The Parking Juxataposition in Ward 3

A commenter noted the following on the Tenleytown Listerv:

I thought it would be interesting to juxtapose the following two documents. The
first being a meeting invite (it happened already) for the Ward 3 Democrats that
invites attendees to park on residential streets abutting the Methodist Home.
The second is an email posted regarding a resolution passed by the Ward 3
Democrats decrying that the proposed zoning rewrite and its impact on parking on
residential streets surrounding transit zones. I'll leave it to readers to
determine if there might be something of a contradiction here.

The Ward 3 Dems Message

Dear Ward 3 Democratic Committee Colleagues,

Please join us this Thursday evening for an "AN EVENING WITH THE MAYOR." (See
attached flyer.) This special program will provide an
opportunity for Mayor Vincent Gray to share his thoughts with the Committee on a
variety of topics to be followed by
questions from the audience. Light refreshments will be provided.

We anticipate that the program will begin promptly at 7:30 pm, so please plan to
try to arrive by 7:15 pm if possible. The event will be held at our new meeting
location at "The Methodist Home" at 4901 Connecticut Ave. N.W. (The Methodist
Home is located in the block before you reach Politics and Prose Book Store and
Café on the same side of Connecticut Avenue as the bookstore. There is parking
in the parking lot surrounding the home as well as on Fessenden St. to the left
of the home.)

I look forward to seeing you on Thursday.

All the best,

Shelley Tomkin
Chair, Ward 3 Democratic Committee


Ward 3 Dems Resolution on Parking

Resolution to Encourage Reasonable Zoning Parking Provisions

Whereas:

The By-Laws of the Ward Three Democratic Committee create a basis for Delegates to work together to encourage accountability and good government practices.

Whereas:
The DC Office of Planning's (OP) parking proposals adversely will affect residents, businesses and the vibrancy of this city by eliminating parking requirements for "transit zones", eliminating parking requirements for all new single family homes, eliminating parking requirements for new multi-unit dwellings of less than 10 units, reducing our already low parking requirements for multi-family housing and commercial uses far from transit, and reducing parking requirements for schools.

Whereas:
OP's recommended changes to parking requirements are not supported by data, do not reflect community preferences, and are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;

Therefore be it resolved:
The DC Office of Planning should withdraw its proposed parking provisions and develop a new approach to parking requirements that better reflects community needs and Comprehensive Plan mandates for adequate public and private parking.

Curious Tenley-Janney PPP Update

The following message from Friendship Heights residents David Frankel was posted on the Chevy Chase Listserv:


In July and December 2009, I filed two separate but related Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the DC Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (ODMPED) to learn more about the Fenty Administration's plans for adding a residential tower on top of the proposed Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library and on the adjacent Janney Elementary School soccer field.

The first FOIA request encompassed documents created between February 1 and July 17, 2009. The second request covered documents created between July 17 and December 4, 2009. ODMPED did not take my FOIA requests seriously.

They provided very little information in response to my first FOIA request -- all late -- and they completely ignored my second FOIA request. I therefore retained an attorney to represent me in two separate lawsuits against ODMPED. The first case was filed in October 2009 and the second case was filed in January 2010.

This litigation has been very time consuming and expensive. I am financing it on my own and have not sought or received any contributions from anyone. The judges in both cases have issued rulings requiring ODMPED to do more extensive searches and turn over documents, portions of documents and an index of documents ODMPED refuses to release. Those indices, known as "Vaughn" indices, show that ODMPED continues to stonewall and resist production of the most important documents.

Through this time consuming process, I've learned and shared with the community that the Fenty Administration spent $991,000 in taxpayer funds to add structural supports to the western one-third of the Library to allow for the future construction of a possible residential tower as described in the first paragraph above. We know that the design of the Library was modified to eliminate windows on the western side, overlooking the Janney soccer field. That explains the bunker-like appearance of the western one-third of the Library, which contrasts so starkly with the glass shell that characterizes the remaining two-thirds of the Library.

