While Cheh is probably right, and I agree that the Giant development should go forward, it's a bit cheeky for her to claim "overwhelming" support in her election. As a Dem., she should expect to get 80%+ of the vote in DC against an Rep., and she got something like 70%. In the primary, she secured only a plurality.

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 11:02 am • link • report

Everyone who supports mixed-use, walkable communities along the Wisconsin Avenue corridor should thank Jeff Davis for the time he has committed to this project. I hope that AWARE continues its effort after this project is approved to support smart growth on other parcels along Wisconsin Avenue. Coming up, there continues to be the debate about the Tenley library, right about the Tenley metro station. Additionally, the Georgetown Safeway ("Social Safeway") will be redeveloped, JP's in Glover Park will be razed, and the Babes Billards/Maxim condos in Tenley will be redeveloped. There will be many opportunities to continue to support mixed-use growth along this corridor.

by Ben on Feb 20, 2009 11:08 am • link • report

AH: 44% in a field of nine people is a pretty impressive plurality.

by David Alpert on Feb 20, 2009 11:14 am • link • report

What a joke. The opposition will use slash and burn tactics to sideline this (great and needed) project. That strip of Wisconsin is currently and embarrassment, looking more like a rundown Rockville stripmall than a main avenue in a great area of the nation's capital.

Kudos to Cheh, Jeff Davis, and all other supporters of the project. It's always easier to be reflexively "against" something than to use your time and energy to aid progress.

by SG on Feb 20, 2009 11:17 am • link • report

SG, many of the opponents of this project are people who've lived in the neighborhood for 3-4 decades and still think Wisconsin Ave. is a low-density corridor. They are shocked to learn that they live in a major city, within 1 mile of two separate metro stations and less than two miles from downtown. I attended one of the ANC meetings in January and one of the opponenets feared this would become another Crystal City. That couldn't be more of an exaggeration. The north parcel will only be 5 stories tall and the south parcel will only be two stories tall (while many of the buildings directly across the street are 80-90 ft tall). Arguably, there should be even more density on the south parcel, where the grocrey store will be located.

by Ben on Feb 20, 2009 11:26 am • link • report

There are many letters of support which advocate for more density at this parcel.

What I do not understand is why the Zoning Commission tolerates this behavior from groups like the opponents. it is simply a waste of time for the other Commissioners and for the scores of residents who now must dedicate 2-4? more nights like last night to see this through.

Another example of the community support for this project is exemplified in the unscientific Cleveland Park Yahoo Group poll which is running generally 77% of outright support for the project and single digits opposition.

The CPCA had under 40 members at its recent meeting where it voted (not unanimously) to oppose this PUD application. This is telling as to who the "community" is for this (and other) associations.

by William on Feb 20, 2009 11:45 am • link • report

I do sympathize with the residents of the immediate neighborhood. What many don't realize is that many residents in areas like Cleveland Park and Tenleytown lived there through the "dark ages" of DC, when it was cheap, not a trendy or glamorous place to live, and a much smaller-scale city. They should be commended for sticking with the city through the bad times of government ineptitude and corruption far surpassing any we complain about today. I certainly understand that many of these residents don't like their neighborhood to change- it's human nature. However, that in and of itself does not entail them to obstruct a legitimate, much-discussed, and generally popular project. When you live next to a major corridor in a major world city, even if there's a parking lot there now, does not mean that there will always be a parking lot. In fact, you can be fairly certain that it will become a condo or retail building in time. You shouldn't expect you are entitled to live a suburban lifestyle in a city, nor can you expect to impose this on others.

In this particular case, the developers have been more than fair in making concessions and providing a truly first-rate project that most jurisdictions would love to have. I believe the FAR for this project is just north of 1.0, which is extremely low. And not to bring other cities into this, but in other cities, this type of development wouldn't even be much of an issue. We are lucky to have activist neighbors who hold developers to a high standard and often serve to improve the projects and allow for major compromise. But the key word is compromise. I think the developers have done that, but at this point I don't believe some residents are willing to. It's nothing or nothing (nothing being merely a reconstructed, smaller-scale Giant). I understand that some residents want the "nothing" option, but they should also understand that many others still want the plan that's on the table.

by SG on Feb 20, 2009 11:59 am • link • report

The current Giant was built in the early 1950's about 57 years ago. If you look back 57 years before that, you will see the first trolley lines to this area and the very start of development. Who would have imagined that the shopping center would remain unchanged for this long? Why would anyone buying a house next to a shopping center think that it would never change and grow?

by Gabe Fineman on Feb 20, 2009 12:02 pm • link • report

SG: "I believe the FAR for this project is just north of 1.0, which is extremely low."

