FLOG - the Friends of White Flint Blog

Two Montgomery County Council committees — Planning, Housing and Economic Development, and Management and Fiscal Policy — met in a joint session to consider financing options for the White Flint Sector Plan today.

In a jam-packed room, a total of seven (out of nine) Councilmembers heard from Jennifer Barrett and Diane Schwartz-Jones from the County Executive’s office, Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson, and others.

The Executive representatives handed out summaries of their proposals and estimates. Copies are available here: executives-financing-options0001.pdf. (I know they’re really tiny print, but that was because the originals were huge, and the public handouts were shrunk to save paper. Try increasing the zoom on your Adobe reader.)

 Schwartz-Jones described three “buckets of financing” options (listed on P. 1 of the handouts):

Funds from the County and State;

Funds from public financing through a development district or some other option; and

Funds from taxes, such as impact fees paid through the normal development permitting process.

This is the second joint committee meeting to discuss financing options, and this meeting was only to hear the presentation from the County Executive. The Committees have to decide whether to accept the Planning Board’s proposal for a development district, funded largely by special taxes on commercial development in the new White Flint, or whether to use some other form of financing, as proposed by the Executive. The Executive has hired a consultant to prepare some options, though it was unclear from the brief materials presented in today’s short meeting, how those options will stack up to the financing plan developed by the Planning Board (in cooperation with property owners and other stakeholders) during the development of the Plan.

The Committees will continue to feel their way forward in the dark in this area in later hearings. The Council’s consideration of the White Flint Sector Plan will not be held up by the financing hearings.

Barnaby Zall

Live blogging from the February 23, 2010, meeting of the Montgomery County Council, considering the White Flint Sector Plan.  

Councilmember Mike Knapp, chairman of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee, opened the discussion with a presentation of the Committee’s report, which is available here:

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/col/2010/100223/20100223_4.pdf

Marlene Michaelson and Glenn Orlin, Council staff, then described the greater focus on residential development in the Plan. Michaelson noted that the Committee decided to “take down some of the heights” on the southern edge of the Plan to help the transition to some of the communities in that area.

Orlin then opened the discussion of transportation/infrastructure “balance.” This is the old automobile-oriented test of how fast cars can move through intersections. The PHED Committee wrestled with that test for months, since it doesn’t suit the type of transit-oriented community intended for White Flint. Since the Committee couldn’t seem to make cars move faster, they decided they would reduce the number of automobile trips generated in White Flint. The fact that land use in other parts of North Bethesda will not grow as fast in the next 30 years as White Flint improves will help reduce car trips, but will still require extensive “traffic demand management” efforts by the County in White Flint. Knapp noted that not all the Committee votes were unanimous, but the Committee worked “well” on the Plan.

Councilmember Roger Berliner, who wasn’t on the PHED Committee, but sat in on all the meetings, noted that there will be a monitoring and reporting mechanism to ensure that if the Plan is falling behind, the Council will be notified about it. Knapp said the important issue is how to coordinate some of these issues. There will be biennial reports.

Councilmember Phil Andrews asked about the “balance” and what would happen if the “mode share split” is not met? Orlin responded that the Planning Board would monitor and make recommendations.

The Council then moved to the land use section of the staff report. Michaelson looked first at the school siting and then at co-locating public facilities. Council President Nancy Floreen said the Committee integrated as many comments and requests as came before it. She pointed to the “extraordinarily tight schedule for taking care of these things.” She asked for any comments or requests to be raised immediately as the Council proceeded through the report.

Berliner asked about public use space in this Plan. This Plan has less specifically designated public use space than other Plans, such as Friendship Heights. Ne said the Planning Board had suggested that many of those amenities will come about through use of the CR zone, but Berliner wondered if there were enough public use space designated in the Plan. Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson responded that 20 acres are made available out of the more than 400 acres in the Plan. That is more than in other “urban” area plans. Chief White Flint planner Piera Weiss noted that they had added more park land and green space, especially by expanding White Flint Park, and more of those were more than a half acre in size. 11-12 acres of public park in addition to public use space. It’s not the amount of space but how it’s used and the environment it provides. Large open spaces are better.

Michaelson then moved to schools. The Plan did not propose a site in the Sector, but the Montgomery County Public Schools asked for one. So the committee proposed one in the parking lot south of White Flint Mall, with a secondary site for the Lutrell site (by Wall Park and the water tower).

Michaelson noted that the one change on parks was that the Committee proposed that the Civic Green be enlarged from one acre to “between one and two acres” in size. Berliner pointed out that the park space in the northeastern segment of the sector be as large as possible, and asked if there had been discussions about that, and whether the space would be green. Michaelson said they would work on putting in language which said that the northeastern area public space should be as green as possible, but there was no Committee recommendation on that issue. Floreen asked that language be prepared.

