced in research.
Altogether, 28 cities were examined and 20 cities were chosen for inclusion in the report.
Those selected were then loosely grouped in two categories: the “top ten” that tended to have
comprehensive, integrated environmental programs, and “other cities” that may or may not
be as well coordinated but had a plan or programs that merited attention. Even many of the
eight cities that were not selected had strong points, but the 20 chosen were deemed to be
the most representative of “best practice” cities.
City
2004 Population
Page
COMPREHENSIVE MODELS
Austin
Boulder
Chattanooga
Portland
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Scottsdale
Seattle
Tampa
Toronto
681,804
92,196
154,853
533,492
744,230
87,823
221,792
571,480
321,772
2,481,494
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
419,122
569,265
2,862,244
1,210,393
556,835
777,704
373.943
1,418,041
1,263,756
545,674
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
OTHER CITIES
Atlanta
Boston
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Jacksonville
Minneapolis
Phoenix
San Diego
Vancouver
Charlotte
594,359
Note: all population figures from U.S. Census Bureau
2004 Estimates, except Vancouver and Toronto (2001
Canada Census)
Selecting the Cities 3
Cities and the Environment: Best Practices
Comprehensive Models
The selection of a “top ten” is fairly arbitrary. But these “top ten” cities have reputations,
for the most part, as aggressive cities when it comes to developing and implementing environmental programs. They aren’t the only ones; Chicago and Vancouver in the second group
also have ambitious, comprehensive programs and are peers to the top group. But the ten
selected as “Comprehensive Models” do have well-rounded programs and solid experience, as
well as the policy-oriented approach that Charlotte seeks. Here are some distinctive characteristics of each city:
z
Austin made sustainability a City Council priority in 1996. Its “CIP Sustainability Matrix” is
part of capital project priority-setting. A point system is also used for development review,
and fees may be waived or property tax relief granted for qualifying sustainable projects.
z
Boulder City Council made environmental sustainability one of its four goals. A publicprivate partnership has generated several unique environmental programs. A stringent
permitting process requires builders to meet green standards before a permit is issued.
z
Chattanooga links environmental quality with economic growth. The transit system uses
electric buses downtown, which are made by a local company formed for that purpose.
z
Portland adopted one of the country’s first environmental policies in 1994, established a
central coordinating office, and has worked to integrate its principles in all city operations.
z
San Francisco adopted a plan in 1997 and established “sustainability” as a fundamental
goal of municipal policy. The city gives itself high marks for innovative recycling programs.
z
Santa Monica adopted a Sustainable City Plan in 1994 and citizens helped update it in
2003. Santa Monica’s environmental purchasing program is hailed by EPA as a model, and
the city advised other cities on green building long before LEED was established.
z
Scottsdale adopted an Environmental Policy emphasizing employee stewardship. This
year, Scottsdale became the first city to adopt LEED Gold certification as a requirement for
city buildings.
z
Seattle has been involved since a grassroots initiative (“Sustainable Seattle” )was launched
in the 1980s. The City now spearheads environmental action and its 2005 Comprehensive
Plan is subtitled “Toward a Sustainable Seattle.” It is probably the most prolific city for
environmental programs, and is now updating an Environmental Critical Areas Code.
z
Tampa is notable for its formal agreement with Hillsborough County for a sustainability
demonstration program. Its comprehensive plan may be the best for dealing with natural
resources and ecosystems.
z
Toronto has perhaps the best overall environmental plan. It has three basic goals (healthy
air, water and land) backed by well-developed specific strategies.
4 Comprehensive Models
Austin
2004 Population: 681,804
www.ci.austin.tx.us
The City of Austin’s Sustainable Communities Initiative is a City Council priority set
in 1996 to develop programs that “protect the long-term livability of Austin.”
„ SCI is part of the City’s Transportation, Planning and Sustainability Department,
and staff report to the City’s Sustainability Officer.
„ SCI has resulted in several environmental initiatives, including the Water Conservation Program, Air Quality Program, Watershed Protection Department, Solid
Waste Service Recycling Program, and Sustainable Purchasing Practices.
Austin’s growth
management
strategy,
like Charlotte’s,
emphasizes
”transit-oriented
development”
The unique Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Sustainability Matrix is an example
of the way that the sustainability concept drives many decisions in city government.
„ The matrix is one of four tools used in prioritizing projects, along with the department preference, an economic affordability analysis, and legal mandates. It gauges
whether a project advances sustainability objectives such as reducing dependence
on non-renewable resources, reducing sprawl, improving intermodal transportation.
Austin’s smart growth strategy, unlike many cities that rely on regulatory approaches,
creates “financial market incentives” to encourage development consistent with the
city’s vision of environmental sustainability.
„
A panel of staff and developer’s representatives assigns points to a development
proposal, and based on the total points the project could have its permitting fees
waived or receive relief on incremental increases in property taxes.
The Austin Clean Water Program is an aggressive program operated by the city utility
to comply with EPA’s order to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows from the wastewater
collection system by 2007. The overflows are attributed to old pipes and rapid growth.
The Trust for Public Land praises Austin for watershed protection; since 1992 the City
has issued $200 million in bonds for purchasing watershed land and development rights.
Austin is recognized for its “ambitious” solid and hazardous waste management program aimed at reducing exposure to harmful levels of toxic or hazardous waste.
The City operates its own electric utility (and wind turbine farm), called Austin Energy,
Inc., and residential consumers have the “GreenChoice Option” to purchase electricity
generated from alternative energy sources.
Austin has a green building program (including an energy efficiency rating system) that
provides technical assistance for a fee to architects, builders and homeowners.
The City uses a sustainable purchases protocol that sets standards for departmental
purchases of environmentally-friendly goods and services
Comprehensive Models 5
Boulder
2004 Population: 92,196
www.ci.boulder.co.us
Boulder gets
high marks from
EPA’s “Green
Communities”
Program
Boulder set “environmental sustainability” as one of its four city-wide goals in 1999,
and, accordingly, Environmental Sustainability is one of four City Council committees.
„
„
„
„
An interdepartmental Environmental Services Group is charged with taking an
“interactive and coordinated approach” to managing assets and services.
The staff group includes the departments of Open Space and Mountain Parks,
Public Works, Planning, Parks and Recreation, and the Office of Environmental
Affairs. They are responsible for dealing with public buildings and land, water
resources and transportation facilities, and regulating private development.
The Office of Environmental Affairs (OEA) – one of the group departments –
carries out the programs specifically aimed at “preventing pollution, reducing
resource consumption and promoting environmentally sustainable practices.”
A citizen Environmental Advisory Board advises the City Council and the City
Manager on matters on environmental matters, including any environmental
impacts that proposed revisions to the city’s master plan may have. The Board
has five members appointed by City Council to five-year terms.
PACE (Partners for A Clean Environment) is the vehicle for many of Boulder’s
environmental initiatives. PACE is actually a jointly-funded partnership with businesses and other municipalities in Boulder County. The Office of Environmental
Affairs coordinates the City’s participation in the program.
„
PACE represents a coordinated effort to integrate wide-ranging programs that
support environmental sustainability – including planning approval processes,
water conservation and quality, green building, alternative fuel, pest management, composting, waste reduction, and environmental purchasing.
Boulder’s Greenpoints program ties green building to the permitting process and,
as such, is one of the strongest in the country. Builders are required to meet certain
specific green building elements before a building permit is issued.
The City has just finished a draft Master Plan for Waste Reduction (August, 2005)
that provides specific strategies and related costs for accomplishing Boulder’s goal
of 60 percent waste reduction by 2007 (and 85 percent by 2017).
Boulder is recognized for its Air Quality Initiative. The OEA works with larger companies to develop pollution prevention activities, and with unregulated small businesses
(printers, auto repair shops, etc.) to give them specific assistance in cutting back their
emissions. They have also established a county-wide Clean Air Consortium.
Boulder has taken on global issues, too, preparing a local Climate Protection and
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy.
6 Comprehensive Models
Chattanooga
2004 Population: 154,853
www.chattanooga.gov
Chattanooga has fully rebounded from its federal designation of having “the worst air
pollution in the United States” in 1969. “Chattanoogans who remember those days
still talk about how drivers had to use their automobile lights in daylight hours.”
„ It got worse before it got better. Plant closings in the 1970s cut jobs and left
behind polluted sites. The air pollution problem became a job shortage problem.
„ The city’s transformation began in 1985 with a grass-roots “Vision 2000” effort, led
by a non-profit entity, and based on the realization that in order to reverse the
city’s decline and attract new business, it would have to re-make its quality of life.
„ Helping lead the resurgence was a revival of the Tennessee River riverfront and
a greenway network. “What sets Chattanooga apart (from other cities seeking
revitalization) is the degree to which the environment itself has been a key to the
city’s renewal.” The July 2005 issue of Urban Land likened Chattanooga’s riverfront
reibrth to that of San Antonio’s Riverwalk and Baltimore’s Inner Harbor.
Chattanooga’s
environmental
“comeback”
was a total
community
effort
Chattanooga is included in this study because of its wide-ranging initiatives, past and
present, that link the environment to stimulating economic growth.
„
The Chattanooga Environmental Initiative aims to have the city become the
“nationwide center for environmental information and business.”
„
Chattanooga has been cited for leadership on the idea of eco-industrial parks,
clustering manufacturers in related environmentally-friendly fields to create jobs.
One “zero emissions industrial park” is on the site of a former ammunition plant.
„
The use and manufacture of hybrid electric vehicles is a sterling example of
merging local environmental and economic goals. The Chattanooga Area
Regional Transportation System (CARTA) uses quiet, electric passenger buses
downtown -- and the buses are manufactured by a local company founded to
meet CARTA’s desire for a non-polluting transportation alternative.
„
Chattanooga has taken a large-scale approach to brownfields, designating a threesquare-mile residential area (with 34 brownfield sites) for clean-up and neighborhood redevelopment.
Chattanooga is noteworthy as a model for non-profit leadership and public/private
partnerships in support of the environment. City government , itself, is said to play a
low-profile role on environmental matters. (The former mayor, however, was a strong
leader, persuading the legislature to deed the riverfront highway to the City, and
allowing the City to use the hotel/motel room tax for its share of riverfront projects.)
The city-county regional planning commission tends to be more prominent in coordinating environmental efforts and, befitting the economic focus, the chamber of
commerce has been active in mobilizing business community participation.
Comprehensive Models 7
Portland
2004 Population: 533,492
www.portlandonline.com
www.sustainableportland.org
Portland
benchmarks its
environmental
performance
against nine
cities, including
Charlotte
Portland was selected because of the comprehensive scope of its environmental
approach and its comparability in size to Charlotte.
