MUP Professional Study

The Office of Sustainability | City of Austin

Green Infrastructure (GI) Progress Report via STAR Communities Framework April 2018 Update

Submitted By: SHUCHITA JAIN Plan 693 – Professional Study Master of Urban Planning, Texas A&M University

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am extremely thankful for my Advising Committee faculty members who offered their time and support for successful development of this project. I am particularly thankful for my Committee Chair, Dr. Sierra Woodruff, who provided immensely valuable inputs and consistent guidance from start to finish.

This study would not have been possible without the amazing support and patience of my husband, Pawan Gogad throughout the program. Lastly, shout out to my family: to my most loving parents; to my niece Pico and my nephew, Abir for allowing me to take part in their play time that kept me healthy, refreshed, and smiling amidst all the hard work; and to my late grandmother whose affection and ambition for me keep me asking for more out of myself.

Contents of the Report 1.

Motivations and Objectives of the Study ............................................................................. 3

2.

Overview of the STAR Community Rating System (STAR) ................................................. 3

3.

Austin’s Scores on STAR, 2014 ............................................................................................ 4

4.

Green Infrastructure within Austin’s Planning Scene ......................................................... 5

5.

Methods and Sources .......................................................................................................... 6

6.

Progress Evaluation, Implementation Gaps, and Recommendations ................................ 7 a.

Outcome I - Designated Green Infrastructure.................................................................. 8

b. Outcome II - Green Infrastructure Distribution .............................................................. 10 c.

Local Action 1 - Inventory, Assessment, or Survey ....................................................... 13

d. Local Action 2 - Plan Development ................................................................................ 13 e.

Local Action 3 - Policy and Code Adjustment ............................................................... 14

f.

Local Action 4 - Policy and Code Adjustment ............................................................... 22

g. Local Action 5 - Partnership and Collaboration............................................................. 23 h. Local Action 6 - Enforcement and Incentives ................................................................ 23 i.

Local Action 7 - Practice Improvements........................................................................ 26

j.

Local Action 8 - Facility and Infrastructure Improvements .......................................... 26

k.

Local Action 9 - Facility and Infrastructure Improvements .......................................... 28

7.

Program Impact Evaluation................................................................................................ 31

8.

Results and Next Steps ...................................................................................................... 32

9.

Reflections on STAR Community Rating Framework........................................................ 33

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 6-1 Ground cover distribution by land cover type, Austin, 2014. ................................... 9 Figure 6-2 Urban Forest trends in Austin from 2012 to 2016. .................................................. 9 Figure 6-3 Percentage of tree cover by plot*, Austin, 2014. .................................................... 11 Figure 6-4 Tree Planting Prioritization Map, 2015, City of Austin ........................................... 12 Figure 6-5 Figure V 1 Illustration of ‘Functional Green’ as landscape requirement in Austin, Division 23-4E – 4, CodeNEXT Draft 2017, City of Austin, Texas............................................ 16

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

1

Figure 6-7 The Grove at Shoal Creek PUD Parks Plan, Austin, Texas, 2016 ........................... 18 Figure 6-8 Critical Root Zone regulations in Austin: No cut or fill greater than four (4) inches to be located closer to the tree trunk than ½ the CRZ radius distance, and no cut and fill to occur within the ¼ CRZ zone. ................................................................................................... 20 Figure 6-9 Critical Root Zone regulations in City of Portland.................................................. 21 Figures XI-1 Green Alley Demonstration Project, 2015, Austin, Texas ................................... 29

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Top Ten Achieving Communities for 'NS-1 Green Infrastructure' ............................ 5 Table 6-1 Downtown Density Bonus program, Section 25-2-256, City of Austin, Texas ...... 24

ATTACHMENTS APPENDIX 1 – COMMUNITY SCORES APPENDIX 2 – STAR V2 RATING SYSTEMS APPENDIX 3 – PROGRAM EVALUATION TABLE

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

2

The Office of Sustainability | City of Austin

Green Infrastructure (GI) Progress Report via STAR Communities Framework April 2018 Update

1. Motivations and Objectives of the Study Within Imagine Austin, City of Austin’s newest comprehensive plan, having ‘‘Nature in the City’’ is one of the key vision statements, and Green Infrastructure is identified as a Priority Program to achieve that vision. Using the STAR Communities Framework as a Best Management Practices tool, this report presents the accomplishments and ongoing efforts within the City of Austin for Green Infrastructure (GI) implementation in the last five years. The main objective of the study is to help identify the planning gaps, and make recommendations to help maintain and improve the City’s status as a ‘national leader’ for Green Infrastructure and overall Natural Systems (NS) planning as described within the STAR Community Rating System (STAR).

A secondary objective through this implementation study is to reflect on how the STAR System, as a Green Infrastructure as well as broader Natural Resources management tool, could support a professional planning process.

2. Overview of the STAR Community Rating System (STAR) STAR Community or STAR is a rating system that was developed in 2011 by roughly 400 leaders in sustainability from across the country with the intent of helping communities establish goals and targets on various sustainability indicators, and communities eventually receive certification upon achieving certain thresholds. The three possible Certification levels available are: 3-STAR Community, 4-STAR Community, and 5-STAR Community. A community’s certification status lasts for 4 years, at which point the community must apply for re-evaluation.

The complete STAR Community Framework, Version 2, 2016, is comprised of total seven ‘Goals’. Each Goal has a certain number of Objectives, that are categorized as Outcomes and Local Actions that communities are asked to accomplish to earn corresponding credits and scores. Green Infrastructure (GI) is the first Objective within the Goal area of Natural Systems (NS), and is comprised of 2 Outcomes and 9 Local Actions, worth total of 20 points (Figure 2-1). STAR System’s Objective for Green Infrastructure is stated within the System as:

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

3

‘’Design and maintain a network of green infrastructure features that integrate with the built environment to conserve ecosystem functions and provide associated benefits to human populations’’.

Figure 2-1 Schematic depicting the STAR Community Framework and location of ‘NS-1 Green Infrastructure’ within the Framework. See APPENDIX 2 to view the complete STAR Community Rating System, Version 2, 2016.

