M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and Council Members THROUGH: Robert Goode, P.E., Assistant City Manager FROM: Jorge L. Morales, P.E., CFM, Director Watershed Protection Department DATE: February 14, 2024 SUBJECT: Analysis of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Resolution Number 20230126-054) Background Resolution Number 20230126-054 directs the City Manager to analyze elements of the Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s 23 Targets with the goal of aligning Strategic Direction 28 (SD28) and relevant existing and proposed plans with applicable elements of the 23 targets. Analysis was conducted by the Watershed Protection Department (WPD) with coordination support from the Office of Sustainability. A list of the 23 Global Biodiversity Targets is available at Press Release: Nations Adopt Four Goals, 23 Targets for 2030 In Landmark UN Biodiversity Agreement - United Nations Sustainable Development. City of Austin Plans and Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Analysis Summary and Recommendations The resolution specified five City of Austin plans to include in the study. Staff also identified eight additional plans to include in this study. o Identified in Resolution ▪ ▪ Austin Climate Equity Plan Rain to River Strategic Plan (currently being developed) Page 1 of 3 ▪ ▪ ▪ Austin Urban Forest Plan Climate Resilience Action Plan for City Assets and Operations Imagine Austin o Additional plans identified by staff ▪ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Habitat Conservation Plan ▪ Invasive Species Management Plan ▪ Balcones Canyonlands Preserve Land Management Plan ▪ Water Quality Protection Lands Land Management Plan ▪ Water Forward ▪ Our Parks, Our Future ▪ Watershed Protection Strategic Plan (this plan was used in place of the Rain to River Strategic Plan which is currently being developed) ▪ Urban Trails Plan ▪ Austin/Travis County Community Wildfire Protection Plan - Findings: o All of the Biodiversity Targets were referenced in at least one of the City plans evaluated. Some of the references were more directly related to the intent of the Biodiversity Targets while some were only partially reflected. o Of the 23 UN Biodiversity Targets: seven were reflected in more than one City Plan, ten were reflected in at least one City plan, and six were only partially reflected in plans. o Biodiversity Targets with the least correlation with existing City Plans either have elements that may be beyond the zone of control for City government or have a stronger focus on equity centered representation in decision-making than …
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION TWO WORKING DRAFT-SUBJECT TO CHANGE August 27th, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 25-8-64 AND 25-5-3 AND CREATING A NEW CITY CODE SECTION 25-7-67 RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL RE- SUBDIVISIONS AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE TO SIXTEEN UNITS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: PART 1. Subsection (B) of City Code Section 25-5-3 (Small Projects) is amended to read: (B) The following are small projects: (1) construction of a building or parking area if the proposed construction: (a) does not require a variance from a water quality regulation; (b) does not exceed 5,000 square feet of impervious cover; and (c) the construction site does not exceed 10,000 square feet, including the following areas: (i) construction; (ii) clearing; (iii) grading; (iv) construction equipment access; (v) driveway reconstruction; (vi) temporary installations, including portable buildings, construction trailers, storage areas for building materials, spoil disposal areas, erosion and sedimentation controls, and construction entrances; (vii) landscaping; and (viii) other areas that the director determines are part of the construction site; 8/16/2024 Page 1 of 4 COA Law Department 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 PLANNING COMMISSION VERSION TWO WORKING DRAFT-SUBJECT TO CHANGE August 27th, 2024 (2) (3) construction of a storm sewer not more than 30 inches in diameter that is entirely in a public right-of-way or an easement; construction of a utility line not more than eight inches in diameter that is entirely in a public right-of-way; (4) construction of a left turn lane on a divided arterial street; (5) construction of street intersection improvements; (6) widening a public street to provide a deceleration lane if additional right- of-way is not required; (7) construction of five to 16 dwelling units that meet all applicable requirements for review under Section 25-7-67 (Modified Drainage Standards for Residential Infill); (8[7]) depositing less than two feet of earth fill, if the site is not in a 100-year floodplain and the fill is not to be deposited within the dripline of a protected …
Case No. C20-2023-045 Planning Commission: August 27, 2024 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET Amendment: C20-2023-045 | Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 & Infill Plats Amendment Introduction: This staff report discusses amendments to the Land Development Code (“LDC”) proposed in response to two separate council initiatives intended to facilitate construction of infill housing: Resolution No. 20221201-048 (“Site Plan Lite”) and Resolution No. 20230504-023 (“Infill Plats”). These amendments, which will be included in a single ordinance, seek to better calibrate non-zoning regulations and review procedures to the scale of “missing middle” housing. The report also describes changes initiated or under consideration by individual departments to address non-LDC related challenges to development of missing middle housing, including amendments to administrative criteria manuals and improvements to existing review procedures. Amendment Background: — Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 On December 1, 2022, the City Council passed Resolution No. 20221201-048 initiating LDC amendments to better scale site plan review for residential projects of three to sixteen units located on a single lot. For Phase 1, Council adopted Ordinance No. 20230720-158 on July 20, 2023, creating a site plan exemption for projects of four or fewer residential units. This change, coupled with subsequent passage of the first HOME ordinance, has enabled staff to conform the review process for 3-4 unit residential projects more closely to the process used for one and two-unit projects. For Phase 2, staff’s proposed amendments would modify applicable drainage regulations and adopt a new “small project” classification to enable further streamlining the review process for projects of five to sixteen units. These amendments, coupled with additional department- initiated changes, will make it easier to construct smaller multi-family projects on appropriately zoned lots. — Infill Plats On May 4, 2023, Council approved Resolution No. 20230504-023 initiating LDC amendments to facilitate the creation of infill lots and expand opportunities for “fee simple” ownership within existing residential subdivisions. Staff’s proposed amendments would help to further this objective by modifying applicable drainage regulations, which are a significant cost driver, and changing how impervious cover is Case No. C20-2023-045 | Page - 1 calculated to allow re-subdivisions to include a greater number of lots. In tandem with additional department-initiated changes, these amendments will better calibrate regulations applicable to small-lot single-family uses as authorized by the second HOME ordinance. Case No. C20-2023-045 Planning Commission: August 27, 2024 — Department-level Improvements Aside from drainage regulations codified in LDC Chapter 25-7 (Drainage), …
