CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

YSLETA NORTHEAST MISSION VALLEY AUSTIN HIGH SCHOOL EASTON PLACE SAN JACINTO PLAZA NORTHGATE PIEDRAS DRIVE RIM ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD MADELINE DRIVE MUNDY PARK BURGESS HIGH SCHOOL SUNSET HEIGHTS WESTSIDE JACKSON CORK ARROYO PARK HUECO TANKS STATE PARK FRANKLIN MOUNTAINS PLAN EL PASO PARK TOM LEA PARK LORETTO ACADEMY CATHEDRAL HIGH GRANDVIEW OREGON CORRIDOR SNOW HEIGHTS PARK KIDD FIELD FORT BLISS AMERICAS HIGH SCHOOL ALTHEA PARK KERN PLACE HOUSTON PARK MISSION HILLS SOUTH RIDGECREST BANDOLERO TARASCAS LOMAS DEL REY LAKEHURST FESTIVAL HILLS LAMBKA PARK FALCON HILLS ROSEDALE FARMS MISSION VALLEY HILLS HIGH RIDGE CRESTMONT PARK MESA BELVIDERE BEAR CENTRAL RIDGE REMCON MONTOYA HEIGHTS THREE HILLS SUNSET VIEW WEST GREEN BORDERLAND MARWOOD PARK RIVERBEND EASTWOOD MEMORIAL PARK ARMSTRONG FIELD HIGHLAND PARK MILITARY HEIGHTS AUSTIN TERRACE EASTSIDE FIVE POINTS LOGAN HEIGHTS SUNRISE ASARCO NATIONS TOBIN PARK TERRACE HILLS MINER VILLAGE SAMBRANO DOLPHIN PARK APOLLO HEIGHTS PLEASANT HILLS TIMBERWOLF WASHINGTON PARK STILES GARDEN LAFAYETTE PLACE SEGUNDO BARRIO BUENA VISTA COLLINGSWORTH GARDENS SUN VALLEY RIVERSIDE PARK PARKLAND CLARDY FOX MEDINA DELTA PARK

⬚ figure

VOLUME I: CITY PATTERNS

PLAN EL PASO:

A Policy Guide for El Paso for the next 25 years and beyond

was created by:

Mayor John Cook

City Council Ann Morgan Lilly, District 1 Susie Byrd, District 2 Emma Acosta, District 3 Carl L. Robinson, District 4 Dr. Michiel Noe, District 5 Rachel Quintana, District 5 (former) Eddie Holguin Jr., District 6 Steve Ortega, District 7 Cortney Niland, District 8 Beto O’Rourke, District 8 (former)

City Manager & Deputies Joyce A. Wilson, City Manager David R. Almonte, Health & Safety Deborah G. Hamlyn, Community Services Jane K. Shang, Mobility Services William F. Studer Jr., Finance & Management Support Services

City Plan Commission

Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee

Planning and Economic Development Mathew McElroy, Deputy Director Carlos Gallinar, Comprehensive Plan Manager Fred Lopez, Comprehensive Plan Manager Shamori Rose Whitt, Smart Growth Planner

Dover, Kohl & Partners Town Planning Victor Dover Joseph Kohl Jason King Pamela Stacy James Dougherty Megan McLaughlin Chris Podstawski Andrew Georgiadis Kenneth Garcia Jennifer Garcia Justin Falango Elma Felix Amy Groves Andrew Zitofsky Danay Morales Sofia Villanueva Eduardo Castillo

IPS Group Urban Planning Natalie Ruiz

Spikowski Planning Associates Urban Planning Bill Spikowski

City of Fayetteville Implementation Advisor Karen Minkel

Charlier Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning Jacob Riger Jennifer Valentine

Hall Planning & Engineering Pedestrian Transportation Planning Rick Hall Tracy Hegler

The Street Plans Collaborative Multimodal Transportation & Coding, Web Outreach Anthony Garcia Mike Lydon

CEA Group Infrastructure & Capital Improvements, Local Expertise Jorge L. Azcarate Jorge Grajeda

Urban Advisors Economic Analysis Ed Starkie Glenn Kellogg

Zimmerman/Volk Associates Housing Market Analysis Todd Zimmerman Laurie Volk

w-ZHA Downtown Market Analysis Sarah Woodworth

Institute for Policy and Economic Development REMI Projections Updates

Chael, Cooper & Associates Architecture Marice Chael

Sottile & Sottile Architecture Christian Sottile

UrbanAdvantage Computer Visualizations Steve Price

Berger Singerman Land Use Law Sam Poole

Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta Land Use Law Cindy Crosby

...and thousands of El Paso residents

Adopted March 6, 2012

Cover Buildings: O.T. Bassett Tower, Henry C. Trost; Overland Street Rooming House, Architect Unknown; Roberts-Banner Building, Henry C. Trost; Hotel Paso del Norte (Camino Real), Henry C. Trost; San Elizario Mission, Architect Unknown

TABLE OF CONTENTS

--- THIS VOLUME ---

VOLUME I: CITY PATTERNS

City Form and Community Character

i. Preface & Introduction

1. Regional Land Use Patterns
2. Urban Design
3. Downtown
4. Transportation
5. Public Facilities
6. Housing

---

VOLUME II: COMMUNITY LIFE

Prosperity and Quality of Life

7. Economic Development
8. Historic Preservation
9. Health
10. Sustainability
11. Border Relations
12. Fort Bliss

Implementation and Appendices

A. Implementation Matrix B. Process C. Economic Development Reports D. Community Design Manual E. Charter of the New Urbanism F. Glossary

⬚ figure

LOVE EL PASO.

PLAN EL PASO.

PLAN THE FUTURE. NOW.

---

www.planelpaso.org

PREFACE

A BETTER LIFE, EVERY GENERATION

In 1925 the City Plan of El Paso was adopted, the City’s first plan of comprehensive scope. Between the City’s founding in 1873 and the adoption of the 1925 plan, El Paso had progressed from a frontier village to become one of the most prominent cities in the Southwest. El Paso was a convergence point for five major railroads with connections to all major cities in the US and Mexico, a center of industrial and manufacturing production, and a headquarters for international banking and business. El Paso’s Downtown exemplified the ideals of the City Beautiful movement with wonderful public places and proud architecture connected to streetcar suburbs with ample public parks and tree-lined streets. El Paso was also the busiest port of entry on the southern US border as Mexican laborers joined the ranks of a workforce that would help build the nation. With the 1925 plan as a cornerstone document, El Paso would in time have the highest per capita income in the region, the tallest concrete buildings, showpiece public parks, and one of the nation’s best mass transit systems.

El Paso’s assets in 1925 remain vital components of the City’s present economy. The purposes of the plan written over eighty-five years ago remain relevant today: “to promote the convenience of the population; to improve health conditions; to provide more liberally for public recreation; to add to the comforts of urban life; to beautify the City and its surroundings; to develop earnestly all cultural elements in community life; and to give the City of El Paso such distinction among cities that it will acquire new and wider fame.”

Today, El Paso is part of the largest international metroplex in the world and a center for cross-border manufacturing and distribution. Some credit for this achievement is due to the 1925 plan which had the foresight to foster the “sister city” relationship with Ciudad Juárez. The Paso del Norte region includes 2.2 million residents, a region comparable in size to San Antonio, Sacramento, Pittsburgh, or Cincinnati. Over 60 Fortune 500 companies have offices in El Paso. Despite a world-wide economic slowdown, El Paso’s economy has continued to outperform other US metropolitan regions. Fort Bliss, the outpost base that only began to grow after Pancho Villa’s New Mexico raid in 1916, has become one of the county’s chief military installations. In addition to the economic engines of industry and defense, new industries have arisen. The Medical Center of the Americas promises to be a national hub of medical technology.

At the same time, a city is more than its commercial and economic activities. El Paso thrives in the modern era while still preserving its social and cultural foundations. Families are still the basis of the community, churches are well attended, holidays both Mexican and American are celebrated with fresh tamales, and children grow up with piñatas and papel picado. Residents who have migrated from Mexico, especially, recognize that economic advancement is achieved only through successive generations. Though the 19th largest city in the United States, El Paso consistently ranks as one of the safest cities in the United States by virtue of these familial ties. Residents expressed a desire for generations of families to continue living and advancing economically in the same place. This kind of economic diversification is a major goal of the plan.

⬚ figure

Troops once stationed at Fort Bliss increasingly choose Northeast El Paso to retire, executives from international companies overseeing maquila operations live in the foothills of the Franklin Mountains, the Tigua Indians preserve their culture as an urban tribe in Ysleta, and students travel from throughout the region to attend the University of Texas at El Paso and the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. Many people have come through El Paso; “El Paso” means “the pass,” a place to go through. Yet people from a diversity of backgrounds and places of origin continue to choose to make El Paso their permanent home.

Increasingly, El Paso’s historic competitive advantages – comparatively low labor, land, and energy costs – are less an asset as industry continues to relocate outside of the United States. Companies today compete for quality human capital and the new race among cities is to provide the high quality of life which attracts and retains skilled labor. In contrast to periods of its history when some defined El Paso as a singularly low-wage city, the 1925 plan envisioned a global city, and prioritized goals necessary to compete on an international level: convenience, health, recreation, comfort, beauty, culture, and community – in a phrase, quality of life.

Plan El Paso recognizes quality of life, in addition to transportation and education, as foundational goals which will help the City to compete in every sphere. These foundational goals require a sustained commitment. Plan El Paso coordinates policies at all scales using the same overall principles so that the plan can operate cohesively and guide the efforts of the City’s many stakeholders and decision makers at every level.

PLAN EL PASO

The Scale of the Region

The plan recognizes that El Paso is part of a larger region and that the fates of both El Paso and Juárez are inextricably linked. El Paso is also a major US metropolis whose operations affect air quality, water quality, and global climate change. The City’s economic strategies, governmental cooperation, housing policy, and physical planning must reflect regional thinking. In terms of energy policy El Paso must think globally.

El Paso is a metropolis made up of many centers and neighborhoods which should be the focus for new infill development to spur economic reinvestment, repair urban fabric, capitalize on existing infrastructure and service investments, and reclaim abandoned areas. By focusing energies within the City’s existing boundaries over peripheral expansion, the City can conserve environmental resources like water and energy, and promote preservation of critical arroyos and farmland. Where expansion is necessary, new development should be organized as coherent places with an integrated mix of jobs and housing.

The Scale of the Neighborhood, District, and Corridor

In recent years health problems such as obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, and the maladies associated with social alienation have become a normal response to a built-environment that does not allow walking or facilitate human interaction. The young and the elderly of El Paso, especially, have been left behind by an urban forms that necessitate driving long distances. The plan proposes strategies to bring more of the activities of daily living within walking distance and a framework of transportation alternatives including transit and bicycle systems. Encouraging walkability helps create healthy life styles. Building complete places that enable neighbors to know each other will help create and retain close-knit communities.

