The property had originally been developed in the late 1950s as a gas station, but underground tanks have been removed.  It had been purchased by the Naylor Chrysler dealership in the mid-1990s, and most recently was acquired by the Suburban Collection of Troy, which operates a Chrysler Jeep dealership across the street at 2060 W. Stadium. Suburban also owns local Cadillac and Chevrolet dealerships located on Jackson Avenue.

The site plan calls for demolishing a 2,505-square-foot automotive service building and constructing a 3,408-square-foot showroom. The 30,010-square-foot site is zoned C3 (fringe commercial) and is located next to the post office on the west side of Stadium Boulevard between Federal Drive and East Liberty. The new showroom building will be on the south side of the site, roughly in the same spot as the existing building. However, it will be shifted toward the front lot line to comply with the city’s maximum 25-foot front setback requirement.

There are two driveways now off of West Stadium Boulevard. The southern driveway and curb cut will be closed, and filled in with landscaping.

According to a staff memo, the site has 43 parking spaces. The city granted a variance in 1998 as part of an addition to the building and expansion of the parking lot. The variance allows four parking spaces in the front  – at the time, a 40-foot minimum front setback was required. The variance also permits parking stalls to be “stacked” for vehicle storage, with a 20-foot aisle between the stacked parking spaces.

There is no current stormwater management on the site. The proposed plan includes underground stormwater management for a 100-year storm volume.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Joe Grengs, a University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning, and Ginny Trocchio, who manages the city's greenbelt program, were among the speakers at a Feb. 9 sustainability forum.

Issues of land use and accessibility were the topic of a sustainability forum on Feb. 9, the second in a series that’s part of a broader city sustainability initiative. During the forum, city staff also unveiled a set of draft goals for Ann Arbor related to four general sustainability themes: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, told the audience that the 15 draft goals were extracted from more than 200 that had been identified in existing city planning documents. The hope is to reach consensus on these sustainability goals, then present them to the city council as possible amendments to the city’s master plan.

Speakers at the Feb. 9 forum included Joe Grengs, a University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning; Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager and member of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board; Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff; Ginny Trocchio, who manages the city’s greenbelt program; and Evan Pratt of the city’s planning commission.

A Q&A followed presentations by the speakers and covered a wide range of topics, including thoughts on the proposed Fuller Road Station. The following day, Feb. 10, the city and University of Michigan announced plans to halt the initial phase of that controversial project – a large parking structure near the UM medical campus.

The topics of the series of forums reflect four general sustainability themes: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. The first forum, held in January, focused on resource management, including water, solid waste, the urban forest and natural areas.

All forums are held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library and are being videotaped by AADL staff. The videos will be posted on the library’s website. Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” and an update on the project given at the November 2011 park advisory commission meeting.

Draft Sustainability Goals

The Feb. 9 forum was moderated by Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager. She said it’s hoped that the city’s sustainability effort, and these forums in particular, will serve as a springboard for a community discussion and help set overarching sustainability goals.

Wendy Rampson, city of Ann Arbor planning manager, moderated the Feb. 9 forum.

The overall sustainability initiative started informally nearly two years ago, with a joint meeting of the city’s planning, environmental and energy commissions. The idea is to help shape decisions by looking at a triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

In early 2011, the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project. The project set out to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. The overall project also aimed to improve access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to incorporate the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

In addition to city staff, this work was initially guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: park, planning, energy and environmental. Members from those groups met at a joint working session in late September of 2011. Since then, the city’s housing commission and housing & human services commission have been added to the conversation, Rampson said. Many of those members attended the Feb. 9 forum, which was held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library and drew around 100 people.

Over the past year, city staff and a committee made of up members from several city advisory commissions have evaluated the city’s 27 existing planning documents and pulled out 226 goals from those plans that relate to sustainability. From there, they prioritized the goals and developed a small subset to present for discussion.

The draft goals are:

Climate & Energy

• Sustainable Energy: Improve access to and support use of renewable energy by all members of our community.
• Energy Conservation: Reduce energy consumption and eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions in our community.
• High Performance Buildings: Increase efficiency in new and existing buildings within our community.

Community

• Engaged Community: Ensure our community is strongly connected through outreach, opportunities for engagement, and stewardship of community resources.
• Diverse Housing: Provide high quality, safe, efficient, and affordable housing choices to meet the current and future needs of our community, particularly for low-income households.
• Safe Community: Minimize risk to public health and property from manmade and natural hazards.
• Active Living: Improve quality of life by providing diverse cultural, recreational, and educational opportunities for all members of our community.
• Economic Vitality: Create a resilient economy that provides access to employment opportunities, supports a diverse range of economic activities, and attracts investment to our community.

Land Use

• Transportation Options: Establish a physical and cultural environment that supports and encourages safe, comfortable and efficient ways for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to travel throughout the city and region.
• Sustainable Systems: Plan for and manage constructed and natural infrastructure systems to meet the current and future needs of our community.
• Efficient Land Use: Encourage a compact pattern of diverse development that maintains our sense of place, preserves our natural systems, and strengthens our neighborhoods, corridors, and downtown.

Resource Management

• Clean Air and Water: Eliminate pollutants in our air and water systems.
• Healthy Ecosystems: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
• Responsible Resource Use: Produce zero waste and optimize the use and reuse of resources in our community.
• Local Food: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our local agriculture and aquaculture resource.

Rampson described the proposed goals as “very, very drafty.” A public meeting to discuss the goals will be held on March 29. Feedback can also be sent to the city via email at sustainability@a2gov.org.

Sustainability & Land Use: Framing the Issue

Joe Grengs – a UM associate professor of urban and regional planning – led off remarks from the panel at the Feb. 9 forum. He began by saying it was great to discuss these issues, and that there are very committed people in the city who are willing to take risks and do things in innovative ways. His task at the forum was to frame the discussion of land use and sustainability, and he planned to do it through the lens of one idea – interaction.

Joe Grengs, University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning, speaking at a Feb. 9 forum on sustainability in the city of Ann Arbor.