Well, the developers state that the FAR is 1.99, and the density on the north parcel is obviously significantly higher, since the FAR on the much larger south lot around 1.0.

by Tom on Feb 20, 2009 12:22 pm • link • report

William, I wouldn't necessarily cite the "unscientific" poll on the Cleveland Park list serve. Understandably, AWARE was trying to determine the results:

On Wed, 2/18/09, Jeff Davis wrote:

From: Jeff Davis

Subject: AWARE - URGENT CP Listserve Poll on Giant

The moderator of the Cleveland Park Listserve has created an informal poll on the Giant PUD.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take a minute to vote. Have your spouse and friends vote also.

Here is the post from the Listserve:

Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the

cleveland-park group:

How do you feel about the planned Giant development at Wisconsin and Newark,

which includes a larger supermarket, and a residential, office and retail

complex? For more information about the project visit Giant's website at

http://www.wisconsinavegiant.com, read the ANC's resolution of support with

conditions at http://tinyurl.com/dmsfuw, and see the current issue of the

Northwest Current. The question of how the Giant supermarket figures into the

neighborhood has been an issue on the Listserv since 2004, and it may finally be

resolved by the Zoning Commission.

o Build it already! I support the Giant's development proposal as is.

o Build it but with conditions: I support part of or all of the ANC's

resolution, http://tinyurl.com/dmsfuw.

o This isn't good for the neighborhood: I oppose the Giant's development

proposal.

by Cindi on Feb 20, 2009 12:47 pm • link • report

I can't decide which are worse, these people or the Glover Park NIMBYs who oppose Wisconsin Avenue streetscape improvements because it "reduces available parking." "It makes the streetscape safer and more attractive, but if it reduces my ability during peak times to drive to something I could easily walk to in 10 minutes or less, I'm against it."

by Phil on Feb 20, 2009 1:15 pm • link • report

I lived in that neighborhood as a child (some 30+ years ago) and when I occasionally stop by that Giant I'm shocked to find it still as small and filthy as it was back then. The only thing that seems to have changed is the produce has gotten worse and the wonderful Murphy's is gone. Build it already.

by ontarioroader on Feb 20, 2009 2:16 pm • link • report

@Cindi

So there are what, 7,400 people on the Cleveland Park listserv? Why is it only 16 people voted against this project. Out of 7,400 people, if there really a groundswell of opposition, I would think that more than 16 people would have participated in this exercise.

As everyone knows, it is much harder to garner support FOR a project than get people to be against it. Under that premise, 16 people is not exactly a groundswell of opposition for this project.

The CPCA resolution demanding that the developer demonstate its financing before breaking ground is telling. Clearly their strategy (despite the Zoning Commission suggestion to consolidate) is to have all of these separate "neighborhood groups" ground out these proceedings in the hopes that the economy is so bad that this development never gets off the ground.

For that, the construction workers who would benefit, the employees of the new commercial outlets and the nearby residents who want a vibrant streetscape would all have these very few people to thank.

by William on Feb 20, 2009 2:40 pm • link • report

Hooray for Cheh! I was impressed by her clear, decisive statement. She's right about the quality and opportunity of this mixed use neighborhood development. She's right to speak up while respectfully disagreeing with the project opponents. This is smart growth and this is political leadership.

by Cheryl Cort on Feb 20, 2009 3:12 pm • link • report

William, it seems that ontarioroader is upset that Giant terminated the Murphy's lease ("and the wonderful Murphy's is gone") long before it was ready to go ahead with their expansion, and yet you question the Cleveland Park Citizens' Association request that the Giant have financing in place before they close the grocery store and that the grocery store be open before they evict the tenants on the north parcel.

by Tom on Feb 20, 2009 3:15 pm • link • report

As I understand it, the grocery store and the current tenants would occupy the north parcel while the south parcel is redeveloped. Then everything would move to the south parcel while the north parcel is redeveloped.

The concern expressed by Tom is irrelevant.

Murphy's was a nothing more than an amalgamation of independent retailers with really low-rent and crappy items for sale. The place was mostly empty the last few times I went in there to try to find anything I needed. That would have been around 1995, years before the initial proposal to redevelop the site came about.

Shemali's on the other had, is something I miss. Hopefully they will return from their "temporary" Spring Valley location.

by William on Feb 20, 2009 3:29 pm • link • report

Besides that, it's not like Giant wanted all these delays when it ended Murphy's lease.

The financing issue is simply a basis for further delay:

1) Prove you have financing

2) Let us have six months to evaluate whether your financing is adequate

3) ?

4) Object some more!

