Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-15 CorrespondenceItem Number: 10.a. i CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org October 15, 2019 ATTACHMENTS: Description Pat Bowen: Parking [Staff Response Included] Kellie Fruehling From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 10:33 AM To: 'pat bowen'; Council Cc: Ashley Monroe; Simon Andrew; Darian Nagle-Gamm Subject: RE: Parking Pat -- Thank you for expressing your concerns. Please allow me to clarify a few points about the Swan Parking Ramp. The Chauncey building has its own underground parking that accommodates the residential portion of the project. Other uses in the Chauncey building do not have free parking or reserved parking in the deck. With the exception of a handful of spaces, all reserved spaces for city vehicles will soon be converted back to open spaces for public use. That move is pending the completion of the Augusta Place project located just north of City Hall. Finally, the hourly parking spaces on the second floor are for general users of the downtown. The City is restricting permit parking in this location as a result of a settlement agreement with Trinity Church that stems from legal action they pursued during the pre -construction stages of the project. City staff will continue to monitor the capacity of the deck and will make any needed adjustments in the future. Thank you again for sharing your concerns. Sincerely, Geoff Fruin City Manager From: pat bowen [mailto:patjbowen@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 9:51 AM To: Council <Council@iowa-city.org> Cc: Geoff Fruin <Geoff - Fru in@iowa-city.org>; Ashley Monroe <Ashley-Monroe@iowa-city.org>; Simon Andrew <Simon- Andrew@iowa-city.org> Subject: Parking Dear Council, I am writing today to share my displeasure in the parking at Chauncy Swan ramp. The signage is inadequate. It appears to me that the ramp is mostly for parking the Tower or City vehicles. When will the people (taxpayers) get a break? I do not think the city should cave in to developers and builders. If a developer is interested in building, or adding more units or stores, it should be at their expense, not the expense of the taxpayer. Additionally, any future new buildings (or additions to buildings Le the discussion of adding apartments near the ped mail) should allow for parking! The builders should be required to provide that parking not the city. I did not follow the story line about Chauncy Towers too closely, only about the problem of its height so I am not sure what deal was made for parking. I have written the following to Mark Rummel : Ijust read the following on the Iowa City government website: "With the opening of The Chauncey Tower, users of the Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp at 415 E. Washington St. will see some changes. The City of Iowa City's Transportation Services Department has been working to best accommodate current users and new neighbors. There will be additional signage on the second and third level of the ramp to help both visitors and permit holders. The spaces from Level 1-3 that do not have signage can be used by visitors or permit holders. The upper level of the ramp will be reserved for permit holder only from Monday - Friday. Visitors to the ramp will see increased parking enforcement staff over the next few weeks to help with this transition." I went to park in that ramp on Tuesday evening and was very confused by the new signs on what I call the "second floor", accessed from College Street. It made it sound like only "Visitors to the hotel or the new Chauncey Tower" were allowed to park there. Providing additional signage does not accommodate current users or new neighbors. It's just signage. I am very disgruntled that the city allowed this tower to be built in the first place with the number of apartments, hotel rooms, bowling alley, and Film Scene without making the developer produce adequate parking for said new building. I will address that concern with the City Council too. All future buildings downtown should be responsible for providing their own parking. As I am sure you are aware, parking is at a premium and I believe it keeps community members from coming downtown. And as far as increased parking enforcement staff, great! the staff will now be able to pass out more parking tickets due to total misunderstanding of signage, not enough spaces for downtown shoppers, library patrons, workers, restaurant patrons etc etc. Comment from a Little Village article about this issue: "it wasn't enough that they applied 12.1 million dollars in TIF spending on top of a tax payer funded 2.1 million dollar grant. Now they're annexing a public parking ramp to provide parking to wealthy high rise dwellers while the rest of the city loses access to our downtown businesses and culture. The rest of the city suffers while they pour good money on top of bad developing what once was a thriving downtown culture. These are my sentiments too. We need to stop giving away tax dollars for developers, especially out of town developers. We need to provide more affordable housing for Iowa Citians. Stop this influx of "luxury ......whatever". It's out of control. Sincerely, Pat Bowen 1210 Village Rd Iowa City Iowa 2 Item Number: 10.b. i CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org October 15, 2019 ATTACHMENTS: Description Corbin Bailey: Ames, Iowa rainbow cross walks Kellie Fruehling From: Marla Bailey <mar1abai1ey55@ic1oud.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 12:01 PM To: Council Subject: Ames, Iowa rainbow cross walks I would like to see Iowa City paint a rainbow crosswalk at Washington and Gilbert in support of Ames, Iowa and to reflect the inclusiveness culture of Iowa City. Let's make this happen before Homecoming. Sincerely, Corbin Bailey Sent from my iPad Item Number: 10.c. ®I CITY OF IOWA CITY u► IM �� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT October 15, 2019 Establish (1) on -street disabled metered parking space and parking meter terms on the South side of the 10 block of West Prentiss Street. Prepared By: Emily Bothell; Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston; Transportation Planner Tracy Hightshoe; Neighborhood and Development Services Director Fiscal Impact: No impact. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Executive Summary: As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3A of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (17); Establish (1) on -street disabled metered parking space numbered P1 5W on the South side of the 10 block of West Prentiss Street at $0.75 per hour with a five-hour term. Background /Analysis: This action is being taken at the request of the Transportation Services Department to provide on - street disabled parking in this area. OWN CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Agenda — October 15, 2019 Information submitted between distribution of packet on Thursday and close of business on Monday. Late Addition(s): Correspondence 10.d James McCoy: Request Resolution Endorsing the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividends Act Late Handout(s): Info Packet of 10/10 IP Email from Mayor Throgmorton: Preliminary thoughts about FBC / IAC e Kellie Fruehlina From: James McCoy <mccoyfam@mchsi.com> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2019 9:27 PM To: Council Cc: James McCoy; Peter Rolnick; Eric Johnson; Geoff Fruin; Ashley Monroe; Brenda Nations Subject: Request Resolution Endorsing the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividends Act Attachments: 2017-12-05 Resolution.pdf, ATT00001.htm; CF and DEICDA differences 2.docx; ATT00002.htm; 2019-Template-Municipal-Resolution.docx; ATT00003.htm Dear Members of the Iowa City Council, Late Handouts Distributed /©—iq—lc? (Date) My name is James McCoy and I am writing you on behalf of the Iowa City chapter of Citizen's Climate lobby. 