3. Austin’s Scores on STAR, 2014 City of Austin was a pilot community for the program initiated in 2011, and earned its first certification in 2014 as a 4-STAR community, with a total score of 490 points out of a possible 720. To see the full list of points earned by Austin, visit the following link: https://reporting.starcommunities.org/communities/5-austin-texas Austin is among the top five achieving communities for Natural Systems goal area sharing the stage alongside cities like Seattle, Cambridge, and Northampton. The City also fared well in the areas of Health & Safety, Climate and Energy; Economy and Jobs; and Education, Arts, and Community. For the Objective area ‘NS-1 Green Infrastructure’ Austin is among the top ten achieving communities with Portland leading with a perfect score of 20/20, closely followed by Cambridge, Seattle, and Baltimore (Table 3-1). See APPENDIX 1 for more information on status of the ten communities.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

4

Table 3-1 Top Ten Achieving Communities for 'NS-1 Green Infrastructure'

4. Green Infrastructure within Austin’s Planning Scene As part of its long range comprehensive plan Imagine Austin the City has adopted ‘Nature Into City’ as one of its four goal areas to guide planning efforts within the City.

Toward achieving this goal of having natural elements closely integrated with the City’s built environment Green Infrastructure was adopted as a ‘Priority Program’ and was defined by the City as: “Strategically planned and managed networks of natural lands, parks, working landscapes, other open spaces, and green stormwater controls that conserve and enhance ecosystems and provide associated benefits to human populations. [8]” The green infrastructure elements identified by Austin include the City’s parks, the urban forest, urban trails, greenways, rivers, creeks, lakes, gardens, urban agriculture, open spaces, wildlife habitat, and stormwater features that mimic natural hydrology. Some of the important ‘Actions’ for green infrastructure as identified within the comprehensive plan are:

CE A16 | Create a green infrastructure plan for public land or in public rights‐of‐way.

CE A22 | Create an urban forest plan that identifies tree canopy goals, establishes a budget, and presents implementation measures.

CE A1 | Implement the City of Austin Climate Protection Plan.

CE A18 | Create a regional task force to address inter jurisdictional environmental sustainability issues CE A20 | Create a heritage tree inventory and monitoring system to create stronger mechanisms for protecting heritage trees.

CFS A5 | Ensure adequate funding for the maintenance of parks and trees on City of Austin property through Best Maintenance Practices.

CFS A6 | Expand partnerships between local organizations and the City of Austin to maintain and improve local parks and open spaces.

CFS A7 | Revise tree planting and tree care standards to be more sustainable and reduce tree mortality.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

5

CFS A8 | Restore trees and vegetation along degraded waterways, especially in eastern watersheds.

CFS A7 | Revise tree planting and tree care standards to be more sustainable and reduce tree mortality.

CFS A8 | Restore trees and vegetation along degraded waterways, especially in eastern watersheds.

CFS A35 | Create a green infrastructure plan for public land or in public rights‐of‐way to preserve Austin’s ecosystem, improve the water cycle, reduce the urban heat island effect, improve air quality, enrich public space, and provide for traffic calming.

Examples include open space, trails, wetlands, community gardens green streets, infiltration facilities, and the urban forest.

5. Methods and Sources The evaluation method carried out for the presented study mainly consists of reviewing City of Austin’s official webpages and published documents for information regarding green infrastructure planning and implementation corresponding to each of the STAR Community’s two Outcomes and nine Local Actions for ‘NS-1 – Green Infrastructure’. In general, Green Infrastructure facilities and functions that are evaluated within this report are picked as indicated by STAR’s objectives that concern with ecosystem functions for storm water management, urban heat island mitigation, and other natural vegetation benefits for human liveability that may lie outside STAR’s other objective categories under the NS Goal (Figure 2-1).

In general, the overall study was carried out in the following three steps: Step 1: STAR Community NS and GI Scores & Ranks: Listing and Ranking of ‘4-STAR’ and ‘5-STAR’ Communities that had top ten scores for ‘NS-1 Green Infrastructure’ (Refer Table 3-1). Features like city population, land area, and population per square mile were also listed to identify the cities’ planning context. Refer APPENDIX 1 for more information on this process.

Step 2: Literature Review: Efforts have been made to identify and review all GI related information and documents (2013 -2018) of the City of Austin. The type of documents reviewed include plans, reports, manuals, ordinances, maps, and the literature found on or through the official City of Austin’s government website. Similar documents of peer STAR Communities (Refer Table 3-1) were also reviewed in order make specific recommendations to help improve state of GI planning and implementation in the City of Austin. All of the referred documents were easily accessible online.

Step 3: Program Impact Evaluation: Finally, a tabular evaluation was carried out, with 17 most contributing GI programs (or documents) to identify which Outcome/Action areas have received best progress and which ones received the least, and for other observations.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

6

Limitations of the evaluation study: The evaluation method is limited in terms of a possible deeper study into the scoring criteria and points awarding system for each Outcome and Local Action, due to restrictive access to the complete Rating System, and due to the given time frame for the study. Scope of the evaluation method is also limited to existing information review, rather than creating new original information out of raw data. Also, it is possible that a certain program or ongoing implementation by the City of Austin, for the GI, is missed in this report due to access restrictions. Ideally, this type of report and evaluation would be carried out by a City departmental staff who would have greater access to such information.

All external information presented in the following sections of the report has been sourced from the City of Austin’s official government website and STAR Community Rating System’s website, unless cited otherwise.

6. Progress Evaluation, Implementation Gaps, and Recommendations The following sections present a review of the significant planning and implementation initiatives that were taken by the City of Austin for Green Infrastructure within the last five years or since the previous evaluation with STAR in 2014. In general, for each STAR Community Outcome and Action, the progress review is structured into the following components: -Statement of objective by STAR -Summary of progress on STAR -Description of progress for the corresponding Outcome/Action -Recommendation via STAR Community (for selected Outcomes/Actions) -SPOTLIGHT Project or Program (for selected Outcomes/Actions)

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

7

a. Outcome I - Designated Green Infrastructure ‘’Option A: Demonstrate that 35% of the jurisdiction’s land area has designated green stormwater infrastructure providing bioretention and infiltration services or Option B: Demonstrate that no more than 65% of the jurisdiction’s land area contains impervious surfaces’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNTY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: Full Credit STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): Full Credit PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: Also, the documentation and assessment completed by U.S. Forest Service, Austin’s Urban Forest Report (AUF) 2014 [9], Austin had about 40% of its land area1 under ‘herbaceous’2 cover (Figure 6-1). Also, Austin had an estimated 33.8 million trees comprising the tree canopy cover of 30.8 percent within the city limits. Hence, as per the Option B, City of Austin is fulfilling the Outcome objective.

