Growth Policy Follies IV

The debate in Chevy Chase provided a great airing of the issues surrounding the proposed changes to the growth policy. The Montgomery County Council ultimately did not adopt most of the controversial ideas regarding changes to the traffic formula, or school capacity. However, it has yet to debate the CR zone, probably the key issue.

Many have told me that the CR zone idea has been rushed forward as part of the effort to incorporate it into the revision of the White Flint Master Plan. The CR zone would allow much denser development in areas that combine commercial and residential development in proportions approved by the Planning Board.

The idea is naturally controversial because it would have the effect of blowing away existing capacity controls built into the existing Master Plans that have shaped Montgomery County development for decades. Opponents fear that instead of transit-oriented development that we'll just get more traffic and no transit. They point out that the zone could also be applied to shopping centers like the one at Cabin John or Westbard located far away from any Metro stop.

Holland and Knight Attorney Pat Harris argued that we need the CR zone so we get more development like Bethesda Lane and the Kentlands. Unquestionably, her clients have buily popular developments in both cases. Bethesda Lane is a positive addition to the Bethesda area that integrates rental apartments above retail and a parking garage.

However, both developments occurred within the existing development process, and--as Pat Harris has often said about similar development projects in which she and I have both been interested--the final outcome was improved greatly through the public input mandated by the process.

Like many, I very much like the idea of mixing more residential and commercial development but would like to hear more about why exactly this zone is needed and its implications for traffic and infrastructure needs and costs before the County makes such an important change.

Read More...

Summary only...

Growth Policy Follies III

I got to ask one of the few questions at the growth policy forum and asked about why the Planning Board had recommended that the solution to the B-CC cluster being out of attainment (that's overcrowded in the vernacular) was simply to eliminate the standard that required developers to pay a surcharge for any new development until the district met the standard.

To me, eliminating the standard is much like me telling my students that the solution to their having failed the test is just that I need to raise all the grades. While that approach might raise my teaching evaluations, it's not exactly the lesson we want to teach.

Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson didn't really answer the question but simply repeated the existing standard as far as I could tell to fill his time. Holland and Knight Attorney Pat Harris argued that much of the new development was in condos that generally didn't have that many kids so it was unfair to place a surcharge on developers.

An interesting and perhaps good point. However, it also utterly contradicted Royce's earlier assertion that higher density was about providing housing for "working families" and that people wanted increasingly to live in high density developments (read: apartments) instead of suburban housing (see Part II of this series).

Of course, the surcharge on development only gets applied to new development that has not yet been approved. In the case of B-CC, Pat Harris explained that the problem had been addressed so that B-CC would fall below the standard. Ironically, this comment showed the value of the standard as Pat obliquely made the point that the potential freeze on development stimulated sufficient political pressure to address a real need.

Not mentioned at all was that the County Council adopted the standard only a couple of years earlier at the recommendation of the Planning Board. At the time, it seemed that the recommended standards were put into place so that no district would fail the test but I guess this turned out to be wrong--perhaps unintentially.

If the standard is such a bad idea, it does, however, raise the question of why the Planning Board recommended it so recently and why they were so badly wrong.

Part IV discussed the outcome of the debate and the CR zone.

Read More...

Summary only...

Growth Policy Follies II

Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson won the Oscar for best performance in a residential forum when he said that he we needed higher density in Bethesda so that there would be housing for "working families." I guess Lionsgate in Bethesda decided not to target the working family market and build condos starting at $800,000 with a view of the inside of a parking garage (yes, really) because they couldn't get higher density. You can't make this stuff up.

Royce also mentioned an oft-repeated (and, I assume, true) statistic on how only 4 percent of the land zoned for developed in Montgomery County has not yet been developed. Royce then quickly moved to the conclusion that we had to allow higher density in order to have further growth in Montgomery, and we wouldn't want to take the Agricultural Reserve.

I am certain that Royce cares genuinely about the Ag Reserve. After all, he played a critical role in its creation and has consistently worked to protect it. However, implying that the Ag Reserve was threatened was just a local version of the Park Service's old Washington Monument gambit. They'd propose reducing visiting hours for the Monument every time someone wanted to cut their budget in an effort to wring more money out of the feds.

Leaving aside the acerbic comment whispered to your gentle corespondent that "Frederick County is our real Ag Reserve" (folks, I don't make the news, I just type it), no one has proposed touching the Ag Reserve. I'd say at least Royce didn't say "Won't somebody please think of the children!" but he did get a bit passionate about kids and locally grown apples.

The whole "Approve the growth policy or the economy and the Ag Reserve get it" approach seems a tad neglectful of the fact that plenty of development can occur under the existing zoning laws and master plans through redevelopment of already developed properties. Anyone else remember the scads of white planning board signs in downtown Bethesda before the bubble burst?

Moreover, certain areas of the County retain a lot of room for transit-oriented development. Not far away from Bethesda, the area around the Wheaton metro still has a lot of room under existing plans and laws for much denser development. None of the metro stations in Prince George's have replicated the growth around Bethesda or Ballston. Allowing more density in existing boom areas like Bethesda may merely serve to further concentrate economic growth in areas that already have it.

Part III looks at the discussion about schools.

Read More...

Summary only...

Growth Policy Follies I

The Growth Policy Forum was a glittering night in the Chevy Chase Town Hall as supporters and opponents of changes to the growth policy and the new CR zone squared off in front of the kleig lights of public access television.

Unknowingly, I took my seat next to Dan Reed, formerly independent blogger who now works for Councilman George Levanthal who did not attend. Dan was taking such copious notes that I asked if he was a reporter. In snyc with the views of his boss, Dan at times appeared as frustrated with the views of opponents as I did with supporters.

Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson had three personalities, alternating between your avuncular uncle who always has a charming anecdote ready to divert your attention, angry Dad a.k.a. John McCain, and B-Actor William Shatner who has relied heavily on pregnant pauses to emphasize the pseudo-gravitas of his points from Star Trek to Priceline.

Joining him in support of the new policies was Holland and Knight's Pat Harris--the most effective advocate of the evening in my opinion. Easily having the best stage presence and a nimble mind, Pat argued effectively for the policy but never forgot for a moment her clients. In other words, she defended developers passionately even when they weren't mentioned.

East Bethesda Civic Association Chair Ilaya Hopkins, a former candidate for the Planning Board, sat next to Pat and critiqued the proposals. At times, Ilaya appeared to take the strategic decision not to argue with Royce, possibly because he was doing more damage to his position than she could.

I guess other observers will have to judge whether Ilaya wisely followed the rule of not getting in the way of someone destroying themselves or let Royce dominate the discussion. Royce shamelessly overrode moderator Charles Duffy's efforts to keep him remotely within time. He repeatedly cut off Charles' futile efforts to get him to wind up by saying that this was important and insisting on being allowed to continue.

Former Planning Board Member Meredith Wellington's more direct critiques of the proposals provoked angry Dad to interrupt and to snap at her. They disagreed vehemently on the future implications of the proposed changes to the growth policy and CR zone with Meredith seeing no need to rush to adopt these changes now.

More on the debate in Part II of this series.

Read More...

Summary only...

Growth Policy Panel Discussion

The Town of Chevy Chase, Citizens Coordinating Committee for Friendship Heights, Town of Somerset, Edgemoor Citizens Association, and East Bethesda Citizens Association will host a panel discussion on "Proposed Changes to the Growth and Zoning Policies" on Monday, October 26 from 7 to 9 p.m at the Town of Chevy Chase Town Hall located in the Jane E. Lawton Center, 4301 Willow Lane.

Montgomery County Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson, former Planning Board member Meredith Wellington, Chamber of Commerce representative Patricia Harris, and Western Montgomery County Citizens Advisory Board member and East Bethesda resident Ilaya Hopkins will discuss the new proposals in a public forum moderated by Charles Duffy, host of MMCTV’s Political Pulse.

Read More...

Summary only...

Planning Board Shenanigans

Adam has an upcoming series taking you through some of the arcana surrounding the proposed new growth policy with a great focus on proposed radical changes to transportation tests for new development. However, I didn't want to let the weekend go by without flagging the approach to schools.

And Here's to You Mr. Robinson
Planning Board Commissioner John Robinson's term expired on June 15th but he is still sitting on the board. The Montgomery County Council has yet to fill the appointment. Yet there is no vacancy on the Board:

This time, the council and Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson quietly came to an agreement to delay picking Robinson's successor until later this summer, allowing Robinson to stay on as the panel attempts to complete some major pieces of work. . . .

The decision to allow Robinson to stay a bit longer was not publicly announced or formally voted on by the council. It has not sparked any dissent from members, council President Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville) said. . . .

Hanson and Andrews said they thought it was a good idea to keep Robinson on. "Otherwise we lose the benefit of his expertise," Andrews said.

No formal or public approval required, I guess.

Don't Build a School, Just Lower Standards
Needless to say, the desire to keep Robinson on the Board was related to the "major pieces of work"--and the desire to have Commissioner Robinson's vote on them.

The County requires that a moratorium be placed on new development when a school district is overcapacity. Not over 100% of capacity--that doesn't cause developers any problems or even new fees--but at 120% of capacity. And not just overcapacity in one school but in an entire cluster. The B-CC and Clarksburg clusters have to placed in moratorium in less than a month under this standard.

The Solution? Make sure the problem doesn't get worse so that the schools which are an enormous economic asset and the pride of the County don't decline? Work with the County and the School Board to increase capacity?

Nope. Not according to the Planning Board:

Montgomery County planners pushed through the approval yesterday for a 497-unit apartment building in downtown Bethesda before a residential development moratorium takes effect, despite concerns about the building's design and its potential to add students to crowded schools.

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but the project would have failed on a 2-2 vote if Commissioner Robinson had not been there to give the project a 3-2 victory.

Now, one might give the Board the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is an unusually meritorious project. Except that the proposed growth policy changes regarding schools will exacerbate the problem by raising the capacity levels at which developers begin to pay impact fees from 105% to 110% of capacity. So less money to solve the problem.

The growth policy proposal also makes it easier to develop in places like Bethesda and Clarksburg--places already out of attainment. In short, the Board's approach is to eliminate standards for public facilities rather than make sure the infrastructure, even for schools, is available.

Perhaps we should just allow teachers in the schools to lower standards and grade easier. That's the lesson that the Planning Board has been teaching this week.

Read More...

Summary only...

We can again breathe…

Written by Sharon Dooley
Sharon Dooley is the Legislative Director of Upcounty Action.

Many of us who live in the Olney area and others across the upper Montgomery County regions who could not vote in the District 4 Council race are now breathing freely again. With the Democratic primary won by Don Praisner, we are confident that the prudent fiscal and moderate growth policies voiced by Marilyn Praisner will continue to be heard in the council chambers, if he defeats the challenger, as expected in May.

Mike Knapp’s comments that the last election was not about growth were echoed by Nancy Navarro as she made the point that growth is contained here. I differ with this opinion significantly and consider it misguided, perhaps even naïve. Growth policy and land-use decisions are an important part of county governance whether it is for in-fill development or in redevelopment of an older neighborhood. Bad decisions made in zoning or in Master Plans can change the character of a community, so these selections must be made carefully. Growth is cyclical as well, since economies have cycles, just as communities do and we need to plan for both good times and downturns.

