Charlotte City Council
Ad Hoc Advisory Group
on the Environment
Meeting Summary for January 24, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Review Group’s Charge and Purpose of an Environmental Policy
Framework
II.
Subject:
Discuss and Review Options for Moving Forward on Environmental
Policy
III.
Subject:
Determine Next Steps and Set Second Meeting (if needed prior to
February 1 Retreat)
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Other:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Susan Burgess, John Lassiter and Pat Mumford
Nancy Carter
12:00 p.m. to 1:10 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
2. Current Policy Initiatives with Implications for the Environment
3. Group Summary Document for Council Retreat Notebook
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Environment
Meeting Summary for January 24, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
I.
Review Group’s Charge and Purpose of an Environmental Policy
Framework
Council member Foxx opened the meeting and advised that the discussion would start
with a brief review of what staff has done to date. This should help Committee members
have a better understanding and then be able to make a recommendation to the full
Council at the Retreat regarding a possible Environmental Policy.
Julie Burch reminded the Committee they had a thorough presentation at the January
workshop on the proposed Environmental Policy Framework. Staff tried to crystallize all
of our environmental issues and put them in a format that makes sense. There are four
categories: Air Quality, Water Quality, Land Preservation and Energy and Resource
Conservation. Those broad categories break down into three possible choices within
each: compliance, proactive or leadership role. We have tried to take everything we
know and put it in one place. This is a starting point, which we envision becoming a
catalyst to lead us to more focused discussion and helping us determine what we can do
next.
Council member Foxx thanked staff for the work that had already been done and asked
the Committee if they wanted to discuss some of the current initiatives. Information was
distributed (attached) that highlights major initiatives under Air Quality, Land
Preservation and Water Quality. Julie Burch advised that the information does not cover
everything, and noted that some of the areas touch more than just one category. The
document also notes items that have already been referred to a Committee.
II.
Discuss and Review Options for Moving Forward on Environmental Policy
The possible options for moving forward are:
Option 1: Council direct staff to refine the draft framework and bring back for
Council adoption.
Option 2: Establish new Council Committee for the Environment.
In discussing this option, the following should be included:
1. Discussion of Potential Charge to new Committee
2. Discussion of Policy Initiatives Already Under Consideration
3. Discussion of Committee Composition
4. Discussion of Committee Workload and Time Required
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Environment
Meeting Summary for January 24, 2006
Page 3
Option 3: Other Options Suggested by Ad Hoc Group
Foxx:
I have talked with all of you prior to this meeting, and feel from those
discussions there is interest in forming a committee. The question is does
this committee function like Transportation Committee by having an
active role or would this committee fill more of an advisory role to
Council?
Burgess:
I think it is important to establish a committee for the environment, but it
should be a free standing committee like Transportation, Housing &
Neighborhood Development, Public Safety and Economic Development
and Planning. It should not be just an advisory committee or it won’t get
anything done. It will be treated like a second class committee. Yes,
some of the issues overlap, but we can work together on those. There are
also issues beyond air, land and water like procurement – for example,
hybrid cars. We should look at best practices in other cities. In Chicago,
the Mayor approved putting plants on the roofs – you don’t have to water
it – that is something that doesn’t fit under air – but maybe building
standards. We should look at ways to reduce, reuse and recycle.
Foxx:
If you look at the list of initiatives under Air Quality, only two would
really fall to an environmental committee to discuss. Are there any
objections or problems with the itemized list? Are there any additions or
other thoughts?
Mumford:
I agree with the list. But, I think an oversight committee can act. The
group needs to make sure that air quality is an active concern in Economic
Development and Planning tasks that are connected to Transportation.
Currently, we do not have a gatekeeper to act like that. An oversight
committee can give direction and can also do some real policy work. I am
sensitive to carving out from the other committees to create work. I don’t
think we should take something away, but we need to make sure things
don’t slip through the cracks.
Burgess:
We need somebody to connect the dots. For example, in the urban street
guidelines, there is reference to planting strips. Well, Transportation
doesn’t plant trees. This committee should be made up of members from
the other committees. There are real neighborhood issues that could be
addressed here, like rodents. I had a call today about mold. I think this
committee should be deliberately made up of representatives from the
other major committees.
Lassiter:
I see this committee having logical things to work on. They might have
something that takes three or four meetings to grind through and then it
goes back to Council for approval. There are stand alone things that
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Environment
Meeting Summary for January 24, 2006
Page 4
Council gets that are purely environmental that have no place to go. Even
like the GDPs. There are some other things that we need education on.
There is no vehicle to review things outside of the full Council level right
now. Some of these we just farm to the closest committee. An example is
the Post-Construction Ordinance; we have nobody weighing through the
priorities. There are some big and small issues, but probably more
intermittent than some of the other committees. I think this committee
should avoid generating its own work. It should not craft its own goals.