However, owing to continued population growth and land modification, preserving Austin’s natural vegetation resource for future has become a considerable planning challenge. Moreover, as per the recent State of Our Environment(SOE) report [10] completed by the City the trees in the city are dying at a faster rate during the last five years than in earlier years. 37% of all trees removals were attributed to factors like tree disease, increasing natural death frequencies, and changes in climate conditions. A comparable number of trees were planted or replaced during this time period that constitute the major portion of the city’s current tree canopy (Figure 6-

2).

1

Land area considered for this assessment is excluding the area for water. ‘’ Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions.’’ -APPENDIX 3—Land Cover Category Descriptions, AUF 2014.

2

8

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

Figure 6-1 Ground cover distribution by land cover type, Austin, 2014.

Image Source: Austin's Urban Forest 2014, US Forest Service

Figure 6-2 Urban Forest trends in Austin from 2012 to 2016.

Image Source: State of Our Environment Report 2016, City of Austin, Texas

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

9

b. Outcome II - Green Infrastructure Distribution ‘’Demonstrate that 85% of the population lives within a 1/3-mile distance from green infrastructure features that provide localized cooling through tree canopy cover or vegetative surfaces’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: Full Credit STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): Full Credit PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: According to the recent assessment shared by the City, 65% of residents lived within ¼ mile (inside urban core) or ½ mile distance (outside urban core) to parklands in 2016.

While this assessment does not fulfil the stated Outcome’s benchmark of 85%, the Outcome requires demonstration of proximity to any type of cooling green infrastructure facility, like tree cover, vegetative surfaces, water bodies, which may not be a designated park. For this reason, probably a better demonstration of such a distribution can be made using the map for tree cover percentage by plot3 (Figure 63), if the AUF 2014. As can be deduced through the map, most areas of the city had at least 16% of tree canopy cover within a 1/3 mile diameter, except for the southeast part of the city which is the mainly the airport. At the same time it should be noted that there are several pockets of the city where the tree density has fallen to less than 15% or even to 0% (indicated by orange and red circles respectively).

3

‘Plots’ are 1/6 of an acre large circular areas, with radii of 48 feet that were delineated under the Urban Forest Inventory and Analysis (UFIA) program for sampling and inventorying the trees. There were a total of 223 urban plots that were delineated within Austin city limits. All trees with 5 inches diameter or more were inventoried within each plot. 4 nested ‘microplots’ were also demarcated within each of the plots wherein data was collected for all trees with a diameter of 1 inch through 4.9 inches. Refer Page 2-4, Austin’s Urban Forest Report 2014.

10

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

Figure 6-3 Percentage of tree cover by plot*, Austin, 2014.

Image Source: Austin's Urban Forest 2014, US Forest Service

In order to replenish the tree canopy in highly tree deficient area, the Urban Forest Planning Department has developed a Tree Planting Prioritization report [11] that includes the Tree Planting Prioritization Map (Figure 6-4). The Map tool identifies census tracts and their respective Tree Planting Priority Scores based on several factors, namely, public health & safety, air quality, environmental justice, water quality, critical places, forest replenishment, tree preservation & development impacts, and urban heat island. With the help of this tool, the City is able to target its urban forestry policy and program to provide green infrastructure service more equitably.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

11

Figure 6-4 Tree Planting Prioritization Map, 2015, City of Austin Image Source: Tree Planting Prioritization by Alan Halter, 2015, Urban Forestry, City of Austin

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

12

c. Local Action 1 - Inventory, Assessment, or Survey ‘’Assess the state of the jurisdiction’s urban forest’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: Not Applicable STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): New Action, Full Credit PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: The foremost achievement for this Action area is the publishing of Austin’s Urban Forest 2014, a first of its kind urban forest analysis report achieved through the U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. The report, which is basically a summary and analysis of the field work and data collection performed by the Texas A&M Forest Service documents urban tree conditions and trends in a comprehensive way. The full report along with APPENDIX section can be found under this link: https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/50393.

d. Local Action 2 - Plan Development ‘’Create a community wide green infrastructure plan that is integrated with other relevant local plans’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: No Credit STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): Partial to Full Credit PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: ‘The Austin’s Urban Forest Plan – A Masterplan for Public Property’ or AUFP’, adopted and published in March 2014, was created by the Urban Forestry Board toward comprehensive management of the tree and vegetation resource in Austin.

However, this plan is limited in its scope to only public lands and does not cover private lands. At present the City does not have one comprehensive green infrastructure plan document to address the need and management of different GI elements in an integrated fashion, which is the purpose of this local action area.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

13

Office of Sustainability recommends that, going forward, the City should create and adopt an integrated Green Infrastructure Plan. Acknowledging the need to regulate public and private properties through different planning tools, this new GI plan might work best for public property, similar to the AUFP. However, the plan will serve to integrate the city’s existing analysis and objectives for more diverse GI facilities like green streets [12], green roofs/walls, community gardens - and will inform on an integrated vision, performance targets, action strategies, funding sources, location suitability, connection with other community plans, and several other aspects of comprehensive GI planning in the city. A lot of this recommended information currently exists with the City but in a highly dispersed manner and split by the managing departments and does not offer a compelling vision of a complete GI system.

e. Local Action 3 - Policy and Code Adjustment ‘’Adopt local design criteria and associated codes that require proactive green infrastructure practices for new developments’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: Full Credit STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): Full Credit, and gain in points PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: In the past five years, the City has made substantial progress in this Action area by making old codes and standards more stringent or optimised, and by continuing to adopt new innovative policies and urban design standards. One major progress is the adoption of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) [13] in 2016. Under this ordinance, residential developers now have to dedicate land, 9.4 acre per 1000 residents, or pay a fee-in lieu to the City toward meeting parks and recreation levelof-service for the new development as well as for other open space uses. As a result Austin has successfully reclaimed a large amount of land as public property city wide. The land dedicated under PDO must also comply with City’s other plans – The Comprehensive Plan; the Park and Recreation Long Range Plan; the Environmental Criteria Manual; and the Parkland Dedication Operating Procedures to ensure that dedications occur at preferred locations and contribute toward broader land use design efforts by the City.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

14

Another major achievement on this front is the adoption of Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM), in 2017. The Manual consists of several green infrastructural regulations, particularly under the Sections of Water Quality Management; Landscape; Tree and Natural Area Preservation; and Construction in Parks. The manual details requirements for different types of landscape and water quality infrastructure calculations, local tree and plant types, name list of preferred trees and plants, restoration standards for natural areas in city parks, vegetated/green roof standards and other aspects for private development permits.

