At a June 4, 2013 work session, Wendy Rampson – the city of Ann Arbor’s planning manager – wrote down topics that the planning staff and commission will address in the short term, including an evaluation of A2D2 zoning. (Photos by the writer.)

The evaluation was positive, with most of the discussion focused on increasing collaboration with the city council and other city boards and commissions. The possibility of holding a joint session with members of the city council was raised, though some commissioners expressed skepticism about it. Ken Clein noted the challenge would be to avoid posturing by councilmembers, saying it might be difficult to have a productive discussion in a public forum. Wendy Woods observed that sometimes the planning commission is used for political cover. If a joint session is “just for show,” she said, then planning commissioners have better ways to spend their time.

Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 councilmember who serves on the planning commission, cited some benefits for a joint session: “If you want to work with council, sitting in the same room and at least getting a sense of where this year’s crop of councilpeople are can’t hurt – and it can help the council.”

Regarding the work plan, commissioners identified projects and issues to tackle in the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1, as well as longer-range goals.

The most pressing of those short-term projects is the review of A2D2 zoning as directed by the city council, with a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to council. The primary focus of that is the downtown D1-D2 zoning, especially in light of the controversial 413 E. Huron development, which the council recently approved. Rampson said the plan is to bring in a consultant to manage that zoning review, because the planning staff right now doesn’t have the capacity to take it on. It also helps to have someone look at the issue from a fresh perspective, she said.

Other projects for the coming fiscal year include: (1) developing an action plan for the city’s sustainability framework; (2) completing the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) effort; (3) recommending amendments to the R4C/R2A zoning districts; (4) working on certification for the state’s “Redevelopment Ready Communities” program; and (5) making amendments to the city’s master plan for two corridors plans – Washtenaw Avenue and North Main/Huron River.

Several longer-term efforts are on the commission’s work plan too, including amendments to the city’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance and neighborhood outreach.

Commissioners voted to approve the work plan at their regular meeting on June 18.

Planning Staff Evaluation: Collaboration

The planning commission gives an annual formal evaluation of the city’s planning manager and staff. Commissioners had completed a survey, and spent part of the June 4 working session reviewing the results of that survey. [.pdf of evaluation survey results] The session was also attended by Sharie Sell of the city’s human resources department.

Ken Clein noted that the evaluation was “overwhelmingly positive.” Much of the commission’s conversation focused on the issue of collaboration, and an interest in increasing the planning staff and planning commission’s collaboration with other city boards and commissions, as well as with the city council.

Collaboration was mention explicitly in some of the commissioners’ survey responses, which were made anonymously:

City Council can be tough, especially when they aren’t in the trenches…hang in there and let CPC know when we can be more proactively helpful. Would an annual joint working session be helpful (maybe including a couple other commissions that may have valuable input on current issues)?

I’d like to see us include other commissions (or at least a representative or two) when dealing with Energy, Environment, Parks, Housing, etc.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson wondered if some kind of collaborative element was important enough to add to the commission’s regular schedule, or whether it should be handled at the committee level.

Sabra Briere, a city councilmember who serves on the planning commission as the council’s representative, reported that the city administrator, Steve Powers, recently asked her if she thought a joint session between the council and planning commission would be useful.

Wendy Woods, a former city councilmember, wondered whether the point of a joint session would be to work on a specific issue, or whether other commissioners felt there was a general need for better communication and collaboration. She noted that the environmental commission includes representatives from other commissions, including planning. Perhaps that’s a model that should be adopted by more commissions, Woods said.

Sabra Briere serves on the city council and planning commission.

Diane Giannola worried that joint meetings of the planning commission and city council would bring politics into the commission’s work. She wasn’t interested in regular sessions with the council. Briere clarified that the idea was for a once-a-year working session, not regular meetings.

Ken Clein noted that the challenge would be to make sure that councilmembers aren’t just posturing. There are certainly issues in the community that warrant discussion, he said, citing possible changes to the R4C and D1 zoning, as well as other land use issues along the city’s main corridors. The challenge is to get people together in a productive atmosphere. It’s even more difficult to do in a public meeting, Clein said.

Briere recalled a joint meeting with the council and planning commission – held at the Community Television Network studios – that she described as very valuable. [That session, held in September 2009, also included members of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and focused on developing downtown design guidelines.]

Briere said she understood the concerns about politics and posturing. But she also hears people on council and on the planning commission say they’re waiting for direction from the other entity. The council is looking to the planning commission to help create a vision, she said.

