Author: Elena Sorokina
Smart Growth, Environmental Groups Release ‘Blueprint’ for Transportation Ahead of Northern Virginia Transportation Authority Plan
Good stuff, including from former Loudoun County Supervisor Andrea McGimsey (now moved on to much bigger/better things as Senior Director, Global Warming Solutions at Environment America – congratulations!). – Lowell
Smart growth, environmental groups release ‘Blueprint’ for transportation ahead of Northern Virginia Transportation Authority plan
Blueprint for Better Transportation provides framework for multi-modal transportation and stronger communities
ARLINGTON, Virginia – More than 10 smart growth and environmental groups from around the region released a plan for expanding transportation choices and creating better communities in northern Virginia on Wednesday. The Blueprint for Better Transportation in Northern Virginia is a comprehensive recommendation for regional transportation planning focused on reducing the amount residents must drive. If implemented, the Blueprint would use existing transportation funds to invest in stronger economies, healthier communities and cleaner air and water – while also mitigating traffic congestion.
The Blueprint provides a framework and list of transportation projects that will create mixed-use, walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented communities throughout the region. The plan focuses on combining transit-oriented development with improved access to regional transit so that more people can walk, bicycle and drive to transit for daily trips.
“As the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority decides how to spend over a billion dollars in transportation funds during the next six years, it is critical that we invest in projects that are equitable, provide multiple benefits, and more travel choices for residents and commuters,” Karen Campblin, Transportation and Smart Growth Chair of the Sierra Club Virginia Chapter, said.
Groups endorsing the Blueprint include the Sierra Club, Environment Virginia, the Climate Reality Project: Northern VA Chapter, the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, the Fairfax Alliance for Better Bicycling, Network NoVA, Friends of Accotink, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Audubon Naturalist Society, the Coalition for Smarter Growth and the Prince William Conservation Alliance.
“How and where we build our communities is so important to reducing carbon pollution from the transportation sector, which is now the #1 driver of global warming. If people can safely walk, bicycle, and reach mass transit, they have the freedom to choose a carbon-free way to go about their days,” Andrea McGimsey, Senior Director, Global Warming Solutions, Environment America said.
Many of the projects in the Blueprint are relatively inexpensive improvements such as sidewalk, bike, trail and bus connections that knit together more walkable, transit-oriented communities. Model communities are emerging in areas as diverse as Tysons, Potomac Yard in Alexandria, Ashburn Station in Loudoun and Woodbridge, Manassas and Manassas Park in Prince William. These projects have multiple benefits, including expanded transportation choices, reduced pollution from motor vehicles, and connecting vibrant communities that employers and employees are increasingly seeking. Reports on walkable urban places by Chris Leinberger and his team at George Washington University have documented the economic and fiscal benefits of mixed-use centers.
“Our plan focuses on improving options for Prince William and Manassas commuters — particularly through improvements to VRE and bus service, fixing some road bottlenecks, and promoting walkable, transit-oriented communities in Woodbridge, Manassas and Manassas Park,” Charlie Grymes, Chair of Prince William Conservation Alliance, said.
“For Loudoun County, our plan prioritizes efficiency and connectivity. This is accomplished by a focus on transit-oriented development, the creation of a parallel local road network, improving east-west transit commuting, and increasing our bicycle-pedestrian options,” Gem Bingol of The Piedmont Environmental Council said.
The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority’s long-range transportation plan identified $43 billion in potential transportation projects during the next 25 years, far beyond foreseeable revenues. That financially unconstrained plan would fuel more long-distance driving and make little progress toward a more sustainable future for our region. The shortcomings of the plan demonstrate the need for a new direction in transportation that complements smart land uses so that residents and commuters have choices in how they get around.
“Every resident who lives or works in a mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented community has the opportunity to drive less, and use other modes, and each contributes to a regional transportation solution,” Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said. “NVTA’s $43 billion long-range plan fails to focus on supporting more sustainable land use and therefore will not solve our traffic problems. Our plan provides sensible, cost-effective investments that will not only mitigate traffic congestion but also create communities where people want to live and work, and expand local governments’ tax bases.”
