# General plan documents — washington-district_of_columbia Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government; page anchors (``) refer to pages of that section's own source PDF, linked in its heading. **Contains 5 documents.** OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: area_element_capitol_hill, area_element_central_washington, area_element_far_northeast_southeast, area_element_far_southeast_southwest, area_element_lower_anacostia_waterfront, area_element_mid_city, area_element_near_northwest, area_element_rock_creek_east, area_element_rock_creek_west, area_element_upper_northeast, arts_culture, circulation, community_facilities, conservation, economic_development, educational_facilities, general_plan_framework, general_plan_implementation, general_plan_introduction, historic_preservation, housing, infrastructure, land_use, open_space, urban_design_part_1, urban_design_part_2, urban_design_part_3, urban_design_part_4. That is what we have looked for, not a statement that the government publishes nothing else — a plan element absent here may simply not have been reviewed yet. Last reviewed 2026-08-21. --- ## Land Use — Chapter 3, Land Use - Source: https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/03-LU.pdf - Pages: 64 - Covers: land_use - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. # Chapter 3 # Land Use # Element CHAPTER 3: LAND USE <
> # Land Use Element ## Overview[^p3-300] **THE LAND USE ELEMENT IS THE CORNERSTONE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.** It establishes the basic policies guiding the physical form of the District, and provides direction on a range of development, preservation, and land-use compatibility issues. The element describes the range of considerations and balancing of priorities involved in accommodating an array of land uses within Washington, DC. [^300.1] The critical land use issues are addressed in this element. These include the following: * Providing adequate housing, particularly affordable housing; * Conserving, creating, and maintaining inclusive neighborhoods, while allowing new growth that fosters equity, including racial equity, and accessibility; * Strengthening downtown; * Enhancing neighborhood commercial districts and centers; * Balancing competing demands for finite land resources; * Directing growth and new development to achieve economic vitality and creating jobs while minimizing adverse impacts on residential areas and open spaces; * Promoting transit-accessible, sustainable development; * Improving resilience; and * Siting challenging land uses. [^300.2] More than any other part of the Comprehensive Plan, this element lays out the policies through which growth and change occur, while conserving and enhancing neighborhoods, commercial districts, and other areas. The Land Use Element integrates and balances competing policies of all the other District Elements and should be given greater weight than other elements. [^300.3] Although Washington, DC was almost fully developed by 1960, the demand for land, housing, and jobs has continued to fuel land use change. The changing needs of the federal government, private industry, and other institutions continually reshape the landscape. Aging, environmentally inefficient, and underused building stock requires refurbishment and replacement. The renewed popularity of urban living generates the need for more housing and new amenities. [^300.4] Land use changes have the potential to make Washington, DC more vibrant, economically healthy, exciting, and even more environmentally sustainable, equitable, and resilient than it is today. But without proper direction and coordinated public investment, change can also be adverse. Not all areas of the District are as economically healthy, and not all are positioned to benefit from future change. The Land Use Element strives for positive outcomes in all parts of the District and for all residents by setting policies [^p3-300]: 300 [^300.1]: 300.1 [^300.2]: 300.2 [^300.3]: 300.3 [^300.4]: 300.4 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> 7th Street NE rowhouses on appropriate uses and densities and describing how different uses can successfully co-exist. 300.5[^] The element is divided into several sections. The first section provides basic data on land use and density in Washington, DC. Subsequent sections of the element present policies and actions organized under the following major topic headings: * Shaping the District; * Creating and Maintaining Vibrant Neighborhoods; and * Balancing Competing Demands for Land. 300.7[^p4-1] *The definitions of land use categories and descriptions of the Future Land Use Map and Generalized Policies Map may be found in Chapter 2 (Framework Element).* # Land Use Profile of Washington, DC 301[^] The District of Columbia comprises 69 square miles, including approximately eight square miles of water and 61 square miles of land. Land use patterns, illustrated in Map 3.1, reveal an expansive District core of about four-square miles centered on the open spaces of federal Washington, DC. The core is surrounded by an inner ring of moderate- to high-density residential and mixed- use neighborhoods, extending west to Georgetown, north to Columbia Heights and Petworth, east across Capitol Hill, and south to the Anacostia River and Near Southwest. Beyond the inner ring is an outer ring of less dense development, characterized largely by single-family housing and garden apartments. The two rings generally correspond to historic development patterns, with most of the inner ring developed by 1920 and the outer ring developed after 1920. 301.1[^] The impact of the District’s transportation network on land use patterns is apparent in Map 3.1. Most of the commercial and higher-density development beyond the core of Washington, DC hugs radial avenues like Connecticut Avenue NW and Pennsylvania Avenue SE. Most of the District’s industrial development follows the railroad corridors running from Union Station east along New York Avenue and north to Silver Spring. The historic connection between transportation and land use continues to shape the District today, with Metrorail station areas being the most robust activity centers. 301.2[^] Map 3.1 reveals other distinctive land use patterns. Open space networks, particularly those along Rock Creek and the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, are apparent. Large institutional uses including some 2,000 acres of colleges, universities, hospitals, seminaries, and similar uses are visible. Federal enclaves beyond Washington, DC’s core, such as Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, the St. Elizabeths Hospital West Campus, and the Armed Forces [^p4-1]: Section 300.6 is reserved and intentionally omitted. CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Map 3.1: # Existing Land Use 2017 [^301.3] <
> [^301.3]: 301.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Retirement Home, appear prominently. Many of the federal and institutional uses are located in areas that are otherwise residential in character. While this creates the potential for land use conflicts, these uses are also important open space buffers, job centers, community anchors, and resources for the surrounding neighborhoods. [^301.4] Figure 3.1 shows the location of each of the city’s 10 Planning Areas. Each of these planning areas are of different acreage and land use configuration. About 27[^] percent of the District consists of road rights-of-way, although only about 60[^] percent of this acreage actually consists of the paved streets. For instance, road rights-of-way constitute 40[^] percent of Capitol Hill, but most of this land consists of landscaped or bricked front yards along streets with exceptionally wide rights-of-way. [^301.5] Despite the significant number of jobs in Washington, DC, commercial uses represent less than five percent of the District’s land area, and industrial uses represent less than one percent. Commercial uses represent about 14[^] percent of the land area in Central Washington but less than two percent of the land area in Far Southeast/Southwest. Many of the District’s jobs are associated with federal facilities and institutional uses, which together make up about 10[^] percent of its land area. Institutional lands appear throughout the District but are especially prevalent in the four Northwest Planning Areas: Central Washington, Near Northwest, Mid-City, Rock Creek West, as well as in Upper Northeast. [^301.6] Maps 3.2 and 3.3 show estimated population and employment density in Washington, DC and approximate suburbs as of 2017. The data is based on the traffic analysis zones used by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) for transportation modeling. Map 3.2 again illustrates the ring of fairly dense neighborhoods around the District center, and the denser residential development along major corridors like Connecticut Avenue NW and 14th Street NW. It also shows areas of fairly dense development in Wards 7 and 8, primarily associated with large low-rise garden apartment complexes in Far Southeast. Areas like Woodridge, Burrville, and Shepherd Park have low population densities and, in some cases, even lower than the adjacent neighborhoods in suburban Maryland. The contrast is especially stark with the intense residential and commercial development in Silver Spring. [^301.7] Map 3.3 shows that employment is highly concentrated in Central Washington. Beyond the District center, other major employment centers include the universities and federal enclaves, the New York Avenue corridor, the West End, the Georgetown waterfront, the Capitol Riverfront area, and several corridors in Upper Northwest. Large concentrations of employment also appear beyond the District limits in Downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring, Maryland, and in Rosslyn, Crystal City, the Pentagon area, and Alexandria, Virginia. [^301.8] [^301.4]: 301.4 [^301.5]: 301.5 [^301.6]: 301.6 [^301.7]: 301.7 [^301.8]: 301.8 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Figure 3.1: # Planning Areas 301[^.9] <
> [^.9]: 301.9 Map 3.2: # Population Density 2017 [^301.10] <
> [^301.10]: 301.10 # CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Map 3.3: ## Employment Density 2017 [^301.11] <
> [^301.11]: 301.11 **The Land Use Goal is:** **Ensure the efficient use of land resources to meet long-term neighborhood, District-wide, and regional needs to help foster other District goals; to protect the health, safety, and welfare of District residents, institutions, and businesses; to address past and current inequalities disproportionately impacting communities of color; to sustain, restore, or improve the character, affordability, and equity of neighborhoods in all parts of the District; to provide for additional housing and employment opportunities; and to effectively balance the competing demands for land to support a growing population and the many activities that take place within Washington, DC’s boundaries.** # Land Use Goal [^p10-302] Ensure the efficient use of land resources to meet long-term neighborhood, District-wide, and regional needs to help foster other District goals; to protect the health, safety, and welfare of District residents, institutions, and businesses; to address past and current inequalities disproportionately impacting communities of color; to sustain, restore, or improve the character, affordability, and equity of neighborhoods in all parts of the District; to provide for additional housing and employment opportunities; and to effectively balance the competing demands for land to support a growing population and the many activities that take place within Washington, DC’s boundaries. [^302.1] # Policies and Actions ## LU-1 Shaping Washington, DC [^p10-303] This section of the Land Use Element describes the desired pattern of growth and development in the District. Its focus is on the specific areas or types of areas where change is most likely to take place. The section begins with information about supporting growth and guiding policies for the District. It then turns to the large sites where changes are envisioned. This is followed by information about the opportunities for change along corridors and transit station areas. Policies for neighborhood infill development are also included. [^303.1] ### LU-1.1 Supporting Growth [^p10-304] Washington, DC has been experiencing a shift in growth over the past decade. This growth has occurred in a variety of forms: land development, income, economic strength, population, and innovation. Previous planning efforts focused on retaining residents and attracting growth to strengthen the economy. Since the Comprehensive Plan was developed in 2006, the District’s population has grown almost 20 percent and is anticipated to reach 987,200 residents after 2045. The continued interest in living and working in the District requires a shift in planning efforts to manage such growth and the challenges it brings, while also supporting current residents. The needs and desires of a growing District in the 21st century are different and the approach to how growth is supported reflects that difference. While growth is anticipated as the long-term trend, the District may experience periodic slowdowns or declines during the time horizon of this plan. [^304.1] The Comprehensive Plan’s companion document, A Vision for an Inclusive City, sets forth the District’s desire to employ the highest and best use of its [^p10-302]: [^302.1]: [^p10-303]: [^303.1]: [^p10-304]: [^304.1]: land for the benefit of all residents. Managing growth through an equity lens means providing additional attention and support to communities of color, low-income households, and vulnerable populations and neighborhoods to allow them to share in the prosperity of the District. Vulnerable and underserved communities experience high and rising housing costs, persistent unemployment, worse health outcomes than their higher-income peers, and potential displacement. 304.2 Supporting growth through an equity lens places a different emphasis on development guidance and expectations, as described in section 213.7 of the Framework Element. Growth cannot be ignored, as it is necessary for continued prosperity and revenues to provide for social supports and municipal services. A change in the Future Land Use Map designations can affect the value of the designated and neighboring properties, the capacity of the infrastructure and civic services, and the short- and long-term expectations of development. Previous benefits and amenities used to catalyze growth are now necessities for supporting growth: affordable housing, transportation improvements, infrastructure improvements, open-space development and maintenance, sustainable and resilient design, and arts and culture. Affordable housing is described in detail in the Housing Element. As used here, it is housing available to households earning 80 percent or less of the regional median family income (MFI). Deeply affordable housing refers to units affordable to households earning 40 percent of less of the MFI. 304.3 Growth through an equity lens must address and reduce existing racial inequities resulting from systemic racism and meet the needs of the District’s most vulnerable residents. The District has divides by income and race, a result of factors that include urban renewal, redlining, segregation, restrictive racial covenants, infrastructure development, and disinvestment. Washington, DC has some of the country’s highest disparities in income, education, and access to jobs and housing by race. The District’s Black population saw declines between 1980 and 2010, with the most recent period of decline between 2000 and 2010, where the Black population decreased by 11 percent (39,030 residents). Between 2010 and 2019, the Black population has increased by five percent (14,105 residents). As the Land Use Element guides the direction of future growth, it also affects future access to housing, education, jobs, services, amenities, and transportation and impacts the health and safety of residents. Growth can and must occur in a way that expands access to affordable housing, education, transportation, employment, and services for communities of color, low-income households, and vulnerable populations. Achieving equitable development requires attention to both the context and needs of different planning areas and to District-wide equity issues, described throughout the Comprehensive Plan. 304.4 Washington, DC’s built environment and natural features can buffer against the acute shocks and reduce the chronic stresses the District is facing; conversely, without proper planning or maintenance, the built environment CITYWIDE ELEMENTS and natural features can make communities vulnerable to these shocks and stresses, particularly communities of color and low-income residents. The Land Use Element addresses the provision, preservation, and enhancement of physical assets and critical facilities, including housing, infrastructure and transportation systems, and its natural, historic, and cultural resources to become truly resilient. The vulnerability of buildings, infrastructure, and ecosystems to the adverse effects of climate change is expected to increase due to more days with high temperatures, more flooding caused by heavy rainfall and rising sea levels, and more economic disruption from extreme weather events. 304.5[^304.5] Washington is a city of distinctive neighborhoods. The terms "neighborhood character" and "historic character" are used extensively in the Land Use Element and other elements. Neighborhood "character," however, has been a term associated with exclusion and discrimination by race, income, religion, and other categories. As used in the comprehensive plan, neighborhood "character" and historic "character" reflect the sense of place defined by neighborhood architecture, visual landmarks and vistas, streets, public spaces, and historic or cultural places; for instance, the differences between the Anacostia and Bloomingdale neighborhoods. This term must not be construed to refer to the characteristics of people living and working in these areas. Many policies referencing neighborhood character also speak to the interest in improving affordability and racial equity, recognizing the potential balance needed between policy objectives. 304.6[^304.6] Innovations, such as autonomous vehicles (AVs), sustainable infrastructure, and smart city technology, will shape growth. The unprecedented impacts of the global pandemic may accelerate or create new changes in land use patterns. The change in retail from brick-and-mortar businesses to online platforms, the mobile workplace, and the increasingly prevalent use of automation across sectors are recent examples of why continuously monitoring and adjusting the understanding of the District and responding to change is needed. 304.7[^304.7] ### Policy LU-1.1.1: Future Planning Analysis and Resilience Focus Areas The Generalized Policy Map shows areas of large tracts and corridors where future analysis is anticipated to plan for inclusive, equitable growth and climate resilience. Boundaries shown are for illustrative purposes. Final boundaries will be determined as part of the future analysis process for each area. In certain locations, planning efforts will be undertaken to analyze land use and policy impacts and ways to capitalize on, mitigate, and incorporate the anticipated growth. Current infrastructure and utility capacity should be evaluated against full build-out and projected population growth. The planning process will target issues most relevant to the community that can be effectively addressed through neighborhood planning. Planning analyses generally establish guiding documents, such as Small Area Plans, [^304.5]: 304.5 [^304.6]: 304.6 [^304.7]: 304.7 Development Frameworks, Retail Strategies, or Design Guidelines. Areas anticipated for future planning analysis include the following: * New York Avenue NE corridor; * Upper Wisconsin Avenue NW corridor; * Upper Connecticut Avenue NW corridor; * Foggy Bottom/West End; * Benning Road corridor; * Poplar Point; * Congress Heights; * North Capitol Crossroads—Armed Forces Retirement Home; and * RFK Stadium. For areas within the 100- and 500-year floodplain, future planning efforts are intended to guide resilience to flooding for new and existing development and infrastructure projects, including public capital projects. Resilience focus areas will explore watershed resilience to encourage the implementation on a neighborhood scale, as well as site-specific solutions, design guidelines and policies for a climate adaptive and resilient District. Watershed resilience analysis areas include the following: * Georgetown; * Federal Triangle; * Hains Point; * Southwest Waterfront; * RFK; * Watts Branch; and * Poplar Point. [^304.8] ### Policy LU-1.1.2: Resilience and Land Use Implement District-wide, neighborhood-scale, and site-specific solutions for a climate adaptive, emergency responsive, and resilient Washington, DC. [^304.9] #### Action LU-1.1.A: Resilience Equity and Land Use Develop projects that decrease the vulnerability of people and places to climate risks and public health emergencies, as well as promote future resilience. Use an equity lens to consider and address the disproportionate impacts of climate change on low income and vulnerable residents and communities of color. [^304.10] *Please refer to the Implementation Element for additional guidance on the Future Planning Analysis Areas, Small Area Plans, and other planning studies, and periodic progress reports.* <
> The Penn Quarter is an example of the District’s “Living Downtown.” [^304.8]: 304.8 [^304.9]: 304.9 [^304.10]: 304.10 Between 2005 and 2025, approximately 30 percent of the District’s housing growth and 70 percent of its job growth occurred, and will have occurred, within the District’s urban core and adjacent close-in areas along the Anacostia River. <
> Walkable mixed-use development in NoMa ### LU-1.2 Strengthening the Core [^p14-305] Key to the Comprehensive Plan is the transformation of Washington, DC’s core (generally referred to throughout the Comprehensive Plan as Central Washington) into a lively, connected urban center. The Central Business District and the Central Employment Area (CEA) may overlap with Central Washington, but do not comprise the total Planning Area. The distinct commercial districts that make up Central Washington already comprise one of the largest central business districts in the United States. Yet, with a few notable exceptions, much of the area lacks the dynamic 24/7 character that defines other great world capitals. For decades, the District’s planners aspired to create a living downtown: a place alive with housing, theaters, retail stores, and restaurants, as well as the vast expanse of office space that defines central Washington, DC today. New neighborhoods such as the area around Gallery Place, Penn Quarter, North of Massachusetts Avenue (NoMa), and downtown have been developed with a mix of uses. Physical barriers, including the Center Leg Freeway and Union Station open railyard, are being bridged over with mixed-use developments that will reconnect the District. These efforts are paying off, but the area has even more potential for lively mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-friendly developments and easy and safe connectivity among neighborhoods. [^305.1] Between 2005 and 2025, approximately 30 percent of the District’s housing growth and 70 percent of its job growth occurred, and will have occurred, within the District’s urban core and adjacent close-in areas along the Anacostia River. After 2025, growth is anticipated to occur throughout Washington, DC, including outside of the urban core. This growth must be accommodated in a way that protects the area’s historic character, including the street and open space frameworks, civic vistas, and monumental spaces established by the Plan of the City of Washington and the 1910 height limit and the concentration of architectural landmarks downtown. Infill and redevelopment will take place within the established business districts west of 5th Street NW, but a majority of downtown Washington, DC’s future growth will be achieved through redevelopment of areas on its east side. [^305.2] NoMa and Capitol Riverfront, two areas adjoining the traditional downtown and each more than 300 acres in size, have accommodated much of the central District’s growth. The former includes land in the triangle bounded by New York Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue NW, and the CSX railroad, along with adjacent lands around the New York Avenue Metro station. The latter area includes the South Capitol corridor and Near Southeast, including the Capitol Riverfront area. Whereas much of traditional downtown Washington was redeveloped for single purpose (office) uses during the second half of the 20th century, recent development focused on a walkable and mixed-use environment, including housing, employment, and recreation with an emphasis on modes of transportation other than the individual automobile. [^305.3] [^p14-305]: text [^305.1]: text [^305.2]: text [^305.3]: text CITYWIDE ELEMENTS As the urban core expands, reinvestment in established business districts, such as the Golden Triangle, the Downtown Core, and the Near Southwest should also continue. These areas are being modernized, better connected to one another, and developed with new infill uses and public improvements. Areas outside the traditional downtown, such as the Florida Avenue Market and Rhode Island Avenue, NE, provide opportunities for revitalization and re-envisioning how people work and live in the District, while smaller sites present the opportunity for new retail, housing, and office development. Across larger and smaller sites, efforts to strengthen the core should serve and attract businesses and people from across the income spectrum, including through the creation and preservation of affordable housing. 305.4[^305.4] Additional information on planning issues in these areas may be found in the Central Washington Area Element, the Upper Northeast Area Element, and the Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest Area Element. These chapters should be consulted for specific policies and actions. 305.5[^305.5] #### Policy LU-1.2.1: Sustaining a Strong District Center Provide for the continued vitality of Central Washington as a thriving business, government, retail, financial, hospitality, cultural, and residential center. Promote continued reinvestment in central District buildings, infrastructure, and public spaces; continued preservation and restoration of historic resources; and continued efforts to create safe, attractive, and pedestrian-friendly environments, while minimizing displacement of residents and community-focused businesses. 305.6[^305.6] #### Policy LU-1.2.2.: CEA Continue the joint federal/District designation of a CEA within Washington, DC. The CEA shall include existing core federal facilities, such as the U.S. Capitol Building, the White House, and the Supreme Court, as well as most of the legislative, judicial, and executive administrative headquarters of the U.S. government. Additionally, the CEA shall include the greatest concentration of the District’s private office development, and higher-density mixed land uses, including commercial/retail, hotel, residential, and entertainment uses. Given federally imposed height limits, the scarcity of vacant land in the core of the District, and the importance of protecting historic resources, the CEA may include additional land necessary to support economic growth and federal expansion. The CEA may be used to guide the District’s economic development initiatives and may be incorporated in its planning and building standards (e.g., parking requirements) to reinforce urban character. The CEA is also important because it is part of the point system used by the General Services Administration (GSA) to establish federal leases. The boundaries of the CEA are shown in Map 3.4. 305.7[^305.7] [^305.4]: 305.4 [^305.5]: 305.5 [^305.6]: 305.6 [^305.7]: 305.7 Map 3.4: # Central Employment Area (CEA) Map [^305.9] <
> [^305.9]: 305.9 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy LU-1.2.3: Appropriate Uses in the CEA Ensure that land within the CEA is used in a manner which reflects the area’s national importance, its historic and cultural significance, and its role as the center of the metropolitan region. Federal siting guidelines and District zoning regulations should promote the use of this area with high-value land uses that enhance its image as the seat of the national government and the center of Washington, DC and that make the most efficient possible use of its transportation facilities. An improved balance in the mix of uses will help to achieve Washington, DC’s aspiration for an even larger living downtown. 305[^.8] Both the District and Federal Elements include a joint federal/District designation of a Central Employment Area (CEA) within Washington, DC. The CEA includes the existing core of federal facilities, such as the U.S. Capitol Building, the White House, as well as the Supreme Court, and most of the legislative, judicial, and executive administrative headquarters of the United States government. The CEA is the District of Columbia’s commercial core where the greatest concentration of employment is encouraged. Additional Federal Employment Areas, such as Parkside, are located in other parts of the District. Federal Employment Areas are also part of the GSA point system used to establish federal leases. 305[^.10] #### Policy LU-1.2.4: Urban Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Encourage new mixed-use neighborhoods combining high-density residential, office, retail, cultural, and open space uses in the following areas: * Mount Vernon Triangle; * NoMa; * Downtown East and Pennsylvania Avenue; * Buzzard Point/National Park/Audi Field; * Near Southeast/Navy Yard; * Capitol Crossing (neighborhood between Capitol Hill and Gallery Place); * Union Station air rights; and * Near Southwest/Wharf/L’Enfant Plaza Metro Area. The location of these areas is shown in the Central Washington, and Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest Area Elements. Land use regulations and design standards for these areas should require that they are developed as attractive pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, with high-quality architecture and public spaces. Housing, especially affordable and deeply affordable housing, is particularly encouraged and must be a vital component of the future land use mix. As areas continue to redevelop, community engagement and actions shall be undertaken to retain existing residents, particularly communities of color and vulnerable populations, and enable them to share in the benefits of area redevelopment while addressing adverse short- and long-term impacts. 305[^.11] <
> New mixed-use neighborhoods like the Wharf offer high quality architecture and public spaces [^.8]: 305.8 [^.10]: 305.10 [^.11]: 305.11 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Policy LU-1.2.5: CEA Historic Resources Preserve the scale and character of the CEA’s historic resources, including historic landmarks and districts and the features of the Plan of the City of Washington. Development must be sensitive to the area’s historic character and should enhance important reminders of Washington, DC’s past. 305[^p18-12] *Please consult the Historic Preservation and Urban Design Elements for related policies* ### Policy LU-1.2.6: CEA Edges Support the retention of residential neighborhoods adjacent to the CEA. Appropriate building setbacks, lot coverage standards, and transitions in land use intensity and building height shall be required along the edges of the CEA to protect the integrity and scale of adjacent neighborhoods and to establish a compatible relationship between new structures and the existing neighborhood fabric. 305[^p18-13] *Please refer to the Urban Design Element for additional guidance on the appropriate transition of intensity at the edges of the CEA.* ### Policy LU-1.2.7: Reconnecting the District Through Air Rights Support the development of air rights over rail tracks, major corridors, and highways. In several parts of central Washington, DC there is the potential to build over existing railway tracks, major corridors, and highways. These undeveloped air rights are the result of the interjection of massive transportation infrastructure after the establishment and development of the original District. The tracks, major corridors, and highways have created gaps in the historic urban fabric that have left large areas of the center District divided and difficult to traverse. With substantial investment, these sites represent opportunities for development of housing, retail, and commercial buildings, as well as for the reconnection of neighborhoods and the street grid. While maximizing opportunities to provide housing and various amenities, future development should equitably address the potentially adverse impacts of locating housing uses next to active transportation corridors. 305[^p18-14] Where possible, streets should be reconnected, and air rights development should be constructed at and measured from a grade level consistent with adjacent land. When development at grade level is not physically possible, air rights should be measured by a means that provides for density and height commensurate with the zone district. Establishment of a measuring point for any particular air rights development shall be consistent with the act that regulates the height of buildings in the District of Columbia, approved June 1, 1910 (36 Stat. 452; D.C. Official Code § 6-601.01 et seq., known as the Height Act), and should not be taken as precedent for other development projects in the District. Densities and heights should be sensitive to the [^p18-12]: 305.12 [^p18-13]: 305.13 [^p18-14]: 305.14 surrounding neighborhoods and developments and be sufficient to induce the investment needed for such construction. 305.15[^305.15] #### Policy LU-1.2.8: New Waterfront Development New and renovating waterfront development shall actively address flood risk and incorporate adaptive siting and design measures. 305.16[^305.16] #### Policy LU-1.2.9: Public Space Design Strongly encourage the design of parks, wetlands, open spaces, natural covers, and rights-of-way that can withstand a 100-year flood event or stricter standards as prescribed by District law while improving quality of life in neighborhoods. 305.17[^305.17] *Action LU-1.2A: CEA Boundary* Work with the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) to ensure the boundary of the CEA depicted in the Federal Elements matches the boundary shown in the District Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. 305.18[^305.18] *Action LU 1.2.B Explore Alternative CEA Approaches* Considering Washington, DC’s unique role as the seat of federal government and nation’s capital, work with NCPC, GSA, and other stakeholders to consider other approaches to the CEA, including non-contiguous sites, to designate locations for future federal facilities and uses that reflects the diverse missions of federal agencies, security, transportation, and the economic development considerations, existing development constraints, and goals of the District. 305.19[^305.19] *Action LU-1.2.C: Center City Action Agenda* Update the 2008 Center City Action Agenda to reflect changing conditions, priorities, and projections (the agenda is Center City’s strategic plan for future growth, improvement, and conservation). The revised agenda should define Center City more broadly to include the multiple business districts that comprise the CEA. 305.20[^305.20] > *More specific policies for this area are contained in the Central Washington Area Element and the Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest Area Element.* *Action LU-1.2D: Development of Air Rights* Analyze the unique characteristics of the air rights development sites within Washington, DC. Development sites should address the growing need for housing, and especially affordable housing, reconnect the L’Enfant grid, and enhance mobility. 305.21[^305.21] [^305.15]: 305.15 [^305.16]: 305.16 [^305.17]: 305.17 [^305.18]: 305.18 [^305.19]: 305.19 [^305.20]: 305.20 [^305.21]: 305.21 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS During the next 20 years, about 15 percent of Washington, DC’s housing growth and 10 percent of its job growth will take place on 11 large sites outside of the CEA. The large sites include properties in federal ownership, District ownership, and private ownership. <
> Sites like Poplar Point offer opportunities for exciting new waterfront development and parks. #### Action LU-1.2.E: Development on Former Federal Sites When sites in the CEA shift from federal to private or local use, employ planning and zoning approaches that provide for the integration of the sites into the surrounding fabric. Replace the monumental scale needed for major federal buildings with a scale suitable to the local context by reconstructing historic rights-of-way, dividing superblocks into smaller parcels, and encouraging vibrant contemporary architectural expression. Encourage mixed-use, mixed-income, development with residential, retail, and cultural uses visible from the street and open outside of core business hours, as well as offices, to help support a living downtown. [^305.22] #### Action LU-1.2.F Reuse of Existing Buildings Evaluate opportunities to encourage appropriate use repositioning of existing buildings (for example, from office to mixed housing and retail) to provide varied office and retail space, more housing and especially affordable housing, and a mix of uses that support District goals. [^305.23] ### LU-1.3 Large Sites and the District Fabric [^p20-306] During the next 20 years, about 15 percent of Washington, DC’s housing growth and 10 percent of its job growth will take place on 11 large sites outside of the CEA. The large sites include properties in federal ownership, District ownership, and private ownership. The status of each site varies; redevelopment on a few is imminent, but others may be over a decade away. Some still contain vital, active uses. Others have been dormant for years. [^306.1] Four of the 11 sites are owned (at least in part) by the federal government. Consequently, policies in the District Elements for these lands are intended only to express the District’s vision for these properties should they be transferred out of federal ownership or use. In collaboration with the federal government and the community, Washington, DC will make its planning and development decisions regarding these sites to be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and to further the goals and policies of the District Elements. [^306.2] Some large recreational sites owned by the federal government are not intended to be transferred out of federal ownership and are not included in this list. However, the District continues to work with and advocate for community-friendly management of these lands. The golf courses at East Potomac Park, Rock Creek, and the historic Langston Golf Course have the potential to become assets and positive defining features for their neighborhoods. [^306.3] [^305.22]: 305.22 [^305.23]: 305.23 [^p20-306]: 306 [^306.1]: 306.1 [^306.2]: 306.2 [^306.3]: 306.3 The large sites are shown in Map 3.5 and listed in Figure 3.2. The Area Elements should be consulted for a profile of each site and specific policies for its future use. The policies in this section focus on broader issues that apply to all sites. As shown on Map 3.5, several of the sites fall within the boundaries of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI), an economic revitalization and environmental protection program now being implemented by the District government. [^306.4] **Figure 3.2:** ## Large Sites [^306.5] | Site | Acres | Consult the following Area Element for more detail: | | :--- | :---: | :--- | | Armed Forces Retirement Home | 272 | Rock Creek East | | DC Village | 167 | Far SE/SW | | Fort Lincoln (remainder) | 80 | Upper Northeast | | Kenilworth-Parkside | 60 | Far NE/SE | | McMillan Sand Filtration Site | 25 | Mid-City | | Poplar Point | 60 | Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest | | Reservation 13 | 67 | Capitol Hill | | St. Elizabeths Hospital | 336 | Far SE/SW | | Southwest Waterfront | 45 | Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest | | Walter Reed Army Medical Center | 113 | Rock Creek East | | RFK Stadium | 80 | Capitol Hill | ### Policy LU-1.3.1: Reuse of Large Publicly Owned Sites Recognize the potential for and encourage the reuse of large, government-owned properties to supply needed community services and facilities; provide significant deeply affordable housing and desired housing types such as family housing; create education and employment opportunities; remove barriers between neighborhoods; enhance equity, including racial equity, and inclusion; provide large and significant new parks, including wildlife habitats; enhance waterfront access; improve resilience; and enhance Washington, DC’s neighborhoods. [^306.6] [^306.4]: 306.4 [^306.5]: 306.5 [^306.6]: 306.6 Map 3.5: # Large Sites [^306.7] <
> [^306.7]: 306.7 #### Policy LU-1.3.2: Mix of Uses on Large Sites Ensure that the mix of new uses on large, redeveloped sites is compatible with adjacent uses and provide benefits to surrounding neighborhoods and to Washington, DC as a whole. The particular mix of uses on any given site should be generally indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and more fully described in the Comprehensive Plan Area Elements. Zoning should be compatible with adjacent uses but need not be identical. [^306.8] #### Policy LU-1.3.3: Federal Sites Work closely with the federal government and the community on reuse planning for those federal lands where a change of use may take place. Even where such properties will remain in federal use, the impacts of new activities on adjacent neighborhoods should be acknowledged and proactively addressed by federal parties. [^306.9] #### Policy LU-1.3.4: New Methods of Land Regulation Recognize the opportunity afforded by large sites for innovative land regulation and the application of sustainable design and resilience principles (green building, biophilic design, and low-impact development) on a large scale. [^306.10] #### Policy LU-1.3.5: Public Benefit Uses on Large Sites Given the significant leverage the District has in redeveloping properties that it owns, include appropriate public benefit uses on such sites if and when they are reused, and involve the public in identifying benefits. Examples of such uses are housing, especially deeply affordable housing, and housing serving families, older adults, and vulnerable populations; new parks and open spaces; health care and civic facilities; public educational facilities and other public facilities; and uses providing employment opportunities for District residents. [^306.11] #### Policy LU-1.3.6: New Neighborhoods and the Urban Fabric On those large sites that are redeveloped as new neighborhoods (such as Reservation 13), integrate new development into the fabric of the District to the greatest extent feasible. Incorporate extensions of the street grid, public access and circulation improvements, and new public open spaces. Establish a compatible relationship between new structures and uses and the existing neighborhood fabric. Such sites should not be developed as self-contained communities, isolated or gated from their surroundings, and they should enhance community resilience, equitable development, and promote inclusion. [^306.12] #### Policy LU-1.3.7: Protecting Existing Assets on Large Sites Identify and protect existing assets, such as historic buildings, historic site plan elements, important vistas, and major landscape elements as large sites are redeveloped. [^306.13] [^306.8]: 306.8 [^306.9]: 306.9 [^306.10]: 306.10 [^306.11]: 306.11 [^306.12]: 306.12 [^306.13]: 306.13 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Policy LU-1.3.8: Large Sites and the Waterfront Use the redevelopment of large sites to achieve related urban design, open space, environmental, resilience, equity, accessibility, and economic development objectives along the Anacostia Waterfront, as well as other shoreline areas. Large waterfront sites should be used for water-focused recreation, housing including affordable housing, commercial, and cultural development, with activities that are accessible to both sides of the river. Create opportunities for adjacent communities to benefit from site redevelopment. Large sites should further be used to enhance the physical and environmental quality of the rivers. 306.14[^306.14] ### Action LU-1.3.A: Federal Land Transfer Continue to work with the federal government to transfer federally owned sites to local control, long-term leases, or ownership to capitalize more fully on unrealized development and parkland opportunities. 306.15[^306.15] *Policies and actions for large sites are also contained in the Comprehensive Plan Area Elements.* ### Action LU-1.3.B: Encouraging Livability of Former Federal Lands When land is identified to shift from federal to private or local use, develop planning and zoning approaches that provide for, as appropriate, the reconstruction of historic rights-of-way and reservations, integration of the sites into the adjoining neighborhoods, and the enhancement of special characteristics or opportunities of the sites. Foster uses that create jobs. Encourage cultural, residential, open space, recreational, and retail uses to advance mixed-use, and as appropriate, mixed income neighborhoods, even if the site is designated as high- density commercial on the District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Coordinate with the NCPC as appropriate. 306.16[^306.16] [^306.14]: 306.14 [^306.15]: 306.15 [^306.16]: 306.16 ### LU-1.4 Transit-Oriented and Corridor Development [^p25-307] Over the last five decades, Washington, DC, the federal government, and neighboring jurisdictions have invested billions of dollars in a mass transit system that effectively connects residents in many parts of the District with major employment centers and other destinations. Additional investments in rapid transit, consisting primarily of streetcars, dedicated bus lanes, transit signal priority, and express/limited-stop service, are planned along major corridors. These improvements are essential to enhancing regional mobility and accessibility, responding to future increases in demand, and providing alternatives to single-passenger automobiles. The improvements also create the potential to reinforce one of the signature elements of Washington, DC’s urban form: its major streets and thoroughfares. [^307.1] Fully capitalizing on the investment made in Metrorail requires effective use of the land around transit stations and along transit corridors. While many of the District’s 40 Metrorail stations epitomize the concept of a transit village, with pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential development of varying scales, a few do not. Some stations continue to be surrounded by large surface parking lots and auto-oriented commercial land uses. The same is true for those corridors where premium surface transit service has been implemented or proposed. Some commercial buses pass through fairly dense, walkable neighborhoods. Other station areas consist of long, undifferentiated commercial strips with vacant storefronts, little or no housing, and few amenities for pedestrians. [^307.2] Much of the planning during the last decade has focused on making better use of transit station areas. Plans have been developed for Columbia Heights, Takoma, Anacostia, Georgia Avenue-Petworth, Brookland, Deanwood, Hill East, Southwest, Maryland Avenue NE, Rhode Island Avenue NE/NW, Florida Avenue Market, H Street NE, and Shaw/Howard University. In each case, the objective was to identify ways to better capitalize on Metrorail and more efficiently use land in the station vicinity. One objective of these initiatives has been to strengthen transit stations as neighborhood centers and attract new investment to business districts facing economic challenges. Another important objective has been to accommodate growth in a way that minimizes the number and length of auto-trips generated and reduce household expenses on transportation by providing options for car-free (or one car) living. [^307.3] Transit improvements are essential to enhancing regional mobility and accessibility, responding to future increases in demand, and providing alternatives to single-passenger automobiles. [^p25-307]: 307 [^307.1]: 307.1 [^307.2]: 307.2 [^307.3]: 307.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Metrorail station area development policies must respond to the unique needs of each community and the unique setting of each station, and seek community and broader public input in station area planning and development. The District’s Metrorail stations include 15 stations within the CEA and 25 neighborhood stations (see Map 3.6). Looking forward, certain principles should be applied in the management of land around all of the neighborhood stations. These principles include: * A preference for mixed residential and commercial uses rather than single-purpose uses and in many areas a preference for housing above ground-floor retail uses; * Providing diverse housing types, including both market rate and affordable units; a mix of unit sizes that can accommodate both smaller and larger households; and housing for older adults and persons with disabilities; * A priority on attractive, pedestrian-friendly design and a de-emphasis on auto-oriented uses and surface parking; * Provision of well-designed, well-programmed, and well-maintained public open spaces; * Appropriate transitions of densities and heights between stations and lower-density uses in the vicinity recognizing, however, that some major corridors well served by transit can support higher-density uses even farther away from the Metrorail station; * Convenient and comfortable connections to the bus system, thereby expanding access to the stations and increasing Metro’s ability to serve all parts of the District; and * Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the stations and the surrounding neighborhoods. [^307.4] Beyond these core principles, station area development policies must respond to the unique needs of each community and the unique setting of each station, and seek community and broader public input in station area planning and development. Some station areas wrestle with concerns over too much development, while others experience difficulties attracting development. Moreover, the District’s role in facilitating transit-oriented development (TOD) must vary from station to station. In some parts of Washington, DC, weak demand may require public investment and zoning incentives to catalyze development or achieve the desired mix of uses. In other areas, the strength of the private market provides leverage to require public benefits (such as affordable housing, plazas, parks, and childcare facilities) when development approval is requested. [^307.5] While TOD is most commonly thought of as a strategy for Metrorail station areas, it is also applicable to premium transit corridors. [^307.6] [^307.4]: 307.4 [^307.5]: 307.5 [^307.6]: 307.6 ### Map 3.6: ## Priority Transit Corridors and Transit Stations [^307.7] <
> [^307.7]: 307.7 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS The reach of TOD around any given station or along a high-volume transit corridor should vary depending on neighborhood context. While a quarter to a half- mile is generally used across the country to define the walkable radius around each station, and therefore the area in which higher densities may accommodate growth without unacceptable increases in traffic congestion, applying a uniform radius is not always appropriate in the District. The established character and scale of the neighborhood surrounding the station should be considered, as should factors such as topography, demographics, and the station’s or corridor’s capacity to support new transit riders. Many stations abut historic or low-density neighborhoods. Similarly, many priority transit corridors transition to single-family homes or row houses just one-half block or less off the street itself. Careful planning and design to appropriately transition from desired growth around stations and corridors to adjacent neighborhoods is needed when development is planned. 307.8[^307.8] ### Policy LU-1.4.1: Station Areas as Neighborhood Centers Encourage the development of Metro stations as anchors for residential, economic, and civic development and to accommodate population growth with new nodes of residential development, especially affordable housing, in all areas of the District in order to create great new walkable places and enhance access and opportunities for all District residents. The establishment and growth of mixed-use centers at Metrorail stations should be supported as a way to provide access to housing opportunities at all income levels and emphasizing affordable housing, improve air quality, increase jobs, provide a range of retail goods and services, reduce reliance on the automobile, enhance neighborhood stability, create a stronger sense of place, provide civic gathering places, and capitalize on the development and public transportation opportunities that the stations provide. Station area development should have population and employment densities guided, but not dictated, by desired levels of transit service. This policy should be balanced with other land use policies, which include conserving neighborhoods. The Future Land Use Map expresses the desired intensity and mix of uses around each station, and the Area Elements (and in some cases Small Area Plans) provide more detailed direction for each station area. 307.9[^307.9] ### Policy LU-1.4.2: Development Around Metrorail Stations In developments above and around Metrorail stations emphasize land uses and building forms that minimize the need for automobile use and maximize transit ridership while reflecting the design capacity of each station and respecting the character and needs of the surrounding areas. 307.10[^307.10] ### Policy LU-1.4.3: Housing Around Metrorail Stations Build housing adjacent to Metrorail stations that serves a mix of incomes and household types, including families, older adults, and persons with disabilities, and prioritize affordable and deeply affordable housing [^307.8]: 307.8 [^307.9]: 307.9 [^307.10]: 307.10 production. Leverage the lowered transportation costs offered by proximity to transit to increase affordability for moderate and low-income households.[^307.11] ### Policy LU-1.4.4: Affordable Rental and For-Sale Multi-family Housing Near Metrorail Stations Explore and implement as appropriate mechanisms, which could include community land trusts, public housing, and shared appreciation models, to encourage permanent affordable rental and for-sale multi-family housing, adjacent to Metrorail stations, given the need for accessible affordable housing and the opportunity for car-free and car-light living in such locations.[^307.12] ### Policy LU-1.4.5: Design to Encourage Transit Use Require architectural and site-planning improvements around Metrorail stations that support pedestrian and bicycle access to the stations and enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of passengers walking to the station or transferring to and from local buses. These improvements should include sidewalks, bicycle lanes, lighting, signage, landscaping, and security measures. Discourage the development of station areas with conventional suburban building forms, such as shopping centers surrounded by surface parking lots or low-density housing.[^307.13] ### Policy LU-1.4.6: Development Along Corridors Encourage growth and development along major corridors, particularly priority transit and multimodal corridors. Plan and design development adjacent to Metrorail stations and corridors to respect the character, scale, and integrity of adjacent neighborhoods, using approaches such as building design, transitions, or buffers, while balancing against the District’s broader need for housing.[^307.14] ### Policy LU-1.4.7: Parking Near Metro Stations Encourage the creative management of parking around transit stations, ensuring that multimodal needs are balanced. New parking should generally be set behind or underneath buildings. Parking should be managed and priced to focus on availability and turnover rather than serving the needs of all-day commuters, while considering the commuting characteristics of District residents, such as access to transit stations and mode use, to provide equitable outcomes. As existing parking assets are redeveloped, one-for-one replacement of parking spaces should be discouraged, as more transit riders will be generated by people living, working, and shopping within walking distance of the transit station.[^307.15] ### Policy LU-1.4.8: Transit-Oriented Development Boundaries Tailor the reach of TOD policies and associated development regulations to reflect the specific conditions and community input at each Metrorail [^307.11]: 307.11 [^307.12]: 307.12 [^307.13]: 307.13 [^307.14]: 307.14 [^307.15]: 307.15 station and along each transit corridor. The opportunity to provide affordable housing and access to employment for low-income households, presence of historic districts, landmark status, and conservation areas should be significant considerations as these policies are applied. 307.16[^307.16] ### Policy LU-1.4.9: Public Facilities Encourage the siting (or retention and modernization) of public facilities, such as schools, libraries, and government offices, near transit stations and along transit corridors. Such facilities should be a focus for community activities and enhance neighborhood identity. 307.17[^307.17] ### Policy LU-1.4.10: Co-location of Private and Public Facilities District-wide, analyze the opportunity to co-locate private and public uses, including multiple public uses, where the District seeks to modernize, expand, or build new public facilities. Co-located uses should align with District-wide priorities and can include affordable housing for older adults and families, affordable multi-family housing, recreation facilities, and health-related facilities. 307.18[^307.18] #### Action LU-1.4.A: Station Area and Corridor Planning Conduct detailed station area and corridor plans and studies collaboratively with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and local communities that include detailed surveys of parcel characteristics (including lot depths and widths), existing land uses, structures, street widths, potential for buffering, and possible development impacts on surrounding areas. Plans should also address joint public-private development opportunities, urban design improvements, transportation demand and parking management strategies, integrated bus service and required service facilities, capital improvements, neighborhood conservation and enhancement, and recommended land use and zoning changes throughout the District. Conduct studies District-wide but prioritize stations and corridors in Future Planning Analysis Areas. 307.19[^307.19] #### Action LU-1.4.B: Zoning Around Transit With public input, develop and use zoning incentives to facilitate new and mixed-use development, and particularly the provision of new housing, and new affordable housing in high opportunity areas to address more equitable distribution. 307.20[^307.20] #### Action LU-1.4.C: Metro Station and Inclusionary Zoning Encourage developments in and around Metro station areas to exceed the affordable units required by the Inclusionary Zoning Program, with appropriate bonus density and height allowances. Exceeding targets for affordable housing can refer to exceeding the quantity or depth of affordability otherwise required. 307.21[^307.21] [^307.16]: 307.16 [^307.17]: 307.17 [^307.18]: 307.18 [^307.19]: 307.19 [^307.20]: 307.20 [^307.21]: 307.21 #### *Action LU-1.4.D: Co-Location Opportunity Evaluation* District-wide, encourage the co-location of new development, such as housing or retail, as part of public facilities’ modernization, expansion, and new construction. [^307.22] ### LU-1.5 Neighborhood Infill Development [^p31-308] Hundreds of small vacant lots across Washington, DC are located away from transit stations and off the major boulevards. Analysis conducted through the Comprehensive Plan revision determined that vacant, residentially zoned lots totaled more than 400 acres in 2005[^.]. Approximately 50 percent of this acreage was zoned for single-family homes, 15 percent was zoned for townhomes and row houses, and 35 percent was zoned for multi-family development. Most of the sites were less than one acre in size. Some of this land may not be developable to the limits allowed by zoning due to site constraints, such as poor access, awkward parcel shapes, and steep topography. [^308.1] Infill development on vacant lots is strongly supported in the District, provided that such development is compatible with its surroundings and consistent with environmental protection and public safety objectives. There are opportunities for change from vacant to vibrant in residential and commercial areas. In residential areas, infill sites present some of the best opportunities for family housing and low-to-moderate-density development, as well as community gardens and pocket parks. In commercial areas, infill development can fill gaps in the street wall and create more cohesive and attractive neighborhood centers. Vacant lots in such settings may also present opportunities for public uses. [^308.2] In both residential and commercial settings, infill development must be sensitive to neighborhood context including density and scale. High-quality design standards should be required. [^308.3] Infill development may also include the restoration of vacant and abandoned structures. In 2003[^.], there were an estimated 2,700[^.] vacant and abandoned residential properties in the District. While the number has declined since then, some parts of Washington, DC continue to have a relatively higher mount of vacant buildings. [^308.4] Accessory dwelling units as part of new infill development can provide opportunities for addressing affordability, aging in community, or help pay a mortgage. [^308.5] #### *Policy LU-1.5.1: Infill Development* Encourage infill development on vacant land within Washington, DC, particularly in areas where there are vacant lots that create gaps in the urban fabric and detract from the character of a commercial or residential street. Such development should reflect high-quality design, complement the **In residential areas, infill sites present some of the best opportunities for family housing and low-to-moderate-density development, as well as community gardens and pocket parks. In commercial areas, infill development can fill gaps in the street wall and create more cohesive and attractive neighborhood centers.** [^307.22]: 307.22 [^p31-308]: 308 [^308.1]: 308.1 [^308.2]: 308.2 [^308.3]: 308.3 [^308.4]: 308.4 [^308.5]: 308.5 established character of the area and should not create sharp changes in the physical development pattern. 308.6[^308.6] #### Policy LU-1.5.2: Long-Term Vacant Sites Facilitate the reuse of vacant lots that have historically been difficult to develop due to infrastructure or access problems, inadequate lot dimensions, fragmented or absentee ownership, or other constraints. Explore lot consolidation, acquisition, and other measures that would address these constraints. 308.7[^308.7] > *See the Housing Element for policies on the development of New Communities on the sites of aging public affordable housing complexes and information about the District’s PADD Home Again program for rehabilitating vacant property.* ## LU-2 Creating and Maintaining Inclusive Neighborhoods [^p32-309] This section of the Land Use Element focuses on land use issues within Washington, DC’s neighborhoods. It begins with a set of broad policies, which state the District’s commitment to sustaining neighborhood diversity and enhancing the defining characteristics of each community. This is followed by information about neighborhood appearance, particularly the treatment of abandoned and underused properties. This section then turns to residential land use compatibility issues, followed by neighborhood centers and commercial land use compatibility issues. 309.1[^309.1] ### LU-2.1 A District of Neighborhoods [^p32-310] The same effort given to keep Washington, DC’s monumental core a symbol of national pride must be given to the District’s neighborhoods. After all, Washington, DC’s public image is defined as much by the diversity and vibrancy of its communities, local culture, homes, businesses, streets, and neighborhood spaces as it is by its monuments and federal buildings. For Washington, DC’s residents, the neighborhoods are the essence of the District’s social and physical environment. Strong neighborhoods are key to continued livability in a growing and changing District. Land use policies must seek to ensure that all neighborhoods have adequate access to commercial services, parks, educational and cultural facilities, economic mobility, and sufficient and accessible housing opportunities while protecting their rich historic and cultural legacies. In addition, land use policies and actions must be viewed through a racial equity lens to provide equitable development that provides adequate access to these services and opportunities within neighborhoods of color and low-income communities. 310.1[^310.1] [^308.6]: 308.6 [^308.7]: 308.7 [^p32-309]: 309 [^309.1]: 309.1 [^p32-310]: 310 [^310.1]: 310.1 Today, Washington, DC has no fewer than 130 distinct and identifiable neighborhoods. They range from high-density, urban mixed-use communities like the West End and Mount Vernon Square to quiet, low-density neighborhoods like Crestwood and Spring Valley, providing a wide range of choices for many different types of households. Just as their physical qualities vary, the social and economic characteristics of neighborhoods also vary. In 2001, the DC Office of Planning (OP) studied neighborhoods using a range of social and economic indicators, including income, home value and sales, school performance, crime rates, poverty rates, educational attainment, and building permit activity, among others. While much has changed since 2001, including substantial population growth, the emergence of new residential neighborhoods, and the revitalization of established neighborhoods, the neighborhood data remains instructive for the purposes of land use policy and should be updated when a new Comprehensive Plan is undertaken. 310.2[^310.2] Many of the District’s planning efforts have focused on transitional, emerging, and underfunded neighborhoods. Land use strategies for these areas have emphasized the reuse of vacant sites, the refurbishment (or replacement) of abandoned or deteriorating buildings, the removal of illegal land uses, and the improvement of the public realm (e.g., streets and public buildings). These strategies have been paired with incentives for the private sector to reinvest in each neighborhood and provide new housing choices and services. A different set of land use strategies has been applied in established neighborhoods, emphasizing commercial enhancement strategies, public space design, neighborhood character, and appropriate infill. Land use policies in these areas have focused on retaining neighborhood character, mitigating development impacts on services and infrastructure, preventing demolition in historic districts, and improving the connection between zoning and present and desired land uses. To advance the vision of an inclusive, equitable city, future planning must guide all neighborhoods to stable, high-opportunity outcomes while addressing issues specific to each area. 310.3[^310.3] Other planning efforts have focused on reconnecting neighborhoods divided by large transportation infrastructure, such as highways and railyards. This infrastructure, often developed as part of urban renewal, frequently destroyed or physically divided Black and Brown neighborhoods. Reconnection must strengthen and bring benefits to existing neighborhoods and create new neighborhoods to accommodate growth, such as in the NoMa, Capitol Crossing, and Southwest. These planning efforts include framework plans to provide design guidance, define and activate the public realm, support neighborhood sustainability and resilience, and identify retail strategies. 310.4[^310.4] Continued growth, competing demands for land, and the desire to manage policy priorities across Washington, DC requires renewed attention to all areas in the District. 310.5[^310.5] CITYWIDE ELEMENTS During the coming decades, the District will keep striving for equity across all neighborhoods in terms of access to housing affordable to a range of incomes and household types, job opportunities, economic mobility, energy innovation, and amenities. This does not mean that all neighborhoods should become the same or that a uniform formula should be applied to each community. Rather, it means that each neighborhood should have certain basic assets and amenities (see What Makes a Great Neighborhood). These assets and amenities should be protected and enhanced where they exist today and created or restored where they do not. 310.6[^310.6] ### What Makes a Great Neighborhood? 310.8[^310.8] An inclusive neighborhood should create a sense of belonging, civic pride, and a collective sense of stewardship and responsibility for the community's future among all residents. Indeed, a neighborhood's vibrancy has to be measured by more than the income of its residents or the size of its homes. The 2004 A Vision for Growing an Inclusive City identified essential physical qualities that all neighborhoods should share. These included the following: * Transportation options for those without a car, including convenient bus service, carsharing, bicycle facilities, and safe access for pedestrians; * Easy access to shops and services that meet day-to-day needs, such as child care, groceries, and sit-down restaurants; * Housing choices, including homes for renters and for owners, and a range of units that meet the different needs of the community; * Safe, clean public gathering places, such as parks and plazas—places to meet neighbors, places for children to play, and places to exercise or connect with nature; * Quality public services, including police and fire protection, high-quality, safe, and modernized schools, health services, as well as libraries and recreation centers that can be conveniently accessed; * Distinctive character and a sense of place defined by neighborhood architecture, visual landmarks and vistas, streets, public spaces, and historic places; * Evidence of visible public maintenance and investment—proof that the District is responsive to neighborhood needs; and * A healthy natural environment, with street trees and greenery, and easy access to Washington, DC's open space system. The understanding of what makes a great neighborhood has evolved, particularly in terms of eliminating existing inequalities by race, income, and geography and promoting equitable development, advancing sustainability, and building community resilience to everyday and long-term challenges, such as environmental and manmade disasters and public health emergencies. Where a resident lives—a person's neighborhood—remains one of the greatest predictors of individual health and economic outcomes. Vibrant neighborhoods have distinct character and can support growth. Investment and development should advance neighborhood vitality, growth, and economic mobility, and increase access, equity, and where appropriate, jobs. The positive elements that create the identity and character of each neighborhood should be preserved and enhanced. [^310.6]: 310.6 [^310.8]: 310.8 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy LU-2.1.1: Variety of Neighborhood Types Maintain a variety of neighborhoods, ranging from low-density to high-density. The positive elements that create the identity and design character of each neighborhood should be preserved and enhanced while encouraging the identification of appropriate sites for new development and/or adaptive reuse to help accommodate population growth and advance affordability, racial equity, and opportunity. 310.7[^310.7] #### Policy LU-2.1.2: Neighborhood Revitalization Facilitate neighborhood revitalization by focusing District grants, loans, housing rehabilitation efforts, commercial investment programs, capital improvements, and other government actions in those areas that are most in need, especially where projects advance equitable development and racial equity, as described in Section 213 of the Framework Element, and create opportunities for disadvantaged persons and for deeply affordable housing. Engage and partner in these efforts with the persons intended to be served by revitalization, especially residents. Use social, economic, and physical indicators, such as the poverty rate, the number of abandoned or substandard buildings, the crime rate, and the unemployment rate, as key indicators of need. 310.9[^310.9] #### Policy LU-2.1.3: Conserving, Enhancing, and Revitalizing Neighborhoods Recognize the importance of balancing goals to increase the housing supply, including affordable units, and expand neighborhood commerce with parallel goals to preserve historic resources, advance environmental and sustainability goals, and further Fair Housing. The overarching goal to create vibrant neighborhoods in all parts of the District requires an emphasis on conserving units and character in some neighborhoods and revitalization in others, including inclusive and integrated growth and meeting communities and public facility needs. All neighborhoods have a role to play in helping to meet broader District-wide needs, such as affordable housing, public facilities, and more. 310.10[^310.10] #### Policy LU-2.1.4: Rehabilitation Before Demolition In redeveloping areas characterized by vacant, abandoned, and underused older buildings, generally encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of architecturally or historically significant existing buildings rather than demolition. 310.11[^310.11] #### Policy LU-2.1.5: Support Low-Density Neighborhoods Support and maintain the District’s established low-density neighborhoods and related low-density zoning. Carefully manage the development of vacant land and alterations to existing structures to be compatible with the general design character and scale of the existing neighborhood and preserve civic and open space. 310.12[^310.12] <
> Balancing goals to increase housing supply with goals to preserve historic resources [^310.7]: 310.7 [^310.9]: 310.9 [^310.10]: 310.10 [^310.11]: 310.11 [^310.12]: 310.12 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Policy LU-2.1.6: Teardowns and Mansionization Discourage the replacement of quality homes in good physical condition with new single-family homes that are substantially larger, taller, bulkier or likely to require more energy than the prevailing building stock. 310.13[^310.13] ### Policy LU-2.1.7: Row House Neighborhood Character Respect the character of row house neighborhoods by ensuring that infill development is compatible with existing design patterns and maintains or expands the number of family-sized units. Upward and outward extension of row houses that compromise their design should be discouraged. 310.14[^310.14] ### Policy: LU-2.1.8 Explore Approaches to Additional Density in Low- and Moderate-Density Neighborhoods Notwithstanding Policy LU-2.1.5, explore approaches, including rezoning, to accommodate a modest increase in density and more diverse housing types in low-density and moderate-density neighborhoods where it would result in the appropriate production of additional housing and particularly affordable housing. Build upon the guidance of the April 2020 Single Family Housing Report to diversify the cost of housing available in high-opportunity, high-cost low- and moderate-density neighborhoods, especially near transit. However, neighborhood planning and engagement is a condition predicate to any proposals. Infill and new development shall be compatible with the design character of existing neighborhoods. Minimize demolition of housing in good condition. 310.15[^310.15] ### Policy LU-2.1.9: Alterations to Row Houses and Apartments Generally discourage alterations to existing row houses and apartments that result in a loss of family sized units. Encourage alterations if it results in an increase in family-sized units. Roof structures should only be permitted if they respect the architectural character of the building on which they are proposed and of other nearby buildings. 310.16[^310.16] ### Policy LU-2.1.10: Multi-Family Neighborhoods Maintain the multi-family residential character of the District’s medium- and high-density residential areas. Limit the encroachment of large-scale, incompatible commercial uses into these areas. Make these areas more attractive, pedestrian-friendly, and transit accessible, and explore opportunities for compatible commercial development which provides jobs for nearby residents. 310.17[^310.17] ### Policy LU-2.1.11: Residential Parking Requirements Parking requirements for residential buildings should respond to the varying levels of demand associated with different unit types, unit sizes, unit locations (including proximity to transit), and emerging transportation trends and new technology (such as the sharing economy and autonomous vehicles (AVs)). [^310.13]: 310.13 [^310.14]: 310.14 [^310.15]: 310.15 [^310.16]: 310.16 [^310.17]: 310.17 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S Parking should be accommodated in a manner that maintains an attractive environment at the street level and minimizes interference with traffic flow. Reductions in parking may be considered where transportation-demand management measures are implemented and a reduction in demand can be demonstrated. 310.18 *Please refer to the Transportation Element for additional policies and actions related to parking management.* ### Policy LU-2.1.12: Reuse of Public Buildings Rehabilitate vacant or outdated public and semi-public buildings for continued use including residential uses, particularly if located within residential areas. Reuse plans should be compatible with their surroundings and co-location of uses considered to meet broader District-wide goals. Reuse of public buildings should implement Small Area and Framework Plans where possible. 310.19 ### Policy LU-2.1.13: Planned Unit Developments in Neighborhood Commercial Corridors Planned unit developments (PUDs) in neighborhood commercial areas shall provide high-quality developments with active ground floor designs that provide for neighborhood commercial uses, vibrant pedestrian spaces and public benefits, such as housing, affordable housing, and affordable commercial space. 310.20 #### Action LU-2.1.A: Residential Rezoning Provide a better match between zoning and existing land uses in residential areas, with a particular focus on: * Blocks of well-established, single-family and semi-detached homes that are zoned R-3 or higher; * Blocks that consist primarily of row houses that are zoned R-5-B or higher; and * Historic districts where the zoning does not match the predominant contributing properties on the block face. In all three of these instances, consider rezoning to appropriate densities to protect the predominant architectural character and scale of the neighborhood. 310.21 #### Action LU-2.1.B: Study of Neighborhood Indicators Conduct an ongoing review with periodic publication of social and economic neighborhood indicators for the purpose of targeting neighborhood investments, particularly for the purposes of achieving neighborhood diversity, equitable development, and fair housing. 310.22 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Action LU-2.1.C Study of Land Use Inequalities Additional study, public engagement, and consideration of the District’s history of systemic racism, distinct land use and housing patterns, and understanding of best practices to address land use inequalities are needed to address housing affordability, meet equitable development objectives, and address past land use practices that segregated areas by race and income.[^310.23] ## LU-2.2 Maintaining Community Standards[^p38-311] Community standards encompasses a broad range of topics relating to the physical appearance and quality of neighborhoods. The District maintains planning, building, housing, zoning, environmental, tax, and other regulations and codes aimed at protecting public safety and keeping neighborhoods in first-rate physical condition. However, instances of neglected and abandoned properties, illegal uses, unpermitted construction, and code violations are still common in many parts of Washington, DC. Despite dramatic improvements in code enforcement during recent years and a 50 percent drop in the number of vacant properties since 2000[^p38-1], more effective and responsive enforcement remains one of the most frequently raised planning issues.[^311.1] ### Policy LU-2.2.1: Code Enforcement as a Tool for Neighborhood Stabilization Recognize the importance of consistent, effective, and comprehensive code enforcement, and enforcement of the higher tax rates applied to vacant and underused property, to the enhancement of neighborhoods. Housing, building, property tax, and zoning regulations must be strictly applied and enforced in all neighborhoods to prevent deteriorated, unsafe, and unhealthy conditions; reduce illegal activities; maintain the general level of residential uses, densities, and heights; provide incentives for rehabilitating property and getting it occupied; and promptly correct health and safety hazards. Efforts should recognize and focus on consistent enforcement in disproportionately affected areas to improve neighborhood outcomes.[^311.2] ### Policy LU-2.2.2: Appearance of Vacant Lots and Structures Maintain and enforce programs that keep vacant lots and buildings free of debris, litter, and graffiti. Such sites must be treated in a way that eliminates underused or under-maintained properties, improves visual quality, and enhances public safety.[^311.3] ### Policy LU-2.2.3: Restoration or Removal of Vacant and Abandoned Buildings Reduce the number of vacant and abandoned buildings through renovation, rehabilitation, and, as necessary, demolition. Implement programs that encourage the owners of such buildings to sell or renovate them, and apply [^310.23]: 310.23 [^p38-311]: 311 [^p38-1]: 2000 [^311.1]: 311.1 [^311.2]: 311.2 [^311.3]: 311.3 liens, fines, higher taxes, charges for public clean-up of the property, and other penalties for noncompliant properties. [^311.4] ### Policy LU-2.2.4: Neighborhood Beautification Encourage projects that improve the visual quality of neighborhoods, including landscaping and tree planting, facade improvement, anti-litter campaigns, graffiti removal, murals, improvement or removal of abandoned buildings, street and sidewalk repair, park improvements, and public realm enhancements and activations. [^311.5] ### Policy LU-2.2.5: Enforcement of Approval Conditions Fully enforce conditions of approval for new development, reuse and renovation, including design, building, and operating criteria. [^311.6] ### Policy LU-2.2.6: Public Stewardship Support efforts by local Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs), citizen/civic associations, garden clubs, homeowner groups, and other organizations to initiate neighborhood improvement and beautification programs. Provide information, guidance, and technical assistance to these groups as appropriate or feasible. [^311.7] ### Policy LU-2.2.7: Alley Use Discourage the conversion of alleys into private yards or developable land when the alleys are part of the historic fabric of the neighborhood and would otherwise continue to perform their intended functions, such as access to rear garages and service areas for trash collection. Support the greening of residential alleys where feasible to enhance sustainability and stormwater management. Encourage potential activation of commercial alleys in business districts through art, programming, and events where not in conflict with the intended function of the alley network. [^311.8] #### Action LU-2.2.A: Vacant Building Inventories Maintain and continuously update data on vacant and abandoned buildings, follow up on public reports of vacant buildings, and regularly assess the potential for such buildings to support new uses and activities. This should include periodic assessment of vacant building monitoring and taxation programs and exploring creative ways to deal with vacant properties and long-term vacant sites. Strategically purchase such properties at tax delinquency sales when such properties could be put to use for affordable housing. [^311.9] #### Action LU-2.2.B: Education and Outreach on Public Space Maintenance Develop a public outreach campaign on the District’s public space regulations (including the use of such space for announcements, campaign signs, and advertising) and resident/District responsibilities for maintenance of public space, including streets, planting strips, sidewalks, and front yards. [^311.10] [^311.4]: 311.4 [^311.5]: 311.5 [^311.6]: 311.6 [^311.7]: 311.7 [^311.8]: 311.8 [^311.9]: 311.9 [^311.10]: 311.10 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS **In 2016, the Zoning Commission adopted a comprehensive update to the zoning regulations— the first comprehensive revision in more than 50 years. ZR16 is an important step in implementing goals for achieving a healthy, vibrant, diverse, and environmentally sustainable and resilient District.** ## LU-2.3 Residential Land Use Compatibility [^p40-312] Many of Washington, DC’s neighborhoods were developed before 1920 when its first zoning regulations were applied. As a result, the older neighborhoods tend to have a patchwork pattern of land uses, with business and residential activities sometimes occurring on the same block. While this pattern has created some desirable and interesting neighborhoods, it has also introduced the potential for conflict. Certain commercial and industrial uses may generate noise, odor, traffic, litter, and other impacts that affect the quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Similarly, introducing new residential uses to commercial or industrial areas can make it difficult for established businesses to operate effectively. [^312.1] Land use compatibility is addressed through the District’s zoning regulations. The regulations list uses that are permitted as a matter-of-right and those that are permitted with a special exception (and in some cases uses that are prohibited) in each zone. Over the years, a variety of standards for external effects have been applied to address the effects of different activities on adjacent uses. In 2016, the Zoning Commission adopted a comprehensive update to the zoning regulations — the first comprehensive revision in more than 50 years. The revised zoning regulations, referred to as ZR16, address land use compatibility issues, more effective use of performance standards, buffering and screening requirements, updated development and design standards, and new standards for parking and loading. ZR16 also includes new definitions, new zones, and changes to matter-of-right and special exception uses. ZR16 is an important step in implementing goals for achieving a healthy, vibrant, diverse, and environmentally sustainable and resilient District. [^312.2] ### Policy LU-2.3.1: Managing Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas Maintain zoning regulations and development review procedures that prevent the encroachment of inappropriate commercial uses in residential areas. Limit the scale and extent of non-residential uses that are generally compatible with residential uses but present the potential for conflicts when they are excessively concentrated or out of scale with the neighborhood. [^312.3] ### Policy LU-2.3.2: Mitigation of Commercial Development Impacts Manage new commercial development to maximize benefits such as enlivened neighborhoods, tax generation, and job creation, while ensuring that it does not result in unreasonable and unexpected traffic, parking, litter, shadow, view obstruction, odor, noise, and vibration impacts on surrounding residential areas. Establish appropriate requirements for transportation demand management and noise control, parking and loading management, building design, hours of operation, and other measures as needed before commercial development is approved. [^312.4] [^p40-312]: [^312.1]: [^312.2]: [^312.3]: [^312.4]: CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Policy LU-2.3.3: Buffering Requirements Buffer new commercial development adjacent to residential areas to avoid adverse effects. Buffers may include setbacks, landscaping, fencing, screening, height step-downs, and other architectural and site-planning measures that avoid potential conflicts. [^312.5] ### Policy LU-2.3.4: Transitional and Buffer Zone Districts Maintain mixed-use zone districts, which serve as transitional or buffer areas between residential and commercial districts and that also may contain institutional, nonprofit, embassy/chancery, and office-type uses. Through application of zoning regulations, consider appropriate height, design, density and operational standards to provide appropriate transitions between districts and enhance neighborhood character in each district. [^312.6] ### Policy LU-2.3.5: Institutional Uses Recognize the importance of institutional uses, such as private schools, childcare facilities, hospitals, churches, and similar uses, to the economy, character, history, livability, and future of Washington, DC and its residents. Ensure that when such uses are permitted in residential neighborhoods, their design and operation is sensitive to neighborhood issues and neighbors’ quality of life. Encourage institutions and neighborhoods to work proactively to address issues, such as transportation and parking, hours of operation, outside use of facilities, and facility expansion. [^312.7] ### Policy LU-2.3.6: Places of Worship and Other Religious Facilities Recognize places of worship and other religious facilities as an ongoing, important part of the fabric of the District’s neighborhoods. Work proactively with the faith-based community, residents, ANCs, and neighborhood groups to address issues associated with these facilities’ transportation needs, operations, and expansions so that existing and new religious facilities may be sustained as neighborhood anchors and a source of spiritual guidance. Recognize also that places of worship or religious assembly, and some other religious facilities or institutions, are accorded important federal constitutional and statutory protections under the First Amendment (U.S. Const. Amend. I) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, approved September 22, 2000 (114 Stat. 803; 42 U.S.C. 2000cc). The missions of many religious institutions involve service to those in need, and institutions offer important services, such as providing food banks, meals, clothing, counseling services, shelter, and housing. [^312.8] ### Policy LU-2.3.7: Nonconforming Institutional Uses Carefully control and monitor institutional uses that do not conform to the underlying zoning to promote long-term compatibility. In the event <