Woods noted that sometimes the “help” is really the council looking for political cover. She observed that sometimes a member of the council will talk about taking an issue to the DDA to see what the DDA will do – even though that same person sits on the DDA board. [She didn't mention him by name, but mayor John Hieftje is the only person current serving on the council who also serves on the DDA board.] Woods pointed out that the planning commission is only advisory, so it concerns her when the council – as an elected body – isn’t the entity that’s creating a vision for the city.

Briere replied that each councilmember has a vision for the city, but that doesn’t mean the council as a whole has a collective vision. In that case, Woods said, perhaps the council needs a facilitator.

In that regard, Briere highlighted a council retreat late last year that focused on developing budget priorities. [See Chronicle coverage: "Council Focus: Budget, Safety, Infrastructure."] It was the first time that the council as a group had worked together to develop some consensus statements, she said. “If you want to work with council, sitting in the same room and at least getting a sense of where this year’s crop of councilpeople are can’t hurt – and it can help the council,” Briere said.

Woods responded, saying that councilmembers can pretend like they’re taking advice from the planning commission, but then they’ll just count votes to make their decisions, and use the commission for political cover. She noted that some councilmembers have told her that they’re glad she’s made certain comments in public. Why don’t those councilmembers feel like they can make the same kind of statements? Woods said that if people want to have a joint meeting and really listen to each other, that’s fine. But if it’s “just for show,” she added, the planning commissioners have a lot of work to do and have better ways to spend their time.

Briere replied: “I’m being the messenger.” The council hasn’t discussed having joint meetings, or raised these issues, she noted. The city administrator had queried her about it, as have some people who sit on other city boards and commissions, who are interested in talking about D1 zoning. “They want to talk about some of the impacts they see,” Briere said.

Giannola feared that a joint session would involve councilmembers trying to persuade planning commissioners to take action in a certain way. Briere reiterated that the council as a whole hasn’t talked about holding a joint session.

Rampson brought the conversation back to the topic of the evaluation, asking whether the staff should look for more collaborative opportunities, or take their cues from commissioners in terms of next steps. “We can be as proactive or opportunistic as you want us to be,” she noted, but it sounded to her like direction might need to come from commissioners or the council.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Wendy Woods, who formerly served on city council.

Bonnie Bona cited the city’s master plan as the area in which the council and planning commission overlaps the most, from a voting perspective. By law, both the council and planning commission must approve the same version of any document in the master plan.

Relative to D1 and D2 zoning, Bona thought it would be great to get together with other commissions and the council. There’s a high level of interest, she said, and it’s better to be as inclusive as possible in those discussions. But perhaps those discussions can focus on the master plan level, as opposed to the zoning level, she added. If they were to hold just one joint session, Bona felt that should be the topic.

Bona also thought a well-facilitated discussion on R4C zoning would be useful, focused on “what are we trying to do?” rather than “how are we doing it?” She felt that R4C might get “hung up” in the details, and getting on the same page regarding the intent of the zoning would be helpful so that the process doesn’t “self implode.” It’ll be messy, Bona said.

Another possible joint-session topic would be the action items for the sustainability framework, Bona said. That issue covers more than just planning issues.

Bona also noted that the commission’s executive committee has in the past been responsible for council relations, and she suggested letting that committee decide when to bring in the council on any of these issues. Conversations in that committee can be more in-depth, she said, and they could strategize about the best use of everyone’s time. [As the commission's secretary, Bona currently serves on the executive committee. Other members are the chair (Kirk Westphal) and vice chair (Wendy Woods).]

Commissioners also talked about the need for a facilitator for any joint session, so that it would free participants – commissioners, council and staff – to engage fully in the discussion.

Their June 4 discussion was wide-ranging, and frequently circled back to other issues related to the city council. One issue raised was the length of recent meetings, which have lasted past midnight. Woods suggested that the council might consider doing things differently, possibly by starting meetings earlier in the day. Currently, council meetings begin at 7 p.m. She indicated that it’s hard for people to think straight at such late hours, and noted that some cities hold their council meetings during the day.

Briere pointed out that some councilmembers work during the day. She felt that daytime meetings actually limited participation by the public, because most people have jobs that would prevent them from attending a meeting before 5 p.m.

Briere also observed that until the past year, council meetings didn’t extend as late as they do now. The meeting length isn’t necessarily related to the number of public hearings or presentations, she said, although it can be. “It’s often a factor of who sits at the table,” she said. “There are times when individuals are more loquacious, ask more questions, and have more opportunity to speak – and that extends the discussion time for any given item.”

