Notes on RTF Wiehle Committee Meeting, September 1, 2010, John Lovaas

Bill Penniman Chairing, Co-Chair Van Horn absent. 7 members also present.

Public comment-

Land-use law firm Walsh Colucci rep argued for redefining center point for TOD quarter and half mile circles from mid-point of train station to landing point of station ramp. Goal- to add a bit of land inside higher density circles by changing center point.

Committee Discussion

Committee member, RCA Rep Mike Corrigan noted his “non-concurrence” on key points of Committee Report outline. First of all, he “would not support a blanket recommendation [as currently drafted] for higher densities than in the current [Comprehensive] plan without major qualifications.” He saw Wiehle as a transport hub, not a real TOD center for next 15-20 years. He pointed out that existing Comprehensive Plan allows for substantial additional construction, but did not see justification for even much higher additional levels being proposed [by Co-Chair Van Horn and development community], certainly not without resolution of major essential infrastructure issues not resolved in station area [note-and invisible in report outline!].

Chair Penniman defensive, said Corrigan was using circular reasoning; DKennedy agreed with Penniman as did developer spokesperson Mark Looney, developer attorney and CoC RTF representative. They wheeled out Arlington as example of new life and wonderful new urban centers around rail stations. Corrigan rejoinder: Arlington totally different---area began with solid infrastructure base, a complete grid of streets and they put the train underground (and did not divide community with great gulch like DTR and railroad above ground!). Looney was ready with a new version of refrain — “we need to figure out what we [?] want, then address constraints…” as opposed to starting out with what you don’t want. [Developers beginning to sound like Economists explaining the god of the market, by assuming, inter alia, perfect competition. At Wiehle, we are to assume functioning intersections and adequate infrastructure. . . .]

Architect Murphy supported Looney, et al, but was willing to concede that perhaps, just perhaps, “we should say up front that all our grand plans will FAIL without infrastructure essential to make it work [and not expected for 30 years or so?]”.

Note: In sum, Chair and developers essentially did not want to hear Corrigan’s questioning of their now assumed new urban center, a smaller “downtown”. Unlikely the Committee can help itself.

Mark Looney re-opened the issue of conflict between “landbay” boundaries and ¼ and ½ mile TOD density boundaries, arguing that landbays partially inside say the ½ mile circle should get higher density for entire landbay as accorded to portion inside the circle. Heidi Merkel, County DPZ, countered that committee had accepted
½ mile boundary for TOD, that community was concerned about just this kind of “development creep”. A better solution to inconsistent boundaries problem
would be to modify landbays, or make calculations using land subunits instead, to stay within TOD limits. Note—developers bring this up repeatedly, seeking to maximize area accorded higher densities. Not yet resolved…

Discussion finally turned to Draft Committee Report outline:

Under i. Areas and distribution of Development- Discussion of whether wording should address Corrigan objection and narrow the blanket statement in draft “,,,with higher densities than are permitted by the current Comprehensive Plan.” to perhaps “than currently built”, for example. I believe committee left this for later resolution.

Under number ii in same section, Mark Looney wanted word “slightly” removed from statement saying “Higher density, mixed-use development may extend slightly beyond the ½ mile distance…” [Never missing a chance for more.]

Under para iii. To maximize transit station usage and minimize traffic burdens:

A lot of discussion about wording “minimize traffic” versus what many seemed to prefer stressing reduction of single occupancy vehicle use and/or stressing pedestrian and bike options, especially for crossing the toll road. Note-the latter seemed a way to avoid confronting issue of lack of short to medium term plans to fund road crossings.

Judith Pew sought to take out language calling for reduction in parking for Metro and language calling for reduction of need to drive cars in station area. While she got little support on the latter, Mark Looney and others came to her support on the parking, calling for slowing or phasing any plans to reduce parking by converting to other uses. On the latter, I could hear the sound of committee caving, likely fuzzing the language on this point.

Committee began, but I don’t believe completed, discussion of para iv Open Space: -The suggestion in subpara ii, a goal should be (25%) publicly accessible open space… was left for later discussion. [This will be a fight, with developers fighting to either keep goals/targets out altogether or cut them to county minimum.]

Mark Looney objected to language calling for preservation of existing large trees to the extent possible, arguing what can be saved “depends on the development setting.” [not cost or convenience or environmental impact?]

About here, group ran out of time, agreed to return next week, same time/place to finish outline review—targeting for Sept. 28 presentation to full TF.