1 previously sent each of you an introductory e-mail regarding endorsement of HR 763, The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividends Act (EICDA). At this time i would like to request that the City Council formally consider endorsing this bill. On December 5, 2017 The Iowa City Council unanimously endorsed a resolution calling on the U5 congress to put in place a Carbon Fee and Dividend program. I have attached the endorsement document for your review. This program has been demonstrated by sophisticated economic modeling to be a substantial step toward a carbon fuel free economy while at the same time stimulating economic growth. The Council had previously set ambitious goals for CO2 emission reductions for Iowa City. It has since declared a Climate crisis on August 6, 2019 and updated the city's CO2 reduction goals to 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Thank you for your bold recognition of this most serious problem we face! I am very pleased to inform you the Fee and Dividend program endorsed by the Council in December 2017 has been developed into a bipartisan bill introduced into the House of Representatives this year. Here is a link to information about the bill: https://energyinnovationact.org. This bill will facilitate the goals of the Iowa City Council by placing a progressively rising fee on carbon fuels thereby sending a strong market signal that continued use of fossil fuels will be a progressive drag on business success, incentivizing a move away from fossil fuels. In this way the EICDA is consistent with the goal stated in the City's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan "to establish a new "business as usual" mindset which regularly reinforces behavior, innovation, and action that furthers achievement of these climate goals." The collected revenue will all be returned to the American people as a monthly dividend which means the program does not take money out of the economy. The economy is, in fact, stimulated by added money in the hands of the two thirds of people at the lower end of the economic ladder who get more in dividends than they spend in increased energy costs. This approach is also consistent with the social equity goals stated in the Iowa City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan in that the dividend prevents the burden of the transition from being borne by the working class and disadvantaged. As noted, the City Council has already endorsed the Carbon Fee and Dividend idea, and the current bill is based on that concept. In the process of bipartisan negotiations which produced the bill there were several notable features introduced which were not part of the Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal previously endorsed by the city council. Here are some of the key differences: There is a statutory emissions reduction schedule in the bill. There are specific conditions than can trigger a scale -up in the annual carbon fee increase. All children in a household are eligible for a child dividend. The annual carbon fee increase will be adjusted for inflation. There are some special provisions for fossil fuels used in agriculture. There are some special provisions for fossil fuels used by the military. There is a special carbon fee rate for fluorinated greenhouse gases. Carbon dividend payments will begin in advance of the first carbon fee collection. The policy will accommodate CO2 capture and sequestration under certain conditions. There are narrow, temporary limits imposed on some greenhouse gas regulations. The program will end when certain technical and budgetary conditions are met. The carbon border fee adjustment will apply to exported fossil fuels. There are two National Academy of Sciences studies that will help ensure program effectiveness and sustainability i have attached an explanation of each of these differences and a sample endorsement template In the two years since the city endorsed the Carbon Fee and Dividend concept we have had multiple new alarming reports from climate scientists. We have had more climate change related disasters. We have had more public recognition of the problem including our recent climate strikes in Iowa City. We also have had a bipartisan bill introduced in the House of Representatives which is the best prospect for Federal action in the near future. It would be a substantial step in the direction of solving the climate problem and it would make the City's sustainability goals easier to achieve. City council endorsement of this bill demonstrates to our federal legislators that there is a significant constituency demanding action on climate change and offering an effective remedy. The city's example can also act as a catalyst for similar actions by other cities in Iowa. The Iowa City Chapter of Citizen's Climate Lobby strongly encourages the council to endorse this bill by approving a resolution document (may use the attached template as an example) and endorsing the bill at: htti)s://energyinnoyationact.or.g/endorse/. Sincerely, James McCoy Endorsements Coordinator Iowa City Chapter Citizen's Climate Lobby �rI CITY OF IOWA CIT t wir COUNCIL ACTION REPOEM December 5, 2017 Resolution Calling on the United States Congress to Pass a Revenue (Neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend Program Prepared By: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruln, City Manager Fiscal Impact: No impact Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: NIA Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: Iowa City Climate Advocates, the local Chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby, has suggested that the City join other municipalities in endorsing federal legislation establishing a fee and dividend approach to addressing climate change. This endorsement would be consistent with and complimentary to the City's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Iowa Background 1 Analysis: The following information was provided by Iowa City Climate Advocates. The "Carbon Fee and Dividend' is a revenue -neutral charge on carbon dioxide emissions with the return of net revenues to households. A fee would be placed on fossil fuels at the source (oil well, coal mine, or port of entry), starting at $151ton of Cote and increasing over time. Revenues generated by this fee would be returned as monthly dividends to all U.S. residents. The two- thirds of households at the lower and of the economic ladder would break even or receive more in dividends than they pay in higher prices for increased energy costs, while the upper 40 percent would have a one percent or less deficit. Such a dividend program is similar to the °Alaskan Permanent Fund' which sends annual checks from North Slope investments to all state residents. It would inject billions of dollars into the economy, spur innovation, and build aggregate demand for low -carbon products at the consumer level. Further information can be found on the Citizens Climate Lobby website. �d (?) Prepared by: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E Washington St Iowa City IA 52240 355-5030 RESOLUTION NO. 17-360 Resolution calling on the United States Congress to Pass a Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend Program Whereas, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that "warming of the climate is unequivocal° and it is "extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the warming since the mid -2001 century" with "atmospheric concentrations of CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years"; and Whereas, conservative estimates by the world's climate scientists state that to achieve climate stabilization and avoid cataclysmic climate change emissions of greenhouse gases must be brought to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; and Whereas, Iowa City has experienced costly flood damage from extreme weather events; and Whereas, presently the environmental, health and social costs of carbon pollution is not included in prices paid for fossil fuels, but bome directly or indirectly by all Americans and global citizens; and Whereas, the City of Iowa City recently passed a resolution calling for a 26-28% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and 80% reduction by 2050; and Whereas, efforts to reach these goals would be greatly enhanced by compatible national legislation that creates financial disincentives for continued dependence on fossil fuel energy production; and Whereas, a national revenue -neutral carbon fee starting at a relatively low rate and increasing steadily over future years is a market based approach that would have minimal impact on the economy while sending clear and predictable price signals to businesses to develop and use non -carbon based energy resources; and Whereas, a dividend program would distribute revenues from such a fee to all Americans and minimize negative impacts on household energy budgets; and Whereas, border adjustments—carbon