Carbon Impact Statement

Best Practices Report

City of Austin
Office of Sustainability

Geography 5313
Environmental Management
Dr. Hagelman

Luis Acua, Ian Allison, Elizabeth Davila, Alexandra Dunbar,

David Gimnich, James N. Hervey, Killian Sterling,

Nicholas Villarreal, Charles Winfrey, Elizabeth Yarbrough

 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

1
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

I. Executive Summary 3
II. Purpose 3
III. Study Area 4
IV. Background Research 5
A. Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse
Gas Emission Inventories 5
B. Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Part of
Californias Environmental Review Process: A Local
Officials Guide. By Institute for Local Government 6
C. State and Local Government Examples 7
D. NorthConnex Greenhouse Gas Assessment 8
E. Project Hestia (Vulcan) 10
V. Recommendations 12
VI. Model Practice for Austin 13
A. Direct Applications of Model Practice Form to
Austin/Travis County 13
VII. Conclusions 14
VIII. Appendix 15
IX. Bibliography 20

2
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

I. Executive Summary

This Best Practices Review was conducted by a research group composed of graduate students
from Texas State University. The purpose of this Best Practice Review is to provide the City of Austin
with background research regarding the implementation of a Carbon Impact Statement to inform City
Council of the GHG emissions impacts of major city decisions and policies. We will describe the study
area of Austin/Travis County (A/TC), detailing the demographics, geographical situation, cultural values
and progressive goals set forth by the city related to community-wide net zero emissions of greenhouse
gases by 2050. A wide variety of projects calculating GHG emissions were reviewed by our team. The
most applicable projects were as follows: Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas
Emission Inventories which sets a global standard for accounting and reporting GHG emissions,
Evaluating GHG emissions as Part of Californias Environmental Review Process: A Local Officials
Guide which assists local California governments in determining the CO2 impact of projects, City of San
Francisco, CA Greenhouse Gas Environmental Impact Statement, The NorthConnex Greenhouse Gas
Assessment which calculates emissions from road projects in Australia, and Project Hestia (Vulcan)
which calculates CO2 emissions on an hourly basis from individual buildings and road segments in
Indianapolis, IN. These projects from across the nation and globe have demonstrated how others are
quantifying GHG emissions on different scales. We have produced a Carbon Impact Statement Form, a
checklist tool which city council can use to help make decisions comparing projects to determine the
one with the most sustainable design, taking into account how much carbon would be emitted in the
construction phase and also the ongoing operations phase. This will enable A/TC to attain its goal of net
zero community-wide greenhouse emissions by 2050, or sooner.

II. Purpose

The purpose of conducting research of best practices is to survey methodologies of clean energy
policies utilized in other cities. Not only historical surveys, but also abstractions of which successes or
failures can be useful in Austin, Texas and surrounding Travis County (A/TC). The term, best practices
relates to all the knowledge and technologies that continue to have impacts beyond a citys original vision
of clean energy. The sustainable practices common to some cities include the following: are carbon offset
projects, carbon fees, corporate actions toward mitigating emissions, and improving energy efficiency.
During our research, we have found excellent sources of sustainable practices, many of which
apply to A/TC. New and different ideas originate from over seventy non-government organizations
(NGOs) worldwide who are making efforts to lower greenhouse gases. NGOs partner with companies to
help reduce their environmental impacts and become good neighbors within cities. In addition, cities
which provides visions from the bottom up may be able to sustain ripples of creativity that spread
outward and upward to include new financing programs and city policies. Finally, annual climate-related
conferences have produced white papers and videos on the internet that focus on several issues of interest
to academia.

