This past Wednesday, the Wizard discerned of voices in the wind which brought me news that there was going to be a hearing held at the City Hall Annex concerning the controversial 23 story Ashby high rise project, located at 1717 Bissonnet.
To reiterate the story for gentle readers, the builders purchased property from willing sellers in the affluent and politically influential Southampton neighborhood of inner Houston. The developer then went through the process of getting all necessary City of Houston permits and chipped in money for sewer improvements. Things were going as planned when the certain parties in the neighborhood found out about the project and went bananas, but do read the Southamption residents story first about whether the developer followed the rules on obtaining permits.
The neighborhood kicked their clout into high gear and now Houston is faced with a situation of having to meet the political demands of an affluent neighborhood, whose demands of stopping the project would, on their face, otherwise largely prohibit high rise apartment, town home, or condominium development in residential areas throughout all of Houston.
And so it was that the Wizard left his day job that evening and proceeded to head over to City Hall. I found myself in a "stakeholders meeting", but this was no ordinary stakeholders meeting if this is what you think of as people being stakeholders. The people present at this meeting were the big guns, people (or their representatives) whose opinions count for something in this City. Chairing the meeting was Andy Icken, and Ray Chong was with him. Also present were City Council members Toni Lawrence, Anne Clutterbuck (whose district includes the location of the Ashby high rise), several prominent commercial developers or their representatives, the obviously concerned residential developers, a gentleman representing the newly formed Houstonians for Responsible Growth, and a number of consultant / lobbyists such as former District A City Council member Helen Huey. In other words, these weren't stakeholders (if that is what you would want to call them) who were going to mouth off some uninformed opinion about an important subject. These were people who were very much in the know about a very important debate. Nearly all of the participants were handed out a large packet of images depicting land use maps, ordinance change drafts, notes, and so forth. As it was, the Wizard did not receive a packet as I came late to the meeting, but I kept quiet, observed the unfolding drama, and took notes. Any errors in describing the language or scope of the ordinance are solely the Wizard's responsibility.
To wit, what was being debated are changes to Chapter 45 of the City's ordinances having to do with traffic within the City municipality. Since Houston does not have a zoning ordinance which would otherwise be manipulated to swipe away the property rights of landowners and ban such high rise developments, the primary way in which the problem is to be regulated away or mitigated is via traffic studies which would otherwise supposedly cause a "disproportionate impact" on the community in question. The mitigation envisioned of course would take the form of causing smaller structures being built than those advanced by the developer because of alleged impacts of additional traffic.
Before going any further, one might dwell on the following questions. First, what is the meaning of the phrase disproportionate impact? Secondly, would the mitigation measures wipe out projects all together - an interesting idea since certain people are pushing for a denser urban area?
In his opening remarks, Mr. Icken made it clear early on in the meeting that the new ordinance is nowhere near being close to becoming a fixed ordinance at the present time, but that the changes that had already taken place were major changes from November 2007. He announced that there a number of iterations left before the ordinance was finalized. He told the assembled group that Chapter 45 was not the only ordinance that affects traffic in Houston (this is in fact true). What was desired was a narrowly focused ordinance, with few being affected, specifically areas with high density development.
The Wizard found Mr. Icken's statement to be rather extraordinary, indeed it set the tone for the entire meeting. The reality of the matter is that - yes - the Ashby high rise is in play, but the fact of the matter is that though there are a number of high rises in what could be considered primarily residential areas (again, more on that in a minute), there really are not all that many of them. I drive by two of them every day on my way into work: The Huntingdon and the Inwood Manor at 3711 San Felipe, both of which I should point out are in the heart of River Oaks. In the case of the Inwood, it abuts single lane roads on one side and both are in areas which I would consider to be single family home residential neighborhoods. In other words, what this highly intelligent assembled group was trying to do was do away with something that is a relatively rare occurrence when taken in the whole entirety of the City, and their questioning and tortured deliberations reflected that reality.