On recreation, Michaelson reported that the Rec Department originally said there was no need for a center, but now believed that a more urban center would be appropriate. The Department recommended language be added to put a recreation center in the Sector. She said that it was County policy not to have senior centers because it didn’t want to isolate seniors (which is true, which is why the Friends of White Flint proposal, supported by AARP of Maryland, was for an intergenerational center).

On libraries, Michaelson noted that the Department of Libraries had changed its position to support to support a library larger than “express” but smaller than a full-size library. Diane Schwartz-Jones from the County Executive said that the Libraries Department was still looking at the question. Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg said that as someone living in the area, she supported a library that was big enough to be used by everyone in the community. Schwartz-Jones said that the community use aspect would be taken care of by co-locating the library with the regional services center.

On zoning, Michaelson noted that the Committee went through each of the proposals in the Plan, reconciling each proposal with the zone proposed for the particular area. She then went through each of the proposed changes from the Plan. Councilmember Marc Elrich asked about the certainty with which the Plan will proceed. Michaelson said the biggest issue is timing; if we are willing to wait until properties develop, then most of the proposals in the Plan will take place. The problems will come if things are scheduled before the properties are ready to develop. The biggest example is redoing Rockville Pike; if done while properties are redeveloped, the Plan will be manageable, but if moved up before the properties are ready, will be very expensive. Elrich: we don’t want people to think that by holding out, they will turn dedication into acquisition. Knapp pointed out that this would be discussed in later meetings today, and that the mechanisms in the Plan will do the best that is possible by putting the right things in the right zone. Floreen: let’s all remember that this will take some time.

Trachtenberg: my house faces Edson Lane, so what is the visual difference between what the Planning Board recommended and what we are now hearing? Michaelson: on the height, 2/3ds the height on one property and 1/3 the height on the other, so a substantial reduction in the height. Hilary Way was limited to only 50 feet, and a 0.5 FAR. Trachtenberg: there’s a parcel designated for workforce housing on Edson Lane; what’s the zoning effect on that and will it be compatible with the existing community? Let’s clarify that in a public session. Michaelson: it will be compatible, not a highrise. Berliner: nothing we’re doing has any effect.

Michaelson noted, during the discussion of the Nicholson Court area, that the area immediately adjacent would be considered in the next Master Plan for the area, known as White Flint II. Originally, WFII was going to focus on the western side, including Executive Boulevard, but through the efforts of the Randolph Hills community, the scope was expanded.

On the MARC station, Berliner proposed, seconded by Ervin, to add the MARC station recommendation at the Nicholson Court location. This was the original Planning Board recommendation, which was opposed by Committee staff, and passed on by the Committee. The Council unanimously adopted the Nicholson Court location.

Berliner asked to establish a tree canopy goal in the Plan, getting to a goal of 20%. Planning Director Rollin Stanley said that was achievable in the Plan. Michaelson said that was on P. 51 of the Plan. Berliner asked that it be explicitly 20%. Floreen said “we’re all for trees” and there was no objection.

The council then moved on to more on the transportation portion of the Plan. There will be at least one more Council meeting on the Plan, but that will wait until the various Committees are done with their work. Orlin noted that the County’s Bus Rapid Transit study and the State Highway Administration would both need to be coordinated with the Plan’s consideration, particularly with regard to the median transitway proposed by Glatting-Jackson.

Councilmember George Leventhal: is there anyone here who can explain why you might want to do BRT on the curb lanes? Dan Hardy, chief transportation planner, said it depends on how often the busses are expected to stop. Current “feeder” bus systems are better served at the curb. It is important that the function of the BRT system be established. Leventhal: I visited the pioneering system in Brazil. I don’t understand why we would want it at the side of the road. Hardy: we want the busses running end-to-end with as short an interval as possible. We’re talking about a network. Longer trips = BRT makes more sense. Elrich: if it’s going to be stopped by regular busses, no one will consider it BRT.

This is the first time the Plan actually includes Bus Rapid Transit (what Friends of White Flint calls “Vehicular Rapid Transit”). Although the BRT discussion is unfinished, the inclusion of the concept represents a major shift toward a transit-oriented plan for White Flint.

Elrich asked about the coordination of public-private streets with emergency personnel. Leventhal, who sits on the Transportation committee, pointed out that this was an important issue, and had been discussed with the appropriate agencies.

Floreen then said the Council would return to the WF Plan next week, once staging is completed. The Council then wrapped up this session. The PHED and MFP Committees remained to deal with those issues in a committee session.

Barnaby Zall

The Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council isn’t quite done with its consideration of the White Flint Sector Plan, even as the full Council begins its own worksessions. Two of the most important remaining topics are financing the Plan and timing the various improvements planned for White Flint (known as “staging”). The PHED Committee takes up financing today (jointly with the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee) and staging tomorrow morning.

