Zoning Update - Greater Greater Washington

Ward 3 Democrats forget mission, fixate on parking

Thu, 02 May 2013 12:24:00 EDT

A Republican, Patrick Mara, just got the most votes in DC's Ward 3 in a special election. Leaders of the Ward 3 Democratic Committee, an organization formed "to support and elect Democratic candidates for local and national office," meanwhile, were more concerned with ramming through a resolution against the DC zoning rewrite's parking proposals.

Photo by Mr Thinktank on Flickr.

This resolution claims that the DC Office of Planning has no data to back up its recommendations to eliminate minimum parking requirements near transit or for new single-family homes and small residential buildings, and reduce them for schools. It implies without any basis that the zoning rewrite will actually take away parking.

The Ward 3 Dem leaders behind this resolution are now going around claiming that this reflects the views of Democrats in Ward 3. In reality, it represents only the views of 23 out of 94 delegates in the group. Its supporters used procedural maneuvers to ensure it would pass without delegates even getting to debate the merits of the issue.

The task force

Last fall, resident John Chelen, an avowed opponent of the zoning rewrite, approached Ward 3 Democrats chairperson Shelly Tomkin. He had already formed a "task force" made up of about 7 people who opposed the zoning rewrite and some who had publicly testified against it. Chelen suggested to Tomkin that the task force put together a white paper on the subject, supposedly to inform the delegates of the pros and cons of the proposals.

Chelen testified against the rewrite process on October 5, 2012, asking the DC Council to step in and essentially require the Office of Planning to restart the 5-year project. This came before his task force had issued any paper on the merits of the zoning rewrite and before the organization's broader membership had debated the issues or adopted any resolution.

Tomkin approved this task force without including any members with differing points of view. When word got out about the task force from Chelen's testimony, Ward 3 Democratic Committee delegate Ellen Bass and another resident insisted that Chelen include them to give some balance (although even after a 3rd resident joined later, they were a minority of the members). Chelen, after substantial initial delay, permitted them to join.

The group's "white paper" purported to be a fact-based analysis of the Office of Planning's policy recommendations on parking. But not surprisingly, the report contained only "facts" that supported the anti-rewrite position and unsupported assertions about the horribles that will result if DC adopts the proposals. Yet Tomkin distributed it to the Committee delegates as an objective statement of the "pros and cons" of the proposals without any caveat about dissenters on the task force.

For example, there is no mention of the environmental concerns about car use and vehicle congestion. The report cites no data to back up assertions like these:

In most instances, current parking requirements are substantially less than likely parking need that would be generated by use, so current requirements only partially mitigate the impact of spillover parking.

Elimination of minimum parking requirements on transit zones will result in spillover parking in residential neighborhoods near Metro stations

Elimination of minimum parking requirements ... will result in people who live near transit zones or downtown to walk blocks from their car to their home ...

The rewrite will reduce parking requirements for schools, hotels, and churches. [In fact, all the rewrite proposes to do is base the requirement on square footage rather than factors that change over time like number of seats, rooms and employees.]

The paper also reflected a clear anti-zoning rewrite bias. It contained arguments attacking the OP proposals which it called "Stated Justifications." According to Bass, she had prepared a more balanced draft, but then 2 avowed opponents of the parking proposals reworked it. She and two other members who did not agree with the paper prepared their own "Alternative Analysis," which Bass said she had to distribute to Committee delegates herself.

The resolution

Chelen then presented a resolution condemning OP's parking proposals at the Ward 3 Dems' April 11 meeting. It states, among other things, that the "parking proposals adversely will affect residents, businesses and the vibrancy of the city," that they "do not reflect community preferences," and that they are "not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan."

These are at best opinion statements not supported by data in the "white paper." For one thing, the zoning task force did not assess the community preference beyond its own membership of 10 or so people, and 3 of those people did not agree that the parking proposals would be detrimental. As for the Comprehensive Plan, this too would prove without basis, as soon became clear.

The first order of business on April 11 was a lengthy debate on whether attending members could vote in place of absent delegates, as the Committee Bylaws clearly permit. After much discussion, Tomkin thought better of denying these members their vote, but because of the time it took to resolve this issue, and Tomkin's decision to let an unrelated speaker give his presentation first, delegates grew impatient and some left before the late vote.

