FLOG - the Friends of White Flint Blog

The Montgomery County Council is almost done considering the White Flint Sector Plan in its committees. Next week should be the last of this round of hearings, and the all-important staff memoranda on next week’s hearings should be available tomorrow.

There are two hearings next week: on Monday, the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee takes a final looks at staging issues (meaning the timing of various infrastructure improvements and development projects). On Tuesday, the PHED Committee will hold another joint hearing with the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee on financing the whole thing. Both hearings will be in the Council Office Building in Rockville.

Staging issues have been controversial throughout the four-year development of the White Flint Sector Plan. Because the Plan is for redevelopment of an existing area, the County can’t just begin ripping up roads. Even in the economic downturn, White Flint has remained a busy retail destination — one of Maryland’s biggest and most active shopping areas. It’s just so sprawled out along Rockville Pike that people don’t always realize the huge consumer flow in the area. Plus, of course, the Pike is just so downright ugly that it’s hard to realize that it is a draw of any kind. But retail rents remain very high in White Flint, so deciding when to tear down a profitable development (even to build a new and better one) is enough to give any property owner heartburn.

The staging plan is intended, in part, to reassure these anxious stakeholders that all the moving parts will come together smoothly at the right time. At the same time, the staging plan should also give residents confidence that the necessary infrastructure to handle those renovations will be in place. And, of course, given the demographics of White Flint residents, as my more-mature friends often remind me, the staging plan will also show that “things will be done in our lifetimes,” and not just the demolition portions.

So we’re talking a thirty-year staging plan involving lots of money, both public and private, and many, many interacting priorities. It’s a tough schedule to put together.

The Planning Board divided the White Flint Plan into “phases,” with each succeeding phase triggered by events in the former phase. Thus, you can’t say that Phase One will last five years, because it might be quicker or slower, depending on how fast things actually get triggered.

There is, however, general consensus that, given Montgomery County’s permitting process, it’s not likely that things will start happening for three years or so. At the public hearings last year, one architectural firm talked about nine-year waits for development approvals.

So part of the Planning Board’s staging plan was to try to “jumpstart” renovations by “front-loading” necessary planning efforts into Phase One. Friends of White Flint, in its October 2009 Report to the Council, recommended a series of these speed-ups. Not only would that make it easier (and cheaper) to sell bonds to pay for renovations, but concentrating quick and early results in the “core” section of White Flint would demonstrate a County commitment to the Plan to both property owners and residents. It’s much easier to support something when you see visible progress on a known plan.

But, like everything, early planning and projects aren’t free. So one big element of that acceleration was to generate early funding, even before permits are granted and construction begins, to pay for early improvements. That works, if the White Flint property owners were willing to begin taxing themselves on projects that haven’t even been permitted yet. Under the Planning Board’s draft Plan, the vast majority of property owners were willing.

And that brings us to Tuesday’s joint hearing on financing the whole thing. As discussed in a post last month, the first joint hearing on financing explored a variety of financing options. You can read a Gazette article about that hearing here:

http://www.gazette.net/stories/02032010/bethnew212451_32554.php

On Tuesday, the PHED and MFP Committees are going to have to winnow the flock of options. The full Council is not likely to want to go through all the same options, since some options don’t seem to provide the elements necessary to support the Plan. Some, for example, won’t provide early funds, so there wouldn’t be any jumpstart. Jennifer Barrett, the County Financial Officer who presented the options, recognized that and tried to offer suggestions; on impact fees, for example, which are paid in a big lump, and hence are unpredictable and unsuitable for supporting bond payments, she suggested that payments could be spread over time. That would encourage developers to file plans and begin paying earlier.

But the big question is over the type of financing plans considered by the Planning Board. Remember that this was the “A-Team” first-string Planning Board of last year, including former Commissioners John Robinson and the late Jean Cryor. They were very good at looking at the financing side. Their expertise and the obvious utility of the Board’s financing proposals got the developers to support the proposed self-taxing mechanism.

Unfortunately, the County Executive reacted badly to the Planning Board’s recommendation. The first (and really only major) objection at the time was that a small portion (about ten percent) of the money raised by the new White Flint commercial development taxes would be reserved to pay for the White Flint infrastructure. This was unacceptable to the Executive Branch. “You’re going to give up a billion dollars in revenue because you don’t want to spend $100 million in White Flint?” then-Commissioner Robinson asked the Executive in a hearing. Yes, came the reply, it’s a “fairness” issue, since there are less-wealthy parts of the County which need help and we don’t want it to look like all the good things are happening in a rich area. Robinson, and everyone else in the room, just sat back in baffled wonder.

It appears the Council isn’t so willing to kill the golden goose. “Council members also said that any financing plan should ensure that money generated for infrastructure in White Flint stays in White Flint,” reports the Gazette. And the Executive seems to have walked-back from its earlier approach as well.