Our county’s future growth is most likely not going to be in areas that mimic the plans for new towns such as Clarksburg, but rather in areas where we have settled communities that are becoming more urban. As a county we are growing and will continue to grow – the concern is in which ways will we change? Important questions will have to be asked and answered. Sometimes the knowledge is held in which questions are asked. I submit that the following are some that will need clear answers soon:
• How many stories do we wish to see built for our urban apartments and/or high-rise city office buildings?
• How much development can be supported in our Metro centers?
• How does the BRAC affect our down county roads and transit?
• Will there be affordable housing for these new workers should they choose to move here?
• Where will we get the necessary infrastructure funding as the modest growth continues and tax revenues decline?
• Will we be able to hold the line on class sizes as the county changes?
• Will the transit plans for the CCT and Purple lines be a real part of the transportation futures here?
• How long will we be able to hold the preservation of the Ag reserve as we see attempts at encroachment continue?

There are 93,000 acres approximately in protection in the Agricultural Reserve at
this time; farmers want to be able to have the equity they hold in their land pay
off; several proposals regarding development rights and land trade-offs are
suggested and being studied. These decisions need to be carefully considered
by our elected officials who are tasked with maintaining a viable county into the
future. It is hoped that now we can be confident that the air will remain
breathable, that forests will grow, and agriculture will continue to be a vibrant
part of Montgomery County’s tomorrows.

Read More...

Summary only...

Special Report: Why Are We Talking About Rent Control in MoCo?

Last month, the Gazette reported that County Executive Ike Leggett told a meeting of 50 tenants in Silver Spring that he would sign a rent control bill if the County Council passed it. This no doubt pleased fellow attendee and County Council Member Marc Elrich, who was one of the prime supporters of rent control in Takoma Park when he served on its City Council. But other county council members may not be so happy with this hot-potato Christmas present from their executive.

So why are we talking about rent control?

Rent control is one approach to the issue of affordable housing, long one of the most intractable problems in Montgomery County (and the entire Washington region). No one from any side of the debate believes that Montgomery County has enough affordable housing. There is plenty of evidence for that view, including:

1. The Census Bureau reports that 46% of the county’s rental units required rents of 30% or more of the occupants’ income in 2006.

2. In that same report, the Census Bureau finds that 36% of the county’s owner-occupied units with a mortgage required payments of 30% or more of the occupants’ income.

3. Impact Silver Spring found that 47% of renters in Silver Spring were paying rents of 30% or more of their income in 2005. Silver Spring has long been thought to be one of the more affordable areas in Montgomery County.

4. The Montgomery County Planning Department reports that the median price of a new detached single-family home reached $1.1 million in the first quarter of 2007. That means half the new homes were sold above that price.

While the county has acknowledged affordable housing problems since at least the 1970’s, its recent difficulties occur in the context of two market realities: rising prices and slow population growth.

Rising Prices
The Montgomery County Planning Department reported that between 2002 and 2007’s first quarter, prices for new single family homes rose by 138%. Huge price hikes also occurred for new townhouses (91%), existing townhouses (105%) and existing single family homes (69%). These hikes may be tapering off, but no one believes that all the price gains of recent years will disappear.

Slow Growth
Since 1990, the county’s population has grown by a meager annual average 11,873 people, or 1.4% per year. In 2006, the county added only 5,000 people – its slowest population growth since 1983. These numbers mockingly lash the back of every wild-eyed MoCo activist who has ever used the term “hyper-growth.”

In fact, rising prices and slow growth may be related. Montgomery County has long been praised for its excellent schools, attractive parks, nice downtowns and quality government services. It is one of the most desirable places to live in the nation. So why does its population grow so slowly? The county simply does not have enough housing to accommodate everyone who wants to move in. Picture a giant bucket pouring endless numbers of people into a shiny, but small bottle. Not everyone will get in. Increasingly, it seems that those who do get in fall into two groups: those who are wealthy enough to afford high-price housing on their own, and those who are willing to tolerate overcrowded, substandard conditions. (The social tensions between these two groups, who sometimes live on the same block, are rising.)

And so when limited supply meets insatiable demand, home prices and rents rise. This is the experience of Montgomery County, most jurisdictions in the Washington area, and many parts of the country.

The county’s primary tool for encouraging the construction of affordable housing is its Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program. Created in 1973, the MPDU program is based on a simple trade: developers are ordered to construct below-market-rate units in return for permission to increase housing density. Currently, the law applies to developments of 20 or more units. It mandates that 12.5-15% of the new units be affordable for families earning up to 70% of the area’s median income. In return, the developer may build up to 22% more units than called for in a parcel’s zoning. A new workforce housing program based on similar principles was approved in 2006 but has not yet begun operation.

There are three problems with the MPDU program. First, developers are allowed to “buy out” from the MPDU requirements by paying into the county’s Housing Initiative Fund. Second, the program depends on new construction. When the economy slows down and residential development declines, so does MPDU construction. Finally, the program has actually created very little affordable housing. Since the first MPDU’s were constructed in 1976, only 8,527 owner-occupied units and 3,520 rented units have been built. The county’s total stock of housing units in 2006 consisted of 241,108 owner-occupied units and 100,330 rented units. So after 30 years of the MPDU program, only 3.5% of the county’s owner-occupied and rented units are MPDU’s – a depressingly low total.

In a recent Gazette column, four County Council members claimed that 31,616 housing units were currently approved for development with a projected buildout of 6 years. But how many of those units are MPDU’s? If we were charitable and assumed that 10% were to be MPDU’s and that all of them would be built, the MPDU percentage of the county’s housing stock would rise to a grand total of 4.1%. Even if every single one of these units was an MPDU, the MPDU percentage would only rise to 11.7%. Of course, this would never happen, but it would be a nice start.

