(Do I) Hate to Say I told you so (?)

(Song by The Hives.)

My two major complaints about going forward with approving the revised DC Comprehensive Plan last December were that:

1. Urban Design wasn't designated the primary element for the purposes of land use decision making including zoning.

2. Transportation Demand Management was barely discussed in the Transportation Element and that in fact, TDM should provide the primary organizing framework for transportation planning in DC. (Although as an agency the DC Department of Transportation also has to be focused on supply--infrastructure, including transit and roads).

The only substantive (and barely substantive at that) provision for TDM is that it is required now, for PUD matters. But since planned unit developments comprise such a small proportion of new projects, and because frankly, TDM matters just as much if not more, for extant projects and institutional uses, this bumping up from a suggestion to a requirement has little impact. (Although I suppose I can say that I helped change one word in the Comprehensive Plan!)

As you will see from this example from yesterday...

I have written from time to time about the project on the 600 block of H Street NE, mostly about the design. The BZA hearing on this matter was yesterday--I didn't attend-- but one of the ANC6A people involved in the matter wrote about what transpired.

DDOT's concerns about transportation demand management were completely dismissed by the developer and the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

From an email to the ANC-6A yahoogroup by ANC Commissioner David Holmes:

The BZA today adopted a motion in BZA #17521, granting the relief related to the H Street Design Requirements and Design Guidelines sought by the developer of 601-645 H Street. ANC 6A, 6th and H Street Neighborhood Association, and Stanton Park Neighborhood Association had by letter confirmed the community's acceptance of the final design elevations that were submitted on January 31, which addressed the H Street Design Guidelines...

The DDOT mailed to the BZA, on February 2, an extensive set of recommendations, criticisms and proposed conditions to consider in making its ruling. DDOT did not forward copies of this document to thed eveloper or the other parties to #17521. Presented with this six page document at the hearing itself, Griffis asked if the hearing should be postponed to allow the Applicant (H Street Ventures, LLC) and the community groups a chance to consider and respond.

The Board, with the concurrence of the developer's attorney, Norman Glasgow, as well as SPNA and ANC 6A, agreed to waive additional time to comment and agreed to proceed immediately. (emphasis added)

Mr. Glasgow [the lawyer for the developer] rejected DDOT desire for 7% of the parking spaces to be set aside for carpools and vanpools, but agreed to 5 slots. He agreed to set aside four parking spaces for car-sharing vehicles, but disagreed to the DDOT proposals that the garage be kept open to the public for 24/7 access to these car-sharing spaces, and that the spaces be free of charge. He disagreed to the DDOT condition that the developer provide complimentary $60 fare media to the tenants' employees (these would be principally DC government employees). Finally Mr. Glasgow objected to a DDOT-proposed condition that H Street Ventures escrow the entire proposed cost of the mid-block crossing. He said the developer will build the crossing; there is no need for escrow.

Please note that Mr. Glasgow’s objections and agreements reflect the previously agreed negotiations between H Street Ventures and the community. ...

[I was in some of thosse meetings, not the transportation meetings I guess. I never participated in the discussions referred to here. If that's the case, then we have a long way to go. This demonstrates that even thoughtful people can screw up when it comes to advocating for sound transportation planning and demand management. The transitcheck policy is something that many developers do....in Arlington. But is Arlington world-class, and DC merely a piker when it comes to sound transportation planning and management?]

The record will remain open for the submission of the new elevations that address the street level retail facade, elevations that reflect community suggestions and concerns. This, evidently, is the first time the BZA has opened a decision session to parties to the case that weres itting in the audience. DDOT continues to object to the provision of 487 parking spaces. The community, of course, wants this parking to keep vehicles out of the neighborhoods, to assist in the public view that H Street is a destination location, and to encourage patronage of the shops in and adjacent to 601-645 H Street. Chairman Griffis commented on the community support for these parking facilities. .... (emphasis added)

Leaders lead. Or not.

One of the reasons that so many land use planning processes are contentious is that most of the people involved don't know much about land use, placemaking, and transportation. I don't blame the average citizen for that lack of knowledge. It's up to public officials to help build the base of understanding--after all, they are professionals and paid to inform and educate.

I am not saying this to lead the band to favor eliminating height restrictions for DC buildings, as was discussed by Chris Leinberger at a session at the National Building Museum last week.

In fact, those kinds of overreaching statements are why the average citizen tends to be very sceptical when a developer or a government official says "We're here to help you..."

The BZA Chair has been nominated to become the chair of the Zoning Commission. There is outcry about this in certain quarters. I tend to think that such citizen outcry doesn't matter, because this is about development and the Growth Machine, not about mediating citizen concerns and developer desires.

See "Fenty asked to withdraw nominee" from the Examiner and "No Permanent Enemies" from the Washington City Paper about some of the reaction to this appointment.

But this abject failure to understand the necessary intertwining of land use and transportation planning makes me wonder how qualified Mr. Griffis really is to become the Chair of the Zoning Commission.

In fact, this matter alone might make me stand up and testify (against) at the confirmation hearing.