Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda Packet 2020-11-12AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Virtual Meeting Location Information: https://www.cityofpa.us/984/Live-Virtual-Meetings November 12, 2020 6:00 p.m. I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL III.PUBLIC COMMENT IV.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of September 23, 2020 and October 13, 2020 V.ACTION/DISCUSSION/WORK SESSION 1.Study Session: 2021 Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update VI.STAFF UPDATES VII.REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VIII.ADJOURNMENT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Virtual Meeting Port Angeles, Washington 98362 September 23, 2020 6:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Schwab opened the regular meeting at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Andrew Schwab (Chair), Benjamin Stanley (Vice-Chair), Richie Ahuja, Marolee Smith, Colin Young City Staff Present: Allyson Brekke (Director) Emma Bolin (Manager) Ben Braudrick (Associate Planner) Chris Cowgill (Assistant City Attorney) Public Present: John Ralston PUBLIC COMMENT: John Ralston, City Resident John requested that he be interviewed as a stakeholder for the Building Residential Capacity Code Project. Chair Schwab closed public comments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Young moved to accept the minutes from the September 9, 2020 meeting with Commissioner Smith seconded, all were in favor. ACTION ITEMS Action: Review and make a motion on Planning Commission Bylaws Amendment (relating to meeting noticing requirements) Manager Bolin presented a change to Article IV, Section 5 of the Planning Commission Bylaws related to consistency in meeting notice requirements. Commissioner Smith expressed that noticing should all be consistent. Discussion followed, with Assistant City Attorney Cowgill providing guidance on the Open Public Meetings Act. Commissioner Smith made a motion to accept the staff recommended changes to Article IV, Section 5 of the Planning Commission Bylaws. Commission Young seconded, all were in favor. 1. Work Session: 2020-2021 Planning Commission Workplan Planner Braudrick provided an introductory presentation on Planning Commission roles and responsibilities. Manager Bolin presented the Community and Economic Development Workplan for 2020-2022 and a tentative 4th Quarter 2020 through 2nd Quarter 2021 calendar and meeting schedule for the PC Meeting Agenda Packet Pg. 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2020 Page 2 Planning Commission. Discussion followed. Chair Schwab asked each member what their top 3-4 priorities for discussion with City Council in a joint meeting. Commissioners provided the following topics: Chair Schwab ...................... Code enforcement Regulation Commissioner Young.......... Food Truck Ordinance, Restaurant seating in onstreet parking areas, Commercial zoning and activity growth in Western PA, Removal of Parking Requirements Commissioner Smith ........... Temporary RV Ordinance, Sidewalk and ADA Connectivity, Evacuation Route, Tree Ordinances Commissioner Stanley ........ Climate Planning (Inventory and Action Plan), Housing Planning (Lot Size and Incremental housing), Transportation Planning (Bike/Ped Network) Commissioner Ahuja .......... Climate Planning, Microentrepreneur Support, Council’s Understanding of Revenues, Homelessness Discussion followed. Chair Schwab asked that Staff provide the City Council with the following a synopsis of what the Planning Commission could bring to the joint meeting incorporating each Commissioners’ interests for discussion: 1. How is the city going to fund what it wants to do? 2. Climate Planning 3. Housing Planning 4. Transportation Planning 5. Economic development Planner Braudrick stated that the individual interests would be provided in the minutes, which could also be provided to City Council. STAFF UPDATES Manager Bolin let the Commission know that she was working with the City Clerk to notice the open Commission seat vacated by Amy Powell. She also updated the Commission on the Climate Action RFP process underway. Director Brekke provided a synopsis of the previous night’s Council work session on multimodal transportation and update on the building residential capacity grant with MAKERS and Downtown strategic planning effort. She encouraged the Commissioners to watch the previous night’s presentation and discussion and stated she would make it available. Associate Planner Braudrick provided an update on Race Street Phase 1 funding and timing. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Chair Schwab reminded commission members of the Jurassic Parliament training in October. Commissioner Young asked about the meeting cancellation necessary for the Jurassic Parliament Training. Chair Schwab reminded the commissioner that it was on the Planning Commissioners Workplan calendar and a special meeting would likely be necessary for quorum attendance. A discussion followed about meeting dates and the holidays. Commissioner Ahuja thanked staff for the updates. He asked about a Council training that occurred and if it was available online. Staff let the Commissioners know that they would inquire PC Meeting Agenda Packet Pg. 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2020 Page 3 as to what the training might be and if it was available to the public. He asked if there were any other reading materials available related to the interests they all spoke of earlier. Planner Braudrick stated that he would send the Commissioner’s resources via email. