Joint ANC Town Hall Pushes Back Against Density

Advisory Neighborhood Commissions 1A/Columbia Heights and 1B/U Street hosted a joint town hall last night (August 4) to discuss legislation that will push back against increased density in residential districts. The primary front in the offensive is a proposal by the DC Office of Planning which would, among other things, reduce the height to which a residential-district home can grow "by right" from 40 feet to 35 feet. The second front is the passage into law of a long-brewing idea: the creation of "conservation districts", sort of a "historic district lite".

DC government presenters were Jennifer Steingasser, Deputy Director for Development Review and Historic Preservation at the Office of Planning, and Steve Callcott, senior preservation planner in the Historic Preservation Office (HPO).

DC Office of Planning logo

Office of Planning Proposal 

Steingasser briefed on an Office of Planning proposal (Case Number 14-11, a nine-page .pdf document here) to limit both pop-ups as well as conversions of rowhouses to multi-family units.

The proposed new regulations would apply to houses in R-4 zones. R-4 zones are zones largely of single-family residential houses. Much of the area south of U Street NW between 14th and 7th Streets is an R-4 zone, as is much of the area north of Clifton Street between Georgia and 14th.

The proposed regulations would

• reduce the height to which houses could be expanded "by right" (i.e., without applying for zoning permission) from 40 feet to 35 feet (measured from the sidewalk)
• allow height up to 40 feet if the homeowner has obtained a special exception from the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA)
• place severe restrictions on the circumstances under which a rowhouse could be converted into an apartment house.

Steingasser said this proposal stands apart from the general DC zoning rewrite. The period during which the public will be allowed to comment on this matter will stay open after the comment period for the general rewrite is closed.

During the post-presentation Q-and-A session, Steingasser was asked for a possible timeline for adoption, assuming the proposal were "accepted on a reasonable schedule". Steingasser said it was possible there would be public hearings in late October or early November, after which there would a mandatory 30-day Federal government review period. Final action could potentially take place "by the end of December".

Historic Preservation on Conservation Districts

Steve Caldcott reported that the idea of conservation districts was moving forward. The legislation is still in draft form, Caldcott said, but he expected the legislation to be "wrapped up this month" and ready for presentation to the DC Council this fall.

A conservation district would be similar to a historic district, but the level of protection for buildings would be lower. Once a conservation district had been established, however, any proposed demolition or major alteration of a building would have to come before the HPO. Additions to a building that "fundamentally expand" a building would also be subject to review. Front alterations would also be investigated by HPO, but Caldcott said the office would not get into as much detail as they might in a full-fledged historic district. Finally, all new construction would be subject to review.

A community would have to petition to be considered a conservation district, in much the same way as areas today petition to be historic districts.

After Caldcott and Steingasser presented, people attending were asked for a show of hands, for or against the proposals. The vote passed too quickly to count hands, but my impression was that 75-90% of the audience was in favor.

The emcee for the evening was ANC1B Commissioner Mark Ramslem (district 08). ANC Chairs Kent Boese (ANC1A Commissioner for district 08) and James Turner (ANC1B Commissioner for district 09) also spoke, as did Commissioner E. Gail Anderson Holness (ANC1B district 11). 

"Should this go forward, it would effect the community in a significant manner," Kent Boese said.

2724 11th Street: Tenants and Neighbors Mobilize Against Landlord

A group of 20 tenants and neighbors of 2724 11th Street NW travelled Friday afternoon, August 1, to the offices of SCF Management LLC (1433 T Street) to hand-deliver a report about the condition of their building. The condition of the building is very poor, with evidence of vermin infestation and neglect everywhere. There is also a large hole in the side of the building, as a result of an unauthorized, and then abandoned, renovation.

The front entrance last Friday

SCF Management LLC met with the delegation. There was a brief discussion in the corridor outside the management office. Representatives of the management company said the group did not have the right to be in the building or to speak on behalf of the tenants. Members of the delegation disagreed. Management company representatives said they would try to arrange a meeting between tenants only and the building's owners. Eventually, the group delivered the report and left the building without incident.

