Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.

At yesterday’s Whitman-Walker BZA hearing, one of the neighbors opposing the project challenged the notion of building less parking than the current zoning regulations require. “Where will those cars park?” he asked.

That question assumes that the cars exist at all. But there’s no fixed set of cars out there in search of spaces. Instead, the number of cars depends entirely on the people living in the building, or shopping or eating there. Some will drive. Some will walk, bike, or ride Metro or the bus. Some of “those cars” will turn into walkers, bikers, or transit riders instead.

We can do more to ensure that residents and shoppers really can travel without driving. In their comments, DDOT endorses the special exception to build fewer spaces than zoning demands, but recommends a set of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies alongside. They suggest that JBG:

  • Provide bicycle parking in the garage (accessible to residents and retail employees) and exterior bike racks for the public
  • Give all initial residents a $60 SmartTrip card
  • Provide car sharing space(s) in the garage
  • Pay for the application fee and a one-year membership to Zipcar for all initial residents and business owners
  • Pay for a one-year SmartBike membership for all initial residents and business owners

These represent a great step and are not very expensive for the developer. Each of them simplifies living in the building or working in one of the retail stores without a car.

DDOT also recommends two elements on which I’m not completely sold:

  • If people can buy the spaces permanently (instead of just renting them), include a deed restriction prohibiting residents from buying parking spaces and then reselling them to commuters
  • Make residents of this building ineligible for RPP stickers

The deed restriction is probably moot, since this building will be rental apartments and thus I assume the garage would likewise rent rather than sell the spaces. But once we’ve built spaces, it’s good to have a free market in those spaces, so that those who really do need parking for any reason (frequent transporting of large items, difficulty walking) can choose to pay for one.

Excluding buildings from RPP is very controversial. On the one hand, it ensures that new development won’t create “spillover” competing with residents for spaces. But it’s also unfair. An existing resident isn’t more entitled to space on the street than a new resident. And if existing residents have a special right to public space, there’s less of an incentive to choose to forego the car (and save money) so someone more needy can use the spaces. Better to use performance parking to allocate the limited space to those who value it most, not those who’ve been around a long time.

Cheryl Cort, of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, testified at the hearing with even more great suggestions. Her recommendations:

  • Bicycle shower facilities for employees of the retail businesses
  • An on-street Zipcar space instead of one in the garage. The revenue from one more pay garage space not used by the Zipcar could go to DDOT to make up for lost meter revenue.
  • Having the developer guarantee a certain amount of revenue to Zipcar for the space, to ensure that they can put a car in the building (or in front) and not lose money. If they made more than the minimum, the developer would pay nothing.
  • Taxi vouchers for people who reach the stores by transit and buy large goods in the stores
  • A little bit of affordable housing, perhaps for someone who works in one of the retail stores

Finally, on the limitation of restaurants to 25% in the ARTS overlay, the Office of Planning recommended that BZA allow restaurants in the new development, but only up to 50% of the frontage of the building. That’s a good compromise. Most of the restaurants in the ARTS overlay are on U Street, 9th Street, or P Street, not right in this area, so it’s silly to prohibit restaurants here. And limiting it to 50% will encourage more, smaller businesses (at least two) instead of one, huge, block-encompassing restaurant or store.

JBG agreed at the hearing to implement some of DDOT’s recommendations. They will put bicycle racks in the garage and on the street (facing both 14th and S streets, since S will be the main residential entrance), set aside one space for a Zipcar, and pay for Zipcar memberships for initial residents who don’t rent a garage space. That’s a good start, though they could also institute some TDM practices for the retail employees beyond simple bike racks.

“I’m happy to hear you’re not overparking the site,” said Zoning Commissioner Gregory Jeffries, “but I want to make sure there are all the other bells and whistles as it relates to having less parking.” Jeffries talked about the importance of development that enables more people without also bringing more cars.

Most of all, it’s great to see DDOT recommending these progressive policies in new development. All large, new development projects should include similar best practices. And when developers propose a Planned Unit Development (PUD), where the Zoning Commission gives them greater density and flexibility in exchange for community amenities, similar TDM practices ought to be some of the amenities we require.

In the past, unfortunately, the Zoning Commission has sometimes gone the opposite direction, demanding more parking to protect neighbors’ on-street spaces. That only creates gridlock and doesn’t even effectively protect on-street parking. Instead, new development should build only the parking the market would support, and with the money they save from fewer underground levels, fund TDM strategies to reduce car dependence for residents and employees.