Apart from the above regulations, Austin is currently in the process of finalizing and adopting its new elaborate Land Development Code, CodeNEXT, which will be the City’s primary implementation tool after the adoption of Imagine Austin comprehensive plan in 2015. The following Sections and Divisions of the CodeNEXT will directly influence green infrastructure practices for new developments that also tie in with the above mentioned implementation: 

Article 23-3B: Parkland Dedication



Article 23-3C: Urban Forest Protection and Replenishment



Division 23-3D-3: Impervious Cover (Water Quality)



Division 23-4C-1: General to Large Sites (General to All Development)



Division 23-4C-2: Civic Open Space (General to All Development)



Division 23-4E -4: Landscape (Supplemental to Zones). Refer Figure 6-5 for an example of regulation under this Division, pertaining to the requirement of incorporating ‘Function Green’ for the high-developed zones where it is difficult to achieve green open space through regular ground level landscape.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

15

Figure 6-5 Figure V 1 Illustration of ‘Functional Green’ as landscape requirement in Austin, Division 23-4E – 4, CodeNEXT Draft 2017, City of Austin, Texas.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

16

SPOTLIGHT: The Grove at Shoal Creek PUD Ordinance, 2016 City of Austin, Texas In 2016, the City of Austin approved the 75 acre large Planned Unit Development (PUD) through the adoption of The Grove at Shoal Creek Ordinance [3]. The PUD is to be developed as a diverse mixed-use community that included residential, retail, and office spaces in close proximities. As a compliance to the new Parkland Dedication Ordinance, the PUD transferred a total of 19 acre of parkland for public use. A Public Parks Masterplan [7], currently under draft stage, is being developed by a professional architectural firm under the oversight of Austin’s Parks & Recreation Department which will guide the site development.

The Grove at Shoal Creek PUD ordinance not only grants the change in corresponding zoning regulation but also attaches area-specific development permit conditions including the landuse design plan, Parks Plan (Figure 6-7), Environmental resource conditions, Tree disposition regulations that were developed with the Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) and with community input. Some of the salient green infrastructure related requirements of the development ordinance are:   

 





95% of non-turf plantation to comply with Austin’s native and adaptive planting guidelines.

Air conditioner condensate from commercial buildings to be used as make-up water for the wet pond.

Minimum 10 acre of impervious cover shall drain to and be treated by green water quality controls (such as rain gardens, bioswales, rain water harvesting) as per Environmental Control Manual (ECM) Section 1.6.7 (Green Storm Water Quality Infrastructure).

Minimum 75% of calliper inches of native Protected Trees to be preserved.

Delineates the 25-year and 100-year floodplains, the ecologically important areas for preservation, and pedestrian/bike trail connections to be provided within the public parkland as well as on private development tracts.

Designation of Green Streets that are designed as a key green infrastructure element in site development as well as allow for safe pedestrian movement and bicycling to the common open spaces and other amenities (Figure 6-6).

Facilitate a mutually beneficial relationship between the private developer and the neighbouring community.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

17

Figure 6-6 Parks Plan for The Grove at Shoal Creek Planned Unit Development,

By Department of Park and Recreation, City of Austin, Texas, 2016 Map Source: www.austintexas.gov

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

18

However, Office of Sustainability identified some areas where code and policy regulations may either be loosely defined or possibly insufficient for achieving the desired GI vision and a state of best management practices in Austin: A review of ‘Division 23-4E -4: Landscape’ of the Draft CodeNEXT reveals that the Common Open Space within the Large Developments are not necessarily required to incorporate any amount of natural undeveloped space. Also, landscape area and plaza spaces within developments, while required to include shading devices, are not required to use any amount of natural tree or vegetation as shading facilities. Also, the city allows for a wide palette of civic open space typologies to fulfil the requirement of common open space within developments. These spaces can be designed as Neighborhood Park, greenway, hardscape plaza or square, pocket park, as well as accessible green roofs, and therefore subject to interpretation and manipulation for their design treatment and green cover. The specifics concerning with how ‘green’ these spaces need to be are not well defined for most places.

The new ECM continues with the minimum tree size of 19 inches for the Protected Tree regulations, as per the Tree Ordinance of 1983. On the other hand, in 2014, Austin’s 61 percent of total canopy cover was comprised of trees less than five inches in diameter (dbh) [9]. The Office of Sustainability recommends revisiting the regulation and possibly protect smaller sized trees as well. Also, while Austin appropriately protects its trees with good Critical Root Zone (CRZ) regulations (Figure 6-7), there is scope for improving the regulation to better manage construction activity in and around the CRZ toward protecting the city trees. These trees contribute to the high proportion of young trees in the Austin area, a condition favourable to long-term health and sustainability. Going forward, Austin needs to implement more stringent tree protection and tree care measures as well as addition of new vegetative and infiltrating surface in order to maintain the 35% benchmark.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

19

Figure 6-7 Critical Root Zone regulations in Austin: No cut or fill greater than four (4) inches to be located closer to the tree trunk than ½ the CRZ radius distance, and no cut and fill to occur within the ¼ CRZ zone. Source: www.austintexas.gov.

Source: Environmental Criteria Manual, City of Austin, Texas

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

20

Recommendation via STAR Community: Tree Regulations, City of Portland, Oregon www.portlandoregon.gov TITLE 11 TREES [4] is the City of Portland’s new Ordinance for tree regulations and applies to all types of properties within the city limits. All eligible trees that are of 12’’ or more diameter are protected under these new regulations. However, the City does permit removal of upto four 20’’ diameter healthy trees on private property on yearly basis. For instance, removal of one 20’’ diameter tree could be mitigated by planting four of 5” diameter trees.

The regulations also require private developers to save at least 1/3 of the trees on their sites that are 12’’ or larger in diameter. Also, in general the removed trees must be replaced tree for a tree. In case of removal of a 20’’ or larger diameter tree, tree must be replaced inch for an inch. The City also allows for payment in-lieu of replanting or preservation, at the rate of $300 per inch, toward Planting and Tree Preservation Fund.

