The Good Old Days according to the CPCA

The following was submitted to this forum from the Cleveland Park Citizens Association listserv, as former President Greg New opines about the "Good Old Days". Perhaps, as one respondent noted, this is why the organization needs new leadership (pardon the pun).

Dear CPCA Members,

I am still in the spirit of recalling the good old days before our executive committee (of which I am a part) brought itself into some predictable difficulties. In the present charged atmosphere it may be hard for some of our new members to realize there was ever a day when competition for office and voting were not overriding issues. Historically we have amiably accepted out-of-boundary members who were obviously interested in our programs and wanted to be on our mailing list, and who seldom thought of voting on issues.

Our most popular meetings were candidate forums, where obviously the voting took place somewhere else. Other popular issues-oriented meetings were largely informative panels, or presentations explaining potential public programs or private developments that were not at the stage where an up or down vote was called for. Presenters sought feedback, not decisions. Usually when the decisions were made, it was in another forum (e.g., in an advisory neighborhood commission meeting, or by a public agency after a public hearing. We should not assume that the association weighed in very often by testimony on either side. Only about once every year or two do matters become ripe for a CPCA vote on public issues, and on these occasions there is wide-spread notice, often a large turnout, and sometimes an extra large contingent of new members. It often happens that we seldom ever again see many of the members who turned out to vote on a hot issue, regardless of how the vote went, or which side the members happened to be on.

While voting is of utmost importance in principle, people who regularly attend citizens meetings very soon become aware of the fact that most members join citizens associations out of a general commitment to civic duty. Far from being eager to vote, the majority of the membership of an active association with good, responsive leadership appears to be quite uninterested even in keeping up with the issues. It is a rare meeting that attracts much over ten percent of the members, if that many.

It is my impression that our out-of-boundary members may be more apt to attend meetings than in-boundary folk, because they are more apt to be interested in issues. We have a reputation for putting on some pretty good programs, and that reputation brings the outsiders in. In short, it is an arguable presumption that most of out-of-boundary members see themselves as paying for information, not for the right to vote in a community where they do not reside. There is every reason to suppose that they do belong to, and vote in, an association representing their own community. If they do not, they should.

It is not customary in democratic societies to encourage people to vote twice on the same issue, once while living on one side of the street, and once again while visiting on the other side. In most cases the out-of-boundary people who speak of losing a legitimate right to vote in Cleveland Park are asserting a right to vote twice on the same issue.

Another matter on which some new members may have an unrealistic assumption of what motivates people centers on competition for leadership. That is, they assume not only that competition exists in citizens associations, but that such competition is the usual state in such associations. It is most emphatically not the usual state. Very few people want leadership positions in neighborhood groups. They have to be asked, and often pressured to run, and there is seldom a challenger.

I can recall my own "call to duty" in 1997 as an example of the problem. While my experience is far from typical, it reflects the spirit that drives leadership of neighborhood groups better that the present supercharged atmosphere does. Back in those good old days the CPCA nominating committee consisted of three past presidents. As the bylaws quaintly put it, "In the event the full body [of the nominating committee] cannot be constituted in this manner, the vacancy shall be filled by the Executive Committee." Heaven forbid that there ever be a competition among more than three past presidents all eager to extend their power. In reality it became increasingly difficult to find people to serve even on the nominating committee. In spite of a three-term limit (of one year each), two presidents had between them filled the office for 19 of the preceding 29 years, and the ranks of past presidents dwindled and aged. With little help coming from an aging executive committee, the incumbent president, then nearly on his deathbed, became the nominating committee by default. He managed to come up with a slate for all offices except the president. I had declined, the honor because I had a demanding (and rewarding) job, and preferred to wait until I retired (which I did five years later at age 76).

So there we were, election night, and no candidate for president. I then reluctantly agreed to accept the office, and served my three terms. If I could have served five years later, I could have devoted much more time to the office. We were fortunate in persuading Isabel Furlong to serve the next two years, and George Idelson to serve the last seven. His long service, of course, involved virtually abandoning the term limit.

A third aspect of reality involves the process of decision making that reluctant leaders chiefly motivated by an ill-defined sense of duty are able to solicit from a membership most of which tends to be unenthusiastic about any specific issue that comes up for decision. The lack of strong feeling creates another reality, often noted in democratic society, that the negative side on any issue is usually much stronger than the positive side. In a stable community like Cleveland Park, generally satisfied with the current level of development, a lot of us are weakly supportive of some additional development, but easily alarmed by the prospect of too much new development. Thus our enthusiasm for any development is apt to be muted. The opponents prove to have more fire in their bellies that the proponents in almost every case.

The leadership of neighborhood associations learns to respond to this reality by defensive policy making. One minor incident illustrates the point. A developer was asked to make a presentation to CPCA regarding plans to rehabilitate and slightly enlarge a small apartment house. The tone of our response was set by half a dozen to a dozen new members from the apartment house in question, who "packed" the meeting in opposition to plans that disrupted their haven. The result was obvious. Not even proponents of affordable housing would consider a few more apartments worth going to bat for. More people would worry about setting a precedent for some bigger development in their back yard than would commit themselves to support such a small development. The matter never had to come to a vote. The developers eventually found a way to rehabilitate their building that sidestepped an appeal to the community. The policy of the association has been set by default by a handful of people who never had to cast a vote, and who were never seen again.

Leaders soon learn that lynching parties almost invariably come from opponents, not proponents. About the only thing that will bring out support for a controversial new development is a good conspiracy theory. It is unrealistic to expect a solid phalanx of public spirited members to come gallivanting to the rescue of an impartial decision making process. But if you have dragons to slay and damsels to rescue, that is another matter. Once proponents of a development see themselves as opposed by dragons, there is no villainy that they might not learn to suspect. And, of course, they must protect the community from such obviously threatening dragons by staging a good lynching party.

Upon hearing rumors of a proposed lynching party the normally laid back CPCA leaders from yesteryear started entertaining their own visions (if we may call them that), vivid images of a hoard of greedy developers laying waste to their cherished community. After decades of deft response to community concerns, they soon lost their feel of the public pulse.

An impartial outsider could see exaggerated fears on both sides. A humorist could see the makings of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. Fortunately we can hope that in the looming battle the community will be more amused than scarred, and the damage will be limited to the dignity and imaginations of the performers on one side or the other.

In any case, the battle on the issue has already been essentially won in the proper public forum. It was won by proponents of a modest development that they hope will facilitate a magnificent new Giant. The opponents of the PUD failed to paint the five-story building with four stories of apartments and the loss of the overlay limiting restaurants as threatening to the larger community. More importantly, most people (especially among the those who still do not like the accessory developments just named) are impatiently waiting for a new and improved Giant. Many are worried that further opposition threatens what they are eager to get. DC public officials have shown their usual willingness to downplay apparently exaggerated threats of development gone wild. Appeals of their decision are unlikely to achieve much. We are likely to get the new Giant and most of the accessory developments (unless it becomes the victim of the current credit crisis). And we would get it whether we have a lynching at the September 29 CPCA meeting or not.

The strength shown by the proponents after they turned negative demonstrates the power of the negative side in a democracy. Ironically, their triumph on behalf of a mildly supportive position on a development issue may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Let us suppose that we have the lynching, what can we expect then? I suspect the new leadership will in turn learn to practice defensive policy making. When the next big development in Wisconsin Avenue offers a new ten-story apartment house where we now have a five story structure, they will likely temper their enthusiasm for development in the face of a much larger firestorm of opposition. Otherwise they might be visited by a few old friendly neighbors politely asking, "Could we borrow your rope for a party we are having?
. . . And by the way, you are invited."

Greg New
One of two living past presidents of CPCA

AWARE Announces CPCA Slate

On the Cleveland Park Listserv today, Jeff Davis, who was among the most prolific leaders of the AWARE group that advocated for the Wisconsin Avenue Giant redevelopment proposal, has announced his candidacy at the top of a slate of community activists who wish to challenge the status quo for the Cleveland Park Citizens Association.

The group has created a website which outlines their platform and goals for the neighborhood.

Stoddert Update

Courtesy of theWeLoveDC blog an update on the construction of a new Stoddert Recreation Center and the rehabilitation of Stoddert Elementary. The construction features the expansion of the school and the addition of recreational facilities which will be open for community use.

Cheh weighs in on Pershing Park case

Councilmember Mary Cheh has spoken to the City Paper about the Pershing Park case involving AG Peter Nickles. Recall that former Ward 3 Councilmember Kathy Patterson recruited Cheh to help with the case, utilizing her legal background.

Walking Tour comes to Tenleytown

September 19th, 2009
1:00 P.M.

Sponsored by Cultural Tourism DC

Come and learn about Tenleytown, the second oldest neighborhood in Washington.
John Tennally settled here before 1789 and his tavern served farmers taking
tobacco to the Port of Georgetown. Discover the Grant Road Historic District, a
step back into the 19th Century. Visit Fort Reno Park, site of the largest
Civil War fort defending Washington, and hear why it is called The Summit that
Saved the Union."