###
Information on the Blueprint for Better Transportation in Northern Virginia can be found at http://vasierra.club/blueprint
The blueprint itself can be read here: http://vasierraclub.org/
Read the original article here.
In a historic victory, Maryland passes dedicated funding for Metro
The Maryland General Assembly passed legislation Thursday providing dedicated state funding for Metro of $167 million per year. With this action, regional dedicated funding for Metro is a big step closer to reality.
The Maryland Metro/Transit Funding Act (SB 277/HB 372) was introduced by Senator Brian Feldman and Delegates Marc Korman and Erek Barron. The legislation establishes a dedicated, permanent allocation to Metro of $167 million per year from the Maryland Transportation Trust Fund. The bill passed the Senate unanimously, and the House on a bipartisan basis.
The funding is dependent on Virginia and DC establishing their own dedicated funding streams of $154 million and $178 million, respectively. Last month, Virginia passed their $154 million share of dedicated funding, and the District has signaled its intent to pass legislation to fund their share of $178 million. With Maryland’s commitment to $167 million nearly finalized, the three jurisdictions are poised to meet Metro General Manager Paul Wiedefeld’s request for an additional $500 million annually for needed capital improvements.
This is welcome news for regional Metro advocates — including many that work on transportation and environmental issues — that have been pushing for dedicated funding for years. The MetroNow Coalition, including the Coalition for Smarter Growth, Federal City Council, Greater Washington Board of Trade, Greater Washington Partnership, and Greater Greater Washington, worked with legislators in both Richmond and Annapolis to move the respective bills in the right direction.
The new dedicated funding from Maryland will be for capital costs, as requested by Metro, and it will be made in addition to current yearly capital allocations to Metro from the state. The bill requires the existing capital contribution to increase at 3% annually over the previous year’s amount to ensure that overall Metro capital funding from the state does not lapse over time.
The new dedicated funding comes with several requirements. In addition to being dependent on Virginia and DC paying their respective shares, the bill also requires WMATA to provide a continuous stream of data and information to Maryland, including giving Maryland strict oversight of any modified audit opinions received by WMATA.
While primarily a WMATA bill, the legislation was amended to include three years of additional funding for the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) and some new requirements for that agency. The additional funding is in response to the significant issues the Baltimore City Metro system is currently facing, and amounts to an extra $60 million per year for three years in both operating and capital.
The legislation was the result of of regional, bicameral, and bipartisan cooperation. Governor Larry Hogan last fall had proposed an additional allocation of $125 million to WMATA for four years only, and the legislation passed yesterday originally started at that number. However, after negotiations with the administration, the legislature was able to increase the amount to Maryland’s full $167 million share with the bill still having the support of the Governor.
With yesterday’s vote, the legislation now heads to the Governor’s desk for his signature.
As the funding bill nears signing, an accompanying bill by the same legislators to enhance WMATA oversight is also close to passage. While WMATA needs more funding, money alone will not solve its challenges. The provisions within the funding bill and accompanying legislation that impose a greater level of scrutiny on WMATA are important measures to ensure that this regional investment is well managed.
With the renewal of federal capital funding for Metro through the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 in jeopardy, the achievement of regional consensus to reach $500 million absent federal funding became more important. Since WMATA’s formation in 1967, the region has never been closer to achieving dedicated funding for Metro. Thanks to the hard work of advocates and lawmakers, WMATA may soon have what it has lacked for over 50 years.
Photo courtesy of Joe Flood. Read the original article here.
An Accessory Dwelling Units how-to + ‘Kojo Show’ on how to increase NW DC housing affordability
Affordable housing is hot topic in the District – because it is increasingly unaffordable for many people to live here. The Forest Hills neighborhood has unrealized opportunities to increase housing density and affordability through Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs: small apartments inside a home or in a space outside the main house.