Within its Root Protection Zone (RPZ) regulations (corresponding to the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) regulations in Austin), Portland also specifies that in case of any allowable encroachments within the zone, the encroachments cannot occupy more that 25% of the total area of the zone (Figure 6-8), which further restricts development impact on tree health.

Figure 6-8 Critical Root Zone regulations in City of Portland.

Source: TITLE 11 - TREES, City of Portland, Oregon.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

21

f. Local Action 4 - Policy and Code Adjustment ‘’Include evaluation of green infrastructure potential during early site reviews of proposed developments and subdivisions’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: Full Credit STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): Full Credit, and gain in points PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: Under Division 23-4E-4140, Submittal Requirements of CodeNEXT, developers will be asked to submit Landscape Plans, approved by certified Landscape Architect, providing details about their site development proposals. The plans will be required to include information on all existing vegetation, soils, and other landscape features along with such information as actual tree sizes, plant species, and their locations.

Proposals will need to include tree protection plan, detailed planting notes, stormwater retention/detention areas, landscape irrigation plans, many types of green infrastructural landscape calculations and a fully completed ‘’Landscape Legend’’ as per the ECM.

SPOTLIGHT: Green Infrastructure App [1], 2014 City of Austin Urban Design Division In order to facilitate more convenient and accurate evaluation of green infrastructure potential on sites, the City of Austin has come up with an innovate App, for developers to calculate the volume of stormwater that would need to be managed as per the proposed plans as well as local conditions. The App allows for Scenario Building for site plans using different combinations of green stormwater controls. It also comes with four Preset Buttons - ‘‘No green infrastructure’’; ‘‘Minimum green infrastructure’’; ‘‘Green infrastructure medley’’; and ‘‘No water quality controls and No fee-in-lieu’’ that allow users to work with scenario options ranging from having only conventional facilities to a hybrid mix of strategies that would exceed the minimum stormwater standards of the City.

This new facility also helps better quantify the financial costs and benefits of green infrastructure in comparison with the ‘grey’ infrastructure. Apart from the App, the City has also published an information manuscript that describes the App, green infrastructure and its uses in general, and guides on proper usage of the App in full detail.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

22

g. Local Action 5 - Partnership and Collaboration ‘’Partner with key community groups and other stakeholders to ensure that green infrastructure practices are used in appropriate settings’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: Full Credit STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): Full Credit PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: The Community Tree Preservation Division of the City now supports a program by the non-profit TreeFolks, called NeighborWoods under which 4,600 trees are distributed within Austin communities every year and free of cost. The collaboration ensures that only healthy trees and of suitable species are planted, in appropriate locations, and that care is taken for successful survival of the new planted trees.

The program puts special emphasis on giving fruit and nut producing trees to the tracts that have poor access to fresh food. Applicants are asked to commit to take care of their new planting for at least 2 years that boosts community stewardship for urban trees. Currently the NeighborWoods program is sponsored by private entities like HEB and Circuit of the Americas, as well as by the City.

h. Local Action 6 - Enforcement and Incentives ‘’Create incentive programs to encourage landowners to adopt green infrastructure practices that link to broader green infrastructure systems’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: Full Credit STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): Full Credit, and gain in points PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: With the Drainage Charge Ordinance Revision in 2016, the Watershed Protection Department (WPD) has started offering a Stormwater Management Discount as an initiative to encourage and reward voluntary efforts of residents and businesses for

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

23

incorporating green stormwater controls on their sites. Drainage Charge is a monthly charge for stormwater management that is collected by the City on basis of both the amount and percentage of pervious cover. The Stormwater Management Discount is offered in proportion to the benefits of the installed controls or facilities:  55 gallon tank……………………….……… ……………………………$0.20 to $0.30 per month  Small rain garden (60 sq. ft., 6 inches deep)………….$0.70 to $1.20 per month  1,000 gallon tank………………………………………………………..$2.90 to $4.90 per month The Discount is capped at 50% of the total impervious cover on any given property.

For example, if a 3000 sqft of Rain Garden is installed to offset 4,000 sqft of impervious cover, the maximum allowable area for offset will only be 2.000 sqft (4,000 x 50%), and not the entire 3000 sqft of the area of the Rain Garden. The Discount stays valid for a period of two years for a given property.

The WPD has also published the Stormwater Management Discount Guidance Manual [14] that explains the discount in detail, including description and eligibility criteria of each green stormwater control.

Furthermore, acknowledging the multiple environmental benefits of vegetated roofs that include urban heat island mitigation, improved energy efficiency, improved air quality, local food production and more, the City of Austin is providing credits for developments incorporating green roofs in built structures. As per the revised Green Roof Existing Credits Fact Sheet released in 2014 [15], private residential and commercial developers in Austin can install Green Roofs and apply them to meet partial requirements for Common Open Space, impervious cover measurement, stormwater management, green building, parkland dedication, and reflective roofing standards.

Also, Austin is offering Density Bonus [16] to downtown area developers (Table 6-1) that allows developers to build at a higher floor area ratio (FAR) if they use vegetated roofs in the building design. The bonus is calculated as a function of percent vegetated roof cover area.

Table 6-1 Downtown Density Bonus program, Section 25-2-256, City of Austin, Texas

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

24

So far, actual implementation of green roofs within the city is very limited. The Green Roof Advisory Group (GRAG), which is currently working to improve green roof standards as well as financing strategies for developers, has found that the green roofs are not as easily successful in Austin’s unique climate – riding between semiarid and subtropical – as they have been in other colder states [17]. In future when GRAG’s efforts are successful at designing a locally-suitable green roof design criteria, Austin would be one of the first cities of its climate type to write a code for green roofs.

Recommendation via STAR Community: TREE CREDITS (Pages 2-53 - 2-56, Stormwater Management Manual [2], 2016, Portland, OR) www.portlandoregon.gov In Portland, like in Austin, trees have been recognized as a vital resource that provide a range of benefits, particularly for their stormwater management capabilities. Trees have also been identified as beneficial for urban heat island mitigation by shading the paved surfaces. For these reasons, City of Portland has started offering Tree Credits to developers for preserving existing trees or planting new trees on their sites, as a separate GI strategy from Trees Protection. Following are some important features of their Tree Credits program implemented in 2016:     

Generally, tree standards must meet their Title 11 Code (Tree Regulations Ordinance) for tree requirements in order to receive these credits.

