Posts about Zoning Commission

DC needs to fix parking minimums, and quick

First of all, this clearly shows why we need to reform the zoning code. It also shows the consequences of overly restrictive rules.

Many people like rules that force almost any development to request zoning relief, because it gives residents a chance to speak up at a hearing or for neighborhood groups to ask for changes or concessions. However, such a process also forces property owners to hire lawyers and spend months to get through these hearings.

Perversely, that is a lot easier for the big project which will have a greater impact on the neighborhood than for a smaller property owner, or in this case, a nonprofit opening with city financial assistance in an area which has struggled to attract many types of businesses.

The council can't, and shouldn't, override

Okay, but until we fix zoning, does the Playhouse have to suffer? Wells (ward 6) and Barry (ward 8) introduced emergency legislation to let the project move ahead, but as the City Paper also reports, Council Chairman Phil Mendelson refused to put it on the calendar. Is Mendelson being a scrooge? Not really.

That's because the DC Council does not have power over zoning. Before Home Rule in 1974, the federal government controlled all zoning. Congress didn't entirely trust DC's elected representatives to make land use choices, so it gave that power to the Zoning Commission, a 5-member board with 3 people appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council, and 2 federal representatives.

The DC Council passes plans, like the Comprehensive Plan and individual Small Area Plans, which the Zoning Commission is supposed to follow. But the Zoning Commission actually decides whether to rezone any property or change the regulations. The BZA is a second hybrid federal-local board which rules on individual variances and exceptions based on the zoning code.

The pending zoning update doesn't need any approval from the council—just the Zoning Commission. While some councilmembers (like Muriel Bowser) have nonetheless been catering to residents who oppose the update, wiser councilmembers have been staying out of this contentious issue.

Barry's and Wells' original bill would allow DC's Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to give the Playhouse permits to move ahead, but only temporarily. If the Playhouse then gets the zoning relief it needs, it can keep moving ahead; if for some reason it doesn't, it would have wasted a lot of time. But since the ANC, the Office of Planning, and basically everyone else supports the Playhouse's petition, they'd probably be okay.

Override this time, and what's next?

Still, the bill flirts with a dangerous precedent: directing DC agencies to partly disregard zoning. The Zoning Commission has no police force to enforce its orders. It relies on DCRA to deny permits that don't have zoning relief. We don't want to go down a slippery slope where the Council passes laws telling DCRA to grant permits for projects that violate zoning.

It could work the other way as well. Residents angry about a proposed apartment building at Connecticut and Military asked Councilmember Mary Cheh (ward 3) to intervene and even pass an emergency law directing DCRA to block the project, at least temporarily, until there can be more community meetings. Cheh rightly pointed out that she doesn't have that power.

In one of her responses to neighbors, Cheh wrote,

The Council has no authority over the zoning code: the Home Rule Act defined the Council's legislative authority, but made it clear that the Zoning Commission has full authority over zoning matters. The issue was addressed directly by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, who concluded that "the Zoning Commission is the exclusive agency vested with power to enact zoning regulations." ...

You ask that I petition the Mayor to direct the agencies not to issue any more permits until the concerns are addressed. Again, because there is no discretion in the issuance of permits, an intentional delay could open the District up to liability for takings and discrimination. The law simply does not allow the remedy that you seek.

This bill is probably safe because it doesn't seem like anyone actually has a problem with the project, but it's not a good idea to possibly set a dangerous precedent just because this specific case is uncontroversial.

There might be other fixes

This case does point to a flaw in the zoning process, in addition to the silly parking rules. Perhaps there should be a way for a property owner to petition for an expedited hearing when a longer delay would cause some hardship. Other processes include such shortcuts.

In fact, the zoning update doesn't do that, but it does allow the BZA to add a "consent calendar" where they can move through uncontroversial matters much more quickly. Perhaps that can help as well for the next Anacostia Playhouse.

And we need to get rid of parking minimums. This case shows how, while stricter rules can sometimes prevent bad projects, they also can at times interfere with good ones. Zoning restrictions have a cost.

As for the Playhouse, apparently the problem is that the building and its parking aren't on the same tax lot. A public alley separates the two. The DC Council does have complete control over tax lots and public alleys, unlike with zoning. Perhaps an emergency bill could temporarily close the alley, transfer the alley property to the Playhouse with a permanent public easement to let the public continue to cross it, join the two into one tax lot, then specify that everything goes back to the status quo ante, say, one year from now? Then DCRA can declare that the property meets current zoning and grant permits without messing with zoning at all.