The real estate adage of “location, location, location” is really just a way of saying that place matters, Grengs said. Where you’re situated has an impact on your ability to interact with people and places – at schools, stores, work, and places of worship. Each location ties you to a network of opportunities and constraints. For example, it determines your social network, to some extent. It determines your educational opportunities – a family living just across the border in one school district might be able to send their kids to a great school, while the family on the other side of the district border might be going to a school with a weaker reputation.

Location is very much rooted in factors like income and race, he noted, and it’s central to determining the degree to which people interact. Transportation and land use also have a lot to do with interaction. To illustrate, Grengs presented a scenario. It’s Saturday afternoon, and you have four errands to run. Your teenager needs to get to high school for theater rehearsal, while your youngest child must get to the park for soccer practice. You have to drop by the drugstore to pick up a prescription, and as you’re leaving, your partner asks you to stop at the party store to get some candy.

To do these errands, would you rather travel slow or fast? Grengs asked. Most people would answer fast, he said, but his answer is: It depends. He said he’d ask how much total time it takes to do the errands – that’s more important than your speed of travel. So if you’re traveling slower but the places you need to be are close to you, it will take less time to do the errands. Proximity is crucial, Grengs said.

Yet transportation policies and our government’s codes and standards emphasize mobility and speed, Grengs observed. If that’s your end goal, then the means of achieving that goal include things like capacity expansion – more roads, more lanes of traffic – and ease of parking. But there’s a better way, he contended.

What if the goal is accessibility, Grengs asked, measured by the amount of interactions you can accomplish within a given period? And this really is our goal, he noted. With some exceptions, you’re not getting in the car and traveling to a location just because you like to drive. You’re interested in reaching the destination.

So what tools can you use to achieve the goal of accessibility? Mobility is one way, Grengs said. Connectivity – including the use of technology, like the Internet – is another. A third way of achieving accessibility is proximity – and that’s what land use policies can address.

In looking at these methods of achieving accessibility, Grengs noted that there’s a tension between mobility and proximity. Mobility is important when destinations are spread out, like in a rural or suburban setting. People travel on freeways or other major roads at high speeds to get from place to place. In contrast, in a place like Manhattan everything is close together. You won’t be traveling fast, or far. But in terms of accessibility, proximity helps residents accomplish more even though they’re moving more slowly, Grengs said.

Grengs concluded his remarks by making two final points. When a community takes steps to increase mobility, it’s important to stop and ask: Is this hurting us in terms of proximity? An example is sprawl – when infrastructure like roads is built farther out, developers respond by building in those far-ranging locations, and it undermines the goal of accessibility.

The other question to ask is: How can a community achieve its goal of accessibility? It’s a two-part recipe, Grengs said: (1) by making accessible places, through transportation and land use policies; and (2) by encouraging people to live and work in accessible places. Usually, he said, a community needs high density to achieve those goals.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Wendy Rampson introduced Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, by noting that the DDA was originally formed to support parking and infrastructure projects. But its work has shifted over the years from mobility issues to an increasing focus on accessibility, Rampson said.

City of Ann Arbor transportation manager Eli Cooper and Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority executive director Susan Pollay.

Pollay began by noting that the downtown doesn’t exist in isolation. She briefly reviewed the history of DDAs, noting that 1972 state-enabling legislation allowed the creation of these authorities in order to support economic development. There are now about 300 DDAs in Michigan, she said. The Ann Arbor DDA was formed in 1982 and over the years has been known for its management of the city’s parking system. In 2003 the DDA’s development plan was amended and renewed by the city for 30 years, and sustainability was one of its eight key goals. The aim, Pollay said, is for the downtown to be ”the sustainable heart of a sustainable city.”

The DDA supports that goal with different approaches, Pollay said. Regarding land use, the organization acts as an advocate. The DDA supported land conservation millages that were put on the ballot – and ultimately approved by voters – for the county and the city, she said. The authority also supports zoning that encourages residential development in the downtown area, Pollay said.

She noted between 1990 and 2000, there was no population growth in the DDA district. But the 2010 census showed that the DDA district had gained 1,263 new residents  – a 30% increase since 2000 – for a total of 4,607 residents. That’s at a time when the city and state lost population, she said.

Transportation is another approach that the DDA uses to achieve sustainability, Pollay said. More than 60,000 people commute into Ann Arbor each day. The idea is to get people out of those vehicles and using other forms of transportation. The DDA has provided grants for increasing service along the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s #4 Route between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Grants are also supporting (1) the AATA express routes between Ann Arbor, Chelsea and Canton; (2) parking for AATA service to the airport, which is expected to launch in March; (3) an exploratory study for commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Howell; and (4) a feasibility study for a transit connector between Ann Arbor’s north and south sides.

Pollay also pointed to the DDA’s financial support of the getDowntown program, noting that there’s been a dramatic shift in the number of people who use alternative transportation, including public transit and bicycling. Since 2002, the DDA has funded 95% of the program’s go!pass, which provides free bus passes to more than 7,300 employees of downtown businesses. In 2011, more than 630,000 rides were taking using the go!pass, Pollay said – a 15% increase compared to 2010. [For a roundup of ridership data, including go!pass usage, see "Transit: Ridership Data Roundup"]

Other transportation-oriented initiatives that the DDA helps fund include bike parking and lockers, free parking for motorcycles and mopeds, a Night Ride service, the Zipcar car-sharing service, and grants to groups like the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. Pollay said that 33% of downtown employees who own cars choose not to drive them to work.

The DDA also supports efforts to make the downtown more walkable, Pollay said. In addition to major streetscape improvement projects, other efforts include creating topiaries and edible landscaping, window display contests, and trip hazard/sidewalk maintenance.

Pollay pointed to sustainability as a component of construction projects supported by the DDA. For example, the authority provided a grant to the city of Ann Arbor to cover LEED certification costs on the city’s new municipal building. And the new underground parking garage that the DDA is building along South Fifth Avenue will include elements like electric-car stations, energy-saving fixtures, reuse of excavation site materials, and 100% stormwater detention.