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ahuja made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Young seconded, all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Ben Braudrick, Secretary Andrew Schwab, Chair PREPARED BY: Ben Braudrick, Secretary PC Meeting Agenda Packet Pg. 3 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Virtual Meeting Port Angeles, Washington 98362 October 13, 2020 5:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING: A Special City Council meeting was called for the Commissioners to attend a parliamentary training facilitated by Ann Macfarlane. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Andrew Schwab (Chair), Benjamin Stanley (Vice-Chair), Richie Ahuja, Steve Luxton, Marolee Smith, Colin Young Ben Braudrick, Secretary Andrew Schwab, Chair PREPARED BY: Ben Braudrick, Secretary PC Meeting Agenda Packet Pg. 4 Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 1Department of Community & Economic DevelopmentCity of Port Angeles | Department of Community & Economic Development Introduction to the Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update Planning Commission Work Session Presentation November 12, 2019 Presented by Ben Braudrick, AICP & Emma Bolin, AICP Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 2Department of Community & Economic Development SMA Quickfacts •Enacted in 1971 (Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 584) •Ch. 90.58 RCW –Shoreline Management Act •Ch. 173-26 WAC –Shoreline Master Program Guidelines •Ch. 173-27 WAC –Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 3Department of Community & Economic Development SMA Quickfacts •Regulates all Pacific, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Puget Sound Shorelines and associated wetlands within 200 ft of Ordinary Median High Water •Regulates all freshwater streams and rivers of averaging ≤ 20cfs Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 4Department of Community & Economic Development SMA Quickfacts •Places the responsibility of regulation on local jurisdiction •Balances Shoreline Use, Ecological Protection, and Public Access •As much as possible, shorelines should be reserved for "water- oriented" uses, including those that are "water-dependent," "water- related," and for "water-enjoyment.“ Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 5Department of Community & Economic Development SMA Quickfacts •All allowed uses are required to offset adverse environmental impacts as much as possible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline. •“No Net Loss” of Natural Shoreline Ecology Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 6Department of Community & Economic Development SMA Goal & Purpose Overarching goal is "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines." 1)Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest; 2)Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; 3)Result in long term over short term benefit; 4)Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; 5)Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; 6)Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; 7)Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 7Department of Community & Economic Development Shoreline Master Program History •Major local amendments have been made in: •1979 (Ord. 2033) –SMA (RCW and WAC) Adoption by reference •1979-80 (Ord. 2033 & 2065) –County SMP Adoption as “Urban” •1997 (Ord. 2951) –Adopt WAC 173.14-26 Changes by Reference Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 8Department of Community & Economic Development Shoreline Master Program History •Major local amendments have been made in: •2009-11 Public Input and Harbor Resource Management Plan Creation •2011-14 (Ord. 3516) SMP Creation and Adoption •2019-21 (8-year periodic update) Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 9Department of Community & Economic Development Focus on Recent Updates Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 10Department of Community & Economic Development Mapping the Shoreline •Reaches •Segments •Environmental Designations Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 11Department of Community & Economic Development What is the Shoreline Analysis Report? •Summarizes existing regulatory framework •Inventories and characterizes the City’s shorelines •Analyzes and contextualizes the shoreline’s existing conditions, functions and impacts at an ecosystem level. •Identifies restoration and public access opportunities Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 12Department of Community & Economic Development Shoreline Analysis Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 13Department of Community & Economic Development What is the Cumulative Impacts Analysis? •Builds upon the Inventory & Analysis •Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Development potential as it relates to the tenant of “no net loss”. •Analysis includes: •Existing Conditions •Development Potential •Effects of that development from SMP provision •Effects from other activities •Net EffectS Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 14Department of Community & Economic Development Cumulative Impacts Analysis Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 15Department of Community & Economic Development What is the Harbor Resources Management Plan? •Distillation of the inventory and analysis and cumulative impacts document •Documentation of public process to present the findings of existing conditions, current impacts, development potential, and restoration potential •Results of the public process to identify public projects for equitable shoreline access and restoration potential Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 16Department of Community & Economic Development Harbor Resources Management Plan Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 17Department of Community & Economic Development Harbor Resources Management Plan Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 18Department of Community & Economic Development What is the Shoreline Master Program? •Identifies and categorizes environmental designations in different “Segments” or “Reaches” of the City’s Shoreline •Defines shoreline uses and modification activities Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 19Department of Community & Economic Development What is the Shoreline Master Program? •Provides policy and regulation of those activities occurring within shoreline jurisdiction •Guides the administration of “substantial development”, variance, non-conforming, and conditional use review processes Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 20Department of Community & Economic Development Shoreline Master Program Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 21Department of Community & Economic Development Periodic Update: Methods and Schedule •$18,340 Grant from Dept. of Ecology in May 2020 •Task 1 –Project management •Task 2 –Secure Qualified Consultant Services •Task 3 –Public Participation Plan •Task 4 –Periodic Review Checklist •Task 5 –Public Review Process •Contracted with Watershed Company in April 2020 •Public Engagement Process Fall and Winter 2020-21 •City and Dept. of Ecology using a Joint Review Process •Submission to Dept. of Commerce in June 2021 Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 22Department of Community & Economic Development Scope of Periodic Review Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 23Department of Community & Economic Development Periodic Update: Mandates & Updates •Rules and applicable updated guidance adopted between 2007 and 2019 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments. Some examples •Substantial development $$$ thresholds •Changes to allowances, such as dredging disposal methods •Basic terminology updates, such as nonconforming uses •Federal Jurisdictions •Optional: Updates •Cleanup of some local language and responsible officials •Revision of mapping •Revisions related to readability and reducing confusion Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 24Department of Community & Economic Development Periodic Update: Gap Analysis •Ecology Provided Gap Checklist •2007-19 Legislative Amendments •Review of City SMP •Direction/Action necessary to amend SMP •Staff Created Gap List •Consistency •Organization •Readability •How to Use Document •Qualitative Changes Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 25Department of Community & Economic Development Map cleanup Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 26Department of Community & Economic Development Periodic Update: Public Participation •Types of Participation Opportunities •City Website •Virtual Open House •Notification of Interested Parties •News Media •Stakeholder Engagement •State Government •Other Government •Tribal Government •City Residents •Shoreline Businesses Thursday, November 12, 2020 | Slide 27Department of Community & Economic Development SMP Resources City of Port Angeles SMP Page: https://www.cityofpa.us/141/Shoreline-Master-Program Department of Ecology Shoreline & Coastal Management Page: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management MRSC SMA Page: http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Environment/Environmental-Laws/Shoreline- Management-Act.aspx Ch. 90.58 RCW: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=90.58 Ch 173-26 WAC: https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-26 Green Infrastructure Storms Ahead Cities are using cost-effective, environmentally supportive ways to manage stormwater. By Corry Buckwalter Berkooz How are cities coping with costly and decaying conventional infrastructure? They are going green in a big way. Philadelphia expects to spend $1.6 billion on green stormwater infrastructure. New York City's 2010 green infrastructure plan points to a complete overhaul of the city's stormwater management system. And throughout the U.S. smaller cities and rural areas are banking on saving dollars by making similar — if more modest — changes. Many cities — including Portland, Oregon; Philadelphia; Washington, D.C.; and Cincinnati — have gone green as part of their combined sewer overflow long-term control plans, which they create to satisfy Clean Water Act and other regulations. And landscape architects, architects, urban foresters, and engineers have used techniques such as swales, green roofs, pervious surfaces, and engineered wetlands to solve stormwater management issues for decades. So what is new here? Front and center When stormwater management goes above ground with swales and green roofs, when it takes on a comprehensive watershed-by-watershed scope and expands to a regional scale, as it has recently in many cities, green infrastructure becomes a planning concern. Green stormwater infrastructure copies nature — in contrast to conventional or "gray" infrastructure such as storage tanks, tunnels, and basins. These typically are needed only when it rains and overflow must be controlled. However, with a combined sewer system like Philadelphia's (in which stormwater and sewage have the same infrastructure), back-ups can be severe. According to the American Society of Landscape Architects' journal Dirt, when Philadelphia gets a deluge, more than one-third of the city's businesses and one in four homes face sewage backup and overflow. The city has been proactively solving this age-old problem with green tools. To Glen Abrams, AICP, watersheds planning manager for the Philadelphia Water Department's Office of Watersheds, the switch to green infrastructure means that planners must collaborate with other government agencies. "By