That's still messy and an awkward thing to do by emergency legislation, but to me it's less dangerous than having DCRA issue a permit for a property that doesn't meet zoning. Or perhaps the clever attorneys in the council and DCRA could come up with another way to make the property conform to zoning while we wait for the slower process of making zoning conform to common sense and the needs of our city today.

Corner stores are very hard to open today

Today, it is almost impossible to put a store in a residential area, even in a location that historically had one, but the store closed. That means neighborhoods that once had walkable retail have lost the opportunity.

Someone can get a variance, but there is a very high legal bar that the owner essentially has to prove they can't use the property without it; since the building works fine as a residence, that's not possible. So even if neighbors are eager for a store, there isn't a path to get one.

One approach would be to allow a special exception, where the owner still has to go through a time-consuming and costly legal process, but the standard is lower. That gives residents a say, which is what many people want to see happen. Still, the process can be a burden; Aaron Wiener's story on the Anacostia Playhouse shows how waiting for a zoning hearing can block something even if people support it and the zoning board is almost sure to approve it.

The Office of Planning took a different approach. They instead said, if people are really concerned that a store will bring trash, noise, and smells, let's just set strict limits to avoid the impacts, but if someone can open a store with minimal effect on neighbors, then allow them to move forward without the time and expense of a hearing.

OP ended up placing so many limits on the stores, though, that it's possible we will see almost no corner stores. In particular, the stores now have to be in actual corner buildings, or buildings originally built as commercial; they also can't be within 500 feet of a commercial corridor to avoid competing with the commercial space.

The proposal also only applies in medium density house zones, but not detached house neighborhoods or higher-density apartment neighborhoods. All told, that leaves very few eligible spots for stores.

Here is Harriet Tregoning explaining the reasons for the corner store proposal at the recent DC Council oversight hearing:

An alternative: special exception, but more broadly

The Zoning Commission (ZC) ought to accept OP's proposal or even loosen the set of restrictions. However, if that board decides they aren't comfortable with any matter-of-right stores and wants to require a special exception, then potential retailers should be able to ask for a special exception to some of the restrictions as well.

In other words, if we believe that it necessary to have a zoning hearing that gives residents a chance to weigh in, and that forum can balance residents' desire for the store against the potential impacts, then we should trust the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) to have the leeway to decide how many square feet is too much, or how close to other stores is too close, or whether the store can include something on the second floor of a building.

OP devised a set of restrictions they thought would ensure stores had minimal impact. They suggested allowing stores as of right in only these extremely narrow circumstances. If ANCs or the ZC don't like this approach, fine, but then we don't really need this extreme set of restrictions.

Instead, make these general criteria the BZA should consider, but give the BZA freedom to allow a corner store even when it doesn't meet all of these criteria. Instead of a rule limiting the stores to corner buildings and historically commercial ones, let the BZA consider the impact on neighbors, understanding that a corner building may be less likely to affect neighbors.

Instead of forbidding stores within 500 feet of commercial corridors, let the BZA decide if the store is going to sap nearby commercial space. Sometimes there's commercial zoning nearby but few or no actual stores, not because the properties are vacant but because they're filled with other things. The BZA could have the power to decide whether a store is going to detract from a commercial strip, or not.

ANC 6B seems open to loosening some of the restrictions:

During ANC 6B's deliberations on this issue, there was discussion about the restriction in OP's proposal that a proposed use not be within 500 feet of a commercial zone and whether a different or more flexible standard might be worth considering. ANC 6B also discussed whether to recommend that "purpose built structures" should be matter-of-right rather than require a special exception. ANC 6B will investigate these questions and may propose further comments and recommendations at a later stage of the consideration of these zoning changes.

The other approach is to pass the ball to a group of people who make a case-by-case decision including resident input on a case by case basis. In this situation, you don't need a lot of detailed rules, just guidelines, because the board can use its discretion.

There's no reason to do have both a very tight set of rules and also require a hearing even to open a store that meets all of those tests. Either go with OP's proposal as is, or replace it wholesale with a rule that you can create a corner store in a residential area under a broader set of circumstances, but need a public hearing and a special exception to do it.