Kaid Benfield on Tenleytown

The Natural Resources Defense Council's Director of Smart Growth Programs has posted on his blog the challenges for Smart Growth going forward as needing to be greener and more community oriented. Using his home base of Tenleytown as an example, Benfield writes:


I live in a city neighborhood called Tenleytown. It is slowly picking up in residential density and commercial building activity along our main commercial street, Wisconsin Avenue. But in planning circles the neighborhood is best known for having defeated a modest and very reasonable proposal to build a condo building (reproposed even more modestly as townhouses, but again defeated) a short block from our Metro stop. I am convinced that a big part of the reason is that Tenleytown residents don't want our neighborhood to become another Friendship Heights, the area around the next Metro stop to the north on the Red Line.

Do you blame them? I don't. One of the most infuriating aspects of Friendship Heights, which has experienced a huge building boom in the last decade, is that the public has gotten zero green space out of the deal. None. Friendship Heights has great high-end shopping, and of course great transit access, but little else to recommend it in the way of public amenities.


So there are challenges going forward in better articulating the benefits of Smart Growth, but at the same time, there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to how we evaluate our community and maximize livability and sustainability across all currents of dialogue: ecological and environmental, social, etc.

How do we ask the right questions and define the terms appropriately to achieve the right balance for the community, city and region when future development proposals are announced?

Palisades Archeology

Palisades Museum of Prehistory Director Doug Daupin explains his efforts to understand the current process for preserving artifacts in the neighborhood.

ANC 3G seems confused

The issue of traffic calming seems to have reared its head again in the Ward. Earlier this spring, there was consternation when speed humps were installed on Newark Street in Cleveland Park without ANC or community discussion.

In Palisades the conversation has been ongoing regarding calming efforts in the area to the west of MacArthur Boulevard. However, in Chevy Chase, there is a repeat of erroneous information being passed as fact on the community listserv.

The issue is once again centered around Morrison Street where DDOT installed a pedestrian signal and converted it in August, 2008 to a traditional three-color light. The residents of the block must have believed that speeding was an issue and petitioned DDOT for traffic calming to reduce speeds.

In a recent Chevy Chase Listserv post, ANC 3/4G Chair Gary Thompson wrote:

The ANC voted (unanimously) to defer consideration of any such speed hump pending review of all the inter-connected traffic issues on the first blocks E & W of Conn. Ave. in the main shopping district.

But Thompson didn't mention the ANC's decision to take a vote on July 13th, and he didn't mention the ANC's failure to carry out its own decision.

At the June meeting, the ANC said it would collect petitions from all blocks and vote on them in July; According to the minutes

The Commission voted 6-0-1 (Cook abstaining) to defer consideration of the specific application for the 3700 block of Morrison St. until the meeting of July 13, and that for the next 30 days, other blocks off of the Conn. Shopping area should be informed of and invited to submit applications for speed humps (should they have 75% household support), and then when all such applications are in hand, consider them as a group. At the Commission meeting of July 13, the Commission will consider any applications received by that date and vote on the requests. The Chair made it clear that this is not a deadline and that any block could apply for humps after that date, but that the Commission believed that taking up a broader set of applications for all blocks in the Chevy Chase business area would afford a broader perspective and allow for balance.

Instead, the ANC took no vote. There was no record of opposition at the meetings or on the Chevy Chase listserv, and the agency requirement for 30 days had passed. After that point, the opportunity for ANC input with "great weight" had passed. DDOT had seemed to fulfill its obligation.

The ANC did not follow through with what it had stated it would do in June. Instead, it took a different tack once it realized that only an additional block of Morrison and the same block of McKinley submitted petitions (note: McKinley is the "collector" street for the Chevy Chase DC community and is not eligible for physical calming measures that "residential" streets can obtain).

So who is at fault here - the residents of Morrison Street who used standard city process to address a problem on their street? Or the ANC, which failed to act within the prescribed window from city agencies? Even if the ANC had chosen to oppose the traffic calming measures, DDOT would still have been able to install them if they were warranted as noted in this WTOP article,

DDOT spokesperson John Lisle says the process "has been streamlined."

In the past, the agency would require a traffic study be completed for every request. Now, residents simply have to get the majority of their neighbors to sign a petition.

Lisle says the reason for the change is to promote pedestrian safety.

"Safety for pedestrians, residents, workers and visitors is always a top priority. The District has long supported speed bumps in neighborhoods as a means to provide traffic calming. With the streamlined process we are now able to fill requests more efficiently."

Perhaps the ANC ought to have a better handle on how the city functions rather than inciting the public to clog city officials email boxes with misguided complaints.

Giant PUD Approved

The official order for the Wisconsin Avenue Giant has been released by the Zoning Commission. According to AWARE head Jeff Davis:

Great news - on August 10th the DC Zoning Commission entered a final, written order approving the Giant application to re-develop the store and add new neighborhood retail and residences on Wisconsin between Macomb and Idaho. We are one step closer in our 10-year battle for a new grocery store! Giant's desire to invest millions of dollars in this project is a well-timed vote of confidence in the continuing commercial vitality of our neighborhood. You can read the PDF.

Special credit and thanks go to the ANC for all their hard work. The ANC's unanimous approval of the Giant PUD weighed heavily in the Zoning Commission's rationale for approving the application. I'm proud to have been part of AWARE and that I had the chance to work alongside many of our neighbors to support the Giant application. I want personally to thank all those that signed petitions, wrote letters and testified at the zoning hearings.

Now is the time to heal our community and look ahead. The parties that opposed the Giant application, including the Cleveland Park Citizens Association, have the right to appeal the Zoning Commission's order. I call on them all to forego their appeals and allow this neighborhood and this project to move forward. An nappeal would drag us and the project down for another year or two or three.

Poll: Cheh is Safe

A poll released by the Washington Examiner announced that the Ward 3 Council seat held by Mary Cheh is "safe".

Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh fared the best according to the poll, conducted by Successful Capital Strategies on behalf of the National Capital Committee for Good Government. Of Ward 3 respondents, 53 percent said they would "definitely" vote to re-elect the first-term councilwoman, while 4 percent would not and 29 percent would consider someone else. Undecideds in Ward 3 were 14 percent.

"It's obviously good news, I guess," Cheh said Tuesday. "It's good to hear it."

Aquatic Center is Open

With temperatures approaching the century mark, is is of high relief that the Wilson Pool is now open.

Enjoy!

CPCA Expels Members

According to the 'Rules of the Day' for the Cleveland Park Citizens Association election to be held on September 29th,

Former residents who moved from Cleveland Park and maintained membership remain eligible (in accordance with Article IV of the Constitution). The Constitution, Bylaws and boundary street map are at www.ClevelandParkIsUs.org.

Note: CPCA always has welcomed membership from all who wished to join, appreciating their interest and support. However, with a prospect – for the first time – of a contested election, it was necessary to carefully review our membership roll in light of the boundary provisions cited above. As specified in Article III of the Constitution, residents of buildings on both sides of the named streets are eligible for membership; the citation of “immediately contiguous” in Article IV confirms this provision, but does not extend it.

Regrettably, these boundary requirements disqualify some longtime members and others who joined recently. CPCA will call and write each affected person and offer to refund current dues if desired.

This includes both new and long time members who were invited for membership, who have paid dues and have tried to participate in the organization.

So it begs the question, given the catalyst that sparked the discussion over the direction of the organization and neighborhood, was based on a development proposal that is barely (if at all) within the organizational boundaries, how can it in good conscious expel members who are more affected by these decisions by proximity, than others?

Seems like some latitude is in order, particularly since there is little or no ability to verify the work of the organization.

Countdown to Wilson Pool

The Mayor's Office, in conjunction with OPEFM is thrilled to announce the Grand Opening and ribbon cutting at the new Wilson Aquatic Center!

Join us on Thursday August 6th at TBD as we celebrate the opening of this state of the art facility.

Empty Storefronts in Cleveland Park on WJLA

WJLA, channel 7 ran this story about empty storefronts in Cleveland Park.

Something Sweet Comes to Cleveland Park

Something Sweet, the new neighborhood bakery/sweet shop, opens Thursday, July 23rd! This is a terrific development for the community at a time when small
business owners face severe challenges. Something Sweet is affiliated with
Surfside, a fine eatery and good neighbor in Glover Park.

Members of AWARE - a group of neighbors that support re-development along
Wisconsin Avenue - are planning to meet at Something Sweet tomorrow night
between 7 and 10pm to celebrate the grand opening.

We encourage you to drop by and celebrate tomorrow, and to focus on supporting
Something Sweet and other neighborhood shops in the future.

CPCA Sets Process Going Forward

Apparently the leadership of the Cleveland Park Citizen's Association has heard the clarion call from the residents of the community and have set the date for the annual elections which, by the by-laws, should have been held June 6th.