The Scale of the Block, Street, and Building

The plan describes changes in the way streets have been planned and designed throughout the City’s history. Streets that were the true public realms of El Paso in 1925 became barriers to community life when the singular function of moving traffic triumphed over all other purposes. Streets are now considered merely segments between two points rather than important places in their own right. What the 1925 plan did for the design, functionality and inclusiveness of the City’s parks, Plan El Paso seeks to achieve for streets, those other great shared spaces of city life. Interconnected networks of streets that are safe, comfortable, and interesting will encourage walking, reduce reliance on the automobile, and reduce climate-changing pollutants.

The plan recognizes the indispensability of beauty, not as something separate and apart from life like pictures in a gallery, but beauty in homes, neighborhoods, civic buildings, streets, and public spaces. In this way Plan El Paso aims not to return to a

⬚ figure

vanished time, but rather to grow a choiceworthy contemporary City based on cherished and enduring values. The plan revives the idea that additions to the built-environment must be functional and long-lasting but also delightful and attractive. Plan El Paso recognizes that design matters.

Planning in Public

The 1925 City Plan of El Paso is often referred to as the Kessler Plan because the project was headed by George E. Kessler, a renowned city planner and landscape architect. While Kessler lent his wisdom, foresight, and prestige to the plan, a more lasting effect on the City may have been made by Walter Stockwell, who assisted Kessler in creating the plan, and stayed in El Paso to serve 25 years with the City as Plan Engineer and Secretary of the Plan Commission. The 1962 Plan for the City credits Stockwell with keeping the “plan alive and making the plan work.”

Toward a similar end, Plan El Paso deputized the entire City as citizen planners through a series of hands-on public design charrettes which included over eight weeks of intense community exercises and policy discussions to generate the plan vision. This process was followed by over a year of regular meetings with a citizen City Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) to refine the draft plan. A project website received over 40,000 visitors and provided an online forum for plan discussions. The plan process received bilingual coverage in local and national media. Plan drafts were made available to the public and special presentations and meetings were held to discuss the plan before the formal process for adoption was initiated.

Plan El Paso was created in El Paso and the best ideas came from El Pasoans. As a reward for undertaking this effort and persevering in its implementation, El Pasoans will one day remember themselves as the authors of the plan as well as the beneficiaries of the plan’s accomplishments.

INTRODUCTION

HOW TO USE THE PLAN

Plan El Paso, the City of El Paso’s Comprehensive Plan, provides the basis for El Paso’s regulations and policies that guide its physical and economic development. Plan El Paso establishes priorities for public action and direction for complementary private decisions. Plan El Paso contains illustrative plans, diagrams, maps, and pictures to make its concepts clear and accessible to City officials, residents, developers, community groups, and other stakeholders.

This Comprehensive Plan provides a flexible framework that can be updated, revised, and improved upon over time to stay relevant to the issues the City must confront as well as the ambitions the City chooses to pursue. This plan can serve as a tool to evaluate new development proposals and direct capital improvements and to guide public policy in a manner that ensures that El Paso continues to be the community that its citizens desire it to be.

The plan is divided into elements. Each element concludes with goals and policies that set broad policy directions and identify specific actions that will enhance the City’s quality of life, respect its natural environs, and support complementary economic growth and development.

Each element of the plan contains four sections:

1. Current Conditions: A discussion of existing circumstances about both the physical City and current City policy;
2. Community Concerns: Consensus concerns expressed by community members as part of the public involvement process of meetings, charrettes, and interviews that were conducted early in the planning process.
3. Strategies for Addressing Community Concerns: Policy discussions and recommendations with illustrative plans and renderings that articulate strategies to be accomplished through City actions and partnerships among local governmental agencies, private sector businesses, community organizations, and neighborhood residents.
4. Goals and Policies: Each goal summarizes the desired end-state for a particular subject based on the community’s vision. Policies identify implementation actions and the principles that form the basis for City regulations and procedures and for desired actions by the greater community.

Relationship to Study Area Plans

Over the past decade, the City of El Paso has developed special study area plans that deal with unique community and neighborhood issues. The creation of these study area plans was called for by the City’s 1999 Plan for El Paso and they have been developed in close coordination with local residents.

⬚ figure

This new Comprehensive Plan does not supersede these plans. They will remain in effect except for any provisions that may conflict with this new plan, until such times as the plans are amended or repealed by the City Council. This Comprehensive Plan attempts to integrate social, economic, aesthetic, and environmental issues described within the study area plans into physical manifestations, demonstrated in illustrative plans, that will result in increasingly livable communities. Additional special area plans may also be created and adopted as amendments to this Comprehensive Plan.

Plan Implementation

This Comprehensive Plan is intended to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of the City. Here are some practical ways to ensure that future activities are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan:

• Annual Work Programs and Budgets: The City Council and individual City departments should be cognizant of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan when preparing annual work programs and budgets.
• Development Approvals: The approvals process for development proposals, including rezoning and subdivision plats, should be a central means of implementing the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning regulations (Title 20) and the subdivision regulations (Title 19) should be updated in response to regulatory strategies presented in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Capital Improvement Plans: The City’s capital improvement plans (CIP) and long-range utility, and transportation plans should be prepared consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use policies and infrastructure recommendations (water, sewer, stormwater, transportation, and parks/recreation). Major new improvements that are not

reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, and which could dramatically affect the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations, should be preceded by a Comprehensive Plan update.

• Economic Incentives: Economic incentives should carry out Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Geographic areas identified by the illustrative plans should have high priorities for incentives and public/private partnerships.

• Private Development Decisions: Property owners and developers should consider the strategies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan in their own land planning and investment decisions. Public decision-makers will be using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide in their development-related deliberations.

• Future Interpretations: The City Council should call upon the City Plan Commission to provide interpretation of major items that are unclear or are not fully addressed in the Plan. In formulating an interpretation, the Commission may call upon outside experts and other groups for advice. Minor items that require interpretation should be handled by the appropriate agency as it follows the Plan.

Overall Goals of the Plan

Through the charrette process and meetings with public officials, the following general goals have been formulated for the City of El Paso:

• Regional Land Use Patterns: Encourage infill development within the existing City over peripheral expansion to conserve environmental resources, spur economic investment, repair social fabric, reduce the cost of providing infrastructure and services, and reclaim abandoned areas.

• Urban Design: Incentivize development projects of exemplary location and design throughout the City.

• Downtown: Direct public funding and private development of exemplary design to the Downtown where it will have economic and social benefits shared by the entire City.

• Transportation: The City of El Paso wishes to become the least car-dependent city in the Southwest through meaningful travel options and land-use patterns that support walkability, livability, and sustainability. Over time, El Paso will join the ranks of the most walkable and transit-rich metropolitan areas in the country.

• Public Facilities: Provide community services and facilities that meet the physical, educational, and recreational needs of all segments of the City's community.

⬚ figure

• Housing: To provide housing in El Paso through complete, connected neighborhoods containing quality, affordable, and accessible choices to serve all income levels and age groups.

• Economic Development: Build a foundation for economic prosperity that nurtures an atmosphere of innovation, increases quality of life to attract national and international talent, offers high-quality infrastructure, improves education and workforce development, and increases tourism.

• Historic Preservation: Preserve, renew, and evolve historic buildings, districts, and landscapes for the use and enjoyment of future generations.

• Health: Improve the overall physical and mental health of El Paso citizens by increasing the quality of life in the region.

• Sustainability: Secure the viability of environmental resources for El Paso’s people, flora, and fauna so that future generations may experience a constantly improving environment that is always more resilient than that of the previous generation.

• Border Relations: El Paso will be a world class, highly competitive international border community that draws trade, technology, and tourism to its cultural, geographic, and environmental attractions through unparalleled interregional and binational cooperation.

• Fort Bliss: The City and Fort Bliss shall continue to grow together in a way that is mutually beneficial.

FACTS ABOUT EL PASO

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Source: US Census Bureau

POPULATION TRENDS

Sources: US Census Bureau, City of El Paso Planning Division, Ciudad Juárez municipal website

POPULATION OF MUNICIPALITIES

Sources: US Census Bureau, Texas Almanac

ETHNICITY IN CITY OF EL PASO

Source: US Census Bureau

⬚ figure

PUBLIC EDUCATION

HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN CITY OF EL PASO

Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009

HOUSEHOLD SIZE IN CITY OF EL PASO

Source: US Census Bureau

OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS IN 2010

Source: US Census Bureau

MANUFACTURING

Where: 95% of manufacturing employment in the region takes place in Ciudad Juárez, which has 40 industrial parks.

Unique Factors: El Paso and Ciudad Juárez pioneered the twin-plant maquila industry, allowing international manufacturing facilities in Mexico.

Source: El Paso REDCo

RAIL FREIGHT

• El Paso is served by the Union Pacific, Ferromex, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad companies.
• 15-20% of imports/exports to Mexico pass through El Paso.
• 13% of US goods transported by rail pass through El Paso.

FORT BLISS PERSONNEL

Source: Fort Bliss

FRANKLIN MOUNTAINS STATE PARK

AGRICULTURE IN EL PASO COUNTY

Source: USDA's Census of Agriculture for 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2007

⬚ figure

Major Crops Harvested in El Paso County between 1987 to 2007

⬚ figure

REGIONAL LAND USE PATTERNS 1

Overall Goal: Encourage infill development within the existing City over peripheral expansion to conserve environmental resources, spur economic investment, repair social fabric, reduce the cost of providing infrastructure and services, and reclaim abandoned areas.

"THE INTRICATE ORDER OF CITIES - MANIFESTATION OF THE FREEDOM OF COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF PEOPLE TO MAKE AND CARRY OUT COUNTLESS PLANS - IS IN MANY WAYS A GREAT WONDER."

• JANE JACOBS

CURRENT CONDITIONS

EL PASO’S OUTWARD EXPANSION

When first incorporated in 1873, El Paso consisted of only 2.2 square miles from the Rio Grande north to Downtown. A railroad from Albuquerque arrived soon after in 1881 on its way to San Antonio, followed by a railroad to Mexico City which opened in 1884. These railroads began their long contribution to the region’s prosperity.

El Paso expanded in small steps until the 1950s when 19 separate annexations added 90 square miles of developable land. El Paso’s northeast portion was added in 1953, the Westside was added in 1954, and much of the Westside was added in 1955.

The 1970s saw another growth spurt when 24 more annexations added an additional 120 square miles. This expansion included most of the land between George Dieter Drive and today’s Loop 375, plus the Franklin Mountains and most other vacant land north to the New Mexico state line. The Castner Range, a former military training and weapons firing area on the Eastside of the mountain, is an exception to this expansion.