The usual Council staff background memo for the financing session won’t be available until today, and isn’t available yet online. The Council staff has prepared a background memo for the staging meeting, which can be found here: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2010/100224/20100224_PHED1.pdf.

The staging memo is largely the same as for the February 17 hearing, except that it includes new language (indicated by bold italics) for things the Committee already decided at the earlier meeting. For example, because the Committee wanted to give the Planning Board some flexibility in its monitoring of progress on implementing the Plan, some of the construction deadlines now call for “substantial” completion rather than full compliance. In a compromise between those (including Friends of White Flint) who wanted reconstruction of Rockville Pike to begin in Phase Two, the Committee pushed some Pike reconstruction into Phase Two, but left a provision in Phase Three covering what wasn’t done in the earlier stage; the rationale was to avoid holding up the entire Phase Three if some Pike construction ran late.

Barnaby Zall

The Montgomery County Council begins its consideration of the White Flint Sector Plan tomorrow morning. The Planning Board proposed its version of the Plan last year, and the Council held two days of public hearings last October. Then the Plan was sent to the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee and the Management and Fiscal Policy Committees, which are still not done with their consideration of the Plan. The two Committees continue their meetings on the Plan tomorrow morning after the initial Council look.

The Council staff has prepared a 125-page package of memoranda and appendices for the Council on the Plan, detailing various Committee actions and changes from the Planning Board proposal. The first 82 pages cover transportation issues, with a ten-page Council staff memo covering an overview of the issues; the remainder deals with “land use” and similar issues, with a staff cover memo beginning on page 83 and running for 26 more pages. The memo package can be found here: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/col/2010/100223/20100223_4.pdf.

The transportation cover memo covers a general statement of planning principles (essence: even if you make choices here, a later Council or group of citizens can change them) and ten issues:

A) The pesky “balance” issues long discussed, meaning the old tests of how fast cars move through intersections. The cover memo points out that, to achieve the ambitious reduction in automobile use, the Council will have to get serious about “traffic demand management” and other measures to entice people out of their cars. Not mentioned in the memo is the Executive’s recent plan to reduce funding for the Transportation Management Districts which implement the County’s “traffic demand management” plans.

B) The Median Transitway option. Friends of White Flint and many other observers support the Glatting-Jackson proposal for a transitway located in the median of a renovated Rockville Pike. The memo recognizes that consensus, but only adopts thePlanning Board’s recommendation for a right-of-way, rather than moving all the way toward adopting the Transitway. The reason is that the County’s Bus Rapid Transit study is still underway.

C) Revising the intersection of Old Georgetown Rd and Executive Boulevard. The Committee accepted the Planning Board’s recommendations for the revision of this complex intersection, because the revisions hold the best opportunity to remake the “core” areas into a pedestrian-friendly location.

D) Changing the boundaries of the White Flint Metro Station Policy Area to be the same as the White Flint Sector in the Plan. This was a controversial decision, and the PHED Committee split 2-1, with Councilmember Mark Elrich voting against. Elrich preferred an earlier version of the expansion. As with the “balance” discussion above, the difference is whether the older automobile-oriented tests would govern or the new, transit-oriented White Flint Plan.

E) The MARC commuter rail station. The Planning Board recommended a southern site, on Nicholson Court, for a new commuter rail station. The PHED Committee originally supported the northern “Montouri” site, but has since backed off that position. Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson predicted that the northern site would mean no station would be built. And the Randolph Civic Association and the Town of Garrett Park have just come to an agreement supporting the Nicholson Court site; this had been a major bone of contention between the two neighboring communities. Now the Committee does not recommend the northern site, but hasn’t made a recommendation on the Nicholson Court site.

F) The designation of four streets as Private Public streets. Private streets can be closed for special events and may not have to meet regular road code requirements.  The new streets, part of the expanded road networks, would be public, meeting all regular road code requirements, unless eight specific conditions were met to make them private.

G) Special road standards for each street segment, including special treatment for a newly-built portion of Woodglen Dr. This is a new requirement for Sector Plans.

H) Approval of the bikeways portion of the Plan.

I) Changes in the White Flint Mall section of the Plan, including for Nebel Street extended.

J) Some miscellaneous transportation requests from the Montgomery County Dept. of Transportation. The Committee rejected a proposal to retain the surface parking lot south of the new Montrose Parkway, noting that, as White Flint becomes more urban, surface parking lots should go away.

The land use memorandum (beginning on P. 83 of the package) also touches on a variety of Committee changes in the Planning Board draft Plan. On schools, the Committee recommended a site at the southern edge of the White Flint Mall parking lot (behind the current medical buildings on Rockville Pike), and deleting the recommendations to help Randolph Hills by re-opening a closed elementary school there.

On parks, the Committee accepted the Friends of White Flint proposal that the Civic Green park in the “core” area be larger than one acre, but rejected a proposal by the White Flint Partnership and the White Flint Coalition that the Civic Green be two acres. Instead the Committee said that the Civic Green should be between one and two acres.

