Comments on What's in the zoning update: Fewer parking minimums - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Payton

Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:05:10 EDT

"OP created this preliminary map showing where they probably will be"

At Saturday's meeting, staff clarified that the map shows the maximum extent of Transit Zones.* The zoning rewrite is text only; the "remapping" of zones will be determined in a subsequent process, with further consultation from ANCs and the public. Of course, the city could also do what Chicago did and pass new text without ever bothering to remap it.

The OP staffer who said that also reiterated that no one's going to be taking away parking.**

@Rob: several new-ish buildings, particularly ones around Navy Yard, are ineligible for RPPs, and unfortunately residents there are agitating to undo that agreement. Perhaps RPPs there should also be managed as part of the area's Performance Parking scheme.

@Birdie: yeah, I was surprised at the level of detail that everyone was getting into. I wrote a comment on one of the boards -- not sure which one, since there seemed to explicitly not be one devoted to parking -- that city government should explore what it can do to encourage sharing agreements, since that's arguably beyond zoning's scope.

@Tom Coumaris: the goal is not parking-less buildings, but rather parking-light buildings.

* This was during the Q&A after the meeting had officially ended at noon, in response to someone who was angry about there not being enough parking (and not being given a chance before noon to make everyone listen while she grandstanded about it). The guy who got applause followed her.
** This got a huffy, snarky response from the angry person.

Comment by Ian Turner

Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:36:18 EDT

Larry Littlefield suggested a policy approach that might be relevant here, basically offer RPPs to existing residents at a discounted price, with the understanding that no new RPPs would be offered to new residents until the previous holders die or give up their cars. RPPs for new residents could be issued at market auction, and/or for a limited time. Unjust though it may be, this might silence the current cadre of opposition enough to allow other reforms to go forward.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:14:08 EDT

Typical OP dysfunction.

Parking-less buildings are not going to happen until new buildings in commercial zones are kept out of RPP. But nothing is being done to solve that problem.

It'd take a little brains and a little work.

Comment by MLD

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:29:28 EDT

The problem is that there is no way to "address" the parking issue that satisfies the people who complain about how hard parking is and doesn't go against the district's transportation goals

- You could keep the status quo; parking is low-cost but in some places you will pay with your time b/c there won't be spaces

- You could make RPP cost more, but then those same people will complain that you are charging too much for a resource that already exists/costs little to provide in its current state

- You could mandate that buildings build lots of parking, but that is contrary to the District's goal of less driving (since it encourages people to own cars) and won't solve the problem with respect to renters since those spaces will likely cost extra to rent (more than RPP)

- You can mandate that new buildings w/o parking be ineligible for RPP, I think this is fine but you have to also then mandate that this is made clear in rental/ownership talks, otherwise you end up with another class of people who will be pissed about parking. Also this is under OP's purview, not DDOT.

Comment by William

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:18:47 EDT

First, I wish the folks from Ward 3 who oppose this would save their comments for the Ward 3 OP meeting, rather than flooding other neighborhoods meetings and monopolizing our time with this process.

Second, almost all of the complaints around the zoning rewrite center around parking:

-parking minimums
-transit zones and parking
-ADUs and renters parking

If DDOT could address the parking issue, the rest of us could move on with the rewrite without it being so focused on cars and parking.

Comment by fongfong

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:55:45 EDT

@ Alf. We agree completely on the need to revamp the RPP process. I wish our new Council Chairman had embraced doing that, but he voted against limiting RPPs based on the vague idea to "let the market decide." Not sure what he meant there. He still has to prove to me he is in the camp of Smart Growth.

Yet, most of those who are against the parking minimums do not live near these areas. They complain about what the impact will be to those who do, but have no dog in the hunt except to keep those streets free for when they want to park. I would wager that most of the grumbler you were hanging with this past Saturday were in this camp.

Comment by Transport.

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:54:14 EDT

I still think that if newer developments are built with no or limited parking, which is fine, the District government must then step up efforts to ensure increased funding for other types of travel; bikesharing and, even more so, increased/expanded Metrobus and/or DC Circulator service.