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 4:12 pm • link • report

FYI. G.C. Murphy's declared bankruptcy in the late 1990s, and all the various stores (McCrory, Murphys, Newberry, and other brands) closed.

by Richard Layman on Feb 20, 2009 4:21 pm • link • report

I loved G. C. Murphy's , I still have pyrex bowls from there, a place to buy needles and thread, etc. Kids who grew up in Cleveland Park adored it but G.C. Murphy's essentially, vacated the building years before they went bankrupt. The independent ventors took up less than a quarter of the 1st floor. The lower level was closed off and it was freezing in the store. It was a great place to get keys made but the rest was junk. Totally depressing. "Build the Giant already", the old ,old days will not come back.

by Di Stovall on Feb 20, 2009 5:16 pm • link • report

David, Thanks very much for updating GGWash about AWARE's efforts to get the Giant PUD approved and to encourage smart growth in our neighborhood.

What we've seen in Cleveland Park is that the naysayers and their arguments can't stand the light of day. They operate on the assumption that the public is asleep and won't notice what they are doing. Once we woke up and got organized, they've been on the defensive and been much less effective.

It seems like a partnership between groups like yours, with real expertise and experience in smart growth, and groups like AWARE, with real neighborhood connections, can be quite powerful going foward.

Thanks again and congrats.

Jeff Davis

by Jeff Davis on Feb 20, 2009 5:50 pm • link • report

It is interesting that the opponents have not yet even presented their case to the Zoning Commission and yet Jeff Davis and others have already decided that they haven’t made their case.

I think we all agree, as has been noted in the comments above, that the condition of the Giant, as maintained by Giant/Stop&Shop/RoyalAhold, as well as the poorly maintained vacant storefronts, the premature closing of wonderful tenants like Shemali’s and Giant’s failure to rent the Murphy’s space, has not been good for the neighborhood. Giant/Royal Ahold has not been a good neighbor or a good landlord. But that is not the issue. This issue is not whether we should reward or punish Giant for its past behavior. The issue is whether Giant’s request for significant zoning flexibility meets the standards set out in our zoning regulations, and it is important to recognize that the public hearing is the process by which the Giant, the proponents and the opponents can present testimony to the Zoning Commission subject to cross examination so that the Zoning Commission can determine whether Giant meets this standard and should be granted significant flexibility. The flexibility requested in described on the ANC web-site.

In terms of the desire to make certain that financing is in hand prior to closing the stores, one needs only to look north to 4600 Wisconsin Avenue, where the developer, who had an approved PUD, made a large profit flipping the property to another developer who evicted the tenant and painted the building black before obtaining construction financing. As a result, that building has been vacant for years, and was recently foreclosed on and sold at auction. Is this a model that you would like to see repeated in Cleveland Park?

by Tom on Feb 21, 2009 12:18 pm • link • report

I must take issue with Tom's assertion that Jeff Davis has precipitiously declared that the several parochial groups in opposition to the development have not made their cases and his implication that Giant has been somehow been a bad neighbor.

While the several groups in opposition, which by the way refused to consolidate notwithstanding the Zoning Commission's request to do so, have not testified, they have by way of cross examination attempted to do so. Several of these groups were repeatedly instructed to stop testifying and start asking questions. And what did we hear in cross examination? Well, we heard one person suggest that Giant should not build rowhouses because rowhouses are not necessary to the construction of a grocery (and because not coincidentially he would somehow be personally inconvenienced by looking at nicely archtected structures rather than what he sees today). We also heard someone purporting to represent Ordway Street suggest that Giant delivery trucks might drive down Ordway, or even more ridiculously Norton, on the way to another delivery. The notion is a bit absurd, particularly given the likelihood that delivery trucks to a store the size of this Giant will arrive full and leave empty. We heard the same person suggest that the provided parking might not be as attractive as parking on Ordway when running into Starbucks or Sullivan's.

So what have we seen so far? We've seen clearly parochial concerns revealing clearly unreasonable expectations (freedom from new construction, freedom from 'foreigners' parking on my block, freedom from smart growth, freedom from acknowledging that Giant has made significant concessions) that to this long-time Cleveland Park resident seem embarassingly thin.

Further, I am suprised that anyone would have the termerity to even suggest that Giant has been a bad neighbor. Is leaving its parking lot open 24/7 and allowing patrons of restaurants such as Two Amys, Cactus Cantina, and Cafe Deluxe (which amongst them have provided approximately zero parking spaces) to park for free the indicia of a bad neighbor? Is opening the old Murphy's space for Christmas toy drives the sine qua non of a bad neighbor? Is minimizing investment in a grocery store it fully intends to tear down a sign of malevolence? Is not renting retail space it plans to demolish in favor of a green, sensible, mixed use construction cause for demerits? I suggest not.