On community facilities, the Committee staff rejected the Friends’ proposal for a multi-generational community center and instead adopted a recommendation by the Executive for a community recreation center without any discussion of generational services. Although the memo had earlier recommended “co-locating” facilities, there was no discussion of that option in this section. On the whole, this was a surprising disappointment, given the Committee’s discussion during its meeting.

On new emergency services, the Committee (and Executive) supported a new proposal to place new fire and emergency services on excess State Highway Administration land on the east side of the Pike, rather than on the west side by Mid-Pike Plaza.

On a new Regional Services Center, the Committee suggested that a new center be co-located with a new library. The size of the proposed library was the subject of considerable discussion, and the Committee is now proposing that a library somewhat bigger than the originally-proposed “express” size be offered in the “core” section of the Plan area.

The Committee staff memo also reviewed a number of land use recommendations in each District of the planning area. Most of these supported the original Planning Board recommendations, but added a few, such as the Friends of White Flint proposal to permit the Forum condominium to use the new CR Zoning to participate in the transit-oriented aspects of the Plan. The staff did delete the recommendation for a “community playhouse or theater” from the Mid-Pike district, but Friends of White Flint had requested only more arts or entertainment emphasis, rather than a stage venue. At Edson Lane, the staff recommended lower heights and densities reflecting a transition to the surrounding communities.

Both the Council session and Committee hearings will take place at the County Council Office Building in Rockville.

Barnaby Zall

This morning, three community leaders predicted Montgomery County’s future, and at first it was scary. But then they kept talking, and there’s a lot of potential to do better in the future. MoCo has many advantages, and smart leadership capitalizing on those can lead to brighter futures for many county residents.

The messages today were jolting: Job losses in the recession were unprecedented, and the recovery is generating jobs which aren’t going to help Montgomery County the way some predict. The underlying problem is that the County doesn’t have enough housing for the workers it really needs. Rather than helping ease congestion, keeping the number of housing units low will just force more workers to drive long distances, further clogging the roads. It’s the conundrum of the day: slow growth policies don’t clear roads; they cause sprawl which clogs roads more. But there was an interesting answer, coming from speakers with different perspectives: the solution to both the jobs and transportation problems lies in New Urbanism. Putting necessities nearby each other, in communities centered on transit, can both draw in the good jobs that the County needs, and ease transportation problems. In other words, design communities so cars aren’t needed and everyone benefits. Everyone this morning praised the White Flint Sector Plan as a bold step in the right direction.

(L-R: Speakers at today’s session: Prof. Stephen Fuller, Montgomery Council President Nancy Floreen, and Jim Dinegar, Washington Board of Trade)

This morning’s session was the third in Friends of White Flint’s “Speakers’ Series” of events discussing New Urbanism, smart growth and planning for a sustainable, walkable, transit-oriented future. The session, hosted by the White Flint Partnership, and co-sponsored by Friends of White Flint and the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce, was held in the auditorium at Dave & Buster’s in White Flint Mall.

Today’s topic was “Jobs” and the session was moderated by Montgomery County Council President Nancy Floreen, a White Flint area resident. Floreen has made economic development a centerpiece of her term as Council President and she explained why today: “On average, the number of jobs in Montgomery County has decreased by 13,000. This is the highest unemployment we’ve ever measured here. Connect the dots: our income tax revenue is down by $30 million, and that makes it even harder to address all our citizens’ needs. We need to focus on jobs. We have an obligation to our kids to deliver the good jobs. We have an obligation to create a sense of place, and to share the tax burden.”

Floreen then introduced Prof. Stephen Fuller, of George Mason University, and Director of the Center for Regional Analysis: “We bring in Stephen Fuller to give governments common sense. He’s the Director of Thinking for the region.” And Fuller did just that for the next hour.

“The recession is actually over,” Fuller noted, and “we’re eight months into the recovery. We lost a lot of jobs during the recession. 25,000 jobs. Montgomery County job losses were proportionately higher than much of the region. That says something about the jobs that are here.”

Then Fuller talked about the kind of jobs which were lost, and the kind of jobs the slow recovery will generate: “there’s a mismatch between the skills of the unemployed and the jobs we’re going to create. Typically, those who lost jobs had lower levels of education and special skills that don’t transfer well to other jobs. It’s going to be harder to reabsorb those into the employment market. We’re adding higher end jobs in health care, education and professional services. The Federal government is the main driver of that, and we’re drawing younger people from other parts of the country. It all makes it harder for people here to get back into the workforce.”