Annexations slowed beginning in the 1980s, however expansion filled out the current City boundaries east of Loop 375 with the exception of several skipped-over tracts. Land was also annexed in the Upper Valley north of Country Club Road.

⬚ figure

Decade in which land was annexed into the City of El Paso.

Regional Land Use Patterns

Current Conditions

Despite the rapid outward expansion of El Paso’s municipal boundary, actual development of land proceeded deliberately. Wildly speculative land sales were rampant in eastern El Paso County from the 1960s until 1981 when the Federal Trade Commission ordered a halt to high-pressure sales tactics. During that same period, development within the City took place in small increments immediately northeast and east of established neighborhoods. In the 1970s new development began on the Westside as well.

The map below indicates the decade when tracts within the City limits were subdivided. Comparing this map to the previous page, it is clear that annexation of land can pre-date actual development by decades or longer. Annexation is usually the first step toward obtaining water and sewer service from El Paso, a critical precondition to development of land. In recent years El Paso has occasionally agreed to provide water and sewer service to new subdivisions without annexation, a trend that threatens the City’s historic orderly pattern of expansion.

⬚ figure

Decade in which land in El Paso was subdivided for urban development.

EL PASO’S HISTORIC STREETCAR SYSTEM

A lasting imprint on El Paso was created by an extensive system of streetcars. The earliest streetcars, beginning in 1882, were mule-drawn. Electric streetcars began running in 1902, and the first rubber-tired bus appeared in 1925. The last streetcar, an international line that ran a circular loop that crossed over into Ciudad Juárez on Stanton Street and back north on El Paso Street, ended service in 1974.

In 1973 the Juárez Line carried over 10,000 passengers a day. The length of the three mile route to Mexico was equally divided in the two cities. El Paso was one of only six cities in the world that provided international service. The streetcars were reportedly well preferred to the buses which slowly began to replace them. Hundreds of participants in the public meetings recommended the reestablishment of streetcars in El Paso and, in time, the relinking of the two countries via the Juárez Line.

Like the freeways that came later, the streetcar network provided easy access to land in neighborhoods outside the Downtown. Businesses and workplaces often located along streetcar lines which promised permanent convenience for employees and customers. Today’s bus routes often follow the major streetcar routes.

⬚ figure Furthest extent of El Paso streetcar network

Regional Land Use Patterns

Current Conditions

PRE-WORLD WAR II NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS El Paso’s neighborhoods were laid out in a similar pattern from the City’s founding until the Great Depression. Automobiles had begun to appear in the 1920s but they had only minor influences on development patterns. All of El Paso’s historic neighborhoods were created during this time period.

The photographs and descriptions below explain the pattern of development during this time period, which was oriented to people moving about on foot and, later, using streetcars. A typical lot during this time was 50 feet wide and 120 feet deep. Today these neighborhoods average about 4.3 dwelling units per acre.

Neighborhood Structure Blocks in pre-World War II neighborhoods were small and generally rectangular (with exceptions such as the hillsides in Sunset Heights and Kern Place). Alleys provided access to garages and an out-of-sight path for utility lines. Streets were highly interconnected and there was rarely a clear pattern as to which streets would become through-routes over time. This type of street network provided multiple routes for walking and tended to disperse traffic instead of concentrating it on occasional major streets.

Housing Houses in pre-World War II neighborhoods faced streets of every type. Because the rectangular street network dispersed traffic, streets were never too busy for private homes. Schools were relatively small in size, were integrated within neighborhoods, and were accessible on foot and bicycle. Parks were usually scaled to the neighborhood and often were centerpieces; the most prestigious homes frequently faced these parks.

Shops and Workplaces In pre-World War II neighborhoods, shops and workplaces were relatively small and were either scattered between or integrated within residential neighborhoods. This pattern was widespread before private vehicles were common because destinations needed to be reached on foot or by streetcar. Large parking lots were unnecessary, allowing closer integration with neighborhoods. Streetcar routes were the preferred location for stores and offices because of their high visibility and accessibility to people from other neighborhoods.

⬚ figure Manhattan Heights and Pershing/Government Hill neighborhoods

⬚ figure Mundy Park, a centerpiece of Sunset Heights

⬚ figure Montana Avenue at Maple Street

PLAN EL PASO Current Conditions

POST-WORLD WAR II NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS

During the Great Depression, development stalled in El Paso as well as around the County. During World War II, Fort Bliss became an active training center and the old airfield was modernized as Biggs Air Force Base.

This momentum continued after the war as private development resumed. The streetcar network had declined and private automobiles were becoming common. Many changes occurred in the patterns of new neighborhoods, including the limitation of multi-family housing to isolated pods.

The photographs and descriptions below explain the pattern of development from the Post-World War II era to the 1980s, and describes the changes from pre-World War II neighborhoods. Lots during this period were wider than previously, often 80 feet wide and 120 feet deep. Today these neighborhoods average about 2.9 dwelling units per acre.

Neighborhood Structure Blocks in post-war neighborhoods continued to be small, but irregularly shaped blocks became common even on flat land. Alleys were rarely provided; streets had to provide vehicular access to garages and to accommodate utility lines. Streets remained highly interconnected, but many were laid out in curvilinear patterns which made it difficult for unfamiliar drivers to find their way through neighborhoods. A clear pattern of major streets was provided to handle most through traffic.

Housing Houses in post-war neighborhoods usually faced local streets. Where the short edges of blocks faced a major street, homes on corner lots were separated by rock walls, affording some separation from the high levels of traffic that was forced there by the curvilinear street pattern. Schools and parks became larger and were spaced further apart, requiring parking lots because they were less accessible by foot and bicycle.

Shops and Workplaces The streetcar era had ended when post-war neighborhoods were created. Instead of being placed in a linear pattern, shops and offices began to be concentrated at larger intersections that were accessible from traffic on perpendicular streets. Grocery-anchored shopping plazas became common. Larger shopping centers including regional malls began to appear where they would be accessible by cars driven from longer distances.

⬚ figure Neighborhoods around Montwood Drive at Yarbrough Drive

⬚ figure Sides of homes and their rear yards face major roads.

⬚ figure Montwood Shopping Center at Yarbrough Drive

SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS

During the 1980s another shift began to occur in the design of El Paso’s neighborhoods. A more suburban development pattern began to emerge; however, the changes were less dramatic than in many Texas cities. As new development moved further from the center of town, driving distances increased, causing a change in the thoroughfare pattern as well.

The photographs and descriptions below explain this pattern and describes the changes from post-World War II neighborhoods. Lots sizes declined from the previous pattern, with lots often measuring 50 or 60 feet wide and 100 to 110 feet deep, similar to the original lot sizes in El Paso’s historic neighborhoods despite many differences in character. These neighborhoods, however, average only about 2.6 dwelling units per acre because large tracts of land were set aside for future commercial development.

Neighborhood Structure Blocks in newer suburban neighborhoods continued to be small, but cul-de-sacs became prominent features in El Paso neighborhoods. Alleys were never provided, requiring streets to provide vehicular access to garages and to accommodate utility lines. Except for the cul-de-sacs, local streets remained fairly interconnected. A clear pattern of major streets extended the post-war arterial grid; however, a new freeway network was needed to accommodate long trips between housing and services required by distant neighborhoods.

Housing Houses in El Paso’s suburban neighborhoods face neighborhood streets; their backs face arterial roads isolating them from development beyond. Residential blocks were separated by other land uses, typically shopping strips. Schools and parks were large and spaced far apart, essentially becoming drive-to facilities with large parking lots that were intended to accommodate people from numerous neighborhoods.

Shops and Workplaces In the suburban era, longer drives to work and shopping became common. New stores became much larger and required easy vehicular access to a correspondingly large base of potential customers. Stores and offices were now concentrated along arterial roads and highways, not just at intersections. The dominant retail form had become the “power center” of very large stores that shared parking lots but were so spread out that customers often drove from one store to the next.

⬚ figure Neighborhoods around Saul Kleinfeld Drive at Bob Mitchell Drive

⬚ figure North Zaragoza Road between Pellicano Drive and Vista del Sol Drive

⬚ figure Las Palmas Marketplace, George Dieter Drive at Zaragoza Road

PRIOR PLANS FOR EL PASO

1999 Plan for El Paso

This document is a major update to the previous Plan for El Paso, which was adopted by the City Council in April 1999 as an official policy statement and general guide to ensure quality growth in El Paso for the next 25 years.

The 1999 plan contained three land-use elements: Land Use & City Form; Land Use Concepts; and Urban Design.

As described in the City Form element, the 1999 plan included a “Year 2025 General Land Use Map” for each of the City’s five major planning areas (central, northwest, northeast, east, and lower valley). These maps did not change any zoning districts, but they assigned general land use designations that are organized primarily by the type of land use, then sub-categorized by intensity:

• Residential (low, medium, high density)
• Commercial (neighborhood, community, regional)
• Industrial (light, heavy)
• Mixed Use

These maps are used as a guide when the City evaluates requests for changing the official zoning classification of property. The zoning map itself is adopted as part of El Paso’s zoning ordinance (Title 20 of the El Paso City Code). Title 20 determines which zoning regulations apply to all land in the City. The General Land Use Map focuses almost solely on the general type of land use (for instance, residential vs. commercial) and it has not been able to provide useful guidance on other critical subjects, such as helping City officials decide how and where to grow outward and how to focus redevelopment efforts in suitable locations.

The Land Use Concepts element of the 1999 plan examined each of the five major planning areas and designated activity centers, activity corridors, and policy statements for each. That element also analyzed potential growth in certain Westside and Eastside areas that were subject to El Paso’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.

The Urban Design Element focused on Downtown redevelopment, infill redevelopment, and design guidelines. Those issues are addressed in the Urban Design Element of this new plan.

The general land use designations in the 1999 plan were explicitly subject to change as a result of special study area plans that would later be carried out and incorporated into the Citywide plan. Eight study area plans have since been prepared and adopted:

• Rim/University (2001)
• Northwest Upper Valley (2004)
• Chihuahuita (2004)
• PSB Westside Master Plan (2005)
• PSB Northeast Master Plan (2005; amended 2007 & 2008)
• Downtown 2015 (2006)
• Medical Center of the Americas (2008, amended 2011)
• Connecting El Paso (2011)

Unless these study area plans are amended by the City Council, their recommendations remain in effect after adoption of this new comprehensive plan.