But it will be interesting to see what happens on Tuesday. After all, if we can’t pay for it, White Flint won’t get done.

Barnaby Zall

Has Sprawl Recovered Enough for the National Economy?

·Christopher LeinbergerVisiting Fellow, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program·     
January 27, 2010 | 12:09 pm·   

A new study conducted by researchers from the University of Alabama and University of Florida, sponsored by the Natural Resource Defense Council , shows that car-dependent communities have statistically higher rates of mortgage foreclosure than communities with multiple transportation options, such as transit, biking and walking. This also explains to some extent why across the country that “walkable urban” home values over the past two years have been flat or slightly down while fringe “drivable sub-urban” communities have suffered the worst price declines. The average American household spends 17 percent of their pre-tax income on transportation, 94 percent of this amount is for ownership and maintenance of cars. However when the data are disaggregated, drivable sub-urban households spend about 25 percent on transportation while walkable urban households only spend about 9 percent. This 16 percent difference represents well over a trillion dollars in households spending each year. If this spending was redeployed from cars to housing, education, and savings, it would be a major economic driver (excuse the pun). 

The major implication of this study is on the largest peace-time intervention in the American economy by the federal government, and, no, it’s not the bank bailouts. As reported on the front page of the Washington Post earlier this week, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have spent well over $1 trillion over the past year in propping up the securitized mortgage market and assuming untold risk of further mortgage defaults in the future. This is more than the bailout of the banks, AIG, and the car companies combined.

This mortgage bailout and the assumption of huge future risks were made in the hope that troubled housing, much of it on the fringe, will stabilize and regain its value. To some extent, it is a bet that sprawling development will recover its previously inflated value, a wager I’d decline. The Post story also mentioned that these federal props are being dismantled and will be gone by the end of the first quarter of this year. Two months later, the federal tax credit for the purchase of new homes will end as well. The obvious question is whether the housing market can stand on its own or will it push the economy back into recession; the feared “W” scenario experienced in the 1930s and in the early 1980s. The worst outcome of all would be if the bailout of housing, and particularly sprawl, left us without the resources to invest, especially on infrastructure and transportation choices, in the future. 

Greg Trimmer

OK, so it wasn’t as dramatic as slicing the Gordian Knot.

It was more like one of those old-time logging rivers, clogged up with timber. Lumberjacks caper over the floating trees, picking and hauling at the downed trees, until one floating behemoth finally moves and releases the whole riverful of timber in a shuddering crash. In other words, the logjam breaks. That was today in the PHED Committee.

For months, the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council had tried to reconcile the older, car-oriented “quality of life” standards used to evaluate when development would be allowed to move forward against the newer, transit-oriented White Flint Sector Plan. Cars vs pedestrians. Suburban vs. urban. It all came down to a difference of a few seconds in travel through White Flint.

At today’s hearing, Committee staff recited a litany of attempts to break the logjam. They tried this and that and the other. Still couldn’t get the cars sped up enough.  Those darn cars just sat there on the Pike, not moving fast enough through the new White Flint of 2030.

Finally, the Committee and Planning staffs tried something entirely different: If you can’t get the cars moving fast enough through intersections, try getting the people out of cars in the first place.

So that was the resolution. They finally calculated if you could get enough people out of their cars on Rockville Pike, then the remaining cars could move fast enough.

At first glance, that seems obvious enough, but the problem is that if you don’t get them out of their cars the right way it wouldn’t work. It’s what happens on roads all the time: build new lanes to ease congestion, and they just fill right up again. Same thing if you just take some cars off the road.

So this only works if you entice people out of their cars; don’t just ban cars or build roads, but give people a reason not to drive. The technical name is “traffic demand management” and that’s what the solution was to the White Flint problem.

The beauty of that approach is that it is consistent with the new White Flint design. One of the major selling points about a compact, dense, walkable, transit-oriented New Urban community like the White Flint design is that there’s really no reason to drive for most of your needs. At the White Flint Plan public hearings before the County Council last year, prominent local realtor Jane Fairweather explained how that worked for her in renovated Bethesda: “if I didn’t have to use one for work, I wouldn’t even have a car.” And that’s what the White Flint planners were gunning for in their overall design.

Plus, there’s already good evidence that those increased “mode share” goals would be achievable in White Flint. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency, White Flint’s biggest employer, has already achieved a 50% mode share split (meaning more than 50 percent of its employees use something other than a car to get to work). And the new North Bethesda Center, the massive development rising at the Metro Station, has already committed to a 50% mode share split.

Hearing all that, the PHED Committee quickly put the issue to rest. Councilmember Marc Elrich, one of those most insistent on detailed transportation reviews, told the Commitee: “I’m comfortable with this. Let’s call it a day.”