Fuller analyzed job growth projections for the region and Montgomery County for the next ten years: “Current forecasts show Montgomery County jobs growing, but at a slowing rate. The County will grow more slowly than the metropolitan region average. Fairfax County jobs growth will be twice as fast, and as a result, Montgomery County’s economy is becoming a smaller part of the region. We are losing share.” In addition, Fuller noted, “the kind of jobs we will be adding do not pay as much as the jobs that are here now. Wage growth in Montgomery County will increase 21%, but in the region as a whole, wages will increase 23%.”

“Montgomery County is becoming below average,” Fuller predicted. “The average salary in Montgomery County will be $16,000 less than in Fairfax County, and $5,000 less than in the whole region.”

The issue, Fuller projected, is that Montgomery County is not going to get the “high value jobs.” The County will get lots of “local jobs: service, retail, legal. We need those jobs, but they have a salary that’s about half of other jobs. An average salary of $35,000.”

Lots of discussion of why, but the bottom line reason: housing costs. Montgomery County is not providing enough housing even for the jobs we are projecting. “We will fill only two-thirds of our job growth. We will have to bring in workers from other places, and that means traffic on 270. And all of this is exacerbated by the 25% of people who live here who are going to retire in the next twenty years. A lot of them aren’t going to move, but we’ll have to find people to fill their jobs. We can’t grow our own job force fast enough, and those workers will have to come from somewhere. We will need a lot more housing than is being talked about.”

Fuller then linked the White Flint Sector Plan to the jobs problems: “What is being proposed in White Flint, we need to think of it as a whole community. The counties that have the housing are going to have the jobs; that’s the link between housing and economic growth. We know it, but we don’t act like we know it. Local governments want the jobs, but they don’t want the people. Who’s going to do the work? That’s the best argument for smart growth. More housing with more jobs, but put them where we have the infrastructure. More solutions in different places. Take traffic and demand off those places that can’t handle it, and redistribute how we work and play. We can’t afford to bring workers in from elsewhere; we have them here already. Upgrade our resident workforce so they can have the better jobs. House our workers and make them smarter. That’s what we want to do in White Flint.”

“We can do better. We have strategic assets. We have the underground Red Line already. The White Flint Plan is a great example of what can be done. The kind of thinking tied up in the Plan frightens some people because it’s different, but it’s exactly on target for correcting what’s been holding the County back.”

Council President Floreen then pointed out that deciding “are we an urban or a suburban community is the political balancing act we do every day. What’s the sustainable job balance that pays for the quality of life we want?” She then introduced Jim Dinegar, President of the Washington Board of Trade, the regional business association.

Dinegar discussed the “big picture”, including regional opportunities. “That’s what White Flint has: opportunities for people who don’t live here.” He noted that you don’t always want to look at “the next big shiny thing,” and sometimes it’s better to focus on your local strengths already in place. After discussing the traditional area focus on biotechnology, anchored by the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, he predicted that “green industries” would be a growing opportunity for the metropolitan region, as would “cyber-security” and hospitality.

Dinegar then turned to New Urbanism and planned growth. “Taking advantage of the Metro is a big deal. Arlington, Courthouse Square and Silver Spring: they all work because of the Metro. And they will help Metro get stronger. White Flint can be a revitalized center that establishes a community by addressing the strengths already there. It’s multi-generational, which is a big deal these days. And it addresses what people want. Boulevards, not highways.” In answer to a question about attracting new business to the area, Dinegar pointed out that “the White Flint effort isn’t to attract Northrop Grumman, it’s to do better here. You have to look to your existing big companies, your anchors. Have you shown them the love? They don’t want to hear just about their competitors; this is their home. Encourage them to be local as well. Know they exist, and let them know you exist.”

 Floreen then returned to the White Flint Plan, saying “we have some dopey rules that make it hard to develop around Metro and we’ll be dealing with that on White Flint. It’s challenging. it’s hard to do. The great thing about the White Flint initiative is that there’s a real partnership here, understanding the cost and sharing. That’s unprecedented in Montgomery County.”

And Dinegar jumped in to offer a very New Urban outlook: “the idea in White Flint is to have centralized activities so you won’t need lots of ways to get there. Have everything in one place. The beauty of the Plan is that it defines that there’s a there there. I’m all for different transit opportunities, but it’s better if there’s everything here, and you only need to get a few other places once in a while.”

Earlier Floreen said she was “pleased with the scheduling for the White Flint Plan. Next week we’re going to start work in the full County Council. The staging plan is the most complicated part of this conversation: you have to have benefits that make sense fiscally. By the middle of March, we’ll make a decision one way or another.”

At the end of the session, Francine Waters, from the White Flint Partnership, predicted another Speakers’ Series event in late spring.

Barnaby Zall

The Board of Directors of Friends of White Flint will meet at 8AM on Friday, February 26, to discuss upcoming Board elections, progress on the White Flint Sector Plan, and future organizational activities. For more information, contact: bzall@friendsofwhiteflint.org.

