31 May Downtown/Heritage Tree Dilemma

There is a "Save the Trees" rally taking place at noon this Saturday at the former site of the Green Water Treatment Plant. The picture on the Street Rally to Save Heritage Trees facebook page and the wording of this Change.org petition makes it sound like an easy fix to design around the trees, many of which are near the perimeter of the site.

Without knowing too much about the particulars I signed the petition with a statement to the effect that we need to plan around trees better and do proper mitigation, on-site or nearby. Note: Several years ago as a former member and chair of the Urban Forestry Board I became all too familiar with the ongoing removal of protected trees – some because of infill, more often on the perimeter of town and as new subdivisions are built.

Anyway, I did not attend the hearing last week but I thought it was odd that the Austin City Council had voted unanimously to allow the removal of the seven heritage trees in question so I called Council member Chris Riley, who I trust to have as green an angle as anyone on any given issue, particularly downtown living. As I suspected, context is everything, and balancing our various community values, priorities and commitments is…challenging. 

Given the waterfront overlay which caps the height of development near the river (and has had tons of community support), the need for parking (most of which will be underground), as well as the need to place underground utilities, the price established in the RFP and the correlated amount of development allowed, the existing Heritage trees were not going to make it through.  The only real option seems to be starting from scratch with a whole new RFP and specs, but this would likely draw legal action as A LOT of money has been spent to get this far, four years into the process.

A YNN News story says that Trammel Crow agreed to "Integrate Heritage Trees" but I don't think that's quite accurate. Riley shared that Trammel Crow is in full compliance with the the mitigation portion of the Heritage Tree ordinance even though the ordinance was passed two years after the terms of the RFP was established for the development of this property. City Arborist Michael Embisi believes that most of the trees are too old and fragile to survive being moved, but that one is healthy enough to be saved and will be transplanted.

Replacement/Mitigation trees will be planted in the vicinity (something I maintain is very important) and will contribute to creating a contiguous greenway along Shoal Creek, which is indeed a positive environmental asset for plants and animals. Of course this entire development is aimed at creating the kind of walkable mixed-use infill development that many of us have said we desire.

The question I have is "Why wasn't anyone 'speaking for the trees' when the original RFP was being developed?" It's possible that even prior to the heritage tree ordinance that people had noticed there were significant trees on the property and could have built the RFP price and terms to accommodate some or all of the trees.  The issue of wages came up in the late-night hearing as well. How can we build in social and environmental protections we want with City RFPs?

I don't know who has the contract to move the one tree or remove the others but Council Member Riley said he would be happy to work with any groups who would like to find ways to salvage the wood for local building, farming or gardening projects.