Update

Since I last posted, there have been a few major events.  Here's the "just-the-facts-ma'am" overview, with links to the relevant documents. Commentary on specific issues will  follow in later posts.  

1.   On June 16^th, the Office of Planning proposed some changes (“alternative text”) to the draft code that was discussed last fall.  These changes were framed as reconsiderations of policy based on public testimony.  The text of OP’s proposals can be found here or by going to IZIS and finding Exhibit 725 on page 16 of the log for ZC Case 08-06A.  This is a 90 page document that may be easier to read online than to print out  (It's not page-numbered consecutively and different sections use different formats and orientations.  My home printer choked on it; a friend's worker printer had no problem).  Topics covered include definitions, lighting, big box retail, accessory apartments (formerly "ADUs"), corner stores, camping in alleys (aka Tiny Houses), theater space in residential areas, parking, and downtown.

2.   On July 10^th, the Zoning Commission discussed the alternative text and ultimately voted 5-0 (Michael Turnbull was not in attendance but submitted a proxy) to set a modified version down for public hearing(s).   The Commissioners all agreed that the Lighting section was not ready for setdown.  And because there was disagreement within the Commission on the merits of some of OP’s proposed alternatives, the Commissioners decided to set down both the new and old versions of the rules regarding accessory apartments and parking requirements.  All other provisions were set down as proposed.

3.  Since that setdown decision, a number of new hearings on the ZRR have been scheduled for September. One additional hearing on the original text has been scheduled for September 4th.  Participation in this hearing is limited to people who have never previously testified on any aspect of the ZRR and to ANC Commissioners (regardless of whether they have previously testified).  Hearings on the newly setdown "alternative" text -- at which anyone may testify -- are scheduled for September 8th-11th.  It’s not clear whether you may testify each night on a different topic (e.g. accessory apartments, big box retail, parking) or whether you’re limited to a single appearance and three minutes of testimony.  All hearings start at 6 pm.

Oddly, a revised draft of the alternative text, reflecting what happened at the July 10th meeting, has not (yet?) been produced.  So the ZC has posted three documents for the September 8th-11th hearings -- the original "alternatives" text (Exhibit 725), OP's pre-hearing correction and summary memo (725A) and another OP post-hearing memo (725B) that makes a few changes to definitions, but says nothing about eliminating the Lighting section or asking people to weigh in on the question of whether the "original" or "alternative' texts on accessory apartments or parking is preferable.  

4. Not news, but a reminder:   The record for written testimony (by anyone, on any topic) on the ZRR remains open until September 15^th.  Written testimony may be submitted via the IZIS system or be mailed, emailed, or faxed to the Office of Zoning. 

5. On July 28^th, OP asked the ZC to set down as-yet-unwritten text amendments that would allow 20 foot tall habitable penthouses to be constructed above the roofline as matter of right in all zones except R1-4. The additional 20 feet of penthouse would not be counted toward the height limit in the zone.  Nor would the square footage in the penthouse count toward limits on floor area ratio (FAR), even though penthouse space could be used for any use permitted in the zone -- so it would be the same kind of space (office, residential, restaurant) as the space below the roofline.  This proposal would represents significant upzoning citywide.  

As you can see from OP's description of its proposals, the only constraint on the area (square footage) of such penthouses would be setback requirements and the limit on the number of stories (one penthouse story will be allowed where the building maxes out the Height Act limit; two stories will be allowed everywhere else).  Restrictions based on FAR and/or roof area would be eliminated.  If the ZC isn't willing to eliminate those restrictions, OP advocates loosening them so that adding penthouse space won't involve subtracting space elsewhere.  

Rather than set down these (non-existent) text amendments (filed as ZC case #14-13), the ZC decided to discuss the issue again on September 4th (prior to the public hearing), at which time OP, presumably, will have actual text to present.

6. There's a third ZC case (#14-11) that proposes more text amendments based on ZRR testimony.  These amendments would be made to the existing code and are offered as ways of addressing the pop-up and condo conversion pressures that are currently being faced in R-4 neighborhoods.  The setdown hearing was July 17th,    Another 5-0 vote (with Peter May absent/voting by proxy) for setdown and, once again, the notion that the public hearing with be advertised with alternative text so "all options are on the table."

