www.takomadcplan.org
|
Takoma
DC Growth Plans www.takomadcplan.org |
Official Small Area Plan | Media Coverage |
| Developer Plans | Metro. Branch Trail | ||
| Transportation Study | Update Log Links | ||
10 February 2001
Mr. Andrew Altman
Director
D.C. Office of Planning
801 North Capitol Street, NE
4th Floor
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Mr. Altman:
At the end of the December 13th community meeting on the Takoma Small Area Plan (TSAP), it was greatly appreciated that Toni Griffin effectively summarized the views that had been repeatedly offered by members of the community, and she acknowledged that these concerns should be incorporated into subsequent presentations by the Office of Planning and the consultant team. These concerns were:
- Buffers to protect against the noise and fumes of traffic - The preservation of a significant, sizable, community green space - Reduced density of any housing development on the metro site - A realistic analysis of traffic covering pedestrian, car, bus and bike issues and options
These commitments were not fulfilled on January 17th.
This letter has two objectives: To discuss each of the items mentioned by Ms. Griffin in relation to concerns that have been raised at TSAP community and work group meetings, and to discuss repeated problems with the TSAP presentations and the planning process itself.
This letter will be posted on the TakomaDCList so that more people have a chance to respond. We also seek your reaction to each of the issues and concerns raised and ask for a point by point response in hard copy and by e-mail to the TakomaDCList.
Buffers
Buffers have to be dealt with clearly and positively. The plan must state what the buffers are to protect and specify requirements for the buffers to be effective. Buffers, at the metro site and elsewhere should be provided to protect:
- Existing housing, especially the apartments on Eastern Avenue - New housing - Commercial areas - Green space - Pedestrian, and perhaps bike, access routes
The size needed for each buffer to be effective should be estimated, and the type of buffer best suited should be specified. The actual estimated space that buffers will take should be included in all plan presentations, including graphics.
Green Space
Development on the green space at the Takoma Metro Station has been the most divisive and difficult issue for planners, consultants and the community. Therefore it seems important to give some historical perspective.
When the community became aware of WMATA's plan to develop the metro site, a strong movement grew to require that a small area plan be in place before any development projects were formalized. Desire to preserve the green space was expressed by many, especially by those who wanted a plan before development. From the start, the planning process was heavily affected by tensions created by WMATA's secrecy, its failure to respond to letters or phone calls from concerned citizens and its lack of interest in the views of the people whose daily lives would be affected by development in their neighborhood. The process was also affected by the clear commitment of DC government officials to initiate development projects before any guiding plan with community input was even conceived of. The tensions created by this disregard for community interests have dogged the planning process and were manifested in the following ways:
- Although it was clear early on that one segment of the community wanted no development on the green space and that another segment wanted minimal or modest development, these positions were not clearly incorporated into the successive draft designs offered first at the charrette and then at all subsequent community wide and working group sessions through that of January 31st. - The amount of green space suggested by Toni Griffin to be preserved, about 75% of current green space, was never represented commensurately in the graphic displays. The reason given was that the graphic presentation was only conceptual and not actually representative. But there is no technical reason not to have provided graphics that accurately represented the various positions on development and give them equal graphic status. This repeated error should be corrected.
The community's concerns about the location, shape and density of residential development and how that should be related to the location, size and character of the green space are legitimate planning issues that have not been adequately considered by planners in making presentations to the community.
