If you were watching the PHED hearing today, you might have left with the impression that the continuation hearing tomorrow will be held at 1PM. That’s what was said from the Committee table. But after adjournment, Committee Staff came out into the audience to say that the hearing will actually be held at 12:30PM in the County Council Building.
Barnaby Zall
Live-blogging from the February 24, 2010 meeting of the PHED Committee of the Montgomery County Council; this hearing is to finalize the staging portion of the White Flint Sector Plan.
Committee staffer Glenn Orlin opened the meeting by pointing out that the staff memorandum for the hearing is largely the same as the last meeting, except for a few points identified in bold italics. The memo can be found here: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2010/100224/20100224_PHED1.pdf. The most common change is to permit further progress if prior work is “substantially done” rather than completed entirely; this change was to provide flexibility for the Planning Board in its monitoring of the implementation of the Plan.
(L-R: Marlene Michaelson, Glenn Orlin, Rollin Stanley, Dan Hardy; background: Councilmember and Committee Chair Mike Knapp)
On P. 4 of the memo, a new provision deals with the reconstruction of Rockville Pike. Orlin pointed out that their initial preference was to redevelop Rockville Pike in Phase Two, but conversations with county agencies indicated that this was unlikely. So the recommendation is to encourage accellerated development of Rockville Pike if possible, but not to require it to be done in Phase Two.
Committee Chair Mike Knapp asked about coordination of staging elements. What is in the Plan on that? Marlene Michaelson, council staffer, pointed out that on Pages 70 - 71 of the Plan, the monitoring process includes the staging of the Plan, and the Advisory Group recommendation also includes that area. Knapp asked that the information be provided to the Council early enough to be included in the CIP and other budgeting tools. Councilmember Roger Berliner asked to strengthen this provision on an on-going basis. Michaelson said she had no problem specifying that this report come to the Council. Orlin pointed out that this report needs to be coordinated with the North Bethesda Traffic Management District, which has the responsibility to monitor mode share and similar items.
Dan Hardy, chief transportation planner for the Planning Board, said they have had discussions of what needs to be done. We want to be sure that we are building on the work of other agencies, such as mode share. Michaelson: in Phases One and Two you can’t move ahead unless you’ve met mode share requirements, so only need this final type of reporting in Phase Three. Gary Stith, for the County Executive, asked to be sure that the County Executive is involved in the monitoring and the Advisory Committee.
Berliner said that the Advisory Committee in the Plan would only include people who are supportive of the Plan, and said that the Committee shouldn’t be limited to those who supported it, but should include those who opposed it as well. This, he said, had been raised by some of those who opposed the Plan, and the County has, in the past, included opponents of Plans on such committees.
Council President Nancy Floreen asked about the timing of these elements. Michaelson said they expected to begin in June or July. Floreen: expectation is that within a year we’ll have some financing mechanism. Orlin: so things will have to go to Council even before then. Floreen: that makes it a two-year effort, because we need a funding base. Orlin: some of these things are already funded. Hardy: many of the pre-Phase One things are already in the CIP. Floreen: we’ll have funding in place when? Orlin: summer 2011. Michaelson: they’re already working on it now; they’re not waiting. Floreen: what troubles me is that if we need a financing plan that will require some kind of taxing or revenue generation. If you do that, which tests will you apply to allow things to go forward? If some people are paying under this financing plan, are you still going to limit them to who can go forward? Michaelson: it will be anyone who’s ready to move ahead, can. but the last person who moves forward will be in the later stages of the Plan. Capacity will be used up.
Floreen: how will you define capacity? Hardy: mode share and limited parking. Key streets in the network are in the staging plan, so it isn’t just mode share, it’s physical capacity.