There are other tools the county has to affect residential development, including master plans, Planning Board and planning staff reviews, rezoning decisions on individual parcels and zoning text amendments. But the provision of housing is only one factor affecting these decisions. Other factors including resident sentiment, environmental considerations, traffic tests, school capacity and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods are also weighed. Inevitably, the number of units ultimately approved is less than would be built in a pure free market. And while the county offers rental and homeowner assistance through its Housing Opportunities Commission, these programs have not solved the affordable housing problem.

Deep in the long-lost regions of my mind that remember my college microeconomics coursework, a neoclassical voice cries out, “The government restricts supply, then micromanages construction and now is talking about fixing prices. Of course the housing market is broken!” But that view is too simple. Residential construction creates significant external costs that are not adequately priced in private buyer-seller transactions, such as pollution, school crowding and traffic. And these costs are not fully recovered by the county’s impact tax system. Some development limits are necessary to protect the county’s Agricultural Reserve, preserve the character of existing neighborhoods and prevent the county from resembling overdeveloped Rings of Hell like Phoenix and Las Vegas. But the cost of pursuing these worthwhile objectives may be to limit the provision of affordable housing, both owner-occupied and rental.

The two paradigms of development politics in this county do not have the answers for this problem. The affordable housing issue nicely demonstrates the critical flaws of each side of the ever-lasting development debate. Anti-growth people will not admit that limits on development tend to put upwards pressure on prices and rents over the long term. Pro-growth people will not admit that a true market solution to housing – allowing supply to meet demand – could necessitate massive new residential construction. No one knows the number of new units required to meet the true demand for Montgomery County housing – 50,000 or 100,000 or even more? – but that number is likely to be much greater than a strained county capital budget and a traffic-choked citizenry can accept.

And so we have market failure for affordable housing. And that’s why we are talking about rent control.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hoisted from the Comments: Nancy Floreen Responds

Here is Councilmember Nancy Floreen's Response to the post below highlighting recent articles in the Gazette on growth policy:

Actually, I wasn't "attacking" anyone. I merely pointed out a fact that I believe people should know - our budget is premised on some amount of growth - this year, over 150 million dollars worth. That is not peanuts. I hadn't expected our fiscal numbers to look so bad so early, according to Ike's release right after we voted. Less growth means less revenue and more budget impact.

I never said the vote single handedly would bring our economy to a standstill - but I did say that I believe that it will contribute to shifting costs more directly to the shoulders of current residents. We'll see if I am right, but I think voters want us to worry about things like that. These debates we have are often bundled in lots of concerns, some, rather impenetrable, as Adam has pointed out. And the press rarely picks this stuff up, so if we want to make a point, we sometimes have to do it on our own.

Growth policy debates are rarely conducted in a budget environment, but this was a good opportunity to identify the relationship between decisions in one context, and their possibly unintended, un-noted consequences in the fiscal world.

I think it is useful to recognize the real life costs of our work as we proceed. What is the tipping point? we don't really know, but it is worth worrying about.

I believe us elected officials owe the public full, frank and reasoned explanations of why we do what we do and a recognition of the implications of our actions. Read Max Bronstein's piece in the Gazette as well for another take.

My reply:

Nancy, Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts.

The comment says: "Actually, I wasn't 'attacking anyone'. . ." In my earlier comment, I said you "attacked the policy" which still seems reasonable to me. Your column was entitled "County's dirty little secret", referred to "all the political spin", and is negative on the policy. Perhaps "attack" was a little strong on my part--and I apologize for making it sound like a more confrontational situation than it is--but there is clearly a clash of views.

The comment also says: "I never said the vote single handedly would bring our economy to a standstill - but I did say that I believe that it will contribute to shifting costs more directly to the shoulders of current residents." I agree. The post says: "Last week, Councilmember Nancy Floreen argued that the new controls are going to undermine the County's currently fragile economy and thus County revenues" which sounds--at least to my ears--like a paraphrase of what you said. Perhaps you are disagreeing with the column written by your colleagues on the Council and not myself?

I did later say: "it will be interesting to see if attitudes in the County shift if the economy slips into recession and growth grinds to a complete halt." After all, recessions can happen regardless of growth policy but negative growth (a key part of a recession) with the resulting impact on employment, salaries, revenues, and services can make many desire higher rates of growth--which I believe is not at odds with the point you make.

I would like to understand more clearly why you think the higher fees shift costs to county residents that they didn't pay before. After all, if the money to pay from infrastructure and its maintenance doesn't come from the fees, it has to come from taxes. I'm no expert so maybe you can help unscramble this for us growth policy novices.

Thanks again for the comment. I've always appreciated your willingness to explain and discuss your views in a forthright manner.

Read More...

Summary only...

Council Acrimony Over Growth Policy Moves to the Papers

While I doubt they will ever beat out The Biggest Loser or Survivor, ratings for television broadcasts of County Council meetings could rise above zero to measurable levels if the tension in the Council on display in the papers moves to their public meetings.

After a tough debate, the Montgomery County Council adopted changes to the County's growth policy. However, the Council has not been able to move on from the issue. Indeed, Councilmembers are now taking their debate out of the Council and attacking each other in the Gazette.

Last week, Councilmember Nancy Floreen argued that the new controls are going to undermine the County's currently fragile economy and thus County revenues:

Market forces have now achieved what 20 years of arbitrary regulations could not — the reduction of growth to a crawl. And the new growth policy will only worsen our fiscal situation.

By establishing impossible-to-meet growth controls, it will discourage private sector investment and the creation of new jobs, new housing and tax revenue. Unless government picks up the check, at most we will only see more of the luxury housing, chain retail and huge corporations that can pay the price. So much for the economic and social diversity that Montgomery County has cherished.

