FLOG - the Friends of White Flint Blog

Live-blogging from the Montgomery County Council on March 2, 2010. The Council just approved the CR Zone, and is now moving into consideration of the financing of the White Flint Sector Plan.

Council President Nancy Floreen announced that there would be a final vote on the White Flint Sector Plan on March 23.

Council staffer Glenn Orlin explained his latest staff memorandum for the Council on financing. The memorandum can be found here: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/col/2010/100302/20100302_9.pdf

The staff memo points to Council bill 1-10, the Trachtenberg/Knapp bill discussed several weeks ago, to designate a special County Executive official to serve as the focal point and expediter for White Flint. The bill will be considered by the PHED Committee on April 5. The staff said that such an employee would be essential.

Councilmember Roger Berliner noted that the development district will take the place of the “traditional” transportation infrastructure requirement tests, and so it was important to have the development district portion of the Plan. Councilmember Mike Knapp, Chair of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee, discussed the monitoring and review process, and said the Committee had determined that it was important that the Council have information before it takes action on infrastructure funding requests. This would be a partnership, working with the property owners, residents and the government. This is a bit of a different kind of animal. People putting a lot of money on the table, counting on the government. So everyone needs to be able to check on things.

Jennifer Barrett, for the County Executive branch, said that the development district would not be privately funded, but public. The bonds would be paid for by tax dollars.

The Council then moved to the staging issues.

Council staffer Marlene Michaelson presented the staff memo prepared for the Council on staging. The memo can be found here: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/col/2010/100302/20100302_10.pdf

The first item was deleting “Stage Four,” which would take place only after the first three stages are complete. It is unlikely that development in White Flint would ever reach that point, so the staff recommended deleting Stage Four and the PHED Committee agreed.  The Committee also addressed the “mode share” goals for each phase (mode share is the percentage of non-car trips in White Flint; the increase in mode share was the key to conforming the White Flint Plan with automobile-oriented tests otherwise required by law).

Councilmember Roger Berliner asked about the monitoring of “traffic issues.” “What does that mean? Can we be more specific? Can we include intersection impacts?” Michaelson said it includes intersection impacts. Berliner said the communities would be happier if the language would include “intersection impacts” within the phrase “traffic issues.” The Council agreed to this clarification.

Orlin then discussed the mode share goals again, with Michaelson adding that the mode share goals have superseded many of the specific things recommended in the original draft Plan, such as parking districts. “We’ll need to use every tool in the box,” Orlin said, “anything that’s legal will be used.” Michaelson noted that LATR (one of the intersection-speed tests) was discussed in committee, but would be introduced on March 16. So the Council will review that question before the final vote on the White Flint Plan on March 23.

Berliner then discussed the Advisory Committee, and asked that “current residents” be expressly included. “If we are identifying property owners, we should identify residents.” The Council added that clarification.

Berliner asked whether there would be an opportunity for public comment on the movement between phases (i.e., from stage one to stage two). Planning Board Royce Hanson said it was inconceivable that in Montgomery County that the Planning Board would do anything without public comment. Staff will monitor and prepare a report, discuss the report with the Advisory Committee and the Board, and would provide an opportunity for public comment before it is sent to the Council. “You don’t want to go too far in identifying a detailed administrative process in a Master Plan.” It’s unlikely that any findings made by staff or Board will go unchallenged. this would be an Action Item for the Board, and so would be the subject of a public hearing. Michaelson: we’ve haven’t stated that public hearing requirement in any other master plan.

 Berliner: changing the timing of the consideration of the placement of Bus Rapid Transit. Earlier had said we would get a report in a month, but now it appears that six months is more realistic. orlin: After a public hearing and not later than six months after the Plan.

Berliner: cut-through traffic. P. 5. Community has forwarded to staff alternative language with respect to calming and other measures. Strengthen this language a bit. Orlin: letter passed around, but we have a few concerns. Often these elements do not result in consensus. This comes up all the time. Berliner: the community appreciates that. But they are concerned that it will be initiated and then will languish, even if everyone is in agreement. We want it implemented, not initiated, where the community has signed off. Diane Schwartz-Jones, for the County Executive: this is already covered in existing law, and unless we want to address that part of the law, we need to stay within the law. This recommendation doesn’t comply with existing law. Orlin: one of the reasons we took away that recommendation is that we didn’t want to tie it to that legal procedure. In Silver Spring, this was done pro-actively with the community. Give us some time to work out these conflicts. Berliner: if everybody signed off on it, let’s get it done. Orlin: calming is different from other elements, and there are specific requirements and procedures. Not part of this Plan. It’s a neighborhood issue regardless. Berliner: ok, if staff would work on this. Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg: my community abuts the Sector. Cut-through traffic is raised on a daily basis. We do have a problem.