It’s a good call.

Rather than fighting over a few seconds driving time in a new urban area, let’s look to something new. Let’s give people not only a reason to get out of their cars, but a way to do it in their everyday lives. Let’s build a New Urban center in White Flint, where we won’t add a lot of new cars because people, like Jane Fairweather said, won’t need them.

Barnaby Zall

Live blogging from the February 1, 2010 meeting of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council on the White Flint Sector Plan. The Committee has just resolved its transportation concerns, and is now moving to the zoning and land use issues.

Committee staff Marlene Michaelson is working through her memorandum for the Committee. The memo is available here:

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2010/100201/20100201_PHED2B.pdf

At the Mall, there’s a zoning conflict with the Plan. Let me work through those there and on the JBG property. We’re going to continue to match height and zoning. Making sure we add text to the Plan where there’s a difference. Twenty years from now, you’ll want clarification. Achieve consistency where possible. Committee Chair Mike Knapp: can you highlight where those are in the Plan? Michaelson: sure.

Amenities list on P. 68: I think it’s critical we add detail to the list of amenities. Co-locating facilities should be indicated on this list. Floreen: I would like to emphasize the two-acre civic Green. Michaelson: that is something that would evolve as the Plan is implemented. Green space just south of the site. Floreen: we weren’t explicit in Silver Spring and we didn’t get it. Michaelson: so change the text on Page 30 of the Plan from “a one-acre Civic Green” to read “a one-to-two acre Civic Green.” Councilmember Roger Berliner: in Silver Spring, we had to preserve a place of nature, where people can feel connected the way they can’t in an urban environment. I’m going to work to ensure that this space is alive with nature, not just space. Piera Weiss, chief Planner for White Flint: we do recommend a public use space just north of Chapman. If you want to make that a public park, that would ensure that. Under the public use space requirements, you would get about a half-acre. Something that is required. Hanson: going back to P. 30. Complementary public use space on the south side to anchor. When you get to see what’s around it, it will vary up or down. Berliner: I’m more interested right now in the green space in addition to the Civic Green. I know we will add common spaces. Live spaces and green spaces can be the same or very different. I want to ensure that those common spaces are as green as possible. I don’t think the language ensures that result. Hanson: Pp 22-23, a discussion of public open space. the idea is to create both open and green spaces in each district, and to connect them as well. I’m an advocate for public parks, but I’m also leery of requiring public management because the costs are high. Michaelson: entirely possible to say the space would be a green amenity, which would achieve your goal. Knapp: this is something we need to be aware of when we look at financing. Raise these alternative mechanisms for all the amenities.

Bob Stoddard for Washington Real Estate Investment Trust: are you talking about our green space? Berliner: 1/2 acre of that seven acre parcel. Stoddard: consider the SHA space as a school site and green space. Berliner: that’s a good idea. Michaelson: we can add text that the Plan recommend that particular space be a green space. Floreen: this is not the sort of space I’m assuming would be part of the financing. I want to be sure we have adequate flexibility. Rollin Stanley, Planning Director: the CR Zone has incentives for those things. Floreen: the CR zone incentives are sufficient for the smaller as well as the larger spaces? Michaelson: we’ll clarify.

Public Housing goals: Michaelson: given the flexibility in the CR zone, some people think those goals will not be met. the staging plan includes those, but I would like to add language in the Plan to clarify that we’ll be keeping track of whether the Plan is keeping track of its housing goals as it builds up. Elrich: what if you issue some zone? Michaelson: the earlier in the process they apply, the more flexibility there will be.

Sustainability: Pp. 50-51 of the Plan. Some people have written to the Council saying that’s not enough. But there’s a limit on what a Plan can do. The Plan reflects the general goals and does a good job in not over-stepping what the Plan can do. May need to tinker in the CR Zone and the Plan depending on what the Council does. Berliner: I disagree. We should establish aspirational goals, but I get that the Plan is not an arbiter of those goals. But tree canopy, for example, should be established in the Plan. Most sustainable, smartest growth on the planet. It ought to be state of the art when it comes to sustainability and our transportation policy. Increase our tree canopy exponentially by getting rid of the asphalt we have today. I’ll continue to have conversations with staff and the Planning Board to see if there are ways to further strengthen our goals set forth in this Master Plan.  Michaelson: goals, not targets. Berliner: we need trees. They matter to all of us. Stanley: we’ll come back to you with something on trees.

Berliner: district heating? Stanley: new use of old idea. Central heating across several buildings. Greatly reduces energy use. Very common in older areas. coming back now because of bio-mass.

The Committee then finished its White Flint consideration and moved to the Gaithersburg West plan.