Infill Plats & Site Plan Lite, Part 2: Overview of Drainage Elements of Staff Proposal Environmental Commission | August 21, 2024 Watershed Protection Staff Presentation Outline • Council direction Three different development processes • • Non-zoning requirements • The continuum question • • • Flood detention The ordinance’s drainage proposal Storm drain connection proposal • Summary • Questions Council Direction Resolutions 20230504-023 and 20221201-048: • Propose streamlined development processes scaled for small residential subdivisions and multifamily projects with 5 to 16 units • “create a site plan review process tailored appropriately for missing middle housing, with fewer requirements than that of full site plan review • “holistically review all existing non-zoning development requirements for value and impact in application to missing middle projects, including but not limited to drainage and water quality, parking and street impact fees, parkland dedication, trees, and utilities…. with the goal of streamlining review in a manner scaled to the impacts of development” Development Process Steps to build housing and other developments: 1. Residential Subdivisions (to create the lots for building permits) 2. Site Plans (for multifamily residential projects, including missing middle) 3. Building Permits (for 1 to 3 residential units on one lot) • Each path has separate code and processes • Building permits are much simpler and more streamlined than the others Building Permit (BP) • Follows subdivision in the order of the development process • Is the vehicle to build 1 to 3 houses on an existing, platted lot • Features relatively small-scale projects with more streamlined permitting process • SF-1, SF-2, and SF-3 zones have impervious cover limits of 45% • Requires the following to guide drainage design: o Building Code o Plumbing Code o Texas State Law o Land Development Code: floodplain and erosion hazard zone • Has less demanding drainage requirements than subdivision—e.g., no storm drain system analysis or detention required—since these are assumed to take place at the preceding subdivision phase Residential Subdivisions • Precedes building permits in the order of the development process • Creates multiple platted lots, on each of which 1 to 3 homes can be built using a building permit • Traditionally large-scale projects with full, more complex permitting process • Watershed impervious cover limits are considered at this phase • Larger projects include roads and utility infrastructure • Requirements include storm drain system analysis and flood detention • Existing regulations designed for and work …
Infill Plats & Site Plan Lite, Part 2: Overview of Drainage Elements of Staff Proposal Environmental Commission | August 21, 2024 Watershed Protection Staff Presentation Outline • Council direction Three different development processes • • Non-zoning requirements • The continuum question • • • Flood detention The ordinance’s drainage proposal Storm drain connection proposal • Summary • Questions Council Direction Resolutions 20230504-023 and 20221201-048: • Propose streamlined development processes scaled for small residential subdivisions and multifamily projects with 5 to 16 units • “create a site plan review process tailored appropriately for missing middle housing, with fewer requirements than that of full site plan review • “holistically review all existing non-zoning development requirements for value and impact in application to missing middle projects, including but not limited to drainage and water quality, parking and street impact fees, parkland dedication, trees, and utilities…. with the goal of streamlining review in a manner scaled to the impacts of development” Development Process Steps to build housing and other developments: 1. Residential Subdivisions (to create the lots for building permits) 2. Site Plans (for multifamily residential projects, including missing middle) 3. Building Permits (for 1 to 3 residential units on one lot) • Each path has separate code and processes • Building permits are much simpler and more streamlined than the others Building Permit (BP) • Follows subdivision in the order of the development process • Is the vehicle to build 1 to 3 houses on an existing, platted lot • Features relatively small-scale projects with more streamlined permitting process • SF-1, SF-2, and SF-3 zones have impervious cover limits of 45% • Requires the following to guide drainage design: o Building Code o Plumbing Code o Texas State Law o Land Development Code: floodplain and erosion hazard zone • Has less demanding drainage requirements than subdivision—e.g., no storm drain system analysis or detention required—since these are assumed to take place at the preceding subdivision phase Residential Subdivisions • Precedes building permits in the order of the development process • Creates multiple platted lots, on each of which 1 to 3 homes can be built using a building permit • Traditionally large-scale projects with full, more complex permitting process • Watershed impervious cover limits are considered at this phase • Larger projects include roads and utility infrastructure • Requirements include storm drain system analysis and flood detention • Existing regulations designed for and work …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20240821-002 Date: August 21, 2024 Subject: Umlauf Historic Preservation, Expansion, and Unification Plan Motion by: Perry Bedford Seconded by: David Sullivan WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission was presented the Umlauf Historic Preservation, Expansion, and Unification Plan; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the mission of the Umlauf Historic Preservation, Expansion, and Unification Plan is to cultivate community, curiosity, and connection through nature, contemporary artists, and the work of Charles Umlauf.; and WHEREAS, the vision plan includes environmental site analysis of general ecology of the park, environmental contamination from historic land use, and review of the Edwards aquifer, plant communities and environmental regulations.; and WHEREAS, the vision plan includes: 1) the history of Umlauf Sculpture