content based tariffs on products imported from countries without comparable carbon pricing and refunds to our exporters of increased costs from carbon fees ­can maintain the competitiveness of US businesses in global markets; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City: That the United States Congress should pass Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation which places a progressively rising fee on fossil fuels at the source, distributes all revenues on a per capita basis to American households, and imposes a border adjustment on imports and exports to maintain American competitiveness. Resolution No. 17-360 Page 2 Further resolved, that the City Clerk of the Council will transmit copies of the resolution to our representatives in Washington: Senator Charles Grassley, Senator Joni Ernst and Congressman David Loebsack. Passed and approved this 5th day of December, 2017. A ved by ATTEST. Clerk City Attorney's office 2 Resolution No. 17-360 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Botchway the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: x Botchway x Cole x Dickens x Mims x Taylor x Thomas x Throgmorton How is the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act different from Carbon Fee and Dividend? There are 13 important provisions in the bill that distinguish it from CCL's Carbon Fee and Dividend. These are listed below and explained in more detail to follow: • There is a statutory emissions reduction schedule in the bill. • There are specific conditions than can trigger a scale -up in the annual carbon fee increase. • All children in a household are eligible for a child dividend. • The annual carbon fee increase will be adjusted for inflation. • There are some special provisions for fossil fuels used in agriculture. • There are some special provisions for fossil fuels used by the military. • There is a special carbon fee rate for fluorinated greenhouse gases. • Carbon dividend payments will begin in advance of the first carbon fee collection. • The policy will accommodate CO2 capture and sequestration under certain conditions. • There are narrow, temporary limits imposed on some greenhouse gas regulations. • The program will end when certain technical and budgetary conditions are met. • The carbon border fee adjustment will apply to exported fossil fuels. • There are two National Academy of Sciences studies that will help ensure program effectiveness and sustainability What is the statutory emissions reduction schedule? The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019 mandates an annual reduction of covered greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2025. Starting that year, each year's emissions must hit a target that declines by 5 percent of 2016 emissions. For instance, 2025 emissions must end up 5 percent lower than 2016 emissions, 2026 emissions must end up 10 percent lower, and so on. That continues until 2034, after which the annual drop in the emissions target is reduced to 2.5 percent of 2016 emissions until 2050, when covered emissions drop to 90 percent below 2016 emissions. If the cut in emissions somehow fails to keep up with this schedule, the annual increase in the carbon fee can be 'ratcheted up' (see "What is the trigger ..." below). This is one of three "environmental integrity" mechanisms tied to the schedule. Another is the restoration and strengthening of EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases if the scheduled targets have not been met at the 10 -year mark, detailed in "What are the limits placed on EPA regulation ..." below. This provision increases confidence that the carbon fee can activate innovation as intended. It not only gives additional assurance of the effectiveness of the policy, but also gives businesses an additional incentive to move decisively on climate -friendly investments. What is the trigger for scaling up the annual carbon fee increase? The bill sets a target of 90% GHG emissions reductions by 2050, with a set of interim targets that starts in 2025 as described above. Starting in 2025, if the emissions cuts don't keep up with the emissions reduction schedule described above, the annual increase in the carbon fee can be strengthened from $10 to $15 per metric ton. This is more definitive than a similar provision in the Carbon Fee and Dividend, where the Energy Department would have the responsibility to determine if and when a larger fee increase is needed. In effect, the main difference is that the conditions for increasing the fee are made explicit in the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, and it's the Treasury Department that carries it out at the direction of Congress. What is the change in the number of child dividends available to a household? The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019 does not limit child dividends to two per household as the Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal previously did. All dependent children under 19 years old in an eligible household will be entitled to receive a half-share carbon dividend. According to the Dividend Delivery Study, this change would reduce the size of the dividends paid to a household with two or fewer children by about 2.4 percent, but would increase total dividends paid to a couple with three or more children. For example, a family with two children would receive about $1.60 less per month during the first year, but a family with three children would get about $11 more than they would have under the old policy. This change will also simplify eligibility determinations and management of the dividend payments, thus reducing administrative cost. What does it mean for the annual fee increase to be adjusted for inflation? The Carbon Fee and Dividend and the 2018 version of the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act did not specify whether an inflation adjustment would be applied to the annual $10/mt increase. But a cost analysis showed that without an inflation adjustment, the effectiveness of the fee increase would be weakened as the years went by and the value of a dollar diminishes. The policy needs to remain strong, because the deeper emissions cuts go, the harder it is to get a little more. That's why the bill sponsors felt it was essential to adjust the fee increase for inflation. Making this adjustment also brings the carbon fee within the range of carbon prices recommended in the IPCC SR1.5 report to hold global temperature below 1.5°C. What are the special provisions for agriculture? The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019 provides a refund of carbon fee costs in fuels — chiefly diesel fuel — used on farms. This is considered an extension of a fuel tax exemption that is already in place for agricultural fuels. It would not apply to other forms of energy such as electricity used on a farm. Although it will provide relief for farmers, in practice it would have little impact on total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions because agricultural fuel -generated emissions account for less than 1 percent of our total emissions. Another provision related to agriculture concerns is non-fossil fuel emissions from the carbon fee. Since this policy is focused on fossil -fuel emissions, it does not cover things like methane from livestock and manure and nitrous oxide from farming operations. Although this was implicit in the Carbon Fee and Dividend, the text of this bill makes it explicit by saying that "non-fossil fuel emissions that occur on a farm" are not subject to the carbon fee. It should also be noted that, although there are no specific provisions spelled out for fertilizer, the CCS refund covered above would give fertilizer manufacturers an opportunity to minimize their embedded carbon fee costs by sending their waste CO2, which is normally produced in the process, to a sequestration site instead of into the atmosphere. What are the special provisions for the military? The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019 provides a refund of carbon fee costs in covered fuels used by the military. This would include gasoline, diesel, or other fuels used for ships, planes, and ground transport, plus coal, oil, or natural gas used to generate electricity on military bases and in field operations. Based on Defense Department fuel procurement reports here and here, greenhouse gas emissions from our military amount to