The City of Portland is also regarded as a good example of internalizing environmental
values in the organizational culture; the notion of sustainability “oozes out of every
ounce of the city’s government operations.” (Portney)
The City of Portland adopted Sustainable City Principles as policy in 1994, directing
City agencies to “integrate these principles (in all plans).”
ƒ Portland will “meet today’s needs without compromising (future generations) and
accepts its responsibility” to:
• Support a stable, diverse and equitable economy.
• Protect the quality of the air, water, land and other natural resources.
• Conserve native vegetation, fish, wildlife habitat and other ecosystems.
• Minimize human impacts on local and worldwide ecosystems.
ƒ The City established a central agency, the Office of Sustainable Development to
coordinate and program environmental initiatives. Its major divisions are Energy,
Solid Waste, Green Building, and Sustainable Technologies and Practices.
Environmental goals are an integral part of Portland’s Comprehensive Plan. The plan
spells out specific policies and objectives for air quality, water quality, land resources
(including environmentally sensitive areas) and energy conservation.
Zoning regulations include an “environmental overlay” for designating special areas
and ensuring they are protected from detrimental impacts in development.
Portland’s newly-updated Green Building Policy (April 2005) moves past encouraging
green building practices to requiring all new City facilities construction projects to
meet LEED Gold certification standards, including 75% waste recycling; 30% water
savings; 30% energy savings; and 30% stormwater management (all the figures are
“beyond Portland baseline code requirements”). Furthermore, all tenant improvements to existing City facilities must meet LEED Silver standards.
In 1993, Portland became the first local government in the U.S. to adopt a plan to
address global warming. In 2001, the city and county issued a joint revised Local
Action Plan on Global Warming and continue to monitor and update it.
Portland uses Sustainability Benchmarks to mark progress. (Most cities with comprehensive programs use an indicators scorecard.) Portland’s tracks nine other cities,
including Charlotte, on various measures. (Available data are old, but Charlotte ranked
noticeably high on vehicle miles traveled per capita.)
8 Comprehensive Models
San Francisco
2004 Population: 744,230
www.sfenvironment.com
San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors adopted a Sustainability Plan in 1997 that
established “sustainable development” as a fundamental goal of municipal policy.
ƒ
The five-year plancovers 15 environmental topic areas, including biodiversity
and environmental justice as well as standard issues like air and water quality.
ƒ
It proposes actions that city government, the private sector, and individuals can
take, but does not commit the Board to fund them.
ƒ
The plan is supplemented by a set of indicators which are deliberately general
(trending “up” or “down”) to avoid “the major expense for data collection.”
San Francisco’s
Commission on
the Environment
is actively involved
but with mixed
results
A seven-member Commission on the Environment (appointed by the Mayor to fouryear terms) has wide-ranging authority to “review and make recommendations.” In
reality, the Commission proposes resolutions for action to the Board of Supervisors
on a variety of matters –such as pesticide reduction or the use of alternatively-fueled
public transit vehicles – but the resolutions are not necessarily funded.
The Department of the Environment is the central agency responsible for developing
and implementing the Sustainability Plan itself. “SF Environment” operates a dozen
programs promoting the city’s “long-term environmental well-being.” Among them:
ƒ The Clean Air Program focuses on mobile source pollution and works to reduce
vehicle trips. One objective is to “replace 25% of conventionally-fueled (gasoline
and diesel) vehicle-miles traveled with alternatively fueled vehicle-miles traveled.”
ƒ The department is responsible for implementing the Resource Efficient Building
Ordinance that expects cost savings from lower energy, waste and water costs.
ƒ SF Environment oversees an Urban Forest Council, a 15-member body created by
ordinance to oversee development of an Urban Forest Management Plan.
San Francisco’s Sustainability Plan places a strong emphasis on water quality and
water resources – including recycling and reusing water. Goals include “reclaiming
all wastewater.”
San Francisco views itself as a model for innovative recycling programs. The nation’s
“largest food scrap collection program” has a goal – set by the Board of Supervisors –
of diverting 75% of waste by 2010 and 100% (zero waste) by 2020 (it is now around
60%). The city’s Sustainability Plan also sets a goal of reducing household solid waste
from 7.5 pounds per person to day to 6.0 persons.
The city tackles its goal of biodiversity (the protection and restoration of natural
ecosystems) through public education, local government purchase of green spaces,
integrated pest management and enforcement of state and local regulations.
Comprehensive Models 9
Santa Monica
2004 Population: 87,823
www.santa-monica.org
Santa Monica’s
environmental
plan drives
city policy
and operations
Santa Monica is a smaller urban area (located between Los Angeles and the Pacific)
that frequently appears high on the list of ratings of environmentally-friendly cities.
It is regarded as a leader in green building, renewable energy and waste diversion.
The EPA cites Santa Monica as a model for environmental purchasing practices.
The city’s national leadership reputation, and its comprehensive environmental plan,
led to Santa Monica’s inclusion in this review.
The Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan was adopted in 1994 and updated in 2003
through a “highly participatory” stakeholder and community involvement process.
Some of the plan’s guiding principles set the tone for city government operations:
• The concept of sustainability guides City policy.
• Protection, preservation and restoration of the natural environment is a high
priority of the City.
• All decisions have implications to the long-term sustainability of Santa Monica.
• Those sustainability issues most important to the community will be addressed
first, and the most cost-effective programs and policies will be selected.
• Cross-sector partnerships are necessary to achievable sustainable goals.
To advise City Council and staff on strategies for implementing the plan, the City
established an ongoing Sustainable City Task Force, an 11-member”expert panel”
of representative community stakeholders.
At the City staff level, an inter-departmental Sustainable City Implementation Group
(chaired by the City Manager’s Office) coordinates activities, assures consistency,
makes budget recommendations, and drives the development of “future innovative
programs and policies.”
Many programs are actually carried out through the Environmental Programs Division
(EPD) of the City’s Department of Environmental Public Works Managment (DEPWM).
The EPD maintains the Sustainable City Plan and undertakes special policy initiatives
such as a Strategic Energy Plan and a Toxics Use Reduction Program.
It should be noted that Santa Monica leads the U.S. in per capita LEED-certified buildings. Developers get cash incentives of $20-35,000 per building for LEED certification.
The City’s DEPWM was a national consulting resource on energy efficient design
before the U.S. Green Building Council established LEED guidelines in 2000.
The U.S. EPA commends Santa Monica’s “broad-reaching” performance and cost-based
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program. The City used existing purchasing
procedures and minimized the administrative burden of switching to alternative products.
10 Comprehensive Models
Scottsdale
2004 Population: 221,792
www.scottsdaleaz.gov
This fast-growing city in the Phoenix metropolitan area has an “elaborate” program,
and is identified with cities like Seattle, Austin, Boulder and Tampa as being among
a “handful of true innovators.”
Scottsdale’s Vision Statement includes the expectation that “employees will be
recognized as environmentally sensitive.” The City’s Environmental Policy further
empowers individual employees to “proactively promote environmental leadership.”
The policy is based on four “stewardship principles” (also used in Charlottesville, VA):
• conservation (prevent pollution and preserve natural resources)
• cooperation (build partnerships)
• environmental compliance and risk reduction (meet or exceed requirements)
• restoration (promptly and responsibly correct negative conditions)
Scottsdale is
implementing
a citywide
Environmental
Management
System
Scottsdale has undertaken a comprehensive Environmental Management System
(EMS) to carry out this policy. An EMS, under federal EPA program guidelines, is a
“structured , measurable system for managing environmental impacts.”
„
All 14 City Departments are part of the EMS. Resources are made available – such
as a guide to Clean Air Act Amendments and to the NPDES permit process – so
that each employee can understand and help comply with applicable regulations.
„
The Scottsdale EMS has a comprehensive and very technical manual of policies and
procedures. It basically defines “significant” environmental impacts and what to do
about them, and includes objective-setting, document control and record-keeping,
and legal and auditing requirements.
Administration of the EMS is lodged not in a utility or municipal service department,
but in the Preservation Department which coordinates all City functions related to
land preservation.
The Scottsdale City Council has a citizen Environmental Quality Advisory Board to
provide guidance on the prioritization of future environmental activities and recommend environmental policies to the council.
Scottsdale established a residential Green Building Program in 1998 (later expanded
to included commercial buildings) as a voluntary, “whole system approach” of design
and building techniques aimed at minimizing environmental impact and reducing
energy consumption. The program has excellent principles and includes a checklist.
„
Earlier this year (March, 2005), the Scottsdale City Council unanimously adopted a
“LEED Gold Policy” that requires all new city buildings to achieve that certification
level. Any renovations are to include LEED principles “where feasible.”
Comprehensive Models 11
Seattle
2004 Population: 571,480
www.ci.seattle.wa.us/environment
Seattle
emphasizes
integrated
environmental
action at both
technical and
policy levels
Seattle “stands at the top of virtually every list” of proactive environmental cities. A
grassroots, nonprofit organization, Sustainable Seattle, first advocated public sector
action in the 1980s. By 1995, Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan was sub-titled “Toward A
Sustainable Seattle.” City leaders and administrative agencies are said to have fully
internalized sustainability goals.
„
The 2005 Update to the Comprehensive Plan (still “Toward A Sustainable Seattle”)
says that “environmental stewardship is a core value.” In addition to protecting the
ecosystem and human health, the plan stresses that a “healthy natural environment
is central to Seattle’s economic development” and is a “competitive advantage.”
In the mid-1990s, Seattle developed an Environmental Management Program and
established citywide standards. Each city agency’s plan must address 13 specific areas,
including environmentally responsible purchases, the handling of hazardous waste,
and energy and water conservation measures.
The Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE) was formed in 2000 by a merger
of departments and vested in the Mayor’s Office. The OSE is the implementing arm of
the comprehensive Environmental Management Program. It is also charged with
evaluating and integrating long-term environmental considerations into City plans
and budgets, and with promoting environmental practices in the business community.
„
It organizes action around four “integrating themes:” Lean Green City Government,
Health Urban Environments, Strong Environmental Practices, and Smart Mobility.
„
Examples of “lean green” include the: City Light (utility) program to improve the
energy efficiency of City buildings, and implementing a Clean Green Fleet of City
vehicles, as well as Sustainable Purchasing and Sustainable Building programs.
„
Examples of “strong practices” include the Sustainable Business Development
Initiative to partner with the Chamber in supporting businesses developing clean
energy and green building technologies; promoting residential and commercial
energy and water conservation, and making recycling improvements.