using green infrastructure design components, we are now in an era in which we are not able to work just in our single departments," he says. In its Green Streets program, for example, the water department works with the departments of fire, streets, and parks and recreation; the planning commission; and the schools, among others, to ensure complete designs. With the new complexities, standard review processes are not always satisfactory, says Abrams. "The design and review processes that we use currently are not entirely appropriate for green infrastructure projects like our Green Streets program. And that is something that we'll be working on improving," he says. Saving bucks Many communities have concluded that going green is cheaper than staying gray. But there's more involved. "In order to be effective, cities need to acknowledge green infrastructure as infrastructure itself and build it into their capital budgets along with the routine gray infrastructure work," says Robert Young, who researches urban forestry and green infrastructure practices and is an assistant professor in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon. Another challenge is that "green" means living parts, so the programs need to budget for maintenance tasks such as watering. Detroit and New York are among the cities saving money — and seeing other benefits — by using these new techniques. Detroit recently cancelled two major conventional infrastructure projects on the city's west side, including the construction of a 7.5-mile-long tunnel (total cost of terminated projects: about $1.3 billion), and replaced them with an $814 million plan ($764 million in gray, $50 million in green) to solve the same needs. And, since Detroit has an abundance of vacant land — as much as 30 percent of the city — green infrastructure allows for spot fix-ups and smaller scale pipe systems. New York City's Department of Environmental Protection recently identified more than $3 billion that could be saved by changing infrastructure technology. The department's NYC Green Infrastructure Plan, part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 30-year PlaNYC, estimates that a green strategy would cost about $5.3 billion (including $1.5 billion in public funding), whereas a gray strategy would cost $6.8 billion. Other benefits that could accrue over the next 30 years: improved air quality and park development, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, according the DEP report, which was issued last September. Synergy in NYC More than a dozen city departments will soon collaborate on green infrastructure planning tasks in New York. The effort is worth it because, with one of the oldest combined sewer systems in the U.S. and 8.4 million residents in its five boroughs, the city could save millions through more cost-effective strategies, according to the NYC Green Infrastructure Plan. Those savings could accumulate through a combination of green and targeted, smaller scale gray infrastructure. One aim is to reduce combined sewer overflow volumes by an additional 3.8 billion gallons per year, or about two billion more than an all-gray strategy. "One of the most exciting aspects is the synergy we get from this plan," says Carter Strickland, deputy commissioner for sustainability for the Department of Environmental Protection. "The plan has allowed us to look for existing opportunities around the city, from retrofitting roadways to adding blue and green roofs to schools." (A blue roof retains rainwater temporarily in order to slow down runoff or to store water for reuse. A green roof is a planted roof that also slows stormwater runoff.) The green infrastructure plan lists multiple agencies with which the Mayor's Office and the DEP will work, including transportation, planning, design and construction, housing, economic development, sanitation, and parks and recreation. Other plan goals include: building cost-effective gray infrastructure; optimizing the existing wastewater system; and using swales, green roofs, pervious roads, tree plantings, and other techniques to control runoff from 10 percent of impervious surfaces in CSO areas over 20 years. The DEP estimates that 52 percent of the land in CSO areas of the city is optimal for building green infrastructure. The DEP is waiting for necessary approval from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for the plan, which should be completed "within the year," Strickland says. Meanwhile, the DEP has set up an extensive demonstration program that monitors 20 models of tree pits, street side swales, green roofs, and other items in a variety of settings. Over the edge in California Some site-specific green infrastructure plans can be quite ambitious. The city of Fort Bragg, California (pop. 7,000), in Mendocino County, has the ideal conditions for a model project: 3.5 miles of rugged coastline; a 150-year-old, 415-acre timber mill site; and — here's a big parking lot — 45 acres of asphalt to be scraped away. Georgia-Pacific owned and operated a redwood timber mill on the site from 1973 until 2002 — continuing an operation begun by a predecessor in 1857. After 2002, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control directed environmental remediation efforts at the site, and when the job was completed in January 2010, the land title for 92 acres transferred to the city for creation of a coastal park. A surprising fact is that Fort Bragg's entire coastline, stretching the 3.5 miles of the former mill property, has not been accessible to the public for more than a century. Marie Jones, the city's community development director, says that lifelong residents who attended the department's walking tours in the pre-planning phase were moved to tears when they walked to the