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. 

Free City Planning Lecture Next Tuesday

Click to enlarge image.

As part of a three day workshop on SmartCode, Mr. Jeff Speck will be giving a free public lecture on Tuesday, November 29th, from 7 to 8 p.m. at the Main Public Library, 501 N. Oregon. (Map). Jeff will do a book signing after the lecture. He is the co-author of Suburban Nation and the Smart Growth Manual.

Bottom line: Don't miss this one!

For more information, contact City of El Paso Deputy Director of Planning, Matthew McElroy, at 915-541-4193 or mcelroymx@elpasotexas.gov.

Petitioners, Council and Others Will Work Together

Yesterday, the City Council considered the ordinance referred to them by petitioners to protect the Transmountain Scenic Corridor. The decision was to postpone a decision for 90 days during which time planning and discussion will take place. Even if Council had decided to support the entire petition ordinance (and the votes simply weren't there), there still would have had to have been time to determine the mechanism of preservation.

In my prepared remarks I made it clear that there was room to "compromise" in good faith:

Address About the Petition to Preserve the Scenic Corridor

The process for arriving at some kind of win/win solution was set forth by Matthew McElroy of the Planning and Development Department. It will include rezoning the Westside Master Plan to Smart Code, determining the essential area of the view shed of the Scenic Corridor for a conservation easement (or other instrument of permanent preservation) and taking a good look at Paseo del Norte. Slides 7 and 9 spell out the process:

Process for Conservation Discussion

The process does have the advantages of first and foremost establishing a permanent preservation for the Corridor (this is a HUGE win), moving to Smart Code for the entire Westside Master Plan which will mean more open space, and possibly finding a better solution to Paseo del Norte that everyone can live with.

To be sure, petitioners can now go out and pursue a petition to make their ordinance a referendum in a City election. So, if the process fails to meet the principles of the petition (as I mention in my remarks) or if some engage in the process in anything but good faith, then a new petition drive will be mounted immediately.

On the other hand, I saw just about every Council member wanting to find a good win/win solution. The process allows for a chance to preserve and do more. Dover Kohl has already been contacted to help with the process.

I will give more in depth information in my next blog post.

Where We Are on the Petition Ordinance

Click on the image to enlarge.

Here is where things are today with the certified petition:

This past Tuesday it was “introduced” to City Council. There was some question about 14 acres of the land described in the petition having already been conveyed by the City to TxDOT. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, made it quite clear that the petition was perfectly okay and the slight variance does nothing to impeach it. All the petitioner leaders whom I have spoken with have no difficulty with an ordinance that accommodates for the conveyance of those few acres in the past.

September 20^th has been set for Council to make a final decision on the ordinance proposed by the petitioners.

As the ordinance came closer to being introduced, the usual backdoor politics began. For the first time since the entire debate about preserving land on the Westside began, Ed Archuleta signaled that he was willing to make some compromises. His “compromise” still would exclude 314 acres. (See the map.) 22 of those acres are stuck in the middle of what would be conserved as open space and would be for low cost housing. (I guess people will have to “fly” over the open space to get to their homes. Of course, PSB’s suggestion is really a ploy to open “open space”.)

When I asked Nick Costanzo what was so vital about these few 314 acres, I didn’t get a straight answer. Indeed, there was the tired old attempt to say that our water rates are kept low as if land sales really count and as if EPWU’s incremental block billing system doesn’t simply give an appearance of low rates. In between Nick’s hemming and his hawing was the sense that leaving Paseo del Norte where it is currently planned is sacred to the PSB and their plans. (I believe that it is sacred to them because it is sacred to their developer – dare I say – “masters”.)

Mayor John Cook’s sincere hope is that an alternative can be worked out using the Open Space Advisory Board as the venue. Indeed Costanzo was at OSAB’s meeting yesterday for that very reason.

TxDOT was also there to give an update about the final changes that they have made to their Transmountain plans for which they have a FONSI. When asked whether they would still build the Paseo del Norte interchange even if Council or an election should exclude the building of Paseo through the Scenic Corridor, Mr. Ray Davolina of TxDOT, very nicely said that it made no difference. They have their money, their plan and their green light to build. That is what they are going to do. They still have no real safe means of getting people into and out of the State Park except a frontage road on the north side of Transmountain that could route people to the Paseo del Norte interchange. I guess that, if Paseo itself is not ever built to connect with the interchange, then that interchange becomes a very expensive way to provide safe access and egress from the Park. TxDOT’s plan still allows making a left turn into the Park for cars going east – but soon that turn will be against two lanes of traffic with an estimate of 70,000 vehicles per day. So strap on your rockets – unless a Sierra Club lawsuit stops the folly completely.

OSAB adopted a proposal that recommends that discussion begin that might (and I emphasize “might”) lead to an alternative to the petitioners’ ordinance – a discussion to be worked through Dover Kohl (this still has to be approved) and Planning and Development and most certainly will include the PSB. At least now the PSB can discuss matters in the open. The public just needs to be aware that they will say just about anything to manipulate the outcome. Just yesterday Costanzo said that they would build a safer road to the Park. Huh!? Now they will have to tell the public why 314 acres are so important.

To be sure, as a member of OSAB, I voted for the proposal. (And note that twice before OSAB has voted for all 792 acres even when shown a map similar to the one Mr. Costanzo revealed yesterday.) The proposal to discuss does not change the fact that it is up to petitioners whether they want to discuss further or whether they want a straight vote from Council and will follow-up with their intention to do another petition asking for an election if their ordinance is voted down. The proposal simply gives another means for land to be conserved in perpetuity as open space. In fact, a perpetual conservation (one accomplished by a Conservation Easement) entered into immediately by the City with a land conservation organization such as Frontera Land Alliance is essential to preserving the open space. Anything short of that will not do. The fact that City Council and City Planner, Matthew McElroy, have already made it clear that the rest of the NW Master Plan will be done in compliance with Smart Code is also a good thing. Smart Growth is the way the City is going so expect under-the-table push back from some.

Besides conservation of the open space in perpetuity, two more conditions are essential and not debateable. First, any fees associated with the easement for surveying, administration, a conservator shall be paid for by the City (or PSB). And, second, any infrastructure that must be built should be at a minimum and limited to utility needs, with Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development standards including proper re-vegetation.

One more thing. Any discussion to be had must begin and move forward quickly.

With respect to preserving the Scenic Corridor, keep in mind one historical fact: the very first petition (which was not written as an ordinance) which was signed by 2,000+ people and so far another 1,300 people online calls for the preservation of all of the land in the NW Master Plan. The current petition which petitioners have legally brought before City Council is the compromise with a land description that calls for conserving 792 acres and the condition that no major roadway (Paseo for example) can be built through the land. That’s the compromise.

By the way, you, your friends, your family – even unregistered voters or newcomers – can sign the petition to conserve all of the land in the NW Master Plan. Sign it online. You can even comment. Several hundred have signed it since I have begun to publish the fact that it is still online.

Please comment on this blog post of this e-letter. It will be powerful to hear others speak out. Also, I invite anyone – anyone – to submit anything about any of this subject to me for posting on the blog. I will even post anything written by Mr. Archuleta, a developer, anyone. Elpasonaturally believes in talking about things in the open. If our debates and conversations all were done with transparency, then there would be much more trust.