Berliner: fundamental difference in staff proposals for staging. Planning board had recommended that identified particular streets in stages. Council staff said don’t do that because don’t know where development will happen. Orlin: the core section, because of the “place-making” element, is the exception. Berliner: some people said we need to know where and when each of these key infrastructure elements will be implemented. You’ve said no, let’s just have performance metrics. That circumvents uncertainty. Michaelson: in the past, the Council didn’t actually fund what was in a Plan. could be holding up elements you want to proceed. And, in reality, we have deleted very few specific references to roads, because many of them were associated with placemaking, not transportation capacity. Stith: we need the flexibility to adjust for demand. That’s why we’re going to monitor. We want to put the roads in where they’re needed. By creating the financing mechanism, we’ll have the money in hand, which will make it much more likely that the Council will approve them. Berliner: that’s why I want to see the financing plan first. Some assurance in the staging plan itself. Hardy: maybe strengthen the amount of “looking forward” at the end of Phase One.
Knapp: I want to strengthen the actual getting of information from monitors to Council at the time we need it. That’s the bigger challenge. No good way to require that specifically, but if we can put the process in place, it increases the likelihood that we’ll get what we need. Berliner: this mechanism needs to work in a way that gives both Executive and Council the information they need to make this work. Otherwise we’ll “hear from people” if there’s a problem.
Berliner: you’ve proposed taking out parking and circulator. I think those should be in. Building from a base. A predicate. Orlin: don’t fall in love with a particular restrictive mechanism. Look to performance. Build in flexibility so you don’t hamstring the whole plan. Those two are both in the Plan; the flexibility is only in which phase. Michaelson: mode share goals are the enforcement mechanism. Berliner: we’re going to need every tool in the box. We worked on the CR Zone to give the White Flint community every tool possible to achieve those goals. Michaelson: do you want to lock in to one specific thing or just say that this is the goal. Orlin: you could use congestion pricing in parking as a mechanism, and that’s not in the Plan. Berliner: so don’t identify all of them, but identify those you believe will be require. Michaelson: we want to get to the goals any way.
Councilmember Marc Elrich: there aren’t any new things. We aren’t going to do teleportation. We have to do real world things. We’re really good a mythical solutions because we’ve done it a very long time. Then we say “I wonder why this didn’t work?” I don’t want to do parking pricing: we require building expensive garages then incentivize people not to park, even though we’re depending on the parking revenues. We need to work with what we know. There are a finite number of ways to solve a problem; I don’t believe the number of solutions is infinite. That’s just parking. These streets have to get done; they’re part of the grid to get relief off the Pike. If we’re not certain what we’re going to get done, and we just give out permits, that’s not going to work either. Maybe you don’t need the entirety of the grid on Day One, but you should be able to analyze what the next links that are necessary to make the project work. We don’t want temporary solutions. I’d be looking for a mechanism that raises the money for these requirements and doesn’t require those projects to compete with the rest of the County for money. We can’t raise the money here and use the money everywhere, because then these things won’t get funded here. We have to do this the best way. If Planning Board is saying you need to have this road for finality, then put it in. I’d like more certainty rather than less.
(Councilmember Marc Elrich)
Gary Stith: a good number of those streets are already funded. They won’t be part of the financing mechanism. Elrich: I’m not worried about those pieces; I’m worried about the whole grid. If you can’t get out to the Pike, it won’t work. We’ll create a bunch of bottlenecks and not fix the Pike. I’d like to know that if the streets are needed, we’re going to put it in. Orlin: State Highway Administration is going to do Rockville Pike. They haven’t done the studies yet. Nebel St. is already in the pipe, so you have a workaround already. Only thing is between Edson and Nicholson. That may have to wait until the dedications are there. No one is disagreeing with the need to move forward in a positive way, but the more you put in the Plan specifying this comes first, the less flexibility you have. Only put in the things you feel you must have regardless. Michaelson: the monitoring mechanism will report to you about the critical needs if they are different than what we have said now. Not locking you into a particular choice.
Elrich: has SHA been part of this conversation? Hardy: yes, in the room.