Councilmember Valerie Ervin largely agrees:

County Executive Isiah Leggett is on record as stating that the ‘‘charges imposed on residential development are ultimately reflected, in whole or in part, in the pricing of homes and care must be taken so that homes are not priced even further out of the reach of residents of moderate income.” I agree. Limiting new development makes our county a more exclusive and expensive place to live. Once housing prices get out of reach for most average people, individuals who work in the county will be forced to look for housing in other jurisdictions.

I have serious concerns about limiting growth in areas where the county has a history of encouraging development, such as near Metro stations. This is not my idea of smart growth. Some claim that theses areas are where robust development is taking place, but data show that 80 percent of commercial rentals are occurring outside these areas.

This week, Councilmembers Phil Andrews, Marc Elrich, Marilyn Praisner, and Duchy Trachtenberg fired back, arguing that their colleague got it wrong:

First, the effect of the growth policy won’t be felt immediately. Development already approved will continue to move forward. That approved development includes 31,616 housing units (projected timeline for build-out: six years), and 32,210,095 square feet of commercial space (projected timeline for build-out: 11 years). If the county experiences a slowdown in the coming months or year, it will be due to economic forces, not the newly adopted growth policy. A national recession that affected this entire country caused the funding shortfall the county experienced in the early 1990s, not a restrictive growth policy.

Second, Ms. Floreen’s contention that the growth policy will amplify the recent weakness in the housing market is also off base. Growth in housing and commercial development always ebbs and flows due to national economic forces. It is not something the county controls. What we can affect through the growth policy is the obligations on new growth, and who pays for it. Many of the county’s current budget problems have been caused by trying to catch up with infrastructure needs caused by past growth.

Thirdly, growth does not always pay for itself. New housing requires new roads, schools, recreation centers, parks, libraries and other infrastructure. Providing this new infrastructure costs money. With that in mind, the new growth policy included impact taxes to assure that new growth helps pay for itself, so that the burden of new growth does not fall solely on our current residents.

The Council quad is certainly right that many projects are already approved. Many projects already in the planning pipeline are on hold or going more slowly due to the economic slowdown rather than to the changes in the county growth policy.

My impression in the southern part of the County is that residents will welcome a bit of a breather. In Bethesda and Silver Spring, the slower pace merely means that growth will proceed at a steady, albeit slower, pace instead if the pell-mell fever which has gripped the area in recent years with white development signs sprouting like daisies in urban centers.

And let's not forget BRACasaurus. The expansion of the Naval Medical Center--not to mention the growth of NIH across the street--promises to place incredible new stresses on the already burdened Wisconsin Ave./Rockville Pike corridor and the Beltway. Neither the County, the State, or the Feds are willing (or able?) to contribute the significant sums needed to address this serious issue as Adam Pagnucco has pointed out.

Still, it will be interesting to see if attitudes in the County shift if the economy slips into recession and growth grinds to a complete halt. Many years ago, voters in Fairfax County elected a team of Democrats on anti-growth Democrats and tossed them out in favor of pro-growth Republicans when the County went into recession.

Read More...

Summary only...

Council Approves Changes to Growth Policy

According to the Washington Post, the Montgomery County Council approved several new development-related tax increases:

The tax increases on new construction, of more than $15,000 per single-family house, will take effect Dec. 1. Officials predicted a rush at the county's permitting department in the next two weeks for builders looking to beat the deadline.

The 7 to 1 vote in favor of the growth policy, with Nancy Floreen (D-At Large) the only dissenter, came after nearly 11 months of debate. The details as well as many broader themes encouraging denser development in the county's more urban areas were developed by the county's planning board, then sent to the council for final approval.

The council unanimously approved related tax increases that would more than double most taxes paid by builders when they apply for their building permits. Members voted 7 to 1, with Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) dissenting, to increase the recordation tax collected at real estate closings, but delayed it until March 1. . . .

Under the council's plan, the tax on a new single-family house increases from $6,264 to $10,649 for transportation and from $9,111 to $20,456 for schools. The taxes had not been increased for several years.

Regardless of the change, residents near metro stops should not expect the pace of development to slow. When I spoke with Josh Sloan, a M-NCPPC staffer, on Woodmont East, he made clear that virtually any development would pass the traffic test in Bethesda under either the old or new test.

Read More...

Summary only...

Growth Policy and School Capacity

School capacity is a very sensitive topic in Montgomery County. People concerned that their schools are already overcrowded will want to watch upcoming County Council decisions on revisions to the County's growth policy carefully. Jim Humphrey sent me the following information which explains why fees for development may increase if their is crowding in schools but development may nonetheless continue:

If the final vote on the growth policy, now scheduled to take place on November 13, mirrors the straw vote of the majority of Councilmembers on Tuesday, October 30, then the Schools Test will change a bit from the Planning Board's recommendation. The vote supported setting 105% of MCPS program capacity as the point at which a Schools Facility Payment would be required of a developer--a fee for each student generated by a new residential project on the grade level (elementary, middle, high school) that was over the 105% level in that cluster. A majority voted to set 120% of program capacity as the cap above which development approval theoretically stops, however a developer could offer to build additional classroom capacity to accommodate students from their projects on the grade level over threshold OR PAY A FEE EQUAL TO THE COST.

Long story short, if a cluster is either over the 105% or 120% level a developer might still get approval of a new project if they agree to pay a sufficient amount. Of course, the additional classroom capacity might not be built for years, since MCPS rarely approves capacity increase projects of less than 4 classrooms at a time. So meanwhile our schools could become more and more overcrowded while project approvals generate revenue for MCPS that does not result in the timely provision of increased classroom capacity.

Read More...

Summary only...