III. Study Area

3
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

Austin is the capital city of Texas located on the Balcones Escarpment with a humid subtropical
climate. This means that Austin has hot summers and relatively mild winters and the escarpment allows
for the formation of various springs that provide a source of fresh water for the population. Austin being a
largely progressive sphere and the access to various outdoor recreation such as hiking trails, springs and
parks has created an environmentally conscious population. The natural setting of Austin and involvement
of Austinites have made it one of the top eco-friendly cities in the nation.
Austin Energy has championed green energy programs and green building programs, walkable
distances between compact living quarters and businesses. In recent years the city has been able to
purchase over 32,000 acres of land for parks and preserves to protect both water and endangered species,
increase bicycle commuting by opening up bike lanes throughout the city, and to plant street trees to
provide an enjoyable environment within downtown areas and to reduce the urban heat by mitigating air
pollution and global warming effects. Austin is truly a green city.
The involvement of Austinites and the City Council coupled with the high demand for resources
make Austin an ideal city to implement a plan such as the Austin Community Climate Plan, which aims
for a net zero community-wide GHG emissions by the year 2050 or sooner. The susceptibility of the
region to droughts and fast-growing population puts a strain on current water resources. The storage
volumes in Lake Buchanan and Travis have dropped to 35% capacity in February 2015. These droughts
also lead to a prevalence of flash floods in which those living on floodplains are highly affected. The City
of Austin has taken to buying out houses in flood areas and the land is then used in a more flood-friendly
way such as being converted into parks, soccer fields or organic gardens.
Traffic congestion is another problem that the city faces. With more people moving to the area
and 92% of that population commuting to work, there is a heavier impact on gas emissions from
automobiles. This adds to the urban heat, pollution of the air and environment, and higher expenses on
fuel and car repairs.
The Austin Community Climate Plan can positively impact the population of Austin in Travis
County with decreasing traffic congestion and improving air quality and water conservation. This Austin
Community Climate Plan is digestible and accepted by a majority of the citizens of Austin as was
concluded from surveys taken when the plan was proposed. The respondents of the surveys tended to be
skewed to being older, female and Caucasian with middle or higher income. It could be said that the
Hispanic population has been greatly underrepresented but despite these samplings the survey still
provides useful information. Respondents were open to the idea of weatherizing their homes, turning off
electronics, using fans to cool rooms, and to purchase locally. About half of the respondents were willing
to compost, carpool and install solar panels.
The willingness to take action on part of Austinites and the strain on resources can greatly impact
the proposal of the Austin Community Climate Plan to achieve a net zero GHG emissions community-
wide by 2050 or sooner.

IV. Background Research

4
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

The City of Austin Climate Plan calls for determining the feasibility of a carbon impact
statement to inform policy makers of the greenhouse gas emission impact of major City decisions. The
City of Austin has a proven record in environmental issues, so the research of this paper focused on the
implementation of a carbon impact statement, rather than determining the feasibility of it. To effectively
produce best practice recommendations regarding the implementation of a carbon impact statement,
comprehensive research was conducted in a variety of areas. Similar policies implemented in other local
governments were studied, and best practice reports regarding greenhouse gas emission inventories were
reviewed. In addition, approaches to assessing the carbon impact of development projects were analyzed.

A. Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories

The Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) was
developed by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), World Resources
Institute, and C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group to serve as a global framework for accounting and
reporting city-wide GHG emissions. The GPC provides cities with guidance and best practices for
completing a GHG inventory, setting reduction goals, and tracking their performance. The benefit of the
GPC allows for cities using this framework to be transparent with their GHG emissions and allows for
comparability between these cities. The GPC has played a critical role in the development of the Best
Practices Report for Implementing a Carbon Impact Statement in the City of Austin. Although this report
is mainly tailored for cities to calculate and manage their GHG inventory, the report provided valuable
insight for establishing a project boundary, categorizing emission sources, and guidance on calculating
CO2 and CO2e emissions.
The GPC recommends for cities to establish their calculation boundaries based on their physical
geographic borders that identifies their community. In regards to GHG emission boundaries, the GPC
recommends for cities to consider organizing the emissions into three scopes. Scope one is defined as
GHG emissions from sources located within the city boundary. Scope two is defined as GHG
emissions occurring as a consequence of the use of grid-supplied electricity, heat, steam and/or cooling
within the city boundary. Scope three is defined as all other GHG emissions that occur outside the city
boundary as a result of activities taking place within the city boundary. Given that there were no specific
references to community only aspects, GPCs recommendation for establishing a geographic boundary
could be easily be transferred to a project scale, such as a rezoning request or a department purchasing
request seeking the City Councils approval. A rezoning request would be determined by the geographic
zone that is the subject of the request change. In addition, GPCs recommendation regarding the scoping
organizational method would not be fully applicable down to a project level, based on the limited data of
GHG emissions that would be organized into the third scope. Thus, organizing GHG emissions for a
project should only be organized into scope one and two. Using the scoping method would ensure that all
emissions physically occurring within the projects boundaries and all the emissions that are being
transferred to the projects boundaries are being accounted for.
Additionally, the GPC recommended for the categorization of GHG emissions based on common
industries that all communities could relate too. For example, the GPC recommend the following as
categories, energy, transportation, waste, industrial process and product use, and agriculture or land use
activities. To develop categories on the project scale within the City of Austin for the Carbon Impact
Statement, the same rational by GPC was used, and the selection was made from the categories used in
the City of Austin Climate Action Plan. Also, consultation from the City of Austin, Office of

5
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

Sustainability assisted with determining that energy, transportation, and land use were the best categories
to be analyzed on the Carbon Impact Statement.
Lastly, The GPC provided great depth on the process of performing an effective calculation of
GHG emissions and converting calculations from non-CO2 emissions to CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The
GPC suggests that cities estimate GHG emissions by multiplying activity data by an emissions factor
associated with the activity being measured. To implement this within the Carbon Impact Statement for
the City of Austin, a calculation would be computed for each emission source identified for a rezoning
proposal or project using data sets the City of Austin used to compute their GHG inventory. The results of
the calculation would produce a quantitative measure that would provide a comparative magnitude
amongst proposal or project alternatives. Our Best Practice Report suggests this method is the Best
Environmental Practice for implementing a Carbon Impact Statement. However, subject to the feasibility
of the City of Austin, calculating CO2 and CO2e have been reconsidered due to time commitments and
lack of required data need for the calculations. Our Best Practice Report suggests a qualitative analysis of
GHG emissions for rezoning proposals or projects as the Best Available Practice for the City of Austin.
(See Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Part of Californias Environmental Review Process: A
Local Officials Guide for more information regarding qualitative analysis).

B. Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Part of Californias Environmental

Review Process: A Local Officials Guide. By Institute for Local Government

As part of Californias initiative to reduce GHG emissions, the state is requiring state agencies
and local governments to evaluate the GHG impact of a project they are proposing or a project that is
subject to their approval. To provide local governments in California with best practices on how to
implement these new requirements, the Institute of Local Government has crafted the following guide,
Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Part of Californias Environmental Review Process: A Local
Officials Guide. Although this guide is crafted specifically for local governments in California, it
provided useful information on analyzing a projects GHG impact and the importance of long range
planning for developing our Best Practices Report on implementing a Carbon Impact Statement for the
City of Austin.
For analyzing a project's impact, the guide recommends local governments estimate the GHG
emissions from the project proposals and determine if they significantly impact the local governments
current level of GHG emissions. The guide recommends a quantitative approach for estimating the GHG
emissions of a project; however, it also suggests that a qualitative or a performance standard estimation
can also be used if a quantitative approach is not feasible. Based on the suggested guidance in the report,
any approach that is selected by the local government must reflect the local governments careful
judgment and good faith effort to identify GHG emissions resulting from the project. In addition, the
guidance also suggests that all GHG emissions from a project must be addressed (i.e. direct and indirect
emissions-vehicle trips), regardless of the approach that is used, given this estimation will be used to
determine the significance of the projects greenhouse gas impact on the local governments emissions.
Subject to the City of Austins feasibility, a combination of a qualitative and performance
standard estimation is recommend for estimating the carbon impact of a project seeking the City
Councils approval. When using a qualitative approach or a performance standard estimation, the Citys
analyses must be based on scientific and factual data. For example, if the City is considering a rezoning
proposal to build an office building that meets LEED standards, the Carbon Impact Statement should

