Posts about TOD

We received an email from the PR firm Edelman about a new website they are launching on behalf of Walton. The site, called "A Welcome Home for the FBI," argues that "Westphalia Town Center would provide a secure, state-of-the-art campus for the FBI within a vibrant community where FBI employees and their families can live, work and play," and that "Westphalia Town Center would be a win-win-win for FBI employees and their families, as well as Prince George's County residents and businesses."

There's even a map, captioned, "Westphalia Town Center provides many convenient transportation options." Does it, now?

While Westphalia is located next to the Capital Beltway and Pennsylvania Avenue and adjacent to Joint Base Andrews, it's not on or near a Metro line, MARC train, or the planned Purple Line. I've placed a star around potential spots for the FBI that are on Metro: Greenbelt, Franconia-Springfield (Fairfax's proposal), and two suggestions from Greater Greater Washington contributors, Morgan Boulevard and Suitland.

(This map actually shows Metro in entirely the wrong place. Notice how the Orange and Blue Lines appear under the Potomac around where Smithsonian station would be. The Red Line crosses into Maryland east of DC's the northern point, not west. This map doesn't show the Blue Line out to the Beltway at all, and the southern Green Line actually runs along Suitland Parkway.

It clearly looks as though this map originally had no Metro at all, and the designers hastily slapped the Metro lines on without sizing and positioning them right. Perhaps this illustrates how much Westphalia really thinks about transit.)

Walton is so eager for the FBI that they recently offered to fund a bus line to Branch Avenue Metro. Unfortunately, a bus is unlikely to draw nearly the percentage of FBI workers that a Metro site would. The county has explored ways to extend the Green Line to Westphalia, but no serious planning has been done for it and nobody, including Walton, has any idea of how to pay for it.

As a greenfield, largely undeveloped site, Westphalia will require lots of new, expensive infrastructure whose long-term costs will get pushed onto the public. That spending will ultimately weaken pressure to build in existing communities where there's already underused transportation infrastructure, at the Metro stations. Those communities, however, don't have PR firms to push the government to put jobs there.

Putting the FBI in Prince George's County is the right move. The east side of the region has not gotten its share of federal or private jobs, forcing people to travel long distances from east to west. The FBI wants a large security fortress, which is incompatible with potential locations in central DC.

An site that is short walk from one of Prince George's 15 Metro stations, however, could house a large high-security complex and also catalyze walkable transit-oriented development closer to the station. This would maximize the value we get from our existing regional transportation network. With so many available Metro-accessible sites in Prince George's, Westphalia is not a good spot for the FBI.

Both bills appear to have broad support among the council members, although they appear to address the same topic in meaningfully different ways. Eight of the nine council members have signed on to Olson's bill. Councilmember Mary Lehman (District 1) has not yet expressed her support for CB-6. Six of the nine council members have signed on to Franklin's bill. The three who have thus far declined to support CB-12 are Olson, Lehman, and Obie Patterson (District 8).

Unlike the case with Franklin's TOD bills during the 2012 legislative session, these two bills are coming earlier in the session and do not (yet) appear to be on a fast track. Instead, these bills seem to be proceeding at a normal pace through the typical three-step process for passing legislation in Prince George's County:

1. the first reading (or "presentation") of a bill, where a bill is assigned to a committee for further hearings;

2. the second reading (or "introduction"), when the amended bill comes out of committee; and

3. the third reading, after which the committee's bill is debated, perhaps further amended by the full council, and then either put to a vote or referred back to a committee.

CB-6 and CB-12 are both at the initial stage of the process (presentation), so there still should be time for the public to provide meaningful input into the process.

CB-6: Simple and straightforward streamlining—but needs tweaks

The primary goal of CB-6 appears to be the elimination of costly, time consuming, and duplicative development review procedures that apply to certain zones currently in use around Metro stations. In some zones, such as the Mixed-Use Transportation-Oriented (MXT) Zone around the New Carrollton Metro Station, developers have to submit and obtain approval for both a conceptual site plan (CSP) and a detailed site plan (DSP) before building permits can be issued.

In theory, the CSP is supposed to be more preliminary in nature and general in substance than the DSP. For phased projects, the CSP is supposed to outline all of the various proposed stages that a developer anticipates. As a practical matter, though, the CSP and DSP are often extremely duplicative of each other—particularly for development projects that are proposed in only one phase.

And because the CSP and DSP both call for full public adjudicatory hearings before the Prince George's County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), with all the attendant rights of administrative appeal and review before the District (County) Council and judicial review by the courts, it can take an incredibly long time for developments to get approved.

This, in turn, can create a disincentive for developers seeking to build around Metro stations. After all, time is money—and wasted time is...well, you get the picture.