Floreen: Executive Boulevard east of the Pike is critical. Is this a staging or a financing issue? Orlin: not a staging trigger. They’ll need that road, but if it is needed first, then it will go first.
Floreen: neighborhood protection language in the Plan itself [note: this was part of the Friends of White Flint recommendations last October]. I would like that point emphasized. Orlin: we will put that in.
Della Stallsworth, speaking for the White Flint Community Coalition, asked for some language on neighborhood protection. “We didn’t know what to put in, but we just wanted something in there.” Floreen: Well, I’m not sure we want that specific language, but maybe something general, not too restrictive. Orlin: we’ll put something in.
Berliner: We want to be sure that failing Local Area Traffic Review (LATR) is linked back to the Plan. Is that Growth Policy issue or in the Plan itself? We want an assurance tool to be sure that traffic is not a nightmare, but what it triggers is a different set of issues. Knapp: we have the Growth Policy and a Master Plan. They will work in concert. The Plan doesn’t take LATR out. Barbara Sears for the White Flint Partnership: this is a big issue for us. We understood that both PAMR and LATR would be carved out in this Plan. Knapp: otherwise they’d be paying twice. Elrich: I don’t think PAMR works. Knapp: no one does. Elrich: so putting in the measures themselves is critical. How are you going to write that? I don’t want LATR used in a traditional sense for a payment, but as triggering what sections of the infrastructure to which people are contributing are going to go next.
Knapp: we’ll come back at 12:30PM tomorrow and continue this conversation. Stith: somebody has to figure out how to use LATR. If a project is already accepted, then they shouldn’t have to do it twice. Purpose of LATR here should be to be sure we are programming the appropriate transportation improvements. If someone is doing something else, they need to fix it. Orlin: we can do this next month.
Knapp: we will come back at 12:30PM tomorrow. 26 hours to rethink that.
Barnaby Zall
Live-blogging from the February 24, 2010 meeting of the Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee of the Montgomery County Council. Today’s topic is staging, or the timing of implementation, of the White Flint Sector Plan. Staging is critical to the success of the revitalization of White Flint because it helps to ensure that the infrastructure required to support the developments is available at the time it is needed. Having improvements on-time provides the confidence which residents and property owners need to support the billions of dollars in new investments in White Flint.
This is the third hearing on staging. Last week, the Committee decided several issues, but decided to put off final consideration of a staging plan until after it had held another hearing on financing options. Yesterday, the PHED Committee met jointly with the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee to hear more about financing options, but didn’t make any decisions; yesterday’s hearing was principally to receive the County Executive’s views on financing and cost options, which are required by state law.
What was significant about yesterday’s hearing, a prominent observer pointed out to me, was the distance the Executive (who was represented by County fiscal chief Jennifer Barrett) has moved in considering the financing of the White Flint Plan. When first asked, the Executive was very negative, saying, in effect, “this can’t be done.” Yesterday the mood was entirely different: “here’s how we could do it, step-by-step.” And the Committee’s responded in kind, with Council President Nancy Floreen, for example, suggesting that the County work with particular bond counsel (who rule the public financing world) who had positive evaluations.
So today, the Committee should be in a better position to finalize its work on the Plan.
Barnaby Zall
Dan Hoffman, from the Randolph Hills Civic Association, was our volunteer photographer this morning, and he insisted on taking a picture to show what live-blogging the Montgomery County Council meetings actually looks like. Not very glamorous.
And, as an aside, because Council President Nancy Floreen asked me the other day, my explanation of how live-blogging differs from “mainstream” news coverage: It’s like the difference between a painting and a photograph. The blog provides context and more personal content – an image or impression, not a transcript. I don’t take down every word (although I get a lot of them) or even every thought. I capture what I think are the words and thoughts which make up the essence of what’s being said.
And, of course, it’s entirely dependent on a good wireless signal, an electrical outlet (for those long meetings) and, speaking as a hearing-disabled person, officials who remember to speak into the microphones.
Barnaby Zall
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