Briere recalled when the former Ann Arbor News used to publish a “council clock” to record the length of council meetings. [This was during the late 1990s, when meetings also ran long.] Westphal jokingly asked if the clock indicated how long each councilmember spoke. Briere said it hadn’t been that sophisticated, although now it would be easier to do that. She noted that if that were done today, people would note that some councilmembers never speak. That might be because some councilmembers don’t feel the need to extend the discussion, she said.

FY 2014 Work Plan

Commissioners also spent more than half of the June 4 session discussing the work plan for both the commission and planning staff. They identified projects and issues to tackle in the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1, as well as longer-range goals.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson highlighted several “must do” tasks for FY 2014. The most pressing of those is the review of A2D2 zoning as directed by the city council, with a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to the council. The primary focus of that is the downtown D1-D2 zoning. She said the plan is to hire a consultant to manage that effort, because the planning staff right now doesn’t have the capacity to take it on. It also helps to have someone look at the issue from a fresh perspective, she said.

The commission’s ordinance revisions committee will take the lead on that project. Members include Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods. Westphal noted that a review of A2D2 zoning had been part of the commission’s work plan, even before the council directive. That directive had been spurred by a controversial development at 413 E. Huron, at the corner of Huron and Division. The site is zoned D1, the highest density allowed, and developers are building a 14-story apartment building there. The council voted 6-5 to approve the project at its May 13, 2013 meeting.

Sabra Briere, who also serves on the council, noted that councilmember Marcia Higgins has reestablished the design review committee to review the city’s downtown design guidelines and process. Rampson reported that the planning staff is not staffing that effort, so it’s not part of the work plan. Westphal, who served  on the original design review committee, was nominated again but declined to participate on the current iteration.

In addition to the A2D2 zoning review, other short-term efforts in the work plan related to master planning and ordinance revisions are:

• An action plan for the city’s sustainability framework. Completion target: September 2013.
• Implementation of sustainability action plan. Completion target: To be determined.
• Evaluation of the citizen participation ordinance. Completion target: October 2013.
• The non-motorized plan update. Completion target: October 2013.
• Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO). Completion target: December 2013.
• Capital improvements plan (CIP) – second year update. Completion target: December 2013.
• Amendments to R4C/R2A zoning. Completion target: March 2014.
• Floodplain ordinance/flood insurance impacts. Completion target: March 2014.
• “Redevelopment Ready Communities” certification. Completion target: March 2014.
• Amendments to the land use element of the city’s master plan for two corridors plans – Washtenaw Avenue and North Main/Huron River. Completion target: June 2014.
• ZORO Phase 2. Completion target: June 2014.
• Sign ordinance amendments. Completion target: June 2014.

Some of these projects will require more heavy lifting than others by the planning commission and staff. Regarding the ZORO project, which has been in the works for years, Rampson noted that when the staff has completed the draft revisions, it will likely take quite a bit of work to move forward – first by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee, then by the full planning commission.

Regarding the status of the R4C zoning changes, Rampson noted that earlier in the meeting, commissioners had discussed the possibility of holding a joint session with the council on this topic. After everyone agrees on the items that should be implemented, she said, then the staff and commission can work on an implementation plan. The commission’s recommendations on R4C/R2A zoning changes were provided to the council as an item of communication on May 20, 2013. “They probably barely even noticed it, because they were talking about other things,” Rampson noted. [The focus of that meeting was approval of the city's FY 2014 budget.]

Rampson also explained that the city has been accepted into the Michigan Economic Development Corp.’s “Redevelopment Ready Communities” program, which requires a formal presentation to the community’s elected body – the city council. That might happen at a working session, which could include the planning commission and other city groups. From the RRC website:

RRC is a certification program promoting effective redevelopment strategies through a set of best practices. The program measures and then certifies communities that integrate transparency, predictability and efficiency into their daily development practices. The RRC certification is a formal recognition that a community has a vision for the future and the fundamental practices in place to get there.

Rampson noted that the RRC was originally developed by the Michigan Suburbs Alliance, which sold the program to the MEDC. [The executive director of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance is Conan Smith, an Ann Arbor resident who also serves as a Washtenaw County commissioner – an elected position.] The MEDC has indicated that if a community becomes certified as an RRC, it makes that community more “readily accepted” into that state agency’s various grant programs, Rampson said.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Ken Clein.

Another issue raised during the session related to the city’s flood ordinance. Rampson joked that it’s a situation in which not working on the flood ordinance might have actually helped the city. She said that last year, FEMA and Congress made changes to the federal flood insurance program that are fairly dramatic. Because the program was so deeply in debt – even prior to Hurricane Sandy – the legislation raised the federal flood insurance rates to market levels. If you have a property in a flood zone with a high flood depth and a federally backed mortgage, she explained, “your insurance rates may go up to as much as $25,000 a year.” [The 2012 Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was passed with the intent to make the National Flood Insurance Program self-sufficient.]