A home in Portland, Oregon with an accessory dwelling in the back. (photo from AccessoryDwellings.org, used under Creative Commons license)
Some neighbors already have converted basements, attics, garages and other spaces into rental units. And the updated zoning code makes this easier by allowing such units as “matter of right.” No more time-consuming hearings. Specific information can be found in the Zoning Handbook.
The National Building Museum is hosted a talk Monday night on how ADUs can make room for more housing in DC. The moderator was Harriet Tregoning, former head of DC Office of Planning, with featured speakers Cheryl Cort, Policy Director of Coalition for Smarter Growth, architect Jennifer Harty and Aakash Thakkar, an ADU homeowner. If you could’t make this, check out this post on ADUs at GreaterGreaterWashington.org.
And on the broader topic of housing affordability in the District, the WAMU’s “The Kojo Nnamdi Show” discussed the latest research from the D.C. Policy Center Monday (listen here). The study makes the case for more development and density in upper Northwest DC, and says it’s possible to add housing while still preserving neighborhood character. Read WAMU’s report on the study.
Do you have an Accessory Dwelling Unit, or rent one? Tell us about it.
Photo courtesy of AccessoryDwellings.org. Read the original article here.
Valedictorian of the creative class?
Richard Florida, a best-selling author and urban-studies scholar, teaches in Toronto, one of 20 contenders for Amazon’s $5 billion second headquarters.
But since the competition for Amazon HQ2 began last fall, “I’ve predicted that the D.C. area would be the winner,” says Florida, a former professor at George Mason University. “The reason is that the metro area has one of the highest concentrations of knowledge workers, educated workers, creative workers on the planet. I don’t know if it’s going to go to Northern Virginia, Maryland or D.C. but I clearly think it’s going to head in your direction.”
Florida is widely known for his ideas about the “creative class.” Under that concept, metro areas need to attract large numbers of highly skilled and talented workers to stimulate economic development.
The second Amazon headquarters is expected to create 50,000 jobs during the next 15 to 17 years. Stephen Moret, president and CEO of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, describes the project as the “economic prize of the century.” The Washington, D.C., metro area is the only one to have three contenders still in the running for HQ2: the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia and Montgomery County, Md. The Washington Post reported that Amazon officials toured the Washington area in early March.
Jim Corcoran, president and CEO of the Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce, believes Northern Virginia’s workforce talent is crucial to its efforts to beat out the 19 other contenders. “Our area has the most educated workforce in the United States,” he says.
Corcoran praises what is “maybe the greatest community college system in the United States,” adding that Northern VirginiCommunity College and George Mason University have strong cybersecurity programs.
According to The Washington Post, Amazon is considering these Northern Virginia locations for its headquarters:
Property on Fairfax/Loudoun county line (now occupied by the Center for Innovative Technology) near Washington Dulles International Airport; The Crystal City/Potomac Yard area; and Potomac Shores and Innovation Park in Prince William County.
Virginia has not released information about any possible incentives being offered to Amazon. District of Columbia officials have said they are willing to offer significant tax breaks but have not released any details. Maryland, on the other hand, is promising a $5 billion incentive package in its bid.
The Achilles’ heel The contrasting approaches of the three Washington-area contenders point to what Florida sees as their Achilles’ heel, a lack of collaboration. “That does not exist, which is reflected in the fact that there are three bids,” Florida says. “The region has to grow up and figure out how to work together.”
That lack of cooperation has contributed to the region’s “gridlock nightmare,” Florida says. “If you have to get anywhere in a car, a metro area starts to break down when you have 5 or 6 million people. You’ve got to grow differently and add density, like London or New York. This is not a place that is going to grow any more based on cars.”
Corcoran, however, argues that Northern Virginia “has great transportation, but not perfect transportation … That’s the result of the dynamic economy because people want to be there and are going places. Traffic is an indication of prosperity.”
Virginia has made significant investments in transportation in Northern Virginia in the past decade and continues to invest, he says, with new HOT lanes and improvements to Interstates 66 and 95 and Routes 7 and 28. “Everything that can be fixed is being fixed or improved.”