Michaelson: we will prepare a resolution with all your changes. We’ll have a draft by the end of next week, so comments can get back to us before this goes to Council on March 23.

Council President Nancy Floreen: tremendous community involvement, even a blogging section in the back row. This will be an interesting spring. This is an advance in our community’s future.

Floreen then called for a straw vote on the Plan with the language the Council had agreed on. The vote was unanimous (Councilmember Phil Andrews was absent). Floreen then thanked everyone involved and the meeting adjourned.

Barnaby Zall

Live-blogging from the March 2, 2010 meeting of the Montgomery County Council. Three relevant topics on today’s agenda: revisions to the Commercial/Residential (CR) Zone; financing of the White Flint Sector Plan; and staging (timing of implementation) of the White Flint Plan.

The CR Zone became a bit more controversial last week, as detailed in a post below, when some organizations suggested that the Zone be revised to increase the amount any development proposal would have to pay to support the Agricultural Reserve. The staff memorandum on the latest changes is available here: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/col/2010/100302/20100302_8.pdf. The Council discussed the two revisions discussed in the staff memo. One of the sharpest discussions was over the sustainability incentives which the PHED Committee recommended for removal (e.g., stormwater retention, bio-remediation, LEED office building rating). Councilmember Roger Berliner moved to restore the list of sustainability incentives. Other councilmembers pointed to increasing complexity and unending lists of amenities. Councilmember George Leventhal said “Not every worthy goal needs to be achieved through zoning mechanisms.” Berliner noted that the underlying rationale for the removal was avoiding duplication, but the PHED Committee had already handled that problem. Planning Board Royce Hanson pointed out that language could be added to avoid giving incentives for something already required by federal law (such as substantially-increased federal requirements for stormwater management). PHED Committee Chair Mike Knapp said that the Committee was trying to reduce the list of incentives. “These are all lofty goals, but we had to draw a line somewhere, and these were things that didn’t make the list.” Councilmember Marc Elrich said that the removed items were all things people thought would be in the White Flint Plan. The Council voted 5-4 against Berliner’s motion, but voted to add the language suggested by Planning Board Chair Hanson on federal requirements.

Council President Nancy Floreen then expressed her appreciation for the hard work of both the Planning Board and the PHED Committee. Elrich then said he would not introduce an amendment he had planned on the Agricultural Reserve, which apparently was the BLT issue discussed in the last few days. “So it’s back to the drawing board for those of us who want to extract BLTs, because this is not the end of this.” Elrich then moved to approve the CR Zone bill. The Council voted unanimously to approve the CR Zone.

[UPDATE: Here’s a Washington Post story on the Council action: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030201791.html?hpid=newswell.]

Barnaby Zall

Today the Board of Directors of Friends of White Flint sent a letter to the County Council listing six remaining issues for consideration during the Council’s upcoming hearings on the White Flint Sector Plan. The letter was approved at the FoWF Board of Directors meeting on February 26, and offered for public comment under FoWF’s regular policy adoption process. Thanks to all who commented on the letter.

The letter began by thanking the Council and its Committees for adopting many of the recommendations offered in FoWF’s October 2009 Report to the Council on the Plan:

We are pleased that the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee has recommended adoption of a number of those recommendations, including: accelerating staging improvements, particularly in the “core” of the Sector; increasing the size of the Civic Green park; bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly engineering for all projects; and grandfathering rights for those already in the development process. In addition, the PHED and Management and Fiscal Policy Committees are working diligently on two of our other recommendations: creating a dedicated and reliable funding mechanism, including an analysis of a parking district. Finally, on February 23^rd, the Council accepted the Nicholson Court MARC commuter rail station location.

The letter then listed several remaining recommendations from the October 2009 Report:

A. Declare Rockville Pike a Transit/Transportation Priority:

            The Council should declare Rockville Pike a transit/transportation priority.

B. Clarification of Support for Inter-generational Center:

            The Council should add language proposing an “inter-generational center” to the community amenities in the Plan.

