STATEMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE PROPOSED ROCKVILLE PIKE PLAN
ON BEHALF O= F THE WEST END CITIZENS ASSOCIATION =
A.&n=
bsp;
In=
troduction
and Background. – In 2007, the City retained a team of consultant=
s to
study and draft a Plan for the redevelopment of the 2.2-mile portion of the
Rockville Pike that lies south of the Town Center. The consultants, at a cost of $547=
,000,
have now issued a document called “Rockville’s Pike: Envision a
Great Place.” This Rock=
ville
Pike Plan, or Plan, scheduled for adoption this year is the subject of this
Statement.
W= ECA, which consists of slightly more than 1,500 households, is Rockville’s largest and oldest neighborhood association. It abuts the town center and its residents would be adversely impacted if the City should adopt the proposed Pike Plan. A draft of this Statement, which embodies testimony by individual residents of WECA to this Commission at various hearings, was distributed to WECA’s board of directors along with everyone on WECA’s listserve. Following comments and suggestions= , it was revised and adopted as WECA’s official position at its regular bo= ard meeting on April 28.
B.&n= bsp; Statement of Facts. – The Rockville Pike is but a small portion of State Route 355 that is one of the principal thoroughfares betwe= en Frederick and the District of Columbia (the other is I-270). The Pike is one of Montgomery County’s most traveled roads. Since World War II, the Pike has evolved from a two-lane country roa= d to a major commuter and commercial thoroughfare. Even the small part of Route 355 t= hat goes through Rockville is not subject to the City’s sole control; con= trol over this thoroughfare is shared with the State and the County. At present,= the Pike, carries 54,000 vehicles per day, which at critical times results in g= ridlock. Five of the principal intersection= s of the Pike within the City are rated “failing.” Of the six public schools within t= he Richard Montgomery Cluster within the City the enrollment of five already exceeds more than 110 percent of capacity and within the next five years th= is figure will increase so that attendance of one school will exceed 155 percent. Graphs of the curren= t and projected school populations of the Richard Montgomery Cluster compiled by = the Board of Education are appended to this Statement.
SUMMARY OF WECA’S CRITICISM OF THE PIKE PLAN
In addition to our general criticisms discussed below, the Pike Plan is fatally flawed for three reasons: (1) it is based on the illusion th= at Rockville’s partial control of a small section of State Route 355 can convert the Pike into a “grand boulevard” that would benefit the residents of Rockville; (2) the Form Code created by the Plan would gut Rockville Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. The APFO was designed to assure th= at all development within the City fits within its infrastructure; and (3) by cedi= ng effective control over development projects to the City’s Chief of Planning, it creates, in effect, a planning czar, and by creating a power broker called the “Town Architect,” the Plan would destroy Rockville’s residents’ ability to become truly involved in the governance of the City, contrary to the recommendations of the City’s Communications Task Force.
DISCUSSION
We note at the outset that the Plan, which obviously is the product of much thought, attempts to address the traffic problems now present along the Pike. For example, the Plan recognizes that traffic congestion along the Pike is close to saturation at certain times of the day; the area lacks a connected street network; safety= for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists is inadequate; and that the streetscape along the Pike needs improvement to enhance the attractiveness and accessibility of the Pike’s stores and restaurants. That said, the Plan’s recommendations threaten to destroy the civic development that residents demanded when, in 1996, hundreds of City residents participated in a “visioning” process that resulted in the creation of Town Center Action Team. In response to r= esidents’ suggestions, TCAT envisioned a new mixed-use area in the Town Center with moderate density that would be built around a new state-of-the-art public library fronting on a communal plaza. This area would feature small stores, restaurants and a grocery. The library, the residencies, stor= es, and public garages were built, along with the plaza, but many of the stores= and restaurants have been struggling; the grocery has yet to appear.
