Let's Not Reduce Landscaping Requirements for Central El Paso

"Landscape Development Infill Area". Click on image to enlarge.

In an email message to leaders and neighborhood associations in the central El Paso district that she reperesnts, Rep. Susie Byrd writes about the "Landscape Development Infill Area" that reduces required landscaping by 30% - essentially stripping new landscaping requirements for new building projects in the area of town that needs greening-up the most. She writes:

Dear Central Area Neighborhood Associations:

I wanted to make you aware of a change to our landscaping code that will result in new commercial developments in Central having 30% less landscaping than other areas of the City. This change to the code was made yesterday without notification to Central Area Neighborhood Associations or input from these associations. The 30% reduction in landscaping for Central was recommended by the development community and supported by City staff. All three citizen advisory boards who reviewed the changes recommended that the 30% reduction in landscaping for Central be eliminated.

Because of the lack of notification and input from Central Area Neighborhood Associations and because all three citizen advisory boards had voted against it, I urged City Council to postpone action on this section of the landscaping code until such time as Central Area Neighborhood Associations could be advised of the change and have a chance to participate in the decision. Rep. Niland, who made the motion, and Rep. Lilly, who seconded the motion, refused to accept the friendly amendment and the whole ordinance with the 30% reduction in landscaping for Central passed seven to one. I supported other changes in the ordinance but could not support the 30% reduction for Central. Because of this, I was forced to vote against the entire bill.

Some background. We used to ask that developers only landscape 7.5% of their commercial developments, half of what our peer cities in the Southwest ask. In the spring of this year, we changed the code to require 15% of a development be landscaped plus adding trees to the parkway and the frontage buffer to increase shading and comfort for pedestrians. This brought us up to par with our competitor cities in the Southwest. The development community felt like we went too far and so asked for some concessions. They asked us to allow the parkway and frontage buffer landscaping and trees be included in the 15% calculation at a meeting of a Legislative Review Committee (LRC). This seemed like a common sense change. We agreed to expedite the changes as long as all of the citizen advisory boards who provide input in matters related to the Landscape Ordinance had a chance to review the changes. During this LRC meeting, no mention was made of a 30% reduction in landscaping for new commercial developments in Central.

I am not sure at what point this change was added, but I do know that none of the impacted Neighborhood Associations were notified of the change or given a chance to participate in the decision-making.

Rationale for the change. At yesterday’s meeting, City staff told us that the 30% reduction for Central change was requested by the development community and that the rationale for the change was to encourage more commercial investment in Central by reducing the costs to developers. No analysis was provided about how much of a cost reduction this would be. No analysis was provided about what this would look like for these types of commercial developments. No examples were given to demonstrate that this disparate treatment in Central would encourage more of the kind of development we want in Central.

Policy considerations. I get calls from you guys all the time wanting to know how the city can encourage more commercial investment in Central. We want better grocery stores, more restaurants and entertainment and better retail. We are all bothered by the flight of capital out of the Central core and to the edges of town. To combat this, the City has put together a very aggressive set of incentives to encourage this type of development. We have standard administrative waivers to waive setback requirements, parking maximums and other regulatory hurdles that don’t make sense for Central Area development.

But what I hear from you again and again is that you want new development in Central and Downtown to take on the character of the neighborhood. You don’t want eastside suburban development to take over Central. You don’t want strip center development that you would see on Zaragoza to land in Central. That’s why we live in Central. We love the character of Central. The great thing about the landscaping code is that if you build in the character of Central (buildings up to the lot line, parking in the rear), you only have to put in trees in the parkway because you don’t have any area to landscape. You already get a reduction in landscape BUT ONLY IF YOU BUILD TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. If you build in Downtown or Central up to the lot line and respecting the design of the existing neighborhood, your landscaping requirements are minimal.

But if you are bringing suburbia to Central, you used to have to landscape to the same code as all other suburban development. 15%. Why should we be treated any different? But because of the change that Council made yesterday--with no consultation with affected Central neighborhoods--if you are going to build a strip center in Central you only have to provide landscaping for 10.5% of the developable area (that is the 30% reduction). Essentially, City Council provided an incentive to build strip centers in Central that are out of character for our neighborhoods. And they did this all without asking you whether you thought this tradeoff was necessary or in keeping with your values for development in Central.