about 1.2 percent of total U.S. emissions, but accounts for a significant part of taxpayer support for the armed forces. The U.S. military has also been aggressively pursuing alternative sources of energy for strategic and environmental reasons, so we can expect that they will take full advantage of new developments in renewable and low -carbon energy technologies, further reducing their emissions. How are the rules for fluorinated gases different? Fluorinated gases are potent greenhouse gases, but are quite different from the others we are familiar with. Unlike CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, they are not produced from fossil fuel combustion or leakage from fossil fuel equipment and pipelines. They are produced industrially for refrigeration and some other applications. After the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 to eliminate the use of Freon® and other chemicals that harm the protective stratospheric ozone layer, they were replaced by other fluorine -containing gases that don't have that effect. Unfortunately, those replacements — hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) — were later found to have global warming potential (GWP) many thousands of times greater than that of CO2. In 2016, countries met in Kigali, Rwanda, and crafted an amendment to the Montreal Protocol that mandates a phase -down of HFCs. In spite of support from both environmental groups and affected industries, U.S. ratification of that amendment has languished due to a patchwork of state rules and court cases. A simple nationwide policy to price HFCs and other fluorinated gases according to their global warming impact could break that logjam. In Carbon Fee and Dividend, the carbon fee level was proposed to be scaled up according to the widely accepted GWP values for these gases. For example, the carbon fee for CFC -12 (one of the covered gases) would be multiplied by a factor of 10,800. With a carbon fee of $15 per metric ton, the fee for a metric ton of CFC -12 would be $162,000. In the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, the effective carbon fee multipliers for fluorinated gases will be 10 percent of their GWP. Experience in other countries (in 2014 Spain enacted a tax at 2 percent of GWP leading to a 45 percent reduction in one year) has shown that emissions of these gases can be reduced effectively even when the carbon fee is indexed to a small percentage of the GWP. What is the provision to start carbon dividend payments before carbon fee collection? The bill contains a provision for an "advance payment" of the first month's dividend to all recipients in the month prior to the collection of the carbon fee. This additional payment will be deducted from the fund over the following 36 months so the program remains revenue -neutral. In essence, the fund would "borrow" from future carbon fee receipts to finance that first month's dividends. The objective of this provision is to ensure the public receives funds to absorb initial cost increases before prices actually rise. What is the provision for CO2 capture and sequestration? If carbon dioxide can be captured or scrubbed out of an emissions source and "sequestered" in some permanent form, it doesn't contribute to global warming. The greatest potential to sequester large amounts of CO2 is in deep underground storage, far below the earth's surface. Recent research has shown that a common form of rock called basalt can lock up CO2 permanently. Scrubbing CO2 out of industrial gases is well known and widely used when necessary for engineering reasons, but it has not been practiced for environmental reasons because there is currently no financial reward for doing so. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act changes that by providing a refund for companies that collect and sequester CO2 produced by a covered fuel (coal, oil, or natural gas) in a manner that is "safe, permanent, and in compliance with any applicable local, State, and Federal laws," as determined by consultation with the EPA. The refund would be equal to the carbon fee that was in place when the CO2 was created (presumably through combustion). The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act also stipulates that the refund would be modified by any amount of "likely" escape into the atmosphere, as determined by the EPA. In practice, CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) could be applied to any power plant or manufacturing process that burns coal, oil, or natural gas and vents the CO2 to the atmosphere. Another likely application is in ammonia fertilizer manufacture, where pure CO2 coming out of the process is often released to the atmosphere, but could be compressed and sent to a pipeline that carries it to a sequestration site. This provision in the bill allows CCS -equipped facilities to compete on a level playing field with low -carbon energy technologies like wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear energy. It doesn't subsidize or fund research into CCS, but simply allows private companies to determine for themselves if they judge the carbon price to be sufficient to justify investing in CCS. The "safe, permanent" language ensures that any concerns about leakage or seismic disruption would be addressed before a sequestration site would be approved. What are the limits placed on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases? The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act includes narrow limits on regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions covered by the carbon fee, so that those emissions are not subject to both the fee and regulation for the first 10 years. After that time, if the emission targets mandated in the bill are not being met, EPA regulatory authority over covered GHG emissions would be restored. This is one of three `environmental integrity' mechanisms built into the bill, the others being a ratcheting up of the annual increase in the carbon fee from $10 to $15 per metric ton per year if targets are not met, and two National Academy of Sciences studies of environmental impacts. Importantly, the Clean Air Act will remain the law of the land. The Clean Air Act is the foundational EPA authority over greenhouse gases and was confirmed by the Supreme Court's Massachusetts vs. EPA ruling in 2007. The regulatory limits in this bill affect only three existing mechanisms: (1) the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which never went into effect and is being replaced by the Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE) proposed by the Trump Administration; (2) permitting rules referred to as `New Source Performance Standards' (NSPS) for new industrial plants that emit greenhouse gases; and (3) permitting rules for plant modifications under the same NSPS provisions. These three mechanisms would be put on hold as long as emissions targets were being met. This bill explicitly preserves federal authority over greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles that are part of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, including California's waiver to apply more stringent emission standards. EPA rules that don't directly regulate covered greenhouse gases will remain untouched and still in effect: pollutants like NOx, sulfur, ozone, particulates, and mercury. Also preserved is the EPA authority over non - road vehicles and aircraft GHG emissions; the Renewable Fuel Standard for GHG reduction in gasoline; and the methane abatement program that applies to leaked and vented methane from oil and gas operations. Additionally, states would retain authority to pass GHG regulations. There is overwhelming evidence from recent economic literature that a policy like this will effectively reduce GHG emissions far more than any existing or proposed regulation, including the CPP. This is also supported by the REMI report and by a review of 11 different revenue -neutral carbon pricing plans in a February 2018 issue of Climate Change Economics. Furthermore, compared to the CPP's 2030 emissions target, this bill's statutory requirements would exceed it by a factor of nine. The carefully written provisions in this bill allow the carbon fee to simply, affordably, and effectively reduce greenhouse gas from fossil fuels while preserving regulatory authority as a backstop. What are the terms under which the program would end? The carbon fee enacted by