Barnaby Zall

The snow’s delayed the Montgomery County Council’s consideration of the White Flint Sector Plan, but so has the enormous complexity of the Plan’s innovation. Now it appears that the PHED Committee isn’t quite done with its consideration of the Plan. Staging and financing, the intricate dance between hopes and pockets, can’t be separated as neatly as the Committee had thought. So the Committee will take its final look at the Plan after it hears more about the various implementation proposals from various stakeholders in White Flint.

That should take place next Tuesday in the late morning at the Council Office Building in Rockville. Stay tuned.

Barnaby Zall

Live blogging from February 16, 2010 meeting of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council. This meeting is on the staging of implementation of the White Flint Sector Plan.

Committee staffer Glenn Orlin is going through the recommendations for changes in the Planning Board’s proposed staging. The memo can be found here: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2010/100208/20100208_PHED2.pdf 

Orlin recommended removing the second entrance to the Metro Station. Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson said, why remove it? Plan for it. Diane Schwartz-Jones, for the County Executive, said the Executive wants the second entrance in. Michaelson: needs to be put into the funding strategy. We’re just reluctant to say that no development can move forward because something isn’t done in a specific stage. Councilmember Roger Berliner: but that would put the onus on the private sector even though we aren’t committed to doing our part. Orlin: we have as much to lose as the developers. Revenue from these developments far exceeds the costs. Berliner: we’ve done that before. Michaelson: staging doesn’t require the government to do anything. It just prevents private development from moving forward. Floreen: this county has been finding ways to not do things, over and over again. Every year I have lists of what’s not done. We’re trying to move into the future.

Orlin: you don’t want to hamstring future Councils. Not the project that’s most important, it’s getting the result.

Floreen: this Plan is predicated about sense of place. It’s not about mode share, but a sustainable community. Michaelson: any project we thought was related to sense of place we kept in. Any project we thought was related to mode share split, we suggested taking out. Orlin: some of these things aren’t important for sense of place, but some are. Hanson: it’s important.

Orlin: In Phase 3, P. 4 of memo. Deleting the MARC station from the requirements doesn’t mean won’t have a station. You haven’t made a decision. Berliner: now communities have come together on the Nicholson court location. Orlin: there is a letter saying that Randolph Hills and Garrett Park have agreed on the MARC station location. Berliner: we should do that now.

Michaelson: Stage 4. all of the testing was based on the first three phases, so we see no need for a fourth phase. We see no need for it. the Plan goes to Council next week. another work session the week after that. This is the last Committee work session on this Plan.

Knapp: we can make a final decision after the financing meeting (Feb. 23). That way we’ll have the financing piece more in hand. And the Committee adjourned the session.

News Alert: The Council is not ready to continue the Gaithersburg West Plan next week, so it looks likely that the Council will do the CR Zone next Tuesday. That might delay the PHED Committee hearing on White Flint somewhat, but it’s still on the agenda for a luncheon meeting.

Barnaby Zall

Live blogging from the February 16, 2010 meeting of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council. The topic for today is the “staging” portion of the White Flint Sector Plan. Staging is the timing of various implementation elements of the Plan. The Planning Board prepared its own staging proposal, and the Committee staff has suggested some changes in the staging plan.

Dan Hardy, head of the Vision Division of the Planning Board and the chief transportation planner, began the hearing with a presentation on the Board’s recommendations. Since the Board finished its proposal last year, the Council and the PHED Committee have made various changes in applicable laws and policies, so Hardy’s presentation was intended, in part, to conform the Board’s proposals to those changes.

The Board proposed a three-part staging plan, including Rockville Pike renovations in the third phase. Phase One focusses on the “core” of the Sector: Market Street, realign Executive and Old Georgetown Rds. In Phase Two, focus on the eastern side of the Sector. In Phase Three, reconstruct the Pike because would have the roads in place to route traffic around the Pike during construction. We were thinking about creating a “sense of place” and responsibility to residents during construction.

Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson then pointed out that the Board’s proposal looked at what needed to be in place for each phase of construction to occur. We understood what everyone wanted done first, but we needed to have the workaround before that could be done. Concern in that was whether you would get a good bit of the right-of-way dedicated, which you would if you stage it our way. Otherwise you have to buy it and that adds a good bit of cost to the project.

Marlene Michaelson, PHED Committee staffer, then described the staff’s recommendations, as set out in the staff memo, available here: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2010/100208/20100208_PHED2.pdf

Nancy Floreen, Council President. That’s how we’ve done it in the past, and honestly, nothing gets done. The roads don’t get built. If you say subject it to some sort of intersection test, most projects can avoid the obligation to build a road or pony up the cash to build what we really want. Isn’t this the time to prioritize and decide what you want?