> Churches and other religious institutions are an important part of the fabric of the city’s neighborhoods. [^312.5]: 312.5 [^312.6]: 312.6 [^312.7]: 312.7 [^312.8]: 312.8 such institutions are sold or cease to operate, encourage conformance with existing zoning and continued compatibility with the neighborhood. 312[^.9] #### Policy LU-2.3.8: Nonconforming Commercial and Industrial Uses Limit nonconforming uses in residential areas that generate noise, truck traffic, odors, air and water pollution, and other adverse effects. Consistent with the zoning regulations, limit the expansion of such uses and fully enforce regulations regarding their operation to avoid harmful effects on their surroundings. 312[^.10] #### Policy LU-2.3.9: Transient Accommodations in Residential Zones Continue to distinguish between transient uses, such as hotels, bed and breakfasts, and inns, and permanent residential uses, such as homes and apartments in the District’s zoning regulations. The development of new hotels on residentially zoned land should continue to be prohibited, and owner occupancy should continue to be required for transient accommodations in residential zones, consistent with applicable laws. Short-term housing for persons receiving social services is outside the scope of this policy’s prohibition. 312[^.11] #### Policy LU-2.3.10: Conversion of Housing to Guest Houses and Other Transient Uses Control the conversion of entire residences to guest houses, bed and breakfast establishments, clinics, and other non-residential or transient uses. Zoning regulations should continue to allow larger bed and breakfasts and small inns within residential zones through the special exception process, with care taken to avoid the proliferation of such uses in any one neighborhood. Short term rental uses shall conform to existing regulations. 312[^.12] *Please refer to Policy 2.4.11 of this element for additional guidance on hotel uses and the need to address their impact* #### Policy LU-2.3.11: Home Occupations Maintain appropriate regulations (including licensing requirements) to address the trend toward home occupations, accommodating such uses but also ensuring that they do not inappropriately impact residential neighborhoods. 312[^.13] #### Policy LU-2.3.12: Arts and Culture Uses in Neighborhoods Recognize the importance of low-profile, neighborhood-serving arts and culture as assets for community preservation and building. Encourage the preservation or expansion of arts and culture in discretionary review of development projects. 312[^.14] *Please refer to the Arts and Culture Element for additional guidance.* *Action LU-2.3.A: Analysis of Nonconforming Uses* Complete an analysis of nonconforming commercial, industrial, and institutional uses in residential areas. Use the findings to identify the need for appropriate actions, such as zoning text or map amendments and relocation assistance for problem uses. 312.15 *Action LU-2.3.B Short-Term Rental Studies* Conduct periodic studies of short-term rental locations and numbers and examine their impact on neighborhood livability and affordable housing. 312.16 ### LU-2.4 Neighborhood Commercial Districts and Centers [^p43-313] Commercial uses and local public facilities are an essential part of the District’s neighborhoods. Many of these uses are clustered in well-defined centers that serve as the heart of the neighborhood. These areas support diverse business, civic, and social activities. Each center reflects the identity of the neighborhood around it through the shops and establishments it supports and the architecture and scale of its buildings. These centers are also often connecting points for public transit lines—in fact, many originated around streetcar stops and continue to be important transit points today. 313.1 Since 2006, the District has experienced significant population growth with the emergence of new neighborhoods and revitalization of existing ones. Growth of commercial centers has favored walkability and a retail mix led by food establishments and neighborhood shopping options. Residential growth has also spurred local commercial growth, buoying the success of more commercial centers and alleviating the District’s long-standing retail gap. These changes have reshaped the retail landscape. Established retail areas have new competition while new opportunities emerged in underused centers. Commercial centers in neighborhoods provide amenities to residents, help to define public life, and provide community anchors and places for social interaction. Planning areas east of the Anacostia River remain underserved by retail and grocery stores, limiting access and options for the predominantly Black communities in these areas. Online retail and other emerging issues, some created or accelerated by the pandemic, will also shape future commercial development. 313.2 In 2012, OP developed the DC Vibrant Retail Streets Toolkit to help community and business leaders maximize the potential of their commercial centers with a road map based on extensive market research. The most important factor for vibrant commercial districts is support from a management organization, such as a business improvement district (BID), Main Street, merchants’ association, or other community group. Management organizations present a unified identity and efficiently communicate the center’s interests and needs. 313.3 [^p43-313]: 313 The structure of retail space is another important factor. Retail space is most likely to be most vibrant when it is contiguous with other retail spaces, ceilings are at least 12 feet high, storefronts are transparent, and sidewalks are at least eight feet wide. Each commercial center has its own market position based on numerous factors, including the characteristics of the residential and daytime populations, function and composition of nearby centers, and accessibility. The type of retail mix and amount of space that can be supported depends on a center’s market position, which can change by increasing housing and jobs in or near the center and/or increasing access to the center. 313[^.4] Improving access to neighborhood commercial centers for pedestrians, transit riders, bicyclists, and drivers is an important factor for vibrant retail operations. Pedestrian access is the most important accessibility factor for all commercial centers because it is the common thread that connects retail space with patrons using all other modes. 313[^.5] Curbside management is another major factor for vibrant commercial areas. Manage the curbside of streets in commercial centers to promote greater access and turnover for customers. Curbside management may be done through strategies such as adjusting parking prices and time limits. Curbside lanes are used for multiple purposes, including parking, loading, bicycle lanes, and transit movements. All such uses should be carefully considered when determining how to manage access in each commercial center. Additionally, management organizations should manage off-street parking in commercial centers to promote shared parking among different uses at different times of day and days of the week. 313[^.6] Even the most inclusive neighborhood centers have to deal with land use conflicts. Areas with a high prevalence of bars, liquor stores, fast-food outlets, convenience stores, and similar uses are causes for concern regarding noise, litter, traffic, and other sources of potential conflict in almost every part of the District. Commercial parking demand affects nearby residential streets around many centers. In some locations, commercial and residential rear yards abut one another, causing concerns over rodents, odors, noise, shadows, view obstruction, and other effects. Effective zoning and buffering requirements are important in addressing such concerns while accommodating growth, enhancing local amenities, and protecting neighborhood character. Zoning has been used in some commercial districts to limit the range of allowable uses and reduce the likelihood of external impacts. 313[^.7] Not all commercial uses occur in defined centers. Many thoroughfares are lined with strip commercial development, much of it auto-oriented and not particularly focused on residents of the adjacent neighborhoods. Activities such as auto dealerships and repair services, motels, and similar uses can be important contributors to the economy. Again, zoning regulations establish C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S where these uses are appropriate and should set buffering and screening requirements and other standards that improve the compatibility of such uses with their surroundings. [^313.8] #### Policy LU-2.4.1: Promotion of Commercial Centers Promote the vitality of commercial centers and provide for the continued growth of commercial land uses to meet the needs of residents, expand employment opportunities, accommodate population growth, and sustain Washington, DC’s role as the center of the metropolitan area. Commercial centers should be inviting, accessible, and attractive places, support social interaction, and provide amenities for nearby residents. Support commercial development in underserved areas to provide equitable access and options to meet the needs of nearby communities. [^313.9] #### Policy LU-2.4.2: Hierarchy of Commercial Centers Maintain and reinforce a hierarchy of neighborhood, multi-neighborhood, regional, and main street commercial centers in the District. Activities in each type of center should reflect the center’s intended role and market area, as defined in the Framework Element. Established centers should be expanded in areas where the existing range of goods and services is insufficient to meet community needs. [^313.10] #### Policy LU-2.4.3: Regional Centers Support and enhance the District’s regional commercial centers to help serve area shopping needs that are not met downtown. Permit the District’s two established regional commercial centers, at Georgetown and Friendship Heights, to develop and evolve in ways that are compatible with other land use policies, including those for accommodating population growth and increasing affordable housing, especially along corridors; strengthening commercial vitality; maintaining established neighborhoods; mitigating negative environmental impacts; strengthening transit options; managing parking; and minimizing adverse transportation impacts. Promote equitable access to regional shopping by encouraging the continued development of the emerging regional centers at Minnesota-Benning and Hechinger Mall in a manner that is consistent with other policies, including those noted above, in the Comprehensive Plan. [^313.11] #### Policy LU-2.4.4: Heights and Densities in Regional Centers Provide heights and densities in established and proposed regional centers that provide daytime and residential populations to support successful retail and services, allow for additional housing, and offer employment opportunities. Use buffer areas, siting, massing, design, and other strategies to compatibly transition to adjoining residential neighborhoods. [^313.12] [^313.8]: 313.8 [^313.9]: 313.9 [^313.10]: 313.10 [^313.11]: 313.11 [^313.12]: 313.12 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> *Effective zoning and buffering requirements may reduce conflict between incompatible uses* <
> *18th Street in Adams Morgan* ### Policy LU-2.4.5: Encouraging Nodal Development Discourage auto-oriented commercial strip development and instead encourage pedestrian-oriented nodes of commercial development at key locations along major corridors. Zoning and design standards should ensure that the height, mass, and scale of development within nodes respects the integrity and character of surrounding residential areas and does not unreasonably impact them.[^313.13] ### Policy LU-2.4.6: Scale and Design of New Commercial Uses Develop new uses within commercial districts at a height, mass, scale, and design that is appropriate for a growing, densifying Washington, DC, and that is compatible with surrounding areas.[^313.14] ### Policy LU-2.4.7: Location of Nightclubs and Bars Provide zoning and alcoholic beverage control laws that encourage a mix of ground-floor uses in commercial areas, creating stronger retail environments and minimizing potential negative effects of liquor licensed establishments (e.g., nightclubs and bars) in neighborhood commercial districts and adjacent residential areas. New uses that generate late-night activity and large crowds should be prioritized downtown, in designated arts or entertainment districts, and in areas where there is a limited residential population nearby.[^313.15] ### Policy LU-2.4.8: Addressing Commercial Parking Impacts Apply zoning and other regulations, and as needed develop new regulations, to consider the transportation and parking impacts of different commercial activities and include provisions to mitigate the parking demand and congestion problems that may result as new development occurs, especially related to loading and goods delivery.[^313.16] *Please refer to the Transportation Element, Section 3.2 for additional policies and actions related to parking.* ### Policy LU-2.4.9: High-Impact Commercial Uses Limit the location and proliferation of fast-food restaurants, sexually oriented businesses, late-night alcoholic beverage establishments, 24-hour mini-marts and convenience stores, and similar high-impact commercial establishments that generate excessive late-night activity, noise, or otherwise affect the quality of life in nearby residential neighborhoods. Efforts should recognize and focus on consistent enforcement in disproportionately affected areas to improve neighborhood outcomes.[^313.17] ### Policy LU-2.4.10: Use of Public Space within Commercial Centers Carefully manage the use of sidewalks and other public spaces within commercial districts to avoid pedestrian obstructions and to provide an attractive and accessible environment for shoppers. Continue to encourage [^313.13]: 313.13 [^313.14]: 313.14 [^313.15]: 313.15 [^313.16]: 313.16 [^313.17]: 313.17 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS the identification and transition of excess public right-of-way into temporary or permanent plazas that contribute to social interaction within commercial centers. Where feasible, the development of outdoor sidewalk cafes, flower stands, and similar uses that animate the street should be encouraged. Conversely, the enclosure of outdoor sidewalk space with permanent structures should generally be discouraged. 313.18[^313.18] #### Policy LU-2.4.11: Hotel Impacts Manage the impacts of hotels on surrounding areas, particularly in the Near Northwest neighborhoods where large hotels adjoin residential neighborhoods. Provisions to manage truck movement and deliveries, overflow parking, motor coach parking, and other impacts associated with hotel activities should be developed and enforced. 313.19[^313.19] *Please refer to Policies 2.3.9 and 2.3.10 of this element for additional guidance on hotel uses within residential neighborhoods.* #### Policy LU-2.4.12: Monitoring of Commercial Impacts Maintain a range of monitoring, inspection, and enforcement programs for commercial areas to ensure that activities are occurring in accordance with local planning, building, zoning, transportation, health, alcoholic beverage control, and other District rules and regulations. Prompt and effective action should be taken in the event non-compliance with these rules and regulations is observed. 313.20[^313.20] #### Policy LU-2.4.12: Commercial Uses Outside Designated Centers Not all commercial uses can be appropriately sited within designated neighborhood, multi-neighborhood, and regional centers. For example, automobile sales, nurseries, building supply stores, large nightclubs, hotels, and similar uses may require locations near parking and major roads. Retain and support such uses and accommodate them on appropriately located sites. 313.21[^313.21] ## LU-3 Balancing Competing Demands for Land 314[^p47-314] This section of the Land Use Element addresses five specific activities that require a greater level of direction than can be covered in the neighborhood policies listed and described in the previous sections. These activities are an essential part of Washington, DC and are vital to the District’s future. Each of these uses presents a unique set of challenges and land use compatibility issues. They include: * Public works and industrial uses that are essential to government operations and the local economy but also create external impacts and face displacement for higher value land uses; <
> Provisions to manage truck movement and deliveries, overflow parking, motor coach parking, and other impacts associated with hotel activities should be developed and enforced. [^313.18]: 313.18 [^313.19]: 313.19 [^313.20]: 313.20 [^313.21]: 313.21 [^p47-314]: 314 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Approximately 333 acres of land in Washington, DC are zoned for industrial uses. PDR areas support a variety of uses, many of which are essential to the delivery of municipal services or that are part of the business infrastructure that underpins the local economy. * Institutional uses, including places of worship and other religious facilities that seek vacant land or developed properties for expansion but where expansion is limited because the properties are hemmed in by adjacent neighborhoods; * Foreign missions—namely, the chanceries and embassies of foreign governments that seek to locate or expand in some of the District’s most vibrant neighborhoods; * Federal facilities that often operate in immediate proximity to residential neighborhoods, creating the need for sensitive planning as these uses expand, contract, and implement new security measures. [^314.1] ### LU-3.1 Public Works and Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) Land Uses [^p48-315] Approximately 333 acres of land in Washington, DC are zoned for industrial uses. PDR areas support a variety of uses, many of which are essential to the delivery of municipal services or that are part of the business infrastructure that underpins the local economy. Furthermore, PDR businesses and uses create opportunities for entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and higher-paying jobs than comparable jobs for similar education attainment in economic sectors like retail and health care. It is estimated that nine percent of the employment in the District is in PDR industries. These jobs are often accessible to residents with lower education attainment and returning citizens. In 2005, the inventory of private industrial floor space in the District was approximately 13 million square feet. [^315.1] Washington, DC’s industrial land exists in part because of historic development factors that made certain areas suitable for these uses or unsuitable for residential and commercial development. Such factors include proximity to road, rail, or water routes needed to transport heavy goods, relative isolation from residential areas, and effects of noisy or noxious uses and infrastructure. Where these factors remain, PDR facilities are likely to continue to be an appropriate use of this land. Since much of this land has always been devoted to industrial use, many of Washington, DC’s prominent examples of historic industrial architecture are located here. Of the 25 properties identified as potentially significant in the DC State Historic Preservation Office’s 1991-1992 historic resources study of District warehouses and workshops, 16 have received historic designation. [^315.2] Additionally, racial discrimination including local and federal policies affected the site selection of industrial uses in the District. A challenge today is recognizing that industrial land is almost entirely located proximate to predominantly low-income (i.e. Black) neighborhoods. Accordingly, there are racial equity and environmental justice concerns about the use of PDR lands. [^315.3] [^314.1]: 314.1 [^p48-315]: 315 [^315.1]: 315.1 [^315.2]: 315.2 [^315.3]: 315.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Some of the municipal activities housed on industrial land include trash transfer and hauling, bus storage and maintenance, vehicle impoundment, police and fire training, street repair and cleaning equipment storage, and water and sewer construction services. Private activities on industrial lands include food and beverage services, laundries, printers, concrete and asphalt batching plants, distribution centers, telecommunication facilities, construction contractors and suppliers, and auto salvage yards, to name only a few. The contribution and importance of these uses to the economy is covered below and in the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 315[^.4] Given the lenient zoning standards within industrial areas (most of which actually favor commercial uses over industrial uses), as well as the market pressure to provide additional residential housing, much of the industrial land supply is at risk. In addition, many of the public works uses that take place on industrial land are not optimally organized, resulting in inefficient use of space. Plans to reorganize and consolidate many of these activities have been developed. The repositioning of these resources should result in more effective service delivery reduced impacts to nearby properties, provision of amenities for surrounding neighborhoods, and creation of jobs on land freed up for further public or private investment. 315[^.5] Some historically industrial areas now have mixed-use land use designations that combine PDR with commercial and/or residential uses. These designations indicate that PDR uses with lower impacts, such as maker space, beverage manufacturing and food preparation should be integrated with a broader range of uses including housing. The intent is to support community revitalization while supporting existing PDR uses and encouraging new PDR businesses and more affordable housing. 315[^.6] In areas not identified by mixed-use land use designations, the District should continue to review PDR zoning, to encourage needed and efficiently developed production, distribution, and repair uses. This approach reflects increasing clarity within land use policy on where PDR uses should be accompanied by other uses while recognizing that the District benefits from focused areas where higher- impact commercial and governmental activities can occur. 315[^.7] In 2005, the District commissioned an analysis of industrial land supply and demand to provide a framework for new land use policies (see text box). In 2014, another industrial land study was released by the District: Ward 5 Works: Ward 5 Industrial Land Transformation. This study furthered the findings in 2005 with particular emphasis on the Upper Northeast area where approximately 50 percent of the District’s industrial uses are located. The recommendations of these studies are incorporated in the policies and actions that follow. 315[^.8] [^.4]: 315.4 [^.5]: 315.5 [^.6]: 315.6 [^.7]: 315.7 [^.8]: 315.8 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S One of the most important findings of the 2005 industrial land use analysis was an immediate unmet need of approximately 70 acres for municipal-industrial activities. Facility needs range from a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Evidence Warehouse to replacement bus garages for WMATA. Several agencies, including the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), indicate that their acreage needs will increase even more in the next 10 years. At the same time, efficiencies could be achieved through better site layouts and consolidation of some municipal functions, particularly for vehicle fleet maintenance. The findings provide compelling reasons to protect the limited supply of industrial land and to organize municipal-industrial activities more efficiently. One example of this approach is showcased in the Department of Public Works (DPW) Campus Master Plan, a study conducted as a recommendation from the 2014 Ward 5 Works Industrial Land Transformation Study. The DPW Campus Master Plan aims to consolidate operations and administrative offices to a new state-of-the-art campus at West Virginia Avenue NE that would transform the current site into a neighborhood asset while efficiently using the District-owned industrial land. 315.9 ### Taking a Hard Look at the District’s Industrial Lands [^p50-316] The 2005-2006 Industrial Land Use Study classified DC’s industrially zoned lands into four categories: **Areas for Retention and Reinforcement** have healthy PDR uses and have good prospects for hosting such uses in the future. **Areas for Intensification/Evolution** will continue to be desirable for PDR activities but show patterns of underuse and opportunities for intensified uses. Some non-PDR activities may take place in these areas in the long-term future. **Areas for Strategic Public Use** are needed to accommodate municipal and utility needs. **Areas for Land Use Change** are areas where a move away from PDR uses may be appropriate due to a lack of viable PDR businesses and the desirability of these sites for other uses. In some of these areas, the District may let the market take its course. In others, pro-active measures such as rezoning may be in order. The District developed criteria for evaluating rezoning requests, which reflect these typologies and further consider the land use, transportation, and environmental context of each site, its unique characteristics, and its potential need for future municipal purposes. 316.1 ### Policy LU-3.2.1 Retain Areas for Industrial Uses Retain an adequate, appropriate supply of industrial land designated for the range of Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) uses to meet the District’s current and future PDR activities and economic needs. These [^p50-316]: text needs include public works functions, retail warehousing, transportation storage and maintenance, construction staging, such as concrete manufacturing, and back-office service needs. These services are essential to support the local economy. This policy recognizes that these services are a benefit to the entire District, yet impacts are disproportionately borne by those residents living in close proximity to industrial uses; therefore, opportunities to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts, abate nuisances, and ensure residents have neighborhood services and amenities shall be considered. The supply of areas designated for PDR on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) should not fall below its current level, unless the land is designated for mixed uses including PDR through a Small Area Plan (including those changes made to the FLUM as a result of a Small Area Plan). Efforts to convert areas except as just stated to other designations must be resisted. Any further designation of PDR land must consider the racial impact, and ideally should be designated throughout the District. Zoning regulations and land use decisions shall continue to preserve active and viable PDR land uses while considering compatible uses and development under standards established within PDR zoning. Economic development programs should work to include the retention of PDR uses.[^316.2] ### Policy LU-3.2.2 Retain Areas for High-Intensity Industrial Activities Within the supply of land designated for PDR uses on the FLUM, ensure adequate areas are provided for essential and high impact PDR uses such as municipal services, utilities, and asphalt and concrete batch plants. Unless land is designated for mixed uses, including PDR, on the FLUM, uses such as retail, office, or residential must be accessory to these high impact PDR uses and must not overwhelm the PDR use or pose potential conflicts in use. Users of these areas must minimize any adverse impacts on adjacent areas that have more restrictive land uses.[^316.3] ### Policy LU 3.2.3: Retain and Support PDR Uses in Areas Designated for Mixed PDR Uses To promote long term retention of PDR uses, development on areas striped to include PDR on the Future Land Use Map must include industrial space intended for use during the life of the project, and on sites containing existing industrial space the amount of industrial space on-site should be substantially preserved. The mix of uses and site design of these areas must support the long-term retention of PDR uses, and minimize potential conflicts with PDR uses. PDR uses that are less intense and/or have less impacts may be more appropriate for areas striped to include PDR. The Florida Avenue Market Study area shall be subject to the industrial use concepts set forth in that Small Area Plan but is not subject to this policy. Use the Ward 5 Industrial Land Transformation Study recommendations to guide current and future uses and redevelopment in that area.[^316.4] [^316.2]: 316.2 [^316.3]: 316.3 [^316.4]: 316.4 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Policy LU-3.2.4: Redevelopment of Obsolete Industrial Uses Encourage the reuse of nonproductive industrial sites, such as vacant warehouses and open storage yards, with higher value PDR uses, including public works facilities, and other activities that support the core sectors of the District economy (federal government, hospitality, higher education, etc.). 316[^.5] ### Policy LU-3.2.5: Location of PDR Areas Accommodate PDR uses, including municipal public works facilities, in areas that are well buffered from residential uses (and other sensitive uses such as schools), easily accessed from major roads and railroads, and characterized by existing concentrations of PDR and industrial uses. Such areas are generally designated as PDR on the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map. 316[^.6] ### Policy LU-3.2.6: Rezoning of Industrial Areas Allow the rezoning of industrial land for non-industrial purposes only when the land can no longer viably support industrial or PDR activities is located such that industry cannot co-exist adequately with adjacent existing uses. Examples include land in the immediate vicinity of Metrorail stations and small sites in the midst of established residential neighborhoods. In the event such rezoning results in the displacement of active uses, assist these uses in relocating to designated PDR areas. 316[^.7] ### Policy LU-3.2.7: Mitigating Industrial Land Use Impacts Mitigate the adverse impacts created by industrial uses through a variety of measures, including buffering, site planning and design, strict environmental controls, performance standards, and use of a range of industrial zones that reflect the varying impacts of different kinds of industrial uses. Industrial uses shall meet all environmental and operational requirements to reduce or eliminate impacts such as pollution to the surrounding neighborhoods and to the environment. Uses shall provide buffers, screening, operational strategies and other measures to reduce or abate nuisances including noise, light, odor, vibration, and trash to adjacent residential communities. As appropriate, create amenities for adjacent residents through art, creative uses, retail, and other services. Encourage continuing outreach to adjoining neighborhoods to identify and reduce impacts. 316[^.8] ### Policy LU-3.2.8: Siting of Industrial-Type Public Works Facilities Use performance standards (such as noise, odor, and other environmental controls), minimum distance requirements, and other regulatory and design measures to ensure the compatibility of industrial-type public works facilities, such as trash transfer stations with surrounding land uses. Improve the physical appearance and screening of such uses and strictly [^.5]: 316.5 [^.6]: 316.6 [^.7]: 316.7 [^.8]: 316.8 regulate operations to reduce the incidence of land use conflicts, especially with residential uses. [^316.9] #### Policy LU-3.2.9: Promote Efficient and High-Performing PDR Uses Promote new, and transform existing, PDR uses to achieve high environmental performance and be efficient, sustainable, and resilient in design and operations. Encourage pro-active facility management and continuous improvements to reduce impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. [^316.10] #### Policy LU-3.2.10: Cottage Industries and Makers Support low-impact cottage industries and makers in neighborhood commercial districts and on appropriate industrial lands. Maintain zoning regulations that regulate such uses in residential areas to avoid land use conflicts and negative business-related impacts while allowing residents to explore low-impact entrepreneurship in or near their homes. [^316.11] #### Policy LU-3.2.11: Optimizing Municipal Public Works Functions Strategically manage District-owned land in industrial areas to improve operational capacity, use land effectively, incorporate principles of environmental stewardship, resilience, and sustainability, and create community amenities and job opportunities. Demonstrate leadership in effective, exemplary measures to address impacts to adjacent neighborhoods. This approach may include the consolidation of public works activities on a smaller number of sites, enabling vacated sites to be repurposed for other PDR uses, or high-priority, but hard to site, public uses. Use the Ward 5 Industrial Land Transformation Study recommendations to guide current and future uses and redevelopment in that area. [^316.12] *See also the Infrastructure Element, for additional information* #### Policy LU-3.2.12: Land Use Efficiency Through Technology Encourage the more efficient use of PDR land through the application of technologies that reduce acreage requirements for public works. Examples of such applications include the use of diesel-electric hybrid or electric buses (that can be accommodated in multilevel garages), using distributed power generation rather than large, centralized facilities, and emphasizing green building technologies to reduce infrastructure needs. [^316.13] #### Policy LU-3.2.13: Infrastructure Adequacy The District and utility providers shall seek to provide adequate, equitable levels of infrastructure District-wide currently, and appropriately plan and develop infrastructure to address existing service deficiencies and meet the future needs of growing and existing neighborhoods. As needed, upgrades to ensure infrastructure adequacy and reliability should occur in tandem with proposed development. Infrastructure upgrades should be developed [^316.9]: 316.9 [^316.10]: 316.10 [^316.11]: 316.11 [^316.12]: 316.12 [^316.13]: 316.13 to achieve multiple objectives, such as sustainable development, green buildings, or undergrounding. 316[^.14] ### Action LU-3.2.A: Industrial Zoning Use Changes Provide a new zoning framework for industrial land, including: * Prohibiting high-impact heavy industries in low intensity PDR zones to reduce the possibility of land use conflicts; * Prohibiting certain civic uses that detract from the industrial character of exclusively PDR areas and that could ultimately interfere with business operations; * Requiring special exceptions for potentially incompatible large retail uses in the PDR zones to provide more control over such uses without reducing height and bulk standards. Avoid displacing existing PDR uses or foreclosing opportunities for future PDR uses. Where appropriate, encourage retail or commercial uses that are accessory to PDR uses as a way to activate ground floors; * Limiting non-industrial uses in high-intensity PDR areas to avoid encroachment by uses that could impair existing industrial and public works activities (such as trash transfer); and * Creating a mixed-use district where residential, commercial, and lesser-impact PDR uses are permitted, thereby accommodating live-work space, artisans and studios, and more intensive commercial uses. Once these changes have been made, update zoning as appropriate. The zoning changes should continue to provide the flexibility to shift the mix of uses within historically industrial areas and should not diminish the economic viability of existing industrial activities or the other compatible activities that now occur in PDR areas. 316[^.15] ### Action LU-3.2.B: Joint Facility Development Actively pursue intergovernmental agreements to develop joint facilities for District and federal agencies (such as the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and National Park Service (NPS)), District and transit agencies (DPW and WMATA), multiple public utilities, and multiple District agencies performing different public works functions. 316[^.16] ### Action LU-3.2.C: Inventory of Housing in Industrial Areas Compile an inventory of existing housing units within industrially zoned areas to identify pockets of residential development that should be rezoned (to mixed-use or residential) to preserve the housing stock. 316[^.17] ### Action LU-3.2.D: DPW Co-location and Campus Actively pursue funding resources or allocation for the implementation of the West Virginia Avenue DPW Campus Master Plan study that was conducted by District agencies in 2015. 316[^.18] [^.14]: to achieve multiple objectives, such as sustainable development, green buildings, or undergrounding. [^.15]: Once these changes have been made, update zoning as appropriate. The zoning changes should continue to provide the flexibility to shift the mix of uses within historically industrial areas and should not diminish the economic viability of existing industrial activities or the other compatible activities that now occur in PDR areas. [^.16]: Actively pursue intergovernmental agreements to develop joint facilities for District and federal agencies (such as the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and National Park Service (NPS)), District and transit agencies (DPW and WMATA), multiple public utilities, and multiple District agencies performing different public works functions. [^.17]: Compile an inventory of existing housing units within industrially zoned areas to identify pockets of residential development that should be rezoned (to mixed-use or residential) to preserve the housing stock. [^.18]: Actively pursue funding resources or allocation for the implementation of the West Virginia Avenue DPW Campus Master Plan study that was conducted by District agencies in 2015. CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action LU-3.2.E: Ward 5 Works Industrial Land Transformation Study* Implement the recommendations provided in the Ward 5 Works Industrial Land Transformation Study released in 2014.[^316.19] *Action: LU-3.2.F PDR Land Use Retention Study* Prepare a study for submittal to the Council on the following: (1) identification of the amount, location, and characteristics of land sufficient to meet the District’s current and future needs for PDR land; (2) quantifiable targets for PDR land retention; and (3) identification of strategies to retain existing and accommodate future PDR uses, particularly for high impact uses. Any strategies to expand PDR land designations or accommodate future PDR uses shall prioritize areas that do not currently have a disproportionate amount of PDR-designated land. Strategies should consider technological advances or efficiency measures to utilize PDR land more effectively. The study shall incorporate racial equity analyses. Further, the study will address the Council’s concern that mixing other uses, particularly residential, with PDR uses will create economic conditions and land use conflicts that will reduce areas available for PDR uses. Any industrial zoning use changes as identified in Action LU-3.2.A must be informed by this study.[^316.20] > *Please see the Economic Development, Environment, and Urban Design Elements for additional policies and actions related to industrial uses. Please see the Infrastructure Element for additional policies and actions related to infrastructure adequacy.* ### LU-3.3 Institutional Uses[^p55-317] Institutional uses occupy almost 2,300 acres—an area larger than all of Washington, DC’s retail, office, and hotel uses combined. These uses include colleges and universities, private schools, childcare facilities, places of worship and other religious facilities, hospitals, private and nonprofit organizations, and similar entities.[^317.1] The District is home to about a dozen colleges and universities, enrolling more than 85,000 students. There are also nearly 70 non-local college and university programs that occupy space in Washington, DC. The District contains more than a dozen hospitals, some located on the campuses of its universities and others occupying their own campuses or federal enclaves. Hundreds of nonprofit and private institutions also operate within the District, ranging from private schools and seminaries to historic home museums and the headquarters of leading international organizations. Major institutional uses are shown on Map 37.[^317.2] [^316.19]: 316.19 [^316.20]: 316.20 [^p55-317]: 317 [^317.1]: 317.1 [^317.2]: 317.2 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Map 3.7: # Colleges, Universities, and Hospitals [^317.3] <
> [^317.3]: 317.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Institutions make an important contribution to the District economy and are an integral part of Washington, DC’s landscape and history. The colleges and universities alone employ 29,682 workers. Through partnerships with government and private industry, museums, higher education, and health care institutions provide services and resources to the community that could not possibly be provided by the government alone. [^317.4] Private institutions are stewards of historic and architecturally distinguished campuses. Several of these campuses are already recognized by historic designations but other historically significant campuses are not. [^317.5] The growth of private institutions has generated significant concern in many neighborhoods. These concerns relate both to external impacts, such as traffic and parking, and broader concerns about the character of communities where institutions are concentrated or expanding. [^317.6] *Please see the Educational Facilities Element for additional policies and actions related to colleges and universities* ### Policy LU-3.3.1: Transportation Impacts of Institutional Uses Support ongoing efforts by institutions to mitigate their traffic and parking impacts by promoting ridesharing, carpooling, public transportation, shuttle service and bicycling; providing on-site parking; and undertaking other transportation demand management measures. [^317.7] ### Policy LU-3.3.2: Corporate Citizenship Support continued corporate citizenship among large institutions, including colleges, universities, hospitals, private schools, and nonprofits. Given the large land area occupied by these uses and their prominence in the community, institutions (along with the District itself) should be encouraged to be role models for smaller employers in efforts to improve the physical environment. This should include a continued commitment to high-quality architecture and design on local campuses, expanded use of green building methods and low-impact development, and adaptive reuse and preservation of historic buildings. [^317.8] *Please see the Economic Development Element for additional policies and actions related to encouraging corporations to support the local economy through hiring and contracting.* ### Policy LU-3.3.3: Nonprofits, Private Schools, and Service Organizations Plan, design, and manage large nonprofits, service organizations, private schools, seminaries, colleges and universities, and other institutional uses that occupy large sites within residential areas in a way that minimizes objectionable impacts on adjacent communities. Expansion of these areas should not be permitted if the quality of life in adjacent residential areas is significantly adversely impacted. [^317.9] Institutions make an important contribution to the District economy and are an integral part of Washington, DC’s landscape and history. The colleges and universities alone employ 29,682 workers. [^317.4]: 317.4 [^317.5]: 317.5 [^317.6]: 317.6 [^317.7]: 317.7 [^317.8]: 317.8 [^317.9]: 317.9 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS There are more than 170 countries across the globe with foreign missions in Washington, DC. These missions assist the U.S. government in maintaining positive diplomatic relations with the international community. ### LU-3.4 Foreign Missions [^p58-318] There are more than 170 countries across the globe with foreign missions in Washington, DC. These missions assist the U.S. government in maintaining positive diplomatic relations with the international community. By international treaty, the U.S. government is obligated to help foreign governments in obtaining suitable facilities for their diplomatic missions. This obligation was reinforced through the Foreign Missions Act of 1982, which established an Office of Foreign Missions within the Department of State and empowered the secretary of state to set criteria relating to the location of foreign missions in the District. As noted in the section entitled Washington’s Foreign Missions, foreign missions are housed in many different types of buildings, ranging from row houses and mansions to custom-designed office buildings. [^318.1] The number of foreign missions in the District is dynamic, with some growth likely. In addition, some of the existing missions are likely to relocate as they outgrow their facilities, respond to increased security requirements, and move beyond their traditional diplomatic functions. The Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan indicate that sites for as many as 100 new and relocated chanceries may be needed during the next 25[^p58-2] years. The availability of sites that meet the needs of foreign missions within traditional diplomatic areas is limited and the International Chancery Center on Van Ness Avenue has no available sites remaining. A portion of the Walter Reed campus is planned for chancery use, but additional areas may be needed for chancery use, and it may be necessary for foreign missions to look beyond traditional diplomatic enclaves. [^318.2] The facilities that house diplomatic functions in Washington, DC are commonly referred to as embassies. To differentiate the functions that occur in buildings occupied by foreign missions, a variety of designations are used: * Chanceries, colloquially referred to as embassies, are the principal offices used by a foreign mission. * Chancery annexes are used for diplomatic purposes in support of the mission, such as cultural attaches or consular operations. * Ambassadors’ residences are the official homes of ambassadors or chiefs of missions. [^318.3] Many foreign governments occupy chanceries, chancery annexes, and ambassador’s residences in more than one location. In 2004[^p58-4], the federal government indicated that there were 483[^] separate facilities in the District serving these functions. [^318.4] Since 1982[^p58-2], chanceries have been allowed to locate in most of Washington, DC’s non-residential zone districts as a matter-of-right. They are also permitted in higher-density residential and special purpose (SP) zones, as well as in less dense residential areas covered by a diplomatic overlay district. [^318.5] [^p58-318]: 318 [^318.1]: 318.1 [^318.2]: 318.2 [^318.3]: 318.3 [^318.4]: 318.4 [^318.5]: 318.5 Historically, chanceries have been concentrated in Northwest Washington, particularly along Massachusetts Avenue NW (also known as Embassy Row), and in the adjacent Sheridan-Kalorama and Dupont Circle neighborhoods. There are also 16 chanceries on a large federal site adjacent to the Van Ness-UDC Metro station, specifically created to meet the demand for foreign missions. 318.6[^p59-1] The Foreign Missions Act of 1982 established procedures and criteria governing the location, replacement, or expansion of chanceries in the District. The act identifies areas where foreign missions may locate without regulatory review (matter-of-right areas), including all areas zoned commercial, industrial, waterfront, or mixed-use. These areas are located in all quadrants of Washington, DC, and include large areas south of the National Mall and in Wards 7 and 8. The 1982 act also identifies areas where foreign missions may locate subject to disapproval by the District of Columbia Foreign Missions Board of Zoning Adjustment (FMBZA). These include areas zoned medium-high and high-density residential, SP, and areas within a diplomatic overlay zone. 318.7[^p59-2] As a result of the analysis accomplished in support of the Foreign Missions Act, a methodology was developed in 1983 to determine the most appropriate areas for foreign missions to locate, subject to FMBZA review. The 1983 methodology allows foreign missions to locate in low- and moderate-density District blocks (squares) in which one-third or more of the area is used for office, commercial, or other non-residential uses. In some cases, a consequence of the square-by-square determination has been an unanticipated increase in chanceries. 318.8[^p59-3] In 2015, NCPC updated the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Foreign Missions and International Organization Element. The Foreign Mission Element recognizes “a key challenge with locating chanceries is balancing the need to plan secure locations for diplomatic activities while being sensitive to residential neighborhoods.” The Foreign Mission Element acknowledges that the State Department is preparing a master plan for a new foreign mission center to be developed on the former Walter Reed Medical Center site and suggests that new chanceries be encouraged to locate first in areas where their use is considered a matter-of-right under local zoning. Working with NCPC and the State Department, clarified zoning regulations were written regarding applications to locate, replace, or expand a chancery use not otherwise permitted as a matter-of-right. The new zoning standards were adopted as part of the 2016 amendments to the zoning regulations. 318.9[^p59-4] #### Policy LU-3.4.1: Chancery Encroachment in Low-Density Areas Encourage foreign missions to locate their chancery facilities where adjacent existing and proposed land uses are compatible (i.e., office, commercial, and mixed-use), taking special care to protect the integrity of residential areas. [^p59-1]: 318.6 [^p59-2]: 318.7 [^p59-3]: 318.8 [^p59-4]: 318.9 Discourage the location of new chanceries in any area that is essentially a residential use area to the extent consistent with the Foreign Missions Act. 318.10 ### Policy LU-3.4.2: Target Areas for New Chanceries Encourage the development of new chancery facilities in locations where they would support neighborhood revitalization and economic development goals, particularly in federal enclaves and east of 16th Street NW. Work with the Department of State, the NCPC, and other organizations to encourage foreign missions to locate in these areas. 318.11 ### Policy LU-3.4.3: Compatibility of New Chanceries Promote the design and maintenance of chanceries in a manner that protects open space and historic resources, mitigates impacts on nearby properties, is compatible with the scale and character of its surroundings, and enhances Washington, DC’s international image as a city of great architecture and urban design. 318.12 #### Action LU-3.4.A: Foreign Mission Mapping Improvements On an ongoing basis, accurately inventory foreign mission locations, distinguishing, chanceries, ambassador’s residences, and institutional land uses. 318.13 ## LU-3.5 Federal Facilities [^p60-319] When streets and highways are subtracted out, about one-third of the land area of the District is owned by the federal government. Most of this land is managed by the NPS, but a significant amount—more than 2,700 acres—consists of federal installations, offices, military bases, and similar uses. This acreage includes nearly 2,000 buildings, with more than 95 million square feet of floor space. Federal uses occupy a range of physical settings, from self-contained enclaves, such as Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, to grand office buildings in the heart of Downtown Washington, DC. Federal uses operate in all quadrants of the District, often amid residential neighborhoods. Since they are largely exempt from zoning, coordination and communication are particularly important to ensuring land use compatibility. 319.1 Many of the District’s federal uses have unique security requirements and operational needs. This became particularly apparent after September 11[^2001], as streets around the U.S. Capitol were permanently closed and major federal offices and monuments were retrofitted to improve security. Security needs are likely to create further changes to the District’s landscape; the ongoing relocation of thousands of Homeland Security workers to the west campus of St. Elizabeths Hospital is just one example. 319.2 The size of the federal workforce in the District is not expected to grow substantially during the next decade, following more than 25[^years] of downsizing. The District supports continued adherence to a 1968 federal policy to maintain 60 percent of the region’s federal employees within CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Washington, DC. At the same time, the federal government is in the process of transferring several tracts of land to the District, potentially reducing the land area for expansion. This suggests the need for even greater coordination on the planning and development front. Several successful joint planning efforts have recently been completed, including plans for the Armed Forces Retirement Home, Poplar Point, and Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Efforts like these must continue as the future of other federal sites is resolved.[^319.3] Major federal activities in the District are shown on Map 3.8. Priorities for the use of these lands are expressed in the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Federal Workplace Element of that Plan includes policies to reinforce the preeminence of the monumental core through future siting decisions, give preference to urban and transit-served sites when siting new workplaces, and emphasize the modernization of existing structures before building new structures. The Federal Elements include guidelines on the types of federal functions that are appropriate within the Capitol Complex, CEA, federal installations, and other areas within the District, as well as elsewhere in the region.[^319.4] ### Policy LU-3.5.1: District/Federal Joint Planning Coordinate with NCPC, NPS, GSA, AOC, and other federal agencies to address planning issues involving federal lands, including the monumental core, the waterfront, and the park and open space network. Encourage the use of master plans, created through participatory planning processes, to guide the use of large federal sites.[^319.6] ### Policy LU-3.5.2: Federal Sites and Adjacent Neighborhoods Support expansion of the federal workforce and redevelopment of federal sites in a manner that is compatible with neighborhood revitalization, urban design, housing, economic development, environmental quality, and socioeconomic equity goals. Federal land uses should strive to maintain land use compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods.[^319.7] ### Policy LU-3.5.3: Recognition of Local Planning and Zoning Regulations Encourage the federal government to abide by local planning and zoning regulations to the maximum extent feasible. Ensure federal partners are aware of local priorities and goals, and when decisions require the input or actions of federal agencies, encourage swift decision-making so as not to delay achievement of local goals.[^319.8] ### Policy LU-3.5.4: Federal Workplaces and District Goals Strongly support the implementation of Federal Element policies for federal workplaces calling for parking guidelines that align with local guidelines, sustainable design, energy conservation, additional low- and The size of the federal workforce in the District is not expected to grow substantially during the next decade, following more than 25 years of downsizing. The District supports continued adherence to a 1968 federal policy to maintain 60 percent of the region’s federal employees within Washington, DC. <
> Federal uses occupy a range of physical settings, from self-contained enclaves like Bolling Air Force Base to grand office buildings in the heart of Downtown Washington. [^319.3]: 319.3 [^319.4]: 319.4 [^319.6]: 319.6 [^319.7]: 319.7 [^319.8]: 319.8 Map 3.8: # Federal Lands, 2017 [^319.5] <
> [^319.5]: 319.5 moderate-income housing, and creation of job opportunities in underserved communities within the District. 319[^.9] ### Policy LU-3.5.5: Neighborhood Impact of Federal Security Measures Consistent with the Federal Elements, ensure that federal security measures do not impede the District’s commerce and vitality, excessively restrict or impede the use of public space or streets, or affect the health of the existing landscape. Additional street closures are to be avoided to the maximum extent possible. 319[^.10] ### Policy LU-3.5.6: Reducing Exposure to Hazardous Materials Avoid locating and operating federal facilities that produce hazardous waste or increase the threat of accidental or terrorist-related release of hazardous materials in heavily populated or environmentally sensitive areas. 319[^.11] *Actions relating to federal facility sites may be found in the Comprehensive Plan Area Elements.* [^.9]: 319.9 [^.10]: 319.10 [^.11]: 319.11 (blank page) --- ## Circulation — Chapter 4, Transportation - Source: https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/04_Transportation.pdf - Pages: 64 - Covers: circulation - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. # Chapter 4 # Transportation # Element CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION <
> # Transportation Element ## Overview [^p3-400] THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PROVIDES POLICIES AND ACTIONS TO maintain and improve the District’s transportation system and enhance the travel choices of current and future residents, visitors, and workers. These policies are complemented by policies in the Land Use, Urban Design, and Environmental Protection Elements on related topics, such as air quality and the management of public space. Recognizing the interplay between transportation and these related topics is critical to improving safety, mobility, and accessibility in Washington, DC. [^400.1] The critical transportation issues facing the District are addressed in this element. These include: * Eliminating fatalities and serious injuries on the transportation network; * Expanding the District’s transportation system to provide alternatives to the use of single-occupant autos; * Enhancing the District’s corridors for all modes of transportation; * Increasing bicycle and pedestrian connections, routes, and facilities; * Improving the efficiency of the existing transportation system; * Investing in bridge and roadway maintenance and repair; * Investing in transit network maintenance and repair; * Providing equitable transportation choices and access that meet the needs of communities of color, residents at all income levels, and vulnerable populations; * Reducing pollution and negative health and environmental effects resulting from transportation; and * Promoting transportation demand management (TDM). [^400.2] A safe, well-balanced, and multimodal transportation system is integral to the District’s efforts to sustain and enhance residents’ quality of life. It is also key to the District’s future economic growth and its role as the nation’s capital. Creating such a system requires integrating land use and transportation and implementing a range of improvements that enhance safety, connectivity, livability, equity, health, sustainability, resiliency, and vitality. [^400.3] As the nation’s capital and the center of one of the country’s fastest-growing metropolitan areas, Washington, DC faces increasingly complex mobility challenges as it plans for its future. The District has the largest share of the region’s jobs; however, the region continues to grow, creating longer commutes, increased peak congestion, and poor air quality. Within the District, the major surface transportation arteries are highly congested during morning and evening commuting, and Metrorail has faced safety [^p3-400]: 400 [^400.1]: 400.1 [^400.2]: 400.2 [^400.3]: 400.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS and reliability issues related to deferred maintenance. Funding to maintain the existing transportation system, let alone expand the system to meet increased demand, is severely constrained. 400.4[^400.4] However, these challenges also present opportunities. The District has one of the most extensive mass transit systems in the country, densities that support and promote transit use, a growing network of bicycle and pedestrian trails, and a unique system of radial boulevards that distinguish it from all other American cities. Washington, DC’s gracious avenues, bridges, and parkways are part of its history and are defining elements of its urban form and character. With appropriate strategies, these transportation assets can enhance the quality of life in Washington, DC and increase the District’s attractiveness while still performing their essential function to move people and goods in and around the District. 400.5[^400.5] The District is also augmenting and sustaining its existing transportation network. It is expanding transit via limited-stop bus routes to areas not served by Metrorail and has established streetcar service on a major commercial corridor. It is replacing the Anacostia River bridges to improve mobility and roadway operations and to support economic development and urban beautification. It is improving sidewalks and bicycle routes across the District. It has instituted a highly successful bikeshare system and has supported private sector innovations in car sharing, ride-hailing services, and dockless bicycle and scooter sharing. The on-demand ride-hailing services offered by transportation network companies (TNCs) have created new opportunities and challenges for mobility in the District. They provide individuals with new transportation options but increase demands on the District’s limited roadway capacity. Figure 4.1 summarizes the transportation assets of the District. 400.6[^400.6] Emerging smart-city technologies—such as dynamic parking meters, connected signals, and digital sensors—provide new opportunities to meet many of the transportation challenges facing the District. These technologies build on existing transportation infrastructure, including the signal network, transit and vehicle technologies, and user tools and applications. The District aims to employ these technologies in an integrated, accessible, and equitable fashion, encouraging coordination among the District, regional agencies, smart infrastructure providers, and users. Data exchange will be a critical part of the process—as will feedback and adaptation—to encourage greater safety within, equity regarding, and accessibility to the transportation network. 400.7[^400.7] [^400.4]: 400.4 [^400.5]: 400.5 [^400.6]: 400.6 [^400.7]: 400.7 CITY WIDE ELEMENTS ### Figure 4.1: ### Transportation Assets of the District 400.8[^p5-8] | Transportation Asset | Description | | :--- | :--- | | Roadway System | 1,171 miles | | Rail Mass Transit (Metrorail) | 38 miles (total for region = 117 miles) 40 stations (total for region = 91 stations) | | Bus Mass Transit Metrobus DC Circulator | Service on 281 miles of road Service on 52 miles of road | | Sidewalks | 1,808 miles | | Bicycle Routes ***Protected bicycle lanes*** ***On-road bicycle lanes*** ***Signed routes*** ***Off-road trails*** | 9 miles 75 miles 100 miles 60 miles | | Capital Bikeshare ***Bikes*** ***Stations*** | 2,300 Capital Bikeshare bikes (total for region = 3,600 bikes) 300 Capital Bikeshare stations (total for region = 525 stations) | | Parking Meters | 11,166 parking meters serving 18,903 spaces | | Street Lights | 70,263 street lights | | Airports* | Two international airports (Washington Dulles International and Baltimore/Washington International) and one domestic (Reagan National) | | Railroads | 27.2 miles of rail line (serving Amtrak passenger rail, Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) and Virginia Rail Expressway (VRE) commuter rail, and CSX and Norfolk Southern freight rail). Union Station, within walking distance of the Capitol, provides connections to bus and rail transit, and to shared cars, rental cars, and sightseeing services. | *Source: DC Office of Planning, 2017* *\* Facilities serving Washington, DC, located outside of its boundaries* In the District, the transportation system should strike a careful balance between serving the needs of its residents—a large workforce that arrives and departs Washington, DC each day—and serving the many people who visit. The system must meet residents’ needs, which should be coordinated with regional infrastructure and policy. In 2014, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) produced moveDC, a multimodal transportation vision plan that addresses these challenges. 400.9[^p5-9] moveDC, the District’s multimodal long-range transportation plan, presents a transportation infrastructure model and District-wide multimodal policies that will guide the District’s transportation vision for the next two decades. The plan describes the recommended networks of facilities, services, and [^p5-8]: 400.8 [^p5-9]: 400.9 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS The overarching goal for transportation in the District is: Create a safe, sustainable, equitable, efficient, and multimodal transportation system that meets the access and mobility needs of District residents, the regional workforce, and visitors; supports local and regional economic prosperity; and enhances the quality of life for District residents. policies to achieve the District’s transportation goals. The Comprehensive Plan accepts moveDC’s policies and recommendations as the basis for transportation planning and policy in the District and integrates them within the broader policy framework laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. 400.10 The policies and actions in this section must be considered in the context of racial equity to address existing disparities and historic inequities. Transportation options are critical to access job opportunities, healthy food, education, and many services, and for the ability to afford to live in the District. In planning areas east of the Anacostia River, where 90 percent of residents are Black, people travel farther for employment opportunities, often by car. Black and Brown residents are proportionately higher users of transit, particularly bus services. Historically, many of the District’s transportation initiatives in the 20th century, such as highways, caused displacement of Black communities and many facilities such as the Metrorail system were sited and designed to limit use by communities of color. Communities of color and low-income communities disproportionately reside near highways, rail, and freight routes and thus experience the negative environmental and health impacts of this infrastructure. It is important to design and implement transportation systems, including new technologies, that consider the specific needs of these communities through a racial equity lens, reduce barriers to access, and increase transportation accessibility and mobility. 400.11 # Transportation Goal [^p6-401] The overarching goal for transportation in the District is: Create a safe, sustainable, equitable, efficient, and multimodal transportation system that meets the access and mobility needs of District residents, the regional workforce, and visitors; supports local and regional economic prosperity; and enhances the quality of life for District residents. 401.1 # Policies and Actions ## T-1 Linking Land Use and Transportation [^p6-402] Transportation and land use are fundamental components of development and are inextricably linked to each other and to the formation of cities. The construction of a new transportation facility, such as a Metrorail station or streetcar line, influences the nature and location of new development in that area. The nature and location of development, in turn, influence patterns of travel for residents. 402.1 [^p6-401]: 401 [^p6-402]: 402 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Transportation facilities themselves are a significant element of the built environment, creating connections but at times also creating barriers. They can spur economic development and help attract private investment, but they can also create land use conflicts and environmental and health issues if land use, equity, and environmental concerns are not considered in the planning process. 402[^.2] ## T-1.1 Land Use: Transportation Coordination 403 As laid out in the Framework Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the District and region are expected to continue to gain jobs and households over the next 20[^] years. Coordination of transportation and land use decisions is critical to making the best use of the infrastructure and finite land resources as these gains occur. The balance between housing and jobs plays a clear role in travel patterns. In general, the demands on the transportation system are reduced when homes are located close to places of employment, shopping, and leisure. People spend less time traveling, and overall quality of life may be improved. The transportation system as a whole benefits when more mixed-use residential and employment areas are situated along major transit routes. Travel times are reduced, and there is better use of public transportation investments. Future efforts should account for differences in transportation options and access available to households with varying incomes and to communities of color, and seek to improve affordability and access to services for underserved areas of the District. 403[^.1] Although the District has already developed walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods, future opportunities will arise to strengthen the linkage between land use and transportation as new development takes place. Design features play an important role in this equation. Residential communities should be developed so that services, such as shopping, are accessible by walking, taking transit, or riding a bicycle—not just by driving a car. The design of transportation infrastructure can also have a major impact on travel behavior and system performance. For example, the redesigns of the Anacostia River crossings that are planned, under construction, and implemented provide for pedestrian and bicycle access across the river, improving the historical bridge crossings, which discouraged or prohibited access. There are also opportunities to enhance bike and pedestrian connectivity with the redesign of the Long Bridge across the Potomac River. 403[^.2] The space needs of transportation support facilities, including space for bus garages, service yards, and motor vehicle inspection facilities, also call for stronger coordination of land use and transportation planning. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) already has a critical need for additional and improved bus storage and service yards <
> Transportation level of service should integrate transit, bicycles, pedestrians and vechicles. The benchmark should be the number of people that can pass along a corridor or through an intersection rather than just the number of cars. CITYWIDE ELEMENTS and anticipates a need for greater rail yard space when the Metrorail fleet adds more eight-car trains. The lack of modern bus garages in the District severely impedes better bus service. As new transit lines are developed for the Circulator and DC Streetcar, additional land will be needed for new support facilities. Just as corridor preservation efforts anticipate the future need for transportation facilities, there is a need for land use planning to preserve opportunities for transportation support facilities, such as vehicle maintenance and storage. Failure to preserve areas for this use forces the location of facilities at great distances from service areas, increasing costs and limiting vehicle availability in emergencies. In some cases, as with rail facilities, location of vehicle maintenance and storage with operation service is essential. As service needs grow, transportation support facilities are needed to support existing services and future growth across the District. [^403.3] Closer coordination of transportation and land use planning can result in better congestion management, more efficient use of transit and parking, and transportation infrastructure that is sensitive and complementary to its surrounding context. [^403.4] Assessing and measuring the transportation impacts of land use decisions are also important steps in integrated land use and transportation planning. New development generates new trips—be they auto trips, transit trips, pedestrian trips, or bicycle trips. Major land use changes, such as the development of large housing complexes or office buildings, should be evaluated for their impacts on existing and planned transportation infrastructure to ensure that the network can function adequately when the projects are completed. New methods of managing transportation impacts—such as TDM (additional information can be found in Section T-3.1 of this chapter)—should be pursued in lieu of simply building more roads. Additionally, as new technologies—such as transportation network companies (TNCs) and connected and autonomous vehicles (AVs)—emerge, the District will evaluate potential land use impacts and continue to encourage mixed-use and accessible development patterns. [^403.5] In the past, the traditional way of measuring traffic impacts was to use a series of lettered grades (A through F) based on factors such as vehicle speed, the volume of cars that pass along a street compared to the street’s capacity, and the length of time for a car to pass through an intersection. These level of service (LOS) standards continue to be widely used in the suburbs, where most trips are made by car. But traditional LOS measures are not appropriate in a built-out District, where widening streets to increase capacity is rarely an option (or a desired outcome). In the District, LOS measures should integrate vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel. The benchmark should be the number of people who can pass along a corridor or through an intersection rather than just the number of cars. [^403.6] [^403.3]: 403.3 [^403.4]: 403.4 [^403.5]: 403.5 [^403.6]: 403.6 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy T-1.1.1: Transportation Impact Assessment Require appropriate environmental analysis for major transportation projects, including new roadways, bridges, transit systems, road design changes, and rerouting of traffic from roads classified as principal arterials or higher onto minor arterials or neighborhood streets with lesser volumes. [^403.7] #### Policy T-1.1.2: Land Use Impact Assessment Assess the transportation impacts of development projects using multimodal standards rather than traditional vehicle standards to more accurately measure and more effectively mitigate development impacts on the transportation network. Environmental and climate change impacts, including that of carbon dioxide, should be included in the assessment of land use impacts. [^403.8] #### Policy T-1.1.3: Context-Sensitive Transportation Design transportation infrastructure to support current land uses as well as land use goals for mixed-use, accessible neighborhoods. Make the design and scale of transportation facilities compatible with planned land uses. Facilities should comply with the District’s Complete Streets policy, adopted in October 2010, with an emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle-friendly design. [^403.9] #### Policy T-1.1.4: Transit-Oriented Development Support transit-oriented development by investing in pedestrian-oriented transportation improvements at or around transit stations, major bus corridors, and transfer points. Encourage development projects to build or upgrade the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure leading to the nearest transit stop to create last-mile connections. Pedestrian movements and safety should be prioritized around transit stations. [^403.10] *See also Section LU-1.4 of the Land Use Element for transit-oriented development policies.* #### Policy T-1.1.5: Joint Development Maximize ridership potential, housing including affordable housing, and economic development opportunities by fostering transit-supportive commercial and residential joint development projects on WMATA-owned or -controlled land, public land, and private properties adjacent to Metrorail stations. [^403.11] #### Policy T-1.1.6: Transportation Support Facilities Prioritize in place preservation and rehabilitation for mass transit facilities and prioritize new, efficient support facility locations for storage and/or maintenance for Metrobus, DC Circulator, commuter bus, motor coach, Metrorail, streetcar, commuter rail, and intercity rail to serve residential and commercial areas throughout the District to equitably distribute access to [^403.7]: 403.7 [^403.8]: 403.8 [^403.9]: 403.9 [^403.10]: 403.10 [^403.11]: 403.11 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Residents, workers, and visitors should have access to safe, affordable and reliable transportation options regardless of age, race, income, geography or physical ability. Transportation should not be a barrier to economic, educational, or health opportunity for District residents. these services throughout all wards. Recognize bus service and its support facilities as critical components of the District’s public transportation system. Agencies should work to integrate mass transit facilities in the urban form and development program. [^403.12] ### Policy T-1.1.7: Equitable Transportation Access Transportation within the District shall be accessible and serve all users. Residents, workers, and visitors should have access to safe, affordable and reliable transportation options regardless of age, race, income, geography or physical ability. Transportation should not be a barrier to economic, educational, or health opportunity for District residents. Transportation planning and development should be framed by a racial equity lens, to identify and address historic and current barriers and additional transportation burdens experienced by communities of color. [^403.13] ### Policy T-1.1.8: Minimize Off-Street Parking An increase in vehicle parking has been shown to add vehicle trips to the transportation network. In light of this, excessive off-street vehicle parking should be discouraged. [^403.14] #### Action T-1.1.A: Transportation Measures of Effectiveness Implement moveDC performance measures and the District Mobility Project to quantify transportation service and assess land use impacts on the transportation system. Priority performance measures include mode share, access to transportation options, person-carrying capacity or throughput, travel time reliability, and accessibility and equity for potentially vulnerable populations. [^403.15] #### Action T-1.1.B: Transportation Improvements Require TDM measures and transportation support facilities—such as crosswalks, bus shelters, transit resource and information kiosks, Capital Bikeshare stations, and bicycle facilities—with large development projects and major trip generators, including projects that go through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. Consider improvements to transit stations—such as additional stairs, escalators, and in some cases new entrances—with large developments. [^403.16] #### Action T-1.1.C: Create Regional Network of Transportation Support Facilities Work with WMATA and regional jurisdictions and partners to strategically locate new transportation infrastructure support facilities for the greater Washington metropolitan area where they best serve the transportation network and complement nearby land uses. [^403.17] [^403.12]: 403.12 [^403.13]: 403.13 [^403.14]: 403.14 [^403.15]: 403.15 [^403.16]: 403.16 [^403.17]: 403.17 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action T-1.1.D: Land Use—Transportation Coordination* Establish regular meetings with neighboring jurisdictions to discuss planned transportation projects and transportation needs. Encourage all jurisdictions to engage in planning and project coordination so that projects that occur near borders are considered by all those impacted. 403.18 *Action T-1.1.E Update Zoning Regulations Regarding Mass Transit* Include Metrobus service and its support facilities (i.e., parking, refueling, routine cleaning and maintenance, cosmetic repairs, employee breakrooms and lockers, offices, and training facilities) in the definition of “mass transit facilities” in the Zoning Regulations to ensure that bus service is recognized as a critical component of the District’s public transportation system. 403.19 *Please consult the Land Use and Economic Development Elements for additional policies and actions on transit-oriented development. Policies on parking are included in Section T-3.2 of this element and in the Land Use Element. Please see Section T-3.1 for additional policies on transportation demand management.* ### T-1.2 Transforming Corridors [^p11-404] Avenues and boulevards are much more than simple transportation routes. They are a legacy of the 1791 L’Enfant Plan and are still one of Washington, DC’s most distinctive features. They were designed to be beautiful corridors lined with distinctive buildings, affording dramatic vistas for those passing by. Today, these corridors handle hundreds of thousands of private vehicles each day, as well as pedestrians, bicycles, trucks, and buses. 404.1 Different corridors in Washington, DC serve different functions. Some, like New York Avenue, carry heavy truck and commuter traffic. Others have wide sidewalks that provide a safe and pleasant environment for pedestrians. Still others were once vital shopping streets or streetcar lines that today have lost their neighborhood-serving activities and are checkered by drive-through and auto-oriented uses. As the gateways to Washington, DC’s communities, the District’s corridors should once again become the centers of civic and economic life for surrounding neighborhoods and serve as vital transportation corridors. Major avenues will also serve as focus areas for future smart-city investments that support these goals through enhancements in safety, transit service, and public amenities. The challenges facing the District as it plans for and reinvests in its corridors include balancing the various transportation modes, providing diverse and accessible transit options for all users, and tailoring its transportation strategies to recognize the function of each major street and foster economic growth. 404.2 Transit and non-auto travel have become major travel modes in the District, yet these modes have little roadway space dedicated to their exclusive use. [^p11-404]: 404 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS One of the key moveDC strategies to enhance the District’s multimodal system is to establish modal priorities on District streets. Per moveDC, every non-local street should prioritize pedestrians, accommodate driving and local deliveries, and support one of the following modes: * Protected bicycle facilities; * Dedicated high-capacity surface transit lane(s); * Dedicated freight routes; or * A combination of these modes in a simpler form. Decisions on which modes will be prioritized on streets are illustrated in the moveDC plan and are based on network connectivity, land use, and travel demand. 404.3 ### Policy T-1.2.1: Major Thoroughfare Improvements Beautify and stabilize gateways and major thoroughfares by implementing coordinated multimodal transportation, economic development, and urban design improvements. 404.4 ### Policy T-1.2.2: Targeted Investment Target planning and public investment toward the specific corridors with the greatest potential to foster neighborhood improvements, create equitable outcomes that reduce barriers and transportation burdens, and enhance connectivity across Washington, DC and corridors that serve as gateways to the District, welcoming visitors, residents, and workers. 404.5 ### Policy T-1.2.3: Discouraging Auto-Oriented Uses Discourage certain uses, like drive-through businesses or stores with large surface parking lots and minimize the number of curb cuts in new developments. Curb cuts and multiple vehicle access points break up the sidewalk, reduce pedestrian safety, and detract from pedestrian-oriented retail and residential areas. 404.6 ### Policy T-1.2.4: Providing Roadway Space for All Modes Roadway space should be determined by the potential person-carrying capacity of the lane; modes with the ability to move the most people should be prioritized. These changes should be informed by the modal priorities identified in moveDC. 404.7 #### Action T-1.2.A: Crosstown Corridors Implement the recommendations of the Crosstown Multimodal Transportation Study and the Florida Avenue Multimodal Transportation Study to improve mobility across town for all users of those corridors. 404.8 *Please consult the Urban Design Element for additional policies and actions on streetscape and design standards for corridors.* CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### T-1.3 Regional Smart Growth Solutions [^p13-405] While this Transportation Element is focused on the District, transportation issues do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries. As the core of the Washington metropolitan region, the District has a high level of interest in transportation issues being addressed at a regional level. Consistently ranked among the most congested areas in the nation, and one with very high levels of auto-related air pollution, the Washington metropolitan region should work cooperatively to promote more environmentally responsible transportation. Continued strong regional action on expanding transit and smart-growth land use policies are critical for both the transportation system and the environment. [^405.1] In 2014, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) released its Regional Transportation Priorities Plan, examining the impacts of projected regional growth between 2010 and 2040 on the metropolitan transportation system—and exploring alternatives to reduce future congestion. The study found that daily vehicle miles traveled in the region are projected to grow by 25 percent by 2040, while freeway and arterial lane miles are projected to grow by only seven percent. As a result, many transportation facilities will be congested. The key finding of the MWCOG study is that long-term increases in congestion can be reduced by adjusting local land use plans to better match the transportation system, shifting jobs to the east side of the region, and encouraging housing closer to the region’s job centers. [^405.2] A regional strategy of promoting infill, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development in urbanized areas is needed to encourage transportation efficiency both in the District and the region. A robust and meaningful dialogue that involves federal, state, and local leaders is absolutely essential. This dialogue should focus on improving the jobs/housing balance, investing in transit, and limiting sprawl on the region’s edge. Among other things, the District should establish direct avenues of communication with the planning, zoning, transportation, and economic development agencies of immediately surrounding jurisdictions. [^405.3] Existing trip patterns reflect the District’s role as the region’s major employment destination. When moveDC was adopted in 2016, approximately 67 percent of persons working in the District commuted from the suburbs. Of the daily trips to and from the District, 66 percent are driven, 24 percent are taken on transit, and 10 percent are pedestrians or cyclists. Daily trips to and from the District can be seen in Figure 4.2. [^405.4] Approximately 35 percent of the District’s residents commute to suburban destinations, with many of these trips going to large regional activity centers, such as Tysons and Rosslyn, Virginia, and Silver Spring and Bethesda, Maryland. The majority of District residents work within the District, with a significant portion of those jobs in the downtown core. Within the District, A regional strategy of promoting infill, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development in urbanized areas is needed to encourage transportation efficiency both in the District and the region. [^p13-405]: 405 [^405.1]: 405.1 [^405.2]: 405.2 [^405.3]: 405.3 [^405.4]: 405.4 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S ### Figure 4.2: ### 2040 Daily Person Trip Flows for Regional Trips [^405.6] <