the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act will stop rising when U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have fallen 90 percent below 2016 levels. This is slightly different from the Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal, wherein the target was 90 percent below 1990 levels, but U.S. emissions in 2016 were very close to those in 1990. The bill has an additional provision for ending the program entirely when the 90 percent reduction target is achieved and the monthly adult carbon dividend is less than $20/month for three consecutive years. This ensures no hard landing from the end of the program for families that might come to depend on it; it will ease people on with the gradual increase, and ease people off with the gradual replacement of fossil fuels by low -carbon alternatives. Achieving 90 percent reduction for as long as three years would mean that the transition away from fossil fuel dependency is essentially complete and irreversible. That's a very high bar! Ending the program under those conditions is a reasonable requirement. What does it mean for exported fossil fuels to get a refund? In Carbon Fee and Dividend, only carbon -intensive exports like steel, aluminum, and paper would have been subject to a border carbon adjustment, while exported fossil fuels would pass through without an adjustment. However, in the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, exported fossil fuels are considered eligible for the carbon border fee adjustment. Depending on carbon pricing (or lack thereof) in the destination country, exporters of fossil fuels may get a refund under the border fee adjustment. Specifically, the bill stipulates that the U.S. exporter would get a refund equal to the difference between the U.S. carbon fee and the destination country's carbon price, with the caveat that no exporter would ever get a refund of more than the embedded carbon fee. The effect of this would be to keep the price of exported U.S. fossil fuels on par with their foreign competitors regardless of the carbon price. In terms of global climate mitigation, this would have little downside because it would only affect which country's coal, oil, or gas is burned, not the total amount burned. Besides, most of our major trading partners have already started instituting carbon pricing, and this policy should, just like the carbon border fee adjustment on emissions -intensive goods, increase the likelihood of more countries joining in. What are the National Academy of Sciences studies mandated in the bill? The bill stipulates that the EPA must engage the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct two studies once the bill has become law. The first study, to be completed and made public within 10 years, will analyze the effectiveness of the carbon fee in meeting the law's emissions reduction schedule, forecast the emissions out to 2050, and make recommendations on whether the carbon fee increases should be adjusted. The report will also detail the effectiveness of the carbon fee for different sectors of the economy, and recommend any further actions to be taken, including regulations, to improve performance if necessary. The second study, to be completed and made public within 18 months, will analyze how the carbon fee is affecting the use of biomass for energy and the resulting impacts on 'carbon sinks' and biodiversity. The term `carbon sinks' refers to the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through natural processes in plants and soil. Biomass energy is theoretically carbon -neutral as long as the CO2 released by its use does not exceed the amount that would have been released through natural processes, and that it does not result in land use change that increases emissions. The study aims to ensure that expansion of biomass energy does not upset this balance or increase threats to biodiversity. As with the first NAS study, this one will also make recommendations to mitigate any adverse impacts that are revealed. These two studies constitute the third environmental integrity mechanism built into the bill. City Resolution No. State Resolution urging the United States Congress to enact the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019 WHEREAS, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre -industrial levels in October 2018 warning that global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. WHEREAS, the United Nations climate science body said in a monumental climate report that we have only 12 years left to make massive and unprecedented changes to global energy infrastructure to limit global warming to moderate levels; and WHEREAS, the United States government released its Fourth Annual Climate Assessment in November 2018 reporting that the impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country, and that more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate -related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities; and WHEREAS, conservative estimates by the world's climate scientists state that to achieve climate stabilization and avoid cataclysmic climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) must be brought to 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050; and WHEREAS, presently the environmental, health, and social costs of carbon emissions are not included in prices paid for fossil fuels, but rather these externalized costs are borne directly and indirectly by all Americans and global citizens; and WHEREAS, to begin to correct this market failure, Congress can enact the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act to assess a national carbon fee on fossil fuels based on the amount of CO2 the fuel will emit when burned and allocate the collected proceeds to all U.S. Households in equal shares in the form of a monthly dividend; and WHEREAS, for efficient administration, the fossil fuels fee can be applied once, as far upstream in the economy as practical, or at the port of entry into the United States; and WHEREAS, as stated in the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019, H.R. 763, a national, revenue -neutral carbon fee starting at a relatively low rate of $15 per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions and resulting in equal charges per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions potential in each type of fuel or greenhouse gas should be assessed to begin to lower what are now dangerously high CO2 emissions. The yearly increase in carbon fees including other greenhouse gases, shall be at least $10 per ton of CO2 equivalent each year, with the Department of Energy determining whether an increase larger than $10 per ton per year is needed to achieve program goals; and WHEREAS, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019, H.R. 763, specifies that, in order to protect low and middle income citizens from the economic impact of rising prices due to the carbon fee, equal monthly per -person dividend payments shall be made to all American households (%2 payment per child under 19 years old) each month from the fossil fuel fees collected. The total value of all monthly dividend payments shall represent 100% of the net carbon fees collected per month; and WHEREAS, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019, H.R. 763, encourages market-driven innovation of clean energy technologies and market efficiencies which will reduce harmful pollution and leave a healthier, more stable, and more prosperous nation for future generations; and WHEREAS, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019, H.R. 763, will, after 12 years, lead to a decrease in America's CO2 emissions of 40 percent and an increase in national employment of 2.1 million jobs; and WHEREAS, border adjustments - carbon content -based tariffs on products imported from countries without comparable carbon pricing, and refunds to our exporters of carbon fees paid - can maintain the competitiveness of U.S. businesses in global markets; and WHEREAS, a national carbon fee can be implemented quickly and efficiently, and will respond to the urgency of the climate crisis because the federal government already has in place mechanisms, such as the Internal Revenue Service, needed to implement and enforce the fee, and already collects fees from fossil fuel producers and importers; and WHEREAS, A national revenue -neutral carbon fee would make the United States a leader