C. Begin Community Compatibility Efforts Immediately:

            The Council should include community compatibility efforts throughout the staging of the Plan, beginning in Phase One.

D. Maple Avenue District Road Extension:

            The Council should reserve a new road extension in the Maple Avenue District to break up the last remaining super-block in the Sector.

E. New Schools:

            The Council should commit to addressing the school over-crowding issue in the Randolph Hills community, at least during the next phase of planning, known as White Flint II, by considering the former Rocking Horse Elementary site for a new elementary school.   

F. The Use of Automobile-Oriented Tests in White Flint:

            The Council should not use automobile-oriented tests, such as LATR or PAMR (however they are described), to block or impede White Flint staging or implementation.

            And most important: The Council should adopt the White Flint Sector Plan.

The letter, with descriptions and explanations of these remaining points, can be found here:

FoWF Letter to Council

Barnaby Zall

Yesterday the Washington Post devoted a huge amount of space to a story on local Town Centers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/02/28/ST2010022801211.html?sid=ST2010022801211

The main messages of the story seemed to be:

a) it’s really hard to do a Town Center the right way; and

b) it’s even harder to do them in a recession.

One message that I think has gone AWOL in the White Flint Sector Plan discussion is raised by a quote in this story: “Chris Farley, owner of Pacers Running Stores, thinks that Old Town Plaza has failed to create a true village feel. He said his other stores, including those in the mixed-use Pentagon Row and downtown Silver Spring developments, are doing well despite the recession.” 

You can’t look at a Town Center in isolation. You have to do a complete community to support the Center. Even in a recession, those do well.

In other words, there’s got to be a critical mass, both in size and in content, to make it all work. When I began this odyssey with White Flint four years ago, I clumsily prepared a video on this topic in which I focussed on my recurrent themes of “fun, families and fitness,” but also mentioned the necessity of providing a large enough community. Town Centers can’t just be small enclaves in an otherwise isolated and isolating suburban sprawl. They have to be part of an overall design.

Barnaby Zall

I visited the Audubon Naturalist Society’s bookstore at the Woodend Sanctuary on Jones Bridge Road yesterday and may again today (best binocular and birdseed prices around, especially with the 20% ANS member discount). And ANS and similar environmental groups are natural allies of smart growth and New Urbanism, as our long association with the Coalition for Smarter Growth shows.

But sometimes even friends can disagree. Those disagreements sometimes involve money. It’s like when the American Birding Association changed its bookstore policies so that you no longer get member discounts; the money goes to a for-profit bookstore which kicks some back to ABA instead. So we shop at ANS (which we might have done anyway, but still).

And like today’s kerfuffle. ANS and three other groups sent a letter to the Montgomery County Council about Tuesday’s hearing on the CR (Commercial/Residential) Zone. The environmental groups are concerned because an important project might get less money from developers under the CR Zone, especially in White Flint. The letter can be found here: http://www.audubonnaturalist.org/Images2/campaigns/25feb2010mococouncilltrblt.pdf.

One of Montgomery County’s crowning glories in planning is the Agricultural Reserve. The Ag Reserve makes up much of the northern and northwestern part of the County. Density is shifted into the “down county,” while the land in the Reserve is preserved against development. The Ag Reserve is why you still see lots of green as you travel north on I-270 into Frederick. Montgomery County chose to be “green,” literally, decades before anyone else. And has kept it up over the years.

Developers pay special fees to support the Ag Reserve, which are then given to farmers who don’t sell their land to developers. The fees are known as Building Lot Terminations, or BLTs (nothing to do with the sandwich).

In older master plans, such as Germantown or Twinbrook, zoning (density) is intricately woven into a pattern of requirements on developers; they get certain rights to density. Those density rights start high, because the County requires the developers to provide certain amenities, with only a few incentives for a developer to choose from a menu of options for special amenities in exchange for higher densities. We make you do stuff, but we give you density to pay for it. Now, if you want more than we give you, you pay for more too. But only for a few things. BLTs are one of those few optional density incentives; the BLT “bonus payments” for added density can be paid on 30 percent of additional density.

In White Flint, however, that’s reversed. The White Flint Plan is innovative in many ways, and one of those is the CR Zone, which starts with low densities and provides a wide variety of incentives for providing options such as day care, green roofs or buildings, and so on. There is a maximum level of density overall and for height, with sub-limits for commercial and residential construction (to encourage mixed-use developments). But instead of requiring certain amenities, chosen by planners and forever locked in, and then giving automatic density bonuses, the CR Zone starts low and encourages the “right” kinds of amenities.