Garden & Museum, 2) the purpose, guiding principles, vision and goals of the plan, 3) site analysis and need assessment, 4) community engagement, 5) the plan, 6) implementation and 7) appendices; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes that the Arts Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the Umlauf Historic Preservation, Expansion, and Unification Plan; and WHEREAS, the vision plan includes environmental improvements including: 1) utilizing 25 percent impervious cover of allowable 45 percent impervious cover, 2) replenishing of mid-level planting and removal of invasive species and replacing with native species, 3) replenish middle layer of ecology with regenerative species to create plant diversity, 4) preservation of the site through a 500 year flood and regular rain events through drainage enhancement infrastructure and other permanent stormwater attenuation improvements), 5) tree canopy enhancement, 6) and climate change mitigation measures.; and THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission supports the Umlauf Historic Preservation, Expansion, and Unification Plan as presented to the Commission with the following recommendations: ● Continue to conduct public hearings/outreach, incorporate public comments, and seek City Council approval and present to the Environmental Commission during the design and implementation of various elements of the draft vision plan as these become more detailed and finalized ● Include art space within the museum or shared display art spaces to display art from local artists ● Prewire parking spots for addition of electric vehicle charging ● Use stormwater for irrigation ● Utilization of dark sky initiatives and bird friendly lighting and glass reflectivity VOTE 6-0 For: Peter Einhorn, Mariana Krueger, Melinda Schiera, Perry Bedford, Colin Nickells, David Sullivan Against: None Recuse: None Abstain: Hanna Cofer, Rick Brimer Absent: Jennifer Bristol, Haris Qureshi Approved By: Perry Bedford, Commission Chair
Date: August 21, 2024 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20240821-003 Seconded by: Colin Nickells Subject: Infill Plat and Site Lite Part 2 Amendments Motion by: Hanna Cofer WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the Code Amendments related to Home-2 known as Infill Plats and Site Lite Part 2 are a compilation of directives from City Council; WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission has been given a presentation from Staff on Infill Plats and Site Plan Lite on two occasions; and WHEREAS, research indicates that higher population density in urban areas leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions per household; and WHEREAS, low-density urban sprawl consumes valuable grassland prairies, tree-covered hill country, farmland, and other rural landscapes, and encroaches on wildlife habitat, WHEREAS, Council first initiated revisions to the site plan process for missing middle projects as a part of Affordability Unlocked, Resolution No 20190221-027; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes that Staff recommends these amendments; THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends the code amendments with the following Environmental Commission recommendations and comments: 1. The Environmental Commission is concerned that these Code changes inequitably may impact low-income neighborhoods. 2. The Environmental Commission is concerned about how this impacts homes in the local flooding areas or homes that are on the edge of the floodplains. 3. The Environmental Commission is concerned about neighbor-to-neighbor flooding due to poor drainage, including “ghost drainage” that is done without permits. 4. Request that the public is well informed in multiple ways about the new changes, how that will impact them, and how they can utilize the Code legally. 5. Request that the public is made aware of the process for adjacent homeowners to protest or improve changes to a neighbor’s lot. 6. Request that the City Council identifies and implements community outreach and engagement strategies for future proposed code land development changes of this nature. 7. The Environmental Commission is in favor of increasing access to affordable homes and 8. This recommendation is conditional on maintaining current protection for trees and increasing density where possible. current impervious cover requirements. 9. The Environmental Commission requests a review after 1 year about how these amendments are affecting localized flooding, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, along with any updated staff recommendations about how to adjust the currently proposed guardrails based on the number of projects and where they are occurring. VOTE: 7-1 For: Hanna Cofer, Peter Einhorn, Mariana Krueger, Melinda Schiera, Perry Bedford, Colin Nickells, David Sullivan …
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REGULAR CALLED MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, August 21, 2024 The ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION convened Wednesday, August 21, 2024, at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Bedford called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Perry Bedford, Peter Einhorn, Colin Nickells, Mariana Krueger, Melinda Schiera, David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Richard Brimer, Hanna Cofer Commissioners Absent: Jennifer Bristol, Haris Qureshi PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL in a REGULAR meeting on None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on August 7, 2024. The minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular meeting on August 7, 2024, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Commissioner Krueger’s second on a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Bristol and Qureshi were absent. Commissioner Einhorn and Nickells were off the dais. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS Presentation, discussion, and recommendation on the Umlauf Historic Preservation, Expansion, and Unification Plan – Kim McKnight, Parks and Recreation Speakers: Kim McKnight, PARD Katie Robinson Edwards, Umlauf Amanda Valbracht, Umlauf Richard Weiss, Member of the public A motion recommending the Umlauf Historic Preservation, Expansion, and Unification Plan with additional recommendations passed on Commissioner 1 2. Bedford’s motion, Commissioner Sullivan’s second, on a 6–0 vote. Commissioners Brimer and Cofer abstained. Commissioners Bristol and Qureshi were absent. Revisit a recommendation on an ordinance amending City Code Title 25 related to development regulations applicable to residential re-subdivisions and multi-family residential site development of five to sixteen units (Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 & Infill Plats) – Presented by Matt Hollon, Watershed Protection, requested by Environmental Commissioner Jennifer Bristol and Hanna Cofer Speakers: Matt Hollon, WPD Frances Acuña, speaking against Ana Aguirre, speaking against Bobby Levinski, speaking against Irene Pickhardt, speaking against Tanzia Karim, speaking against Megan Meisenbach, speaking against Ramesh Swaminathan, WPD Kevin Shunk, WPD Liz Johnston, WPD A motion by Chair Bedford to extend the meeting to 10:30, seconded by Commissioner Krueger, passed on an 8-0 vote. Commissioners Bristol and Qureshi were absent. A motion recommending the Site Plan Lite, Phase 2 & Infill Plats Ordinance with additional recommendations passed made on Commissioner Cofer’s motion, Commissioner Nickells’s second on a 7-1 vote. Commissioner Brimer voted against. Commissioners Bristol and Qureshi were absent. Staff briefing on wastewater capital improvement projects – Charles Celauro, Austin Water Assistant Director, Engineering Services, Austin Water Item conducted as posted. No action taken. Analysis of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework - Staff Response …