Barnaby Zall

The Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council began its sixth hearing on the White Flint Plan, a bit later than scheduled, by reviewing a staff memorandum on Transportation issues before a packed hearing room. The memo is available here:

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2010/100201/20100201_PHED2A.pdf

Committee Chair Mike Knapp: this is an ongoing conversation. Achieving balance in this area would have required eliminating vast amounts of development, which didn’t make much sense. So more analysis have been done, and staff will tell us what else we could do.

Committee staff Glenn Orlin: increase mode share from 40% to 51%. Not enough to bring balance. Considered changing Montrose Rd and Rockville Pike (outside the sector), but the community reaction was negative. So proposed only doing the first phase of the Plan. The committee didn’t like that. Then reviewed the mode shares outside the Sector to determine if that would affect the calculations, but that didn’t make much difference. So finally we looked at mode shares in Bethesda and elsewhere, which increased the “balance” somewhat, but not to the 40% goal.

There is some precedent for setting a mode share point differently. we’ve pushed to the edge of the edge of the envelope of our development options, so the only thing left is mode share options.

Committee member Marc Elrich: I appreciate all the efforts, but the point is to get us to our level. The difference is about 1/4 of a mile per hour, so that’s pretty close. If we can hold this at 39%, there’s nothing to prevent us from doing something in future years to do even better. I’m comfortable with this. Let’s call it a day.

Councilmember Roger Berliner: I think there are legitimate questions about whether PAMR is an appropriate measure. We’ve been working for several months to make improvements in it. consensus that there will be changes to it. Ironic that even assuming it’s a bad test, we were able to take a bad test and achieve a good public policy with it. If we can’t make a good mode share split in 20 years, then shame on us. If we’re not able to make significant changes in 20 years to drive this mode share above where it is now, then shame on us. We have produced the optimal results here. And we’ll do better when we talk about a Bus Rapid Transit system that doesn’t just begin and end in White Flint, but serves more of our people. this is as good as we can hope to achieve. this is good for our citizens and good for Montgomery County.

Council President Nancy Floreen: neighborhood protection language? Recognizes that there will be protection as we move forward? Orlin: yes.

Knapp: So let’s move forward with three other issues.

Orlin: Woodglen Drive right-of-way would be 62′  for the entire block. Knapp: OK. Orlin: Old Georgetown Lane lanes from Executive Blvd to Rockville Pike. Harris Teeter is worried that reducing the number of lanes would reduce the number of people who cross the Pike on Old Georgetown. But the turn lanes would mean there are only two lanes now, so this would be no change. Mike Smith from LCOR (and a member of the Friends of White Flint board of directors): Harris Teeter strongly recommended the road be maintained in its current configuration. We are energizing the intersection, particularly on the east side of the Pike. But if we make it seem to be a less accessible path, it will hurt the transportation. Orlin: the reality is that it would have no impact on Harris Teeter at all. Floreen: so no change? Orlin: no. The through lanes will be reduced at some point, but the through lanes will not be changed. Floreen: pavement? Orlin: the through pavement will not be changed. Smith: P. 29 of the master plan shows change. Orlin: Only two of those lanes go through. Doesn’t reduce the capacity across the Pike. Smith: the ques will be longer on that side of the Pike, and that will reduce people crossing the Pike. Dan Hardy, chief transportation planner: we concur with council staff. The perception will be that the road is not so wide; that’s the idea because it’s supposed to be more walkable. And eventually we’ll change the alignment. It won’t affect people’s travel to Harris Teeter. Elrich: same configuration? Hardy: we’ll tighten up the intersection, but it will look the same.

Orlin: MARC station. Montouri property. Owner sent letter asking to reconsider the northern site, which would be on Montouri site. Staff recommendation is to put the MARC station on the Montouri, northern site. Much much closer to the center of the White Flint density. more than a half-mile from the Metro station, and separated by Nicholson Lane which is a pedestrian barrier. Floreen: how would the Planning Board recommend it? Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson: we had more discussion. The effect of putting it on the Montouri site is to have no station. Better off to have the southern site. The cost of the northern property is prohibitive. Floreen: we just got a letter from Randolph Hills Civic Association which says they came to an agreement with Garrett Park, which is welcome to see. I just didn’t want to do anything that affected Garrett Park, and that’s still my concern. Orlin: makes it harder to get a 50% mode share. Floreen: I’m good with not doing Montouri. Mr. Hoffman says ew may have an agreement. Knapp: if we’re waiting for Garrett Park, we can wait to hear. Elrich: station near Montouri is going to bring people in. Southern station is going to take people out; if you board there, you’re going to D.C. I imagine you will take more cars off the road southbound from the southern station, and more from northbound Pike from the northern station. Berliner: I hope committee will defer formal action on this issue. Planning Board says we’ll never get that site, and I think the other site is preferable. Potential for win-win by moving it to Nicholson Court site. Knapp: we’ll defer until we hear from communities.