His wife, Ruthanne Miller, is now chair of the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) board. She replaced Charles Brodsky, whose aggressive rulings and legal troubles we discussed yesterday. Ms. Miller also served 6 years on the Board of Zoning Adjustment, the last 2 as its chair.

Cheryl Cort, Policy Director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said,

Rob is a great choice. He has been part of every comprehensive plan process going back decades. We will benefit from his years of experience dealing with land use policy and the public through a role on the Zoning Commission.

I have great confidence in his ability to faithfully apply and interpret the zoning rules, and help the city revise its badly outdated 1950s code. I suspect no person in DC has listened to more hours of public testimony than Rob.

The Zoning Commission is one of DC's most powerful boards. In most jurisdictions, the elected legislature is the final arbiter of zoning decisions. Because of DC's strange hybrid federal-local dynamic, the zoning power lies with a 5-member board which has 3 mayoral appointees and 2 federal members, from the National Park Service and Architect of the Capitol.

The DC Council passes plans like the Comprehensive Plan and small area plans and the Zoning Commission must make decisions consistent with those plans, but the council has no control over rezoning any land, changing the text of the zoning code, or approving any Planned Unit Developments.

As a result, it's absolutely critical that the District's members share the mayor's agenda. The Gray administration has set ambitious goals to attract 250,000 new residents by 2032, make 75% of trips by bicycle, walk or transit, and cut obesity, energy usage, and greenhouse gas emissions all by 50%.

How the built environment develops will make or break these goals. The decisions of the Zoning Commission, from the citywide zoning update to individual projects, will make this possible or move the District in the opposite direction.

Too often in the past, nominations to powerful boards like the Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Review Board, the Alcoholic Beverage Control board and others, revolved around personal relationships instead of policy concordance.

This choice has both, and will keep DC on a solid path toward greater livability and sustainability.

The campus plan will now last for a 7-year term, beginning January 1, 2011 and ending December 31, 2017, instead of a 10-year-term. During this time, community and university leaders will work on a 20-year-plan.

The ten-year campus planning process is broken, as GGW contributor Jacques Arsenault explained last year. It sets neighbors and Universities up to push as hard as they can once a decade because they know they won't get another chance at talks for 10 years.

Georgetown and its neighbors have recognized this and are defining their own process, to be approved by the Zoning Commission, which is more collaborative. It makes a lot of sense.

The University and neighbors will create joint committees to design programs to bring the University and neighborhood communities together, and address issues when they arise.

Only 3-4 decades ago, the University and the neighbors formed a single community with extensive interactions and relationships. Just watch the film The Exorcist to get an idea of what Georgetown was like in the early 70s - neighbors, priests, faculty and students interacted often.

There is significant desire among Georgetowners to return to this period of community and shared purpose. Most neighbors actually care deeply about the intellectual and character formation of Georgetown students, and most students and professors care deeply about the families outside the university gates. These committees reflect that shared feeling.

Students in "Magis Row" student townhouses on 36th Street NW will be housed on campus by Fall 2013 so that the "Magis Row" townhouses can transitioned to faculty and staff housing.

Central to the residential college model is faculty who live on or near campus, and thus interact with students in their residential life. The high cost of housing in DC makes it hard to do this, but Georgetown University is making a commitment to house professors and staff in what is currently student group housing.

New emphasis on a living and learning campus that centralizes student social life on campus.

Two GGW contributors, Jake Sticka and Kara Brandeisky, penned an excellent appeal to improve social life on campus as a solution to the campus plan dispute.

Georgetown leaders are committed to improving social spaces on campus in order to create a true residential college atmosphere in which living and learning are not physically separated.

Living off campus will be treated as a privilege, not a right, and granted based on one's disciplinary record.

In the 60s, priests walked the streets of Georgetown enforcing a curfew for students living off-campus. Most universities now isolate students into large dorm complexes or off-campus quarters.

Part of the residential college model is avoiding the wall that many universities erect between residential life and a student's intellectual and character formation. Georgetown University is taking more responsibility for the formation of students living off-campus with this measure.

450 additional beds will be created on campus.

As part of the commitment to the residential college model, University leaders will add 450 more beds to accommodate students moving on-campus. Along with measures to improve social spaces and liberalize alcohol policies on campus, the addition of 450 beds will help shift the locus of students' social life onto campus, where it is more integrated with the intellectual life of the University.

The University will propose significantly improved measures for relieving parking and traffic congestion in Georgetown. Their first proposal is to not allow off-campus undergraduates to bring cars into Georgetown.