With new FEMA flood maps in place, some property owners have raised concerns about the fact that their land is now located within a floodplain or floodway. Rampson noted that about 500 homes are in the Allen Creek floodway, and a large portion of those are located within an historic district. Until now, historic buildings have been exempt from a lot of the city’s flood-related requirements, she said. But if the federal changes remain in place and prices of these homes drop in value because of insurance requirements, property owners might want to take action to avoid paying insurance – like elevating homes above the flood depth. “That changes the whole look and feel of a street,” she said.

“I’m trying not to be too alarmist,” Rampson added, but it’s something to keep an eye on. It’s possible that there’s a backlash and Congress might revoke the changes, she said.

The commission also identified topics for long-term possible action:

• Economic development initiatives.
• Student neighborhood property conditions.
• Visioning for southeast area neighborhoods – in the Ellsworth and Stone School area.
• “Mixed use” overlay amendment.
• Neighborhood outreach/engagement.
• Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance amendments.
• “Age-friendly” master plan and ordinance amendments.
• Non-motorized Plan implementation
• Lowertown land use amendments.

Late in the session, Eric Mahler expressed frustration that so many items were being added to the work plan. [It was Mahler's last working session as a planning commissioner. His term ends on June 30, and he has been appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.]

He noted that the only thing the planning staff had been criticized for in its evaluation had been that they don’t move projects forward as quickly as some commissioners would like. Now, commissioners are adding to the list. Rampson replied: “We’re just getting it out of your system!” She said she wasn’t advocating to take on all these projects, but rather it was an exercise to ensure that commissioners laid out all their ideas. Woods added that the commissioners were brainstorming, particularly for the long-term items.

Mahler advocated for “moving the ball forward on what we’ve got,” rather than adding to the list. Rampson replied that it was important for commissioners to talk about their goals, but then it’s her job to bring them back to reality and talk about what’s possible for the staff to achieve, given their resources. The alternative, she noted, is for the commission to advocate to the city council for hiring a consultant for a particular project that the staff can’t handle.

On June 18, commissioners voted to approve the work plan with no additional revisions.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

From left: David Stead, Jean Carlberg, and Fulter Hong at an April 13 working session on sustainability. They are members of the environmental, planning and energy commissions, respectively. (Photos by the writer.)

The discussion touched on the conceptual as well as the concrete, with some commissioners urging the group to tackle practical considerations as well. The chairs of each commission – Bona, the energy commission’s Wayne Appleyard, and Steve Bean of the environmental commission – set the stage by talking about the roles of their appointed public bodies, and how sustainability might be incorporated into their work.

Specific ideas discussed during the session included financing energy improvements in households through a special self-assessment on property tax bills, and tapping expertise at the University of Michigan.

More than midway through the meeting they were joined by Terry Alexander, executive director of UM’s Office of Campus Sustainability. He described UM’s efforts at implementing sustainable practices on campus as well as creating a living/learning environment for students, teaching them what it means to be a “green citizen.”

Toward the end of the meeting, Bona noted that the issue extended far beyond the three commissions gathered around the table. Housing, parks and other areas need to be involved as well, she said, if they were truly to tackle the three elements of sustainability: environmental quality, social equity, and economic vitality. Bean said he and the other chairs would be meeting again and come up with some specific examples for what steps might be taken next. “You’ll be hearing from us,” he said.

Planning, Energy & Environment: An Overview

Bonnie Bona began the discussion by describing the work of the planning commission, which she chairs. They’re responsible for the master plan and ordinance revisions related to planning, and work on a raft of issues through standing and ad hoc committees, including area, height & placement standards, capital improvements, and R4C/R2A zoning districts, among others.

Bona said she’s been thinking about the concept of sustainability for several years, and the questions that it raises. For example, what’s the sweet spot for building height and density, to create a sustainable community? In her work on the area, height & placement committee, each time they’ve gotten comfortable with a certain level of density, they’ve asked: Why not push it a little more? Bona said she doesn’t know what optimal density is, but she’s feeling less and less comfortable relying on political winds, and not having a way to measure it.

Beyond density, she said they haven’t been considering the other elements of sustainability – economic vitality, and social equity. These are broader issues that encompass more than just planning, she said. A more productive way to move forward would be to take a comprehensive look at what it means to be sustainable. “And that is how I got here,” she said.

