1. growth policy 2003-2005

2. what is growth policy? growth policy is… a biennial resolution adopted by the montgomery county council aimed at managing growth to match the adequacy of public facilities. historically, growth policy has focused on the adequacy of roads and schools. does it matter? the timing of development, in coordination with the provision of public facilities, attempts to keep road congestion and school crowding to a minimum.

3. growth policy - current currently, an applicant must mitigate site impacts related to transportation and schools: transportation - - local area transportation review (latr) - policy area mobility review (pamr) schools - - projected school enrollment vs projected capacity

4. current PAMR requires mitigation in 16 policy areas growth policy - pamr TRANSITARTERIAL AD BD CD DC EB EA

5. current latr examines intersection capacity near each development site growth policy - latr objective: make sure development does not overwhelm nearby intersections. applied to all projects generating 30 or more peak hour trips. if intersection fails, developer can make improvements, mitigate trips, or in limited cases – make a payment to the County. intersection congestion standards vary by area.

6. local area transportation review (latr) congestion standards by growth policy area growth policy - latr

7. growth policy – transportation mitigation priority is trip reduction, non-auto, then roads pamr and latr can be satisfied concurrently payment in lieu opportunities non-auto facilities apply to pamr and latr current table derived from latr rates based on old cost data

8. growth policy - schools current school test compares projected 2014 enrollment with 2014 classroom capacity for each of the 25 high school clusters at the elementary, middle and high levels. if projected enrollment at any level exceeds 105% of program capacity, residential subdivisions in the affected cluster will be required to make a school facility payment. if projected enrollment at any level exceeds 120% of program capacity, residential subdivisions in the affected cluster will be under moratorium

9. 2009 growth policy - why change? does it work? with just 4 percent of its land area available for development, which requires more infill and redevelopment – the tests for the adequacy of our facilities must evolve. what do we do next? provide a framework for the provision of facilities that contribute to a sustainable community.

10. 2009 growth policy - study review of smart growth initiatives nationwide, leed nd and california sb375:

11. 2009 growth policy – what is changing? growth management toolapplicationproposed master planswheresame zoninghowsame subdivision regulationshowsame school capacitywhenminor change to monetary assessment LATRwhenminor changes to mitigation types PAMRwhenstay within general bounds of PAMR – encourage smart growth growth policy only affects APFO

12. 2009-2011 growth policy

13. ___________________________________________________________________________ primary changes - smart growth criteria - adequate mobility - apf transferability for transportation and schools - grandfathering completed applications 12 months prior to moratorium eleven recommendations

14. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 1. smart growth criteria - close to transit - mixed use - uses density in zone - energy efficient - affordable housing PAMR offset to MPDU spatial coverage of bus and metro stops within ½ mile

15. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 1. Montgomery County - Smart Growth Criteria All projects must meet the following criteria to be considered for an Alternative PAMR Review and PAMR Offset:  Project must be located within ½ mile of an existing or planned major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor. A high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service where service intervals are no longer than 15 minute during peak commute hours. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop if all parcels within the project have no more than 25% of their area farther than one-half mile from a transit stop or corridor and if not more than 10% of the residential units in the project are father than one-half mile from the stop or corridor. A planned transit stop or corridor is one that is funded for construction within the first four years of the Consolidated Transportation Program and/or the Capital Improvement Program and  Project must be mixed-use with a minimum 50% residential use and  Project must seek to achieve the maximum density of the site using 75% or more of the maximum density allowed in the zone (including all applicable bonuses) subject to the limits specified in the master/sector plan and  Building(s) exceeds energy efficiency standards by 17.5% for new buildings or by 10.5% for existing building renovation. Or, building(s) has on-site energy production such that 2.5% of the annual building energy cost is off-set by the renewable production system (LEED New Construction/Major Renovation)  And, the project must provide additional affordable housing, either workforce housing or moderately-priced dwelling units, above and beyond that required for plan approval such that 25 percent of the PAMR mitigation resource being offset is applied to this obligation. The PAMR Offset will be directed as follows:  Fifty percent of the PAMR mitigation resource being offset must be directed to transit infrastructure.  Twenty-five percent of the PAMR mitigation resource being offset must be applied to the provision of additional affordable housing, either workforce housing or moderately-priced dwelling units, above and beyond that required for plan approval.  The remaining twenty-five percent of the PAMR mitigation resource will be retained by the developer.

18. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 2. adequate mobility balance between land use and transportation – establish symmetrical treatment of transit and arterial level of service (LOS) standards

19. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 2. continued how does LOS D or LOS E compare to current conditions? D E

20. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 3. apfo transportation non-auto facility values – expand the range of candidate non-auto facility types eligible for impact mitigation and set values at $11,000 per vehicle trip

21. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 4. apf transfer: transportation apf transferability – allow vested apf rights to be transferred into an urban area from within the parent policy area

22. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 5. apfo transportation TOD trip generation rates – lower the residential trip generation rates in MSPAs by 18% based on MWCOG survey data used in other urban areas

23. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 6. apfo transportation white flint apf approval process – replace LATR and PAMR with designated public entities and other funding mechanisms, in white flint

24. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 7. policy area boundary changes – change appropriate policy area boundaries as recommended in draft sector plans including establishment of a life sciences center policy area and revision to white flint, germantown town center and r&d village

25. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 8. apfo schools school facility payment threshold – set the threshold for application of a school facility payment at projected enrollment greater than 110% of projected program capacity at any school level by cluster

26. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 9. apfo schools moratorium threshold – retain the threshold for moratorium on residential subdivisions at projected enrollment of 120% of projected capacity at any school level by school cluster

27. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 10. apfo schools grandfather completed applications – grandfather all applications completed within 12 months prior to a moratorium on residential subdivision as a result of school capacity projected deficits. all grandfathered projects would be required to pay the school facility payment.

28. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 11. apf transfer: schools apf transferability – allow vested apf rights to be transferred within a school cluster (sfp transfers with apf)

29. 2009-2011 growth policy recommendation 12. future studies 1.biennial growth policy report 2.compact subdivision development 3.LEED classification as a component of growth policy 4.using carbon offsets as an element of sustainable growth 5.dedicated transit revenue 6.land use impact on vehicle miles travelled 7.retail impacts on vmt 8.impact tax issues 9.highway mobility report funding 10.fiscally sustainable development 11.options to latr

30. 2009-2011 growth policy fall schedule september: county council public hearing 9/22/09 october: worksessions with the PHED committee possible worksessions with the MFP committee worksessions with the full council november: growth policy resolution must be adopted by 11/15/09

31. 2009-2011 growth policy errata page 36. recommendation 1: transportation and land use-related recommendations “within Metro Station Policy Areas” should be deleted page 37. first paragraph “fifty percent of the transportation impact tax” should read “seventy-five percent of the transportation impact tax” page 38. heading of graphic “metro station policy areas” should read “areas with transit proximity” page 26. population figures by decade 2010 population should be 954,400 2030 population should be 1,122,300 page 45. recommendation 7: new life sciences center policy area life sciences center policy area is within the current R&D village policy area