There might be a chance to have this reconsidered if enough people from Central weigh in with City Council. Rep. Acosta and Rep. Ortega seemed open to consultation with impacted neighborhoods. Rep. Niland and Rep. Lilly seemed especially keen on just passing the ordinance without taking it to the neighborhoods for consideration. Maybe if they hear from enough people they will re-consider.

Let me know what you think about the change to the code as it impacts Central. If you need more information about the change, City staff has said they would be glad to meet to provide information about the change. I could host a meeting.

Hope all is well. Let me know if you have any questions.

Susie

If you agree with Ms. Byrd (and I hope that you do), please contact City representatives and let them know that you want the "Landscape Development Infill Area" portion of the new landscaping code re-visited. Citizens should have know that they are being heard - and not just the development community.

Here's the distinction that developers and some members of Council fail to make: They see landscaping as an expense that deters building and infill in the central corridor. In fact, landscaping – greening up the area – is an investment which will have significant paybacks for business owners, the City and the general wealth and economy of the City.

In a study by the Center for Urban Horticulture trees were found to have a positive impact on consumer behavior. Shoppers were willing to pay more for parking in well-landscaped lots and actually pay more for goods and services – a definite positive force for community wealth and the metropolitan economy. See a graph on product pricing in shopping areas with trees and those without.

Developers, businesses, Chambers of Commerce and City Council members would do well to see that adding landscaping (not subtracting from it) actually encourages business profitability and can lead to an increase of wealth in the City as a whole and, thus, give added revenue to the City itself for services that can further promote the quality of life in El Paso.

Take time to read several studies showing the business benefits of urban landscaping.

Trees Tame Stormwater and Have Many More Benefits

Double click on image to enlarge.

Double click on image to enlarge.

With all of the current "debate" about a new landscape ordinance for the City of El Paso (the brouhaha created by some developers principally Jerry Rubin's River Oaks Properties and their chief attack dog, Richard Williams), it is important to remember the tremendous contribution of trees and why we need more.

The posters above come from the Arbor Day Foundation. Our State Urban Forester, Oscar Mestas, forwarded them to me and others. What is really encouraging is that the link was also sent to me from Open Space chairman Charlie Wakeem who got them from Gonzalo Cedillos the Stormwater Utility Manager for El Paso Water Utilities. He got them from Anai Padilla at EPWU's TecH2O, who I'm sure got them from Oscar. I'm not just illustrating the power of the hyperlink and email, I'm touting the huge positive leadership from some at EPWU.

By the way, to see many more benefits that trees bring to a community, check this list out.

The tweaking that was done to the new landscape ordinance by Planning and Development and the recommendations that now come from the Open Space Advisory Board are reasonable. Just remember this: It's not true that the new landscape ordinance will mean the usage of "billions" of more gallons of water as suggested by Williams. Planning and Development staff made it clear at the Open Space meeting yesterday that "water use would be minimal." Besides, for a little extra water use, one gets many, many more benefits which in some cases will mean less usage of water as in shading houses and buildings and reducing evaporative cooler water consumption. Think also of all of those strip malls on Mesa and Lee Trevino and other thoroughfares that currently contribute to the power of stormwater flooding because of little or no landscaping. I wonder how New Mexico's Green Chamber of Commerce would come down on better landscaping requirements. Hmmm.

Modify the New Landscape Ordinance?

Here’s the issue that is now bubbling up: some developers are asking City Council to amend the recent Landscape Ordinance arguing that the new ordinance will mean huge usages of water and, thus, undermine El Paso’s great conservation efforts. Mr. Richard Williams of Jerry Rubin’s River Oaks Properties has taken the lead on attacking the new ordinance. That new ordinance goes into effect on October 3. The Boards that reviewed the ordinance before (Open Space and Parks and Recreation Advisory Boards) are rushing to review the modifications and make recommendations to Council before September 27^th. It would be best if there could be a 30 day review period.

No doubt, water conservation is key. However, more of the right kind of trees and the right kind of landscaping will reduce water usage, harvest rainwater, and minimize stormwater run-off and damage. When the PSB was first implementing conservation measures long ago, they recognized the fact that trees are critical to reduce urban islands of heat which require massive amounts of heat in a City that uses evaporative coolers – the most affordable cooling by a large segment of the El Paso population. In fact, EPWU’s Desert Plants List is one of the best resources for homeowners, builders and landscapers in El Paso. (Here in another month is a good time to plant and that list is very, very valuable.)