Topher Mathews, Kara and I posted a plea last year to the University to find innovative, progressive ways to better manage transportation demand on the campus of the largest employer in the city.

Georgetown University has a serious commitment to environmental sustainability and is serious about joining the discourse over smart growth and planning.

There's more to the plan, and you can read about it on ANC2E's web site. Leaders on all sides of the Georgetown campus plan dialogue are to be congratulated for this accord and the spirit it embodies.

In one of DC's most controversial preservation cases, the HPRB rejected the application, since the church had been designated as historic. The owners appealed, and Mayor Fenty asked planning director Harriet Tregoning to personally sit as the Mayor's Agent, which hears such appeals. Using the broader discretion available to the Mayor's Agent, she granted the raze, but only once the owners present a new design that gets past historic and other review.

Separately, the church and developer also reached a settlement with the DC Preservation League where they gave $450,000 for DCPL's operations preservation programs involving religious properties in exchange for DCPL ending their fight against the project, the staff report notes; other groups such as the Committee of 100 continued to oppose razing the structure.

Earlier this year, the developers working with the church proposed an 11-story building with ground floor retail, offices above, and a church space on the first 3 floors at one end. Since the buildings along 16th have cornices at 90 feet above the street, they designed a building with its own cornice line slightly below that height. Behind and set back, a glassier structure would rise to the higher point.

Original proposal. Image scanned from submission by ICG Properties.

This building would still not be as tall as the adjacent one to the west on I Street, which falls into a different zone and isn't part of the historic district.

At a community meeting with residents of the Dupont and Golden Triangle area a few months ago, people were generally enthusiastic about the proposal. Architect and former HPO staffer Michael Beidler suggested some ways to set the upper portion back slightly more to create more separation.

Last month, however, the designers presented a different and significantly smaller proposal. Staff of the Historic Preservation Office (HPO), and some of the groups that opposed the original raze, opposed having a building taller than the 90 feet prevailing along the street. In response, the architects shrank the top portion to a single extra floor, set significantly back and only minimally visible from anywhere outside.

Revised "compromise" proposal. Image scanned from submission by ICG Properties.

In their staff report, HPO rejects even that proposal. The report argues that on 16th Street, it is not historically appropriate to allow any buildings over the prevailing 90 foot size. A few buildings have penthouses, but not ones with space for people to use, and the report seeks to draw a firm line there; if this building can even have a single floor of occupiable penthouse, then the St. Regis hotel will want a rooftop restaurant, it says, and several other buildings will likely follow suit.

The property owner's argument is also more difficult in that they're looking to exceed zoning, though in legally permissible ways. In the typical preservation density dispute, staff want to restrict a building far more than the zoning permits in that area. Here, the owners want to rezone the property from SP-2 to C-3-C as well, which would give greater flexibility, and also to seek a Planned Unit Development, where the Zoning Commission reviews the project in exchange for even more flexibility.

Still, if successful, HPO's action has consequences for the city far beyond the look of the street. To take away the top 2 floors whe moving from the original proposal to what the owners call the "compromise" proposal, they reduced the interior space from about 14,000 to 10,000 square feet, they said during a presentation. At a typical rule of thumb of 250 square feet per office, that would cut 152 potential jobs from downtown DC. HPO's recommended limits would squeeze that further.

Jobs are the centerpiece of Mayor Gray's agenda, and one prerequisite for jobs is space. Already, many companies DC would love to attract, like technology companies, have trouble finding affordable office space compared to the suburbs or other cities.

Downtown, in particular, is the best place for jobs because it already has the transportation infrastructure to move more people in and out than in any other part of the region. It has the restaurants and the office supply stores and more. Plus, residents of many neighborhoods don't want too many office buildings coming into their areas; Dupont residents fought for decades to prevent the neighborhood from completely changing into an office-only extension of the Golden Triangle, for instance. Jobs, and space for jobs, downtown reduces the pressure elsewhere.

To me, the original concept doesn't look out of place in downtown. The grand avenue leading to the White House would be just as grand, if not grander, if buildings flanking it had slightly taller sections behind the main cornice lines that more closely matched the buildings right off 16th.

The report makes a good point that it would be better to set limits for the entire street, rather than piecemeal. However, this debate should more properly be part of a zoning discussion. If piecemeal rezoning a block of an SP-2 district to C-3-C is inappropriate, then it should be inappropriate in an SP-2 zone not subject to historic review. The Zoning Commission has the power to decide whether this should be a C-3-C PUD or just a standard SP-2; they should properly make that decision, not HPRB.