in mitigating climate change and in the clean energy technologies of the 21 st century and would provide incentive to other countries to enact similar carbon fees, reducing global CO2 emissions without the need for complex international agreements, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the City of , (state) urges the United States Congress to enact without delay the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2019, H.R. 763, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager or City Clerk, no later than 30 days after passage of this Resolution, shall transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, to each U.S. Senator and Representative from the State of in the Congress of the United States, and to nearby city and county governments urging that they pass similar resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of , State of at its regularly scheduled meeting held on , 2019. City of Mayor City Clerk Item Number: 12.c. October 15, 2019 Letter to the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission in support of a rezoning from County (A) to County Residential (R) for approximately 25.32 acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson County north of American Legion Road and south of 400th Street SE. (CZ19-01) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Staff Report PZ Prelim Minutes Letter to County r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 3, 2019 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: CZ19-01 South of American Legion Road Background Information The applicant, Claude Greiner, is requesting a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for approximately 25.32 acres of property located in Johnson County north of American Legion Road and south of 400th Street SE in Fringe Area B — Outside of Iowa City's Growth Area. Because the property is within Iowa City's two-mile Fringe Area, the Fringe Area Agreement specifies that the City will make a recommendation to the County Planning and Zoning Commission before the County Commission considers the application. The final decision on the rezoning falls within the County's jurisdiction. If this rezoning is approved, the applicant intends to develop a county subdivision, and divide the land into approximately 23 single-family residential lots and two outlots for storm water management and open space. City approval will be required if the property is subdivided as proposed. In 2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) in this area also submitted by Claude Greiner. Staff recommended not to approve this rezoning because it conflicted with the policies in the Fringe Area Agreement. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council agreed with staff. This led to the creation of a conflict resolution committee, which included City and County staff, City Council members, and representatives of the Board of Supervisors. After this committee consulted, the City Council recommended approval of the rezoning as did the Board of Supervisors. Analysis Existing Land Use and Zoning The subject property is zoned County Agricultural (A) and is currently being used for row crops. Properties to the north are zoned County Agricultural (A). Properties to the west, south, and east are zoned County Residential (R), with residential properties lining American Legion Road. Proposed Zoning & Surrounding Area The applicant is requesting a rezoning to County Residential (R) which allows for single family homes on lots at least 40,000 square feet. The area along American Legion Road currently has many residential properties. The land surrounding these residential properties remain in agricultural production. Compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan The County recently updated its Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the comprehensive plan designates this area Residential. The Residential land use category allows for, "single-family detached dwellings with a preferred density of one unit per acre or denser." Compliance with the Fringe Area Agreement In reviewing proposed rezonings in the Fringe Area, staff relies on the policies outlined in the Fringe Area Agreement. The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas not specifically planned for in the City's September 27, 2019 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan. The Fringe Area Agreement is intended to provide guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City's corporate limits. The agreement's slated purpose is to provide for orderly and efficient development patterns appropriate to non -urbanized areas, protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development. This property is located in Fringe Area B — Outside the City's Growth Area. For this area, the agreement states that agricultural uses are preferred. Specifically, the agreement states: "Until otherwise changed by amending this agreement, this area shall be restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan, and as designated for a Rural/Agriculture area in Chapter 8:1.6 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance, as amended." According to the Johnson County Comprehensive Plan, the Agricultural land use category envisions agricultural uses, such as row crops and animal husbandry, with "very limited residential development." According to the Johnson County Zoning Code, Agricultural uses are defined as farms, nurseries and greenhouses, orchards and tree farms, with residential uses to be restricted to two single-family dwellings on a farm 40 acres or larger. The proposed rezoning does not align with the land use policy direction in the Fringe Area Agreement. However, the proposed rezoning does provide for orderly and efficient development in that it will extend Faye Drive SE, an existing stub street. Staff recognizes the conflict that exists between the County's updated Comprehensive Plan and the adopted Fringe Area Agreement. Due to these conflicts, staff has been working with County planning staff on updating the Fringe Area Agreement. Staff Recommendation Although the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the policies outlined in the adopted Fringe Area Agreement, staff recommends approval of this rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the County's Future Land Use Map and comprehensive plan; 2. Based on the outcome of Greiner rezoning south of American Legion Road in 2018, staff anticipates that a recommendation of denial would lead to the need to create another conflict resolution committee; and 3. Staff is working with County planning staff to update the Fringe Area Agreement. Attachments: 1. Aerial Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Fringe Area Map 4. Rezoning Exhibit Approved by: I Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services EXHIBIT PREPARED REZONING EXHIBIT MMS CONSU TANTSBINC. LOT A OF REDWING ESTATES IOW S. GILBERT STREET IOWS. CITY, IA 52240 JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA OWNER/APPLICANT: LEGEND AND NOTES / - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND A - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, REESTABLISHED }�tit11 - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, RECORDED LOCATION • - PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND (as noted) O - PROPERTY CORNERS SET I;M Eliz (5/8" Iron Pin w/ yellow, plastic LS Cap NORTHWEST AND THE embossed with "MMS" ) NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE - CUT "X" R R RR - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES A - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES - - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES — - CENTER LINES - LOT LINES, INTERNAL ' - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — — — EASEMENT LINES, WIDTH & PURPOSE NOTED ------------- _ EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS (M) - MEASURED DIMENSIONS C22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS I I I LOT 2 F DI 19�)Qn�O I� n�� / 00MON IN AGGORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT 1500C IF, AT PAGE 20 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. CTI ao 00 L C oN 0 O W F1 CLAUDE J. GREINER MARY F. GREINER 1412 J PLACE KALONA, IA 52247 REZONING DESCRIPTION (A TO R) LOT A OF REDWING ESTATES IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, ALL IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 34 AT PAGE 