Mike Smith from LCOR: bus bay issue. P. 54, second bullet. I think staff is ok with this. Change the plan so bus bays don’t have to be “at” the Metro Station, but can be “around” the station. Gives staff more flexibility. Orlin: how far? Smith: close proximity, maybe other side of the Pike. Orlin: needs to be where people have a clear path to the station. Across the street with an underpass is “at” but beyond that is “away.” Knapp: work with staff so we can bring that up. An issue that can come back.

Barnaby Zall

Live blogging from the February 1, 2010 meeting of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council. The agenda today involves continued discussion of the White Flint Sector Plan; this is the sixth PHED Committee hearing on the White Flint Plan. One more hearing is scheduled on the Plan, for February 9.

One topic is expected to dominate today’s PHED hearing: “Land use/transportation Balance.” As discussed in several posts below, this is the question of whether the County will block further consideration of the White Flint Plan because cars are expected not to move fast enough through White Flint after the 30-year development of the area. The Committee and its staff have wrestled with this question for months. Today may be the day the Committee finally makes a decision.

Barnaby Zall

The Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council is considering the White Flint Sector Plan. At the last PHED Committee meeting, on January 19, County Councilmembers Marc Elrich and Roger Berliner pleaded for more time to study the Plan and resolve some lingering questions. Committee Chair Mike Knapp pointed out that the Committee had to move forward on the White Flint Plan by February 1. That’s tomorrow, and the PHED Committee has another hearing – its sixth in this series – scheduled on transporation and land use issues in the White Flint Plan.

Surprise! They’re not going to meet their Feb. 1 deadline. They have another hearing on February 8 scheduled, beyond tomorrow’s hearing.

As usual, the Committee staff has prepared memoranda explaining their positions on several issues remaining for Committee consideration. The transportation (mobility) memo is here:

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2010/100201/20100201_PHED2A.pdf

The biggest lingering issue in transportation continues to be the clash between the older, automobile-oriented tests and the newer, transit-oriented, walkable White Flint Plan. (For more background, see the post “30 Seconds Over White Flint” and others below.) Still not resolved.

The staff memo shows that progress has been made, and without killing the White Flint Plan in the process. The older test projects that cars will take 32 more seconds to travel through the new White Flint Sector (from Grosvernor to Twinbrook Metro stations) than without the new Rockville Pike boulevard; this is known as Level of Service - E (”LOS-E”) as opposed to LOS-D. During its consideration of the Annual Growth Policy last year, the County Council adopted a chart which seems not to allow LOS-E. So the Committee staff has been trying to find those 30 seconds of car speed through White Flint.

The calculations aren’t exactly paralllel, so it’s hard to tell how many seconds the revised Committee staff proposal has made up, but a wild guess might be about 28 seconds (staff’s proposal makes up about 88% of the LOS-E v. LOS-D gap). The staff recognizes this by noting that the results are “high LOS-E.” Allllllmost there.

The difference was in shifting more car traffic to other modes (transit, walking, bicycles) sooner, through what is called Traffic Demand Management. TDM has been very successful in White Flint, where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the biggest employer in White Flint) has already achieved a 50% non-automobile commute ratio. The new North Bethesda Center, being built by LCOR at the White Flint Metro Station, is already committed to a 50% non-automobile goal. On the other hand, as discussed a few posts ago, the County Executive has taken away funding from the county’s Transportation Management Districts, the very agencies which have helped to move people out of their cars. So there’s a risk that this ambitious plan is doomed by the budget squeeze.

But the Committee still has a fundamental decision: no matter how the staff tries to squeeze this square peg of a transit-oriented White Flint into the round hole of the car-oriented Level of Service test, the more it looks like fudging. Everyone knows the car tests are going to be thrown out in a few months anyway; they don’t work anywhere in the country, and they can’t even be accurately described by those who use them. The problem is that no substitute is available right now, and the ones being considered are still . . . you guessed it . . . based on how fast cars move. Not on what people seem to agree is the future: you have to reduce carbon emissions, and the only realistic way to do that is through sustainable planning techniques.

With statutory limits on carbon emissions coming down on the County like a ton of bricks, the Council is going to have to move the County out of the automobile trap. The White Flint Plan is the first really modern plan on the Council’s agenda. Our leaders need to decide if we’re going to move forward, or back to the 1960’s. Our Council is pretty smart, and they’re really trying, so it’s highly unlikely that the Council will decide “Hey, let’s just scrap this whole sustainability thing. With all the snow, no one’s going to worry about climate change anyway. Let’s choose cars!”

Putting it bluntly, this whole exercise is just postponing what is going to happen in the future anyway. But they still need to vote tomorrow.

