03. Green Streets Initiative — original pdf

Backup

GREEN STREETS INITIATIVE to Keep Austin Cool February 26, 2024 City of Austin Design Commission Presentation Prepared by Kevin Howard, Urbinden, Jana McCann, FAIA, McCann Adams Studio and Kate McCarroll, LBJ School 2024 MPAF Candidate WHY AUSTIN NEEDS GREEN STREETS • We can address growth and climate change using public rights-of-way. As heat increases, shade and evaporative cooling from trees will be necessary for life, health and safety. • Street trees make walking, biking and taking transit possible in our increasingly longer and hotter summers. • Increasing vegetation - particularly trees - is an effective way to make Austin more livable and resilient to the effects of climate change. • Street trees are essential urban infrastructure, not just “nice-to-haves” or beautification”. Example of continuous shade trees at curbside, providing both shade and protection from road for sidewalk users STREET TREE BENEFITS LIFE SAFETY HEALTH MENTAL HEALTH AIR QUALITY WATER QUALITY URBAN HEAT CLIMATE CHANGE ECOSYSTEMS PUBLIC FINANCE CULTURE & IDENTITY Street trees along major transit corridors are essential if we expect to achieve our 50% mode split goal by 2039. WHERE ARE THE TREES? • Austin over-relies on private yards and natural areas for its urban forest, which are in wealthier parts of town. • • Less than 3% of Austin’s ROWs are required to have street trees, so our public pathways are rarely shaded. Yet, street trees are one of the most desired community benefits, according to many public surveys and in the “Contracts with Voters” in recent bond elections. The City’s Tree Canopy Map shows lack of “shade equity” on the east side. WHERE ARE OUR URBAN HEAT ISLANDS? • The worst urban heat island effects follow our paved street network. • YET, streets are where we walk, bike, roll, catch transit - exactly where it must be cooler. • AND, lower-income residents – who depend more on transit - live on the hotter, east side. • The worsening heat islands are a major public health risk for everyone, but especially for our must vulnerable communities. Heat Map of Austin showing the yellow, hottest areas focused in East Austin and Downtown WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES? 1. The LACK OF LEADERSHIP means that review staff are conducting reviews and making decisions, with little guidance and support. 2. Austin’s REGULATIONS are not aligned with City and community priorities: if they were, street trees would be required of development. 3. The City’s DEPARTMENTAL SILOS preclude integrated and responsive urban design. 4. The PERMITTING PROCESS – eliminating license agreement process and 5. reduce required discretion and inconsistent implementation. It is more EXPENSIVE to plant street trees in public ROWs: we need to assure they can be subsidized for transit and affordable housing projects. Street trees compete with utilities for space in the ROW and generally come out the losers – along with the community. WHAT’S THE BUILT OUTCOME? Above is what was designed (left) for the City’s Corridor Construction Program for Airport Blvd near Koenig Ln, …and what actually got built (right). If we build like this, will they use transit? TODAY, A POSITIVE OUTCOME REQUIRES A SPECIAL CASE. The Mueller community and other PUDs are the exception in requiring street trees along all roadways - within the public ROW. 1. Lack of Leadership • • • There is no single person or group responsible for ensuring that City policies are reflected in its rules and regulations, and no one with the authority to marshal various ROW stakeholder interests in a way that achieves the best urban design and highest levels of community benefit. Street trees are not treated as the critical public infrastructure they are, and there is no shared vision for the kind of streetscapes that staff should be helping deliver to the community. Today, permitting and implementation is often led. by junior staff, without support or oversight by such a “public realm coordinator”. Staff should be afforded better training and clear tools to do their job. In 2023, NYC created a Public Realm Officer post in the Mayor’s office to coordinate and facilitate high-quality, public space projects. LBJ Student Research These are results from a semester-long Policy Research Project at LBJ School of Public Affairs, UT Austin (Fall 2023). 6 peer cities were interviewed: ● Dallas, TX- Parks & Rec. Dept., Public Works Dept. ● Denver, CO- Parks & Rec. Dept., Dept. of Transportation & Infrastructure ● Plano, TX- Parks & Rec. Dept. ● Portland, OR- Parks & Rec. Bureau, Bureau of Transportation ● San Antonio, TX- Parks & Rec. Dept. ● Tucson, AZ- City Manager’s Office LBJ Student Research Survey/Interview question focused on: ● Funding ■ For planting ■ For maintenance ● Interdepartmental Cooperation ■ Departments involved ■ Where street tree efforts are housed within city government ■ Final authority when conflicts arise ● Rules and Regulations ■ Codes, criteria manuals, planting standards, etc. ■ Navigating restrictions  Key Barriers  Peer City Network LBJ Student Research Funding Types: ○ For Planting ● CIPs / Transportation Maintenance Funds ● “Tree Mitigation Funds” ● NGOs ● City Budgets ○ For Maintenance ● Adjacent lot owner ● Often choose to let tree die rather than maintain it Key barrier LBJ Student Research Interdepartmental Relationships ○ City Departments Involved ● Parks, Urban Forestry, Public Works, Utilities, Transportation ○ Authority  Key Barriers externally. ● Urban Forestry staff, and City Arborists have some authority on trees, but have no authority when interdepartmental conflicts arise. ● Conflicts with other city departments. ● Lack of education and culture around street trees, both internally and LBJ Student Research Rules and Regulations: ○ Conflicting Requirements ● Utilities ● Other departments Key Barrier ○ No “One Size Fits All” Solution ● Cities that were most successful with street tree efforts tended to take a case-by-case approach to planting. LBJ Student Research Key Challenges: ○ Culture infrastructure. ○ Funding cited as a key barrier. ○ Interdepartmental conflicts ● The internal and external city cultures don’t view street trees as critical ● A lack of dedicated funding for tree-planting and ongoing maintenance was ● Interdepartmental conflicts and confusion around tree-planting standards and protocols were citied as a key barrier in most cities surveyed/interviewed. ○ Planting space and infrastructure ● A lack of planting space for trees in proximity to utility infrastructure often prevent street trees from being planted. LBJ Student Research Conclusion Most peer cities surveyed have similar challenges to Austin’s. When asked if they would like to collaborate and share knowledge around street tree efforts moving forward, the answer was a resounding “YES!”