In addition to the study area plans listed above, the Major Thoroughfare Plan in the Plan for El Paso has been amended frequently since 1999:

• 2001: Ordinances 14791 & 14933
• 2002: Ordinance 15068
• 2003: Ordinance 15358
• 2004: Ordinances 15807, 15813, 15824 & 15827
• 2005: Ordinances 16027, 16099, 16115, 16236 & 16237
• 2007: Ordinances 16549, 16642, 16651, 16698 & 16738
• 2008: Ordinances 16910, 16961 & 17025
• 2009: Ordinances 17211
• 2010: Ordinances 17329, 17368 & 17401
• 2011: Ordinances 17499, 17538, 17591 & 17599

1988 Plan for El Paso

In 1988, City officials adopted The Plan for El Paso: Guide to the Year 2010. The 1988 plan foreshadowed various themes of this new plan, most notably the designation of activity centers along major corridors where mixed-use development would be encouraged.

1962 El Paso City Plan

In 1962, City officials adopted the El Paso City Plan. This plan documented progress on many aspects of El Paso’s landmark 1925 City Plan, including the adoption of a comprehensive zoning ordinance in 1930, a building code in 1936, completion of Washington and Memorial Parks, and construction of the Bataan Trainway to submerge railroad tracks near Downtown.

1925 City Plan

The City of El Paso hired renowned planner George Kessler to document and illustrate the City’s most important planning issues. The resulting 1925 City Plan was highly celebrated at the time, and 90 years later, it continues to be held up as an example of excellent planning.

In addition to larger concerns such as access to water, the 1925 City Plan focused on urban design and aesthetic concerns. It stressed the importance of the character and quality of the public realm, including El Paso’s streets. The plan said that streets should not be too wide so as to require an unnecessary amount of pavement, which is hot and expensive; and planted parkways should line public sidewalks.

The 1925 City Plan left a legacy of great planning. One can see many of the recommendations materialized and successfully in place today. In particular, many of the City’s civic spaces and parks, such as Memorial, Caruso, and Washington Parks, were created according to that plan.

EXISTING LAND USES

While taking note of the differing neighborhood patterns it is often useful to identify the existing use of individual parcels of land throughout the City. Maps showing existing land uses for most parcels are found on the next three pages. Where occupied land within the City is not colored on these maps, accurate classifications are not yet available.

The data used to create these maps has been compiled by the City’s planning department over the past seven years. Sources for this data include central appraisal district records, building permits, field verification, and professional knowledge of staff planners. This data has been simplified for these maps so that Citywide land use patterns can be discerned at this scale. The table below explains the classification system.

General Observations:

• For a city its size and age, El Paso has relatively little multi-family housing. The detached home on a moderately sized lot has been the predominant pattern since early in El Paso’s history, accounting for two-thirds of the City’s current housing units.
• Early industrial development had been concentrated on the Westside at the ASARCO smelter and on the Eastside around Western Refining, but it occurred at many other locations around El Paso. Newer industrial development is almost entirely warehousing and distribution serving the maquiladoras in Juárez, and thus is usually located in large industrial parks with good access to Zaragoza Road or Loop 375.
• Newer commercial development occurs on large parcels with access to Interstate 10 or major arterial roads.
• Urban development has nearly eliminated farmland within the City limits and threatens what remains.

PLAN EL PASO Current Conditions

EXISTING LAND USES - WESTSIDE / CENTRAL

⬚ figure

Regional Land Use Patterns

Current Conditions

EXISTING LAND USES - NORTHEAST

⬚ figure

LEGEND

PLAN EL PASO Current Conditions

EXISTING LAND USES - EASTSIDE / LOWER VALLEY

⬚ figure

COMMUNITY CONCERNS

Revitalize Downtown Downtown El Paso’s rich architectural and cultural heritage is easily apparent, as is the extensive disinvestment in recent decades.

At its prime, Downtown El Paso was a distinctive cultural scene – the place to work, live, and meet. Department stores, theaters, festivals, family celebrations, and visitors from across the U.S. and Mexico all brought life to Downtown. Today, much of that life remains only in memories and stories.

Redevelopment is important throughout El Paso but nowhere more than Downtown. Downtown still provides a treasure of civic amenities. Its streets are the highest-quality pedestrian environment in the City; well-built and beautifully crafted buildings face tree-lined streets.

Fort Bliss and the Franklin Mountains divide El Paso into three wedges. This accident of geography and history ensures that Downtown will always be the “center of town” and the hub of government and transportation. Downtown should also, once again, become El Paso’s vibrant heart—a place of common ground, constant reinvention, living, commerce, and entertainment.

Live and Work Closer Together El Paso’s major roads must accommodate long automobile trips for traveling between home, to work, and to shopping. Despite concerted efforts by public officials to widen key roads like Mesa Street and Montana Avenue and to add enough freeway lanes to accommodate this travel pattern, most improvements are simply overcome by additional traffic.

The most practical relief for congestion will come from motorists not needing to drive as far to meet daily needs. As long as residents believe that congestion will be solved by the next road improvement, they will continue to buy homes far from their jobs or accept jobs far from their homes, worsening the very cycle that causes the congestion.

Some long-distance travel is unavoidable, such as intercity travel and the movement of goods by trucks to and from maquiladoras in Juárez. However, excessive travel is often the result of careless development patterns. For instance, the expansion of Fort Bliss will generate a great deal of new traffic. By designing communities to reduce unnecessary travel, the road and transit networks will be better able to handle future growth.

Protect Historic Neighborhoods El Paso’s older neighborhoods are a source of great pride. Nine neighborhoods have been formally designated as historic landmarks: Austin Terrace, Chihuahuita, Downtown, Magoffin, Manhattan Heights, Old San Francisco, Sunset Heights, Ysleta, and the Mission Trail Historic Corridor and District.

These nine neighborhoods are a small fraction of the valued older neighborhoods throughout El Paso County. Many of these older neighborhoods have suffered from disinvestment. However, if protected, these neighborhoods are poised to serve generations of new residents due to their central locations, excellent neighborhood designs, and a housing stock of distinctive yet affordable buildings.

These older neighborhoods are also valuable models for what El Paso residents would like to see in new neighborhoods: interconnected streets; access to neighborhood schools and parks; a wide variety of housing; and easy accessibility to shopping and jobs.

⬚ figure 1938 street map of El Paso’s historic neighborhoods

Add New Land Uses Into Our Communities

With so few vacant lots in El Paso’s older neighborhoods, those wishing to buy a new home usually must move to a new subdivision on the outskirts of town.

Distant subdivisions usually require longer travel to employment. Even daily needs cannot be met without extensive driving. Parks and schools were once the centerpiece of neighborhoods, but now they are so large that they can be unpleasant neighbors. In older areas of the City, small schools are often abandoned and children are bused or driven to larger schools in other parts of town.

Newer subdivisions are often monocultures of a single type and size of home. Families can rarely stay within the same subdivision when they wish to live in different kind of housing or would prefer to move to a larger or smaller house in the same area.

In older neighborhoods, small shops that would be valuable to residents aren’t permitted because the same zoning that would permit them would also permit much larger stores that would be perceived as disruptive to nearby housing. Better zoning districts are needed to resolve this problem.

Most neighborhoods, old or new, could benefit from a greater variety of activities within walking and bicycling distance.

Restore Close Connections with Juárez

The recent violence that has overcome Juárez and the northern states of Mexico has badly damaged the historic connectedness between El Paso and Juárez. The maquiladora economy has been minimally affected but most other ties are severely diminished.

Tourism in Juárez has come to a near standstill. Medical facilities in Juárez have historically been used by El Pasoans, but the violence has badly damaged that sector of the Juárez economy and nearly eliminated patients from El Paso. Numerous shopping, dining, and entertainment opportunities have moved to El Paso, further weakening the economy in Juárez. Even routine social visits among family members are perceived to be risky endeavors.

Juárez and El Paso have grown together nearly as a single city, even though divided by the unfortunate 19^th century selection of the Rio Grande / Rio Bravo as the national border. The restoration of that closeness is a fervent dream of citizens on both sides of the border.

Grow Up, Not Out

Most new housing in El Paso is built on the outskirts of the City. To some degree this is difficult to avoid because the City has grown continually outward without skipping over many large tracts of land. Yet there are overlooked opportunities to develop without moving further outward.

As El Paso’s transit network is expanded, each transfer center provides an opportunity for redevelopment of surrounding land. Some vacant tracts do still exist, which also should be developed at higher intensities than El Paso’s historic patterns. In addition, intense land uses such as hospitals and universities offer excellent potential for nearby redevelopment.

Even unexpected sites such as the ASARCO smelter have more redevelopment potential than is commonly expected. If the existing rail yards along I-10 and near the border are relocated outside of the City, those sites would also offer tremendous potential for development that may even make further outward expansion unnecessary.

El Paso residents have shown little interest in skyscrapers but seem to support strategically located two- to four-story buildings that make excellent use of well-located urban land. The compact “footprint” of multi-story buildings is completely compatible with walkable neighborhoods.

Stop Sprawling

Healthy cities tend to grow. However, continual outward expansion is not the only option to accommodate growth.

El Paso is in a very unusual position in that most undeveloped land to the northwest and northeast of the City is owned by the City itself and managed by El Paso Water Utilities and the Public Service Board (EPWU-PSB). The choice of whether the City should expand in these directions, and if so how, is within the discretion of City and EPWU-PSB officials.

To the east, very little land is owned by the City. The past decade has seen continuous debates over when to extend water and sewer lines, how much land to annex for urban expansion, and whether or not it is critical to limit utility extensions to annexed land. Texas law allows El Paso only very limited authority over land that isn’t annexed into the City; however, through the use of development agreements and subdivision regulations, compact neighborhoods may be able to be created at the same or greater level of quality found in El Paso’s historic neighborhoods. If this cannot be accomplished, annexation may be necessary if the City is to control suburban sprawl along its periphery.

STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING COMMUNITY CONCERNS

CONCEPTUAL REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGIES

Invest First in Downtown When considering regional growth strategies, the first priority for El Paso should be reinvestment in its historic Downtown. In the past, City priorities and subsidies have often focused on growth and expansion at the edges, which can work against infill and redevelopment in the City’s historic core. Shifts in policy could increase livability Downtown and create a strong base for transit expansion throughout the region.

In recent decades Downtown has suffered from disinvestment as auto-oriented development on the edges of town became the preferred location to live and work. Fortunately Downtown El Paso has long been a popular shopping destination for Juárez residents; Downtown businesses now depend on stable and convenient trade with Mexico.

Downtown El Paso is an overlooked urban design treasure. Previous investment in the early 20^th century created a vibrant urban fabric with a wide mix of uses, street-oriented buildings, proud architecture of distinctive character, and numerous public and civic gathering spaces.

Downtown El Paso is remarkably intact, with most of the historic buildings standing and the traditional street grid largely in place. These buildings, however, are underutilized, often with discount stores or wholesale outlets filling the ground floors and the upper floors left vacant. With so little housing Downtown, stores and restaurants close at night and on weekends, resulting in vacant streets and a sense of desolation on most blocks.