CB-6 would alleviate some of this burden by dispensing with the CSP process for "TOD priority projects." Eligible projects would go through only one round of DSP hearings before the Planning Board. The legislation also calls for other agencies, such as the Department of Public Works and Transportation, to expedite TOD priority projects around Metro stations.

The public would have the same full panoply of rights to advance notice and a public adjudicatory hearing that they currently have with respect to DSPs now. Items or issues that would ordinarily be discussed in a CSP (such as overall phasing plans) would be wrapped into the DSP.

CB-6's targeted streamlining approach is generally a good thing. However, the bill needs slight tweaks to ensure that adequate urban design standards are in place to require the type of compact, walkable mixed-use development that should exist in a transit zone. In particular:

• The bill should apply only at Metro stations where a recent sector or area plan has prescribed specific, form-based building envelope and site standards, along with other architectural and open-space standards applicable to urban areas. Without these standards, the bill's directive that TOD priority projects should "use the best urban design practices" has no real teeth. Generally, any Metro station area plan that was enacted after January 2008 should incorporate these types of standards.

• The bill should apply not only in Transit District Overlay Zones, but also in Development District Overlay Zones, Comprehensive Design Zones, and Mixed-Use Zones. Given the clunky and non-user-friendly way that the Prince George's Zoning Code has developed over the years, there are multiple types of zones that currently exist around the county's 15 Metro stations. This legislation should reach all of these different zoning types currently in use.

  (The county's form-based Urban Centers and Corridor Nodes Development Code, approved in 2010 and also known as Subtitle 27A, has its own set of expedited development review procedures and should not be covered by CB-6. Currently, however, no Metro station area is covered by Subtitle 27A.)

CB-12: Better than last year's bill, but still problematic

It's clear, from reading CB-12-2013, that Councilmember Franklin has made some attempt to respond to some of the public comments in opposition to last year's bill, CB-79-2012.

For example, similar to Olson's bill (CB-6), CB-12 would require only a Detailed Site Plan review for "expedited TOD projects" constructed within ½ mile of a Metro, MARC, or Purple Line station. (Franklin includes MARC and Purple Line stations that exist at the time the development proposal is submitted.) Additionally, contrary to last year's bill, CB-12 would incorporate a public comment process into the expedited DSP review.

The problem is that CB-12's expedited DSP review process would not facilitate meaningful and informed public participation. Additionally, elimination of an interested party's right to a public adjudicatory hearing before the Planning Board in connection with proposed development projects is likely contrary to state law.

Under CB-12, a developer proposing an expedited TOD project would file an application with the Planning Director (not the Planning Board). The Planning Director or a staff member designee would schedule a "pre-application conference" with the developer, at which time members of the public could appear, hear a presentation from the developer, and offer oral or written comments on the "preliminary project plan" filed by the developer.

The preliminary project plan would be made available to the public via M-NCPPC's website, but only seven days after the scheduled pre-application conference. If you want to see it before the conference, the only option appears to be making a trek out to the Planning Department Office in Upper Marlboro, the county seat.

Nothing about the preliminary project plan is binding on the developer or M-NCPPC. The actual Detailed Site Plan filed by the developer could differ dramatically from the preliminary project plan discussed at the pre-application conference. M-NCPPC staff would post the actual DSP application on a website and accept additional written comments, but would hold no further in-person conferences with the public. Nor would there be any opportunity provided for a formal adjudicatory hearing before the Planning Board.

Within 20-50 days, the Planning Director or a staff member designee would prepare a staff report and final recommendation and file it directly with the District Council. Within the next 25 days, the Council could elect to review the recommendation, or an interested party could file an "appeal" of the Planning Director's recommendation with the District Council. (The word "appeal" is somewhat of a misnomer in this context, since there was never a hearing before M-NCPPC to begin with.)

If an appeal or review is filed, a hearing before the District Council would be scheduled within 30 days, and a final decision would be issued within 15 days thereafter. Barring any appeal or review, the Planning Director's recommendations would become the final decision of the District Council within 25 days after they are filed with the District Council.

The above procedure eliminates altogether the involvement of the Planning Board in evaluating DSPs relating to expedited TOD projects. It also eliminates the public's right to a formal adjudicatory hearing before the Planning Board relating to the DSP—including the right to cross-examine the developer's witnesses under oath, introduce evidence of one's own, and have a decision rendered on the basis of the record developed at the hearing. Although that certainly speeds up the development review process and otherwise makes things easier for developers, it's also quite likely unlawful.

Under a 2012 amendment by the Maryland General Assembly to the Regional District Act (the state law that establishes the M-NCPPC as a bi-county commission covering Prince George's and Montgomery counties), Prince George's County is prohibited from withdrawing its previously-delegated authority to M-NCPPC to decide DSPs unless it is doing so for purposes of re-delegating that same authority to a municipality within the county. Because CB-12 seeks to withdraw the Planning Board's authority to hear and decide DSP cases in the first instance, it probably runs afoul of state law.