Energy-saving programs are another way that the DDA supports sustainability, Pollay said. The DDA provided a grant to install LED lights downtown, for example, and has funded about 120 energy audits for downtown businesses. The authority tries to highlight these efforts whenever possible, Pollay said, to let the public know how the city is working toward sustainability. She cited signs at the Fifth and William surface parking lot as an example, explaining how pervious pavement is used there to handle stormwater runoff.

Pollay concluded by noting that many of these projects are accomplished by partnering with other entities.

Sustainability and Transportation

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, spoke about the city’s efforts to encourage different modes of transportation. Nationwide, in 1960 about 60% of people used a private vehicle as their primary mode of transportation to work. That number increased to nearly 90% by 2000, he noted. But in Ann Arbor, only about 70% use a private vehicle to get to work – and that percentage has been relatively flat since the 1970s.

So Ann Arbor has found a way to bend the trends, Cooper said. What makes the city special, and what can be done to strengthen the aspects of transportation that are sustainable?

The number of people who walk to work in Ann Arbor is about four times the national average, Cooper said. Policies that relate to sidewalk maintenance and pedestrian crossings help make that a safer option, he said, noting that the city recently adjusted its ordinance on pedestrian crossings. The city realizes that walking is a very sustainable mode of transportation, he said.

Going up the transportation hierarchy is bicycling, Cooper said. The city and University of Michigan have had a bicycle coordinating committee dating back to the 1970s. This year, the number of bike lanes in the city will exceed 40 miles, he said, and 3.5% of residents use bikes to commute from work – up from 2.3% in 2000. Bicyclists are burning calories, not carbon, Cooper quipped, and that’s part of the sustainability equation.

While walking and bicycling satisfy shorter trips, Cooper said, public transit gets you anywhere you want to go. He said the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority provides a fantastic service in a sustainable way. [Cooper was recently appointed to the AATA board.] Some buses in the fleet use biodiesel fuel, he noted, and about 50% of the fleet are hybrid electric buses.

Cooper also discussed railroad service in Ann Arbor, noting that investments are being made at the state and federal level to improve the tracks between Chicago and Detroit – passing through Ann Arbor – to make service more reliable. Work on a commuter rail service between Ypsilanti and Detroit is also underway, he said, although no dates have yet been set for when that might start.

Despite all of this, automobiless are still the main mode of transportation, Cooper noted, even in Ann Arbor. Auto technology is becoming more sustainable, he said, so the challenge is how the city can encourage people to use those more sustainable types of vehicles. That might include putting in charging stations for electric vehicles, or expanding car-sharing programs, he said.

Land Preservation: Ann Arbor’s Greenbelt

Ginny Trocchio gave an overview of the city’s greenbelt program – she’s a staff member of The Conservation Fund, which is under contract with the city to manage the program. The greenbelt is funded through a 30-year, 0.5 mill tax that voters approved in 2003 for land preservation and acquisition. A portion of that millage is used for parks acquisition, Trocchio said, but her presentation would focus on the greenbelt, which protects land outside of the city from development.

Park advisory commissioners Sam Offen and Gwen Nystuen attended the sustainability forum as members of the audience.

Most of the land preservation occurs through the purchase of conservation easements, she said. The property remains in private ownership, but there are restrictions on what can be done on the land, ensuring that the land isn’t developed and that its natural features are preserved. City staff go out to the properties once a year to monitor compliance.

Why is there a need for a greenbelt? Trocchio noted that in 2003, the real estate market and overall economy were quite different than today. Farmland and open space was being bought and converted into residential subdivisions, and there were concerns about the amount of sprawl that this area was seeing.

Since the millage was passed, Ann Arbor has protected over 3,500 acres within the greenbelt’s boundary, Trocchio reported. The city has also been able to leverage its investment on a one-to-one dollar match, by partnering with other entities. More recently, land prices have also worked in the program’s favor. When the greenbelt program was launched, land prices were about $16,000 per acre, Trocchio said. Now, that price has fallen closer to $4,000.

The city has also been able to secure more matching funds in recent years, both from federal sources as well as local partners like Washtenaw County, which has its own millage to protect open space and farmland. Some townships in the county – including the townships of Ann Arbor and Webster – also have land preservation millages, and have partnered with the greenbelt program.

Trocchio briefly reviewed the program’s finances, noting that the city had taken out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006 and is making payments with proceeds from the millage. In addition to debt service, expenses include greenbelt purchases. [For a detailed financial update on the greenbelt program, see Chronicle coverage of a September 2011 meeting of the greenbelt advisory commission.]

While there’s not the same kind of development pressure now, Trocchio cited food security as an issue, and noted that the city is building a sustainable perimeter of farmland. The program is also protecting land in the Huron River watershed, she noted, and protecting the region’s water supply. Other attributes of the greenbelt include preservation of scenic views, and in some cases support of educational and recreational opportunities – the Fox Science Preserve, a partnership with Washtenaw County, is an example of that, she said.

Ann Arbor Planning Policy

Two panelists addressed sustainability from the city’s planning perspective: Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff, and Evan Pratt, a member of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

From left: Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and Jeff Kahan, Ann Arbor city planner.

Kahan told the audience that Ann Arbor has been pushing for sustainability before people even knew the word. He described five elements of the city’s sustainable land use: (1) natural systems preservation; (2) adaptive re-use; (3) land use efficiency; (4) mixed use development; and (5) pedestrian/transit-oriented development.

Protecting natural areas is one of the things the city does best, Kahan said. Ann Arbor was the first in Michigan to insert language into its city code to protect wetlands, landmark trees, woodlands and other natural areas, he said. And it was the second city in the nation to require on-site stormwater detention.

Adaptive re-use has been done in the city for decades, without thinking about it in terms of sustainability, Kahan said. Examples in town include the Gandy Dancer restaurant in a former train station, the Armory condo development at Fifth Avenue and Ann Street, Kerrytown Market and Shops, and Liberty Lofts.

Kahan then turned to land use efficiency, saying you couldn’t talk about it without mentioning the topic’s four-letter word, “which of course is ‘density.’” The city is preserving land in the greenbelt surrounding Ann Arbor, but the flip side of that is accommodating density in appropriate areas, he said, like the downtown and commercial corridors. Kahan also cited mixed-use developments – buildings that typically include a mix of retail shops and residential units – as being another land use approach that works downtown or in corridors like State Street or Washtenaw Avenue.