> 39 percent of daily trips are driven; 33 percent are taken on transit; and 28 percent are taken on foot, by bike, or on personal mobility devices. [^405.5] #### Policy T-1.3.1: Transit-Accessible Employment Support more efficient use of the region’s transit infrastructure with land use strategies that encourage employment locations near underused transit stations. Work closely with the federal government and suburban jurisdictions to support transit-oriented and transit-accessible employment throughout the region. This would expand the use of major transit investments such as Metrorail. Encourage approaches that improve transit access to jobs for low-income residents. [^405.7] #### Policy T-1.3.2: Reverse Commuting Utilize data on the travel patterns of District workers as the basis for programs to improve transit service, particularly programs that increase reverse commuting options for District workers employed in major suburban employment centers. [^405.8] [^405.6]: Source: moveDC, 2014 [^405.5]: 405.5 [^405.7]: 405.7 [^405.8]: 405.8 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy T-1.3.3: Regional Transportation Planning Initiatives Advocate for large-scale regional transportation planning initiatives that involve local, regional, state, and federal governments. Such initiatives are essential given the long lead times and high expense of increasing regional transportation capacity. [^405.9] ##### Action T-1.3.A: Regional Jobs/Housing Balance Continue the efforts to promote infill, mixed-use, housing, particularly affordable housing, and transit-oriented development at the regional level, design transportation systems that connect District residents to local jobs, and provide opportunities for non-resident workers to also live in Washington, DC. [^405.10] ##### Action T-1.3.B: Regional Transportation Infrastructure Study Actively participate in efforts by MWCOG and other regional organizations that address long-term transportation infrastructure needs in greater Washington, DC. Participate in the preparation of the 30-year Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan, which takes a broad-based look at these needs, taking into account expected growth patterns and emerging technologies. [^405.11] ### T-1.4 Placemaking in Public Space [^p15-406] In addition to the transportation function of streets, associated features—such as medians, curbsides, edges, and sidewalks—provide opportunities to make the District more active and livable. Some corridors have more space than is needed for transportation. This excess space may be found on wide avenues or in triangular spaces where the grid is intersected by diagonal streets. Currently, there are hundreds of small non-transportation areas of land that exist within the public right-of-way, offering opportunities to establish spaces for cultural presentation and exchange in the District. [^406.1] #### Policy T-1.4.1: Street Design for Placemaking Design streets, sidewalks, and transportation infrastructure—such as bike racks and other public places in the right-of-way—to support public life, in addition to their transportation functions. This includes incorporating seating, plantings, and the design of spaces for gathering, lingering, and engaging in commerce and social or cultural activities. [^406.2] #### Policy T-1.4.2: Cultural Use of Public Space Support social, cultural, and commercial activities in public spaces through permitting and other government functions. Reduce permitting and other barriers to cultural use of streets and the adjoining public right-of-way. [^406.3] <
> Transit-oriented developments maximizes the use of major transportation investments such as Metrorail. In addition to the transportation function of streets, associated features—such as medians, curbsides, edges, and sidewalks—provide opportunities to make the District more active and livable. [^405.9]: 405.9 [^405.10]: 405.10 [^405.11]: 405.11 [^p15-406]: 406 [^406.1]: 406.1 [^406.2]: 406.2 [^406.3]: 406.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action T-1.4.A: Develop a Placemaking in Public Space Program* Develop a placemaking in public space program within DDOT. DDOT should encourage and actively promote opportunities for enhancement in ineffective and under-used spaces District-wide. Any enhancements within the public realm should prioritize the safety and functionality of the space and carefully consider the impacts of the change to the space prior to any modifications being made. [^406.4] *Please consult the Urban Design Element for additional policies and actions on placemaking in public space, and the Environmental Protection Element for guidance on tree canopy and green infrastructure.* *Action T-1.4.B: Tree Planting and Removal* Develop further guidance on tree planting and removal. [^406.5] ## T-2 Multimodal Transportation Choices [^p16-407] As of 2017, the District has one of the most balanced transportation systems in the country. Of the 50 largest cities in the U.S., the District has the highest percentage of residents who walk or bike to work and ranks fourth following New York, Boston, and San Francisco in the percentage who take public transportation. Approximately 25 percent of the District’s households have no automobile. Access, mobility, and mode use differ across the District and should be considered by race and income: the average commute times in the District are the highest in Wards 7 and 8, and more residents in these wards drive to work than any other ward, despite low access to cars. Low income Metrobus riders comprise 48 percent of the District’s bus ridership, compared with 18 percent of rail ridership, attributed in part to cost. Providing transportation choices that are more efficient and environmentally friendly than driving—such as walking, bicycling, commuter rail, passenger rail, and public transit—is a key goal of the Comprehensive Plan. [^407.1] ### T-2.1 Transit Accessibility [^p16-408] The District and the surrounding region are served by the second largest rail transit system and the sixth largest bus network in the United States. The bus and rail systems are operated by WMATA, which provides service throughout the Washington metropolitan region. [^408.1] WMATA was created in 1967 by an interstate compact to plan, develop, build, finance, and operate a balanced regional transportation system in the national capital area. Construction of the planned 103-mile Metrorail system began in 1969 and was largely funded by the federal government. The first phase of Metrorail began operation in 1976 and was completed in early 2001. In 2004, three new stations opened—two extended the Blue Line east of the Beltway and the first infill station (NoMa-Gallaudet U) opened [^406.4]: 406.4 [^406.5]: 406.5 [^p16-407]: 407 [^407.1]: 407.1 [^p16-408]: 408 [^408.1]: 408.1 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS on the Red Line. With the opening of the first phase of the Silver Line in 2014, the system now totals 117 miles, 38.3 miles of which are located within the District itself. Close to half of the stations on the system—40 of 91—are located in the District. The Metrorail system is shown in Map 4.1. While much of the District is within a half mile of a station, some areas—such as Georgetown, the New York Avenue corridor, and Bolling Air Force Base—are not. [^408.2] As the core of the region and the hub of the Metrorail system, much of WMATA’s transit usage centers in the District. In 2016, the total average weekday boardings at all Metrorail stations was 639,000. Nearly 57 percent of these boardings occurred at District stations. [^408.3] Downtown station platforms are often congested in the peak period. The District and WMATA continue to coordinate on opportunities to relieve overcrowding and improve safety through short- and long-term design modifications of platforms and station access points. [^408.4] The capacity of the core of the Metrorail system—in particular, the Blue, Orange, and Silver Lines—is constrained because various lines share tracks. WMATA will continue to work with partner jurisdictions to advance capacity solutions, such as moving to eight-car trains and expanding core stations to accommodate more passengers. Long-term solutions to core capacity constraints are needed and should be considered, including the potential for new stations and lines in the District. [^408.5] Because of the very high cost of building entirely new Metrorail subway lines within Washington, DC, the District is proposing better connections, to and among, the various spokes of the Metrorail system, with investments in surface transit. These improvements include limited-stop bus service and dedicated transit lanes, streetcars, and improvements to local bus service through the use of new technologies, including real-time bus arrival information and transit signal priority. In addition, the District is working with WMATA to make more efficient use of existing infrastructure through measures such as increasing train lengths from six cars to eight cars. The increased train length would add about one-third more capacity to each train, greatly helping to alleviate congestion problems on some lines in the system. This technique does not require any changes to railroad or station infrastructure but does require the power delivery infrastructure to be upgraded. The District and other jurisdictions are currently working toward upgrading the power system to support eight-car trains and working to procure new rail cars. [^408.6] WMATA also operates the Metrobus regional bus service. The buses run approximately 160,020 miles on an average weekday, making 422,000 trips. Approximately 55 percent of these trips are within the District. Metrobus operates 171 lines and 270 routes on 1,184 miles of roadway throughout the [^408.2]: text [^408.3]: text [^408.4]: text [^408.5]: text [^408.6]: text CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Map 4.1: # Metrorail System[^408.7] <
> Source: DC Office of Planning, 2018 [^408.7]: 408.7 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS metropolitan area. Within the District, Metrobus operates 71 bus lines and 105 routes on 261 miles of roadway, or 22 percent of the roadway system. Average weekday ridership on these District-based lines ranges from about 200 persons to over 19,000 persons. Some of the high-volume bus corridors include Wisconsin/Pennsylvania Avenue (routes 30N, 30S, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37), 14th Street NW (routes 52, 53, 54, 59), 16th Street NW (S1, S2, S4, S9), and Georgia Avenue—7th Street (routes 70, 74, 79).[^408.8] WMATA faces complex and unique funding and budgetary challenges to maintain and operate the transit system. Research shows that over half of the total capital spending for other transit systems in other cities comes from dedicated sources of one kind or another. However, until recently, WMATA received no funding from such sources A historic funding agreement for WMATA was reached in May 2018, with the District, Maryland, and Virginia officially agreeing to $500 million in annual dedicated funding for Metro’s capital program. The Dedicated Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Emergency Act of 2018 commits the District to $178.5 million per year in capital funding through fiscal year 2059, as part of the WMATA Dedicated Funding Fund. This agreement creates the first stable funding source for WMATA since its creation in 1967.[^408.9] The Washington Metrorail Safety Commission met for the first time in February 2018. The commission was established through an interstate compact and requires funding from the District, Maryland, Virginia, and the federal government. As an independent legal entity, the commission is empowered to review, approve, oversee, and enforce the safety plan of the Metrorail system. The commission is responsible for publishing an annual safety report and submitting it to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and publishing an annual report of operations (detailing its programs, operations, and finances) and an annual independent audit of its finances.[^408.10] WMATA now has a stable, reliable, and dedicated source of capital funding. The District will continue to actively collaborate with jurisdictions throughout the region and with the federal government to encourage the success of the WMATA Dedicated Funding Fund.[^408.11] The District is served by many regional bus carriers in addition to Metrobus. In Maryland, these include Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) Commuter Bus, Dillon, Eyre, and Keller Transportation. In Virginia, these include Quick’s, Martz National Coach, Loudoun County Commuter Bus, Fairfax Connector, and Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) OmniRide. Some private bus services also provide circulation within the District for schools, hospitals, universities, and other areas or attractions. The District is also served by regional commuter rail (found in the next section).[^408.12] WMATA now has a stable, reliable, and dedicated source of capital funding. The District will continue to actively collaborate with jurisdictions throughout the region and with the federal government to encourage the success of the funding source. <
> Metrobus vehicles travel about 160,020 miles on an average weekday carrying about 422,000 trips. Approximately 55 percent of these trips are within the District. [^408.8]: text [^408.9]: text [^408.10]: text [^408.11]: text [^408.12]: text CITYWIDE ELEMENTS In addition to the regional WMATA bus service, the District began the DC Circulator service in July 2005. Circulator, a District-operated service that connects people to business, culture, and entertainment throughout Washington, DC, has grown to have six routes, providing more than 16,000 trips on the average weekday. 408.13[^408.13] The District is working to increase transit options for intra-District trips. These options will include a variety of transit technologies, including neighborhood circulators, streetcars, limited-stop bus service, and Capital Bikeshare. The intra-District system is designed to be cohesive, supplement and complement existing Metro services, and support District land use objectives. 408.14[^408.14] Map 4.2 illustrates the High-Capacity Transit (HCT) Corridors recommended in WMATA’s Priority Corridor Network (PCN) Plan and the eight-mile streetcar corridor currently moving through planning and implementation. Further analysis will be necessary on each corridor to specify the mode and operational characteristics. 408.15[^408.15] Phase 1 of the DC Streetcar began service in 2016, connecting Oklahoma Avenue/Benning Road NE to Union Station. Plans for extending the line east to Benning Road Metrorail station are underway. 408.16[^408.16] As of 2019, other ongoing transit improvement initiatives include: * K Street Transitway: The transitway will provide two travel lanes for exclusive use by buses between 21st Street NW and 12th Street NW. * Circulator: The Transit Development Plan for the DC Circulator is being updated with a focus on the performance of the six current routes. Projects are also underway for the replacement of more than half of the bus fleet as well as acquisition of a site for a maintenance and storage facility. * 16th Street NW Bus Lanes: The design phase is underway for a suite of bus improvements on the 16th Street NW corridor, which provides more than 20,000 bus trips each weekday. Improvements include peak-period, peak-direction bus lanes; transit signal priority; real-time passenger information displays; off-board fare collection; and operational changes, such as additional limited-stop service and route simplification. 408.17[^408.17] [^408.13]: 408.13 [^408.14]: 408.14 [^408.15]: 408.15 [^408.16]: 408.16 [^408.17]: 408.17 #### Policy T-2.1.1: Transit Accessibility Work with transit providers to develop transit service that is fast, frequent, and reliable and that is accessible to the District’s residents, workers, and visitors, including during late-night hours. Pursue strategies that make transit safe, equitable, secure, comfortable, accessible, and affordable. 408.18 #### Policy T-2.1.2: Surface Transit Improvements Enhance surface transit service by improving scheduling and reliability, providing timed transfers, reducing travel time, providing relief for overcrowding, increasing frequency and service hours, and improving both local access and crosstown connections. Key strategies in support of this policy may include roadway priority treatments, including dedicated transit lanes and transit signal priority, proof-of-payment systems, and larger vehicles capable of carrying more riders. 408.19 #### Policy T-2.1.3: WMATA Funding Support the continuation of the WMATA Dedicated Funding Fund, which provides the District’s share of the regional dedicated, reliable capital funding for Metro, and work with Virginia and Maryland to ensure the funding continues beyond fiscal year 2059[^408.20]. #### Policy T-2.1.4: Maintenance of Transit Facilities Facilitate coordination among WMATA, DDOT, and the Department of Public Works (DPW) to program and prioritize safety and state-of-good-repair investments for WMATA-owned, District-owned, and other transportation infrastructure and facilities. 408.21 [^408.20]: 408.20 Map 4.2: # Proposed High-Capacity Transit Corridors[^408.22] <
> [^408.22]: 408.22 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy T-2.1.5: District Streetcar System Expand transit options for District residents by developing a streetcar line. Create a streetcar line that will connect neighborhoods and key destinations, and create walkable, amenity-rich, and diverse communities along the streetcar route. Explore various value-capture strategies to obtain private and other financial support for the construction and ongoing operation of streetcars. 408.23[^408.23] #### Policy T-2.1.6: First- and Last-Mile Connections The District should advance the planning and implementation processes to consider last-mile travel between major transit or commercial nodes to and from nearby residential areas. 408.24[^408.24] #### Policy T-2.1.7: Water Taxis Support privately funded ventures to provide water taxis and support facilities on the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers to serve close-in areas around the District as well as longer-distance routes from points south, such as Indian Head on the east side of the Potomac and Woodbridge to the south. 408.25[^408.25] #### Action T-2.1.A: New High-Capacity Transit Corridors Develop transportation and land use plans to construct a network of new premium transit infrastructure, including priority bus corridors to provide travel options, better connect the District, improve surface-level public transportation, and stimulate economic development. As needed, replace existing travel and parking lanes along select major corridors with new transit services—such as limited-stop bus service, dedicated bus lanes, and transit signal priority—to improve mobility within Washington, DC. 408.26[^408.26] #### Action T-2.1.B: Eight-Car Trains Increase Metrorail train lengths from six cars to eight cars when justified by demand to meet service guidelines and passenger levels. 408.27[^408.27] #### Action T-2.1.C: Circulator Buses In addition to the current DC Circulator bus routes, consider implementing Circulator routes in other areas of the District that will support all-day, high-frequency transit service. Modified, expanded, or new routes should be designed in collaboration with WMATA to strengthen the District’s bus network and provide appropriate levels of service to meet the demands of each corridor. The Circulator will continue to connect residents, workers, and visitors to commercial centers and visitor attractions. 408.28[^408.28] [^408.23]: 408.23 [^408.24]: 408.24 [^408.25]: 408.25 [^408.26]: 408.26 [^408.27]: 408.27 [^408.28]: 408.28 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Union Station is a vital national, regional, and local transportation hub and cultural destination. It handles 37 million visitors (including passengers) annually—substantially more passengers served than any of the region’s three airports, which each serve between 20 and 22 million passengers annually. *Action T-2.1.D: Bus Stop Improvements* Improve key bus stop locations through such actions as: * Extending bus stop curbs to facilitate reentry into the traffic stream; * Moving bus stops to the far side of signalized or signed intersections where feasible; * Adding bus stop amenities, such as user-friendly, real-time transit schedule information, benches, shade, and shelters; * Improving access to bus stops via well-lit, accessible sidewalks and street crossings; and * Using global positioning system (GPS) and other technologies to inform bus riders who are waiting for buses when the next bus will arrive. [^408.29] *Action T-2.1.E: College Student Metro Passes* Continue to explore potential partnerships between WMATA and local colleges and universities, similar to the University Pass partnership with American University, to provide Metro passes to college students. As part of this program, improve connections between campuses and Metrorail stations during both on- and off-peak hours. [^408.30] *Action T-2.1.F: Transit Amenities* Seek opportunities to dedicate space in the right-of-way for surface transit amenities, such as bus stops, signage, shelters, passenger information, and off-board fare collection. Follow best practices in bus-stop siting (most often on the far side of an intersection) yet evaluate each case separately. Consider opportunities for enhanced stops and amenities with large-scale developments and redevelopments. [^408.31] *Action T-2.1.G: Performance Measures* Develop, apply, and report on transit performance measures to identify strengths, deficiencies, and potential improvements and to support the development of new and innovative facilities and programs. [^408.32] ### T-2.2 Making Multimodal Connections [^p24-409] Multimodal connections refer to the links between different modes of travel, such as Metrorail, buses, bicycles, and private cars. These connections can be improved by expanding Metrorail stations to allow for more effective bus and streetcar transfers. Similarly, better pedestrian amenities, increased bicycle parking, more Capital Bikeshare stations, and more visible parking for carshare vehicles at Metrorail stations can enhance connections. [^409.1] Intercity and commuter rail and bus connections are also critical to creating an efficient multimodal transportation system. Amtrak regularly runs [^408.29]: 408.29 [^408.30]: 408.30 [^408.31]: 408.31 [^408.32]: 408.32 [^p24-409]: 409 [^409.1]: 409.1 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S trains to and from Union Station, providing service along the Northeast Corridor, as well as to and from points west and south. The District ranks second in Amtrak station passenger volume, after New York City. The District is currently served by two commuter rail systems—Maryland Area Regional Commuter Rail (MARC), which provides service from Maryland, and the Virginia Rail Expressway (VRE), which provides service from Virginia. These systems provide up to 37 million trips annually to and from Union Station. MARC also provides daily service to Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI), including on weekends. Commuter ridership has increased substantially during recent years, and continued growth of both systems is expected. Union Station is also served by intercity bus providers, including Greyhound, Bolt Bus, and Megabus. 409.2[^409.2] Union Station is a vital national, regional, and local transportation hub and cultural destination. It handles 37 million visitors (including passengers) annually—substantially more passengers served than any of the region’s three airports, which each serve between 20 and 22 million passengers annually. The Union Station Metrorail station is the busiest in the system and provides connections for travelers to the rest of the District and region. 409.3[^409.3] The expansion of the intercity bus networks, improvement of two commuter rail services, and increased intercity bus capacity, along with Metrorail and Metrobus service, will increase accessibility and enhance regional transportation options. Several key facilities on the rail system need improvements to accommodate future ridership and enable intermodal transfers. Increased capacity at Union Station and L’Enfant Plaza is also needed to accommodate commuter rail passenger traffic for MARC and VRE riders, respectively. Paratransit providers, taxis, and TNCs may also provide enhanced mobility for persons with disabilities and older adults. The continued growth of wheelchair-accessible taxicabs will be important for serving this group. 409.4[^409.4] Taxis and for-hire vehicle services constitute another important component of the District’s multimodal transportation system. They provide an alternative and convenient means of travel throughout the District. 409.5[^409.5] ### Policy T-2.2.1: Multimodal Connections Create more direct connections between the various transit modes. This change is consistent with the federal requirement to plan and implement intermodal transportation systems. Make transit centers into locations of multimodal activity, with welcoming paths for users of all modes and supportive infrastructure, including wide sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and bicycle parking and storage. 409.6[^409.6] ### Policy T-2.2.2: Connecting District Neighborhoods Improve connections among District neighborhoods by upgrading transit, auto, pedestrian, and bike connections, and by removing, ameliorating, [^409.2]: 409.2 [^409.3]: 409.3 [^409.4]: 409.4 [^409.5]: 409.5 [^409.6]: 409.6 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS mitigating, or minimizing existing physical barriers, such as railroads and highways. Recognize where transportation infrastructure has separated communities, particularly low-income residents and communities of color, and encourage strategies that rebuild connections. However, no freeway or highway removal shall be undertaken prior to the completion of an adequate and feasible alternative traffic plan and that plan’s approval by the District government. [^409.7] ### Policy T-2.2.3: Airport Connections Work with other local governments in the Washington metropolitan region to maintain intermodal transportation services that provide more efficient and convenient connections between the District and the Reagan Washington National (DCA), Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall (BWI), and Washington Dulles International (IAD) airports. [^409.8] ### Policy T-2.2.4: Union Station Expansion Ensure that expansion and modernization of Union Station supports its role as a major, intermodal, transit-focused transportation center. Changes to Union Station should improve intermodal connections and amenities; facilitate connections with local transportation infrastructure with an emphasis on transit, pedestrian, and bicycle mobility; enhance integration with adjacent neighborhoods; minimize private and for-hire vehicle trips; reduce on-site parking; and provide a continued high quality of life for District residents and visitors. [^409.9] ### Policy T-2.2.5: Commuter and Intercity Rail Support the expansion of commuter and intercity rail by investing in existing infrastructure and facilities, supporting emerging transportation technologies that encourage faster travel on the Northeast Corridor and enhancing the rail south of the District. [^409.10] ### Policy T-2.2.6: Taxi and For-Hire Vehicle Enhancements Promote and incentivize upgrades to the District’s taxi fleet, including conversion to hybrid or electric vehicles (EVs), installation of time and distance meters, improvements in tracking and dispatching, and implementation of accessible vehicles. Particular attention should be given to improving taxi and for-hire vehicle service to underserved communities. Incorporate TNCs into the District’s mobility planning, with an emphasis on shared vehicles. [^409.11] ### Policy T-2.2.7: TNCs Monitor the impacts of TNCs on the District’s transportation network, encourage companies to reach underserved areas of Washington, DC and incentivize shared rides. TNCs should not increase overall vehicular traffic volumes or cause significant mode shifts from public transit or [^409.7]: 409.7 [^409.8]: 409.8 [^409.9]: 409.9 [^409.10]: 409.10 [^409.11]: 409.11 zero-emission transportation options. Increase efforts to ensure TNC driver compliance with applicable traffic laws, particularly bike lane safety regulations and other Vision Zero policies. 409.12[^409.12] #### Action T-2.2.A: Intermodal Centers Support the role of Washington Union Station as an intermodal hub with regional importance. Identify other locations with the potential to serve as intermodal hubs within the District. 409.13[^409.13] #### Action T-2.2.B: Pedestrian Connections Work in concert with WMATA to undertake pedestrian capacity and connection improvements at transit stations and stops and at major transfer facilities to enhance efficiency, operations, and pedestrian safety, comfort, and flow. 409.14[^409.14] #### Action T-2.2.C: Bicycle and Carpool Parking Increase investment in bicycle parking and provide more visible parking for carsharing operations at Metrorail stations, key transit stops, and future streetcar stations. 409.15[^409.15] #### Action T-2.2.D: Commuter Rail and Bus Connections Support the projects and initiatives identified in the State Rail Plan developed by DDOT, which calls for increased investment in the District’s rail network. This will include investments at both Union Station and L’Enfant Plaza station to increase capacity for passengers and trains and improve circulation. This investment will accommodate growth for intercity rail and commuter rail traffic and could accommodate future through-running rail service by MARC or VRE. Exploration of an additional infill rail station could further leverage the District’s rail system. In addition, support continued investment in commuter bus service and in Metrorail feeder bus service throughout the region. 409.16[^409.16] #### Action T-2.2.E: Transit Connections Promote crosstown transit services and new transit routes that connect neighborhoods to one another and to transit stations and stops. 409.17[^409.17] [^409.12]: 409.12 [^409.13]: 409.13 [^409.14]: 409.14 [^409.15]: 409.15 [^409.16]: 409.16 [^409.17]: 409.17 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> The use of bicycles for transportation and recreation is increasing within the District. Between 2000 and 2017, bicycle commuting grew by 514 percent, from a 1.2 percent share to a 4.5 percent share of all District-based work trips. ### T-2.3 Bicycle Access, Facilities, and Safety [^p28-410] Bicycling has long be en a part of the transportation mix in the District. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, bicyclists, pedestrians, buggies, and streetcars all shared District streets. The District’s interest in bicycling as an alternative to motorized transportation grew in the 1970s in response to the energy crisis, and the first District Bicycle Plan was adopted in 1976. [^410.1] The use of bicycles for transportation and recreation is increasing within the District. Between 2000 and 2017, bicycle commuting grew significantly, by 514 percent, from a 1.2[^] percent share to a 4.5[^] percent share of all District-based work trips. Continued increases in bicycling as a percent of work trips is desired. [^410.2] As of 2017, the District has 75[^] miles of bike lanes, nine miles of cycle track, 60[^] miles of bike paths, 100[^] miles of bicycle routes, and 300[^] Capital Bikeshare stations. The District is also working to improve bicycle connections through parks and green spaces. Map 4.3 shows Washington, DC’s bicycle trail network. [^410.3] While existing conditions provide a firm foundation for bicycling, many parts of Washington, DC could be more bicycle-friendly. Some parts of the District have no bicycle facilities at all, and many workplaces and other destinations have no facilities for storing or locking bicycles, showering, or changing. [^410.4] Safety is another big concern. There were 660[^] crashes involving bicycles in 2016. Close to one-third of all fatalities from motor vehicle crashes in the District were pedestrians or bicyclists, compared to about 20[^] percent nationally and 27[^] percent for other large urban areas. [^410.5] [^p28-410]: [^410.1]: [^410.2]: [^410.3]: [^410.4]: [^410.5]: CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Map 4.3: ## Bicycle Routes and Trails[^410.6] <
> Source: DC Office of Planning, 2018 [^410.6]: 410.6 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS In 2014, DDOT estimated the bicycle LOS on all 1,171 miles of District streets. DDOT evaluated roadway lane and shoulder width, speed limit, pavement condition, and on-street parking data. The analysis found that about 46 percent of the study network received below-average bicycle LOS grades, a 23 percent improvement from 2003, when 70 percent of the network was below average. The recently completed Bicycle Element of moveDC includes many recommendations to improve bicycle facilities and infrastructure and should be consulted for more detail. When all requirements of the Bicycle Element of moveDC are fully implemented in 2040, the percentage of below-average streets will drop to 32 percent.[^410.7] *Please refer to the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element for additional policies and actions related to bicycle and pedestrian trails.* DDOT has established a Capital Bikeshare station expansion policy that balances stations by location type. The DDOT development plan breaks the District down into three market areas: High Ridership, High Revenue, and Accessibility. Stations located in each of these three areas are expected to have different ridership characteristics and revenue-generating potential. The expansion policy will help the District diversify the program’s ridership base and use Capital Bikeshare to connect residents to new opportunities.[^410.8] #### Policy T-2.3.1: Better Integration of Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Integrate bicycle and pedestrian planning and safety considerations more fully into the planning and design of District roads, transit facilities, public buildings, and parks such that residents of each of the District’s wards have access to high-quality bicycling and pedestrian facilities.[^410.9] #### Policy T-2.3.2: Bicycle Network Provide and maintain a safe, direct, and comprehensive bicycle network connecting neighborhoods, employment locations, public facilities, transit stations, parks, and other key destinations. Eliminate system gaps to provide continuous bicycle facilities. Increase the amount of protected bike lanes, wayfinding signage, and Capital Bikeshare stations.[^410.10] #### Policy T-2.3.3: Bicycle Safety Increase bicycle safety through continued expansion of protected bike lanes (cycle tracks) and other separated facilities, traffic-calming measures, provision of public bicycle parking, enforcement of regulations requiring private bicycle parking, and improved bicycle access where barriers to bicycle travel now exist.[^410.11] #### Policy T-2.3.4: Capital Bikeshare Expansion Continue the expansion of Capital Bikeshare stations throughout the District to develop a complete bicycle-sharing network and encourage bicycling. Expansion of the system should balance service provisions, system costs, [^410.7]: 410.7 [^410.8]: 410.8 [^410.9]: 410.9 [^410.10]: 410.10 [^410.11]: 410.11 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS public input, and revenue-generation concerns. The cost of a Capital Bikeshare membership or the technology used to become a member should not be a barrier to using the system. 410.12 ### Policy T-2.3.5: Capital Bikeshare Access Continue to increase utility of the system for users by locating stations so that 65 percent of residents and 90 percent of employees are within a quarter mile of a Capital Bikeshare station. Expand user access to destinations, including jobs and services; promote retail and entertainment access; and expand access to residential neighborhoods to encourage annual ridership increases. 410.13 ### Policy T-2.3.6: Dockless Programs Dockless bike-share, scooter and other mobility systems should supplement and be compatible with the multimodal and accessibility priorities of the District through the permitting of private vendor-provided services. These systems should complement existing mobility services in the District, including Capital Bikeshare, Metrorail, Metrobus, and the DC Circulator. 410.14 #### Action T-2.3.A: Capital Bikeshare Community Partners Continue investment in the Community Partners Program to reach unemployed persons, underemployed persons, and persons experiencing homelessness with subsidized Capital Bikeshare memberships to increase access to transportation. 410.15 #### Action T-2.3.B: Bicycle Facilities Wherever feasible, require large, new commercial and residential buildings to be designed with features such as secure bicycle parking and lockers, bike racks, shower facilities, and other amenities that accommodate bicycle users. Residential buildings with eight or more units shall comply with regulations that require secure bicycle parking spaces. 410.16 #### Action T-2.3.C: moveDC Bicycle Element Implement the recommendations of the Vision Zero DC Action Plan and the Bicycle Element of moveDC to: * Build more and better bicycle facilities; * Enact more bicycle-friendly policies; and * Provide more bicycle-related education, promotion, and enforcement. 410.17 #### Action T-2.3.D: Performance Measures Develop, apply, and report on walking and bicycle transportation performance measures to identify strengths, deficiencies, and potential improvements and to support the development of new and innovative facilities and programs. 410.18 <
> The District has 300 Bikeshare Stations and 2,300 bikes. CITYWIDE ELEMENTS 4 The District’s population density, interconnected grid of streets, wide sidewalks, and renowned park system have long contributed to a favorable environment for walking. In 2017 approximately 47,624 District residents (12.7 percent of Washington, DC’s labor force) walked to work. <
> Encouraging walking will bring many benefits to the District. It will provide convenient and affordable transportation options, reduce vehicular travel and related pollution, and improve the health and fitness of District residents. #### Action T-2.3.E: Dockless Sharing Programs Monitor dockless programs closely so that public benefits outweigh any negative impacts to the public right-of-way, equity of service, or the ability of the Capital Bikeshare system to provide cost-effective and equitable service. Work with providers to promote equitable access to the increased mobility options these dockless programs provide. [^410.19] ### T-2.4 Pedestrian Access, Facilities, and Safety [^p32-411] The District’s population density, interconnected grid of streets, wide sidewalks, and renowned park system have long contributed to a favorable environment for walking. In 2017 approximately 47,624[^p32-424] District residents (12.7 percent of Washington, DC’s labor force) walked to work. DDOT works to develop and maintain a cohesive, sustainable transportation system that is safe, affordable, and convenient, while preserving and enhancing the natural, environmental, and cultural resources of the District. Whenever DDOT substantially paves, repaves, resurfaces, or engages in construction of a roadway, bridge, or tunnel, it will bring that facility into compliance with the most current accessible guidelines. [^411.1] The District has more than 1,800 miles of sidewalks. However, there are still approximately 100 miles of District streets without sidewalks and a backlog of sidewalks needing repair. When a street is fully reconstructed or when a curb and gutter are installed or rebuilt, DDOT is required to install a sidewalk on at least one side of the street if none are present. [^411.2] Improvements to pedestrian facilities can enhance the quality of the walking and public transit environments and foster greater use of both modes. Improvements should focus on reductions in the number and severity of pedestrian-vehicle conflict points, clarified pedestrian routing, widened sidewalks, and improved aesthetic features, such as landscaping. [^411.3] Encouraging walking will bring many benefits to the District. It will provide convenient and affordable transportation options, reduce vehicular travel and related pollution, and improve the health and fitness of District residents. [^411.4] #### Policy T-2.4.1: Pedestrian Network Develop, maintain, and improve pedestrian facilities. Improve the District’s sidewalk system to form a safe and accessible network that links residents across Washington, DC. [^411.5] #### Policy T-2.4.2: Pedestrian Safety Improve safety and security at key pedestrian nodes throughout the District. Use a variety of techniques to improve pedestrian safety, including textured or clearly marked and raised pedestrian crossings, pedestrian-actuated signal push buttons, high-intensity activated crosswalk pedestrian signals, [^410.19]: 410.19 [^p32-411]: 411 [^411.1]: 411.1 [^411.2]: 411.2 [^411.3]: 411.3 [^411.4]: 411.4 [^411.5]: 411.5 rectangular rapid flashing beacons, accessible pedestrian signal hardware, leading pedestrian interval timing, and pedestrian countdown signals. 411.6[^411.6] *See also Action T-1.1.A on developing multimodal transportation measures of effectiveness, and the Educational Facilities Element for recommendations on the Safe Routes to School program.* ### Policy T-2.4.3: Traffic Calming Continue to address traffic-related safety issues through carefully considered traffic-calming measures. Expedite processes for implementing traffic calming measures at locations and corridors identified as having the highest number of incidents involving bicyclists and pedestrians. 411.7[^411.7] ### Policy T-2.4.4: Sidewalk Obstructions Locate sidewalk cafes and other intrusions into the sidewalk so that they do not present impediments to safe and efficient pedestrian passage. Maintain sidewalk surfaces and elevations so that persons with disabilities or older adult pedestrians can safely use them. 411.8[^411.8] #### Action T-2.4.A: Pedestrian Signal Timings Review timing on pedestrian signals to ensure that adequate time is provided for crossing, in particular for locations with a large older adult population. 411.9[^411.9] #### Action T-2.4.B: Sidewalks Install sidewalks on streets throughout the District to improve pedestrian safety, access, and connectivity. Continue to monitor the sidewalk network for needed improvements. Consult with Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) and community organizations as plans for sidewalk construction are developed. Coordinate with the National Park Service (NPS) to complete local sidewalk networks that overlap with NPS land. All sidewalks shall be constructed in conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines. 411.10[^411.10] #### Action T-2.4.C: Innovative Technologies for Pedestrian Movement Explore the use of innovative technology to improve pedestrian movement and safety for all users, such as personal transportation systems and enhanced sidewalk materials. 411.11[^411.11] #### Action T-2.4.D: Pedestrian Access on Bridges and Underpasses Ensure that the redesign and/or reconstruction of bridges, particularly those crossing the Anacostia River, includes improved provisions for pedestrians, including wider sidewalks, adequate separation between vehicle traffic and sidewalks, guardrails, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and easy grade transitions. Maintain sidewalk segments under and over rail tracks and provide adequate lighting in these locations. 411.12[^411.12] [^411.6]: 411.6 [^411.7]: 411.7 [^411.8]: 411.8 [^411.9]: 411.9 [^411.10]: 411.10 [^411.11]: 411.11 [^411.12]: 411.12 ### Action T-2.4.E: Pedestrian Master Plan Implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Master Plan, the Vision Zero Action Plan, and moveDC Pedestrian Element to improve accessibility, connectivity, and safety for pedestrians throughout the District.[^411.13] ### Action T-2.4.F: Pedestrian and Bike Events Support events in public spaces and streets that encourage bicycling and walking.[^411.14] ## T-2.5 Roadway System and Auto Movement[^p34-412] The District’s roadway system consists of 1,171 miles of roadway, 241 vehicular and pedestrian bridges, and approximately 7,774 intersections. Approximately 22 percent of these intersections are signalized.[^412.1] The roadways in the District are categorized by function, ranging from interstates and other freeways, which carry the largest volumes of motor vehicle traffic, to local streets, which provide the highest level of access to land uses. Map 4.4 shows the existing roadway system based on a Functional Classification System described in Figure 4.3.[^412.2] [^411.13]: 411.13 [^411.14]: 411.14 [^p34-412]: 412 [^412.1]: 412.1 [^412.2]: 412.2 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Map 4.4: # Roadway System by Functional Classification[^412.3] <
> [^412.3]: 412.3 Increases in funding for street maintenance since the mid-1990s have allowed the District to continually improve the condition of its roadway pavement. The District continually monitors and rates the condition of its roadways and bridges. 412.4[^412.4] ### Figure 4.3: Existing Roadway System Functional Classification 412.5[^412.5] | Road Type | Description | | :--- | :--- | | Freeways and Expressways | These roadways, which comprise 54 miles or approximately five percent of the total roadway miles in the District, are controlled access facilities. Access is via interchange ramps and these roadways typically do not provide direct access to adjacent land uses. | | Principal Arterials | These roadways, comprising 92 miles or approximately eight percent of the District’s roadway system, typically serve major activity centers and serve longer trip lengths than the roadways types listed below. The freeways and principal arterials the overall roadway system. Freeways and principal arterials typically carry between 40 and 60 percent of the city’s total traffic volumes. | | Minor Arterials | Minor arterials account for 173 miles, approximately 15 percent of the total roadway system. These roadways serve short to medium length trips, with a greater emphasis on mobility than direct access. In a typical network, minor arterials make up 15 to 25 percent of the mileage and carry 15 to 40 percent of total traffic. | | Collectors | The role of collectors is to move traffic from local streets to the arterials. Collectors will often intersect with arterials at signalized intersections. Local roads will intersect collectors at stop signs. Collectors make up 152 miles, or 13 percent, of the District’s roadway system. | | Local Roads | These roads typically make up the majority of the transportation network as measured by road miles. They carry between 10 and 30 percent of all traffic. The primary role of local roads is to provide access to adjacent land uses, with ideally a very limited role in terms of traffic mobility. Approximately 60 percent, or 682 miles, of the District’s roadway system is classified local. | [^412.4]: 412.4 [^412.5]: 412.5 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Traffic congestion on the District’s roadway network occurs primarily on the radial principal arterial roadways. Map 4.5 illustrates motor vehicle traffic volumes on major streets and highways. The flow of motor vehicle traffic is greatly influenced by north-south movements along the I-95 corridor feeding into I-295 and I-395. These highways carry the heaviest daily motor vehicle traffic volumes in the District, with an average of approximately 168,000 daily trips on I-395 and 108,000 on I-295 in 2017. In addition, the limited number of crossings over the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers generates higher volumes of motor vehicle traffic at these gateways than their counterparts in the northern portion of the District. [^412.6] Examples of heavy volumes in 2017 from the south include 38,000 daily motor vehicle trips across the Anacostia River on the Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, 52,000 motor vehicle trips across the Potomac on the Francis Scott Key Bridge, 94,000 motor vehicle trips across the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge, and 241,000 motor vehicle trips across the 14th Street Bridge and I-395 bridge complex, also over the Potomac. These volumes can be contrasted with volumes coming into the District from the north and northeast, which include 29,000 daily motor vehicle trips on Connecticut Avenue, 21,000 motor vehicle trips on Massachusetts Avenue, 24,000 daily motor vehicle trips on Georgia Avenue, 33,000 daily motor vehicle trips on 16th Street NW, 48,000 daily motor vehicle trips on North Capitol Street, and 132,000 daily motor vehicle trips on New York Avenue. [^412.7] ### The Concept of Induced Demand Research shows that urban traffic congestion tends to maintain a self-limiting equilibrium: vehicle traffic volumes increase to fill available capacity until congestion limits further growth. Any time a consumer makes a travel decision based on congestion (“Should I run that errand now? No, I’ll wait until later when traffic will be lighter.”) they contribute to this self-limiting equilibrium. Travel that would not occur if roads became congested but that would occur if roads became less congested is called induced travel demand. Increasing road capacity, or reducing vehicle use by a small group, creates additional road space that is filled with induced demand. [^412.7a] [^412.6]: 412.6 [^412.7]: 412.7 [^412.7a]: 412.7a Map 4.5: ## Existing District Traffic Volumes, 2017[^412.8] <
> | Average Daily Traffic Volume | | | :--- | :--- | | | More than 120,000 vehicles | | | 60,000 - 120,000 vehicles | | | 30,000 - 60,000 vehicles | | | Less than 30,000 vehicles | OPID0030253 Source: DC Office of Planning, 2019 [^412.8]: 412.8 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS As Washington, DC is a densely developed District with a historic built environment, the District does not foresee making significant investments in road widening to accommodate more motor vehicles. Instead, the District will continue to manage existing roadway resources and provide for viable transportation choices throughout Washington, DC. 412.9[^412.9] As part of moveDC, an analysis of the transportation impacts of anticipated 20-year land use and transportation changes was conducted. The analysis projected that if the recommendations in moveDC are implemented, there will be a 39 percent increase in the total number of transit trips by 2040, a 16 percent increase in the total number of motor vehicle trips, and a 52 percent increase in non-motorized trips (walk and bike). Motor vehicle congestion will increase on several corridors. The analysis concluded that new TDM measures, bike and pedestrian improvements, and transit improvements will be needed to keep the system functioning adequately. 412.10[^412.10] #### Policy T-2.5.1: Creating Multimodal Corridors Transform District arterials into multimodal corridors that incorporate and balance a variety of mode choices, including bus, streetcar, bicycle, pedestrian, and automobiles. 412.11[^412.11] #### Policy T-2.5.2: Managing Roadway Capacity Manage the capacity of principal arterials within existing limits rather than increasing roadway capacity to meet induced demand for travel by car (see text box entitled The Concept of Induced Demand). Prioritize improvements based on their multimodal person-carrying capacity. Increase auto capacity on roadways only if needed to improve the safety of all travelers, improve connectivity of the multimodal transportation network, or improve targeted connections to regional roadways. 412.12[^412.12] #### Policy T-2.5.3: Road and Bridge Maintenance Maintain the road and bridge system to keep it operating safely and efficiently and to maximize its useful life. 412.13[^412.13] #### Policy T-2.5.4: Traffic Management Establish traffic management strategies that prioritize the safety of pedestrians over vehicular traffic; separate local traffic from commuter or through-traffic; and reduce the intrusion of trucks, commuter traffic, and cut-through traffic on residential streets. Prioritize public transit solutions, including bus lanes and signal priority, to reduce commuter traffic. 412.14[^412.14] #### Policy T-2.5.5: Natural Landscaping Work with other District and federal agencies to identify, plant, and manage natural landscaping areas along highways, traffic circles, bike paths, and sidewalks. 412.15[^412.15] [^412.9]: 412.9 [^412.10]: 412.10 [^412.11]: 412.11 [^412.12]: 412.12 [^412.13]: 412.13 [^412.14]: 412.14 [^412.15]: 412.15 ### Action T-2.5.A: Maintenance Funds Provide sufficient funding sources to maintain and repair the District’s system of sidewalks, streets, and alleys, including its street lights and traffic control systems, bridges, street trees, and other streetscape improvements. [^412.16] ### Action T-2.5.B: Signal Timing Adjustments Regularly evaluate the need for adjustments to traffic signal timing to prioritize pedestrians, surface transit, and bicyclists. [^412.17] ### Action T-2.5.C: Update the Functional Classification System Continue to update the Functional Classification System on a two-year cycle. The Functional Classification System is a tool developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and used by DDOT to help describe and generally assign the vehicular transportation purpose of a street within the street network. [^412.18] ## T-2.6 Addressing Accessibility for All Residents [^p40-413] Multimodal transportation options are critical for populations who cannot drive or do not have access to a car. Access to transportation is essential for residents across the income spectrum, older adults who may need transportation to a medical appointment, and persons with a disability who need to go to work. Without alternatives to cars, a significant portion of the population may be unable to lead independent lives. [^413.1] ### Policy T-2.6.1: Transportation Access Address the transportation needs of all District residents, including those with special physical requirements and trip needs, such as access to medical centers or wellness centers. [^413.2] ### Policy T-2.6.2: Transit Needs Establish, expand, or continue assistance for transit-dependent groups in the District, including older adults, students, school-age children, and persons whose situations require special services, including those experiencing homelessness. [^413.3] ### Action T-2.6.A: Public Improvements Invest in public improvements, such as curb inclines, aimed at increasing pedestrian mobility, particularly for older adults and persons with disabilities. [^413.4] ### Action T-2.6.B: Shuttle Services Through public services, private services, or public-private partnerships, supplement basic public transit services with shuttle and minibuses to [^412.16]: 412.16 [^412.17]: 412.17 [^412.18]: 412.18 [^p40-413]: 413 [^413.1]: 413.1 [^413.2]: 413.2 [^413.3]: 413.3 [^413.4]: 413.4 provide service for transit-dependent groups, including older adults, people with disabilities, school-age children, and residents in areas that cannot viably be served by conventional buses. [^413.5] *Action T-2.6.C: Transportation Access and Service* Conduct an analysis of the impacts transportation access and service has on underserved and low-income communities. [^413.6] ## T-3 Transportation System Efficiency and Management [^p41-414] With the costs of providing new transportation facilities on the rise, the District must constantly look for ways to reduce travel demand and more effectively use its existing and future transportation systems. This section of the element addresses Transportation Demand Management TDM, curbside management and parking, truck and motor coach movement, and travel information. [^414.1] ### T-3.1 Transportation Demand Management [^p41-415] TDM refers to a series of transportation strategies that are designed to maximize the people-moving capability of the transportation system by increasing the number of persons in a vehicle, increasing transit ridership, or influencing the time of (or need to) travel. To accomplish such changes, TDM programs rely on incentives or disincentives to make shifts in travel behavior more attractive. The TDM Strategic Plan includes strategies to increase the non-Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) rate and to streamline TDM in the project review process. It provides, supports, and promotes programs and strategies aimed at reducing the number of car trips and miles driven (for work and non-work purposes) to increase the efficiency of the transportation system. [^415.1] The primary purpose of TDM is to reduce the number of motor vehicles using the road system while providing a variety of mobility options to those who wish to travel. Typical TDM programs include: * Carpooling and vanpooling, employee shuttles, and improvements that encourage bicycling and walking; * Financial incentives, such as preferential parking for ride sharers, parking cash-outs, and transit subsidies; * Congestion avoidance strategies, such as compressed work weeks, flexible work schedules, and telecommuting in circumstances where workplace productivity is not impaired; and With the costs of providing new transportation facilities on the rise, the District must constantly look for ways to reduce travel demand and more effectively use its existing and future transportation systems. [^413.5]: 413.5 [^413.6]: 413.6 [^p41-414]: 414 [^414.1]: 414.1 [^p41-415]: 415 [^415.1]: 415.1 # CITYWIDE ELEMENTS * Education and outreach regarding which transportation options are available, how to use transit, safety tips for bicycling, and how to join a carpool or vanpool. [^415.2] TDM strategies are particularly useful during peak period travel times, when demand is the greatest. The Washington, DC metropolitan region is a leader in developing and implementing such strategies. Some of the regional TDM strategies already in place include telework centers, vanpool programs, guaranteed ride home programs, and transit incentive programs. [^415.3] In 2013, the federal government employed approximately 437,000 people in the National Capital Region. As the region’s largest employer, the federal government has a strong interest in improving the quality of transportation services and infrastructure. It is in a unique position to provide leadership in TDM programs that can accommodate the travel needs of its workforce while setting the standard for the region as a whole. Its mandatory regional transit subsidy program is an effective form of TDM: in 2012, 42 percent of peak period Metrorail riders were federal employees. [^415.4] The District supports all these initiatives and also has many of its own TDM measures. For instance, it is helping to educate the public about various shared mobility options in the District, including point-to-point and traditional carsharing services. The District’s ultimate goal is to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). To incentivize the use of shared cars and encourage the private sector to expand carsharing programs, the District has designated strategic curbside parking spaces for these vehicles, accompanied by educational brochures to help explain this service to the public. [^415.5] Roadway pricing is another strategy to manage transportation demand. Research indicates that 75 to 80 percent or more of the costs of driving are external costs, such as noise and air pollution. Over the long term, recovering these costs will serve to level the playing field for all modes of travel. The region’s motorists and residents currently pay the full cost of transportation through a variety of indirect means, including their time and health. Making these costs more apparent to motorists will ultimately help shift travel both in the District and throughout the region to modes that are most efficient in terms of lowest overall costs. The District is investigating how to implement roadway pricing, particularly strategies targeting those drivers who cut through the District with neither a starting nor an ending point within District boundaries. [^415.6] New technologies are making roadway pricing more feasible and economical. The range of roadway pricing approaches includes a congestion pricing cordon (used most notably in London and Singapore), which involves motorists being charged via electronically read debit cards for entering the central portion of the District. Other options include measuring [^415.2]: 415.2 [^415.3]: 415.3 [^415.4]: 415.4 [^415.5]: 415.5 [^415.6]: 415.6 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS miles traveled on particular roads (using electronic means) and assessing per-mile charges based on such variables as wear-and-tear on the roadway system, air and noise pollution, and imposition of congestion, among others. Pricing strategies can also vary depending on the time of day, the level of congestion, and other parameters. In evaluating new technologies and approaches to encourage use of TDM and reduce vehicle miles travelled, it is important to use disaggregated data that identifies the mode use, ability, and access for communities of color and residents of all abilities and income levels. This can be used to consider appropriate, equitable TDM measures, minimize barriers to entry (such as price or access to technology) and encourage adoption of TDM. [^415.7] moveDC has a tiered strategy for future implementation of managed lanes and a congestion pricing cordon for downtown. It identifies key facilities where managed lanes are appropriate entering the District, including: * I-66 on the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge; * I-295 between the District line and the 11th Street Bridge; * I-395 on the 14th Street Bridge; * I-395/I-695 between the 11th and 14th Street Bridges; * Canal Road between the Chain Bridge and the Whitehurst Freeway; and * New York Avenue between I-395 and the District line. [^415.8] The District Mobility Project leverages transportation data for multiple modes (walking, bicycling, taking transit, and driving) to inform DDOT’s short- and long-term investment strategies. It builds on national advances in transportation system performance management to track District-wide trends in congestion and travel-time reliability, among other key system performance metrics. By highlighting areas with high congestion, low reliability, and poor accessibility, the District Mobility Project shows where DDOT will target near-term investments to improve multimodal mobility. [^415.9] ### Policy T-3.1.1: TDM Programs Provide, support, and promote programs and strategies aimed at reducing the number of car trips and miles driven (for work and non-work purposes), to increase the efficiency of the transportation system. [^415.10] ### Policy T-3.1.2: Regional TDM Efforts Continue to pursue TDM strategies at the regional level and work with regional and federal partners to promote a coordinated, integrated transportation system. These strategies include setting commuter benefits program participation rates for employers, developing corridor-level TDM plans to educate the public on DDOT and regional lanes initiatives (i.e., bus only, high-occupancy toll, high-occupancy vehicle, and road diets), and adopting emerging technologies to promote carpooling. [^415.11] [^415.7]: 415.7 [^415.8]: 415.8 [^415.9]: 415.9 [^415.10]: 415.10 [^415.11]: 415.11 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Policy T-3.1.3: Carsharing Encourage the expansion of carsharing services as an alternative to private vehicle ownership by removing barriers to access private carsharing systems. 415[^.12] ### Policy T-3.1.4: Special Event TDM Encourage event organizers to provide transportation amenities for large events. These measures can include the TDM initiatives developed through the hospitality and tourism program to promote the use of transit options to hotels, lodging providers, District-wide events, and museums through advocacy and outreach in hopes of influencing event attendees. 415[^.13] #### Action T-3.1.A: TDM Strategies Develop strategies and requirements that reduce rush hour traffic by promoting flextime, carpooling, and transit use where consistent with maintaining workplace productivity, to reduce vehicular trips particularly during peak travel periods. Identify TDM measures and plans as vital conditions for large development approval. Transportation Management Plans should identify quantifiable reductions in motor vehicle trips and commit to measures to achieve those reductions. Encourage the federal and District governments to explore the creation of a staggered workday, where appropriate, to reduce congestion, and implement TDM initiatives through a pilot program that focuses on the District government and public schools. Assist employers in the District with implementation of TDM programs at their worksites, to reduce drive-alone commute trips. Through outreach and education, inform developers and District residents of available transportation alternatives and the benefits these opportunities provide. 415[^.14] #### Action T-3.1.B: Roadway Pricing and Management The recommendations in moveDC should be explored and implemented, where feasible, in three phases: * Phase 1: Continuously monitor direct and external roadway costs to gain a more accurate estimate of the true cost of driving for motorists; * Phase 2: Develop a system to identify those who drive entirely through the District without stopping (i.e., those who are not living in, working in, or visiting Washington, DC), as well as a mechanism to charge these motorists for the external costs that they are imposing on the District’s transportation system; and * Phase 3: Continuously monitor state-of-the-art roadway pricing techniques and technologies, and work with neighboring jurisdictions to implement roadway pricing programs that better transfer the full costs of driving to motorists. This could include higher costs for heavier and higher-emission vehicles. 415[^.15] CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action T-3.1.C: Private Shuttle Services* Develop a database of private shuttle services and coordinate with shuttle operators to help reduce the number of single-occupant trips. Encourage shuttle operators to provide real-time transit data, and create a layer in goDCgo’s interactive map to show all shuttles. Motivate companies to implement a shuttle service. [^415.16] *Action T-3.1.D: Transit Ridership Programs* Support employers in implementing the DC Commuter Benefits Law. Continue to support employer-sponsored transit ridership programs, such as those under the federal Transit Benefits Program, which stipulates that, pursuant to federal legislation, public and private employers may subsidize employee travel by mass transit each month. Continue to support employer-sponsored bicycle commuter benefit programs for public and private employers. [^415.17] *Action T-4.1.E: Implement the TDM Strategic Plan* Provide, support, and promote programs and strategies aimed at reducing the number of car trips and miles driven (for work and non-work purposes), to increase the efficiency of the transportation system. Smart-city technologies promise to enhance and transform TDM as more data becomes available. TDM practitioners such as goDCgo should determine platforms for delivering practical travel and routing information to improve mobility. [^415.18] *Action T-4.1.F: Analytic Tools to Measure Performance* Plan and implement the development of advanced analytic tools to measure the performance of the transportation network in support of the District Mobility Project. [^415.19] ### T-3.2 Curbside Management and Parking [^p45-416] The public curbside, the space along the street between travel lanes and sidewalk, is limited real estate. Within this space, many essential activities of urban life occur: buses pull in and out, delivering thousands of passengers a day; residents and visitors come and go; and shoppers and diners arrive and depart. It is an active place, the use and management of which affects adjacent businesses and local neighborhoods. Demands on the public curbside space are diverse and come from residents, workers, visitors, patrons, deliverers, and travelers of all means and modes. The needs and desires for curbside use are not uniform throughout the District. In some areas, competition for curbside space is fierce, while in other areas, demand is comparatively light. As new vehicle technologies develop and become commercially available, the District will explore ways to receive parking data from them, enhancing the District’s parking management system. DDOT’s District Mobility Project includes a tool to visualize multimodal transportation system performance. [^416.1] [^415.16]: 415.16 [^415.17]: 415.17 [^415.18]: 415.18 [^415.19]: 415.19 [^p45-416]: 416 [^416.1]: 416.1 DDOT manages 1,392 miles of public curbside. Curbside space is generally available for anyone to use, at least for short durations, except in areas with curbside restrictions due to traffic safety and specific, reserved uses, such as residential permit parking, commercial loading zones, diplomatic parking, motorcycle parking, metered parking, motor coach parking, and valet staging zones. The District does not own or operate off-street garages and lots for public use. [^416.2] ### Policy T-3.2.1: Parking Duration in Commercial Areas Using pricing, time limits, and curbside regulations, encourage motorists to use public curbside parking for short-term needs, and promote curbside turnover and use while pushing longer-term parking needs to private, off-street parking facilities. [^416.3] ### Policy T-3.2.2: Employing Innovations in Parking Consider and implement new, asset-light technologies and approaches to increase the efficiency, management, and customer use of curb space, while minimizing barriers to entry such as price or lack of access to technology. These include pay-by-cell parking metering, digitizing the curbside management permit distribution system, and multimodal dynamic demand-based parking pricing. [^416.4] ### Policy T-3.2.3: Repurposing Parking Consider the potential reuse of parking facilities at the outset of their design to future-proof them. These uses could include housing, office, retail, and/or other non-vehicle-storage-related uses. Future-proofing considerations could include the design and configuration of ramps, column spacing, ceiling heights, natural light exposure, ventilation, and elevators in ways that could support other uses. [^416.5] ### Action T-3.2.A: Short-Term Parking Continue to work with existing private parking facilities to encourage and provide incentives to convert a portion of the spaces now designated for all-day commuter parking to shorter-term parking to meet the demand for retail, entertainment, and mid-day parking. [^416.6] ### Action T-3.2.B: Carshare Parking Continue to provide strategically placed and well-defined curbside parking for carshare vehicles, particularly near Metrorail stations, major transit nodes, and major employment destinations, and in medium- and high-density neighborhoods. [^416.7] ### Action T-3.2.C: Curbside Management Techniques Revise curbside management and on-street parking policies to: * Adjust parking pricing to reflect the demand for, and value of, curb space; [^416.2]: 416.2 [^416.3]: 416.3 [^416.4]: 416.4 [^416.5]: 416.5 [^416.6]: 416.6 [^416.7]: 416.7 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS * Adjust the boundaries for residential parking zones; * Establish parking policies that respond to the different parking needs of different types of areas; * Expand the times and days for meter parking enforcement in commercial areas; * Promote management of parking facilities that serve multiple uses (e.g., commuters, shoppers, recreation, entertainment, churches, special events ); * Improve the flexibility and management of parking through mid-block meters, provided that such meters are reasonably spaced and located to accommodate persons with disabilities; * Preserve, manage, and increase alley space or similar off-street loading space; * Increase enforcement of parking limits, double-parking, bike lane obstruction, and other curbside violations, including graduated fines for repeat offenses and towing for violations on key designated arterials; and * Explore increasing curbside access for EV supply equipment. 416.8 ### Action T-3.2.D: Unbundle Parking Cost Find ways to unbundle the cost of parking. For residential units, this means allowing those purchasing or renting property to opt out of buying or renting parking spaces. Unbundling should be required for District-owned or subsidized development and encouraged for other developments. Employers should provide a parking cash-out option, allowing employees who are offered subsidized parking the choice of taking the cash equivalent if they use other travel modes. Further measures to reduce housing costs associated with off-street parking requirements, including waived or reduced parking requirements in the vicinity of Metrorail stations and along major transit corridors, should be pursued. These efforts should be coupled with programs to better manage residential street parking in neighborhoods of high parking demand, including adjustments to the costs of residential parking permits. 416.9 ### Action T-3.2.E: Manage Off-Street Parking Supply Continue to waive or reduce parking requirements in the vicinity of Metrorail stations and along major transit corridors, as implemented during the recent revision of the zoning regulations. Explore further reductions in requirements as the demand for parking is reduced through changes in market preferences, technological innovation, and the provision of alternatives to car ownership. Update the Mayor’s Parking Taskforce Report with more recent parking data and monitor parking supply on an ongoing basis. 416.10 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Action T-3.2.F: Encourage Shared-Use Parking Collaborate with private, off-street parking facilities to encourage shared-use parking arrangements with nearby adjacent uses to maximize the use of off-street parking facilities. [^416.11] ## T-3.3 Goods Movement [^p48-417] The District is a dense urban environment with a diverse mixture of land uses that place significant demand on the District’s transportation infrastructure. Washington, DC’s role as an employment center for the region creates a high volume of commuter traffic in peak hours, while the consumer-driven economy generates significant demand for freight movement. [^417.1] The District has experienced a substantial population increase and sustained economic development over the past decade, generating a growing demand for freight activity and increasing pressure on the District’s transportation network. In May 2013, DDOT initiated the first District Freight Plan to outline freight strategies and recommendations for the District to support economic growth while maintaining livability and addressing community needs and concerns. Research for the District Freight Plan found that in 2011, the District moved 16.8 billion tons, worth $21.7 billion, of domestic goods to and from the District. District freight shipments are expected to grow 75 percent in terms of tons from 2011 to 2040, and 159 percent during that same period in terms of value. The majority of the truck traffic in the District has an origin or a destination in the District. [^417.2] Trucks are critical for the District’s economy to function. The District is a net consumer, rather than producer, of goods. By weight and value, more freight comes into the District than leaves the District. However, in terms of the average value per ton, freight leaving the District has a higher value ($2,571/ton) than freight coming into the District ($1,269/ton). Nearly 99 percent of goods destined for the District arrive by truck. Many businesses in the District rely heavily or solely on truck service to receive and/or ship freight. In doing so, they generate freight-related economic activity as well. Truck access is often instrumental to major business location decisions, as feasible options for alternative modes are limited. [^417.3] If trucks did not accommodate demand, very few shippers could use other modes—such as rail, water, air, or pipeline—to transport freight. Moreover, the use of other modes would likely entail higher transport costs due to longer transport distances, price, logistics, and accessibility, which could increase overall demand for all users of other modes. The long-term result could be a migration of businesses that can move away from the District to other locations with better truck accessibility and modal options. Truck-based freight deliveries create jobs; 129,500 jobs in the District can be [^416.11]: 416.11 [^p48-417]: 417 [^417.1]: 417.1 [^417.2]: 417.2 [^417.3]: 417.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS traced back to organizations that ship and/or receive freight via truck in Washington, DC. 417.4[^417.4] While trucks are not the main cause of congestion, they are a contributor. Their size and operating characteristics, including being slower to accelerate and to stop, make them less nimble in traffic. In addition, the District has limited curbside loading space, a limited number of alleys (and many of these are too narrow to facilitate access by larger vehicles), and inconsistent availability of on-site loading docks. These factors often result in trucks loading and unloading curbside, creating congestion and mobility issues in the roadway, bike lanes, and sidewalks. 417.5[^417.5] District law sets a maximum weight for trucks by axle group to protect infrastructure. Overweight trucks have a significant negative impact on bridge and roadway pavement life. To assess whether and ensure that the potential effects of overweight vehicles are accounted for, DDOT conducts additional inspections of structures and bridges. Depending on the outcomes of inspections, bridge and structure improvements may be programmed ahead of or outside of normal maintenance cycles, and/or DDOT may put special weight and use restrictions of a structure in place. 417.6[^417.6] Construction-related truck traffic continues to be a concern for District residents. These vehicles frequently have to travel through residential neighborhoods to get to and from construction sites, creating air pollution, noise, and vibration on these streets. Passenger vehicles are also heavy users of these same routes, leading to congestion for both passenger vehicles and trucks. 417.7[^417.7] Although the District’s freight rail network is small in terms of rail infrastructure mileage and the amount of freight currently originating and terminating in the District, it plays a key role in the regional freight network and local and regional rail passenger operations. Over 90[^p49-90] intercity or commuter passenger rail trains operate on the CSX network daily. 417.8[^417.8] The District does not own any railroads but is served by two Class I and one Class III (switching or terminal) railroads, including CSX’s major north-south freight rail line. CSX and Norfolk Southern own, operate, and maintain nearly seven miles of freight rail line and right-of-way in the District and carried approximately 370,000[^370,000] carloads of freight in 2012[^2012]. The two freight rail yards located in the District are Washington Terminal Rail Yard, which is adjacent to Union Station, and the Benning Rail Yard. 417.9[^417.9] Ongoing improvements to the rail freight network will further enhance the importance of the District’s network by providing a key to the double-stack intermodal container freight route from the East Coast to Midwest markets. Although these improvements will not likely result in the District becoming an intermodal hub, they will enhance the operational capabilities of both [^417.4]: 417.4 [^417.5]: 417.5 [^417.6]: 417.6 [^417.7]: 417.7 [^p49-90]: 90 [^417.8]: 417.8 [^370,000]: 370,000 [^2012]: 2012 [^417.9]: 417.9 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS rail freight and passenger operations by removing existing bottlenecks and clearance restrictions, and they will possibly expand rail service to District markets by reducing rail transportation costs. These actions would not only benefit existing or potential rail users, but also result in a reduction of the number of trucks traveling through the region, creating safety and environmental benefits for the area. [^417.10] Continued support for the freight rail projects within the State Rail Plan is needed. The Virginia Avenue Tunnel is a major endeavor for the freight rail network. The project was expanded to include two tracks; this will increase the clearance, allowing for double-stack intermodal trains that can accommodate high-capacity containers. Construction began in 2015 and was completed in 2018. Additional opportunities presented by the presence of freight rail in the District should be explored, including the potential for an intermodal or transload facility. [^417.11] ### Policy T-3.3.1: Balancing Goods Delivery Needs Balance the need for goods delivery with concerns about roadway congestion, hazardous materials exposure, quality of life, and security. Rail and road freight and construction routing should consider and minimize impacts to adjacent neighborhoods, with recognition that many routes historically have impacted communities of color and low-income residents. [^417.12] ### Policy T-3.3.2: Freight Safety Continue to work with the federal government and the rail owners and operators to protect the District’s residents and workforce by working to eliminate the rail shipment of hazardous materials through the District. Continually evaluate truck crash data and address issues as identified. [^417.13] ### Policy T-3.3.3: Rail and Waterways as an Alternative to Trucking Encourage the use of rail for long-distance movement of cargo and continue to expand goods movement strategies to better manage truck traffic within the District. Preserve and enhance rail infrastructure throughout Washington, DC and preserve existing maritime freight infrastructure. [^417.14] ### Policy T-3.3.4: Truck Management Manage truck circulation in the District to balance access and mobility of all users. Goods movement needs to be incorporated into transportation planning to balance the need for fostering economic growth and development with managing congestion, air quality, and safety, which will minimize negative impacts on residential streets. [^417.15] ### Policy T-3.3.5: Enhance Freight Routing Enhance freight routing and preserve key District-wide freight routes. Consider establishing a freight corridor traffic signalization program, [^417.10]: 417.10 [^417.11]: 417.11 [^417.12]: 417.12 [^417.13]: 417.13 [^417.14]: 417.14 [^417.15]: 417.15 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS install weight-in-motion sensors at key locations, further enhance dynamic truck routing, implement truck route signage, improve data collection on truck movements, and conduct a location-aware device-based study of truck movements in the District. 417.16 #### Policy T-3.3.6: Oversized and Overweight Trucks Manage construction and oversize and overweight vehicles in Washington, DC to promote the safety of all users. Fees for oversized and overweight trucks should be assessed to ensure they are offsetting their impact to the District, and construction vehicle permits should be enforced. 417.17 #### Policy T-3.3.7: Truck Routing and Parking Enhance truck route enforcement to encourage the use of appropriate routes, which will minimize travel on local roads. Delivery vehicles should park in suitable locations for loading and unloading and should not block travel lanes, transit stops, crosswalks, or bike lanes. 417.18 ### Action T-3.3.A: Enhance the Loading Zone Program Enhance the loading zone program with policies and programs including automated and more targeted enforcement, complete user data collection, data evaluation to inform enforcement and future program decisions, and dynamic loading zone pricing. Provide freight zones on streets in office districts and expanded curbside space available for loading. 417.19 ### Action T-3.3.B: Freight Trip Generation Study Complete the freight trip generation study and develop an off-peak delivery program. 417.20 ### Action T-3.3.C: Implement Last-Mile Delivery/Pickup Develop a strategy to allow for the implementation of last-mile delivery/pickup using bikes and other small mobility devices. 417.21 ### Action T-3.3.D: Improve Truck Safety Implement a truck safety campaign aimed at pedestrian, cyclists, and truck drivers that focuses on the need to share the road and identifies potential truck conflict locations with bike lanes, transit stops, and streetcars. 417.22 ### Action T-3.3.E: Address Personal Goods Delivery Devices Develop policies to address small goods delivery through autonomous devices on sidewalks to promote the safety of pedestrians on sidewalks as these services are deployed. 417.23 ### Action T-3.3.F: Freight Advisory Committee Establish a freight advisory committee to provide advice on policies related to the movement of goods in the District. This group could help communicate truck information to elected officials and the public. 417.24 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS 4 Traveler information plays a key role in transportation system efficiency, and new technologies provide an increasing number of options for providing timely information to travelers across all modes. <