An ad-hoc group called Save 2724 11th Street organized the delivery of the report. According to an email from Amal Mimish, a member of the group, Save 2724 11th Street is a coalition of two groups. The first group is 35 tenants of the building, representing about 90% of the current residents. The second group are neighbors, "an active working group of about 20."

Save 2724 11th Street has a web site, a Facebook page, a Twitter feed, and online petition.

As reported in the SALM blog post of June 23, the owners of 2724 11th Street are currently not allowed to raise rents due to rent control restrictions. The owners have presented a "hardship petition" to DC authorities which, if approved, would allow them to raise the rent on all apartments by more than 31 percent, or between $200 and $300.

"Almost all the tenants are making very low wages, though working 2 or 3 jobs, and the others are on fixed retirement or disability incomes," Mimish said. "I would guess that maybe 10-15% could handle a small increase in rent if given adequate notice. The others would have to move out."

Save 2724 11th Street's on-line petition asks that the current owners sell the building to someone more willing to maintain it. Until that happens, the petition asks that owners make the necessary repairs.

After the visit to the management company, the group met on a T Street sidewalk near the management company's offices. Members of the group pledged to come back "every single month" until the situation improves.

Meanwhile, information from the web site of DC's Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) indicates the owners of 2724 11th Street requested a postponement of consideration until October 21 of an application for a handful of zoning variances. The proposal met with a frosty reception at a committee meeting of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street in June -- see the same June 23 blog post referenced above. The request says the postponement will "allow more time for the ANC and the [owners] to work together."

The variances, if approved, would allow the owners to convert unused basement space 2714 11th Street to 11 apartments which would rent, initially, at market rate. Mimish, in her email, says the tenants would be asked to move temporarily while the new living space is prepared.

Save 2724 11th Street tweeted about the visit. I assembled the tweets into a narrative using the web tool Storify here.

Cheater's Guide to "Dream City" -- Part 9 (Greed City)

This is the ninth installment of a series (see the first installment here) summarizing the 1994 book Dream City: Race, Power, and the Decline of Washington, D.C.by Harry Jaffe and Tom Sherwood. This book has recently been republished as an ebook and a paper book. HBO has plans to use material from the book to make a movie about the life of Marion Barry.

Chapter 8: Greed City

This chapter chronicles the DC real estate boom of the 1980s.

Developer Jeffrey N. Cohen started buying and renovating Dupont Circle brownstones in the 1970s. In 1979, Cohen and partners bought the dilapidated Parkside Hotel at 14th and I Streets NW, then a district of flophouses and strip clubs.

"Enter Marion Barry. The new mayor awarded Cohen a contract to shelter homeless families... for $507,000 a year, more than enough to cover the mortgage" (l. 2513).

In spite of appalling conditions, the city increased the contract to $530,000 and bought three surrounding buildings. In 1985, Cohen sold the property for $12 million. Two years later, it was re-sold for $39 million to a developer who put up an office building.

This pattern was repeated many times both in downtown DC and in many Maryland and Virginia suburbs. "Revenues from commercial property taxes doubled and then tripled.  The questions became how the new black political structure could ensure that the city's African-American community shared in the economic boom" (l. 2546).

James Gibson was Marion Barry's first planning director. Gibson "saw the potential in moving the central business district to the east, into the one hundred city blocks immediately north of Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the Capitol" (l. 2561). Developers levelled the structures that were there and put up office buildings.

"The city owned some choice pieces of property, especially over the downtown stations of the new Metro system" (l. 2585). In 1980, the city sold a parcel over Metro Center at $133 per square foot. At the time, comparable properties went for $500 a square foot. One of the partners in the firm that bought the property was the city's Democratic party chair and had gone on a trip to Africa with Barry. Other firms, with minority partners, got similar deals.

Another choice parcel was Gallery Place. A DC government agency valued the land at $31 million, the developer paid $17 million in July 1981. "In exchange for a low price, they promised to build offices, a hotel, shops, and apartments for low income residents" (l. 2594).

"But a decade later not a spade of dirt had been turned, the grand notion of building apartments was history, and Gallery Place was dead in the water" (l. 2608). It was sold to Oliver Carr, the city's biggest developer.

"What started as an attempt to broaden the economic base of the city soon proved to be a rich source of political favors. The city would sell land at fire-sale prices to development teams that boasted minority partners, who always seemed to be the same people with strong social and political connections to Marion Barry" (l. 2612).