The city has also taken steps to encourage pedestrian- and transit-oriented development, Kahan said. He pointed to changes in the city code that have allowed buildings to be constructed closer to sidewalks, encouraging developers to put parking behind buildings rather than close to the street.

Evan Pratt discussed the role of the planning commission in land use and sustainability. He said a remark by Susan Pollay earlier in the forum had really resonated with him – that without partnerships, sustainability isn’t possible.

From left: Ann Arbor city planner Jeff Kahan and Ann Arbor city planning commissioner Evan Pratt.

Pratt said the process of reviewing goals in the city’s various planning documents has been interesting. There’s a lot of crossover, and some conflicting goals as well. He likes the idea of developing a matrix for scoring projects, so that a blended perspective could be used to evaluate projects.

It’s important to develop good policies that encourage the types of projects that the city wants to see, Pratt said – projects that encourage people to live downtown, for example, and that add to the city’s vibrancy. As an example, Pratt pointed to the 618 S. Main project that the planning commission recommended for approval at its Jan. 19, 2012 meeting. It was a “planned project,” he said, which meant that by offering up certain premiums, the developer could get permission to build a structure taller than what zoning would otherwise allow. In this case, those premiums included capturing 100% of the stormwater runoff on-site, putting solar panels on the roof to help heat water for the building, and getting LEED certification – something that’s written into a development agreement with the city.

Pratt concluded by saying there was one big “eureka” moment in looking through the 226 goals that had been culled from city plans. The words “region” or “county” appeared only three times. So Pratt said he wanted to leave the audience with one question: In what areas does Ann Arbor need to broaden its horizons?

Questions & Comments

During the last part of the forum, panelists fielded questions and commentary from the audience. This report summarizes the questions and presents them thematically.

Questions & Comments: Huron River

Question: Is anything being done to make the Huron River more of an attraction?

Evan Pratt of the city’s planning commission noted that he’s also involved with the Huron River Watershed Council, a nonprofit that’s charged with protecting the river and its tributaries. [HRWC's website lists Pratt as chair of its board of directors.] Of all the city’s land use plans, he observed, none of them focus on the land adjacent to the river. The city’s Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) turned into an Argo Dam argument, he said, but there are some recommendations in the plan that apply to land use around the river. For example, a recommendation for commercial development in the Broadway bridges area states:

Encourage limited development of a restaurant and/or other public-use facilities where the public congregates and can enjoy the river in the Broadway Bridge/Argo area, especially if it generates revenue for river planning and implementation.

Pratt said the planning commission is interested in revisiting the HRIMP recommendations. He also pointed to the county’s Border-to-Border trail for pedestrians and bicyclists, and said a similar initiative is underway for the Huron River. Called RiverUp! and coordinated by the watershed council, the idea is to encourage communities to turn their face to the river, Pratt said. Among other things, there’s an economic benefit to doing that, he said. [For Chronicle coverage of the initiative, see: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"]

Ginny Trocchio noted that one goal of the city’s greenbelt program is to protect land located in the Huron River watershed.

Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff recalled that two decades ago, the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan had identified a goal of developing a ring of parkland around Argo Pond. Much of the property at that time was owned by industrial firms, she said. Over the years, the city was able to acquire key parcels – including land that’s now Bandemer Park – and today that portion of the river has a trail system and more public access. It shows the value of planning documents and a vision in working toward a goal, Rampson said.

Questions & Comments: Urban Open Space

Question: What about the need for open space in downtown Ann Arbor? There’s been a debate about the Library Lot on South Fifth Avenue, and whether the top of the underground parking structure being built there should be open space or a high-rise building. [The underground parking is being built by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.] Research has shown the need for greenways and open space in urban areas, and how that kind of space generates economic development around it.

Noting that she lives near Dolph nature area on the city’s far west side, Susan Pollay of the DDA observed that the need for open space downtown is very different than in other parts of the city. Downtown open space poses different challenges and serves different purposes. Sculpture Plaza, at the corner of Fourth and Catherine, has been successful, she noted, while Liberty Plaza at Liberty and Division doesn’t feel as good.

Eric Lipson, former Ann Arbor city planning commissioner, addressed the panel with a question about open space and its role in the downtown, in the context of the future use of the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage, which is nearing completion. In the background is Clark Charnetski, who addressed the panel expressing support for the Fuller Road Station.

Ingredients to Sculpture Plaza’s success include the fact that it’s small and manageable, Pollay said. It’s adjacent to retail stores, which helps animate the plaza – there’s usually activity there. Employees at the shops take ownership of the area, helping to clean it up. All of that is missing at Liberty Plaza, Pollay said. As the city looks at developing a greenway or deciding what goes atop the Library Lot, she indicated it will be important to learn from these other urban park experiences.

Urban areas also can serve multiple functions, Pollay noted. Main Street can be shut down for events like FestiFools. The surface parking lot next to Palio restaurant – at the corner of Main and William – is used for events like the annual car show and Taste of Ann Arbor. There are different needs and uses for open space, depending on the season, she said. Sidewalks are also important elements of urban open space, as are landscaped areas around parking lots. She noted that dogs, for example, need areas where owners can take them to do their business. The city can be smarter in thinking about the needs for downtown open space, Pollay concluded.

Jeff Kahan said the city’s planning staff is very interested in this issue. But you can’t simply apply suburban concepts – the notion that more is better – to the downtown, he said. Smaller, intimate spaces are more appropriate, like the farmers market, sidewalks, the Diag, or the bandshell at West Park. It’s important to remember that downtown users of open space aren’t likely looking for a large playground, he said. For one thing, not that many families with kids live downtown.

Eric Lipson, who had posed the original question, followed up by asking Pollay if she would support having a surface parking lot atop the underground parking structure that would also be used for community events. Absolutely, Pollay replied. She noted that the entry/exit ramps into the garage were specifically designed so that Library Lane – the small street running between Fifth and Division, just north of the downtown library – could be closed so that events could be held there. The point was to make cars secondary to that space, she said.