Design requirements include considerations for tree sizing, tree setbacks, whether new or existing trees, tree selection and other criteria.

Sites with 1,000 square feet or more impervious area can apply for tree credits only for upto 10% of the total impervious area.

The same tree plantation cannot be applied for both the stormwater facility planting as well as impervious area reduction credits.

Credits are awarded on basis of caliper inches of trees saved or planted, as below:

Caliper of Existing Tree ...... Stormwater Credit 1.5 up to 6 inches .................. 200 square feet 6 inches and larger ..................400 square feet per each 6 caliper inches It is recommended that City of Austin will benefit by offering higher incentives, like Tree Credits of Portland, for proactive tree plantation and conservation practices to private developers and property owners who go beyond minimum tree protection standards of the City. Presently, City of Austin must rely on a negotiated land development agreement with private parties in order to seek tree protection and replenishment at a greater rate.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

25

i. Local Action 7 - Practice Improvements ‘’Establish a green infrastructure monitoring program and regularly report on status of desired outcomes’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: No Credit STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): Full Credit PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: The Austin’s Urban Forest Plan (AUFP) includes a Performance Report Card Template which will be used to monitor the City’s performance in sustainable urban forestry across 30 criteria identified by the City. These 30 criteria include relative canopy cover; species suitability; species distribution; green industry cooperation; neighborhood action; city staffing; municipality-wide funding; water use and drought response among the others.

Also, with the support of the City of Austin, one-tenth of the total 223 urban plots will be re-measured every year, that were established in the city through the Urban Forest Inventory and Analysis (UFIA) program of the US Forest Service toward continued assessment of the city’s urban forest. The observations documented in the Austin’s Urban Forest 2014 report provide the baseline for future monitoring.

j. Local Action 8 - Facility and Infrastructure Improvements ‘’Dedicate a percentage of funding invested in green infrastructure’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: No Credit STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): No Credit PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: As per the FY 2016-17 Long-Range Capital Improvement Plan (LRCIP) [18], City of Austin did not allocate dedicated funding for GI services. Under this financial plan,

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

26

any funds are allocated under the conventional infrastructure categories like Stormwater Management, Park Infrastructure and Public Trees, and Mobility Infrastructure managed by corresponding City Departments who may choose to divert all or part of the funds for the conventional infrastructure.

However, there is some progress in the form of establishment of the Urban Forest Grant (UFG) program [19] by the Department of Development Services. The Grant program is supported by the Urban Forest Replenishment Fund to support community projects under the categories of Tree Planting & Care; Education & Promotion; and Urban Forest Stewardship, with the objective of mitigating the impacts of tree removals in the City. Projects benefitting through this program range from removal of invasive species to tree planting in schools to watering street trees during the drought period. However, this grant does not represent a considerable percentage of the overall funds available with the City, dedicated specifically for GI services.

Recommendation via STAR Community: City of Seattle, Capital Budget 2018 Capital Budget Summary, City of Seattle https://openbudget.seattle.gov/#!/year/default City of Seattle’s latest Capital Budget proposal for 2018 allocates 7.52% of the total budget ($1.11 Billion) dedicated for Green Stormwater Infrastructure investments. This allocation, amounting to a total of $8.35 million, is set aside under the Public Utilities budget section, as ‘GSI for Protection of Beneficial Uses’. The fund represents 71.18% of the total fund allocated for ‘Protection of Beneficial Uses’ category.

The ‘GSI for Protection of Beneficial Uses’ funds will be utilized to provide for improvements such as right-of-way retrofits with bioretention/biofiltration for water quality and expansion of private property incentives for installation of rain gardens or cisterns, and other, as per the objectives and targets adopted through the City’s GIrelated plans and programs, like The Natural Drainage Systems Projects program, and the GSI Implementation Strategy 2015 – 2020 [6].

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

27

k. Local Action 9 - Facility and Infrastructure Improvements ‘’Upgrade public spaces and public buildings based upon locally adopted or recognized best practices in green infrastructure; where possible, create demonstration projects to enhance public support’’

PROGRESS ON STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM: STAR Evaluation in 2014: Full Credit STAR Evaluation in 2018 (expected): Full Credit PROGRESS DESCRIPTION: In recent years, City of Austin has taken numerous initiatives for public lands improvements and use for green infrastructural services. One of the notable achievements toward achieving the Action objectives is the adoption of ‘Urban Forest Masterplan: A Masterplan for Public Property’ which will guide the long term sustainable urban forestry on all publicly managed lands, including the public rightof-ways.

Due to the active efforts of the Parks and Recreation Department (PARD), several sustainable community garden projects are seeing implementation on the cityendorsed public open spaces. An Interactive Community Garden Viewer webpage has been created that helps interested locals find eligible public gardening locations, and information regarding garden design guidelines and other relevant processes is made available through city manuals and contacts [20].

As an example of demonstration project for green infrastructure, in 2014, the City of Austin Office of Sustainability and the UT Center for Sustainable Development partnered and implemented reconstruction of an alley in the Guadalupe Neighborhood using green infrastructure elements. As part of a larger affordable housing project, the Green Alley project introduced a system of rain gardens, permeable pavers, and living planter boxes that supported wildlife habitat along the local neighborhood street (Figure 6-9).

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

28

Figures 6-9 Living planter boxes at Green Alley Demonstration Project, 2015, Austin, Texas Source: www.soa.uttexas.edu

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

29

SPOTLIGHT: Mueller Community as the world’s largest LEED Gold Neighborhood, 2016 www.muelleraustin.com; Mueller Green Resources Guide An outcome of a joint project between the City of Austin Economic Development and Catellus Development, Mueller Community has earned a LEED Gold Neighborhood rating in 2016. Designed as a New-Urbanist neighborhood, the project transformed the 700acre large site of Austin’s former airport into a sustainable community located in the heart of Austin City. A Master Development Agreement was created for the unique Public-Private-Partnership project, that delineated 140 acre of accessible parks and open space comprising 20% of the total site area, which is more than what would have been delineated through normal private development terms.