> High quality and carefully designed wayfinding signs can help orient tourists, Metro riders, and others so they can easily find their intended destinations. ### T-3.4 Traveler Information [^p52-418] Traveler information plays a key role in transportation system efficiency, and new technologies provide an increasing number of options for providing timely information to travelers across all modes. A state-of-the-art traveler information system can enhance transportation quality, safety, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency. [^418.1] For visitors, wayfinding signage—that is, signage that helps travelers reach their destinations—is one of the most important components of the District’s transportation infrastructure. Much of the existing wayfinding signage in the District is effective and appropriate for motorists, but gaps exist in the network of signs. High-quality and carefully designed wayfinding signs for pedestrians can also help orient visitors, transit riders, and others, so they can easily find their intended destinations. [^418.2] #### Policy T-3.4.1: Traveler Information Systems Promote user-friendly, accurate, and timely traveler information systems for highways and transit—such as variable message signs, GPS traffic information, and real-time bus arrival information—to improve traffic flow and customer satisfaction. [^418.3] #### Action T-3.4.A: Transit Directional Signs Establish a joint District, WMATA, and private sector task force to improve and augment pedestrian directional signs and system maps for transit riders, especially at transit station exits and at various locations throughout the District. [^418.4] #### Action T-3.4.B: Regional Efforts Through a regionally coordinated effort, continue to explore and implement travel information options, from the provision of printed and electronic maps and internet-based information to motor coach operators, travel agents, and trucking companies. [^418.5] ### T-3.5 Motor Coach Operations [^p52-419] The District receives approximately 21-25 million visitors to the National Mall each year. These visitors arrive by different transportation means, including personal occupancy vehicles, airplanes, rail, and motor coaches. Motor coaches are the third most used form of transportation by visitors. As many as 1,100 buses per day bring visitors to the National Mall, accounting for over 200,000 motor coaches and eight million visitors annually. This volume makes parking for motor coaches a challenge and creates pollution from idling vehicles. Due to the limited supply of curbside space, only a limited number of areas are available for motor coaches to load and unload passengers or park. In addition, motor coaches are expected to [^p52-418]: 418 [^418.1]: 418.1 [^418.2]: 418.2 [^418.3]: 418.3 [^418.4]: 418.4 [^418.5]: 418.5 [^p52-419]: 419 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS follow the District’s three-minute anti-idling law and obey curbside and traffic restrictions. As a result, motor coaches tend to stop or park on neighborhood streets and circle the blocks near the visitor loading areas to avoid exceeding the limits on idling times. Many tour bus operators remain in the District only long enough to take visitors to major attractions but then leave, resulting in loss of revenues as visitors shop, dine, and spend the night in suburban jurisdictions. There is a need to identify clearly defined parking areas and loading zones for motor coaches. [^419.1] ### T-3.6 Shuttle Bus and Sightseeing Operations [^p53-420] Shuttle bus operators transport employees and organizational members across multiple sites or destinations. Examples include universities that provide shuttle service for students between buildings or different campuses and hospitals that provide shuttle service from hospital campuses to Metrorail or Metrobus stations. [^420.1] There are many shuttle bus service providers. Some are owned by the organization that uses the service, while others may be contracted to provide service to an organization. Since shuttle buses serve different areas. Some may be required to have a permit if they are operating on a public street, and others may not need them if they are operating on private property. This difference creates challenges for curbside management, as some shuttle services use the public curbside without a bus stop permit and others with permits may double-park to load and unload passengers if the permitted loading zone is blocked. [^420.2] Sightseeing operators are similar to shuttle buses in that they provide scheduled service. However, sightseeing operators focus on visitors and serve major attractions, including the National Mall. These routes are traditionally hop on/hop off. Multiple sightseeing operators share stops around the National Mall, where they are supposed to spend no longer than 15 minutes at the curbside for loading and unloading. However, some may stage and layover in the permitted space due to a lack of parking options in areas around the main attractions. This causes other sightseeing providers to load and unload in the street or circle the block until the space becomes available. [^420.3] ### T-3.7 Commuter Bus Operations [^p53-421] Commuter buses provide bus service for workers traveling from Virginia and Maryland into the District. The providers of commuter bus operations include MTA, PRTC, Loudoun County, and Martz. [^421.1] Commuter bus service is focused on the morning and afternoon rush hour peak times. Commuter buses operate on a set schedule and require midday parking, bus staging, and layovers for routes. However, given the high [^419.1]: 419.1 [^p53-420]: 420 [^420.1]: 420.1 [^420.2]: 420.2 [^420.3]: 420.3 [^p53-421]: 421 [^421.1]: 421.1 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS demand at the curbside, finding parking is a challenge for commuter bus operators, leading many to find illegal staging and parking on residential streets. Due to these constraints, some operators make the less economically viable decision of sending their buses back to the home jurisdiction during mid-day and return empty buses to pick up riders during afternoon service. 421.2 ### T-3.8 Intercity Bus Operations [^p54-422] Intercity bus operators provide service for the District to and from New York City, Philadelphia, Richmond, and other locations. Intercity buses operate from the early morning to the late evening, with staging times in between. Many intercity buses are centrally located at the transportation hub, Union Station. The list of specific companies includes Greyhound, Bolt Bus, and Megabus. However, some intercity buses still operate at the curbside in highly congested areas. This presents a challenge as conflicts with other uses at the curbside arise. Passenger safety is a concern at these locations. Business and building owners also have concerns due to buses blocking highly trafficked curb areas while waiting to disembark on their next trip. 422.1 #### Policy T-3.8.1: Motor Coach Facilities Develop carefully planned parking areas, loading zones, and dedicated routes for motor coaches to prevent motor coach parking in residential neighborhoods. Enforce and apply fines and penalties when motor coach parking and route regulations are violated. 422.2 #### Policy T-3.8.2: Commuter Bus Facilities Develop a commuter bus off-street parking facility plan that identifies solutions to the challenge of limited curbside space and eliminates parking in residential neighborhoods. 422.3 #### Policy T-3.8.3: Intercity Bus Relocation Develop a plan for intercity buses to operate at off-street locations, and restrict the permits for intercity bus on-street locations. Enforce and implement fines when intercity bus on-street regulations are violated. 422.4 #### Action T-3.8.A: Motor Coach Management Initiative Implement the recommendations of the DDOT Tour Bus Management Initiative, prepared to ameliorate long-standing problems associated with motor coach parking, roaming, and idling around the District’s major visitor attractions. 422.5 #### Action T-3.8.B: Manage Layover and Staging Zones Maximize the efficiency of existing layover and staging zones. Coordinate with WMATA and District agencies to identify areas of shared use for on-street and off-street layover and staging zones. 422.6 [^p54-422]: 422 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action T-3.8.C: Shuttle and Sightseeing Bus Staging* Develop carefully planned staging zones for shuttle and sightseeing buses to prevent them from double-parking or circling the block, which adds to congestion. Enforce and apply fines and penalties when sightseeing and shuttle bus permit regulations are violated. 422.7[^422.7] *Action T-3.8.D: Motor Coach Off-Street Parking Initiative* Coordinate with District and federal agencies and stakeholders to create a plan to build an off-street bus parking facility for short-term, long-term, and staging needs of all motor coaches. 422.8[^422.8] *Action T-3.8.E: Consolidate Intercity Buses at Union Station* Coordinate with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Railway Administration (FRA), Amtrak and the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation to promote the consolidation of intercity buses in the transportation hub expansion plan. Explore termination of the lease agreement with the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation for bus parking at the Crummell School site in Ivy City to allow for other uses. 422.9[^422.9] # T-4 Safety, Security, and Resiliency 423[^p55-423] Transportation has always played an important role in Washington, DC’s security by providing a means of evacuation, as well as routes for emergency and relief service; and by connecting residents to critical services and essential workers to their job sites. The District must continue to plan for and safeguard its transportation system, protecting its value as a major component of Washington, DC’s urban infrastructure and economy. Transportation safety is also critical not only in the sense of preparing for and responding to major incidents, but also in protecting the lives of residents, workers, and visitors as they travel around the District. All users of the transportation system should have safe access in the District. 423.1[^423.1] ### T-4.1 Emergency Preparedness, Transportation, and Security 424[^p55-424] In light of terrorist attacks, public health emergencies, and major weather events, every major American city has embarked on emergency preparedness and traveler information systems designed to inform citizens how to respond in the event of an emergency. As the nation’s capital, the District considers emergency preparedness a critically important issue. 424.1[^424.1] Should the District face an emergency situation, the transportation system provides the critical means to evacuate residents, workers, and visitors; to support the movement of emergency service response teams; and/or to connect residents to critical services and essential workers to their job sites. Depending on the nature of an incident, persons may need to rely on car, train, bus, bike, and/or walking. It is essential that the District maintain and [^422.7]: 422.7 [^422.8]: 422.8 [^422.9]: 422.9 [^p55-423]: 423 [^423.1]: 423.1 [^p55-424]: 424 [^424.1]: 424.1 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS plan for a well-functioning, coordinated system that can adapt to the needs of an incident. Given the District’s reliance on the regional transportation network in the event of an evacuation, close coordination with partners in Maryland and Virginia and at WMATA would also be needed to respond to the event. 424.2 DDOT is the lead District agency for all regional and federal emergency transportation coordination and activities that affect the District. Another key agency is the Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA), which partners with District agencies, businesses, and communities to help plan for the management of an emergency event. There is also increasing coordination among regional departments of transportation, the federal government, and other agencies, primarily through MWCOG. 424.3 The region has identified 25 corridors radiating from Downtown Washington, DC as emergency event/evacuation routes. Each of the routes extends to the Capital Beltway (I-495) and beyond. Customized roadway signs allow for easy identification of direction; outbound signs direct motorists to I-495 in Maryland and Virginia, and inbound signs show images of monuments. Evacuation routes are also identified by street name signs, which include the red and white District flag. 424.4 If directions are given to evacuate the Central Business District, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, between Rock Creek Park and the U.S. Capitol, serves as the dividing line for routes. None of the evacuation routes cross each other, and no vehicles would be permitted to cross Pennsylvania Avenue. Traffic signals would be timed to move traffic away from the incident area. In addition, police officers would be present at critical intersections on the evacuation routes within the District to expedite the flow of traffic and prevent bottlenecks. Bike trails could also be used by cyclists or pedestrians in the event of an evacuation. 424.5 Although the District is more equipped now than it has been in the past to respond to emergencies, additional planning is needed to better prepare the region’s transportation systems to respond to and rapidly recover from disruptions. The District should not only continue to plan for evacuations at the local level and provide the necessary information to the public, it should also improve coordination with its regional partners and take advantage of new technologies and federal support in preparing for the transportation needs resulting from a wide range of potential emergencies. 424.6 As home to the largest concentration of federal agencies and facilities in the country, the District and the federal governments should continue to coordinate extensively to address the District’s security and mobility needs. Over the past decade, several of the District’s streets have been closed by the federal government to protect the White House and the U.S. Capitol. CITYWIDE ELEMENTS These street closures have disrupted mobility for pedestrians and vehicles, requiring extensive re-routing of Metrobus and vehicular travel through downtown and Capitol Hill. This has led to delays for residents, workers, visitors, and emergency service providers. 424.7[^424.7] *Please refer to the Community Services and Facilities Element for additional policies and actions related to emergency preparedness, and to the Urban Design Element for policies on security and design.* #### Policy T-4.1.1: Balancing Security Measures and Desires for an Open District Balance and mitigate security requirements against daily mobility, efficiency, and quality of life concerns of District residents and visitors, and the potential for negative economic, environmental, and historic impacts. The trade-offs associated with potential street closures or changes to transportation access should be adequately assessed. 424.8[^424.8] #### Policy T-4.1.2: Coordination with the Federal Government Work closely with federal agencies to find alternative security solutions and to avoid street closings to the greatest extent possible. 424.9[^424.9] #### Policy T-4.1.3: Providing Redundancies Provide alternate routes and modes of travel, or redundancies, across the District to promote the security of District residents and visitors and reduce the effects on non-routine incidents. 424.10[^424.10] #### Policy T-4.1.4: Accommodating Evacuation Needs Ensure evacuation planning and implementation considers and addresses issues of race, poverty, disability, and age. 424.11[^424.11] ##### Action T-4.1.A: Pennsylvania Avenue Closure Work with federal agency partners to implement the Presidents Park South project along E Street NW near the White House to provide an excellent public space as well as a key east-west bicycle and pedestrian connection. Use the security requirements for closing the street to vehicles to create a space for bicycles and pedestrians. 424.12[^424.12] ##### Action T-4.1.B: Coordination with the Federal Government Continue to work with the federal government to assess the impacts of security measures on the quality of life of District residents and businesses. 424.13[^424.13] [^424.7]: 424.7 [^424.8]: 424.8 [^424.9]: 424.9 [^424.10]: 424.10 [^424.11]: 424.11 [^424.12]: 424.12 [^424.13]: 424.13 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action T-4.1.C: Emergency Evacuation Plan* Continue to refine an emergency evacuation plan that not only describes evacuation procedures and routes, but also defines the modes of transportation to use in the event that certain modes, such as the Metrorail system, become unavailable. Increase public education and awareness of local emergency management plans and make information on evacuation routes and procedures more accessible and understandable to residents, employees, and visitors. 424.14 ## T-4.2 Safety for All Travelers [^p58-425] The District is committed to a Vision Zero philosophy, with the goal of eliminating fatalities and serious injuries from the transportation network. Under Vision Zero, the network will be designed and operated to support the safe and efficient movement of people and goods, while also taking into account that travelers inevitably make mistakes resulting in crashes. However, there is no need to accept that those crashes will inevitably lead to fatalities. The number of deaths and serious injuries on the District’s transportation network has been steadily decreasing for many years, even as the District’s population grew. In 1995, the District suffered 62 traffic fatalities. In 2005, there were 49[^p58-1], and by 2014, there were 26 traffic fatalities. Unfortunately, the number of fatalities has been increasing in recent years. In 2016, there were 28 traffic fatalities in the District, and in 2017, there were 30 fatalities. This loss of life on District streets is unacceptable. 425.1 ### Policy T-4.2.1: Vision Zero Incorporate the disciplines of engineering, evaluation, law enforcement, and education to achieve the District’s goal of zero transportation-related deaths and serious injuries by 2024. 425.2 *Action T-4.2.A: Vision Zero Action Plan* Implement the strategies recommended in the District’s Vision Zero Action Plan. 425.3 ## T-4.3 Rail Safety [^p58-426] The D.C. Council enacted the Rail Safety and Security Amendment Act of 2016, establishing an Emergency Response and Rail Safety Division. In addition to carrying out emergency response activities, this division would coordinate with the FRA and other federal and state agencies as appropriate to carry out inspection, investigation, enforcement, and surveillance activities for railroads operating in the District. The act also transferred the functions of the State Safety Oversight (SSO) agency, which oversees the safety of the DC Streetcar, from the District’s Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (FEMS) to the Emergency Response and Rail Safety Division. The act established a Railroad Advisory Board to provide consultation to the Mayor, D.C. Council, and District agencies on matters C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S pertaining to the investigation and surveillance of federal railroad safety laws. 426[^.1] #### Policy T-4.3.1: Coordination with the Federal Government The District will work closely with the FRA to obtain the necessary certifications and approvals for the District to be accepted into the FRA’s State Safety Participation Program (SSPP), to guide matters relating to the safety of railroad operations in the District. The District will also work with the FTA to maintain the necessary certifications of an SSO regarding the oversight of the DC Streetcar. 426[^.2] ### T-4.4 Climate Resiliency 427[^] Climate change will have serious impacts on transportation infrastructure as temperatures rise, precipitation rates increase, and sea levels rise. These changes will cause transportation infrastructure to flood more frequently, roads to buckle, rails to bend and warp, and an increased maintenance burden in the District for transportation facilities. These impacts require special consideration in the planning, design, and maintenance of transportation infrastructure. The District has experienced several extreme weather events in recent years, which have caused extensive disruption to the District’s transportation system. 427[^.1] #### Policy T-4.4.1: DDOT Climate Change Adaptation Plan Continue to implement and update the DDOT Climate Change Adaptation Plan so that the District’s transportation network will withstand future climate conditions. DDOT’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan provides the foundation to better understand, anticipate, and prepare transportation assets for changing future conditions. 427[^.2] #### Policy T-4.4.2: Climate-Adaptive and Resilient Transportation Improvements Promote the integration of climate-adaptive, resilient design, and operational and maintenance protocols for transportation systems serving the District. 427[^.3] #### Policy T-4.4.3: Mitigation Measures for Flood-Prone Transportation Facilities Develop, prioritize, and implement flood mitigation measures for existing flood-prone transportation facilities based on vulnerability assessments and consideration of extreme precipitation events and sea level rise. 427[^.4] *Action T-4.4.A: Climate Adaptation Guidelines for Transportation Projects* Develop and implement climate adaptation guidelines while designing transportation projects. The guidelines may include evaluating the effectiveness of stormwater management, urban heat island mitigation, and CITYWIDE ELEMENTS other technical components to better buffer transportation infrastructure from the impacts of climate change. 427[^.5] *Action T-4.4.B: Research Resilient Transportation Design Best Practices* Research and leverage existing best practices from other metropolitan transportation departments as DDOT continues to make future adjustments to its design parameters that incorporate hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation. Consider updating design standards to account for projected extreme temperatures and precipitation. 427[^.6] *Action T-4.4.C: Climate-Ready Evacuation Routes* Identify alternate evacuation routes for roads and bridges identified as vulnerable to flooding and/or sea level rise. 427[^.7] ## T-5 Technology and Innovation 428[^] New transportation technologies have the potential to dramatically change the way people move in cities. As new technologies develop, they will impact people’s transportation decisions, possibly increasing the accessibility of different areas of the District. This change in access will have economic and land use impacts, as areas previously disconnected from the public transportation system are made more accessible. Transportation technology’s effect on the District can be seen through two examples. The first is the historic streetcar systems that operated between 1862 and 1962. The system reinforced and extended the original L’Enfant Plan street grid and supported linear forms of commercial development. The second example features the change in land use patterns with the introduction of Metrorail, which has supported nodal patterns of development and, in some cases, shifted the centers of gravity of neighborhoods subtly away from the former linear corridors. 428[^.1] It is important to leverage new technologies that support the vision of an inclusive District and to enhance safety, mobility, access, and equity in the District for residents, workers, and visitors. New technologies must also be considered through a racial equity lens, recognizing that historically, transportation innovations were connected to displacement and disconnection in communities of color. Consider differences and barriers in how technologies may be adopted by various groups. 428[^.2] ### T-5.1 Autonomous Vehicles 429[^] AVs have the potential to significantly impact transportation and land use patterns over the next 10 to 30 years. These impacts need to be understood to ensure they are well managed, to avoid unintended disruptions, and to provide benefits for District residents, visitors, and workers. 429[^.1] CITYWIDE ELEMENTS The District of Columbia Autonomous Vehicle Act of 2012 authorized operation of AVs on District roadways. While these vehicles are allowed to operate on District roadways, it remains important for the District to continue to support the transportation policies laid out in existing municipal guidance, with the goal of maintaining equitable access to transportation and mobility within the District. moveDC recommends that the District serve as an urban test bed for AVs through policy and legal support. In addition, the Vision Zero Action Plan calls for the evaluation of ways to improve safety through data integration among AVs, District-wide traffic signals, and other infrastructure. 429.2 AVs have the potential to improve safety, efficiency, and mobility and to potentially reduce the need for on- and off-street parking. AVs raise several important issues about the future of transportation, including: * Potential impact on VMT; * Future demand for curbside access; * Distance and frequency of trips made; * Character of future transit ridership; and * Nature of future mobility, including for persons with disabilities. 429.3 The degree to which AVs are personally owned or are operated as fleet vehicles will have major ramifications for the transportation system. Sharing AVs for trips has the potential to increase the efficiency of the transportation network, while a system that allows increases in vehicle trips that serve only one—or zero—passengers could greatly exacerbate congestion. 429.4 As the proliferation of autonomous vehicles increases and the underlying technology becomes more sophisticated, understanding the intended and unintended impacts of automation on land use, transportation patterns, safety, racial equity, environmental sustainability, cybersecurity, and the regional and national economy will be critical to avoiding negative impacts to District residents. The District also has an opportunity to harness the potential positive impacts of autonomous vehicles through a transparent, adaptable, and comprehensive policy approach. 429.5 ### Policy T-5.1.1: AVs and Safety Autonomous vehicles operating within the District should account for human error and unpredictability to support the Vision Zero goal of reducing, and ultimately eliminating, serious injuries and ### Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) With AV technology, vehicles need varying levels of driver engagement to safely navigate a roadway. A scale system has been created by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to understand the sophistication of the technology and the necessary level of driver engagement. * *Level 0—No Automation:* Zero autonomy; the driver performs all driving tasks. * *Level 1—Driver Assistance:* Vehicle is controlled by the driver, but some driving assistance features may be included in the vehicle design. * *Level 2—Partial Automation:* Vehicle has combined automated functions, such as acceleration and steering, but the driver must remain engaged with the driving task and monitor the environment at all times. * *Level 3—Conditional Automation:* Driver is a necessity but is not required to monitor the environment. The driver must be ready to take control of the vehicle at all times, with notice. * *Level 4—High Automation:* The vehicle is capable of performing all driving functions under certain conditions. The driver may have the option to control the vehicle. * *Level 5—Full Automation:* The vehicle is capable of performing all driving functions under all conditions. The driver may have the option to control the vehicle. 429.1a fatalities. Use street design principles and speed limitations to promote the safety of all roadway users, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable users. 429.6[^429.6] #### Policy T-5.1.2: Shared-Use AVs Incentivize the shared use of AVs. The District currently hosts many shared-use services, such as public transit, informal carpooling, carsharing, ride hailing, and bikeshare. Shared AVs should complement and integrate with these existing services. 429.7[^429.7] #### Policy T-5.1.3: Traffic Congestion and VMT Minimize future increases in VMT and congestion created by AVs. 429.8[^429.8] #### Policy T-5.1.4: Equitable Access Adoption of autonomous vehicles in the District should be equitable. Autonomous vehicle fleet services should be made accessible and available to all users throughout the District. 429.9[^429.9] #### Policy T-5.1.5: Person Throughput Continue to monitor the person-carrying capacity of vehicle lanes and prioritize modes that carry the most people per lane mile. As AVs begin to operate on District roadways, travel lanes may face increased pressure. AVs should complement and not displace other sustainable and healthy modes of transportation, such as walking and cycling. 429.10[^429.10] #### Policy T-5.1.6: AV Impacts Monitor, evaluate, and address, as appropriate, the short- and long-term effects that AVs may have on mobility and transportation networks; infrastructure, including the electrical grid, roadways, and data networks; goods movement; economic development; the design of the built environment; and configuration of land uses. 429.11[^429.11] ### Action T-5.1.A: AV Working Group The Autonomous Vehicle Working Group—an interagency working group comprised of agencies focused on transportation, rights of persons with disabilities, environmental issues, and public safety—should continue to meet and monitor AVs and their impact on the District. The group should work to develop policy and regulatory guidance to ensure AVs enhance the District [^429.6]: 429.6 [^429.7]: 429.7 [^429.8]: 429.8 [^429.9]: 429.9 [^429.10]: 429.10 [^429.11]: 429.11 by improving safety, efficiency, equity, and sustainability while minimizing negative impacts on residents, workers, and visitors. 429.12[^429.12] *Action T-5.1.B: Continued Research* Examine and monitor the latest research on AVs to inform policy development. Review publications from universities, think tanks, foundations, and other jurisdictions to better understand the potential implications in the District. Research should be comprehensive and focus on direct impacts on the transportation network and the indirect impacts on land use, as well as economic and job market disruption, public revenue, environmental sustainability, and social and racial equity. 429.13[^429.13] *Action T-5.1.C: Data Sharing* Encourage AV manufacturers and operators to share data to support responsive research efforts and inform public policy making. Data sharing will need to have a level of accuracy and detail for specific research needs and respect the privacy of individuals. 429.14[^429.14] *Action T-5.1.D: Enhance Access to Transit* Explore strategies to make autonomous vehicles complement rather than replace existing transit service, such as through dedicated curbside access, transit alternatives for seniors and people with disabilities, and shared mobility solutions to provide first-mile/last-mile connections. 429.15[^429.15] *Action T-5.1.E: Parking and Curbside Access* Monitor the shifts that AVs will create in the use of parking facilities and curbside lanes. Explore regulatory and technological tools for dynamically adapting to these shifts in usage, to allow for and incentivize more efficient and productive uses of these urban spaces. 429.16[^429.16] ### T-5.2 Electric Vehicles 430[^p63-430] EVs have the potential to minimize the negative environmental impacts associated with current internal combustion engine vehicles. EVs create fewer emissions, including fewer greenhouse gas emissions, which make them an important part of achieving the region’s air quality goals. They are also quieter than traditional vehicles. 430.1[^430.1] Charging infrastructure is an important component in the success of EV deployment. The production of electricity that serves the District has fewer greenhouse emissions than traditional combustion engines. 430.2[^430.2] EVs have the potential to minimize the negative environmental impacts associated with current internal combustion engine vehicles. EVs create fewer emissions, including fewer greenhouse gas emissions, which make them an important part of achieving the region’s air quality goals. [^429.12]: 429.12 [^429.13]: 429.13 [^429.14]: 429.14 [^429.15]: 429.15 [^429.16]: 429.16 [^p63-430]: 430 [^430.1]: 430.1 [^430.2]: 430.2 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy T-5.2.1: Deployment of EVs Support the deployment of EVs in place of traditional gasoline-powered vehicles to help the District achieve its sustainability goals. 430.3[^430.3] #### Policy T-5.2.2: Charging Infrastructure Encourage early deployment of EV charging stations at no charge in appropriate, publicly accessible locations across the District to serve existing neighborhoods. Consider the integration of EV charging stations in new and existing residential and commercial developments. Consideration should also be given to locations where EV charging stations can be retrofitted into parking garages. As EVs become more popular, there will be increased demand for on-street charging stations, which will need to be balanced with other curbside needs and uses. 430.4[^430.4] #### Policy T-5.2.3: EV Transit Require the use of EVs for the DC Circulator, WMATA buses, and, if available, trucks used by DPW. The implementation of a fully electric fleet will reduce tailpipe emissions and reduce noise pollution in neighborhoods. WMATA must develop a timeline for bus fleet conversion to EVs that enables the District to meet its greenhouse emission reduction targets and promotes environmental justice by reducing diesel emissions in predominantly Black and Brown neighborhoods. 430.5[^430.5] #### Action T-5.2.A: Expand Charging Infrastructure Install publicly accessible electric charging stations throughout the District to expand EV infrastructure and lead the market, in keeping with demand for and encouraging the conversion to EVs. 430.6[^430.6] #### Action T-5.2.B: EV Supply Equipment Encourage the siting of EV supply equipment in curbside public space, multi-dwelling unit garages, commercial facilities and residential areas, where appropriate. 430.7[^430.7] [^430.3]: 430.3 [^430.4]: 430.4 [^430.5]: 430.5 [^430.6]: 430.6 [^430.7]: 430.7 --- ## Housing — Chapter 5, Housing - Source: https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/05_Housing.pdf - Pages: 74 - Covers: housing - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. # Chapter 5 # Housing # Element # CHAPTER 5: HOUSING <
> # Housing Element ## Overview [^p3-500] **THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESCRIBES THE** importance of housing to neighborhood quality in Washington, DC and the importance of providing housing opportunities for all segments of the population throughout Washington, DC. [^500.1] The critical housing issues facing Washington, DC are addressed in this element. These include: * Ensuring housing affordability across all incomes and household sizes; * Furthering fair housing opportunities, especially in high-cost areas; * Fostering housing production to improve affordability; * Preserving existing affordable housing; * Promoting more housing proximate to transit and linking new housing to transit; * Restoring or demolishing vacant or underused properties; * Conserving existing housing stock; * Maintaining healthy homes for residents; * Promoting homeownership; * Ending homelessness; and * Providing housing integrated with supportive services for older adults, vulnerable populations and residents with disabilities. [^500.2] In 2006, the Comprehensive Plan identified most of these issues. The District has implemented many actions in response, including: * Funding the Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF) with $100 million per year for affordable housing; * Applying Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) requirements to a variety of residential uses, including new market rate buildings, row house conversions, penthouse habitable space, and the prioritizing proffers of additional affordable housing through Planned Unit Developments (PUDs); * Requiring District-owned land sold for housing to include 20 to 30 percent of the units as affordable; * Launching the Housing Preservation Trust Fund and leveraging private sector dollars to preserve expiring affordability; * Reviewing and comprehensively updating the zoning regulations to encourage accessory dwelling units, reduce parking requirements, and encourage residential development; * Encouraging the overall production of housing, particularly in the Central Washington Planning Area, that has resulted in twice the annual rate of production as before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted; and * Moving families experiencing homelessness out of DC General Hospital and into short-term family housing units across the District. [^500.3] [^p3-500]: 500 [^500.1]: 500.1 [^500.2]: 500.2 [^500.3]: 500.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS However, as Washington, DC remains attractive to and retains higher-income households, rising demand and competition has and will put upward pressure on rents and a greater number of lower-income households will experience greater pressure from rising housing costs, leading to residents leaving or bearing a housing burden. Thus, greater public action is needed to fulfill the vision of an inclusive District. 500.4[^p4-1] Housing in the District must also be understood through a racial equity lens. Forty-nine percent of white households are owner-occupied, while only 35 percent of Black and 30 percent of Latino households are owner-occupied, and the median value of Black-owned homes is less than that of white homeowners. Black and Hispanic households have the greatest rent burdens, at 35 and 39 percent. These gaps are a result of historic, systemic practices such as redlining, racial covenants, and predatory lending that limited access to housing, restricted wealth building opportunities for communities of color, and created highly segregated development patterns. Even while the District has grown in population, the District’s low-income residents have experienced displacement pressures. Of adults experiencing homelessness, 86 percent are Black, while only 47 percent of District residents are Black. While this element often uses income to describe groups and provides overall averages, it is critical to disaggregate data to understand housing considerations experienced by different race, age, and gender groups, and to consider and implement housing policies and actions in this racial equity context to address historic gaps and current challenges. 500.5[^p4-2] Housing issues affect every facet of the Comprehensive Plan. They influence land use and density decisions, shape infrastructure and community service needs, determine transportation demand, and even drive employment strategies for District residents. At the most basic level, it is the availability of safe, decent, affordable housing across all neighborhoods that will determine whether the District’s vision for an inclusive District will be realized. The type of housing constructed or preserved, the cost of that housing, and where it is built will influence whether the District can attract and retain families with children, maintain neighborhood diversity, improve health and educational outcomes, and provide economic opportunity for all. 500.6a[^p4-3] Section 224 of the Framework Element of the Comprehensive Plan explains the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Generalized Policy Map (GPM), and zoning. By District Code, the “Zoning maps and regulations, and amendments thereto, shall not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan . . .” The Zoning Commission considers the text, policies, and maps in reviewing zoning designations. Section 227 in the Framework Element includes the definitions for the categories used on the Future Land Use Map, such as Low Density Commercial or Medium Density Residential. These categories are not zoning but are used by the Zoning Commission in reviewing various zoning requests. Each land use category definition identifies a representative zoning [^p4-1]: 500.4 [^p4-2]: 500.5 [^p4-3]: 500.6a district appropriate to this designation, and states that other zoning districts may apply. The Comprehensive Plan policies and FLUM play an important role in guiding future growth, including housing. 500.6b ### What is the Difference Between Housing Affordability and Affordable Housing? Housing affordability is a broad measure of whether or not housing is affordable to a range of households. Households that pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing are considered to be burdened by housing costs, while those who pay more than 50 percent are severely burdened. Therefore, housing affordability is the extent to which a broad range of households pay less than 30 percent of their income on housing. An important part of affordability are neighborhood assets that help keep transportation costs low, such as reducing the need for car ownership and use. 500.7a Broad affordability is a function of the overall market supply being able to meet rising demand. New supply can improve affordability by letting new residents move to Washington, DC without taking an existing unit, and by allowing existing residents to trade up, thereby freeing up an existing unit for someone else to occupy. For instance, 40 percent of new units become occupied by households moving from outside the District, while 51 percent are occupied by households moving from within the District, and the remainder are households mixed with both District and non-District residents. 500.7b Affordable housing in the Comprehensive Plan is defined as housing in which occupancy is limited to households earning 80 percent or less of the median family income (MFI) of an area as annually determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (References to deeply affordable housing throughout this element refer to units available to households earning 40 percent or less of the MFI.) HUD standards are used by many federal programs that fund affordable housing. The price of this housing is maintained at a level below what the free market would demand using restrictive deeds and covenants and financed by grants, mortgage subsidies, vouchers, tax credits, or through land use tools. The maximum monthly cost to a household of affordable housing is limited to 30 percent of the targeted household’s income limit (which varies according to the number of people in the household). Different affordable housing programs are benchmarked, or targeted, to specific levels of median family income (MFI). Affordable housing developments often set prices near or at the top of their targets, while eligibility is open to households across their range of income targets. This can lead to residents of affordable housing having monthly housing costs that, although subsidized, are higher than 30 percent of their actual income. Public housing, vouchers, and a few small federal programs are exceptions in which each household’s monthly housing cost is based on their specific income. The benchmarked, or targeted, incomes for the Washington metropolitan area in 2017 are shown in Figure 5.1 below. The figure shows the major programs for affordable housing and the incomes eligible for each. In 2017, the MFI for a family of four was $110,300[^p5-1]. For the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, the terms extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate- income correspond to up to 30 percent, 50 percent, 80 percent, and 120 percent of the MFI, respectively. [^p5-1]: 500.7a It is important to note that use of a regional MFI skews high for the District. In 2017, for example, the actual median household income, rather than MFI adjusted by family size, was $82,372 in the District and $99,669 for the DC metropolitan area. Affordability in the District is further skewed given the District’s comparatively higher market rate housing costs. The 2017 median value for homes in the District is $607,00 compared to $424,000 for the metropolitan area. Further, the regional MFI does not disaggregate and consider information by race, an important consideration given the income gap for communities of color in the District, with the MFI for Black households in the District less than the MFI for White households. The 2017 median income for Black families in the District is $51,114 (less than 50 percent of the MFI), while it is $190,957 for white families in the District. Proportionately, this means that more Black families are likely to fall within the extremely low and very low-income categories, as shown in Figure 5.1, below. Fewer Black households will be able to afford housing in the low- or moderate-income categories. 500.7c Example: If a single mother of two earned $15.50 per hour, her annual income would be approximately $32,200 and fall within the extremely low-income category. If she spends 30 percent of her income on housing, she could afford to pay only $886 per month on housing. Finding decent housing or any housing at this price range is a challenge in Washington, DC. 500.7d By contrast, market rate housing is defined as housing with rents or sales prices that are allowed to change with market conditions, including increased demand. Some market rate housing may be naturally occurring affordable housing that moderate and some low-income households can afford. However, the supply of naturally occurring affordable units can be unstable due to potential pressure from both sides. With too little demand, decreasing rents are insufficient to cover maintenance and the units fall into a state of disrepair and become vacant and underused. With too much demand, the units are rehabbed into higher cost units. Rent-controlled apartments are counted as market rate units because there are no occupancy restrictions. The District’s rent control law stipulates that, under usual circumstances, rents on market rate apartments built prior to 1975 may rise only as fast as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for older adults and tenants with disabilities and the CPI plus two percent for everyone else. 500.7e ** Regional MFI is used rather than the District’s median income because it is the federal government benchmark commonly used to qualify for funding subsidies. 500.7f Figure 5.1 ### Sample of Housing Programs, 2017 Income Limits and Main Household Targets [^500.8] | Income Definition | Extremely | Very | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | Low | | | Moderate | | Household Size | | | Percent of Median Family Income | | | | | | 30% | 50% | 60% | 80% | 100% | 120% | | 1 | $ 23,150 | $ 38,600 | $ 46,350 | $ 61,750 | $ 77,200 | $ 92,650 | | 2 | $ 26,450 | $ 44,100 | $ 52,950 | $ 70,600 | $ 88,250 | $ 105,900 | | 3 | $ 29,800 | $ 49,650 | $ 59,550 | $ 79,400 | $ 99,250 | $ 119,100 | | 4 | $ 33,100 | $ 55,150 | $ 66,200 | $ 88,250 | $ 110,300 | $ 132,350 | | | | | | | Historic Home Grant Program | | | | | | Home Purchase Assistance Program | | | | | | HOME, CDBG* | | | | | | | | Housing Production Trust Fund | Inclusionary Zoning | | | | | | | Low-Income Housing Tax Credits | | | | | | | | Public Housing | | | | | | *\* HOME and CDBG 80% MFI Income Limits are capped by the Nation’s Median Family Income, which currently approximates 65% of the area’s MFI.* Washington, DC’s housing stock is varied in type and size, with developments since 2006 shifting the makeup of the District’s housing. Figure 5.2 shows the number of units by type, year built, size, and vacancy rate and how these have changed over 17 years. The figure shows that owner/renter rates have fluctuated. In addition, Figure 5.2 shows that, despite a modest increase in the number of detached/attached single-family homes, which represent 75 percent of large units (three or more bedrooms), a shift toward multi-family units has been consistent. The shift is also visible in Figure 5.3 New Housing Units Authorized: 2000-2017. Washington, DC’s housing stock is becoming both older and newer as pre-1939 buildings are being preserved and remodeled to have more units while post-World War II buildings are more often torn down and the sites redeveloped to add new, modern apartment buildings. Of the 281,000 occupied housing units in 2017, 42 percent were owner-occupied, and 58 percent were renter occupied. [^500.8]: 500.8 Thirty-seven percent of the housing units in the District are single-family units, and over 34 percent of the housing stock was built before 1940.[^500.9] ### Figure 5.2: District’s Housing Stock, 2000, 2010, and 2017[^500.10] | | 2000 | 2010* | 2017* | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Total Housing Units | 274,845 | 296,836 | 314,843 | | Occupied Housing Units | 248,338 | 252,388 | 281,475 | | Owner-Occupied | 41% | 43% | 42% | | Renter-Occupied | 59% | 57% | 58% | | Total Vacancy | 10% | 15% | 11% | | Homeowner Vacancy † | 2% | 3% | 2% | | Rental Vacancy † | 11% | 10% | 6% | | Type | 2000 | 2010* | 2017* | | Single-Family Detached | 13% | 12% | 13 | | Row Houses | 27% | 25 | 24% | | 2-4 units | 11% | 10% | 9% | | 5+ units | 49% | 52 | 5 | | Housing by Year of Construction | 2000 | 2010* | 2017* | | 2010- | - | - | 7% | | 2000-2009 | - | 8% | 8% | | 1990-1999 | 3% | 3% | 3% | | 1980-1989 | 5% | 4% | 5% | | 1960-1979 | 24% | 19% | 21 | | 1940-1959 | 34% | 31% | 23% | | 1939 or earlier | 35% | 34% | 34% | | | 100% | 100% | 100% | Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2006, the increase in housing demand and costs has been ongoing, driven by a national recession and recovery, demographic shifts, low interest rates, regional economic growth, falling crime rates, renewed confidence in District government, and improvements in public services. Rising costs have accelerated since the recovery began in 2010, with the median sales price of single-family homes increasing 7.3 percent per year, condominiums increasing 2.8 percent per year[^p8-i], and average rents increasing 2.9 percent per year between 2000 and 2017.[^p8-ii] Part of the increase is attributable to declining interest rates, which went from eight percent to below four percent between 2000 and 2017. Declining interest rates enabled a 37 percent increase in home buying purchasing power and contributed to rising prices.[^p8-iii] The increase in demand has propelled an increase in housing costs, affecting both renters and homeowners but raising homeowners’ value. With higher prices came greater down payment and mortgage requirements, making [^500.9]: text [^500.10]: text [^p8-i]: text [^p8-ii]: text [^p8-iii]: text it more difficult for renters to transition to homeownership. Given income and wealth disparities, and a higher percentage of renter households, housing affordability is increasingly difficult for communities of color. 500.11 The increase in demand has also resulted in a significant increase in the production of housing that has only accelerated since the recession ended in 2009. Figure 5.3 shows the recent trends in housing units issued permits. The figure shows that average annual production of housing for the years after the national recession is more than double (4,483 units per year from 2011-2017) the average production in the District prior to the recession (1,991 units per year from 2002-2007). There is evidence that this new production has slowed the rising costs of renting or owning multi-family units. 500.12 Even more dramatic has been the volatility of single-family home values. Between 2000 and 2005, the median sales price for a single-family home in ### Figure 5.3: New Housing Units Authorized: 2000-2017[^500.13] <
> Source: U.S. Census, DC Office of Planning (OP) the District rose 174 percent, from $178,250 to $489,000. However, prices then dropped 23 percent in just two years between 2007 and 2009 due to the national financial collapse, causing many homeowners to lose equity in their most important investment. Prices since 2010 have started to rise rapidly again at about 7.3 percent per year. Condominiums and cooperatives—once considered starter homes for first-time buyers—have also increased, but more modestly as production expanded the competitive supply. Figure 5.4 shows that the median sales price of condominiums rose sharply from $138,000 in 2000 to $377,950 in 2005. Condominium prices then stayed [^500.13]: Source: U.S. Census, DC Office of Planning (OP) CITYWIDE ELEMENTS mostly flat until 2010, when they started to rise at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year.[^p10-iv] 500.14 As prices have risen, the percentage of residents able to comfortably afford the median priced home or apartment has dropped. In 2001, 34 percent of the District’s for-sale housing would have been affordable to a family supported by a full-time schoolteacher. By 2004, that figure had dropped to just 16 percent. By 2017, the percentage of homes in the District that a full-time schoolteacher could afford had partially recovered to 19 percent.[^p10-v] This was due to a variety of factors, including higher wages, decreasing interest rates, the drop in values after 2007, and the increasing availability of condominiums that are less expensive than single-family homes. Nevertheless, the tightening availability of moderately priced housing is hindering the District’s ability to retain and attract moderate- income households. 500.15 Figure 5.4 shows the change in housing value and purchasing power from 2000 to 2017. The figure illustrates how median sales prices of single-family and cooperative/condominium homes have changed in relation to changes in the purchasing power[^p10-vi] of married-couple families and non-family households. It shows that sales prices of single-family homes, while volatile, have tracked the purchasing power of married-couple families, whose incomes grew 3.9 percent per year since 2006, but whose purchasing power increased 7.0 percent per year as interest rates decreased. Over the same time, married couples in the District grew by over 14,600 new households, or just under half of all new households since 2006. 500.16 <
> [^p10-iv]: iv [^p10-v]: v [^p10-vi]: vi CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Rents have also risen, making it more difficult for many to afford to live in the District. Between 2006 and 2017, at 3.4 percent per year, rents in Washington, DC rose faster than the MFI of the region, which grew by only 1.8 percent per year. Much of the increase in rents was due to new amenity-rich buildings that attracted higher income households to the District. However, even rents in buildings built prior to 2006 rose at a rate of 2.7 percent per year.[^p11-vii] As a result, between 2006 and 2017, nearly 18,300 fewer affordable units were available to households earning equal to or less than 60 percent of the MFI (See Figure 5.10b Change in Supply of Rental Units by Affordability). There are many reasons in addition to rising rents for the overall reduction in the number of lower cost units, including demolition of older buildings and conversion to condominiums. 500.18 The rising costs have continued a crisis of affordability, particularly for the District’s lowest-income residents. Over 20 percent (56,700) of all households in 2017 were severely burdened by housing costs, and another 16 percent (44,600) of households were burdened. Residents must set aside a growing share of their earnings for housing and utilities, leaving less disposable income for health care, transportation, food, other basic needs, and the ability to set aside savings to prepare for the future. The greatest share of burdened and severely burdened households are the 39,500 rental households earning less than 30 percent of the MFI.[^viii] The market has also become more segmented, with dwindling housing choices for working families and the middle class in general. Expanded housing options for lower- and middle-income households have become limited, and the opportunity for many residents to build individual wealth through homeownership has become more difficult. Racial representation differs across income groups, and communities of color are disproportionately impacted by increasing housing costs and diminishing supply of affordable options. The District’s Black and Hispanic households experience higher levels of rent burden that increase the likelihood of displacement. 500.19 For existing residents who were already homeowners, the price fluctuations represented a source of wealth as their homes appreciated in value but also a source of risk as some lost significant equity in their family’s single largest investment, which could help them put their kids through college or retire in relative comfort. The strength of the District’s housing market has also created opportunities to solve some of the very problems it is creating. The recent boom has raised real estate values, incomes, and sales, generating millions of dollars in new revenues for housing programs through deed and recordation taxes dedicated to the District’s HPTF. The pending availability of several large sites for redevelopment creates housing construction opportunities that did not exist five or 10 years ago. 500.20 [^p11-vii]: text [^viii]: The CITYWIDE ELEMENTS The IZ Program, which requires most new residential buildings of 10 units or more to set aside between eight and 12.5 percent of the project toward affordable units, has now delivered almost 600 affordable units as of Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, with another 800 expected over the next several years, at a pace of close to 200 affordable units per year. The program is particularly beneficial for two reasons. First, it retains the affordable units for the life of the project; second, it produces units in high-amenity, high-cost neighborhoods, where land prices make it very expensive to financially subsidize affordable housing. An expanded IZ program that would encourage additional affordable housing and extend program applicability is under consideration. 500.21 Housing is a regional market that provides a wide array of choices that vary by location, size, building type and age, accessibility, and other factors. The difficulty in expanding the supply of moderately priced housing across the region will continue to create a market dynamic where higher-income households drive the cost of housing. Housing costs within the District are among the highest in the region and reflect the premium placed on being close to the region’s core. Allowing all District residents to have the choice to secure housing in their communities is a growing challenge as redevelopment and highly competitive offerings are readily available in surrounding jurisdictions. 500.22 Moderating the cost of housing and expanding opportunities will require a regional effort. It will take sustained multi-jurisdictional coordination and partnerships, such as an analysis of the regional impediments to fair housing and other approaches, to increase the supply of housing and better meet demand at all incomes. For instance, it will be difficult to improve affordability in the District, even though the pace of Washington, DC’s housing production doubled after the recession, when production across the rest of the region is down 38 percent.[^p12-ix] 500.23 [^p12-ix]: ix CITYWIDE ELEMENTS While housing is a regional market, it is also a very personal choice tied to family, community, and the unique identity shared by residents living in Washington, DC. The fact that many residents place a priority on maintaining their identity as Washingtonians partially explains why 71 percent of the District’s residents moving within the region stay within Washington, DC. The rate of retention is actually the highest for extremely low-income households, with 77 percent staying in the District. This is due in part to Washington DC’s investment in public transit and affordable housing, keeping housing and transportation costs low relative to the rest of the region. However, the same migration data suggests that lower-income households tend to move to Wards 7 and 8, where 90 percent of residents are Black. Migration data must also be considered in the context of race. In addition, the District is experiencing difficulty in retaining moderate-income households earning between 80 and 100 percent of the MFI, with only 60 percent of them choosing to stay in Washington, DC.[^p13-x] 500.24 On a neighborhood level, the recent boom in housing demand has challenged the District’s ability to enable lower-income residents to stay in their neighborhood and grow inclusive and racially and economically diverse communities. Approximately 60 percent of those moving to Wards 7 and 8 are very low-income households, while only 17 percent of those moving to Ward 3 are very low- income.[^p13-xi] The District is increasing the rate of developing new and preserving existing affordable housing, with approximately 1,700 affordable units delivered per year since 2015.[^p13-xii] While some of this production is occurring in the very neighborhoods where such housing is already concentrated, changes in the way investment decisions are being made, such as preferences for projects in high-cost areas are shifting production to higher-cost neighborhoods, where there is less affordable housing. A housing needs assessment conducted by the Urban Institute for the District in 2015 suggests that more affordable housing is needed District-wide, especially in high-cost areas and for those households earning less than 30 percent of the MFI. 500.25 Map 5.1 illustrates the location of affordable housing projects in the District, overlaid on a map that characterizes neighborhoods by an index of housing costs versus neighborhoods that are Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP), as defined by HUD. With the exception of a few projects, there is very little affordable housing built in neighborhoods with high housing costs. If left unchecked, these patterns will continue to concentrate lower-income residents in some neighborhoods and find them scarce in others. 500.26 [^p13-x]: text [^p13-xi]: text [^p13-xii]: text CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Map 5.1: ### Affordable Housing Projects by Neighborhood ### Index of Housing Costs and R/ECAP [^500.27] <
> Source: DHCD, HUD, HousingInsights.org [^500.27]: 500.27 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S While the market for housing has been robust since 2010, there is no guarantee this trend will continue indefinitely. The lessons from the financial mortgage collapse of 2007 suggest that softer demand due to rising interest rates or other risks could test the resiliency of Washington, DC’s housing market. Measures to increase affordable housing must be mindful to account for market dynamics and the burden placed on the private sector so that forward momentum can be sustained. This may require additional bold steps by District government, such as the recent increased allocation of funding in 2015 to the HPTF from deed recordation and transfer taxes and other sources. 500.28 One of the critical issues facing Washington, DC is how to retain and create more housing units that are large enough for families with children. In 2006, 21 percent of District households were composed of families with children. By 2017, households with children had fallen to below 20 percent because they experience difficulty finding units they can afford. This percentage is substantially lower than the 33 percent rate for the region and 31 percent rate for the nation. However, other cities, such as San Francisco, New York, and Boston, also experienced declines in the percentage of households with children since 2006. 500.29 Family households with children need larger housing units with more bedrooms. Of the existing housing stock, only 34 percent of the units have three bedrooms or more, which is a slight decline from 2006, when 35 percent of units had three or more bedrooms. Eighty-nine percent of recent new construction has been apartments, of which only two percent had three or more bedrooms.[^xiii] Of new condominium units built since 2006, less than 10 percent had three or more bedrooms.[^p15-xiv] Because the vast majority of Washington, DC’s capacity for growth is in multi-family development, the District will need to look to apartment buildings to add larger family-sized units. 500.30 Many residents of Washington, DC have a strong desire to stay, whether they have recently moved here or their family has lived in Washington, DC for multiple generations. As touched upon in the Framework Element, Washington, DC experienced a tremendous increase in the number of younger adults between the ages of 20 and 39 years since 2006. This has led to an increase in children between the ages 0 and 14 years, and young adults are finding their housing needs change as they start new families. The increase in young children is an early indication of their parents’ desire and intention to stay in Washington, DC. At the same time, the District is also expecting an increase in older residents. A broad retention strategy is needed for these new and existing families and the overlapping housing needs of older adults to maintain the health and equity of the District. 500.31 The availability of single-family housing and housing with more rooms are two factors that are positively correlated with retaining family households. [^xiii]: Source: CoStar, 2019 [^p15-xiv]: Source: Delta Associates, 2019 other factors are also important, including affordability, crime, childcare, parks, and school quality. 500.32 Who is moving in and out of the District? Figure 5.5 shows the demographics of migration in and out of the District. It shows that, in 2017, nine percent (65,522) of the District’s population moved into Washington, DC that year. Out-movers during the same year numbered 60,873. During the same period, in-movers were less likely than out-movers to be families with children, Black, or homeowners and more likely to be low-income. While this tells a District-wide story, within various neighborhoods affordability issues are reshaping neighborhood demographics; for example, neighborhoods in Southwest Washington have seen extensive new development that attracted younger, more affluent, and whiter residents, while losing both residents of color and lower-income residents. 500.33 ### Figure 5.5: Migration in and out of the District, 2017[^500.34] | | Moving Out | | In-Movers | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Total | Total | Another State | Abroad | | Number of people | 60,873 | 65,522 | 54,722 | 10,800 | | In Poverty | 7,150 | 10,656 | 8,440 | 2,216 | | White | 32,682 | 39,014 | 32,158 | 6,856 | | Black | 19,909 | 17,063 | 15,797 | 1,266 | | Asian/Pacific Islander/Other | 6,225 | 6,787 | 4,662 | 2,125 | | Two or More Races | 1,925 | 2,490 | 2,025 | 465 | | Hispanic | 6,384 | 5,975 | 4,227 | 1,748 | | Age 1-4 years | 2,996 | 1,522 | 1,115 | 407 | | Age 5-17 years | 4,592 | 2,913 | 2,044 | 869 | | Age 18-29 years | 24,554 | 37,819 | 24,554 | 4,709 | | Age 30-39 years | 15,412 | 11,812 | 9,438 | 2,374 | | Homeowners | 19,060 | 11,103 | 8,355 | 2,748 | | Renters | 35,797 | 38,822 | 32,208 | 6,614 | Source: U.S. Census ACS 2017, OP [^500.32]: other factors are also important, including affordability, crime, childcare, parks, and school quality. [^500.33]: While this tells a District-wide story, within various neighborhoods affordability issues are reshaping neighborhood demographics; for example, neighborhoods in Southwest Washington have seen extensive new development that attracted younger, more affluent, and whiter residents, while losing both residents of color and lower-income residents. [^500.34]: Figure 5.5: Migration in and out of the District, 2017 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Overall, key indicators suggest that demand for housing will remain strong in the District. However, it is important to recognize that events, such as the 2020 public health emergency, may change this outlook. Still, indicators including the historically strong employment market, improving schools, and a walkable urban lifestyle that is attractive to a new generation of residents will likely continue to drive housing demand. The increase in young children (zero-14 years) is an early indication of their parents’ desire and intention to stay in the District. Retaining new and existing families is important to Washington, DC’s vibrancy and health. 500.35 In order to meet this demand, it will be critical to continue, and support, the overall production of both market rate and affordable housing. Without new development and an increased supply of these units, rising costs caused by these demand pressures will increasingly restrict the types of households who can afford to live in Washington, DC. New production will take the pressure off the existing housing supply and allow it to serve a greater range of household incomes. 500.36 This Housing Element seeks to address the challenges of rising costs and other housing needs through its policies and actions focused on the production of new market rate and affordable housing and the preservation of existing affordable housing. It is organized into four major sections. The first addresses housing production, including both market rate and affordable housing. The second addresses housing preservation, focusing particularly on anti-displacement strategies and housing maintenance. The third section addresses homeownership and fair housing laws. The final section covers the needs of those experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, older adults, and others who are not adequately served by the private market. 500.38[^p17-1] # Housing Goal 501 The overarching goal for housing is to provide a safe, decent, healthy,and affordable housing supply for current and future residents in all of Washington, DC’s neighborhoods by maintaining and developing housing for all incomes and household types. The overall goal for the District of Columbia is that a minimum of one third of all housing produced should be affordable to lower-income households. The short-term goal is to produce 36,000 residential units, 12,000 of which are affordable, between 2019 and 2025. 501.1 The overarching goal for housing is to provide a safe, decent, healthy,and affordable housing supply for current and future residents in all of Washington, DC’s neighborhoods by maintaining and developing housing for all incomes and household types. [^p17-1]: Section 500.37 is reserved and intentionally omitted CITYWIDE ELEMENTS # Policies and Actions ## H-1 Homes for an Inclusive City [^p18-502] This section of the Housing Element addresses housing production, both for market rate and affordable units. [^502.1] Washington, DC must sustain a high rate of housing production to meet current and projected needs through 2025 and remain economically vibrant. Over the next 15 years, through 2035, the District’s housing stock is forecast to increase from a base of about 310,000 [^p18-xv] units in 2015 to 397,000 units in 2035. Between 2015 and 2020, 23,000 additional units are expected to be built, based on projects that are now under construction, soon to break ground, or by conversion to smaller units. Mayor’s Order 2019-036 initiated the goal to accelerate the rate of housing production between 2019 and 2025 to achieve 36,000 new units, 12,000 of which are affordable, which will be needed by 2025 to improve affordability and the long-term balance between demand and supply. This is equivalent to 5,100 additional units per year. This is higher than the rate of production experienced during 2010-2015, and demand pressures suggest there is a need for even more. However, the District issued permits for an average of 4,483 units of new construction per year after recovering from the national recession, indicating this target of 5,100 units per year is not out of reach. Figure 5.6 illustrates the goal for both total and income-restricted affordable units per Figure 5.4 and how the goal would extend through 2030 and 2050. These goals provide measurable benchmarks that will require public, non-profit, and private sector action to achieve. Prioritizing affordable housing production is critical to reducing existing disparities in access to housing, particularly for communities of color. [^502.2] ### Figure 5.6: ### Total Residential and Affordable Unit Goals: 2018-2050 [^502.3] | | 2018 Base | 2020 Estimated | 2025 Pipeline | 2025 Goal | 2030 | 2050 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Total Residential Units | 324,300 | 334,600 | 360,300 | | 384,200 | 456,890 | | 2018 - 2025 Total Increase | | 36,000 | | | | | | Total Dedicated Affordable | 51,960 | 55,867 | 59,930 | 63,960 | 71,930 | 96,160 | | 2018 - 2025 Affordable Increase | | 12,000 | | | | | | Percent Affordable | 16.0% | 16.7% | 16.6% | 17.8% | 18.7% | 21.0% | | | | | :--- | :--- | | Base | | | Forecast/Pipeline Estimates | | | Housing Goals | | **Source: OP, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development (DMPED)** [^p18-502]: The section was titled "H-1.1 Expanding Housing Supply" in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. [^502.1]: This sentence was added in 2021. [^p18-xv]: This number is based on ACS 2011-2015 5-year estimate. The 2017 ACS 1-year estimate is 312,500. [^502.2]: This paragraph was updated and expanded in 2021 to include new data and references to the Mayor’s housing goals. [^502.3]: This figure was added in 2021. As noted in the Land Use and Framework Elements, Washington, DC already has the land resources to meet this demand. But land alone is not enough to ensure the production of housing, and housing production alone does not guarantee that a portion of the new units will be affordable to all households. The approach needs to vary with the characteristics of the site and surrounding conditions. For instance, infill housing development in Neighborhood Conservation Areas typically has infrastructure but can be constrained by lot sizes and is dependent on surrounding market strength. Redevelopment of ground floor uses along the District’s Main Street mixed-use corridors is often delayed until market demand drives housing prices high enough to overcome the return provided by the existing uses. Neighborhood Enhancement Areas need not only comprehensive infrastructure investment but also catalytic projects to demonstrate the viability of further private sector investment. Finally, large sites with significant capacity need major infrastructure investment to knit them into their surrounding neighborhoods. 502.4[^p19-4] A multi-pronged strategy is needed to facilitate production, address regulatory and administrative constraints, and deliver a substantial number of the new units that are affordable to District residents, particularly to moderate and lower income residents. Potential regulatory strategies to maximize housing production might include regulatory relief, such as flexibility with zoning height and expedited entitlement review and permitting. Financing strategies might include tax credits and abatements and other financing tools. The 2006 Comprehensive Housing Strategy established many of the basic tenets of this strategy. Additional information is provided in the text box titled The Comprehensive Housing Strategy on the following page. 502.5[^p19-5] Participation from private sector investors is critical to achieving Washington, DC’s housing goal and presents several challenges as they pursue investment opportunities. Some locations remain underused within the permitted density for a variety of reasons. In some locations, existing ground floor uses produce a sufficiently high return that discourages and delays redevelopment. In other locations, the increased construction costs needed for taller building types sometimes lead investors to use lower density, less expensive methods that underuse a site’s potential development capacity. Finally, development of new supply tends to slow down as soon as supply starts to meet demand, and the pace of absorption and revenue growth slows or declines below investors’ expectations. These are economic realities that all cities face. 502.6[^p19-6] [^p19-4]: 502.4 [^p19-5]: 502.5 [^p19-6]: 502.6 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### The Comprehensive Housing Strategy The housing policies of the Comprehensive Plan were introduced in 2003, when the DC Council passed the Comprehensive Housing Strategy Act, creating a task force charged with developing recommendations on the housing needs of current and future residents of the District. It included strategies for preserving and creating mixed-income neighborhoods; assessing the quality, availability, and affordability of rental housing; creating homeownership opportunities; preventing displacement; assessing housing for persons with disabilities; promoting moderate-income housing; and increasing the District’s population by 100,000 residents.[^502.6a] The 2006 task force report, Homes for an Inclusive City, presented seven recommendations for improving housing affordability and growing the population. Foremost among these was the production of 55,000 new housing units, including 19,000 affordable units, and the preservation of at least 30,000 existing affordable units. The report includes strategies to increase the homeownership rate, provide direct assistance to 14,600 low-income renter households, and include affordable housing in the new neighborhoods to be developed during the next 15 years.[^502.6b] Subsequent task forces have built upon the original strategies found in Homes for an Inclusive City and developed additional policies found in the Bridges to Opportunity and Housing Preservation Strike Force final reports. These efforts focused on strategies and initiatives such as providing wraparound supportive social service contracts into affordable housing investments. In addition, the District submitted to HUD the 2016-2021 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, which includes data analysis, resident participation, and the development of an implementation program on how the District would expend funds from federal programs, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership.[^502.6c] Many of the original strategies in Homes for an Inclusive City were carried forward into the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The policies from the subsequent task force are included and built upon in the amended Comprehensive Plan. This is an important step toward their implementation and will move the District one step closer to achieving its housing goals.[^502.6d] ### H-1.1 Expanding Housing Supply[^p20-503] Expanding the housing supply is a key part of the District’s vision to create vibrant neighborhoods. Along with improved transportation and shopping, better neighborhood schools and parks, preservation of historic resources, and improved design and identity, the production of market rate and affordable housing is essential to the future of the neighborhoods. It is also a key to improving the District’s fiscal health. The District will work to facilitate housing construction and rehabilitation through its planning, building, zoning, permitting, inspection, and taxation programs, [^502.6a]: 502.6a [^502.6b]: 502.6b [^502.6c]: 502.6c [^502.6d]: 502.6d [^p20-503]: 503 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS recognizing and responding to the needs of all segments of the community to achieve an adequate and diverse housing supply. The first step toward meeting this goal is to ensure that an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land is available to meet expected housing needs. Public investment in high-quality public infrastructure, including transportation, public space, schools, and libraries, is also critical to ensuring that all neighborhoods provide a high degree of access to opportunity. Regulatory processes should encourage, not discourage, the creation of new housing. 503[^.1] The supply of housing should grow sufficiently to slow rising costs of market rate rental and for-sale housing. Expanding supply alone will not fulfill all of Washington, DC’s housing needs at lower income levels, but it is one important element of the strategy to ensure unmet demand at higher price points does not further hasten the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing. 503[^.2] ### Policy H-1.1.1: Private Sector Support Encourage or require the private sector to provide both new market rate and affordable housing to meet the needs of present and future District residents at locations consistent with District land use policies and objectives. 503[^.3] ### Policy H-1.1.2: Production Incentives Provide suitable regulatory, tax, and financing incentives to meet housing production goals, prioritizing affordable housing production in support of the targets in Policy H-1.2.2. These incentives should continue to include zoning regulations that permit greater building area for commercial projects that include housing than for those that do not, and relaxation of height and density limits near transit. Strongly encourage incentives and strategies that result in the production of more deeply affordable housing, such as the use of income averaging across a range of affordable housing income levels. 503[^.4] ### Policy H-1.1.3: Balanced Growth Strongly encourage the development of new housing, including affordable housing, on surplus, vacant, and underused land in all parts of Washington, DC. Ensure that a sufficient supply of land is planned and zoned to enable the District to meet its long-term housing needs, including the need for low- and moderate- density single-family homes, as well as the need for higher-density housing. 503[^.5] ### Policy H-1.1.4: Mixed-Use Development Promote moderate to high-density, mixed-use development that includes affordable housing on commercially zoned land, particularly in neighborhood commercial centers, along Main Street mixed-use corridors and high-capacity surface transit corridors, and around Metrorail stations. 503[^.6] CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> Portner Flat used the District’s TOPA and PUD regulations along with acquisition financing from DCHD to double the number of on site affordable units in the U Street neighborhood. ### Policy H-1.1.5: Housing Quality Require the design of affordable and accessible housing to meet or exceed the high-quality architectural standards achieved by market-rate housing. Such housing should be built with high-quality materials and systems that minimize long-term operation, repair, and capital replacement costs. Regardless of its affordability level, new or renovated housing should be indistinguishable from market rate housing in its exterior appearance, should be generally compatible with the design character of the surrounding neighborhood, and should address the need for open space and recreational amenities. 503[^.7] ### Policy H-1.1.6: Housing in Central Washington Absorb a substantial component of the demand for new high-density housing in the Central Washington Planning Area and along the Anacostia River. Through regulation and incentives, encourage affordable housing production. Absorbing the demand for higher-density housing within these areas is an effective way to meet housing demands, maximize infrastructure and proximity to jobs, create mixed-use areas, and minimize the cost pressure on existing residential neighborhoods throughout the District. Market rate and affordable mixed-income, higher-density downtown housing also provides the opportunity to create vibrant street life and to support the restaurants, retail, entertainment, and other amenities in the heart of Washington, DC. 503[^.8] *See the Land Use, Urban Design, and Area Elements for related policies.* ### Policy H-1.1.7: Large Sites Accommodate a significant share of the District’s projected housing demand in new neighborhoods developed on large sites. Prioritize housing, particularly affordable housing preserved for long-term affordability. These neighborhoods should include or have access to well-planned retail, public schools, attractive parks, open space and recreation, as well as needed supportive services for older adults and persons with disabilities and enable resilient, innovative neighborhood- level energy systems. The new neighborhoods should include a variety of housing types, including housing for families, older adults, and other needed types, serving a diverse population and a variety of income levels. 