El Paso needs to reclaim this valuable asset as a vibrant 21^st century destination. Revitalization of this historic center will anchor and enhance the overall character of the City and contribute toward El Paso’s long-term sustainability.

Infill with Transit-Supportive Mixed Uses An equally important priority should be encouraging mixed-use development and redevelopment on vacant or underutilized sites throughout El Paso, especially near transit centers and along existing and planned transit routes.

Those seeking variety and choice have discovered that traditional neighborhoods offer a popular and time-tested formula for mixed-uses and mixed-income communities. Neighborhood centers provide a range of goods and services, amenities, and housing in close proximity, reducing the need to drive within that area. An urban pattern of interconnected streets and small blocks allows for greater population density within a compact area, creating a market for a wider variety of goods and services. Accessibility to transit provides the opportunity for more pedestrian activity and reduced demand for parking spaces.

For instance, Northgate Mall can become a dynamic, diverse center that will complement the City’s transit investments. Single-use buildings and surface parking lots would be replaced with multi-story mixed-use buildings that could become the Main Street for northeast El Paso.

The construction of transit-supportive multi-family housing and the adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of existing buildings should be encouraged throughout El Paso. Alternative development standards are warranted because mixed-use areas function differently than auto-oriented properties. Financial incentives can be offered for using existing infrastructure and not requiring the construction and future maintenance of new infrastructure.

⬚ figure

San Jacinto Plaza

Revitalize El Paso’s Older Neighborhoods A third priority is revitalizing El Paso’s great older neighborhoods, which feature walkable streets, parks, a mix of uses and housing types, and historic buildings. These features all contribute to a strong sense of character. Revitalization includes improving public infrastructure in these areas, infilling empty lots and parking lots, and restoring valuable older buildings. El Paso’s new infill development program provides financial incentives for private revitalization efforts, a promising start in this direction.

Some of these neighborhoods have been harmed by recent trends. Buildings are sometimes abandoned or demolished, creating a break in the urban fabric. In other cases, front yards are converted into parking lots. New auto-oriented development often faces the street with blank front walls or places parking lots along the sidewalk. A better trend is where historic homes along busy streets have been transformed into offices, providing a mix of uses within neighborhoods while retaining the historic buildings. On-street parking, small public or shared parking lots can be added to such blocks where there is a shortage of parking spaces.

The abundant historic and architectural resources of El Paso are important to its unique character. Historic buildings, particularly when concentrated, are attractions for tourists and residents. Additional neighborhoods and districts should be considered for designation as historic districts. Reusing existing buildings, even where they are not historic, is one of the most basic ways to foster a sustainable city.

Plan El Paso, especially the Urban Design and Downtown Elements, presents overall strategies for physical development, but it is not a substitute for smaller, neighborhood redevelopment plans. This Plan is a starting point for more detailed neighborhood plans such as the recent plans for the Rim University neighborhood and Medical Center of the Americas.

Retrofit Suburban Neighborhoods at Strategic Locations A fourth priority is to strategically retrofit newer suburban and commercial areas. Suburban areas divide housing, shopping, and offices into separate districts that can only be reached by private car. This modern ideal of single-use districts is no longer attractive to many Americans who are tired of long commutes and a lack of unique character in their neighborhoods.

The Urban Design Element of this plan describes a wide variety of techniques for retrofitting suburban areas to increase the variety of buildings and provide opportunities for people of all ages, backgrounds, and cultures to live and work. Single-family detached homes can be carefully supplemented by a wider range of housing options, including rowhouses, condominiums, and even lofts that can be built above stores and offices.

For instance, Bassett Center Mall and the former Farah factory offer redevelopment opportunities with high visibility along I-10. Because these sites are almost completely impervious to water, additional infiltration areas and green spaces would improve environmental performance while rebuilding these sites in a dense, mixed-use format.

Alameda Avenue has become an auto-oriented street lined with used car lots and junkyards, but it could become more pedestrian-friendly through changes in its physical design. Development along the Zaragoza corridor is also following the auto-dependent model; large parts of the corridor, however, are still undeveloped, creating the opportunity to guide development in a coordinated form that builds toward a walkable environment with a diversity of mobility options, as illustrated in the Transportation Element.

⬚ figure An alternative vision for redevelopment along I-10.

Ensure that New Subdivisions Complete Our Community

A fifth priority is to ensure that new development matches the quality of El Paso’s best older neighborhoods. Since the adoption of the SmartCode in 2008, El Paso has had optional regulations that deter urban sprawl by allowing denser development and creating neighborhoods with the design elements of the City’s most revered historic neighborhoods. However, hundreds of development proposals have been permitted in El Paso since that time and few have used the SmartCode.

In response, the City has initiated a program to streamline permitting with the creation of City-commissioned SmartCode plans and City-sponsored rezonings to the SmartCode. The City has also explored how some fees can be waived for the creation of walkable and transit-supportive neighborhoods. The Urban Design Element describes the type of development that could qualify for these incentives.

These same design features could be required for development on large tracts of land owned by the City northwest and northeast of central El Paso. The EPWU-PSB is currently updating master plans to ensure that developer expectations are aligned with City goals early in the land sales process. The SmartCode lays the framework for development dense enough to support public transit and reduce future traffic congestion. This type of development also reduces infrastructure costs, preserves environmentally sensitive lands, provides a mix of activities to reduce unnecessary car trips, and has a character that defines El Paso as a choiceworthy place to live and invest.

The large vacant tracts just east of the City limits are a valuable resource for the future of El Paso. Most tracts further to the east and all the way to the County line will never be available for urban growth because in the 1960s and 1970s they were subdivided into a monoculture of unusable “homesites” and then sold off to buyers around the world. Those sales were heavily restricted by the Federal Trade Commission in a 1981 enforcement action against the Horizon Corporation. Decades later, without the prospect of even the most minimal services and amenities, most of these lots outside the City limits are still unusable and virtually unsalable. In the absence of massive lot reassembly, there is nearly no ability to recover this land for urban expansion.

Respect and Protect the Environment

It is both practical and highly desirable to preserve critical arroyos, avoid floodplains, and integrate preserved open spaces into new neighborhoods. This is another important priority of this plan.

Official El Paso plans and regulations call for protecting critical arroyos, yet current regulations and practices have fallen short. Although public and private funds have been used to save some arroyos, improved City regulations could help preclude unnecessary destruction of critical portions of these important scenic and natural drainage features. Currently, each acre of arroyo that is protected during the development process eliminates one-half acre of required parkland.

City regulations should encourage new development to use arroyos as focal points and usable open space, providing an incentive for developers to preserve them. The Urban Design Element of this plan illustrates how neighborhoods can be designed to be protect arroyos while also taking maximum advantage of arroyos for scenic views, recreation, and drainage. These concepts should be encouraged as standard practices in El Paso.

There are other sensitive lands in and around El Paso that are equally worth of protection. Most farmland in the Rio Grande valley that has been annexed into El Paso has been lost. This increasingly scarce natural resource deserves better protection. Also, there are many mountainous tracts around the Franklin Mountains State Park that are still in private ownership; intense development should not be permitted on these valuable tracts of land.

⬚ figure

Preserved arroyos provide valuable linear parks.

Manage El Paso’s Outward Expansion Managing El Paso’s outward expansion is perhaps the most complex and difficult strategy; it will be discussed at length in the following pages and in the goals and policies of this Element.

The City of El Paso has grown continually outward since its founding in 1873. To its enduring credit, El Paso has always expanded with contiguous new subdivisions that were immediately provided with full urban services. This is in sharp contrast to the scattered or “leapfrog” growth pattern so frequently found in other American cities.

However, even this contiguous growth pattern is now causing serious problems. With the City’s expansion forced into three wedges by the Rio Grande, the Franklin Mountains, and Fort Bliss, development is now taking place at great distances from central El Paso. Combined with the homogeneous character of new residential subdivisions, this pattern forces new residents into very long automobile trips to meet daily needs, which in turn creates nearly unsolvable traffic congestion on El Paso’s major roads. Excessive travel for daily needs is costly to the individuals who must provide and fuel private vehicles (as discussed in the Housing Element). This travel is also becoming an increasing burden on society as fuel costs rise and vehicle emissions pollute the air locally while warming the climate globally.

Further outward expansion should be managed to meet the following public purposes:

• Discourage development of farmland along the Rio Grande, or environmentally sensitive lands such as critical arroyos and steep slopes, or tracts that may be added to the Franklin Mountains State Park.
• Generally discourage additional outward expansion unless it can be demonstrated to be essential to accommodate growth, and the land to be developed is an excellent location for urban expansion, and new neighborhoods will meet at least the minimum standards of the City’s most revered older neighborhoods.
• Begin a new era of cooperation with El Paso County on managing growth, for instance by offering to relieve the County of the responsibility for regulating subdivisions in the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, by providing City water and fire hydrants to existing development, and by assisting the County in other growth-related tasks. The City and County should jointly seek legislative approval that would allow the City and El Paso County to cooperate more closely in managing growth.

Growth Management Outside City Limits Managing outward expansion is complex because of many competing interests, including the authority of nearby cities, El Paso County government, State government, rights previously granted to municipal utility districts, and the property rights of landowners.

Under Texas law, cities have very limited authority outside their City limits. This “extraterritorial jurisdiction” (ETJ) extends five miles outside El Paso, except where Socorro, Horizon City, Vinton, and Anthony have an overlapping ETJ.

Cities have the authority to annex unincorporated land in the ETJ into the city. El Paso also controls its own water and sewer utility and has consistently used its discretion over where utility lines can be extended to ensure that growth expands only onto contiguous land. The power to annex and to provide utilities (or to deny both) are essential to managing outward expansion. However, the State has granted other utilities the right to provide service in certain areas, overriding City control of utilities.

The power to levy impact fees and/or utility hookup fees is a financing mechanism but can also be an important tool for managing outward expansion. Growing on the outskirts usually requires expensive extension of roads and utility lines; some of the construction costs can be recouped through higher impact fees, but the long-term maintenance costs remain high.

Growth Management Within City Limits Within the City limits, El Paso controls the zoning of land, regulates how land is subdivided, and has the authority to adopt a comprehensive plan. These are the primary powers that can be used to manage growth within the City limits and have some ability to influence growth beyond the City limits.

Nearly all land to the east of El Paso is privately owned or controlled by the State of Texas. Some of this land has already been approved for development or is considered to have a vested right to develop under Texas law. To the northeast and northwest, the City of El Paso owns most of the undeveloped land, making management of growth there more straightforward.

Each governmental power is subject to state law and to many decisions made in the past. A major purpose of this Element is to carry out these efforts in a clearly-defined outward growth strategy. The following sections of this Element will set forth this strategy in detail.

