Chapter 42 was passed

April 24, 2013

Chapter 42 of the City of Houston, Code of Ordinances passed as proposed by the Mayor’s administration with minor amendments at the April 24, 2013, Houston City Council with only three votes against: CM Andrew Burks, CM Helena Brown, and CM Jerry Davis.  It is now the law.  As a consequence, our Chapter 42 discussions have been removed.  If you have linked to them, please let me know and we’ll work something out.

CM Laster’s two amendments passed as well. CM Laster’s amendment to reduce from 60% to 55% the level of support needed to complete an application for minimum lot size protection passed with only one vote against (Bradford), and his amendment to allow development on less than an acre of land outside of existing neighborhoods had unanimous support.  CM Brown’s two amendments (1) to keep most of District A “suburban” and, alternatively, (2) to refer Chapter 42 back to the administration, both failed.

Houston & ETJChapter 42 extends the “urban” density formerly found only inside Loop 610 to all of incorporated Houston; i.e., inside the City limits.  Suburban density now only applies to the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).

What should homeowners do?  You should begin scheduling somebody from COH Planning to come explain how to adopt minimum lot size criteria for those neighborhoods that don’t have provisions in your deed restrictions.  If you haven’t started already, you should also begin the process of modifying deed restrictions to add protection verbiage.  You cannot start too soon.

Also, plats not associated with any neighborhood are eligible for redevelopment instantly, so drive through your area to see if you can identify any that don’t seem to be a part of any subdivision; for example, abandoned utility ROW or abandoned drainage ROW.   Likely it’s too late to do anything about these, since developers have had 6 years to identify these odd parcels, but it may not be too late to begin planning for denser development.

If you are building a new home or rebuilding on an existing site, consider pier and beam construction.  Construction costs may be slightly higher, but ultimately the serviceability and flexibility offered over the life of the home will make up any difference.  If water shows signs of rising in the neighborhood, it’s relatively simple to raise the house higher and install more porch steps.  Despite the fact that Rebuild Houston doesn’t credit pier and beam as being permeable, it does allow water to flow under the house and provides less surface area to flowing water.  Piping is accessible and less prone to stress cracking as the ground shifts during Houston’s periods of torrent and drought.

Finally, Chapters 9 and 13 of the City of Houston Infrastructure Design Manual that deal with Stormwater are up for revision.   With the increased density that Chapter 42 will provide will come increased stormwater runoff.  This is particularly problematic in areas where flooding is already prevalent and may migrate to areas that are marginal.  Chapter 9 deals with the “grandfathering” of existing permeable surfaces.  Currently, if a property has existing concrete, mitigation of on-site detention need only be done for increased imperviousness, but only at 50% of the impact rate for properties above 1 acre in size.  Smaller properties are mitigated at 20% with properties below 15000 square feet only requiring 10% of increase impervious cover.

Because of objections by homeowners, minor changes to these requirements have been made already, but these are insufficient to prevent an increase in flooding.  Instead, we recommend complete elimination of any special provisions for already developed areas because many were originally installed without adhering to detention requirements, so should not be grandfathered. Arguments that it is unfair to burden new developers with the transgressions of the past don’t seem logical.  We think that it is unfair to developers of virgin properties to have to mitigate stormwater runoff while those of older properties are allowed to remove existing concrete to elevate their property without any mitigation.  It is also unfair to adjacent property owners.

Please help us protect Houston from future flooding.  Please join us to get these provisions updated.

On Wednesday April 24, 2013, the Houston City Council will vote on Chapter 42.  Citizens will have one last opportunity to raise their concerns at the pop-off session before City Council on Tuesday afternoon.