Montgomery County Development Watch

The Montgomery County Council approved increasing fees on developers in two test votes yesterday:

In test votes on proposed revisions to the county's growth policy, designed to get a sense of the nine-member council, a majority supported increasing fees on new development to help cover the cost of more students and classrooms. For a public elementary school, for instance, the fee would increase from $12,500 to $19,514, far less than the $32,524 recommended by the Planning Board.

However, the Council was tightly divided over a proposed amendment allowing developers off the hook if they include more affordable housing:

"Adding significant costs will have remarkable implications, if not death-toll implications, for affordable housing," said council member Nancy Floreen (D-At Large), who was joined by George L. Leventhal (D-At Large), Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) and Valerie Ervin (D-Silver Spring).

Council member Marc Elrich (D-At Large) criticized some of his colleagues' focus on moderately priced housing. "To hang this process around affordable housing is a joke. What this county does is next to nothing," he said.

The amendment was rejected by Elrich, Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville), Roger Berliner (D-Potomac-Bethesda), Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County) and Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large).

My guess is this battle is just a preview for the critical fight over how traffic congestion is measured. In growth-policy speak, these are called the Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) and the Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR). The Council won't take test votes on that until next Tuesday. Developers are clearly unhappy about those proposed changes as well, though residents have consistently expressed anger over the lax standards at public meetings on the topic.

The Action Committee for Transit (ACT) and Coalition for Smarter Growth sent out a press release (not posted to either website yet) opposing the proposed changes which would tighten the policy (read: inch these measures a tad closer to measuring the real level of traffic). Indeed, the press release made it quite clear that ACT wants to push the pedal to the metal on development around Metro stops, claiming that development does not increase traffic in those area, using Rosslyn and Ballston as examples.

I imagine many in the County would be surprised to learn that Bethesda and Silver Spring are not experiencing sufficient development or increases in density. In any case, this press release demonstrates the close alliance between ACT, the Coalition, and development interests. Moreover, failing to tighten the LATR would hardly combat sprawl as it would allow more development not just by Metro but everywhere in the County.

The press release also doesn't mention one key fact: both the existing and the proposed policy already allow for substantially higher congestion by Metro stops. Even if the LATR changes are approved, density will still continue to increase around Metro stops at a rapid pace. Indeed, people on the other side of the debate argue that the controls still don't measure the impact of development on congestion in a realistic manner.

The County did approve measures related to tighten school capacity requirements. Existing rules allow developers to build new homes even if the schools are full by borrowing school capacity from neighboring school districts. According to the Post, the Council approved tighter restrictions than recommended by the Planning Board but did not go as far as County Executive Leggett suggested.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kathy Strom for CC on Growth Policy

Chevy Chase Councilwoman Kathy Strom testified before the County Council for the Town on the proposed growth policy changes:

Good evening. My name is Kathy Strom, I . . . am a Council member of the Town of Chevy Chase. We appreciate the opportunity to appear tonight and present testimony on behalf of the Town concerning the Montgomery County Planning Department’s recommended amendments to the County’s Growth Policy.

As you know the Town is a residential community located adjacent to downtown Bethesda. The Town has been directly impacted by the prior Montgomery County growth policy and will be directly impacted by the policies proposed in this plan. We are currently experiencing a very congested traffic situation throughout downtown Bethesda and the neighboring communities and we are concerned that the real world “on the ground” situation will only get worse as the projects already approved and “in the pipeline” are built. Thus, while we are supportive of the direction in which the Planning Department’s proposals are heading and we appreciate that the current Council is seeking a new direction in growth policy from that which has been in place for the past several years, we wanted to bring to your attention a few specific areas where we believe the policy could be improved to the benefit of our community and the Bethesda area as a whole.

We have three specific recommendations related to traffic:

-We believe there is a need for a more stringent transportation test than that proposed. We need a test that is both practical and based on the real situation on the ground. It is clear to anyone driving in Bethesda today -- without the additional retail spaces, hotels, and apartments that have been approved and are in the pipeline or might be approved under the proposed test -- that congestion is extreme already. This is also important when considering the response time for public safety services which will always rely on the roads.

- We also believe that the traffic mitigation measures under the LATR guidelines that are currently available to developers in exchange for changes to zoning restrictions should be considered more rigorously for real public benefit and, if granted, be strictly enforced.

- We recommend that the Council ensure that traffic mitigation and traffic flow issues relating to all of the approved and pending projects be required to be coordinated. Under current policy, Maintenance of Traffic Plans (MOTs) are considered and approved for individual projects without sufficient regard to cumulative community impacts. For example, there are currently two large projects planned for the intersection of Woodmont and Bethesda Avenues (one of which is anticipated to close an access portion of Woodmont Avenue for two years), two along Arlington Boulevard, and at least one along Wisconsin Avenue near Montgomery Avenue – all which may come to fruition within the next few years and continue on for several years. Access to essential services such as grocery and drug stores which are in the vicinity will be greatly restricted and therefore the impact on our community will be immediate and significant. We may have no choice but to go into the District for such services until all projects are completed and therefore businesses will suffer as well from such uncoordinated, large, simultaneous projects as are currently anticipated for the next several years.

Likewise, we are concerned about the potential for overcrowding at our area schools with the continued influx of residential development of apartments and town homes. Therefore,

- We support the proposed revision to use the Montgomery County Public Schools program capacity figures and endorse the proposed change to discontinue the current practice of borrowing enrollment capacity from adjacent school clusters. We feel strongly that portable figures should not be included in figuring capacity, particularly as the County is committed to eliminating them altogether.

- We do, however, think that a 135% of capacity level as the point at which approval should not be granted is too high and that a lower level would be much more appropriate in light of existing crowding at our local schools.

We will also submit these comments for the record and appreciate the opportunity to provide you with our views on ways in which the proposed growth policy could be improved to better manage future growth, especially in already highly highly developed and congested areas such as Bethesda/Chevy Chase.

