The Pause That Refreshes?

It looks like the Braddock Road Metro Small Area Plan will not be proceeding to Planning Commission on January 4 as originally announced.

And that's a good thing, because this baby isn't ready for prime time yet.

At last night's City Council work session on the plan, Mayor William D. Euille said he couldn't see the Plan being completed by mid-January. "I don't want a half-baked loaf going out the door," he said, adding that evolving developments with ARHA and WMATA as well as community concerns about the transportation segment indicated "we need to slow this down and do it right." He acknowledged that the public housing issue entered the picture late and suggested several more public hearings on the subject before the plan is finalized.

There were a few surprises last night. Several City Council members asked about granting a higher floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.5 immediately opposite Metro instead of the 2.0 currently in the Plan. Rich Josephson, acting director of Planning & Zoning, then appeared to state that a higher FAR would rule out retaining some or all of the public housing units.

The Growler admits not quite getting how a change in FAR would work against public housing, but was keenly interested that Council or staff even whispered the possibility of no public housing at Braddock Road.

At the same time, though, Council reiterated their commitment to getting the most out of developers in return for granting the density bonus. There was considerable discussion about a chart which showed that granting the highest level of FAR would result in a meaningful number of affordable housing units. (Development at lower densities would only require a developer cash contribution, not a set aside of units.)

So stay tuned for further developments on this front. It would be nice to speculate that the Council is toying with set-asides as a way to disaggregate bricks and mortar public housing at Braddock Metro while maintaining their oft-stated commitment to affordable housing. But it's too early and the signs are too murky to determine if this is the direction they are headed.

Some interesting numbers came out in the discussion about transportation, which remains the most questionable and politically loaded section of the entire plan.

Under questioning the transportation consultant coughed up some stats for neighborhood use of King Street and Braddock Road Metro stations. If the Growler heard right, ridership at King Street after 20 years still only represents about 20% of the people who live in the adjacent area while Braddock Road's ridership is around 18 to 20%. The consultant then claimed that Arlington has a rate of 50 to 60%, with so much of its new housing being built on top of Metro stations.

The Arlington number sounds way suspiciously rosy, but then all of the transportation numbers so far are zanily optimistic. In fact, the whole transportation section of the Plan is suspect and lacks transparency, not least of all the Route 1 stats which seem to change with every presentation. It's telling that Rich Baier, director of T&ES, never seems to be around for these meetings but pushes Tom Culpeper and the consultants out front to take the brunt of the criticism. (Note to activists: with Fogarty and Dahlberg gone, how can we get recruiters to spirit the "Teflon Man" away as well?)

Anway, the source for the questionable Metro data seems to be WMATA itself. And that's a real conflict of interest. Without reliable annual sources of funding, the agency is cash-strapped so it's pushing jurisdictions like the City of Alexandria hard about developing its properties. Naturally they are going to supply rosy ridership numbers that support their drive to develop. And Alexandria leaders would be thrilled to be able to bring in dense development with the assurance that the new residents won't clog the roads.

But there's a lack of specificity about how the City can actually make this happen by implementing aggressive transportation demand management (TDM). Back to the drawing board, guys.

And speaking of WMATA, Del Pepper cautioned City staff about showing the Braddock Road station lot on every map and presentation as an open space possibility. It turns out that Alexandria really can't prescribe that the lot, which is owned by WMATA, be reserved as open space. It emerged there are a few Council members like Ludwig Gaines who are a little uneasy about developing that lot to a fare thee well. He pointed out that King Street needs to add more bus bays so it's fortunate that every inch of its lot was not consumed by development, something that was proposed and dropped several years ago.

Other topics included a request to the impact of development on the City's water and sewer systems. (That Rob Krupicka, always rolling in the gutter! But then storm water is a big issue for his core constituency in Rosemont and Del Ray.)

Council also talked about cultural amenities for the area (ahhh, good!), open space and sports facilities at Braddock Fields (no no no please don't go there, we've had enough of that at Jones Point!), building design and the feasibility of concentrating retail rather than stretching it thinly around the study area. Turns out there isn't going to be that much new retail — perhaps 8 to 12 new stores total — and there is interest in leveraging it as much as possible through concentration.