Lipson said everyone agrees that micro areas like Sculpture Plaza are needed. But there’s also a need for larger spaces, he said, like the Ingalls Mall area on the University of Michigan campus, where the Street Art Fair and Summer Festival‘s Top of the Park events are held. The Library Lot could serve the same purpose for the downtown, he said.

Wendy Rampson observed that the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan is a good place for this kind of suggestion to be included.

Questions & Comments: Fuller Road Station

Clark Charnetski – a member of the AATA’s local advisory council – referred to Evan Pratt’s description of a blended perspective, and said that Fuller Road Station is an example of that. Tradeoffs are involved, he said, and it’s important to look at two locations: The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street, and the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Although Fuller Road Station would use three acres for parking and a train station, Charnetski said, it would free up space where the current train station is located, which is near property owned by DTE that’s being cleaned up and could possibly become a park along the Huron River. So the tradeoff is in favor of relocating the train station to Fuller Road Station, Charnetski concluded – that’s something to keep in mind. [Charnetski's remarks were made the day before news broke that the city of Ann Arbor and University of Michigan were suspending plans for Fuller Road Station's initial phase – a large parking structure located near UM's medical complex. See Chronicle coverage: "UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project"]

Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff noted that projects like Fuller Road Station and the Library Lot illustrate the difficult decisions that communities make on issues like density and transportation, and the appropriate locations for development. Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, said locating a train station next to a major employment site is fundamental in order to encourage walkability.

Rampson asked Joe Grengs – a UM associate professor of urban and regional planning – to comment on techniques that communities might use to grapple with these tensions. Grengs said focus groups and other methods can be used to draw out ideas. But regarding the Fuller Road Station project in particular, Grengs said he had some concerns. He didn’t believe the university needed more parking, and said there are steps that could be taken to reallocate parking within UM’s current infrastructure.

The Fuller Road Station project undermines the city’s stated sustainability goals, Grengs said, because the mode of parking falls into a completely different category than walking, biking and rail transit. All of those latter modes work well in areas of high density, he said. But cars work against that – they are “big, hulking objects” that simply sit all day, he observed. So to have 1,000 cars parked at that location every day, at a place where there should be opportunities for interaction – places for retail or recreation, for example – “to me is a mistake and I’d urge the city to think about that,” he concluded. Grengs’ remarks were met with a smattering of applause from the audience.

Later during the Q&A, Rita Mitchell said she agreed with Grengs regarding Fuller Road Station, and she urged the city to consider adaptive re-use of the existing site of the Amtrak station instead.

Questions & Comments: Public Transit & Housing

Jeaninne Palms told panelists that she really appreciated these public discussions on sustainability issues. [Palms was one of the organizers of the Transition Ann Arbor initiative, which focused on some of these same issues.] The forums bring up perspectives that people don’t often think about, she noted. Palms cited Grengs’ comments about accessibility, and observed that that Ann Arbor Transportation Authority recently increased the frequency of buses along Route #4, between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. She wondered what his thoughts were about making it more accessible for people who work in Ann Arbor to also live in Ann Arbor.

Jeaninne Palms addressed the panel with a question about transportation goals.

Grengs replied that Palms’ comment illustrates the point that addressing transportation goals can be done better by thinking about land use. Affordability is a barrier to living in Ann Arbor, he noted – it’s easier for low-income residents to live in Ypsilanti. So one way to solve the transportation problem is to create more affordable housing closer to jobs.

Evan Pratt pointed to the 618 S. Main project that planning commission recommended for approval in January. [See Chronicle coverage: "618 S. Main Project Gets Planning Support"] The apartment building will have a variety of unit sizes, he noted. [The proposal calls for 70 studio apartments, 70 one-bedroom units, 42 two-bedroom units, and 7 duplex units with 1 bedroom each.] The plan also includes 121 spaces for on-site parking, Pratt said, which is far fewer than the total number of bedrooms.

He also noted that the development “unbundles” parking – that is, tenants aren’t given a parking space as part of their lease. Parking spaces must be rented separately. The city wants to encourage that, Pratt said. It’s not possible to stop people from choosing to have a car, he said, but it’s possible to ensure that a choice must be made – that it’s not automatic for parking to be provided.

Wendy Rampson observed that the issue involves the question of density. If it’s important to have more workforce housing, that means more housing units will be needed. One way to accomplish that is through accessory apartments, she said. But when the city discussed that possibility a decade ago, the community decided that wasn’t something it wanted. In places like California, Rampson said, communities have turned to accessory dwellings as one way to increase density.

[At the same meeting in January 2012 when the planning commission recommended approval of the 618 S. Main project, they also authorized a special exception use at 3645 Waldenwood, to allow an accessory apartment to be added to the single-family house there. According to planning staff, it was only the second time a special exception use had been requested for an accessory unit since the accessory dwelling ordinance was crafted in the early 1980s. The effort that Rampson mentioned would have changed the city's zoning to make it possible for non-family members to live in accessory apartments.]

Commenting at the end of the Q&A session, Rita Mitchell noted that a four-party agreement is now being discussed that could lead to a countywide transportation system. [Action on four-party agreement – between the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Washtenaw County, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – has been postponed three times by the Ann Arbor city council, most recently at its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting.] Mitchell suggested that AATA should improve its existing routes and make service truly excellent, saying it would be a draw for people and would provide environmental benefits as well.

Rampson noted that transit ridership has increased. The AATA recently started more frequent service on Route #4 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, she said, which is already showing increased ridership. Eli Cooper added that increased service requires increased resources. Part of the proposed countywide plan calls for enhancing services in the core population areas, as well as better connecting communities within the county, he said.

Questions & Comments: Noise

Question: Ann Arbor is surrounded by freeways. I live by M-14 and there’s nothing but noise. There should be some thought given to creating a buffer – berms, or trees – because noise has a big impact on quality of life.

Susan Pollay said she didn’t have an answer, but a comment. A few years ago, when M-14 was shut down for construction, it was incredibly quiet. It was remarkable not to have that freeway sound – she hadn’t previously been aware that it was such a constant background noise.

Eli Cooper noted that building noise barriers or berms is prohibitively expensive, and yields a limited effect. He agreed that noise affects the quality of life for residents. That’s why it’s important to encourage quieter modes of transportation, like walking, bicycling, or using hybrid buses.