If this were already C-3-C, or if the Zoning Commission decides to rezone it, then a building of this size isn't inappropriate. The report makes repeated reference to provisions in the Comprehensive Plan about preserving the "historic, majestic, and beautiful" avenues, but an avenue can still be all of these things with buildings scaled to downtown.

The developers have some legitimate gripes about this process. They were originally scheduled for an HPRB meeting on May 3, but HPO did not issue its staff report by the Friday before the meeting, as usual. That forced them to postpone the project since there would not be enough time to respond to the staff report, said Sylianos Christofides, a principal at ICG, the project's developer.

In the meantime, the Dupont Conservancy, which initially endorsed the "compromise" approach, reversed its position between the two meetings. They say that ICG changed the project, warranting re-review, but Christofides insists they made no changes. Disclosure: I am a member of the Conservancy and was present at the meeting where the project first came up, but not at the second one.

This process also misses opportunities to create a more appealing building. When applying for the raze, the developers insisted that they would replace it with a top-quality building; I wrote that "HPRB now has a chance to shape some excellent architecture at this site."

Proposed glass above church entrance. Image scanned from submission by ICG Properties.

The church entrance will have an interesting faceted glass arrangement (which hopefully would not be too hard to clean), but the rest of the building, while perfectly reasonable for an office building (and far better than some of the concrete boxes nearby), isn't especially interesting either. Instead of pushing for more significant architecture on the rest of the project, HPO has focused on just asking for a smaller building.

A grand avenue might have been better served by a building which stands out for its detailing and architectural quality instead of just having to get smaller so as to fade away and not impinge upon the consciousness. In past eras, the grand avenue leading to the White House was a place for notable and visible buildings, not invisible ones. Sadly, our preservation process has more recently evolved into one that tries to make each building as close to nonexistent as possible rather than truly great.

Update: Rebecca Miller of DCPL emailed in with additional information about what the $450,000 payment will fund:

The fund is to be used towards educational and outreach programs related to religious properties and mid-century modernism. The fund will also have a grant component to which congregations will be able to apply to the fund for bricks and mortar money or other projects such as research etc.

The commenters who weren't pleased with the rule were not opposed to the corner stores, but rather felt that limiting their hours to closing by 7 pm is too restrictive. One Twitter response linked to a Far Side cartoon which showed a new type of retail, the "inconvenience store," with all products on shelves too high to reach.

Yet another expressed surprise that corner stores in residential zones were illegal at all in the District; that comment's author hadn't realized that, perhaps because of their prevalence in historic neighborhoods like Georgetown.

Read these comments, and you would get the impression that we need substantially fewer zoning regulations. Read a few of the postings on some neighborhood listservs, and you might conclude that each individual change in the zoning code will bring mass destruction upon the neighborhoods of the District.

A blog's commenters are not fully representative of the residents of DC. Nor is a neighborhood listserv, nor the citizen Task Force advising on the rewrite, and certainly not the witness list at today's hearing. All, however, provide insight into one of many facets of the DC population and their views.

Decisions about the zoning rewrite should factor in input from as many residents as possible, even—or especially—those who can't attend an evening community meeting or a council hearing, and even those who don't read blogs and neighborhood listservs.

This zoning code will move DC forward in many ways. Or, in truth, it will actually move DC backward, but in a good way. The biggest changes in this zoning code actually return DC to policies it had before 1958, when our most treasured neighborhoods, like Capitol Hill, Georgetown, or Petworth grew into the form they have today.

Corner stores, garage apartments, alley dwellings, and buildings not surrounded by large parking lots are all characteristics of DC's most historic neighborhoods, which at a stroke the 1958 code made illegal. This code reverses that, and adds some 21st century touches like the Green Area Ratio.

However, I do think many elements of the current draft proposal are indeed "too timid."

• The minimum parking requirements for nonresidential uses in residential zones, even low-density ones right near transit, are potentially quite destructive to our urban fabric as they have been for over 50 years. In some areas, we need maximums instead, an approach which OP recently dropped from the draft.

• The "corner store" rules should apply to more areas, even lower density zones and areas somewhat near commercial zones; should include performing arts uses like small theaters; and should include a path for the BZA to grant exceptions acceptable to neighbors and local leaders.