The rescheduled date is Tuesday, September 29th at 7:00PM. The CPCA has also pledged to hold a candidates forum for those who intend to run for elective office in the organization. The date for this event is to be determined.

Van Ness Walgreens Update

An update on the previously discussed Walgreens in Van Ness from the Tsarchitect blog.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

As the Cleveland Park community awaits an announcement for the rescheduled elections, pro- and con- posts continue to appear on the neighborhood listserv. Former ANC Chair Nancy MacWood (and current Commissioner) offered this defense of CPCA President George Idelson:

I have read many of the postings about CPCA and George Idelson over the past few weeks. I have worked with CPCA on a variety of issues over the past 8 years as an ANC commissioner and have known George since he became president of CPCA. This is a personal note because I think it is time to share my experience with the community association and with George, specifically. My intention is not to defend George --- he is a tough guy, but to provide some context for considering the future of CPCA and George's role in getting it to where it is today.

I want to start by saying that George is a friend of mine, I respect him. Do we agree on all matters? No. But I admire the process he uses for arriving at decisions. George asks people he thinks might be knowledgeable on an issue to challenge his developing views. He will come back to you with more questions as he hears from other people and considers what you have said. He will often schedule a meeting around a topic that he thinks is unresolved but of critical interest to the community or to the city. That might be in his living room or during a CPCA meeting. More than likely, there will be a debate format and if its an official CPCA meeting there will more than likely be panelists representing different points of view.

George also has a penchant for urging city officials to connect with the community by attending meetings and staying for questions and answers; no free rides for them to just get out their message. He has joined the Woodley Park Community Association and Palisades Community Association on presenting issues of interest or concern beyond Cleveland Park. He is a collaborative guy by nature and he never thinks that he is the sage of Cleveland Park. George knows he is representing an educated, well informed, and committed community that is increasingly diverse and he recognizes that there are new pressures on the community and the city to change in a variety of ways. George has enough experience to know that there is positive synergy from communities like ours and times like these, but also big challenges to prevent the community from splintering. How you build community is debatable but I think George has demonstrated that his tactic is to get out balanced information, let residents ask questions and, at a minimum, help residents to develop an understanding of the other guy's opinion.

So why so much criticism and focus on CPCA right now? It seems to be two issues: opposition to the Giant PUD and the postponement of the CPCA election. The irony, and probably what is most painful to George, is that on the Giant issue he spent years trying to avoid any opposition at all to the PUD. He attended probably 20 meetings since 2005 with Stop & Shop representatives encouraging them to improve the store immediately while developing plans for expansion and renovation. He repeatedly advised S&S that they had an opportunity to do something of great benefit to the community and that could serve as a model for other DC communities that grapple with development if it was done sensitively. He also told them that he thought the overlay was critical to the success of the project. It wasn't until the PUD application was filed that he learned, as did everyone, that the overlay wasn't mentioned and that the Office of Planning interpreted that silence to mean an approved PUD would end the implementation of the overlay restriction on restaurants and bars.

The overlay is an issue that has been championed by CPCA for many years. George inherited the organizational commitment to the overlay. What's so great about the overlay? It is only significant if you value a variety of retail and services in the immediate commercial area, and secondarily want to try to control traffic and parking problems. There seems to be growing evidence, or at least more vocal advocates, for the view that residents want more restaurants and less access to other types of shops. Its not inevitable that our commercial areas transform into more entertainment districts, but it may be a preference. Nonetheless, CPCA ,under George's leadership, has spent countless hours trying to update the overlay so that eating establishments that primarily serve the neighborhood could locate here. It took years to convince the Zoning Commission and many meetings with the Office of Planning to make needed changes. CPCA finally accomplished that and then set out to make sure the Zoning Administrator was implementing the rules in a sensible way. George tracked down non-resident owners of CP commercial buildings to ask about filling vacant sites and he questioned real estate brokers about how aggressively and creatively they were marketing our area. So the silence on the overlay and later the active effort to remove the overlay from the Giant PUD pushed CPCA into a decision on an unresolved issue for the community, but one that CPCA had strived to preserve and modernize while the debate continued.

CPCA could have gone the route of "yes, but." The executive committee has said that they voted to be "no, but" because that position allowed them more time to testify and the ability to question witnesses. The Zoning Commission doesn't sanction gray areas. In my view, CPCA and George decided that they could not abandon the overlay and that they could argue persuasively to the Zoning Commission that it was important to maintain the overlay to ensure local retail options and to avoid the parking supply/demand and traffic congestion problems existing in neighborhoods where many restaurants have located. I believe George felt confident in recommending this position because S&S had consistently said that they had no objection to the overlay and only wanted a few more restaurants, which CPCA endorsed. There was never an issue of trading the overlay for an improved grocery store.

Then there is the election...by his own account George was presented with a large bundle of new memberships that coincided with the perceived deadline for eligibility to vote in an election of officers. Rumors of "coups" and other nefarious undertakings circulated and the CPCA executive committee reacted with apparently one main goal: to ensure that as many residents as wanted could vote. To be sure one person's coup may be another person's lesson in democracy. Democracy can be ugly but one of its enduring tenants is the right to vote in a fair election. Is it fair to let a group energized by the Giant development control the CPCA elections while the rest of the community sleeps? Is it fair to the organized group that had a winning strategy to delay the election so that other groups could organize prior to the election? Knowing George, as I do, there was not a clear choice. Disclosure -- he asked me to attend a meeting with some members of the executive board to help sort out the options available under the bylaws and precedent. It was a difficult meeting and I suspect subsequent meetings were more difficult. In the end I think George decided to risk his personal reputation in order to allow as many as residents as were interested to vote on the future of CPCA and determine who would lead it into the future. I doubt very strongly that George will offer his services again and that is not a comment on anything that has been said --- I think George feels that he has given his all to the community, made informed judgments, and trusted and respected the CP residents. He has relished his opportunity to steward CPCA and I am sure nothing has changed regarding his love for this community and its residents.

Whatever your views on the Giant development or the CPCA election postponement, I hope that this much too long email will help to put the last few months of turmoil into some perspective. CPCA has been a credit to our community. The postponement of the election may indeed be a gift to the community that allows time for each of us to think about what is important to us about Cleveland Park, what changes we would like to see, what concerns or desires of our neighbors we may not have considered or been aware of, and how we manage to continue to have the most wonderful community in the city.

Here is one of what will probably be a number of responses:

The following four comments were particularly interesting:

1) "...intention is not to defend George...but to provide some context for considering the future of CPCA and George's role..."
2) "large bundle of new memberships that coincided with the perceived deadline for eligibility to vote in an election of officers."
3) "rumors of 'coups' and other nefarious undertakings."
4) "Democracy can be ugly but one of its enduring tenants is the right to vote in a fair election."

On point 1, isn't Mr. Idleson much better placed than anyone else to explain his own rationale, his own community building philosophy, and so forth?

On point 2, bylaws exist for a variety of reasons. Bylaws make it clear to members how an organization operates and prevent organization leaders (who are elected to act on the behalf of members) from changing the rules at random and for their own convenience. Don't the CPCA bylaws clearly state a deadline for individual members' eligibility to vote in an election? If so, how is this a 'perceived' deadline? The bylaws either speak to a deadline or they don't.

As to point 3, the scheduling of the CPCA election was not a secret. As I understand it, it is held in June of every year. It seems to me that those who wanted to vote in this election were not staging a coup--in fact, as I understand such things, coups generally are violent affairs that dispense with the finer points of elections. To call an orderly effort to express the opinion of a large, organized group of CPCA members a coup is to misrepresent an effort to have voices heard.

How can it be defensible to cancel an election that from all appearances was going to be well attended in order to "ensure as many residents as wanted could vote"? I suggest that if Mr. Idleson et. al. were truly interested in voter turnout, and were truly interested in ensuring as many residents as wanted to could vote, he/they would have expended some amount of energy well in advance of the election in ensuring this in fact occurred. As far as I can tell, Mr. Idleson has never expended effort to ensure as many residents as possible could vote, and certainly has never cancelled an election to ensure as many members as possible could vote, so why on Earth start in May, 2009?

As to point 4, I need help understanding how getting out the vote, a time honored method of community activism, makes an election unfair. How is growing membership in an organization that should welcome more members unfair? How is advocating a message of change and growth unfair? How is operating within the published bylaws of one's own community organization unfair? And as to the assertion "Is it fair to let a group...control the CPCA elections while the rest of the community sleeps?", I ask were those characterized as sleeping going to be disenfranchised? Were they going to be prevented from voting? Since when is not paying attention the same as disenfranchisement? The new members of CPCA were not going to "control" the election. They simply were going to arrive at the appointed place at the appointed time and vote. Does the possibility that the candidates the new members supported were going to win either prevent others from voting or make the election unfair?

To close, I do not believe the move by the CPCA executive committee, which has at no time in the past postponed elections in order to increase voter turnout and has never taken extraordinary efforts to increase the number of voting members at an election, is a gift to the community, or that it reflects well on this wonderful community of ours.