Questions & Comments: Local vs. State Policy

Question: To what extent are people thinking about the future, with regard to resisting certain tendencies? For example, the University of Michigan isn’t accountable to the residents of Ann Arbor. The state is also doing things that residents don’t want – like allowing companies to shoot movies in the city. There’s nothing sustainable about that. The city should have its own policies.

Eli Cooper replied that in order to be successful, the city needs to align its policies with entities around it. Being sustainable within the city’s boundaries is one thing, he said, but it’s also important to consider sustainability in a broader context. And it’s important for the city to coordinate and work well with higher forms of government, like the county and the state.

Future Forums

Two more forums in this sustainability series are planned. All forums will be held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library building, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

• March 8, 2012: Climate and Energy – including an overview of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, climate impacts, renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation.
• April 12, 2012: Community – including housing, public safety, public art, recreation, outreach, civic engagement, and stewardship of community resources.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public entities like the city of Ann Arbor. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

From the June 3, 2010 edition of the Washtenaw Legal News, the published notice of the June 7, 2010 Glacier Hills and Heritage Row site plan public hearings. (Image links to wider view and higher resolution file.)

In a phone interview on Friday, city clerk Jackie Beaudry confirmed for The Chronicle that an email sent by the Ann Arbor city clerk’s office to the Detroit News – requesting publication of the notices for Sunday, May 30 – was not received by The News. Due to the Memorial Day holiday, the city clerk’s staff did not learn of the communication snafu until Tuesday. That was not in time to meet the publication requirement for the June 7 public hearings.

As a result, no vote is now expected on the site plans for those two projects at Monday’s June 7 city council meeting. The notice of public hearings for those projects, Beaudry said, was published in the June 3 edition of the Washtenaw Legal News. Those WLN notices in the June 3 edition still specify the site plan public hearings for June 7, but indications from inside city hall are that if when the hearings are opened on June  7, they’ll be left open and continued through the council’s June 21 meeting, when a vote will be taken on the site plans as well as the Heritage Row rezoning.

The zoning change for the Heritage Row project, which is considered separately from the site plan by the council and is given a separate public hearing, was properly noticed, Beaudry told The Chronicle. How can one of the public hearings receive proper notice, but the other one not, when they’re part of the same project?

It’s due to the fact that the rezoning moves through a two-step process with the city council, whereas the site plan approval requires just one step. Rezoning is an ordinance change – as such, it requires two readings before the council. Having passed at its first reading at the city council’s May 3 meeting, the Heritage Row rezoning moves to a second council reading through a process handled by the city clerk’s office – and the associated public noticing is thus handled without any additional communication required from planning and development staff.

The site plan for Heritage Row, however, is coming to the city council for the first time on June 7 – it does not become part of the city clerk’s bailiwick until there’s communication from the city planning staff. On a related note, for planning commission public hearings, the responsibility of public noticing falls to the city planning staff, not the city clerk.

The relevant city code section for public noticing of site plans is from Chapter 57:

5:135.  Public information and hearings. …

(3)   Notice of all public hearings shall be published in a local daily newspaper of general circulation at least 1 week prior to the public hearing

The decision on Heritage Row, now projected for June 21, 2010, would overlap with the first reading before the city council of a proposed historic district, tentatively scheduled for the same meeting. [See Chronicle coverage: "S. Fifth Avenue: Historic District, Development"]

The Heritage Row project includes 79 units – 12 efficiencies, 9 1-bedroom, 43 2-bedroom, 14 3-bedroom, and 1 5-bedroom apartment. Those units will be distributed over seven renovated existing houses and three buildings to be constructed behind the existing houses. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Heritage Row Moves to City Council"]

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.

Mary Jo Callan, left, head of the city/county community development office, and Jayne Miller, the city of Ann Arbor's community service area administrator.

As to possible measures that could affect the FY 2011 budget, which begins July 1, 2010, Miller focused on several areas: (i) reorganizing the housing commission; (ii) reducing the scope for planning projects and outsourcing planning review and/or collaborating with other municipalities for construction inspection, (iii) cutting human services funding, (iv) reducing maintenance for specific parks and changing the parks maintenance/improvements millage resolution, which specifies how the millage money is allocated.

Some possibilities that were mentioned – but described as unlikely to have an impact on the FY 2011 budget – included allowing a private vendor to operate Huron Hills Golf Course as a combination driving range (where the front nine holes are currently located), plus a 9-hole golf course.

Specific parks were also identified in Miller’s report that would be recommended for sale – if parkland sale were to be used as a strategy. However, that too, said Miller, would be unlikely to have a short-term impact for two reasons: the sale of parkland requires a voter referendum, and the market for land is currently uncertain, given the overall economic climate.

The presentation also served as a bit of a tutorial on which parts of the city’s operations Miller administers, in a job she’ll be leaving on Feb. 11. Sumedh Bahl, unit manager of the water treatment plant, was also on hand Monday night – he’ll be filling in for Miller on an interim basis.

Housing Commission

Jayne Miller reviewed for the council the key point from a Jan. 11 work session regarding the housing commission: a $228,163 gap for the commission that would result from additional staffing and outsourcing of maintenance. [.pdf file of cover memo and materials for housing commission]

Of that amount, the city had already specified $90,000 in its FY 2011 plan, which would still leave a shortfall of $138,163 above and beyond what’s been planned for. As Miller reiterated on Monday, the beefed up staffing was expected over the next two years to recoup an investment in the form of additional grants they’d have staff time to apply for. Further, the housing commission had a variety of strategies it would be using to bridge the gap – but the bottom line was that council could be getting a request for additional funds beyond the $90,000 it had already planned for. [See Chronicle coverage: "Housing Commission Reorganizes"]

Planning and Development

Miller ticked through the basic services provided by planning and development: administration of rental housing inspection, administration of the construction code, and administration of the planning program. [.pdf file of cover memo and materials for planning and development]

Of these, the last item has the highest profile, as it involves site plan review for various projects, as well as the various planning initiatives that entail public engagement: A2D2 (downtown zoning), ZORO (comprehensive zoning code review), AHP (revisions to area height and placement requirements), as well as the current review of the R4C/R2A (residential housing) districts.