So the fundamental difference in zoning between the older zoning systems and the CR Zone to be used in White Flint is that, in the CR Zone system, density starts low, and developers can buy more density by providing things the County thinks are important. It’s carrot vs. stick — market-based planning vs. the old “central-planning,” top-down approach.

So, what about BLTs? Well, there are no BLTs required under the existing 1992 North Bethesda Master Plan; the White Flint Plan adds BLT requirements, making them one of only three mandatory exactions (in addition to workforce housing and streetscape improvements). But, instead of being a mandatory 30%, as under the old system, under the new White Flint zoning, the BLTs exaction could be as low as 5%. Developers could choose, as one of the incentives, to pay more for BLT added density, but they aren’t required to; they could choose to provide some other community amenities instead.  

What happens when you release people from a mandatory tax, even to provide something good? GASP, some developers might choose a different carrot — to pay for other amenities instead of the BLT fee. After all, density is density, whether you get it for paying farmers or for paying to provide day care.

That’s what’s got the environmental groups upset: the prospect that BLT receipts might go down in an incentive-based system. The Ag Reserve is far away and kind of abstract; day care is a crying need (sorry for the pun) right here. As their letter suggests, they would prefer a higher level for mandatory BLT exactions to start; they suggest 15% instead of 5%. Here’s a Washington Post story which covers this side of the question: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/27/AR2010022703276.html.

 How to resolve this clash? After all, the Ag Reserve is, in fact, one thing Montgomery does right, and it is certainly worth preserving. But how to balance that great need against all the other needs, and do so without upsetting the complicated White Flint package?

It so happens that the same person is the father of both the Ag Reserve (and BLTs to pay farmers for it) and the CR Zone. Dr. Royce Hanson is the Chair of the Planning Board, and developed the CR Zone. Decades ago, he also dreamed up and nurtured the Ag Reserve. He was brought back from retirement to reinvigorate the Planning Board after the Clarksburg scandals. He also drove the New Urbanism concept behind the White Flint Plan into Montgomery County’s planning paradigms. Call it innovation for both the 20th and 21st Centuries. Green all the way through.

Hanson told the Post “that he thought that increasing the payments on developers in White Flint could backfire. He said the Planning Board and County Council had struggled to find the right balance to encourage developers to build where ‘development is desirable,’ such as in areas served by public transit, and discourage it where more development could lead to more sprawl.”

So, the Planning Board already considered this question, with a clear mindset toward protecting the Ag Reserve. And came down in favor of incentives, not mandates, as the best compromise to achieve two County objectives which seem to clash.

This should all play out again on Tuesday morning.

Barnaby Zall

The Montgomery County Council will continue its consideration of the White Flint Sector Plan on Tuesday, March 2, at 10:30AM in the County Council building in Rockville. This is the Council’s second recent hearing on the White Flint Sector Plan, and Council President Nancy Floreen recently said that she expects final Council action on the Plan by March 23.

 (Council President Nancy Floreen and Randolph Civic Association’s Dan Hoffman)

As usual, Council staff has prepared memoranda for Council for the hearing. The memos can be found here:

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/col/2010/100302/20100302_9.pdf

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/col/2010/100302/20100302_10.pdf

The first topic will be financing of the Plan. The Planning, Housing and Economic Development and Management and Fiscal Policy Committees have been jointly working with the County Executive’s staff to develop options for paying for infrastructure development in White Flint. As the staff memo suggests, the financing plan does not need to be incorporated in the Plan itself, but the new package of improvements is extremely complex, and the Council has recognized that adopting a financing plan is vital to achieving the confidence necessary for the success of the White Flint Plan.

The staff memo reports that neither the Committees nor the staff has a recommendation for a particular financing mechanism. Though not stated, this is probably because the policy documents presented thus far do not reach far into the details of any option. Even though the Executive hired consultants last year to begin this process, the net result of the information provided so far is only to demonstrate, even to the previously-opposed Executive staff, that a financially-successful White Flint Plan is possible, rather than to identify a preferred option.

