The testimony from the community on the preliminary plan for the proposed development at Woodmont East II played a critical role in convincing the Planning Board to go against both the developers and even their own staff in their discussion of the plan. Nelson Rosenbaum, the author of two well-known texts on land use and urban planning, was especially devastating in his assessment of the Staff Report:
I have read the staff report on the proposed development in depth and I am frankly appalled at the shallow and capricious nature of the planning analysis underlying the recommendation for approval. Many of the staff findings sound as if they were written by the developer rather than by disinterested planning analysts. In particular, the staff findings on the proposed plaza that serves as the project’s core open space component rest upon nothing but conjecture. Despite use of loaded terms like "attractive gathering place”, “interesting water features and art features” and “experientially integrated outdoor space” , the staff acknowledges that “most of the details need to be worked out as the final easements, building footprints and circulation patterns are established”. In other words, trust us to provide you, the citizens, with whatever the developer comes up with. This is not an acceptable standard for planning process in Montgomery County, MD. At an emergency meeting called by County Councilman Roger Berliner, the project’s landscape architect could show nothing more than vague sketches of what the plaza might look like. What we were able to glean is that the so-called plaza would in reality be more like a “slot canyon”, with an 120 foot glass wall on one side and an overhanging bridge blocking out the sun. . . .The head of the Legacy Open Space program met with the attorney for the developers but not with supporters of the application or members of the community in advance of the decision. While the Legacy Open Space Advisory Board was presented with a negative view on the application from planning staff, community members were not offered an opportunity to present a countervailing viewpoint.
We need a center -- a town square in our community. This could be accomplished by the developer meeting with the community to understand its needs and then revising its plans appropriately. Or it could be accomplished by the county government acquiring the necessary property through the Legacy Open Space program. Or perhaps a combination of both. What we don’t want is a bum’s rush to development approval and dismissal of our concerns by the planning staff with a pat on the head. Again, the staff work on the application submitted by three Bethesda citizen’s organization for a Legacy Open Space initiative at this site is appalling. The staff dismisses the application without serious analysis, emphasizing the availability of other parks that are not even remotely comparable in significance or location to the proposed site. The Planning Board can surely do better in its staff work.
According to accounts, the Planning Board repudiated central conclusions of the staff report which were vigorously defended by the staff when a small group, including myself, met with them the day before the hearing. The Planning Board rejected the following conclusions supported by staff and the developer:
- The developer's rights to Reed Street. The attorney for the developer was forced to concede under questioning that the County does not accept this position. It is surprising that the planning staff maintained otherwise when I met with them.
- The Master Plan mandates this development. The testimony of Pat Baptiste and Jim Humphrey was extremely effective in countering these claims. Both cited chapter and verse from the Master Plan to great effect.
- Existing parks are adequate. The staff report argued that Elm Street Park and the park next to Bethesda Library are sufficiently close despite being across the major arteries of Wisconsin Ave. or Arlington Rd. Planning staff also mentioned that the proximity of the Discovery Trail--a truly undiscovered and unknown open space as Jon Weintraub explained. Planning staff suggested that more kiosks were needed to direct people to other open spaces, suggesting a lack of appreciation for the idea of organic development. In contrast, the Planning Board understood that the community desires an urban park and gathering place at Woodmont East, a quite different sort of park than these neighborhood parks. Members of the Board went to so far as to declare that the proximity of these other parks should be ignored in revisiting this issue.
- Green space won't work. The staff report was emphatic that only a hardscape park in the manner of Bethesda Metro Center--not exactly a roaring success--could be constructed in the space. The Planning Board does not agree.
- The "floating bar" over the open space creates an "outdoor living room." As Linda Skalet aptly pointed out, "floating bar" is an Orwellian name for a 10-story building which blocks out the sunlight over much of the so-called "open space". This adoption of developer terminology like this was another strong indication of problems with the report. On many versions of the plan the "floating bar" only appeared as two barely visible dotted lines, masking how it covered the open space.
I was perplexed to hear that the only two people who testified in favor of the plan represented the Action Committee for Transit (ACT) and the Coalition for Smarter Growth. While supporters of smart growth certainly favor higher density, they also view open space as vital in increasingly dense urban areas, as exemplified by Portland, Oregon--a paragon of smart growth. Open space is critical in order to avoid the aspects of high-density development which many feel undermine the success of development in Rosslyn or Crystal City. The inevitable rise in density which will accompany the many projects planned for downtown Bethesda is why we need a park at this location.
The opposition to this small urban park in a central location raises the question as to whether ACT and the Coalition really favor "smart growth" and "transit" or merely the development which can be justified in its name. Ben Ross of ACT was seen huddling in conference with the developers after the meeting. How did proponents of "smart growth" get so estranged from the community?