I think that I can speak for the Super Neighborhood Alliance (SNA), when I say that everyone agrees that the City needs to grow and densify, but there are good ways to grow and bad ways.  Tomaro Bell, President of the SNA, and Jane Cahill West, its Vice President, have experienced the negative aspects of Chapter 42 inside Loop 610 where it has been the law for over 10 years.   They and others inside the Loop decided that the rules need to be cleaned up before subjecting the entire City to them.  SN 22, along the Washington Avenue corridor, has been a test case for a lot of these issues.  Jane gave a tour for City Council members and SN leaders in her area of problems created by Chapter 42 and although many have been addressed by the City, some of the more important ones still need attention.

We had been told by the Mayor and developers that the main thrust for Chapter 42 was to redevelop run-down apartments and strip centers, but no sooner had the SNA removed its objections, then the Mayor started backpedaling – offering to reduce the wait time for neighborhoods to establish minimum lot sizes and setbacks from 2 years for lots under an acre to 1 year for lots under 1/2 acre.  Small lots like this are not run-down apartment complexes.  They are neighborhoods like yours.  Fortunately, with help from CM Costello, SNA leaders were able stop these changes from going forward.

Underground street infrastructure for most of Houston is old and antiquated, so we want to be sure that high density building does not occur where the streets have inadequate storm sewers, water lines, and sanitation sewers. When the toilet flushes next door, will you get scalded?   But Jane pointed out that high density also makes every detail more important.  Where are trash cans stored? Where are mailboxes? Air conditioners?  With a requirement of one guest parking spot for every 6 homes, where do guests (and homeowners) really park?  In Cottage Grove, emergency vehicles cannot access many homes because too many vehicles are parked on narrow streets.  Ladder trucks needed for the 3 or 4 story homes need a place for support pads so they don’t topple over.  These were Fire Marshall concerns, too, not just Jane’s.

Average lot size can be as low as 1400 square feet, but there is no minimum lot size.  Permeable ground can be no less than 150 square feet on a 3500 square foot lot – tiny.  Chapter 42 and Chapter 9 are not harmonized; i.e., they contradict one another.  Chapter 42 requires green space which increases as the lot sizes reduce until at 1400 square feet 600 square feet of green space is required, but there is no minimum lot size .   More about that later.

Very dense development makes sense in areas that have good mass transit because then people can do without a car.  People who fondly remember brownstones in Chicago or New York forget that both cities have excellent mass transit and until recently, neither had the flooding concerns that Houston does.   Multiple small shared driveway developments scattered throughout a neighborhood creates a parking mess, increases traffic, and would probably remove the trees and shade that define the neighborhood’s character.  That doesn’t matter to somebody who only wants to make money, but it does matter to people who’ve searched for the perfect house for their family and have committed to a multi-year mortgage to realize it.

From the drainage perspective, neighborhoods in my area have been dealing with redevelopment of commercial tracts that have not adhered to City ordinances for detention or were granted unwarranted variances to do without.  We approached CC well before these properties were completed seeking help, but found none.  In a meeting on April3, 2013, CM Costello told SNA representatives that homeowners in my area were victims of a lack of enforcement. Had it been one instance, I would agree, but it was worse that – it was multiple occurrences of systematically ignoring ordinances that continues even now.  So unless we want recurrences of what happened in my area, before Chapter 42 is passed, we need legislation setting up oversight committees, clearly written enforcement criteria, and personnel dedicated to enforcement.  Keep in mind, though, that the area to service increases by 8.4 times that inside Loop 610, so this is not a small requirement.  All present politicians will be gone when this experiment is in full swing, so all uncodified promises are meaningless.

City Council has been told by Mayor Parker that the City needs density to generate funds, but it may be false economy.  Presently, growth is primarily in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) around new activity centers of The Woodlands, Sugarland, Katy, the Energy Corridor, etc.,  so I expect that much of the new development will continue to be near these centers.  Chapter 42 affects the ETJ as well.  The further away infrastructure is, the more it costs.  Our water comes from Lake Houston.  Pumping that water across the entire City while maintaining flow and pressure is expensive. And if a development explosion occurs in a previously undeveloped area, providing the infrastructure may consume most of, or more than, the increased revenues generated.