That prediction of success, while welcome, doesn’t have a lot of detail. So it basically dumps a lot of responsibility onto the Council itself to choose from a variety of options. High-level Executive staff, in discussions with me, were constantly referring to the need to consult with other staff before answering questions. This didn’t seem to be natural caution as much as indecision about policy choices and preferences. To be specific, more about having too many likely choices rather than none. Perhaps by next week they can have narrowed the field enough to provide more useful guidance to the Council.

The second topic, though titled “staging” (which is the timing of implementation of various infrastructure projects), is really more about all land-use elements of the Plan. The staff memo incorporates earlier decisions made by the PHED Committee on staging and infrastructure. So, for example, the memo shows which parts of the Planning Board’s draft Plan staging proposal have been deleted or changed, and the additions the Committee made. Some, such as the proposal to accellerate the improvements to Rockville Pike to the extent possible, were recommended by Friends of White Flint in its Report to the Council on the Plan last October. Others respond to issues identified during the PHED Committee hearings, such as continuing use of car-speed tests (such as LATR) until other mechanisms are in place, or the Council amends the Growth Policy.

Barnaby Zall

It is the policy of Friends of White Flint to request public comment on public policy statements. The FoWF Board, in its meeting on February 26, 2010, unanimously approved sending a letter to the Montgomery County Council thanking the Council and the PHED Committee for incorporating many of the FoWF recommendations from our October 09 Report to the Council on the Plan. The letter should also point out the few remaining improvements recommended in the Report which the Council could adopt.

Here is a draft of that letter: Draft Council Ltr on WFSP

Comments on the letter are welcome, but MUST BE RECEIVED by 11:30AM on Monday, March 1. You may post comments here, or send them to me directly at bzall@friendsofwhiteflint.org.

One comment already received is that the letter should also include the prior FoWF recommendations that the Council not use intersection-speed-related traffic tests, such as LATR and PAMR in a pedestrian-friendly White Flint.

Barnaby Zall

Live-blogging from the February 25, 2010 meeting of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council. Topic for today is a continuation of yesterday’s third hearing on “staging” in the White Flint Plan, with a likely emphasis on the use of automobile speed tests in White Flint and nearby areas. Some observers have suggested that use of these car-oriented tests would endanger the White Flint Plan because developers would not improve their properties due to uncertainty about the County’s commitment; others suggested that residents would not support the Plan (as they have in overwhelming numbers in the past) if they weren’t certain the County would fulfill its commitments. Today’s hearing is intended to work out these last-minute glitches. The Committee members, Chairman Mike Knapp, Council President Nancy Floreen, and Councilmember Marc Elrich, were joined, as usual, by Councilmember Roger Berliner, who sits in on the White Flint Sector Plan-related meetings.

 Chairman Knapp opened the meeting by referencing yesterday’s discussions, and noting that there may be “lots of issues remaining.” Council staffer Glenn Orlin commented that there will be a Growth Policy amendment dealing with local review, including White Flint. He predicted Council action by March 23. If a Growth Policy amendment could be drafted and introduced by March 16, which would give enough time to see if people were comfortable enough not to stop the Plan. But Orlin suggested that “everybody in the room” wanted clarification.

Elrich: this isn’t trivial. A good proposal on timing. Convinced there is a way to do this that meets everyone’s concerns, but it’s important to take the time to do this right. Yesterday’s development community made a good case, and the residents made a case that if the infrastructure isn’t done, we won’t get our part. I looked at the spreadsheet of road projects, and there are only five county-funded projects, and four of those are fully-funded. But there’s a long list of individual developers’ obligations, and a bigger question about when those will come together to form the grid. It won’t be the government that does something that crashes LATR, but one of the developers not doing something. Council Staffer Marlene Michaelson pointed out that approvals for projects are contingent on building their roads. Elrich: you can’t require any developer to actually develop; that could become a bottleneck.

Floreen: that’s this Council. This Council has failed to fund infrastructure from the beginning of time. The ICC, the Montrose Parkway. That’s the problem, but we’ll get over that. Put us in a position that we can get the rest. The Growth Policy has been used since the 1980’s to delay infrastructure. That is the challenge. How do we move forward? We have a Plan. We give people a creative environment in which to construct a financing plan to raise the money. We will give some flexibility to provide that money to allow them to move forward. This is a huge advance in the production of infrastructure. What you don’t want are rules that give you a reason to say no so you don’t have the jobs environment or business environment that allow you to support all the good things you want to see. This is a positive approach to tackling the problem in a constrained environment to create the community that everyone’s buying into. There is a certain amount of lack of clarity. I’d be happy to write this on a wall someplace that “WE’RE GOING TO DO THIS STUFF” because everyone’s worried about commitment. Can I count on being able to deliver a project to give you the revenue to do all this stuff. This is a great thing to do all this stuff. The dance we’re doing right now is whether the tools let us get there. But we’re really, really very close. But you can’t let a little amount of uncertainty get in the way of this excellent plan.