Furthermore, the Plan contains other critical omissions. First, it fails to recognize that two large, strategically-located parcels adjacent the Town Center remain undeveloped. The first is the 3.14-acre Duball tract facing the Regal Cinemas. The Duball tract represents a deve= loper’s vision of a combination of high-rise buildings that would house a hotel, offices, and condominiums. Al= though this Commission has granted extensions of time to the developer, this rosy Duball project remains a parking lot. The other tract is the Town Center Phase II tract, located on a 17-a= cre triangular parcel north of Beall Avenue.&n= bsp; It includes the old Giant supermarket site (3.07 acres), and the Ban= k of America parcel (2.14 acres). = Not only is this tract undeveloped, it is a major eyesore. Rather than satisfy the demands of developers to promote and enable massive development of the Pike south of t= he City center, we believe that the City might consider examining the developm= ent of these two areas within the City’s Town Center and to make them more accessible and welcoming to travelers on the Pike. Rockville has already made a major investment in creating the Town Center, and in particular its garages, all = of which represent a continual burden on the City’s taxpayers. The interests of residents of the = West End, along with other Rockville residents would not be served by promoting = the kind of large-scale development along the Pike envisioned by this Plan.
Furthermore, the Plan fails to contain an
implementation plan, which would include the time line and stages of
implementation and – most importantly – an explanation of how it
would be financed. Any plan f=
or the
Rockville Pike must show how the contemplated improvements will be paid
for. Both money and cooperati=
on
must come from the State and the County. We note that their testimony to th=
is
Commission submitted on April 13, 2011, at the request of the Mayor and
Council, Rockville Economic Development, Incorporated, identified the total
absence of an economic analysis of the proposed plan. We concur that =
the
benefits and costs to all participants -- city residents, developers and ow=
ners
of land along the Pike -- need to be identified and put forward for comment
before further consideration is given to the plan. Without a sound
analysis no one can know whether the proposed plan is sound or just a fanta=
sy
that will have adverse consequences for the City. Rockville’s citizens should =
not be
asked to support an ambitious undertaking without understanding the financi=
al
burden they are being asked to assume.&nbs=
p;
We now explain the principal failings of the Pike Plan.
1.&n= bsp; The Plan’s vision of converting the 2.2-mi= le portion of Route 355 that lies south of the City center into “grand boulevard” is illusory and would be detrimental of the interests of t= he City’s residents. – At the outset, none of the six thoroughfares to which the Plan refer= s is remotely comparable to the Rockville Pike because none of them serve as commuter roads as does the Pike. Only by recourse to an incredible stretch of one’s imagination= can the Rockville Pike be compared to the Champs-Elysees in Paris or the Paseo = de Gracia in Barcelona. The Cham= ps was built in the mid-nineteenth century when Napoleon III hired Baron Haussmann= to raze about 60 percent of medieval Paris to create a network of broad boulevards. The Paseo, likewi= se built in the mid-nineteenth century, is the most expensive street in Spain. The Esplanade in Chico, California, which is located on the edge of the Sacramento Valley, one of t= he world’s largest and most productive agriculture areas, is not compara= ble to Rockville. Finally, neithe= r the two Brooklyn streets to which the Plan refers, Ocean Parkway and Eastern Parkway, nor K Street in downtown Washington compares with the Pike, becaus= e, like the Champs, the Paseo, and the Esplanade they are neither major commut= er routes, nor do they border their communities’ major residential neighborhoods. For example, shopping in the Brooklyn neighborhoods is done at local stores almost completely by foot, not by automobile as in Rockville. For major purchases Brooklynites s= hop in “the City” – Manhattan -- almost exclusively by subway, j= ust the way the Brooklyn’s residents commute to the City’s financial and commercial districts.
2.&n= bsp; The Plan’s idea of discarding Rockville’s current zoning by allowing a higher level of density along this section of the Pike violates the policies that are embodied in the City’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, and would not produce revenue for Rockville. – The City adopted the APFO expressly to require that any development must not exceed the City’s infrastructur= e, especially its road and school capacity.&n= bsp; For that reason, the court in Anselmo v. Mayor and City Council of Rockville (Ct. Sp. App., Aug. 25, 2010), by invalidating the City’= ;s issuance of a use permit for the construction of a low and moderate-income project adjacent to the Town Center, explicitly recognized that the APFO represented an important planning tool that the City was bound to obey.