We also know from a presentation at a recent Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3E meeting that the Janney Elementary School modernization plans have been modified to move the soccer field from its original location between the Library and the historic Janney building to a location adjacent to single family homes at Janney's rear (south side) -- much to the dismay and alarm of those residential property owners who are rightly concerned about the level of soccer game noise that an official from the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization conceded at the ANC meeting.

While I do not know the whole situation yet, it appears that the key document or documents relating to the city's plans for our Library and Janney's soccer field are one or more reports prepared by Jair Lynch Development Partners. Taxpayers paid $28,000 for these reports (in addition to the $991,000 for the Library's structural supports).

Last week, ODMPED produced to me a hard-to-make-out diagram from a Jair Lynch report depicting the proposed residential tower. My attorney asked his opposing counsel to produce a better quality version which he received Tuesday, January 11 -- in color. To my knowledge, this is the first time anyone outside of the executive branch of the DC government has seen a diagram of the proposed residential tower. It depicts a nine story building that would contain 122 residential units. The 90 foot residential tower is measured from the Janney soccer field and not from Wisconsin Avenue. Since the site slopes downward from the school to Wisconsin Avenue, the building would be much higher than 90 feet measured from the Wisconsin Avenue elevation. In addition, the 90 foot height does not include the 18 or so feet the zoning regulation allow for a mechanical penthouse on top of the building.

The drawings provided to me also depict two or three levels of underground parking beneath the residential tower and the Janney soccer field, but not beneath the Library. It appears that access would be from the driveway on the north side of Saint Ann's Church property but that is something I am not completely sure of at this time.

The drawings depict the residential tower taking up a substantial portion of the Janney soccer field. If they were drawn to scale, someone should be able to figure out the soccer field displacement.

Last week, ODMPED produced to me another very heavily-redacted document that will interest the Janney community. A July 24, 2009 Jair Lynch letter to ODMPED contained this statement with respect to the proposed residential tower: "This site is also in close proximity to American University which will make it a popular housing choice for students." While this statement may be true with respect to college students, it may not be so true with respect to Janney parents, teachers and staff.

Here (PDF) is the color drawing I received Tuesday, January 11

At the outset of this litigation I said I would share my findings with the community. There is still a long way to go here. It continues to amaze me that our government -- the government we elect and fund -- is so reticent to share information with its citizens on a subject that is so central to its purpose.

In this case, our government refuses to release documents relating to its plans to develop our Library and Janne's soccer field. Whether anyone thinks the concept of a 90 foot 122 residential unit tower is a good one or a terrible one, I would hope we can agree that all DC residents have a right to see these plans and engage in a spirited, civil debate about their costs and benefits.

With kind regards,

David P. Frankel
Friendship Heights, DC




A couple of thoughts on this.

First, unless there is private sector confidentiality involved, thee is little to no reason why these documents should have remained outside of the initial FOIA requests.

Second, there were schematics and proposals throughout this process that suggested moving the soccer field from the small area near Albemarle Street to the rear of the Janney property. Indeed, had the original proposals passed muster from those who were opposing this process, the parking for the residential component, the library and the faculty could have been combined and/or shared. Thus the side note that the parking would not be under or associated with the library is disingenuous.

Third, the suggestion of complaint of noise associated with the soccer field is another red-herring. There is/was already a soccer field on the property which has been used by youth teams for years. Thus, there is already the related traffic, parking and noise. And really, how much noise is there for a soccer game, particularly as compared to the former playground, which had unregulated usage? Those darned kids making that noise.

Fourth, given the potential nature of the building, the additional red-herring of proximity to American University is puzzling. As it is, residents near the University complain that they don't want new dorms on the potential south-side development. The idea that undergrads are throwing beer-bash keg parties during elementary school hours is somewhat of a reach. Even still, this structure would likely house graduate and law students, if it houses students at all. Whether this potential structure becomes private residences (and new DC Taxpayers) or are university students (who can also support the retail on Wisconsin Avenue), either way, it would be a welcome addition to most people who are attuned to this subject.

Fifth, the author indicates that the 90 foot "tower" would be measured from Albemarle Street rather than Wisconsin Avenue. Because the elevation slopes down to Wisconsin Avenue, the residential structure would appear much taller. However, there are many examples of such a phenomenon throughout the city. Any measurement beyond the legal requirement of Albemarle Street would be subjective.