Section 42-182 clearly shows that minimum lot sizes in the ETJ can also be reduced to 1400 square feet, although each lot of that size must have 720 square feet of compensating green space versus the 600 square feet required in the urban zone.  Compensating green space can be replaced by a recreational center, so clearly this is not to prevent flooding.  Normal lot size in the urban area without requiring green space is 3500 square feet and is 5000 square feet in the ETJ.  Plats in the urban area can be less than 1400 square feet as long as the average is 1400, yet under no circumstance can ETJ plats be below 1400 square feet.   The upshot of this is that if the City’s reason for doing Chapter 42 is to increase density inside the City limits in order to generate new revenue, then why are they increasing density outside the City to almost the same levels?  It makes no sense.

All this may not stem the migration to the suburbs either.  That’s being driven by jobs (Exxon, Noble Drilling, etc) moving to the ETJ and the construction of the Grand Parkway and its induced development.  Better schools, more property at a lower cost, newer construction, lower taxes, lower insurance, less traffic, etc., also affect the transition, not to mention that the size of the ETJ is more than double the existing City limits.  Why is it a surprise that there’s explosive growth?

High density developments in Jane’s area started as high-end properties drawing empty nesters looking to simplify their lives.  The aforementioned issues became apparent – parking, noise, traffic, etc.- so they soon became rental properties and the values began to slide.  It should not come as a surprise that many are inhabited by multiple singles splitting the rent, nor should it surprise that Jane’s neighborhood is the test bed for new parking ordinances, noise ordinances and who knows what’s next.

Common sense says that Chapter 42 should not be sprung on all 4 million people at once with most not understanding what it’s all about, particularly since so many people are unaware of its ramifications.  Just three days before the CC vote the Houston Chronicle wrote an OpEd about Chapter 42, but said that it applies to the area inside Beltway 8.  That’s wrong.  If the Chronicle Editorial Board doesn’t know what’s going on, why would City Council expect the rest of the City’s citizens to be any better informed?  At least give the Chronicle time to catch up.  Common sense says implement the changes inside Loop 610 immediately, test the results, then plan a staged roll-out into areas that have been identified as being served by adequate infrastructure or where infrastructure has newly been added in anticipation of densification.  Stage it with expansion of mass transit and commercial revitalization, improved drainage and detention.  But common sense does not seem to hold sway.

Chapter 42 and Growth

April 17, 2013

This is part of a continuation of a series of articles about Chapter 42 and its effects on the city of Houston.

After the City Council hearing on Chapter 42 on April 10th, 2013, it became clear that removal of the Super Neighborhood Alliance’s objections had paved the way for its passage.  Unfortunately, concerns about flooding were not abated and I’m not sure if the well-meaning City Council members understand that Chapter 42 will likely increase flooding and not stem the disparity between growth in the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction(ETJ).  Depending upon which expert is cited, growth in the ETJ is somewhere between 5 and 10 times the growth in the City.  Developers used this argument to convince Mayor Parker to change the City from and urban/suburban City to a completely urban City – the largest urban-only City in the country; i.e., uncharted waters.  Herein we’ll attempt to shine a penlight into the murky waters.

The growth in the ETJ has been driven by many factors: lower housing costs, jobs, lower insurance rates, planned communities, less risk of flooding, less density, and better schools.  Historically, what prevented moving to the ETJ was the bad commute to downtown jobs, but jobs are leaving the City to relocate in the ETJ so the disincentive is now an incentive.   It should be no surprise.  No matter how big a slab of concrete was poured, within 5 years or so it was almost as clogged as it had been before with  the SW Freeway and I-10 being good examples.  Had Houston pursued commuter rail to give an alternative to the frustrating freeway delays, perhaps the situation would be different.  In the meantime the Grand Parkway (GP or NAFTA Highway, as insiders know it) is being built in the ETJ to service the increasing number of residents.  The GP has already induced growth along it’s planned route as new housing developments spring up to service the new jobs.