Wayne Appleyard, chair of the Ann Arbor energy commission.

Energy Commission

Wayne Appleyard, who chairs the energy commission, said the group was trying to help meet the city’s green energy challenge, set in 2005: To use 30% renewable energy in municipal operations by the year 2010. He noted that the deadline is coming up quickly. The goal for the entire community is 20% renewable energy by 2015.

City government is close to meeting its goal, Appleyard said, with its “green fleets” program using alternative fuel vehicles, electricity generated from landfill gas and two dams on the Huron River, and other efforts.

For the broader community, the commission is exploring the PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) program as a way for homeowners to finance energy improvements, like installing a solar energy system. [Matt Naud, the city's environmental coordinator, explained the program in more detail later in the meeting.] Other possibilities include requiring time-of-sale energy audits, so that potential homebuyers could wrap funding for energy improvements into their mortgage; educating the public about renewable energy and energy efficiency measures; and figuring out how to generate more electricity from dams on the Huron River.

Appleyard also discussed what it means to be sustainable. Often it’s considered as meeting our needs today, without harming future generations. It takes into account both economic and social aspects as well. He quoted William McDonough, author of “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things,” in describing the outcome of sustainability: “a delightfully diverse, safe, healthy and just world, with clean air, water, soil and power – economically, equitably, ecologically and elegantly enjoyed.”

Achieving these goals means redefining everything we do, Appleyard said. Sustainability means you have to account for everything you do, and do things only that make sense for all three areas: environmental, economic and social.

Environmental Commission

Steve Bean described the work of the environmental commission as advising the city on issues related to the environment and sustainability. The group has six committees: natural features, solid waste, water, transportation, State of Our Environment, and sustainability community. Ad hoc committees include recycling and the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP).

Bonnie Bona, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, and Steve Bean, who chairs the city's environmental commission.

The sustainability committee is taking a three-phase approach to its work, Bean said: 1) looking at what the city does now that isn’t sustainable, 2) developing an environmental action plan to show how to work toward their goals, and 3) broadening the goals to include elements of the economy and social justice.

The sustainability committee has also been working with the Transition Ann Arbor group, Bean said. [See Chronicle coverage: "Transitioning Ann Arbor to Self-Reliance"] That group is focused on transitioning the community in light of an end to cheap oil – known as “peak oil” – climate change and economic instability. One aspect of their plan is to build bridges to local government, Bean explained, so the sustainability committee offered to serve that function. They’ll be talking about how the Transition Ann Arbor plan meshes with the city’s efforts toward sustainability.

Bean also said he felt that the term “sustainability” was used too loosely: Something is either sustainable, or it’s not.

Starting the Discussion: Some Questions

Bonnie Bona began the more general discussion by posing four questions: 1) Where are there opportunities or overlap for pursuing sustainability among the three commissions? 2) What are the constraints? 3) Should they measure progress? and 4) Is there consensus toward a way of moving forward, or a goal?

The three commission chairs have been meeting regularly and will continue to do that, Bona said. There are also things that can be done informally. But she wondered whether there was any interest in forming a joint steering committee on this issue, or pursuing a community-wide discussion.

Commissioners Weigh In

Planning commissioner Jean Carlberg, a former city councilmember, began her comments from a personal perspective: How can she heat her house and get electricity in an energy efficient, cost-effective way? She pointed out that what she has to do individually is exactly what every city has to do on a larger scale. How can they develop pathways to move away from reliance on oil and natural gas?

Wayne Appleyard said that you start by making energy efficiency changes in your home, because those are the cheapest. Payback on your upfront costs is always an issue, he said. “And I’m convinced the future isn’t going to be like the past, so payback is harder to predict.” Once you reduce energy costs as much as possible that way, you can start looking at renewable energy to meet your needs, he said.

Steve Bean noted that the PACE program is one potential way for homeowners to fund energy improvements. John Hieftje, the city’s mayor who also serves on the energy commission, said that he, Mike Garfield of the Ecology Center, Ann Arbor energy programs manager Andrew Brix and Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, have visited Lansing to meet with legislators, asking them to approve the enabling legislation needed to make PACE possible.

PACE: Property Assessed Clean Energy Program

Naud gave a more detailed explanation of the program, saying that several other states have enacted legislation to support it. He explained that while there are programs available for low-income homes – like the county’s weatherization efforts – it’s more difficult for people at middle-income levels to find resources. Banks aren’t lending, he said, so there’s a gap in how to pay for upfront costs to make your home more energy efficient.