Seattle’s 2005 Environmental Action Agenda – “a framework for integrated City environmental action” – looks at all City operations and spells out specific objectives in
four areas: Clean Air and Climate Protection, Healthy Habitat and Clean Water, Sustainable Forests and Healthy & Connected Neighborhoods. Specific measures emphasize
such projects as urban trails and transportation alternatives, and controlling storm
water flows that destroy habitat.
„
In a related move, Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development this year is
undertaking a major update of its Environmental Critical Areas Code (July 2005).
12 Comprehensive Models
Tampa
2004 Population: 321,772
www.tampa.gov
Tampa city government takes a lower profile. “Environment” is not one of the City’s
five strategic focus areas. No City department or office carries the label. Functions like
wastewaster, solid waste, and stormwater are discharged by Public Works and Utilities.
In Tampa, as in Charlotte, most environmental services are carried out at the county
level. The Hillsborough Environmental Protection Commission oversees a long roster
of activities, from air quality to wetlands.
Tampa
coordinates with
Hillsborough
County on key
environmental
activities
What makes Tampa unique is the degree of formal cooperation with Hillsborough
County. Many cities and counties coordinate activities, but Tampa and Hillsborough
have jointly undertaken a State-designated Sustainable Communities Demonstration
Program. In return for demonstrating commitment to sustainability principles, the
two jurisdictions have the authority (within an approved urban development boundary) to approve development proposals and plan amendments without State review.
„
The “sustainability principles” include restoring key ecosystems; achieving a cleanier,
healthier environment; limiting urban sprawl; protecting wildlife and natural areas;
advancing efficient use of land and other resources; and creating quality communities and jobs. Under this program, Tampa has launched various initiatives, most
relating to economic revitalization aspects, such as brownfield redevelopment.
Tampa’s Comprehensive Plan – prepared by the Hillsborough County City-County
Planning Commission – is one of the most complete plans reviewed, in terms of its
environmental focus. The document’s “Conservation Element” is a plan for protecting
and enhancing the natural environment, and managing natural resources. It has a
single all-encompassing environmental goal and then an objective relating to an issue
area (such as air quality) followed by a series of very specific policies. For example,
„ Air Quality Objective:
“The City of Tampa shall take the appropriate actions toward
compliance with all national and state ambient air quality standards. Policy 1.3
(there are 14 air quality policies): When planning and implementing transportation
system improvements, the City shall give priority to traffic flow improvements that
reduce air pollution concentrations.”
„ SWIM:
Policy 2.5: “The City will not allow activities which are contrary to the longterm mitigation of the dissolved oxygen problem in the lower Hillsborough River or
which exacerbate the adverse impacts of dissolved oxygen to the Bay.”
„ Wetlands:
Policy 3.7: “The City, through the land development review process, shall
promote, where appropriate, the use of desirable native wetland plant species for
the creation of wetland habitat andfor biological filtration and assimilation of
pollutans in newly constructed stormwater retention and detention ponds.”
Comprehensive Models 13
Tor
onto
oronto
2001 Population: 2,481,494
www.city.toronto.on.ca
Toronto’s
environmental
plan covers
all the bases
Toronto, like Tampa, is noteworthy for its model environmental plan: Clean, Green and
Healthy: A Plan for an Environmentally Sustainable Toronto (2000).
Toronto holds seven straight-forward “environmental principles” that are intended to
guide city government decision-making. First, this is “what to do:”
• Protect what is healthy.
• Prevent pollution of air, land and water.
• Reduce Toronto’s ecological footprint and strive for greater self-sufficiency.
• Restore degraded habitats, contaminated soils, hydrological cycles, watersheds.
And this is “how to do it:”
• Integrate environmental factors in decision-making and create partnerships.
• Take responsibility for our own actions.
• Motivate and encourage the transition from a consumer to a conserver society.
„
The plan first describes the “stresses” on Toronto’s environment (such as growth,
transportation, solid waste generation and disposal) and then outlines a “vision
for a sustainable future” – similar to the scenarios in Charlotte’s 1998 Regional
Environmental Summit.
„
The core of Toronto’s plan is a set of three strategies: Strategies for Healthy Land,
Strategies for Healthy Air, and Strategies for Healthy Water. Under those three
umbrella strategies are 24 specific proposals addressing such issues as cleaning
up contaminated lands, eliminating sewer overflows, preventing the discharge
of pollutants into sewers, and reducing air emissions.
„
The plan goes a step further to make additional recommendations on moving
“toward sustainability” in areas such as transportation, “green power” (energy)
and green economic development.
The Toronto City Council created a Roundtable on the Environment to follow up
the plan on an ongoing basis. The 15-member body is composed of the Mayor, two
members of Council, and twelve citizens.
At the City staff level, theToronto Interdepartmental Environment Team (TIE) takes a
coordinated approach to environmental issues and initiatives. In 2003 they issued a
status report on implementation of the Environmental Plan.
Staff support comes from the Environmental Assessment and Policy Development
Office (EA&PD), part of the City’s large Environmental Services Section). EA&PD researches
and develops environmental policy for Toronto, and also provides consultative services to
operating divisions like Water, Transportation Services, and Solid Waste Management.
14 Comprehensive Models
Cities and the Environment: Best Practices
Other Cities
The “second ten” have strong programs as well. Many of these cities have adopted an
environmental policy or plan, and have a coordinating office or department, but generally
their strength has been in a particular program area. Here are some distinctive characteristics
of each city:
z
Atlanta developed a 10-year solid waste management plan and “Sustainable Development
Design Standards.”
z
Boston has a five-year “Recycling Strategic Plan.” The city was an early national leader in
environmental action.
z
Chicago has an array of initiativesas, many small-scale, for things like “green technology.”
The City’s voluminous Action Agenda 2005 involves a wide assortment of departments.
z
Dallas is operating an Environmental Management System (EMS), meaning it follows a
structured, compliance-oriented approach and adheres to internationally-set standards.
z
Denver, like Charlotte, has an “Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan.” It also has a
green fleet policy with targets set for reducing fuel costs and emissions.
z
Jacksonville has a typical environmental department and a comprehensive indicators
system.
z
Minneapolis includes green neighborhoods and environmental justice in its purview. The
City’s plan is notably strong on quantifiable targets and implementation steps for its goals.
z
Phoenix takes an economic development focus through its “Brownfields Land Recycling
Program” that is similar to Charlotte’s in some respects.
z
San Diego is the pacesetter in energy programs, using innovative ways leading to “energy
independence” as well as to grow a local economic sector focused on renewable energy.
This research also reviewed material from eight other cities. Generally, these programs did not
seem as comprehensive or innovative as the more environmentally proactive cities, and are
not included in the final report. Still, they did have some notable elements:
z
Louisville and Vancouver, WA have outstanding environmental elements in their comprehensive plans. Richmond has a good natural resources element in its master plan, and
Raleigh includes environmental goals in its comprehensive plan.
z
Kansas City, Indianapolis and Charlottesville have EMS programs, as do Dallas and
Scottsdale, but otherwise seem to operate as conventional public works departments.
z
Columbus has been recognized for its Get Green recycling program that uses, ironically,
blue bags.
Other Cities 15
Atlanta
2004 Population: 419,122
www.atlantaga.gov
„
Atlanta’s Environmental Manager oversees an Energy Conservation Program for
municipal facilities that includes a unique Energy Efficient Purchasing component.
Atlanta’s City Hall also has the country’s “first city-owned green roof.”
„ Clean Water Atlanta is a comprehensive, long-term plan in response to a Consent
Decree for sewer overflow violations. It includes a $3.2 billion capital program for
water main replacement and sewer system rehabilitation, along with watershed
monitoring and a new stormwater utility (2003) to reduce flooding and pollution.
„
A just-completed Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (August, 2005)
includes 70 programs to help the City reduce waste, improve collection and
increase public education. The 10-year plan is mandated by the State to meet a
state-wide goal of a 25 percent per capita reduction in solid waste being disposed.
„
Atlanta City Council adopted Sustainable Development Design Standards in
2003 which commit the city to “strive to achieve LEED Silver certification for all
appropriate city facilities.” The policy is an outgrowth of a staff working group
chaired by the Environmental Manager and composed of representatives from
Finance, Purchasing, General Services, Public Works, Aviation, Fire and Parks.
Boston
2004 Population: 569,265
www.ci.boston.ma.us
„
The Sustainable Boston Initiative in the 1990s made Boston a national leader on
the environment among cities, but after issuing a 2000 report (“an environmental
blueprint” for open space, transportation options, etc. ), follow-up was spun off to a
public-private coalition called the Greater Boston Urban Resources Partnership and
the City, itself, is now less proactive.
„
The City of Boston does have a Department of the Environment with responsibilities ranging from air quality to historic districts. DOE activities focus largely on
impact assessments and regulatory compliance, as opposed to policy and planning,
although they have issued “Guidelines for High Performance Buildings and Sustainable Development.”
„
Boston launched a five-year Recycling Strategic Plan in 2001 to make the city “an
urban model for reducing, reusing and recycling residential waste.” The goal is to
increase the tons recycled by 75 percent, and collect 8 times the amount of leaf and
yard waste.
„
The City does stormwater monitoring for its NPDES permit through the Water and
Sewer Commission, and has an Air Pollution Control Commission to set regulations.
16 Other Cities
Chicago
2004 Population: 2,862,244
www.egov.cityofchicago.org
„
Chicago could just as easily be in the “top ten.” Its encyclopedic Environmental
Action Agenda 2005 demonstrates the city’s commitment to “Building the Sustainable City.” The Agenda is a catalog of proposed actions by City departments, from a
“Chicago Standard” requiring LEED certification for all new municipal buildings, to improving the airport runway de-icing process and containing pollutants from roadway
salt runoff – even “Chicago Organic” as part of a Regional Food System Strategy.
„
Chicago’s Department of the Environment sets the city’s strategic direction and all
policies and operations are overseen by the Commissioner’s Office. Among them:
„
DOE’s Energy Management & Air Quality Division promotes energy efficiency among
residential, commercial and industrial consumers. Chicago has an EPA grant to develop “best practices” resources for local residential and commercial “green builders.”
„ The City’s Natural Resources &
Water Quality Division has programs for ecosystems
and “greening neighborhoods,” and operates a “Chicago Center for Green Technology”
(housed, appropriately, in the country’s first LEED Platinum municipal building).
„
The Urban Management Division evaluates and remediates brownfield sites for
redevelopment.
Dallas
2004 Population: 1,210,393
www.dallascityhall.com
„
Dallas is one of the cities – including Kansas City, Indianapolis and Seattle – that has
instituted an Environmental Management System (EMS) protocol to help assure that
its operations comply with all environmental laws and regulations (CleanWater Act, Toxic
Substance Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and so on).