6
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

indicate that emissions from energy use will be minimal based on previous studies that have showed the
energy efficiencies of LEED buildings. This rationale should guide all qualitative and performance based
analyses for project proposals or purchasing requests seeking the City Councils approval.
Further, when determining the significance of the projects GHG impact on the local
governments emissions, the guidance suggest that the primary question should revolve around whether
the project will increase or decrease emissions compared to the existing environmental setting while
taking into consideration any plans that have been adopted by the local government managing the
reduction of GHG emissions (i.e. Climate Action Plans). To implement this suggestion it is recommend
that the Office of Sustainability should utilize the City of Austins Climate Action Plan and determine,
with conclusive evidence, if the proposed zoning change or purchase request would negatively affect any
recommendations or emission targets approved by the City Council.
The guide also addresses the importance of a local government to adopt a Long-Range Plan that
includes a GHG inventory and action plans to mitigate and reduce GHG emissions on a broad level.
Based on the description of the Long-Range Plans described in the guide, the City of Austins Climate
Action Plan qualifies as a Long-Range Plan.

C. State and Local Government Examples

The City of San Francisco is one California city that is successfully meeting the requirements of
Californias new state law by implementing a Greenhouse Gas Environmental Impact Statement for
rezoning proposals. The San Francisco Planning Department first implemented this process in 2008 by
passing a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Ordinance that provided them the legal protections needed to
require all rezoning requests to complete a Greenhouse Gas Impact Statement. Given the environmental
legal challenge climate in Texas, it is recommend that the City of Austin review its City Charter to ensure
it has the legal authority to require all rezoning or projects to undergo a Carbon Impact Review. This will
protect the City from any legal challenges it faces for denying a rezoning proposal on the basis it
increases GHG emissions. It is also worthwhile to examine the City of San Franciscos impact statement,
which is referred to as a checklist, for consideration given its successfulness throughout the years. The
City of San Franciscos checklist asks a series of questions about a rezoning project. Our research
determined these questions would not apply to all proposals seeking the City Councils approval, and
more value would be added if City Council members were provided with information over the emission
sectors that would be impacted by the rezoning proposal or project.
Further, state regulation enacted through the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act
(MEPA) requires large projects, such as those that are required to submit an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) or Environmental Notification Form (ENR) to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs (EOEEA), to also include information on the projects mobile- and stationary-source GHG
emissions. This applies to emissions associated primarily with energy consumption, vehicle trip
generation, and consumption of large quantities of water or wastewater generation. The regulation, known
as the Massachusetts Greenhouse Gas Emission Policy and Protocol does not require quantification of
other emissions categories, such as emissions associated with waste generation, materials consumption,
conversion of biomass associated with land clearing, or construction period emissions.
Some Massachusetts communities already require some form of environmental reporting as part
of the permitting process, and communities could require developers to submit the state GHG report for
review by the local permitting authority. Communities could also require additional reporting

7
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

requirements to cover land uses not addressed by state policy. The best practices report found similar
information to the research above and found no new recommendations from reviewing Massachusetts
policy, but encourages interested parties to review the Massachusetts policy for a practical understanding
of our recommendations made throughout the report.