" 'I call them the chosen ones,' said John Wilson, whose Ward Two council district encompassed downtown. 'What started out to benefit the minority community at large has meant some politically influential blacks can move out to posh suburbs like McLean or Potomac' " (l. 2620).

Meanwhile, the city paid increased prices for basic goods and services (e.g., heating oil, corn flakes, trash collection), supplied by influential friends and political contributors. The goods and services were often delivered late, or not at all.

"The most egregious examples were in housing and the treatment of the homeless" (l. 2654). A well-connected man named Cornelius Pitts got $3300 a month for every homeless family he shelter and fed inadequately. He also got the city to lease office space from him at $97 a square foot, when prime office space cost $25 a square foot. "Between 1985 and 1989, ....  Pitts received approximately $16.4 million in contracts" (l. 2673).

Another friend, Roy Littlejohn "came back in 1987 to go into the shelter business and opened two, Urban Shelters and the R Street Shelter, with millions of dollars in contracts. He charged the government $2800 per apartment per month and furnished small, dingy rooms with metal folding tables and chairs, or nothing" (l. 2680).

A DC city auditor explained it to Congress: "... the financial flexibility needed to carry out the agency mission is too easily subverted to the agenda of greedy, corrupt, highly placed individuals ..." (l. 2690).

"No matter how many millions of dollars in city contracts flowed to Barry's friends, it was chump change compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars that enriched the white community during the real estate boom" (l. 2693).

Oliver Carr and Barry did not get along, and Carr supported Barry's challengers for mayor in 1978 and 1982. However, Barry needed money for his campaign warchest, and Carr needed city permissions to develop land, so the two eventually met and, although not friendly, established an uneasy peace.

Investors from England, Holland, Japan, and Canada bought standing buildings in DC's downtown. Developers from Texas and Massachusetts moved in to challenger Carr and other locals.

However, many areas still bore the scars of the 1968 rioting. "To his credit, Barry chose the corner of 14th and U Streets, where the riots began, to build a new municipal center" (l. 2737).

"The only white developer who tried to bridge the gap between Washington's two worlds was Jeffrey Cohen, and he did it by attempting a major redevelopment in the Shaw neighborhood" (l. 2742).

"Cohen first scored on the abandoned Children's Hospital building at 13th and V Streets NW. He and a few partners had bought it for $5 Million in 1978 and promised to build a new rehabilitation hospital..." (l. 2747). Barry helped Cohen get a "certificate of need" for the hospital.

"Cohen never built the rehabilitation hospital. Instead, he sold the coveted certificate of need to the Washington Hospital Center for $8.7 million. As part of the deal, Cohen's group received $5.7 million in architectural and legal fees. In all, Cohen's group made $14.4 million for not building a hospital. Shaw got no jobs and no nearby health-care facility. Cohen then turned around and sold the Children's Hospital property to the city for $5.8 million, for an $800,000 profit on the land" (l. 2755).

Cohen used connections to finance further deals in Shaw throughout 1985. He also took on Barry as a 10 percent partner in a commercial development on Nantucket. "Cohen then created a dummy corporation to hide Barry's stake" (l. 2772).

"Four months later, on December 2, 1985, the mayor sent city council chairman David Clarke a bill that would float $9 million in tax-exempt bonds for Cohen to use in the renovation of the Manhattan Laundry, a sturdy structure that Cohen wanted to turn into offfices for himself. The bond passed, and once again the city picked up Jeffrey Cohen's tab" (l. 2776).

Cheater's Guide to Dream City continues next week

Further installments will appear on successive Fridays. All posts will be cross-posted on the ad-hoc "Cheater's Guide to Dream City" blog.

Full disclosure: I have a commercial relationship with Amazon. I will receive a very small portion of the money people spend after clicking on an Amazon link on this site.

This is a great book and well worth reading in its entirety.

Scoop: Dolcezza Lacks Permit for Outside Seating

A committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle voted unanimously last night (July 30) to oppose an application for a public space use permit for Dolcezza Gelato (1418 14th Street NW). ANC2F's Community Development Committee (CDC) voted to oppose the application because a representative of Dolcezza Gelato failed to appear before the committee in support of the application, and because Dolcezza Gelato has been using the space without authorization since shortly after their opening on June 28.

