A block in Dupont Circle by Josh licensed under Creative Commons.

The GGWash elections committee is currently in the process of endorsing a candidate for the Ward 2 council seat in advance of the June 2020 election. As part of this process, we sent a questionnaire to each candidate who has filed to run. Our questionnaire contained three sections, covering the broad issues that we routinely cover on the blog and around which we regularly advocate: housing, transportation, and land use.

Those issues are germane to Ward 2, too. Ward 2 contains some of the densest and wealthiest neighborhoods in DC, and the candidate elected to represent it will have a direct stake in matters that we’ve long covered on GGWash, like dedicated bus and bike lanes and affordable housing.

This week, we’ll be running posts with the candidates’ responses to our questionnaire, broken down by section. Here are John Fanning, Jordan Grossman, Daniel Hernandez, Patrick Kennedy, Kishan Putta, and Yilin Zhang’s responses to our housing and transportation questions. Today, you can read what the six declared candidates have to say about land use.

You can read more of our Ward 2 election coverage here. We plan to endorse a candidate in November or December.

1. Legalizing apartments in DC—as has been done citywide in Minneapolis and statewide in Oregon—would not require banning single-family homes, but would require eliminating or changing zoning categories, like R-1-A and R-1-B, that mandate that nothing but a single-family home can be built on a lot. Do you support legalizing apartments citywide—yes or no? If no, please explain why not.

John Fanning

I would support modifying zoning categories, but would stop short of eliminating entire zoning categories such as R-1-A and R-1-B. Instead I would seek to modify current zoning requirements in areas that are in within a half-mile of a metro station, along a major transit corridor and areas where population density is significantly lower than the City’s average.

Jordan Grossman

Yes.

Daniel Hernandez

Absolutely. We’re in a crisis and we need to be ambitious and bold in our solutions.

Patrick Kennedy

I do support legalizing apartments as was done in Minneapolis, though nearly all of Ward 2 is outside of those zoning classifications already. I believe it’s critical that we build more housing units in order to meet the need that exists, and that every part of the District has a role in meeting that need. Moreover, this change would not entail massive changes to the built form and character of existing, stable residential communities; it would merely allow more people to take advantage of what makes those neighborhoods attractive in the first place.

The District also needs to do a much better job of planning for additional recreational, educational, and transportation resources that will be necessary to support a larger population, particularly in parts of the city that have traditionally been low-density. This is especially true in areas where the neighborhood schools are overcrowded.

Kishan Putta

DC residents of all income levels should have the opportunity to find housing and keep our city accessible for diverse groups of people. This should be a citywide goal! As our city grows, we need to allow more properties to have more than one unit of housing. I have long supported such changes and worked to support building one or more additional units where there was previously just one. I commend Minneapolis for taking a bold step. I believe in moving in that direction but prefer to do it in phases so that planning can keep up with the changes.

First, I believe that the first few blocks bordering major transit stations and transit corridors should allow more than one unit per property. Then, plans should be developed to expand transit in other areas. Dedicated express bus lanes and protected bike lanes should be considered via these areas where further changes can be made to allow more than one unit of housing per property. Other infrastructure upgrades should also be considered when expanding housing in given areas. I agree with the premise of this question - this would not ban single-family homes - which some families prefer.

Yilin Zhang

We should consider what zoning makes sense and preserves the vision of the neighborhood. In a historic neighborhood, it may be that single family homes would be the appropriate option. In newer neighborhoods with other larger buildings, it may be that there is more flexibility in building (more) apartments. There are also infrastructure considerations; for example, would the current sewer lines be able to take on a significantly denser population. If not, there needs to be discussion on what changes would need to take place (if it is possible) and how long it would take to develop the appropriate infrastructure.

Additionally, a critical piece is not just to build where there may be space, but to build where there is an environment that supports sustainable success for everyone. We need to discuss affordable housing in conjunction with the creation of appropriate and accessible social services.

2. Would you support amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to allow for apartments in areas deemed “Low Density Residential,” particularly west of Rock Creek Park—yes or no? If no, please explain why not.

John Fanning

Yes!

Jordan Grossman

Yes.

Daniel Hernandez

Yes.

Patrick Kennedy

Yes, for the same reasons as articulated above.

Kishan Putta

Yes, I would support some changes. As our city grows, we need to allow more properties to have more than one unit of housing. West of Rock Creek Park, there is a dearth of affordable housing units. I believe that the first few blocks bordering the Red Line stations and major transit avenues west of the park should allow more than one unit per property. I also believe that plans should be developed to expand transit in other areas. Dedicated express bus lanes and protected bike should be considered via these areas where further changes can be made to allow more than one unit of housing per property. Other infrastructure upgrades should also be considered when expanding housing in given areas.

Yilin Zhang

DC is growing fast and we need housing that is affordable. I am open where there is demand.

3. More than a third of DC residents do not own cars. Despite this, minimum parking requirements still exist for many new developments outside of downtown. Each parking space adds about $25,000 to the cost of a new building; that gets tacked onto people’s monthly housing costs. Would you support further reducing these requirements, or getting rid of minimum parking requirements altogether—yes or no? If no, please explain why not.

John Fanning

Yes, I would support the reduction of parking requirements for developments, especially for projects that are near bus, streetcar or rail lines. As Chair of ANC 2F, I have supported the reduction of parking requirements for development projects within my ANC. Specifically, my ANC approved a project at 90 & 91 Blagden Alley for the creation of 133 Micro units (BZA Application 18852/18853A).

I would also support the elimination, altogether, of parking requirements for smaller developments consisting of 4 units or less. Although the elimination of all parking requirements would reduce the overall cost for developers, I am not entirely convinced these savings would be passed on as lower purchase costs or monthly rents.

Jordan Grossman

Yes.

Daniel Hernandez

Yes, I would support reducing the minimum parking requirements, particularly in transit-rich areas.

Patrick Kennedy

I would support going further than the reductions implemented in the 2016 zoning re-write to eliminate parking requirements altogether for new construction within a half mile of a Metro station. I support doing the same for developments built within a quarter-mile of Metrobus routes that meet certain benchmarks for service hours, service frequency, and length of route run in dedicated lanes.

The current regulations define the 50% reduction in required minimum parking by proximity to Priority Corridor Network lines, but that designation has yet to signify much in practice. Little has been done on many of those lines to create a truly high quality of service, so the zoning regulations need to be re-written to define objective minimum standards of service quality that can plausibly support widespread car-free living.

I do believe, in any event, that the addresses of buildings built under relaxed parking requirements should not be listed as eligible for Residential Parking Permits.

Kishan Putta

I support further reducing minimum parking requirements and even possibly phasing them out selectively. One of my highest priorities is making housing more affordable to all median income levels, and we have seen how minimum parking requirements can raise the price of rent by several hundred dollars. I would support selectively phasing out minimums in areas with many transportation options or areas where transportation options are being expanded.

Yilin Zhang

I would support reducing the requirements. We want to find ways to encourage people to take public transportation, especially if driving is not required for their livelihood. Additionally, if we are to encourage people to not drive, we need to have reliable and efficient public transportation services that are available when people need them.