D. NorthConnex Greenhouse Gas Assessment

The NorthConnex project is the creation of a tolled motorway 20 kilometers northwest of the city
center of Sydney, Australia which was proposed by Roads and Maritime Services in 2013. The primary
purpose of the project is to accommodate traffic needs in the region particularly for long-distance travel
with freight transport.
The methodology of the project was broken up into five sections including: Construction GHG
Calculation Methodology, Construction GHG Emissions Data, Detailed Construction GHG
Assessment Results, Operation and Maintenance GHG Emissions, and Operational Road Use GHG
Emissions.
Construction GHG Calculation Methodology consisted of a breakdown of the emissions
sources into source categories, for example the activities that would count as fuel use, and further broke
down the sources into specific scopes. The TAGG Workbook created by the Transport Authorities
Greenhouse Group (TAGG) is introduced in this section as a way to identify potential sources to be
included or excluded from the assessment. The Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors (NGA)
was introduced as a way to calculate and quantify emissions sources that are not given in the TAGG
Workbook. Fuel and electricity were calculated using formulas from the NGA, while GHG contributions
from vegetation removal and material use were determined by using pre-calculated emission factors given
by the TAGG Workbook.
Construction GHG Emissions Activity Data quantifies the GHG emission source data and
explains any assumptions used in the calculations. Data was conveyed in terms of charts. An example can
be seen below.

Detailed Construction GHG Assessment Results categorized the emissions due to the
construction phase of the project in terms of the three scopes, as described by the GPC. Emissions were

8
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

also evaluated in terms of percent contribution to the entirety of the construction phase. An illustration of
the charts used can be viewed below.

Operation and Maintenance GHG Emissions estimates the emissions that would occur with the
designed life of 100 years. The TAGG Workbook was used to calculate the emissions from maintenance
of the tunnel and road pavement based on an average replacement of five percent per 50 years with only
the top layer needing replacement. Electricity usage estimates are based upon averages for lighting,
ventilation, communications systems, control systems, computer and safety systems, electronic signage
and other electrical uses.
Operational Road Use GHG Emissions assesses the fuel usage based on vehicle type and the
average speed by road type. This section also has predictions of vehicle change and charts of fuel
consumption change which reflect the models. Traffic models were run for 2019 and 2029 (the project
completion year and 10 years afterward) to perform an estimated traffic footprint. This section also
contains a summary chart of the total emissions with and without the NorthConnex project. The chart
below illustrates calculated changes in emissions of the currently used routes in comparison with the
expected emissions outputs after the tolled motorway is created.

9
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

E. Project Hestia (Vulcan)

The Hestia Project is the first research initiative to utilize a bottom up calculation approach to
estimate hourly CO2 emissions down to the individual building and road segment scale across an entire
urban landscape. Methods used to quantify on-site CO2 emissions throughout Indianapolis, IN are
outlined, including the use of a variety of data sets, models, and other simulation sources.
The project takes advantage of the recent increase in available atmospheric measurements of CO2,
which has been instigated by monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) regulations that are either
becoming mandatory or are expected to be required at local, regional, national, and international levels.
The overall intent of the Hestia Project was to formulate a procedure for high-resolution on-site fossil
fuel CO2 emission estimation of a complete urban space that could also be applied to other major cities
and ultimately all of the U.S.
The methods depicted represent on-site fossil fuel combustion within city boundaries and do not
indicate emissions related to consumption of materials produced outside these boundaries, including
electricity consumed within the city but generated outside boundaries. The building/street level CO 2
calculations were initially derived from emission estimates provided by the Vulcan Project datasets
established in 2002. Datasets used include the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), direct CO 2 stack
measurements from power plants, and traffic flow data.
Downscaling methods used to produce building/street level CO2 estimates are best represented by
the economic sector. Vulcan CO2 emissions were divided by data source, sector, and fuel category.
Extensive downscaling techniques were needed for buildings of commercial, residential, or industrial
activity, and on road transportation.
Methods for residential and commercial building CO2 estimates are explained in complete detail
in a separate supporting document. The process used to calculate nonpoint residential and commercial
building emission estimates involves the distribution of Vulcan census tract totals into independent