Furthermore, procedural shenanigans by the resolution's supporters ensured there would be no floor debate on its substance. Yes, on a very contentious issue that has divided many in Ward 3, and on a resolution that says policies "are not supported by data," there was no actual discussion about those facts. While the resolution purported to reflect "community preferences," community members never had a chance to talk about their preferences.

Tom Smith, an ANC commissioner and Committee delegate, did insist on asking Chelen how many parking places in Ward 3 would be eliminated if the rewrite went through. Chelen responded that he did not know and did not have any examples he could cite, but he was sure it would happen.

Afterwards, Chairperson Tomkin issued a statement in "themail," claiming that the resolution "was approved in a vote by a broad majority taken April 11." This careful wording obscures the reality that just 23 people voted in favor, a small proportion of the 94 Committee delegates and hardly a majority of the Ward 3 Democratic Committee. In fact, fewer than half the delegates (only about 44 people) even bothered to attend the April 11 meeting. By the time the resolution came up for a vote after 9:30 pm, there was barely a quorum present, and only about 30 delegates even voted.

The resolution does not speak for Democrats in Ward 3

The vote total is important because Chelen is pushing other organizations, such as the Cleveland Park Citizen's Association to adopt a similar resolution. He intends to bring this resolution to the DC Council as reflecting the views of Ward 3.

But his hyperbole is overblown and inaccurate. On the Chevy Chase listserv, he stated, "The resolution passed by a supermajority vote [of the Ward 3 Dems], a telling sign of community resistance to the ill-considered and over-reaching proposals made by the Office of Planning."

Ironically, despite the claim that the minimum parking proposals are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the very next day after the Ward 3 Dems vote, the Zoning Commission approved the Babes Billiards PUD, a mixed-use building in what would be a transit zone near a Metro station that would not have on-site parking. The PUD order cited 23 policies within the Comprehensive Plan that support a development with no on-site parking, beginning on page 11.

Being a neophyte at these political meetings, but not in life itself, I expected that a few motivated individuals could move the needle on getting things done through sheer guile and force of will. I was surprised, however, how an organization named the Ward 3 Democratic Committee could permit such a clearly non-democratic process, push through a white paper without even hearing dissenting viewpoints.

Today, the "white paper" is still not available on the Ward 3 Democrats' website, although it is available online, along with the "Alternative Analysis" from the 3 task force members who did not agree with the paper Chelen and Tomkin distributed. Instead of alienating Democrats by letting the group be a tool of those who want to advance a specific agenda on a non-partisan issue, the Ward 3 Democratic Committee ought to focus on its actual electoral mission.

88 comments

Politics, not good sense, drive Portland parking minimums

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:06:00 EDT

by Abigail Zenner

Opponents of DC's zoning update are touting news that Portland, Oregon is re-instituting parking minimums. They claim the Portland case proves eliminating minimums doesn't work. But it actually shows how sometimes leaders bow to political pressure and resident fears, even for a bad (popular) solution instead of a better (less understood) one.

SE Divison Street in Portland. Photo by Matt Kowal on Flickr.

Portland removed parking minimums in many neighborhoods with high-frequency bus lines in the 1980s. Recently, residents in the Richmond neighborhood pushed to reinstate some parking minimums after plans came to light for a new 81-unit building without off-street parking.

Many neighbors were frightened that the new building could make parking on street more difficult. It's an election year, and candidates wanted to cultivate votes from active residents in the area. They gave those residents what they wanted. Unfortunately for Portland, those residents skipped over a much better policy tool: on-street parking permits.

As Dick VanderHart explains in the Portland Mercury, the neighborhood has a vibrant nightlife which attracted new visitors to the area. Those visitors compete with residents for parking. Curbside parking is free at all times.

Residents can request residential permits to limit visitor parking and overnight parking. Last year, the city created a "mini" parking district program so individual neighborhoods can create new small parking districts, but so far, none have requested one.

Perhaps that's because it's not really hard to park there. In a Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) survey, most residents said that they usually park on the street 1-2 blocks from their homes and most spend little time looking for parking.