The Council should still decide what goes where. It works better if the
full Council agrees and then directs staff to commit their time to the issue.
I think the make-up is irrelevant. It should be made up of members who
have expressed some interest in the subject. There will be overlap from
the other committees so everyone will be paying attention to what is going
there.
Burgess:
I disagree. I think it will be treated like a second class committee. If you
have people interested in the subject, they will be passionate and will find
ideas to bring to Council for referral. I don’t want to say this committee
can’t initiate anything. There needs to be cross-fertilization by making
sure every committee is represented. And, we need to make sure they are
communicating.
Mumford:
I hear you both saying the same thing. This committee will follow the
standard protocol. Every committee generates ideas that they run through
the full Council.
Lassiter:
I am not saying this would be more or less important than the other
committees. But, some of the committees are more ad hoc, like
Governmental Affairs or Restructuring Government. We put a lot of stuff
we don’t know what to do with in Restructuring Government. The larger
committees like Transportation, Economic Development and Housing &
Neighborhood Development have a more constant workflow because of
natural activity. They are constantly meeting. My comment was just
meant to say we need to stick to the referral process, the historic way of
working on things. I think there could be enough natural activity to work
on here.
Foxx:
So, am I hearing consensus about giving this committee a subset of issues
already on Council’s plate? How do we figure out issues? For example,
the GDPs – do they come here?
Burgess:
I would like to clarify that all work in committee is done by referral from
the full Council, but by working on issues, it will initiate things to bring
back to Council.
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Environment
Meeting Summary for January 24, 2006
Page 5
Lassiter:
I think there are issues where Council or staff says this is something we
need to work through, but where do we take this issue? Issues like post
construction, stormwater, water quality, and development issues. An
environmental committee could have a water quality issue, but a portion
of it could be discussed by another committee, so the staff and committee
chairs need to speak up to say should we look at this whole thing or just
keep a portion.
Foxx:
How do we transition from consensus to something on paper?
Mumford:
Should we look at the list provided by Ms. Burch? See what we have
going on already.
Air Quality
1. Center City Transportation Study (Transportation) – This item is already almost
finished in Committee.
2. Environmental Chapter, General Development Policies
3. Regional Air Quality Board Pilot Program to Reduce Ozone – The Mayor is a sitting
member on this Board. One item for discussion could be how the Council gives him
guidance.
Items two and three would be a natural fit for a committee on the environment
4. Revisions to Tree Ordinance
Lassiter:
This is something we haven’t seen yet – where is staff on this? Would this
fall under Land Use (Planning) or Air Quality?
Campbell:
We are discussing making adjustments to the existing ordinance,
tightening the requirements. Two previous studies have shown we are not
doing enough to protect the tree canopy in Charlotte. We are at 53%-54%
and it should be at 46%.
Lassiter:
So, this is something that would come to ED/Planning as a whole for us to
look at and see what we think. This is a significant policy – is it just about
planting more trees?
Campbell:
About planting and preserving.
Lassiter:
If this moved to an environmental committee for policy, but in general it
cost developers more, there may be two committees that are weighing-in.
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Environment
Meeting Summary for January 24, 2006
Page 6
Foxx:
If the committee answer and environmental answer are different, how do
you reconcile them?
Campbell:
Planning is not spearheading this. This is an Engineering policy, so until
the goals are defined you might want to wait before making a decision.
Burgess:
It needs to be clear cut for the developers.
Mumford:
But, that brings into question the broader issue. We are preserving or
adding to what end? We do not have a policy objective for air quality. It
would appear that reducing trees would be against that policy. But then,
the rationale for preserving trees is not comprehensive. We need a
comprehensive approach to the environment so the other committees
know how it relates. Then, we can determine which policy takes
precedence.
Foxx:
You make a good point about the framework. We have a high-level
statement right there that needs to be refined. That could part of the
committee’s first assignment.
Burch:
Under Option 2, the first item for discussion for the possible Committee is
to recommend an environmental framework or policy, e.g. statements or
principles for Council adoption. Right now you do have a broad
framework that needs a lot of discussion.
Mumford:
Wachovia recently went through a very similar process. They were
getting outside pressure to create an environmental policy. We need
policy statements or principles. We start at the higher level and work
down into a policy that can be implemented.
Lassiter:
At the Retreat, we will be discussing the focus areas and have prepared a
rough work outline. We don’t have an outline in place for the
environment. We could leave that as a “to do” at the Retreat to get
everyone’s weigh in.
Foxx:
I am in favor of bringing this to the full Council. We do have an outline
though in the Environmental Policy Framework. The committee could
take that document and start building in policy. We can discuss what
statements we need to actually adopt.
Lassiter:
ED/Planning recently completed their strategic plan. Similarly, you need
to determine how much you want to do. We need to define our role and
then determine what are the implications with the County? State? Feds?