The program would be voluntary. Homeowners would first get an energy audit to find out if they’ve already taken initial steps on their own – for example, Naud said, you wouldn’t want to install solar power if you haven’t sufficiently caulked around your windows. You’d sign a contract with the city, which Naud said would microfinance the improvements. To repay the loan, homeowners would get an additional assessment on their property tax bills.

The risk is low, Naud said, as long as they structure the program in the right way – for example, not lending to people who are upside down on their mortgages, owing more than the home is worth. There’s already a system in place to make payments – the tax bills – and the improvements would add value to the property. The city has set aside $400,000 from a federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant it received, to use as a loan loss reserve fund. If the enabling legislation is passed, the city would be able to put together a package that would work, Naud said.

[Link to a September 2009 article about the PACE program, written by Eric Jamison, a law student at Wayne State University Law School who's working with the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center to develop the program in Michigan. More information is also available on the PACE Now website. Previous Chronicle coverage related to PACE: "Special District Might Fund Energy Program"]

Other Thoughts: Regionalism, Economic Impact, Trees

Mayor Hieftje said that talk of sustainability can’t just stay within the city’s borders. It’s important to look at it regionally, as the city has done with the greenbelt program, the Border-to-Border trail and transportation, including efforts to develop a commuter rail system. What is Ann Arbor’s responsibility to other communities, he asked. Also a factor – thousands of new jobs are expected to be added in this area in the coming years. “It’s a big issue, and I don’t think we can talk about it within city borders and do it justice.”

David Stead of the environmental commission said the Ann Arbor region should be looking at the issue of sustainability as an economic development tool. Michigan is going through dramatic change, he said, and Ann Arbor is at the epicenter as the state shifts from an industrial economy to whatever comes next – possibly clean energy. “We can be the model and the driver for that,” he said.

From left: Chuck Hookham, Josh Long, and Diane Giannola. Hookham and Long are members of the Ann Arbor energy commission. Giannola is a planning commissioner.

Valerie Strassberg, also on the environmental commission, said it was difficult to know where they were going without knowing where they were now. This community is different from Berkeley or Portland or Seattle, she said. What are lifestyles like now in Ann Arbor, and how much would they need to shift to be sustainable?

Josh Long of the energy commission talked about the continuum of how to get energy, from efforts by the individual homeowner, which are easier to control, to the energy provided by large utilities. Large-scale energy generation is more cost effective at this point, but when it’s transmitted over long distances, some energy is lost. The sweet spot might be generating energy on a regional or district scale, but there are legal constraints to doing that.

Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner who also represents Ward 2 on city council, said he’s interested in distributive justice – making sure the community’s benefits and burdens are spread equitably. Congress has dealt with health care, he said – what about energy, or water? How you do it is the trick, he said.

Erica Briggs, also on the planning commission, wondered what exactly they want to sustain in the community, and regionally. There’s talk about sustainability in the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, but what does that actually mean? When you start looking at it in detail, she said, it’s difficult. Briggs gave the example of her own house, which she described as an “energy hog.” Even though she loves it, she said it probably shouldn’t have been built.

Gwen Nystuen – who serves on both the environmental commission and the park advisory commission – said she wanted to put in a “big word” for trees. Trees are an important component of sustainability, helping in water protection, for example. The type of tree as well as its location should be considered carefully, she said.

Keeping It Real: What Does This All Mean?

Eric Mahler of the planning commission was the first to raise some concerns about the conceptual nature of the conversation. When evaluating a site plan, he said, “it’s hard to think of distributive justice.” He disagreed with Steve Bean’s earlier statement that sustainability was an all-or-nothing concept, and said he didn’t feel the group had reached a consensus about what it means to be sustainable.

Mahler also raised several questions: How does sustainability intersect with historic districts, or design guidelines? Does the city have the option of regulating building materials, with an eye toward sustainability? What are the city’s enforcement capabilities? He urged commissioners to think about the issue in terms of their clearly defined roles. “I wish I had answers for you, but I just have questions.”

Steve Miller of the energy commission had similar concerns, saying he was disappointed by the lack of specifics in the discussion. As he listened to the high-level talk, he said he had no idea how to apply it to goals that they might have a chance of achieving. For example, the city is pursuing a program to install LED lights, he noted, but it’s not clear whether that technology is sustainable in the long haul. In 2025, will LED lighting be the best choice? And discussions of regionalism didn’t seem to take into account the legal constraints they were working under, he said. He wasn’t hearing a lot that would help move some of these issues forward.