Can Chapter 42 bring the jobs back to Houston?  Maybe some, but the Mayor needs to find a way to sweeten the medicine.  Her “because I say so” approach is doing little, except helping her political opponents.  The issues raised by the SNA are real issues that deserve better answers.  Everyone knows that the drainage is defined in a different manual, and parking is in a different chapter, and noise is still undefined, but the reality is that they are all related to increased density, so all need to be addressed before moving forward.

It’s difficult to believe that the City spent 6 years on this one chapter and never considered the need to deal with related issues.  Now we are.  Chapter 42 and Chapter 9 need to be harmonized – right now they don’t agree.  It shouldn’t take six years, but it certainly should be given more than two weeks.

 

Bad experiences with Chapter 42 redevelopment inside Loop 610, convinced the Super Neighborhood Alliance (SNA) to mount a sustained effort to improve Chapter 42 of the City Code of Ordinances prior to it’s extension from its current limit of within Loop 610 to encompass the entire City and the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).  The SNA has been concerned that the increased density will require additional infrastructure, including additional stormwater drainage, so had recommended changes to “grandfathering” clauses in Chapter 9 of the Public Works and Engineering (PW&E) Infrastructure Design Manual.

As a result of the SNA request, Mayor Parker asked that CM Costello engage the engineering community to suggest revisions to  Chapter 9 regulations associated with “grandfathering” detention; i.e., the regulations that say that if a property is already paved, then no detention is necessary when the property is redeveloped.  One week before the hearing before City Council about the latest Chapter 42 revisions (held on Wednesday, April 10th, 1013), members of the SNA met with CM Stephen Costello to discuss changes that his group had recommended be made.  On Friday, April 5, PW&E released their latest Chapter revisions, which included parts of the requested revisions,  so the SNA called an emergency meeting on Monday, April 8, to try to disseminate the information to as many Super Neighborhoods as possible. CM Costello was asked to be the keynote speaker and graciously accepted.Houston & ETJ

Chapter 42 will have an impact on all of the City of Houston and the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), not just the area inside Loop 610 that’s arbitrarily defined as urban.   That’s a very large area – much much larger than the area inside Loop 610.  To see just how large, click on the map to the right.  Not all requirements apply to the ETJ, but enough do that the not yet annexed areas should be aware.  From Chapter 42:

Sec. 42-2. Scope.
This chapter shall apply to all development and subdivision of land within the city and its extraterritorial jurisdiction. This chapter establishes the general rules and regulations governing plats, subdivisions and development of land within the city and its extraterritorial jurisdiction to promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the city and the safe, orderly and healthful development of the city.

The equations that the engineers have defined may be based upon sound science, but they do precious little to prevent flooding in Houston.  In fact, for “grandfathered” areas of between 1 and 10 acres (100% concrete), developers would only need to add about 4% of the area in acre-feet of detention.  For “grandfathered” areas of between 10 and 50 acres (100% concrete), developers would need to add more, as defined by the equation, up to a maximum of 7.5% of the area in acre-feet of detention. For relative numbers, ground that has never been covered in concrete (and this is a necessary distinction) would need to add 50% of the area in acre-feet of detention.  If the ground has ever been covered in concrete, it is grandfathered, even if the concrete was removed and the land remained dormant for years.  PW&E should remove this onerous definition for several reasons, primarily because it is difficult to verify.  There are numerous examples where PW&E incorrectly claimed 100% impervious cover and allowed a developer to completely pave over the ground without the need to mitigate for any stormwater runoff.  Satellite photographs often tell a different story.