Had the community worked together with the city, rather than tossing obstacles at every turn, the suggested $5 Million costs associated with faculty parking garage currently borne by DC Taxpayers would have been absorbed by the developers. The final result probably would have been a more cohesive renovation and construction process for the redevelopment of that area. Instead, there has been needless waste of taxpayer money, additional costs absorbed by DC Taxpayers, and potentially additional construction fatigue thrust upon the Janney community.

History of the Commerical Overlay in Cleveland Park and Woodley Park

In light of the discssion about the CPCA and the Zoning Overlay in Cleveland Park, former ANC Commissioner and zoning expert Ann Loikow has provided the following history:


ANC Commissioner Reeves asked why if CPCA has been working on the overlay for years it wasn't referred to the ANC. ANC 3C has been involved in the the issue of the neighborhood commercial overlay districts for twenty years.

ANC 3C was intimately involved in the creation of the neighborhood commercial overlay zones in Cleveland Park (both on Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues) and in Woodley Park which the Zoning Commission created in May 1989 (Zoning Commission Order No. 616, cases No. 86-26 and 87-27). These cases grew out of the effort to eliminate inconsistencies between the Zoning Regulations and the 1984-85 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. ANC 3C, and in particular Commissioner Phil Mendelson, the Cleveland Park Citizens Association (CPCA), the Woodley Park Community Association (WPCA), and the Cleveland Park Historical Society, among others, participated actively in these cases. As an Office of Planning's report noted these overlays were designed to ensure the compatibility of the use and scale of development in these neighborhood commercial centers with the surrounding residential areas. The limitation on uses was designed to help maintain a mix of neighborhood retail and services and ensure that there were a sufficient volume of both daytime and night-time customers to keep the businesses there economically viable. However, the overlays' limitations on eating and drinking establishments were never really implemented.

In 2000, both ANC 3C (which adopted a resolution on the issue in January 2000), individual commissioners from Woodley Park and Cleveland Park, CPCA and various community members sought to get the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) to enforce the limitations on eating and drinking establishments in the overlay districts. In fact, the Zoning Administrator made a formal presentation about this to the ANC at its June 2000 meeting. As a result of this, DCRA issued proposed procedures for implementing the the limitation for eating or drinking establishments in the neighborhood commercial overlay districts in February 2002 which it adopted in May 2002. ANC 3C and CPCA and several individual District residents formally commented on the procedures.

In May 2002, in order to consider some of the concerns raised by the Zoning Administrator and DCRA on how to interpret the overlay regulations, the Zoning Commission published a notice of public hearing to be held in July 2002 on Case 02-06, "Text Amendments to Neighborhood Commercial Overlay District: Limitation for Eating or Drinking Establishments." In December 2002, the Zoning Commission tasked the Corporation Counsel with producing a proposed replacement or amended text. In November 2003, CPCA approved a resolution proposing a text amendment to the Zoning Commission to eliminate the ambiguities in the regulation regarding the limitation on eating and drinking establishments. The Zoning Commission noticed a second public hearing on Case 02-06 which was held in September 2005. At its December 2005 meeting, the Zoning Commission itself proposed an alternative solution and decided to hold further public hearings. This was all covered extensively in The Northwest Current.

In May 2006, ANC 6A petitioned the Zoning Commission to amend the Zoning Regulations to revise the definitions of "restaurants" and "fast food restaurants," among other things. The Zoning Commission set down the case as Case No. 06-23, "Text Amendment - Eating Establishment Definitions," in March 2007 and noticed a public hearing to be held in April 2007. ANC 3C, CPCA and WPCA, among others, participated in this case. The Zoning Commission approved a final order on the text amendments in Case No. 06-23 in July 2007.

The Zoning Commission's consideration and adoption of the neighborhood commercial overlay regulations has been a public process, of which both the public and the ANCs have been notified. ANC 3C, CPCA, WPCA and other neighborhood groups and individuals, as well as others from across the city, have been active participants in the process over the past twenty years. There is a substantial public record on the issue, as well as much news coverage, particularly in The Northwest Current, that is there for anyone who wishes to learn about it.