It isn't clear that a parking problem exists in Portland today. Plus, building more off-street parking will not do anything about visitors patronizing the new bars and cafes in the area. That's especially true as long as parking is free on every street in the area. No matter how much garage parking new buildings have, many people will find it more convenient and cheaper to park on the street until the city limits on-street parking or charges for it.

This closely parallels issues in DC. In many neighborhoods, it's becoming more difficult to park. We have parking minimums, but they clearly aren't preventing this. The solution is not to cling tenaciously to parking minimums, but to set up a better system that actually manages on-street spaces.

The Portland zoning code didn't fail. Instead, the residents didn't or couldn't use other parking management tools. We don't know yet if switching the code back will improve matters for unhappy residents—the vote just happened last week—but it's unlikely.

The new Portland policy require one space per 5 units for buildings with 30-40 units, one per 4 for buildings of 41-50 units, and one per 3 for buildings over 51 units. If the developer puts in bike parking and car sharing, they can relieve some of the requirement.

Perhaps because of the impending election, Portland's council may have acted hastily. The city was also working on other policies to deal with parking through basic transportation demand management measures, but that proposal was not finished in time for the council vote.

Opponents have been complaining most strongly about the DC proposal to exempt residential buildings of up to 10 units from parking requirements citywide. Portland still exempts buildings up to 3 times that size.

Plus, while many tout Portland as a transit mecca for its pioneering streetcars and other policies, the percentage of trips by transit here is triple that of Portland, which has no subway at all. TriMet has cut service in recent years, while WMATA has not. DC neighborhoods whose residents consider their transit fairly meager still have a lot of transit by the standards of many parts of Portland.

Portland's parking experience is not proof that parking minimums are necessary. Instead, it shows that politics can get in the way of good parking policy. Just because politicians in one city had a knee-jerk but nonsensical reaction to a certain neighborhood's complaints does not mean DC should do the same.

41 comments

Candidates want affordable housing, balk at more housing

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:53:00 EDT

by David Alpert

One of the most significant ways to ensure some affordable housing is to provide more housing. It's not the only way and not sufficient on its own, but the clear connection between housing supply and price appears lost on multiple candidates for the April 23 DC Council at-large special election.

Photo by james.thompson on Flickr.

At a Chevy Chase Community Association meeting last week, many candidates affirmed support for affordable housing, according to a report on the Chevy Chase listserv, but then wavered or even outright opposed allowing people to rent out basements, garages, or parts of their homes to create new housing opportunities.

Lorrie Scally wrote:

Patrick Mara said "No" to the rentals because he feared they would result in an overflow of students into already crowded schools.

Meanwhile, according to Scally, "Matthew Frumin expressed his support for ADU rentals in all residential neighborhoods," while Elissa Silverman said she wants to ensure they don't impact neighbors much (similar to what she said on Let's Choose DC).

Yet, Scally said, "The candidates' presentations gave support to DC education issues and affordable housing for residents." Mara has endorsed affordable housing spending in the past; on one of the Let's Choose questions he actually answered, he said, "I'm certain we can find the millions need to fund libraries and affordable housing initiatives." He told the DC realtors, "The cultural diversity of DC is at risk if we do not protect and build affordable housing."

Anita Bonds did not attend the forum.

Adding housing must be a part of the housing strategy

About 1,000 more people move into the District each month than the number who leave. Moreover, the demand to come into DC is even greater than this.

Absent enough new housing, many people who want to come here will rent or buy units in gentrifying neighborhoods where prices are still lower than elsewhere. That raises housing prices in those neighborhoods, hastening the problem of some longtime residents being or feeling priced out, and others deciding to take a windfall and sell their houses at a big profit.

If we want longtime residents to stay, an important element of the equation is to find somewhere else for the people to live who want to come into DC. Basement and garage apartments are one important potential source. We already have large single-family houses with one or two retirees who aren't actually using the whole house. Letting them rent the space is a win-win for everyone except for those who want to keep the neighborhood exclusive and underpopulated relative to its 1950 size.