Michaelson: we’ve tried to do that. Where it serves a transportation purpose that can be served by another road. Glenn Orlin, Committee staffer: then we wouldn’t get plan. We don’t know what order things will occur in White Flint. You build a road if that’s where the growth is. If there’s an intractable problem in one area, that stops the whole thing. That’s why we want to condition this on performance. Michaelson: by focussing on mode share as opposed to projects, we are pushing developers to be as aggressive as they can be to promote alternatives to drive, so we don’t need the roads. Whatever creative ways that keeps the traffic flowing.

Floreen: but that doesn’t get you what you need to get a community. Orlin: there are exceptions which are needed for placemaking aspects. In terms of general circulation to get around White Flint, we can’t project how fast development will happen. So we don’t have specific projects. The goal isn’t to build a project, but not to have too much congestion.

Floreen: Seattle has specific projects. You go and build what you need. Michaelson: it’ll be easier if you look at where we need streets. Hanson: there’s relatively little debate about where that is. Michaelson: staging lists caps for each phase. What happens if those targets aren’t met for housing if the rest is ready? We thought having a specific limit was too limiting. You might have information showing that some projects are about to go into construction which would put everything into balance. gives us flexibility to reflect the reality of what’s on the ground. Councilmember Marc Elrich: how would that work? Michaelson: they’ll have to look at what’s pending. Looking forward, they’ll be monitoring and taking into account all the information they have.

Chairman Mike Knapp: so the Planning Board would have a hard stop at the end of each phase if not everything was done. That’s not how it’s done in the real world. But what’s the process you’ll use to make sure the staging actually works? How do we make sure these things are actually happening daily in a meaningful way? Michaelson: Pp 70-71 of the Plan, the Board is recommending a monitoring facility. They built that into the Plan on a biennial basis.

Councilmember Roger Berliner: should we have an automatic response if the Plan is failing to meet its numbers by a significant percentage? If the Plan deviates from the schedule by X percentage? Michaelson: we were comfortable that the Planning Board would do something if the Plan were way off the mark, but we could put in an automatic. Hanson: at any one point, probably out of balance. There are areas where more residential is recommended than commercial and vice versa. So some of those areas, because of market conditions, might produce more commercial than we thought, but not a whole lot of residential. Silver Spring is a good example; in some areas where we thought we’d get commercial, we’re getting condos and residential. The market changed. Monitoring solves the problem of the variation in the market; just have to deal with that and bring it back to the Council if there’s a need for an amendment. Performance of mode share targets will be heavily affected if the residential doesn’t come in the way we planned.

Berliner: won’t the CR zone help flexibility? Michaelson: there’s an unknown because of how the CR Zone was applied in this Plan. Monitoring will tell whether we are leaning toward an outcome that wasn’t planned.

Diane Schwartz-Jones from the County Executive: we were going to recommend the same thing as the staff on monitoring, so we can tell what’s happening.

Elrich: but just saying that commercial cools doesn’t mean that residential will heat up. Maybe nothing happens. Michaelson: yes, and the Board will have to make that assessment. Elrich: lack of specificity of where you want your residential and commercial to be. Michaelson: did have a few.

Michaelson: one of the guiding principles in staging is fiscal responsibility. Knapp: we’re getting infrastructure recommendations from Planning Board, developers, and others, and at our next meeting [Feb. 23] we’re going to put it all together with financing plan.

Orlin: Staff memo, pages 2-4 deals with staging plan beginning on P. 74 of the Plan draft. School test will continue to apply regardless of the Plan. Anything done here will have to meet that test.

Orlin: use transportation tests as adapted by recent Committee decisions. Hanson: this is a problem. We require a financing mechanism, which will require taxes. To do that AND add LATR is inequitable and may require something be done twice. To both require payment for the improvements, but also add the LATR tests, which require that the intersection be redone a few years later is wasteful. that’s the function of doing this through time, through a road system which can be put together. Much better to create a street than just a place.

Knapp: why not do that? Orlin: because we don’t know exactly where development will go. The market will drive that. The monitoring will tell us what’s needed. Edgar Gonzalez, from Montgomery County Dept of Transportation: we think LATR is very important. We have people coming through the planning area, and we shouldn’t be penalizing them. if you don’t do something, the ques will extend outside the planning area, and people will go around the planning area on neighborhood streets.

Elrich: we’ve been assured over and over that everything will work when it’s built. So someone shouldn’t have to build something temporary that will have to be redone.

Orlin: some things are already underway. “Missing link” for Montrose Parkway — Chapman Ave. — is already planned and is in design stage. Hardy: monitoring will help with that. Concern is that there needs to be a lot of monitoring. Hanson: there’s a cost involved in saying nothing. Elrich: my interest in LATR is as a verification process. Orlin: that’s an example of why you don’t want specific projects as triggers. Chapman construction will begin soon, and we’ll have a continuous route north from White Flint Mall within a year or so. We don’t have that on the west side right now, but we will have that.