ADDITIONAL LAND NEEDED FOR EXPANSION

Comprehensive plans contain both short-term and long-term components. Certain portions of this plan, including this element and the Economic Development Element, look forward to the year 2030. The Transportation Element uses the year 2035 to match the target date used by the El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for regional transportation planning.

Comprehensive plans are typically updated every 10 to 12 years, but they typically use long-term planning horizons 20 to 25 years into the future because infrastructure projects such as roads, transit, and utilities are major public investments that require long periods to plan, design, and construct. El Paso’s past experience matches this pattern: the 1999 comprehensive plan was based on the year 2025, and the 1988 comprehensive plan was based on the year 2010.

The Future Land Use Map in this element identifies where the expected population in 2030 will live and work. The expected number of people and jobs for 2030 is based on 2010 research by the Institute for Policy and Economic Development at UTEP, which considered effects of the Fort Bliss expansion and local industry recruitment efforts, as described further in the Economic Development Element. After a high-growth period ending in 2012, growth is expected to level off to about 1% per year through 2030, when the County’s population would reach 1,025,660.

This forecast anticipates an increase in the population of El Paso County of 249,880 residents between 2010 and 2030. Assuming the 2010 ratio of City/County population and City household size continues, this forecast would result in 202,653 additional people in the City of El Paso by 2030, requiring 67,777 additional dwelling units. The following analysis considers how this additional population would be accommodated on the Future Land Use Map.

The amount of land that will be consumed by future development depends on many factors, including:

• How compactly new development is designed. Compact development consumes less land for a given number of residents and jobs than sprawling development patterns.
• Whether future jobs are integrated into mixed-use communities rather than requiring separate office or industrial parks that would consume additional land.
• How much land is redeveloped at higher intensities.

This analysis considered availability of vacant parcels within previously developed areas of the City and undeveloped tracks within or near the City limits.

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008-09); Institute for Policy and Economic Development, UTEP.

PLAN EL PASO Strategies for Addressing Community Concerns

This analysis examines land on the Future Land Use Map that is designated in the four major growth sectors (G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4), plus land in the O-7 open-space sector which is the next tier of vacant land this plan anticipates would be developed.

The analysis began by determining the development capacity of anticipated compact development and redevelopment on City-owned land. A similar assessment was made of compact development by private developers on privately owned land.

The development capacity of land which may have vested rights under Texas law was then assessed, assuming development patterns will match those of the last ten years.

The development capacity of other vacant infill tracts larger than a city block was then estimated, assuming development patterns that match the historic pattern of their surroundings.

Based on these assumptions, 84,027 new dwelling units can be accommodated on the land described above. This amounts to approximately 124% of the 67,775 units needed for growth through 2030.

A lower percentage of growth would be accommodated if single-use office parks displace mixed-use communities. A higher percentage of anticipated growth can be accommodated on this same land if City regulations are modified as proposed in this comprehensive plan to introduce more multi-family housing. If these changes do not take place or are not effective, new dwellings will be needed on additional land by about 2035. This land would likely be in the O-6 sector which is east of the existing City limits and has been identified for potential annexation.

The MPO’s Mission 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted in August 2010. Because it was prepared prior to this comprehensive plan, it was not able to use the latest growth projections or this element’s Future Land Use Map as the basis for its 2035 regional road and transit network. Better-coordinated transportation planning can take place at the time of the next update to the MPO plan so that the MPO plan can identify road and transit improvements that match the growth patterns set forth in Plan El Paso.

Developable Tracts in El Paso

(in G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, and O-7 sectors)

Regional Land Use Patterns Strategies for Addressing Community Concerns

AVAILABILITY OF POTABLE WATER

For its municipal water supply, El Paso County relies on surface water from the Rio Grande plus water from underground sources. EPWU-PSB currently supplies over 90% of all municipal water in El Paso County, half from the Rio Grande.

Water in the Rio Grande is supplied by snow melt in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. Spring runoff is stored in the Elephant Butte Reservoir in southern New Mexico before being released for irrigation and municipal use. EPWU-PSB obtains water from the irrigation district (El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1) through ownership of water rights land and by leasing water rights from agricultural water rights holders.

⬚ figure

Wells near Canutillo supply groundwater from the Mesilla Bolson to the Westside; wells in northeast El Paso and near the airport supply the Eastside from the Hueco Bolson. These underwater basins underlie portions of New Mexico, Texas, and Chihuahua. The Rio Grande plays an important role in the recharge and discharge of both basins.

Pumping from the valuable Hueco Bolson peaked in 1989 due to concerns over the sustainability of high pumping levels. Underground water levels had been declining and water quality had been decreasing as brackish water replaced the higher quality water being pumped out.

Six management strategies have been followed since that time:

1. Increase the use of Rio Grande water when it is available.
2. Decrease groundwater pumping except when Rio Grande water is limited.
3. Increase the per-gallon cost of water for high users as a conservation incentive.
4. Encourage desert plants that require little or no irrigation.
5. Expand the reuse of reclaimed water.
6. Promote consumer conservation with a variety of tools.

Demand for water has been declining since the late 1990s. Usage has been reduced from about 225 gallons per person per day in the 1970s to about 133 gallons per person in 2010.

Despite these efforts, additional water will need to be transferred from outside El Paso County to accommodate population growth between 2030 and 2040. Such transfers are often controversial and are more expensive than local sources. Careful management of local sources will minimize the amount of water that will need to be imported in the future.

Public costs increase when new development is placed on land that is distant from local water sources. The map below indicates areas in El Paso County where some groundwater from the Mesilla and Hueco Bolsons is of acceptable quality. The heavy white hatching indicates high quality water, suitable for drinking. Light hatching indicates lower quality brackish water that must be desalinated before use. No hatching indicates low-quality water. Desalination has proven feasible in El Paso County; a new plant near Fort Bliss intercepts brackish groundwater before it reaches freshwater wells and then converts it to high-quality water. However, this process is expensive because of its very high energy costs and the difficulty of safely disposing the residual briny water.

⬚ figure Groundwater Quality in El Paso County (in total dissolved solids)

PLAN EL PASO Strategies for Addressing Community Concerns

OUTWARD EXPANSION STRATEGY

Step A: El Paso’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Within the City limits, El Paso has full authority over municipal planning, zoning, and the subdivision of land. Immediately outside the City limits, State law gives cities certain limited powers in an area known as their “extraterritorial jurisdiction” (ETJ).

The size of the ETJ is defined by State law; for El Paso, it extends five miles beyond the City limits. Exceptions include land already in other cities, land previously in the ETJ of other cities, federal land, and land in New Mexico and Mexico.

Under Texas law, counties cannot use zoning to regulate the use of land in unincorporated areas. Likewise, cities cannot apply zoning in their ETJ; zoning is allowed only after land has been formally annexed into a city. However, cities do have the authority to regulate the subdivision of land within their ETJ. Border counties also have this authority. Currently, the subdivision of land in El Paso’s ETJ requires approval of both City and County governments.

Prospective developers of land in El Paso’s ETJ now start by seeking approval of a subdivision plat from the City based on the City’s regulations. Then they must obtain similar approval from El Paso County based on the County’s regulations before the City will formally approve the plat, allowing individual lots to be sold.

The City’s Subdivision Code, Title 19, applies to land within the ETJ, with special provisions for ETJ land found in Chapter 19.11. That chapter should be strengthened as one method of carrying out this plan’s policy of discouraging suburban sprawl (see Goal 1.6). For instance, new subdivisions in the ETJ could be required to have smaller blocks and/or higher intersection density than the suburban requirements currently found in Title 19. They could also be required to have better connectivity to surrounding development and SmartCode-compliant street designs. Some of these standards may conflict with subdivision platting standards set by El Paso County, but Title 19 (in accordance with State law) already provides that in case of conflicting City and County subdivision standards in the ETJ, the more stringent shall apply.

Chapter 19.11 regulates only the specific site owned by an individual developer. Individual subdivisions also need to be fully interconnected with each other and with a suitable regional road network. To accomplish this, Policy 1.6.2 at the end of this element proposes the refinement of El Paso’s Major Thoroughfare Plan for the ETJ. By planning a densely interconnected road network for the ETJ, individual developers will not be creating isolated pods of development that can never become an integrated part of El Paso. Clearly, this kind of cross-jurisdiction coordination will require cooperation from City and County elected officials and transportation planning agencies.

⬚ figure

Cities and Extraterritorial Jurisdictions

Regional Land Use Patterns

Strategies for Addressing Community Concerns

⬚ figure

Cities and Extraterritorial Jurisdictions

Step B: Annexation Policy

Texas law allows cities to expand their boundaries by annexing land that is within that city’s ETJ. After annexation, cities can apply zoning and collect city taxes and are obligated in return to provide municipal services.

Because of contentious disputes across the state, the laws governing annexation have changed frequently in recent decades and are likely to evolve further. Since 1999, each city has been required to adopt an annexation plan describing where unilateral annexations may occur beginning in three years. Cities can no longer unilaterally annex vast territories without development potential simply to keep other cities from annexing that land. Once annexed, a city is committed to providing municipal services. Many services, including police and fire protection, must begin immediately. Water and sewer (wastewater) service must begin within 2½ to 4½ years. An annexation plan can be amended at any time to expand the map of annexable land, but actual annexation of new areas must then wait at least three years.

Certain types of annexation are exempt from the requirement that they be described in the annexation plan. These statutory exceptions include areas with less than 100 dwellings, sparsely occupied areas where annexation is requested by landowners, city-owned land, and portions of colonias.

El Paso adopted its formal annexation plan in 1999, stating that the City had no immediate intention of annexing any land that was required to be in an annexation plan. In 2007 the City commissioned a study to reexamine annexation issues and evaluate impact fees on new development. As a result of that study, in 2009 El Paso officials made an important policy decision to keep the 1999 annexation plan in force without changes. The effect of this decision is to forgo unilateral annexations of already-developed land or vacant land where the owners do not wish to be annexed. This decision can later be modified if circumstances warrant, subject to the statutory three-year “waiting period” before unilateral annexations can take place.

In September 2009, City officials adopted, by resolution, a new “annexation policy” that defines areas where voluntary (“exempt”) annexations would be considered. The City also adopted new procedures for requesting annexation (Ordinance 17195). A number of minimum requirements must be met, including:

• The land must be contiguous with the existing City limits.
• The landowners must agree to build all local, collector, and arterial roads at their expense and must submit a general development plan for the area.
• The landowners must pay water and sewer impact fees plus an additional $820 per unit annexation fee toward fire, police, libraries, and recreation centers.

With two adjustments, the new annexation policies can be made consistent with the strategies in this plan.