There have been few, if any personal attacks of Mr. Idelson or his character. However, there have been many questions raised about the actions of the CPCA under his leadership. They are two very different elements of this discussion, and playing on any sort of sympathy for someone who has chosen to lead an organization for 5+ terms confuses the core issues that residents may have and does nothing constructive to move the community past the current divide.

цarьchitect on Giant and Wisconsin Avenue

The Tsarchitect blog has an entry about Giant with an interesting passage:

Wisconsin Avenue needs more of this healthy density. The example that this sets will be a lesson to Ward 3, demonstrating how a few stores and few more stories can create an enjoyable neighborhood center. Not only will the extreme non-failure of the site be ammunition for people who support smart growth, it will serve as a billboard for those who are not engaged in debates, that urbanism is possible in Northwest.

He includes an admonition that pedestrian improvements and mass transportation enhancements are key components to a successful result.

DC Metrocentric: TD Bank Update

The DC Metrocentric Blog has this update on the former Cinema site at Ellicot and Wisconsin.

Zoning Commission: Giant is Planned Appropriately

In its June 8th hearing, the Zoning Commissioned approved the Giant PUD application 4-0 without conditions.

The Commission did ask the applicant to revisit the loading dock issue which may impact the Idaho Street residents, but this seemed to be a suggestion and not necessarily part of the future written order.

The Commissioners reviewed each of the issues: loading, traffic, parking, land use, zoning and the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and found the applicant had sufficiently addressed each of the areas of concern.

What is next for this project?

Don't like your Association? Start another one!

In the recent discussion over Community Associations, one Friendship Heights activist offered this advice:

...membership in neighborhood associations is voluntary and no such
group has monopolistic powers. If you think an existing neighborhood
organization represents a small out-of-touch group, you can always start another one.

That seems to be a standard operating procedure in upper Northwest, where there is no shortage of Community Associations representing the masses.

There is the Alliance for Rational Development and the Committee to Stop Tenleytown Overdevelopment which have no mention of who it is, who the leadership is, any bylaws or dues, how to join etc.;

The Friendship Neighborhood Association features a little used, closed Yahoo Listserv and no other website or additional information.

There is the Fort Gaines Citizens Association of which there is virtually no information.

The Friendship-Tenley Neighborhood Association which seems to exist, or have existed in the early 2000's. but appears to be moribund now.

Then there is the Tenleytown Historical Society, and the Tenleytown Neighborhood Association whose site hadn't been updated since 2005 and seems to be a dead link anyhow - the TNA is a member of the Federation of Community Associations;

Finally, there is Ward 3 Vision which is a campaign, not a membership organization.

So when activists claim that "six different organizations who passed resolutions" are the voice of the broader community, who are these organizations, how many members do they have, who is their leadership? What is their outreach, and how do they justify speaking on behalf of a community of thousands of residents? Is there outreach or notice given for new membership? Is there notice given that a resolution is to be discussed or acted upon?

Certainly the Tenleytown Historical Society provides programming and education, and has sponsored historic landmark applications to the city, and the Tenleytown Neighborhood Association appears to be a member of the Federation of Citizens Associations.

Perhaps the actions of the CPCA open the door to shed light on other community groups throughout the Ward and the City?

Some Defense of the CPCA

Three listserv contributors have come to the defense of the Executive Committee of the Cleveland Park Citizens Association. Longtime resident Margaret Lenzner suggests:

The suggestion that postponing the annual meeting "disenfranchises" anyone is ridiculous. In fact, the delay will fully and indisputably enfranchise all. Not only will there will be no question of whether a new member joined in time for a pre-meeting/vote deadline, but members won't be conflicted by the year-end school events so prominent on many calendars for June 6.

Jeff Davis says that he wants CPCA to use online polls to identify issues and assess neighborhood views, and to allow members to voice opinions (and, even, to vote?) without attending meetings. I agree that internet use can be a valuable tool, but it is no substitute for meetings. I hope that all members, new and old, will appreciate that attending meetings regularly, meeting other members in person, and becoming actively involved in person -- not just online -- is essential to building and maintaining a healthy community association. It isn't always easy, but it's worth it.

Meanwhile, Friendship Height resident Sue Hemberger argues:

A hostile takeover campaign of a voluntary association based on a single issue and with votes essentially buyable (pay the membership fee and you get a vote) is a crisis not so much because it threatens the current leadership but because it threatens the association as a whole. You can't tell whether the newcomers will stay and put in the hard work necessary to keep an organization like this alive or whether the goal is just to destroy/neutralize the organization as a power base for the "other side." That's why a kind of sweat equity requirement might be functional.

Advocates for a reinvigorated CPCA make a different argument:

Over and over the new members have said that their goal was to revitalize the CPCA by providing better communications with its members and more participation. We want to keep the effective members of the current leadership and tried to develop a joint slate in keeping with the precedents of uncontested elections with the CPCA. Because the CPCA now has over 500 members, it is ludicrous to think that a small minority could "destroy/neutralize the organization". Instead, the new members are making a major commitment to improve the organization.

For example, I volunteered to start a listserve to facilitate internal communication. This is not a casual commitment but one that I view as at least a five year effort. And not an easy effort at that. The executive committee of the CPCA wants me to shut down the listserve and stop all unsupervised internal discussions. The executive committee will not help me verify who is a member of the CPCA and so I have to use addresses and rely on the word of the people joining.

To use terms like "hostile takeover", "votes essentially buyable" and "destroy/neutralize" in one paragraph is more than mischaracterization, it is insulting our intelligence. I have put in lots of sweat equity over the years to improve Cleveland Park and for a person in Friendship Heights to say that I should have no right to vote in a Cleveland Park organization is more than annoying.

Many of the new members of the CPCA are more than ten-year residents of the neighborhood, some even have more tenure than the entrenched leadership of the organization! Should these variables matter in the lifeblood of the community and its community association?

ANC 3E meeting: June 11, 2009

Among the agenda items:


Discussion of, and possible vote on, request for zoning relief to permit use of off site parking at Lord & Taylor lot for retail development at Western Ave. and Jennifer Street.

Discussion of status of 5013 Belt Road

Discussion of and possible vote on request for letter seeking elimination or alteration of N8 bus travel on Yuma Street.

Discussion of and possible vote on resolution regarding the "Sidewalk Assurance Act of 2009," which would, in part, require construction of a sidewalk on at least one side of the street in most instances when the District resurfaces or reconstructs streets, curbs, or gutters.

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.

WPCA weighs in on CPCA

Dear Anne and other Executive Board Members:

As some of you may be aware the Cleveland Park Citizen’s Association has postponed their election of officers until the fall. The claim by the President of that Association was that the increase of new members constitutes an emergency and thus was their excuse to use their executive powers to postpone their election.

This is wrong.

The Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia is predicated on the concept that citizen activism is good, that democracy is good, and that the rule of law matters. The good people of Cleveland Park are doing the very things that we admire.

The Federation has spoken out and acted on these issues time and time again, be it the deplorable state of the EMT service, the lack of oversight on the mayor’s office, the public health committee you name it. The Federation has always been there to speak out when something is wrong. We must be there to speak again.

In this instance it is not the city government, or the federal government that is abusing the public trust, it is one of our member associations. We, as the premier umbrella organization of community associations, cannot afford to stay quiet on this issue. By staying quiet we are giving tacit consent to what is happening in Cleveland Park. We must act and we most positively affirm that citizens joining citizens’ organizations are good, and that the rule of law must continue and the CPCA is wrong in doing this.

I am writing to you today to inform you that if The Cleveland Park Citizens Association fails to conform to its own bylaws and holds their election as scheduled that I will introduce a resolution at our next assembly meeting calling for the removal of CPCA from membership in the Federation. The presence of an organization that is so Nixon-esque in its abuse of power gives the rest of our associations a bad name.

I remain committed to a better Washington, DC.


Sincerely Yours,


Peter W. Brusoe
Woodley Park Community Association Delegate
The Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia

CPCA: An update

Two updates to the recent entry regarding the Cleveland Park Citizen's Association.

Marc Fisher and Greater Greater Washington have both provided commentary.

What's Going on in Cleveland Park?

If the vacant storefronts weren't enough, Cleveland Park seems to be in turmoil over the leadership of the local Citizen's Association.