Density Objections to the high density of development proposed for the metro site and concerns expressed about density on the other sites included in the TSAP have been raised repeatedly by many in the community at the various meetings; but these have not been adequately acknowledged or reflected in Office of Planning presentations to the community. The issues are complex issues and touch on many aspects of development:
- The impact on pedestrian, bike, car and bus access to the metro station by the high density of development proposed on the metro site by WMATA, its developer and the planners have not been dealt with clearly and directly. - Many in the community advocate no or minimal development in order to preserve green and open space, to create less car traffic, to allow ample space for bus, car, bike and pedestrian metro station traffic to be organized to flow safely, to insure space for really effective buffers, and to preserve better the historic character of the area. These issues have not been adequately treated in the presentations. - While it has been averred by presenters that development on the metro site is essential as the spur to further development, we believe that that is only an argument of convenience because WMATA has a handy developer who wants to build 95 units. Why has the Willow Street site not been presented as an even better site to begin residential development since it avoids the congestion and environmental issues of the metro site and would have the same impact on economic growth? - Since the metro site is impacted by metro access traffic, decisions about the appropriate density on it should be governed by the requirement for good access and by the extent of development envisaged for the other TSAP sites at Willow Street, Spring Street, and the corner lot at Blair and Cedar. - Level of density is related to level of congestion. While metro site development involves serious traffic and environmental issues, overall development in the Takoma area will also contribute to traffic and environmental issues. Why have there been no serious presentations of realistic traffic or environmental impact estimates for different levels of density overall? Such estimates would provide important guidance on the density of development that ought to take place.
Traffic
We are very concerned that despite comments from the community at earlier meetings, the Office of Planning has made no effort to become informed about local traffic issues or to correct problems that had been raised about its earlier reports. Consider these specific examples:
- Once again, on January 17th, the traffic report recommended that 4th Street be made one way going south and that buses that used to turn up 4th Street to get to the bus bays at the metro station should either go straight down Butternut and turn left on Blair Road or would turn north on 5th Street and east on Cedar to reach the Takoma Metro Station bus terminal. The report did not consider the problems that this routing could create:
-- A left turn on Blair Road from Butternut during either the morning or evening rush hour would force buses to try to cut into heavy traffic and further clog the very narrow and congested roadway.
-- A light at that corner to give buses entry would seriously disrupt the already difficult rush hour flow of traffic on Blair Road between Cedar Street and Aspen and would completely clog the limited space for the queuing of traffic northbound on Blair Road.
-- How would buses manage the right hand turn from 5th Street into Cedar? Cedar is a narrow street until it approaches Blair Road. It is a route for children to the Takoma School at Cedar and Piney Branch; the Takoma Library is on the southwest corner of 5th and Cedar; Cedar is already a connecting route from Piney Branch to Carroll and the Metro Station but movement is difficult because residents of the apartments on the South side of Cedar park on both sides of Cedar.
-- The problems for pedestrian traffic and for drivers who need access to and parking for local businesses are particularly difficult at the junction of Blair Road, 4th Street and Cedar Street and, with increased density, likely to be difficult along Carroll Avenue. But these issues have received only cursory rather than systematic treatment in presentations.
- Once again the impact of housing construction options on various routing and usage options on Eastern Avenue were ignored on the basis of the lame excuse that the street was not part of metro site planning. But Eastern is the northern boundary of the metro site and is now an access route. - No discussion was included in the report of the adequacy of road beds or road widths to bear increased use or use by heavy vehicles. For instance, while the road beds of Cedar Avenue and Carroll were strengthened when the Metro Station was built, Eastern was not. - The reports did not consider how bus, car, bicycle and pedestrian traffic would be rationalized to facilitate a safe and steady flow of mass transit users, which is the key function of the metro site area. Without such input from planners it is very difficult to evaluate the potential impact of various development options on traffic, residential life, economic growth or access. - No clear idea has been offered of how much metro site space would be required for roadways, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, kiss and ride, car parking, bus parking, and waiting areas for bus riders. What are the legal requirements for widths of access routes? How would increased bus service to and from the metro station plus the need to accommodate buses that now stack on Cedar Avenue be dealt with? These issues must affect the amount and configuration of space for development. - How will the combined factors of traffic and development affect health and the environment? While an environmental impact study is only required for projects in excess of $1,000,000, the overall small area plan will have environmental impacts stemming from the sum of its components. But even considering just the metro site, if housing of 3 or 4 stories were built, then a bowl would be created with sides composed of the metro rail right of way, the current apartments on eastern avenue and the new construction. Such a built environment could serve to trap fumes and noise. This could be worsened if an apartment house rising to 50 feet were built on the lot just west of the right of way at Cedar Street and Blair Road. This is a possible health and environmental issue closely related to traffic that we need to understand. - Traffic reports recommended left turn lanes for Blair road on to Piney Branch. But there was no study to estimate the actual impact of left turning traffic on congestion, which probably related more to rush hour volume and stop light timing; but that wan not studied either. No data were offered on the number of left turns during rush hour so one could estimate how long left turn lanes would have to be. No consideration was given to the problem of adding left turn lanes to narrow roadways or left turn arrows to lights, with the attendant slowing down of through traffic.