The latest on Harris-Teeter: the stumbling block is indeed an access issue. The company believes the entrance ramp to the parking garage is too steep, but getting a more graduated decline means pushing the store back, which then triggers the problem of fire and rescue access. That's a Code Enforcement requirement, not zoning.

P&Z staff were supposed to meet with Harris-Teeter representatives today to thrash things out. We shall see ...

Steamroller

Last Thursday's public meeting on the Braddock Road Metro Small Area Plan was an opportunity for the community to ask some hard questions.

In return, however, we got platitudes — particularly when it comes to the impact of dense development on traffic and the future of public housing.

The session was led by Acting Planning & Zoning Director Rick Josephson, with an assist from Planning Commissioner John Komoroske. It featured yet another presentation on the dubious transportation segment of the plan by the City's consultants plus an update on development by P&Z Division Chief Jeffrey Farner.

The audience of about 50 asked polite questions about every topic, including open space, traffic on Route 1, buckled sidewalks, retail and WMATA's push to develop the parking lot at the Metro station. The Mayor and several members of City Council were present, as well as a few Planning Commissioners.

City staff sidestepped questions about public housing, although once the ice was broken several speakers did ask about housing, including the future of Samuel Madden Homes. (It's not part of the Braddock plan area but it's also not part of the EYA redevelopment proposal either.)

The most pointed inquiries were about the traffic plan. Under questioning, Josephson and Tom Culpeper of T&ES admitted traffic was going to become even worse with the new dense development at Braddock Road, with a 3% annual increase expected on Route 1 and a staggering 33% increase in trips originating in and around the Gateway at the apex of the study area by 2015. Their claim that they considered all of the new development on Route 1, including both the Arlington and Alexandria sections of Potomac Yard, when making these calculations was met with frank skepticism.

And repeatedly we heard what must be the single most fatuous description of Route 1 by City staff: "It is what it is."

One Patrick Street resident noted that the only traffic mitigation the consultant seemed to be proposing was a stoplight at Fayette and Henry, with a crosswalk for pedestrians, which seemed utterly inadequate.

In the course of the meeting, we heard the unexpected news from Mr. Farner that the Harris-Teeter project is in jeopardy. In the past week the company had presented new demands relating to street access, which the City was scrambling to address. This news settled like a blanket of gloom over the audience.

One participant who has been involved in the plan since the earliest days asked pointed questions about retail. He was concerned that retail space might ultimately be filled by non-retail activities such as brokerage houses. He also brought up the difficulties the Carlyle project is having in attracting quality restaurants with evening hours, as opposed to fast food restaurants serving the Patent & Trademark Office crowd during the week.

In response, City planners made the usual smooth assurances, but these trends should trouble everyone in our neighborhood who may be hungry for more local services and shopping.

Depressingly, one of the proposed retail uses that staff let fall during the meeting include "nail salons" and "hair salons." The glorious retail many were hoping for in our neighborhood appears to be now shrinking to a slightly upscale version of the Spa Court.

In the end, it appears that the politicians and planners are steamrolling everything in the path of completing this Plan, and after seven years it's somewhat understandable why. Let's get this thing done seems to be the philosophy of the day.

But there's some serious concerns that aren't being addressed. Is this plan really about protecting Parker-Gray or is it about another less obvious agenda that involves throwing a cordon sanitaire around Del Ray and Rosemont while pushing all of the problems into Parker-Gray?

Tonight at 7:30 p.m. the City Council will hold yet another work session on the Braddock Road Plan in the Sister Cities Conference Room (Room 1101 on the first floor of City Hall).

Be there if you care.

The Braddock Road Black Hole

The Growler has been looking at the Executive Summary for the Braddock Road Metro Small Area Plan and has discovered the smoking traffic gun.

If you are a Parker-Gray resident, the City doesn't want you know just how much traffic the massive developments planned for Braddock Road will have on local streets.

Here's how they are hiding the numbers:

The study found that the proposed redevelopment scenario adds only 8% more peak hour trips than the current zoning scenario, equating to approximately one-sixth of a lane of traffic. (Executive Summary, p. 14)

So what's suspect about this statement? Well, the City is hoping citizens will read this as meaning there will only be 8% more traffic even when Braddock Road is fully built out.