Another Pedestrian Fatality

A man was killed today near the intersection of Nebraska and Connecticut Avenue today. This is in the same vicinity as two other pedestrian fatalities in 2007.

Last week, a man was struck and injured at Connecticut and Northampton. At what point will DDOT take drastic and proactive measures to protect pedestrians?

Fisher on Bikes, Cars and Wisconsin Ave

From Marc Fisher in the Washington Post
....
But reaching that goal will mean beating back the vociferous opposition to
development in many residential neighborhoods, especially in more affluent
parts of town.

"In Ward 3," Cheh says, "we're pushing in the wrong direction," a
reference to residents who lobby loudly and strongly against development
in areas such as Cleveland Park, Tenleytown and Friendship Heights.

As an example, Cheh cites the planned Commerce Bank branch on Wisconsin
Avenue on the former site of the Outer Circle movie theaters. The bank is
designed with a drive-thru--a suburban model that is exactly the opposite
of the kind of retail that the District wants to encourage. "I opposed it
because it's inappropriate development," Cheh says. That was a rare case
in which the council member found herself on the same side as neighborhood
activists who fight against what they see as moves toward unacceptably
high density. "They opposed it because they oppose things."

A few blocks south, at the controversial corner of Wisconsin and Albemarle
Street, where Mayor Adrian Fenty has been pushing for a public-private
partnership to build a public library and apartments across the street
from the Tenleytown Metro station, Cheh says the opportunity to create the
density needed to support more retail and a more walkable community
appears to be dissipating.

"It's a shame," she says, but the proposal from the developer Fenty chose,
LCOR, involves too long a delay in rebuilding the library that was torn
down four years ago. "It gets a little unrealistic. By all accounts, the
deal is falling apart. And that's too bad, because the area is a dead zone
and it doesn't have to be."

Triangle Lot Redux

The fate of the triangle lot in Chevy Chase, DC is still up in the air. As previously
noted a local developer bought the lot with the intention of building a house within the back portions of a number of other houses in the community. The BZA rejected the application leaving its use in the air. Now however, the daughter of the developer is seeking clients for her new dog-walking business, proposing to use the lot as a dog run. The Washington Post covered the story.

OP Parking Discussion

While note directly related to Ward 3, there has been some interesting discussion on the Tenleytown Listserv regarding the Office of Planning parking regulations proposal under the new Comprehensive Plan.

A contributor opened the discussion with the following:

The Office of Planning has proposed major changes in the parking regulations for new construction, eliminating many of the current minimum parking requirements. Minimum parking requirements have been used to reduce the impact of parking "spillover" on our neighborhoods. Even with our current regulations, many DC neighborhoods already bear significant costs related to spillover parking from nearby commercial and higher density residential zones. Spillover parking reduces the availability of parking for residents and brings an increase in traffic to residential streets.

OP proposes to eliminate all minimum parking requirements for residential uses. In fact, minimum parking requirements would apply only for retail, office, service, or restaurant uses in C-2 zones that are not designated "transit oriented development zones" and for nonresidential uses in low- or moderate-density residential zones. In addition, the draft regulations include an unspecified limit on the amount of off-street parking that developers can provide. These are radical changes that would set into motion a sweeping citywide experiment that could potentially have irreversible, adverse impacts on many neighborhoods across the District. The quality of life in our neighborhoods is diminished by the increased traffic and reduced on-street parking. OP's proposal can exacerbate the spillover parking problems in these neighborhoods and introduce new spillover parking problems in other neighborhoods.

There has been interesting discussion, but this response framed the conversation from a different perspective:

How does being adjacent to a piece of property somehow convey ownership? A homeowner only owns the land to the sidewalk. The sidewalk, grass strip, and street are city property.

This notion that homeowners/residents have come to view city property as there own and populate it with as many possessions as they desire seems to be a central issue here. And given that the number of cars per household correlates well with the drain such household has on the roadway system, that becomes a fairly insidious misconception.

In terms of the over-all discussion, instead of framing the situation in the pejorative terms of "spillover", "inadequate", "at the expense of stability", "reduction in their quality of life", the situation should really be described as what it is:

-The disproportionate use of land, both public and private, by some residents for their home, their possessions, and their transportation.