Show up at Wednesday's meeting if you can

Whatever your feelings about CB-6 or CB-12, the County Council needs to hear your voice. All too often in Prince George's County, legislative committee meetings are held during normal business hours, thereby depriving most working-age citizens of the opportunity to participate. The result is that those meetings are typically filled with developers, county planning professionals, and occasionally retirees—hardly a representative sample of the community.

This time, however, PZED chair Mel Franklin has made good on his promise to hold an evening meeting on these bills, given the high public interest in the issue of Metro station transit-oriented development. Let's honor Councilmember Franklin's decision by turning out in great numbers this Wednesday, March 13, 6 pm, in Room 2027 of the County Administration Building in Upper Marlboro, MD.

Suitland already has much of what the FBI needs

This space could easily become the new location for the FBI. The entire area is already access controlled via gates and a fenced perimeter. There is room for the standoff distance that the GSA requires for Level 5 facilities (those that are considered critical to national security). The building would need to be long, narrow, and tall in order to fit all the office space necessary to house upwards of 10,000 employees, but luckily, there is already precedent for such a building in Suitland—the Census Bureau's building.

Most importantly, the federal government already owns the land. Unlike at Greenbelt, a headquarters building in Suitland will not preclude any more land from future taxable uses. The latest proposals for the Greenbelt property would have GSA pay taxes to Prince George's County and Greenbelt for the next 20 years, but the land would come off the tax rolls permanently after that point.

Both locations have regional transportation benefits

The city of Greenbelt and Prince George's County have good reasons to want the FBI at the Greenbelt station. More jobs at this location would mean economic development opportunities for Greenbelt and other nearby cities in northern Prince George's County, and the oft-cited "reverse-commuting" effect from employees living to the west may help slightly balance traffic on the Capital Beltway, which is heaviest out of Prince George's County during the morning rush and heaviest into the county during evening rush hour.

The commuting situation would be similar at the Suitland location. The years-long Wilson Bridge project added driving capacity along the southern part of the Beltway, and can arguably handle commuter traffic more efficiently than the northern part of the beltway through Montgomery County and over the American Legion Bridge.

Many FBI workers already drive to and from Virginia. The Bureau has a major facility including its training academy at Quantico. Suitland would offer a shorter trip for people traveling between the two, via the Wilson Bridge by car or bus, or possibly a future rail transit connection.

News reports have also cited a need for a location within 2½ miles of the Beltway. Greenbelt is clearly superior in proximity, as it is directly adjacent to the beltway, but Suitland falls within 2½ miles of the highway. At either location, a new exit for traffic would need to be built. The exit for the Greenbelt station only serves traffic coming from or going to the west, and an exit on the beltway for the Suitland Parkway would probably be necessary to handle higher traffic coming to and from the Suitland Federal Center.

Both locations could take advantage of a Green Line station adjacent to the site, and both are at or near the end of the line, encouraging reverse commuting for those using the transit system from DC and the core of the metro area.

Greenbelt could be so much more, while Suitland never can

The placement of the Suitland metro station, unfortunately, precludes the opportunity for strong transit-oriented development at this location. The station is hemmed in by a freeway to the west and the fenced-off-and-not-open-to-the-public Federal Center to the north and east. The "downtown" crossroads of Suitland (Suitland and Silver Hill Roads) would have been a better location to encourage TOD, but moving the station is extremely unlikely.

Greenbelt, on the other hand, has the opportunity for mixed-use at its station. The area to the south of the station had a development plan that derailed when the real-estate market crashed in the last decade. Eventually, demand for housing, shopping, and jobs at locations inside the beltway will only make Greenbelt an even more attractive place to invest in growth.

I realize that it's difficult to ask a city to wait, when they can benefit from development today. In the long run, though, the city of Greenbelt has the opportunity to create a plan that will bring jobs, residents, retail, and a tax base to this site. That seems like too good of an opportunity to throw away for the short-term promise of 20 years worth of property taxes from the federal government.

Not Poplar Point, either

Update: Just before this post went live, Jonathan O'Connell of the Washington Post reported that Mayor Gray will propose keeping the FBI's headquarters in DC by moving it to Poplar Point in Ward 8.

While that site would have some transportation advantages similar to Greenbelt or Suitland, ultimately, it would be a bad choice for the city. It would preclude the possibility of developing that land in a form that could produce property taxes for DC, and it would cause an even larger stretch of our very limited waterfront property to be forever off-limits to the residents of the city.

It's an interesting proposal, but ultimately its shortcomings should lead to the idea being scuttled quickly.

Property laws inherently constrain individual liberty

Dramatics aside, the Heritage Foundation isn't all wrong. It's true that smart growth regulations infringe on the market. But that's true of all development regulations—and of property rights themselves. By design, all property regulations constrain individuals' freedom of choice to decide how to acquire and use property.