There are other transportation issues coming up tomorrow as well. The staff has reiterated its request that the Council adopt the northern site for the new commuter rail (MARC) station, and reject the Planning Board’s suggestion of a southern site at Nicholson Court. The Planning Board viewed the Nicholson Court site as a way to bring the benefits of White Flint to the very large, but often slighted Randolph Hills community just to the east of the sector boundaries. Randolph Hills has a relatively young population, and is much more diverse and lower income than the rest of the White Flint area, and it has usually been ignored in County planning. Randolph Hills made two requests in the White Flint Plan: the Nicholson Court MARC station, and a new school at Rocking Horse Center. Both requests were rejected by the PHED Committee last year. The staff has now reviewed the commuter rail station question again, and now projects that there may not be a need for the station at all. So the staff recommendation is either the northern site or nothing at all.

The Committee staff also submitted a memo on land use issues. You can find that memo here:

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2010/100201/20100201_PHED2B.pdf

Unlike the transportation issues, the remaining land use issues are fairly non-controversial and small, including such things as conforming zoning across particular properties.

Barnaby Zall

Five candidates are vying for the seat on the Montgomery County Planning Board left by the death of former Commissioner Jean Cryor last year. The County Council will appoint someone to the seat within a few weeks. Several of the candidates have prior Planning Board and county agency experience, including the front-runner Norman Dreyfus, head of the company which developed the Leisure World seniors community in Silver Spring.

But the best candidate for the seat is Ken Hurdle, a resident of Luxmanor in White Flint, and the Secretary of the Board of Directors of Friends of White Flint. Hurdle, an architectural consultant and long-time community leader, is the only candidate who combines a traditional planning background with a resident’s perspective and, most importantly, a thorough understanding of the New Urbanism principles which are driving the County’s future plans.

The County brought Dr. Royce Hanson out of retirement to be Chairman of the Planning Board in order to solve the crises generated by the Clarksburg development miscues, but he also brought a welcome revolution in County thought: if the County was going to grow (and there’s no question that people will continue to flock to Montgomery County), then the County ought to use the most modern and sustainable development principles. Not just more of the same. The critical factors are not just economic, but sustainability, including the looming hammers of state (and likely federal) carbon reduction laws. It’s difficult to overstate the impact these laws will have on Montgomery County in the next thirty years, forcing hard choices on the County. Recognizing the needs of the future, Dr. Hanson revamped the Planning process to reflect sustainability and to meet the carbon challenges.

But Hanson didn’t do that by just mouthing empty platitudes about being “green.” After all, it’s easy to “talk green,” but, as the great American philosopher Kermit the Frog says: “It isn’t easy being green.” Simply cutting off development wouldn’t be enough for true sustainability, and it would have been an economic disaster.

Instead Hanson embraced a new urban design theory: New Urbanism. Actually, this is an old design, one used for thousands of years, of putting the things needed for daily living within easy walking distance. It has only been within the last sixty years that the development of the carbon-spewing automobile has given rise to the “sprawl and crawl” which characterizes most American suburbs. And with it, the rapid increase in carbon which the new state laws attack. New Urbanism is transit-oriented, which, together with the compactness of the urban designs, naturally leads to less car useage, without costly subsidies or draconian limits on driving (a la Central London). (For more on New Urbanism, see our main web site at www.whiteflint.org.)

It’s a simple, elegant design principle, and almost everyone in the County development process embraces it now. But it wasn’t like that only a few years ago. It took Dr. Hanson to bring New Urbanism to the County, and to educate our leaders about its simplicity and its necessity.

Unfortunately, Dr. Hanson is leaving the Planning Board when his term expires this year. It’s important to have people on the Planning Board to carry on his legacy. The current members of the Board, Joe Alfandre, Amy Presley, and Marye Wells-Harley, have already been educated; Alfandre is a nationally-recognized leader in the field. But the new candidates for Jean Cryor’s seat should also have demonstrated commitments to New Urbanism. With all the County’s pressing needs, there isn’t a lot of time for a new Board member to get up to speed on this basic principle.

The candidates for the open seat on the Planning Board are all stellar quality. Of the candidates, however, only Ken Hurdle has demonstrated that commitment to New Urbanism, both in knowledge and action.

That’s why the Board of Directors of Friends of White Flint, made up equally of representatives of residents, businesses and property owners in White Flint, unanimously endorsed Ken Hurdle for the open Planning Board seat.

A Washington Post story, by the indefatigable Miranda Spivack, is available here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012702491.html

Barnaby Zall

Live-blogging from the January 26, 2010 joint meeting of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee and the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee of the Montgomery County Council. The topic is financing of the White Flint Sector Plan, a key component in any master plan, and critical in an innovative, complicated and multi-stage Plan such as for White Flint.