Regular Meeting of the Environmental Commission August 7, 2024 at 6:00 PM Permitting And Development Center, Events Center, Room 1405 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive Austin, Texas 78752 Some members of the Environmental Commission will be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, call or email Elizabeth Funk, Watershed Protection Department, at (512) 568-2244, Elizabeth.Funk@austintexas.gov, no later than noon the day before the meeting. The following information is required: speaker name, item number(s) they wish to speak on, whether they are for/against/neutral, email address and telephone number (must be the same number that will be used to call into the meeting). CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Haris Qureshi Peter Einhorn Mariana Krueger Melinda Schiera Hanna Cofer, Vice Chair AGENDA CALL TO ORDER Colin Nickells Jennifer Bristol, Secretary David Sullivan Richard Brimer Perry Bedford, Chair PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on July 17, 2024. 1. 1 DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS Presentation, discussion, and recommendation on the Austin-Travis County Food Plan – Angela Baucom, Food Policy Manager, Office of Sustainability Presentation, discussion, and recommendation on the Cities Connecting Children to Nature program – Melody Alcazar, Program Manager, Parks and Recreation Staff briefing on the Environmental Integrity Index: WPD’s Water Quality Monitoring Methods – Andrew Clamman, Conservation Program Manager, Watershed Protection Department Update on Environmental Commission Annual Report— Perry Bedford, Environmental Commission Chair Update from the South Central Waterfront Board on the postponement of the Combining District/Density Bonus Plan at City Council – David Sullivan Update from the Bird-Friendly Design working group on the meeting on July 23rd and plans for the next meeting – Jennifer Bristol STAFF BRIEFINGS DISCUSSION ITEMS COMMITTEE UPDATES FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. …
2. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REGULAR CALLED MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, July 17, 2024 The ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION convened Wednesday, July 17, 2024, at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Chair Bedford called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Perry Bedford, Jennifer Bristol, Hanna Cofer, Mariana Krueger, Haris Qureshi, David Sullivan Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Richard Brimer, Melinda Schiera Commissioners Absent: Peter Einhorn, Colin Nickells PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL in a REGULAR meeting on Santiago, TxDot APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on July 3, 2024. The minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular meeting on July 3, 2024, were approved on Commissioner Sullivan’s motion, Commissioner Bedford’s second on a 7-0 vote. Commissioners Einhorn and Nickells were absent. Commissioner Qureshi was off the dais. STAFF BRIEFINGS Update on Austin’s reservoirs monitoring and management efforts — Brent Bellinger, Conservation Program Supervisor, Watershed Protection Department Item conducted as posted. No action taken. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS Discuss and make a recommendation regarding investments the City should fund as part of Council Resolution 20240215-025: Environmental Investment Plan, as recommended by the Joint Sustainability Committee – Commissioner Haris Qureshi Item taken with item 4. 1 4. Discuss and make a recommendation in support of adding a Climate Fee to address funding for the Environmental Investment Plan, as recommended at the Joint Sustainability Committee – Commissioners Haris Qureshi, Richard Brimer, and David Sullivan A motion in support of the Environmental Investment Plan and a climate fee was made on Commissioner Qureshi’s motion, Commissioner Sullivan’s second. An amendment to add a recommendation for a citizen advisory bond committee was made by Commissioner Cofer and seconded by Commissioner Qureshi. An amendment to keep the 2025 date in Commissioner Cofer’s amendment failed on a 1-5 vote. Commissioner Krueger voted in favor. Commissioners Schiera, Brimer, Sullivan, Bristol, and Cofer voted against. Commissioners Qureshi and Bedford abstained. Commissioners Einhorn and Nickells were absent. The amendment to add a recommendation for a Citizen Advisory Bond Committee made by Commissioner Cofer and seconded by Commissioner Qureshi passed on a 7-1 vote. Commissioner Brimer voted against. Commissioners Einhorn and Nickells were absent. The original motion with Commissioner Cofer’s amendment passed on an 8-0 vote. Commissioners Einhorn and Nickells were absent. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Commissioner Krueger requested a presentation on the Austin/Travis County Food Plan, with a recommendation, seconded by Bedford. Secretary Bristol asked for …