The first adjustment is that the 2009 preferred annexation map contains large tracts in the upper valley that are actively being farmed, particularly west of Doniphan Drive and north of Borderland Road. In this arid climate, viable farmland is limited to irrigated land in the Rio Grande valley. Much of this valuable resource has been lost due to El Paso’s location at one of the widest point along the valley. Remaining farmland should be considered a valuable resource whose displacement by urban expansion would be an unfortunate loss for the region. It would also eliminate a valuable opportunity for rural living near a major urban center.

Land south of Borderland Road has already been annexed into El Paso and is subject to the City’s 2004 Northwest Upper Valley Plan. Despite many statements about the value of the area’s rural character, that plan allows residential densities of 2½ units per acre, clearly a suburban density level unless development is concentrated on a portion of each tract, as shown on page 2.34.

Most land north of Borderland Road has not yet been annexed. Annexation creates an expectation that municipal services will be provided, which works against the long-term viability of farmland. Yet the land north of Borderland Road could still be developed in suburban patterns without annexation, especially if water and sewer service is extended to the area.

The City and EPWU-PSB should ensure that their individual regulations are complementary and do not encourage unnecessary development of irrigated farmland, which is identified on the Future Land Use Map in this Element as being in the O-3 open-space sector. Consideration needs to be given to incentivizing preservation of agricultural lands, including conducting a full evaluation of best practices that could mitigate their full development.

Examples to consider when dealing with irrigated farmland inside the City include:

1. Providing a density bonus for development of farmland when at least 50% of the lots allow for small-scale farming, the bonus being proportional to the area being reserved for farming (See Policy 1.5.2)
2. Discouraging the rezoning of agriculture land except where a percentage of small-scale farming has been reserved.

Examples to consider when dealing with irrigated farmland outside the City include:

1. Removing irrigated farmland from the preferred annexation map (see Policy 1.7.3).
2. Removing irrigated farmland from the City’s impact fee service area and the State’s map of Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (see Policy 1.5.2).

Regional Land Use Patterns Strategies for Addressing Community Concerns

⬚ figure Extraterritorial Jurisdictions and Preferred Annexation Areas

3. Amending Title 19 to limit plats and utility extensions to proposed developments that commit to permanently keep at least 50% of the land for farming or to subdivide the land into tracts that are themselves large enough to support small-scale farming (see Policy 1.5.2).

The protection of farmland may also be accomplished through park credits, the purchase of development rights, outright purchase of land, or other mechanisms available to the City and County.

Step C: Water and Sewer Supply

Annexations and ETJ authority provide a city with tools to manage outward growth. However, the most critical management tool is often control over the extension of water and sewer (wastewater) lines. El Paso is in a better position than many other cities to effectively manage its outward expansion because it owns a large and well-managed utility system. Managing growth through utilities was standard practice until around 1990 when the system began to convert from a city-only service to a potential utility provider for large portions of unincorporated El Paso County.

There are several other factors that can also confound the use of utility management for managing growth. These include:

• The natural desire of utility operators to increase their customer base.
• State regulations that sometimes induce a utility to expand into new territory prematurely.
• Prior agreements or understandings that may have been reached with landowners or developers.
• Utility extensions might conflict with growth management goals but still be important to maintaining public health.

El Paso Water Utilities – Public Service Board

On May 22, 1952, and through Ordinance Number 752, the El Paso City Council created the El Paso Water Utilities – Public Service Board (EPWU-PSB), a governing board of trustees duly formed in accordance with Texas law, to operate, manage and have complete control of the El Paso waterworks plant and system and sewer system as a combined public utility. City of El Paso Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, authorized by a general election held on December 8, 1951, were issued for the purpose of improving and extending the system and to provide for the payment of principal and interest on such bonds by pledging the net revenues from the operation of the system. The EPWU-PSB purchased property in respective areas of the City to grow the system and meet the needs of the City and its inhabitants in the future, and utilizes the water rights, wells, reservoirs and other related facilities and equipment for the operation of such. As managers of the land, over 24,000 acres, the EPWU-PSB maintains a fiduciary responsibility for the assets it secures on behalf of its ratepayers. Particular to any land sales, the EPWU-PSB must declare the lands inexpedient to its system. Once a declaration is made, the El Paso City Council is then required to authorize the land sale and condition for its development. The choice of whether the City should sell land, and how, is within the discretion of both the El Paso City Council and the EPWU-PSB.

The State ultimately decides which utility has the authority (and responsibility) to provide service outside the City limits. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality grants “certificates of convenience and necessity” (CCN) to utilities that authorize them to provide retail water and sewer service. In areas that El Paso hopes to annex, it makes sense for EPWU-PSB to hold a CCN to preclude another utility from doing so. In areas further from the City limits, it might also seem logical for EPWU-PSB to hold a CCN, especially if the other utility’s ability to provide service is questionable or it might install substandard distribution and collection systems. However, even long-term planning for utility line extensions can spur suburban sprawl because that planning will create expectations that affect the value of land and cause subsequent investments that work against the City’s planning goal of inward rejuvenation instead of outward sprawl.

At present, EPWU-PSB holds a CCN for water and sewer service well beyond the City limits and even beyond the preferred annexation areas described previously. EPWU-PSB should evaluate the viability of modifying the CCN boundaries to match the new O-6 “Potential Annexation” sector (see Policy 1.8.4). A CCN amendment requires state action, and certain legal implications could serve to impede future boundary adjustments. If a boundary adjustment is practical and beneficial, a CCN amendment should be requested by EPWU-PSB. Any future expansion to CCN boundaries should correspond to the City’s outward growth policies as enumerated in Plan El Paso.

EPWU-PSB officials can commit to provide service outside the City limits even in the absence of potential annexation (see, for instance, Section 19.11.010.D of the City’s subdivision standards). Sometimes these commitments can eliminate the incentive for a landowner to seek annexation. A commitment to provide utilities is probably more influential in shaping the path of growth than the City Council’s power to annex and zone land for development – yet it can take place without the knowledge of other City officials.

Regional Land Use Patterns

Strategies for Addressing Community Concerns

⬚ figure

Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) for Water and Sewer Service

Impact Fees

Recent changes in fiscal policy are adjusting the way utilities influence regional growth patterns. In 2009 the City Council decided to begin charging “impact fees.” Although the council decided against charging additional impact fees to pay for road improvements, builders now must pay a fixed impact fee that will cover 75% of the capital cost of providing water and sewer service projected over the subsequent ten years. These fees apply to all land within three designated “impact fee service areas” on the Westside, the Northeast, and the far Eastside. The fees are set at a fixed rate for each new dwelling unit in each service area, regardless of where a property is located within that service area. These impact fees replaced various prior methods of calculating the cost of service, which generally were based on a more detailed analysis of the cost of providing service to specific development projects. Credits have been built into the rates to reflect monthly utility fees that may also be used to pay for capital improvements; and the impact fee rates increase for larger water users.

Several aspects of the new impact fees may be creating unintended consequences for the City’s growth policy:

• A majority of the service areas are undeveloped land toward the outer reaches of the City limits. This is logical from a growth management perspective to the extent that it makes growth on the periphery pay to extend utility lines. Yet there are areas even further toward the periphery that are not in these service areas; City growth policy should be clearer that utilities won’t be extended to those areas to reduce expectations that growth can leapfrog to those tracts.
• Other impact fee service areas are in the ETJ outside the City limits, yet the boundaries are not the same as the preferred annexation areas described previously. This discrepancy could induce development activity even beyond the preferred annexation areas because the City appears to be committing to provide utilities in those very remote areas.
• Under the terms of the impact fee ordinance, any builder in a service area pays the same impact fee regardless of the actual cost of extending service to that particular property. Because the service areas are so large (about 63 square miles combined), property owners might insist that EPWU-PSB extend service to them regardless of the financial or growth management implications of that extension. In addition, the fees are based on a pro-rata share of the entire cost of water and sewer service for each service area. In effect, the impact fee program is an ambitious financing mechanism that funds development on the City’s periphery. The land-use assumptions upon which the impact fees are based should be adjusted to reflect the policies in this comprehensive plan; impact fee service areas and rates could then be adjusted accordingly.
• When establishing impact fee rates, the City Council decided to charge only 75% of the actual costs for extension of services. The remaining expenses will be absorbed by EPWU-PSB, which hopes to recover the money over time through utility bills – but there is no guarantee that this will happen. Thus, a program that was intended to make development on the periphery pay its full costs seems to be partially subsidizing that very development pattern.
• Under the new impact fee program, developers in the impact fee service areas have the benefit of eliminating the uncertainty that project-specific computations add to the development process, and the final cost may even be lower. Both factors are helpful to developers; the City may be inadvertently subsidizing and encouraging development at the periphery, which works against the goal of favoring infill development.

With certain adjustments, El Paso’s impact fee program could fully support the strategies in this comprehensive plan. A study of these potential adjustments should be conducted by the City and the EPWU-PSB to determine their implications and practicality and to consider other strategies that might achieve the same goals.

The first adjustment would be to modify the impact fee service areas (see Policy 1.8.2). In the northwest, this change would eliminate the upper valley farmland and retain all land within the City limits. In the northeast, this change would eliminate land that is designated as O-1 “Preserve,” O-2 “Natural,” and O-5 “Remote” on the Future Land Use Map. In the far east, this change would make the impact fee service area identical to the “Potential Annexation” area. These changes would avoid any impression that utility expansion policy is different than City growth policy and would preclude potential claims that future utility service beyond a preferred annexation area is guaranteed because of a simple impact fee payment.

The second adjustment would be to recalculate the land-use assumptions upon which the impact fee rates were based to reflect the adjusted impact fee service areas and the other outward growth strategies in this comprehensive plan (see Policy 1.8.3). The impact fee rates could then be re-adopted, preferably without the current 25% discount.

A third adjustment seems impractical at this time due to restrictions in State law but should be considered as a potential future adjustment. This adjustment would be to begin charging impact fees for transportation improvements to developers in the three impact fee service areas. Transportation to and from a peripheral location is far more costly than development nearer central El Paso, yet the State does not allow cities to charge transportation impact fees in the ETJ, which is a major part of the El Paso’s impact fee service areas. Transportation impact fees could still be charged within the City limits. However, most of the remaining land in the impact fee service areas is City-owned land where the

Regional Land Use Patterns Strategies for Addressing Community Concerns

⬚ figure

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Impact Fee Service Areas

City has more direct control over managing growth and could require developers to pay for extra transportation costs through sales contract provisions instead of impact fees.

Step D: Future Land Use Map

The previous sections have described several different tools that are available to manage El Paso’s outward growth:

• El Paso regulates the subdivision of land in the ETJ, up to five miles beyond the City limits.
• The Comprehensive Plan’s Major Thoroughfare Plan includes a network of future roads throughout the ETJ.
• El Paso’s authority to annex, or decline to annex, can strongly influence growth patterns.
• EPWU-PSB has been granted a certificate of convenience and necessity to provide utilities everywhere within the City and considerably beyond in several directions.
• EPWU-PSB can provide, or decline to provide, water and sewer service outside the City limits.
• The City now charges impact fees for water and sewer service; the rate structure can be a growth management tool and might be able to recover the cost of water rights.
• The City could charge transportation impact fees to generate revenue and influence growth patterns.