Read More...

Summary only...

Marc Elrich on Growth Policy

Marc Elrich wrote the following letter regarding the changes to the County's growth policy proposed by the Planning Board:

The Planning Board has handed its draft of the Growth Policy to the County Council and it’s decision time. Now is the time for you to get involved. Now is the time for you to contact the Council about why the rate of growth and development and how we pay for it is important to you.

There are some good proposals, some bad and one very bad recommendation in the Planning Board’s Final Draft Growth Policy.

GOOD - The impact fees are higher. For the first time, the proposed development impact fees generally reflect the true cost of providing the needed roads and schools to support new development.

GOOD - The school test is a vast improvement over the current test and is based on the class size reductions that the County is trying to make.

BAD - A School Facilities Payment would allow developers to buy their way into overcrowded school districts and dump more students into schools already at 110% - 135% capacity.

GOOD - The draft Growth Policy explicitly focuses on facility, fiscal, economic, environmental and social sustainability.

BAD - The environmental factors need to be much stronger. It doesn't matter how much traditional infrastructure and services we provide if our air is poisoned, our streams are dying, our farms are being paved, and our planet's baking.

BAD – It acknowledges the importance of police, fire & rescue, and other facilities (such as parks, libraries, recreation and health) but only recommends guidelines - not real tests - for determining adequacy.

GOOD – The Policy takes the quality of development design into consideration as a factor in our quality of life.

VERY BAD – The proposed transportation test is no test at all. It is virtually impossible to fail no matter how bad the roads are. The new Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) is so bad that it may negate all the good in the Policy. Unbelievably, the PAMR test declares that the current transportation system throughout the entire County is adequate! We know that just isn’t true. The PAMR test disregards the congestion which locks up most major County roads because you can always ride a bus. So the draft Growth Policy would allow developers to pour more and more traffic on a non-functioning road system, simply because someone might ride a bus. For example, a street with a speed limit of 40 mph is considered adequate if it averages 10 mph in the rush hour and buses average 7.5 mph! As far as this test is concerned, congestion is not a problem.

There’s one test it doesn’t pass –and that’s the laugh test. It tells County residents that the problems they face everyday don’t exist and don’t matter. We can and must do better.

It is true we wanted to collect higher fees that reflect the cost of infrastructure, not for the sake of collecting money, but in order to build the necessary infrastructure. The guiding principle of a sound growth policy isn't how to soak developers, but how to insure that we have the infrastructure that we need. If we can’t provide the infrastructure, no amount of money will make it better. We need realistic fees, but more than that, we need realistic tests. We need tests that allow development to proceed only when the infrastructure is truly adequate. If all we do is collect money, then we fail.

This is a call to action. You need to let the Council know that you want a Growth Policy that makes a more livable County, not policies that trade off our quality of life for a pile of cash. We need a growth policy that reflects three basic principles.

1) Impact fees that reflect the cost of providing the infrastructure for new development.

2) A school test that makes it possible to achieve the school systems goals for class sizes that help our children learn.

3) A transportation test that allows development where the infrastructure is adequate using standards for adequate that meet the community’s expectations. And in places where the roads don’t work, then development isn’t allowed to proceed.

What can you do? Again three easy steps.

1) Write your councilmembers and tell them what you expect in the Growth Policy. Send an email or letter to the Council President, your four At-large and one district representatives. Write in your own words even if it is very short. Form letters and forwarded emails are not effective.

2) Write letters to the newspapers and let them know you care.

3) Attend the public hearings and make sure your voices are heard. The Growth Policy is much of what the 2006 Council elections were all about. Public hearings are June 19, 8:00pm and June 26, 7:30pm. PHED committee deliberations are June 27, July 2 and July 9.

Read More...

Summary only...

Gazette on Planning Board Meeting

Someone at the Gazette must have thought my remark at the Planning Board Forum on growth policy in Montgomery County was pretty snappy; they made it their lead quote in their article about the meeting:

The County Council needs to make more realistic decisions in forming its policy that guides and limits growth in Montgomery, residents said at a public forum Saturday at the county Planning Board’s offices in Silver Spring.

‘‘Building a whimsical bench by a bus stop does not mitigate traffic,” said David Lublin of Chevy Chase.

‘‘Let’s stick to the plan ... not allow these little fudge factors that allow the plan to become eight times larger than the plan says,” said Lublin, who was among about 100 residents and others with interests in development at the meeting.

I confess to wishing the second quote had been more coherent but I hope the gist of the idea was clear.

Read More...

Summary only...

Report on Growth Policy Forum

The Montgomery County Planning Board held its Growth Policy Forum on May 5th at M-NCPPC headquarters in Silver Spring on Saturday. I attended the meeting along with Pat Burda, the Chair of the Town of Chevy Chase Long Range Planning Committee.

Presentation of Growth Policy Recommendations
Karl Moritz, Chief of the Research and Technology Division of the Planning Department, presented the report and recommendations of his department's Growth Policy Study. The actual report is long and hard to digest so I recommend the Summary Report to get a good overview of the recommendations. It would be great if the Department would post a copy of Mr. Moritz's powerpoint on their website. Unfortunately, his presentation was longer than the hour alloted to it so some important slides whizzed by the audience.

The recommendations were complex and hard to digest. However, a few points grabbed me. The Planning Department made a few recommendations that should tighten measurements of growth capacity which should make it harder to gain approval for new developments or subject developers to increased fees if developments are approved.

First, the Planning Board wants to revise the definition of school capacity so that the definition is closer to the MCPS definition of capacity. They also suggest raising the school facilities payment, the extra money a developer pays when projected increases in students are above the capacity of the schools to absorb them. The staff also recommends that the practice of borrowing capacity from another school cluster should cease.