10
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

buildings based on outcomes of a building energy model. The model functions on factors related to
building characteristics derived from the citys assessor building parcel (BP) dataset and additionally
provides estimates of nonelectric energy consumption by producing nonelectric energy-use intensity (NE-
EUI) values that are linked with total floor area for each building.
Methods used to estimate industrial building emissions utilized an alternative approach due to
incomplete classification of industrial buildings in the building energy consumption and lack of data
related to industrial NE-EUI values. Instead, carbon intensity values (CIV) were calculated for industrial
buildings by dividing national total CO2 emissions by the national total building floor area within
industrial sub sectors classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Eighteen industrial building groups designated by the BP layer were reduced into ten NAICS industrial
subsectors. Natural gas emissions were allocated to buildings consuming natural gas, all other buildings
not consuming natural gas were allocated coal and petroleum based emissions. Temporal aspects of CO 2
emissions were modeled for every building produced from temporal profile data from the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which details patterns ranging from monthly to daily emissions.
Industrial and commercial sector emissions are established by point source pollution reporting.
CO2 emissions estimated by the Vulcan Project at geo-referenced points are reassigned within the urban
database developed by Project Hestia. Emission estimates for electricity production are mainly provided
by the EPA Clean Air Market Division (CAMD) Emission Tracking System/Continuous Emissions
Monitoring system (ETS)/CEMs) for Electrical Generating Units (EGUs)
Transportation includes estimates of on road, non road, and air travel transportation. Non road
and air travel transportation data were established by Vulcan estimates and required no additional spatial
or temporal downscaling. Vulcan derived on road emissions required downscaling efforts specified by
month, vehicle class, and road classification. Vulcan estimates were established using county-level
information provided by the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) County Database (NCD) and the
MOBILE6.2 combustion emissions model. Vulcan estimates supplied on road CO2 emissions for six road
classifications and 28 vehicle classes. Emission estimates were arranged in space by utilizing the
geographic location of road segments and traffic flow densities to calculate hourly on road emissions by
vehicle class, road classification, and individual road segments.
The methods used by Project Hestia extend past necessary outcomes and objectives of this report
but provide a diverse set of approaches general enough to be applied to the City of Austin-Travis County.
These techniques will be improved and can later be adapted to the City of Austin-Travis County for
quantification of reliable, high-resolution CO2 emission estimates, an ideal tool for emissions related
decision making processes from planning to mitigation.

V. Recommendations

The Affordability Impact Statement and Education Impact Statement currently used by the City
of Austin inspired the team to provide a straightforward document in line with the example set by these
forms. The mantra of simplicity without sacrifice necessitated the use of graphs and the checklist
format featured in both of these documents. We also looked at Austins Community Climate Plan as a
starting point for collecting the data to be used on the Carbon Impact Statement. Specifically, the
Community Climate Plan contained a ten-part classification system for CO2 emissions that the team
wanted to build from. As the project continued, we decided that three main categories would be relevant

11
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

for capturing the vast majority of CO2 emissions: Transportation, Energy, and Land Use/Land Cover
Change.

The Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories provided
another classification scheme, which broke CO2 emissions down into three scopes. This approach
represented the industry standard internationally, but the exhaustive approach for CO2 inventorying was
deemed unnecessary for the strict boundaries of the City of Austin for this particular impact statement. As
a result, Scope 3 emissions were omitted and Scopes 1 and 2 emissions were rolled into the qualitative
questions used to fill out the check sheet. Project Hestia was another valuable resource focused on
exhaustive CO2 inventories across both space and time and was one of the most comprehensive attempts
to inventory CO2 emissions at extremely high spatial and temporal resolutions. This project served as the
best quantification of project-scale CO2 emission available. Unfortunately, that detail involves a degree of
calculation and expense that falls beyond the scope of the Carbon Impact Statement at this time. The team
recommends staying aware of the emerging trend of high-resolution CO2 inventorying pioneered by
projects Hestia and Vulcan. While its uses and availability are limited now, it will be a valuable asset as
the science matures and becomes more accessible to state and local governments. This may be especially
useful with regards to the requirements set forth by the UN-established Compact of Mayors. The later
phases of the agreement set deadlines for Austin/Travis County CO2 inventories and while Austin is
currently in compliance, keeping abreast of changes to the science will help Austin stay ahead of the
curve.