„
The City Manager established a 10-person Office of Environmental Management
to oversee the program and provide technical assistance to departments. OEM’s
mission is simple: “pollution prevention and environmental compliance.”
„
All departments must develop their own EMS procedures and train staff. Positive
reasons are given for having an EMS , but the City also says that a major purpose is
“to assign responsibility for incidents.” It defines “incidents” and the corresponding
disciplinary action.
„
The Green Dallas Initiatives (GDALI) is an example of employees internalizing
environmental values and “leading by example.” Originally, it was to be an incentive
program for employee environmental initatives. But the volunteer board of City
departmental representatives has generated a roster of ongoing projects, both
within the City government and with organizations in the community.
Other Cities 17
Denver
2004 Population: 556,835
www.denvergov.org
„
The City merged environmental health and protection functions to create the
Division of Environmental Quality. It is charged with evaluating the city’s environmental compliance, developing policy and remediating contaminated sites.
„
DEQ also coordinates thesustainability initiatives, most targeted for achievement
by 2010. Many are related to energy consumption -- green purchasing, green
buildings, “green communities,” renewable energy. Denver’s green fleet policy
sets targets to be met for reducing fuel expenditures and emissions.
„
Denver’s 2000 Comprehensive Plan issues an annual progress report, using detailed
indicators. The 2003 report cited emerging issues, including the need to prepare
stormwater detention facilities to accommodate growth, and increasing Denver’s
street tree canopy (“green streets legacy”) to decrease urban heat islands. The
reprot also noted “while sustainability creeps into decision-making, more thought
is needed” about “sustainability rules and regulations.”
„ Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan is Denver’s
growth management strategy. It calls for mixed uses and fewer car trips.
Jacksonville
2004 Population: 777,704
www.coj.net
„
Like Denver, Jacksonville’s recently created Environmental Resource Management
(ERM) Department (2003) is a product of department mergers.
„
ERM’s Air Quality Branch does source testing and permitting, and monitors ambient
air, toxic air pollutants and mobile source emissions.
„
The Water Quality Branch is responsible for surface water quality, wastewater
permitting, stormwater management and solid waste management.
„
Other ERM Branches deal with enforcement, hazardous materials, wetlands, wildlife.
„
Jacksonville’s ten-year Comprehensive Plan (2001) has an environmental dimension
but qualifies its proposals with language like “within existing funding levels” and “in
an economically practical manner.”
„
An analysis of Jacksonville’s program (Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously) applauds
its “Quality of Life Indicators” but says the City lacks policies or programs “in some
key areas such as energy conservation or sustainable building” and that while city
government pays homage to environmental goals there “seems to be little coordinated action.”
18 Other Cities
Minneapolis
2004 Population: 373,943
www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us
„
The recently-adopted Minneapolis Environmental Report: Toward Sustainability
(July, 2004) focuses on six categories: Green Neighborhoods, Sustainable Transportation, Air Quality, Water Quality, Energy Conservation, and Environmental Justice.
„
The plan is a model for setting quantifiable targets and for outlining the steps for
implementation. For each goal (such as “Increase the tree canopy” under Green
Neighborhoods), the plan makes the case for “what we’ve done,” defines a target
(e.g. plant 30,000 trees by 2014), and spells out the measures to make it happen.
„
Minneapolis also has a well-developed Energy Plan (1996) that does a good job
in taking an integrated approach to achieving energy efficiency in the municipal,
residential, commercial/industrial, and transportation sectors.
„
City Council created the Minneapolis Air Quality Management Authority as a
municipal entity to prevent, control and regulate pollution within the city.
„
The City has a conventional Environmental Management Department for ordinance enforcement and such work as brownfield clean-up and sewer overflows.
Phoenix
2004 Population: 1,418,041
www.phoenix.gov
„
Phoenix has had an Environmental Quality Commission since 1987. The 15member citizen board, appointed by the Mayor and City Council, has standing
committees for Air Quality, Water Quality, and Land Use/Solid Waste.
„
At the staff level, an Office of Environmental Programs supervises an extensive
Air Quality Management program, as well as activities relating to water resources,
environmental compliance, hazardous materials, solid waste management and
parks preservation.
„
The citywide Brownfields Land Recycling Program is similar to Charlotte’s in some
respects. It emphasizes assistance to private owners and developers of brownfield
sites. The City makes grants for intrastructure improvements and development
fees. A single point-of-contact provides technical assistance and information
resources, and coordinates the involvement of other agencies and departments.
„
Since 1998, the brownfields program has assisted 18 private sector projects, restored 235 acres, “created or maintained over 3,000 jobs and brought over $255
million in private investment into the city.”
Other Cities 19
San Diego
2004 Population: 1,263,756
www.genesis.sannet.gov
„
San Diego is a model city for energy conservation and energy efficiency. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency designated San Diego as “the leading city in the
U.S. in producing and using environmentally preferable green power,” (electricity
produced from renewable energy resources).
The City generates electricity from solar systems on two city-owned buildings and
from landfill gas. City Hall is energy independent, and the EPA says all of San Diego
municipal government “is on its way to energy independence.”
„
San Diego has linked its energy leadership to economic development, promoting
alternative energy technologies and renewable energy companies as an important
sector of the local economy.
„
The City’s Environmental Services Department has a number of innovative commercial and residential projects, such as the Whole House Energy Retrofit Program
that gives rebates (and cost savings) for energy improvements to older homes.
„
The City Council has adopted the LEED Silver Level as the design criteria for new
municipal construction and for remodeling over 5,000 square feet.
Vancouver
2001 Population: 545,674
www.vancouver.ca
„
Vancouver’s Environment Policy and Environmental Action Plan (1996) commits
the City to “ensuring environmental considerations are integrated into all City
decisions respecting planning, growth, service delivery, finance and operations.”
„
The City had already established a Special Office of the Environment “to coordinate
environmental policy” in 1990. Studies were done in the early 1990s on air quality
and climate protection, urban forestry and solid waste and stormwater management, that led to the comprehensive 1996 environmental plan. That plan, in turn,
has been followed by other plans for land use, transportation, and greenways.
„
This long history (it began in 1979 with an energy plan) culminated in 2002 with
City Council’s adoption of a policy – Principles for Sustainability – proposed by the
City’s Corporate Management Team. The policy specifies that “Council direct staff
to, (apply the Principles) throughout the organization.”
„
City Council, itself, has a standing Planning and Environment Committee. A staff
Interdepartmental Committee is formed as a steering group for sustainability
initiatives, and the Vancouver Sustainability Support Group – located in the City
Manager’s Office – administers the work program.
20 Other Cities
Cities and the Environment: Best Practices
Observations
The 28 cities in this analysis were selected because they were comparable to Charlotte in
population size or because they had reputations for comprehensive plans or special programs.
It is likely that there are other cities with exemplary policies or programs, as well. The cities
and environmental initiatives included here should be considered “representative best practices.”
With that qualification, there are still some patterns or common elements that can be
found in the environmental agendas of these proactive cities. These observations follow, with
italicized names of some but not all cities engaged in that particular practice.
POLICY, PLANNING AND COORDINATION PANNING AND COORDINATION
1.
Nearly all cities have an adopted environmental or sustainability policy, with supporting
principles and broad goals. Policies often use the same language, affirming support for
protection of the environment and preserving resources for future generations, and often
direct that environmental values be incorporated in citywide operations (e.g. Austin,
Scottsdale, Boston, Vancouver).
2.
Policies further state or direct that the city’s environmental actions be coordinated in
order to effectively address environmental goals and issues (e.g. Portland, Seattle, Toronto).
3.
Many also have specific strategies as part of a comprehensive environmental plan or as an
environmental or natural resources component of the city’s comprehensive land use plan.
The comprehensive environmental plans are frequently called “Sustainability Plans” (e.g.
San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, Minneapolis, Vancouver).
4.
The terms “environmental” and “sustainability” are used, to some extent, interchangeably.
The distinction is important to clarify a city’s program focus. Generally, environment refers
to the natural or physical environment. Sustainability is environmental as well, with an
added emphasis on stewardship for future generations and, sometimes, a broader notion
of “quality of life” that may include economic and social aspects. At the heart of both,
however, is a fundamental concern with environmental protection and enhancement,
and their plans and programs are very similar. (Portland, Seattle and San Francisco are
among those using “sustainability;” Tampa, Chicago and Denver use “environment.”)
5.
In some cases, the City Council has adopted sustainability as a goal or priority (usually as
part of an adopted policy) and may have a standing Environment Committee. (Austin,
Boulder, Toronto).
6.
It is also common to have a citizen advisory Environmental Commission or board (or in
one case, “expert panel”) appointed by the mayor and/or council (e.g. San Francisco, Santa
Monica, Tampa, Phoenix).
Observations 21
Cities and the Environment: Best Practices
STRUCTURE AND STAFFING
7.
Nearly all cities have a central office, division, or department of “Environmental Management, Operations, Services, or Quality,” headed, usually, by an Environmental Manager.
In some cases it is called an office of “Sustainability” with, sometimes, a Sustainability
Officer or Coordinator (e.g. Austin, Boulder, Portland, Atlanta, Phoenix).
8.
This central unit can either be a department with program responsibilities (e.g. San
Francisco), or an office within the City Manager’s Office with coordinating responsibilties
(e.g. Vancouver). As a “Department of the Environment,” it is often the administrator of an
EMS program (see below).
9.
In any case, there is often an interdepartmental staff committee to support either the
City Council Committee, a citizen board, or the staff coordinating office (e.g Boulder,
Santa Monica, Toronto).
10. More and more frequently, cities are implementing an Environmental Management
System (EMS) to help assure their operations will comply with regulations. An EMS
is a voluntary, structured program of policies and procedures designed to ensure the
environmental integrity of the city’s operations. A key component is a third-party audit
to verify the city is taking appropriate action. The EPA looks favorably on EMS programs.
The programs are set up in accord with universal guidelines set by the International
Organization of Standards (known as ISO, and city programs are known as ISO 14001
programs) (e.g. Scottsdale, Seattle, Dallas).
CORE FUNCTIONS
11. Air, land and water quality are the core functions in just about any city, and the responsibility customarily falls to a line department – utilities, transportation, public works, solid
waste, stormwater, planning – rather than the central “Department of the Environment.”
These are the departments that do the “heavy lifting” for a city’s environmental program
(e.g. Jacksonville, Phoenix).
12. Compliance is the core activity relating to air, land and water. Meeting federal and state
laws and regulations is the essential function of municipal environmental action (e.g.
Atlanta).
13. Beyond compliance, the cities in this report tend to be more proactive in developing
ancillary programs or partnerships to prevent pollution and enhance the environment.