The new Silver Line extension of the Metrorail transit system and more regional buses also are signs of the region’s commitment to untangling the area’s transportation system, Corcoran says. “This area doesn’t have to say we will invest in mass transportation for Amazon; we’ve done it.”
But delays, safety concerns and a drop in ridership continue to plague the subway system. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority says it needs an annual $500 million infusion of capital funding from Virginia, Maryland and the District. In March, the Virginia General Assembly approved $154 million in new permanent funding for Metro, By late March, Maryland and the District had approved similar funding.
Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, says three jurisdictions have shown a commitment to making improvements.
“We are seeing positive movement. We are finding new dedicated funding,” Schwartz says. “They have been talking to each other. Yes, indeed, they are working closely together. I think that has been noted by Amazon” and by other corporations that have chosen to move into the area, such as Nestlé, which recently moved its U.S. headquarters to Rosslyn.
The subway system also remains a key part of the region’s commitment to be bike and pedestrian friendly, Schwartz says, an initiative that makes it attractive to a millennial workforce.
Room to build Northern Virginia still offers plenty of room to build, for office space and housing, says CoStar Group market analyst Omeed Naderi. He points to Tysons and Reston as two of the most active housing development areas.
Julian Spiker, also a market analyst at CoStar, says there’s also room for Amazon in the Crystal City area. “Crystal City has a lot of older office space. JBG Smith owns a lot of space and has already committed to revitalization whether or not Amazon moves there. It’s a good opportunity. One has what the other needs.”
Plus, the area will have a new Metro stop at Potomac Yard, which is expected to open in 2021.
The extension of the Silver Line Metro along the Dulles corridor, with stations from Reston Town Center to Ashburn expected to open in 2020, is perfectly timed, says Dee Owens, an associate broker with RE/MAX Gateway in Virginia. “Amazon can pull talent from farther out.”
Owens worked in real estate in Seattle during the Amazon boom and calls the experience “wonderful preparation for what I hope is going to come to us.”
One lesson she learned is that Northern Virginia will need investors in rental properties. Some of those 50,000 jobs Amazon is promising will be high paying, Owens says, “but a lot will be jobs for people right out of college, and they’ll want to rent at first.”
Seattle built a satellite campus, she notes, which could be good news for Prince William County. “A satellite would make good business sense. You could pull in people from Gainesville and Haymarket. People will travel up to an hour to a job. If you pay enough they will go.”
If not NoVa? If Amazon picks Maryland or the District for its headquarters, Northern Virginia still will reap plenty of rewards, Florida says, because “a ton of residents will choose to live in Northern Virginia. There will be benefits without some of the cost. If I were Northern Virginia, I’d be hoping for one of the others and get the spillover benefits.”
Corcoran agrees that Northern Virginia will benefit if one of its neighbors is the winner.
In fact, he sees great possibilities if any one of the three areas takes the prize. Those possibilities include extending the Purple Line light rail from Maryland into Virginia or adding another bridge across the Potomac River.
“That could be the impetus to improved transportation cooperation. Right now, that stops at the river,” he says. “Maybe it would force a conversation and evaluation to improve regional mobility.”
Read the original article here.
D.C.’s Plan For Future Growth Fails Low-Income Residents, Activists Say
Nearly 300 people signed up to testify before the D.C. Council Tuesday on what might sound like an obscure subject: the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
More than just a turgid government document, the plan is a roadmap for the District’s future development. It establishes the city’s guiding principles over the next 20 years for land use, economic development, environmental protection, transportation and beyond. But as officials prepare to update the roadmap for the first time in seven years, some activists and nonprofit groups worry the process is steering the city toward a less equitable future.
The Office of Planning has proposed a slew of updates to the plan’s framework — the guiding document that sets the tone for the rest of the plan — and most haven’t attracted much controversy. But at a hearing at the Wilson Building on March 20, two points in particular had witnesses fired up: They said the plan doesn’t make a sincere commitment to preserving and building more affordable housing, and that it makes it much harder for residents to appeal development they believe could worsen gentrification.