Bypassed by two buses in a row just last night (another 20 mins of lost time; I'll drive next time), I still maintain that buses do not arrive often enough for spontaneous trips, serve a series of sometimes confusing routes comprising a single bus line, or are already so full waiting passengers have to be bypassed.

Comment by Alf

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:40:09 EDT

@fongdong

It's only logical that folks get concerned about traffic and parking impacts of large projects near where they live. Now, one way to address that is to require lots of offstreet parking so that the parking impact on surrounding streets is minimal. Alternatively, parking minimums can be reduced, but only if the parking impact of large projects is not then put onto already overcrowed streets. Plus, this is a sure-fire way to ensure that residents of such new projects really do use transit -- walk the way, as well as talk the talk. The way to do this is by restricting such projcts out of RPP. Reducing offstreet parking requirements while shifting more parking demand onto the surrounding streets is guaranteed to energize a large segment of the surrounding communiity.

Comment by Steve S.

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:35:23 EDT

I'm surprised they don't just eliminate by-right drive-throughs.

Comment by fongfong

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:45:40 EDT

@ Birdie. No surprise on the folks "well-known" to OP. There is a cadre of folks, many of whom unfortunately live near me in Ward 3, whose main goal is to show up at these meetings and to grandstand about the "war on cars," or everyone will get old and need a car, etc., mostly because they know the car thing is the only thing that will energize the base to get out and oppose these proposals.

If their logic is sometimes incoherent, that matters little because all they believe they need to do is to get the idea out there that OP wants to limit your ability to use your car.

The endgame here is to keep the current regulations in the hope that developers will find that buildings with parking causes them to be less than economically viable. And if that is the case, that means less development in the areas they live and where they want to drive. Simply stated, "no new development in Ward 3, ever."

Even if they succeed in derailing these changes, something each of us can help combat, development is coming because the economic upside for developers today far outweighs the cost of building parking. So just as they want to use a 50+ year old zoning code in perpetuity, they also believe the same economic model that has protected them from development all these years is still in place.

They are wrong about this last point.

Comment by Birdie

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:32:04 EDT

I was there are well and parking kept coming up. People who were horrified that OP would "take away" parking (and cars!), and people who applauded OP for recognizing that not everyone wants a car and every parking spot that is built is a cost passed on to us. There was certainly an undercurrent of "When these car-free kids grow up and have three children, they're going to want mutliple cars and ample parking!" from some people. Or maybe I just had the misfortune of sitting close to that particular group and heard their grumbling all morning.

I wish there could have been more discussion on shared parking. There are a not insignificant numebr of lots and garages that are only used during the work day, or primarily in the evenings. It was brought up, but not too in-depth. Although to get a good, deep discussion on challenges, solutions, and creative uses of shared parking would probably require a meeting unto itself.

It was a VERY wonky meeting. It was also apparent that some people in attendance are quite well known to the OP folks. A fair bit of grandstanding went on during the "town hall" portion of things.

Comment by Rob

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:27:16 EDT

Relaxing or eliminating parking minimums is a good idea, but only if you either (1) make sure residents of new buildings without parking minimums will never be able to get residential parking permits or (2) raise the price of RPPs by a lot (enough to make it easy to find parking in residential neighborhoods). If you don't do either of those things, then you make an already bad parking shortage even worse.

I haven't seen any credible plan for (1). I've seen proposals, but it's not at all clear that they'd work (or that they'd persist for the life of the building). And (2) seems politically very difficult.

Comment by Mike Forster

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:22:41 EDT

Great writeup, David. I asked Jennifer Steingasser at a seminar hosted by the D.C. Bar if bicycle infrastructure (such as BikeShare and bike lanes) would be considered in creating the transit zones, and she unfortunately said no. I think OP's plan is a large step in the right direction but I wish areas in which residents commute by bicycle would have gotten more consideration in the elimination of parking minimums. Although, in fairness to OP, there is probably a lot of overlap with areas that feature metro riders/bicyclists.