Of the various planning initiatives underway, Miller said, some were deemed too far along to consider modifications in schedule or scope. But in order to keep staffing at an already reduced level, she said, reductions in scope of other projects were a possibility. Projects that could be reduced in scope, she said, included the  second phase of master plan consolidation, which could be narrowed in focus to consider just those elements that were outdated.

And the review of the R4C/R2A zoning areas could, said Miller, be reduced in scope by eliminating the R2A (two-family dwelling) from consideration and truncating the review period at six months, instead of taking the entire year originally scheduled. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the council’s representative to the planning commission, did not embrace the idea of truncating the work of the R4C/R2A task force, saying there were groups that had already expressed some concern about their lack of inclusion in the process.

Other sources inside the task force have indicated that in the 3-4 months of work done to date, they’re really only at the point of gathering stakeholder input – including landlords who had perceived they were being excluded. It seems unlikely that the task force’s work could be wrapped up much short of the originally scheduled year.

In addition to the possibility of reducing the scope of projects, Miller outlined the possibility of outsourcing activities – plan review services, for example. One consideration is that all clerical and inspection staff is unionized, and union contract language would guide any outsourcing.

In the past, the city has had agreements with Washtenaw County and Pittsfield Township for mutual aid in construction inspection services. Those arrangements have been re-implemented, with ongoing discussions of additional opportunities for maximizing service, while minimizing costs.

Based on emails The Chronicle has seen circulated among building tradespeople in late November 2009, there is dissatisfaction in Ann Arbor with the performance of Pittsfield Township construction inspectors – failure rates of 50% are cited, which is high.

A somewhat more dramatic possibility outlined by Miller on Monday night was the possibility of transferring the authority for the enforcement of construction code to the state of Michigan. That would require the city to  substantiate a claim that administering and enforcing the rules would cause certain hardships and undue burdens on it.

Human Services

When the city council last allocated human services dollars – nearly $1.3 million worth in April of 2009 – it did so using a new scoring rubric. There was then already a sense that the following year, this year, things could be grim. From Chronicle coverage:

[Mayor John] Hieftje expressed concern that it was only going to get tougher next year and that to hold the human services funding level this year (as compared to last) was difficult.

For FY 2011, the coming budget year, the number $260,000 crops up multiple times throughout the cover memo on human services issues from Miller to the council. To appreciate the significance of that number, it’s important to understand that the city of Ann Arbor adopts a budget one year at a time, but plans two years at a time.

So when the council adopted the FY 2010 budget, there was a plan for FY 2011 accompanying it as well, even though that FY 2011 plan was not formally adopted.

In that FY 2011 plan, there was a reduction of $260,000 for human services support. So the various alternatives – discussed by Miller on Monday night and outlined in her cover memo – are portrayed in terms of this $260,000 reduction. Among the alternatives would be to restore the $260,000 to bring funding levels up to FY 2010 levels. That would be accomplished by allocating staff costs to federal funds and by not making a $100,000 contribution to the Ann Arbor Housing Trust Fund.

In response to a question from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Miller reported the current fund balance of the Ann Arbor Housing Trust Fund is $393,000.

Also among the alternatives sketched out by Miller was the possibility of reducing human services funding by more than the $260,000 in the FY 2011 plan.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – who was one of the chief architects of the scoring metric for human services allocations – wanted to know if the various nonprofits that had previously received money were aware of the potential for cuts. Miller said they were aware of what had been proposed.

Mayor John Hieftje appeared somewhat dissatisfied with Miller’s comparative portrayal of Ann Arbor materials in the context of five other cities: Lansing, Mich.; Austin, Texas.; Boulder, Colo.;  Fredericksburg, Va.; and Madison, Wisc. Those five cities fund nonprofits at an average rate of 1.45% of their general fund, compared to 1.7% for Ann Arbor. [.pdf file of cover memo and materials for humans services]

[That 1.7% is more than the other five cities – but the average of 1.45% did not include three other cities in Michigan, none of which allocate any of their general fund money to nonprofits: Battle Creek, Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo. Inclusion of those three zeros in the average would put the contrast at 0.9% average for eight other cities versus Ann Arbor's 1.7%.]

Hieftje concluded that Ann Arbor, compared to other cities in Michigan, was still quite strong with respect to its human services funding.

Parks

Discussion of parks took up more of the council’s time than other parts of the community services area covered on Monday night. [.pdf file of cover memo and materials for parks]

Parks: Open Space Millage

One of the questions that the city council had asked city staff to explore was the possible re-purposing of the open space (a.k.a greenbelt) millage to support the city’s park system. The city issued $20 million in bonds based on the millage, which was passed in 2003 and last through 2033. The debt service on those bonds is roughly $1.2 million to $1.4 million per year through 2033. Revenue from the millage is projected to be a little over $2 million, leaving an estimated $700,000 to $900,000 in available funds per year.

The current fund balance for the open space millage is $18,266,602, of which $6,318,071 has either been recently spent or approved to be spent by the council, leaving a practical balance of $11,948,531.

Neither in the cover memo or during council discussions on Monday night did there seem to be any great enthusiasm for exploring the possibility of re-purposing the open space millage in support of the city park system.

Parks: Do You Golf?

However, the idea of issuing an RFP (request for proposals) to convert part of the Huron Hills Golf Course to a driving range with just a 9-hole course was fairly warmly embraced. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) described the notion as “intriguing” and said that to pursue it, the timing would be “the sooner, the better” in order to get the proposal before the golf advisory task force as well as the park advisory commission.

The RFP would need to be issued by the end of March, thought Rapundalo, in order to be able to factor it into the FY 2011 budget discussion. But Miller cautioned that the end of March would be “pushing it.” City administrator Roger Fraser pointed out that the RFP would ask people to come in with a financial plan and a market analysis. There’d need to be a period of due diligence – he was not sanguine about the expectation that it could be done before the end of the fiscal year.