It's also true that pushing one form of development over another infringes on the market in a different and greater way than simply guaranteeing property ownership. But this too is a necessary evil of all development regulations.

It is a quintessential local government responsibility to effectively use zoning and land use authority to direct development where it needs to go—and, conversely, to prohibit development where it doesn't need to go. The same zoning tools that are used by smart growth advocates to focus dense development around transit are used by suburban developers to build subdivisions of peaceful single-family homes.

Without zoning laws, suburban residential subdivisions would not be protected from intrusion by smelly factories, shadow-casting skyscrapers, and loud night clubs. If the government tried to take away those zoning rules protecting suburban home values, there would be a public revolt.

Similarly, zoning laws and land use controls are necessary to shape development and settlement patterns in a responsible way, both on a local and regional scale. This is particularly true in a county with an expansive land area, like Prince George's County. Without appropriate land use controls, developments could pop up on virtually any greenfield across the vast 500 square mile land area of the county.

But even that type of scattered development depends on big government. You can't build one of those suburban subdivisions—or even one of those fancy new mixed-use "town centers" in the center of nowhere—unless the government blesses, builds, and maintains the roads, schools, sewers, and utilities to serve it.

Even if a private developer fronts money to pay for the infrastructure in and around the development, it's impossible to connect any of it to the larger grid without government help. And after all that new infrastructure supporting scattered development is built, guess who has to maintain it? That's right: big government. And who pays for all of that? That's right: "We the People" do.

Meanwhile, smart growth requires a lot less government infrastructure than sprawl. It also results in huge savings to taxpayers. By making communities walkable and bikeable, and locating them close to mass transit, smart growth reduces commutes, conserves important environmental resources, and facilitates more healthy lifestyles. And yes, as with suburban sprawl, smart growth also requires big government.

Whether the Heritage Foundation and the Tea Party care to admit it or not, it's always been the case that individual property owners can only use property in accordance with the regulations set by the government. The right and responsibility to determine how land is used belongs to the government, for the benefit of the people as a whole, and it always has. That's necessary for modern civilization.

So, since it's big government socialism no matter what, we should dispense with the histrionics and plan for what we want. And if we want smart growth, then we need the government support to do it correctly.

Woodmore Towne Centre: a case study of ineffective TOD

Prince George's County's approach to the development of Woodmore Towne Centre in Glenarden illustrates the problem with a laissez-faire approach to TOD.

In 2005, Petrie-Ross Ventures proposed a massive 4 million square foot mixed-use development on a 245-acre vacant woodland just outside the Capital Beltway, at its northeastern intersection with Maryland Route 202. Best Buy, Costco, Wegmans, and other automobile-oriented big box stores were to be the anchors.

The Woodmore site was upzoned from a rural-residential to a mixed-use transportation-oriented zone in 1998, even though it was outside the Beltway and more than a mile away from any existing or planned Metro station.

Meanwhile, multiple nearby sites with better infrastructure connections were left underused. Right across the Beltway from the Woodmore site, the 145-acre Landover Mall site stood shuttered and in need of redevelopment. Additionally, virtually all the nearby Metro stations were undeveloped or significantly underdeveloped.

Woodmore's planned big boxes could have easily been accommodated at the Landover Mall site. Likewise, much of the lower-density residential uses planned for Woodmore could have been placed at the mall site—thus transforming it into a more compact, greener retrofitted mixed-use development inside the Beltway.

Much of the higher density residential, commercial, and office uses planned for Woodmore could have gone to the nearby Metro stations at Largo, Landover, Cheverly, and New Carrollton.

But instead of focusing the county's efforts on developing those Metro stations and redeveloping blighted sites like Landover Mall, Prince George's officials used their zoning power to upzone rural land and make Woodmore Towne Center possible. And in so doing, the county had to build major new roads, Beltway overpass and interchange improvements, and other expensive public infrastructure.

Had Prince George's taken its smart growth policies seriously, it never would have used its big government authority to rezone Woodmore's rural property for intense development. Instead, the county would have used its zoning and land use authority, along with its substantial economic development resources, to aggressively promote, incentivize, and steer that same level of development towards better locations.

In the case of Woodmore Towne Center, the county's lackadaisical approach to smart growth has left it saddled with the still-vacant Landover Mall site, many still-vacant Metro stations, and 245 acres of lost woodlands that will likely never be recovered. And the county has assumed the responsibility for maintaining millions of dollars worth of new and unnecessary roads, sewers, and utilities.