Enjoying ice-cream in violation of public space regulations

"They're already in violation," said Commissioner Walt Cain (district 02). Cain is the Chair of the CDC.

Dolcezza Gelato's application is for two outside tables. The space is surrounded by the same black wrought-iron fence that was there when the location was an empty storefront. However, before opening, Dolcezza Gelato removed it, cleaned it, and gave it a fresh coat of paint before re-installing.

To be fair, nobody on the committee seemed to be seriously opposed to Dolcezza's use of the space. No one from the community came to the meeting to complain or otherwise comment about the use of the space. Members of the committee were just concerned about the precedent: every applicant for a public space permit should appear before the committee.

Failing belated action by Dolcezza, the recommendation of the CDC will be ratified by the full ANC at their next scheduled meeting on August 6, at 7pm, at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle).

The final authority to approve or refuse public space applications lies with the Public Space Management division of the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). 

Reeves Center Hearing: "Most of Those Who Have Stuck Around This Late Are Wearing Suits"

Carriage Houses: Horizontal Pop-ups?

Summary: I believe DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) is encouraging, when possible, those wishing to expand homes in historic districts to forego pop-ups in favor of constructing new "carriage house-like" buildings at the rear of their properties. Plan for these new buildings often trigger a review by DC's Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA), as the old and new buildings combined take up a greater percentage of the lot than is permitted by law. The BZA seems to be willing to go along with these rear additions. The small number that have been approved so far have not changed the profile or density of historic districts. If the trend continues, there may be negative consequences.

Homeowner a no-show at meeting

On Monday, July 21, the Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street had a meeting. The only significant item on the agenda concerned 919 T Street NW. The owner sought ANC endorsement on a request to the BZA for a special exception to permit an addition at the rear of the property. The addition, the meeting agenda said, would serve as the primary residence of the owner.

919 T Street, as seen from 9-1/2 Street

There was a quorum of committee members, but owner did not show up. The chair of the committee called the owner. There was no answer. As there was no other business, the meeting disbanded. It is unclear whether the owner will be able to arrange another hearing with the committee and then with the ANC before a scheduled BZA hearing on September 9.

919 T Street is located in the U Street Historic District, so the owners got approval from the HPRB for their proposed new rear structure. The HPRB report characterizes the proposed new structure as a "two-story carriage house-like addition at the alley". (The alley is also known at "9-1/2 Street", and has 6-8 homes on it.)

The footprint of the proposed new building, combined with that of the original building, put the lot over the limit for "lot occupancy", which is why the project has to go before the BZA.

A pattern emerging?

This is the third "carriage house-like" rear structure that I've seen HPRB approve in the last two months -- see SALM blog posts for June 12 and May 30. (I also reported on one last October.) The properties are located in a variety of ANCs (1B/U Street, 2B/Dupont Circle, and 6E/Shaw) and historic districts.

In each of these cases, HPRB-approved rear structures (sometimes designed to look like long-demolished rear carriage houses) put the homeowner over the lot occupancy threshold.

In the cases reported on June 12 and May 30, the homeowner had been strongly discouraged by HPRB from pursuing a pop-up addition before receiving an approval for a rear addition. And, also in both of these cases, the homeowners subsequently received the zoning permission they sought from the BZA.

I don't know how many instances constitutes a trend, but there seems to be a pattern in HPRB, and subsequent BZA, approvals: more vertical living space -- no; more horizontal living space -- OK.

HPRB can be the good guy

This is probably a clever move for HPRB. Instead of being the agency that always says "no", they can be the agency that gives viable alternatives. It is then up to the BZA to be the bad guy if it turns down homeowners on the basis of lot occupancy, which could be perceived as an abstract, unimportant technicality.

So far, it seems like BZA is not inclined to be the bad guy, as evidenced by their approvals of lot occupancy exceptions.