A lot of people in Ward 3 would rather the population growth go somewhere else. A lot of people vote in Ward 3, and several candidates are clearly seeking their votes. But letting a whole section of the city opt out of growth is not the right policy. It harms poorer neighborhoods by diverting more housing pressure to other areas, hastening gentrification.

How do the candidates stack up?

Four years ago, when I endorsed Patrick Mara, I perhaps assumed too readily that because he lives in a denser neighborhood and bicycles, he also supports a growing city. He might, but he came out strongly against a new matter-of-right building in Chevy Chase, opposes accessory dwellings, and refused to answer either of the two Let's Choose questions on growth. That's disappointing and a little surprising for someone who claims to want less government regulation.

I'm also disappointed Elissa Silverman has not been stronger on smart growth. She has less reason to try to pander for votes in Ward 3, when Ward 6 has become the highest-voting ward. Many of Ward 3's supposedly-liberal residents and newspapers nonetheless seem to go for whomever will lower their own taxes. As a supporter of affordable housing and equity for all neighborhoods, she also shouldn't tolerate some residents west of Rock Creek trying to redline growth and change solely to the east.

Unfortunately, while Matthew Frumin has been willing to stand up for (reasonable) growth more vocally than others, this morning's poll seems to confirm that he is most likely to play a "spoiler" role. Our readers, contributors, and I myself have often wrestled with how to think through the game theory of a race, and decide how much to weigh various policy positions or trade off candidate strengths versus electability.

This post is not an endorsement; our policy is to decide endorsements by a poll of recent, active contributors, which came out clearly for Silverman. On balance, I'm still going to vote for her, too. Besides, zoning isn't the only issue that matters, and she has some definite strengths on workforce development, oversight of city agencies, and more.

But just because we've endorsed should not prevent us from helping inform readers about candidates' positions, whether or not they comport with our endorsement (in this case, it's mostly a neutral effect), or holding candidates responsible for staking out good positions.

242 comments

Heritage building 105 parking spaces under 6 rowhouses

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:49:00 EDT

by Tony Goodman

The Heritage Foundation plans to build 6 rowhouses near its offices at 3rd Street and Massachusetts Avenue, NE. There will be 105 parking spaces underneath, which Heritage will rent out to employees, though well below market rate, and a Capital Bikeshare station.

Photo by Sam Felder on Flickr.

Heritage has an existing office building with only a small amount of parking on site. The foundation purchased a vacant apartment building on 3rd Street, which isn't considered a contributing structure in the Capitol Hill Historic District, to build a garage for its adjacent offices.

Each rowhouse will get one space, while the remaining 99 parking spaces will be reserved for employees and visitors of the Heritage Foundation at a cost of $90 per month. For secure garage parking one block from Metro, this is far below market rate. For example, the currently monthly rate one block away at Union Station is $263.39.

According to the report from the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), Heritage has agreed to pay for a new 40-foot Capital Bikeshare station, which costs about $70,000. Heritage also will build 42 new bicycle parking spaces, 6 in a locked room and 36 in the new garage, in addition to 10 existing indoor spaces.

Will this below-market parking bring more traffic and encourage more driving?

In this case, the parking garage on 3rd Street will not create a void in the rowhouse fabric because it will be entirely underground, and Heritage will build the 6 new rowhouses above. These new homes match the historic properties on the block, and won support from ANC 6C and the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB).

Current (top) and proposed (bottom) elevations on 3rd Street, NE.
Images from the application. Click for full PDF.

However, this still may bring negative impacts to the neighborhood. The exhaust shaft for the parking structure will be less than 15 feet high, and the Heritage Foundation has not proposed any special filters, landscaping, or other measures to prevent buildup of particulate matter at adjacent properties.

All vehicles will also enter and exit off of a residential block of 3rd Street. A traffic study by Gorove/Slade (commissioned by the Heritage Foundation) found that the adjacent intersection already has a high crash rate, though they speculate without evidence that recent re-striping may have reduced the rate.

The study claims that this project will have a positive impact on traffic and parking, but that is, at best, still an open question.

The study found that many of Heritage's workers take transit, some park on site or at a nearby Heritage-owned lot already, and others park at other private parking lots or garages in the area. A few also park on local streets in the neighborhood—likely a mix of Ward 6 residents and other workers who plan on paying occasional parking tickets.