These include programs related to reducing sprawl, tackling point source pollution or
pollutant runoff, promoting intermodal transportation, and protecting watersheds and
wetlands, among others (e.g. Austin, Seattle, Tampa, Denver).
22 Observations
Cities and the Envirioniment: Best Practices
CORPORATE LEADERSHIP
14. Next to core functions (air, land, water), the most common role is “lead by example,”
setting corporate policies and procedures that are environmentally friendly – usually
green building, green fleet and green purchasing practices. All of the cities in this report
are engaged in this role – often in ambitious ways – and the functions are often under
the purview of the central “Department of the Environment.”
15. Green building is perhaps the most active environmental front outside of core functions.
This occurs in two ways. First, nearly all cities have formal green building programs or
standards – and several cities have Council-adopted policies requiring new city buildings
to be LEED-certified, including the upper Gold and Silver levels. The second role is in
providing guidelines and services to residential and commercial customers (sometimes
for a fee) (e.g. Austin, Portland, Santa Monica, Seattle, Scottsdale, Atlanta, Chicago, San
Diego).
16. Green fleet concepts are gathering momentum as cities use alternative fuels for their
vehicles and enter partnerships to promote or develop renewable energy sources (e.g.
Seattle, Denver, San Diego).
17. Green purchasing – with labels such as environmentally preferable purchasing or
sustainable purchasing protocol – seems widespread, even standard, among these cities
(e.g. Austin, Santa Monica, Seattle)
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP
18. Energy conservation or “green power” is the area where some cities seem to be doing
“cutting edge” work, in addition to saving energy through municipal green building and
green fleet practices (e.g. San Francisco, Chicago, Minneapolis, San Diego).
19. Recycling, perhaps the original environment initiative for most cities, is being ratcheted
up. “Reduce/Reuse” now goes with “Recycle.” Stiff targets are being set for waste reduction by some cities (e.g. Boulder, San Francisco, Atlanta, Boston).
20. Brownfields are not as prominent on these cities’ environmental agendas as might have
been expected. Those who are involved at a significant level either do contaminated site
cleanup for large neighborhood redevelopment (e.g. Chattanooga) or to assist prospective economic development (e.g. Tampa, Phoenix).
21. Tree canopy is an important element for some cities, usually addressed through green
neighborhood and urban forest plans and programs aimed both at preserving tree
cover and reducing urban heat islands (e.g. San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis).
Observations 23
Cities and the Environment: Best Practices
22. The primary goal of a city’s environmental program or initiative is, simply, protection or
enhancement of the physical environment and preservation of natural resources. Many
cities, especially those with “sustainability” in their policy names, recognize that economic
vitality is interrelated with environmental quality and, consequently, environmental
action is also seen by these cities as an economic development strategy (e.g. Chattanooga,
Phoenix, San Diego).
23. A number of cities have very specific strategies related to complex issues connected with
ecosystems and biodiversity (e.g. San Francisco, Tampa)
24. A few cities have developed local plans for addressing global issues like climate change,
and global warming (e.g. Boulder, Portland)
25. Partnerships play a role – public-private partnerships with the business community and
often with non-profit entities, and city-county and regional partnerships. In some cities
(e.g. Chattanooga, Seattle, Boston) non-profits did the early work on environmental issues
that led to eventual City involvement. Information on current partnerships was sketchy,
but clearly the nature of environmental concerns requires cooperation across jurisdictional boundaries, and creative solutions require the involvement of all segments of the
community (e.g. Boulder, Boston, Dallas).
KEY TRENDS
26. Strategic Environmental Management
The principal finding of this report is one that relates to how cities are dealing with the
environment. Cities now recognize that complex environmental challenges require a strategic
shift, moving away from traditional stand-alone or command-and-control management.
The movement in recent years is toward a City Council-adopted, city-wide vision and goals,
with implementation shared across department lines. This means integrating the traditional
compliance and enforcement functions with a broader, more comprehensive strategy, and
using a flexible set of regulatory and non-regulatory compliance tools. The idea is to work
with the private sector to set performance-based outcomes rather than rule-based ones,
wherever possible. It is a matter of looking beyond the rules to the rationale, to what needs
to be accomplished and how this can be done through compliance coupled with a broader,
strategic approach.
This does not discount the critical importance of compliance activities, but it does mean less
emphasis on regulation and enforcement and greater emphasis on the role of government
providing overall system management through its own leadership and resources and through
public and private partnerships.
24 Observations
Cities and the Envirioniment: Best Practices
The fundamental steps in taking a strategic approach are to: (1) establish a clear environment
vision for the City as a whole, rather than by individual departments or functions; (2) follow up
with specific strategies, and (3) establish a strong central coordinating capacity to ensure
consistency with the vision. The challenge is how to maintain the managerial autonomy of
existing departments while blending resources in a genuinely coordinated strategy.
27. The LEED Movement
A striking feature of nearly all cities in the top twenty, and especially the top ten, is their work
in green building or sustainable development standards. Nearly all have a formal program
and guidelines for green city buildings – and many for residential and commercial structures.
A steadily growing number have adopted LEED Certification as mandatory for new construction of city buildings (sometimes qualified by cost or square feet), and the policy is sometimes
extended (with qualification) to retrofits and renovations. This is not just “in cutting edge”
environmental cities like Seattle or Portland, but also traditional cities like Kansas City and
Dallas.
The bar is quickly being raised. Earlier this year, two cities (Santa Monica and Portland) began
requiring Gold level certification and others require Silver. Chicago earned a Platinum rating
for its Green Technology Center. Plain “certification” isn’t enough. All of this has occurred in
just five short years, since the U.S. Green Building Council established LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) standards in 2000. Clearly, the momentum is strong
among Charlotte’s peer cities.
Although Charlotte does not have a LEED policy, selected LEED principles are incorporated in
the building process and special attention is being given by CATS and CMUD to new buildings. City staff have also prepared a “Green Building Design Philosophy” statement. Staff
make a persuasive case for why actual LEED certification should be approached cautiously
and why LEED certification doesn’t necessarily drive the best decisions. However, to be on the
same footing as peer cities, or be prepared to respond to local pressure to adopt a LEED
policy, it may be advisable to proactively “get in front” of the issue. The key is fine-tuning and
expanding the City’s approach, where necessary, and legitimize it as a formal, recognized
program, possibly even as Council-adopted policy.
28. Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
If LEED tells you how to build something, EMS tells you how to run it. EMS has been around a
little longer than LEED, but has kept a lower profile; yet it, too, is gathering steam. EMS is an
internationally recognized set of standard policies and procedures for operation of “Environmental Management Systems.” With an EMS, everyone does it “the same way,” worldwide.
The standards are established by the International Organization of Standards (ISO) and city
EMS programs are designated ISO 14000 or ISO 14001.
Observations 25
Cities and the Environment: Best Practices
An EMS can be applied City-wide or to an individual department or program. It requires a
structured, hierarchial, technically-oriented approach with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. And it involves third-party audits (just as an accounting firm would audit the city’s
books) to verify that the standard procedures are being properly applied and followed.
Why would a city undertake this? Perhaps the bottom line is that regulators are said to look
more favorably on EMS programs. It is also said that an EMS gives a city “credibility” because
its operations are audited and are known to adhere to international standards (like the wellknown ISO standards for film). Finally, its proponents say an EMS is“best for the environment”
because the standardized procedures don’t depend on the variable skills of individual
managers and technicians.
Its advantage – the highly structured, standardized approach – may also be its drawback.
Presumably, an EMS is less likely to be innovative or strategic. But there are core functions
where it is perfectly applicable so you can assure the city of, say, clean drinking water. An
EMS can be used for water quality, but may not be best for water conservation. (Remember,
an EMS can be program-wide or applied to a segment.)
The message is not to recommend an EMS but to raise the alert that the practice is growing
among cities (Scottsdale, Seattle and Dallas in the top twenty, as well as Kansas City, Indianapolis, Sacramento and Charlottesville among other cities reviewed). In light of that, it may be
advisable to investigate this type of approach further for possible application to one or more
specific programs.
26 Observations
Environment Cabinet
Member Contact List
Staff Resource:
T.J. Orr
Susan Johnson
Kim Eagle
Phyllis Heath
Elizabeth Presutti
Ron Tober
Al Sharp
Rebecca Yarborough
Eldewins Haynes
Jim Humphrey
Norm Steinman
Daryl Hammock
Jim Schumacher
Tom Flynn
Tom Warshauer
Cary Saul
Susan Elkins
Ron Kimble
Keith Parker
Curt Walton
Dennis Marstall
Linda Beverly
Debra Campbell
Tom Drake
Jonathan Wells
Tim Richards
Wayman Pearson
Doug Bean
Bob Pearson
Julie Burch; jburch@ci.charlotte.nc.us
Jamie Privuznak; jprivuznak@ci.charlotte.nc.us
Aviation
Business Support Services
Budget
Budget
Charlotte Area Transit
Charlotte Area Transit
Centralina Council of Governments
Centralina Council of Governments
Charlotte Department of Transportation
Charlotte Department of Transportation
Charlotte Department of Transportation
Engineering &Property Management
Engineering &Property Management
Economic Development
Economic Development
Land use/Environmental Services Agency
Manager's Ofc.
Manager's Ofc.
Manager's Ofc.
Manager's Ofc.
Mayor's Ofc.