As to demonstrating financing, it seems that comparing Giant to a random developer is inapt. Giant's interests and those of most of those in the surround mile radius are aligned. Both would like to see a modern, clean, efficient, green, pedestrian-friendly development. Both would like to see it posthaste. Giant, which already owns the land (and has for some 60 years), should not have to leverage itself to start construction. Further, amongst its first acts would be demolishing the grocery store (which provides what I would expect to be decent cash flow). Why on Earth would it tear down the cash cow if it did not have what its financial experts believe to be adequate financing? Frankly, I don't give a tinker's damn what the Monday morning quarterbacks in the neighborhood think of Giant's financing plan. They are unqualified to render an opinion in this domain just as they are unqualified to render an opinion on parking, decibel levels, zoning laws, traffic, and the appropriate size of a grocery store.

by RAK on Feb 21, 2009 2:12 pm • link • report

RAK's message not altogether pompous? I suggest not!

by Bob on Feb 21, 2009 3:39 pm • link • report

"freedom from acknowledging that Giant has made significant concessions"--

Perhaps RAK can explain the "significant concessions" that Stop & Shop has made in its development proposal. I am unclear as to what those are. Thanks.

by AEO on Feb 21, 2009 4:17 pm • link • report

I'll bite.

They have agreed to reduce the size of the grocery store because the residents (who I suppose are grocery store experts) have requested it. They have increased the parking, despite objections from DDOT to do so. They are exploring LEED certification at the request of neighbors. There are other amenities they are contemplating as part of this package.

I would also add that it is ironic that the opponents of this proposal have suggested an alternative which is identical to the scheme they killed a decade ago.

by William on Feb 21, 2009 4:29 pm • link • report

AEO, some of the concessions Giant made include:

1) providing affordable housing

2) a comprehensive transportation demand management program

3) approximately 30-40 shared parking spaces for other neighborhood

businesses that aren't even a part of this development

4) agreeing to keep money in an escrow account to fund future transportation

improvements if there are additional traffic impacts.

Despite all of this, I am sure that some neighbors will still find reasons to obstruct a good project.

by Ben on Feb 21, 2009 4:41 pm • link • report

AEO and other opponents of this development, I would encourage you to read "Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit-Oriented Housing," by Robert Cervero before criticizing this project. Here's the link to the article: http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-3Cervero.pdf . Contrary to the fear of many opponents of this project, additional residential density actually reduces the amount of traffic because accessibility increases (more destinations such as restaurants and retail are within walking distance). Additionally, traffic impact studies frequently use methodology based on suburban commuting patterns which tends to overestimate the number of trips for developments in denser neighborhoods because of the lower rate of car-ownership in these developments.

by Ben on Feb 21, 2009 4:52 pm • link • report

Ben et al,

Let's talk about the "Concessions that Giant has made":

"They (Giant) have agreed to reduce the size of the grocery store because the residents (who I suppose are grocery store experts) have requested it. "

Really? From what size did Giant reduce the store? In fact, several years ago they announced plans to build a 30,000 s.f. store (double the size of the existing). Today, there're proposing 56,000+ s.f.

"Providing affordable housing"

The law requires affordable housing, and Giant also gets bonus density for this. How is this a Giant "concession"?

Speaking of housing, the number of housing units proposed for the site has gone steadily upward, from about 50 units to around 75 units to the 146 proposed today. I would hardly call that upward ratchet a "concession."

"Transportation Demand Management" -- some bicycle parking and a one-time $20 Metro card for new residents? I'll wait to see all those grocery customers take their weekly shopping home on bikes. This is just window dressing.

Traffic Calming Escrow? This wouldn't be a concession if it were meaningful; it would be for traffic mitigation. But it's not even meaningful. Giant has offered $100,000. The ANC has demanded $500,000 as a condition of supporting the PUD, but Giant says that's unacceptable. Some traffic calming put on Porter St. when it was rebuilt several years ago cost over $1 million. Peanuts (Giant probably sells the Georgia variety) again.

30-40 shared parking spaces for third party businesses? Actually the number is 40. Honestly, I don't think it's Giant;s responsibility to park non-premise customers. But 30 spaces will be a drop in the bucket. Problem is, their current parking lot is full nearly every evening with cars of patrons of the Macomb St. restaurants -- 2 Amys, Cactus, Enology, Cafe Deluxe, etc. Few parkers are in the disgusting Giant and over 45,000 s.f. of retail space is currently shuttered, yet the lot is full, So when the PUD opens, where will all of those current restaurant customers park? The surrounding streets are full. Again, I don't feel that it's Giant's responsibility to park others, but when all those cars are dumped onto the local streets, you can see why neighbors are concerned with future parking.

by AEO on Feb 22, 2009 1:48 pm • link • report

I have lived in Cleveland Park for 45 year and taught at St. Albans (now retired) for 38 of those years. I am very please with the prospects for the development of the Giant and Wisconsin Ave. I have a long memory and remember the many projects that have been "hammered" by a small group of people in Cleveland Park that are against anything and everything. I say a "pox" on them. This includes the few that are very vocal on the CP listserv and seem to have "anointed " rights to press their opinion.