Amongst the questions expressed about the rewritten ordinance is whether the Director of Public Works is to decide whether a required traffic study is good or bad? There are supposed to be objective and quantitative measures that are to govern the revised traffic studies that are to be mandated. There is supposed to be predictability in the ordinance. Still, anyone with an inquiring and skeptical mind could easily be left wondering whether such studies could be tossed aside and left to the whims of caprice based on what is expedient from the standpoint of being able to pander to political opportunism.
Amongst the primary filters being deliberated upon are that traffic analyses will have to be filed if there are 70 dwellings per acre. In the packets that were distributed to stakeholder participants, there were pages that showed what the hoped for effects of such filters would be like when applied against a sample of large or high rise structures around town. The page then showed that once all of the filters were applied, then structures like the Ashby high rise would be the only class or type of structure that would be winnowed out and for which alterations or mitigations would have to be put into place.
Mr. Icken asked the rhetorical question, that being "how was it that we picked these numbers?" What he meant was that he was referring to the 70 dwellings per acre figure. The reason was that they were looking at areas that could be considered to be single family residential within a radius of 500 feet around the proposed new high rise development in terms of what would be "substantially impacted" by the new development. A member of the planning department then uttered a phrase which was stated no fewer than four times during the time I was at the meeting, namely that "we just don't have enough data" or "we just have so much data" to make such judgments.
Now one prominent person who criticizes planning writes in page 47 of his most recent book that:
There are several technical barriers to the success of planning. These barriers prevented planning from working in the Soviet Union, and they are just as much of a problem for American planners.
* The Data Problem: Planning requires more data than can be collected in time for it to be useful to planners;
Hmmm. Of course if you are this guy, then the aforementioned fellow who has been discredited so many times is presumably wrong regarding his thoughts on the data problem as well, ergo one might presume that raising such questions like whether there is enough data to make rational plans for something like designing (or in the case of Houston, reshaping) something as complicated as an entire City with millions of people are - well - non issues. Then how do you reconcile what I heard debated at this meeting with what was wrong about the aforementioned observations made by the book author?
Icken went on to admit that - and I kid you not - that "there is no science to choosing the 70 dwellings per acre" standard which the Planning Department chose as its level at which traffic studies are to be mandated.
The questioning started. One person asked the intrepid question whether this ordinance change would apply if there was a fire at an existing site? The answer was that if the structures were to be rebuilt as is, then no, there was to be no traffic studies to be required. If the property were to be rebuilt to higher densities, then permits and traffic studies would be required if they hit the aforementioned levels.
Then one person dropped a bomb: What exactly is a "residential neighborhood?"
Now many people, especially those who live in cities which are strictly and rigidly segregated by harsh zoning ordinances, might laugh at such a question. But this is Houston. If one travels along Washington Avenue, one witnesses single family housing, mixed with town houses and some light industry. One can also witness this along Harrisburg. Clearly some people can deal with nuisances via self buffering, and others will tolerate living in mixed industrial areas if they can obtain cheap housing. This of course flies in the face of zoning theory which often believes that people's buyer or consumer preference bundles will dictate that they will not tolerate such preferences at all.
As to what Icken's answer was as to what constitutes a residential neighborhood, which would be part of the requirement which would trigger a traffic study, the answer was - and I kid you not - "We know one when we see one!" More seriously, the idea is that the Planning department is looking to apply a standard that if 40-60 percent of the areas within 500 feet of the high rises are to be considered residential, then this triggers the traffic analysis requirement.
Despite Icken's amazing admissions regarding the fact that there was no science to choosing the 70 dwellings per acre floor at which traffic analyses were to be required, he did state that the revised ordinance was not designed to control building sizes. One thrust of the ordinance was to analyze peak hour trips in neighborhoods.
Questions were asked as:
1) What constitutes "congested street intersections?" These are to be mandated in traffic studies. Icken stated that a congested street is one where it has reached 90 percent of its rated capacity.