Elrich: No one’s saying this isn’t an excellent plan. But I thought people were saying government was the problem. I like the development district, but there’s a long list of roads that are the responsibility of developers. We have no control over that. This other piece could be a bottleneck and we don’t control it. What happens if developers don’t do their piece?

Berliner: I believe our commitment to the existing and to future communities is that we can have this economically-exciting piece available, so long as traffic moves as acceptable. Challenging notion. This Plan will generate significantly more capital than any of our other plans would have generated. This Plan gives us the assurance that these will be funded. The dilemma has always been that the Plan says if these roads are constructed, everything will be in balance. The problem is in the ten years it takes to build these. What happens then? The problem is that we had to trust a Plan that was totally mode-share governed. Some of us wanted more assurance that traffic would be okay, not great, but okay. Can it be liveable? I wanted to identify three elements to advance this proposition:

First, not have LATR as historically applied, but to have CLATR, comprehensive local area transportation review, paid for by developers and conducted by the Planning Board every few years. So we would know all the roads we would need to fund at every few years. Second, have this be a measurement tool, but divorce that measurement tool from the historical consequences of failing that test. Because if the development community were making this unprecedented commitment for 30 years, there should not be a red light that says stop. So, third, could we get a yellow light? A caution that says that a particular project could go forward with a higher mode share than they would otherwise have to do, so they are part of the solution, not the problem.

Knapp: this is not an issue that is unique to here. There is an element of trust. There is a commitment to the infrastructure and making the pieces work. To some degree, we have addressed that in the Plan itself. There’s an unprecedented level of detail in the Plan itself. First, there’s been a question about LATR application. Right now we have nothing in effect, so LATR would continue to apply. Once we have a financing plan in place, LATR no longer applies. Once there’s revenue generated, we won’t have LATR any more. That gets to what Mr. Berliner is discussing. We could take a few weeks, as Orlin has described, to flesh this out. Once we have financing in place and generating revenue, we’ll have certainty to replace LATR.

Second, we’ll have monitoring in place. Sets up a framework to proceed that we haven’t had in the past. There are a lot of variables that will be in play. Everyone wants to make this successful, so there’s incentives to make this work as soon as possible and as well as possible.

Berliner: both LATR and PAMR should apply until we have a financing plan. Orlin: anything that goes forward before the Growth Policy changes would be subject to both anyway. Elrich: are we going to write a Growth Policy amendment that makes PAMR disappear in White Flint? Orlin: yes. 100% agreement on that. Berliner: so Growth Policy would disappear on the Growth Policy amendment, while LATR would disappear under the Knapp plan in a year or whenever we get the financing plan. Doesn’t provide the certainty that our assumptions are sufficient. That’s why we are takling about ongoing monitoring.

Floreen: a lot of these details will be worked out in the financing plan. There are several lists, not just the Executive’s list. That’ll be a good thing for everyone.

Elrich: we want to identify problematic intersections. Floreen: that’s what we already discussed. Elrich: so what are the implications of intersections outside White Flint? Orlin: the models forecast the impact of outside development on the intersections. Knapp: presumably that’s why we’ve set up our capital improvements project process to cover all those. Elrich: we’re trying to align that all together. Michaelson: the monitoring will provide the information.

Orlin: every requirement in the staging plan is a red light, you must meet them to move on. Could do this CLATR for each phase. If everything is done and intersections are not failing, you can move to the next phase. Unless there is consequence for failure, nothing will happen. This has happened for the last 30 years. Knapp: consequence to whom? County has been the biggest problem in that. Orlin: yes. Michaelson: Glenn and I disagree. Once requiring developers to pay in far more than they ever have, County has a responsibility to program the improvements. Floreen: we’ve been neglecting these things for 30 years. Diane Schwartz-Jones for the County Executive, having them pay in for 30 years and then hold up development for political reasons raises a fairness issue. So could we have a LATR for the CIP? Put the names in the CIP and see what share the development district should pick up. Fundamental fairness question in that.