More generally, it seems to us that the presentations have not dealt with the various aspects of the TSAP as an overall area plan, the parts of which affect each other and interact to have an overall impact on the community, whether in terms of density, traffic, environment, built environment/open space, height and style of buildings, or economic vitality. It is important that the next version of the plan be pulled together and the different parts integrated. It is also important that non-construction aspects of development receive more attention, for instance safety on the streets, making the streets and store fronts more attractive and inviting, and distinguishing between rush hour and non-rush hour issues and options.
If the TSAP or any other plan is to fulfill its purpose as a guide to development, then it must be fairly specific with regard to development issues in an established community. It must confront problems and define acceptable solutions by planning community oriented development. This is essential so that both the development of any project in the plan area and the PUD process for such a project are clearly instructed by the community development plan and not by some scheme just to dump development into the community. Instead, the presentations of the buffer, green space, density, and traffic issues have made it seem to many of us that the community has been offered a set of pre-ordained positions and inadequate analyses. This does not speak well for the professional commitment, competence or service to the public of the Office of Planning.
Perhaps nothing in this whole planning process has frustrated participation more than the failure to provide information ahead of time or to provide timely notice to community residents of meetings. Even the members of the working group have never been provided ahead of time with the materials to be considered in their meetings. So they have had no chance to confer with neighbors or prepare their thoughts on the topics to be discussed.
As for notice of meetings, some of us received our notice for the January 17th meeting on January 17th with postmarks from January 16th. The most fortunate received theirs on Monday, January 15th. Were it not for an effort from the community, there would have been no notice of the meeting on December 13th. Apartment dwellers on Eastern avenue were utterly ignored, and were it not for a few community members, they would have been entirely left out. These failures have undermined the planning process.
And finally, with regard to notification, everyone who has ever been involved in community processes knows how hard it is to get people to come to meetings. The Office of Planning flyers, when they did appear, did not reflect such an understanding but were as flat and dry as could be and not at all encouraging or inviting.
Community participation carries much of the meaning and importance of local democracy in American political life. It should be nurtured not hampered. The people who live where development will take place, whose lives will be most directly affected by the development plan, deserve more than a grudging inadequate process.
The problems that this letter discusses with regard to the development of a small area plan for the Takoma DC metro station are similar to those faced by people at Tenley Circle, Brookland, and McMillan Park. These problems are appearing in e-mail more and more frequently as different communities notify each other. The Washington Times has begun a series of articles on this. We are committed to the letter and spirit of effective planning and democratic processes for our communities. How about you?
Sincerely,
Leonard Rubin and
Susan Weber, Chris Turner, Sara Green, Maija Hay, Vivien Rubin, Alan Abrams, Lynne Motley, Bonnie Moss, Montina Cole, Richard Holzsager, Shireen Lewis, Jessica Landman, Flora Lipscomb, Robert Lipscomb, Carol Rende, Ruth Foster, Joel Solomon, Clara Scott, Irving Stern, Gail Stern
Cc:
Toni Griffin
Mark Platts
Rosalynn Frazier
Mayor Anthony Williams
Members of the Council of the District of Columbia
Members of ANC 4B
Deputy Mayor Eric Price
Catherine Hanley, WMATA
Decatur Trotter, WMATA
Mayor Kathy Porter, Takoma Park
Council Member Larry Rubin, Takoma Park
Lorraine Pearsall, President, Historic Takoma
Brian Baker, President, Plan Takoma
Chris Turner, Vice President, Neighbors Inc.
Tom Rooney, Brookland
Linda Gray, Eastmont Condominium Board