I also send Kudos to Cheh, Davis, Stovall, Fineman and all of those who have their head screwed on correctly and have demonstrated so in their writings. I can't wait to hear the hum of bulldozers and heavy equipment. It will be music to my ears. Tom Soles

by Tom Soles on Feb 22, 2009 2:03 pm • link • report

I have a long memory and remember the many projects that have been "hammered" by a small group of people in Cleveland Park that are against anything and everything. I say a "pox" on them.

Let's review the projects that have been "'hammered'" by a small group on people in Cleveland Park that are against anything and everything:

--a proposal in the 60s/70s to build Interstate freeways through Glover Arhibold Park and south of Tilden Street.

--a proposal in the 70s/80s to tear down Mclean Gardens and replace it with a dense development of offices and multistory buildings; Both Rosedale and Tregaron provide "green lung" space open to all in D.C.

--Van Ness scale (and design) buildings that would have replaced the Cleveland Park commercial strip -- this led to the formation of the Cleveland Park Historic District

--a proposal to put the Bulgarian embassy at Rosedale and then plans to erect condos there -- eventually we got the Rosedale Conservancy, the first public land conservancy in the District of Columbia.

--a proposal to cover Tregaron with townhouses -- eventually led to a negotiated outcome with the Washington International School expanding, the developer having the right to build a few homes and the formation of the second public land conservancy in DC, which is restoring the historically-significant Tregaron gardens and paths.

Pox, indeed. I'd call it enhancing the quality of life in one of the nicest close in neighborhoods in the city, one that kept people in D.C. when others were fleeing during the 60s and 70s. The great thing about the Washington area is the diversity of is neighborhoods and the choices they offer. McLean Gardens, Cleveland Park, Bethesda, Ballston, U Street. If I felt deprived because CP lacks the density of Bethesda or the buzz, say, of U Street, I could always move there.

by AEO on Feb 22, 2009 2:37 pm • link • report

The great thing about the Washington area is the diversity of is neighborhoods and the choices they offer.... If I felt deprived because CP lacks the density of Bethesda or the buzz, say, of U Street, I could always move there.

AEO, where were you when a few residents of Bethesda were trying to obstruct the density you like so much? I'm sure you would have enlived our Planning Board's hearing by testifying that if they don't like the density of Bethesda they should move to Cleveland Park.

by tt on Feb 22, 2009 2:50 pm • link • report

AEO:

I regularly walk to the Safeway and Wholefoods in Glover Park, even though the former is approximately 1 mile from my residence. If there was a modern Giant that could meet the needs of surrounding neighbors, I would think that a substantial number of the residents in the Cathedral/Cleveland Park area would also walk/bike to that location as well. AEO, as you well know, this development will have other retail as well and people certainly would walk/bike to get coffee and other similar purchases. Additionally, there is self-selection by potential residents when they decided to move to a neighborhood like this. People will decide to live in these residential units precisely because the development is mixed-use and well served by transit, giving them the option of foregoing driving.

by Ben on Feb 22, 2009 5:05 pm • link • report

Ben,

The PUD location is NOT that well served by transit. Support the project on its own merits, but let's not pretend that the bus lines which pass it qualify it as "transit oriented development." It is over one mile from a Metro stop. The principal bus lines that pass it are the 30s series. I commuted (or should I say, "tried to commute") on the 30s buses for three years, and gave up in frustration. They have completely unreliable schedules and are notorious for their bunching (when several late buses arrive at one time). And when buses are late, which was pretty much always, drivers always blame the traffic congestion on Wisconsin Avenue. I finally gave up in frustration and started driving. By the way, I didn't see a lot of McLean Gardens commuters on the bus, which maybe a good proxy for likely PUD transit usage since it's right next door.