Knapp: so we have a framework for discussions in the next two weeks. What other issues?

Michaelson: issue on staging for affordable housing. Piera Weiss,chief White Flint planner, on P. 71 of the Plan says that affordable housing would not be included in the staging plan. Michaelson: just so that’s clear.

Knapp: mode share to move to Phase 3? Michaelson: if you’re not done with most of it by end of Phase 2, you’ll won’t have enough time to pull up the total. 20% of all WF development in Phase 3, so need the mode share requirement at the end of Phase 2 to be 40%. You’re setting an aggressive target, but you’ll have plenty of opportunities to adjust as you go through, since the Planning Board will be providing reports every two years. Orlin: as the area develops, you’ll find the mode share base is going to improve automatically.

Francine Waters from Lerner Enterprises and the White Flint Partnership, and an expert on mode share improvements from her experience in Bethesda: you have to set numbers that will be achievable based on the residential population. John King from the White Flint Community Coalition: we propose individual developments be assigned mode share requirements, based on their proximity to the Metro. Orlin: let’s let the Planning Board figure that out as the projects come in. It isn’t just the distance from Metro, it’s the intensity of development and other factors. If you put a residential development right on top of the Metro, you’d require a heavy mode share. Arnold Kohn from Tower Companies and former chair of the Bethesda Transportation Management District: you have to have marketing to build mode share. People don’t move in with a plan for how they’re going to move around. You’re not just marketing to the new people, but to the base. It’s like Francine said, it will parabolic.  Dan Hardy, chief transportation planner: that’s how it worked in Bethesda. We were in the mid-20s, and now that we have more residential, we’re in the mid-30s. Elrich: to me the most important is the end stage. Restrictions on parking make the most difference. Kohn: because you have a larger audience in the later phases, it’s more realistic to make bigger changes in mode share in the later stages. Elrich: as long as people can park, it’s harder to get them out of their cars. This is all premised on aggressive limits. Knapp: what was the Bethesda experience? Waters: the Bethesda 8 circulator was not in place at 26%. Knapp: we need more data to understand where non-driver mode share will happen. That’s the way we’ll have a better idea of when the various splits should occur. Floreen: by Monday.

Knapp: other issues? Evan Goldman, co-Chair of Friends of White Flint, speaking for the White Flint Partnership, the timing may force more public funding, so add language. Michaelson: we did. The word “substantially.”

Michaelson: so the Committee is fine with the rest of the staff recommendations? Knapp: yes. The Committee then adjourned.

Barnaby Zall

Live-blogging from the hastily-scheduled continuation meeting of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council. Today’s topic is “staging” in the White Flint Sector Plan, which is the timing of the implementation of various infrastructure projects required as part of the renovation of White Flint. Yesterday’s hearing ended with a request from Councilmembers Marc Elrich and Roger Berliner for clarification of the role of a particular traffic test, known as the Local Area Traffic Review, or LATR. Some observers had thought that LATR was removed from the White Flint Plan along with a broader regional review (known as PAMR). LATR is one of the “balance” tests which measures how fast cars move through intersections, which may not be appropriate in a transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly community such as the planned White Flint.

But the Councilmembers’ questions indicated that there was still some confusion about the use of LATR in White Flint, or in some cases, the use of the test outside of White Flint to block development or road improvements within the White Flint Sector. When the Committee ran out of time yesterday, today’s hearing was hastily scheduled. Discussions, some of them quite heated, continued after the hearing adjourned, in which the sense of confusion and ships passing in the night multiplied.

Barnaby Zall

The White Flint Sector Plan appears to be rolling toward enactment in mid-March. The Montgomery County Council is pretty much on board with the transit-oriented, sustainability concepts behind the Plan. Even the most opposed residents have quieted in favor of those a little less prone to shrieking wildly over the evils of growth.

So, given this “kumbaya”-fest, would you think something could still kill the White Flint Plan?

How about the same old fear that has bugged this process since the beginning?

The fear that the County simply won’t live up to its promises of true New Urbanism: transit-oriented, pedestrian-oriented, bike-oriented. The fear that the County will resurrect those pesky tests of how fast cars move through intersections to block development, AFTER it’s begun. The fear that someone who has bought into the Plan will be blind-sided by a car (-oriented test), and left battered and shaking, by the side of one of the new roads.

“Did someone get the tag number of that truck that hit me?” “No, but it moved pretty fast through the intersection.” “Oh, that’s ok then.”