edge of the bluff for the first time. The former mill property makes up one-third of this small city. The redeveloped site will serve many more than the city's 7,000 residents, Jones says, since the community development department's service region includes another 20,000 residents and the city attracts more than one million tourists every year. The proposed Fort Bragg Coastal Trail, Restoration and Parkland Project will create a 4.5-mile multiuse trail, recreational open space, interpretive signage, and an ecologically restored native habitat of rare plants from hand-gathered seeds. Green infrastructure components include 15 soft vegetative outfalls of wetland plants to facilitate stormwater runoff over the bluff edge to the Pacific Ocean, many bioswales, roads and trails of pervious materials, and the coastal habitat restoration of 45 acres of asphalt. "Handling all the stormwater is a big challenge of the project, since the site is downstream from 350 acres of impervious surface from the old mill," says Jones. "One small drainage area of the site generates 22 cubic feet per second of water" during a big storm. Overall, however, the project will be a big change from the current practice of allowing the stormwater to cascade over the cliff edge into the ocean. Knowing that weather conditions can be daunting, the city experimented by planting a small test plot for a vegetative outfall. Heavy rains washed almost everything away within three days. "We have to plan for the worst-case scenario because often the first storm here is a big storm. The first storm this year was seven inches of rain in a week. We reconsidered the design and are putting in asphalt berms upstream from the site so we can steer all the stormwater into the bio- swales," says Jones. The new park will cost an estimated $5.8 million. Funding will come from the state ($4.85 million), a federal appropriation for design and environmental reviews ($750,000), and the city's general fund. Construction will begin in April 2012, according to Jones. Philadelphia tests the options An early adopter of green practices, Philadelphia created its Office of Watersheds in 1999. The goal was to coordinate the city's projects in eight "land-based green programs": streets, schools, public facilities, parking, alleys, businesses, residences, and public open space. Philadelphia (pop. 1.5 million) is downstream from everyone else in their shared watersheds, according to watersheds planning manager Glen Abrams. So one aim of the new Green City — Clean Water program is to work with neighboring communities and suburbs to make sure that stormwater runoff is relatively clean by the time it hits Philadelphia's storm sewers. The water department's CSO area includes 40,500 acres (63 square miles) in portions of four watersheds that are located within the city limits. The department conducted a "triple-bottom-line analysis" of the economic, environmental, and social benefits of installing green infrastructure. It concluded that a 50 percent green option would bring bigger benefits in all three categories than a 30-foot tunnel would. As of this writing, the city already has completed many projects, including 20 tree trenches, 12 rain gardens, 13 sidewalk stormwater planters, seven stormwater bump-outs and infiltration trenches, three vegetated swales, eight pervious pavement projects, and two constructed stormwater wetlands. The total drainage area of these systems is around 7.5 million square feet. Many of these efforts have been part of the city's Green Streets program, which aims to capture stormwater run-off in site-specific situations, where one-size-fits-all solutions often don't work, Abrams says. What does a green street do, exactly? According to the water department's website, "a green street captures stormwater runoff from streets and sidewalks, infiltrates it into the soil to recharge groundwater and surface water, reduces the amount of polluted stormwater runoff going into Philadelphia's combined sewer system, and reduces combined sewer overflow events. In addition, green streets can be designed to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, improve air quality and help alleviate the Urban Heat Island effect by reducing air temperatures, and enhance the aesthetics of the right-of-way." In this complex urban context, experimentation is necessary. Lisa Beyer, landscape architect, planner, and on-site consultant for the Office of Watersheds, tests which plant species can endure the hostile conditions of Philadelphia streets, including soil that occasionally can be very dry. Beyer is developing what she calls a "stormwater tree" list to discover which trees do best in her city's stormwater trenches. The test will take about three years, during which time she will be working closely with city planners, engineers, and the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. Detroit simplifies and diversifies In Detroit (pop. 910,848), where cost savings are paramount, several stormwater management agencies are recasting costly projects into more affordable green ones, says Chuck Hersey, manager of environmental programs for the nonprofit South East Michigan Council of Governments. His organization is working with the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to get the work done. According to its 2009 CSO report, the Detroit sewerage and water department will reduce combined sewer overflow volumes by 10 to 20 percent, and the city will use "smaller and more cost-effective gray CSO facilities to store and treat the stormwater that gets into the sewers." As redesigned, the project cost for conventional infrastructure elements, such as basins, facility improvements, and new tunnels, is estimated at $764 million, and another $50 million