  I do think many of the restrictions in the draft are appropriate, and disagree with Yglesias on the specific one (cooking of food and grease traps) he was objecting to. OP has tried hard to balance stakeholder interests on a very contentious issue.

• The right to add an accessory dwelling to one's home, proposed for the lowest density zones and already possible for high density ones, should also apply to the moderate density "R3" row house zones.

I understand that in at least some cases, OP officials have met privately with various opponents of the zoning rewrite, and made specific changes to exempt some zones from some changes in an attempt to appease those opponents.

I have no objection to OP meeting with anyone who wishes to talk with them, but I would prefer to see OP propose a zoning rewrite which they believe is the best policy for the District and in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, regardless of who may or may not oppose it. After all, we have hardly yet heard the views of most DC residents on these changes.

This hearing, of course, is about the performance of the Office of Planning, not the merits of the zoning code. I believe the staff on this project have handled its great complexity with aplomb, and if I have any complaint about the agency's performance, it only comes if and when they have felt restrained from putting forth the zoning code they believe to be right. Let them do so, and then let the Zoning Commission hear from residents and judge the merit of each proposal.

ANC 2E first became publicly involved in the campus plan discussion in January, when it hosted a town hall at the Duke Ellington School. Representatives from the ANC, the local neighborhood associations, and the university were present to discuss the plan and to solicit feedback and comments from community members.

Following this town hall, select members of ANC 2E drafted a 16-page resolution on the campus plan. After discussion at the ANC's March meeting, the resolution passed. It has subsequently had significant impact on the Office of Planning's review of the campus plan, which surprised many by recommending cuts in Georgetown enrollment if it doesn't house 100% of students on campus by 2016.

As an elected representative to ANC 2E I opposed that resolution, but nonetheless felt satisfied with the process. All voices on the matter were heard, and I was able to make the views of my constituents clear via my vote in opposition.

The same cannot be said of the supplementary report that was released last week, and which goes before the Zoning Commission today.

The supplementary report never appeared on a public agenda nor was it ever put to a vote. Despite being very engaged with the campus plan, and despite being a member of ANC 2E's town-gown committee, I only became aware of the existence of this report when it appeared on The Georgetown Metropolitan.

I asked ANC 2E chair Ron Lewis how it was that this report carried the full letterhead and endorsement of ANC 2E despite not having been voted upon. He referred me to a resolution passed in October 2010 (before my election) that reads:

Be it resolved by Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2E, that whenever a resolution or recommendation is adopted by the Commission that relates to a particular matter that is or will be before an agency, entity or instrumentality of the District of Columbia Government or of the United States Government, any Commissioner, or any one or more of them, or any successor thereto, who in each case has voted in favor of the resolution or recommendation so adopted, may represent the Commission before such agency, entity or instrumentality with respect to such matter. Further, any such Commissioner, with the approval of the Chair or in the Chair's absence, the Vice Chair, of the Commission, may authorize any other person to represent, assist in representing, or temporarily represent the Commission, in each case on a pro bono basis without fee, before such agency, entity or instrumentality with respect to such matter.

However, Lewis has clearly gone beyond the the intent of the resolution by creating a supplemental report over twice the size of the resolution it is augmenting, and which covers several new issues.

The report primarily attempts to discredit new initiatives Georgetown University instituted in response to community concerns. These programs include a late-night shuttle between campus and M Street, a daily trash collection service, and a significant increase in the number of reimbursable police details in the community. The report also addresses several of the points that GU made in its rebuttal statement, filed in July.

The original ANC 2E resolution does not address these programs or the the rebuttal statement because they did not exist at the time it was drafted. It is clear that the November 8th report is not in fact supplementary to anything, but is rather its own, original report. It does not clarify established positions, but rather establishes new positions about new issues.

Considering this fact, it is disappointing that the leadership of ANC 2E did not feel as though a public vote was justified. One of the best aspects of the ANC system is that it supports direct connection to the community. Constituents should always feel as though they have viewpoints heard. In the case of this supplementary report, that clearly isn't what happened. Instead, this report has been created in a completely non-transparent manner that undermines its authority.

It is my hope that Zoning Commission will consider the non-democratic drafting process behind the supplementary report as it reviews this case. Going forward, it is also my hope that ANC 2E will uphold the promise of the ANC system, and be more transparent and open in its proceedings.