. NOTE: The 20+ city-strong, Vanguard Cities Network already exists! LBJ Student Research Recommendations: ○ Evaluate plans for implementation. • • • • • • • Austin's Strategic Mobility Plan encourages changes to ROW development to achieve a 50/50 mode split; • Move from goal to action with a resolution from the City. ○ Advance a culture shift. ○ Dedicate funding. Foster civic engagement around street trees to garner community awareness and pride. Denver’s successful “Be A Smart Ash” program Dedicate resources to both planting and maintaining street trees at least through their establishment period. ○ Re-align organizational structure. Sync activities across agencies to limit conflicts and streamline decision-making. Create a central authority within the City to coordinate ROW design and management. ○ Regulations Streamline city codes and enhance street design standards to be more compatible with street trees. 2. Regulations vs. City Policies • Private development is only required to provide street trees on ~2.4% of the streets in Austin. • • Certain PUDs and small area plans “Core Transit Corridors” • Where street trees are required, it is easier to get relief through the “alternative equivalent compliance” of Subchapter E. Map showing the streets that require developers to provide street trees, per Subchapter E 2. Regulations: Rules & Criteria Manuals Criteria Manuals are not Council- adopted code, so are often not aligned with City policies and priorities. • These “performance criteria”-based manuals operate as de-facto code, often overriding real regulations in the LDC. • Criteria manuals leave too much room for • staff interpretation and discretion. The Utility Criteria Manual (UCM) protects utility’s interests over all other City policies, as well as the community’s interest in providing trees. Examples of overhead electric lines that precluded shade trees in the ROW 3. Departmental Silos, cont’d. The City’s culture is change- and risk-averse: • The UCM calls for a minimum of 9’ between tree trunk and underground wet pipe, whereas most cities require only 5’ of separation. • Utility reviewers often play the “public safety trump card”, vetoing street trees as they are “too risky”. • Executive staff is often unwilling to make interpretations and/or provide guidance that would make it easier to plant ROW trees. Illustration of current Utility Criteria Manual’s distance separation and root barrier standard 4. Permitting: Long & Duplicative Reviews There are ~40 site plan reviews representing ~20 different ROW parties, in addition to a License Agreement review that duplicates this the site plan review process. • LDC and criteria manual language is often vague, allowing for varied interpretations - by project & by reviewer. Street trees are considered “temporary” and “non-standard” streetscape items that are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • 4. Permitting: License Agreements The license agreement limits City’s liability for the presence and maintenance of ROW trees, creating a major disincentive to include them at all. • The license agreement review largely duplicates site plan review, introducing possibilities for differing interpretations, new requirements, jeopardizing and lengthening site plan approval, sometimes by up to 2 years. • Trees must become “standard” elements in the public ROW, with City-approved species, sizes and planting details. This “special standard” tree planting detail is already in use in The Corridor Construction Program, that “suspends” pavement over root zone. 4. Permitting: General Permit (GP) A GP, administered by DSD, is used by City departments, CapMetro and utility providers for public ROW projects, whereby there is “streamlined” permitting. • • Current GPs for sidewalks lack good urban design and do not include street trees. Street trees should be a requirement for most GP projects. Manor Rd example of a GP “monolithic” sidewalk project with no trees and no ability to plant them in future where they’re most needed, against the curb. 5. Funding Possibilities There are already COA funding sources that could be used for private and public projects for both tree-panting and maintenance costs: DSD’s Tree Mitigation Funds, where $4.5 million has been invested for the Corridor Construction Program & other projects AE’s Urban Heat Island Reduction funds, where ~$1 million is available annually Planning’s Downtown Great Streets Development Program funds from parking meter revenue, which accrues to ~$ million annually Create new payment-in-lieu fee for projects that cannot plant frontage trees, due to project size and/or utility relocation costs. CIP Funding: Project Connect, Congress Ave UDI, I35 Cap & Stitch, Corridor Construction Program, etc. Future bonds could be approved for planting and maintaining trees, as well as for utility re-location, that could be orchestrated street-by-street, along with AE undergrounding projects. • • • • • • Grants: • TreeFolks, Austin Parks Foundation, Texas Trees Foundation, etc. RECOMMENDATIONS/GOALS: ● LEADERSHIP: Appoint an ACM-level, Public Realm Officer within the City to balance priorities in the design of our public ROWs and spaces. ● REGULATIONS & PROCESSES: Remove barriers to street trees and require them in most projects – by code. ● FUNDING: Incentivize both the planting and maintaining of street trees through access to the City’s new tree supply contract, City’s urban heat island reduction funds, City-administered grants, tree mitigation funds, etc. Thank you! Please submit a letter of support for this initiative and the March 21st Council resolution! Kevin Howard, AIA Allied Member kevin@civilitudegroup.com (509) 954-7056 Jana McCann, FAIA janam@mccannadamsstudio.com (512) 585-4100