A posting on the Cleveland Park Listserv today, in response to questions about the upcoming meeting, opens the question about the legitimacy of the organization. From President George Idelson:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cleveland-park/message/56399

The Cleveland Park Citizens Association welcomes the many new members who have joined in recent weeks. This is a president's dream come true and we look forward to their active participation. A recent listserv posting by a CP'r suggested that his call to join CPCA to "make sure all voices are heard" apparently spurred this membership surge. He also described a recent meeting where he and others offered suggestions for achieving broader representation. What the posting didn't mention is that those attending the meeting specifically requested an "equal voice" -- one-half the members of CPCA's Executive Committee -- either on the slate or as heads of our committees, for our upcoming election. They didn't spell out who these new candidates might be, but said such a "joint" slate would avoid an acknowledged, organized campaign to take over the entire leadership of CPCA at our annual meeting. The campaign urged people to join by a certain date, to be eligible to vote for this competing, unnamed slate. Sad to report, this campaign has been fueled by false charges that the Association opposes all change and development. It has distorted our position on the Giant development and makes the wild claim that the Association is responsible for store vacancies on Connecticut Avenue. That the campaign was orchestrated was demonstrated by some 60 bundled applications received by certified mail just before the specified cut-off date, by anonymous leaflets, and by private emails urging residents to join CPCA to "stage a coup." Normally, competition for leadership is healthy and our nominating process is wide open. Demonizing an association and encouraging a chaotic election is hardly normal. This is Cleveland Park, not some third world country. We are deeply dismayed over the divisiveness this campaign has caused in our community. Development issues can be contentious, but they ought not be used to tear the community apart. The Giant hearings have ended and the record is closed. The Zoning Commission will decide whether all the upzoning requested in our low-density neighborhood is worth the potential impact. We need some time for cooling off. Time to reflect on the issues. For these reasons, CPCA's Executive Committee has executed the emergency powers granted in our bylaws to postpone the election of officers until the Fall. This is clearly an emergency. In the interim, we will seek ways to mend this tear in our neighborhood fabric. We look forward to constructive support and suggestions.


One could expect a response like this from a third-world banana republic, but in the heart of the nation's capital? The by-laws seem fairly specific:

All officers provided for in Article V and the delegates to the Federation of Citizens' Associations and the Federation of Civic Associations shall be elected for a term of one year at the annual meeting which shall be held on the first Saturday of June each year.

So does anyone from the CPCA care to rationalize this other than a ploy to maintain control over a volunteer organization?

Cleveland Park Magruders to close

According to fliers around the neighborhood and confirmed reports on NBC4, the Cleveland Park Macgruders grocery store is slated to close this weekend.

Along with the Starbucks, McDonalds, Blockbuster and other retail outlets, this marks another in a long string of vacancies in Cleveland Park.

CPCA: Another Case Study

A recent discussion on the Greater Greater Washington Blog dealt with the current status of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association, and its accurate representation of the community. Blogger David Alpert noted:

Do citizens' and civic associations represent the broad interests of residents, or very narrow factions within a neighborhood? Recently, growing numbers of residents have started to question the long-standing role of these groups as the voices of residents in the civic discourse. The Dupont Circle Citizens' Association (DCCA) faces a contested election next month, where a slate of candidates nominated by the current Board seeks to bring the neighborhood together and represent the broader resident interest, while competing candidates, nominated from the floor, would keep the organization on one specific, partisan side of major issues.

Citizens' and civic associations have existed in DC for a long time. When DC lacked home rule, they played an especially important role to amplify resident needs to a frequently uninterested Congress. They then had to fight for a better city during decades of a completely dysfunctional District government. Today, our government is much better, but residents still need a voice.

It is a good question because the ANCs and Council provide ample opportunity for residents to have a more direct voice to the city and its leadership on issues ranging from alcohol licenses to the comprehensive plan or baseball lights on a public park. So what is the purpose of a Citizens Association and what is the responsibility to provide a voice for the whole community?

As was discussed this winter, the Cleveland Park Citizens Association decided to vote (with fewer than 30 people present) in February to oppose the Giant PUD eventhough it had filed papers in opposition in January. This despite hundreds of letters and petitions of support from the broader community, even members of the CPCA. Indeed, when these numbers were disclosed during a recent Zoning Commission hearing, the Commission Chair, Anthony Hood noted that such a low turnout was not representative of the community, did not constitute a quorum and if he conduction an association in such a manner, his tenure as president would be short.

At the monthly meeting on May 7th, CPCA President gave an impassioned speech to the few assembled about the heart and soul of the Cleveland Park community, and how the AWARE group (Giant supporters) were staging a coup. The allegations included the characterization that AWARE was nothing more than shills for the developer and a groups of newer residents who have neither the best interests of the community or its community association at heart.

One board member offered a resolution prohibiting Board membership by a CPCA member until said member had enjoyed 6 months of membership. According to the CPCA bylaws (pdf) Article VII, Section 3 "Election of all officers and delegates and members of the Nominating Committee may by request be by a secret, written ballot. A majority vote of those qualified members present and voting is required for election." So in other words, the it was proposed that the definition of "qualified members" be amended to exclude any recent applicants for membership to participate in the posted nomination and election process.

CPCA President George Idelson admitted that such a provision had been considered by the Executive Committee, but after some discussion the amendment was tabled.

So it begs the question, are these valid organizations in terms of representing the true voice of the community? What are they afraid of when suggesting such measures as amending by-laws to maintain control? Perhaps it is time for the heart and soul of the community to be truly represented?

GGW: Live Chat with Cheh

The Greater Greater Washington blog has announced a Friday, May 1 Chat with Cheh:

This Friday at 1:00 pm, Greater Greater Washington will host Mary Cheh, DC Councilmember for Ward 3, and Chair of the Council's Committee on Government Operations and the Environment. Ms. Cheh is also a tenured law professor at GWU.

Please tune in live on Friday when Ms. Cheh will take your questions. If aren't available then, feel free to leave your questions in the comments and we'll select some for the discussion.

Summary of the Giant Zoning Commission Hearing 4/23/09

From Gabe Fineman on the Cleveland Park Listserv:

Notes from the April 23, 2009
Zoning Commission Meeting about Giant at Newark

[Having trouble reading this because you do not get mail in HTML format? You can download a formatted copy from http://CPposts.com/Giant.htm that also has a lot of background documents.

So, what was this Meeting all about? Giant had applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) exception to the current zoning on the parcel of land that they own around Wisconsin and Newark. Their plan includes a doubling in size of the supermarket, and housing to the north of Newark and about the same amount of other retail space as they currently have. The usual anti-development crowd objected and this was the third of four hearings, but the first one I went to.

So, what happened at the previous meetings? At the first meeting (February 19th), Giant presented its case and Councilmember Cheh endorsed the application. The meeting lasted for five hours because the Board did not consolidate the opponents into one group but allowed each of the five opposition groups to individually ask the same witnesses the same questions that were often long statements rather than questions. At the second meeting (April 6th) the Office of Planning and the District Department of Transportation said why they supported the PUD and again, the opponents spent hours cross examining the City witnesses and a third meeting was needed.

So, who was on last night? Last night it was the proponents of the Giant Plan who mainly testified. First the ANC that voted to unanimously back the application but with a laundry list of issues that the Zoning Board should address. Then AWARE, the new local group of neighbors that want the application to be approved without additional conditions. Finally twenty-five individuals who spoke for themselves or some special interest issue (like affordable housing), but for the application.

So, What did the ANC say? Anne-Marie Bairstow, the chairman of the ANC, summarized the resolution unanimously passed by the ANC in January. The key thing about the resolution is that it was addressed as advice to the Zoning Commission. There were 11 conditions. The first was that the Zoning Commission should address certain issues about loading docks. The second was that the Zoning Commission makes Giant review its driveway designs and to mitigate noise. The third was to require Giant to continue to work with the City agencies to have adequate parking. The list went on. The opponents tried very hard to have Ms. Bairstow say that this meant that Giant must implement every suggestion about loading docks and must make specific changes to the driveway design and make all changes that they wanted. They also tried to get her to opine on if Giant and the Zoning Commission had done all of these things. The Chairman of the Zoning Board was very annoyed. This was precisely what had happened at previous meetings and he was not going to allow that badgering. The resolutions speak for themselves and he urged Ms. Bairstow to answer that she did not know instead of guessing at answers.

So, why did I stay? I suppose it was because I was already down town. When the meeting started, I envied the Commissioners. They were a vital part of the process of rebuilding a better City. They had a PUD that would revitalize an out of date neighborhood center and was Green and pedestrian friendly. They had a developer that intended to finance development in a very bad economy. However, I soon felt sorry for them as they tried not to roll their eyes and cut questioning short and the hours rolled by toward another five hour meeting.

So, what did AWARE say? They were very clear that they felt that the PUD was finished and needed no more revisions after what has been a ten year process. They urged the Board to approve it without any changes and let Giant quickly start building. Jeff Davis and Anne Large spoke for the 175 members and were so forceful and articulate that only two of the five groups wanted to question them. These two questioned every witness (or panel of individuals) much to the groans of even their supporters.