Lot occupancy restrictions are, presumably, there for a reason. One DC Zoning Commission document from 2010 (21-page .doc download here) says the intent of lot occupancy restrictions to preserve adequate light and air to building residents. Another function is as a guard against excessive density. Yet more carriage houses (or alternately "out buildings" or "mother-in-law houses") on the rears of properties will surely increase density, and affect the light and air in the immediate area. Like popups, no one will mind the first carriage-house-like rear addition on a property, or maybe even the second. But what will happen when many houses on the block want them? Will the BZA continue to approve these requests?

More lot occupancy = more water runoff

More rear lot additions will also increase the amount of land in historic districts which is impervious to rainwater. DC Water is so concerned about impervious areas that it has instituted an "impervious area charge" on all customers. The impervious area charge is the single biggest component of this year's proposed 13 percent increase in water rate -- see SALM blog post of April 29.

The charge is based on how much impervious-to-water surfaces (such as rooftops, paved driveways, patios, and parking lots) a homeowner has on his or her property. Impervious areas contribute to groundwater runoff entering the District's sewer system. Popups, which by definition sit on top of existing buildings, do not increase the amount of impervious area on a lot.

More rear structures mean greater lot occupancy. Greater lot occupancy means more impervious area. More impervious area means more water runoff. More water runoff means more wear and tear on the sewer system, and also greater possibility of flooding during major rain events or hurricanes.

Solving one problem, creating another?

A few additional residential spaces by themselves are unlikely to cause more flooding, of course. But if a quick trip through the city bureaucracy becomes the norm for "carriage houses" and similar rear structures, the cumulative effect of hundreds of one- and two-story rear additions could be significant.

This may be a case of government agencies focused narrowly on their own briefs, to the exclusion of other considerations. HPRB's brief is the appearance of the exterior of properties in historic districts. The BZA's is to identify and prevent inappropriate and unsafe land uses. The knock-on effects of increased density are not an immediate concern to either body.

Will there be a time when we starting thinking that an attempt to control one problem (pop-ups) has opened the door to others?

See the latest HPRB document on 919 T Street here.

Documents concerning the request by the owners of 919 T Street for a special exception can be viewed by going to the BZA's Interactive Zoning Information System and entering case number 18810 in the search bar.

Cheater's Guide to "Dream City" -- Part 8 (Black Power: The Making of a Machine)

This is the eighth installment of a series (see the first installment here) summarizing the 1994 book Dream City: Race, Power, and the Decline of Washington, D.C.by Harry Jaffe and Tom Sherwood. This book has recently been republished as an ebook and a paper book. HBO has plans to use material from the book to make a movie about the life of Marion Barry.

Chapter 7: Black Power: The Making of a Machine

Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice on the Supreme Court, swore Marion Barry in as mayor of Washington on January 2, 1979 at the District Building. His wife Effi stood by his side.

Barry and his team of aides redesigned the government, which had not changed greatly from its pre-home rule structure. They also changed the faces in city government. Barry made it clear that the city human rights office would investigation minority hiring practices of district firms and expected law firms, accountants, and retailers to hire more blacks and women.

In the city government, "...they moved swiftly to bring on more women and members of the gay and Latino community -- both to be fair and to pay political debts" (Kindle location 2173).

Barry's top aides were city administrator Elijah Rogers and "general assistant" Ivanhoe Donaldson.

They inherited a $100 million budget shortfall and $300 million in long-term debt from the previous administration.

In July 1979, Barry and "a small entourage" took a nineteen-day trip to Africa. He was greeted like a world leader. But while he was gone, Ivanhoe Donaldson was arrested for failing to pay a personal $2,700 debt to building contractor. But the debt was paid off and the bad publicity was minimal.

In October, the Washington Post ran a series of articles chronicling the theft and skimming of government money by Barry's previous wife and the organization they had run together. At the same time, the Washington Star newspaper reported that Barry had received a sweetheart deal on a home mortgage from an influential banker.

"Lillian Wiggins, a columnist for the Washington Afro-American, smelled a plot" (l. 2259). Wiggins labelled it the "Master Plan", eventually shortened it popular usage to "The Plan". Negative characterizations of black leadership were part of a plot to reinstall white leadership in the district. "In ominous shorthand it embodied the city's racial tensions; it also played into Barry's hand. A year into office, he'd become the lightning rod that was hot-wired directly into that most vulnerable and insecure part of the collective black psyche" (l. 2271).