A Food Plan for Austin-Travis County Environmental Commission August 7, 2024 Agenda ● Introductions ● What is a Food System? ● What is a Food Plan and why are we doing it? ● How did we create the Plan? ● Who participated in the Planning Process? ● Overview of Vision and Objectives ● Overview of the Goals and Strategies ● Next Steps 2 2 Some Food for Thought Food Production: Where our food comes from, including everything from farming to ranching Food Processing & Distribution: What happens to food from where it is grown to when it reaches your plate, including how food is moved and processed. Food Markets & Retails: Where food is sold, purchased, or provided cost-free. Food Consumption & Access: How we eat our food, who struggles to get enough food, and what impact our consumption has on our health. Post-Consumption & Food Waste: What happens to the parts of food we don’t eat and the impact of food waste on the environment. Food Justice: How systemic racism & colonization impact how the food system works — or doesn’t work — for each member of our community. 4 What is a Food Plan & why do we need one? ● A Food Plan sets clear Goals and Strategies to move toward a more equitable, sustainable & resilient food system ● The Food Plan builds on several other initiatives made by the County, City, and communities to tackle key food system issues. ● The Food Plan centers equity and the lived expertise of those most impacted by the current food system 5 5 Background and Authority ● In June 2021, Austin City Council directed the City Manager to initiate a planning process ● Travis County Commissioners Court approved formal participation in the plan in September 2022 ● Austin Travis County Food Plan’s Community Advisory Committee approved the Draft Food Plan in May 2024 6 6 Project Timeline Phase 0: Planning for the Plan Phase 1: Vision Development Phase 2: Goal & Strategy Development Phase 3: Review and Ground truthing September 2021 - January 2023 March - August 2023 September 2023 - February 2024 February - Summer/Fall 2024 ● ● ● ● Building Community Awareness 📰 Release of State of the Food System Report 📚 Onboarding Planning Consultant⭐ Recruitment of Community Teams🚀 ● Website launch 📶 ● World Cafes ☕ ● ● ● ● Listening Sessions & Tabling at …
DRAFT JULY 2024 2.0.2.4 AUSTIN/TRAVIS COUNTY F O O D P L A N Table of Contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introductory Letter ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Plan Authorization ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 The Food System .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 What this Plan is and Isnʼt .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Plan Framework & Approach ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 A Plan of Plans .................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Food Plan Oversight ................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 CAC Mission Statement ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Values .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Sustainability & Equity Assessment Tool (SEAT) Values .................................................................................................................... 18 Food Plan Vision & Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Parts of the Food Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Food Plan Goals and Strategies .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 A Note on Strategies Related to Populations Who are Underserved or Historically Disadvantaged ............................................... 28 Goal 1. Land ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Goal 2. Ownership ............................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Goal 3. Livelihoods ............................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Goal 4. Preparedness ......................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Goal 5. Institutions ............................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Goal 6. Access ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Goal 7. Food Recovery ....................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Goal 8. Pro-Climate, Pro-Health ........................................................................................................................................................ 62 Goal 9. Empower ................................................................................................................................................................................ 66 Plan Implementation & Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................ 70 Implementation Planning .................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Strategy Sequencing .......................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Implementation Network ................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Funding ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Measurement & Reporting ................................................................................................................................................................. 73 Afterword ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 74 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 76 Appendix 1: Glossary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix 2: Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................ 81 Appendix 3: Sustainability & Equity Assessment Tool (SEAT) ........................................................................................................... 95 Appendix 4: Strategy Implementation Details ................................................................................................................................... 99 Appendix 5: Plan Crosswalk to Existing Efforts ................................................................................................................................ 131 Appendix 6: Companion Documents ............................................................................................................................................... 133 The photos in this plan were provided by the Office of Sustainability or were licensed from stock resources. Exceptions are noted as listed. AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD PLAN Preface 1 DRAFT (JULY 2024) AUSTIN-TRAVIS COUNTY FOOD PLAN Introductory Letter Food connects us all. Every seed planted, garden tended, acre harvested, and plate served sparks a ripple effect, impacting the system that nourishes our community. From farmers and grocery store workers to families, chefs, and health providers, we're all part of this story. While the City of Austin and Travis County continue to grow, this food plan exists to move us toward ensuring everyone has access to the nutritious food that they need to thrive. We are working for a future where food is a fundamental human right. The instability of the food system was widely felt in February 2021 when Winter Storm Uri arrived in Austin-Travis County during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. We experienced a multitude of emergencies, including food …