503[^.9] ### Policy H-1.1.8: Production of Housing in High-Cost Areas Encourage development of both market rate and affordable housing in high-cost areas of the District, making these areas more inclusive. Develop new, innovative tools and techniques that support affordable housing in these areas. Doing so increases costs per unit but provides greater benefits in terms of access to opportunity and outcomes. 503[^.10] [^.7]: 503.7 [^.8]: 503.8 [^.9]: 503.9 [^.10]: 503.10 *See also the Land Use Element policies on transit-oriented and mixed-use development.* ### Policy H-1.1.9: Housing for Families Encourage and prioritize the development of family-sized units and/or family-sized housing options which generally have three or more bedrooms, in areas proximate to transit, employment centers, schools, public facilities, and recreation to ensure that the District’s most well-resourced locations remain accessible to families, particularly in areas that received increased residential density as a result of underlying changes to the Future Land Use Map. Family-sized units and/or family-sized housing options include housing typologies that can accommodate households of three or more persons and may include a variety of housing types including townhomes, fourplexes and multi-family buildings. To address the mismatch between meeting the needs of larger households and the financial feasibility of developing family-sized housing, support family-sized housing options through production incentives and requirements that address market rate challenges for private development that may include zoning, subsidies or tax strategies, or direct subsidy and regulatory requirements for publicly owned sites. [^503.11] #### Action H-1.1.A: Annual Housing Reports and Monitoring Efforts Develop an annual State of the District Housing Report, which improves the quality of information on which to make housing policy decisions. Include information on current conditions, trends and needs, such as the availability and affordability of units by income, tenure, building type, number of bedrooms, and production patterns and capacity by Planning Area and other characteristics. Include information on the demand for, housing for low, very low and extremely low-income households. Assess the availability of housing for Black communities and other communities of color, seniors, families, people with disabilities, and vulnerable communities. The report should also include a framework for evaluating progress toward measurable goals. Create a Housing Oversight Board composed of residents representing different incomes and household types, and for profit and nonprofit developers, that would review this report and provide an assessment each year on the effectiveness and outcomes of the District’s housing programs. [^503.12] #### Action H-1.1.B: Regional Planning for Expanding the Supply of Housing Pursue intergovernmental agreements and initiatives with the jurisdictions of the metropolitan region that expand the housing supply and broaden affordability throughout the region, and that do not leave the responsibility solely to any one jurisdiction. [^503.13] [^503.11]: 503.11 [^503.12]: 503.12 [^503.13]: 503.13 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action H.1.1.C: Research New Ways to Expand Housing* Continue research to expand market rate and affordable housing opportunities in Washington, DC, such as expanding existing zoning tools and requirements and evaluating housing concepts that emphasize permanent affordability, such as social housing and community land trusts. Consider a broad range of options to address housing constraints, which could include updating the Height Act of 1910 (a federal law) outside of the L’Enfant Plan area, if it can promote housing production. 503.14 *Action H-1.4.D: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice* Complete the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing to advance fair housing, more equitably distribute housing, and take steps to address identified impediments. 503.15 ## H-1.2 Ensuring Housing Affordability[^p24-504] Washington, DC faces numerous affordable housing challenges. It has both a greater share of the region’s low-income residents and the region’s most rapid decline in the availability of housing to serve these residents. In 2005, the median income for a family of four for the region was $89,300, but it was just $55,750 in the District. Census data indicates that by 2017 the gap had narrowed by almost half. In fact, between 2005 and 2017, the share of the District’s households earning below the regional median income declined from about 75 percent to 52 percent of households. Due to a growing number of higher-income households being attracted to Washington, DC, housing prices in the District are increasing at a faster rate than almost any jurisdiction in the metropolitan area. The share of District renters who paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing jumped from 39 percent in 2000 to 46 percent in 2004. In 2017, the estimated share of households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing had fallen to 36 percent of all households. Similarly, the share paying more than 50 percent of their incomes declined from 23 percent in 2004 to 20 percent by 2017. Data suggests this is not due to improving affordability but rather the in-migration of higher-income households and the out-migration of lower-income households. Further, outcomes must be reviewed by race, considering the previously noted lower incomes and higher rent burdens faced by Black and Hispanic households. 504.1 In Washington, DC and across the nation, home prices have fluctuated dramatically since 2006. Prices in the District peaked in April 2007, soon after the adoption of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. While the collapse of the national mortgage markets did not affect Washington, DC as badly as some parts of the country, many neighborhoods did suffer from high foreclosure rates and severe decline in values, and these neighborhoods are in areas [^p24-504]: 504 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS with predominantly Black and Hispanic populations. Among the hardest hit neighborhoods were those along Eastern and Southern Avenues in the Upper Northeast, Far Northeast and Southeast, and the Far Southeast and Southwest Planning Areas, such as Washington Highlands, North Michigan Park, Bellevue, and Capitol View. In addition to the national mortgage collapse, the problems were exacerbated by limited access to competitive mortgages, and predatory subprime lending, which was disproportionately directed at low income and Black and Hispanic households. By 2017, single-family home values in some of these neighborhoods, especially those in Wards 7 and 8, were finally exceeding their previous peaks achieved in 2007. However, condominiums are still experiencing declining values in some neighborhoods, stemming from failing homeowner associations, maintenance, and other problems. 504.2 Single-family home values elsewhere in the District have more than just recovered. Values have gone up most rapidly in the moderately priced neighborhoods to the north and east of downtown. Neighborhoods such as Trinidad, LeDroit Park and Bloomingdale recovered rapidly and experienced annualized sales price increases of from eight to almost 11 percent a year between 2009 and 2017[^p25-xvi]. Price increases in high-cost neighborhoods west of Rock Creek Park were less dramatic, but they also experienced the least decline as a result of the mortgage crisis. As a result, they continue to be out of reach for most District residents. 504.3 Economic forecasts suggest that many of the jobs that will be created in the District during the next 10 years will not provide the compensation needed to pay for housing in Washington, DC. Occupations that pay the lowest third of wages are expected to represent 45 percent of the job growth. For example, some of the District’s fastest growing occupations are expected to be home health and personal care aides, which pay an annual wage of $ 29,000[^xvii]. For a single wage earner, this would qualify them for the deepest level of subsidy to rent a one- bedroom apartment, with almost no chance to purchase a condominium or single- family home. Even a two-income household with such salaries would be unable to afford market-rate homeownership. As the gap widens, there may be several consequences. Residents may work unreasonably long hours or multiple jobs, double up in overcrowded apartments and houses, live in unsafe or substandard housing, or give up living in the District altogether, enduring long commutes into Washington, DC each day. Black and Hispanic residents are more heavily represented in these job categories and earn lower incomes, as not ed earlier. This points to worsening racial inequality in housing access and affordability, displacing residents who would otherwise choose to remain in the District. 504.4 The District has been working to preserve the affordability of existing housing opportunities for lower-income residents and to ensure that a substantial share of the housing built in the next 20 years is affordable for them. The District’s HPTF is now the largest per capita source of locally dedicated funding for affordable housing of any city in the country. An array of financial and regulatory tools and programs already are in place, some linked to federal housing programs, some created by District government, and others originating through partnerships with the private and nonprofit sectors (see Figure 5.7 for a list of the major housing programs in the District). 504.5[^p26-5] The District also has been pursuing legislative and regulatory measures that require affordable housing in new development. In addition to IZ, a 2013 District law requires District properties sold for residential development to provide 20 to 30 percent of the units as affordable depending on proximity to transit. The law targets a range of extremely low-income to moderate-income households, and long-term commitments to maintain affordability which depend on the tenure of the project. For many years, Washington, DC has also had a policy requiring developers seeking commercial density bonuses to provide affordable housing or pay into the HPTF. The previous Comprehensive Plans created the foundation for these actions, which is carried forward in this Element. 504.6[^p26-6] More deeply affordable housing production and preservation is needed to advance racial equity in housing because of the racial income gap. As shown in Figure 5.8, the proposed allocation of new affordable units should be 40 percent available to extremely low-income households, and 30 percent allocated each for low- and very low-income households. These targets would prioritize production and preservation of housing affordable to more of the District’s residents of color. Achieving these targets requires actions from the public, non-profit, and private sector. Statutory and regulatory measures, including zoning, are necessary but not sufficient to produce very-low- and extremely-low-income rental housing and ownership opportunities for a range of households. Budgetary decisions at the federal and District levels are also essential to enable the continued operation of quality housing for these income levels. Resource choices also must be made between new housing production and preserving or restoring affordable housing stock. And, while the District has set ambitious goals to increase both market rate and affordable housing production, affordable housing production is lagging, requiring renewed assessment of how to effectively allocate and use limited resources. To advance racial equity in housing, an effective allocation of resources is needed for housing preservation and production targeted to very-low and extremely-low-income households. 504.7[^p26-7] [^p26-5]: 504.5 [^p26-6]: 504.6 [^p26-7]: 504.7 ### Policy H-1.2.1: Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Production as a Civic Priority The production and preservation of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households is a major civic priority, to be supported through public programs that stimulate affordable housing production and rehabilitation throughout all District neighborhoods. 504.8 ### Policy H-1.2.2: Production Targets Consistent with the Comprehensive Housing Strategy, work toward a goal that one-third of the new housing built in Washington, DC from 2018 to 2030, or approximately 20,000 units, should be affordable to persons earning 80 percent or less of the area-wide MFI. In aggregate, the supply of affordable units shall serve low-income households in proportions roughly equivalent to the proportions shown in Figure 5.8: 30 percent at 60 to 80 percent MFI, 30 percent at 30 to 60 percent MFI, and 40 percent at below 30 percent MFI. Set future housing production targets for market rate and affordable housing based on where gaps in supply by income occur and to reflect District goals. These targets shall acknowledge and address racial income disparities, including racially adjusted MFIs, in the District, use racially disaggregated data, and evaluate actual production of market rate and affordable housing at moderate, low, very-low, and extremely-low income levels. 504.9 ### Policy H-1.2.3: Affordable and Mixed-Income Housing Focus investment strategies and affordable housing programs to distribute mixed-income housing more equitably across the entire District by developing goals and tools for affordable housing and establishing a minimum percent affordable by Planning Area to create housing options in high-cost areas, avoid further concentrations of affordable housing, and meet fair housing requirements. 504.10 **Figure 5.7:** ### Major Housing Programs in the District 504[^.11] | | | | :--- | :--- | | Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) | Apartment Improvement | | | Construction Assistance | | | Site Acquisition Funding Initiative | | | Distressed Properties Improvement | | | Housing Finance for Elderly, Dependent, and Disabled | | | Housing Production Trust Fund | | | Affordable Housing Preservation Fund | | | Inclusionary Zoning | | | Low Income Housing Tax Credits | | | Property Acquisition and Disposition | | | District Opportunity to Purchase | | | Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Assistance | | District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency (DCHFA) | Multifamily Housing Development | | | DC Open Doors Homeownership | | District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) | Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) | | | Local Rent Supplment Program (LRSP) | | | Choice Neighborhoods (HOPE VI Program) | | | Public Housing | | Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) | New Communities | | | Public Land Disposition Affordability Requirements | | District of Columbia Office of Planning | Affordable Housing through Planned Unit Development Cases | | | Historic Homeowner Grant Program | | DC Council | Rent Control | | | Tax Abatement for Seniors and Low Income Housing | *Source: 2019 DC Office of Planning* [^.11]: 504.11 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy H-1.2.4: Housing Affordability on Publicly Owned Sites Require that 20 to 30 percent of the housing units built on publicly owned sites disposed of for housing, co-located with local public facilities, or sites being transferred from federal to District jurisdiction, are reserved for a range of affordable housing with long-term commitments to maintain affordability, seeking to maximize production of extremely low- and very low-income for rental units, and very low- and low-income households for ownership units and family-sized units. Prioritize the provision of affordable housing in areas of high housing costs. Explore strategies at these redeveloping sites to enable seniors in the surrounding community to have opportunities to age in place, and to provide housing opportunities for residents at risk of displacement in the surrounding community. Consider Universal Design and visitability. [^504.12] #### Policy H-1.2.5: Moderate-Income Housing In addition to programs targeting persons of very low and extremely low incomes, develop and implement programs that meet the housing needs of those earning moderate incomes with wages insufficient to afford market rate housing in the District. [^504.13] #### Policy H-1.2.6: Build Nonprofit Sector Capacity Actively involve and coordinate with the nonprofit sector, including faith-based institutions, to meet affordable housing needs, including housing construction and housing service delivery. Partner with the nonprofit sector so that public funding can be used to leverage the creation of affordable units and to expand access to housing through counseling, education, tenant rights services, and increased awareness of funding opportunities. Faith-based institutions represent a significant opportunity for the development of affordable housing and community facilities in Washington, DC and the provision of affordable housing and care of those in need is within their charitable missions. Faith-based institutions own nearly 6 million square feet of vacant land in the District and an estimated 4 million square feet of land with improvements. Much of the land owned by these institutions is in residential neighborhoods, adjacent to commercial corridors and have some type of residential zoning that limits them to low density development. These institutions may need technical support but have expressed their interest and commitment and can be willing partners in providing space for affordable housing. [^504.14] #### Policy H-1.2.7: Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing Provide zoning incentives, such as through the PUD process, to developers proposing to build affordable housing substantially beyond any underlying requirement. Exceeding targets for affordable housing can refer to exceeding the quantity or depth of affordability otherwise required. The affordable housing proffered shall be considered a high priority public benefit for the [^504.12]: 504.12 [^504.13]: 504.13 [^504.14]: 504.14 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S purposes of granting density bonuses, especially when the proposal expands the inclusiveness of high-cost areas by adding affordable housing. When density bonuses are granted, flexibility in development standards should be considered to minimize impacts on contributing features and the design character of the neighborhood. 504.15[^504.15] ### Policy H-1.2.8: District Housing Finance Agency (DCHFA) Support the DCHFA’s activities to finance new construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental and owner units, including vacant and abandoned units. 504.16[^504.16] ### Policy H-1.2.9 Advancing Diversity and Equity of Planning Areas Proactively plan and facilitate affordable housing opportunities and make targeted investments that increase demographic diversity and equity across Washington, DC. Achieve a minimum of 15 percent affordable units within each Planning Area by 2050. Provide protected classes (see H-3.2 Housing Access) with a fair opportunity to live in a choice of homes and neighborhoods, including their current homes and neighborhoods. 504.17[^504.17] ### Policy H-1.2.10 Redevelopment of Existing Subsidized and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing Prioritize, encourage, and incentivize build-first, one-for-one, on-site, and in-kind replacement of affordable units, including larger family-sized units. In addition, encourage and incentivize relocation and right of return plans when projects redeveloping affordable housing seek additional density beyond that permitted by existing zoning. Work to identify and coordinate financial assistance to ensure long-term affordability, preferably permanent or for the life of the project, when projects meet these criteria. 504.18[^504.18] ### Policy H-1.2.11 Inclusive Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Support mixed-income housing by encouraging affordable housing in high-cost areas and market rate housing in low-income areas. Identify and implement measures that build in long-term affordability, preferably permanent or for the life of the project, to minimize displacement and achieve a balance of housing opportunities across the District. 504.19[^504.19] [^504.15]: 504.15 [^504.16]: 504.16 [^504.17]: 504.17 [^504.18]: 504.18 [^504.19]: 504.19 <
> ### The District’s Commercial Linkage Requirement In 1998, the District adopted zoning provisions that linked the granting of bonus density in commercial development projects to requirements for affordable housing. The linkage recognized that the demand for housing in Washington, DC was driven in part by new commercial development and rising land values. The linkage provisions are currently triggered by: * The approval of a discretionary and otherwise appropriate street or alley closing, which results in the provision of additional non-residential square footage by the DC Council; * The provision of habitable, non-residential penthouse space; or * The approval of a discretionary and otherwise appropriate zoning density increase, which results in the provision of additional non-residential square footage by the Zoning Commission or the Board of Zoning Adjustment. 504.21a In such cases, applicants are required to construct or rehabilitate housing that remains affordable to low-income households for at least 40 years, or pay into the District’s HPTF. If the applicant agrees to construct or rehabilitate affordable housing, the square footage of housing that must be built varies from 25 to 50 percent of the density increase being granted, depending on if the housing is provided on-site, off-site, or in a high housing cost area. Applicants can use any of a number of tools to build the housing, such as partnerships and joint ventures. If the applicant agrees to pay into the HPTF, the payment must equal at least half of the assessed value of the square footage of the density increase being granted, plus the square footage of any preexisting housing demolished as a result of the non-residential development. Additional provisions relating to the timing and valuation of the improvements apply. 504.21b The linkage requirements include several exemptions, such as projects that are already subject to housing, retail, arts, or historic preservation requirements; projects approved prior to 1994; and projects located in enhanced/new neighborhood or enhanced/new multi-neighborhood centers. The Zoning Commission also has the authority to grant exemptions from this requirement based on certain findings relating to Comprehensive Plan consistency. 504.21c *Action H-1.2.A: Commercial Linkage Assessment* The 2006 Comprehensive Housing Strategy recommended that one-third of the units produced in the District in the next 15 years be targeted to persons earning 80 percent of the MFI or below. Figure 5.8 shows the proposed allocation of these units to low-, very low-, and extremely low-income groups. 504.22 *Action H-1.2.B: New Revenue Sources* Continue to identify and tap new sources of revenue for programs such as the HPTF to produce affordable housing and keep rental and owned housing affordable. These new sources should add to the portion of the deed and recordation taxes dedicated to the HPTF, such as the feasibility of earmarking a portion of residential property tax revenue increases for the fund. 504.23 *Action H-1.2.C: Property Acquisition and Disposition Division Program* Continue the District’s Property Acquisition and Disposition Division (PADD) Program, which acquires property and provides for long-term leaseback or low- cost terms to private developers that produce affordable homeownership and rental housing. 504.24 *Action H-1.2.D: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits* Expand for-profit builders’ use of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits as one tool to provide new or rehabilitated affordable housing in the District. 504.25 *Action H-1.2.E: Leveraging Inclusionary Zoning* Review and consider expansion of the Inclusionary Zoning program as needed to encourage additional affordable housing production throughout the District. Examine and propose greater IZ requirements when zoning actions permit greater density or change in use. Factors supporting a greater requirement may include high-cost areas, proximity to transit stations or high-capacity surface transit corridors, and when increases in density or use changes from production, distribution, and repair (PDR) to residential or mixed-use. Consider requirements that potentially leverage financial subsidies, such as tax-exempt bonds. 504.26 *Action H-1.2.F: Establish Affordability Goals by Area Element* Establish measurable housing production goals by Planning Area through an analysis of best practices, housing conditions, impediments, unit and building typology, and forecasts of need. Include a minimum share of 15 percent affordable housing by 2050, along with recommendations for incentives and financing tools to create affordable housing opportunities to meet fair housing requirements, particularly in high housing cost areas. 504.27 ### *Action H-1.2.G: Continuum of Housing* Conduct a periodic review, at least every four years, of private development and federal and local housing programs in conjunction with a needs assessment to ensure that programs target the applicable gaps in the supply of housing by unit and building type, location, and affordability and include racial equity evaluations. 504.28 ### *Action H-1.2.H: Priority of Affordable Housing Goals* Prioritize public investment in the new construction of, or conversion to, affordable housing in Planning Areas with high housing costs and few affordable housing options. Consider land use, zoning, and financial incentives where the supply of affordable units is below a minimum of 15 percent of all units within each area. 504.29 ### *Action H-1.2.I: Land Trusts* Support community land trusts (CLTs) in their ongoing efforts to produce, secure, and steward rental and ownership housing and commercial spaces that would remain affordable in perpetuity. Preventing the displacement of current and future low- and moderate-income District residents and businesses should be the focus of CLTs. 504.30 ### *Action H-1.2.J Affordable Housing and Nonprofit and Faith-Based Institutions* District agencies should work collaboratively with nonprofits and the faith community to investigate zoning options to reduce procedural burdens and facilitate the development of affordable housing and community services on properties under their control, particularly sites in lower density neighborhoods. 504.31 ## H-1.3 Diversity of Housing Types [^p33-505] The housing stock in the District has varied in size and type over time. As Figure 5.9 shows, in 2000, about 44 percent of Washington, DC’s housing units consisted of studios and one-bedroom units. The percentage of small units declined to 38 percent, mostly through the loss of studios, before rebounding to 42 percent by 2017. In 2000, units with four or more bedrooms comprised just 11 percent of the total units. By 2017, this had risen slightly to just below 13 percent. Three-bedroom units have declined by almost two percent since 2006. Of all unit types, only two-bedroom units have consistently grown in number, increasing from 24 percent in 2000 to almost 26 percent in 2017. 505.1 Between 2011 and 2016, more than 90 percent of new housing in Washington, DC was multi-family housing. As this trend continues, the District faces the possibility of a less diverse housing stock. As Figure 5.3 [^p33-505]: text C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S shows, row house units represent a declining share of all housing. Therefore, the District will become more dependent on apartment buildings to provide family-sized units. The conversion of single-family row houses, which by right may include a second unit, into multi-unit buildings may be further eroding the supply of three- and four-bedroom units in the District. Going forward, there is limited opportunity for new subdivisions of large, detached homes to provide housing for more families. [^505.2] The housing needs of District residents represent a wide spectrum. Students and young professionals may seek studios, small apartments, or shared housing. Young families may seek small condominiums, townhouses, or small homes in emerging neighborhoods. Families with children may seek homes with three or four bedrooms, a yard, and perhaps a rental unit for added income. Singles and couples with no children may seek single-family homes or apartments. The growing population of older adults may seek to remain in their existing homes or downsize to smaller houses or apartments nearby, while others will want or need retirement communities, assisted living, or congregate care facilities. Overall, larger units are more adaptable to changes in demand than smaller units given their ability to serve a wide range of households from individuals seeking to share housing, to new growing families, to multigenerational households. It is difficult to determine if these changing needs will compete with or complement each **Figure 5.9:** ### Distribution of Housing by Number of Bedrooms in Washington, DC, 2000-2017 [^505.3] <
> Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) 2017, DC Office of Planning [^505.2]: 505.2 [^505.3]: 505.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS other. For example, will older, down-sizing residents naturally provide a turnover of larger units to young growing families, or will there be an overlap of competing needs? 505.4 Given the shortage of available land in areas with some of the highest housing costs, promoting accessory dwelling units is one way to provide housing options for persons at all income levels and support the transition from older to younger households. Large homes may easily accommodate what is commonly called an in-law suite on the top floor or lower level, or above a garage, in place of a garage, or in a separate unit out back. An accessory dwelling unit can accommodate a low- or moderate-income family, a student, or an older adult who is unable to continue to fulfill the full burdens of homeownership. The added rental income can help a younger household qualify to purchase the home. 505.5 An important part of growing inclusively is to develop and maintain, across neighborhoods and throughout the District, a diverse housing stock of all sizes and types that can fit the needs of the variety of households, including growing families, singles, couples, and aging residents who, in order to remain in their neighborhood may need to transition from living independently in their home to alternative housing. Recent housing production has not provided the diversity of housing types needed in the District. Market-driven development provided higher- end, multifamily units that attracted largely white, affluent, and smaller households. Ninety-one percent of new housing growth between 2006 and 2018 has been in multi-family buildings that add considerable supply but tend to have units that are smaller in size (see Figure 5.10a). At their most extreme, market pressures may result in displacement as affordable large rental units are converted to upscale condos or apartments. More often, these pressures mean that families are having a harder time finding suitable housing in Washington, DC. This is supported by the 2017 vacancy rate which was 13 percent for studios and one- bedroom units, but just eight percent for units that were three bedrooms or larger.[^xviii] Housing production that could serve families, seniors, and moderate- and low-income households has not kept pace. This disproportionately affects residents of color. 505.6 [^xviii]: Housing production that could serve families, seniors, and moderate- and low-income households has not kept pace. This disproportionately affects residents of color. # CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> ### Policy H-1.3.1: Housing for Larger Households Increase the supply of larger family-sized housing units for both ownership and rental by encouraging new and retaining existing single-family homes, duplexes, row houses, and three- and four-bedroom market rate and affordable apartments across Washington, DC. The effort should focus on both affordability of the units and the unit and building design features that support families, as well as the opportunity to locate near neighborhood amenities, such as parks, transit, schools, and retail. 505[^.8] ### Policy H-1.3.2: Tenure Diversity Encourage the production of both renter- and owner-occupied housing, including housing that is affordable at low-income levels, throughout the District. 505[^.9] ### Policy H-1.3.3: Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Promote the development of neighborhood-based assisted living, adult day services with dementia care, and skilled nursing facilities. Zoning and health regulations should be designed to promote an increase in supply, security, and affordability of housing for older adults. 505[^.10] ### Policy H-1.3.4: Cooperatives and Co-housing Encourage cooperatives, shared housing, and co-housing (housing with private bedrooms but shared kitchens and common areas) as a more [^.7]: Figure 5.10a: Housing Typology Transect 505.7 [^.8]: 505.8 [^.9]: 505.9 [^.10]: 505.10 affordable alternative to condominiums. Explore how both housing types might support multigenerational households. 505.11[^505.11] ### Policy H-1.3.5: Student Housing Require colleges and universities to address the housing needs of their students and promote the use of such housing by their students. 505.12[^505.12] ### Policy H-1.3.6: Single Room Occupancy Units Allow the development of single room occupancy (SRO) housing in appropriate zone districts. 505.13[^505.13] *Please consult the Land Use Element for policies on row house conversions to multi-family units.* #### Action H-1.3.A: Create Tools for the Production and Retention of Larger Family-Sized Units in Multi-Family Housing Research land use tools and techniques, including development standards, to encourage the development of residential units that meet the needs of larger families, with a focus on financing affordable units in high-cost areas. 505.14[^505.14] #### Action H-1.3.B: Technical Assistance for Condominiums and Cooperatives Develop technical assistance and innovative management models to assist in the long-term maintenance and sustainability of condominiums and cooperatives. 505.15[^505.15] ## H-1.4 Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization 506[^p37-506] Housing programs alone cannot create a livable, inclusive District. Linking housing programs to efforts to reduce poverty, improve schools, provide quality retail and upgrade services, such as childcare and job training is an important part of attracting and retaining residents. Renovation of schools, libraries, health centers, parks and playgrounds, sidewalks and bike lanes, and other neighborhood amenities affect a community’s social opportunities and can influence housing choice. These actions will attract new supply to a wider range of underinvested areas and broaden Washington, DC’s affordability. Economic development initiatives can generate income and employment, which create the means to expand housing opportunities. These types of investments can help to affirmatively further fair housing choice across the District. Data on public safety, employment, income, education, and other variables can help guide investment to improve housing equity and the quality of life in all District neighborhoods. 506.1[^506.1] Starting in 2000, the District targeted capital investments to several formerly underserved areas for economic and social recovery. Twelve areas were designated as Strategic Neighborhood Improvement Program (SNIP) areas, [^505.11]: 505.11 [^505.12]: 505.12 [^505.13]: 505.13 [^505.14]: 505.14 [^505.15]: 505.15 [^p37-506]: 506 [^506.1]: 506.1 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS with accompanying investments in housing, schools, streetscape, parks, and other public facilities. One of the shared characteristics of these areas was the opportunity for infill development on scattered vacant and abandoned sites.[^506.2] While SNIP is no longer active, its focused approach provided important lessons for neighborhood revitalization. For instance, total public investment in Columbia Heights included the Metro station, new and existing affordable housing, five new public spaces or recreation centers, and three new or totally remodeled public school facilities and targeted the reduction of vacant or underused properties. The Metro station is now the most heavily used outside of downtown. Home value appreciation since 2000 has been one of the highest in Washington, DC, and it has some of the highest market rate rents. The Columbia Heights neighborhood is also one of the most diverse neighborhoods, where approximately 18 percent of the housing supply is subsidized affordable rental housing; however, the area also experienced displacement of lower income Black and Latino residents.[^506.3] Similar efforts have been made through the PADD Program, which acquires and disposes of vacant properties to private and non-profit developers through a land subsidy. The program requires that 30 percent of the new units created in each bundle of properties are sold to households at or below 60 percent of the MFI (see text box entitled Home Again/Property Acquisition and Disposition).[^506.4] On a much larger scale, the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) has rebuilt entire communities through the federal HOPE VI Program, which is now called the Choice Neighborhoods Program, replacing deteriorating public affordable housing projects like the Frederick Douglass and Stanton Dwellings with new mixed-income neighborhoods like Henson Ridge. More recent sites within the Choice Neighborhoods program include Kenilworth/Parkside, which received local planning approval in 2016. Similar efforts have been proposed through NCI (see text ### Home Again/Property Acquisition and Disposition <
> Home Again/PADD Department of Housing and Community Development’s (DHCD) Home Again Initiative, which became PADD in 2008, was launched in January 2002 with the goal of creating homeownership opportunities for persons of all incomes. PADD is responsible for acquiring and disposing of vacant and abandoned properties in the District, as well as stabilization of the vacant properties it owns. Initially, the program focused on nine neighborhoods with a higher average of such vacant and abandoned properties: Columbia Heights, Ivy City/Trinidad, Near Northeast, Shaw/LeDroit Park, Rosedale, Deanwood, Marshall Heights, Anacostia, and Bellevue. PADD is working to dispose its current inventory. As it does, it should strategically acquire vacant buildings and land.[^506.4a] [^506.2]: 506.2 [^506.3]: 506.3 [^506.4]: 506.4 [^506.4a]: 506.4a **The New Communities Initiative** New Communities Initiative (NCI) is a District-led initiative that has the potential to reduce crime, improve neighborhood schools and health services, and create economic opportunities for affordable housing residents. The initiative is a partnership between the District government and the private and nonprofit sectors to produce new housing, reduce violent crime, and create a healthy environment for families in some of Washington, DC’s most vulnerable neighborhoods. 506.4a1 NCI is using District local and capital funding sources, tax exempt bonds, low-income housing tax credits, federal funds, and private investment to create mixed-income housing opportunities in these areas. One-for-one replacement of older publicly assisted housing units with new affordable units is necessary to avoid displacement and the net loss of affordable units. In addition, the initiative attempts to use surrounding public and private parcels to build the replacement affordable housing first and minimize temporary displacement of residents from their neighborhood. Market rate and moderate-income housing units are included in each project to cross-subsidize the affordable units and create a mix of incomes and unit types in each project. 506.4a2 NCI seeks to advance many community development and housing goals, such as promoting affordable housing across all incomes and household sizes, furthering fair housing opportunities, and preserving affordable housing. NCI aims to eliminate substandard housing and provide public housing residents with affordable replacement housing in the new community as it is redeveloped. 506.4a3 Planning for the first new community (Northwest One) started in 2004. The first component, completed in 2011, was the new Walker Jones Elementary School, and the first three buildings of replacement housing were completed in 2011, 2013, and 2014. A major portion of the remaining project received predevelopment approvals in 2016. In the end, the Northwest One New Community Plan will replace more than 500 units of subsidized housing in this neighborhood with a total of 1,500 units of mixed-income housing. 506.4a4 Three additional communities (Barry Farm, Lincoln Heights/Richardson Dwellings, and Park Morton) were added and are in various stages of review and completion. Over the next 10 years, a total of 10 mixed-income developments will provide new community amenities, such as schools, libraries, and recreation centers in each neighborhood. When completed, the four projects within NCI will upgrade 1,500 affordable units within larger mixed-income communities totaling 5,000-6,000 new units. 506.4a5 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS In implementation, NCI projects have taken significantly longer than anticipated and not always aligned with the expectations of the affected communities or commitments of the initiative to redevelop communities with older public housing into mixed income neighborhoods while avoiding the displacement of residents and a net loss of affordable housing. 506.4a6 The first demolition for Northwest One began in 2008, while the anticipated completion of the last stage with over half of the affordable replacement units is set for 2023. While providing around 1500 units to replace the original 520 units, a third of which are affordable to low-income or extremely low-income households, respectively, and a third of which are market rate, the District was not able to meet its displacement goals and instead showed that its commitment to existing low-income residents must be stronger. 506.4a7 The District rescinded on the commitment to build first at Barry Farm and residents were moved for demolition that began in 2019. The build first commitment currently remains in place for Lincoln Heights/Richardson Dwellings and Park Morton. Although a 2014 evaluation found that building first would be costly and slow for Park Morton, the District is continuing to seek ways to avoid a full relocation of the community’s residents prior to rebuilding. The three projects have resulted in the relocation of nearly 1,000 households to temporary housing. This creates an imperative for the District to cultivate continued community connections for displaced residents and remove all obstacles to returning, such as tenant eligibility screening. 506.4a8 box entitled The New Communities Initiative). HOPE VI redevelopments often resulted in the original residents moving to other communities and the new developments having fewer affordable units than the prior properties. The policies for Choice Neighborhoods and NCI place more emphasis on minimizing displacement, ensuring a right to return, and one-for-one replacement of affordable units, although the polices are not yet showing different results. Federal funding, not only for neighborhood revitalization efforts but also routine maintenance of public housing and other dedicated affordable housing, has fluctuated but remained far below the minimum needed for capital repairs and improvements for decades. This creates an increasingly difficult challenge for the District in meeting the housing needs of extremely-low-income households. DCHA is working to repair or redevelop approximately 2,600 affordable housing units with immediate critical needs and establish a longer-term plan for the remaining capital needs within its portfolio of publicly assisted housing, as described in the August 2019 Working Draft of Our People, Our Portfolio, Our Plan. To support DCHA’s 20-year Transformation Plan, the District can contribute resources to supplement federal shortfalls; enhance existing policies, tools, and CITYWIDE ELEMENTS programs for resident protection and engagement; and support the capacity of DCHA to use proven and emerging approaches for housing production, preservation, public housing operations, and other housing opportunities.[^506.5] ### Policy H-1.4.1: Restoration of Vacant Housing Target neighborhoods with a higher presence of vacant and abandoned buildings and make the restoration of vacant housing units a major government priority. Where restoration receives public funding, ensure that a substantial share of the renovated units are made available to persons with disabilities or are deeply affordable. [^506.6] ### Policy H-1.4.2: Opportunities for Upward Mobility Provide opportunities for residents of District-owned and District-assisted housing to achieve self-sufficiency and upward mobility. Specifically, explore mechanisms for residents of District-owned and District-assisted housing to become homeowners. At the same time, work to replace units purchased with new District-owned and District-assisted housing stock. [^506.7] ### Policy H-1.4.3: Focusing Housing Investments Direct housing improvement funds to neighborhoods with the greatest potential for sustained improvement, based on demographics, market forces, equity considerations that consider existing racial gaps in housing access and opportunity, and historic and current barriers, the presence of neighborhood partners and anchor institutions, and similar factors. [^506.8] ### Policy H-1.4.4: Public Housing Renovation Public housing is a critical part of meeting the demand for affordable housing and preventing displacement. Continue efforts to transform underfunded public housing projects to create equitable mixed-income neighborhoods. An equitable mixed-income neighborhood is one in which residents describe the neighborhood as safe for them and responsive to their concerns and ideas. Inform and engage the affected community throughout the redevelopment process. Target such efforts to locations where private sector development interest can be leveraged to assist in the revitalization, and support community programs and services that assist with creating and maintaining equity. Redevelopment of public housing must achieve all applicable strategies listed in 510.4a. [^506.9] ### Policy H-1.4.5: Scattered Site Acquisition Encourage the acquisition of individual properties on scattered sites for use as affordable housing to deconcentrate poverty, provide more opportunities to low- income persons to attend long-standing high-performing schools in their neighborhoods, and promote and support the integration of low-income households into the community at large. [^506.10] [^506.5]: 506.5 [^506.6]: 506.6 [^506.7]: 506.7 [^506.8]: 506.8 [^506.9]: 506.9 [^506.10]: 506.10 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Policy H-1.4.6: Whole Neighborhood Approach Ensure that planning and new construction of housing is accompanied by concurrent planning and programs to improve neighborhood services, schools, job training, childcare, services for older adults, food access, parks, libraries, community gardens, and open spaces, health care facilities, police and fire facilities, transportation, and emergency response capacity. 506.11[^506.11] ### Action H-1.4.A: Renovation and Rehabilitation of Public Affordable Housing Continue federal and local programs to rehabilitate and rebuild the District’s affordable housing units, including the Choice Neighborhood program, Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Program, capital and modernization programs, the CDBG Program, and the District-sponsored NCI. 506.12[^506.12] ### Action H-1.4.B: Home Again Initiative/PADD Continue support for PADD as a strategy for reducing neighborhood vacancies, restoring an important part of the District’s historic fabric, and providing mixed- income housing in neighborhoods with a significant presence of vacant or abandoned residential properties. 506.13[^506.13] ### Action H-1.4.C: DCHA Improvements Continue improving the operations of the District’s existing publicly assisted housing, Housing Choice Voucher, and Local Rent Supplement Programs, including the Family Self Sufficiency program, voucher homeownership, the use of submarket rents to increase use of vouchers in high-cost neighborhoods, and the RAD Program as needed for financing capital needs. Support residents’ aspirations and skill building, such as through coaching, resident hiring and workforce development programs. 506.14[^506.14] ### Action H-1.4.D: Tax Abatement Consider geographically targeted tax abatements and other financial incentives to encourage market rate housing with affordable housing that exceeds minimum IZ standards in areas where housing must compete with office space for land, similar to the former Downtown Tax Abatement Program. Abatements should consider the potential created by the conversion of existing office space to residential. The potential costs and benefits of tax abatements must be thoroughly analyzed as such programs are considered. 506.15[^506.15] ### Action H-1.4.E: Additional Public Housing Support DCHA’s planning goals for its public housing units by developing strategies to meet the needs of existing units and create additional units. Use subsidies from HUD under the public housing Annual Contributions Contract (ACC), RAD, and other sources. Identify methods to use DCHA and HUD programs and resources to acquire or develop additional publicly [^506.11]: 506.11 [^506.12]: 506.12 [^506.13]: 506.13 [^506.14]: 506.14 [^506.15]: 506.15 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S assisted housing dedicated to extremely-low-income households for the life of the building or in perpetuity. 506[^.16] ### Action H-1.4.F: Non-Housing Investment in Areas of Concentrated Poverty Make non-housing neighborhood economic and community development investments and preserve existing subsidized affordable housing in R/ECAP (as defined by HUD) to improve neighborhood amenities and attract private sector investment to expand housing supply. 506[^.17] ### Action H-1.4.G: Co-Location of Housing with Public Facilities As part of Facility Master Plans and the Capital Improvement Program, conduct a review of and maximize any opportunities to co-locate mixed-income, multi- family housing, emphasizing affordable housing, when there is a proposal for a new or substantially upgraded local public facility, particularly in high-cost areas. 506[^.18] ## H-1.5 Reducing Barriers to Production [^p43-507] The development of housing may be hampered by both governmental and non- governmental constraints. Governmental constraints include lengthy delays in permit processing and plan approval; insufficient coordination among agencies and utilities; zoning regulations, which may not reflect contemporary housing trends; and even prohibitions on certain types of housing. Non-governmental constraints include the high cost of land and rising interest rates. Although much progress has been made, serious barriers still exist. Fear of these barriers, and their costs, keep some developers from undertaking projects in Washington, DC at all and some homeowners from registering their basement units or other rental uses of their property. 507[^.1] ### Policy H-1.5.1: Land and Building Regulations Ensure the District’s land regulations, including its housing and building codes, zoning regulations, construction standards, and permitting fees, enable the production of housing for all income groups. Avoid regulations that make it prohibitively expensive or difficult to construct housing. 507[^.2] ### Policy H-1.5.2: Permitting Procedures Minimize the cost and time associated with development processing while still addressing community and environmental concerns. Explore measures to improve the permitting process, provided that such measures are consistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 507[^.3] ### Policy H-1.5.3: Modular Construction Ensure that the District’s building and housing codes permit the appropriate use of modular and manufactured construction techniques, and other <
> “Take the risk of giving homeownership loans to low income renters to encourage as many renters to become owners as possible.” — PARTICIPANT AT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP. construction methods that may reduce housing costs without compromising building or design quality. 507.4[^507.4] ### Policy H-1.5.4: Financial Incentives Consider tax incentives, reduced permitting and infrastructure fees, underwriting land costs, and other financial measures to reduce the cost of affordable housing construction. 507.5[^507.5] ### Action H-1.5.A: Smart Housing Codes Update and modernize the District Housing Code to reflect the current trend toward smart housing codes, which are structured to encourage building rehabilitation and reuse of housing units built before modern building codes were enacted. 507.6[^507.6] ### Action H-1.5.B: Data Management Maintain electronic inventories of existing housing and potential development sites for the benefit of residents, developers, and policy makers. This information should be used to track housing development and promote better-informed choices regarding public investment and affordable housing development. 507.7[^507.7] ### Action H-1.5.C: Reducing Cost of Public Financing Coordinate and better leverage the resources of the District’s housing agencies to reduce the cost of financing. Use technology to expedite the processing and distribution of affordable housing funds, track and monitor applications for such funds, and improve operating procedures for District financing of affordable housing and housing services. 507.8[^507.8] ### Action H-1.5.D: Support of Accessory Dwelling Units Study whether recent zoning changes are sufficient to facilitate the creation of accessory dwelling units, or whether barriers to their creation still exist, and remove unnecessary obstacles to their creation. Incorporate racial equity considerations into the study. Investigate the benefits of financially supporting accessory dwelling units and design a pilot program to increase the number of affordable housing units through accessory dwelling units. 507.9[^507.9] ### Action H-1.5.E: Remove Regulatory Obstacles Continue to identify and review regulatory impediments to the production of market rate and affordable housing. Remove unnecessary and burdensome regulations and propose more efficient and effective alternatives for achieving important policy and regulatory goals. 507.10[^507.10] [^507.4]: 507.4 [^507.5]: 507.5 [^507.6]: 507.6 [^507.7]: 507.7 [^507.8]: 507.8 [^507.9]: 507.9 [^507.10]: 507.10 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### H-1.6 Sustainability and Resilience [^p45-508] Policies to promote resilient housing specifically address housing that can withstand potential physical and resulting economic shocks from major hazards and stresses. Such shocks can destabilize the housing market and threaten affordability especially for vulnerable residents. Affordability and sustainability policies can keep residents housed and safe. For example, energy and water efficiency reduces household expenses and deepens housing affordability for District residents. Inclusive housing enhances the community’s ability to respond, as one, to chronic stresses and unanticipated shocks. Combined resilient and inclusive housing provides residents with the financial capacity and social networks to absorb, recover from, and overcome current and future challenges facing the District. [^508.1] While Washington, DC continues to incorporate the latest best practices into its building codes, there are additional opportunities to promote more sustainable and resilient housing. New construction and design techniques can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and buffer occupants from any harmful effects of future climate conditions or potential floods that will occur during the expected useful life of built structures. As important as building resilience into new housing, the District should also consider ways to strengthen resilience and increase the adaptive capacity of its older residential building stock, including in historic districts. [^508.2] The benefits of creating safer and more sustainable housing for all residents go beyond reducing the risk to life and property from shocks or stresses. It decreases demands on emergency response, such as allowing people to shelter in place versus evacuating Washington, DC or going to public shelters during disaster events. It also decreases the potential for disruptive impacts on vital services, commerce, and the economy by reducing the number of vulnerable people who will end up being physically displaced by economic or other forces following such events. [^508.3] Transit Oriented Development (TOD) fosters sustainability and resilience. Concentrated residential housing combined with a mix of other uses around Metro stations and high-capacity surface transit corridors reduces District residents’ reliance on automobiles, thereby reducing GHG emissions. It is also proven to reduce a household’s combined cost of housing and transportation. This can free up disposable income to increase the rate at which households save for future needs. Affordable housing near public transit can ensure that low-income households also receive these benefits. A 2011 study conducted for the District by the Center for Neighborhood Technology found that, on average, District households spent 26 percent less on transportation than the rest of the metropolitan area. It is important to consider this in the context of the differing transportation modes available to and used by lower income residents, as well as the potential benefits to them from TOD development. The reduction in transportation costs [^p45-508]: 508 [^508.1]: 508.1 [^508.2]: 508.2 [^508.3]: 508.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS provides greater affordability for the typical household living in the District than one living farther out, where housing is less expensive but more dependent on automobiles. Finally, housing in pedestrian-friendly, transit-rich environments proved to be more resilient to the price fluctuations caused by the foreclosure financial crisis. This protected homeowner equity from significant damage. 508.4[^p46-4] ### Policy H-1.6.1: Resilient and Climate-Adaptive Housing Incorporate current best practices for resilient, climate-adaptive design in the adoption and enforcement of the District’s building and housing construction codes. Base the codes on projected future climate or natural hazard conditions for the District informed by the best available data. 508.5[^p46-5] ### Policy H-1.6.2: Rehabilitation of Vulnerable Housing Improve the structural resilience of existing housing units that are at risk from natural hazards through the promotion of mitigation techniques, such as building upgrades and elevating electrical or mechanical equipment above designated flood elevations. 508.6[^p46-6] ### Policy H-1.6.3: Permanent Post-Disaster Housing Support households affected by large-scale disasters either by successfully retaining them in their homes and avoiding displacement or by returning them to safe, suitable, and affordable housing promptly through technical assistance and clear and comprehensive reconstruction guidelines. Include special emphasis on rebuilding homes in locations and according to standards that make them more resilient to future shocks and stresses. 508.7[^p46-7] ### Policy H-1.6.4: Retrofits for Sustainability Use low-interest loans and other incentives to encourage retrofits that improve energy efficiency, reduce water use, and lower home heating and cooling costs, thereby reducing energy use, GHG emissions, and monthly housing expenditures. 508.8[^p46-8] ### Policy H-1.6.5: Net-Zero, Energy Efficient Housing Encourage new housing units in the District to be net-zero energy and water efficient. 508.9[^p46-9] #### Action H-1.6.A: Monitoring and Updating Data to Support Recovery from 2020 Health Emergency Monitor and update appropriate data to support 2020 public health emergency response and recovery efforts. Such data will include a wide range of housing factors and drivers, such as jobs, population, housing supply and demand. Collect data to support racial equity analyses and responses. 508.10[^p46-10] [^p46-4]: 508.4 [^p46-5]: 508.5 [^p46-6]: 508.6 [^p46-7]: 508.7 [^p46-8]: 508.8 [^p46-9]: 508.9 [^p46-10]: 508.10 *Please consult the Land Use, Transportation and Environment Element for additional policies and actions on sustainability, resilience, and transit-oriented development.* ## H-2 Housing Preservation: Retaining Housing Opportunities [^p47-509] Along with increasing housing and affordable housing supply, preservation of housing in the District is critical. This section focuses on two aspects of housing preservation: retaining affordable housing units specifically and retaining existing housing stock generally. [^509.1] The affordability of the District has been declining over the past five years, even though funding for affordable units has increased. This has been due to a combination of both the expiration of federal subsidies and rising market rents and sales prices. Between 2006 and 2017, the number of rental units affordable to households earning less than 60 percent of the MFI decreased by close to 18,300 units. Figure 5.10b also shows that the number of rental units affordable to those earning more than 60 percent increased by approximately 44,800. Over the same period, the median sales prices of homes rose almost 7.3 percent per year, while condominiums rose 2.8 percent per year. Between 2006 and 2017, the area’s MFI rose by an average compounded rate of less than 1.8 percent a year. These changes have been especially hard on the District’s lowest-income residents, particularly renters who are older adults and those on fixed incomes. These impacts are likely experienced more broadly and deeply for communities of color, given the racial differences in median family income. [^509.2] An important part of housing preservation is the maintenance and modernization of existing housing stock and its components, such as heating ### Figure 5.10b: Change in Supply of Rental Units by Affordability: 2006-2017 [^509.3] | | Units Affordable to Households Earning | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | Less than 60% MFI | More than 60% MFI | Total Units | | 2006 | 87,400 | 44,600 | 132,000 | | 2017 | 69,113 | 89,365 | 158,478 | | Change | (18,287) | 44,765 | 26,478 | *Source: U.S. Census ACS PUMS, OP* [^p47-509]: The Housing Preservation: Retaining Housing Opportunities section has been expanded and updated. [^509.1]: Clarifying edits were made to this paragraph. [^509.2]: Language regarding the affordability of the District was updated and expanded. [^509.3]: Figure 5.10b: Change in Supply of Rental Units by Affordability: 2006-2017 is a new table. CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> Rental housing comprises almost 60 percent of the housing stock and is the main housing option for those just entering the workforce and those without the initial resources to purchase a home. ### Public-Private Affordable Housing Preservation Fund The Public-Private Affordable Housing Preservation Fund proposed by the Preservation Strike Force and created in Fiscal Year 2017 is one important step to ensure the District does not lose expiring affordable housing. The innovative fund mixes both public and private dollars to provide rapid bridge acquisition and predevelopment financing. Capitalized in 2017 with $10 million of public financing and $30 million in initial capital from private partners, the fund could leverage a total of $80 million toward the preservation of expiring affordable housing. [^510.2a] and air conditioning systems. Almost 62 percent of the housing units in Washington, DC are in buildings that are over 55 years old, and many are over 100 years old. The rise in home prices has been accompanied by a rise in building material and labor costs, making it expensive for many owners to care for their properties. In some parts of the Washington, DC, lack of maintenance by absentee landlords may jeopardize the longevity of the housing stock and negatively affect neighborhood character. Maintenance and energy upgrades will continue to be an issue in the future as the existing housing stock grows older and construction, utility, and maintenance costs increase. [^509.4] ### H-2.1 Preservation of Affordable Housing [^p48-510] The Homes for an Inclusive City task force report stated that roughly 30,000 affordable and inexpensive market rate housing units throughout the District were at risk of being lost. This is more than 10 percent of the Washington, DC’s housing stock, and it is home to many of the District’s most vulnerable residents. To avoid displacement, the District will need to channel a greater share of the revenues being created by the strong housing market into new programs that preserve affordable units. This must be a priority in the District’s high-cost areas, as well as its lowest-income areas. Preserving affordable units in higher-income neighborhoods is especially important given the high cost of producing new units. [^510.1] Many of the units that are at risk currently receive their funding through the federal Section 8 program. The program was initiated in 1974 and placed 20- to 40-year affordability contracts on apartment buildings. Thousands of these contracts are now expiring, with many of the units being converted to market rate rentals. Similarly, tax credit affordable housing projects, which largely started in the 1990s, are now expiring after 30 years of affordability requirements. The Preservation Strike Force Report estimated that, between 2016 and 2020, expiring subsidies will place approximately 13,700 units at risk. Many are located in developing neighborhoods, and there are few incentives for building owners to keep them affordable. [^510.2] Publicly subsidized affordable housing options had decreased by 2006, with the expiration of Section 8 contracts and other subsidies, and with the District moving forward with the demolition of 3,000 public housing units to make way for mixed-income projects at East Capitol Gateway, Ellen Wilson, Henson Ridge, Wheeler Creek, and Arthur Capper Carrollsburg. Among these, only Ellen Wilson and Capper Carrollsburg included one-for-one replacement units for each subsidized affordable removed. [^510.3] [^509.4]: 509.4 [^p48-510]: 510 [^510.1]: 510.1 [^510.2]: 510.2 [^510.2a]: 510.2a [^510.3]: 510.3 ### What Is Displacement? Displacement is an issue that many residents and policy makers are concerned about and is a critical challenge when attempting to achieve an equitable District. But it is also not a clearly defined term; it often relates to observation of neighborhood change at a high level, as well as situations in which a household is forced to move from its residence at the individual level. For purposes of clarifying processes and use for the Comprehensive Plan, there are three forms of displacement: physical displacement as households must move when the properties they occupy are redeveloped, economic displacement as housing cost increases in the neighborhood force the household to find other housing options, and cultural displacement as residents lose a sense of belonging or shared identity in their neighborhood due to neighborhood change or growth. While these may relate, they each have different planning responses. 510.3a ### How Displacement Affects Washington, DC Information about the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing units, illustrated in Figure 5.10b, along with the decline of the number of lower-income, primarily Black households, which can be found in the Framework Element, indicates that Washington, DC has experienced significant displacement in many neighborhoods and across the District. National-level studies suggest that, by some measures, the District is the U.S. city most affected by both the increasing demand for housing from higher-income households and the decline in the number of lower-income households. 510.3b Between 2006 and 2017, Washington, DC experienced a decline of more than 15,600 households earning between 30 and 80 percent of the MFI; 9,250 households were homeowners, and 6,350 were rental households. Capitol Hill and other Northeast neighborhoods experienced the greatest decline, with a decrease of 5,950 households earning between 30 and 80 percent of the MFI. During this time, the data suggests there was a modest increase of extremely low-income households District-wide; most moved to Wards 7 and 8 and to Upper Northwest/Northeast, where many have ended up paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing. 510.3c ### Addressing Displacement in Washington, DC Washington, DC has one of the strongest sets of anti-displacement programs in the country, which includes rent control, eviction protection, Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), District Opportunity to Purchase Act (DOPA), locally subsidized rents, tax assessment caps, and tax credits for low-income and older homeowners. 510.3d Yet, protecting all citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable, from the forces that lead to displacement clearly continues to be one of the greatest challenges to growing an equitable and inclusive District. The number of residents affected by physical displacement is relatively small on an annual basis and they can be provided assistance more easily than the significantly larger number and range of households facing economic displacement from rising housing costs caused mainly by a lack of supply. Minimizing the impacts of physical and economic displacement requires balancing the cost-effective approach of preserving mixed-income housing in some locations and expanding housing supply, particularly affordable housing, in others through new construction and redevelopment. Achieving such balance will require a greater understanding of neighborhood submarkets, a more sophisticated approach to the allocation of funding, and difficult discussions among community stakeholders regarding approaches to increasing density. Addressing the broader economic displacement goes well beyond the responsibility of any single development. The District must strengthen existing policies and develop new ones to counteract and mitigate physical and economic displacement. 510.3e The decline in the number of low-income homeowners, who are more insulated from rising housing costs, is an indication of cultural displacement. Older lower- income households face many life changes or may pass their property on to heirs, leading to a natural turnover in residents and new faces in the neighborhood. Those who stay, experience the loss of long-term friends, neighbors, and local businesses, and often are confronted by the ever-increasing lure from the economic gain of selling. Confronting this form of displacement will require greater neighbor-to-neighbor and broader civic engagement. Housing policy can serve to retain vulnerable residents but minimizing the impact of cultural displacement means maintaining community cultural institutions and businesses, creating civic spaces and events that cross cultural divides, and balancing different needs. The efforts should invite all to participate, interact, and grow a common experience and identity, encouraging new residents to respect the identity of the neighborhood they are joining. Information about focusing efforts in this direction can be found in other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Those efforts, along with policies of the Housing Element, will help ensure that, as neighborhoods change and evolve, neighbors continue to see that there is a place for them in their community and to share in the benefits of living in Washington, DC. 510.3f Displacement is a District-wide issue. All residents have a stake in addressing it because it affects both current and future residents. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan, along with the District’s housing programs and initiatives, will bolster the manner in which all forms of displacement are addressed. 510.3g *In addition to policies contained in the Housing Element, see also the Arts and Culture Element and refer to the Office of Planning’s Equity Crosswalk for policies and actions that address cultural displacement. 510.3h* CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Looking to the future, Washington, DC will need to strengthen existing and add new programs to preserve its affordable stock, particularly its subsidized rental units. Rental housing comprises almost 60 percent of the housing stock and is the main housing option for those just entering the workforce and those without the initial resources to purchase a home. Low-income renters are already more likely to pay more than half of their incomes on housing than any other group. In 2006, a proposal for a District-sponsored rent subsidy program (similar to Section 8) called the Local Rent Supplement Program was implemented to offset the expiring federal subsidies and help other households who are cost-burdened. The proposal called for direct rental assistance to 14,600 extremely low-income renters. The program has been expanded over the past several years from 2,800 households to over 5,700 and a total cost of $100 million per year.[^510.4] ### Strategies for the Redevelopment of Existing Dedicated Affordable Housing Many of Washington, DC’s affordable housing developments are aging past their functional lives. This means that, in addition to the affordability controls expiring, the structures and systems are sometimes in a state of disrepair, inefficient, and without modern amenities. Redevelopment or substantial rehabilitation to provide decent, safe housing and prevent displacement from lack of habitability is essential. Redevelopment, however, creates short- and long-term displacement risks. As the cost of housing rises, the need for income-restricted affordable units becomes even greater. Affordable housing properties may contain a layering of project-and tenant-based subsidies at the federal and local levels, as well as naturally occurring affordability. In many cases, many different types of subsidy may exist in one building, which presents a challenge in prescribing singular strategies to prevent displacement of low-income residents. Redevelopment or rehabilitation of income-restricted affordable housing should use the following strategies, ordered by priority, to minimize displacement, maximize the return of tenants to their community, and retain affordable housing: * Include tenants’ right of return to a replacement unit under the same tenancy qualifications. Provide a comprehensive relocation plan for tenants prior to redevelopment. * Implement one for one replacement of income-restricted affordable units at the same affordability levels, and for the unit sizes needed by existing residents. Replace family sized housing in a manner that meets tenants’ housing needs and the needs of households on the waiting list that are the hardest to house in the private market, including the preferences of multi-generational families. * When redeveloping the property, build replacement affordable units first prior to any off-site physical relocation from existing affordable units, or provide appropriate offsite affordable units as new permanent housing within the project neighborhood, if necessary due to site constraints. * Projects accepting tenant-based vouchers must accept tenant-based vouchers following redevelopment. In addition to the strategies listed above, redevelopment of affordable housing should increase the capacity of housing overall, including new dedicated affordable and market-rate units in mixed-income communities.[^510.4a] [^510.4]: 510.4 [^510.4a]: 510.4a CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Policy H-2.1.1 Redeveloping Existing Dedicated Affordable Housing Redevelopment of public housing must make every effort to achieve all strategies in 510.4a. Redevelopment of income-restricted affordable housing by other parties should implement as many of the strategies in 510.4a as possible. The availability and certainty of land use and financial and regulatory incentives to make the projects feasible are critical to achieve these strategies. [^510.5] ### Policy H-2.1.2: Preserving Affordable Rental Housing Recognize the importance of preserving rental housing affordability to the well- being of the District and the diversity of its neighborhoods. Undertake programs to preserve the supply of subsidized rental units and low-cost market rate units, with an emphasis on preserving affordable units in high-cost or rapidly changing neighborhoods, where the opportunity for new affordable units is limited. [^510.6] ### Policy H-2.1.3: Expiring Federal Subsidies Preserve 100 percent of expiring subsidies for affordable housing units, particularly those in Section 8-based projects and projects funded with low-income housing tax credits and tax-exempt bonds, wherever possible. [^510.7] ### Policy H-2.1.4: Avoiding Displacement Maintain programs to prevent long-term displacement resulting from the loss of rental housing units due to demolition or conversion, and minimize short-term displacement during major rehabilitation efforts, and the financial hardships created by rising rents on tenants and other shocks or stresses. Employ TOPA, DOPA, and other financial tools, such as the HPTF and the Preservation Fund. In addition, provide technical and counseling assistance to lower-income households and strengthen the rights of existing tenants to purchase rental units if they are being converted to ownership units. [^510.8] ### Policy H-2.1.5: Conversion of At-Risk Rentals to Affordable Units Support efforts to purchase affordable rental buildings that are at risk of being sold and converted to luxury apartments or condominiums to retain the units as affordable. Consider a variety of programs to own and manage these units, such as land banks, DOPA, TOPA, and sale to nonprofit housing organizations. [^510.9] ### Policy H-2.1.6: Long-Term Affordability Restrictions Ensure that affordable housing units that are created or preserved with public financing are protected by long-term affordability restrictions and are monitored to prevent their transfer to non-qualifying households. Except where precluded by program requirements, affordable units should remain affordable for as long as possible and align with the length and magnitude of the subsidy. For land disposition and affordable housing tied to zoning relief, [^510.5]: 510.5 [^510.6]: 510.6 [^510.7]: 510.7 [^510.8]: 510.8 [^510.9]: 510.9 affordability should last for the life of the building, with equity and asset buildup opportunities provided for ownership units. 510[^.10] ### Policy H-2.1.7: Rent Control Maintain rent control as a tool for moderating the affordability of rental properties and protecting long-term residents, especially older adults, low-income households, and those with disabilities. In considering refinements to the rent control program, the District should be careful to determine whether the proposed changes improve effectiveness, fairness, and affordability without discouraging maintenance and preservation of rental housing units. Rent control should be primarily considered a tenant protection and anti-displacement tool, and therefore should not be utilized to define or assess progress toward income restricted affordable housing production and preservation goals. 510[^.11] ### Policy H-2.1.8: Direct Rental Assistance Develop and fund programs that provide direct rental subsidies for extremely low-income households (earning less than 30 percent of MFI), including persons experiencing homelessness and families in need of permanent shelter or rapid rehousing. Continue support for federally funded rental assistance programs, including public housing, project-based Section 8, other project-based rental assistance, and the Housing Choice Voucher Program. 510[^.12] ### Policy H-2.1.9: Redevelopment of Affordable Housing As dedicated affordable housing reaches the end of its functional life, support maintaining or expanding the quantity of dedicated affordable housing in the redevelopment of the site to the greatest extent feasible, in line with the District’s goals as identified in the Framework Element including those for racial equity and equitable development, and with all applicable redevelopment strategies as referenced in Policy H-2.1.1. 510[^.13] #### Action H-2.1.A: Rehabilitation Grants Maintain a rehabilitation grant program for owners of small apartment buildings, linking the grants to income limits for future tenants. Such programs have been successful in preserving housing affordability. 510[^.14] #### Action H-2.1.B: Local Rent Supplement Expand the Local Rent Supplement Program for both tenant and new project- based support targeted toward public and privately held extremely low-income housing and housing for formerly homeless individuals and families. 510[^.15] [^.10]: 510.10 [^.11]: 510.11 [^.12]: 510.12 [^.13]: 510.13 [^.14]: 510.14 [^.15]: 510.15 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Action H-2.1.C: Purchase of Expiring Subsidized Housing and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing Implement and use DOPA to acquire, preserve, and dedicate new affordable housing through a process that will maintain the properties with long-term affordability requirements. [^510.16] ### Action H-2.1.D: Affordable Set-Asides in Condo Conversions In a condo conversion, 20 percent of the units should be earmarked for qualifying low- and moderate-income households. In addition, condominium maintenance fees should be set proportionally to the unit price so that otherwise affordable units do not become out-of-reach because of high fees. [^510.17] ### Action H-2.1.E: Housing Registry Maintain a registry of affordable or accessible housing units in the District and a program to match these units with qualifying low-income households. [^510.18] ### Action H-2.1.F: Affordable Housing Preservation Unit Establish and maintain a division within District government to systematically and proactively work with tenants, owners of affordable housing, investors, their representatives, and others associated with real estate and housing advocacy in Washington, DC to establish relationships and gather intelligence to preserve affordable housing and expand future opportunities by converting naturally affordable unassisted units to long-term dedicated affordable housing. [^510.19] ### Action H-2.1.G: Expand Acquisition Funding for Preservation Continue funding for public-private partnerships to facilitate acquisition and early investments to leverage greater amounts of private capital for the preservation of affordable housing. [^510.20] ### Action H-2.1.H: Improve Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Program Improve the preservation of affordable housing through TOPA and TOPA exemptions by providing financial incentives to TOPA transactions, including predevelopment work, legal services, third-party reports, and acquisition bridge financing. The effort should include tracking mechanisms to collect accurate program data and evaluate outcomes for further improvement in the program. [^510.21] ### Action H-2.1.I: Anti-Displacement Strategy Track neighborhood change, development, and housing costs to identify areas of Washington, DC that have experienced, are experiencing, or are likely to experience, displacement pressures. Collect, disaggregate, and monitor data to consider income and racial characteristics of the neighborhoods and households affected by or at risk of displacement. [^510.16]: 510.16 [^510.17]: 510.17 [^510.18]: 510.18 [^510.19]: 510.19 [^510.20]: 510.20 [^510.21]: 510.21 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S Conduct racial equity analyses that identify the policies and underlying forces contributing to any inequities. Such analyses must consider different sources of displacement pressures, including a lack of new housing in high-demand neighborhoods and effects new development may have on housing costs in adjacent areas. Monitor best practices and identify new strategies for displacement prevention. Use the information to create a District-wide anti-displacement strategy, prepare reoccurring reports, improve program performance, and identify targeted areas within which to deploy resources to prevent displacement and help residents with the highest displacement risks stay in their neighborhoods. Examine ways to support low-income residents in areas that have already experienced rapid displacement, such as those in Mid-City and Near Northwest. 510.22 ## H-2.2 Housing Conservation and Maintenance [^p55-511] Despite the advancing age of Washington, DC’s building stock, most of the District’s housing is in good condition. The number of vacant and abandoned units has continued to decline since 2006[^] and reinvestment in housing stock has occurred in all parts of Washington, DC. There are still threats, however. Demolition by neglect remains an issue in some neighborhoods, while other neighborhoods face the risk of housing being converted to non-residential uses, such as medical offices and nonprofits. The long-term conservation of housing requires policies and actions that promote housing rehabilitation, upkeep, and modernization while discouraging conversion to non-residential uses. 511.1 As noted above, housing conservation programs are particularly important for the District’s older adults (residents 60 years old and above), many of whom are on fixed incomes. Older adults make up 11 percent of the District’s population, but they represent over 27 percent of its homeowners. These older adults may need low-interest loans, grants, tax credits, income from home sharing arrangements and accessory dwelling units, and other programs and arrangements that reduce the financial burden of homeownership. Similar efforts are needed to assist extremely low-income households. Their housing units are often overcrowded and have structural problems and code compliance issues that affect their habitability. 511.2 ### Policy H-2.2.1: Housing Conversion Discourage the conversion of viable, quality housing units to non-residential uses, such as offices and hotels. Use, and as needed update, zoning regulations to avoid the loss of housing in this manner. 511.3 ### Policy H-2.2.2: Housing Maintenance Support voluntary, philanthropic, nonprofit, private, and District-sponsored programs that assist residents in the upkeep of their homes and properties, [^p55-511]: 511 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS particularly programs that provide low-interest loans and grants for low-income residents, older homeowners, and people living with disabilities. 511.4[^511.4] #### Policy H-2.2.3: Tax Relief Maintain and simplify tax relief measures for homeowners, especially older adults and those with low incomes, faced with rising assessments and property taxes by using common income definitions and progressive relief according to need. These measures should reduce the pressure on long-term residents, especially low- income owners, to sell their homes and move out of the District. 