Berliner: LATR not about funding intersections, but to determine if traffic moving. It is to trigger CIP amendments to be sure that government does its share. Three tranches of dollars: one, developers taking on as their part. Two, development districts. Not talking about those two, but the third, which is the county’s obligation. So if LATR signals that county is not meeting its obligations, it’s a signal.

Orlin: test allows you to program money in a pro-active way, like the school problem of last year. You saw a problem and put money toward fixing it. Hanson: schools problem was a formula. Mechanical calculation. LATR, however, there’s a traffic study. $40-50,000 traffic study, and to do the improvements is a big unknown, so there’s a big difference between the schools test and LATR. Because the Plan is premised on having a funding mechanism in place, having a monitoring process in place to see if there are problems. But having LATR generates problems because the test requires certain things whether or not there’s something else going on. Berliner: but it’s also a performance measure. So the goal’s something I believe it. How close are we to ensuring our community does not have a traffic nightmare? Hanson: irony here. If it doesn’t work, it may improve the modal split. Elrich: no, because it won’t have access to transit.

Floreen: schools says here’s a child, we need to find a seat for that child. LATR, until it’s changed, is a very academic exercise. So you buy in to some sort of tax, and all these tools that will allow you to develop this whole vision. Otherwise you get focussed on some individual problem and you won’t get the community access for this. Otherwise you drive decisions based on a transportation balance mode I don’t think we want to have in the future. doesn’t reflect reality. How else do you get the public sector and the private sector in a position to do these things? Orlin: Shady Grove is that way. We haven’t built a single road under that Plan.

Elrich: financing piece is critical. You can’t just say Pike serves White Flint; it serves the whole north of the county. Can we model each road? Orlin: Planning Board did that. Hardy: we have that already. What we need is to establish the standards for each. In a sense, that’s what the whole Planning Board process is.

Natalie Goldberg, White Flint Park/Garrett Park Estates: the question is whether this Plan will work within the Growth Policy. Your growth policy should define your transportation standards and this plan should work within those standards. if it doesn’t work, the onus should be on someone to make it work, or it should stop until it does. This plan should meet the standards, not exempted from one standard or another.

Don Briggs, Federal Realty Investment Trust: big difference here is that we, the development community, is willing to pay for future improvements, for the common good. In exchange, we are asking for certainty that things will work as we say. Development is lumpy. At any single time this Plan will be out of balance. We have proposed a mechanism tha tover the long haul will smooth out the lumps. Now it says do it now or not at all, and you tell property owners that they have to pay for everyone else. You want us to work in a collective fashion, and we are asking in return that you give us something certain. I’m ok with that, but don’t use this as a limitation after we’ve already been doing our part for some time. this is about economic development in this County and we are asking you to do your part.

Orlin: working through memo points on P. 3. Community “protections:” all we’ve heard so far is from the people who want the protections, but once you start into this process, you’ll have to have votes. History shows that more such plans fail than pass. they’re very divisive. Diane Schwartz-Jones: terrible to see neighbors pitted against neighbors. Orlin: most of these plans don’t go through because of divisiveness. Floreen: not right to minimize neighborhood issues that way. Important to be clear about the public process about resolving these issues. That will help this conversation. It’s a challenge for us, but far more for those communities. Hardy: one concern we heard is that we didn’t consider future traffic growth. so we did that. We should change the process to do that. Orlin: I agree with that. Floreen: we want some language that reflects that intention.

Orlin: Phase 2 (bottom of p. 3 of the memo). Mode share goals changed, so we changed the recommendation for non-auto mode share (number of people not using cars to get around White Flint) to 35%. Otherwise you won’t get to the higher goals you want. We have to start working our way up to 50%. And at end of Phase 3, you need to be at 45%, because by then some 80% of development will have been completed.

Francine Waters: Lerner Enterprises, and former director Bethesda Transportation District. Need the infrastructure because added transportation incentives were part of moving our mode share up.

Orlin: Phase 3 comments, top of P. 4 of the memo. Move the completion of the core roads to Phase 2. Placemaking standpoint. Michaelson: this would also help with getting dedications for the Pike. Hanson: we would have loved to move it forward, but we didn’t think that was realistic because of financing and other things. What would be realistic is to have the reconstruction be in the CIP [county capital improvement plan]. Schwartz-Jones: this is expensive. We don’t see any flaws to implementing it. But the further forward we move it, the more problem we’ll have. The more we get dedication and the streetscape, the better off we’ll be. As opposed to placemaking.

Barnaby Zall

All Friends of White Flint members should have received an e-mail discussing the upcoming Board of Directors nominations and election process. Some members’ e-mail addresses “bounced back” from the mailing.

If you did NOT receive a mailing, and think you are a member of Friends of White Flint, please contact me, at bzall@friendsofwhiteflint.org, immediately.

If you would like to join Friends of White Flint, please see our main web site: www.whiteflint.org.

Barnaby Zall