“The agencies and the city are not really working to make sure that the displacement crisis is addressed,” said Empower DC Executive Director Parisa Norouzi outside the hearing. “Are we building exclusive communities for wealthier single people? Yes, we are. Is that what we should be doing, given evidence of the need that exists in the city? No.”
In its proposed updates, the Office of Planning mentions affordability multiple times. For example, one new passage reads, “The degree to which the District’s family-sized housing stock can be retained or expanded, and remain affordable is … critical.” But many say the updates fall short of a real pledge to keep low-income people in their homes.
Cheryl Cort, policy director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth, says the District could mitigate displacement by investing more in the D.C. Local Rent Supplement Program and Housing Production Trust Fund (although a recent audit alleges the fund is seriously mismanaged). But above all, she says, the city must build more places for people to live.
“We need more housing to keep up with demand,” Cort said Monday, “so we can hold down rising prices that are caused by not having enough supply.”
That’s where groups like Empower DC and the Coalition for Smarter Growth diverge. Affordable-housing advocates have chosen to battle gentrification by stopping development in its tracks, a strategy critics dismiss as short-sighted. Activist Chris Otten, who heads the group D.C. for Reasonable Development, has been particularly successful at appealing projects in federal court, miring developers in red tape for months. In some cases, he’s managed to block development altogether, successfully arguing that certain projects violate the Comprehensive Plan. One legal dispute with an Adams Morgan hotel developer didn’t stop the hotel from being built, but it won a group of residents, led by Otten, a $2 million settlement.
Norouzi says taking developers to court is the most effective way to put power back in the public’s hands. “The reason why people are appealing is because nobody’s looking out for the residents,” she said.
The string of legal challenges has struck fear into the hearts of developers, but it hasn’t stopped development altogether. Now some builders are choosing to circumvent the public process — called Planned Unit Development — that makes them vulnerable to appeals. The move is creating unintended consequences, observers say.
The city relies on the PUD process to extract better community amenities from developers, such as more affordable units than are legally required. D.C. Planning Director Eric Shaw has said that PUDs produced 2,530 affordable units in FY 2017, 19 percent of all new apartments built that year.
The last thing housing advocates should want, says David Alpert of nonprofit Greater Greater Washington, is to prevent residents from striking better deals with developers.
“The recent court decisions, some of them call into question whether any community benefits agreement can be negotiated, agreed to, and then enforced without someone simply bringing a lawsuit and trying to overturn the entire thing,” Alpert said.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Alpert criticized activists’ tactics as “filibustering,” and voiced his support for a proposed update to the Comprehensive Plan that would protect the Planned Unit Development process from being hijacked.
“A few people can delay or halt even something which has had robust community input and support,” Alpert said at the hearing. “Is a land-use system, where no matter the community support, anything can be filibustered, really good government?”
But while witnesses at Tuesday’s hearing didn’t agree on how D.C. government should control skyrocketing housing prices, they concurred that the city is in the midst of an affordability crisis that the Comprehensive Plan must address. That idea found support among Council members who spoke before the hearing.
“The Comprehensive Plan has potential to impact the cost of housing, incomes and other things that could lead to displacement,” said Ward 5 Council member Kenyan McDuffie, “and government has a responsibility to minimize displacement at all costs.”
The Council took no decisive action Tuesday, and lawmakers expect to negotiate changes to the planning document in the coming months.
Expect Crowds at Tuesday’s Hearing on Proposed Amendments to D.C.’s Comprehensive Plan
More than 270 people have signed up to testify at a D.C. Council hearing on Tuesday afternoon. The topic: Mayor Muriel Bowser’s proposed amendments to D.C.’s Comprehensive Plan, the thick planning bible that guides how tall and dense new construction should be throughout the District.
Drafted by the mayor’s Office of Planning (OP), the initial 60 pages of amendments would make it easier for developers to construct large projects and withstand a court appeals process that has paralyzed several projects.
Since late January, a loose coalition has mobilized to fight these amendments. They call themselves the Grassroots Planning Coalition and their tagline is “Stop the #ComprehensiveScam.” In their view, the proposed changes to the plan would be a coup for pro-smart growth urbanists and the developer class.