Affordability, Part 2: Opportunity Costs and "Highest and Best Use"

One reason I like to do outreach on zoning issues is that I learn a lot from these forums. Each neighborhood has its own set of development issues -- some are unique; others are variations on common themes or harbingers of things to come. And every neighborhood has a wealth of local knowledge, eagerly shared by people who have watched and analyzed what's been going on around them. The social scientist in me -- I'm a former college professor with an interdisciplinary background in law and society -- is fascinated by the variety of ways in which the same rules play out differently across the city.

This post was inspired by Ward 1, where "condo-ization" puts single-family housing stock and neighborhoods at risk.

"Single-family homes" can (and do) accommodate a variety of different types of households -- nuclear families with or without kids, multi-generational families, groups of roommates, boarders, live-in caregivers, and renters of accessory units. Over the course of its lifespan, the same house may move fluidly between these various types of living arrangements.

What makes condo-ization problematic is that, once a property ceases to have a single owner, this fluidity is lost. Suddenly, even though it's still one building, the house is no longer one property. And finding a single owner who is willing and able to re-acquire all the units post-conversion (probably over time and with the possibility of holdouts) seems unlikely.

In neighborhoods like Mount Pleasant and Lanier Heights, residents have seen that condo-ization is pushing housing costs up -- not down. Rent in a group house is affordable to recent college grads and other newcomers who wouldn't have the financial means to live in the same house if it were divided into condos selling for upwards of $500,000 each. Increasingly, condo conversions are effectively pricing older homes in these communities out of the single-family market. They're also changing the look and scale of historic rowhouse neighborhoods by incentivizing pop-ups and pop-outs.

In general, the most affordable housing is in older buildings. Which means that when older residential buildings get torn down and replaced by newer residential buildings, the net result is likely to be increased housing costs. Basically, it only makes sense to tear one building down and build another to serve the same function if the replacement building will produce substantially more income. When bigger buildings replace smaller buildings, part of the increase in income comes from the fact that there are more units to sell or rent, but it's also the case that a new building (or unit) will most likely command a higher rent or sales price than an older one -- in part, just because it's new but also because, from a development perspective, projects that command higher rents are more attractive, especially in places where land values and existing properties haven't yet realized the full market potential of the area. That's why seemingly every new multifamily project in DC is a"luxury" condo or apartment building featuring lots of smaller units.

Subdivision is a more ambiguous phenomenon than teardowns -- it can happen for a variety of reasons (e.g. if there's no market for single-family homes of a particular size in a particular area) and its economic consequences may vary. In areas where single-family homes are scarce and in high demand, downzoning (and/or other restrictions) may be necessary to preserve existing housing stock. In the past, some rowhouse neighborhoods relied on historic designation to protect neighborhood scale and character. But, increasingly, historic preservation hasn't proven sufficient -- which, presumably, is one reason why Georgetown requested (and was granted) a reduction in allowable building heights (from 40 to 35 feet in rowhouse zones) in the ZRR.

There's a broader issue here -- and it's not limited to historic neighborhoods or areas, like Lanier Place, where the existing zoning is out-of-sync with the built environment. In general, once OP starts loosening zone definitions, new ways to use land are put in competition with existing uses. And where the existing uses are single-family homes, those will quickly cease to be the "highest and best" (i.e. most lucrative) use of the property. So the conversions begin -- and, as Ward 1 residents have pointed out, some of those conversions will not be reversible.

If we value single-family housing (or if we want garden apartments, or if we want neighborhood-serving retail, or any other relatively small-scale type of development), then we need to have restrictive zoning that is consistently enforced. Zoning that restricts the use of some parcels to single-family housing (or to some other specific use) doesn't have to mean suburbanization -- different types of zones can be located in close proximity to each other in the same neighborhood. The issue is limiting the range of potential uses in competition for the same property, so that market forces don't overwhelm desired types of development.  Which, after all, is the raison d'etre of planning and zoning.