David Kania, the City’s Landscape Plan’s Examiner, reviewed Mr. Williams’ numbers and reported:

“River Oaks is miscalculating what an emitter is to what a drip hose is. Each emitter, whether it is a 2 gallon or 1 gallon per hour has only 6 outlets. So for every three shrubs you are using one emitter and for every tree you are using one and a half to one and three quarters of an emitter. I believe the way they calculated it was based on two full emitters per shrub and eight emitters per tree. In that case you would get four maybe even five hundred percent more.”

Williams has been described as being “very smart” and a “good developer”. But, says a keen observer, he “ just doesn’t ‘get it’, and will absolutely not try anything new. Ever.” You may recall his op-ed piece for the El Paso Times earlier this year in which he attributed high crime rates to Smart Growth/Smart Code. Huh? City Manager, Joyce Wilson, wrote a rebuttal.

Perhaps Mr. Williams has made some wrong assumptions: “we can’t use very low water plants, like natives”, and “We can’t afford to swale for water collection”, and “We can’t collect enough rainwater for cistern collection”, and “We can’t afford to incorporate organic matter into the soil prior to planting”. All of these are strategies that make smarter landscaping possible in a City keen on water conservation.

Still, it is worth seeing if there is some water “going down the drain” although it won’t be as much as Williams has calculated. Perhaps a good trade-off would be requiring a bit less landscaping in exchange for more landscaping whenever there is a request to upgrade an existing structure.

15 Percent!

Beginning in 120 days 15 percent of property areas in new and redevelopments must be landscaped according to an ordinance passed today at City Council. Currently the percentage is just 7.5%.

Planning and Development has worked hard for several months now to put together this new landscape ordinance which puts El Paso on the same par as other comparable southwestern cities such as Tucson and Albuquerque. The plan had been vetted through a number of meetings with all stakeholders. As a member of both the Open Space Advisory Board and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board as well as the Chairman of the Tree Sub-Committee of PRAB, I had been part of two teams of people who recommended that the landscapable area be set at 15% with trees on the parkway at spaces of 30 feet and more trees in a parking lot.

Of course, the El Paso CCC (Chamber of Commerce Cheapskates) opposed the increase in landscapabe area. City of El Paso staff struck a compromise of 9% with them. However, in their presentation to City Council given by Matthew McElroy, staff showed a matrix that revealed the current 7.5%, the compromise of 9% and the OSAB and PRAC (including Tree Sub-Committee) recommendations of 15%. McElroy made it clear that the 15% would simply put us on par with other southwest cities.

CCC (Chamber of Commerce Cheapskates) moaned that businesses would suffer burdensome costs and developers would pass the expenses onto businesses, etc., etc. One CCCer argued that the ordinance would discourage infill and promote sprawl as if CCCers ever opposed sprawl. (Their championship of development in NW El Paso along the TxDOT super highway "Transmountain" and the future new Mesa Avenue to be known as Paseo del Norte has sprawl written all over it.)

Here's what the CCCers don't get: investments in the quality of life of the community attracts new people and better jobs to the City. In turn, these new people and better jobs means bigger markets for their goods and services which, in the long run, means more profit for themselves and greater wealth for the community and its citizens. Invest a little now for more later. Instead, they can only see today's bottom line profit and a need to compete for the paltry few dollars in a community where wealth is not expanding in and to every household.

Fortunately today the City Council by a vote of 6 to 2 saw it differently. It was retiring Council representative, Beto O'Rourke, who made the motion to accept the 15% as recommended by OSAB and PRAB - a percentage made abundantly clear by Mr. McElroy's presentation. "We can aspire to be mediocre or to take steps to be a great City," O'Rourke said as he made his motion. Only Eddie Holguin and Carl Clueless Robinson voted against it.

McElroy's leadership in this whole matter is shared with City Attorney Lupe Cuellar, City Planner Fred Lopez, Planner Shamori Whitt and many others including citizen volunteers who tirelessly serve on boards and committees. Today El Paso won. Perhaps many who currently pay for memberships in the CCC will spend their money more wisely or vote to have Chamber leaders who have the vision of an O'Rourke, an Ortega, a Fred Lopez, Matt McElroy or Charlie Wakeem. For the sake of the commonwealth of the City and the greater profitability of its businesses, let us hope so.