Don't get me wrong: there are things I like about this proposal: mixed-use, a hopefully livelier street scape, the big box grocery hidden behind other stores, the townhouses on Idaho (wish there were more of them). Some people will walk -- I walk to the decrepit Giant now. I do wish it were more appropriate in scale. But there will be increased traffic -- 550 more added vehicles in the Saturday peak hour alone, according to Giant's own traffic study. Let's not pretend that we will live in Holland, where everyone is going to walk and bike, especially to fill those SUV-sized grocery orders that Giant is counting on. Instead, let's figure out how we can get some life in those blocks, with more density, yes, but trying to solve for the problems that will be visited on those who live close by. Figuring out a better location for that loading dock proposed on Idaho, for one thing. Even those I know who otherwise really like the PUD feel for those homeowners who have reason to be upset that Giant wants to build an access for big rigs across a residential zone. One of the elements of the ANC's resolution of conditional support is an escrow for traffic calming of at least $500,000 rather than the paltry $100K that Giant is offering.

by AEO on Feb 22, 2009 5:55 pm • link • report

As discussed before on this blog, this parcel is served by the 96 bus to Woodley Park, the H4 bus to Cleveland Park, and the various 30-line buses. It is within 1 mile/20 minute walk of two metro stations (Tenley and Cleveland Park). The N1,N2,N3 which go to DuPont and Foggy Bottom (N3) are only a 5-7 minute walk from this property. AEO, this area is well-served by transit. Whether you choose to utilize this transit is separate question.

by Ben on Feb 22, 2009 6:05 pm • link • report

I feel compelled to correct several misstatements in the comment by AEO:

1. Giant has increased the proposed size of the store rather than reducing it. That is simply incorrect. In the the December 11, 2006 meeting Giant stated that the store would be 65,000 sq ft. with about 40,000 for display space. Now it is 56,000 total. The real question is what will be missing? A organic food isle? Bulk grains and nuts? Fresh fish? We do not know the details but do know that less space means less amenities. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cleveland-park/message/36893 if you are a member of the Cleveland-Park Listserve or http://www.cpposts.com/Docs/Giant/061211_Giant_Meeting.doc if you are not.

2. Traffic calming on Porter Street cost one million dollars and thus the $100,000 Giant is putting up for traffic calming is far too little. This is also simply incorrect. As one of the main organizers of the traffic calming movement on Porter, the traffic light/speed camera/sign system cost about $250,000 and it was paid for as a federal demonstration project. It was never asked for by the neighbors nor needed. What we asked for was a crosswalk and a stop sign at the bus stop at that same location. The total cost for two signs and paint would have been a few hundred dollars and, from our point of view, just as effective at traffic calming as the light. $100,000 is plenty for rational traffic calming.

3. Like most people that live withing walking distance of the Giant, I say lets just build it now.

by Gabe Fineman on Feb 22, 2009 6:19 pm • link • report

AEO and Tom, Thanks for showing this group just how uncompromising you can be. You are clearly the experts on traffic, parking, finance, transit, construction, noise, loading, density, and all things zoning-related. We see there is nothing Giant can do that qualifies as a concession because you are entitled to everything they offer and more. So thank you and pleae stick with the postion you've taken in all 44 public meetings held on this project and give no quarter to evidence or differing views.

Jeff Davis

by Jeff Davis on Feb 22, 2009 6:42 pm • link • report

Having density along the main arterials does not impinge on the peacefulness of the historically protected side streets. Such conditions of mixed density have existed in DC and other cities for years.To suggest that this project, or the one at Cleveland Park back in the day is detrimental to the neighborhood's character is mistaken. I hope that when this project happens and you see the positive change it has effected, you will apologize.

by цarьchitect on Feb 22, 2009 8:39 pm • link • report

"Thanks for showing this group just how uncompromising you can be."

Perhaps Mr. Davis and his AWARE group can answer the following question: Do you agree with the ANC's resolution of conditional support for the PUD, including the 11 conditions? Thanks.

by AEO on Feb 22, 2009 9:06 pm • link • report

"AEO, this area is well-served by transit. Whether you choose to utilize this transit is separate question."

Ben,

Please tell the group if you live in the vicinity of the proposed development, and which of these "well-serving" bus lines you regularly use. Thanks.

by AEO on Feb 22, 2009 9:09 pm • link • report

I think the poll on the Cleveland Park listserv and the testimony from Mary Cheh accurately convey the overwhelming support that has been expressed for the PUD application as is.

The NIMBY opponents have demonstrated a stubborn selfishness by wasting the zoning commission, OP and DDOt and residents time by prolonging these hearings.

I would also add that projects like this will not seriously impact the residential neighborhood. Just look at places like Clarendon where the residential community is successfully transitioned from the commercial corridor.

by William on Feb 22, 2009 9:14 pm • link • report

AEO, I take the N2/N4 every day, except when I bike or run home from work. I've also used one of the 30-buses within the past week.

by Ben on Feb 22, 2009 9:18 pm • link • report

William- you're entirely correct. Cleveland Park is another good example, where you have moderate density along CT Ave and some of the most desirable single-family residences in the region just 1-2 blocks off of that corridor.