Prince George's leaders are already embracing the big government mentality that's necessary for any urban or suburban development. But if they're truly interested in enhancing the county's livability and landing higher quality jobs and retail, they will need to wake up and start using their big government powers to facilitate smart growth instead of sprawl. As the old familiar Proverb says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Prov. 29:18)

Harrison, who had previously pledged her support to Olson for the chairmanship, reversed course, agreed to allow her name to be placed back in the running, and then cast the deciding vote in favor of herself. As Harrison herself acknowledged to the Washington Post, the circumstances of her reelection to the chairmanship were "not comfortable."

Through a spokesperson, county executive Rushern Baker denied any role in the thwarting Olson's election to the council chair position. However, the Post reports that Baker did show up in the council chambers shortly before the vote was cast and declared, "We are moving in the right direction, we are taking Prince George's County in the direction it needs to go ... because of [Harrison's] leadership and [her] work."

What is "too Arlington"?

So what is it about Harrison's leadership and work style that arguably makes her not "too Arlington"? Or, perhaps better stated, what is it about Olson's perceived leadership and work style that arguably makes him "too Arlington" for Prince George's?

(And before we jump to the conclusion that "too Arlington" simply means "too white," let's recall that former councilmember Tom Dernoga, who is white, was elected as council chair back in 2010.)

We know that Harrison and new council vice chair Obie Patterson are both reliable supporters of the current county executive, Rushern Baker, and his largely suburban-oriented economic development agenda. Olson, by contrast, has opposed certain development projects supported by Baker, such as the controversial rezoning of the Cafritz property—a vacant, wooded formerly single-family residential-zoned parcel in Riverdale Park that is outside of the ½-mile pedestrian zone of any existing Metro station or any planned MARC station.

Might Olson's approach to land use and economic development issues be what's "too Arlington" for his colleagues on the council and/or to County Executive Baker?

Prince George's should learn from Arlington's smart growth focus

The 2002 EPA national award winner for overall excellence in smart growth, Arlington County, Virginia, is a proven leader in transit-oriented development and environmental sustainability. Whether measured by housing units, jobs, retail and office space, economics, crime, or other general "livability" factors, Arlington stacks up quite favorably in the metropolitan Washington region.

Arlington's economic development strategy over the past 40 years has been inexorably linked to its two Metro station corridors—the Orange Line's Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and the Blue and Yellow Lines' Pentagon/Crystal City corridor. Arlington directed major employment centers and higher density residential and retail development toward "urban villages" around 7 of the county's 10 stations: Rosslyn, Courthouse, Clarendon, Virginia Square, Ballston, Pentagon City, and Crystal City. (Arlington's other three stations—Arlington Cemetery, Pentagon, and Reagan National Airport—have other dedicated uses.) Arlington also prioritized reinvestment in its existing residential communities ahead of creating new sprawl developments on previously-undeveloped land.

Sadly, Prince George's County has not followed Arlington's path to success. The county has 15 Metro stations—the largest number of any jurisdiction outside of the District of Columbia. With 2,500 acres of developable land within ½ mile of those stations, county planners acknowledge that Prince George's "is uniquely situated in the Washington region to take advantage of the regional interest in TOD."

Yet, while county leaders continue to pay lip service to the idea of transit-oriented development, they actively support development strategies that are directly contrary to that idea. Virtually all of Prince George's County's Metro stations remain undeveloped or underdeveloped. At the same time, county leaders continue to push outside-the-Beltway suburban sprawl strategies, like the town-less "town center" projects at Konterra, Westphalia, and Woodmore. And rather than reinvesting in its existing residential communities inside the Beltway, the county breaks its own rules to approve oversized greenfield projects like the Cafritz property.

Thus far, there has been no true, sustained commitment on the part of Prince George's officials to the smart growth and TOD concepts that have secured Arlington's prosperity over the past few generations. And the comparative demographics show the troublesome results of that lack of commitment: Prince George's lags behind Arlington in nearly every category.

FBI headquarters and regional hospital planning typify Prince George's haphazard development strategy

More recently, we've seen other examples of the county's unfocused approach to TOD in the ongoing discussions as to where the new FBI headquarters and regional medical center campuses will be located. I argued nearly a year ago that the county needed to be more nimble if it wanted to land the FBI. After identifying the five available Metro station sites (i.e., Branch Avenue, Largo Town Center, Morgan Boulevard, New Carrollton, and Greenbelt) that would meet the federal government's requirements for the new building, I recommended Morgan Boulevard as the most ideal site. Indeed, the Morgan Boulevard station area could accommodate both the new regional medical hospital and the FBI headquarters.

The county still has yet to publicize or lobby for a particular site preference for the FBI building or the new hospital. However, despite the many transit-oriented development opportunities existing around Metro stations, the current buzz appears to favor the nearly-abandoned Landover Mall site for one or both projects. Like the Cafritz property, the mall site is outside of the pedestrian zone of any Metro station and will therefore likely encourage more single-occupancy automobile travel.