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Storm Water
Solid Waste Services
Utilities
Utilities
tjorr@charlotteairport.com
Sjohnson@ci.charlotte.nc.us
Keagle@ci.charlotte.nc.us
pheath@ci.charlotte.nc.us
epresutti@ci.charlotte.nc.us
rtober@ci.charlotte.nc.us
arsharp@centralina.org
ryarbrough@centralina.org
ehaynes@ci.charlotte.nc.us
jhumphrey@ci.charlotte.nc.us
nsteinman@ci.charlotte.nc.us
dhammock@ci.charlotte.nc.us
jschumacher@ci.charlotte.nc.us
tflynn@ci.charlotte.nc.us
twarshauer@ci.charlotte.nc.us
SAULCS@co.mecklenburg.nc.us
selkins@ci.charlotte.nc.us
rkimble@ci.charlotte.nc.us
kparker@ci.charlotte.nc.us
cwalton@ci.charlotte.nc.us
dmarstall@ci.charlotte.nc.us
lbeverly@ci.charlotte.nc.us
dcampbell@ci.charlotte.nc.us
tdrake@ci.charlotte.nc.us
jwells@ci.charlotte.nc.us
trichards@ci.charlotte.nc.us
wpearson@ci.charlotte.nc.us
Dbean@ci.charlotte.nc.us
Rpearson@ci.charlotte.nc.us
704 359-4003
704-336-6252
704-336-5016
704-432-2572
704-432-1275
704-336-7245
704-372-2416
704-372-2416
704-336-7621
704-336-3882
704-336-3939
704-336-2167
704-336-3656
704-432-1396
704-336-4522
704-336-2831
704-336-2403
704-336-2403
704-336-3855
704-336-5019
704-336-3131
704-336-5719
704-336-2671
704-336-8312
704-336-4090
704-336-4555
704-336-2176
704-391-5060
704-391-5110
City Council Environment Committee
Environmental Policy Framework
April 5, 2006
Environment
Environmental Policy Framework
Background
„
Introduction of Policy Framework and
Appointment of Ad Hoc Council Committee
(January 2006)
„
City Council approves Environmental
Committee and establishes new
Environmental Focus Area (February 2006)
Environment
Adopted Policy Context
„ Smart Growth Principles
„ Economic Development Strategic Plan
Environment
Environment
Smart Growth Principles
Adopted by Charlotte City Council, January 2002
1. Plan land use
2. Sustain effective land use decisions
3. Strengthen community by healthy neighborhoods
4. Build competitive economic edge
5. Design for livability
6. Safeguard the environment
7. Expand transportation choices
8. Advance public investments as a catalyst
Environment
Economic Development Strategic Plan
Adopted by Charlotte City Council July 2005
g
in
w e y
ro ic
G rv om
Se con
E
Airline
Industry
Change
Charlotte
Region
io
at
liz
ba
lo
G
WorkForce
Shortage
Increasing
Competition
l
ta
en
nm d
r o an s
vi es es
En su ren
Is w a
A
n
Slowing Growth
in Financial
Services
G
I n eo
flu gr
en ap
ce hic
s
Forces Impacting Charlotte’s Economic Development
Environment
Growth and Development
Trends and Impacts
Environment
Population Growth
in Charlotte
z In just 15 years, Charlotte has grown
from 396,000 persons within its corporate
limits in 1990, to 651,000 today.
540,000
315,000
1980
651,000
396,000
1990
2000
2005
Environment
Charlotte’s Projected Population Growth
(Sphere of Influence)
980,000
z Charlotte’s “Sphere of
Influence” is expected
to add 330,000 persons
between 2005 and 2030.
z That number is equivalent
to adding the population
of St. Louis, Cincinnati
or Pittsburgh.
651,000
2005
2030
Total Population
Projected Estimates
Sphere of Influence
Environment
Employment Growth in
Charlotte
850,000
„
470,000
2000
2030
Growth is likely to
bring 380,000 more
jobs in Charlotte by
2030 – a robust 80%
increase over 2000.
Environment
B
m
d!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
H a bri g h d
R
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!
d !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i!!!!!!!!!d
tR
! !!!
e
!!! !!!
!!!g
!
e!!!l !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!R
!!!!!!!!!!! e !!!!
i
!!
!
f
t
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
s
!!!!!! !
!!! !! !! !!! !!!!!!
!
! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
!
!!
ie s
Ea
Rd
at t
I -4
ry
on
Rd S t
is
I- 4
8
7H
Rd
el
R ea
rm
Ca
Pa
r k Rd
I- 7
N
St
on
ry
i
La
Rd
La n
I-485 Hy
e
wy
Rd
r
Ha
Idl
d
Bl a
ir
yS I-77
H
South Bv y
Rd
le C
r e ek
A
le R
lb e ma r
er s
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!
!
ie f
Br
Rd
R
Hy
l on
5
rs
Bv
e
il d R
St
c
w
e n ohn
J
nd
pe
de
In d
Rd
E
R
e
n ro
d
S ar
i d e nc e R d
d r ov
hR P
y Rd
ol p
Co
S t ee
nd
I-
48
rk Rd
Hy
ca
s te
y
rH
Non-Residential
Building Permits
Yo
5
Residential
Building Permits
ST
Ra
I-4 8
Permits Issued
2000 to 2005
Mo
bu
o
rg
Rd
nc
y
ord
5H
NT
Hy
Bv
y
I- 8 5 H
S
y
H
5
N I- 8
Fr
o
ee
S I- 8
O ld C
d
5H
Pla za
y
m
he
Wi l k i
T
Dr
n so n
Bv
st B v
We
Rd
85
rr
Rd
Bv
W T Ha
d
ir e
a le R
sh
o lly
rd
kd
ok
M ou n t H
W
Fo
Oa
B
ro
Charlotte’s
Growth Pattern:
Predominantly
Outward
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
! !!
!
! !!!!!! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!! !!!!!!!!
! !! !!!! ! !
!!!!!!!!!!!
! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!
! !! !!! !!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !
!!!!! !! !!!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !! !
!
!
! ! ! !!! !!!!!!!!! !
!!
!! !!! !!!!!!!!
!!
!
!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!
! !! ! !!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! !!! !
!! !!! ! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!
!!
! ! !!!
!!!! !!! !!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! !
! !!!! !
! !!! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!! !! ! !!
!
!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!
!
! !!!!!! !!!!!!! !
! !!!!!!!!
!!!
!! !!!!!!!!! ! !! ! !!
! !!
!! !
!
!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!! !!
!
!!!
! !!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!!!!!! !!!
! !!!!!
!!!!! ! ! ! !
!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!! !!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!! !! !!!
!!!!!!!!! !! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !
! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !
! !!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!
! !!
! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
! !!! ! !!!!!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!! ! ! ! !
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!! ! ! !
! !!!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!! !!!!!!
!
!
! !
!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! !
! ! ! ! ! !!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!
!
!
! !! !! !!! ! !
!
!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !
!
!
! !!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!!!!!
!
!!
! !!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! !
!! ! ! !!!
!
!!!!!!! ! !
!
! !
!
!!!!!!!!! ! !
! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! !!!! !
!
! ! !!!!!
! !! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!
! ! ! ! ! !! !
!!!!!! !! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !
!! ! !
! ! !!!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!
! !!!!! !
! !!!!! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!! !
!!
!
!!!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!! !!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!!!!!!!!! !!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!! !!!
!!!!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!! !!! !!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!
!!!!!!!! !!!! !
!
!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!
! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!!
! !
!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!! !
!!!!!! !!
!!!! !!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!
!
!!!! !!!!! ! !!!!!
!! ! !! !! !! !
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!! !!!! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
! ! ! !!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!! !
! ! !! !
! !!!!!!!!!!! !! !! !
!
!! ! !
! ! !!
! !!
! !! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!
! !!!!!!
!
!
!
! !
!!! ! !
!
! !!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!
!
! !! !
!!!
!!!!!!!!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !! ! !
!
!!
!
!
! ! !!!!!!! ! !!!!
! !!
!!!!!!!
!!
!
! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!! ! ! !! ! !!
! ! ! !!!
!
!
!! ! !!
!!!! !
!
!! ! !
! !! ! ! !
!!!!!!
! !!
! !!!! !
!
! !
!!!
! !!!! !
! ! !
!
!! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!!
!
! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!
! ! !
! !! ! !! !!! !
!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !
! !! !
!! !
!
!
! !!!!!!!!! !
!
!
!
!! !!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
! !! !!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
! !! ! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!
! !! ! !
! !
!!
! !! !!
!!!!! !!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !!!!! !! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! !
! !!!!!!!!! ! !
! !!
!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !! !
!!!
!!!!!!!
! !!!
!! !! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!! ! !!!
!!
!
!! ! ! ! !!! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!
!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
!!! !
!
!! ! !
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
! !!!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !
!! ! !! ! !!!! !
!
!!!!
!
!
!! !!
!! ! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!
! !
!
!! !!
!!! !!
!!!!!
! ! ! !! !
!
!!
! !! !!!!!! ! !
!
!! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!
!!
! !!! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
! ! !!
!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !
! !!
! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!
!!
! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
! !
!!
!!!
!
!!!!!
!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!!!! !!!! !! !! ! !
! !!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !
! ! !!
!!! !!
!!!
!
!!
!
! !!!!! !!!
!
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!! ! !! !!! ! !
!!!!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!!!
!
!
! !! ! !! ! ! !
!
!!!! !
!!
!! ! ! !
! !!! !
!
! !!!! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !!! ! ! !
!!!!!!! !!!!! ! !! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!! !
!
!!
!
!!! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!
! !
!! !
!!!
! ! !
!!!!
!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! !
!!!! !! ! !! !
!
!! !!! !! ! !!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
! !
!
! !!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! ! ! !
!!!! !
! ! !!!! ! !
!!
! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !!!! !!! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!!
!
!
! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!
!
! !
! ! ! !! ! !
!
!
!! ! !
! !! !
!
!
! ! !
!!!!!
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!! ! ! !
!
!!
! ! ! !! ! ! !!
! ! !
!!
!
! ! !!
! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !
!
!!!
!! !
! !! ! !
!! ! !
!
!!
!
! !!
!! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!! !
! !
! !!!! !
!!!! !
!!
!
! ! !!
!!
!!!!!!!
!! ! !
! !!
! ! !! !
!!! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! !! ! ! ! !
!! !
!!!!!!!
!! !
!
! !! ! !
!!!!!!!!
!
!! ! !
!!!
!!!
!!
! !!! !
!!!
!! !
!!!
! !
! !!
!! !!! ! !!!
!
!!!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !! ! !! ! !
!
!! !
!
!
!
!!!! ! !!!! !
!!
!! !!!!!!!!
!!!
! !! !
!
! ! !!
!!
!
!!!!!
! !!! !
! !!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!! ! !! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!! !! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!
!!
!
! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
! !!
!! !
!
! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !!! ! !
!!! ! !!! ! !!! !!
! !!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!! !
!! !!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
! ! !
!!!
! !!!
! !!!!
! !!
!!
! !!!!!! ! ! !!!! !! ! !
!!
!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! !! ! ! !! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!!
! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!! !
! !!!!!! ! !! ! !
!
!!
! ! !! !!
! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !
!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !! ! !
!
! !!!!!! !
!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!! !!
!
!! !
!! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!! !!!!
!!!! !!!
!!!
!! !!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!
! !
! ! !!!!!! !! !
! ! !!! !
!
! ! !
! !!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!! ! ! !!!! !
!!! ! !
! !!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !! !
!! !!
! ! !!
!
!
! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!
! ! !
!
!
!
!!
! !!! ! ! ! ! !
!!!!
! ! !!
! !
!
!
! !! !
!!!!!! ! !! !! !
! ! !
!! !!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !!! !
!
!!
!
! !
!!
!
! !! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! !!!! ! !!!!!!
! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! !!!
!!!!!!!!!! !! !
!
!
!!!! ! !
! !! !! ! !
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
!
!!!
!!!! !
! ! !