The traffic study also claims that "traffic will not increase" because "the cars... already drive to the neighborhood; they just park on the street and in other locations. This parking will eliminate the pressure to use on-street parking and will not generate any new traffic."

However, it seems unlikely that the workers already parking on the street—whether legally or illegally—will shift their patterns to park in the new garage. In addition, any existing spaces in other private garages will likely be used by other drivers to the neighborhood, driving more traffic to the neighborhood through induced demand.

The DDOT report says that:

DDOT is generally opposed to Applicants providing more vehicle parking than is necessary for land development projects. Adding parking capacity to an existing facility while holding the development program relatively constant creates potential for additional vehicular trips and increased congestion. ... The additional vehicle parking has the potential to encourage additional commuters to switch from transit, biking, or carpooling to single occupant vehicle travel.

Heritage needs zoning approvals

In order to build this project, the Heritage Foundation is seeking relief from the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) from several sections of the zoning code including those related to expanding an existing non-conformance for FAR (771, 2001.3); exceeding the height limit on penthouses (1203.2(b)); vehicles parking across lot lines (2303.1(b)); and building accessory parking in the R-4 zone (214).

Zoning regulations prohibit parking from spanning multiple parcels or serving as accessory to other uses in the R-4 zone in part because it has the potential to mar rowhouse neighborhoods by disrupting home spacing in these dense, historic neighborhoods. For example, some area churches have purchased rowhouses just to raze them for parking lots. This is not allowed by right in the zoning regulations.

In 2011, HPRB denied an application by the Third Street Church of God in Mt. Vernon Triangle to raze 3 historic buildings to create a parking lot (for a net gain of 5-7 parking spaces). If the raze had been granted, the church would have needed similar variances and special exceptions to the ones that the Heritage Foundation is seeking.

Lawyers for the Heritage Foundation claim that zoning relief is justified because of the unique aspects of the property, including that the multiple properties are irregularly shaped, span across two different zones, and the two large buildings facing Massachusetts Avenue NE (214 & 236) are nonconforming in both FAR and height.

The application claims a hardship in part because these lots proposed for the parking garage are zoned residential, which they label an "accident" of history. However, the lots have been zoned R-4 for decades. This block of 3rd Street NE is narrow and has been lined with residential rowhouses for over a century.

One variance that the Heritage Foundation doesn't have to seek is one to exceed maximum parking requirements. There are none in DC, although proposals have been considered as part of the zoning update. Some other cities, such as San Francisco, ', '18346')" href="http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/planning/article15off-streetparkingandloading?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=0-0-0-5757
">have instituted parking maximums in certain areas which are close to downtown or otherwise well-served by public transportation. These maximums range from ½ to 1 spaces per unit, with a special exception required for additional parking.

The new rowhouses included in this proposal by the Heritage Foundation will likely be a positive addition to the neighborhood. However, that portion of the project is allowed as a matter-of-right. There does not appear to be much positive impact for the neighborhood or District from a new parking structure, serving a commercial use, in a historic and residential zone.

BZA will hear this proposal at its April 9th meeting, as case number 18531.

Update: We mistakenly first published an earlier draft of this post which did not include more recent information that Heritage is adding a Capital Bikeshare station and indoor bike parking as part of the project. The post has been updated.

138 comments

Zoning update to respect "single-family" neighborhoods

Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:52:00 EDT

by N. Phil Urban

This article was posted as an April Fool's joke.

The DC Office of Planning is revising their proposed zoning update after realizing that it does not properly respect the character of areas zoned as a "single-family neighborhoods." Under the new draft, each such neighborhood will allow only one, single family per neighborhood.

A legal DC neighborhood under the proposal. Photo by julochka on Flickr.

DC has had successful experiences with such single-family neighborhoods, say officials, such as the Lafayette Square neighborhood, which contains only one family and is also one of DC's most highly sought-after residences.

OP points to language in the DC Comprehensive Plan, such as a reference to "single-family zones" in policy LU-34, which it hadn't been aware of because planning officials had never read the comprehensive plan. The Zoning Commission also clarified this distinction in its order of February 8, 1999, when it differentiated "multi-family zone districts" and "single-family zone districts."

