City Council Chooses Scenario 1

Click to enlarge.

Today El Paso City Council chose the first of three Dover Kohl proposals for developing the NW, preserving the Transmountain view shed, and reaching a compromise between the old 2005 PSB master plan and the petitioners request for preserving nearly 800 acres in perpetuity. Representative Niland made the motion and Representative Noe seconded it. The motion also carried four Open Space Advisory Board caveats:

1. A conservation easement be used to preserve open space
2. Bridges not box culverts be used to cross arroyos
3. More pocket parks considered and not large neighborhood or regional parks
4. Encroachment into arroyos be minimized to the extent possible by lining with linear parks and that arroyos not be lined with concrete.

A fifth caveat added by OSAB at its special meeting last week (that Paseo del Norte not be connected to Transmountain provided that the Fire Department can provide safe access to the neighborhood without that connection) was not included.


A no-build option was the favorite of most of the people at Council from the environmental community. Scenario 2 was seen as an acceptable compromise by many of them and was the preferred option by Representatives Lilly, Byrd and Ortega. In fact, Ann Lilly courageously championed 2 or a hybrid of 1 and 2 for this land which is in her district. In the end by a vote of 5 to 3, the motion for 1 with the caveats passed.


Many leaving Council today were unhappy. Struck by that reaction I told a KFOX reporter that I believed that the petition will probably go forward. No-build or at best Scenario 2 were the only real options.  The Board of the Franklin Mountains Wilderness Coalition will meet tomorrow evening and, no doubt, decide whether to go forward with a petition to put the matter before voters in a referendum. 


As a member of the environmental/conservation community, the author of the petition and co-Chairman of OSAB, here are my initial reactions:


I too would be very happy that all land is preserved or just a bit developed with nothing developed north of Transmountain. For many reasons (preserving the beauty, encouraging eco-tourism and recreation, preserving more natural space and habitat, gaining the benefits (services) of natural open space, sustaining our water future - the most important and more soon on that), no-build or Scenario 2 made the most sense to me. 


However, I also think that we petitioners should declare victory and go home as they say. All 3 plans preserve the view shed. The motion called for a conservation easement. Smart growth prevailed. We wouldn't have even gotten to where we did today without the petition. Besides, development above Transmountain and the extension of Paseo del Norte may never in fact occur. Future action can curtail it.


Which means, of course, we can't really go home. Vigilance is always, always necessary. First, there is a need to be sure that all of the i's are dotted and all of the t's crossed on today's decision. Second, animal corridors must be secured as well as safe access to the State Park. As Dr. Bonart rightly pointed out today, an access road  above Transmountain as clandestinely (and we found that out today) planned by the PSB in concert with TxDOT cannot be a reality for 15 years! In less than 2, people will have to cross freeway type traffic to enter or exit the park! Another access must be found and there are alternatives. Finally, we must stay vigilant about development north. 


There were many other positives about today and about the process which led to today. City Planning Director, Matthew McElroy, said to me after the meeting that the debate today was among 3 smart growth plans. A year ago the debate would have been about conventional development. Conservatives such as Carl Robinson voted for a smart growth plan. Representative Lilly really stepped up to the plate and the environmental community should not only thank her but reconsider (as I did months ago) our stance on this past election. Ann is just a fine, fine lady.


The entire process has made Council members realize that they must re-evalutate their relationship with the PSB and that probably the City and not the PSB should do land planning. Without going into detail, the EPWU leadership and the PSB (which has no accountability to the public) has lost a great amount of capital with this one. Eyes are opened. Things won't be the same. A non-accountable PSB is not good nor is it good that the zeitgeist of that Board is typified by the pompous arrogance of Dr. Schoephoerster's stance that those with a difference of opinion from his own should be disenfranchised. It was this arrogance that Lilly mentioned at Council today. (My Quaker forebears could not serve in Parliament because they were non-conformists; women once could not vote; people of color were enslaved.)


Representative Byrd is right. People just don't want to build there and it is the voice of the people that should count. This is an issue that won't go away. Nobody could state today any advantage for building north of Transmountain. Many pointed out the disadvantages - higher taxes and rates for additional City services and infrastructure maintenance . . . scarcity of water and the threat that only a few will control supply of water in the future - a particularly nasty threat without a PSB that is either accountable or has a clue. So, vigilance means watching any attempts at future development north of Transmountain in the future. A plan and a scenario are just that - a plan and a scenario. It will be good to declare all the land inexpedient so the City has total say about a Conservation Easement and not the EPWU/PSB.


I'm counting blessings.


I'm also thinking about the rest of the City owned land north of Transmountain.