Councilmember Marc Elrich: we need to be cognizant of the danger of putting in the development before the infrastructure. Heard from residents, but the biggest divide is whether they’re going to put in the infrastructure. Optimists believe it will be in place, and the pessimists believe the County won’t do its job. Developers have to accept that there’s not going to be a whole Plan for what’s going to be in front of your property. We’re going to need a broad and comprehensive approach which is different from what we’ve done in the past.

Council Staff Mike Faden: public sector will be expected to pay about $300 million, or one-third of the overall costs of the infrastructure. County Executive Staff Jennifer Barrett: options for financing. Impact taxes, paid at the time of permit applications, are an existing mechanism, but they are an unreliable source of funding. Have talked about making it more reliable by imposing a higher rate, but allowing it to be paid over time. Possible to secure a revenue stream for bonds that way, but not a highly attractive option. Council Staffer Glenn Orlin: impact taxes are usually reserved for general obligation bonds, so if you take them here, they won’t be available for other projects. Barrett: every dollar you take here will take away from something else.

Councilmember Nancy Floreen: this is what we do now. We’ve haven’t built the county infrastructure that we need now. We’re going to have to come to grips with this. Anything we collect from this environment won’t be available elsewhere, and other communities are in need as well. There’s no silver bullet that will eliminate these kinds of trade-offs. Only question is how you can create incentives so that the financing vehicle makes things happen in a way that works for the private sector? This is the problem. This is a tried and tested mechanism.

Floreen: what about the Montrose Parkway? We need to finish that. Orlin: we already have $42 million for that. Barrett: we already included that piece in our claculations.

Committee Chairman Mike Knapp: we need to look at the complementarity of these. Floreen: is that word?

Barrett: another option is other taxes, including specific taxes. Parking tax. Voluntary consent taxes, as in development district. Will be difficult and complex, but we’re trying to be creative. Unlikely to do this to secure debt. Elrich: could you create an excise tax on square foot on the ground? Faden: can’t be a property tax. Could because it’s offered for rent, but not just to have it. Orlin: how you use it. Trip generation rates, possibly. Elrich: wouldn’t that be similar to stormwater tax? Faden: it’s actually a fee, not a tax. Elrich: could you generate something on trip generation rates? Faden: no.

Barrett: Development districts. Two now in Germantown are working well. Small districts, all residential rental and some commercial. Require consent so are hard to get. Special obligation bonds. Increment above existing taxes. So nothing taken away from county budget, because everything else is still available. This floats above the county tax rate. Need consent of 80% of owners and 80% of value. Faden: bond counsel thinks the new state development district is needed, and he has the last word. Elrich: do we have any idea of what percentage of property owners are interested and engaged in this? Barrett: haven’t had that conversation. Council staffer Marlene Michaelson: don’t know if it’s 80% but have had more property owners come forward in this Plan than in any other Plan in my experience to say they would share in the costs. Barrett: usually a long negotiation process. Elrich: need to have highly-motivated people to make this happen.

Barrett: Special taxing districts, which are a little different. A couple of noise abatement districts to pay for noise walls by the Beltway. Faden: line-drawing is critical. You can exempt residential just by drawing a line around it. Berliner: don’t have the consent issue here, so we could get a secure revenue stream based on build-out? Barrett: would have to tax at existing assessed value. Faden: parking and urban districts are special taxing districts. Berliner: are you considering going to the Attorney General for an opinion on legality? Faden: it’s irrelevant to bond counsel, so no. Historically, the last time around the Attorney General agreed with us, but it didn’t matter. Bond counsel had their own ideas.

Barrett: Tax Increment Financing (TIF): generally used for blighted areas. Reaching into your own resources to fund this; so typically used in urban blighted areas. Faden: there’s a provision that it doesn’t count against County Charter limit. Elrich: doesn’t generate new revenues. Barrett: no, just uses what’s there.

Barrett: Special Assessment: long and complicated. We haven’t used this in some time. Very problematic. General County Funding Sources: useable for some specific projects.

Floreen: bring up Dave Freishtat, who’s our expert on financing. [Note: Freishtat is a member of the Board of Directors of Friends of White Flint, representing the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce.] Freishtat: bond counsel thought that revenue financing could be used in at least some parts of this Plan. Floreen: flesh these out between different approaches to revenue. Freishtat: there are a lot of possible sources. Floreen: I’d like to explore those. Barrett: my list was for lease payments. Elrich: isn’t it a question of what you’d use as a revenue stream? Could they secure it with a particular mechanism? Freishtat: there’s a whole laundry list of sources, and what you can use the bonds for. Elrich: I’m good with that. But question is who’s going to pay you back? I’m still not clear. Whose property is paying for this? Staff: if we run into problems with special obligation bonds, we can go through a couple of steps, create a revenue authority, and then pay for them that way.