by Ben on Feb 22, 2009 9:22 pm • link • report

Ben, Seeking definition of "dense" for my edification. I have always tho't Conn Ave in CP is quite dense, with residential. It's lined with apt/condo buildings from Van Ness to Woodley. The 1-story Sam's Park could be a lot denser of course. For residential density though At very least the Kennedy Warren is considered dense, yes? Across from the KW on Conn and Devonshire are 2 other huge condo/apt bldgs. What's dense mean? Is there a place in DC that you would call dense? I always tho't the part of Conn Ave in CP was a good example of density.

by Bianchi on Feb 22, 2009 10:51 pm • link • report

This is part of what makes Connecticut Avenue successful and why Wisconsin Avenue needs work. Residential density along the corridors!

by William on Feb 22, 2009 10:59 pm • link • report

I agree with William. It's the main difference between Wisconsin and Connecticut Aves.

by SG on Feb 23, 2009 1:36 am • link • report

Bianchi- I think Chinatown/Gallery Place or Foggy Bottom are dense neighborhoods. Cleveland Park has some good properties on CT Ave but it also has the strip mall-style development with a surface parking lot right next to the metro, a gas station right next to the metro, and another surface parking lot next to the 4P's. Additionally, there are several 1-story retail buildings on in Cleveland Park. For these reasons, I'd call Cleveland Park moderate density. Still, it is a much better corridor than Wisconsin Avenue.

by Ben on Feb 23, 2009 6:47 am • link • report

"I would also add that projects like this will not seriously impact the residential neighborhood. Just look at places like Clarendon where the residential community is successfully transitioned from the commercial corridor."

William,

I would agree that Clarendon and, to a lesser extent, Bethesda are good examples of where a lower density residential community is successfully transitioned from a higher density commercial/residential corridor. One way that this has been done is by making it more difficult for motorists to cut through or park on the adjacent side streets. Clarendon uses diverters, narrowed intersections, speed humps, one-way blocks, circles, etc., so that the surrounding residential neighborhoods are less impacted by more intensive development on the arterials. Are folks willing to support these measures on the side streets in Cleveland Park and McLean Gardens? If so, that type of traffic calming will cost more than the proposed $100,000 escrow? Thanks.

by AEO on Feb 23, 2009 7:37 am • link • report

Clarendon also a large zone of moderate density development, such as the townhouses that line the back of the former Sears site between the higher densities and the low density residential neighborhood. This further discourages parking in the neighborhood by patrons of those businesses and guests of residents, since the walk from those neighborhoods is relatively long and indirect. In addition, relatively high minimum parking requirements and smaller resident parking zones further reduce the parking impact. The traffic spillover is reduced by the measures AEO decribes as well as the measures that reduce the parking-related traffic in the neighborhood.

by Tom on Feb 23, 2009 8:10 am • link • report

The placement of the density along a well serviced transit corridor greatly reduces the demand or need for cars. These are vibrant self-contained neighborhoods where someone can live, work and send their kids to school without the need for intensive automobile use.

I would support the implementation of such traffic mitigation measures if it becomes necessary, but I seriously doubt this project will cause the impact the folks opposed to it are trying to claim. The traffic studies say that there will be a doubling of traffic to the development, not that there will be a doubling of traffic in the area. There is a big difference. Most, if not all, of this traffic will be accessing the development from Wisconsin Avenue.

In fact, I would be willing to bet that streets like Macomb and Newark will see less traffic and less demand for street parking because more people will walk to the development and there is more parking provided within the development. We are talking, what, 160 housing units?

by William on Feb 23, 2009 8:53 am • link • report

Councilmember Phil Mendelson also testified in opposition to the PUD proposal and in support of the neighborhood commercial overlay zone remaining. His is a well-reasoned statement from an expert who has spent years thinking about balanced growth and neighborhood preservation:

April 6, 2009

TESTIMONY REGARDING ZONING CASE 08-15

(Friendship Shopping Center, Wisconsin Avenue & Newark Street, NW)

I am Phil Mendelson. I lived for 33 years at McLean Gardens, including 15 years on Newark Street, two blocks from this development. I represented the area subject to this zoning application while ANC Commissioner from 1979 until 1999. I was involved in the rezoning of this area to C-1 and mapping it with a neighborhood-commercial overlay in 1989. I support redevelopment of Squares 1920 and 1920N. But I do not support the PUD application before you.

For as long as there has been a home-rule adopted comprehensive plan, the Wisconsin/Newark commercial district has been designated low density commercial. The most recent version of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as low density commercial. Not mixed use with moderate density residential on the north parcel, as proposed in this case.

The rezoning and overlay mapping in 1989 rendered this area consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It was done because the community and city recognized that the focus of this commercial node along Wisconsin Avenue was low density, neighborhood shopping. Nothing has changed in the Plan or reality over the subsequent 20 years to alter this vision.