Finally, the checklist for LEED certification provided a model for operationalizing complex CO 2
emission considerations into a simple checklist. The team used this document as a basis for its project-
related questions to ensure a reliable method for filling out the CO2 emission checklist was in place. The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also uses a checklist as referenced previously to
qualitatively capture the impacts of a project. The sections on land use, population, and transportation
should be considered for further review.

VI. Model Practice for Austin

Based on the aforementioned literature review, we have designed a summary form that can be
used by Austin/Travis County to provide a qualitative measure of the potential carbon emission impacts a
project or rezoning effort would have. These forms would serve as a qualitative checklist between similar
projects to be used by City Council in deciding whether or not to approve projects/rezoning efforts. A
graphic representing CO2 emission data in the form of a simple graph or a CO2 emission score for the
project in question is featured prominently. This functions as a quick reference to help busy City Council
Members assess a project quickly and effortlessly. The checklist underneath offers more specific CO 2
emission data, such as the category responsible for emissions. The categorization facilitates the analysis
of various approaches to a project, enabling the City of Austin to opt for the project that best suits its

12
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

needs based on CO2 impact scores. Scores will be determined by looking at city council/planning notes
for a project and answering a list of questions derived from the LEED ND and California Environmental
Review as they apply to Energy, Transportation, or Land Use Change. The answers for each category will
result in +1, a 0, or a -1. Each project will have score between -6 and 6, based on the impacts or changes
in carbon emissions in the three categories for the construction phase and continuing operations phase of
the project.

A single summary form can show the scores of as many projects as needed for a rezoning area or
project site. In addition to each projects score, they will be marked by a color score gradient in which [-
6,-2] is shown in red, [-2,2] is yellow, and [2,6] is green. This will provide a straightforward qualitative
comparison between projects where projects that are "green" would be more desirable than "red" or
"yellow" projects.

While our proposed summary form is largely qualitative, we have provided the research and
information necessary to expand this proposal to be a more quantitative inventory of emission sources
between projects. Using the data and methodologies from Project Hestia and Project Vulcan and the
TAGG Workbook, the carbon emissions from proposed projects and rezoning efforts can be calculated
and included on later editions of the form. This would allow a more detailed comparison between
projects. This quantitative comparison comes at a steep cost of data and calculation and was deemed too
complicated and time-consuming at this time. As the science evolves and becomes more accessible for
local governments, such high-resolution CO2 inventories will be valuable assets.

Another element that can be added is a score/checklist based on the eight Imagine Austin Priority
Programs. This would be another qualitative assessment of a project, but ideally, if a project fit the
requirements for these eight programs, then that project would score better, or be more ideal, than a
project that did not. This feature would be beneficial for Austin/Travis County, but fell outside the scope
of a Carbon Impact Statement.

A. Direct Applications of Model Practice Form to Austin/Travis County

Carbon Impact Statements demonstrating their intended uses on two example projects are
featured in the Appendix. The research team evaluated the Shady Lane Mixed Land Use project and the
Lexington Parke II project. For the purposes of this report, the assessment of the Shady Lane Mixed Use
project was centered on the conversion of empty office/warehouse space into a multifamily development
with accompanying restaurant and retail space. The total area under consideration is 2.8 acres and only
three collector and arterial streets were affected. The default project iteration and an alternative project
iteration was evaluated, with the alternative iteration constructed under the condition that the development
will be limited to a maximum of 2,000 vehicles trips per day for the development phase. The Lexington
Parke II project was centered on allowing an additional 855 manufactured homes to be established on
undeveloped tracts of land. The total affected area covered 181 acres and the alternative project was
constructed on the conditional improvement of a nearby road before beginning construction as described
in the Zoning Change Review Sheet.