Arlington County would never have considered a development strategy that placed some of its largest employment centers and highest quality jobs away from Metro. Why? Because Arlington recognizes that successful planning requires strategic leveraging of Metro's premier regional rail transit system. As David Alpert recently argued, when deciding where to locate a major job-and customer/patient- generating public facility such as a regional medical center, the list should start and stop with Metro.

Prince George's shouldn't fear being "too Arlington"

If Eric Olson was passed over for chair of the Prince George's County Council because of a fear that he would be "too Arlington," that is truly regrettable. Most in the region would readily agree that, as compared to Prince George's, Arlington County government is better managed and run, less corrupt, more focused on smart growth and transit-oriented development, better at managing the public's finances, and overall more successful in providing a high quality of life to its citizens.

The truth is that the Prince George's County's government could stand to become "more Arlington" in its outlook and in its approach to smart growth and transit-oriented development. Because—let's face it—"keeping it [real] Prince George's" hasn't exactly gotten us where we need to be.

Councilmember Franklin has been one of the more vocal proponents of smart growth and TOD since joining the Council in 2010. He pointedly shunned developer contributions to his campaign when he ran for his council seat, and he actively advocated for more government accountability and "putting the 'public' back in public meetings."

Therefore, many community activists and smart growth supporters were caught off guard by Franklin's rushed efforts to spearhead CB-79 and a companion bill, CB-80, which would exempt transit station area development from the traffic analysis that often requires widening roads around a development.

Franklin (District 9) has two co-sponsors for these bills, Derrick Leon Davis (District 6) and Council chair Andrea Harrison (District 5).

Timing of CB-79 raises transparency and good government concerns

Franklin presented CB-79 and CB-80 with little fanfare on September 25. He originally scheduled both bills for a quick hearing before the PZED Committee, which he chairs, on October 3. However, after receiving a barrage of public opposition, Franklin pulled the bills from the agenda on October 2 and promised to revise them.

In an email sent to concerned parties on October 6, Franklin circulated a proposed second draft of CB-79, and said that CB-80 "ha[d] been pulled for this year and is being substantially revised for consideration next year."

Franklin is placing CB-79 on the PZED agenda on October 17, presumably so it can clear the committee process in time to be introduced as expedited legislation on October 23. That's the last possible date in the 2012 legislative session to introduce zoning bills. Only two more regular legislative days remain in the 2012 session after then: November 6 (Election Day) and November 20.

Franklin's stated goal in introducing CB-79 is to streamline the development review process, thereby making it more attractive to the private sector and luring developers away from sprawl and toward transit. But many community and smart growth activists believe the legislation would encourage shoddy, suburban-style, non-pedestrian- and non-transit-oriented development.

Additionally, many community members have expressed concern that CB-79 is reminiscent of the same type of non-transparent, developer-friendly legislation that has fostered an ethically troublesome pay-to-play development culture in the county. A federal corruption investigation sent the previous county executive, Jack Johnson, his wife, former councilmember Leslie Johnson, and several other county officials and developers to prison in recent years.

In an open email to Franklin on October 2, former councilmember and chair Tom Dernoga excoriated the way the current PZED chair was proceeding with these bills. He wrote:

You "may" have a point about the [need to change the] status quo. However, the manner in which you are handling this is mind-bogging [sic], and raises serious questions in the mind of the public whether land use ethics have been cleaned up from the days of Jack Johnson and his predecessors. ...

Who drafted these bills? What non-County government interests participated in the analysis, drafting and review? I hate to be pointed, but the substance of the bills, combined with the process to this point, make these questions obvious. Any valid policy bases are obscured by the manner in which they are being pursued.

Substantively, Franklin's proposed second draft of the bill cures few, if any, of the problems with the initial version. Indeed, the new draft creates additional complications.

CB-79's "opt-in" language provides little protection to wary communities

The proposed second draft of CB-79 introduces, but does not define, a new term: "expedited transit oriented development." The bill states that areas within a half-mile of Metro or MTA transit stations may be designated for such development in a comprehensive plan adopted and approved by the Council after January 1, 2013. Such plans could include a master plan, sector plan, sectional map amendment, zoning map amendment, or overlay zone.

The purpose of these changes, according to Franklin, is to emphasize that a transit station area can only be exempted from traditional site plan review by "opting in" during a future comprehensive planning process that requires notice and a public hearing.

Despite Franklin's emphasis, however, the Council would still be able to designate an area for "expedited transit oriented development" at the tail end of the comprehensive planning process managed by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC).

The Council could overrule the Commission and designate such areas, even the community and M-NCPPC specifically opposed such a designation. Historically, such last-minute controversial Council amendments have been commonplace, and they usually favor developer interests.