Planning commissioner and former city councilmember Wendy Woods described the discussion as great. “But I’m sitting here thinking, ‘Now what or why am I here or what am I supposed to do?’ I’m sure the public is out there wondering too.” All of the commissions are advisory to city council, she noted, and all have long lists of tasks that they’re working on. Is the goal to simply define what sustainability is?

Bean said this was the kind of feedback they wanted. The organizers were just interested in starting a discussion, and seeing where it goes. If they don’t reach consensus, he said, at least they might have a sense of what steps to take next.

Margie Teal, a Ward 4 representative on city council and a member of the environmental commission, said there seem to be answerable questions that can be tackled by the planning commission, like how the city’s area, height and placement (AHP) standards interface with density. “I welcome them digging in and pursuing that,” she said.

Evan Pratt of the planning commission said he liked the overarching goals that the energy commission is working toward – of 20% and 30% renewable energy use – and the goals that the environmental commission is tracking through the State of Our Environment report. From a policy perspective, planning has a role to play, too, in furthering sustainability goals. “It’s pretty clear that some change is necessary,” he said. Pratt suggested identifying common goals that each commission can work toward.

Bean said he thinks of sustainability as a filter that each group can apply, asking how each policy or project they deal with affects the environment, social equity and economic vibrancy.

Dina Kurz, a member of the energy commission, noted that all the commissions are advisory to city council, and that there are areas where their missions overlap. For example, the energy commission has discussed solar access zoning – that’s clearly a relevant topic for the planning commission, too. She said she doesn’t believe that sustainability can be just a city-driven effort, but that they can only change the things that they control. They need to figure out what those things are, she said, and how to leverage their partners to move forward.

Sustainability: The University Perspective

Terry Alexander attended Tuesday’s meeting to give an update on initiatives at the University of Michigan. He was appointed as director of UM’s office of campus sustainability last year – The Chronicle had previously encountered him at the December 2009 board of regents meeting, where he described sustainability initiatives underway on campus.

Terry Alexander, director of the UM Office of Campus Sustainability.

On Tuesday, Alexander gave a similar presentation, though he had exchanged his suit and tie for more casual garb. He told commissioners that UM president Mary Sue Coleman hoped to make the university a world leader in sustainability, and to develop a living-learning environment for students. UM touches the lives of 40,000 students each year, he said – if they leave campus with even a little awareness about sustainability, they’re the ones who will go out and change the world.

The Executive Sustainability Council – led by Coleman and consisting of many of the university’s top executives – sets broad policy and goals for the initiative. The academic and research efforts are led by the Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute. Some of that entails recruiting faculty with interests in sustainability, who can attract research dollars, Alexander said. He pointed to the Erb Institute and the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute as other examples of sustainability-focused research. There are also about 50 student groups on campus that have a sustainability component – the Graham Institute is trying to coordinate those efforts, too.

Alexander described his own office’s mission as three-fold:

1. Establish long-term “stretch” goals for the university. UM has been doing things like conserving water and energy for years, he said. Now, they need to come up with goals that will change the way people think about things on campus. They’ve set up teams to make recommendations in seven areas: buildings; energy; land and water; transportation; purchased goods; food; and culture (changing people’s attitudes). Alexander said they hope to have goals set by later this spring.
2. Coordinate the existing sustainability projects already underway on campus. There are over 200 projects that relate to sustainability, Alexander said – some new, some that have been around for years. His office will try to coordinate these efforts and help people find the resources they need.
3. Get the word out. There’s a lot going on, but they need to communicate that to the community, state and nation, Alexander said. One of their current publicity efforts is an annual Environmental Report, a brochure that he passed out at Tuesday’s meeting. [.pdf file of 2009 Environmental Report] “If we don’t get word out,” he said, “we’ll never be recognized as world leader.”

John Hieftje, the city’s mayor who also serves on the energy commission, said the city is working with UM on a study for a possible bus connector system to run through Ann Arbor, along the South State and Plymouth Road corridors. [See Chronicle coverage: "Green Light: North-South Connector Study"] But a few years ago, he said, the city tried to partner with UM in purchasing LED lights, and he couldn’t understand why the university didn’t want to work together on that. “As we move forward, keep us in mind,” he told Alexander, adding that UM might be going over ground that the city has already covered. He noted that Ann Arbor has won awards for its environmental efforts.

Responding to Alexander’s comments later in the meeting, David Stead of the environmental commission asked how conversations at the executive level related to sustainability as a community-based function. The university doesn’t always consider its impact on the community, Stead said, adding that there’s a long history of ignoring things, like compliance with building codes. “If you’re going to do sustainability, I certainly hope it doesn’t stop at State Street.”