We’ve created a simple Excel spreadsheet that allows you to calculate the amount of detention for a property.  In the orange box, insert the development area in acres.  The percentage of new impervious cover (Aii = new concrete) is in the left column and the percentage of redeveloped impervious cover (Aei = old concrete) is along the top row.  The intersection of the row and column is the amount of detention reREAL 100 year floodplainquired.

Why are we so concerned about detention?  Lots of reasons, but perhaps the most important is that the City is very vulnerable to flooding.  In order to understand why so many people flooded in April, 2009, TIRZ 17 used a two dimension computer model in its Regional Drainage Study to determine stormwater sheetflow in the area around it’s boundary.  The image at the right shows the Study area north of I-10 and the actual 100-year floodplain (there’s a similar map south of I-10).  FEMA defines the 100-year floodplain as water that exits from a bayou or drainage ditch that floods the surrounding area.

What FEMA doesn’t define, and every hydrologist and civil engineer understands this, it that it is the water that cannot get to the ditch or bayou, the overland sheetflow, that causes the most flooding.  That’s the area in green in the picture.  The property that is outlined in yellow is a 46-acre property that failed to install detention and raised the property an average of about 1.5 feet.  Once the lowest property in the area, it’s now the highest, and as a result, many 50-year old homes that had never flooded, flooded in an event that was estimated to be between a 10 and 25-year event.   These are deed-restricted neighborhoods and residents recognized early on the problem and raised the issue with PE&E and the City, but were ignored.

This example is mirrored throughout the City and continues even inside TIRZ 17, despite our efforts to stop it.  Likely it has happened within your neighborhood, or will happen.  CM Costello says that it’s an enforcement issue because the regulations clearly say that sheetflow patterns cannot be interrupted.   If the City is unable to enforce regulations already in place, why should we expect them to enforce regulations when the new regulations are extended to an area many times the size of the existing urban area?  In these budget constrained times, should we expect that the City will multiply its staff many-fold? Probably not.

CM Costello said that the way to solve the flooding is with sub-regional detention ponds – huge detention ponds judiciously spaced throughout the City.  That could work, but there are several problems:

  • They need to be located where they can do the most good and be large enough to handle vast amounts of water – for a 100-year event, say a hurricane, consider something a few inches over a foot deep spread over several square miles.  How deep is defined by where in Houston you reside, but range from 13″ to 19″ in 24 hours.  Consider that the City of Houston encompasses 600 square miles, not including the ETJ, so if one sub-regional detention pond is placed per square mile, then 600 detention ponds would be needed with a capacity of over 640 acre-feet each.  One pond in TIRZ 17 is 44 acre-feet and costs $26 million.  That’s high.  Land cost was about $8 million and most of the rest was because residents weren’t listened to when they warned that the channel and the bridge would have to be rebuilt. Let’s consider a typical cost might be half that.   There are nearly 15 44-acre ponds per 640 acre pond, so one sub-regional pond might cost about $190 million.  One for each square mile would be over $114 billion dollars.
  • All City streets are supposed to be capable of handling a 2-year rain event under the street and a 100-year rain event within the street ROW.  Most cannot handle a 2-year event, much less a 100-year event, yet somehow all this water is supposed to be conveyed to a sub-regional detention pond perhaps a mile away.  For example, Arthur Storey Park surrounds a large HCFCD detention pond near Bellaire Blvd and Beltway 8 along Brays Bayou, yet the intersection routinely floods because the conveyance system cannot move the water the tenth of a mile, or so, to the pond.  Of course that detention pond wasn’t purposed as a sub-regional pond, but it illustrates that building the pond is only part of the cost.

This is back-of-the-napkin math, but the take-away idea is that the cost and time required to build such a system, even scaled to a tenth, would likely prohibit its completion and who would decide which tenth would be protected.  Houston has a history of not keeping its promises and a history of cronyism, so there will always be backroom deals and unwarranted variances.  Keep in mind, too, that the Rebuild Houston Developer’s Fee only provides $1.5 million per year.  At that rate, it would take over 125 years to build one developer-funded sub-regional detention pond.