CB-79 adopts Subtitle 27A language but limits form-based zoning, accountability, and transparency

In our earlier post, we recommended using the County's existing Subtitle 27A process to achieve Franklin's stated goals for CB-79. The new draft of CB-79 now includes some elements of the Subtitle 27A process within its text. While this may seem like a good idea at first blush, it actually introduces new and unhelpful complications.

The new draft attempts to graft large portions of Subtitle 27A, the form-based Urban Centers and Corridor Nodes Development and Zoning Code, onto this new and undefined "expedited transit oriented development" process. Specifically, CB-79 would require all expedited TODs to adhere to the use restrictions and to the building envelope, urban space, recreation, architectural, and parking-and-loading standards of Subtitle 27A.

Unfortunately, CB-79 conspicuously leaves out Subtitle 27A's most important portions: the "regulating plan" and the administrative procedures for permits.

The regulating plan sets out the shapes of buildings, setbacks, street types, and more for each type of the station area. M-NCPPC, the public, and the Council create the regulating plan through a collaborative and comprehensive public planning process. Without a regulating plan, CB-79 would end up applying building envelope and urban space standards in a vacuum.

The administrative procedures provide for advance public notice and appeal rights, which are essential accountability tools that keep public officials and developers honest, while still permitting a streamlined permitting procedure. By doing away with this, CB-79 would upset the proper balance between speed and accountability. And it would do so in precisely the non-transparent way that candidate Mel Franklin argued against during his run for public office.

CB-79 would end up limiting the public's ability to participate in the review of essential and profitable development projects. That's a dangerous move for a county with such a torrid (and recent) history of developer and public official corruption.

Subtitle 27A provides more accountability and less chance for mischief than CB-79

Councilmember Franklin has stated that CB-79 will strongly incentivize private sector investment in the redevelopment of the county's long-neglected station areas by shortening and creating more certainly in the development process. But the reality is, the county already has legislation that accomplishes those worthy goals in a much better reasoned and sensible way. It's called Subtitle 27A.

Form-based zoning under Subtitle 27A was developed by the professional planning staff of the M-NCPPC, with the assistance of three reputable outside consulting firms over the course of multiple years, at significant expense to the county and M-NCPPC. It has been available to the County Council for more than 2 years. Yet this Council has taken no action to develop regulating plans for any of the county's 15 Metro station areas.

In 2011, M-NCPPC began a series of public meetings designed to educate the public about TOD plans for the Blue Line Corridor in the central portion of the county, along Central Avenue (MD-214). The eventual goal of that process is to facilitate implementing Subtitle 27A at the 4 Metro station areas along that corridor (Capitol Heights, Addison Road, Morgan Boulevard, and Largo Town Center).

Before concluding that additional legislation such as CB-79 is needed to properly spur development at Metro stations, shouldn't the county at least implement and then properly evaluate Subtitle 27A?

In a future post, I will explore other ideas that will help to incentivize urban TOD in Prince George's County. For now, though, please take council member Franklin up on his invitation to submit additional public comments on CB-79. You may do so by emailing the Clerk of Council at clerkofthecouncil@co.pg.md.us, with a copy to Franklin at mfraklin@co.pg.md.us. It's also a good idea to send your comments to your own council member, if you are a county resident.

The goals of the bills [are] ... to make the process more streamlined and thus extremely attractive to bring private investment to redevelop the County's 15 metro rail (and future MTA rail) stations and encourage smarter, more sustainable growth. Currently, the direction of the private sector is to pursue more sprawl pattern development in our County for the foreseeable future.

Well-intentioned and endless talk about TOD will not make it happen. Policies that actually stimulate market forces and private investment towards transit oriented development are necessary to attract development to more established areas of the County that have been ignored for decades.

In an action alert, the Coalition for Smarter Growth said it agrees that the deregulation proposed by the two bills would likely spur development around transit station areas. But it also believes that the rules would encourage shoddy, suburban-style, non-pedestrian- and non-transit-oriented development.

"Right now, it's more difficult to develop near a transit station than far away from one. That's a problem, but these bills are the wrong way to solve that problem," the action alert reads.

Former council member Tom Dernoga, meanwhile, criticized the rapid process. "Blind-siding the public (and apparently some of your colleagues) with a late-filed bill is not going to advance important land-use issues in a manner that the public will accept. At a minimum, a study group should address the underlying issue," he wrote in an email to Franklin which Greater Greater Washington has obtained. "Any valid policy bases are obscured by the manner in which they are being pursued."

The bills were originally scheduled for a "fast track" markup session at today's Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee meeting, chaired by Franklin. In response to rapid public criticism, Franklin pulled the bills from the agenda and promised to revise them.

Scott Peterson, spokesperson for County Executive Rushern Baker, stated that the county executive is still reviewing the bills and had not yet developed a position on them.