"That kind of pressure led many black Washingtonians to circle their wagons around Barry to protect him" (l. 2275).

"The racial divisiveness made it easier for some whites -- who needed little from government except routine services -- to disengage themselves from it all" (l. 2276).

The Barry administration sent mixed signals to Capitol Hill. Barry met Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Leahy headed the Senate committee that controlled DC's budget. Barry said, "We want as much control as possible over our finances" (l. 2288). Congress seemed prepared to grant this wish, but then the Barry administration pulled back. Barry aide Ivanhoe Donaldson called a Leahy staffer later and said, "The budget autonomy is too risky. We like it the way it is now" (l. 2300).

The Barry administration was plagued by local problems (crime, rats) and national ones (recession, inflation).

Barry started seeing a woman named Karen Johnson, who kept a detailed diary of their relationship. The diary eventually came into the possession of a TV journalist and later the FBI. Johnson became pregnant and Barry ended the relationship.

Johnson's former boyfriend was a drug dealer. "Johnson's estranged boyfriend, Franklin Law, told police that he supplied Johnson, who shared it with Barry and eventually sold it to him on at least twenty or thirty occasions" (l. 2331).

Ivanhoe Donaldson was supposed to keep Barry in check, but he had problems of his own. He got in the habit of writing checks to friends from the unaudited Special Administrative Fund. The friends would then turn around and give the bulk of the fund back to Donaldson for his own personal expenses. "Ivanhoe Donaldson had embezzled $27,145 in five months from the emergency fund that became his personal slush fund" (l. 2352).

In March 1982, three women who worked in a strip club just south of Franklin Square told police Barry had come to the club for sex and drugs. An African-American police official reported this to the FBI and Justice Department, who did nothing. Eventually, the report was leaked to Barry and the police official was demoted.

In the 1982 election, Barry's main opponent was Patricia Roberts Harris, an African-American lawyer who had worked at the US delegation to the UN, and had been Ambassador to Luxembourg and Secretary for Housing and Urban Development.

Barry predicted he would beat Harris handily. "The mayor based his prediction on the three legs of his young political machine: campaign money from the business community, power and votes from the churches, and the loyalty that derives from political patronage" (l. 2420).

"He began by courting the city's powerful black ministers" (l. 2421), including the leaders of the Bible Way Church, the United House of Prayer for All People, and the Shiloh Baptist Church. He put city money at the disposal of various churches to provide much-needed programs like day-care and senior centers.

Also, "Barry dispensed carefully controlled constituent services, merging that office with his political apparatus under former campaign deputy Anita Bonds. She handled routine complaints on one hand, enforced political discipline with the other, and also bused adoring crowds to Barry's community meetings" (l. 2431). 

"Routine city services, such as trash collection and street cleaning, began showing up regularly in black neighborhoods unaccustomed to it. Barry also opened up new libraries and fire stations" (l. 2441).

Harris came off as aloof, Barry as a man of the people.

"'I have suffered a thousand wounds in trying to do right by the city', Barry told one candidate forum."

"'It's true, Mr. Mayor, that you have suffered a thousand wounds, responded council member Charlene Drew Jarvis.... 'Unfortunately, they're all self-inflicted'" (l. 2460).

Barry won the 1982 Democratic primary with nearly 60 percent of the vote. "The results marked the total shift of Barry's electoral support from an integrated base in 1978 to one that relied on the black middle class and poor. In 1978 the white vote put him over the top; in 1982 it alone couldn't defeat him. With the biracial coalition went the civil rights movement's liberal dream of social change, of helping the less fortunate, of bringing the races together. In its place, Boss Barry began to emerge" (l. 2470).

At this time, Barry's first group of advisors, including Elijah Rogers, left. Another advisor who left said: "The government became directed by greed" (l. 2491). 

Cheater's Guide to Dream City continues next week

Further installments will appear on successive Fridays. All posts will be cross-posted on the ad-hoc "Cheater's Guide to Dream City" blog.

Full disclosure: I have a commercial relationship with Amazon. I will receive a very small portion of the money people spend after clicking on an Amazon link on this site.

This is a great book and well worth reading in its entirety.