Alexander said it was a valid point, but he doesn’t participate in the executive-level discussions. However, he said there was a lot of interaction between the university and city staff at the planning level, including monthly meetings between the two groups.

Next Steps

Jason Bing of the energy commission, who also manages Recycle Ann Arbor’s Environmental House, said that the only way Ann Arbor would meet its goals is to link with the university and regional partners. If everyone embraces the same goals, that will allow things to happen on the ground. It had been extremely valuable to bring the commissions together, he said.

Fulter Hong, a manager at Google who serves on the energy commission, suggested setting up an online discussion group so that members could continue these efforts, rather than relying on the commission chairs. It’s a tactical approach to keeping the discussion active, he said. Valerie Strassberg of the environmental commission suggested setting up a Facebook group or a blog.

Steve Bean pointed out that the environmental commission includes representatives from other commissions, as a way to keep informed about what other groups are doing. “I’m learning it’s not a two-way street,” he added.

Matt Naud suggested that the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, which he’s active in, could be a resource.

Setting Goals: The State of Our Environment Report

Referring to the city’s State of Our Environment report, Jean Carlberg – a planning commissioner and former city councilmember – said she’d like to see someone prioritize the next steps to achieve the sustainable energy goals. What steps should be taken, at both the individual and institutional level? The planning commission isn’t the best place to do that, she said, but it seems like it’s appropriate for the energy and environmental commissions. “I’m happy to follow somebody else’s lead,” she said.

Planning commissioner Eric Mahler agreed, but suggested that perhaps the planning commission can take a small portion of the city – the South State Street or Washtenaw Avenue corridors, for example – and ask what sustainability might look like, from all three perspectives: planning, energy and environmental. He proposed that the chairs make recommendations to the rest of the commissioners about how to proceed.

David Stead of the environmental commission noted that that the State of Our Environment report was based on data. Their intent was to identify goals and metrics. He suggested that each commission could do the same. The planning commission, for example, might want to look at density and ask what are the goals, and how would they be measured.

Valerie Strassberg said there were some things she’d like to bring to planning commission. She serves on the environmental commission’s water committee, and they’ve talked about why gray water can’t be used in toilets – it might be possible to change building codes to allow that, she said.

“I’m not sure toilet water quality is in our purview,” Mahler quipped.

John Hieftje took issue with some of the environmental indicators in the State of Our Environment report. He noted, for example, that the bicycling indicator was listed as “fair,” but that Ann Arbor ranks among the top in the nation for bike-friendly communities. Steve Bean replied that the indicators reflect how the city is doing relative to its own goals, not compared to other communities.

Sustainability: Role of the City Council

Josh Long of the energy commission observed that the way government is structured is an impediment to achieving sustainability. The recent city staff reorganization, he said, reflects priorities. In the org chart, the city administrator and city council are on top, followed by budget and finance staff, then everyone else. That reflects financial priorities, but not the environment or social justice, he said. Reorganizing to elevate the status of environmental and social justice issues would be a difficult thing to do, he said, but an important one. That way the city could really start focusing on sustainability.

From left: City councilmembers Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). Derezinski serves on the planning commission. Hohnke and Teall are on the environmental commission.

Wendy Woods, a planning commissioner, pointed out that the city council could take action on these issues, if they had the mindset to do so.

City councilmember Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who also serves on the environmental commission, said that one of the themes he’d heard during Tuesday’s meeting was that for sustainability to gain traction, there’s a cultural change that needs to occur. Perhaps one way to change people’s attitudes is to translate sustainability into very direct benefits for the community. For example, if people can see that their energy bills would go down when they take certain actions, that might change their behavior.

The council talks about its priorities and goals at an annual planning retreat – Hohnke said it would be good to touch base with the chairs of these commissions before the retreat.

Finally, he noted that the local food system was another element of sustainability, and there are efforts underway to increase the amount of money that residents spend on locally produced food. [See Chronicle coverage: "Column: The 10% Local Food Challenge"]

Bonnie Bona wrapped up the meeting by noting that the issue extended far beyond the three commissions – housing, parks and other areas need to be involved as well. Steve Bean told the group that the three commission chairs would come up with recommendation for steps that might be taken next. “You’ll be hearing from us,” he said.

Present: Energy Commission: Wayne Appleyard, Jason Bing, John Hieftje, Fulter Hong, Charles Hookham, Dina Kurz, Josh Long, Steve Miller, Ken Wadland. Environmental Commission: Steve Bean, Carsten Hohnke, Gwen Nystuen, David Stead, Valerie Strassberg, Margie Teall. Planning Commission: Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Wendy Woods.