Each of these tools is complex in its own right, being subject to State law, court decisions, technical analyses, and prior vesting decisions. It is not surprising that the results of these efforts sometimes conflict with one another. Now that El Paso has experience with each tool, the tools need to be refined in a coordinated fashion to more efficiently carry out the City’s planning and fiscal policies.

A “Future Land Use Map” is an ideal means by which to precisely formulate City growth policy and definitively map the results so later implementing actions, including refinements to the tools listed above, can be guided by a consolidated vision of the City Council.

A Future Land Use Map is an integral part of this comprehensive plan. This map is a replacement for the “General Land Use Map” in El Paso’s 1999 comprehensive plan. The 1999 map provided very little guidance as to outward expansion because it used detailed zoning-like designations even on already-developed land. Most of the undeveloped land within the City also received these designations (except for the Franklin Mountains, some parts of Fort Bliss, and City-owned lands in the far northwest). Some land in the ETJ also received designations, but the comprehensive plan did not indicate how those areas were selected. The 1999 map did not address the timing of potential development beyond indicating that some amount of development was expected by the year 2025.

To provide a clear guide to the form, direction, and timing of future growth, the new Future Land Use Map contains two separate but related components. The first is a base map that defines distinct sectors for all of El Paso County. There are two types of sectors: seven “O” or open-space sectors where growth is delayed or not anticipated, and nine “G” or growth sectors, where urban development is encouraged immediately.

The boundary of the “O-6” sector is a defining factor in managing outward growth because O-6 means “Potential Annexation” – developable land not in a growth sector today but which may be needed for outward expansion at some point. City decisions about annexations, ETJ regulations, impact fees, and utility expansions should be based on the boundaries between the nine growth sectors, the O-6 Potential Annexation sector, and the other open-space sectors.

The seven open-space sectors can be described as follows:

• O-1 – Preserve: Publicly owned land such as the Franklin Mountains and Hueco Tanks State Parks, all City and County parks and public drainage areas, and cemeteries (even if private). These lands will not be developed due to their ownership and current use.
• O-2 – Natural: Foothills, bosques, wetlands, critical arroyos, and other natural features owned by private or public entities but currently without protected status. Examples include the Castner Range and private tracts in and around the Franklin Mountains and Hueco Tanks State Parks. City regulations and policy decisions should help keep these lands in their natural state for drainage, natural habitat, and scenic protection. Public acquisition should be considered especially when key drainage features can be protected.
• O-3 – Agriculture: Active farmland in the Rio Grande Valley. Changes to City codes and policies may limit plat and utility approvals beyond the City limits in a coordinated effort to protect significant portions of farmland.
• O-4 – Military Reserve: Fort Bliss training areas north and east of the main cantonment, Biggs Army Air Field and East Fort Bliss. To the extent possible, these lands should not be developed because they are needed for military training.
• O-5 – Remote: Remote land in the desert and mountains. Except where vested rights are in place, City regulations and policy decisions should not encourage urban development during this planning period, which extends until 2030. It is not known at this time whether O-5 land will be needed for development further in the future.

Regional Land Use Patterns

Strategies for Addressing Community Concerns

• O-6 – Potential Annexation: Potentially developable land that is not needed for urban expansion at this time but is available if expansion is needed. Land can be redesignated from O-6 to a growth sector through a formal amendment to the Future Land Use Map.
• O-7 – Urban Expansion: Developable land currently owned by the City of El Paso where master planning is underway for potential urban expansion before 2030 using Smart Growth principles.

The seven open-space sectors are applied to land that is not currently part of the El Paso’s urban economy. In contrast, the nine growth sectors are applied to urbanized or urbanizing land. No attempt has been made in Plan El Paso to determine if or how much additional land may be needed for outward expansion after 2030.

The nine growth sectors can be described as follows:

• G-1 – Downtown: This sector includes the historic core of Downtown plus the larger Downtown area from Paisano Drive north to I-10, including the arts and convention center, Union Depot, City Hall, County Courthouse, United States courthouse, and Mexican Consulate. El Paso’s “Invest First in Downtown” policies apply in this sector.
• G-2 – Traditional Neighborhood: This sector includes the remainder of central El Paso as it existed through World War II. Blocks are small and usually have rear alleys; buildings directly faced streets; schools, parks, and small shops are integrated with residential areas. This sector is well-suited for use of the SmartCode as a replacement for current zoning when planned in conjunction with specific neighborhood plans or identified in this Comprehensive Plan.
• G-3 – Post-War: This sector applies to transitional neighborhoods typically developed from the 1950s through the 1980s. Streets were laid out with curvilinear patterns without alleys and shopping centers are located at major intersections behind large parking lots. This sector is generally stable but would benefit from strategic suburban retrofits to supplement the limited housing stock and add missing civic and commercial uses.
• G-4 – Suburban: This sector applies to modern single-use residential subdivisions and office parks, large schools and parks, and suburban shopping centers. This sector is generally stable but would benefit from strategic suburban retrofits to supplement the limited housing stock and add missing civic and commercial uses.
• G-5 – Independent City: This sector identifies the incorporated cities of Anthony, Clint, Horizon, Socorro, and Vinton. El Paso plans and regulations have no effect in these cities.
• G-6 – Rural Settlement: This sector applies to existing scattered subdivisions in non-urban locations. Some rural settlements are becoming suburbanized but most are still rural in character with a large percentage of vacant lots and very limited public services. Additional rural settlements are neither needed nor desirable due to excessively long commutes, difficulty in providing services to scattered homes, and an enormous surplus of existing vacant lots.
• G-7 – Industrial: This sector applies to industrial parks, large free-standing industrial uses, refineries, non-military airfields, trucking terminals, and mines, all on large tracts in areas dominated by vehicles. This sector is essential to El Paso’s economy; however, when an industrial use becomes obsolete, there can be potential for mixed-use redevelopment of the site. This sector also includes the existing rail yards which could be redeveloped as mixed-use communities if the rail yards were moved out of town.
• G-8 – Fort Bliss Mixed Use: This sector identifies non-military portions of Fort Bliss that are or can become integral parts of El Paso. Non-military development should be eligible for annexation into the City of El Paso provided it meets the Smart Location Principles and the Neighborhood Patterns contained in policies of the Urban Design Element of Plan El Paso.
• G-9 – Fort Bliss Military: This sector identifies the main cantonment of Fort Bliss, Biggs Army Air Field, and East Fort Bliss, all located outside the El Paso City limits. Despite El Paso’s lack of jurisdiction, healthy development at Fort Bliss is as important to El Paso as any other economic sector.

In addition to these sixteen base sectors, the Future Land Use Map contains a series of overlays that define key generators of movement and economic activity, plus prime locations for development and redevelopment. These overlays are described on the following pages.

PLAN EL PASO

Strategies for Addressing Community Concerns

⬚ figure

Future Land Use Map - Base Sectors Note: Under Texas law, a comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries.

In addition to the base open-space and growth sectors, the Future Land Use Map contains a series of overlay designations. These overlays define key generators of movement and economic activity, prime locations for new compact neighborhoods, and protection zones.

Nine types of overlay designations are shown on the Future Land Use Map. The first five are specific geographic points of movement and activity:

• Border Crossings: The four international ports of entry between El Paso and Juárez are key regional links for the movement of people and freight, including raw materials and finished products traveling to and from maquiladoras in northern Mexico.
• Colleges: Campuses of the University of Texas at El Paso and El Paso Community College are major activity centers for students, teachers, and staff.
• Hospitals: Hospitals are major activity centers for patients, doctors, and staff.
• Regional Transportation Hubs: The El Paso International Airport and the Union Depot are major regional transportation hubs, supplemented by numerous bus terminals between the border and Downtown El Paso.
• Local Transfer Centers: The eight transfer centers operated by Sun Metro are key links in daily movement through El Paso.

The sixth and seventh overlay designations are geographic areas where compact walkable neighborhoods are a key goal of City policy:

• Rapid Transit System (RTS) Stops: Four bus rapid transit lines are planned by Sun Metro. Each will terminate at a designated transfer center while also offering additional stops at approximately one-mile spacing. Each stop is designated on this map by a circle with an indeterminate outer edge. This circle indicates a presumed area of influence around each RTS stop where passengers will be arriving and departing as pedestrians. Each of these stops has the potential to generate or reinforce compact walkable redevelopment due to increased pedestrian activity. Each stop is also a highly desirable location for future residents and businesses who will be able to depend on regularly scheduled, high-quality public transportation.
• Future Compact Neighborhoods: A larger series of future compact neighborhoods are also designated on this map, including one surrounding each local transfer center. El Paso has only a limited number of areas where compact walkable development or redevelopment can take place with convenient access to existing services and facilities. Each of these areas provides an excellent opportunity for El Paso to grow without the constant outward expansion of past decades. Illustrative plans in other elements of Plan El Paso visualize the future physical context of each future compact neighborhood and many RTS stops and transfer centers

The eighth and ninth overlay designations are protection zones that identify land that deserves special attention in the planning and development process:

• Arroyos: Many arroyos have been destroyed or replaced by engineered channels. Other arroyos are already being protected by public ownership or private covenants. Arroyos as identified in this overlay have neither been destroyed nor protected and would likely be endangered by careless development practices in the future. The edges of the arroyos shown on this map are generalized.
• Military Buffer: In certain locations, new neighborhoods and other noise-sensitive land uses would be subject to potentially severe noise impacts from training activities at Fort Bliss. These uses should not be introduced into the designated military buffer zones.

Compact Urban Areas

The designation of base sectors and overlays allows the City of El Paso to group together a series of designations where special incentives, policies, or regulations should apply.

The Urban Design and Transportation Elements of Plan El Paso use this technique by defining as “Compact Urban” all land in the following designations:

• Base Sectors: G-1, G-2, and O-7.
• Overlays: Local Transfer Centers, RTS Stops, and Future Compact Neighborhoods.

In Compact Urban areas, the Transportation Element indicates that more walkable thoroughfares are anticipated, as discussed in “Compact Urban, Drivable Suburban” on page 4.36.

The Urban Design Element indicates that the preferred locations for higher density development are sites in Compact Urban areas (see policies under Goals 2.1 through 2.5), though additional locations are not precluded.

Those policies are carefully worded to makes it clear that a different set of standards will apply to thoroughfare design, new development, and redevelopment outside of Compact Urban areas, such as in the remainder of the G-3 “Post-War” and the G-4 “Suburban” sectors, while not precluding this approach elsewhere.