This election cycle, the Coalition hopes to tap into voter anger over displacement and offer an alternative to their perceived enemies, an urbanist bloc that tends to support more development. On their side are lefty candidates like Jeremiah Lowery, who is challenging At-Large Councilmember Anita Bonds. Lowery peppers his speeches with disdain for millionaire developers.
The Coalition’s strategizing meetings have drawn intrepid zoning wonks, street organizers, and historic preservationists. Together, its members, in their own words, aim to counterbalance the power of developers over public officials.
“They have their foot on the Wilson Building,” said David Schwartzman, a perennial D.C. Council candidate from the D.C. Statehood Green Party, at a March 10 strategizing meeting in Anacostia. He recited a dizzying list of foes, starting with the “big banks” and “big developers” and ending with the Federal City Council, the D.C. Policy Center, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, and Greater Greater Washington.
“This whole thing was supposed to be an amendments cycle, and OP approached it as a whole rewrite,” says Stephen Hansen, chair of the Committee of 100. Founded in 1923, the Committee of 100 is a longtime guard of D.C.’s Height Act and often engages in historic preservation and nitty-gritty zoning policy issues. In terms of taking on the mayor this time around, Hansen says: “I would say it’s one of our stronger stances historically.”
“The Committee tends to be more policy-orientated. The advantage to our joining this coalition is that it’s a more grassroots reach,” he explains. “It’s a good symbiotic relationship.”
The coalition is chiefly worried that the amendments would weaken their hand in appealing development projects. Amid the District’s development boom, those well-schooled in the Comprehensive Plan have successfully slowed down projects through the D.C. Court of Appeals, which has become a thorn in the side of developers and city planning officials.
In the telling of the Committee and their allies, developers and the D.C. Zoning Commission ignored the Comprehensive Plan for years, even as the Home Rule Act mandates that zoning should “not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.”
Local activists like Chris Otten, who is part of a group called DC for Reasonable Development, began appealing projects to the D.C. Court of Appeals. These appeals tend to rest on arguments that the Zoning Commission did not adequately address the potential ripple effects of a given large development project: its effects on the environment, displacement, and the most vulnerable existing residents.
Otten’s big break came in December 2016, when the appeals court tossed out the Zoning Commission’s approval of the giant redevelopment proposal at the McMillan Sand Filtration site. The court ruled that “the project is inconsistent with the District’s Comprehensive Plan”—music to the ears for types like Otten. The precedent paved the way for over a dozen other appeals to the federal court, which have resulted in delays for major projects.
Now, Otten and opponents of the mayor’s amendments say developers over the past two years have proposed rewriting the Comprehensive Plan to avoid legal tangles. (The Office of Planning received more than 3,000 public submissions for amendments to the plan.) Through wordsmithing, critics say, the plan has been loosened to allow open interpretation.
“It’s not eliminating our rights to appeal. We will be able to appeal a decision in the future. But we don’t have any teeth,” Otten said at a meeting of the Grassroots Planning Coalition on March 10. “We go into the court, and they’ll just laugh us out of there, because they’re weakening [the Comprehensive Plan], fuzzy-ing it.”
While Otten and other complainants profess they are acting in the interests of keeping neighborhoods affordable, smart-growth proponents call the appeals obstruction. Yet worse, many city planners and developers say the throttling of residential development has exacerbated the crisis of affordability in D.C.
“When we hold up all housing, we hold up affordable housing,” said Eric Shaw, director of the Office of Planning, at a Feb. 28 D.C. Council oversight meeting. “That’s the truth.”
***
While the Grassroots Planning Coalition sees the city’s pro-smart-growth bloc as in bed with developers, the two sides have similar goals on paper. David Alpert, founder and president of Greater Greater Washington, says he shares concerns that OP’s amendments don’t adequately address affordable housing and displacement.
“We were also disappointed with the amendments that were created,” Alpert says. GGWworked with over a dozen groups to come up with a package of proposals for the Comprehensive Plan.