And so it was today. Today’s meeting of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee zoomed into orbit on a curious ending note. Two Councilmembers, Roger Berliner and Marc Elrich, both of whom support the White Flint Plan (”yes, but”), brought up the Local Area Transportation Review, known as LATR. Berliner asked to have LATR tests linked to the White Flint Plan. LATR is one of those automobile-oriented tests which measure how fast cars move through intersections; if an intersection “fails,” future development is stopped unless and until some expensive remedial measures are undertaken. Most people thought we’d ended that discussion when the PHED Committee agreed that we would try to get people OUT of cars, rather than move them faster through White Flint.

But apparently that wasn’t clear after all. Only one of the two main tests (the broader PAMR) was dropped, and not necessarily LATR. Now LATR was back, perhaps not in White Flint, where we were told there wasn’t actually problem, but outside White Flint. Using LATR to block White Flint development because there was a problem at, say, Rock Springs, was one proposal. There was a quick and emphatic response to that proposal: Barbara Sears, representing the White Flint Partnership, told the Committee that using LATR that way to block White Flint improvements would result in no development in the area.  Using the LATR tests means that no one would ever know if their development would be permitted to continue, even after construction was begun. Hence, no development. No revenues. No bonds. No Plan. Cars rule.

The Committee didn’t have time to deal with the LATR questions raised late in the session, but they scheduled a new meeting for 12:30PM tomorrow. Chairman Mike Knapp said “so have your discussions in the next 26 hours.”

And they did, or at least started them. As soon as the hearing broke up, a scrum descended on Berliner and Council staffer Glenn Orlin (both right below), concerned about this new application of LATR:

Eventually, the discussions expanded to the point that Berliner and Orlin, joined by Elrich, sat down with a group of about fifteen property owners’ representatives to discuss the problem. County Executive officials jumped in, including Diane Schwartz-Jones, Gary Ehrenreich, and Gary Stith. And a few residents, including Ed Rich, from Old Farm, and Della Stallsworth from Luxmanor, listened as well.

The discussion revealed several problems with the proposal to re-impose LATR. People were using terms to mean different things, the most important being LATR itself. Orlin, for example, pointed out that “we haven’t figured out whether to use that in White Flint,” where Elrich said that he thought LATR itself wouldn’t be used, but some other test would be. Then Orlin noted that LATR would not be used IN White Flint, but would be used outside White Flint in a way to stop development if some effect were observed outside White Flint. Others thought LATR wouldn’t affect White Flint at all because, as transportation planner Dan Hardy observed to the Committee earlier, the Planning Board would be using more sophisticated tests throughout the area anyway as part of the biennial review process, so there wasn’t any need for LATR at all. Orlin: the Council’s going to change LATR in a month anyway, as part of the Growth Policy review, so why worry about it now?

In addition, there was a substantial amount of miscommunication on other topics; the Executive’s financing proposals are not sufficiently developed to allow anyone (even their representatives) to determine what would happen and when; and no one could agree on how the staging proposals would be implemented. Bottom line = in this discussion, no one knew what anyone else was really thinking about. And sometimes didn’t appear to know what their own proposals were.

“Why would anyone even START without a comfort level,” Barbara Sears asked. “Because we will have a development district,” responded Diane Schwartz-Jones. “We shouldn’t be uncertain about projects in the Plan,” said Elrich, “the uncertainty’s outside the district. The problem’s going to be in Rock Spring.” Planning Board staff said there wouldn’t be a problem satisfying the County’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (otherwise known as the Growth Policy) in White Flint “at build-out.” Orlin: “there will be problems if you go out a ways, and everything is part of the Growth Policy.” Elrich: “No, I need a clear path forward. I need assurance that we’ll move forward, and not stop part way in between.”

There was unanimity on one point: if this one, automobile-centered test was resuscitated, no one could be certain any more what the County would be doing at any given time during the 30-year implementation of the White Flint Plan. 

And all that generated fear, which is the one thing that can kill the White Flint Plan so close to completion.

The Plan had been moving forward rapidly because people generally understood what was intended and they were confident that things had been tied up enough to generate some certainty. But the heat of interjecting yet another automobile-oriented emphasis into the White Flint Plan was enough to evaporate that confidence.

Tune in tomorrow for another installment in our continuing saga: “how the car turns.”

Barnaby Zall