But look carefully at the wording. It's not saying there will be 8% more traffic than we have today. It's saying there will be 8% more traffic "than the current zoning scenario."

Here's the catch: like much of the rest of Alexandria, the Braddock Road area is currently not as densely developed as zoning would permit.

The number that's being hidden is the comparison between today's traffic levels and what we will have once everything is built out given the zoning changes that are recommended in the Small Area Plan.

There's three numbers here: A (the amount of current traffic), B (the projected amount of traffic if the area was maxxed out under current zoning), and C (the amount of traffic when the area is maxxed out with the new zoning which will permit more density).

The City is saying the difference between B and C is only 8% more traffic. But they haven't told us what the difference is between A and C.

And what impact will this have on quality of life?

Braddock Road Boondoggle

Here we are, just a day away from the last public hearing on the Braddock Road Metro Small Area Plan, and with the plan spread out on the desk for review the Growler is having one of those's "Emperor's New Clothes" moments.

Though the draft plan improved over the months with respect to its protections for the old historic neighborhood of Parker-Gray, the scheme for the northern end where most new development will be located will have severe secondary impacts on the same homeowners who once thought they were being protected. And those who reside on Patrick or Henry Street are truly in trouble.

The transit section of the plan — widely regarded as the weakest and most blatantly political portion of the whole document — envisions several alternatives for high speed transit or light rail on Route 1 north and south. All this is being proposed to facilitate moving bodies to Ft. Belvoir, where many of Arlington and Alexandria's defense-related jobs will be relocated in the next few years. So it's clearly not a real "enhancement" or "improvement" to the residents, despite the verbiage in the plan.

Undoubtedly the City is feeling squeezed by Arlington and Fairfax Counties, which plan to incorporate high speed transit in their stretches of Route 1. But Alexandria is the only jurisdiction with single-family homes fronting directly along Route 1, and those residences are primarily in the Parker-Gray District. One would think these homeowners merited protection.

Nevertheless, the rapid transit solution discussed in the Braddock Road Metro envisions reserving one lane each of Patrick and Henry for light rail or buses, and to accommodate this without further constricting traffic, one side of each street may lose parking.

If this scheme is approved, there's the very real possibility that some neighbors will wake up and find people waiting for the bus or train on their door stoop, since there's only nine feet between house facades and the street. It's also going to be tough for businesses fronting on Route 1.

And what happens to the restrictions that previous Parker-Gray residents who live on Route 1 wrung from City officials years ago? These measures included forcing heavy trucks to the middle lanes and forbidding jake braking in an effort to control foundation-cracking vibrations and noise pollution. It also included closing several blocks of Fayette Street at evening rush hour to prevent cut through traffic from Route 1.

As it stands, the draft Braddock Road plan makes no assurances about maintaining these restrictions on Route 1. It even envisions N. Fayette Street handling much more traffic, functioning as a new main street for the "community" that the plan claims will be constructed. (Question to readers: survey the Carlyle development at night or on weekends and ask yourself if our leaders really know how to create a viable community.)

But it's not only N. Fayette Street that is at risk. N. Payne, Alfred and Columbus Streets are all going to end up being alternative routes for cutover drivers from Route 1. And this will be done with the City's blessing, since Patrick and Henry cannot physically be expanded any further.

So the plan serves up a double whammy for Parker-Gray residents. Loss of parking spaces — and the plan finally admits albeit grudgingly that there is a parking problem here — and degradation of quality of life, not only for residents along Patrick and Henry, but also for those who live on neighboring streets.

The driving force behind these potentially disastrous moves is simple: the politicians and property owners want to squeeze as much high density development into this area as possible.

Now we all know development is coming, particularly in the northern area known as the Gateway. This stretch of land was always a light industrial and warehousing area, so development is not unwelcome, particularly if it brings long-missing amenities to the neighborhood.

But it's the amount and type of development at issue here. By shuffling over the traffic and parking issues and the constraints of infrastructure — Patrick and Henry simply cannot be widened any further — politicians are laying the groundwork to permit taller, more massive and dense development than the community can absorb.

The other major weakness in the plan is its failure to discuss the future of public housing. If property is so valuable at Metro stops that City leaders and Planning Commissioners want to surround each station with vast amounts of development, why is precious space being taken up by economically non-producing activities like public housing that also will affect the viability of the mixed-use businesses that are the Holy Grail for these politicians and planners? And what are these vague plans for "affordable housing" that are being trumpeted recently? Don't we have a lion's share already? Are these measures that will actually depress home values in our neighborhood?