The activist group Neighbor for Neighborhood praised the change. "DC's comprehensive plan promised to respect our neighborhoods, including those zoned as single-family," said Bella Smith, the group's founder. "Having other families nearby can create noise, trash, and other problems that impact our quality of life."

Guinevere Stonefueler, Deputy Director for Development Review at the Office of Planning, explained that residents will be allowed to have any number of "domestic servants" as well as a matter of right on the property, so long as their quarters are less than 450 square feet, not taller than 10 feet, and not have a balcony that faces any other dwelling. Also, the building must have been constructed prior to 1880 or receive a "special exception" from the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

Historic Preservation Review Board member David Grahamsfather added in an email on the Chevy Chase listserv that having to see other buildings out the window of one's house is contrary to the historic pattern of the city in these areas, such as in Chevy Chase prior to 1880. HPRB chair Margaret Sukseeder added that the plan will preserve the view from Virginia.

Councilmember Mario Koopa also praised the revised draft. "After speaking with constituents, we have been very concerned about the zoning proposals," she said. "We feel it's important for our residents to have the right to park any number of cars in front of their houses, and with more than one family in a neighborhood it's possible that there might not be room if someone owns more than 50 cars."

Streets in the new zones will also clearly not need sidewalks, since there will not be enough residents to utilize them.

Virginia resident Marshall Newman, one of the only two people permitted to be married in Virginia since the Commonwealth amended its constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman in 2006, will join OP as a contractor to advise on how to implement the plan.

And Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said in an interview that he will likely seek to impose a similar zoning regime in Democratic-leaning areas such as Arlington County and all parts of Prince William County with a large Latino population. This would make room for a new network of HOT lanes, one to every individual household, which the Commonwealth Transportation Board recently authorized using all of the money from the recently-passed transportation funding bill.

Supportive residents of Cleveland Park plan to seek a zoning overlay that would prevent any businesses from closing even as the population of the neighborhood declines to one family, expressing certainty that a zoning overlay would allow them to guarantee the type of neighborhood shopping strip they want.

3 comments

What is Muriel Bowser for?

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:46:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Muriel Bowser kicked off her campaign this weekend, and as usual for a campaign kickoff, had a lot of inspirational-sounding phrases but few specifics of what she would do as mayor. As residents start to evaluate her, they need to ask for clarity about her views.

Photo by Wayan Vota on Flickr.

These are especially important questions for Bowser, because she has not taken clear stances on many issues while on the Council. That's an approach that can pay off strategically, since you avoid angering any constituency, but voters and reporters need to insist on specifics.

Here are a few questions reporters could ask:

Will Bowser affirm Mayor Gray's sustainability plan? If not, what would she change?

Bowser said in her speech, "We settled into managing the status quo, riding the success of our past instead of shaping the landscape of our future."

I'd like to see DC move faster on many things, but Mayor Gray just put out a very strong plan that shapes the landscape of our future in some extremely critical ways. Will she maintain the same goals and targets from the sustainability plan, change, or abandon them?

We could ask the same about other good plans, like the economic development strategy. A lot of planning has happened, and while Bowser derided "task forces" (many of which, indeed, often lead to little), there has been some really good planning in the last few years. Would she implement or scrap these plans?

What isn't the District doing today that it should be?

Bowser said that, because of scandals, DC has lost "our focus, our momentum, our need to think big and act swiftly." She said, "We need a change." That's what every candidate says. The logical follow-up needs to be, what change?

Being ethical is an absolute necessity, but it's only a foundation. What big thinking should DC swiftly act upon? How would a DC after a 4-year or 8-year Bowser mayoralty look different than it does today or would under a Gray or Wells mayoralty?

How should we manage growth?

Bowser told the Washington Post that how to "manage growth" would be a centerpiece of her campaign:

You'll find that a lot of people who have lived here for a long time—white and black—feel like that the growth is pushing them out or causing prices to go up, the senior citizens to get hurt. How do we manage it to the point that D.C. is welcoming to people who have lived here for five decades or people who have lived here for five months?