will be spent on green infrastructure elements. This $814 billion, 25-year project will replace a $1.3 billion gray-only infrastructure system. The CSO plan costs will be underwritten by low-interest loans, grants, foundation support, and private agencies like utility companies that are seeking carbon credits. Average annual costs could drop from $192 million a year to $33 million a year, according to the report. In a city with a lot of vacant land and ongoing population losses, Detroit's stormwater management agencies are forced to target specific areas that need water and sewer services anyway. "This is part of rightsizing because we are framing the issue with how many people were living in the area at its peak compared to how many people are living here now," says Hersey. Immediate projects in green infrastructure construction will include disconnecting residential and municipal downspouts, working with the city's building demolition program to include pervious land cover after deconstruction, and installing tree trenches, bio-swales, and new tree plantings, according to the city's report. The message seems inescapable. Regardless of the scale — from a specific site to an entire region — green infrastructure has a lot to offer traditional stormwater planning practices. Corry Buckwalter Berkooz is a planner and writer in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Room to Grow Green infrastructure is a growing field for planners as well as others. That point was implicit in 2008, when the American Planning Association created the National Infrastructure Investment Task Force to examine the state of infrastructure in the U.S. "There is an enormous range of possibilities for planning in green infrastructure," says Marita Roos, AICP, principal landscape architect at UrbanBiology in San Antonio, Texas, and an APA task force subcommittee member. The final APA report, Rebuilding America, published in 2010, notes that most green infrastructure planning is done at the county and municipal levels as part of a land-use planning process, and that the effort tends to overlap jurisdictional boundaries. Further, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to every problem because local conditions determine everything. Roos says that her subcommittee concluded that green practice is still very much a fledgling field in the U.S. "There is not a lot out there in terms of standards," she says. "Most green infrastructure programming is being done outside the U.S., and we have a lot to learn." Roos cites Malmo, Sweden, and Curitiba, Brazil, as outstanding examples of cities that have undertaken huge initiatives. Many city codes need revision in order to implement green infrastructure strategies, according to the APA committee. "Planners can help to update codes in jurisdictions that still prevent the reuse and recycling of gray water, for example," says Matt Bucchin, AICP, principal planner for Forsyth County, Georgia, and an APA infrastructure task force subcommittee member. Planners also see the bigger picture. "Planners are uniquely positioned to facilitate moving ideas to decision makers at the comprehensive scale level so that landscape architects, engineers, and architects can enact the work," Bucchin says. RESOURCES Images: Top — Fort Bragg, California, has a major asset: a 3-5 mile stretch of coastline that is being redeveloped into a trail and park where stormwater will be handled in a green way. Photo Kenneth and Gabrielle Adelman, Coastal Resources Project. Middle — From New York City's green infrastructure plan: a low-density residential street with an enhanced tree pit. Photo NYC Department of Environmental Protection. Bottom — A one-acre wetland in Philadelphia's Saylor Grove section of Fairmont Park was designed to treat part of the 70 million gallons of stormwater in the sewershed. Photo Philadelphia Water Department. On the web: APA's Rebuilding America report is at www.planning.org. A green infrastructure encyclopedia is at www.greeninfrastructurewiki.com. Greeninfrastructure.net is a joint project of the Conservation Fund and the USDA Forest Service. The Center for Watershed Protection (Maryland): www.cwp.org Green infrastructure in the Midwest: www.greenmapping.org NYC's green infrastructure plan: www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/nyc_green_infrastructure_plan.shtml. Philadelphia Office of Watersheds: www.phillywatersheds.org. University of Oregon's Sustainable Cities Initiative linking practice with academics: www.sci.uoregon.edu. See reports from the South East Michigan Council on Governments at www.semcog.org. A new report by the Center for Neighborhood Technology and American Rivers, "The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits," places an economic value on the benefits provided by green infrastructure. Download the guide at www.cnt.org/repository/gi-values-guide.pdf. In print: Green Infrastructure. Linking Landscapes and Communities by Mark A. Benedict and Edward T. McMahon (Island Press, 2006). Evolving sets of guidelines for green infrastructure are included in the principles of the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED rating system, the Sustainable Sites Initiative developed by the American Society of Landscape Architects (Guidelines and Performance Benchmarks, 2009 report), and the ICLEI STAR Community Index. Another rating system, from Harvard: Zofnass Rating System for Sustainable Infrastructure: www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/research_centers/zofnass/about.html. The Chicago Department of Transportation's "Green Alley Handbook" is an action guide with design ideas, materials, and plans for transforming 1,900 miles of Chicago's public alleyways into permeable surfaces to manage flooding.