!!!!!!!! !
!!
!
!!!!!!!!! !
!!
! !
! !
! !! ! !!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!! !!! !
!
!
! !!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!! ! ! !! !!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! ! !! !
!! !
!! !! !!! ! !!!!!
!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!! !
!
!! ! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!
!!!
!! !!
!
!
! !!! !!!!! !! !!!!! ! !
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!!! !!!! !!!!! !!
!! !!!!!!
! ! !!
!! !!
!
!!! ! !!
!! ! !
!
!
! !!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!
! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!! !!!!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!
! !! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! !!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
!!! !! !
!
! !! !!!!!!! !!!! !!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!
!
! !!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!
!!!!!! !! !
!
!!
!
!
!! ! !
!
! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!! !
!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!! ! !!
!!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !
! !!!! ! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
!
!!
!
!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! !!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!! !!
!
! !!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!
!
d
d
is
E
Charlotte
Sphere of
Influence
Environment
Impacts of Growth Pattern
X Air Quality - Average drive time to work increased
over 17% between 1990 and 2000 and currently designated
as non-attainment area for ozone
X Water Quality - Majority of streams classified in the
poor to poor/fair with major source of impairment coming
from land development, urban runoff and storm sewers
X Tree Canopy - Mecklenburg County lost 22% of the
tree canopy between 1984 and 2001
X Open Space - Since 1980, Mecklenburg County has
been losing open space at the rate of 5 acres per day
Environment
Current Initiatives: Council Action Pending
X Centers and Corridors - policy revisions to adopted
growth management strategy to focus growth in
strategic locations
X General Development Policies Phase II Environment -
policies to mitigate land use and development impacts
X Urban Street Design Guidelines- policies designed
to enhance economic development/quality of life,
increase transportation choices and better integrate
transportation and land use
Environment
Current Initiatives: Council Action Pending
(continued)
X Transportation Action Plan- compilation of
transportation policies designed to enhance safety,
livability and support Centers and Corridors strategy
X Post Construction Ordinance- ordinance designed to
control storm water runoff and associated negative
water quality impacts
X Definition of Open Space- proposed text amendment
to single family districts to clarify definition and
enforcement of open space standards
Environment
Why have an Environmental Policy?
„ Charlotte facing growth and environmental challenges
„ Specific proposals for land use, air quality, water quality,
transportation coming forward to Council this year
„ No comprehensive policy framework
„ Charlotte is an active player in regional efforts, including
SEQL, the new Regional Air Quality Board and recent
interest in Catawba River
Environment
Why have an Environmental Policy?
(continued)
„ Inform community and regional stakeholders of
Charlotte’s goals for protecting the environment
„ Provide guidance to staff in developing
recommendations to Council for:
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Policies and Ordinances
Budget
Capital Improvement Program
Land Planning and Zoning
Strategic Operating Plans
Environment
Development of Draft Framework
„ Staff Environmental Work Team
„ Environmental Action Plan as starting
point
„ Research environmental policies and
practices of other cities
Environment
Three Key Questions:
1.
What does the City want to do in regard
to the environment?
2.
How will the City do it?
3.
To what extent will the City act?
Environment
1. WHAT does the City want to affect in
regard to the environment?
Suggested Environmental Policy Areas
„ Air Quality
„ Water Quality
„ Land Preservation
„ Energy and Resource Conservation
Environment
2. HOW will the City do it?
Possible City Environmental Roles
„ Corporate Role
as an organization, lead by example
„ Community Role
deliver services
regulate as appropriate
promote sound environmental practices
Environment
3. To what extent will the City act?
Possible Levels of Involvement
„ Compliance
meet requirements of all regulations
„ Proactive
go beyond minimum requirements
„ Leadership
use best practices for optimal
environmental health
Environmental Policy Discussion
Environment
The Policy Framework:
A tool, not an end result
„ An information resource
„ A starting point for collaborating
on the development of proposed
environmental principles
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
Background:
Cities’ shifting focus on the environment
X 1970s and 1980s: Emphasis on regulation and
compliance
X Beginning in mid-1990s: Shift to proactive,
more collaborative (“Strategic Management”)
X Pollution prevention still the basic goal, but
broader concern for environmental quality
(protect ecosystems, preserve resources, etc.)
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
Overview of the Report
z Twenty Cities – selected by population size
and program reputation
z Central Questions – what do they do, how are
they organized, what are common elements
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
Common Elements of City Programs
„ Adopted Environmental Policy
„ Comprehensive, Coordinated Program
„ City Council Committee / Advisory Board
„ Interdepartmental Team
„ “Department of the Environment”
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
Five Models
1.
Leaders
2.
Implementors
3.
Innovators
4.
Traditional
5.
Technical
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
1. LEADERS
Toronto
X Visionary, Comprehensive
X Sustainability Policy and Plan
X Seattle, Toronto, Portland,
San Francisco, Vancouver
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
Austin
2. IMPLEMENTORS
X Comprehensive Policy and Plan
X Integrated in City Decisions
X Austin, Boulder, Santa Monica
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
Chicago
3. INNOVATORS
X Comprehensive Focus
X Unique Programs
X Scottsdale, Tampa, Chicago
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
Boston
4. TRADITIONAL
X Independent Department Operations
X Emphasis on Core Responsibilities
X Atlanta, Boston, Jacksonville
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
Dallas
5. TECHNICAL
X Environmental Management System (EMS)
X Emphasis on Compliance, System Integrity
X Dallas, Kansas City, Indianapolis
Cities and the Environment
Best Practices
Summary
X Cities are combining regulatory role with a broader, strategic
approach – using their leadership and resources and working
through partnerships to protect the environment.
X Cities are giving greater attention to long-term environmental
health, but approaches vary with local needs and priorities.
X Cities are moving toward City Council-adopted, City-wide
vision and goals – with implementation shared across
departmental lines. Key steps include:
Establish a clear vision for the City as a whole.
Follow up with specific strategies.
Coordinate to ensure consistency.
REPRESENTATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY STATEMENTS
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Portland
Santa Monica
Page 1
Pages 2-3
Scottsdale
Page 4
Seattle
Page 5
Toronto
Pages 6-7
Vancouver
Page 8
Chicago
Page 9
Mecklenburg County
Page 10
PORTLAND
Sustainable City Principles
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council declares the intent to adopt
the attached Sustainable City Principles and directs City bureaus and agencies to integrate these
principles into the City's Comprehensive Plan, and other plans that impact transportation,
housing, land use, economic development, energy use, air quality, water quality and supply,
solid and hazardous waste and other areas that may affect sustainable development.
Goal:
City of Portland will promote a sustainable future that meets today’s needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs, and accepts its responsibility to:
• Support a stable, diverse and equitable economy
• Protect the quality of the air, water, land and other natural resources
• Conserve native vegetation, fish, wildlife habitat and other ecosystems
• Minimize human impacts on local and worldwide ecosystems
City elected officials and staff will:
• Encourage and develop connections between environmental quality and economic vitality.
Promote development that reduces adverse effects on ecology and the natural resource capital
base and supports employment opportunities for our citizens.
• Include cumulative and long-term impacts in decision making and work to protect the natural
beauty and diversity of Portland for future generations.
• Ensure commitment to equity so environmental impacts and the costs of protecting the
environment do not unfairly burden any one geographic or socioeconomic sector of the City.
• Ensure environmental quality and understand environmental linkages when decisions are
made and 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.
• Prevent additional pollution through planned, proactive measures rather than only corrective
action. Enlist the community to focus on solutions rather than
symptoms.
• Act locally to reduce adverse global impacts of rapid growth population and consumption,
such as ozone depletion and global warming, and support and implement innovative
programs that maintain and promote Portland’s leadership as a sustainable city.
• Purchase products based on long term environmental and operating costs and find ways to
include environmental and social costs in short term prices. Purchase products that are
durable, reusable, made of recycled materials, and non-toxic.
• Educate citizens and businesses about Portland’s Sustainable City Principles and take
advantage of community resources. Facilitate citizen participation in City policy decisions
and encourage everyone to take responsibility for their actions that otherwise adversely
impact the environment.
• Report annually on the health and quality of Portland’s environment and economy.
1
SANTA MONICA
Sustainable City Plan
Guiding Principles
1. The Concept of sustainability Guides City Policy.
Santa Monica is committed to meeting its existing needs without compromising the ability of
future generation is to meet their own needs. The long-term impacts of policy choices will
be considered to ensure a sustainable legacy.
2. Protection, Preservation and Restoration of the Natural Environment is a High Priority
of the City.
Santa Monica is committed to protecting, preserving and restoring the natural environment.
City decision-making will be guided by a mandate to maximize environmental benefits and
reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts. The City will lead by example and
encourage other community stakeholders to make a similar commitment to the environment.
3. Environmental Quality, Economic Health and Social Equity are Mutually Dependent.
Sustainability requires that our collective decisions as a city allow our economy and comm.unity members to continue to thrive without destroying the natural environment upon which
we all depend. A healthy environment is integral to the city’s long-term economic and
societal interests. In achieving a healthy environment, we must ensure that inequitable
burdens are not placed on any one geographic or socioeconomic sector of the population and
that the benefits of a sustainable community are accessible to all members of the community.
4. All Decisions Have Implications to the Long-Term Sustainability of Santa Monica
The City will ensure that each of its policy decisions and programs are interconnected
through the common bond of sustainability as expressed in these guiding principles. The
policy and decision-making processes of the City will reflect our sustainability objectives.
The City will lead by example and encourage other community stakeholders to use sustainability principles to guide their decisions and actions.
5. Community Awareness, Responsibility, Participation and Education are Key Elements
of a Sustainable Community.
All community members, including individual citizens, community-based groups, businesses,
schools and other institutions must be aware of their impacts on the environmental, economic
and social health of Santa Monica, must take responsibility for reducing or eliminating those
impacts, and must take an active part in community efforts to address sustainability concerns.
The City will therefore be a leader in the creation and sponsorship of education opportunities
to support community awareness, responsibility and participation in cooperation with
schools, colleges and other organizations in the community.
6. Santa Monica Recognizes Its Linkage with the Regional, National and Global
Community. Local environmental, economic and social issues cannot be separated from
their broader context. This relationship between local issues and regional, national and
global issues will be recognized and acted upon in the City’s programs and policies. The
2
SANTA MONICA (continued)
City’s programs and policies should therefore be developed as models that can be emulated
by other communities. The City will also act as a strong advocate for the development and
implementation of model programs and innovative approaches by regional, state and federal
government that embody the goals of sustainability.
7. Those Sustainability Issues Most Important to the Community Will be Addressed First,
and the Most Cost-Effective Programs and Policies Will be Selected.