DRAFT JULY 2024 20 24 SUMMARY AUSTIN/TRAVIS COUNTY F O O D P L A N A food plan provides an opportunity for local government to co-create a vision and actionable goals for the local food system alongside community members, farmers and farmworkers, food retail and service workers, students, small business owners, and other partners. 2 The Food System The food system is the interconnected network of everything that happens with food — where and how it is grown, distributed, sold, consumed, wasted, or recovered. Globally, the food system is shaped by its stakeholders, practices, and the laws that regulate both. This food plan envisions the food system as five interconnected arenas with food justice at the center:1 • Food Production: Where our food comes from, including everything from farming to ranching to backyard gardening. • Food Processing & Distribution: What happens to food from where it is grown to when it reaches your plate, including how food is moved and processed. • Food Markets & Retails: Where food is sold, purchased, or provided cost-free. • Food Consumption & Access: How we eat our food, who struggles to get enough food, and what impact our consumption has on our health. • Post-Consumption & Food Waste: What happens to the parts of food we don’t eat and the impact of food waste on the environment. • Food Justice: Seeking to ensure that the benefits and risks of where, what, and how food is grown, produced, transported, distributed, accessed, and eaten are shared fairly. It represents a transformation of the current food system, including but not limited to eliminating disparities and inequities. d F o o d Processing ction & D istribution o o F R & u d o r P P o s t - & C F o o n s u o d W a Food Justice m ption Fo o d C o ste s n & A c u c F o o d M a r k e t s e t a i l e s s m ption This plan considers our local food system to include the 5-county Austin Metropolitan Statistical Area of Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties. However, the vision, objectives, goals, and strategies outlined in this plan are focused geographically on the City of Austin and Travis County. Travis County Austin 3 FOOD PLAN SUMMARY2024 Community Centered Process …
Austin Parks and Recreation Department Cities Connecting Children to Nature Initiative Update August 7, 2024 Briefing on the City’s CCCN initiative Melody Alcazar, CCCN Program Manager, Park Planning Division Cities Connecting Children to Nature (CCCN) The CCCN initiative helps city leaders and their partners ensure that all children have the opportunity to play, learn and grow in nature, from urban parks and community gardens to the great outdoors City Partners City Goals + CCCN Plans/Programs that call out CCCN Other related plans • Heat Resiliency Playbook (Office of • Community Health Improvement Plan Resiliency) (Austin Public Health) • Climate & Environmental Initiatives at • Climate Equity Plan (Office of CoA (Office of Sustainability) Sustainability) • Sustainability & Resilience Program • Food Plan (Office of Sustainability) (Parks and Recreation Dept) • Urban Forest Plan (Development • Long Range Plan (Parks and Recreation Services Dept) Dept) • Green Building Program (Austin Energy) • Comprehensive Library Strategic and Facilities Plan (Austin Public Library) • Rain to River (Watershed Protection Dept) Local Partners Guiding Resources CCCN Austin: Our Evolution City adopts Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights & begins collection of nature deficient area data Four focal strategies with Outdoor Learning Environments (OLE!) Temp, Full-Time Coordinator position funded through WPD; FTE CCCN Program Coordinator position reclassified as Program Manager Critical look at integration of racial equity lens to all strategies; Integration into City-wide plans 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-present Austin receives strategic planning & implementation grant from CCCN Focus on Green School Parks, Nature Play, Youth Leadership & FTE CCCN Program Coordinator position through PARD Five focal strategies with addition of Nature Smart Libraries Temp, Full-Time Coordinator position becomes FTE, funded through WPD + PARD; Dedicated funding for Nature Play and Joint-Use sites in City Budget CCCN Strategies NATURE SMART LIBRARIES EARLY CHILDHOOD EMERGING GREEN LEADERS GREEN SCHOOL PARKS NATURE PLAY Green School Parks Evolution PILOTS DATA COLLECTION DESIGNATION Barrington ES cistern Green School Parks: Pilots WOOLDRIDGE EX. Design plan with who does what for each feature Urban Forestry Watershed Protection Department Maintenance & Operations Transportation Parks & Recreation Partners Green School Parks: Data Collection RESEARCH ASSESSMENTS ● 2018 data collection found discrepancy in park amenities at joint use site ○ ○ 2019-2021 new amenities added 2023-present updating signage ● 2023 ESAC subcommittee formed to conduct data collection at all AISD campuses Bond sites priorities 18 complete, 5 scheduled for Aug. ○ …
Environmental Integrity Index WPD's Water Quality Monitoring Methods Environmental Commission August 7, 2024 Andrew Clamann Conservation Program Supervisor 512-974-2694 andrew.clamann@austintexas.gov 1 Biological indicators Algae Fish Invertebrates Mussels Diversity E.coli and other pathogens Trophic structure Sensitive species Emerging contaminants Pharmaceuticals PAHs PFAS Microplastics Water Quality Hydrocarbons Erosion Turbidity Sedimentation Total Suspended Solids Herbicides Glycophosate Metsulfuron-methyl Conventionals Dissolved Oxygen pH Conductivity Temperature Nutrients Ammonia Nitrogen Phosphorus Metals Arsenic Chromium Mercury Cadmium Arsenic Silver Zinc Lead Nickel Pesticides Chlordane Dieldrin Endrin BHC’s Heptachlor Methoxychlor Environmental Integrity Index (EII) 1994-2024 Six Scoring Categories • Water chemistry • Aquatic Life • Physical Integrity • Contact Recreation • Non-contact Recreation • Sediment Quarterly Water Quality • Field: pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature • Lab : Nitrate-N, Ammonia-N, TKN, Orthophosphorus, Turbidity, Total Suspended Solids Contact Recreation • E. coli bacteria Annually Aquatic Life • Benthic macroinvertebrates and Diatoms Non-Contact Recreation • Litter, odor, algae, clarity, etc Habitat • EPA visual assessment (instream & riparian) Sediment Quality • Metals, PAHs, pesticides, herbicides, etc. EII 1994-2008 EII 2008-2024 ~120 sites / 2 yrs ~50 sampled watersheds ~500 miles of creek mainstems ~120 sites / 2 yrs ~50 sampled watersheds ~500 miles of creek mainstems ~5,500 total miles of all creeks Objective retrospect Low resolution, generalized context • • Baseflow only (no stormwater component) • Observational (not statistical) • Not tied to quantifiable solutions Time for a change! Outcomes Drivers Solutions Need a model Empirical Baseflow and Stormflow data 30 years data Cluster sites by GIS similarities model everything, everywhere, all at once • • • physical chemical biological • 3,000 points • updated at will Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) GSSHA is a physics-based, distributed, hydrologic, sediment and contaminant fate and transport model that can simulate hydrologic processes in watersheds1 Details provided in QAPP EII 2.0 2 of 4 Hydraulics/Geomorphology 1(Zhang et al., 2023) ~3,000 modeled points along the stream network Points start at 320ac drainage area ~3,000ft apart along the stream network ~3,000 watersheds 9 Routine baseflow sites (remain static) 9 Stormwater sites (change ~5 years) 9 Random sites (change annually) Calibrate Validate Update Random sites Stormwater monitoring (9 sites) • • • • Continuous monitoring of flow and physicochemical (pH, conductivity, etc.) Automatic sample collection through a storm event: (nutrients, total suspended solids, etc.) Sample as many storms as necessary to calibrate the model Annual biological monitoring Routine and Random baseflow monitoring (9 sites) (9 sites) …
Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 QAPP 1 of 4 (Hydrology) Project #: 216 Project Lead: Christina Bryant Project Manager: Mateo Scoggins Introduction Environmental Integrity Index The Environmental Integrity Index (EII) is a tool that was created by the City’s Watershed Protection Department (WPD) to monitor and assess the ecological integrity and the degree of impairment of Austin watersheds (City of Austin, 2002). The goal of the EII was to produce a quantifiable method to assess the ecological integrity of Austin’s urban and non-urban streams and determine baseline conditions for targeted protective measures and restoration, thus enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Austin. The WPD Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division (EMC) has determined the need to revise the EII by applying a new framework, based on the stream functional pyramid developed by Harman et al., (2012), to approach stream assessment and by using the enhanced Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) model to simulate hydrologic processes in watersheds. GSSHA is a physics-based, distributed, hydrologic, sediment and contaminant fate and transport model (Zhang et al., 2023). It can simulate the hydrological response of a watershed to specific hydrological and meteorological inputs. With the adoption of the stream functional pyramid approach and the simulation capability of GSSHA the Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 can be a supportive tool to analyze projects and make informed decisions in watershed management that help reduce the impact of anthropogenic influences and environmental issues and to preserve Austin’s aquatic resources. Urban Watershed Functional Pyramid The revisions to the Environmental Integrity Index (EII) program reflected in this QAPP have been largely influenced by the Stream Functions Pyramid (Figure 1) which provides a new framework for approaching stream assessment (Harman et al 2012). This tool emphasizes the critical role of foundational facets of the stream system from which all other facets are dependent. Success of the ultimate response variable (biology) is limited by all other underlying layers. Therefore, if the ultimate goal of a monitoring program is to facilitate/inform preservation or restoration of ecological integrity, then a bottom-up perspective must be used. Figure 1. Stream Functions Pyramid (Harman et al. 2012). A framework for approaching stream assessment. Applied Watershed Research staff have modified the functional pyramid to apply more directly to the urban environment and to watersheds as a unit instead of streams. The most basic difference is that Hydraulics and Geomorphology have been integrated into one layer. Figure …
Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 QAPP 2 of 4 (Hydraulics/Geomorphology) Project #: 216 Project Lead: Zhen Xu Project Manager: Mateo Scoggins Introduction Environmental Integrity Index The Environmental Integrity Index (EII) is a monitoring program that was developed in the early 1990’s by the City’s Environmental Resources Management Division to monitor and assess the ecological integrity and the degree of impairment of Austin watersheds (City of Austin, 2002). The goal of the EII was to produce a quantifiable method for assessing the water quality condition of Austin’s urban and non- urban streams and to provide a baseline from which to evaluate our water resources to target protective measures and restoration. The program aligns with the water quality component of the Watershed Protection Department’s (WPD) mission thus enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Austin. As a monitoring program, the EII was excellent at providing valuable long term and citywide water quality, physical habitat, aquatic life use, and sediment data. Although the sites were selected to represent similar reaches (landuse, geology, etc) of each watershed, the specific locations were biased by access and the analysis did not incorporate statistics, which limited the use of its data in modeling and decision-making. Thus, after three decades of implementation, the EII was due for an update. The EII 2.0 is the latest iteration of WPD flagship monitoring program. This state-of-art monitoring program partitions all of Austin watersheds into high-resolution grids and a modeling network of ~3400 stream sites spaced 3,000ft apart on the stream centerline. It aims to provide real-time monitoring data on flow conditions, erosion potential and sediment transport, levels and fate of nutrients and contaminants, and scores on benthic macroinvertebrates and diatoms. Its deliverables could serve as the foundation for Austin residents to know watershed health conditions, for scientists to conduct innovative research, and for landowners and policy makers to determine what actions they should take for land and watershed management at various scales. Urban Watershed Functional Pyramid The conceptual framework of the EII 2.0 is the urban watershed functional pyramid, which is modified from the EPA stream functional pyramid (Figure 1) proposed by Harman (2009, 2012) and illustrates urban watershed functions in a hierarchical structure (Figure 2). The pyramid includes four functional categories with the underlying controlling variables of geology and climate. The primary direction of cause-and-effect relationships flows from the bottom of the pyramid to the top, with functions higher …
Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 QAPP 3 of 4 (Physicochemical) Project #: 216 Project Lead: Angel Santiago Project Manager: Mateo Scoggins Introduction Environmental Integrity Index The Environmental Integrity Index (EII) is a tool that was created by the City’s Watershed Protection Department (WPD) to monitor and assess the ecological integrity and the degree of impairment of Austin watersheds (City of Austin, 2002). The goal of the EII was to produce a quantifiable method to assess the ecological integrity of Austin’s urban and non-urban streams and determine baseline conditions for targeted protective measures and restoration, thus enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Austin. The WPD Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division (EMC) has determined the need to revise the EII by applying a new framework, based on the stream functional pyramid developed by Harman et al., (2012), to approach stream assessment and by using the enhanced Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) model to simulate hydrologic processes in watersheds. GSSHA is a physics-based, distributed, hydrologic, sediment and contaminant fate and transport model (Zhang et al., 2023). It can simulate the hydrological response of a watershed to specific hydrological