What did the individuals say? The individual ANC Commissioners explained why they wanted their particular point on the laundry list of conditions to the ANC resolution and why it was the most important point. The other neighbors gave examples of why the benefits of the development outweighed any possible problems, let alone actual problems. One major issue of the opponents raised before was that the Commission lacked authority to issue a PUD because it was overruled by the Comprehensive Master Plan. Ellen McCarthy, the former head of the Office of Planning who drafted the Master Plan, said that was nonsense and explained why in some detail (all within three minutes). The Zoning Commission members were very attentive. Someone from the Washington Interfaith Network asked the Commission to require 30% affordable housing instead of the 8% volunteered by Giant (there are still not regulations on the matter). The commission wondered why he weighed in at the last minute and had not talked to Giant before now. Ex-ANC Commissioner Dogget summed it up saying that she has seen this Giant process drag on since 2001 and the opponents are once more trying for "death by process".

So, was there any comic relief? Only at the very end when the crowd of about 100 had dwindled to about 50. The two of the small opposing groups presented their testimony. The first was the tenants at 3725 Macomb that is an apartment building that backs onto the Giant property and is probably the only affordable housing in the area. Their lawyer said that the new Giant building was only seven feet from the back of the apartment building so that fire trucks could not get in to save residents and this was illegal. Everyone was startled except for the Zoning Commissioners who seemed to know all about fire requirements. They first asked if the lawyer had consulted with the fire department. No. Why was there a letter in the file from the fire department saying that the design met their requirements? The law does not require access from all four sides and that is why apartment buildings are limited in their depth and why firemen are trained to enter through the front. The Giant lawyer asked only three questions about the actual distance that seemed to vary from seven to seventeen feet and might or might not be measured from a lawn rather than the building.

The other opponent was the big group of ten houses on Idaho Avenue that claimed that their residential street would be destroyed if trucks went down the part not in front of their houses to make deliveries at Giant. Yes destroyed, because trucks were heavy. The problem is that it is not currently a residential street. Most of it is bordered by the Giant on one side and the Police station on the other. It may become a residential street because Giant wants to build houses across from the Police Station, but the new residents will know what they are buying. In any case, they hired a Traffic Engineer (http://psivanness.com) that reached conclusions that the Commission considered incredulous. When questioned, the 'expert' admitted that he used models that were marked as unreliable and studies from Australia. He also did not seem to understand basic Traffic Engineering terminology and confused trips (one in to a dock and one out from the dock) with trucks making deliveries, resulting in the doubling of his numbers. It would have been much funnier if it were not 11 PM. I used to sympathize with these people but if you buy a house where you could throw a baseball into a shopping center, why would you to expect it to remain unchanged for more than half a century?

What is next? Yet another hearing, solely devoted to the opponents, on Monday, May 4 that should wrap things up. The next step is that the Zoning Commission allows written comments and uses those written comments and meetings with Giant to determine how the Planned Unit Development (PUD) should be re-written. It can be put in as is, made so restricted that Giant will abandon it or something in-between. Then, in at the end of the Summer (if everything goes without a hitch) the final PUD is approved and Giant can apply for building permits.

More Information?
http://wisconsinavegiant.com
http://www.cpposts.com/Giant.htm

Cleveland Park Historical Society Preservation Café

Cleveland Park Historical Society Preservation Café

7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28 at Ardeo

$35 (member), $45 (non-member)

The Preservation Cafe series offers the Cleveland Park community an opportunity to learn from experts in a variety of fields relating to historic preservation. The Cafe includes an opportunity to ask our speaker questions and will be followed by dinner.

This month's Preservation Cafe will feature a PowerPoint presentation on Washington area Residential Historic Architecture with architect Bruce Wentworth and will be held at Ardeo, where they've offered us an impressive three-course meal for $35 (members) and $45 (non-members) which includes tax and gratuities (beverages are additional).

Mr. Wentworth is the founder of Wentworth, Inc., a residential design-build firm and has worked in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area for over twenty years. Passionate about historic architecture, Mr. Wentworth has recently put his survey of residential architectural styles in the DC metro area online allowing a wider community to research and identify their own home's period and style.

Following his presentation, Mr. Wentworth will answer your questions about historic styles and characteristics.

Reservations are required – please email: staff@clevelandparkhistoricalsociety.org

You can mail your check to:
Cleveland Park Historical Society
PO Box 4862
Washington, DC 20008.

Upcoming Preservation Café topics will include: Tips for Improving Garden Walls, Walks, and Steps; Container and Outdoor Gardening; Windows, Walls and Wood Floors; and How to Research your Home's History.

ANC Clarifies Giant Vote

ANC 3C on Monday night took an unusual measure to clarify its position on the Giant PUD application. In a 7-2 vote, the ANC passed the following resolution:


Clarification of ANC 3C Resolution No. 2009-01
Regarding the Planned Unit Development
Friendship Neighborhood Center (Giant)
Zoning Commission Case No. 08-15

WHEREAS, on January 21, 2009, ANC 3C unanimously passed a resolution (2009-01) supporting (with conditions) the Planned Unit Development (PUD) filed by Friendship Neighborhood Center (Zoning Commission Case No. 08-15);

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED it was not the intent of ANC 3C to allow the Macomb-Wisconsin Overlay to limit the PUD;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chair of ANC3C or her designee is authorized to represent ANC 3C on this matter.


This is clearly in response to the unannounced testimony provided by Councilmember (and former ANC 3C Commissioner) Phil Mendelson. This seems to be important because the opponents of the Giant PUD have produced a 47 page legal brief. According to AWARE head Jeff Davis:

Last week, the Wisconsin Newark Neighbors Coalition filed a 47-page legal memo of Opposition to the project. This group has been actively represented at the Zoning Commission hearings by John O'Sullivan and John Korbel. Their statements at the first two hearings and this brief in Opposition indicate clearly that they will do anything within their considerable power to defeat or delay the Giant proposal.

This sets up an interesting Thursday hearing with the Zoning Commission.

Glover Park Study Released

The long awaited Glover Park traffic study from DDOT is now available.

Roger Lewis and Wisconsin Avenue Development

In his weekly "Shaping the City" column Architect and Professor Roger Lewis discussed the Wisconsin Avenue Giant and the Tenley-Janney Public-Private Partnership proposals.

Some of the highlights:

Some residents of the District cling to a suburban mentality. This mentality, coupled with government mismanagement, can obstruct desirable redevelopment. For the city to evolve, residents' attitudes and government performance must change.

They may represent a minority of people affected by redevelopment, but that minority can be organized and outspoken while redevelopment supporters remain silent. Hearing little from the majority and pressured by the minority, the city can make bad decisions.

Much suburban fabric is relatively static. Much urban fabric is relatively dynamic, changing as circumstances change. Living in cities means accepting and even embracing change. Living in America's capital city should be no exception.

Zoning Commission: Giant Rolls On

Another 3 and one-half hours of testimony for the Streetworks/Giant development proposal in Cleveland Park, and the process inches forward. While this is a complicated case, the proceedings should be much further along. However, the opposition to the project has splintered into several little groups, each gaining "party status" causing redundant, often infuriating testimony (ie questions?) of the applicant, and now the agencies.

Representatives from the DC Office of Planning and the DC Department of Transportation gave their reports last night. This was supposed to have been followed by the ANC and supporting neighborhood groups. However, the proceedings stalled upon the closure of the Agency reports due to the duration of the testimony (I mean questions) of the DC Officials.

Next stop, April 23rd, 441 4th Street, second floor.

HPRB to Developer: No Relocation of Historic Structure

In the 1942 Virginia Lee Burton childrens books "The Little House" the once pastoral setting of the little house is overtaking by the progress and growth of the city, eventually prompting a move of the house farther out to the country. In 2009 Cleveland Park, when the same thing happens, the preservationists say yes, but the ANC says no, and the Historic Preservation Review Board agreed.

In a 6-1 vote, the Board went counter to both the staff report and the Cleveland Park Historical Society Architectural Review Committee support of a move for the 1905 Queen Anne structure located at 3211 Wisconsin Avenue. The house is listed as a "contributing" structure within the Cleveland Park Historic District, yet is surrounded by higher density mixed-residential structures on busy Wisconsin Avenue. Indeed, the land is zoned for higher density. The proposal by developer Mark Kaufman would have relocated the structure to Quebec Place, still within the Historic District, but alone in terms of historic context. However, Quebec Place residents, along with the ANC 3C Historic Preservation Committee made the case to the Board that the proposal should not be allowed.

A rhetorical question: Is razing the house a better option than relocation?

Tenley-Janney PPP Implosion

Here is some media coverage of the unraveling of the Tenley-Janney Public-Private Partnership:

Marc Fisher
DC MUD
Greater Greater Washington
Washington Business Journal

Greater Greater Washington on Giant

The Greater Greater Washington Blog has an outstanding review of the first evening of the Giant PUD hearing before the zoning commission.

It was interesting to see the Zoning Commission continually ask the opponents to refrain from repeating questions and grandstanding.

The proceedings will continue on April 6th, 2009.