166 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE. SAID LOT A CONTAINS 25.32 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE SOILS MAP REDWING ESTATES CD }�tit11 A . _ 4u M1TH S7 �Ei F4G' xr tiE :i EAe;_74-5 I;M Eliz O NORTHWEST AND THE R R R R R R R R NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE R R RR A R RRR R R R - - R R NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST N uo AN`_EYi1n 0 i M�� ' -I � sr -- 1` NO. SOIL TYPE SLOPES 120B TAMA SILT LOAM 2% TO 5% 120C2 TAMA SILT LOAM 9% 120D2 TAMA SILT LOAM 9% TO 14% 133+ COLO SILT LOAM 2% 4288 ELY SILTY CLAY LOAM 2% TO 5% LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE O REDWING ESTATES CD A A A SE Sw.A �, A r tiE :i EAe;_74-5 A A A O NORTHWEST AND THE R R R R R R R R NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE R R RR A R RRR R R R - - R R NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST N uo R R REZONING TRACT R R R 0 `•Y R R A ,t JOHNSON COUNTY -I RR sF NW NE 71-79-5 NE NEA.1-79-5 R R R R A R R R R R R R R R R Date: 09-11-2019 0 1 R R R R R �,�`. R R R R Field Book No: \ _ _ RRR RRR A 1128 0 R R R3 R R R R R R R R ,Z R R- A A R R A. SE NE 21-795 A R A E NEA. 7SW NW 21-79s ,. -�_.r A �! UN sst A A A R R ` R NE SEA" -79-5 NW SWA? 1-79-5 .A ... NW wEA'1-79.5 A NE5E A aw104sw1\4 BEIV-sw104 BECTJOLI V 16 -779H -[ROW BEC7MLI V IJ 6-7 9 —IRO V V - - - - - - 400TH STREET SE \ F46 1631.90'(M)(R) N88°43'23"E -----—-------------------- - — - -- - -- - �- ------- / / \ \ \\ FUTURE OUTLOT 1'5„ FUTURE LOT 22 1 / / \\ / \ OO U7LO 7 II°AIA \ FUTURE LOT 21I / \ / ' \ I � 1 / \ FUTURE UT g v �' FuruRE Lor 5 /o FUTURE LOT 23 / / / \ \ \ \ / l -UF FV I URE LOT � / / FUTURE LOT 20 \ \ � / � � � \ / � ' \ X' / / \ / FUTURE LOT 10 _ L074 FUTURE OUTLOT "A" FUTURE UT / / / FUTURE LOT G `v V vvv LOO I=UTUR'L LOT 1'3 FUTURE LOT IU \ REZONING\ RACT,, 25.32 AC \��/ // \\��\ FUTURE LOT 5 \ EXISTING 46NING = A AGRICIUJURAL \ PROPOSED ZONING = R RESIDENTIAL / T'� N LOOT 6 FUTURE LOT 18 Y FUTURE Lor FUTURE LOT 4 FUTURE LOT 17 / \ I I \ ' I LOT 3 08)?9%M FUTURE LOT 108 FUTURE LOT 13 / //ph LOT 7 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT 1300K 34 ll`�/�✓ / AT PAWS ICG Of THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER:S p / rhe FREor O O� a / oFFIGE FUTURE LOT 'Z FUTURE I� � � \ pp l //v pa) Zap / \ \ 24 � hF O FUTURE LOT I FR/ J S � � \ _ FUT LOT 15 0 10 25 50 75 100 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET S' 1"=100' / Q OP / O / LOT I / O� �0 Jil I L©1] (0 AARON DRIVE SE M M CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)351-8282 www.mmsconsuItants.net Date I Revlslon 09-12-2019 PER GDM REVIEW - RLW 0 U REZONING EXHIBIT Q 00 0 O LOT A REDWING ESTATES CD A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE O NORTHWEST AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, ALL IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST N uo 0 0 JOHNSON COUNTY -I IOWA 0 O MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 09-11-2019 0 1 Designed by: Field Book No: \ GL 1128 0 Drawn by: Scale: CD RLW 1"=100' Checked by: Sheet No: JEL 1 � Project No: 0 IOWA CITY I 1 0 C� MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2019 —7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hekteon, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Gina Landau RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of CZ19-01, an application submitted by Claude Greiner for a rezoning of approximately 25.32 acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson County north of American Legion Road and south of 400' Street SE from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R). CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. CZ19-01: Applicant: Claude Greiner Location: North of American Legion Road and South of 400' Street SE An application submitted by Claude Greiner for a rezoning of approximately 25.32 acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson County north of American Legion Road and south of 400' Street SE from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R). Russett stated this is a proposed rezoning in the Fringe Area and showed an aerial map of the proposed rezoning which is north of American Legion Road. It is located within the two mile Fringe Area radius of the City's corporate limits, Area B, outside the City's growth boundary. The property is currently zoned County Agricultural (A) and the surrounding properties are a mix of residentially zoned land as well as some agriculturally zoned land. If this rezoning is approved, the applicant intends to develop a county subdivision, and divide the land into approximately 23 single-family residential lots and two outlots for storm water management and open space. Russett noted she also received an alternative concept plan and describes the differences. In the original concept the applicant is proposing to change the existing lots 5 and 6 into a future lot 15 and Faye Drive would be extended into the new subdivision. In the new version lots 5 and 6 Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 2019 Page 2 of 5 would remain fronting American Legion Road and there would be two fewer lots within the proposed subdivision. Russett noted that this application is just for the rezoning and City approval will be required if the property is subdivided with either proposal. Russett noted this application is similar to a rezoning the Commission saw last year. In 2018 there was a proposed rezoning just east. Staff recommended not to approve this rezoning because it conflicted with the policies in the Fringe Area Agreement. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council agreed with staff. This led to the creation of a conflict resolution committee, which included City and County staff, City Council members, and representatives of the Board of Supervisors. After this committee consulted, the City Council recommended approval of the rezoning as did the Board of Supervisors. Russett noted the proposed rezoning is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, the County updated their Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan last year and identified this as an area for future residential development. In reviewing proposed rezonings in the Fringe Area, staff relies on the policies outlined in the Fringe Area Agreement. The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas not specifically planned for in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Fringe Area Agreement is intended to provide guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City's corporate limits. The Fringe Area Agreement for this area recommends agricultural uses and that land uses are restricted to rural and agricultural uses. The role of the Commission tonight is to make a recommendation to City Council on the rezoning, however the Johnson County Board of Supervisors ultimately makes the decision on this rezoning. Although the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the policies outlined in the adopted Fringe Area Agreement, staff recommends approval of this rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the County's Future Land Use Map and comprehensive plan; 2. Based on the outcome of Greiner rezoning south of American Legion Road in 2018, staff anticipates that a recommendation of denial would lead to the need to create another conflict resolution committee; and 3. Staff is working with County planning staff to update the Fringe Area Agreement. Hensch asked if there was anything uniquely different with this rezoning application from the one to the east that was rezoned last year. One difference is this proposed rezoning shows the extension of an existing street, Faye Drive, which was always intended to be extended to the west so that goes to show this area was planned to be developed. Hensch asked if there was just the one access point from the new development onto American Legion Road. Russett said they are proposing one street and depending on how it lays out there may be more driveways on American Legion Road. Hensch opened the public hearing. Gina Landau (MMS Consultants) is representing Claude Greiner and also represented the other parcel that was discussed in 2018 and attended the conflict resolution committee meetings, so is familiar with this area. Landau confirmed that the extension of Faye Drive was known when Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Redwing Estates was platted in the 1980's. Landau said they would have just the one access point onto American Legion Road from lot 7 which leaves a 100 foot frontage along the roadway. Regarding lots 5 and 6, Landau prefers the one where the lots are turned and part of the new development but that is still being decided. There are also discussions to have a road extend up to 400' Street for another access point. Landau reiterated this is just a concept at this point, there have been a couple of developers talking with her client and if they choose to only put in 7 lots rather than 21 or 23 that is their prerogative. Signs noted there is access to 400' Street from the Redwing Estates subdivision. Landau confirmed that was the case but also acknowledged the County realizes not as many would take 400th Street because it is a gravel road. Hensch noted it is best to have a second access point in case of emergency. Townsend asked if there was a need for a Good Neighbor Meeting. Landau noted the County does not do Good Neighbor Meetings and considers the public hearing to be where citizens can speak. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to recommend approval of CZ19-01, an application submitted by Claude Greiner for a rezoning of approximately 25.32 acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson County north of American Legion Road and south of 400th Street SE from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R). Martin seconded the motion. Signs disclosed he was recently a listing agent on lot 8 of American Legion Road and it was sold to two of his agents. He had a conversation with them this afternoon and they have no problem with this proposal. Hensch noted there is concern when violating the Fringe Area Agreement, as this is not consistent with the current Agreement, however with the rezoning to the east and the conflict resolution committee working it out plus the background work of redoing the Fringe Area Agreement make this application acceptable. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 5, 2019. Signs seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Planning and Zoning Commission October 3, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Russett noted the City Council approved the Tamarack Ridge rezoning and preliminary plat. Russett also noted the Iowa APA Conference is in Iowa City next week and the Commission is invited to attend. ADJOURNMENT: Signs moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-2019 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 3/15 (W.S.) 4/2 4/5 (W.S) 4/16 4/19 5/3 5/17 6/7 6/21 7/5 8/16 9/6 9/20 10/18 12/20 1/3 BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X O/E X X DYER, CAROLYN O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X O O/E O X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X O/E X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 1/17 (W.S.) 2/4 2/21 3/7 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/16 6/6 6/20 7/18 8/15 9/5 10/3 BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E DYER, CAROLYN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E FREERKS, ANN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X THEOBALD, JODIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member October 15, 2019 Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Rezoning N of American Legion Road Item CZ19-01 Dear Members of the Commission: �r a ; �f CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org The Iowa City City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission have reviewed the request submitted by Claude Greiner to rezone 25.32 acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson County north of American Legion Road and south of 4001 Street SE from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R). The Fringe Area Agreement allows for City review of County rezoning cases for property within two miles of Iowa City. The subject property is located in Fringe Area B - Outside of Iowa City's Growth Area. For property located in this area, the Fringe Area Agreement states that agricultural uses are preferred. Specifically, the agreement states: Until otherwise changed by amending this agreement, this area shall be restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan, and as designated for a Rural/Agriculture area in Chapter 8:1.6 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance, as amended. According to Johnson County's Land Use Plan, agricultural uses include agriculture with "very limited residential development." However, Johnson County's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map have this area designated as Residential. At its October 3rd meeting, the Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of this application. Although the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the policies in the adopted Fringe Area Agreement, the Commission recognized that the rezoning is consistent with the County's Future Land Use Map, surrounding land uses, including a recent rezoning that was the subject of a conflict resolution meeting between the City and the County, and that City staff is working with County staff on amending the Fringe Area Agreement to address these policy conflicts. The City Council concurs with the Commission and recommends that this rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) be approved. Thank you for your consideration of our comments on this application. Sincerely, / Ja es Throgmorton Mayor, City of Iowa City Letter To City Council Regarding: Proposed Multi Story apartment Building in Ped Mall , And the proposed replacement for Pentacrest Apartments Dear Iowa City City Council Board, I am writing you this letter on my opinion about the two proposed developments of downtown student housing. First off when you demolish the Pentacrest apartments, and replace them with more newer student housing make it more affordable, the cost of living near downtown iowa city has always been way too high. Second of all I want at least a say on our development projects about how many stories we can construct on this building. We have so many high rise buildings constructed in the last several years going as high as fifteen or even twenty stories tall. I have been calling Iowa City my home for the past twenty five years, and when I arrived in the early 1990s, the tallest building was the Veterans Administration Medical Center at ten stories. I don't want to think of Iowa city as a major city like Chicago, and don't want future generations of students and newcoming residents to feel that way too. I want to keep Iowa city as a not to big not to small college/ working class town with just the rightsize how I found it. Students shouldn't have to pay several thousands of dollars just to live there. Realistically the average college student would be struggling just to make ends meet. Second, the proposed apartment building complex in the Ped Mall. I honestly think that there is more than enough apartments and student housing already in place. The last thing needed in Iowa City is more rental estate development. There is already so many mixed commercial multi use buildings, many have gone up within the past ten years. What really upsets me is when you have to knock out extra space that could be used as gathering grounds or parking spots or business owners that already have the claim on the housing space. I specifically oppose these two development projects as not only am I a huge believer in historical preservation, I would also like more equal affordable housing and keep the symbolic view of Iowa city as a college town not a big city. Jonathan Dehn 4)l Late Handouts Distributed (Date) -9/( HOUSES INTO HOMES housesintohomes3 1 9@gmaii.com housesintohomes.org CREATING A CARING COMMUNITY Everyone should have a comfortable place to sit, sleep, and eat. Volunteers make it possible for us to provide those comfortable places and turn houses into homes. PROVIDING FOR OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS Improved sleep quality leads to better school performance and a comfortable home can improve family cohesion. COLLABORATING WITH PROVIDERS Our recipients are referred by local agencies, including the ICCSD, DVIP, UAY, Shelter House, Johnson County Social Services, 2 UIHC clinics, and the IC Police Department. Late Handouts Distributed io -lS-i (nate) Salina McCarty, Executive Director Lucy Barker, Director of Operations