and meteorological inputs. With the adoption of the stream functional pyramid approach and the simulation capability of GSSHA the Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 can be a supportive tool to analyze projects and make informed decisions in watershed management that help reduce the impact of anthropogenic influences and environmental issues and to preserve Austin’s aquatic resources. Urban Watershed Functional Pyramid The revisions to the Environmental Integrity Index program reflected in this QAPP have been largely influenced by the Stream Functions Pyramid (Figure 1) which provides a new framework for approaching stream assessment (Harman et al., 2012). This tool emphasizes the critical role of foundational facets of the stream system from which all other facets are dependent. Success of the ultimate response variable (biology) is limited by all other underlying layers. Therefore, if the ultimate goal of a monitoring program is to facilitate/inform preservation or restoration of ecological integrity, then a bottom-up perspective may be the most effective. Figure 1. Stream Functions Pyramid (Harman et al. 2012). A framework for approaching stream assessment. The Applied Watershed Research Section modified the stream functional pyramid, presented by Harman et al., (2012) (Figure 1), to adapt it more directly to the urban environment and watersheds as a unit instead of streams (Figure 2). The main difference is …
Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 QAPP 4 of 4 (Biology) Project #: 216 Project Manager: Mateo Scoggins Project Lead: Andrew Clamann Introduction Environmental Integrity Index The Environmental Integrity Index (EII) is a tool that was created by the City of Austin’s Watershed Protection Department (WPD) to monitor and assess the ecological integrity and the degree of impairment of Austin watersheds (City of Austin, 2002). The goal of the EII was to produce a quantifiable method to assess the ecological integrity of Austin’s urban and non-urban streams and determine baseline conditions for targeted protective measures and restoration, thus enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of Austin. The WPD Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Division (EMC) has determined the need to revise the EII by applying a new framework, based on the stream functional pyramid developed by Harman et al. (2012), to approach stream assessment by using the enhanced Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) model to simulate hydrologic processes in watersheds at any given point. GSSHA is a physics-based, distributed, hydrologic, sediment and contaminant fate and transport model (Zhang et al., 2023). It can simulate the hydrological response of a watershed to specific hydrological and meteorological inputs. With the adoption of the stream functional pyramid approach and the simulation capability of GSSHA, the Environmental Integrity Index 2.0 (EII 2.0) can be a supportive tool to analyze projects and make informed decisions in watershed management that help reduce the impact of anthropogenic influences and environmental issues and to preserve Austin’s aquatic resources. Urban Watershed Functional Pyramid The revisions to the Environmental Integrity Index program reflected in this QAPP have been largely influenced by the Stream Functions Pyramid (Figure 1) which provides a new framework for approaching stream assessment (Harman et al., 2012). This tool emphasizes the critical role of foundational facets of the stream system from which all other facets are dependent. Success of the ultimate response variable (biology) is influenced by all other underlying layers. Therefore, if the goal of a monitoring program is to facilitate/inform preservation or restoration of ecological integrity, then a bottom- up perspective may be the most effective. Figure 1. Stream Functions Pyramid (Harman et al., 2012). A framework for approaching stream assessment. For the purpose of the objectives, parameters, and scoring, of the EII 2.0 program, the WPD Applied Watershed Research (AWR) Section adapted the functional pyramid (Figure 2) to apply more directly to the urban …
Annual Internal Review This report covers the time period of 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024 _Environmental Commission __ The Commission mission statement (per the City Code) is: Per section 2-1-144(F) of the City Code, the Environmental Commission may: 1) review and analyze the policies relating to the environmental quality of the city; (2) act as an advisory board to the city council, the city manager, and the department in their efforts to oversee the protection and integrity of the natural environment; (3) promote growth management and land use planning, minimize degradation of water resources, protect downstream areas, and promote recreation opportunities and environmental awareness; and (4) advise and recommend on any issue which the commission determines necessary or advisable for the enhancement and stewardship of the urban forest both public and private. (G) The commission shall: (1) assist the city council, the city manager, and the department in studying, promoting and enforcing environmental protection policies to assure the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of all citizens within the City's incorporated boundaries as well as those within its extraterritorial jurisdiction where the boundaries apply; and (2) oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive plan for the planting, maintenance, and replacement of trees in the City's jurisdiction, and revise the plan as necessary. When a portion of the plan has been developed and established, it shall be submitted to the city council for adoption before implementation. (H) The commission shall advise the city council, the city manager, and the department concerning policies, projects, and programs that affect the quality of life or have the potential to affect the environment, including those that relate to or affect: Annual Review and Work Plan 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024 Page 2 (1) water quality: (a) watershed protection; (b) urban runoff; (c) innovative wastewater treatment; (d) regional wastewater treatment; (e) improvement and protection of the Colorado River and the Edwards Aquifer; and (f) wastewater irrigation; (2) growth management and land use planning: (a) municipal utility district review; (b) capital improvement project review; and (c) the comprehensive plan; (3) construction controls for erosion and sedimentation; (4) City environmental policies regarding monitoring and enforcement; (5) solid waste disposal plan alternatives; (6) watershed protection: (a) flood control; (b) erosion control; (c) water quality; and (d) utility management; (7) roadway planning; (8) beautification; (9) recreation resources; (10) public education on environmental matters; (11) hazardous waste materials management; (12) revegetation and landscaping; …