We can develop a plan, but we need to be careful when we are allocating
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Environment
Meeting Summary for January 24, 2006
Page 7
resources that we aren’t working on something that is someone else’s
responsibility.
Mumford:
What resonates with me is I don’t know what I don’t know. We need an
education. I don’t know a lot about water quality, the state of the
environment. I think education will be key to getting started. What are
the local obligations? The State and Federal obligations?
Burgess:
We could glean a lot from other cities, specifically the West Coast.
Mumford:
Also from corporations. Again, with what Wachovia has been looking at
with footprints and reducing carbon emissions.
Burgess:
I have been invited to several things related to water quality through the
Marine Commission; also we had the Catawba tour. Doug Bean could
give us a tour of the water plants so we can see what happens there. There
is a lot we need to learn about the environment.
Foxx:
Does this mean we go back to Council and recommend that we form a
committee with the first charge to create a set of principles from the
Environmental Policy Framework with the intent to build in policy?
Then, we say we’d like to do some things within the context of the
principles. We need to decide initiatives and decide measures.
Burch:
You want to hone in on that first point about recommending a framework
and policy.
Lassiter:
That first point is the foundation.
Mumford:
What about initiatives for open space? What are we doing there and
should it be addressed?
Campbell:
There are some initiatives. The Foundation of the Carolinas has
developed a fund to actually purchase land. There is not a City-initiated
effort other than text amendments, nothing else is underway. But, it needs
to get on someone’s list from Council. We sort of touch on open space
with the GDPs, but it is not specific enough.
Mumford:
This is an example of an idea generated from committee. We might come
up with ten areas we need to pay attention too that make up our
environmental strategy, i.e., open space. We need to put them on paper
for Council.
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Environment
Meeting Summary for January 24, 2006
Page 8
Campbell:
We need to establish that it’s not a choice what’s important. We should
emphasize, for example, the integrity of the tree canopy. Open space
comes from these broader principles.
Burgess:
Doesn’t Huntersville have some kind of transfer of development rights?
Campbell:
The owner actually gives away their rights.
Burgess:
Doesn’t the farmer actually sell the development rights to the town to get
the land designated as open space, but then continues to use it as a farm?
Mumford:
It only preserves that piece of property though.
Burgess:
Yes, but, they sold the rights to develop it to the town of Huntersville.
Campbell:
Given their geographical area, a town can do more; it’s more manageable
for them. We have 380 square miles, which is a lot of geography to try
that kind of innovation. We could only preserve 50 or 60 acres. We’re
not averse to doing something like that, but how do you make it
manageable?
Foxx:
I think the educational component is very important. We need to
determine what the County is doing and not duplicate their efforts. But, I
think there are areas of intersection that if we know about them, we can
help.
Burgess:
Doesn’t the County have an environmental committee?
Lassiter:
They are the primary environmental agency. We need to see where we
would just be interfering. We can’t create a new regulatory agency, but
we can fill some gaps. We just don’t have the policy right now.
Campbell:
A good example of that gap is using the GDPs. They were very narrow
land development principles, without looking at the impact on the
environment. We need to figure out the policy gaps. A lot of times we
are asked about environmental data. The City does not have that data, it is
with the County. We need to get a better inventory of Charlotte.
Carter:
These are nationwide issues. Issues of green construction, stormwater,
solid waste and recycling, alternative energy and eco-tourism.
Burch:
We have talked only at the policy level, but the framework does reference
Energy and Resources which gets into operational details like hybrid
vehicles, or recycling toner and tires. We have a green building with one
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Environment
Meeting Summary for January 24, 2006
Page 9
of the utility labs; however, there is no adopted policy about green
buildings in the future.
Burgess:
Right now there is no place to land ideas – we can do some good stuff.
Foxx:
As far as committee composition, is there any reason not to set it up with
the chairs from Transportation, ED/Planning and Housing &
Neighborhood Development automatically?
Lassiter:
I think we should include people that have expressed an interest in this
issue. I think the Mayor has done a pretty good job of balancing the
committee workload. You can do a better job if you are not too busy and
if you have the interest.
Burgess:
We would want the other three committees to be represented.
Foxx:
That gets us into the fourth discussion point of Council workload and time
required.
Burgess:
I think there will be a lot of work needed on the front end and committee
members should commit the time.
Burch:
The education piece will take a lot. I envision one meeting (at least) on
each category. So, it will take time.
Mumford:
Transportation spent two years on education.
Burgess:
And, it was worth it.
Mumford:
There is a lot here.
Lassiter:
I think the staff with the primary responsibility for the subject matter
should help with the education. For example, Doug Bean – stormwater;
Norm Steinman/Ron Tober – air attainment. We need to use our existing
resources.