-These high-density residential developments aren't needed because of some fashionable desire people have to live more tightly packed together but because they are a wiser use of land than the suburban-style low density communities. It makes no sense then, to further support these low-density communities by continuing to give away public street space on the already under-serving streets.

-That street space should be used to full capacity by allocating it fairly to community residents irrespective of who happens to be closest to it (obviously this is a factor in it's usefulness, though).

These limitations on parking availability will naturally ensure a limit on automobile use, which is the ultimate goal, and one best achieved (as indicated by the previous toll discussion) by limiting source and destination parking. After all if there's one thing that's evident in this day and age it's that overbuilding roadways and parking creates a constituency that obstructs ever shrinking those structures back to more reasonable levels. The idea that failing to build a parking garage is only a missed opportunity completely ignores that fact.

Planning and the Comprehensive Plan are about the future. Maintaining discourse in a framework from a previous era which was predicated on $.20 gas and a seemingly unending source of fossil fuels seems to be short-sighted. This is an important time for staking out the future of the District. All residents should be encouraged to provide their input to the appropriate offices.

DDOT Scraps the Pedestrian Signal

Pedestrian Master Plan.
Rising Fuel Prices.
Walkable Urban Environments.

One would think in a time of a more pedestrian friendly city that the Mayor envisions, a novel pedestrian signal would be a desired means by which to encourage pedestrian activity. Indeed, such was the case since March 2007 in Chevy Chase DC. DDOT implemented a pedestrian activated signal that brought all traffic to a stop to provide the most cover possible for pedestrians in the heart of the Chevy Chase commercial corridor.

The city is in the process of receiving public feedback on a $13 Million Pedestrian Master Plan and in the face of these broader pressures, DDOT announced at Monday's ANC 3/4G meeting the elimination of the pedestrian signal. The only metrics provided by DDOT was the anecdotal "number of near-misses" at the intersection. Doesn't every intersection have near misses?

This intersection has an unblemished record where pedestrian safety and vehicular accidents are concerned. There haven't been any reported incidents associated with the signal. That's right, not one.

One would think that with record pedestrian fatalities and injuries in 2007, DDOT would be crowing about the success of this engineering solution.

But, as is the case with most district agencies, the "Costanza" approach is taken.

While the light was not perfect -- drivers would sometimes stack during peak pedestrian activity -- it seems that honing and testing would be in order to perfect the engineering, signage and programming associated with the intersection.

Instead? Let's revert to the same old driver-centric solutions.

Bravo DDOT!

Cheh responds to Pedestrian Saftey Discussion

As posted on the Cleveland Park and other neighborhood forums, Councilmember Cheh has called for a community meeting on Pedestrian Safety.

I would like to thank the listserv participants for this ongoing discussion about pedestrian safety. Many important and interesting ideas have been expressed, and I have carefully read what you have said. As you know I recently introduced legislation to raise substantially the fine for failure to stop for pedestrians lawfully in a crosswalk. However, more can and must be done. Given the importance of this issue, I am planning to hold a community town hall forum on pedestrian safety on January 19, 2008 at the Second District Police Station. I plan to bring together the Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Police Department, and outside pedestrian safety experts to provide the community an opportunity to continue this important dialogue. I will provide more details as they become available. In the meantime, please be safe.

This is a great step to help educate the public on these important safety issues, and more importantly, give DDOT and MPD the message that Pedestrian Safety is paramount to making our community and city a better place to live. It will be interesting to see what outside experts are brought in to discuss this issue.

Wash Post: Cheh helps Rethink eMail Policy

According to Yolanda Woodley, Councilmember Mary Cheh helped the District executive branch re-think the previous stated policy to delete emails after 6 months. According to the article,

Council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), a law professor, called the mayor's six-month deletion policy "unreasonable."

Cheh recently met with City Administrator Dan Tangherlini and offered to help establish a policy that would not archive every e-mail.

"Just like we used to rely on regular mail to uncover misdeeds, now we have to rely on e-mails," she said. "People have to have confidence that we're not hiding things."