EDIT: Interestingly, the Cleveland Park Listserv ran an informal poll, the results of which are below:

POLL QUESTION: How do you feel about the planned Giant development at Wisconsin and Newark, which includes a larger supermarket, and a residential, office and retail complex? For more information about the project visit Giant's website, read the ANC's resolution of support with conditions, and see the current issue of the Northwest Current. The question of how the Giant supermarket figures into the neighborhood has been an issue on the Listserv since 2004, and it may finally be resolved by the Zoning Commission.

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- Build it already! I support the Giant's development proposal as is., 205 votes, 77.36%
- Build it but with conditions: I support part of or all of the ANC's resolution, 44 votes, 16.60%
- This isn't good for the neighborhood: I oppose the Giant's development proposal., 16 votes, 6.04%

CPCA rejects Giant

In an unsurprising move, the Cleveland Park Citizens Association on Sunday voted to approve a resolution offered by the Executive Committee. By a count of 32-4, the membership supported a resolution that called for 1) the demonstration that the developer show proof of financing for the whole project prior to any construction commencing and 2) to oppose the project as proposed and argue for its rejection before the Zoning Commission.

The meeting was charaacterized by President George Idelson:

After spirited discussion at a well attended Sunday meeting, members of the the Cleveland Park Citizens Association voted by an overwhelming majority to ratify the resolution drafted by its executive committee. The resolution withholds support for the Giant proposal in its present form. It states that while CPCA supports a large new supermarket and has worked hard to get one, the applicant needs to demonstrate why it cannot achieve that goal without zoning changes creating much higher density and other negative impact on the community. The resolution also asks the Zoning Commission to require that Giant have a financing commitment to complete the job before starting to build. (We don't want to be left with a hole in the ground or more evicted stores.)

This is not the first time the CPCA or other Cleveland Park entities conducted business on a holiday weekend, with scant notice to the community. Further, the CPCA had already filed opposition papers with the zoning commission on this proposal making this vote simple window dressing. However, the Association appears to be a pariah in the community.

ANC 3C, the Woodley Park Community Association, Mass Ave Heights, various condominiums and the Woodland-Normanstone Community Association are among the groups in support of the project (even with conditions).

In addition, the Office of Planning and the District Department of Transportation have issued reports supporting the PUD.

This sets up a very long hearing process where immediate neighbors and the CPCA will be fighting the proposal, while the other neighbors and organizations will support it.

Cleveland Park Citizens Association and Giant

An announcement on the Cleveland Park Listserv notes:

The Cleveland Park Citizens Association will meet at the Cleveland Park Library (Connecticut and Newark, NW) on Sunday, February 15 at 2 pm. Our speaker will be Kilan Boardman Schoyer, Legislative Director for At-Large Councilmember, Michael A. Brown.

Members will also take up a resolution on the proposed Wisconsin Avenue Giant.

Of course, as one contributor notes, the CPCA has already submitted papers with the Zoning Commission in opposition to the Giant PUD proposal. Makes one wonder what value the organization's leadership has for its members and for the greater community.

Tenleytown Chat with Cheh

On Saturday, February 7, Councilmember Mary Cheh will hold another "Chat with Cheh." Ward 3 residents are invited to the Starbucks located in Tenleytown at 4513 Wisconsin Ave, NW, between 10:00 am and 12:00 pm to talk with the Councilmember.

ANC Approves Giant

The Cleveland Park/Woodley Park ANC (3C) unanimously approved a resolution supporting the Giant PUD with eleven "conditions". The draft conditions are as follows:

1. The Applicant shall adhere to the provisions of its Transportation and Parking Management Plan and Truck Management Plan and will address any deficiencies in the number, size and location of loading docks so as to be in conformance with DC Department of Transportation¢s (DDOT) criteria and regulations and once any part of the PUD is in operation shall:
1. provide a full-time loading dock manager on duty during all loading hours,
2. prohibit truck deliveries between the hours of 9 PM and 7 AM,
3. prevent any delivery trucks or vans servicing the retail and commercial establishments in the PUD from idling in public space while waiting in queue for loading dock use, and
4. require a covenant of all retail and commercial tenants to restrict the size of delivery trucks to only those that will fit the loading docks and to prohibit off-loading in public space;

2. The Applicant shall continue to review the proposed design, location, and operation of the planned supermarket loading area off Idaho Avenue with DC Office of Planning (OP) and DDOT. The goal shall be to determine a location further removed from existing houses and to develop a design and operations plan that (1) minimizes the visibility of the loading dock from adjacent residential property to the south; (2) minimizes the noise impacts generated by trucks and loading activity; and (3) prohibits truck traffic serving the PUD from using Idaho Avenue south of the loading dock.

3. The Applicant shall continue to work with OP and DDOT to ensure that the planned amount of parking is adequate to accommodate the planned uses on the PUD site. ANC 3C recommends that, prior to filing for a building permit for the North Parcel parking garage, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a report to OP, DDOT, and ANC 3C analyzing the operation of the South Parcel parking garage and parking and traffic in the adjacent community. If OP and DDOT determine that the South Parcel parking garage is not operating adequately to accommodate the uses in the PUD, we recommend that they jointly explore with ANC 3C solutions to enhance the parking supply in the PUD prior to developing the north parcel;

4. The Applicant shall work with DDOT to design more equitable distribution of commercial and residential parking between the north and south parcels and to design dedicated commercial spaces in the north parcel;

5. The Applicant shall take measures to restrict all new residents in the PUD from obtaining Residential Parking Permits, or their equivalent, for parking on neighborhood streets;

6. The Applicant shall provide parking space for a car sharing vehicle(s) (such as Zipcar);

7. The Applicant shall provide thirty (30) spaces for overnight parking to the surrounding community and in addition will provide thirty (30) spaces for existing neighborhood restaurants;

8. The Applicant shall pay for the cost of installing a new traffic light at Wisconsin and Idaho Avenues and in addition will set aside an escrow of $300,000 to provide for traffic calming and mitigation of problems resulting from the PUD once the new supermarket is in operation;

9. The number of bulb-outs on Newark Street be reduced to allow for two lanes of eastbound traffic at Wisconsin Avenue and to allow for the maneuvering of buses from Idaho to Newark at the terminal located on Newark Street, eliminating any bulb-outs that may impede bus traffic, while retaining pedestrian safety at mid-block crosswalks;

10. No more than 20% of the ground-level retail gross floor area of the PUD along Wisconsin Avenue and Newark Street shall be devoted to banks, loan offices or other financial institutions, travel agencies, or other ticket offices;

11. Restaurants and prepared food shops, including fast food establishments, are permitted but shall occupy no more than 25% of the linear street frontage of the PUD along Wisconsin Avenue, Idaho Avenue and Newark Street, N.W., based on a representation of approximately 1,500 linear feet of retail frontage in the PUD;

Giant Advocacy

This was posted on the Cleveland Park Listserv:

ANC3C votes Wednesday on whether to lend its approval to the development
proposed by Giant. This development has been a topic of debate for quite
some time and most people have formed an opinion. As we've seen, the voice
of the opposition is loud. They have flooded the ANC3C commissioners with
emails objecting to the development.

I'm writing to ask everyone who wants to see this development approved to
write an email to ANC3C anc3cmail@gmail.com Your email will be forwarded to
all commissioners.

Your voice in this debate is important.

Thanks,
Mike Rosella
Porter Street NW

News on the PPP

DCMUD updates the Tenley-Janey PPP.

CPCA Giant Meeting Jan 10

The Proposed Giant and the Community: What’s at stake?” is the subject of the next meeting of the Cleveland Park Citizens Association on Saturday, January 10, 10:15 a.m. at the Cleveland Park Library (Connecticut Avenue and Newark Street, NW). A panel of speakers will address an informative discussion of the zoning process as well as the history of the supermarket development and remaining community concerns.

Learn about the Giant Proposal

YOU'RE INVITED TO A HOLIDAY PARTY!!!

What: AWARE (Advocates of Wisconsin Avenue REnewal), a group of neighbors that support The Giant Development Application, invites you to a holiday gathering.

Why: Enjoy hot cider and baked goods, meet with neighbors, and learn more about the proposed supermarket, residences, and neighborhood retail and amenities. See renderings of the proposed project. Find out how to express your views and let your voice be heard in the approval process.

When: Saturday, December 13th, 10am - 3pm

Where: GC Murphy's, on Wisconsin Avenue between Macomb and Newark Streets, on the site of the proposed Giant development.

Who: All are welcome. Tell your friends.

Homicide in Chevy Chase

From Councilmember Cheh:

This is to inform residents that there has been a double homicide at
5320 Belt Road. The police are on the scene and are investigating.
At this point, no information about the perpetrator(s) has been
released to the public. I am in contact with Commander Klein and will
continue to monitor the situation.

Election Day Changes

The new era of change reaches down to the local level as contested ANC races around the Ward bring fresh faces to the forefront:

In ANC 3C, new commissioners William Kummings and Anne-Marie Bairstow join incumbents Josh Hart, Lee Brian Reba, Catherine May and Trudy Reeves to bring a majority who favor the redevelopment of the Giant parcel at Newark and Wisconsin. Newcomer Darcy Buckley captured over 44% of the vote in 3C05 despite the efforts of the vacating incumbent and other Giant opponents in their support of heir apparent Leila Afzal.