511.5[^511.5] #### Policy H-2.2.4: Healthy Homes Implement programs to reduce and mitigate potential health hazards in older homes, such as lead pipes, mold, and carbon monoxide. Programs to increase the environmental sustainability of the housing stock and residential construction are also encouraged. 511.6[^511.6] #### Action H-2.2.A: Housing Code Enforcement Improve the enforcement of housing codes to prevent deteriorated, unsafe, and unhealthy housing conditions, especially in areas of Washington, DC with persistent code enforcement problems. Ensure that tenants are provided information on tenant rights, such as how to obtain inspections, contest petitions for substantial rehabilitation, purchase multi-family buildings, and vote in conversion elections. 511.7[^511.7] #### Action H-2.2.B: Sale of Persistent Problem Properties Address persistent tax and housing code violations through negotiated sales of title sale of properties by putting properties in receivership, foreclosing on tax- delinquent properties, enforcing higher tax rates on vacant and underused property, and through tenants’ rights education, including use of TOPA. Whenever possible, identify alternative housing resources for persons who are displaced by major code enforcement activities. 511.8[^511.8] *See the Historic Preservation Element for additional policies on homeowner tax credits.* #### Action H-2.2.C: Tax Relief Review existing tax relief programs for District homeowners and consider changes to unify and simplify programs to help low- and moderate-income households address rising property assessments. Consider using the MFI as a standard for establishing need and eligibility. 511.9[^511.9] #### Action H-2.2.D: Program Assistance for Low- and Moderate-Income Owners Continue to offer comprehensive home maintenance and repair programs for low- and moderate-income owners and renters of single-family homes. These [^511.4]: 511.4 [^511.5]: 511.5 [^511.6]: 511.6 [^511.7]: 511.7 [^511.8]: 511.8 [^511.9]: 511.9 programs should include counseling and technical assistance, as well as zero interest and deferred interest loans and direct financial assistance. 511.10 # H-3 Homeownership and Access [^p57-512] Homeownership gives individuals a stake in the community and a chance to share in its growing prosperity. It can help foster civic pride and engagement, improve family stability, and enhance support for local schools and services. Importantly, homeownership provides a long-term asset to build long-term personal wealth. Affordable homeownership programs provide families with the benefits of value appreciation of their homes, one of the most important tangential benefits of owning instead of renting. For these reasons, the District has had a long-standing policy of helping its residents become homeowners and promoting the construction of new owner-occupied housing in Washington, DC. 512.1 An important part of ownership is access to financing and real estate opportunity. In the past, the practice of redlining (i.e., withholding home loan funds in certain neighborhoods) by certain lenders made it more difficult to secure home loans in parts of Washington, DC. This practice, along with covenants, and other land use and financing restrictions, reflected systemic racism that discriminated against groups by race, as well as ethnicity and faith, resulting in many of the gaps today in homeownership, wealth, and access to opportunity by the District’s communities of color. Enforcement of fair housing practices is important not only to stop unfair lending practices but also to address affordable housing opportunities in high-cost areas, discrimination against renters, single parents, persons with HIV/AIDS, vulnerable populations, older adults, and persons with disabilities. 512.2 ### H-3.1 Encouraging Homeownership [^p57-513] Nationwide, about two-thirds of all households are homeowners. In the District, the 2000 census reported the homeownership rate was just 41 percent. After 2000, the homeownership rate slowly increased to 46 percent until 2006; then the national mortgage collapse caused sharp increases in foreclosures and many lost their homes. Homeownership has since declined and by 2017 stood at 42 percent in Washington, DC. Instability in the homeownership market and limited access to credit has caused many to select rental housing. These national factors are affecting all cities, but the District still has one of the lowest rates of homeownership in the country, well below Philadelphia (53 percent), Baltimore (45 percent), and Chicago (43 percent), although higher than the 32 percent rate in New York and the 34 percent rate in Boston. The ownership rate in the District has increased four percentage points since 1980, when 35 percent of Washington, DC’s households were homeowners. Homeownership for white residents is 49 [^p57-512]: 512 [^p57-513]: 513 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> Meeting the need for moderate-income housing percent, but only 35 percent for Black residents and 30 percent for Latino residents. [^513.1] Home prices create a significant obstacle to increasing the homeownership rate. In September 2015, only 38 percent of the homes on the market with two or more bedrooms were affordable to the median income family, and this does not reflect the significant disparity in median income by race, with white households at $143,150 and Black households at $35,563. While the recent increase in the supply of condominiums has improved homeownership prospects somewhat, the options for multigenerational families continue to be limited. [^513.2] DHCD administers several programs to help residents purchase homes. These include PADD, which acquires tax-delinquent properties and bids them out to small developers who fix up the properties and sell or rent them primarily for affordable housing. It also includes the Home Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP), which offers interest-free and low-interest loans to qualified residents for the purchase of houses, condominiums, or cooperative apartments. The District also provides grants and deferred loans to government employees who are first- time homebuyers. These programs are an important part of the District’s efforts to provide moderate-income housing for its residents (see text box entitled Meeting the Need for Moderate-Income Housing). [^513.3] ### Meeting the Need for Moderate-Income Housing As housing prices have outpaced income growth in many U.S. cities, housing advocates and policy makers have called for initiatives to provide moderate-income housing. Moderate-income housing refers to housing designed for people in professions that are essential to a community but do not offer sufficient wages to afford market rate housing. These professions include administrative support, clerical occupations, and service jobs, and account for one-third of the jobs in the American workforce. In the District, Black residents hold the majority of service jobs, at 54 percent, highlighting the need to also address housing barriers from a racial equity perspective. [^513.3a] Even with two working parents in the service industries, a family would have a difficult time purchasing a home or renting a suitable apartment in the District. Janitors, schoolteachers, licensed nurses, police officers, childcare professionals, and other service workers have been priced out of the District market and many other markets across the country. New programs, such as employer-assisted housing and down payment assistance for public sector employees, are being pursued to provide more options and keep these essential workers in Washington, DC. [^513.3b] [^513.1]: percent, but only 35 percent for Black residents and 30 percent for Latino residents. [^513.2]: Home prices create a significant obstacle to increasing the homeownership rate. In September 2015, only 38 percent of the homes on the market with two or more bedrooms were affordable to the median income family, and this does not reflect the significant disparity in median income by race, with white households at $143,150 and Black households at $35,563. While the recent increase in the supply of condominiums has improved homeownership prospects somewhat, the options for multigenerational families continue to be limited. [^513.3]: DHCD administers several programs to help residents purchase homes. These include PADD, which acquires tax-delinquent properties and bids them out to small developers who fix up the properties and sell or rent them primarily for affordable housing. It also includes the Home Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP), which offers interest-free and low-interest loans to qualified residents for the purchase of houses, condominiums, or cooperative apartments. The District also provides grants and deferred loans to government employees who are first- time homebuyers. These programs are an important part of the District’s efforts to provide moderate-income housing for its residents (see text box entitled Meeting the Need for Moderate-Income Housing). [^513.3a]: As housing prices have outpaced income growth in many U.S. cities, housing advocates and policy makers have called for initiatives to provide moderate-income housing. Moderate-income housing refers to housing designed for people in professions that are essential to a community but do not offer sufficient wages to afford market rate housing. These professions include administrative support, clerical occupations, and service jobs, and account for one-third of the jobs in the American workforce. In the District, Black residents hold the majority of service jobs, at 54 percent, highlighting the need to also address housing barriers from a racial equity perspective. [^513.3b]: Even with two working parents in the service industries, a family would have a difficult time purchasing a home or renting a suitable apartment in the District. Janitors, schoolteachers, licensed nurses, police officers, childcare professionals, and other service workers have been priced out of the District market and many other markets across the country. New programs, such as employer-assisted housing and down payment assistance for public sector employees, are being pursued to provide more options and keep these essential workers in Washington, DC. In 2013, Washington, DC piloted a partnership with three employers called the Live Near Your Work (LNYW) Program. The partnership matched a contribution made by employers to provide down payment assistance to encourage employees to live close to their work. Housing tends to be more expensive the closer it is to major job centers. The LNYW Program pilot demonstrated the value of the assistance toward encouraging employees to live closer to work. Evaluations of similar programs across the country have documented the savings in travel time and costs, improvement in employee quality of life, and benefits to the employers in terms of employee performance and turnover. [^513.4] #### Policy H-3.1.1: Increasing Homeownership Enhance community stability by promoting homeownership and creating opportunities for first-time homebuyers in the District. Provide loans, grants, and other District programs to raise the District’s homeownership rate from its year 2016 figure of 39 percent to a year 2025 figure of 44 percent. These programs and opportunities should acknowledge and address the significant racial gaps and barriers to home ownership. Increased opportunities for homeownership should not be provided at the expense of the District’s rental housing programs or through the displacement of low-income renters. [^513.5] #### Policy H-3.1.2: First-Time Buyer Income Targets Structure homeownership and down payment assistance programs to benefit working families with incomes between 50 percent and 120 percent of the MFI. [^513.6] #### Policy H-3.1.3: Asset Development Through Homeownership Support paths to homeownership that build and sustain equity and develop assets for the transfer of intergenerational wealth, especially for low- and moderate- income households. [^513.7] ### Action H-3.1.A: HPAP Program Maintain and expand the District’s HPAP by periodically reviewing and establishing appropriate amounts of assistance to continue advancing affordable homeownership for low-income households. [^513.8] ### Action H-3.1.B: District Employer Assisted Housing Program Strengthen the District government’s existing Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) Program by increasing the amount of EAH awards and removing limitations on applicants seeking to combine EAH assistance with HPAP funds. [^513.9] [^513.4]: 513.4 [^513.5]: 513.5 [^513.6]: 513.6 [^513.7]: 513.7 [^513.8]: 513.8 [^513.9]: 513.9 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> Working together, the Human Rights Act of 1977,... ### Action H-3.1.C: New EAH Programs Encourage major employers in Washington, DC to develop EAH programs for moderate- and middle-income housing, including: * Private sector employee benefit packages that include grants, forgivable loans, and on-site homeownership seminars for first-time buyers; * Federal programs that would assist income-eligible federal workers who currently rent in the District; * Programs designed to encourage employees to live close to their work to reduce travel time and cost and increase their quality of life; and * Linking EAH efforts with performance-based incentives for attracting new employers. [^513.10] ### Action H-3.1.D: Individual Development Accounts Invest in programs that support Individual Development Accounts that assist low-income persons to save for first-time home purchases. [^513.11] ### Action H-3.1.E: Neighborhood Housing Finance Expand housing finance and counseling services for very low-, low-, and moderate-income homeowners, and improve the oversight and management of these services. [^513.12] ### Action H-3.1.F: Foreclosure Prevention Develop public-private partnerships to raise awareness of foreclosure prevention efforts and to offer assistance to households facing foreclosure. [^513.13] ### Action H-3.1.G: Protect Homeowner Equity Research, identify, and implement as appropriate tools to protect the equity of homeowners and help lower-income and older adult homeowners recover from volatile market forces and adverse events that threaten their equity and status as homeowners. [^513.14] ## H-3.2 Housing Access [^p60-514] The District established its commitment to fair housing under the Human Rights Act of 1977 (DC Law 2-38, DC Code Sec 2-1401 [2001 ed]). This commitment is bolstered by federal regulations, including the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Together, these laws prohibit housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, marital status, personal appearance, gender expression or identity, family responsibilities, political affiliation, family status, matriculation, source of income, place of residence or business, or status as a victim of an intrafamily offense. [^514.1] [^513.10]: 513.10 [^513.11]: 513.11 [^513.12]: 513.12 [^513.13]: 513.13 [^513.14]: 513.14 [^p60-514]: 514 [^514.1]: 514.1 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Despite anti-discrimination laws, District residents may still be unfairly denied housing on the basis of the factors listed above. Common forms of discrimination include refusal to rent, steering to particular neighborhoods by real estate agents, setting different terms for the sale or rental of housing (such as higher security deposits for certain groups), advertising to “preferred” groups, denial of loans or imposition of variable loan terms, and the use of threats and intimidation. In addition, voucher holders often have difficulty finding a landlord willing to accept them. The District works to address these challenges through the full enforcement of fair housing laws. 514.2[^514.2] The requirements of fair housing apply to both the private and public sectors. Local governments are charged with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), and the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that public sector actions, such as land use, zoning regulations, and patterns of affordable housing investment, can unfairly limit housing choice, even if the consequences were unintended. For instance, to avoid disparate impacts on protected classes, public sector decisions should provide the opportunity for both multi-family housing and affordable subsidy investment in higher-cost neighborhoods that provide greater opportunity because of access to good jobs, schools, transit, and other services. 514.3[^514.3] Figure 5.11 displays the allocation of affordable units in the District by Planning Area. It demonstrates that the Far Southeast and Southwest Planning Area has 15,517 affordable units, which represent 31 percent of Washington, DC’s affordable units and 50 percent of the Planning Area’s total units. Similarly, it shows that the Rock Creek West Planning Area has 471 affordable units, which represent one percent of that Planning Area’s total number of units. 514.4[^514.4] [^514.2]: 514.2 [^514.3]: 514.3 [^514.4]: 514.4 ### Figure 5.11: ### Affordable Units by Planning Area in 2017 [^514.5] | Planning Area | Total Units | Percent of Total Units District Wide | Affordable Units | Percent of Affordable Units District Wide | Percent Affordable of Area Units | Affordable Projects | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Capitol Hill | 28,163 | 8% | 1,753 | 3% | 6% | 47 | | Central Washington | 15,897 | 5% | 2,664 | 5% | 17% | 29 | | Far Northeast and Southeast | 37,527 | 11% | 9,576 | 19% | 26% | 103 | | Far Southeast and Southwest | 30,738 | 9% | 15,517 | 31% | 50% | 138 | | Lower Anacostia Waterfront and Near Southwest | 14,115 | 4% | 3,059 | 6% | 22% | 30 | | Mid-City | 50,184 | 15% | 6,820 | 13% | 14% | 156 | | Near Northwest | 54,549 | 16% | 4,004 | 8% | 7% | 64 | | Rock Creek East | 30,568 | 9% | 2,518 | 5% | 8% | 85 | | Rock Creek West | 48,836 | 14% | 471 | 1% | 1% | 10 | | Upper Northeast | 32,295 | 9% | 4,489 | 9% | 14% | 75 | | Total | 342,872 | 100% | 50,871 | 100% | 15% | 737 | **Source: HousingInsights.org, OP** Furthering fair housing includes taking action to combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, foster inclusive communities, address significant disparities in housing need, and provide access to opportunity. Historic growth patterns and development reflected in Map 5.1 and Figure 5.11 illustrate the concentrations of affordable housing investment. Since 2006, the District has made great strides, including revising the zoning regulations to facilitate a wider range of housing opportunities, developing the IZ Program, and changing how affordable housing investment decisions are made. However, with residents concentrated along lines of race, ethnicity, and wealth, more needs to be done. [^514.6] [^514.5]: 514.5 [^514.6]: 514.6 ### Policy H-3.2.1: Fair Housing Enforcement Strongly enforce fair housing laws to protect residents from housing discrimination. Provide education, outreach, and referral services for residents regarding their rights as tenants and buyers. Provide education and outreach to landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and others on their obligations when housing is made available. [^514.7] ### Policy H-3.2.2: Compliance by Recipients of District Funds Nondiscrimination and full compliance with the District’s fair housing laws shall be required for all housing developers and service providers receiving financial assistance from the District. [^514.8] ### Policy H-3.2.3: Prohibition on Redlining The practice of “redlining” local neighborhoods shall be prohibited in compliance with the federal Community Investment Act of 1977, which prohibits the practice of redlining local neighborhoods. [^514.9] #### Action H-3.2.A: Cultural Sensitivity Require all District agencies that deal with housing and housing services to be culturally and linguistically competent. [^514.10] #### Action H-3.2.B: Fair Housing Education Undertake a Fair Housing Act education program for all relevant staff persons and public officials so they are familiar with the Act and their responsibilities in its enforcement. Maintain programs that raise the public’s awareness of fair housing rights and responsibilities, including educational events, compliance training, affirmative marketing training, and other outreach efforts that further fair housing and eliminate discrimination. [^514.11] #### Action H-3.2.C: Lending Practices Continue to monitor private sector lending practices for their impact on the stability of neighborhoods, and develop responses if instability is identified. [^514.12] #### Action H-3.2.D: Overcoming Impediments to Fair Housing Develop strategies to overcome impediments and obstacles to the delivery of affordable housing in high-cost areas, such as rapid site acquisition, risk reduction, and expedited project selection and processing. [^514.13] [^514.7]: 514.7 [^514.8]: 514.8 [^514.9]: 514.9 [^514.10]: 514.10 [^514.11]: 514.11 [^514.12]: 514.12 [^514.13]: 514.13 ## H-4 Housing for Vulnerable Populations and Persons with Disabilities [^p64-515] In 2017, among Washington DC’s 693,972 residents, thousands of vulnerable populations and persons with disabilities required targeted help finding, paying for, and maintaining affordable housing. These individuals and families included persons experiencing homelessness, older adults, LGBTQ youth and adults, and persons living with other challenges, such as disabilities, HIV/AIDS, behavioral health issues, victims of domestic violence, citizens returning from correctional facilities, and youth being discharged from foster care and the juvenile justice system. Vulnerable populations and residents with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to displacement, experiencing homelessness, and other housing hardships. They often lack the income needed to afford safe, decent housing and the services that will help them lead stable, healthy lives. [^515.1] ### H-4.1 Integrating Vulnerable Populations and Persons with Disabilities [^p64-516] One of the basic premises of the District’s vision is that housing serving vulnerable populations and those with disabilities should be accommodated in all of Washington, DC’s neighborhoods and not heavily located in a handful of areas; the current distribution is uneven. While it would be unrealistic to propose that each neighborhood should have an identical number of such facilities, more can be done to avoid concentrating housing in a handful of areas. Every neighborhood should be a high-opportunity neighborhood, and all residents should have access to housing opportunities. [^516.1] Steps can also be taken to reduce the stigma associated with housing for vulnerable populations or persons with disabilities and to improve its compatibility with the surrounding community. This will become even more important in the future, as displacement pressures downtown and elsewhere create additional challenge to maintain and operate some of the District’s emergency shelters and those providing services to vulnerable populations or persons with disabilities. Given limited budgets, the rising cost of land tends to drive housing for vulnerable populations or persons with disabilities to the most affordable areas of the District—the very places where these uses already are concentrated. A history of racist policies has led to Black and Hispanic residents disproportionately experiencing homelessness, being part of the foster care system, interacting with the juvenile justice system, living with HIV/AIDS, serving time in correctional facilities and experiencing behavioral health issues. So, actions to improve housing opportunities is a matter of racial equity. Washington, DC is [^p64-515]: 515 [^515.1]: 515.1 [^p64-516]: 516 [^516.1]: 516.1 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS committed to investing in community-based housing options and services that encourage independent living across all Planning Areas. 516.2 ### Policy H-4.1.1: Integration of Vulnerable Populations and Residents with Disabilities Integrate residents with disabilities or vulnerable populations through housing that includes wraparound supportive services throughout Washington, DC rather than segregating them into neighborhoods that already have a significant presence of such housing. 516.3 ### Policy H-4.1.2: Emphasis on Permanent Housing Emphasize permanent housing-first solutions for persons with disabilities or vulnerable populations, rather than building more temporary, short-term housing facilities. Permanent housing is more conducive to the stability of its occupants and generally has greater support from communities than transient housing. 516.4 ### Policy H-4.1.3: Coordination of Housing and Support Services Coordinate the siting of housing for persons with disabilities or vulnerable populations with the location of the key services that support the population being housed. The availability of affordable public transportation to reach those services also should be considered. 516.5 ### Policy H-4.1.4: Protecting the Housing Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Vulnerable Populations Protect the housing rights of all vulnerable populations or residents with disabilities through laws pertaining to property taxes, evictions, and affordable tenancy. 516.6 ## H-4.2 Ending Homelessness [^p65-517] Homelessness in the Washington, DC, on any given night, is a significant problem that has become worse in the wake of the current housing boom. In January 2005, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) estimated that 11,419 people were experiencing homelessness in the region, including 2,694 who were chronically experiencing homelessness. More than half of those experiencing homelessness and two-thirds of those chronically experiencing homelessness lived in the District. Provisions to assist those living without housing must include emergency shelter that accommodates seasonal change and weather variations, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, and permanent supportive housing. On many levels, the need for such facilities and services outpaces supply. The shortfall will worsen if regional partners and colleagues do not match Washington, DC’s efforts, with more persons living without housing in the District. 517.1 <
> The number of housing units specifically designed for persons with disabilities, particularly units in facilities with services to help cope with these disabilities, is far short of the actual need. [^p65-517]: 517 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS By 2017, the number of persons experiencing homelessness declined to 11,128 persons across the region, and the persons experiencing chronic homelessness declined to 2,522. However, persons experiencing homelessness in Washington, DC now represent over two-thirds of the region’s population living without housing and 70 percent of those chronically experiencing homelessness. The sharpest increase in Washington, DC has been in families living without housing, which increased 22 percent to 3,890 persons between 2012 and 2017. Increases in the number of families experiencing homelessness strain shelter capacity and affect the District’s ability to serve other vulnerable populations, such as single adults with disabilities. Longer shelter and hotel stays were leading to a need for more shelter units, while rising costs are making it more difficult to provide services and secure housing for those in need. Homelessness has enormous social and economic consequences, resulting in increased medical, legal, and incarceration costs, as well as shelter costs. 517.2[^517.2] In 2015, the District published Homeward DC, a collaborative effort by the District Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH) intended to prevent housing loss and quickly stabilize and safely shelter individuals and families who are living without housing. The plan emphasizes permanent housing solutions and community support networks. Its goal is that any household experiencing housing loss will be rehoused within an average of 60 days or less, with homelessness reduced by 65 percent by 2020. The efforts aim to transform the system to focus on crisis response, helping people quickly get back on their feet. ICH has drafted and will publish Homeward DC 2.0: 2020-2025, which builds on the lessons learned from the first five years of Homeward DC implementation and identifies additional strategies to advance the District’s efforts to address homelessness in Washington, DC. 517.3[^517.3] The goal of Homeward DC is to provide housing first, moving people to permanent housing as quickly as possible, accompanied by necessary supportive services. While individuals and families may face housing loss in the future, homelessness will be prevented whenever possible. When it does occur, it will be a rare, brief, and nonrecurring experience. 517.4[^517.4] With the closing of the DC General facility, Washington, DC is expanding transitional family housing in all eight wards and will also continue to implement plans and assist specific subsets of the population living without housing, such as youth and veterans. Blacks are disproportionately affected by the drivers of homelessness, representing 85 percent of those experiencing homelessness in the District. These drivers include income and wealth gaps, discrimination in the criminal justice system, and credit disparities. For instance, the Solid Foundations DC plan to end youth homelessness states that a disproportionate share (24 percent) of youth experiencing homeless identify as LGBTQ or other and are exploring targeted solutions for vulnerable communities who are at risk of victimization for sexual exploitation, behavioral health, and other problems. Washington, DC will also continue to provide year-round access to shelter, which is especially important during the winter months and in heat emergencies. Provisions to assist those experiencing homelessness must include emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing, along with supportive services. However, the need for such facilities and services outpaces supply. Rising housing costs will continue to place more families at risk of homelessness. 517.5[^517.5] ### Policy H-4.2.1: Ending Homelessness Reduce the incidence of homelessness to rare, brief, and nonrecurring events in Washington, DC through prevention efforts, development of permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness in all District Planning Areas, and active coordination of the placement of persons experiencing homelessness into housing that best fits their needs. 517.6[^517.6] ### Policy H-4.2.2: Neighborhood-Based Services for Persons Living Without Homes Encourage the provision of services for persons living without homes through neighborhood-based permanent supportive housing and SRO units. The smaller service model can reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts to surrounding uses, improve community acceptance, and also support the reintegration of persons experiencing homelessness back into the community. 517.7[^517.7] ### Policy H-4.2.3: Increasing the Permanent Supportive Housing Supply Increase the supply of permanent supportive housing affordable to extremely low-income households to reduce the length of shelter stays, free up additional shelter capacity, and provide stable long-term housing for those who are living without housing or at risk of living without housing. 517.8[^517.8] ### Policy H-4.2.4: Homelessness Prevention and Crisis Response Expand programs to stabilize high-risk households before they arrive at the shelter door by researching the common causes of homelessness and implementing targeted homelessness prevention programming, especially for those transitioning out of institutional settings such as foster care, correctional facilities, or behavioral health facilities. Continue efforts to create a more effective crisis response system to address homelessness, focused on helping individuals and families get back on their feet as quickly as possible. 517.9[^517.9] ### Policy H-4.2.5: Reducing Housing Barriers for Persons Experiencing Homelessness Reduce the barriers that prevent persons and families experiencing homeless from finding affordable and supportive housing. Overcome onerous [^517.5]: 517.5 [^517.6]: 517.6 [^517.7]: 517.7 [^517.8]: 517.8 [^517.9]: 517.9 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS eligibility requirements and restrictions based on credit, income, and criminal history by providing incentives to landlords willing to housing that escaping homelessness. Improve business processes and information systems, including user tests, to decrease the time it takes for individuals and families to complete paperwork and locate and lease-up an available rental unit. 517.10[^517.10] #### Action H-4.2.A: Homeward DC Implement the recommendations outlined in Homeward DC: 2015-2020, which updates and expands on the Homeward DC: Strategic Plan 2015-2020 and continues the District’s efforts to make homelessness in the District rare, brief, and non-recurring. Homeward DC recommended strategies to expand homelessness prevention strategies, improve the quality of the District’s emergency shelter facilities, and increase the number of permanent supportive housing units and tenant-based rental subsidies available for populations experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Homeward DC 2.0 builds on the recommendations outlined in Homeward DC and highlights additional strategies to advance these efforts. 517.11[^517.11] #### Action H-4.2.B: Emergency Assistance Expand the emergency assistance program for rent, security deposit, mortgage, or utility expenses for very low-income families with children, older adults, and persons with disabilities to prevent homelessness. 517.12[^517.12] #### Action H-4.2.C: Ending Youth Homelessness Implement Solid Foundations DC: The Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Youth Homelessness. The plan includes strategies for youth homelessness prevention, expanded outreach and reunification, additional youth shelter capacity, improved support services, continuing education, and capacity building programs for organizations that support the emotional, physical, and social well-being of at-risk youth. 517.13[^517.13] #### Action H-4.2.D: Discharge Coordination Maintain discharge programs from the foster care, health care, and the criminal justice systems that prevent homelessness and provide a safe transition to independent living. 517.14[^517.14] #### Action H-4.2.E: Landlord Recruitment Develop and test pilot programs designed to incentivize landlords to house individuals and families exiting homelessness. Evaluate strategies and make recommendations on maintaining and improving an ongoing program. 517.15[^517.15] [^517.10]: 517.10 [^517.11]: 517.11 [^517.12]: 517.12 [^517.13]: 517.13 [^517.14]: 517.14 [^517.15]: 517.15 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S ### H-4.3 Meeting the Needs of Specific Groups [^p69-518] The housing needs of the District’s most vulnerable populations vary among each group. Some require housing with specific physical attributes, such as wheelchair ramps or bathrooms with grab bars. Some require housing with on-site support services, such as meal service or job counseling. Most simply need housing that is safe, secure, and affordable. It is important to consider the racial composition of these groups and how historic or current racial barriers to housing opportunities may affect needs. Communities of color are disproportionately represented in the vulnerable populations discussed below; for example, 69 percent of DC residents living with HIV/AIDS are Black. Those who most commonly benefit from supportive services are the several groups profiled below. [^518.1] In 2017, 118,275[^] District residents were age 60 years and over, including 12,133 residents 85 years and over. As the baby boom generation matures and as average lifespan increases, the population of residents aged 60 years and over in the District is expected to increase dramatically. By 2030, there will be 141,275[^] residents aged 60 years and over, of which 12,000 will be 85 years and older. In addition, first-time homelessness among older adults on fixed incomes continues to increase, as they face ever increasing affordability challenges. A broad range of environments will be needed for older adults, serving residents across the income spectrum. [^518.2] The Age-Friendly DC initiative, launched in 2012, identified 75 strategies across 10 broad topics to allow residents of all ages to remain in community-based settings as they age. Additional programs will be needed to help older adults age in place through home retrofits. New forms of cooperative and shared housing may be explored, and additional facilities will be needed that offer on-site nursing and health care in a congregate environment. As already noted, higher levels of assistance will be required to help older adult homeowners on fixed incomes and to protect renters who are older adults from displacement. More intergenerational living facilities also may be needed; in approximately 2,881 households, grandparents are responsible for the care of their grandchildren; almost 89 percent of grandfamilies living in the District are Black. [^518.3] A disproportionately large share of the region’s population of persons with disabilities resides in Washington, DC. Approximately 94,400 District residents — or 13 percent of the total population — are persons with disabilities or live with a person with a disability. Nearly one-third of Washington, DC’s population of persons with disabilities lives below the poverty level. Many of these adults are unable to work and need supportive services and accessible housing options. [^518.4] Mobility limitations affect nearly 48,000 District residents. Thousands of residents need basic modifications to so that they can live well in their own homes. New units should be visitable to residents who are living with [^p69-518]: [^518.1]: [^518.2]: [^518.3]: [^518.4]: disabilities and enable residents to age in community. Visitability refers to apartments and single-family housing that can be lived in or visited by persons who have trouble with steps or who use wheelchairs or walkers. Visitability improvements are also needed to remove physical barriers, even in homes that do not currently house persons with mobility challenges, so that persons with limitations can visit others. Persons with disabilities may also require medical and personal care assistance in daily living activities. The number of housing units specifically designed for persons with disabilities, particularly units in facilities with services to help cope with these disabilities, is far short of the actual need. Moreover, many persons with disabilities rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and face an enormous gap between their income and the cost of their housing. 518.5[^518.5] Each year, the correctional facilities system in the District releases more than 5,000 people. Many return to the District, usually without the means to pay for market rate housing and, in some cases, without the skills or means to find a decent job. Many return to neighborhoods experiencing high crime and poverty, remain chronically unemployed, and find shelter in group homes or shared housing. Unstable housing and a lack of employment undermine returning citizens’ success and can perpetuate the cycle of poverty and violence in the District’s lowest-income neighborhoods. The Department of Corrections and the Mayor’s Office on Returning Citizen Affairs have prioritized reentry programs to protect public safety and reduce recidivism, including housing strategies. In 2016, the District passed the Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act, which bans landlords from asking about an applicant’s criminal record until a conditional offer has been made. 518.6[^518.6] In 2015, 15,200 persons with HIV/AIDS lived in the District, or about 2.2 percent of the population. This compares to a national rate of 0.3 percent and exceeds the World Health Organization’s threshold (one percent), indicative of a continued HIV epidemic. Several research studies indicate that persons with HIV/AIDS experience elevated housing instability and homelessness relative to the general population. Stigma and discrimination may cause additional hurdles to obtain and retain appropriate housing. Data from the federal Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program indicates an unmet need for tenant-based rental assistance for 1,239 persons with HIV/AIDS. 518.7[^518.7] Over 15,000 District adults have been diagnosed as having a serious behavioral health issue by the Department of Behavioral Health based on treatment services delivered in 2016. Behavioral health issues can seriously limit one’s ability to find employment, earn a living wage, and lead an independent life. Stable, permanent housing can increase independence and help those with behavioral health issues achieve other life goals. Such housing is often paired with case management and appropriate supportive [^518.5]: 518.5 [^518.6]: 518.6 [^518.7]: 518.7 services, such as crisis intervention, ongoing counseling, and health assessments. 518.8 The DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) receives over 30,000 calls for service each year for domestic violence-related incidents. Some of these calls result in the need for safe housing for the victim. The inventory of such housing is very limited. Domestic violence also creates unique challenges for the victim, including the potential for personal harm if using the traditional shelter system. Many victims also may experience trauma, and some have children who also need to be accommodated. DHCD has designated a Housing Navigator on its staff to leverage housing contacts and find safe housing for victims of crime and domestic violence. By calling the DC Victim Hotline, victims can be directed to resources. 518.9 ### Policy H-4.3.1: Short-Term and Emergency Housing Options Ensure that adequate short-term housing options, including emergency shelter and transitional housing, exist for persons with disabilities, including people living with HIV/AIDS, harm-reduction units for substance abusers, detoxification beds and residential treatment facilities, safe housing for victims of domestic violence, halfway houses and group homes for returning citizens, and assisted-living and end-of-life care for older adults. 518.10 ### Policy H-4.3.2: Housing Choice for Older Adults Provide a wide variety of affordable housing choices for the District’s older adults that enable them to age in their neighborhoods either by supporting their ability to remain in their homes or by providing new opportunities within multi-unit buildings that include Universal Design and intergenerational options. Take into account the income range and health care needs of this population. Recognize the coming growth in the older adult population so that the production and rehabilitation of affordable housing for older adults meets Universal Design standards and becomes a major District priority. Acknowledge and support the establishment of senior villages and wellness centers throughout Washington, DC that allow older adults to remain in their homes and/or communities and age in place. 518.11 **Homesharing** A new strategy and a key component of the Age-Friendly DC Housing Domain is homesharing. This strategy assists older adults to age in their current homes by sharing their housing costs with another and has been gaining steam among several age-friendly jurisdictions across the country. Homesharing has multiple benefits, including reducing housing costs and isolation and providing peer support and safety. 518.11a CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Policy H-4.3.3: Neighborhood-Based Housing for Older Adults Encourage the production of multi-family housing for older adults in those neighborhoods characterized by large numbers of older adults living alone in single-family homes. This will enable older adults to remain in their neighborhoods, maintain connections with fellow residents and neighbors, and reduce their home maintenance costs and obligations. [^518.12] ### Policy H-4.3.4: Housing for Persons with Disabilities Work toward a target of designing 12 percent of the new housing units added to the District’s stock over the next 20 years specifically to meet the accessibility needs of persons with disabilities through Universal Design. These units should be spread evenly across affordability brackets. Facilitate and promote broader visitability standards in new construction and major renovations that enable people who have trouble with steps or who use wheelchairs or walkers to participate socially and reduce their isolation. [^518.13] ### Policy H-4.3.5: Housing for Returning Citizens Create adequate housing plans for people exiting the correctional system so that they do not experience homelessness, including the removal of barriers to returning citizens living in affordable housing. Returning citizens should not be concentrated in assisted housing projects, but allowed to find housing throughout Washington, DC. Rental housing providers should not be allowed to discriminate against returning citizens. [^518.14] ### Policy H-4.3.6: Persons with Behavioral Health Issues Support the production of housing for people with behavioral health issues through capital and operating subsidies. Improve the availability and coordination of such housing with wraparound behavioral health and other human services. Steps should be taken to prevent the eviction of persons experiencing behavioral health issues from publicly financed housing, so long as they are following the rules of tenancy, and to maintain each individual’s housing if they need to be hospitalized. [^518.15] #### Action H- 4.3.A: Incentives for Accessible Units Create financial incentives or provide appropriate flexibility in zoning rules and public space regulations for homeowners and landlords to retrofit units to make them accessible to older adults and persons with disabilities. Encourage the production of units that are visitable, ADA-accessible, or universally designed in new housing construction. [^518.16] #### Action H- 4.3.B: Incentives for Older Adult Housing Remove barriers and explore incentives, such as density bonuses, tax credits, and special financing, to stimulate the development of assisted living and care facilities for older adults that serve a mix of incomes, particularly in areas of high need and on sites well served by public transportation. [^518.17] [^518.12]: 518.12 [^518.13]: 518.13 [^518.14]: 518.14 [^518.15]: 518.15 [^518.16]: 518.16 [^518.17]: 518.17 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Action H-4.3.C: University Partnerships and Older Adults Explore partnerships with local universities to develop intergenerational student living arrangements with older adults living near campus. 518.18 ### Action H-4.3.D: Aging in Community Establish programs to facilitate low-income older renters aging in place. Examples include tenant-based vouchers or other rental assistance to older adults on fixed incomes or funds for renovation of multi-unit buildings, individual apartments, and single-family homes to create appropriate housing options for older adults to age in community. 518.19 i Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors, OP. ii CoStar.com iii OP analysis of changes in interest rates and American Community Survey (ACS) changes in median incomes. iv Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors, OP. v OP analysis of BLS Occupational Wage Data, Interest Rates, and RBI stats Sales Data for 2016 vi Purchasing power is defined as 25 percent of gross monthly income toward principle and interest on a 30-year mortgage at the average interest rate for that year, plus a 10 percent down payment. vii CoStar.com viii U.S. Census ACS 2017 PUM data, OP. ix U.S. Census Survey of Building Permits, OP. x U.S. Census ACS 2012-2016 PUM data, OP. xi U.S. Census ACS 2012-2016 PUM data, OP. xii DMPED xiii OP analysis of U.S. Census Survey of Building Permits and CoStar data xiv OP analysis of Office of Tax and Revenue Computer Aided Mass Appraisal (CAMA) data xv OP Round 9.0 COG Forecast and analysis of OCTO's Master Address Repository xvi Zillow HVI 6/09-6/17 xvii DOES Forecast and BLS Occupational Wage data xviii CoStar.com (blank page) --- ## Conservation — Chapter 6, Environmental Protection - Source: https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/06_EP_small.pdf - Pages: 82 - Covers: conservation - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. # Chapter 6 # Environmental Protection Element # CHAPTER 6: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION <
> # Environmental Protection Element ## Overview 600[^p3-600] THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ELEMENT ADDRESSES THE PROTECTION, conservation, and management of Washington, DC’s land, air, water, energy, and biological resources. This Element provides policies and actions for addressing important issues such as climate change, drinking water safety, the restoration of the tree canopy, energy conservation, air quality, watershed protection, pollution prevention, waste management, the remediation of contaminated sites, and environmental justice. The biological, chemical, and hydrologic integrity of the environment are key indicators of the quality of life in the District. Furthermore, environmental sustainability is linked to resilience, population health, and community prosperity. Good environmental management and pollution prevention are essential to sustain all living things and to safeguard the welfare of future generations. The Environmental Protection Element is divided into the following sections: * E-1: Adapting to and Mitigating Climate Change; * E-2: Conserving Natural and Green Areas; * E-3: Conserving Natural Resources; * E-4: Promoting Environmental Sustainability; * E-5: Reducing Environmental Hazards; * E-6: The Link between Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality; and * E-7 : Environment, Education, and the Economy. 600.1[^600.1] The critical environmental issues facing Washington, DC are addressed in this element. These include: * Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapting to climate change; * Restoring the District’s tree canopy and expanding green infrastructure (GI); * Improving rivers, streams, and stream valleys; * Reducing erosion and stormwater run-off; * Conserving and restoring wildlife habitat and plant communities; * Conserving water and energy; * Expanding recycling and composting; * Encouraging green building techniques and facilitating compliance with green building mandates; * Growing access to, and use of, clean, local energy; * Reducing air pollution; * Increasing the acreage of wetlands along the Anacostia and Potomac rivers; * Eliminating the harmful effects of environmental hazards on all residents particularly vulnerable populations and to address environmental justice issues; * Increasing resilience to flooding; and * Increasing resilience to urban heat island effect. 600.2[^600.2] [^p3-600]: 600 [^600.1]: 600.1 [^600.2]: 600.2 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Environmental protection has been part of planning in Washington, DC since the its inception. In 1791, the L’Enfant Plan used the natural landscape to guide the location of avenues and principal buildings. Later plans in the 19th and 20th centuries created some of the most memorable parks in the country and designated thousands of acres for resource protection. In the 1870s, Washington, DC planted 60,000 trees, leading Harper’s Magazine to dub Washington, DC the “City of Trees.” Today’s images of Washington, DC still portray a city of blue skies, pristine waters, and lush greenery. [^600.3] Washington, DC’s legacy as America’s greenest city has been seriously challenged over the centuries by urbanization. In recent years, Washington, DC has made great strides in incorporating sustainability measures; however, this momentum should be maintained in order to learn, and plan, and ultimately meet the District’s goals. Although the region’s air is cleaner than it has been in 20 years, the air quality does not meet federal standards for ozone, and the rivers and streams are polluted by raw sewage and runoff (oil, gas, dust, pesticides, trash, animal waste, and other pollutants). Ninety percent of Washington, DC’s wetlands have disappeared since 1790. Some sites in the District face soil and groundwater contamination problems from former industrial uses and municipal waste disposal. [^600.4] The District is tackling these challenges head-on. In 2005, legislation was passed creating a District Department of the Environment, now called the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). In 2012, the Sustainable DC Plan was developed, with the goal to make Washington, DC the healthiest, greenest, most livable city in the United States. After five years of implementation, 71 percent of the Sustainable DC Plan’s ’actions are underway, and another 27 percent are complete. In 2019, the District released Sustainable DC 2.0, the comprehensive update to the plan. [^600.5] Critical sustainability issues—including transportation, water quality, air pollution, and waste—are regional in scope. Washington, DC continues to work with the 24 jurisdictions that are part of Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). Additionally, about 29 percent of Washington, DC (including most of the parks and open space) is controlled by the federal government, and 55 buildings in Washington, DC are managed directly by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), making the federal government a critical partner on sustainability. District government continues to work closely with the federal National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), National Park Service (NPS), and GSA to maximize opportunities to meet the District’s ambitious sustainability targets, including increased tree canopy coverage, habitat restoration, and stormwater management. [^600.6] Washington, DC, along with hundreds of other cities around the world, has signed on to the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy and has taken on climate change as the most pressing global environmental [^600.3]: 600.3 [^600.4]: 600.4 [^600.5]: 600.5 [^600.6]: 600.6 challenge of this century. Washington, DC is committed to meeting or beating the GHG reduction target. In 2017, the District reaffirmed its commitment to the 2015 Paris Climate Accord and pledged to become carbon-neutral and climate resilient by 2050. Further, Washington, DC adopted Climate Ready DC in 2016, its plan to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change; it is now also a member of 100 Resilient Cities, which is dedicated to helping cities around the world become more resilient to the physical, social, and economic challenges that are increasingly a part of the 21st century. In addition, Washington, DC has joined the C40 Cities network, which is comprised of the world’s cities committed to addressing climate change. 600.7[^600.7] Washington, DC’s increased focus on environmental protection has begun to pay dividends. The District is a leader in green building and energy: Washington, DC leads the nation in LEED-certified square feet per resident, ENERGY STAR certified buildings per capita, and total District-wide green power usage. In 2017, the District was named the first Leadership in Environmental Energy and Design (LEED®) for Cities Platinum-certified city in the world. Washington, DC was the first city in the nation to pass a law, the Green Building Act of 2006, requiring green building certification for both the public and private sectors. In 2015, Washington, DC announced a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) that will supply 35 percent of the District government’s electricity with wind power. In 2018, the District government established the DC Green Bank as a key mechanism to accelerate the deployment of affordable private and public capital for clean energy projects. 600.8[^600.8] In addition, the most ambitious tree planting, water quality improvement, and habitat restoration projects in decades are also underway, and great strides are being made to promote more sustainable growth. Integral to this effort are public-private partnerships that have aided the District in advancing many of its Sustainable DC goals, such as nearly reaching the 2032 tree canopy coverage target of 40 percent. 600.9[^600.9] Washington, DC has become a model for innovative policies and practices, such as the Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act of 2018, which demonstrates how enhancing natural and built environments, investing in a diverse clean economy, and reducing disparities among residents can help move toward a more educated, equitable, and prosperous society. 600.10[^600.10] The Environmental Protection Element builds on this momentum. It charts a course toward excellence in environmental quality, greater environmental resiliency, and improved environmental health. This element emphasizes that restoring the natural environment will support a healthier population, society, and workforce. Consistent with the notion of an Inclusive City, it strives for environmental justice so that all neighborhoods are provided with clean air, healthy rivers and streams, clean soils, healthy homes, and ## Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act of 2018 Washington, DC’s historic Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act of 2018 provides a road map to achieving the District’s clean energy and climate action goals, including; * Mandating that 100 percent of the electricity sold in Washington, DC come from renewable sources; * Doubling the required amount of solar energy deployed in the District; * Making significant improvements to the energy efficiency of existing buildings in Washington, DC; * Providing energy bill assistance to support low- and moderate-income residents; * Requiring all public transportation and privately owned fleet vehicles to become emissions-free by 2045; and * Funding the DC Green Bank to attract private investment in clean energy projects. 600.10a[^600.10a] [^600.7]: text [^600.8]: text [^600.9]: text [^600.10]: text [^600.10a]: text an abundance of trees and open spaces. It also takes ambitious steps to prioritize resiliency and connections between environmental stewardship and innovative solutions to some of its most pressing challenges, including sustainable growth and long-term community resilience in the face of a changing climate. 600.11 ### Sustainable DC and Sustainable DC 2.0 Between 2000 and 2015, Washington, DC’s population grew by approximately 100,000 people, and all signs point to continued steady growth. As the population continues to expand, decisive actions are needed to ensure that all residents, and particularly the most vulnerable, benefit from a cleaner environment and access to nature and are prepared for any potential sudden shocks and chronic stresses posed by climate change. 600.11a In 2013, the Office of Planning (OP) and DOEE launched Sustainable DC with the goal of making Washington, DC the healthiest, greenest, and most livable city in the nation. The District continues to make significant progress on the implementation of 143 actions designed to help reach that goal, including steps not only to protect natural resources, but also to begin preparing for and adapting to climate change. Sustainable DC 2.0, launched in 2017, is a collaborative District-wide effort to update Washington, DC’s sustainability plan. The updated plan incorporates new programs and policies and changes in technology, and it better reflects the priorities of all residents. 600.11b Sustainable DC was quickly followed by several other plans and initiatives. In 2013, Washington, DC’s zoning regulations were amended to include the Green Area Ratio (GAR), a site-specific requirement designed to increase the environmental performance of the urban landscape (see a description of the GAR in Section 615 for more information). In 2016, Washington, DC released Climate Ready DC, the District’s climate adaptation plan, which outlines the strategies to make Washington, DC more resilient to future climate challenges and crises, including rising temperatures and more heatwaves, increased heavy rainfall and flooding, sea level rise, and severe storm events. In 2018, this was followed by Clean Energy DC, which is Washington, DC’s climate mitigation plan. This strategic plan outlines the necessary steps to achieve the Sustainable DC goal of a 50 percent GHG reduction by 2032. 600.11c These plans and initiatives, among others, emphasize the importance and value of preserving and enhancing natural resources and improving the built environment to bolster resilience in Washington, DC. They provide the basis for new metrics to inform policies in several sectors for the next 15-30 years, including but are not limited to energy, waste, water, health, food, nature, transportation, and the built environment. The plans also set forth road maps with timelines for implementation. 600.11d # Environmental Protection Goal 601 The overarching goal for the Environmental Protection Element is to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human-made environment in Washington, DC, taking steps to improve environmental quality and resilience, adapt to and mitigate climate change, prevent and reduce pollution, improve human health, increase access to clean and renewable energy, conserve the values and functions of Washington, DC’s natural resources and ecosystems, and educate the public on ways to secure a sustainable future. 601.1 ## Policies and Actions ### E-1 Adapting to and Mitigating Climate Change 602 Climate change refers to long-term shifts in the climate, including global temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. Washington, DC’s climate is changing because the earth is heating. In urban areas, GHGs from human activities such as heating and cooling buildings and transportation are the most significant driver of observed climate change since the mid-20th century.ⁱ People have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the air by 40 percent since the late 1700s. Other heat-trapping GHGs are also increasing. These gases have warmed Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere by about one degree during the last 50 years. Evaporation increases as the atmosphere heats, which increases humidity, average rainfall, and the frequency of heavy rainstorms in many places—but contributes to drought in others. 602.1 The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that pledges made in Paris in 2015 by the world’s governments to reduce GHGs will not be enough to keep global warming from rising nearly three degrees (°F) above pre-industrial temperatures. These global changes have serious consequences at the District level, as Washington, DC is already experiencing the impacts of human-made climate change. The region has warmed by more than two degrees (°F) in the last century. Hot days and heavy rainstorms and snowstorms are more frequent, and the tidal Potomac is rising about one inch every eight years due to rising sea levels and land subsidence. In the coming decades, climate change is likely to increase tidal flooding, cause more heavy precipitation events, and increase risks to human health and the built environment. ⁱⁱ The District will experience warmer average temperatures and two to three times as many dangerously hot days. 602.2 The overarching goal for the Environmental Protection Element is to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human-made environment in Washington, DC, taking steps to improve environmental quality and resilience, adapt to and mitigate climate change, prevent and reduce pollution, improve human health, increase access to clean and renewable energy, conserve the values and functions of Washington, DC’s natural resources and ecosystems, and educate the public on ways to secure a sustainable future. District government is approaching climate change on three tracks: mitigation locally, adaptation locally, and demonstrated leadership nationally and globally. Mitigation refers to reducing GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide). Washington, DC is committed to becoming carbon-neutral and climate resilient by 2050. Progress toward this goal is measured by an annual inventory of the District’s GHGs. From 2006 (when the District began tracking GHGs) through 2016, emissions have fallen by approximately 29 percent, on track to meet the interim goal of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2032. 602.3[^p8-1] ### Figure 6.1: District-wide Emissions and Targets 602.4[^p8-2] <
> Adaptation means adjusting to the impacts of climate change and doing so in a way that supports wider efforts to make Washington, DC healthier and more livable. Washington, DC will prepare for potential shocks and stressors brought on by climate change through environmental and built environment approaches that provide multiple community benefits. These solutions include the conservation of the naturally protective features of environmental assets or ecosystem services, the expansion of GI, and the inclusion of non-structural land uses (e.g., parks) in hazardous, environmentally sensitive locations. It also means designing buildings to be more responsive to threats posed by flooding and urban heat. These [^p8-1]: 602.3 [^p8-2]: 602.4 Map 6.1: # Average Land Surface Temperature [^602.6] <
> (Source: DOEE and the Environment July 2014-2018) [^602.6]: 602.6 # CITYWIDE ELEMENTS solutions should continue to be integrated with other community goals to improve quality of life through the promotion of environmental justice and sustainability, the preservation or restoration of natural resources, and the provision of additional trees, public parks, recreation areas, and open space. 602.5 ### E-1.1 Preparing for and Responding to Natural Hazards [^p10-603] In the coming decades, changing climate is likely to increase tidal flooding, cause more heavy rainstorms, and increase risks to human health. Portions of Washington, DC are within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100-year flood plain and are subject to inundation during hurricanes and other severe storms, and as a result of sea level rise, some low-lying areas are subject to minor, recurrent flooding. Low-lying interior areas may experience more frequent and severe stormwater flooding events. It is important to use an equity lens to assess natural hazards and climate risks by race, income, and vulnerability to develop and implement strategies that result in equitable environmental outcomes. 603.1 Undeveloped floodplain areas can provide significant flood protection, allowing floods to pass through those areas while causing minimal harm. When development does occur in floodplain areas, floodplain regulations help ensure individuals living and doing business in those areas comply with safe building practices designed to prevent injury, loss of life, and property damage from flooding. Washington, DC’s current floodplain regulations apply only to the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain. 603.2 However, communities across the country are experiencing floods that reach beyond the extents of the 100-year floodplain with increasing regularity. What is now considered a 100-year rainfall event will become considerably more common in the years to come, and interior flooding events from significant storms may increase Given these trends, expanding the regulated floodplain areas in Washington, DC beyond the 100-year floodplain will be an important step in ensuring Washington, DC is resilient to increased flood risk. Additional flood adaptation measures include integrating new natural shorelines and buffers, reducing erosion, replacing undersized culverts, and keeping streambeds free of debris. 603.3 Furthermore, increasing urbanization that replaces vegetated space with concrete and pavement can result in heat islands, or spaces that reach higher temperatures and retain heat longer than the surrounding areas and can reduce local health quality and negatively impact air quality. 603.4 #### Policy E-1.1.1: Resilience to Climate Change as a Civic Priority Advance the District’s resilience to climate change as a major civic priority, to be supported through improved mitigation, adaptation, and human preparedness. 603.5 [^p10-603]: 603 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy E-1.1.2: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Wherever possible, reduce the urban heat island effect with cool and green roofs, expanded green space, cool pavement, tree planting, and tree protection efforts, prioritizing hotspots and those areas with the greatest number of heat-vulnerable residents. Incorporate heat island mitigation into planning for GI, tree canopy, parks, and public space initiatives. [^603.6] *See Map 6.1 for Average Land Surface Temperature July 2014-2018.* #### Policy E-1.1.3: Natural Assets and Ecosystems for Hazard Mitigation Expand and leverage the ability of natural landscape features, such as vegetated land cover and wetlands, and the beneficial ecosystem services they provide to mitigate natural hazards. This includes supporting and encouraging design and construction choices that conserve, restore, and enhance the protective functionality of natural assets to absorb, reduce, or resist the potentially damaging effects of wind, water, and other hazard forces. Such approaches, including natural shorelines, should be incorporated into all waterfront development projects, where possible. [^603.7] #### Policy E-1.1.4: Non-Structural Land Uses Incorporate non-structural uses within designated special flood hazard areas to help protect and enhance the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains, wetlands, and other undeveloped landscape features. These uses include but are not limited to parks, recreation areas, and permanently protected open spaces. [^603.8] #### Policy E-1.1.5: Resilient Infrastructure Design infrastructure, such as roads and parks, to withstand future climate impacts, and increase Washington, DC’s’ resilience by having roads and parks serve multiple purposes where possible, including flood risk reduction, urban heat island mitigation, and stormwater management. [^603.9] *See the Infrastructure Element for more information on resilient infrastructure.* #### Policy E-1.1.6: Floodplains, Waterfronts, and Other Low-Lying Areas Consistent with the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, prohibit activities within floodplains, waterfronts, and other low-lying areas that could pose public health or safety hazards in the event of a flood. Regulation of land uses in floodplains, waterfronts, and other low-lying areas should consider the long-term effects of climate change—including sea level rise, increasingly heavy rain events, and more severe coastal storms—on flood hazards. [^603.10] [^603.6]: 603.6 [^603.7]: 603.7 [^603.8]: 603.8 [^603.9]: 603.9 [^603.10]: 603.10 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Flood Elevations In new or substantially renovated buildings, design flood elevation is the minimum height at which residential units may be constructed and utilities like the boiler, the water heater, and electrical equipment may be located. It also sets the minimum height for dry or wet flood-proofing measures for buildings generally. The margin between this and the base flood elevation is called _freeboard_. 600.16a #### Action E-1.1.A: Update Regulations for Resilience Continue to monitor and update Washington, DC’s regulations to promote flood risk reduction, heat island mitigation, stormwater management, renewable energy, and energy resilience, among other practices, where appropriate.[^603.11] #### Action E-1.1.B: Development in Floodplains Evaluate expanding restrictions and/or require adaptive design for development in areas that will be at increased risk of flooding due to climate change. Analyses should weigh the requirement to account for climate risks with the needs of a growing District.[^603.12] #### Action E-1.1.C: Waterfront Setbacks Ensure that waterfront setbacks and buffers account for future sea level rise, changes in precipitation patterns, and greater use of nature-based and adaptive flood defenses.[^603.13] #### Action E-1.1.D: Covenant for Climate and Energy Implement policies recommended by Clean Energy DC and Climate Ready DC to achieve Washington, DC’s goal of reducing GHG emissions by 50 percent below 2006[^2006] levels by 2032[^2032], and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050[^2050] while preparing for the impacts of climate change. Maintain compliance with the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, signed by Washington, DC in 2015[^2015], which commits Washington, DC to measure and reduce GHG emissions and address climate risks.[^603.14] #### Action E-1.1.E: Update Floodplain Regulations Update flood hazard rules to reflect the increased risk of flooding due to climate-related sea level rise, increasingly frequent and severe precipitation events, and coastal storms.[^603.15] #### Action E-1.1.F: Comprehensive and Integrated Flood Modeling Develop, and regularly update, Washington, DC’s floodplain models, maps, and other tools to account for climate change, including projections for increased precipitation and sea level rise, to ensure any future building in the floodplain is done sustainably. Integrate existing, and develop new, floodplain models to better understand the interplay between coastal, riverine, and interior flooding and potential climate impacts. Consider revising the regulatory flood hazard areas for Washington, DC’s Flood Hazard Rules.[^603.16] #### Action E-1.1.G: Design Guidelines for Resilience Develop guidelines for new development and substantial land improvements that consider the threat of naturally occurring stressors and hazards (e.g., flooding, extreme heat, and wind), determine potential impacts to assets over the expected life cycle of the asset, and identify cost-effective risk-reduction options. Use updated and integrated flood risk models to determine potential [^603.11]: 603.11 [^603.12]: 603.12 [^603.13]: 603.13 [^603.14]: 603.14 [^603.15]: 603.15 [^603.16]: 603.16 flood extents and depths for riparian, coastal, and interior flood events and to inform design flood elevations for a development in flood hazard areas. 603.17 ### Action E-1.1.H: Update Climate Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Update the vulnerability and risk assessment completed for Climate Ready DC as new data on potential climate impacts becomes available. Regularly assess the vulnerability of infrastructure, critical facilities (including hospitals and emergency shelters), vulnerable populations, and large developments to climate-related hazards. 603.18 ### Action-1.1.I: Resiliency Evaluation Review projects including Washington, DC capital projects and large-scale developments, for potential climate risks and adaptation strategies. 603.19 ### Action:-1.1.J: Resiliency Incentives Expand existing incentives and regulations to include thermal safety and urban heat island mitigation measures, such as green and cool roofs, solar shading, shade trees, alternatives to concrete, and other innovative building design strategies. 603.20 ### Action:-1.1.K: Interagency Temperature Management Strategy Develop an interagency heat management strategy to minimize the adverse health impacts associated with extreme cold and heat temperature days. The District government will work to ensure that residents can prepare for these events by more broadly communicating extreme heat and cold response plans that clearly define specific roles and responsibilities of government and nongovernmental organizations before and during these events. Plans should identify local populations at high risk for extreme temperature-related illness and death, and determine the strategies that will be used to support such individuals during emergencies, particularly in underserved communities. Furthermore, explore strategies, including the use of technology, to help build communities’ adaptive capacity before, during, and after extreme temperature days. 603.21 ## E-2 Conserving Natural and Green Areas [^p13-604] Washington, DC’s natural landscape is characterized by two tidal rivers; a complex network of parkland, streams, and valleys; and undulating hills and terraces. This landscape provides ecological diversity, ranging from mixed oak and tulip poplar forests to magnolia bogs and wetlands. 604.1 Washington, DC provides valuable habitats for all types of wildlife, from tiny crustaceans to the bald eagle. Through careful planning and development that respects and preserves natural resources, Washington, DC continues to make strides in wildlife conservation and habitat restoration. To conserve threatened species and keep habitats healthy, Washington, DC developed the District of [^p13-604]: 604 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Columbia Wildlife Action Plan in 2006 (with a comprehensive update in 2015) as a blueprint for wildlife conservation. Additionally, the Fisheries and Wildlife Omnibus Amendment Act of 2016 designated critical areas, or areas containing species of local importance, for conservation: critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands. 604.2 GI refers to the interconnected network of land and water that supports plant and animal life, maintains natural ecology, and contributes to the health and quality of life in communities. 604.3 ### E-2.1 Conserving and Expanding Washington, DC’s Urban Forests [^p14-605] The benefits of a healthy urban forests, are well documented. Street trees, trees in parks and natural areas, and trees on private lands add beauty, improve mental health, provide shade, reduce water pollution, absorb noise, produce oxygen, absorb GHGs, and provide habitat for birds and small animals. They also add economic value to neighborhoods and contribute to community identity and pride. Trees also play an increasingly important role in helping Washington, DC adapt to a changing climate that will bring hotter temperatures and more heavy rain events. 605.1 Trees currently cover about 38 percent of Washington, DC’s land area (see Figure 6.2). However, there are significant geographic disparities in tree cover, ranging from 60 percent of the land area in Ward 3 to 23 percent in Ward 1. Public awareness of the importance of trees has sparked tree planting and re-greening activities across Washington, DC. 605.2 Tree cover in Washington, DC as of 2016 is shown in Map 6.2 605.3 <
> CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy E-2.1.1: Trees in the Public Lands Plant and maintain trees in the public lands in all parts of Washington, DC, particularly in areas with low canopy cover and areas in greater need of trees, such as those with high urban heat island effects, at high risk for flooding, or with high particulate matter levels. [^605.5] #### Policy E-2.1.2: Tree Requirements in New Development Use planning, zoning, and building regulations to promote tree retention and planting, as well as the removal and replacement of dying trees when new development occurs. Tree planting and landscaping required as a condition of permit approval should include provisions for ongoing maintenance. [^605.6] #### Policy E-2.1.3: Sustainable Landscaping Practices Encourage the use of sustainable landscaping practices to beautify the District, enhance streets and public spaces, reduce stormwater runoff, and create a stronger sense of character and identity. District government, private developers, and community institutions should coordinate to significantly increase the use of these practices, including planting and maintaining mostly native trees and other plants on District-owned land outside the right-of-ways in schools, parks, and housing authority lands. [^605.7] #### Policy E-2.1.4: Engaging the Community Promote partnerships between Washington, DC, community groups, and nonprofit advocacy groups to undertake tree surveys and planting campaigns, volunteer training and education, and resident stewardship of Washington, DC’s urban forest. Leverage the Urban Forestry Advisory Council’s (UFAC) diverse membership of District and federal government agencies, nonprofit partners, public utilities, and community members to promote existing policies and develop new initiatives to expand Washington, DC’s urban tree canopy. Support public-private partnerships that fund tree planting efforts on both public and private land, which can vary in scale from small parcel-level projects to large open spaces. [^605.8] #### Policy E-2.1.5: Tree Planting on Private Lands Encourage tree planting on private lands through incentive programs and outreach and education. Methods should include using GI, native plantings, pollinator gardens, and other habitat as a community benefit in planned unit developments and forming voluntary partnerships with major institutions such as universities, embassies, and hospitals. [^605.9] #### Policy E-2.1.6: Urban Tree Canopy Goals Determine the extent of Washington, DC’s tree canopy at a sufficient level of detail to establish tree canopy goals for neighborhoods across the District. Continue working toward a District-wide goal of 40 percent tree canopy cover by 2032. Encourage tree plantings in neighborhoods with lower [^605.5]: 605.5 [^605.6]: 605.6 [^605.7]: 605.7 [^605.8]: 605.8 [^605.9]: 605.9 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### The DC Tree Bill The Urban Forest Preservation Act of 2002, better known as the Tree Bill, established a tree preservation program, strengthened the community notice requirements for tree removal on public land, and revised the penalties for injuring trees on public space and private property. The Tree Bill was approved in December 2002 and requires an annual program for tree planting and care, preparation of a tree master plan, and the development of maintenance standards for trees on public space.[^605.15a] The Tree Canopy Protection Amendment Act of 2016 was enacted to build upon the previous Tree Bill and increase Washington, DC’s tree canopy. By reducing the circumference of special trees from 55 inches to 44 inches, and creating a designation of heritage trees—which are over 100 inches in circumference and cannot be cut down unless deemed hazardous by a Washington, DC arborist—the older tree canopy is better protected. The bill also assesses permits for removal of special trees and fines for damage to, and illicit removal of, special and heritage trees.[^605.15b] canopy levels. Components of this program should include the removal of dead and dying trees and their replacement with suitable species, and the pruning and maintenance of trees to eliminate hazards and increase their rate of survival.[^605.10] #### Action E-2.1.A: Tree Replacement Program Continue working toward a goal of planting 10,500 trees on public and private open space each year.[^605.11] #### Action E-2.1.B: Street Tree Standards Continue to formalize the planting, pruning, removal, and construction guidelines in use by the District’s Urban Forestry Division. These standards provide further direction for tree selection based on such factors as traffic volumes, street width, shade and sunlight conditions, soil conditions, disease and drought resistance, and the space available for tree wells. They also include provisions to increase the size of tree boxes to improve tree health and longevity, and standards for soils and planting, as well well improve upon existing tree boxes through impervious surface removal, increasing soil volumes, undergrounding power lines, and installing bio-retention tree boxes.[^605.12] #### Action E-2.1.C: Tree Inventories Continue partnership agreements with the federal government, Casey Trees, and other groups to maintain the live, publicly available database and management system for Washington, DC’s trees using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. Efforts should be made to inventory trees on all District lands outside the right-of-ways, as well as along its streets.[^605.13] #### Action E-2.1.D: Operating Procedures for Utility and Roadwork Develop standard operating procedures to minimize tree damage by public utility and road crews. All activities that involve invasive work around street trees should be reviewed by Urban Forestry Administration personnel. Promote the expansion of the urban tree canopy, while planting the right tree in the right place in consideration with overhead utility lines.[^605.14] #### Action E-2.1.E: Urban Forest Management Consistent with Washington, DC’s 2002 and 2016 Tree Bills, continue to protect, maintain, and restore trees and native woodlands across Washington, DC. Use the Mayor’s UFAC and new and existing District agency partnerships to coordinate urban forest management activities on all public lands managed by the District (e.g., street trees, parks, public school grounds). These partnerships and initiatives should also promote coordination with federal agencies and other large landowners and include comprehensive strategies to manage insects and diseases.[^605.15] [^605.15a]: 605.15a [^605.15b]: 605.15b [^605.10]: 605.10 [^605.11]: 605.11 [^605.12]: 605.12 [^605.13]: 605.13 [^605.14]: 605.14 [^605.15]: 605.15 Map 6.2: # Existing Tree Cover in Washington, DC and Surrounding Region [^605.16] <
