County Executive Marc Elrich just delivered a blistering critique of the Takoma Park Minor Master Plan Amendment to the County Council. (For what happens next, see our Q&A). His comments were based on reports from County Housing, Transportation, and Environment staff. Below are just some of the findings:
Overview
- The Plan “exceeds the definition and scope” of minor master plan amendments.
- “The proposed zoning would equate to 205% more development than currently allowed, or 3X as many housing units as currently permitted.”
- Proposed upzoning on Maple “would adversely affect what is one of the densest neighborhoods of affordable housing in the County.”
- The County Executive quotes Takoma Park resident Jessica Landman: “Recognize a unicorn when you see it. Takoma Park has a unique pocket of dense, deeply affordable rent-stabilized housing, which is already consistent with the principles of Thrive and needs to be preserved, not undermined.”
Displacement and Loss of Affordable Housing
- The Plan is “based on the mistaken assumption that upzoning is essential” to meet housing targets.
- Proposed upzoning would reduce rather than increase affordable housing, and thus be “counter to Thrive stated goals.”
- The Plan will lead to “the displacement of current residents who cannot afford to live elsewhere in the County.”
- No equity study was done. “To rezone an area with one of the largest concentrations of minority populations in the county, and to do so without a racial equity analysis is a major disconnect.”
- “The focus on high-rise construction, which is very expensive, on Maple Avenue and on the Washington Adventist property, essentially guarantees that most of the new units will be unaffordable to the County’s low-income population, who are disproportionately minority.”
- “Rent restrictions for nine rent-stabilized properties (485 units) would be lost if those sites redevelop.”
- The required small percentage of MPDUs (moderately-priced units) “would serve residents with significantly higher income levels than current residents.”
- “The language recommending no net loss lacks sufficient clarity to allow enforcement when properties redevelop.”
- “The Plan states that there is a need for reinvestment in older buildings to ensure quality, safe, affordable housing, but there is no recommendation in the Plan for reinvestment.”
- By emphasizing “redevelopment over reinvestment,” the Plan “will inevitably lead to displacement of tenants who are predominantly of color and low income.”
- “Reduce heights along Lee Avenue to 50’ to maintain a garden apartment character and lower MPDU rents.”
- The hospital site is not in any major transit walkshed, and upzoning on the site should be reduced from 120′ height to 70′ height.
- The Maplewood and Erie neighborhood has “exactly the diversity of housing stock that Thrive says it wants” and should not be upzoned.
Increased Traffic
- There is no planning for an anticipated 65% increase in traffic.
- Plan area is “not conveniently walkable by most, to surrounding transit hubs.”
- “Existing transportation infrastructure will not support the additional growth.”
- The Plan would permit increasing traffic “from about 6,400 vehicles per day per road to 10,800 vehicles per day per road” on Maple and Flower Avenues.
- “Reduce densities as needed to fit within existing and currently proposed infrastructure.”
Environmental Risk
- Consideration of the Sligo Creek watershed was “brief” and “relegated to an appendix.”
- In terms of environmental goals, there are no “details on how to accomplish them or who is responsible for ensuring they are achieved” and “there will likely be no effort to address them.”
- “Although one of the plan’s goals is to reduce imperviousness, its zoning recommendations will likely increase impervious cover.“
- “There is no discussion on the condition and replacement of aging sewer infrastructure.”
- It is possible that “tree canopy cover may decrease rather than increase.”
- On the former hospital site, only “about ½-acre of central open space is recommended for retention and would require the removal of large native canopy trees.”