That's all true. I look forward to seeing Bowser's ideas for helping the District grow without displacing existing residents. A lot of people believe that the most important thing to do to avoid displacing residents is to add more housing, but Bowser is only okay with accessory dwellings in basements and not in carriage houses, for instance.

Thus far, in most of her statements on the council, she's shown a bias toward managing the growth by not wanting to have a whole lot change from the way things are today. Most of the time when I've interacted with her on a piece of legislation, she's "concerned" about a particular type of change because some of her constituents are "concerned."

Bowser doesn't want to make people shovel their sidewalks, didn't want bus parking in her ward but doesn't want any buses cut, and so on. Is everything fine the way it is? If so, what is the "urgency" she mentioned? Urgency to do what?

A big test of a leader is not what they will do when all residents are clamoring for action—everyone wants the trash picked up on time or potholes filled, for instance—but when residents are divided, or the loudest voices oppose a change that might be best for the city as a whole. That's where you need to know a leader's values and beliefs.

Mike DeBonis and Nikita Stewart wrote that "Bowser is open to attacks that her résumé and legislative record are thin compared with those of her potential council challengers." Personally, I'm not as concerned about her résumé or record per se. I'm interested to hear, however, what she really believes and would do as mayor. So far, she hasn't made that clear, and we need to know in order to form opinions.

What other questions would you like asked to better understand Bowser's positions?

74 comments

Should corner stores require a hearing?

Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:40:00 EDT

by David Alpert

The ANC for southern Capitol Hill, ANC 6B, formally endorsed almost all provisions of DC's zoning update proposal, including removing many parking minimums, but it also wants to require a special exception to add a corner store in a residential area.

Photo by jacdupree on Flickr.

From their letter,

ANC 6B recommends changing the test to a special exception for certain commercial uses in residential areas in any building, including so-called "corner stores", if they meet the certain conditions set forth in OP's proposal.

A special exception for corner stores is far less onerous than the variance it requires today, but still is a significant burden to a small business owner. If the Zoning Commission does choose to require a special exception for any new store in a residential area, however, then we don't also need the long list of restrictions OP created to limit corner stores and their impacts.

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.

Basically, there are two approaches. One is to make zoning define what is and isn't allowable and let people plan their houses and stores around that without having to ask some board for permission each time. Under that approach, it's important to have clear and specific zoning rules to allow what you want but don't allow what you don't want.

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.

8 comments

Are Montgomery's parking minimums really about parking?

Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:45:00 EDT

by Ben Ross

Why does zoning require off-street parking? It's natural to think that the idea is to create more parking spaces. But that's not always so—and with zoning rewrites underway in Montgomery County and DC, it's worth taking a careful look at what these rules do.

Each driveway denies the public a parking space. Photo by the author.

The most jealously-defended element of the parking mandates in Montgomery County is the one for single-family houses. New houses must have 2 spaces, even in areas zoned for ½-acre house lots where there is always plenty of space on the street.

While the planning board is recommending cuts to other parking minimums, the rules for houses will change only in downtown areas where no one builds single-family houses now anyway.

Moreover, the rule is only enforced to require building the parking, not using it. Garages that contain required parking spaces are often filled with equipment for lawn care or shop work. County enforcement staff say they have never received a complaint about such violations of the zoning ordinance.

Sometimes, requiring off-street parking actually reduces the availability of parking. Montgomery County mandates one off-street space for houses built between 1955 and 1958. A parking space for a single-family house requires a driveway (except in neighborhoods with alleys, which exist in DC but not MoCo). That takes away at least one parking space, and sometimes more if driveways are spaced closely together.

The parking space goes to waste in the daytime if the owner drives to work. Without an off-street space, there would be no need for a driveway and one more space would open up at the curb. The curb space, available 24 hours a day, would supply more parking than an off-street space that is useless during working hours.

These rules may not do much for those who want to park. But parking minimums do reduce the supply of affordable housing.

Montgomery County requires an extra parking space (and sometimes two) when a property owner splits off part of a house into an accessory apartment. If there's no space to shoehorn the parking onto a small lot, the owner has to go through the time-consuming and expensive special exception process.

New apartment buildings near the Red Line and future Purple Line need underground garages, which can run up to $50,000 per space in lower levels. Driving up construction costs makes it harder to build for the middle class.