Developers have always considered the APFO as a thorn in their side. They refuse to recognize that the City enacted this ordinance in order to limit development within the City to the capacity of its infrastructure for the simple reason that the City’s residents have determined that development must be responsible and not destroy their way of life and their property values and, most importantly, the quality of education for their children. The City does not control school construction, the County does. Accordingly, any major development in Rockville depends on decisions= by the County. Rockville would b= e ill advised to authorize major projects upon the hope that the County might lat= er satisfy Rockville’s demand for schools. This is especially important now t= hat the County is experiencing a severe financial crisis.
Developers and owners of properties located along the Pike who spoke at the hearing were united in their opposition to the APFO. In taking this position, they effectively said that they do not support adequate school facilities for ne= w or current residents. We would h= ope to have more enlightened developers who would join Rockville’s residents= in preserving educational standards and creating an infrastructure that suppor= ts new residents, not high-density development that degrades the quality of li= fe in Rockville. The APFO must be preserved.
Th= e Plan fails for the additional reason that most of the contemplated revenues from= the proposed development along the Pike would accrue to the State and the Count= y, not Rockville. In 1989, the M= ayor and Council adopted a Rockville Pike Plan that encouraged moderate developm= ent along the Pike under strict development guidelines. The proposed Pike Plan would disca= rd the old plan and substitute, instead, a dense commercial development with a residential component that copies the kind of major development at Crystal = City and Rosslyn that mars Northern Virginia.&n= bsp;
Th= e Plan fails for the additional reason that it would not produce additional revenue for the City. As former Mayor= and Councilmember, Jim Coyle, pointed out in his testimony to this Commission on March 16, in 1989 the Mayor and Council passed a Rockville Pike Plan that w= as designed to allow reasonable development under a set of guidelines. The 1989 Plan reduced building hei= ght allowances and rejected proposals for uncontrolled density. This Plan reflected residents̵= 7; concerns that increased density coupled with an expanded transportation net= work would threaten neighborhoods near the Pike and create even more congestion. WECA, along with Rockville’s other residents, do not favor creating the kind of intense development that is now planned for White Flint and North Bethesda. In his testimony, Mr. Coyle showed= that the proposed Plan would consume an increasingly significant portion of the City’s tax base and cause major unreimbursed costs to the City – all of which would threaten its residential character.
Th=
e plain
fact is, as Mr. Coyle showed, that the contemplated sales tax revenues from=
the
proposed development along the Pike would go to the State, not the City.
3.&n= bsp; The Plan’s scheme to delegate project appr= oval to the Chief City Planner and a newly-created official called the “To= wn Architect” would contravene the suggestions for additional civic involvement by the Communications Task Force. – The Pike Plan, in= the Proposed Form Code, implementation section, recommends “streamlining = the development approval process,” by establishing the position of Town Architect. The Plan seeks to accomplish this “streamlining” process by allowing projects to = be approved by the Chief of Planning, upon the recommendation of the Town Architect and a Development Review Committee. In effect, the Plan would vest in = City staff members the power to approve all developments along the Pike, elimina= ting the roles of this Commission, the Board of Appeals, and the Mayor and Counc= il. This would contravene the recommendations of Communications Task Force that sought to ensure citizen participation in the City’s governance, not to remove them from the decision-making process. The = Form Code is objectionable on the additional ground that it converts the City’s zoning ordinance from a standard to a mere guidance document u= nder which the Chief of Planning needs only to consider, subjectively, when a development application meets with his interpretation of the “intent&= #8221; of the code.
Fo= r the foregoing reasons, WECA urges that this Commission should reject the recommendations of the Pike Plan in their present form.
Re= spectfully submitted,
WE= ST END CITIZENS ASSOCIATION
By ______________________________
Ja= cques B. Gelin, Corresponding Secretary
Ma= y 28, 2011