Trachtenberg: I’m sure when we reconvene in a couple of weeks, we’ll go through all those. Council President [Floreen] made it clear that we would deal with that. Interest in having conversation around staging and timing of infrastructure in relation to fiscal formula. Choice on development districts, at least in general terms and on opinion of bond counsel. Examples of practices in other jurisdictions. Potential for revenue authority.

Berliner: unanimous view that financing plan will not be part of the WF Plan itself? Trachtenberg: yes. Berliner: I would like an agreement on what level of specificity we are seeking, so we can assure our community that we have a firm commitment for a financing plan. Trachtenberg: reasonable part of the conversation. Another part would be the oversight of a few weeks ago. Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson: we’ll prepare a presentation on our thinking about timing and staging.

Barnaby Zall

Live-blogging from the January 26, 2010 joint meeting of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee and the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee of the Montgomery County Council. The topic is financing of the White Flint Sector Plan, a key component in any master plan, and critical in an innovative, complicated and multi-stage Plan such as for White Flint.

PHED Committee Chairman Mike opened the hearing by saying that they would be “starting” to look at financing. All of us are in agreement that a financing plan needs to be moving on a parallel track so the residents of the area understand how the infrastructure required for the development will be achieved. The details can be worked out over the next 12 months or so. Objective for today is just to lay out elements of financing. What are potential mechanisms that exist and what are the general goals and objectives we should look at in any financing plan and what is the scope of the resources to ultimately have this Plan be successful. So goal is not to have a financing plan available, but to give council information to help them understand how the pieces work together.

Councilmember Trachtenberg, Chair of MFP Committee: How do we provide a level of assurance and a level of asurance to get the infrastructure that is critical to the success of the Plan. Clearly will set some general principles in motion. One to start today is the sharing between private and public sectors around cost. Another worksession in a few weeks. About tomorrow and this will define how things get done in Montgomery County.

Diane Schwartz-Jones, representing the County Executive’s Office: state law requires us to identify costs. Our best estimates of pricing for public sector. Pricing for library is not included. [Note: memo is available here: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2010/100126/20100126_MFPPHED1.pdf]

Councilmember Berliner: everything we’re looking at is conceptual at this time. Depends on staging decisions. Assuring that the revenue is there when it’s needed to fund the infrastructure. Create the assurance that the infrastructure is available in a timely manner.

February 9 is the next worksession on financing.

Michael Faden, council staff: these are not hard numbers. These are just to give a general idea of what is involved. Knapp: orders of magnitude. Council President Nancy Floreen: at what point in time do you have sufficient certitude to put this into play? Do you have to know every element and all the players before you put this into a Plan? Clarksburg’s a problem because of this element, and something should have been placed. Do you have to have certainty about everything before you can get anything done?

County Executive staffer Jennifer Barrett: yes. We get a lot of flexibility because of our special obligation bonds and investors need a great deal of certainty before they’ll buy those bonds. Does not count against any county spending limits. General obligation bonds are different and our aim is to do GO financing here. Very much focussed on the ability to deliver not only the infrastructure but on the development that provides everything. You can start levying taxes to build up revenue before then. Floreen: so to have bonding capacity, we need certainty as to the properties? Barrett: Revenue stream. Knapp: some variability in how much certainty you need, but one of the elements is what financing is available.

Floreen: 20-50 year process and hoping to get the right tools. Much be realistic. Can’t control all these things. Small subset of property owners who have the right conditions to make investments in their properties. So getting all those parts right is hard.

Councilmember Marc Elrich: taxing now? Is this putting the money aside now or just putting it in the general fund? Barrett: special rules for special purpose funds. Elrich: we’ve got other plans that are competing for money and I don’t want this project gobbling up funds that are needed in other areas as well. This only works if the funds come from where we want them to, and the development to pay for it comes through as well. Barrett: it’s like bond covenants.

Faden: seven principles to have in mind on P. 2 of the memo.

l) Protect the Charter property tax limit

2) Secure revenue stream to pay off bonds

a) feasibility of bond funding: quality of bonds; guarantee that development will occur

3) Maintain County bond rating and good name; low risk exposure to County

4) Solid legal basis –avoid challenge to financing mechanisms

     a) Property owners

     b) IRS

5) Timely availability ofrevenue to produce infrastructure before/at development

6) Uniform/equitable approach regarding who pays

7) Clarity necessary for public understanding, acceptance

Faden: that was a problem in Clarksburg; didn’t get the bonds out soon enough for infrastructure. Floreen: we disagree. Barrett: I have a problem issuing bonds secured by bare dirt. Several other problems where permits were issued before infrastructure in place. Floreen: perspective is that bonds need certainty. Faden: mutual feedback there; each side needs certainty from the other side.

Barnaby Zall