Based on ‘Green Urbanism Signature Themes’ [5] Mueller Community’s design proactively implemented several Green Infrastructure strategies:  Landscaped Greenbelts & Stormwater Ponds.  90% of the landscaping in all commercial, residential and park areas to be comprised of only native and adapted plants that require less water.  Preservation of existing vegetation by limiting construction activities to a specified distance.  Preservation of existing trees by installing appropriate protection measures  15,000 trees to be planted that include 500 native pecan trees rescued from a nearby county.  Use of pervious pavement, and vegetation to shade structures and pavement  Urban tree canopy with new addition of 15,000 trees by completion. The new plantation will include more than 500 native pecan trees rescued and transplanted from a nearby county.

Above, Left: Mueller Lake Park with native/adapted landscaping. Photograph by Shuchita Jain Above, Right: Vegetation as shading strategy implemented at Mueller. Image Source: Mueller Green Resources Guide

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

30

7. Program Impact Evaluation Recognizing that some programs may impact more than one Outcome or Action area, and some good initiatives may not fit squarely into any of the 2 Outcomes and 9 Actions, a further evaluation was carried out, as presented in APPENDIX 3 – Program Evaluation Table.

Such programs may be applied toward Innovation & Process credits which an extra eighth goal area within the STAR System.

Description of APPENDIX 3: All the programs and initiatives that have significantly contributed toward advancing planning and implementation for GI in City of Austin were listed and marked for the extent to which they contributed against the STAR Community System. The evaluation marks used are as below:

High Impact Program: Substantial accomplishment of a Local Action, or contribution toward achievement of an Outcome4

Low Impact Program: Partial or low-degree accomplishment of a Local Action, or contribution toward achievement of an Outcome

Local Innovation: Might contribute toward gaining Innovation & Process (IP) credits (Refer Page 136, STAR System, V2).

Following are some key observations made through the Impact Evaluation Table, beyond what have already been discussed in the progress report: Local Actions for Facility and Infrastructure Improvements - Action 8 and Action 9 received the least degree of impact from the recent initiatives. While some programs partially support these action objectives, none of the programs help toward substantial progress. This may be attributed to the reason that accomplishment of these Actions may require direct re-allocation of financial and other City resources, an aspect that the City is yet to address.

The highest level of impact is delivered for the Local Action 3 requiring Policy and Code Adjustment for proactive design practices. This may illustrate City’s higher preference for using City Codes and Standards for management of its GI resources. This can be attributed to the reason that a great part of Austin’s GI resources is within the private lands [21].

The Mueller Community and The Grove at Shoal Creek PUD are unique development projects wherein the private developer and the City worked in close collaboration for achieving community-level sustainability including planning and implementation of green infrastructure services. Exploiting the opportunity for project-driven agreements and design enforcement, these projects allow the City to make large-scale impact as per the Local Action 9, for facility and infrastructure improvements for public buildings and spaces.

However, it is not clear whether such projects are eligible for any credits under the current STAR Community System.

4

The markings assigned for Outcomes do not indicate whether a program or initiative helps demonstration of the Outcome for the purpose of reporting to STAR System. Instead it indicates whether a program actively contributes toward achievement of the Outcome.

31 Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

APPENDIX 3 - PROGRAM EVALUATION TABLE PROGRAMS

Within the last five years 2018

ACTION TYPE

2013 -

Eg: Assessment; Plan; Regulatory; Incentives; Funding; Projects

OUTCOME I

Designated GI

OUTCOME II

GI Distribution

ACTION 1

Inventory, Assessment, or Survey

ACTION 2

ACTION 3

Policy and Code Policy and Code Adjustment Plan Development Adjustment - Early Proactive Design Site Review Practices

Inventory, & Assessment

1

State of Our Environment Report

2

Austin's Urban Forest 2014, US Forest Service report

3

Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan

Plan

4

Austin's Urban Forest Plan - A Masterplan for Public Property

Plan

5

2011 - 2016 Long Range Plan for Land, Facilities and Program

Plan

6

LongRange CIP Strategic Plan (LRCSP) FY 2016 - 17

Financial Plan

7

Urban Forest Grant (UFG)

Inventory & Assessment

Funding Program Regulatory; Codes & Ordinances

8

CodeNEXT Land Development Code

9

Environmental Criteria Manual

Regulatory

10

Parkland Dedication Ordinance

Regulatory

11

Drainage Charge + Stormwater Management Discount; Density Bonus

Incentives

12

Green Infrastructure App

13

Tree Planting Programs (Tree Planting Priority Map; NeighborWoods; Austin Community Trees

Voluntary & Partnership Projects

14

Sustainable Urban Agriculture & Community Garden Program

Voluntary & Partnership Projects

15

Mueller Community, The Grove at Shoal Creek PUD projects

Local Innovation

16

Green Alley Demonstration Project with UT Austin

Demonstration

17

Office of Sustainbility; Transparency & Open Data

Good Governance

Local Innovation

*An eighth category, Innovation & Process, supports the evolution of sustainability practice by recognizing best practices and processes, exemplary performance, local innovation, and good governance.

Implementation - High Impact Implementation - Low Impact Innovation & Process

ACTION 4

ACTION 5

Partnership and Collaboration

ACTION 6

Enforcement and Incentives

ACTION 7

Practice Improvements Monitoring

ACTION 8

ACTION 9

Facility and Facility and Infrastructure Infrastructure Improvements Improvements Public Buildings Dedicated Funding and Spaces

INNOVATION & PROCESS*

Innovation & Process

The new Version 2 of the System has added a new credit category of ‘Good Governance’ under the Goal area of Innovation & Process. Under this category, achievements like establishment of The Office of Sustainability, and employment of dedicated sustainability staff are able to earn points.

8. Results and Next Steps Within the last five years, since the evaluation by the STAR System in 2014, the City of Austin has made very good progress for Green Infrastructure services in the City. In particular, the City has made progress on Local Actions concerning with Inventory, Assessment, or Survey; Policy and Code Adjustment; and Practice Improvements for Monitoring. Other objectives where the City has performed well are GI Distribution; Partnership & Collaboration; and Enforcement/Incentives. It is also very likely that Austin will gain additional credits for STAR’s eighth goal area of ‘Innovation and Process’.

However, the Action requiring allocation of dedicated funding for Green Infrastructure is weekly addressed. Also, there remains a lack of an integrated planning approach for the green infrastructure facilities that might include Green Streets, Greenways, Parks and Open Spaces. Overall, City of Austin is likely to gain achievement points within the NS-1 Green Infrastructure objective area, as well as the larger Natural Systems (NS) goal area, during the next re-evaluation on the STAR System. Ultimately, these efforts will also contribute toward achieving the 5-STAR Certification level for the City.