The infrastructure required for the density proposed is much more than just drainage.  It is also water and sewer service, trash and maintenance, police, fire, power and lighting and the vast majority will be paid for by the taxpayer.  Even if the City is only responsible for those services that occur within the City limits, it still represents a sizable investment, and it’s not likely to keep pace with development.  In the meantime, streets that were designed for suburban use will need to carry more runoff water, and neighborhoods that haven’t flooded in the past will likely flood in the future.

 

 

Memorial Examiner article about Jim Blackburn’s presentation.

“A combination of actions by governmental entities and developers have exacerbated flooding problems in Memorial City and West Houston, environmental attorney Jim Blackburn said Wednesday.

Blackburn addressed the Memorial City District Drainage Coalition’s annual meeting on March 20, to a crowd of about 100 residents, including several Houston city council members and candidates for council positions, and representatives from Super Neighborhoods.

Blackburn said the flooding and drainage problems in West Houston aren’t isolated, that similar situations exist across the region.

But MCDDC is a unique group, he said. Blackburn used a presentation put together by members of MCDDC.

“This is one of the neatest collaborations I’ve worked with, and I’ve worked with a lot,” said Blackburn, who, besides being a partner in the law firm Blackburn and Carter also teaches at Rice University and is co-director of the SSPEED Center at Rice. “These citizens put together most of this information.”

This is the link to Jim Blackburn’s PowerPoint presentation from the MCDDC Annual Meeting on March 20th.  Several new slides were added (marked) to help tell the story.

What can I do?

March 27, 2013

During our meeting people began to realize that the increased density called for in Chapter 42 would worsen flooding.  They asked what they might do.  Below is my quickly written reply.  The hearing for Chapter 42 is April 10th, 2013, so we need to educate people quickly about what we can do and what we need to ask for.

Thanks for getting involved.  There are several things that you can do:

1) call and email politicians to let them know your concerns.  That includes your council member and all 5 at large members
2) talk with friends and neighbors to educate them about Chapter 42 and your concerns about it.
3) alert your civic association and super neighborhood about your concerns and your suggestions for a solution.
4) make plans to attend the April 10th hearing and sign up to speak.
5) contact your County Commissioner to ask for more detention in our area and ask the County to be more restrictive when they know the City is doing things that will cause more flooding.  While we may be in the incorporated area, what happens in the City affects the County and vice-versa.

Talking points are:
1) Suburban roadways were built assuming suburban densities so storm sewers are inadequate above 45% impervious cover. Chapter 42 allows up to 96% impervious cover for residential building so we should increase the City standard for runoff coefficient to 100% for urban areas and don’t assume that parks have a runoff coefficient of 18%, particularly for urban parks that are well packed from foot and bike traffic.
2) Too many variances have been allowed on new builds so there is too much concrete and not enough detention; i.e., do not grant more unwarranted variances.
3) Enforce existing ordinances.  Grandfathering wouldn’t as big be a problem if the ordinances had been enforced to begin with.  Once detention for a property is incorrectly calculated, under current rules it is grandfathered forever.
4) End grandfathering completely.  As you saw from the slides, the actual 100-year floodplains are dramatically bigger than FEMA indicates when runoff water is considered.  We live in a very flat subtropical area near a large body of water where heavy rain is always possible.  If runoff water cannot get to the drainage system, then flooding occurs.  The maps showed that in the majority of the area modelled, drainage is inadequate and structural flooding is likely to occur in a major rain event.
5) The Manning number used by the City (0.04) for open ditches assumes a nearly worse case for the ditch and optimal case for enclosed pipe, so it allows a large ditch to be replaced by a much smaller pipe, effectively reducing drainage capacity.   This was used in our area to dramatically reduce the capacity of the Bunker Hill Bridge, causing water to back up pipes and flood roads and homes.  It’s at least partially responsible for the severe flooding along I-10 feeder roads where the large ditches along the MKT rail line were replaced with much lower capacity underground drainage.  Choosing a smaller Manning number would require a larger pipe size, so for a City beset with drainage issues, assuming the same Manning number as concrete, for instance, would automatically add drainage capacity when a roadway is rebuilt with underground drainage.
6) Use low impact design practices.  This might be as simple as using permeable concrete for parking lots.  Other ideas are using cisterns (a water “retention” system) to capture rainwater for watering, rooftop gardens that reduce runoff, plant trees for shade and to absorb water.

