(ACT Founder Harry Sanders; picture from ACT) 

Sanders was before his time in thinking about reducing Montgomery County’s suburban focus on automobiles. He was a walker, and at a time when people were mostly thinking about driving to the Metro, he thought about sidewalks and pedestrians as part of a transit system that served everyone. He saw transit as a way to help individuals, not just communities, especially to help lower-income residents participate more fully in their neighborhoods without having to drive. 

Eventually, Montgomery County adopted the Purple Line, a 16-mile light rail system to connect the Metro lines in Montgomery and Prince Georges County. And now Montgomery County is moving to recognize the value of building transit-oriented communities on a New Urbanism model, with density centered on transit stations, the way Arlington County did with the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor.

Sanders, like me, came to the Washington area during the Vietnam War to work with the National Security Agency, the code-breaking and computer research arm of the U.S. Department of Defense. He retired as a computer analyst for the House of Representatives in 1997.  He was quiet and preferred meetings to public speaking, but his self-confidence blazed through in his choice of colorful shirts. 

ACT has a brief statement on its home page: www.actfortransit.org. “How you reached the goal was just as important as where you arrived. . . . Through good times and bad, he pursued a vision of people working together on behalf of the community.” The Washington Post obituary is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031104513.html?sub=AR.

Barnaby Zall

Now a new WSSC “Bi-County Water Tunnel” is being bored down Tuckerman Lane, and connecting up to one in Rock Creek Park at Stoneybrook and Beach Drives. This is an even bigger pipeline than the one under Nicholson Lane: 7 feet across. The pipeline, which will serve Prince Georges County, has been in planning since 2004, and the WSSC has a section on its website explaining the project: http://www.wsscwater.com/Bi-CountyWaterTunnelJuly2009.pdf.

The project map shows the tunnel essentially following the 270 spur, which will take it south of the White Flint Sector boundaries, but near a variety of White Flint communities. The tunnel will be 200′ below ground, in part to minimize community disruptions. The WSSC notes that dust and noise will be problems and helpfully adds: “Noise and vibration from blasting activities at the shaft will be noticed by the adjoining community. Nearby residents will be notified of these activities and construction will comply with all blasting regulations.”

It appears construction is about to begin at Old Farm Creek, north of Tuckerman Lane and east of 270. Crews had half the road blocked yesterday, and today WSSC sent out a warning letter announcing the beginning of this phase of construction.

Barnaby Zall

Under the FoWF election schedule, nomination forms must be RECEIVED by next Monday, March 15. If you have any questions, please contact me immediately: bzall@friendsofwhiteflint.org.

Barnaby Zall

(Councilmembers George Leventhal (left) and Phil Andrews)

Andrews was not then, and apparently isn’t now, the most vociferous proponent of the White Flint Sector Plan. He said he was reluctant to commit to support the White Flint Plan because he wasn’t sure that the Plan was crafted with enough community input. (This was back when a few residents were still complaining that their concerns hadn’t been considered; actually they had been heard, but just not been accepted by the broader community.)  John Fry (a Friends of White Flint Residents’ and Community Associations’ Board member from the Fallstone community), Karl Girshman from the Wisconsin, and I spent some time discussing that very point with Andrews, explaining the process and how residents had helped shape the Plan from the beginning. Andrews said he’d reserve his decision until the Council consideration of the Plan, which he accurately predicted was more than a year in the future.

Well, since then, we held LOTS of meetings with White Flint residents (really – Evan Goldman and I counted more than 200 residents meetings). And had a full set of Planning Board, Council and Committee meetings. And public opinion polls showing 82% of respondents in favor of the Plan. And public hearings where residents supported the Plan by a 4-1 margin. And long, long reports (some from Friends of White Flint – at least the longest ones were) about public participation and the Plan. And urban planning awards based on the high level of public involvement in the White Flint Plan.

Andrews was necessarily absent from the recent unanimous Council straw vote in favor of the White Flint Sector Plan, so we didn’t know, for certain, until today how Andrews would come down on the White Flint Plan. Andrews was telling people in private meetings he supported the Plan, so we had a good idea, but he wasn’t public with his support. Now he is. 

Today’s Gazette has a column in which Andrews has changed his mind, both about citizen participation, and the White Flint Plan:  

Ask North Bethesda residents about the proposed White Flint Sector Plan and they will say the plan was done with them. . . . In White Flint, there was a meeting of the minds . . .

Major property owners and community residents were partners in the White Flint Sector Plan, a transit-oriented development around a Metro station. The vision for White Flint includes an attractive urban center with plazas, a street grid, and excellent pedestrian and bicycle connections to neighboring communities. The Sierra Club, the Action Committee for Transit, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, business owners, and many civic groups support it.

You can find the Gazette column here:

 http://www.gazette.net/stories/03102010/montlet174923_32597.php

The Andrews op-ed is actually about something else: the contrast between the White Flint process and the process for the new Gaithersburg West Plan. But as the quote above shows, it appears that Andrews has made up his mind to vote for the White Flint Plan.

So the County Council debate on the White Flint Plan on March 23 should be pretty quiet, and the vote in favor of the White Flint Sector Plan may be unanimous.

Barnaby Zall

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

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

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

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

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

 (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