2) How is this ordinance to be reconciled in the mobility planning of the City of Houston as reflected in the CIP (capital improvement plan)?
3) Will the City be "guilty" of allowing more congestion? The answer from Icken is, yes.
4) Will the ordinance not be reasonably consistent with other prominent ordinances, such as the hotel motel ordinance?
5) Does everything in a 500 foot radius circle get subjected to the study? For example, say that a portion of Rice University falls within the 500 radius of the proposed high rise development? Does that mean that all of Rice University gets roped into the traffic analysis study?
6) In a related question, a fellow whom I happened to be seated next to asked what happens if the 500 foot radius of the high rise encloses part of a shopping mall? Does the mall traffic get counted in the study? If so, then how will it be applied?
Answer from the Planning officials? You guessed it: "We don't know yet. We are limited by the lack of data."
7) One person asked what would be the impact of bodies of water?
8) An intriguing situation was brought up by a woman who expressed the issue that organizations such as the Menil Collection and St. Thomas University have housing in their neighborhoods which for tax purposes is considered non-profit, but would these properties be considered residential or non-conforming residential? What would be the status of non-profit entities? Would they be considered commerical, even if they were in areas which were largely residential? She gave the example that there are nuns who have housing who are affiliated St. Thomas University and that there are artists who are temporarily affiliated with the Menil who are housed in buildings owned by both institutions. What would be their status under this revamped ordinance?
This same woman noted that many Inner Loop neighborhoods have apartment complexes mixed in predominantly single family home neighborhoods. That was a perceptive observation, since the Wizard used to live in one of those apartment complexes years ago. How would they be treated under this ordinance?
9) The ordinance is supposed to apply to streets classified as local or collector streets. Questions however were raised as to what is the meaning of words in the ordinance as abut.
So there you are gentle readers. The Wizard decided to leave early since he had spent a long day in productive wizardry already. I found out yesterday that the meeting lasted about another 30-45 minutes after I left. I also discovered that there is a very good reason for why former Mayor Bob Lanier expressed his concern about more planning and regulations. If you are scratching you head and wondering about how the sausage of this ordinance is going to turn out once it is fully ground out, then you should be dismayed to hear that I learned from one meeting attendee that there are no fewer than nineteen other ordinances whose reworkings are in the pipeline! But to quote one interested party:
Road activist Wendell Cox is being brought into Houston next week to talk to Houston City Council members on behalf of the new anti-planning effort led by former Mayor Bob Lanier, developer Richard Weekley, and construction executive Leo Linbeck, Jr. The purpose of the group, called “Houstonians for Responsible Growth,” is to stop what they call “more extensive planning and regulations” in the City of Houston.
Maybe this gentleman can explain to the public which ordinances are amongst the nineteen that are being revamped? What is their scope and how thoroughly are they being debated? After all, there is a supposed February 4, 2008 deadline for the ordinance to be tabled. Hopefully they won't be as drastic as the revisions to Chapter 19 were to groups like the Floodway Coalition. It would seem to me that if nineteen ordinances are being worked on simultaneously, and if those ordinances involve debate like the one I heard Wednesday evening, I too would share Mr. Lanier's concern about the amount (not to mention quality) of regulatory activity that has been taking place at City Hall in recent years. After all, what else are they talking about that we don't know about? After all, the revisions to Chapter 19 hit the Floodway Coalition folks like a bolt out of the blue.
In all, Houstonians should be aware that something rather remarkable has happened in this City. What we are witnessing is a challenge to the current Mayoral administration and Council for their apparent zeal for promulgating rules regarding land use. To be fair, Mayor White continues to insist that his directives are meant to be narrowly focused and that he is not in favor of broad zoning or land use regulatory initiatives. Alas, after witnessing what I saw last Wednesday evening, those assurances are not enough from making it unnerving to wonder about all those other ordinance changes and what they might mean for the future of our Great City.
Wizard
Posted by The Mighty Wizard at January 12, 2008 11:58 PM