We have years of bad building practices to overcome with diminishing opportunities to buy land to install the necessary large detention facilities.  After 3 hours of rain, land becomes water saturated and we have 100% runoff, therefore, even without grandfathering, we only mitigate for 50% of the covered ground used for development.  We should incentivize detention by providing breaks from the Rebuild Houston fee to those who add extra detention on their properties.

In “Drainage Attainment Districts” (DAD’s), my term, we can use a percentage of tax money from local homeowners and businesses to pay developers to store more water than is required on their property.  DAD’s would be set up much like a TIRZ, but would specifically require that area detention be installed; i.e, no grandfathering.  After the area’s detention needs are met and the cost of the facilities paid for, the tax would end, however exemptions from Rebuild Houston fees might extend for the developers as long as the detention remains in place.

I’m sure that there are many other ideas that you will uncover when your start talking to people.

Collusion or Incompetence–Flooding in West Houston

On March 20th, at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Memorial City District Drainage Coalition (dba Residents Against Flooding), well-known Environmental Attorney Jim Blackburn will present Collusion or Incompetence: Flooding in West Houston, his assessment of the current state of drainage in West Houston which he believes is a microcosm of problems occurring throughout the City of Houston.

Per Mr. Blackburn, “From Addicks and Barker reservoirs to more general issues on Buffalo Bayou to the flooding associated with TIRZ 17, a pattern of governmental and private sector involvement in human generated flooding is becoming more and more apparent and troubling.”

Join us, hear Mr. Blackburn’s arguments, then make up your own mind.

Please join us for this important discussion:
March 20th @ 7:00 p.m.
Memorial Middle School Auditorium
12550 Vindon

Residents Against Flooding

January 29, 2013: Ed Browne & Cyd Dillahunty met with our attorney Jim Blackburn to discuss the recently published Rebuild Houston Ten-Year Draft Plan. Mr. Blackburn has committed to address our Annual Meeting on Wednesday, March 20th, in the Memorial Middle School Auditorium, on the topic “Collusion or Incompetence: Flooding in West Houston.” His presentation will provide an overview of flooding and drainage concerns in our area.

Before leaving for another meeting, CM Pennington made two notable comments: He said that infrastructure was his number one priority and also said that our area was “in the middle of the pack” on the list of projects on the city’s list. [A visit to www.rebuildhouston.org will show that the area around Springrock south of Westview is a Category 5, the lowest need. Also, the north end of Hollow Lane is a Category 5. This almost guarantees no CIP projects to correct flooding in these two areas.]

CM Bradford stated that it was the city’s view that their job with regard to TIRZ was to approve the budget and to appoint the new board members. Three new board members have been on TIRZ 17 only long enough to attend two meetings. Bradford urged us time to allow the new board members to right the wrongs of the past.

Lois Myers asked repeatedly of the panel why the four contracted detention ponds have not been put into place and why hadn’t the city upheld the contract. Potok said he was unaware of the contract between TIRZ 17 and the COH dated 2003. Lois said she would get him a copy.

John Rickel and Bob Tucker are two of the new TIRZ board members. Both live in the affected areas and formerly were on the other side of this issue so they are well aware of the issues. Bob expressed “great hope” for the future and said the new board is “far more open” to community concerns. NewTIRZ board member Rickel asked LAN engineers for an updated drainage study yesterday (12/12) taking Strey Lane out of the drainage solution and identifying an alternative path for water to flow to Buffalo Bayou.