That coalition released a 43-page “DC Housing Priorities” paper, advocating for the “creation and preservation of a supply of housing (market-rate and subsidized affordable) to meet the demand at all income levels.” Alpert emphasizes that the city needs to push for more housing for those making 30 percent and 50 percent of the area median income, or between $33,000 and $55,150 a year for a family of four.
“There needs to be a really strong focus on affordable housing and displacement,” Alpert says, which sounds a lot like the talking points of the Grassroots Planning Coalition.
When asked about the opportunity for common ground, Hansen sounded tired. “I don’t want to put my energy in talking about them,” the Committee of 100 chair says. “It looks like we have common goals, but how we hope to reach them is very different avenues.”
Hansen sees Alpert and his allies as adherents of Reagonimcs and the “build, baby build” mentality, with hopes that the free market will one day help lower-income residents. “It failed in the ’80s, and it would fail with housing as well,” Hansen says. (Alpert says, “We’re not people who say, ‘Merely loosening rules will on its own bring down prices.’ I don’t believe that’s the case.”)
Another division exists between the two sides on Planned Unit Developments, known as PUDs. These development projects undergo community review through Advisory Neighborhood Commissions and require Zoning Commission approval. Developers typically file for PUDs to ask for permission to build greater density than what is allowed by-right on a lot.
In exchange for exemptions from zoning rules, the developers will offer public benefits, which can include more affordable housing than what is required by law or other concessions to the community. Shaw testified to the D.C. Council that “nearly 6,000 affordable housing units” have been approved through PUDs over the past five years—3,500 more than what zoning regulations alone would have required. The whole PUD process can run over a year, with ANCs sometimes negotiating with developers for a favorable public benefits package.
Otten has filed about a dozen appeals of PUDs that the Zoning Commission has approved, arguing that they in some way don’t adhere to the Comprehensive Plan. He now says the proposed amendments are “attacking the ability of the people to hold the Zoning Commission accountable.”
Alpert calls it a course correction. “The changes being proposed just try to realign the PUD process with the way it worked before,” Alpert says. But he adds he wants a greater focus on prioritizing affordable housing and displacement, which OP’s amendments don’t yet address.
Eyes now turn to the D.C. Council and to its chairman. Over his term, Phil Mendelson has earned a reputation as a legislative reengineer, taking many of the mayor’s bills and redoing them along points of consensus. (See: the mayor’s homeless shelter plan.) But he demurs on whether he’ll turn the Comprehensive Plan edits into a personal project. “I take seriously every bill that we move and mark up,” he says dryly.
Mendelson does have his early worries. “I am concerned whether the bill goes too far in making the plan more vague and therefore less useful,” he says. “I think the Office of Planning shot itself in the foot promising 60 days of public comment before submitting the bill, and it didn’t do that.”
OP originally planned for a public comment period after releasing their proposed amendments in January, but reversed after receiving 10 times the anticipated number of public proposals, Shaw told the D.C. Council. The proposed changes on the table deal with the Framework Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the introduction section of the 1,000-page document. Public submissions for changes to the other sections of the plan are still under review.
“The city’s gonna grow, and that’s a good thing,” Mendelson says. “And I’ve never known of any city that’s turned people away”—exactly what some critics are not shy to suggest should happen. At the February meeting of the Grassroots Planning Coalition, Otten flatly asked: “Fundamentally, the question for our city is, do we want a million people?”
Activists like Parisa Norouzi, the executive director of community organizing outfit Empower DC, aren’t betting on help from the Wilson Building. “Whether or not we’re aligned on all the points, it’s yet to be seen,” she says of Mendelson, before calling him one of the most knowledgeable councilmembers on the Comprehensive Plan. “We’re used to taking on hard fights and having not many allies on the Council.”
Meanwhile, Ed Lazere, who is running against Mendelson this year, says: “If I were chair, I would make sure the Comp Plan update is really clear about preservation and creation of affordable housing.” Lazere is on leave as the head of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute.
“The current leadership, as reflected in the Comp Plan,” Lazere says, “it prioritizes the wishes of big developers over the needs of hardworking families.”