There are elements of the proposed PUD that are at odds with this vision. But the primary point I wish to make is that the proposal before you will destroy the neighborhood commercial overlay for this particular area, and, of even greater concern, it will set a precedent that jeopardizes overlays elsewhere in the city.

• First, the PUD would remove all of Square 1920N and virtually all of Square 1920 from the overlay and little would be left in the overlay district.

• Second, the PUD would start over the count for limitations on restaurants and drinking establishments, and would start over the count for limitations on office-type retail (e.g., banks, etc.) - in effect, expanding these uses within the area currently comprising the overlay.

• Third, the PUD will increase height and density, not only above what is permitted under the current zoning, but what is permitted matter-of-right under the proposed zoning.

You might ask: what difference does this make? The added density is primarily residential, and the added height is perhaps 11 feet. Further, the bulk of the massing is near Idaho Avenue where there is already a mid-to-high-rise building at McLean Gardens.

Testimony of Phil Mendelson April 6, 2009

Zoning Case 08-15 (Friendship Shopping Center) Page Two

The difference to be considered is the significant policy implication of gutting an overlay - and doing so not as part of a larger planning exercise, but rather in response to a site-specific development proposal.

The Wisconsin/Macomb Neighborhood Commercial Overlay District is not the only overlay that constrains PUD heights and density to matter-of-right limits (11 DCMR 1305). This constraint applies to every neighborhood commercial overlay, and to the Dupont Circle Overlay District as well. The purpose of this constraint is to discourage PUD end-runs around the overlay. But that is precisely what is before you.

This is a significant policy matter. If you approve the PUD as proposed, you send a signal to developers regarding every one of these overlays. A precedent has been set: that the Zoning Commission will entertain changes to height and density on a case by case basis, in spite of the broad policy constraint. The policy has no teeth. The policy, written broadly, is intended to stop case-by-case changes, but now it is to be subject to exceptions, entertained on a case-by-case basis. In terms of height and density, the overlay becomes meaningless.

The Office of Planning does a great disservice by ignoring the broad implication of what it is recommending. The OP report gives no discussion.

The greater heights and density in the proposal before you raise other planning concerns. When the Wisconsin/Macomb commercial district began maybe a century ago, the center was along Macomb Street, NW. After the development of McLean Gardens during World War II, the Friendship Shopping Center was built and the center of the commercial district was more appropriately located at Wisconsin and Newark.

But from a land use planning perspective, the proposed PUD would move the center of the commercial district to its northern border. That is where the greatest height and density will be found - at Wisconsin and Idaho. One would expect something contrary: usually the edge of a district steps down in height and density and acts as a buffer.

I want to make one other point. I join with residents throughout the area seeking a new, revitalized shopping center with a better supermarket. The current landowner, or a developer, can do this within the constraints of the neighborhood commercial overlay, especially with a rezoning to C-2-A. Indeed, that was the basis of several proposals throughout most of this decade.

Thank you for consideration of my views.

by AEO on Apr 8, 2009 8:18 pm • link • report

And yet another reason why this Councilmember doesn't deserve yet another term.

by William on Apr 8, 2009 9:54 pm • link • report

I'd put my money on Phil getting re-elected any day over Cheh getting re-elected. She was elected as a smart-growth candidate and switched to being a pro-any-growth sycophant.

by Tom on Apr 9, 2009 8:36 pm • link • report

So was checking up on status of the Giant rebuild which, is my humble opinion way over due, because the Safeway down the hill is closing on the 26th and came across this and now completely understand why the Giant will never be redeveloped. Apparently the residents in the surrounding neighbors are horrified by the fact that they might have to alter their lifestyle and lose their precious precious onstreet parking for their second, third, fourth vehicles in order to allow progress that would benefit the entire community. Of course we can't allow that to happen can we? not if it means that they are put-out in some fashion. They are special aren't they? by all means, halt a development that will only benefit that area in the long term. Yes it will be a horrible inconvenience during the construction but then on some lovely wonderful day it will be over and everyone will wonder why it took so long. You chose to live in the city. Cities change and grow. if stagnation is what you need to survive please move elsewhere. oh and on a pecuniary note for those that worry that the value of their homes will decrease - let me see here, a decent grocery store, retail stores, pedestrian friendly? doesn't that increase the value of an area? make it more attractive to new buyers? everything at their fingertips and only a walk away?

by noyb on Apr 20, 2009 1:56 pm • link • report

Note that there are hundreds of supporters of this project who live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed construction zone. This is literally a handful of self-selected residents who are close to Phil M. who oppose this project.

by William on Apr 20, 2009 2:08 pm • link • report

The Zoning Commission voted 4 to 0 to APPROVE the Giant PUD.

by MichaelA on Jun 9, 2009 7:43 pm • link • report