From this vantage point, the debate over off-street parking is about much more than where people put their cars. It's about what kind of communities we want to live in. Will our laws put economic limits on who can live here, or will we build places that welcome everyone?

51 comments

Mendelson grills accessory dwelling opponents

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:21:00 EDT

by Abigail Zenner

After being postponed a day because of the threat of snow, the marathon 7-hour oversight of the Office of Planning almost entirely revolved around the same controversial subject as the last 4-5 years: the zoning update.

DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson at the hearing.

Council Chairman Phil Mendelson asked tough questions of people on both sides of the issue. At first, he wondered how some people could say the Office of Planning did plenty of public outreach while others complained it was lacking, but later in the hearing, he began to realize that no amount of communication would satisfy opponents.

Councilmember Muriel Bowser (ward 4), meanwhile, breezed in at the end to voice opposition to a number of elements of the zoning update, but misunderstood some key provisions around accessory dwellings.

"What am I missing here?"

Many people testified, including representatives from Ward 3 Vision and other supporters of the zoning update, but there were many opponents as well.

After hearing many complaints about proposals to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and how threatening they would be to the character of neighborhoods, Chairman Mendelson tried to figure out what is so bad about having one in your neighborhood.

He calculated how many could fit in a block, then noted that not every property owner would want one. He asked Justine Kingham, "What am I missing here?"

When Kingham said that the issue is letting neighbors have a say in whether someone rents out a room in their house, Mendelson wondered aloud why it is anyone's business but the resident's own. "But should my neighbors decide whether I want somebody, one person coming in and out of the basement of my house or should I? Because that can be subjective."

Kingham then suggested that the Office of Planning limit the number of people who can live in an ADU, raising the specter of 5 "students" sharing a garage. In fact, there are limits: a main house plus an ADU can have only a maximum of 6 people combined.

Bowser: Enlarging ADUs is the problem

After all of the members of the public testified, Councilmember Bowser spoke about the good work that OP did in her ward but also raised concerns about some aspects of the zoning update, including effects of removing parking minimums and allowing corner stores by right.

Bowser opposes allowing accessory dwellings in existing detached garages. She said the reason is because people who live in them will want to enlarge them. Planning Director Harriet Tregoning pointed out, however, that under the proposed rules enlarging an exterior ADU will indeed require a special exception.

Bowser responded that she still thinks the Board of Zoning Adjustment will bias its decisions toward allowing people to expand ADUs once created, and therefore she still wants to have a longer process with hearings to create an external ADU in the first place.

Of course, no discussion of the zoning update would be complete without Linda Schmitt. In her vehement testimony, she said that the Office of Planning is trying to "remake every ward and every neighborhood," that her organization is not racist, and that a public input process that involves 700 people plus using Twitter isn't enough.

You can watch the entire hearing here.

47 comments

See candidate stances on zoning update, results on truancy

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:10:00 EDT

by David Alpert

After a week off, Let's Choose DC this week asked the candidates for their positions on DC's zoning update proposals—removing parking minimums, allowing accessory dwellings, and corner stores. We also have the results of your votes on their responses on school truancy.

Results from question 8, truancy

Elissa Silverman* and Matt Frumin continued their pattern of close finishes for the top two spots, with Silverman edging out a narrow win for the second question in a row in the percentage of voters giving her response a positive score. However, she also garnered slightly more votes for "very unpersuasive" than Frumin, meaning her response garnered more strong feelings pro and con.

Patrick Mara, Anita Bonds, and Michael Brown did not participate.

This week's question covers the controversial elements of the zoning update: fewer parking minimums, accessory dwellings, and corner stores. We asked the candidates if they support these proposals; Silverman expressed some trepidation about the parking minimums at a debate in late February, and we wanted to hear directly from the candidates on this issue.

We heard from all of the canidates except Bonds and Mara. You can vote until Monday night, March 18.

Note: We have regularly reached out to District policy advocates, former candidates, and other leaders (as well as our readers broadly) to encourage people to write guest posts. Elissa Silverman took us up on that invitation on 4 occasions in 2011 and 2012.

1 comment