In ANC 3E, Jonathan Bender holds a lead over the chosen "oppose development" candidate, while Tom Quinn has made a good showing against incumbent Lucy Eldridge (62-37%). With the addition of unopposed Sam Serebin to this 5 member commission, there should be some interesting discussion about the future of the community.

In ANC 3F, Tom Whitely has defeated the erstwhile Frank Winstead. This will make one Washington Post columnist very happy.

3G represents a further repudiation of the proposed historic district as the two candidates who seemed to favor designation, Mary Rowse and incumbent Chris Fromboluti appear to have been defeated by stated opponents, David Engel and Henry Griffin respectively.

Congratulations to Laura McGiffert Slover in her bid to return to the State Board of Education.

PPP proceeds for now

According to the Examiner, the PPP for the Tenley Library and Janney school at Tenleytown will proceed despite formal objections from Councilmembers Kwame Brown and Mary Cheh. The article reads:


D.C. Deputy Mayor Neil Albert and developer LCOR Inc. plan to proceed with a
mixed-use development in Tenleytown despite opposition from Councilmembers Mary
Cheh, D-Ward 3, and Kwame Brown, D-at large and chair of the economic
development committee.

The councilmembers wrote Mayor Adrian Fenty Wednesday to say they would like
the city to abandon the project and allow the Tenley-Friendship library,
demolished on the site last year, to be rebuilt on its own. LCOR plans to build
174 units of housing along with a new library and a new, expanded Janney
Elementary School.

A spokesman for Albert, Sean Madigan, said the deputy mayor still believes the
project benefits the city by bringing more transit-accessible housing and new
money to a rebuilt Janney, and those outweigh the delay in rebuilding the
library.

“This is a project that is going to be there for 30 or 40 years and we have to
do it absolutely right,” Madigan said. He said the development will meet
conditions Cheh requested in July: no net loss in green space for Janney, added
revenue for Janney, an accelerated rebuilding timeline for Janney and no
significant delay in the library construction.

“We think there’s a really great opportunity to do a mixed use project that
meets all of our policy goals,” Madigan said.

Tim Smith, vice president of LCOR, also said his company was “fully committed
to the project” and was working to meet Cheh’s goals. “We have been working on
all of her issues, and certainly we were surprised by the letter,” Smith said.

Smith did not, however, offer a timeline for when construction might begin.
The development requires zoning changes that frequently require more than a year
to approve. The library has $1 million set aside for construction and would not
require zoning changes.

Greater Greater Washington on 3C 03

The Greater Greater Washington blog released this summary entry on the ANC 3C 03 race in Woodley Park.

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."

Cathedral History

Cathedral History Talk: How in the world did they build it?

The creation of Washington National Cathedral
Tuesdays, September 30 and October 7, 14, 21, 28, 2008
1 pm, in Perry Auditorium, 7th floor Free and open to the public

Join us for a lecture with historic images and fascinating construction
photos which help tell the story of the creation of the only gothic
Cathedral built in the 20th century. The presentation lasts approximately
30 minutes. All are welcome!

* Visit the Dreamers and Believers: Cathedral Builders exhibit and
learn about the planning and construction of the Cathedral. In the Rare
Book Library Exhibit Room through October, 2008.

* Explore a variety of touring options at the Cathedral.

* Read about Fall 2008 lecture programs at the Cathedral.

Contested ANC Races

3B02
Alan Blevins
Jackie Blumenthal

3C01
Lee Brian Reba
Paul Poe

3C03
Anne-Marie Bairstow
Jenelle M. Dennis

3C05
Darcy Buckley
Leila J. Afzal

3D01
Elizabeth (Betsy) Sandza
Kent Slowinski

3D08
Christine M. Warnke
Lee P. Minichiello


3E03
Jonathan Bender
Joseph T. Carlson

3E04
Lucy Eldridge
Tom Quinn

3F04
Frank Winstead
Tom Whitley

3F05
Kathryn I. Hughes
Mital M. Gandhi

3F07
Daniel L. Klibanoff
Michael Curcio

3G05
David Engel
Mary Rowse

3G07
Cris Fromboluti
Earle Douglass
Henry Griffin

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.

Yogiberry is Coming

According to reports, local vendor Yogiberry will soon inhabit the former Foster Brothers site in the Park 'N Shop in Cleveland Park.

Fox 5 on the Chevy Chase Historic District

Karen Grey Houston filed this report about the proposed historic district in Chevy Chase, DC.

Additional commentary is provided on the Great Greater Washington blog.

PPP Meeting covered in DC MUD

DC MUD has good coverage of the Tenley-Janney PPP Meeting from last evening.

Vision: Street Cars in Ward 3

A recent entry on the Track Twenty-Nine Blog shows a visionary expansion to the Streetcar implementation underway at DDOT.

Long time residents will remember a time when the street cars ran from downtown through Palisades to Glen Echo, or out to Chevy Chase.

This plan shows the fixed-track system feeding downtown via Wisconsin Avenue and Connecticut Avenue.

Where other lines would make sense to connect Ward 3 to the city and region?

Another Pedestrian Struck in Ward 3

Another pedestrian was struck in Ward 3 this evening. As documented by Cleveland Park resident Bill Adler:

A pedestrian was hit by a car at Connecticut Avenue and Porter Street at about 6:20pm today, Monday. It appears that the driver of an SUV, which had Florida plates, was trying to turn left from Connecticut Avenue onto Porter Street, where no left turn is allowed at any time.

Fortunately, the pedestrian did not appear to be seriously injured.

Grasping for Straws in Cleveland Park

A post on the Cleveland Park Listserve exposes another ploy by opponents of the Giant redevelopment proposal in Cleveland Park.

The papers in question were filed with the Zoning Commission prior to the July set down hearing. Authored by long time opponent Diane Olsson, the legal document suggests that because the property in question lies within the neighborhood overlay the process should not proceed as a PUD.

As the listserv posts explains:

The main contention is that the Giant PUD would "eliminate the Neighborhood Commercial Overlay for the area included in the PUD" and the Commission did not have the power to do that.

The post concludes:

The issue is what lengths people are going to in order to block progress and if such tactics will succeed . I would have thought that the Historic Building argument was equally flawed, but it was able to create a lengthy delay.

Giant clears First Hurdle

As reported in the NW Current and the Cleveland Park Listserv, the Giant set-down hearing took place last week, and the Zoning Commission has placed the project on the agenda for the fall.

While there are issues to settle out in terms of access, density etc, it is nice to see that the void on Wisconsin Avenue may soon be filled.

Another ANC Commissioner Gets Huffy

In the ongoing traffic issues associated with the Morrison Street signal, ANC 3/4G Commissioner Jerry Levine has clearly grown impatient with DDOT. At a June 23rd Commissioner meeting, the now former DDOT Director announced that the controversial pedestrian signal would be altered to a conventional configuration.

A month later, the change still has not taken place. As a result, the Commissioner has posted not once, but twice urging residents in a call to arms to barrage DDOT officials with emails advocating for the reconfiguration for the light, accusing the agency of "dragging its feet".

Many of the comments in response are supportive of the Commissioner. However they are also viewing the signal from the perspective of a driver:

Cars on Morrison Street have either a flashing red, which works like a stop sign, or a solid red with a 'no turn on solid red' sign. Since the more heavily-trafficked Connecticut Avenue has a flashing yellow when Morrison has a flashing red, drivers on Morrison sometimes have to wait through several light cycles before finding a break in the Connecticut Avenue traffic that allows them to turn or cross.

...

Others have a different perspective on the realities of managing traffic within the confines of Federal Standards:

They might be dragging their feet because a traditional light at the
Morrison Street intersection with the avenue violates a couple of
principles of traffic planning and is probably not a good idea.

The most obvious problem is that by adding making the Morrison light a
traditional r/a/g light, you'll have three lights on a major arterial
street in very quick succession - indeed the existing two lights are
already closer together than desirable. The other issue is that it
will tend to turn Morrison into a feeder st. for the avenue when it
wasn't built or designed for that purpose (unlike, e.g. McKinley).

...

Still others support the signal because of the pedestrian-friendly benefits it provides:

Unless (DDOT) can make a more compelling case, the pedestrian signal at Morrison Street and Connecticut Avenue NW should be retained with some minor adjustments to eliminate any driver confusion. For a year and a half, it has served as a model for protecting pedestrians, where installing a regular cycling signal would have created safety, congestion and other traffic problems on a busy commuter corridor and cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets.

Either way, this is an interesting study in micro-politics in the District. Does the community need to be able to dictate policy to city agencies? What should the requirements of "Great Weight" mean, particularly when Federal guidelines and standards come into play? After all, this ANC was also behind the move to reinvent Military Road.