Information most relevant for the classifications made on the checklist for these two projects were
road sizes with respect to expected traffic delays, proximities to bus stops and bike routes and the
feasibility/likelihood of these modes of transportation for regular use. Information related to energy use
was a straightforward comparison of before-state and after-state energy use expectations. Information

13
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

relevant for Land Use Change evaluations included the City of Austins ordinances requiring a certain
amount of impervious cover within the affected area, the mandated area of green space per resident, and
whether or not the project was likely to increase population or decrease it.

VII. Conclusions

In order to generate a best practices report, a research team must reconcile the relevant study area
with state-of-the-art practices from around the world. The City of Austin is characterized by its desire to
maintain its position of international sustainability leadership while facing a host of new problems
associated with its rapid growth. As a result, simplicity, efficiency, and clarity were the watchwords of
this report and the summary sheet we envisioned. This meant presenting complex information in a
straightforward document that offered a robust evaluation of a project's CO2 emission footprint without
violating those three principles.

To accomplish this task, the report features an in-depth literature review from the resources
around the world. The team considered resources including Greenhouse Gas emission inventory methods
and movements, state and local affordability and education impact statements, and documents aimed at
analyzing high-resolution CO2 emissions from the international community. The insights gleaned from
those resources were then summarized and adapted to Austin's unique physical and social environment.
The Carbon Impact Statement summary sheet synthesizes the most advanced methods for CO2 evaluation
with the requirement for rapid access to the most relevant information to help Austin/Travis County meet
its rigorous goal of net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050.

14
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

VIII. Appendix

15
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

A. Blank Carbon Impact Statement Form (CIS Form)

16
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

B. Descriptive Questions, recommended as CIS Form back page

17
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

C. Sample CIS Form-Shady Lane Mixed Use Project

18
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

D. Sample CIS Form-Lexington Parke II Project

19
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

E. Previous CIS Form iteration

20
 City of Austin
Carbon Impact Statement
Best Practices Report

IX. Bibliography

Calfee, Chris. "Evaluating Greenhouse Gas emissions as Part of California's Environmental Review
Process: A Local Official's Guide." September 1, 2011. Accessed December 7, 2015.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Environmental Checklist Form, last revised 2009,
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Inital_Study_Checklist_Form.pdf

Environment, D. o. (2014, December). National Greenhouse Accounts Factors. Retrieved December 7,

2015, from Australian Government Department of the Environment:
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b24f8db4-e55a-4deb-a0b3-
32cf763a5dab/files/national-greenhouse-accounts-factors-dec-2014.pdf

Fong, Wee, Mary Sotos, Michael Doubt, Seth Schultz, Ana Marquez, and Chang Deng-Beck. "Global
Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories." December 1, 2014. Accessed
December 8, 2015.

"Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies." City of San Francisco. May 11, 2015. Accessed December 7,
2015. http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2627.

Group, T. A. (2013, February). Greenhouse Gas Assessment Workbook for Road Projects. Retrieved
December 7, 2015, from Roads & Maritime:
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/about/environment/greenhouse-gas-assessment-workbook-
road-projects.pdf

Gurney R. Kevin, Igor Razlivanov, Yang Song, Yuyu Zhou, Bedrich Benes, Michel Abdul-Massih
Quantification of Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions on the Building/Street Scale for a Large U.S City.
August 15, 2012. Accessed December 7, 2015. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3011282

"MEPA Environmental Monitor." The Official Website of the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs. November 23, 2015. Accessed December 7, 2015.
http://web1.env.state.ma.us/EEA/emepa/emonitor.aspx.

Regular Meeting of the Austin City Council Item 44, PDF last modified November 12, 2015,
20151112-044, Agenda Backup: Staff Report (C14-2015-0043)

Regular Meeting of the Austin City Council Item 74, PDF last modified November 12, 2015, 20151112-
074, Agenda Backup: Staff Report (C14-2015-0127),

Services, R. &. (2013). Appendix N: Greenhouse Gas Methodology and Calculations. Retrieved
December 7, 2015, from NorthConnex: http://northconnex.com.au/docs/eis/Appendix%20N%20-
%20Greenhouse%20gas%20methodology%20and%20calculations.pdf

21