> (Source: OP, 2018) [^605.16]: 605.16 ## Anacostia River Restoration A clean river is the foundation for the Anacostia River revitalization and makes all other objectives and investments in the waterfront possible. Once dubbed the District’s forgotten river because of heavy pollution, lack of accessibility, and neglect of its banks, the Anacostia River is on its way to becoming fully fishable and swimmable. While photos from a decade ago show a river covered in floating trash, today the Anacostia River is experiencing an environmental rebirth characterized by improved water quality, wildlife repopulation, and more accessible natural shorelines. To transform the Anacostia River into a fishable and swimmable river, in 2014 Washington, DC launched a long-term project to address contaminated sediments called A Cleaner Anacostia River. This project is the most comprehensive approach to restoration in the river’s history, and Washington, DC allocated $45 million[^606.3a] to support clean up efforts. ### Improved Water Quality The restoration of five streams (Pope Branch, Watts Branch, Nash Run, Alger Park, and Springhouse Run) that flow into the Anacostia has diminished sediment, sewage, and trash that pollute the river’s waters. Legal requirements paved the way for the local water and sewer utility, DC Water, to initiate the biggest infrastructure project in Washington, DC since the building of the Metrorail system: the DC Clean Rivers Project, a $2.7 billion sewer tunnel system and greening program to decrease the amount of untreated sewage spills into the river by 98 percent. The greening program includes strategies to promote rainwater detention and infiltration into the soil and techniques such as rain gardens, porous pavements, green roofs, and other technologies within targeted sewersheds.[^606.3b] In addition to the ongoing remediation of several polluted sites, including at Kenilworth and Boathouse Row, A Cleaner Anacostia River will lead to an enforceable clean up strategy for the riverbed itself. The redevelopment of old and highly polluting industrial areas on the riverfront has stemmed industrial runoff. Washington, DC and its partners have also worked to reduce trash pollution in the river through trash traps installed on various tributaries, anti-littering education, illegal dumping enforcement programs, and volunteer clean up events, preventing millions of pounds of trash from entering the Anacostia River each year. Washington, DC’s stormwater regulations and incentive programs (e.g., the RiverSmart programs and Stormwater Retention Credit Price Lock Program) are driving the installation of GI across the District to reduce pollution and erosion from stormwater runoff.[^606.3c] ### E-2.2 Conservation of Rivers, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas[^p18-606] Washington, DC is situated at the confluence of two great rivers: the Anacostia and the Potomac. Both rivers have been altered over the centuries to accommodate development, highways, railroads, airports, military bases, parkland, federal monuments, and other vestiges of life in the nation’s capital. Throughout the 20th century, the Potomac fared better than the Anacostia in this regard—much of its shoreline is publicly accessible and has been conserved as parkland. For years, the Anacostia suffered the fate of being Washington, DC’s lesser known and less maintained river. As its natural beauty yielded to industry, its waters became polluted and the river became a divide that separated lower-income, predominantly Black neighborhoods from the rest of the District.[^606.1] In the first years of the 21st century, a major initiative, the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI), was launched to restore the Anacostia River. While the initiative is perhaps best known for its efforts to reclaim the shoreline for recreation and bring new life to underused sites, its programs to improve the natural environment are equally important. A range of environmental initiatives is now being implemented to restore wetlands (land consisting of marshes or swamps) and estuarine habitat (partially enclosed bodies of brackish water), improve water quality, and increase environmental education about the river. Today, the turnaround of the Anacostia waterfront is a national model for [^606.3a]: 606.3a [^606.3b]: 606.3b [^606.3c]: 606.3c [^p18-606]: 606 [^606.1]: 606.1 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS urban rivers in terms of environmental restoration, public access, economic development, and inclusive growth. [^606.2] Foremost among the recent initiatives is the Clean Rivers Project, DC Water’s ongoing program to reduce combined sewer overflows into Washington, DC’s waterways: the Anacostia and Potomac rivers and Rock Creek. The project is a massive infrastructure and support program designed to capture and clean wastewater during rainfalls before it ever reaches the rivers. [^606.3] Since 2012, Washington, DC has restored over two miles of streams, including Pope Branch, Nash Run, Alger Park, Springhouse Run, Linnean Park, and Broad Branch. Sustainable DC 2.0 calls for additional stream restoration efforts, toward a goal of 10 total miles. Stream restoration employs a set of techniques to help improve the environmental health of a stream, ranging from simply removing a disturbance that inhibits natural stream function, to stabilizing stream banks or installing stormwater management facilities such as wetlands. [^606.4] When completed, these initiatives will greatly reduce sewage overflows and pollutant discharges, reduce stream bank erosion, improve water quality, slow down stormwater flows, uncover long-buried tributary streams, and bring native plant and animal species back to the river. It will also improve access to once-polluted, now restored natural resources to adjoining communities. Improving the health of the Anacostia River will help achieve broader national goals for a healthier Chesapeake Bay. Map 6.3 indicates the location of rivers and streams in Washington, DC. [^606.5] *See the Infrastructure Element for more information about the Clean Rivers Project and other initiatives.* #### Policy E-2.2.1: River Conservation Improve environmental conditions along the Anacostia and Potomac rivers and other water bodies, including shorelines, wetlands, islands, tributaries, and the rivers themselves. Particular attention should be given to eliminating toxic sediments, improving river edges to restore vegetation and reduce erosion, enhancing wetlands and wildlife habitats, creating new wetlands, and reducing litter. Particular focus on the Anacostia is important to address its history of neglect and pollution and to improve conditions for adjoining neighborhoods. [^606.6] #### Policy E-2.2.2: Waterfront Habitat Restoration Undertake a range of environmental initiatives along the Anacostia and Potomac rivers to eliminate combined sewer overflows, reduce urban stormwater runoff, restore wetlands and tributary streams, install natural shorelines when possible, increase oxygen levels in the water, remediate toxins in the riverbed, remove seawalls when possible, clean and redevelop contaminated brownfield sites, and enhance natural habitat. [^606.7] [^606.2]: 606.2 [^606.3]: 606.3 [^606.4]: 606.4 [^606.5]: 606.5 [^606.6]: 606.6 [^606.7]: 606.7 Map 6.3: # Waterways in Washington, DC[^606.9] <
> (Source: DOEE and DC GIS, 2018) [^606.9]: 606.9 #### Policy E-2.2.3: Retention of Environmentally Sensitive Areas as Open Space Retain environmentally fragile areas such as wetlands and riparian areas along the Anacostia and Potomac rivers as critical areas. In areas under federal jurisdiction, such as Rock Creek Park and some portions of the Anacostia waterfront, work with NPS to conserve and carefully manage such areas, and to implement an effective no-net-loss policy. 606.8 #### Policy E-2.2.4: Identification, Protection, and Restoration of Wetlands Identify and protect wetlands and riparian habitat on private and public land. Require official surveys when development is proposed in areas where wetlands are believed to be present to ensure that wetlands are preserved. Implement the Wetland Conservation Plan to achieve the objective of no net loss and eventual net gain of wetlands. Work collaboratively with stakeholders to undertake wetlands restoration, enhancement, and creation projects on public and private lands to mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff, sea level rise, and storm events, and to improve habitats. 606.10 #### Policy E-2.2.5: Wetland Buffers Maintain natural buffers around existing and restored wetlands to reduce the likelihood of environmental degradation from runoff and human activities. 606.11 ##### Action E-2.2.A: Potomac and Anacostia River Habitat Improvements Work collaboratively with federal agencies, upstream jurisdictions, and environmental advocacy groups to implement conservation measures for Washington, DC’s waterways by: * Restoring tidal wetlands while maintaining access along the Anacostia River and infilled areas that were historically tidal wetlands, consistent with the 2015 District of Columbia Wildlife Action Plan; * Installing stormwater management best practices upland of tributary streams; * Creating new stormwater wetlands along tributary streams; * Restoring degraded streams in Washington, DC and, where possible, daylighting streams by removing them from pipes to let them flow uncovered; * Removing bulkheads and seawalls and replacing them with natural shoreline and fringe wetlands, where possible, to provide protection from flooding and erosion; * Restoring degraded gullies downstream of stormwater outfalls; * Preventing litter and trash from entering waterways and removing it when it is present; * Encouraging natural buffers compatible with the recommendations of the AWI Framework Plan; and CITYWIDE ELEMENTS * Preventing the net loss of parkland and improving access to the waterfront and river trails. 606.12 ### Action E-2.2.B: Wetland Setback Standards Establish clear regulations to conserve and preserve wetlands, streams, and their buffers during development and ensure compliance with these regulations during plan review, permitting, and inspections. 606.13 ### Action E-2.2.C: Wetland Planting and Maintenance Plant and maintain wetlands to achieve the objective of no net loss and eventual net gain of wetlands. Focus efforts in areas of the District that offer the best opportunity and potential for conservation, as identified in Washington, DC’s 2015 Wildlife Action Plan. 606.14 ### Action E-2.2.D: Anacostia River Sedimentation Project Develop and implement an Anacostia River remediation work plan that restores fish and wildlife habitats while improving public access to the river. 606.15 *See the Water Quality section of this element for additional recommendations for the Anacostia River watershed.* ## E-2.3 Conserving Soil and Reducing Erosion [^p22-607] Soils in Washington, DC affect the suitability of land for buildings, roads and infrastructure, community gardening, and tree planting. Even in a built-out city like Washington, DC, soil and underlying geologic characteristics must be considered when designing foundations, basements, and other structures. Good soil management also involves the control of erosion resulting from natural forces like rain and wind. Erosion can undermine foundations, destabilize hillsides, and lead to sedimentation of streams. Measures to reduce erosion are particularly important during construction, when soil is disturbed and exposed to the elements. 607.1 ### Policy E-2.3.1: Preventing Erosion Public and private construction activities should not result in soil erosion or the creation of unstable soil conditions. Support the use of retaining walls and other best management practices on new and existing properties that reduce erosion hazards. Erosion requirements should be implemented through building permit and plan reviews and enforced through the permitting and regulatory processes. 607.2 [^p22-607]: 607 ### Policy E-2.3.2: Grading and Vegetation Removal Encourage the retention of natural vegetation and topography on new development sites. Prevent or require mitigation of construction practices that result in unstable soil and hillside conditions. Grading of hillside sites should be minimized, and graded slopes should be quickly revegetated for stabilization. 607.3 ### Policy E-2.3.3: Reducing Sedimentation Prevent sedimentation of rivers and streams by implementing comprehensive stormwater management measures, including regular maintenance of storm drains and catch basins and the use of sedimentation ponds where appropriate. 607.4 ### Policy E-2.3.4: Restoring Eroded Areas Abate soil erosion problems in developed areas, particularly where erosion has resulted from poor site design, aging streets and alleys, or deferred maintenance. 607.5 ## E-2.4 Preserving Steep Slopes and Stream Valleys [^p23-608] Wooded hillsides and stream valleys provide beauty and visual relief in Washington, DC, particularly in Upper Northwest and in neighborhoods in Wards 7 and 8. Many of Washington, DC’s stream valleys have been preserved by NPS, protecting local waterways and providing corridors for wildlife and recreation. But preservation alone has not fully safeguarded these areas. Development and tree removal on private properties can reduce their natural, unspoiled character and cause erosion and water quality problems. Along some stream valleys, illegal dumping remains a problem. In some places, the streams themselves have been buried or diverted into stormwater culverts; streams have been restored to their natural condition at Alger Park, Springhouse Run, and Watts Branch. [^608.1] A similar set of challenges is present on steep slopes, generally defined as slopes with a grade of 25 percent or more. As Map 6.4 indicates, such slopes are concentrated in protected areas like Rock Creek Park and the Potomac Palisades. But they are also present in neighborhoods like Forest Hills and Woodland-Normanstone, and on large sites like the St. Elizabeths Campus. [^608.2] <
> Along some stream valleys illegal dumping remains a problem. In some places the streams themselves have been buried or diverted into stormwater culverts. #### Policy E-2.4.1: Conservation of Steep Slopes Strongly discourage development on steep slopes (i.e., greater than 25[^] percent or with highly erodible soil), such as those found along stream[^] valleys in Upper Northwest and Southeast DC. Planning and building[^] regulations should require that any construction on such slopes is sensitively[^] designed and includes slope stabilization measures. 608.3 #### Policy E-2.4.2: Management of Uplands Along Stream Valleys Protect stream valley parks by limiting construction, requiring sensitive[^] design, and retaining vegetation on adjacent upland properties.[^] Development of land draining to stream valleys shall be managed as needed[^] to protect flora, fauna, and water quality; prevent erosion and siltation of[^] streams; minimize intrusion of views from the parks; and retain a natural[^] gradient green buffer between the built environment and these natural[^] areas. 608.4 #### Policy E-2.4.3: Open Space Protection Along Stream Valleys Preserve publicly-owned land adjacent to streams, ravines, and contiguous[^] tracts of habitat as densely vegetated open space. Natural drainage channels[^] and buffer zones in these areas should be protected from the adverse effects of[^] nearby urban uses. 608.5 #### Policy E-2.4.4: Channelization of Streams Retain streams and ravines in their natural condition rather than constructing[^] human-made channels. Where possible, restore channelized streams to more[^] natural conditions. Where alteration is necessary, encourage design solutions[^] that retain or re-create natural ecological values. 608.6 ### Action E-2.4.A: Expand Tree and Slope Protection Work with neighborhood and community groups, homeowners and other[^] landowners, and Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) to identify[^] additional areas to which the Tree and Slope Protection (TSP) should be[^] extended. Such areas should generally abut streams or public open spaces[^] and should have steep slopes, significant natural tree cover, and some[^] potential for future development. Particular attention should be given to[^] extending the TSP to lands in Wards 7 and 8. 608.7 Map 6.4: # TSP Areas, Steep Slopes, and Areas with Erodible Soils[^608.8] <
> (Source: OP, 2018) [^608.8]: 608.8 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action E-2.4.B: Hillside Conservation Easements* Explore land trusts, conservation easements, and other tools for preserving steep slopes and hillside areas. 608.9 ### E-2.5 Sustaining Wildlife [^p26-609] At the time of initial European settlement, Washington, DC was home to species as diverse as buffalo, bear, sturgeon, cranes, rattlesnakes, wolves, and bobcats. While these animals were killed off or driven from the local landscape decades ago, Washington, DC continues to provide habitat for hundreds of species of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates. Raccoon, red foxes, rabbits, white-tailed deer, cardinals, and mockingbirds have adapted to human activities and are not uncommon. Much of Washington, DC’s biodiversity can be attributed to undeveloped natural areas along Rock Creek, the two rivers, and the Civil War defenses of Washington, also known as the Fort Circle Parks. The District’s parks, street trees, institutional lands, and backyards are important to sustaining wildlife diversity. Many commercial and residential neighborhoods, as well as the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, are located adjacent to permanently protected natural areas. The close proximity between developed areas and undeveloped habitats creates a dynamic between wildlife and habitat conservation and human activity. [^609.1] District government is committed to protecting Washington, DC’s natural areas while also providing all residents with convenient access to nature and green places. Pursuant to federal law, DOEE’s Fisheries and Wildlife Division prepared a Wildlife Action Plan in 2005, with a comprehensive update in 2015. The plan—which was prepared in partnership with public and local wildlife agencies and organizations to identify priority actions for conserving wildlife and wildlife habitats over the next 10 years—lists the animal wildlife in the District with the greatest conservation needs and describes specific terrestrial and aquatic threats. As an urban area, Washington, DC bears a high degree of responsibility for conserving urban species. [^609.2] In 2016, Washington, DC adopted the Fisheries and Wildlife Omnibus Amendment Act to help protect critical wildlife habitats and better manage invasive species. The District’s State Wildlife Action Plan, last updated in 2015, is a comprehensive, 10-year road map for sustaining, conserving, and preserving Washington, DC’s wildlife and habitats. [^609.3] #### Policy E-2.5.1: Habitat Restoration Encourage interagency efforts to restore native habitat in Washington, DC’s rivers, streams, forests, meadows, wetlands, parklands, and developed lands, and encourage public-private partnerships and partnerships with nongovernmental organizations to re-create native habitats within the [^p26-609]: 609 [^609.1]: 609.1 [^609.2]: 609.2 [^609.3]: 609.3 District. Where appropriate, designate critical areas for protection within Washington, DC. 609.4[^609.4] #### Policy E-2.5.2: Protected Species As required by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, protect endangered, threatened, and other special status species from the adverse effects of human activities. 609.5[^609.5] #### Policy E-2.5.3: Habitat Management on Private Land Encourage environmentally sound landscaping and gardening techniques by District homeowners and institutional landowners, and on federal lands to maximize the habitat value of privately owned and federal land. Such techniques should include reduction of herbicide and pesticide use; the selection of disease-resistant, drought-resistant, and native species; the removal of invasive plants; the use of rain gardens to reduce runoff; and landscaping that provides food and cover for wildlife. 609.6[^609.6] #### Policy E-2.5.4: Conserve Critical Areas Preserve, conserve, or enhance the environmental function and value of critical areas—including areas containing species of local importance, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands—while balancing the needs of a growing District. 609.7[^609.7] #### Policy E-2.5.5: Manage Invasive Species Support approaches that limit the spread of invasive plants, animals, and other organisms that threaten wildlife and wildlife habitats. 609.8[^609.8] #### Policy E-2.5.6 Ecosystem Services and Nature-Based Design Support and encourage ecosystem services and nature-based design related to air and water quality, noise reduction, flood risk reduction, native habitat re-creation, and food supply, among others. 609.9[^609.9] #### Policy E-2.5.7: Meadow Habitats Create meadow habitats by converting large, contiguous mowed areas to native meadows and/or shrub habitats where feasible. Reduce mowed grassy areas in road and highway rights-of-way and on District-owned property by converting those areas to meadows with native plants and small trees. The design of these areas should balance habitat enhancement with public safety, including vehicle and pedestrian sightlines. 609.10[^609.10] ### Action E-2.5.A: Implementation of the Wildlife Action Plan Implement the 2015 Wildlife Management Plan, including programs to increase meadow habitats in the District, restore tidal wetlands, propagate native plants, and create vernal pools, artificial nesting structures, wildlife crossings and corridors, and resident science projects. 609.11[^609.11] ### Ecosystem Services and Nature-Based Design Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans freely gain from the natural environment and from properly functioning ecosystems. Such ecosystems include agroecosystems, forest ecosystems, grassland ecosystems, and aquatic ecosystems. Collectively, these benefits are known as ecosystem services and are often integral to the provisioning of clean drinking water, the decomposition of waste, and the natural pollination of crops and other plants. 609.9a[^609.9a] Nature-based design elements can include a visual connection with nature, the presence of water, the use of natural materials, and incorporation of dynamic and diffuse light. These elements can provide humans with physical health and mental health benefits, as well as other benefits. 609.9b[^609.9b] Project examples include but are not limited to green roofs or farms, green facades (e.g., vertical gardens), GI projects, net-zero or net-positive energy-use buildings, and use of alternative energy sources. 609.9c[^609.9c] [^609.4]: 609.4 [^609.5]: 609.5 [^609.6]: 609.6 [^609.7]: 609.7 [^609.8]: 609.8 [^609.9]: 609.9 [^609.10]: 609.10 [^609.11]: 609.11 [^609.9a]: 609.9a [^609.9b]: 609.9b [^609.9c]: 609.9c CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Biophilic Design Biophilic design is incorporating nature—plants, water, light, etc.—into the built environment, including homes and offices. Biophilic elements have measurable benefits relative to human productivity, emotional well-being, stress reduction, learning, and healing. Biophilic features can also foster increased appreciation and stewardship of the natural environment. By providing guidance on how to incorporate natural elements into the built environment, District government will help to promote well-being and also be a resource for other entities. 609.14a *For further examples of biophilic principles, see the Urban Design; Parks, Recreation, and Open Space; and Community Services and Facilities elements.* #### Action E-2.5.B: Data Improvements Improve the collection and monitoring of data on plant and animal life within Washington, DC, particularly data on rare, endangered, threatened, and candidate species, and species of greatest conservation need. 609.12 #### Action E-2.5.C: Pollinator Pathways Create pollinator pathways and other contiguous habitat paths that allow the migration of species into natural habitats and that support the goals of the Wildlife Action Plan. Incorporate biodiversity and the use of native plants in GI along roads and sidewalks. 609.13 #### Action E-2.5.D: Landscape Practices Encourage the use of landscape practices compatible with industry best practices and certifications, including water-efficient landscape design using native species and GI. Incorporate biophilic design elements to enhance health and well-being by providing a connection between people and nature. 609.14 ## E-3 Conserving Natural Resources [^p28-610] This section of the Environmental Protection Element addresses the conservation of water and energy resources and the reduction of solid waste. Water and energy are both limited resources, subject to growing demand, constrained supply, and aging infrastructure. Using more renewable sources of energy and reducing the use of fossil fuels have become critical to maintaining Washington, DC’s sustainability. The District has enacted several laws to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy, notably the Clean and Affordable Energy Act and the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard Act. Washington, DC also released a plan with a long-term road map for drastically cutting greenhouse emissions: Clean Energy DC (see text box on Clean Energy DC for more information). 610.1 Similarly, reducing solid waste that is incinerated or disposed of in landfills can have beneficial environmental and economic impacts—both on the local and the regional scale. Recycling and composting programs, which are mandated by District law, can effectively reduce natural resource consumption, expand the local economy, and reduce the need for trash transfer facilities in Washington, DC. 610.2 Washington, DC’s Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008, effective October 22, 2008 (D.C. Law 17-250; D.C. Official Code § 8-1773.01), fosters more energy efficiency and conservation, energy diversification through the production of clean and renewable energy, and energy security through a distributive energy infrastructure system. 610.3 [^p28-610]: 610 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### E-3.1 Conserving Water [^p29-611] Washington, DC’s drinking water is sourced from the Potomac River. While there have not been any water supply issues, severe drought conditions could stress the Potomac River. With competing demands in the watershed during the next 20 years, the District should explore opportunities for water security in close coordination with DC Water. [^611.1] DC Water encourages customers to use water wisely and has a number of programs aimed at changing consumer behavior and improving service reliability. Looking to the future, a sustained effort by DC Water and other District agencies will be necessary to reduce water waste and maximize conservation, particularly because water treatment is energy-intensive and contributes to GHG emissions. DC Water’s High Water Usage Alert (HUNA) system notifies residents when water usage is higher than normal and helps them track and stay informed about their water usage. [^611.2] *See the Infrastructure Element for more information on water supply.* #### Policy E-3.1.1: Promoting Water Conservation Promote water conservation efforts in Washington, DC. This conservation will be necessary to keep current overall consumption levels as the District continues to grow. [^611.3] *Action E-3.1.A: Leak Detection and Repair Program* Continue DC Water’s efforts to reduce water loss from leaking mains, including reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance, using audits and monitoring equipment to identify leaks, performing expeditious repairs of leaks, and instructing customers on procedures for detecting and reporting leaks. Incorporate smart infrastructure that provides automatic feedback to identify irregularities in the system, leading to greater leak detection and swifter repair. [^611.4] *Action E-3.1.B: Building Code Review* Support efforts by the Construction Code Coordinating Board and the Green Building Advisory Council (GBAC) to strengthen building, plumbing, and landscaping standards and codes in order to identify possible new water conservation measures. [^611.5] *Action E-3.1.C: Water Conservation Education* Work collaboratively with DC Water and other partners to launch a large-scale marketing and educational campaign, bringing greater awareness to the need for water conservation and to the savings achievable through conservation and use of efficient technology, and to achieve a reduction in the daily per capita consumption of water resources. This per capita <
> In most years, there is ample rainfall in the Potomac Basin to meet the city’s water needs, but a plentiful supply is not always guaranteed. With competing demands for land and water in the watershed during the next 20 years, the District cannot afford to overlook opportunities for conservation. ### Grey and Black Water Both greywater and blackwater are types of wastewater. Greywater is water that may contain chemicals or contaminants that may be harmful to humans. Greywater can come from shower, sink, and dishwasher drains. Blackwater is contaminated water from flood and sewage waters. Blackwater can come from a flooded river or a backed-up toilet or sewage line. Blackwater can contain harmful contaminants like bacteria, mold, and viruses that can be extremely harmful to humans. [^611.2a] [^p29-611]: text [^611.1]: text [^611.2]: text [^611.3]: text [^611.4]: text [^611.5]: text [^611.2a]: text CITYWIDE ELEMENTS reduction is needed to maintain Washington, DC’s total water consumption level as the District grows. Special efforts should be made to reach low-income customers and institutional users. [^611.6] *Action E-3.1.D: Water Conservation Financial Incentive Program* Explore mechanisms to create a water conservation financial incentive program. Similar to energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives, consider a program that creates stronger incentives for residents, small businesses, and private development to use less water in daily operations. The program should include both landscaping and building efficiency. [^611.7] *Action E-3.1.E: Distributed Rainwater Harvesting and Greywater Recycling* Explore the use of distributed rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling to reduce demand on potable water systems during shortages or disruptions. [^611.8] ## E-3.2 Conserving Energy and Reducing GHG Emissions [^p30-612] Greater energy efficiency results in a cleaner District, better air quality, and lower energy bills for District residents. More than $2.3 billion a year is spent on energy by District residents, employees, businesses, visitors, and government. Pursuant to the Clean Energy DC Act, the District will establish building energy performance standards (BEPS) to gradually improve the efficiency of the District’s existing building stock, reducing Washington, DC’s greatest source of GHG emissions. The energy used to power, heat, and cool buildings remains by far the largest contributor to the District’s GHG emissions, accounting for nearly 75 percent of total emissions in 2013. It may be possible to slow the growth of these costs in the future, even as Washington, DC grows with new people and jobs. Conserving energy is the cheapest and fastest way to cut GHG emissions and will be essential to achieving the District’s climate goals. Energy conservation and efficiency measures can help reduce dependency on outside energy sources, reduce energy costs for the District’s residents most in need, and improve environmental quality. [^612.1] While energy conservation efforts in America started in part due to concerns about supply shortages, declining demand and increased supply have reduced these risks. Due to energy-efficiency efforts, District-wide energy use declined between 2006 and 2016, despite a rapidly growing population. Today, the prime energy challenges the District faces are energy costs and the environmental impacts of energy use—most critically, energy use that produces GHGs. The most common GHGs include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The use of fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas to generate electricity, natural gas for heating and hot water, and gasoline and diesel in vehicles are the prime contributors in the District to increasing [^611.6]: 611.6 [^611.7]: 611.7 [^611.8]: 611.8 [^p30-612]: 612 [^612.1]: 612.1 concentrations of GHG emissions in the atmosphere, which cause climate change. Rising global temperatures will severely harm societies and ecosystems around the world and in the District, specifically. Washington, DC has joined the global effort to reduce GHGs and is committed to reducing its GHG footprint by 50 percent by 2032 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Living up to these commitments requires both reducing energy use and increasing the use of renewable, carbon-free energy sources. 612.2 #### Policy E-3.2.1: Carbon Neutrality Support land use policies that move Washington, DC toward achieving District-wide carbon neutrality by 2050. This means that the District will eliminate GHG emissions, or offset any remaining emissions, by supporting initiatives that will reduce emissions, such as tree planting, renewable energy generation, and land conservation. In the short term, the District government will develop a detailed implementation plan with clear milestones in order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. 612.3 #### Policy E-3.2.2 Net-Zero Buildings Provide incentives for new buildings to meet net-zero energy design standards, as called for in Clean Energy DC and Sustainable DC 2.0. Establish a path to the phased adoption of net-zero codes between 2022 and 2026. The District’s building energy codes should be updated again by 2026 to require that all new buildings achieve net-zero energy use or better. Prior to 2026, the District should provide incentives to projects that voluntarily seek to achieve net-zero energy use. 612.4 #### Policy E-3.2.3: Renewable Energy Promote the efficient use of energy, additional use of renewable energy, and a reduction of unnecessary energy expenses. The overarching objective should be to achieve reductions in per capita energy consumption. 612.5 #### Policy E-3.2.4: Energy Availability Improve energy availability and buffer District consumers from fluctuations in energy supply and prices. This should be achieved through the District’s energy purchasing policies, financial assistance programs for lower-income customers, incentives for green power, and regulatory changes that ensure that local energy markets are operating efficiently. 612.6 ### Net-Zero Energy Buildings Net-zero energy buildings combine energy efficiency and renewable energy generation to consume only as much energy as can be produced on- and offsite through renewable resources each year. Achieving net-zero energy is an ambitious yet increasingly achievable goal that is gaining momentum across geographic regions and markets. Clean Energy DC and Sustainable DC 2.0 include targets designed to ensure the highest standards of building performance and operation for all new construction, including moving toward a net-zero energy building code by 2026, while advancing health and overall livability. 612.2a Energy supply and demand should continue to be carefully managed, and efficiency should be improved in all sectors. The related text box (entitled Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act of 2018) provides an overview of Clean Energy DC, the District’s official guide for meeting future energy needs. With the Clean Energy DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2018, by 2032, 100 percent of the District’s electric generation mix is to be renewable energy, with 10 percent of that energy derived from District-generated solar resources by 2041. Further, if Washington, DC is to eliminate all carbon emissions by 2050, new net-zero energy buildings will play a critical role. To facilitate the construction of systems that will support these goals, policies should be updated to reflect market conditions in the region and be designed to do more than simply facilitate growth of particular technologies. Amended distributed energy resource laws govern issues such as storage, efficiency, and demand management, and should create favorable conditions for the continued adoption of carbon-neutral and resilient energy generation solutions. 612.2b CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy E-3.2.5: Reducing Home Heating and Cooling Costs Encourage the use of energy-efficient systems and methods for home insulation, heating, and cooling, both to conserve natural resources and also to reduce energy costs for those residents who are least able to afford them. 612.7 #### Policy E-3.2.6: Alternative Sustainable and Innovative Energy Sources Support the development and application of renewable energy technologies, such as active, passive, and photovoltaic solar energy; fuel cells; and other sustainable sources such as shared solar facilities in neighborhoods and low- or zero-carbon thermal sources, such as geothermal energy or wastewater heat exchange. Such technology should be used to reduce GHGs and imported energy, provide opportunities for economic and community development, and benefit environmental quality. A key goal is the continued availability and access to unobstructed, direct sunlight for distributed-energy generators and passive solar homes relying on the sun as a primary energy source. 612.8 #### Policy E-3.2.7: Energy-Efficient Building and Site Planning Include provisions for energy efficiency and for the use of alternative energy sources in the District’s planning, zoning, and building standards. Encourage new development to exceed minimum code requirements and contribute to energy efficiency and clean energy goals. 612.9 #### Policy E-3.2.8: Locally Generated Electricity Support locally generated electricity from renewable sources, including both commercial and residential renewable energy projects. Policies could support the option to share a solar project among several neighbors (i.e., community solar), financial incentives, research and education, and maximizing existing programs to help install solar panels and solar thermal systems throughout the District. 612.10 ### DC Green Bank The DC Green Bank is an innovative policy tool that will use public purpose funding to attract and accelerate private investment. The DC Green Bank can be used by residents or businesses to finance sustainable projects and will offer loans, leases, credit enhancements, and other financing services to close funding gaps for clean energy projects and energy efficiency improvements. 612.10a ### Fossil Fuel Use in Washington, DC Along with increasing energy efficiency and conservation, reducing the carbon content in electricity and fuels is also critically important. Fossil fuels remain the dominant source of energy for electricity, for heating buildings through natural gas or fuel oils, and for motor vehicles. Over the long term, phasing fossil fuels out of the District’s energy supply will be essential to achieving the District’s climate commitments. In fact, 96 percent of the emissions in the District are attributable to using energy, and nearly 75 percent of those emissions come from the energy used to heat, cool, and power buildings. Energy generation from fossil fuels also hurts regional air quality. One of the biggest challenges facing the District is how to reduce costs, reduce energy use overall, and shift the power supply to renewable sources like solar and wind—all while the District’s population and economy continue to grow. Figure 6.3 displays regional sources of GHG emissions. 612.10a1 Washington, DC’s goal is to reduce GHG emissions by 50 percent by 2032[^p33-1] through increasing clean energy and reducing dirty energy—meaning the District government will help businesses, residents, and municipal operations improve energy efficiency and increase their access to renewable energy. Clean energy is energy generated with no pollution or carbon emissions, in contrast to dirty fuels (such as coal and oil). Washington, DC already has some significant tools: The DC Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU) was created to help residents and businesses use less energy and save money, while Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing and the newly established Green Bank provide innovative financing for energy efficiency and clean energy upgrades. 612.10a2 Washington, DC is seeking to remove barriers to electricity infrastructure modernization, including neighborhood-scale energy systems, which allow neighborhoods to cut costs, help the environment, and recover quickly from power outages or prevent them completely. Neighborhood-scale energy systems benefit from the efficiencies of coordinating across several properties. Individual buildings see these benefits in the form of cost savings, system reliability, and other economic and environmental gains that come from centralizing energy production and managing a shared distribution network. The community can benefit from these systems because they help reduce GHG, can use renewable energy, and can align with other community and environmental efforts. 612.10a3 [^p33-1]: 2032 <
> #### Policy E-3.2.9: Energy Efficiency for Major Employers Continue efforts that enable major employers in Washington, DC—including the government, institutions, schools, and the private sector—to implement energy conservation measures. 612.12 #### Policy E-3.2.10: Consumer Education on Energy Promote resident awareness concerning energy issues through educational and demonstration initiatives and other programs. 612.13 #### Policy E-3.2.11: Conserving Energy Through Rate Structure Continue to propose rate changes that encourage the efficient use of energy resources. Economic incentives and disincentives should vary based on the different classes of rate payers, and should contribute to the economic viability of energy sources. 612.14 #### Policy E-3.2.12: Resilient Energy Systems Increase the resilience of Washington, DC’s energy systems through partnerships that enable the District to respond to energy emergencies and interruptions in supply to achieve a secure and reliable energy infrastructure that is also resilient and able to respond to and restore services rapidly in the event of an outage. Participate in regional efforts to plan for such emergencies, including those organized by MWCOG. 612.15 #### Policy E-3.2.13: Coordinating Energy Policies to Reduce GHGs New and existing energy policies should reduce GHG emissions and increase resiliency and innovation for the District. 612.16 #### Policy E-3.2.14: Clean Energy DC Plan Per the goals and actions outlined in the Clean Energy DC Plan, develop building codes and policies that require renewable energy, either for purchase or on-site installation, to make up a portion of every building’s energy usage. 612.17 #### Policy E-3.2.15: Neighborhood-Scale Energy Reduce regulatory, political, and physical barriers to modernizing electricity infrastructure to enable the deployment of neighborhood- or campus-scale energy systems and distributed energy resources. 612.18 #### Action E-3.2.A: Energy Conservation Measures Pursuant to the District’s Clean Energy DC Plan, implement energy conservation programs for the residential, commercial, and institutional sectors. These programs include financial incentives, technical assistance, building and site design standards, public outreach, and other measures to reduce energy consumption and improve efficiency. 612.19 #### Action E-3.2.B: Assistance Programs for Lower-Income Households Implement Clean Energy DC Plan programs to reduce energy costs for lower-income households, including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and additional measures to reduce monthly energy. 612.20 #### Action E-3.2.C: Consumer Education on Energy Increase education and public awareness around energy issues, including school curricula, awards programs, demonstration projects, websites, and multimedia production. 612.21 #### Action E-3.2.D: Energy Regulatory Reforms Enact legislative and regulatory reforms, including but not limited to building and zoning codes as well as utility regulations aimed at improving energy efficiency and expanded clean, distributed energy generation in Washington, DC to reduce energy costs and improve reliability and resilience. Permitting agencies should have technological expertise in clean energy solutions. Permitting times and costs should conduce toward rapid adaptation of clean energy solutions. 612.22 #### Action E-3.2.E: Energy Assurance Plan Regularly amend the District’s Energy Assurance Plan and collaborate with regional partners such as MWCOG and the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO). Regularly scheduled training for energy emergencies should be provided to appropriate District personnel. 612.23[^612.23] ### Action E-3.2.F: Energy Conservation Area Explore the establishment of neighborhood-based energy conservation areas or districts to incentivize energy efficiency, distributed generation, storage, and demand response. This is an opportunity for consumers to play a significant role in the operation of the electric grid by reducing or shifting their electricity usage during peak periods in response to time-based rates or other forms of financial incentives, which will contribute to and achieve the District-wide energy performance outcomes as defined by Clean Energy DC. 612.24[^612.24] ### Action E-3.2.G: Energy Supply Explore and adopt policies that allow for every District resident to have a cost-competitive option for the purchase of a 100 percent clean and renewable energy supply. 612.25[^612.25] ### Action E-3.2.H: Solar Easements Continue to review and modify, as needed, zoning regulations and other relevant District regulations. 612.26[^612.26] ### Action E-3.2.I Building Energy Performance Standard Develop and implement a BEPS, as described in Clean Energy DC, which would establish regular energy check-ups of buildings and require the owners of poorly performing buildings to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings. 612.27[^612.27] ### Action E-3.2.J: Neighborhood-Scale Energy By 2021, complete a neighborhood-scale clean energy system development plan to target high-load growth areas and at-risk communities and begin implementation. Encourage large projects or aggregated projects driven by energy consumers to contribute to the District’s resilience goals through neighborhood-scale clean energy strategies. 612.28[^612.28] ## E-3.3 Reducing Solid Waste Disposal Needs 613[^p36-613] Sustainable materials management practices and policies consider the entire life cycle of products, from materials extraction, manufacturing, distribution, and usage through end-of-life management, including solid waste disposal and recovery. This systematic approach is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the goals of reducing environmental impact, conserving natural resources, and reducing costs. Sustainable materials managing programs implemented in the District include sustainable purchasing guidelines, product stewardship programs, and waste diversion and resource recovery activities. 613.1[^613.1] [^612.23]: 612.23 [^612.24]: 612.24 [^612.25]: 612.25 [^612.26]: 612.26 [^612.27]: 612.27 [^612.28]: 612.28 [^p36-613]: 613 [^613.1]: 613.1 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S In 1988, the District passed legislation requiring recycling in commercial buildings and setting targets for residential recycling. The legislation also contained provisions for the District’s government to increase the use of recycled products through its procurement practices. Despite these mandates, recycling efforts were sporadic during the 1990s, and it was not until the early 2000s that most of the current programs were initiated. Washington, DC still lags behind many U.S. cities in the percentage of waste it diverts from landfills; however, recent improvements have been significant. 613.2 Sustainable DC included the goal of reducing the waste generated and disposed of in Washington, DC. This led to the creation of the Sustainable Solid Waste Management Amendment Act in 2014, which called for the District to achieve 80 percent waste diversion District-wide without the use of landfills, waste-to-energy, or incineration by 2032. Accomplishing this goal requires the collaboration of District agencies, business, nonprofits, residents, and neighboring jurisdictions. 613.3 Waste diversion is the process of diverting waste from landfills. Source reduction is the elimination of waste before it is created. Solid waste can be diverted from landfills through source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and anaerobic digestion. Additional waste diversion can be achieved through public education, recycling of construction and demolition debris, and expanded recycling in schools, offices, and other places of employment. Among the many benefits of recycling is the fact that it reduces demand on the Washington, DC’s trash transfer stations, with attendant benefits to nearby neighborhoods. 613.4 ### Zero Waste DC Zero Waste DC is an initiative that enables the District to speak with one voice in developing and providing resources that help residents, businesses, and visitors move toward zero waste. Zero Waste DC brings together government agencies and programs responsible for developing and implementing cost-effective strategies for converting waste to resources, improving human and environmental health, reducing GHG emissions, creating inclusive economic opportunity, and conserving natural resources. 613.3a ### Sustainable Solid Waste Management The District’s Sustainable Solid Waste Management Amendment Act sets a bold vision to divert 80 percent of all solid waste generated in the District through source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and anaerobic digestion. This law applies to residential, commercial, and industrial waste and requires that waste is source separated at the point of discard. 613.4a To support this goal, the Office of Waste Diversion was established in 2015 in the Department of Public Works (DPW). This office is charged with supervising and coordinating the implementation of the District’s waste diversion policies and programs. 613.4b The Sustainable Solid Waste Management Amendment Act established a sustainable solid waste management hierarchy with the following in order of priority: 1. Source reduction and reuse 2. Recycling or composting of solid waste, or conversion of compostable solid waste into biofuel 3. Landfill or waste-to-energy 613.4c ### Managing Organic Waste The District and surrounding Maryland and Virginia counties lack sufficient capacity/infrastructure to process large volumes of organic materials. A 2017 compost feasibility study concluded that a facility located in the District would be the most cost-effective and sustainable means of extracting the full value from organic materials. The facility would process organics via composting, anaerobic digestion, co-digestion preprocessing, or a combination of multiple options. Sustainable DC 2.0 calls for the creation of a new composting facility within the District by 2032. 613.9a *See the Infrastructure Element for more information on solid waste disposal* #### Policy E-3.3.1: Solid Waste Source Reduction and Recycling Actively promote the reduction of the solid waste stream through reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, composting, and other measures. Use appropriate regulatory, management, and marketing strategies to inform residents and businesses about recycling and composting opportunities and best practices for reducing waste requiring landfill disposal or incineration. 613.5[^p38-1] #### Policy E-3.3.2: Construction and Demolition Recycling Support the recycling of construction and demolition debris as a key strategy for reducing the volume of waste requiring landfill disposal. To carry out this policy, encourage the deconstruction of obsolete buildings rather than traditional demolition. Deconstruction dismantles buildings piece by piece and makes the components available for resale and reuse. 613.6[^p38-2] #### Policy E-3.3.3: Organic Waste Diversion Support policies and programs that will reduce the amount of organic material sent to waste disposal facilities and landfills by encouraging source reduction, food donation, composting, and/or anaerobic digestion of food and yard waste. 613.7[^p38-3] #### Policy E-3.3.4: Regional Approach to Plastic Waste Reduction Work with surrounding jurisdictions to develop and implement a regional approach to reducing plastic waste. Goods (including items that eventually become plastic waste) flow freely into and out of the District, carried not only by waterways but also by residents, commuters, and visitors. Regional cooperation is required to align the policies and practices of neighboring jurisdictions. 613.8[^p38-4] #### Policy E-3.3.5: Promote Product Stewardship Promote product stewardship as a product-centered approach to environmental protection. Also known as extended product responsibility (EPR), product stewardship calls on those in the product life cycle—manufacturers, retailers, users, and disposers—to share responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of products. Washington, DC’s product stewardship program requires manufacturers to develop and pay for systems to reuse, recycle, or properly dispose of electronics and paint in a manner that is safe for people and the environment. 613.9[^p38-5] ### Action E-3.3.A: Expanding District Recycling Programs Expand implementation of District-wide recycling initiatives, with the long-term goal of diverting 80 percent of all waste generated in the District by 2032. Special efforts should be made to (i) expand workplace recycling through a combined education and inspection/enforcement campaign, (ii) conduct studies of successful recycling programs in other jurisdictions and [^p38-1]: 613.5 [^p38-2]: 613.6 [^p38-3]: 613.7 [^p38-4]: 613.8 [^p38-5]: 613.9 import effective practices, and (iii) plan for the composting of yard waste.[^613.10] ### Action E-3.3.B: Expand Recycling Efforts in District Institutions Work with DC Public Schools (DCPS) and public charter schools to expand school recycling programs and activities. Encourage private schools, universities, colleges, hospitals, and other large institutional employers to do likewise.[^613.11] ### Action E-3.3.C: Revisions to Planning and Building Standards for Solid Waste Review building code standards for solid waste collection to ensure that new structures are designed to encourage and accommodate recycling and convenient trash pickup.[^613.12] ### Action EE-3.3.D: Installation of Sidewalk Recycling Receptacles Install receptacles for sidewalk recycling in neighborhood commercial centers with high pedestrian volume as a way of increasing waste diversion and publicly reaffirming the District’s commitment to recycling.[^613.13] ### Action E-3.3.E: E-Cycling Program Continue to operate drop-off e-cycling programs and other measures to promote the recycling of computers and other electronic products in an environmentally sound manner.[^613.14] ### Action E-3.3.F: Commercial and Industrial Waste Reduction Work with the commercial and industrial sectors to foster appropriate source reduction and waste minimization activities, such as the environmentally sound recycling and disposal of mercury-containing fluorescent lamps and electronic equipment.[^613.15] ### Action E-3.3.G Zero Waste Plan Develop a comprehensive Zero Waste plan, as required by the Sustainable Solid Waste Management Amendment Act of 2014, with the objective of decreasing all District-wide waste streams and achieving source reduction goals. The development of such a plan would tie together existing activities and inform the development and evaluation metrics of new policies, so that Washington, DC can strategically achieve zero waste, which is defined as 80 percent diversion of all solid waste from landfills and waste-to-energy.[^613.16] ### Action E-3.3.H: Product Stewardship Requirements Expand product stewardship requirements to create additional waste-stream-specific programs (e.g., pharmaceuticals, textiles, plastic bottles, durable goods) to accompany the current electronics and paint programs.[^613.17] ## Sustainable DC Waste Vision Washington, DC envisions a District that generates zero waste. This means reducing the amount of waste created and reusing or recycling waste that is produced. The District will recapture the value of waste through urban agriculture or composting, recycling, material reuse, and (potentially) energy production, creating a closed-loop waste management system.[^613.15a] [^613.10]: 613.10 [^613.11]: 613.11 [^613.12]: 613.12 [^613.13]: 613.13 [^613.14]: 613.14 [^613.15]: 613.15 [^613.16]: 613.16 [^613.17]: 613.17 [^613.15a]: 613.15a CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action 3.3.I: Increase Residential Recycling and Composting* Design and launch new incentive programs to encourage residents to increase their recycling and composting rates, which is necessary to achieve the District’s 80 percent diversion goal. [^613.18] *Action 3.3.J: Reduce Organic Waste* Develop and launch a curbside composting program for residential customers, and require commercial customers to separate and compost food and other organic waste. [^613.19] *Action 3.3.K: Organics Processing Facility* Explore creating a new organics processing facility (composting, anaerobic digestion, or co-digestion preprocessing) in the District to capture food and other organic waste. [^613.20] *Action 3.3.L: Reduce Residential Construction and Demolition Waste* Create an accessible recycling and product reuse pathway for residential construction and demolition waste, including construction waste management requirements, contractor education, and a market for recycled and salvaged construction materials. Assess existing regulatory barriers to reusing these materials. [^613.21] *Action 3.3.M: Source Reduction* Explore innovative source reduction programs and policies to find ways to keep items out of the waste stream. [^613.22] # E-4 Promoting Environmental Sustainability [^p40-614] The term sustainability has many definitions. At its core, it refers to managing resources so that they are not permanently depleted or lost for future generations. On a local level, this principle suggests that care is taken to protect Washington, DC’s natural features for future residents and visitors to enjoy. On a global level, it suggests that the consumption of natural resources is reduced while the goal of advancing equity and being a more inclusive District is pursued. [^614.1] Five principal tactics for growing more sustainably are described here: * Encourage GI that retains stormwater, thereby protecting local waterways from pollution while allowing flexibility for developers to install GI on-site or in an off-site location where GI has a larger water quality benefit; * Promote green buildings, which are buildings that are designed through an integrated process that considers site planning, architecture, engineering, the environment, and aspects of the [^613.18]: 613.18 [^613.19]: 613.19 [^613.20]: 613.20 [^613.21]: 613.21 [^613.22]: 613.22 [^p40-614]: 614 [^614.1]: 614.1 natural world that contribute to human health and productivity, and that incorporate recycled materials, advanced energy and water conservation systems, and minimal use of toxic or hazardous materials; * Provide opportunities for food production and urban gardening; * Monitor and mitigate the environmental impacts of development and human activities; and * Expand workforce development programs to further develop the District’s green economy. 614.2[^614.2] ### E-4.1 Green Infrastructure GI 615[^p41-615] GI can include a variety of construction and design techniques that conserve the natural hydrology of development or redevelopment sites. It includes small-scale practices that allow water to infiltrate, evaporate, or transpire on-site rather than flowing off and entering local storm drains and waterways. In urban areas like Washington, DC, typical GI measures include green roofs (which absorb rainwater and also reduce energy costs), porous pavement, limits on impervious surface cover, rain barrels, and rain gardens. See Figure 6.4 for more information on GI. 615.1[^615.1] <
> [^614.2]: 614.2 [^p41-615]: 615 [^615.1]: 615.1 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S ### Green Area Ratio In 2013, the District adopted the GAR, an environmental sustainability zoning regulation that sets standards for landscape and site design for all new multi-family, commercial, and industrial development to help reduce stormwater runoff, improve air quality, and keep Washington, DC cooler. The purposes of the GAR regulations are to implement a points-based system of requirements for environmental site design that provides flexibility in meeting environmental performance standards, and to promote attractive and environmentally functional landscapes. [^615.2a] #### Policy E-4.1.1: Maximizing Permeable Surfaces Encourage the use of permeable materials for parking lots, driveways, walkways, and other paved surfaces as a way to absorb stormwater and reduce runoff. [^615.3] #### Policy E-4.1.2: Using Landscaping and Green Roofs to Reduce Runoff Promote an increase in tree planting and vegetated spaces to reduce stormwater runoff and mitigate the urban heat island, including the expanded use of green roofs in new construction and adaptive reuse, and the application of tree and landscaping standards for parking lots and other large paved surfaces. [^615.4] #### Policy E-4.1.3: GI and Engineering Promote GI and engineering practices for rainwater reclamation and wastewater reuse systems. GI practices include green roofs, bioretention facilities, permeable pavement, and rainwater harvesting. Green engineering practices include emerging wastewater treatment technologies, constructed wetlands, and purple pipe systems or other design techniques, operational methods, and technology to reduce environmental damage and the toxicity of waste generated. [^615.5] #### Action E-4.1.A: GI Criteria Support continued refinement of GI provisions for new development, such as the GAR. Explore provisions for expanded use of elements such as porous pavement, bioretention facilities, and green roofs. [^615.6] #### Action E-4.1.B: GI Demonstration Projects Continue to install retrofit demonstration projects that educate developers, engineers, designers, and the public to illustrate use of current and new GI technologies, and make the project standards and specifications available for application to other projects in Washington, DC. Such demonstration projects should be coordinated to maximize environmental benefits, monitored to evaluate their impacts, and expanded as time and money allow. [^615.7] #### Action E-4.1.C: Road Construction Standards Use District Department of Transportation’s (DDOT) GI standards on all roadway reconstruction projects, with the goal of reducing stormwater pollution from roadways by minimizing impervious surface areas, expanding the use of porous pavements, and installing bioretention tree boxes and bump-outs. [^615.8] [^615.2a]: 615.2a [^615.3]: 615.3 [^615.4]: 615.4 [^615.5]: 615.5 [^615.6]: 615.6 [^615.7]: 615.7 [^615.8]: 615.8 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### E-4.2 Promoting Green Building [^p43-616] Green building standards are well-established as a means of growing more sustainably. The LEED rating system, established by the Green Building Council, establishes varying levels of certification for green buildings based on the degree to which they mitigate the pollution created during building construction, as well as the long-term effects resulting from building operation. Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM®) is another internationally recognized certification system for sustainable performance in planning, design, construction, operation, and refurbishment; several other certifications also exist. Typical green building strategies include the use of light-colored paving materials to reduce heat build-up, recycled building materials, and energy-conserving windows and insulation methods. Green buildings are also designed to avoid indoor air quality problems and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. Improving the performance of the District’s older building stock through green retrofits is a fundamental component of the Sustainable DC Plan. [^616.1] The District’s GBAC was established in 2007. The GBAC is comprised of both public agency and private sector members. It monitors the District’s compliance with relevant green building requirements and makes recommendations on green building policies. [^616.2] #### Policy E-4.2.1: Support for Green Building Broaden the requirements for the use of green building methods in new construction and rehabilitation projects to include all building typologies, and develop green building standards for minimum performance or continued improvement of energy use through improved operation and maintenance activities. [^616.3] #### Policy E-4.2.2: Green Building Education and Awareness Support programs that educate the public, business, and building and real estate communities on the benefits and techniques of green building, including utility cost savings and environmental and health benefits. [^616.4] #### Action E-4.2.A: Building Code Revisions Periodically review regulatory obstacles to green building construction in the District, and work to reduce or eliminate such obstacles if they exist. Adopt amendments to the District’s green building codes as necessary to promote green building methods and materials, and to encourage such actions as stormwater harvesting, structural insulated panels, and high-quality windows. [^616.5] [^p43-616]: 616 [^616.1]: 616.1 [^616.2]: 616.2 [^616.3]: 616.3 [^616.4]: 616.4 [^616.5]: 616.5 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> Community gardens not only provide a place to grow fruits, vegetables, and flowers, they also provide an environmental, recreational, cultural, and educational asset in the neighborhoods they serve. *Action E-4.2.B: Green Building Incentives* Continue green building incentive programs to encourage green new construction and the rehabilitation of existing structures that go beyond the baseline code requirements. 616.6[^616.6] *See also Action E-7.1.A on green building requirements for District projects and projects receiving municipal funds.* ## E-4.3 Enhancing Urban Food Production and Community Gardening [^p44-617] With more than 60 percent of District residents living in multi-family housing with limited access to private open space, community gardens provide an important opportunity for green community space and for residents to supplement their food budget. There are more than 34[^p44-34] such gardens in Washington, DC, each independently operated. Community gardens not only provide a place to grow fruits, vegetables, and flowers, they also provide an environmental, recreational, cultural, and educational asset in the neighborhoods they serve. In addition, urban farms are small businesses that contribute to their surrounding communities by growing fruits, vegetables, and other products and offer environmental, cultural, and educational opportunities. The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) plays an integral part in promoting urban food production and community gardening in the District. It helps to manage all 34[^p44-34] community gardens and works with six partner urban farms across Washington, DC, which are all 501(c)(3) organizations that manage farms on DPR properties, focusing on offering gardening and nutrition programs while increasing access to healthy and affordable food to District communities. 617.1[^617.1] Additionally, the University of the District of Columbia (UDC), through the College of Agriculture and Urban Sustainability and Environmental Sciences (CAUSES) and its Land Grant University status, expands academic and public knowledge of sustainable farming techniques that improve food and water security, health, and wellness by providing research, education, and gardening techniques to residents and organizations in Washington, DC. 617.2[^617.2] ### Policy E-4.3.1: Promotion of Community Gardens, Urban Farms, and Educational Growing Spaces Continue to encourage and support the development of community gardens, urban farms, rooftop farms, and educational growing spaces on public and private land across Washington, DC, with the Sustainable DC 2.0 plan, by identifying public and private land suitable for urban agriculture and streamlining the permitting process for gardeners and farmers. 617.3[^617.3] [^616.6]: 616.6 [^p44-617]: 617 [^p44-34]: 34 [^617.1]: 617.1 [^617.2]: 617.2 [^617.3]: 617.3 #### Policy E-4.3.2: Capacity Building for Community Gardening Enhance the capacity of private, public, and nonprofit community gardening organizations to develop and operate community gardens. This should include working with the private sector and local foundations to mobilize financial support. 617.4[^617.4] #### Policy E-4.3.3: Domestic Gardening and Urban Farming Provide technical and educational support to District residents who wish to plant backyard and rooftop gardens or start urban farming businesses. This could include measures such as partnerships with local gardening groups; education through conferences, websites, and publications; tool lending programs; integrated pest management; and information on composting and best practices in gardening. 617.5[^617.5] #### Policy E-4.3.4: Use of Fertilizer Educate District homeowners, businesses, and commercial applicators on the proper use of fertilizer, and encourage native species plants and landscaping that do not require fertilizer. 617.6[^617.6] #### Policy E-4.3.5: Schoolyard Greening Work with DCPS and public charter schools to make appropriate portions of buildings and grounds, including rooftops, available for GI and community and school gardens, and to use buildings and grounds for instructional programs in environmental science, urban farming, and gardening classes. Encourage private schools to do likewise. 617.7[^617.7] #### Policy E-4.3.6: Produce and Farmers Markets Support the creation, maintenance of, and outreach for farmers markets in all quadrants of the District to provide outlets for urban farms and community gardens to sell healthy, locally grown produce to District residents. 617.8[^617.8] #### Policy E-4.3.7: Composting Programs and Community Gardens Support composting programs at community gardens (through the DPR Compost Cooperatives), food waste drop-off locations at farmers markets (through the DPW Food Waste Drop-Off Program), composting in schoolyard gardening programs, and residential composting. Residents composting in common spaces and at their homes should be properly trained, as required in the Residential Composting Incentives Amendment Act of 2018. 617.9[^617.9] #### Action E-4.3.A: Community Gardens and Urban Farms in Wards 7 and 8 To activate community spaces, increase sustainability, and help address the lack of healthy food retail options in Wards 7 and 8, work with community leaders and gardening advocates to identify and establish property for new [^617.4]: 617.4 [^617.5]: 617.5 [^617.6]: 617.6 [^617.7]: 617.7 [^617.8]: 617.8 [^617.9]: 617.9 gardens or urban farms in this area. The District should assist in this effort by providing an inventory of publicly and privately owned tracts of land that are suitable for community gardens and urban farms, and then work with local advocacy groups to make such sites available. This action should supplement, but not replace, efforts to increase retail options in this part of the District. 617.10 ### Action E-4.3.B: Support for UDC Cooperative Extension Enhance the capability of the Cooperative Extension of the UDC to provide technical assistance and research, including educational materials and programs to support resident gardening, tree planting efforts, urban farming, food entrepreneurship, and nutrition education. 617.11 ### Action E-4.3.C: Support for Sustainable Agriculture Continue to support sustainable agriculture with the goal of producing healthy, abundant crops, preserving environmental services, improving neighborhood health, and creating new entrepreneurial opportunities. Implement the Urban Farming and Food Security Act and expedite the process to make public and private lands available for a variety of urban agriculture uses. 617.12 ## E-4.4 Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Development 618 The District of Columbia Environmental Policy Act (DCEPA), modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), requires all District agencies to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of their major actions, including the permitting of new development. Environmental Impact Statements are required for projects that are likely to have substantial negative impacts on the environment. 618.1 To determine if a project meets this threshold, applicants must complete a checklist called an Environmental Impact Screening Form (EISF). Unlike NEPA’s Environmental Assessment, the EISF contains simple yes/no questions and requires no narrative or analysis. The policies and actions below call for a more rigorous analysis of impacts in the future, with more substantive documentation of environmental effects. 618.2 ### Policy E-4.4.1: Mitigating Development Impacts Future development should mitigate impacts on the natural environment and anticipate the impacts of climate change, resulting in environmental improvements wherever feasible. Construction practices that would permanently degrade natural resources without mitigation should not be allowed. 618.3 #### Policy E-4.4.2: Transparency of Environmental Decision-Making Discussions and decisions regarding environmental impacts and mitigation measures should occur through a transparent process in which the public is kept informed and given a meaningful opportunity to participate.[^618.4] #### Policy E-4.4.3: Environmental Assessments Ensure full and meaningful compliance with the District of Columbia Environmental Policy Act of 1989, effective October 18, 1989 (DC Law 8-36; DC Official Code § 8-109.01 et seq.), including the use of procedures to assess the environmental impacts of major development projects comparable to the regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, approved January 1, 1970 (83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The environmental review should include all pertinent information about the effects of the project on the human environment, including information about existing conditions, projected impacts, and mitigation measures. Carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions impacts should be included in the environmental impact assessments. The process should ensure that such information is available when a development is proposed and is available to the public and decision-makers before any decision is made.[^618.5] #### Policy E-4.4.4: Monitoring of Operational and Construction Impacts Strengthen District government programs that monitor and resolve air pollution, water pollution, noise, soil contamination, dust, vibration, and other environmental impacts resulting from commercial uses, industrial uses, trucking, construction activities, and other activities around Washington, DC that could potentially degrade environmental quality.[^618.6] ##### Action E-4.4.A: District-wide Natural Resource Inventory Compile and maintain a District-wide natural resources inventory that catalogs and monitors the location and condition of Washington, DC’s natural resources. The inventory should be used as a benchmark to evaluate the success of environmental programs and the impacts of land use and development decisions.[^618.7] ##### Action E-4.4.B: Environmental Enforcement Continue interagency efforts to improve compliance with the District’s existing environmental laws and regulations. This effort should include public education, compliance assistance, and continued support for Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and DPW’s partnership to address environmental crimes.[^618.8] [^618.4]: 618.4 [^618.5]: 618.5 [^618.6]: 618.6 [^618.7]: 618.7 [^618.8]: 618.8 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Vehicle Emissions In two related settlements, German automaker Volkswagen AG (VW) has agreed to spend nearly $25 billion to settle allegations of cheating on vehicle emissions tests and deceiving customers. VW’s use of a defeat device in its diesel vehicles enabled the vehicles to emit levels of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) significantly in excess of the limits set by the EPA. NOx is a precursor to ozone formation and is hazardous to human health. The automaker will spend $2.925 billion to mitigate the pollution from these diesel cars, $2 billion to invest in clean vehicle technology, and $10 billion in the vehicle recall program.[^620.3a] Washington, DC is expected to receive $8.125 million from the VW settlement and must develop a Mitigation Plan outlining the use of the funds for eligible projects, with the main goal of reducing NOx emissions. The District plans to spend the $8.125 million of VW settlement funds in three project areas: locomotive switcher engine replacement, incentives for replacement of diesel transit buses and trash trucks, and rebates for tailpipe pollution reduction retrofits.[^620.3b] ## E-5 Reducing Environmental Hazards[^p48-619] Environmental hazards in Washington, DC that may be related to land use include a variety of sudden shocks and chronic stressors, such as air and water pollution, contaminated soils, hazardous materials, noise, disease vectors, flooding, light pollution, electromagnetic fields, and earthquakes. The overall purpose of Comprehensive Plan policies on these topics is to minimize the potential for damage, disease, and injury resulting from these hazards. Environmental hazards define basic constraints to land use that have to be reflected in how and where development takes place. The severity of these hazards also helps define the priority for future remediation and abatement programs.[^619.1] The presence of environmental hazards in Washington, DC also means that up-to-date emergency response planning is essential. As indicated in the Community Services and Facilities Element, the District’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA) is charged with preparing and implementing these plans and ensuring that District agencies, residents, and businesses are informed and prepared in the event of a disaster or other emergency. Other agencies, including the Health Emergency Preparedness Response Administration (HERPA) and the District Department of Transportation DDOT, are also actively involved in emergency planning and response.[^619.2] ### E-5.1 Reducing Air Pollution[^p48-620] Air quality has improved tremendously over the decades thanks to successful air pollution control programs and technology improvements. Washington, DC residents continue to experience occasional smoggy summer days that can be harmful to human health. Effects range from minor problems like watery eyes and headaches to serious respiratory problems and heart ailments. Those with lung or heart disease, children, and older adults are particularly vulnerable and these conditions are disproportionately experienced by communities of color and low-income residents.[^620.1] Air pollution is comprised of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ground-level ozone, particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter), and sulfur oxides, as well as other hazardous air pollutants. The greatest contributor to air pollution in the Washington metropolitan region is motor vehicle emissions. Emissions from local smokestacks and other stationary sources are fairly limited, although the District is subject to such pollution from upwind states. While cleaner-burning gasoline and federal engine standards have helped reduce pollution to some degree, urban sprawl and accompanying congestion have countered this gain. Clearly, reducing motor vehicle emissions is not something the District can do on its own, [^620.3a]: 620.3a [^620.3b]: 620.3b [^p48-619]: 619 [^619.1]: 619.1 [^619.2]: 619.2 [^p48-620]: 620 [^620.1]: 620.1 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS though the District is undertaking numerous efforts to make Washington, DC less dependent on automobiles. Numerous multi-state organizations and regional committees exist to address the issue, all working toward compliance with federal Clean Air Act standards. These entities focus not only on reducing vehicle emissions, but also on curbing other sources of pollution, ranging from power plants, locomotives, and jet fuel to consumer products such as paints, lawnmowers, gas-fired leaf-blowers, and home fireplaces and barbecues. 620.2[^620.2] The 1970 Clean Air Act established standards for six criteria pollutants. These are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Areas where these standards are not met are designated as nonattainment by the EPA. As of 2015, the Washington metropolitan region is classified as a marginal non-attainment area for the federal eight-hour ozone standard (see Figure 6.5, 2018 Ambient Air Quality Trends). Because of this status, the District (along with Maryland and Virginia) must prepare State Implementation Plans (SIPs)to track the progress toward attaining federal air quality standards. 620.3[^620.3] <
> [^620.2]: 620.2 [^620.3]: 620.3 [^620.4]: 620.4 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Air quality trends data demonstrates that despite population increases and other related activities in the District, ambient concentrations of all criteria pollutants and pollution emissions have dropped during the assessment period. However, ozone continues to be the biggest air pollution challenge the region faces. Figure 6.6 shows the number of days the federal eight-hour ozone standard was exceeded at three monitoring locations in the District between 1997 and 2018. The second chart, Figure 6.7, shows the statistical three-year average of pollutant concentrations in the air per year over the same time period from each monitor in Washington, DC. The third chart, Figure 6.8, shows that levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution, or soot, have also declined at each monitor over time. In 2014, the District officially was designated as being in attainment of all federal standards for fine particulate matter. 620.5 ### Figure 6.6: ### Number of Exceedance Days in the District Compared to the 2015 Eight-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) [^620.6] <
> (Source: DOEE 2019) [^620.6]: 620.6 Figure 6.7: # Eight-Hour Ozone Design Concentration Values for Each Monitor [^620.7] <
> (Source: DOEE 2019) [^620.7]: 620.7 Figure 6.8: # Annual Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Design Concentration Values for Each Monitor 620.8 <
> (Source: DOEE 2019) Through implementation of the GAR, District-wide tree planting efforts, and other GI initiatives, the District is supporting the use of landscaping and tree planting to absorb ozone and other pollutants. [^620.9] *See Section 615 for more information about the GAR.* ### Policy E-5.1.1: Attaining Air Quality Standards Continue to undertake programs and initiatives that move the region closer to attaining and maintaining federal air quality standards. Expand these programs as feasible to incorporate new technology and to reflect best practices around the country. [^620.10] [^620.8]: 620.8 [^620.9]: 620.9 [^620.10]: 620.10 ### Policy E-5.1.2: Regional Planning Recognize that air quality is a regional issue that requires multi-jurisdictional strategies and solutions. Accordingly, work with surrounding cities, counties, states, the federal government, and appropriate regional organizations to more effectively conduct air quality planning. 620.11[^p53-1] ### Policy E-5.1.3: Evaluating Development Impacts On Air Quality Evaluate potential air emissions from new and expanded development, including transportation improvements and municipal facilities, and take measures to mitigate any possible adverse impacts, particularly to any adjoining residential uses. These measures should include construction controls to reduce airborne dust and transportation emissions. 620.12[^p53-2] ### Policy E-5.1.4: Stationary Sources Maintain controls on gaseous and particulate emissions from stationary sources of air pollution in Washington, DC, such as boilers and generators. Particular attention should be given to achieving compliance of local industrial/commercial/institutional boilers, which are the largest stationary sources of air pollution in the District. 620.13[^p53-3] ### Policy E-5.1.5: Improving Air Quality Through Transportation Efficiency Efficiency Promote strategies that reduce motor vehicle emissions in the District and surrounding region. As outlined in the Land Use and Transportation Elements of this Comprehensive Plan, this includes the development of a fully integrated regional system of buses, streetcars, rail transit, bicycles, taxis, and pedestrian facilities to make it easier and more convenient to travel without an automobile. It also includes the promotion of trip reduction measures, such as video conference facilities, telecommuting, flextime, and carpooling. Strategies to reduce congestion and idling time, such as improved signal timing and reversible commute lanes, also should contribute to air quality improvement. 620.14[^p53-4] ### Policy E-5.1.6: Clean Fuels Encourage the use of clean fuel vehicles and enhance efforts to place refueling and recharging equipment at facilities accessible for public use. When feasible, provide financial incentives for District residents and businesses to use clean vehicles, such as reduced motor vehicle tax and license fees. Support proliferation of EVs through innovative rate designs. 620.15[^p53-5] ### Policy E-5.1.7: Energy Efficiency and Air Quality Encourage making energy-efficiency upgrades to provide the co-benefit of improving air quality. 620.16[^p53-6] [^p53-1]: 620.11 [^p53-2]: 620.12 [^p53-3]: 620.13 [^p53-4]: 620.14 [^p53-5]: 620.15 [^p53-6]: 620.16 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Policy E-5.1.8: Air Quality Education Support increased public awareness of air quality issues through Air Quality Action Day programs, publication of air quality data, and distribution of educational materials that outline steps residents and businesses can take to help maintain clean air. For the regulated community, continue outreach about air quality requirements and compliance assistance. Increase use of innovative technological outreach, such as a bench monitoring station. 620.17 ### Policy E-5.1.9: Zero-Emission Vehicles Encourage the use of electric and zero-emissions vehicles. When feasible, provide financial incentives for District residents and businesses to use electric and zero-emissions vehicles, such as reduced motor vehicle tax and license fees. Support expansion of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, including innovative designs that encourage off-peak charging and enhance efforts to place refueling and recharging equipment at facilities accessible for public use. 620.18 #### Action E-5.1.A: SIP Cooperate with appropriate state, regional, and federal agencies to carry out the federally mandated SIP in order to attain federal standards for ground level ozone by the end of 2021. 620.19 #### Action E-5.1.B: Control of Bus and Truck Emissions Collaborate with Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) and local motor coach operators to reduce diesel bus emissions through the acquisition and use of clean fuel and electric transit vehicles. Additionally, encourage natural gas-powered, electric-powered, and hybrid commercial trucks to reduce emissions and improve air quality. 620.20 #### Action E-5.1.C: Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs Regularly update the District’s motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that they are employing the latest monitoring technologies. Consider expanding requirements for heavy vehicle emission inspections. 620.21 #### Action E-5.1.D: Air Quality Monitoring Continue to operate a system of air quality monitors around the District, and take corrective actions in the event the monitors detect emissions or pollution that exceeds federal standards. 620.22 ## E-6 The Link Between Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality [^p55-621] Land use and transportation policies work in tandem to affect the region’s air quality. Fifty-one percent of nitrogen oxide emissions and 31 percent of volatile organic compounds emissions—the two precursors to ground-level ozone formation—come from transportation, making it the second-largest source (see Figure 6.9 and Figure 6.10, respectively), and as noted earlier, transportation is the largest overall contributor to air pollution. In general, the more vehicle miles” Washington, DC-region residents must travel to reach home, work, shopping, and services, the worse the air quality becomes. Longer commutes are compounded by traffic congestion, which results in additional emissions from idling cars. Despite the use of cleaner-burning fuels and newer vehicles with tighter emissions standards, attaining federal air quality standards will be difficult until the adoption and implementation of new approaches to rethink how the region handles its growth. New approaches include supporting smart city data, applications, and technology to help people and goods move more quickly, cheaply, and efficiently—all of which will also contribute to further reductions in air pollution. [^621.1] <
