20 C20-2024-022 - Density Bonus for Commercial Highway & Industrial Zones Public Comment — original pdf

Backup

310 Inner Campus Drive, B7500 Austin, Texas 78712-1009 T: 512.471.1922 F: 512.471.0716 soa.utexas.edu October 22, 2024 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my concern about the proposal to add residential uses to areas zoned for Commercial Highways, and for a variety of high intensity industrial uses. A recent report published by the American Planning Association summarizes a decade of research conducted by the EPA detailing the connections between ambient pollutants coming from highways and industrial facilities and health outcomes including cancers, fertility disorders, kidney diseases, stroke, lung cancers or diseases, lower life expectancy, thyroid disorders, depression, autoimmune conditions, and the leading cause of death in the United States: cardio-vascular disease (Quattro 2024, pg 28). For the past two years I have been working with an interdisciplinary team at UT on a study of the relationship between neighborhood air quality and asthma, under a grant funded by the National Institutes of Health. The team is led by Elizabeth Matsui, MD, at the Dell Medical School and includes experts in air pollution/air quality and in health conditions resulting from exposure to pollutants, including asthma. The team has been studying the relationship between neighborhood air quality and trips to the emergency room for acute asthma. The study was motivated by a desire to explain the disparately high levels of asthma experienced by people of color in Travis County. In 2017, 8 times as many black children, and 2.5 times as many Latinx children were hospitalized for asthma, compared to rates for white children. And people coming to the emergency room for treatment for asthma were concentrated in a subset of Austin neighborhoods. Highways and industrial facilities are key sources of the pollutants linked to asthma. My colleague, Dr. Alex Karner, has published a review of the existing literature on the connection between exposure to pollutants from highways and health. I include his letter giving you the key points from his review. There is widespread agreement that placing residential uses or uses for sensitive populations next to highways is a bad idea. While there are strategies for mitigating the impacts of exposure, they are second best options. The first best is not to place these uses alongside highways. A recent study from the Urban Institute documents the disproportionate siting of MF housing close to highways in Los Angeles and makes recommendations aimed at preventing co-location of housing and highways, and for reducing dependence on driving. I will focus my remarks on my concerns regarding adding residential uses to zones currently allowing industrial uses. 310 Inner Campus Drive, B7500 Austin, Texas 78712-1009 T: 512.471.1922 F: 512.471.0716 soa.utexas.edu actually adds My role in our NIH project has been to study the role of planning in facilitating (or preventing) the adjacency of hazardous facilities and residential areas. Toward this end, I have been studying the original siting and change in neighborhood characteristics over time for 14 facilities with the highest levels of emissions of PM2.5, Sulfur Dioxide, or Volatile Organic Compounds, according to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in 2020. All three are known to be hazardous to breathe and are linked to health problems. These facilities include semiconductor fabrication plants, landfills, fuel storage facilities, and energy production plants. One of my key findings is that while most of these facilities were sited in areas with little population initially, there has been considerable population growth within a 1 mile buffer around each site in the years since each was opened. And all have experienced a sharp decline in the share of the (non-Hispanic) white population in these buffer areas since the facility was opened. I have been reviewing the zoning histories of the sites themselves and for adjacent areas to understand how zoning decisions were made and how it was possible to place residential areas so close to these facilities. While my study is ongoing, I find that siting decisions and associated re-zonings were made without consideration of the proximity of residential areas to air quality hazards. But the DB240 proposal before you residential uses to an area currently zoned for high intensity uses, including uses that spew pollutants known to endanger people living nearby into the air. And I understand that current uses would be grandfathered. I asked my research assistant to make a map showing the location of the 14 top emitters and overlay this on the zoning categories under consideration today (based on the staff map). I have included the map here. You will see that this change would allow the addition of even more people within the buffers around these top emitters of hazardous pollutants. And there are likely other dangerous sources located in these areas. And these sites are disproportionately in areas with higher populations of non-white residents. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider this proposal. While I am certainly in support of facilitating the addition of housing throughout the city (particularly affordable housing in areas historically off-limits to low-income residents and people of color), this must not be done in such a way that it places residents in harm’s way. Before proceeding with such a change, following best practices described in the PAS report, you should consider existing uses on these sites. The 2020 review of industrial land use and zoning by the City of Austin Housing and Planning Office, which was presented to you on September 22, 2020, put forward a typology of land zoned for industrial uses that identified areas where such uses should be either protected, intensified, or where transition away from such uses was justified based on current uses and rezonings. This information should be considered carefully before changing allowed uses on all sites in these zoning categories. And since many of the areas they recommended transition away 310 Inner Campus Drive, B7500 Austin, Texas 78712-1009 T: 512.471.1922 F: 512.471.0716 soa.utexas.edu from industrial use fall in zones under gentrification pressure, complementary policies to prevent further displacement if industrial zoning is removed in these areas should be considered, with impacted residents. Sincerely, Elizabeth J Mueller, PhD Professor Sources cited: Environmental Justice and Zoning Reform. Quattro, Christine. American Planning Association. PAS report 608. 2024. https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9295614/ Walters, Mark. City of Austin. Analysis of Industrial Land Use and Zoning in Austin, Texas. Planning Commission Briefing, September 22, 2020. http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=349847 Planning Advisory Service, 310 Inner Campus Drive, B7500 Austin, Texas 78712-1009 T: 512.471.1922 F: 512.471.0716 soa.utexas.edu October 22, 2024 Dear Commissioners, Siting residential land uses near freeways poses significant public health concerns due to heightened exposure to near-roadway air pollution. Multiple studies that have examined the near-road environment have shown that concentrations of harmful pollutants are elevated within 300-500 meters from heavily traveled roadways (Karner, Eisinger, and Niemeier 2010; Zhu et al. 2002). These pollutants include nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), carbon monoxide (CO), ultrafine particles (UFP), and black carbon, among others. Vehicle exhaust is the primary culprit, and the highest levels of exposure typically occur within the first 100-200 meters of the freeway. Research has consistently linked such exposures to a range of negative health outcomes, particularly those affecting the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Health risks associated with near-roadway exposures disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, including children, older adults, and individuals with preexisting health conditions including asthma or heart disease. The World Health Organization has identified traffic-related air pollution as a major contributor to respiratory diseases and this link has been validated by empirical work. For example, Gan et al. (2010) showed that proximity to major roads increases the risk of heart disease and premature death. Similarly, other work highlights the increased risk of asthma, lung cancer, and other chronic health conditions due to long-term exposure near-road air pollution (e.g., Brugge, Durant, and Rioux 2007). Planners and policymakers must carefully weigh public health implications when considering residential development near freeways. Strategies to mitigate exposure, such as vegetative barriers, enhanced building filtration systems, and zoning regulations that limit sensitive land uses near freeways, are crucial to protecting residents from adverse effects in the near-road zone. Sincerely, Alex Karner Associate Professor References Brugge, Doug, John L. Durant, and Christine Rioux. 2007. “Near-Highway Pollutants in Motor Vehicle Exhaust: A Review of Epidemiologic Evidence of Cardiac and Pulmonary Health Risks.” Environmental Health 6 (1): 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-6-23. 310 Inner Campus Drive, B7500 Austin, Texas 78712-1009 T: 512.471.1922 F: 512.471.0716 soa.utexas.edu Gan, Wen Qi, Lillian Tamburic, Hugh W. Davies, Paul A. Demers, Mieke Koehoorn, and Michael Brauer. 2010. “Changes in Residential Proximity to Road Traffic and the Risk of Death From Coronary Heart Disease.” Epidemiology 21 (5): 642. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e89f19. Karner, Alex, Douglas Eisinger, and Deb Niemeier. 2010. “Near-Roadway Air Quality: Synthesizing the Findings from Real-World Data.” Environmental Science & Technology 44 (14): 5334–44. https://doi.org/10.1021/es100008x. Zhu, Y., W. C. Hinds, S. Kim, and C. Sioutas. 2002. “Concentration and Size Distribution of Ultrafine Particles near a Major Highway.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 52 (9): 1032–42.