Going forward, the City should set initiatives to address the implementation gaps as identified in this report by the means of STAR Community Framework. As gleaned through some of the top achieving STAR Communities (APPENDIX 1- Community Scores), Green Infrastructure is increasingly being seen as an essential component of a sustainable urban ecosystem, and many communities are including dedicated funding for GI within the annual budgeted capital investment plans. Dedication of GI funding would also lend more incentive for an integrated GI strategy plan that can support permanent designation of more diverse GI resources within the community’s built environment and help protect them against the land modification processes.

Also, it is suggested that the City’s land development code should seek greater use of vegetative strategies for a greener urban design. For example, mandating use of vegetative shading, at least to a partial extent, within all common open spaces and for structural shading would support Austin’s vision of a more natural city.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

32

9. Reflections on STAR Community Rating Framework Over last few years, Austin has received several published recognitions, in popular business journals and national-level environmental index systems, for being one of the most liveable places in the US and a leader for environmental innovation and management aspects. For example, in 2011, American Lung Association identified Austin as the city with the cleanest air in the country and ranked its metropolitan area as No.1 for 24-hour particle pollution by American Lung Association (http://www.austintexas.gov/department/local-and-nationalrankings). More recently, in 2017, Forbes ranked Austin as the most liveable city. Applying STAR Community Framework to a progressive city scenario, like that of Austin, helps us reflect on the system’s credibility and quality as a sustainability management system.

Through this study, it was observed that the STAR System is able to reward all the important initiatives taken by Austin’s community, in one way or the other. Also, it was able to offer additional action strategies which would only bolster the state of green infrastructure planning in the City. For example, working with STAR Framework, the City can identify the action objectives for Dedicated Funding; and minimum standards for GI designation (35%) and for GI distribution (75%) that were missing components within the City’s comprehensive plan. Therefore, greater alignment of Austin’s planning with the STAR Community Rating System would lead to either similar or higher management standards for sustainable development.

At the same time it was also observed that STAR System is not a self-sufficient tool for GI planning for a community, however, it is suggested that this is a positive attribute of the System. STAR does not endorse a particular GI facility (eg. green roof, permeable paving, or urban forest etc.) but instead emphasizes on the expected performance values. By doing so it leaves room for adaptation to local geographic conditions. For an example, while it may be wise for cities with high development intensities (Cambridge, Baltimore, Seattle) to substantially invest in constructed ‘nature identical’ green stormwater systems, it may not be equally wise for a less intensely developed community (like Austin, Northampton). The developing communities, or even smaller communities that are still rich in natural GI resources (tree canopy, grassy/shrub cover, uncompacted soils) will derive greater benefits by emphasizing strategies like conservation of undeveloped lands, continued monitoring and maintenance, and community stewardship.

Finally, the study also helps illuminate potential areas for a deeper inquiry and improvement of the Rating System. As identified in this study, GI accomplishments of projects like Mueller Community Redevelopment and the Grove at Shoal Creek PUD are helping advance the state of GI implementation in Austin across a wide range of action objectives (APPENDIX 3 – Program Evaluation Table). Several communities are increasing using Land Development Agreements and Public-Private-Development models to achieve better outcomes for infrastructural services. It is suggested that a more focussed research is carried out to assess the credit rewarding system of STAR in context of such agreements: what role could STAR potentially play in order to either adequately reward benefits or to keep a check on such agreement practices for a truly sustainable development.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

33

Lastly, this implementation study helps acknowledge benefits of aligning local planning practices with a third-party sustainability indicator system like STAR. As a context-neutral system, STAR offers a simple and practical vision for natural resources management that is more attractive to a wider stakeholder audience and disciplines. Invested with continued high quality research into sustainability principles and metrics, and facilitation of timely, quantifiable feedback through diverse communities lend long-term credibility to the System making in an excellent tool for general management of Green Infrastructure within a more comprehensive sustainability agenda.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Austin, C.o., Green Infrastructure App, U.D. Division, Editor. 2014.

City of Portland, O., Stormwater Management Manual. 2016.

The Grove at Shoal Creek PUD Ordinance, in 20161215-075, T. City of Austin, Editor. 2016.

City of Portland, O., TREES, in 11, O. City of Portland, Editor. 2015.

Mueller Green Resources Guide. 2012, Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems.

Green Stormwater Infrastructure in Seattle, 2025 Implementation Strategy. 2015, City of Seattle, Washington.

The Grove at Shoal Creek Public Parks Master Plan - Draft, A.P.R. Department, Editor. 2018, City of Austin, Texas.

IMAGINE AUSTIN Comprehensive Plan, C. Council, Editor. 2012, City of Austin, Texas.

R., D.J.N.A.R.B.R.E.H.C.B.E.D., Austin's Urban Forest 2014, in Resource Bulletin (RB). 2015, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Newtown Square, PA. Lesniak, C., State of Our Environment Report 2016, W. Protection, Editor. 2017, City of Austin.

Halter, A., Tree Planting Prioritization, U. Forestry, Editor. 2015, City of Austin, Texas.

GREEN STREETS AN INTRODUCTION, Transportation, Editor. 2015, City of Austin, Texas.

Parkland Dedication Ordinance, in 20160128-086, C.o. Austin, Editor. 2016.

Stormwater Management Discount Guidance Manual, W.P. Department, Editor. 2017, City of Austin, Texas.

Existing Credits for Green Rood Projects in Austin, W. Protection, Editor. 2014, City of Austin, Texas.

Density Bonus Ordinance, in 20140227-054, T. City of Austin, Editor. 2014.

Ankrum, N., Raining the (Green) Roof. The Austin Cronicle, 2010.

FY 2016-17 Long-Range Capital Improvement Program Strategic Plan, T.C.o.A.P. Commission, Editor.

2016.

URBAN FOREST GRANT Program Guidelines and Application, D. Services, Editor. 2018, City of Austin.

Community Garden Information and Permit Application Packet, P.a. Recreation, Editor. 2013, City of Austin, Texas.

Austin's Urban Forest Plan - A Master Plan fo Public Property, U.F. Board, Editor. 2013, City of Austin, Texas.

Shuchita Jain

PLAN 693

Professional Study

Spring 2018

34