The financial and human resources which are available to the City are limited. The City and
the community will re-evaluate its priorities and its programs and policies annually to ensure
that the best possible investments in the future are being made. The evaluation of a program’s
cost-effectiveness will be based on a complete analysis of the associated costs and benefits,
including environmental and social costs and benefits.
8. The City is Committed to Procurement Decisions which Minimize Negative
Environmental and Social Impacts.
The procure of products and services by the City and Santa Monica residents, businesses and
institutions results in environmental, social and economic impacts, both in this country and in
other areas of the world. The City will develop and abide by an environmentally and socially
responsible procurement policy that emphasizes long-term values and will become a model
for other public as well as private organizations. The City will advocate for and assist other
local agencies, businesses and residents in adopting sustainable purchasing practices.
9. Cross-Sector Partnerships Are Necessary to Achieve Sustainable Goals.
Threats to the long-term sustainability of Santa Monica are multi-sector in their causes and
require multi-sector solutions. Partnerships among the City government, businesses,
residents and all community stakeholders are necessary to achieve a sustainable community.
3
SCOTTSDALE
Environmental Policy
Note: Scottsdale’s Vision Statement includes the expectation that "…our employees will be
recognized as environmentally sensitive."
The City of Scottsdale is committed to continuously improve citywide environmental
management practices and to become a model of environmental performance. The City
empowers each individual employee to proactively promote environmental leadership through
the following four environmental stewardship principles:
•
Conservation - to actively explore, create, and communicate new ways to prevent
pollution and to preserve natural resources.
•
Cooperation - to build partnerships, inside and outside the organization, to sustain and
enhance our environment.
•
Environmental Compliance and Risk Reduction - to ensure that technologies,
facilities, processes and operating procedures meet or exceed environmental, health, and
safety requirements and other requirements that the City has committed to meet.
•
Restoration - to promptly and responsibly correct conditions which hinder sustainable
environments.
In order to assist in the promotion of these stewardship principles, the city will maintain an
environmental management system, including environmental objectives and targets consistent
with this policy that are measurable, meaningful, and understandable. This policy, including
progress toward the achievement of the objectives and targets, will be communicated to our
employees and to our citizens and other stakeholders.
A healthy and sustainable environment is important to our citizens, our economy, and our future.
The City of Scottsdale will strive to be a model of environmental performance.
4
SEATTLE
Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan: Toward a Sustainable Seattle
Environment Element
Environmental stewardship is a core value of this Plan, and it plays an integral role in guiding
how the City accommodates growth and provides services. There are many ways the City can
protect and improve the environment while acting in its roles as a large employer, builder, land
owner and regulator . . .
When environmental goals compete with other City goals, such as those related to economic
development, the City is committed to giving just consideration to the environmental goals to
protect the functions that natural systems can perform and to prevent harmful effects on human
health.
Goal 1: Introduction
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.
Goal 2: Relationship to Economic Development
Maintain a healthy natural environment as central to Seattle’s economic development and as a
competitive advantage in attracting and retaining family-wage jobs and workers.
Goal 3: Natural Systems Approach
Use natural systems to maintain and enhance environmental quality by having them perform
such functions as cleaning air and water, and controlling storm water runoff.
Goal 4: Aquatic Areas
Recognize and enhance the value of Seattle’s aquatic areas, including Puget Sound, the lakes,
creeks, rivers and the associated shorelines for their contributions to the quality of life in Seattle.
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 minimize the number and extent of combined sewer overflow events occurring annually in the City.
Goal 5: Climate Change
Reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to control the impact of climate change globally and
locally.
Goal 6: City Operations
Strive to continuously improve the City’s environmental performance in its roles as a large
employer, builder and maintainer of capital facilities, land owner and regulator to not only
improve the natural environment but also to set an example for others’ behavior.
Goal 7: Source Control
Make waste reduction, pollution prevention and recycling integral parts of how City government
and others in the city conduct their daily business.
5
TORONTO
Sustainability Goal and Environmental Principles
Note: Toronto’s City Council adopted a strategic plan with these four vision statements . . .
1. Toronto is a caring and friendly city.
2. Toronto is a clean, green and sustainable city.
We integrate environmental stewardship into our daily activities. We maintain and
improve the health of the environment for present and future generations.
3. Toronto is a dynamic city.
4. Toronto invests in quality of life.
Sustainability Goal
The City of Toronto's environment, community and economy should be healthy and vibrant and
should meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs.
Environmental Principles
WHAT TO DO
1. Protect
• Conserve our environmental capital and live off the interest.
• Protect what is healthy: self-sustaining fish and wildlife populations, habitats and
biodiversity; parks, trails and greenways; clean air and water; historic buildings and
districts; and foodlands
2. Prevent
• Anticipate and prevent pollution of air, land and water.
• Take a precautionary approach (where there are concerns about serious harm to human or
environmental health, the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to
postpone cost-effective, preventive measures).
3. Reduce
• Reduce Toronto’s “ecological footprint” and strive for greater self-sufficiency by:
conserving energy, water and resources; reducing waste; using local materials, foods and
products; and using materials in continuous cycles.
4. Restore
• Regenerate and naturalize degraded habitats and linked green spaces.
• Remediate contaminated soils, groundwater and sediments.
• Restore hydrological cycles, watersheds and river systems.
HOW TO DO IT
5. Integrate
• Integrate environmental factors, along with social and economic ones, into government,
business and personal decision-making.
6
TORONTO (continued)
•
•
•
•
Involve all stakeholders (citizens, agencies, businesses, special interests and associations)
in open, accessible decision-making processes.
Accommodate different interests of our diverse population (i.e., cultures, age groups and
special needs).
Create partnerships for action.
Consider interconnectedness among air, land, water and living organisms, including
humans.
6. Take Responsibility
• Promote accountability for our own actions as individuals, businesses and organizations
(e.g., the polluter and user pay principles).
• Apply green economics (i.e., seek win-win-win solutions that benefit the environment,
the community and the economy).
• Consider the needs and quality of life of future generations.
7. Motivate
• Provide information and sustainability education to encourage the transition from a
consumer to a conserver society.
• Develop aware, engaged, committed citizenry.
• Monitor results, evaluate progress, and adjust policies and programs as needed.
• Celebrate and showcase accomplishments.
7
VANCOUVER
Sustainability Policy and Principles
•
•
•
•
A sustainable Vancouver is a community that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
It is a place where people live, work and prosper in a vibrant community of communities. In
such a community, sustainability is achieved through community participation and the
reconciliation of short and long term economic, social and ecological well-being.
Sustainability is a direction rather than a destination. A sustainable city is one that protects
and enhances the immediate and long-term well being of a city and its citizens, while
providing the highest quality of life possible.
Sustainability requires integrated decision-making that takes into account economic,
ecological, and social impacts as a whole.
City Principles of Sustainability
1. Today's decisions must not compromise the choices of our children and future generations.
2. We are all accountable for our individual and collective actions.
3. Resources must be used fairly and efficiently without compromising the sustainability of one
community for another.
4. Using renewable resources is encouraged and supported, while the use of non-renewable
resources should be minimized.
5. Renewable resource consumption should not exceed the rate of regeneration.
6. Strong collaboration and open communication between the public, the business sector, and
all levels of government are important.
7. We value cultural, economic, and environmental diversity.
8. A community should provide a safe, healthy, and viable setting for human interaction,
education, employment, recreation, and cultural development.
9. A sustainable Vancouver contributes to, and provides leadership towards, regional,
provincial, national, and global sustainability.
10. The Vancouver economy should move forward from its dependence on non-renewable
carbon based fuels, particularly for transportation, which are likely to fluctuate dramatically
in price and supply.
8
CHICAGO
Environmental Policy
The City of Chicago will continue to conserve, protect and restore our region’s invaluable
natural resources by:
• Developing new programs, policies and practices geared to improving air quality.
• Identifying opportunities for water conservation, wisely managing stormwater, and
sponsoring local and regional legislation to protect our lakes and rivers.
• Developing and maintaining city landscaping, parks, forests and open space.
• Restoring the Chicago River system and increasing access to it as a source of recreation and
enjoyment.
The City of Chicago will continue to encourage healthy environmental practices in the City
by:
• Providing technical assistance, model projects and incentives to build energy efficient, smart,
healthy and green residential buildings.
• Identifying and eliminating barriers to green building practices in the City’s building codes.
• Providing incentives to local businesses, developers and contractors to build or rehabilitate
efficient, resource conserving buildings.
• Educating both children and adults about the benefits of environmentally sound, daily
routines such as recycling, water and energy conservation and pollution reduction.
• Providing recycling programs and infrastructure to citizens and businesses in order to reduce
waste generated in the city.
The City of Chicago will lead the way and encourage its citizens to make wise
environmental choices by testing and sharing information on sustainable urban
development best practices. The City will do this by:
• Committing to build all public buildings following the guidelines of the Chicago Standard, a
green building protocol developed by the City.
• Using innovative, resource efficient materials and technologies in the construction and
operation of our public places, roads, streets and neighborhoods.
• Continuing to grow our fleet of alternative fuel vehicles.
• Developing the infrastructure to support and encourage the use of alternative forms of
transportation.
9
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.
Guiding Principles for Environmental Practices in County Government
1. Comply will all applicable local, state and federal environmental regulations in all County
facilities.
2. Practice energy conservation in all County facilities.
3. Practice waste minimization and recycling in all County facilities.
4. Purchase the lowest-emission vehicles practical to meet County needs.
5. Include environmental considerations in purchasing decisions for goods and services.
6. Acquire, maintain and preserve land to protect the natural environment
7. Reuse existing buildings and infrastructure and avoid greenfield
development.
8. Require environmentally sensitive design options in all new facilities and retrofits.
9. Provide employees with opportunities and incentives to practice environmentally sound
behaviors.
10. Actively explore the feasibility of implementing new and innovative products and/or
practices that provide environmental benefits, and inform elected officials of new
opportunities.
11. Direct all County business units to integrate environmental considerations into their
activities, and direct LUESA staff to assist business units with identifying and
implementing environmentally sound practices.
12.
Develop a program for continuous review of County activities to insure we seek practical
ways to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of our activities, and carefully evaluate
new opportunities to achieve sound environmental practices in government operations.
10
Environment Committee
2006 Meeting Schedule
1st Monday from 2:00 to 3:30 in Room 280
3rd Monday from 3:30 to 5:00 in Room 280
April 17
May 1
May 15
June 5
June 19
September 5 (Tues)
September 18
October 2
November 6
November 20
December 4
December 18
** No July and August meetings due to Council’s summer schedule
Note: 2nd October meeting conflicts with NCLM - tbd