Burch:
You have staff experts, staff with a high level of knowledge. We also
have a staff environmental work team that has been working on these
issues for the last few years. It is made up of Doug Bean, Debra
Campbell, and Jim Humphrey among others. They can easily gear
themselves up to support this committee. But, also keep in mind that if
they are working on these issues, there might be some give and take on
other issues.
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Environment
Meeting Summary for January 24, 2006
Page 10
Burgess:
Do we need to look at the budget to hire someone? Do we need another
staff person to work on this?
Burch:
I don’t think we would suggest that at this point. I just wanted you to be
aware there would be some staff implications.
Burgess:
Well, I would be open to adding staff; a person with expertise if necessary.
III.
Determine Next Steps and Set Second Meeting (if needed prior to February 1
Retreat)
Foxx:
I think we have pretty much dispensed with option 3 – other options. I do
not think we will need to meet again before the Retreat.
Burch:
Do you want to take formal action or just note consensus?
Foxx:
We will just note consensus.
Burch:
We’ll type up a quick summary to be included in the Council Retreat
notebook that will note consensus for forming an environmental
committee.
Meeting adjourned.
City Council Ad Hoc Advisory Group
on the Environment
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 ** 12:00 noon **
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 278
Group Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Susan Burgess
John Lassiter
Pat Mumford
Staff Resources:
Julie Burch
Debra Campbell
AGENDA
I.
Review Group’s Charge and Purpose of an Environmental Policy Framework
II.
Discuss and Review Options for Moving Forward on Environmental Policy
(attachment)
IV.
Determine Next Steps and Set Second Meeting (if needed prior to February 1
Retreat)
V.
Adjourn
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Leadership Team
Options for
Environmental Policy
Option 1:
Council direct staff to refine the draft framework and bring back for Council adoption.
Option 2:
Establish new Council Committee for the Environment.
Points for Ad Hoc Group:
1. Discussion of Potential Charge to new Committee
A Committee for the Environment could be charged with the following:
1) Recommending an environmental framework or policy, e.g. statements or
principles, for Council adoption
2) Review the environmental implications of existing policies
3) For future policy initiatives, provide Council with an early assessment and
recommendations for environmental implications to be considered before
beginning the policy development process
4) Meet regularly to review the City’s progress on environmental matters and report
to Council.
5) Other tasks to be determined.
2. Discussion of Policy Initiatives Already Under Consideration
3. Discussion of Committee Composition
4. Discussion of Council Workload and Time Required
Other option(s) suggested by Ad Hoc Group
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
Current Policy Initiatives with Implications for the Environment
January 24, 2006
(Council Committee assignments in parentheses)
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
CITY COUNCIL AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Susan Burgess
John Lassiter
Pat Mumford
Staff Resources: Julie Burch and Debra Campbell
Background
At the Council workshop of January 3, 2006, staff presented a draft Environmental Policy
Framework (attached). At the conclusion, the Council approved the appointment of an ad
hoc committee, composed of the chairs of the Council Committees for Economic
Development, Housing and Neighborhood Development, and Transportation, led by
Anthony Foxx, to recommend to the full Council short and long-term steps for
developing a City environmental strategy. The Ad Hoc Committee on the Environment
(the “Ad Hoc Committee”) was asked to meet and report its recommendations at the
Council retreat.
Discussion and Recommendations
The Ad Hoc Committee met on Tuesday, January 24, 2006. All members were present.
Members discussed two options for environmental policy development: 1) Council direct
staff to refine the draft framework and bring back for Council review and adoption; and
2) establish a new Council Committee for the Environment.
By consensus, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends the following:
Approve a new Council Committee on the Environment.
The charge in the short-term (two months or less) would be to recommend for Council
adoption a set of City environmental statements or principles. The principles would be
drawn from the draft environmental policy framework presented by City staff on January
3, 2006, and “best practices” of other cities.
The adopted principles would provide a context for developing the scope of policy issues
to be addressed by the new Committee. Some initiatives, such as the Environmental
chapter of the General Development Policies, may be suited for a new Committee on the
Environment. There may be other developing or existing policies that fit better within an
existing committee. The Ad Hoc Committee determined that establishing environmental
principles would be critical to assist Council in making these determinations. A list of
current policy initiatives with implications for the environment is attached for reference.
In the long-term, the Ad Hoc Committee believes a new Committee could have three
roles:
1) ensure that the impact on the environment is considered in the development of major
policies being reviewed by other Council Committees,
2) 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 (e.g. energy conservation and
“green” buildings); and
3) be a source of proactive ideas related to the environment through the customary
process of advising the full Council and requesting referral to the Committee for further
study.
The Ad Hoc Committee looks forward to presenting and discussing these
recommendations at the Council retreat.
Attachments:
Current Policy Initiatives with Implications for the Environment
Environmental Policy Framework