But perhaps the Growler is in error by gracing the Braddock Road Metro document with the name "plan." That gives it too much credit for integration and vision. It's not a fully fleshed out road map for our neighborhood. It's a rag, a bone and a hank of hair woven together by highly paid consultants to give the appearance of vision while actually legitimizing maximum development without regard for either infrastructure or residents' quality of life.

It's all about maximizing value for the property owners. And it's also about pumping up tax revenue in the face of stagnant or falling property tax receipts, since it's easier to open up new spigots of tax revenue than take a hard look at how the City spends its money.

So if you care about this neighborhood, run — don't walk — to the community meeting at Jefferson-Houston School on Thursday, December 14 at 7:00 PM and let the pols and planners know how you feel.

Heard on the Street

Braddock Lofts: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?

The Growler is hearing a persistent rumor that the residents of Braddock Lofts have recently organized and are now planning to offer their homes en masse for sale to a developer. Presumably the Lofts would be torn down for an even denser development.

Well, that's a creative way to sell your house in a down market.

Crime Wavelet

Did anyone notice the Community Market on Madison Street was robbed not once but twice in the past two weeks? From the City's Daily Crime Report:

November 20

BURGLARY: 1006 Madison Street between 11/17 at 8:00 p.m. and 11/18 at 8:15 a.m. Someone forced open a window to gain entry to the business and took cash.

November 28

BURGLARY: 1006 Madison Street between 11/26 at 8:00 p.m. and 11/27 at 8:40 a.m. An unknown suspect(s) entered the business and took cash.

The market just started offering carry-out food a few weeks ago.

Adkins Alternative?

The Growler trotted down to Ladrey Highrise last week for the ARHA board meeting on the EYA proposal for Glebe Park. The meeting was brief and was held only to ratify a resolution regarding the plans for the troubled project. Nothing relating to the plans for Andrew Adkins or James Bland surfaced.

However, the Cranky One did get a chance to chat with ARHA Executive Director William Dearman (who admits to reading the PG Growl). He said ARHA's real need is for an assisted living facility for the City's elderly impoverished. While Mr. Dearman said EYA hasn't approached him about this, the Growler seems to remember EYA staff mentioning the possibility of redeveloping Adkins into a site for the elderly and disabled.

This might be a viable alternative for the neighborhood if we can't get public housing density reduced at the Metro. But we need more information.

Mr. Dearman pointed out, an assisted living facility would not place as much pressure on parking as a traditional public housing complex since most residents would not be up to driving. But on the other hand, there's also a need for staff parking, but how much the Growler doesn't know at this point. (If ARHA got its dream of an assisted living center, Mr. Dearman said, it would be run by another government agency or a contractor, since this is not ARHA's area of expertise.)

Replacing Adkins with a facility for the elderly and disabled sounds like it might be a politically palatable alternative to multi-family housing, which frequently translates to heightened problems with crime and drugs. But as the experience with Ladrey shows, there would need to be much tighter security.

Plus, we all know that there are elderly homeowners in Parker-Gray who are perfectly respectable themselves but have family members who are heavily into drugs and crime. How would family and visitors to an assisted living facility be managed?

Return of the Wild Eyed Woman

No, that's not the title of a low budget sci-fi feature. But it's equally scary.

The Growler hears the Democrats are planning to put former City Council Member Joyce Woodson back on the ARHA board as soon as there's a vacancy. Ms. Woodson — the Bette Davis of Alexandria politicans — served on the board before her election to City Council back in 2000.

Ms. Woodson, a Realtor and a Del Ray resident (she lives around the corner from Mayor William D. Euille) has long portrayed herself as a champion of affordable housing. Funny, though. The Growler has heard affordable housing advocates talk about their relief that the mercurial Ms. Woodson was not present for the key City Council hearing on saving the Gunston Hall Apartments earlier this year. Apparently they were worried Ms. Woodson would bog down the proceedings and stomp the issue to death. Instead, a parade of passionate witnesses turned the tide with the skeptical City Council during the course of the long debate.