I believe that Mr. Moritz admitted that this fee has never been assessed in the past and no development had been stopped due to problems of school capacity. However, I couldn't tell if this would change if the staff recommendations are adopted. Did anyone else who attended the meeting catch the answer to this question?

Changes in the calculation of transportation capacity were also proposed by Planning Department staff. The primary recommendation was the adoption of new standard for assessing whether an area has additional capacity called the Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR). Without going into the gory details, places with better public transit and less traffic will tend to pass this test which appears to measure the length of time it would take to make a trip either by transit or by car.

I couldn't help but notice that virtually all areas of the County would be deemed to have additional transportation capacity under the proposed standard. One wonders if the standard was selected independently of knowledge of its impact on growth policy. While Jim Humphrey questioned the new measure, I wonder if any problems with the standard relate more to the levels deemed acceptable rather than standard itself.

Panel Discussion
After this introductory presentation, Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson emceed a lively panel discussion on growth policy which even included "lightening rounds". (Maybe he can replace Bob Barker if this job gets too tough?) The panelists came from diverse backgrounds. Business interests were well represented. Georgette "Gigi" Godwin is President of the MoCo Chamber of Commerce. Chris Weber is the Director of Planning for Federal Realty, perhaps best known as the largest developer in downtown Bethesda. Bob Spalding is a project manager for homebuilder Miller and Smith. Ralph Bennett is the President of Bennett Frank McCarthy Architects, which designed both King Farm and Clarksburg Town Center. Leonard Bogorod is a real estate consultant with Robert Charles Lesser & Co.

Advocates of limits on growth or major changes in development policy in MoCo were also well represented on the panel. MoCo Sierra Club Vice Chair Pam Lindstrom and Neighbors for a Better Montgomery Executive Director Drew Powell were both on the panel. Jim Humphrey is Chair of the Planning and Land Use Committee for the Montgomery County Civic Federation and a longtime advocate of limits on growth. Amy Presley is President of the Clarksburg Town Center Advisory Committee and led the team that uncovered the violations of county laws which plagued that development.

Jim Soltesz is President of Loiederman Soltesz Associates, a major planning, engineering, and environmental services firm. Stuart Rochester is best known as a historian and author of Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, but has been involved in land use issues for two decades and lives in Burtonsville. The panel discussion was lively and interesting but ran over the expected time by about 30 minutes which was a pity because it began to feel repetitive in the last 20 minutes.

Pro-development advocates expressed feeling appalled at the idea that the County was reaching "build out" (i.e. that additional growth in the County should cease) and argued that growth adds revenue to the County which enables it to provide services. They (and Mr. Moritz) pointed out that growth was slowing down in percentage terms, a factoid made less compelling by the basic math fact that an increase of 100,000 people is a smaller percentage increase on a larger population base.

Panelists disagreed about the idea of greater density at Metro stations. Pam Lindstrom repeatedly mentioned that studies of growth in Arlington showed that greater density around Metro stations resulted in no increased traffic. However, another panelist stated that only around 20% of people who lived near Metro travelled by Metro.

Several panelists mentioned the need to take into account the environmental impact of growth, though there was naturally debate about whether this cost should be borne by additional fees placed on development. Bob Spalding argued that many of the increased fees which were already in the proposal would significantly raise costs to developers and translate into higher home prices, though I wondered if at least part of the cost would be absorbed by the developer as lower profit even if his point had some merit.

Chris Weber articulated the importance of providing incentives to encourage development where the County wants it to occur. I think this may have simply meant that the County should continue to build and maintain garages and support the Metro (and other similar public amenities) as in downtown Bethesda. At this point, I think it is safe to say that Federal Realty needs no further encouragement to develop its properties there as they are already chomping at the bit.

I should add that Mr. Weber was disarmingly honest, admitting that he was part of the transportation problem as he and his family live in Howard County and he commutes around 30 miles to his office in Montgomery every day. The "Chris Webers of the world" became a synonym for people with long commutes by the end of the meeting.

Someone else pointed out that the Kentlands and King Farm occurred within Rockville and Gaithersburg and that thinking should occur about how to encourage similar smart growth developments in unincorporated parts of the County. Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this point?

Community Input
The two most influential members of the audience were Council President Marilyn Praisner (D-4) and Councilman Marc Elrich (D-At large). Marilyn Praisner took to the mike for a few minutes before the community got going. Both councilmembers spent a good deal of time at the meeting and talking with attendees.

Virtually all of the comments I heard during the portion of comments I was able to stay for seemed to ask for further tightening of capacity standards for growth. One woman asked how the Planning Department staff could view so many schools as having additional capacity with all of the portable classrooms around the County. Another vehemently argued that there was no more transportation capacity in East Silver Spring.

Your gentle blogger also stepped up to the mike. I called for eliminating the ability of developers to get around transportation capacity limits through the provision of various amenities that do nothing or almost nothing to mitigate traffic. The audience applauded when I said something along the lines of "a whimsical bench at a bus stop does not mitigate traffic."

I also argued that the ability to buy and sell air rights subverted the intent of the Master Plan. For example, if the developer of the Pier One property on Wisconsin Ave. successfully acquires the air rights of the nearby church, the developer will be able to construct a much taller building which will loom over adjoining neighborhood of single-family homes.

The increased height will make it harder to achieve the transition desired between the high-density commercial district and the single-family home residential area. It will also make it less likely that the design goal of having tall buildings near Metro but declining height as one gets away from the location of the stop. In short, I was trying to argue that builders should be able to construct buildings within the Plan that fit within the character of the area but should not be allowed to use these measures to build larger developments than originally envisioned in the Master Plan.

Read More...

Summary only...