If it made sense for a private vendor to put in a driving range and operate it, asked Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), why wouldn’t the city undertake that itself? Miller allowed that it was a good question. She explained that the advantage would be that the capital outlay to install the range would be carried by the vendor instead of the city. Miller concurred with Taylor’s conclusion that it would likely be a situation where the risk – but also the reward – would be shared with the private vendor.

It was established through several conversational turns that it’s the front nine holes – near the river – that were candidates for replacement with a driving range. The back nine holes are preferred for play at the course, which was described as more of a community asset used for beginning players. That contrasts with Leslie Park Golf Course, which is more of a “championship” course, said Rapundalo.

Of the two golf courses, it’s Leslie that stands the best chance of eventually breaking even, said Miller. The forecasted losses for both courses in FY 2010 is $517,288. Maintaining (mowing) Huron Hills as open parkland, not as a golf course, would be $320,000.

Parks: Mowing

The materials provided to the council by Miller provide a park-by-park breakdown of possible areas to reduce mowing in order to save money. However, Miller cautioned that it was somewhat difficult to estimate exactly how much money could be saved, because reducing mowing at a site reduced the time spent at a particular park, but the time it took to haul the equipment to the location stayed the same.

Parks: Facility Evaluation

Included in the materials prepared by Miller was a table of data on facilities and their revenue versus expenses, plus number of visitors. It drew praise from Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who described it as providing a lot of very useful data.

The table gives data for facilities starting in 2003 through the present for each year, as well as aggregated data for all years. [.pdf file of cover memo and materials for parks]

Parks: Reallocation of Parks Maintenance and Capital Improvements Millage

One possibility covered by Miller was to revisit the resolution of intent associated with the parks maintenance  and capital improvements millage. The millage was passed in November 2006  and combined two previously separate millages.

Its distribution of funding to maintenance versus capital improvements is governed by a council resolution passed in October 2006. The resolution specifies a range of 60-80% for maintenance, with the remainder going to capital improvements. The resolution also calls for any reduction in the overall general fund to be reflected no more severely in parks programs supported by the general fund than in other general fund activities. For example, if the general fund were to suffer a 7.5% reduction, then parks programs supported by the general fund would suffer no greater a reduction that 7.5%.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) raised the question of whether it would be necessary to go back to the voters in order to revise that resolution – voters had felt that it accompanied the ballot language, she pointed out.

Briere could have been alluding to the controversy after the millage was passed – with its accompanying “hold harmless” clause for parks programs within the general fund – when Leslie Science and Nature Center was spun off as an independent nonprofit. The city initially calculated the baseline for general fund park activity without the Leslie Science and Nature Center, reasoning that the item itself was no longer in the general fund and that it was not a matter of reducing it. However in response to public criticism, funding was put back into parks programs to bring their funding to the level they would have been with Leslie Science and Nature Center as a part of the calculation.

Parks: Use of Volunteers

One of the options presented by Miller was increased use of volunteers – but that, she cautioned, would require some additional staffing in order to coordinate them. One idea for providing that staffing, she said, was to use a still-vacant park planner position [likely Jeff Dehring's position] as a volunteer coordinator.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the use of volunteers for creating of outdoor ice rinks – there’s a Facebook group that has formed, calling for the city to bring back the Burns Park outdoor ice rinks. In oversimplified form, the technique could be described as turning on a hose and  letting the water freeze.

Craig Hupy, head of systems planning for the city, was on hand Monday night to report that looking back over the temperature patterns for the last three years, there would have been no good opportunities for creating such ice rinks in those years.

Parkland Sale

At the city council’s request, the staff identified parks where further exploration might be warranted:

• Arboretum – possible University of Michigan interest
• Bader – low use, not visible
• Berkshire Creek – potentially buildable
• Depot – only a visual resource, has issues with loitering/trash
• Devonshire – would need to retain path access to Gallup, but may be able to reduce size
• Dicken Park – low use
• Dicken Woods – potential developer interest
• Douglas Park – potentially buildable
• Eisenhower Park – currently numerous encroachment issues
• Ellsworth Park – duplicates SE Area Park uses, especially since University Townhouses installed fence blocking off park from residents
• Foxfire East – low use
• Fuller Park – small triangle west of park is not usable part of park
• Garden Homes Park – there has been some interest in smaller sections of the park for private use
• George Washington Park – property more an extension of right-of-way
• Glazier Way – sell back access easement to homeowners
• Manchester – potentially buildable
• Mill Creek – low use
• Molin Nature Area – back yards of residents
• Pittsview – potentially buildable
• Rose White Park – low use
• South University – underused, but in an area without many parks
• Stone School – low use

But the memo accompanying the list is fairly pessimistic and there were no councilmembers clamoring on Monday night for the sale of parks. From the staff cover memo:

Many parks have deed restrictions so further research would have to be done at a park-specific level should Council wish to further explore this option. It is also worth considering that current land value is much lower than it recently has been. It may be difficult to attract buyers and if a sale was achieved, the land could be undervalued given the current market. Finally, prior to the sale of any parkland, an affirmative vote of Ann Arbor voters would be required.

Charter: Budget Procedure

As city administrator Roger Fraser pointed out, part of the timing for what comes next is specified in the city’s charter:

SECTION 8.2. On or before the first day of February of each year, each City officer and department head shall submit to the City Administrator estimates of revenues and expenditures of their office or department for the next fiscal year. The City Administrator shall … present that proposed budget to the Council at its second regular meeting in April.

SECTION 8.6. Not later than its second meeting in May, the Council shall, by resolution concurred in by at least seven members, adopt the budget for the next fiscal year. …

SECTION 8.8. Should the Council fail to adopt a budget for the next fiscal year at or before the second meeting of the Council in May, the budget proposal as recommended to the Council by the City Administrator, shall be deemed to have been finally adopted by the Council and, without further action by the Council, shall constitute an appropriation of the money needed for municipal purposes during the next fiscal year.

On the city’s website, “budget central” is on the Our Town page, where presentation materials and next meeting dates can be found.

Next up will be a meeting on Feb. 8 to revisit the community services area in earnest before Jayne Miller’s departure from that position three days later. Following that will be a Feb. 22 meeting, when public services will likely be on the agenda.