The TIRZ will focus on drainage and the best use of their monies so the community gets the most drainage in the most cost effective way possible; “more detention is what we want” said Rickel. He added that the Barryknoll east project has been approved and will include a 40 acre detention pond; 30 acre feet is dedicated to flooding, not new construction. This project will be $26 million. However, it is up to the city to provide the channeling to the detention from W140.

COH monies cannot be used in a TIRZ area; only TIRZ money can be used for projects within the boundaries. Rickel brought up the fact that TIRZ 17 is only 800 acres big and all of the outlying areas that are affected by TIRZ projects are under the city and county umbrella. Therefore, coordination and cooperation are needed between the entities to solve the issue.
Bradford said flooding is a regional issue and should be looked at holistically instead of piecemeal as has been done in the past.

It was agreed by many parties that the current Tallowood project, costing $900,000 is a waste of money and will dump more water into W153. Roberta Prazak and Hugh Rawl asked why the Tallowood project was being rebuilt without looking at the RDS. PW&E Menendez did not have good answers why Hugh’s email was not answered.

Keith Brown spoke for the City of Bunker Hill Village. They are opposed to any increase in water down W151. The Strey Lane project is unavailable to the TIRZ. Bunker Hill Village said that the W151 bridge at Memorial Drive will not change in cross sectional area.

John Rickel stated that TIRZ 17 is specifically focused on two things: Mobility and Drainage. He said that they have requested that LAN update the RDS to reflect that Strey Lane is off-the-table. He agrees that TIRZ 17 money is limited so they need to get the most bank for the buck and work in partnership with HCFCD, TxDOT and COH.
Wes Holmes was concerned that there have been a lot of studies, but too little action.

Virginia Gregory repeatedly offered the solution to detention on the north side of I-10 to be constructed under Cross Point Church or in Hayden Park. The current detention on the east side will be rendered useless when Witte is reconstructed. Virginia Gregory shared a letter from Mayor Parker with Daniel Menendez of the PWE that stated the Hayden Park idea was not being looked at because it was deemed unacceptable. Virginia asked for the name of the engineer who gave this information to Mayor Parker; Menendez did not know the answer and was unaware of the issue. At a meeting later, CM Brown said she would reach out to the church to speak with them about the idea.

Ed Browne said that the COH prioritizes projects for thoroughfares first and neighborhoods last, so channeling will not happen. COH doesn’t have money. Menendez refuted these statements and recommended we visit the rebuildhouston.org site for details about upcoming projects which were divided into thoroughfares and drainage lists. Later, CM Bradford corroborated Ed Browne’s assertion that major thoroughfares have priority over neighborhoods. He said that he feels this is wrong because people living in flooding neighborhoods need to be able to get to major thoroughfares to escape.

Ann Givens spoke about her neighborhood’s flooding and hasn’t been given any attention. She said that NSR465 has not been given any priority.

Christina Walsh asked if the TIRZ Board has any possibility to modify the Budget as passed at CC. John Rickel suggests that he will try to modify the budget in order to reflect needs better, specifically projects that do not properly address where to put the water. John also pitches the TIRZ Workshop.

Daniel Menendez says that he doesn’t know anything about the TIRZ contract between the COH, TIRZ 17 and the Memorial City Management District. He commented that the TIRZ never submitted additional CIP projects, necessary to make the drainage projects, work to the City.

TIRZ invited everyone to a “workshop agenda” meeting to be held January 8 in the HCC Theater Building (NE corner of I-10 and Beltway frontage roads) at 5:30 PM. This is an endeavor to have dialogue with the community. Urged we submit our detailed questions for the engineer ahead of time so the dialogue would be improved. The format will be to go waterway by waterway and focus for a length of time on each one.

Page 3 of 4«1234»