The existing form-based code shows an alternative to CB-79

CB-79 would exempt projects built near transit stations from the county's detailed site plan, conceptual site plan, and comprehensive design plan review processes, and allow them to skip directly to the permitting phase. Besides giving residents a voice, these development review processes are also the main way that elected officials and planning departments of the various cities and towns weigh in on new development projects. Laurel is the only municipality that is able to control its own zoning.

Exempting transit station area development projects from public hearings before the county's Planning Board may also violate state law, specifically the Regional District Act. This act sets up a public hearing process before the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) and then the council. CB-79's exemption of certain development projects from this process could therefore be an unlawful end-run around state-sanctioned public processes.

Fortunately, there's an alternative already ready to go. More than 2½ years ago, the county created a form-based code called Subtitle 27A. One of its specified purposes, according to M-NCPPC, was "to streamline and standardize regulations and processes, and [incentivize] development in and around the county's most important transit resources."

Subtitle 27A would apply only in Metro station areas and other urbanized areas designated by the county's general plan as "centers" and "corridors." M-NCPPC, the community, and the County Council would develop a "regulating plan" for each station area through a public process.

That plan sets clear rules for the types of buildings and their form in particular blocks. It defines the height and scale of buildings, where they can be placed in relation to the street, the portion of a lot that can be built on, the types of building materials that can be used, etc. The plan also details the streetscape specifications for every street in the area—everything from roadway, lane, and sidewalk width to planting requirements for street trees.

Once a regulating plan is in place for a particular station area, there is little need for an extensive development review process, since developers and the community all know the rules ahead of time. Accordingly, under Subtitle 27A, development plans move directly to the permitting process.

M-NCPPC reviews the plans to be sure they conform with the regulating plan, and if they comply, the project gets its permit, subject to any appeals. M-NCPPC has the authority to make limited adjustments to particular regulating plan standards, but no other adjustments are permitted unless the regulating plan itself is amended through a public comprehensive planning process.

Thus, the form-based zoning regulations in Subtitle 27A accomplish the goals of CB-79, while still ensuring quality urban-form TOD in transit station areas and preserving the public's right to a fair hearing. Unfortunately, however, the county has yet to begin the public planning process to implement Subtitle 27A in any of the county's urban centers and corridor areas, including Metro and MARC station areas.

Problematic traffic tests could disappear or become more multi-modal

Under existing subdivision rules, a developer must conduct a traffic study to determine whether the existing roads can handle increased automobile traffic from the development. If not, the developer must pay for road improvements, such as new lanes or traffic signals, and/or wait for government agencies to build them before proceeding.

Any mixed-use development with housing, shopping, and employment centers would generate more auto trips in the immediate vicinity. Under the current rules, developers would therefore have to pay for more road infrastructure. Not only does this increase the cost of development, but the increased road capacity could also ironically make the neighborhood more hostile to pedestrians and bicyclists, thereby hindering further transit-oriented development.

These traffic analyses do not account for the automobile trips that are saved by locating dense mixed-used developments near transit centers. Often the trips it decreases are elsewhere in the county, because residents who live in mixed-use developments typically live closer to work, shopping, and other destinations, and are therefore able to walk, bike, or take public transit for many routine trips.

CB-80 would exempt all projects near transit stations from current rules requiring traffic studies and increased road capacity. This might make higher-density mixed-use TOD easier to build. Right now, strip malls that bring off-peak traffic have an easier time passing the traffic tests than mixed-use residential or commercial. Therefore, without the rules, developers could propose more walkable, transit-oriented projects that they don't think could gain approval today.

On the other hand, many worry that developers would simply build suburban-style, single-use, automobile-oriented development instead. That is what they are most accustomed to building in Prince George's, and surrounding areas are still primarily car-dependent. Without the traffic tests, a project like garden apartments could bring many auto trips to a transit station area, frustrating future development of urban, walkable communities.

Land near some stations like New Carrollton may be too valuable for this to happen, but at many other stations it is more likely. Plus, exempting everything within a half-mile could mean a project 0.45 miles from a station, even across a freeway, would face no traffic tests even if the intervening space is not very walkable.

Apart from the question of the type of development, many people who live near transit facilities would tolerate some increase in traffic, but only if transportation capacity increased. Because the existing rules always encourage more roads, CB-80 seems to imply that the choice is either more roads or no increase in capacity.

But there is another possibility: the county could create traffic generation standards that factor in all of the transportation methods typically associated with TODs. The Transportation Research Board has created comprehensive guidance on how to develop a multi-modal level of service (LOS) analysis tool. These standards would ensure that the right transportation facilities such as bike lanes, wide sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals are in place to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.

It's great that County Council members want to encourage smart growth around transit stations. However, abandoning all development review and regulation in urban areas is not likely to result in compact, walkable mixed-used TOD. Instead of fast-tracking these bills, the council should take the time necessary to engage in a dialogue with all stakeholders on these important issues.