> [^p55-621]: Council of Governments. (2018). Air Quality Progress in the Metropolitan Washington Region: 2018 Report. [^621.1]: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. (2016). Multi-Sectoral Strategy to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Metropolitan Washington Region. [^621.2]: District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment. (2017). 2014 Periodic Emissions Inventory. Figure 6.10: ## District Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions by Sector in 2014 [^621.3] <
> *(Source: DOEE)* Fortunately, Washington, DC is already implementing sustainable approaches to land use and urban form, resulting in lower vehicle emissions even as the District’s population continues to grow. These approaches are at the District, neighborhood, and site level, and together they will help Washington, DC maintain attainment of air quality standards. For example, the District’s land use development patterns mean that jobs, housing, and recreation are in proximity to each other. As the Land Use and Transportation Elements of this Comprehensive Plan note, clustering higher-density development along major corridors, bus routes, and near Metrorail stations means shorter and fewer car and truck trips, thus [^621.3]: 621.3 reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and motor vehicle emissions, which improves air quality for residents. At the same time, historic land use patterns segregated residents by race and income with the result that these residents frequently have longer trips, often by car, to reach jobs, education, shopping and services. Equitable development patterns have the potential to improve or mitigate air quality problems by providing and promoting alternatives to vehicular travel, such as mass transit, biking, or walking. However, the rise of ridesharing services provided by transportation network companies (TNCs) is a countervailing trend that must be considered; likewise, autonomous vehicles may encourage more people to live farther from their work. 621[^.4] At the site level, several District policies contribute to a further reduction in vehicle emissions. Washington, DC continues to support the proliferation of EV charging and bikeshare stations throughout the District. In addition, the District continues to work with private businesses to develop a suite of incentives that can be offered to employees to encourage clean commuting, such as including facilities for showering after biking and walking, as well as providing transit subsidies. 621[^.5] The District is fortunate to have one of the best transit systems in the country and many options for traveling without a car. The District, however, is not an island. The air is polluted from the suburbs and by power plant emissions from places as far away as the Ohio Valley. Washington, DC will continue to work with regional partners through MWCOG to support transportation policies resulting in lower air emissions. Recent data shows a reduction in regional emissions is due not only to a cleaner electric grid, but also because of cleaner cars and less driving per person. In addition, the continued development of a safe and convenient regional and District-wide bicycle lane and trail network contributes to a reduction in VMT. 621[^.6] *See the Transportation Element for additional policies on improving mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation, and transportation management.* ### E-6.1 Reducing Water Pollution 622 Like cities across the United States, Washington, DC faces the challenge of combating the pollution of its rivers, streams, and groundwater. The problem dates to colonial days when the District disposed of sewage and agricultural waste in its rivers. While the days of open sewers and unregulated dumping are in the past, Washington, DC’s waterways are still significantly impaired. Although there is still work to do, given the progress made as a result of DC Water’s Clean Rivers Project, the District is significantly closer to achieving the Sustainable DC goal of fishable and swimmable rivers. 622[^.1] [^.4]: 621.4 [^.5]: 621.5 [^.6]: 621.6 [^.1]: 622.1 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Most of the pollutants entering Washington, DC’s waters cannot be traced to specific points. Oil, gas, dust, pesticides, trash, animal waste, and other pollutants are carried to rivers and streams each time it rains. Vegetated and unpaved areas absorb some of these pollutants, while paved surfaces do not. Industrial uses like power plants and military bases also impact water quality. Toxins from these uses have contaminated the groundwater in certain areas and have settled into riverbeds, creating the danger that they will be re-released if the sediment is disturbed. In addition, runoff carries high volumes of fast-moving water to local streams, scouring natural channels and stripping away the resources necessary to support local fish and wildlife. 622.2 As noted in the Infrastructure Element, the combined storm sewers system serves the dual purpose of conveying sewage as well as stormwater in about one-third of the District. During major storms or snow melts, stormwater and sanitary sewage flows exceed the capacity of the conveyance system, causing raw sewage and stormwater to be released into the Anacostia and Potomac rivers, Rock Creek, and tributary streams. Millions of gallons of sewage may be dumped into the river during such events, lowering oxygen levels and damaging aquatic life. When fully completed in 2030, the 18-mile Clean Rivers Project will result in a 96 percent system-wide reduction in combined sewer overflow volume. 622.3 The federal Clean Water Act required the District to take steps to control stormwater pollution and eventually meet clean water standards. The Long-Term Control Plan for sanitary and storm sewer separation is one of these steps. Another is the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, which includes specific requirements for the two-thirds of Washington, DC where storm and sanitary sewers are already separated. The MS4 Program, which is managed by the DOEE, authorizes the discharge from industrial and construction sites and other critical source facilities, monitoring of these discharges, enforcement activities for violators, and annual reporting. In 2001, the District passed legislation authorizing the collection of fees to fund these activities. 622.4 As with air quality, water quality improvements cannot be tackled by the District alone. The Anacostia watershed includes 176 square miles, and over 80 percent of this area is in Maryland. The Potomac watershed is larger still—over 14,600 square miles—and extends as far as West Virginia and Pennsylvania. A number of interstate and multi-agency initiatives have been launched to address water quality problems. These must be sustained and expanded in the future. 622.5 ### Policy E-6.1.1: Improving Water Quality Improve the quality of water in the District’s rivers and streams to meet public health and water quality standards, and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of these watercourses for multiple uses, including recreation and aquatic life. 622.6[^622.6] #### Policy E-6.1.2: Wastewater Treatment Continue sustained capital investment in the District’s wastewater treatment system in order to reduce overflows of untreated sewage and improve the quality of effluent discharged to surface waters. Maintain and upgrade the Blue Plains treatment plant as needed to meet capacity needs and to incorporate technological advances in wastewater treatment. 622.7[^622.7] *See the Infrastructure Element for more details on wastewater treatment.* #### Policy E-6.1.3: Control of Runoff Continue to implement water pollution control and management practices aimed at reducing runoff and pollution, including the flow of sediment and nutrients into streams, rivers, and wetlands. 622.8[^622.8] #### Policy E-5.2.4: Riverbed Sediment Reduce the concentration of chemicals with identified ecological and human health risks in Anacostia and Washington Channel sediments. Remediation measures should restore wetlands and riparian habitats, address ongoing sources, and minimize the possibility of media (e.g., water, sediment, or biota) contamination resulting from dredging or disturbances of the river bottom. 622.9[^622.9] #### Policy E-6.1.5: Groundwater Protection Protect Washington’s groundwater from the adverse effects of construction processes and urban land uses. Contaminated groundwater should be investigated to determine whether long-term monitoring or treatment is necessary or feasible. Future land uses and activities should be managed to minimize public exposure to groundwater hazards and reduce the likelihood of future contamination. 622.10[^622.10] #### Policy E-6.16: Control of Illicit Discharges Provide public outreach and education, and maintain inspection and enforcement to identify and eliminate illicit discharges to Washington, DC’s stormwater system and District waters. 622.11[^622.11] #### Policy E-6.1.7: Regional Coordination Promote planning at the watershed level, particularly cooperative efforts with Maryland, to address existing pollution loads in the Anacostia River basin. Undertake similar efforts with jurisdictions in the Potomac watershed to address water quality in the Potomac River. 622.12[^622.12] [^622.6]: 622.6 [^622.7]: 622.7 [^622.8]: 622.8 [^622.9]: 622.9 [^622.10]: 622.10 [^622.11]: 622.11 [^622.12]: 622.12 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Action E-6.1.A: Stormwater Management Program As required by the EPA, Washington, DC creates a Stormwater Management Plan every five years, covering such topics as runoff-reducing GI, maintenance of GI infrastructure, education, surface regulations, fees, and water quality education. The plan should include measures that achieve specific water quality standards, reevaluate and clarify stormwater standards to eliminate confusion, and propose fee levels that are sufficient to maintain an effective stormwater management program and encourage residents and businesses to reduce stormwater pollution. 622.13 ### Action E-6.1.B: Funding Continue funding for water quality improvements, including abatement of combined sewer overflow, removal of toxins, and Anacostia River clean up. Set incentive-based fee structures for District residents and commercial property owners. Evaluate opportunities to adjust stormwater fees to accelerate the restoration of local waters as required by the District’s federally issued MS4 permit. 622.14 ### Action E-6.1.C: Monitoring and Enforcement Maintain a District water pollution control program that enforces water quality standards, regulates land-disturbing activities (to reduce sediment), inspects and controls sources of pollution in the District, and comprehensively monitors District waters to identify and eliminate sources of pollution. This program should be adequately staffed to carry out its mission and to implement innovative stormwater management programs. Other environmental programs—including underground storage tank (UST) regulation, contaminated site remediation, and pesticide control programs—must take groundwater impacts into account in their regulatory and enforcement activities. 622.15 ### Action E-6.1.D: Clean Water Education Working with DC Water, DOEE, DCPS, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), and local universities, increase public information, education, and outreach efforts on stormwater pollution. These efforts could include such measures as community clean ups, storm drain marking, school curricula, demonstration projects, signage, and advertisement and media campaigns. 622.16 ### Action E-6.1.E: Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) sets the quantity of a pollutant that may be introduced into a water body. As a critical step in implementing these requirements, waste load allocations for individual sources or discharges (including District entities) into the municipal stormwater system should be assigned, and the technologies and management practices to control stormwater should be identified. Continue to work with stakeholders to update CITYWIDE ELEMENTS and execute Washington, DC’s 2016 Consolidated TMDL Implementation Plan, which details actions to reduce pollution from the MS4 as necessary to achieve water quality objectives. Remove TMDLs for tributaries where the water is not being polluted. Update the District’s Watershed Implementation Plan for the Chesapeake Bay, and continue to implement through two-year milestones as part of Chesapeake Bay Program efforts to have all practices in place by 2025 to meet the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. [^622.17] #### Action E-6.1.F: Houseboat Regulations Improve regulation of houseboats and other floating structures in the Washington Channel, Anacostia River, and Potomac River to reduce water pollution. [^622.18] #### Action E-6.1.G: Clean Marinas Promote the Clean Marinas Program, encouraging boat clubs and marinas to voluntarily change their operating procedures to reduce pollution to District waters. [^622.19] #### Action E-6.1.H: Rainwater and Greywater Explore the capture and reuse of rainwater and greywater for potable and non-potable indoor uses, including the creation of new policies and guidance that would allow for captured and recycled water for clothes washers, toilets, showers, dishwashers, and other domestic uses. [^622.20] ### E-6.2 Controlling Noise [^p61-623] Noise affects the general health and well-being of District residents. High noise levels can create a host of problems, ranging from stress to hearing loss. Noise can also impact urban wildlife. In the noisiest parts of Washington, DC, the sounds of cars, trucks, buses, helicopters, and sirens may seem almost constant. Even in relatively quiet parts of Washington, DC, household noise sources like car alarms and leaf blowers can be a source of annoyance. While the maintenance of peace and quiet is a basic expectation in most of Washington, DC’s neighborhoods, it must be balanced with the realities of living in a vibrant and growing District. [^623.1] Reducing exposure to noise requires strategies that address both noise sources (e.g., freeways and airports) and noise receptors (e.g., homes, schools, and hospitals). It also involves the enforcement of ordinances regulating the hours of operation for noise-generating activities, such as construction and machinery use. The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) enforces Chapter 27 of the DC Municipal Regulations Title 20, which formally declares the “policy of the District that every person is entitled to ambient noise levels that are not detrimental to life, health, and enjoyment of his or her property,” and further that <
> Reducing exposure to noise requires strategies that address both noise “sources” like freeways and airports and noise “receptors” like homes, schools, and hospitals. It also involves the enforcement of ordinances regulating the hours of operation for noisegenerating activities, like construction and machinery use. [^622.17]: text [^622.18]: text [^622.19]: text [^622.20]: text [^p61-623]: text [^623.1]: text CITYWIDE ELEMENTS “excessive or unnecessary noises within the District are a menace to the welfare and prosperity of the residents and businesses of the District.” [^623.2] Noise reduction measures also address highways and aviation. The District has a noise abatement and barrier policy for highways, in compliance with Federal Highway Act requirements, that focuses on highway traffic noise and construction noise. Airport noise reduction measures—including regulations on flight paths, hours of operation, aircraft type and model, and helicopters—are coordinated through MWCOG. [^623.3] #### Policy E-6.2.1: Interior Noise Standards Ensure that interior noise levels in new buildings and major renovation projects comply with federal noise standards and guidelines. Support the retrofitting of existing structures to meet noise standards where they are currently exceeded. [^623.4] #### Policy E-6.2.2: Reduction of Vehicle Noise Provide regulatory, mitigation, and monitoring measures to minimize exposure to noise from vehicular traffic, including buses, trucks, cars, and trains. Encourage the use of landscaping and sound barriers to reduce exposure to noise along freeways, rail lines, and other transportation corridors. [^623.5] #### Policy E-6.2.3: Household Noise Control Strengthen enforcement of local ordinances and regulations that limit sources of household noise in Washington, DC, including noise originating from car alarms, construction activities, mechanical equipment and machinery, and similar sources. [^623.6] #### Policy E-6.2.4: Airport Noise Control Work with appropriate federal and regional agencies to continue aircraft noise reduction programs related to Washington Reagan National Airport, especially in neighborhoods along the Potomac and Anacostia rivers. [^623.7] #### Policy E-6.2.5: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Avoid locating new land uses that generate excessive noise adjacent to sensitive uses such as housing, hospitals, and schools. Conversely, avoid locating new noise-sensitive uses within areas where noise levels exceed federal and District guidelines for those uses. [^623.8] [^623.2]: 623.2 [^623.3]: 623.3 [^623.4]: 623.4 [^623.5]: 623.5 [^623.6]: 623.6 [^623.7]: 623.7 [^623.8]: 623.8 *Action E-6.2.A: Evaluation of Noise Control Measures* Continue to evaluate the District’s noise control measures to identify possible regulatory and programmatic improvements, including increased education and outreach on noise standards and requirements. 623.9[^623.9] *Action E-6.2.B: Enforcement of Noise Regulations* Pursuant to District municipal regulations, continue to enforce laws governing maximum daytime and nighttime levels for commercial, industrial, and residential land uses; motor vehicle operation; solid waste collection and hauling equipment; and the operation of construction equipment and other noise-generating activities. 623.10[^623.10] *Action E-6.2.C: Aviation Improvements to Reduce Noise* Actively participate in the MWCOG Aviation Policy Committee to reduce noise levels associated with take-offs and landings at Washington Reagan National Airport. Particular emphasis should be placed on limiting nighttime operations, reducing the use of older and noisier aircraft, maintaining noise monitoring stations within the District, and following flight path and thrust management measures that minimize noise over District neighborhoods. 623.11[^623.11] *Action E-6.2.D: Reduction of Helicopter Noise* Encourage the federal government to reduce noise from the operation of helicopters, especially over residential areas along the Potomac and Anacostia rivers during nighttime and early morning hours. 623.12[^623.12] *Action E-6.2.E: Measuring Noise Impacts* Require evaluations of noise impacts and noise exposure when large-scale development is proposed, and when capital improvements and transportation facility changes are proposed. 623.13[^623.13] *Action E-6.2.F: I-295 Freeway Noise Buffering* Consistent with DDOT’s noise abatement policy, continue to pursue the development of sound barriers and landscaping to shield neighborhoods abutting the I-295 (Anacostia) Freeway, Kenilworth Avenue, and I-395 (SE/SW Freeway) from noise levels that exceed acceptable standards. 623.14[^623.14] [^623.9]: 623.9 [^623.10]: 623.10 [^623.11]: 623.11 [^623.12]: 623.12 [^623.13]: 623.13 [^623.14]: 623.14 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S <
> Ensure that the necessary steps are taken to remediate soil and groundwater contamination in the city, both in areas where future development is likely and in areas that are already fully developed. ### E-6.3 Managing Hazardous Substances and Materials [^p64-624] Hazardous substances include materials that may pose a threat to human health or the environment when they are improperly handled, stored, or disposed of. The use of hazardous substances is common in households and businesses across Washington, DC, from the perchloroethylene used by dry cleaners, to the pesticides and herbicides used in lawn care, to common cleansers and solvents used in District households. Hazardous building materials such as asbestos, lead, and mercury may be present in many of Washington, DC’s older structures. Naturally occurring hazards such as radon, and biological contaminants such as mold, also may be present. [^624.1] Hazardous materials are also transported through the District on trucks and in rail cars. Even if all handling, transport, and storage regulations are properly followed, such substances may pose a risk in the event of an accidental spill or act of terrorism. [^624.2] A complex set of federal and District regulations govern hazardous substance handling. Many of these regulations are implemented through District programs designed to reduce public health hazards and conserve the environment. These include UST regulation, clean up programs for contaminated sites, toxic substance investigations, and household hazardous waste disposal programs. The level of investigation and clean up required at any given site depends on the degree of contamination, existing land uses, and the particular land use that is planned there in the future. Looking forward, pollution-prevention practices (including hazardous waste minimization and toxic chemical source reduction), stronger environmental review procedures, and continued remediation measures can reduce the likelihood of exposure to hazardous materials and protect public safety and ecological resources. [^624.3] Vigilance must be taken to enforce regulations regarding the transport of hazardous materials through Washington, DC. This continues to be a high priority of the District’s Emergency Management Agency, both to protect the security of District residents, workers, and visitors, and to respond swiftly and effectively in the event of an emergency. [^624.4] #### Policy E-6.3.1: Hazardous Materials Management Strengthen and enforce programs to manage the use, handling, transportation, storage, and disposal of harmful chemical, biological, and radioactive materials, including expanded enforcement of local regulations and the establishment of training programs on hazardous materials and emergency planning. [^624.5] [^p64-624]: 624 [^624.1]: 624.1 [^624.2]: 624.2 [^624.3]: 624.3 [^624.4]: 624.4 [^624.5]: 624.5 #### Policy E-6.3.2: Hazardous Building Materials and Conditions Protect public health and safety by testing for and, where appropriate, removing lead, radon gas, asbestos, and other hazardous materials from the built environment. When these hazards are abated, require full compliance with all applicable licensing and inspection standards. 624.6[^624.6] #### Policy E-6.3.3: Accidental Spills and Releases Comply with District laws relating to the notification and reporting of accidental spills and releases of hazardous materials. Improve public education and awareness of these requirements as part of a broader effort to improve emergency planning, preparedness, and response in Washington, DC. 624.7[^624.7] #### Policy E-6.3.4: Toxic Chemical Source Reduction and Disposal Encourage the substitution of nontoxic or less toxic chemicals and products for toxic chemicals and products in small businesses and households. Provide options for the disposal of hazardous waste generated by households and small businesses to minimize illegal and harmful dumping. Maintain penalties and fines for the illegal dumping of materials such as used oil and batteries. 624.8[^624.8] #### Policy E-6.3.5: Clean Up of Contaminated Sites Necessary steps shall be taken to remediate soil and groundwater contamination in Washington, DC, both in areas where future development is likely and in areas that are already fully developed. In addition, require soil and groundwater evaluations for any development that is proposed on a site where contamination may be possible due to past activities. Depending on the site, it may also be necessary to investigate the effects of contamination on air quality, surface water, or river sediments, or to conduct an ecological risk assessment. If contamination is found to be above acceptable levels, require remediation and, where necessary, long-term monitoring and institutional controls. 624.9[^624.9] #### Policy E-6.3.6: Hazardous Substances and Land Use Ensure that land use planning and development decisions minimize the exposure of residents, workers, and visitors to hazardous substances. New residences, schools, and similarly sensitive land uses should not be sited in areas where significant quantities of hazardous substances are handled, stored, or disposed. Likewise, new municipal or industrial facilities that use toxic materials or produce hazardous waste should not be sited in residential or environmentally sensitive areas. 624.10[^624.10] [^624.6]: 624.6 [^624.7]: 624.7 [^624.8]: 624.8 [^624.9]: 624.9 [^624.10]: 624.10 ### Policy E-6.3.7: Design Considerations For uses where hazardous substances are handled, require design and construction practices that minimize the possibility of hazardous spills, accidents, leaks, or security breaches, and encourage other measures as necessary to prevent injury and disease and to protect property and natural resources. 624.11 ### Policy E-6.3.8: Hazardous Materials Transport Regulate and guide the transport of hazardous materials through the District to minimize risks to human health, property, and the environment. 624.12 *See the Land Use Element for additional policies on conflicts between industrial and residential uses. See the Community Services and Facilities Element for further information on emergency preparedness.* #### Action E-6.3.A: Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Expand the District’s education and outreach programs on the dangers of household hazardous wastes, and continue to sponsor and publicize household hazardous waste collection events. Provide additional sites and regularly scheduled events for the safe collection and disposal of such wastes. Explore options for addressing the collection and disposal of hazardous waste from businesses that are classified as conditionally exempt small quantity generators. 624.13 #### Action E-6.3.B: Compliance with Hazardous Substance Regulations Maintain regulatory and inspection programs to ensure that all non-household entities that store, distribute, or dispose of hazardous materials comply with all applicable health, safety, and environmental requirements. These requirements range from used oil collection facilities at automotive repair shops to disposal of medical waste from area hospitals and clinics. 624.14 #### Action E-6.3.C: Reducing Exposure to Hazardous Building Materials Implement programs to reduce exposure to hazardous building materials and conditions, including the existing radon gas testing program, the asbestos program, and the childhood lead poisoning prevention and lead-based paint management programs. The latter programs are designed to eliminate childhood lead poisoning District-wide and to regulate the lead abatement industry to ensure the use of safe work practices. District programs should provide technical and financial support to the owners of residential properties, and particularly resident homeowners, for the abatement of these hazards. 624.15 #### Action E-6.3.D: UST Management Maintain and implement regulations to monitor USTs that store gasoline, petroleum products, and hazardous substances. Prevent future releases from USTs to soil and groundwater, abate leaking tanks and other hazardous conditions, remediate contaminated sites, and provide public education on UST hazards. 624.16 #### Action E-6.3.E: Reductions in Pesticide Use Maintain a pesticide management program that complies with the District’s Municipal Regulations for pesticide registration, operator/ applicator certification, and handling/use. Implement new programs to promote integrated pest management by the public and private sectors, and discourage the use of harmful pesticides by District residents, institutions, and businesses. Encourage household practices that limit mosquito breeding areas by draining standing water in such places as clogged drain pipes, flower pot trays, and discarded tires. 624.17 #### Action E-6.3.F: Hazardous Substance Response and Water Pollution Control Plans Complete the hazardous substance response plan required under the District’s Brownfields Act, and update the water pollution control contingency plan, as required under the District’s Water Pollution Control Act. 624.18 #### Action E-6.3.G: Water Pollution Control Contingency Plan Update the Water Pollution Control Contingency Plan, which includes specific notification and response strategies for major and minor spills/ releases and effective containment/clean up methods. Incorporate changes in organizational structures, laws, and regulations, and in programmatic needs. 624.19 ### E-6.4 Drinking Water Safety [^p67-625] Drinking water quality in the District is impacted by land use in the Potomac Basin and by the condition of Washington, DC’s water distribution system. Runoff from upstream development, dairy and hog farms, and other agricultural and mining uses presents an ongoing threat to the water supply. Even if the water supply were pristine, however, the pipes used to transport water from treatment facilities to individual customers would affect water quality. Some of these pipes are more than 100 years old and are in poor condition. Problems with old, leaky water pipes are compounded by dead ends where water does not adequately circulate. DC Water is addressing this issue by creating open loops to allow for improved water circulation through the system. 625.1 ### Water Pollution Control Contingency Plan In 2011, MWCOG developed a Water Pollution Control Contingency Plan on behalf of the District. The plan is intended to provide guidance to the District agencies and departments that respond to hazardous substance, oil, and sewage spills that may threaten or taint ground or surface waters or natural resources within the boundaries of Washington, DC. To ensure that this plan remains current, it will be updated and revised every five years. 624.18a [^p67-625]: 625 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Protecting Drinking Water DC Water is working with the Washington Aqueduct Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to minimize lead release from pipes throughout the District by controlling corrosion, monitoring for lead at the tap, replacing lead service pipes, educating customers on the health impacts of lead, and helping them identify and remove lead sources on their property. Protecting drinking water from lead sources is the shared responsibility of DC Water and the property owner. [^625.2a] Advancements in technology, like DC Water’s interactive map that helps property owners identify their water service line material, increase transparency and strengthen residents’ confidence in their drinking water. [^625.2b] A related water supply issue is exposure to lead. Water is lead-free when it leaves the treatment plant, but lead can be released when water comes in contact with pipes and plumbing fixtures that contain lead. Lead service lines between the distribution system and individual homes are relatively common in Washington, DC. There are about 11,300 known lead service lines in public spaces, and 7,500 known lead service lines on private property. Considering most pipes on private property are unknown, the District estimates there are 48,000 lead service lines on private property. Lead sources and lead levels vary between buildings, so it is important to identify and remove any lead sources in and to each building. While the risk of lead poisoning is very low for most, it can be more significant for infants and children. Tests conducted in 2004 showed elevated levels of lead in tap water, prompting a collaborative effort by DC Water, the EPA, and the District Department of Health (DC Health) to accelerate service-line replacement, increase monitoring, and enact corrosion-control measures. DC Water’s efforts to replace water service lines are partially supported through a new meter-based fee established in 2016. [^625.2] #### Policy E-6.4.1: Drinking Water Safety Ensure the safety of Washington, DC’s drinking water supply and distribution system. Maintain sustained efforts to reduce health hazards associated with lead and other contaminants. [^625.3] #### Policy E-6.4.2: Affordable Water Access Ensure affordable access to safe drinking water through continued support for DC Water’s programs that discount the amount of water needed for residents’ basic needs. [^625.4] *Action E-6.4.A: Lead Pipe Testing and Replacement* Aggressively implement programs to test for lead, replace lead feeder pipes, and educate the community on safe drinking water issues and stagnant water control. [^625.5] *Action E-6.4.B: Source Water Conservation* Implement measures to protect natural systems and abate pollution sources in the Potomac Basin that could potentially harm the District’s drinking water quality. [^625.6] *Action E-6.4.C: Interagency Working Group* Create an interagency working group on safe drinking water to address drinking water emergencies. Coordinate with DC Water and DC Health to expand public education on water supply. [^625.7] [^625.2a]: [^625.2b]: [^625.2]: [^625.3]: [^625.4]: [^625.5]: [^625.6]: [^625.7]: ### E-6.5 Sanitation, Litter, and Environmental Health [^p69-626] Among the many aspects of environmental health in the District are the maintenance of sanitary conditions, the reduction of litter, and the control of disease-carrying pests. DC Health maintains numerous programs to reduce foodborne illness, ensure compliance with hygiene standards, provide for animal and welfare control, and reduce exposure to animal-transmitted diseases like rabies and West Nile Virus. [^626.1] Litter and trash are probably the most visible and pervasive forms of pollution in Washington, DC. Policies and programs have been developed to address issues with litter and trash, including establishment of a $0.05 fee on disposable plastic and paper retail bags; a ban on the use of polystyrene foam take-out containers, straws, and other food service ware that is not recyclable or compostable from any entity that serves or sells food in the District; implementation of a robust street-sweeping program; stringent enforcement against littering and illegal dumping; operation of a skimmer boat fleet in the lower Anacostia River; installation of litter traps in the Anacostia River; robust rat control programs that involve cleaning up litter and trash; implementation of education and outreach programs; and funding for the Mayor’s Office of the Clean City, which provides leadership on these issues. [^626.2] #### Policy E-6.5.1: Vector Control Continue and strengthen efforts to control rats, mice, mosquitoes, and other disease vectors and pests. A variety of related strategies should be used to support these programs, including public outreach and education, garbage control and containment, adequate trash and refuse collection services, ongoing maintenance of public space, enforcement of littering and dumping regulations, clean up of construction and demolition debris, structural controls and integrated pest management, and a reduction in the number of vacant and abandoned buildings. [^626.3] #### Policy E-6.5.2: Clean City Programs Improve environmental quality through programs that promote efficient trash removal, neighborhood clean ups, and levying of fines and penalties for the abandonment of personal property (including cars) and illegal dumping. [^626.4] #### Policy E-6.5.3: Discouraging Illegal Dumping Develop and maintain effective public education and enforcement tools to curb littering and illegal dumping, and to promote the safe disposal of solid waste (including hazardous waste, medical waste, construction debris, used oil, and scrap tires), and bulky items. [^626.5] [^p69-626]: 626 [^626.1]: 626.1 [^626.2]: 626.2 [^626.3]: 626.3 [^626.4]: 626.4 [^626.5]: 626.5 #### Policy E-6.5.4: Environmental Health Activities Maintain and improve existing District programs to ensure community hygiene, food and restaurant safety, animal welfare and control, and the control of disease vectors. Promote continuous coordination among District agencies to ensure healthful and sanitary conditions throughout the District. [^626.6] #### Action E-6.5.A: Expanded Trash Collection and Street Sweeping Evaluate and implement new programs to ensure the cleanliness of vacant properties, roadsides, public spaces, parks, and District-owned lands. Continue implementation of environmental street sweeping in hot spots for trash. [^626.7] #### Action E-6.5.B: Trash Collection in District Waterbodies Continue to install and maintain trash traps in the District’s waterbodies. Explore opportunities to partner with Virginia and Maryland on capturing trash that is deposited in rivers and streams upstream of the District. Continue to implement the District’s skimmer boat fleet in the lower Anacostia River. [^626.8] #### Action E-6.5.C: Neighborhood Clean Ups Co-sponsor and participate in neighborhood and District-wide clean up activities, such as those currently held along the Potomac and Anacostia rivers and around schoolyards and District parks. Encourage ANCs, local institutions, businesses, and other community groups to develop and announce clean up campaigns in conjunction with the District’s bulk trash removal schedule. [^626.9] #### Action E-6.5.D: Strengthening and Enforcing Dumping Laws Take measures to strengthen and enforce the District’s littering, rodent and disease vector control, and illegal dumping laws. These measures should include: * Providing adequate funding to carry out anti-littering programs; * Empowering the community to report illegal dumping activities; * Increasing public education on dumping laws, including posting of signs where appropriate; and * Expanding surveying and enforcement activities. [^626.10] #### Action E-6.5.E: Publicizing and Expanding Bulk Waste Disposal and Recycling Options Continue to sponsor and publicize options for bulk waste disposal and recycling, including information on the Fort Totten transfer station and the District’s schedule for curbside bulk trash waste removal. Increase the types of materials that can be dropped off by residents, including hard-to-recycle items. [^626.11] [^626.6]: 626.6 [^626.7]: 626.7 [^626.8]: 626.8 [^626.9]: 626.9 [^626.10]: 626.10 [^626.11]: 626.11 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action E-6.5.F: Single-Use Bottles* Discourage the purchase of single-use bottles, which often end up in parks and streams, by encouraging persons to carry refillable water bottles and by encouraging institutions to have working water fountains and bottle-filling stations. Consider mandating manufacturer take-back programs for beverage containers and other packaging. 626.12 *Action E-6.5.G: Vacant and Underused Properties* Continue investigating and classifying vacant and underused properties. Continue pursuing enforcement of violations on these properties to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. 626.13 *See the Hazardous Materials section of this chapter for additional actions relating to hazardous waste disposal.* ### E-6.6 Other Hazards and Pollutants [^p71-627] Two other environmental hazards are addressed in this Comprehensive Plan. The first, light pollution, has been raised in the past around the Naval Observatory in the northwest quadrant. In some instances, brighter lighting may be desirable to enhance public safety or illuminate civic buildings and monuments. In other instances dark skies are more desirable. Where lighting is required or desired, steps can be taken to use the correct number of lights, coloring, and brightness of lighting for the desired purpose; direct the lighting appropriately; employ energy-efficient lighting devices; and design and install quality lighting that reduces sharp contrast, glare, and halo effects. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are the second hazard, which can be attributed to communication antennas and electric power facilities. Maintain compliance with all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) siting standards for communication antennas and electric power facilities. [^627.1] #### Policy E-6.6.1: Prudent Avoidance of EMF Impacts Incorporate prudent avoidance in decisions regarding the approval, location or routing, and intensity of facilities that generate EMF, such as power lines and communication antennas in accordance with FCC guidelines. Such facilities should be located only when and where necessary, based on local service needs, and should be designed using methods to mitigate involuntary public exposure to potential adverse effects. [^627.2] #### Policy E-6.6.2: Co-Location of Antennas Consider the joint use and co-location of communication antennas to reduce the number of towers necessary, thereby reducing aesthetic impacts and limiting the area of radiofrequency exposure. [^627.3] <
> Portions of the District are within the FEMA-designated 100-year flood plain and are subject to inundation during hurricanes and other severe storms. [^p71-627]: 627 [^627.1]: 627.1 [^627.2]: 627.2 [^627.3]: 627.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy E-6.6.3: Light Pollution Consistent with the goals of Sustainable DC, maintain regulations for outdoor lighting to reduce light pollution, conserve energy, and reduce impact on wildlife, particularly migratory birds. Particular attention should be given to preventing glare and nighttime light trespass near the Naval Observatory, so that its operational needs are respected. 627.4 #### Action E-6.6.4: Managing Backlight, Uplight, and Glare Work to reduce backlight, uplight, and glare and identify programmatic improvements such as increased education and outreach on light standards and requirements. 627.5 ### E-6.7 Achieving Environmental Justice [^p72-628] Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, national origins, and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. A just community is one in which all people experience protection from environmental and health hazards and have equal access to the decision-making process for having a healthy environment. 628.1 These are particularly important principles to abide by when the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to grow an inclusive city. Some District neighborhoods have been adversely impacted by pollution-generating uses and other forms of environmental degradation, particularly in Wards 5, 6, 7, and 8. Power stations, public works facilities, rail and highway infrastructure, and a variety of industrial uses have all been concentrated in these areas. Many were historically located in communities of color and low-income neighborhoods that lacked the resources to fight these uses. The legacy of these uses includes the pollution of the Anacostia River, contaminated sites, and continuing noise, air pollution, and hazardous cargo on roads and rail that disproportionately impact often overlapping vulnerable populations, including the young, the old, those with existing health conditions, lower income residents and communities of color. It is critical to identify and remove or mitigate these existing environmental conditions. Low-income and minority communities must not face disproportionate environmental burdens and must enjoy clean and safe places to live, work, play, and learn. As Washington, DC grows and changes, it is important to continue to focus on environmental justice through an equity lens in order to mitigate and prevent harm to current and future residents. Furthermore, all residents must have a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate in environmental decisions. 628.2 Policies and actions found throughout the Comprehensive Plan, particularly those focused on improving equity and resilience, comprise a forward- [^p72-628]: 628 looking approach to environmental justice. It is the District government’s charge to improve the environment of vulnerable communities that continue to face significant barriers to overall health, livelihood, and sustainability. 628.3[^p73-1] ### Policy E-6.7.1: Addressing Environmental Injustice Continue to develop and refine solutions to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of industrial, transportation, municipal, construction and other high impact uses, particularly when proximate to residential areas, and specifically identify and address impacts to vulnerable populations. These solutions include enhanced buffering; sound walls; operational improvements; truck routing; regular air, soil, and water quality assessments; and regulating specific uses that result in land use conflicts. 628.4[^p73-2] ### Policy E-6.7.2: Expanded Outreach to Underserved Communities Identify and understand the needs of the entire community, particularly vulnerable populations, lower-income residents, communities of color, or people with characteristics such as age-related and health conditions that make them more susceptible to pollutant exposures. Incorporate these needs into plans, programs, and investments. Expand local efforts to involve and enable the equitable participation of economically disadvantaged communities—particularly those communities that historically have been impacted by power plants, trash transfer stations, and other municipal or industrial uses—in the planning and development processes. 628.5[^p73-3] Rising temperatures may also increase the length and severity of the pollen season for plants such as ragweed. Lengthened pollen seasons have already been observed in other regions. The risk of some diseases may also increase. West Nile virus, transmitted by mosquitoes, could become more common due to rising temperatures, which speed up the mosquito life cycle and increase biting rates, as well as dry periods that benefit the type of mosquito that transmits West Nile. The effects are still uncertain and likely to vary by region. Increased flooding from more intense storms could lead to more indoor dampness and mold, which contribute to asthma, allergies, and respiratory infections. 628.6[^p73-4] ### The Environment and Health Environmental factors such as air and water quality are fundamental determinants of people’s health and well-being. These factors can also lead to disease and health disparities when the places where people live, work, learn, and play are burdened by social inequities. These social inequities, often referred to as *social determinants of health*, include differences in individual behaviors, socio-cultural influences, access to health services, economic status, and literacy levels. Environmental health disparities exist when communities exposed to a combination of poor environmental quality and social inequities have more sickness and disease than higher-income, less polluted communities. 628.3a[^p73-5] [^p73-1]: 628.3 [^p73-2]: 628.4 [^p73-3]: 628.5 [^p73-4]: 628.6 [^p73-5]: 628.3a CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Rising Temperatures Hot days can be unhealthy—even dangerous. Rising temperatures will increase the frequency of hot days and warm nights. High air temperatures can cause heat stroke and dehydration and affect people’s cardiovascular and nervous systems. Warm nights are especially dangerous because they prevent the human body from cooling off after a hot day. Certain people are vulnerable, including children, the elderly, the sick, and low-income residents. Because Washington, DC is warmer than surrounding areas and does not cool off as quickly at night, Washingtonians—particularly those without air conditioning—face a greater risk of heat-related illnesses. Furthermore, high air temperatures can increase the formation of ground-level ozone, a component of smog that can contribute to respiratory problems. 628.5a #### Policy E-6.7.3: Capital Facilities Consider factors supporting environmental justice when updating the capital improvement program for existing public facilities and the development of new facilities. Plan for the equitable distribution of infrastructure improvements and public facilities and services, considering both number/size and access/distance to facilities. [^628.7] *See the Community Services and Facilities Element and the Infrastructure Element for further information about capital facilities.* #### Policy E-6.7.4 Health Impacts of Municipal and Industrial Uses Inform public policy decisions on the siting of municipal and industrial facilities using environmental justice principles, recognizing links between public health and the location of municipal and industrial uses such as power plants and waste treatment facilities. [^628.8] *See the Land Use Element regarding industrial uses and mitigation of impacts.* ##### Action E-6.7.A: Clean and Reuse Contaminated Properties Clean up brownfields and Superfund sites to improve the environment and the health of surrounding neighborhoods, and so that these sites can be reused for commercial and industrial activities, housing, parks, and other community facilities that can boost local economies and improve quality of life. [^628.9] ##### Action E-6.7.B: Environmental Health Threats in Affordable Housing Audit and eliminate environmental health threats (e.g., mold, lead, and carbon monoxide) in the District’s affordable housing. Work with the DC Housing Authority to reduce these threats, as well as threats from other contaminants, including lead in drinking water, in all District affordable housing. [^628.10] ## E-7 Environment, Education, and the Economy [^p74-629] The final section of this Element presents policies and actions that tie environmental quality to strategic decisions about government operations, economic growth, and education in Washington, DC. These policies take the Environmental Protection Element beyond its traditional focus to a new level that recognizes the link between environmental quality and the broader goals set by the Vision for Growing an Inclusive City. The basic premise is that environmental protection should not be seen as a regulatory burden or an added expense, but rather as a measure of stewardship, respect for the earth, and respect for communities that have borne the brunt of [^628.7]: 628.7 [^628.8]: 628.8 [^628.9]: 628.9 [^628.10]: 628.10 [^p74-629]: 629 previous decision-making affecting the environment. Environmental protection can ultimately reduce the cost of doing business by reducing accidents, disease, and waste. It can create jobs for District residents, strengthen tourism and hospitality, improve the educational experience for District students, and make the District a more attractive and healthy place for all those who live and work there. [^629.1] ### E-7.1 Greening the Government [^p75-630] The District needs to set high standards for its own operations if it expects others in the community to follow suit. It should be a role model in energy efficiency, renewable energy production, green building construction, GI, sustainable transportation and vehicles, environmentally sound landscaping, and adhering to green meeting standards. It should lead the way in sustainable materials management, sustainable procurement, reducing waste generation, reusing materials whenever possible, and recycling and composting what is left. It should also ensure its buildings and infrastructure are resilient to a changing climate. [^630.1] District government will continue to adopt as appropriate the latest green construction codes for all new construction and major renovations. The International Green Construction Code (IgCC) and Energy Conservation Code are international standards for the most innovative practices in green building. District government will continue to integrate the most recent version of the IgCC in the District’s construction codes for all new construction and major renovations, which will apply to both public and private buildings of over 10,000 square feet. [^630.2] In 2003, a Mayor’s Order established a Greening the Government subcommittee comprised of directors from almost 20 District agencies. The subcommittee was charged with setting priorities and measurable goals to further energy efficiency and environmental health in District government workplaces. It was asked to implement energy efficiency measures, <
> *Aquatic and wildlife education programs instill appreciation of natural resources in our youth and provide them with knowledge and skills that they may use later in life. Environmental education activities should continue with adult programs, professional development for teachers, and outreach to the business community on environmental quality issues.* ### Environmental Education Washington, DC partners with environmental nonprofits and advocacy groups to promote environmental education throughout the District, with the goal of raising awareness about the intersections among human activities and the built and natural environments. These partnerships provide a variety of programs, including educational boat tours, wetland restoration planting projects, river clean ups, classroom fish hatching and restoration projects, and Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences. The District also organizes special annual environmental education events with its partners, such as the Anacostia Environmental Youth Summit, Family & Youth Casting Call, and DC EV Grand Prix. In addition, the DC Infrastructure Academy (DCIA) coordinates, trains, screens, and recruits residents to fulfill the needs of the infrastructure industry and infrastructure jobs with leading companies, including in the renewable energy sector. Further, Solar Works DC, a low-income solar installation and job training program, aims to increase access to clean energy and create a long-term pipeline for green jobs. [^629.1a] [^629.1]: previous decision-making affecting the environment. Environmental protection can ultimately reduce the cost of doing business by reducing accidents, disease, and waste. It can create jobs for District residents, strengthen tourism and hospitality, improve the educational experience for District students, and make the District a more attractive and healthy place for all those who live and work there. [^p75-630]: E-7.1 Greening the Government [^630.1]: The District needs to set high standards for its own operations if it expects others in the community to follow suit. It should be a role model in energy efficiency, renewable energy production, green building construction, GI, sustainable transportation and vehicles, environmentally sound landscaping, and adhering to green meeting standards. It should lead the way in sustainable materials management, sustainable procurement, reducing waste generation, reusing materials whenever possible, and recycling and composting what is left. It should also ensure its buildings and infrastructure are resilient to a changing climate. [^630.2]: District government will continue to adopt as appropriate the latest green construction codes for all new construction and major renovations. The International Green Construction Code (IgCC) and Energy Conservation Code are international standards for the most innovative practices in green building. District government will continue to integrate the most recent version of the IgCC in the District’s construction codes for all new construction and major renovations, which will apply to both public and private buildings of over 10,000 square feet. [^629.1a]: Washington, DC partners with environmental nonprofits and advocacy groups to promote environmental education throughout the District, with the goal of raising awareness about the intersections among human activities and the built and natural environments. These partnerships provide a variety of programs, including educational boat tours, wetland restoration planting projects, river clean ups, classroom fish hatching and restoration projects, and Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences. The District also organizes special annual environmental education events with its partners, such as the Anacostia Environmental Youth Summit, Family & Youth Casting Call, and DC EV Grand Prix. In addition, the DC Infrastructure Academy (DCIA) coordinates, trains, screens, and recruits residents to fulfill the needs of the infrastructure industry and infrastructure jobs with leading companies, including in the renewable energy sector. Further, Solar Works DC, a low-income solar installation and job training program, aims to increase access to clean energy and create a long-term pipeline for green jobs. CITYWIDE ELEMENTS educate the District workforce, and bring green building practices into District buildings. The subcommittee produced a Strategic Plan in 2004. An additional Mayor’s Order on Greening the Government was promulgated in 2013 to build on the initial order. Key elements of the plan are summarized in the policies and actions below. 630.3 ### Policy E-7.1.1: GI and Green Building Methods for the District Strongly encourage the use of GI best management practices and green building design methods and materials in new construction and major rehabilitation projects undertaken by District government. 630.4 ### Policy E-7.1.2: Environmentally Friendly Government Operations Promote energy-efficient and environmentally friendly District government operations, the purchase of recycled and recyclable products, procurement of green power for District operations where feasible, the use of energy-saving equipment, and contracting practices that include incentives for sustainable technology. 630.5 ### Policy E-7.1.3: Sustainable Landscaping Require sustainable practices for landscaping projects, GI, and restoration projects on District properties that reduce the need for watering and mowing, control the spread of invasive species, increase the use of landscaping for stormwater management, provide habitats, and reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides. Consider using industry best practices and certifications to guide this policy. 630.6 #### Action E-7.1.A: Green Building Legislation Update legislation to increase green standards for projects constructed by the District or receiving funding assistance from the District. Strive for higher levels of energy efficiency, renewable energy requirements, net-zero standards for new construction, and broader sustainability metrics for public projects, using 2019[^630.7] as the baseline year. 630.7 #### Action E-7.1.B: Energy Management Plans Require the submittal and periodic updating of Energy Management Plans by District agencies. These plans should be developed in coordination with Clean Energy DC to ensure that they have baselines, goals, and strategies that are compatible with, and support the goals and objectives of, Clean Energy DC and Climate Ready DC. 630.8 *Action E-7.1.C: Sustainable DC* By 2032, fully implement Washington, DC’s sustainability plan, Sustainable DC, to address the District’s built environment, energy, food, nature, transportation, waste, and water. Dedicate District government staff and funding to implement the Sustainable DC Plan, track progress, and make the results publicly available. 630.9 *Action E-7.1.D: Sustainable DC Innovation Challenge* Fully launch the Sustainable DC Innovation Challenge to help District agencies test new innovations and technology with the goal of increasing the use of renewable energy. 630.10 *Action E-7.1.E: Reduce Energy Use in District Government-Owned Buildings* Retrofit and maintain District government-owned buildings to minimize energy use. Install renewable energy technology to minimize energy use. 630.11 *Action E-7.1.F: Environmental Partnerships* Continue to leverage the local business and environmental advocacy communities by collaborating on sustainability initiatives. 630.12 *Action E-7.1.G: Environmental Audits* Evaluate existing and proposed new District government facilities to guide decisions about retrofits and other conservation measures. Audits should include analysis with regard to resilience and energy efficiency and also be required any time the District leases space for government use. Resilience audits should support Washington, DC’s capacity to thrive amidst challenging conditions by preparing and planning to absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events. 630.13 ### E-7.2 Sustainability Education and Stewardship [^p77-631] A key element of the District’s environmental strategy is increased environmental education. This should begin with collaborative efforts between local nonprofits, the private sector, District and federal governments, and K-12 schools. The District’s Sustainable DC Plan, Environmental Literacy Plan, and regional 2014 Chesapeake Bay Plan provide road maps for environmental education implementation. Aquatic and wildlife education programs instill appreciation of natural resources in youth and provide them with knowledge and skills that they may use ### Public-Private Coordination Coalitions of stakeholders and government representatives—including the Food Policy Council (FPC), GBAC, and UFAC—regularly convene to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the effectiveness of the District’s sustainability policies. These coalitions analyze the impact of existing and proposed policies on the District’s environmental health, including the potential impact of policies on the specific environmental challenges facing Washington, DC. 630.12a [^p77-631]: 631 later in life. Environmental education activities should continue with adult programs, professional development for teachers, and outreach to the business community on environmental quality issues. These programs should move Washington, DC beyond environmental awareness to increased stewardship and informed action. Furthermore, demonstration projects, such as those funded through the Sustainable DC Innovation Grant program, provide the means to introduce and experience innovative ideas and approaches and prepare the way for replication and upscaling. 631.1[^631.1] #### Policy E-7.2.1: Sustainability Education in District Schools Expand programs to educate youth from preschool to high school about the importance of sustainability. 631.2[^631.2] #### Policy E-7.2.2: Continuing Education on the Environment Encourage greater participation by residents, business owners, institutions, and public agencies in reaching environmental goals. This should be achieved through public education, community engagement, compliance assistance, and environmental enforcement programs. 631.3[^631.3] #### Policy E-7.2.3: Interpretive Centers Support the continued development of environmental education and nature centers in the District, particularly in recovering habitat areas such as the Anacostia River shoreline. 631.4[^631.4] #### Policy E-7.2.4: Demonstration Projects Encourage best practice guides, demonstration projects, tours, and other tools to create a culture where the green choice (i.e., the choice that results in greater energy efficiency, resiliency, sustainability, innovation, and better environmental health) is the preferred choice for energy, transportation, construction, and design decisions. 631.5[^631.5] #### Policy E-7.2.5: Sustainable Purchasing Strengthen the District’s Sustainable Purchasing Program through the addition of guidance in new product categories, making the resources more accessible, training more District employees on the use of the product specifications, and making Environmentally Preferable Products and Services (EPPS) the default through District purchasing systems. 631.6[^631.6] *See also Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Policy PROS-2.2.8 on Stewardship of public space.* [^631.1]: 631.1 [^631.2]: 631.2 [^631.3]: 631.3 [^631.4]: 631.4 [^631.5]: 631.5 [^631.6]: 631.6 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action E-7.2.A: Partnerships for Environmental Education* Develop partnerships with environmental nonprofits and advocacy groups to promote environmental education in the District. Examples of such programs include the Earth Conservation Corps effort to employ youth in environmental restoration along the Anacostia River; the Anacostia Watershed Society’s tree planting, clean up, and riverboat tour events; and the NPS summer programs for high school students at Kenilworth Park. 631.7 *Action E-7.2.B: Production of Green Guide* Continue to update guidance aimed at homeowners, builders, contractors, and the community-at-large with guidelines and information on green building and GI. 631.8 *Action E-7.2.C: Sustainability in Schools, Recreation Centers, and Libraries* When modernizing all public school buildings, recreation centers, and libraries, reduce their environmental footprint and integrate sustainable and healthy practices into their operations. Continue to support District-wide schoolyard greening efforts and related programs and encourage public and charter schools to participate in schoolyard greening efforts. 631.9 ### E-7.3 Environment and the Economy [^p79-632] Environmental and economic development goals intersect with respect to the redevelopment of brownfield sites. Brownfields include industrial, commercial, institutional, or government sites that are abandoned or underused, in part due to environmental contamination or perceived contamination. Their redevelopment provides the opportunity to revitalize underserved communities, increase property tax revenue, and create new jobs. In the District, a Voluntary Clean up Program has been initiated to provide incentives to clean up brownfields and put them back into active use. 632.1 Linked to the redevelopment of brownfields is the idea of growing the environmental sector of the District’s economy. A number of Washington, DC-based organizations have pioneered the idea of building a green-collar workforce to demonstrate how employment and natural resource conservation can sustain one another. Training programs have been established to help District youth find jobs in green construction, horticulture, parks and recreation, landscaping, recycling, renewable energy, and similar professions. The District can contribute to these programs through initiatives to attract green businesses to Washington, DC. Such efforts can help diversify the economy and provide new jobs while advancing the sustainability goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 632.2 [^p79-632]: 632 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy E-7.3.1: Brownfield Remediation Clean up and redevelop contaminated brownfield sites, providing new business and job opportunities and expanding land resources for equitable development, as appropriate, housing and affordable housing, as appropriate, open space, and other purposes. Expand financial incentives for the remediation and redevelopment of these sites. 632.3[^632.3] #### Policy E-7.3.2: Job Training Continue to train more District residents to be competitive for livable-wage jobs in growing industries such as sustainability, the environment, and resilience. Connect underemployed residents to training programs and any necessary social services. 632.4[^632.4] #### Policy E-7.3.3: Incentives for Green Business Support economic incentives that encourage environmentally sustainable businesses to locate in the District. 632.5[^632.5] ### Action E-7.3.A: Voluntary Clean Up Program Continue the District’s Voluntary Clean Up Program. The program is designed to encourage the investigation and remediation of contamination on any site that is not on the EPA’s National Priority List and that is not the subject of a current clean-up effort. 632.6[^632.6] ### Action E-7.3.B: Sustainable Business Program Develop a more robust, voluntary sustainable business program that partners with businesses to help them operate sustainably. 632.7[^632.7] ### Action E-7.3.C: Green-Collar Job Corps Continue to implement green-collar job training programs focused on GI installation and maintenance, solar installations, and lead abatement in order to educate and train unemployed or underemployed District residents. Efforts should be made to connect trainees with employers in the green fields upon the completion of their training programs. 632.8[^632.8] [^632.3]: 632.3 [^632.4]: 632.4 [^632.5]: 632.5 [^632.6]: 632.6 [^632.7]: 632.7 [^632.8]: 632.8 ### E-7.4 Environmental Program Management ₆₃₃ The final section of this chapter addresses the administration of environmental policies and programs in Washington, DC. ₆₃₃.₁ #### Policy E-7.4.1: Adequacy of Funding Provide for adequate funding and coordination of environmental protection activities and ensure that the environmental impacts of public actions and decisions are fully evaluated. ₆₃₃.₂ *Action E-7.4.A: DOEE* Provide the necessary staff resources, funding, and regulatory authority for the DOEE to achieve its mission and successfully implement the District’s key environmental protection programs. ₆₃₃.₃ ⁱ www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1. ⁱⁱ https://doee.dc.gov/node/1110407 (blank page) --- ## Open Space — Chapter 8, Parks, Recreation and Open Space - Source: https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/08_PROS.pdf - Pages: 52 - Covers: open_space # Chapter 8 # Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element # CHAPTER 8: PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE <
> # Parks, Recreation and Open Space <
> ## Overview [^p3-800] **THIS ELEMENT ADDRESSES THE FUTURE OF PARKS, RECREATION,** and open space in Washington, DC. It recognizes the important role parks play in recreation, aesthetics, health and wellness, neighborhood character, environmental quality, and resilience. The element also recognizes that parks have the potential to bring people together across social, economic, and racial divides. It includes policies on related topics, such as recreational facility development, the use of private open space, the creation of trails to better connect the District’s open spaces and neighborhoods, and the support of resilience through the restoration of natural systems. Finally, this element includes policies and actions that support the delivery of equitable access, great spaces, and exceptional experiences. [^800.1] The critical parks, recreation, and open space issues facing Washington, DC are addressed in this element. These include: * Coordinating and sharing stewardship between Washington, DC and the federal government on park and open space planning, design, and management to produce better outcomes for District residents; * Providing additional recreational land and facilities in areas of the District that are currently underserved and in newly developing areas, and improving access; * Maintaining, upgrading, and improving existing parks and recreation facilities as key features of vibrant neighborhoods in Washington, DC; * Increasing funding for capital improvements and operations through partnerships and creative strategies; * Fostering community health so that residents can seek healthier lifestyles regardless of income, ability, or employment; * Leveraging open space to support resilience, including flood mitigation, well-connected habitats on land and water, an increased tree canopy, and strong ecosystems for wildlife; and * Designing parks, trails, and recreational facilities to improve the safety of staff and visitors. [^800.2] Washington, DC, is one of the few cities in the United States that was originally planned and designed around the framework of a park system. The L’Enfant Plan featured broad swaths of open land to frame iconic buildings and landmarks. Wide park-like boulevards were incorporated to preserve key views and vistas. [^800.3] ### Parks, Recreation, and Open Spaces in the District Since the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, Washington, DC, has continued to enhance its parks, recreational, and open spaces. The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) now manages more than 900 acres of green space, 34 urban gardens and five partner urban farms, 375 parks, 12 dog parks, 95 playgrounds, 135 athletic fields, 336 courts, 76 recreation facilities, and 50 aquatic facilities and features. In 2018, Washington, DC, was ranked the third fittest city on the American Fitness Index[^p3-i] and was ranked the fourth best park city.[^p3-ii] [^800.1a] ### Parks, Open Spaces, and Natural Resources The Sustainable DC Plan envisions a District that has high-quality, well-connected habitats on land and water, and that provides strong corridors and ecosystems for wildlife. Washington, DC, will conserve and manage these natural resources to enhance biodiversity, control stormwater, reduce the urban heat island effect, become more resilient to changing climate conditions, and build people’s connections to, understanding of, and appreciation for nature. [^800.2a] [^p3-800]: Policies for the Park Service lands are contained in individual General Management Plans prepared by the NPS, and are also included in the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. There have also been several joint District/Federal park planning initiatives launched since the 1960s. [^800.1]: text [^800.2]: text [^800.3]: text [^p3-i]: text [^p3-ii]: text [^800.1a]: text [^800.2a]: text CITYWIDE ELEMENTS The 1901 McMillan Plan continued this legacy, using open space to accomplish social as well as aesthetic goals. The McMillan Plan made a conscious effort to extend the park system beyond the monumental core, connect existing parks with scenic roadways, and provide for the recreation and health of a growing population. The National Mall and Rock Creek Park that we know today are among that plan’s legacies. Many of the early plans prepared by the National Capital Parks and Planning Commission (NCPC) placed a similar emphasis on improving the District’s open spaces and parkways. Many of the District’s parks and recreational facilities established during this time were racially segregated and developed to different standards. 800.4 These historic plans have resulted in more than 7,800 acres of permanent open space and parkland in Washington, DC, and one of the highest ratios of park acreage per resident in the country. Nonetheless, when Washington, DC achieved Home Rule and set about developing its first Comprehensive Plan, a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element was not included. This responsibility was left to the federal government. Today, 74 percent of Washington, DC’s parkland is still managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and is not under the District’s jurisdiction.[^p4-iii] The other 26 percent includes 10 percent managed by the District’s Department of General Services (DGS) and DPR, and 16 percent managed by other entities, including DC Public Schools (DCPS). 800.5 Including a chapter on parks, recreation, and open space in the District elements of the Comprehensive Plan is important for a number of reasons: * First, the District itself owns approximately 950 acres of parkland, and there is a need for a coordinated set of policies for its management. * Second, access to quality parks and open space is a top priority for District residents—regardless of who owns the land. The fact that most of the District’s open space is federally controlled suggests that joint policy planning for these assets is essential. * Third, Washington, DC is changing, which means recreational needs also are changing. Policies are needed to make sure that new park and recreational opportunities are provided and existing parks are improved to meet the needs of a changing and expanding population. * Fourth, parks are essential to many of the goals expressed elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan, including sustainability, resilience, improved public health, racial equity, and inclusion. 800.6 Parks are part of the foundation of what makes Washington, DC, a great place to live. They are where friends are met, and where people walk, play, and exercise. They contribute to personal wellness and the quality of the environment. They keep neighborhoods vibrant, enhance property values, and foster civic bonds. The policies in this element are aimed at sustaining parks as great public spaces while providing more equitable access to parks across the District. Achieving these outcomes requires different strategies for different neighborhoods. When investing in parks, District government and other stakeholders should consider [^p4-iii]: text CITYWIDE ELEMENTS a fair distribution, amount, and quality of parkland and facilities across the District—as well as other social factors, such as income and age, that may shape localized decisions in programming and design. [^800.7] The Comprehensive Plan is supplemented by a more detailed set of planning documents for parks and recreation that address these issues, including master plans and a collaboration with the federal government, titled CapitalSpace. These companion plans establish bold visions for advancing the District’s parks and recreation goals, starting with an overarching master plan for parks (see text box entitled Parks Master Plan). In addition, the Sustainable DC Plan, completed in 2012 and updated in 2018, provides further guidance. [^800.8] # Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Goal [^p5-801] The overarching goal for parks, recreation, and open space is to preserve and enhance parks and open spaces within Washington, DC to meet active and passive recreational needs through universal access, promote health and wellness, improve environmental quality, enhance the identity and character of District neighborhoods, and provide visual beauty in all parts of Washington, DC. [^801.1] # Policies and Actions ## PROS-1 Park Planning and Land Management [^p5-802] This section of the element focuses on parks that are owned and operated by the District. Policies also express the District’s perspectives on the federally-owned parks that serve residents. [^802.1] The District manages 375 parks and open spaces, comprising approximately 950 acres. More than two-thirds of these properties are small open space triangles formed by the intersection of diagonal avenues and the District street grid. The remainder includes 17 regional parks, 86 neighborhood and community parks, 51 pocket parks, and eight natural areas. Figure 8.1 provides an overview of DPR-managed amenities. [^802.2] For planning purposes, park activities are usually divided into two categories: active recreation and passive recreation. Active recreation is associated with sports or play activities and requires facilities such as playgrounds, ball fields, tennis courts, and swimming pools. Passive recreation emphasizes the open space aspect of a park or waterway and includes activities like hiking, picnicking, and kayaking. In Washington, the presence of District-owned parks and national parks provides a unique blend of active and passive recreational opportunities. [^802.3] The overarching goal for parks, recreation, and open space is to preserve and enhance parks and open spaces within Washington, DC to meet active and passive recreational needs through universal access, promote health and wellness, improve environmental quality, enhance the identity and character of District neighborhoods, and provide visual beauty in all parts of Washington, DC. [^800.7]: 800.7 [^800.8]: 800.8 [^p5-801]: 801 [^801.1]: 801.1 [^p5-802]: 802 [^802.1]: 802.1 [^802.2]: 802.2 [^802.3]: 802.3 # The Parks Master Plan [^p6-803] In 2006, DPR drafted its first Comprehensive Master Plan since its establishment in 1942. Building on this earlier work, DPR and the DC Office of Planning completed the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2014 (the Parks Master Plan). [^803.1] <
> The Parks Master Plan evaluates the existing park system, defines community priorities, and identifies a potential program of investments to make the park system more equitable and responsive to local needs. It is based on a detailed evaluation of conditions at all parks, recreation centers, and outdoor facilities; a comprehensive assessment of recreation programs; and an evaluation of service gaps based on public input, industry best practices, and objective standards. [^803.2] The District is now at a stage where a new District-wide parks planning effort is needed to identify and prioritize the next round of major capital investments. Population and development pressures, changing recreational trends, and the opportunity, through recently passed federal legislation, to explore cooperative local management of federal parkland, all present new opportunities and realities that the District faces in meeting the recreational needs of it residents. In addition, there is a need to create a District-wide plan for funding and maintaining existing, as well as new, recreation centers and park sites. For all of these reasons, DPR will begin a new parks master planning effort in 2020 that builds on the work of the 2014 plan as well as the 2010 CapitalSpace plan. [^803.3] The Parks Master Plan addresses seven key elements of the park system: * Parkland; * Recreation centers; * Aquatics facilities; * Outdoor facilities; * Programs; * Bikeways and trails; and * Environmental lands and natural areas. [^803.4] For each element, the Parks Master Plan provides target benchmarks for service delivery. Specific outcomes of the Parks Master Plan include: * Comprehensive information on the recreational needs of District residents; * Projections of expected future needs, based on growth and demographics; * Information on customer usage and satisfaction; * Identification of current and potential shortfalls; and * Strategies for overcoming shortfalls, including land acquisition and programming changes. [^803.5] ### CAPRA Accreditation In 2014, DPR became accredited by the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA). This designation "recognizes and requires standards of excellence in the parks and recreation field." [^803.5a] [^p6-803]: 803 [^803.1]: 803.1 [^803.2]: 803.2 [^803.3]: 803.3 [^803.4]: 803.4 [^803.5]: 803.5 [^803.5a]: 803.5a CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ## PROS-1.1 Developing a Park Classification System [^p7-804] Most large cities in the United States have adopted classification systems to guide the management of their parks and open spaces. In fact, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) defines park classification as the basic element of the planning function. Classification provides a basis for deciding which activities and facilities are appropriate within each park. It also provides a means of analyzing where service gaps exist and where acquisitions and capital improvements may be required. [^804.1] Until 2006, the District’s parks were loosely classified as large parks, neighborhood parks, recreation center grounds, and triangles. These categories are not consistent with national standards, making it difficult to evaluate the adequacy of parks or to compare the District with peer cities. [^804.2] The 2006 Parks Master Plan recommended a new classification system to improve customer service and park management. Under this system, DPR would develop a park classification system with clear definitions of each classification based on a review of industry standards and best practices. This would allow the agency to develop more specific level of service standards based on each classification. [^804.3] Figure 8.2 summarizes a sample park classification system. Map 8.1 shows the location of District-owned parks. The small open spaces are not shown due to the map scale and their small size. [^804.4] An important consideration in classifying Washington, DC’s parks is the role that federal lands play in the overall park system (noted in Policy PROS 1.1.2). In many parts of the District, federal land plays a crucial role in meeting park, recreation, and open space needs. Some of Washington, DC’s parks are part of a contiguous system of parks and open spaces, with different areas under different ownership and management. Such systems need to be cohesively planned and managed, and not treated as individual isolated neighborhood or community parks. [^804.8] ### Policy PROS-1.1.1: Park Classification Adopt and maintain a classification system to guide the future use of District parks. Figure 8.2 provides the framework for this system. Follow general management prescriptions for each type of park, as defined by the official Parks Master Plan. [^804.9] <
> “Redesign the parks to include safe play areas, gardens and separate exercise areas as well as seating areas. Look in all areas of the city for this opportunity.” SUGGESTION FROM A PARTICIPANT AT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETING ### Figure 8.1: DPR-Managed Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Amenities [^804.5] | | | :--- | | 830 acres of green space | | 375 parks | | 200 outdoor basketball courts | | 160 tennis courts | | 119 athletic and ball fields | | 94 playgrounds | | 76 recreation centers | | 35 gyms | | 34 community gardens | | 31 aquatic pools | | 25 spray parks | | 23 fitness centers | | 13 dog parks | | 7 wellness centers | | 7 boxing rings | | 5 urban farms | | 1 outdoor amphitheater | | 1 skate park | | *(Source: DPR, 2017)* | [^p7-804]: 804 [^804.1]: 804.1 [^804.2]: 804.2 [^804.3]: 804.3 [^804.4]: 804.4 [^804.8]: 804.8 [^804.9]: 804.9 [^804.5]: 804.5 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### Figure 8.2 # Sample Park Classification System 804[^.6] | Park Type | Description | Typical Uses | Service Area* | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Small Park | Pocket parks or triangles. Range from landscaped "islands" to places for socializing, playing chess, etc. | Benches, seating areas, public art, landscaping | ¼-mile radius | | Neighborhood | Provide informal, centrally located setting for neighborhood-based recreational amenities, possibly including recreation centers | Playgrounds, tot lots, basketball courts, open lawn areas for unstructured play, seating and picnic areas, community gardens, and interpretive or educational exhibits | ½-mile radius | | Community | Larger parks with more structured recreational opportunities, including recreation center buildings with a range of DPR programs | Active play-oriented outdoor facilities, such as ball fields, athletic courts, playgrounds, indoor and outdoor swim facilities, natural amenities such as trails, natural areas, and picnic grounds | One- to two-mile radius, with connections to bike and pedestrian trail networks | | Regional | Large multiuse parks that draw users District-wide or from beyond adjacent neighborhoods | Very large areas of open space, recreation centers, lighted athletic fields, group picnic areas, hiking, multiple activity areas | District-wide | | Natural Resource Areas | Parks established to conserve open space and sensitive natural resources or heritage assets. If adjoined by open, level areas, then recreational fields and play areas may be appropriate | Low-impact, passive activities, such as hiking and environmental education | N/A—not demand driven | | Sports Complexes | Programmed athletic fields and multiuse indoor complexes, custom designed for specific programmed uses | Track and field, natatorium, softball, soccer, tennis, basketball, volleyball, racquetball, football, boxing, martial arts | District-wide | | Special Use | Parks dedicated to a single use, such as a zoo or amphitheater. Accommodate highly organized activities and provide economic as well as social and physical benefits. May have highly specialized management requirements | Golf courses, aquatic or spray parks, sculpture parks, dog parks, arboretums, historic homes, amphitheaters, skate parks, climbing centers, therapeutic facilities | District-wide | | School Parks | Public land on school property, developed with playgrounds and open fields, designed for student activities but also available for community use | Running tracks, playgrounds, athletic fields, basketball courts | ½-mile to two-mile radius | | Trails and Bikeways | Hard or soft paved paths providing linkages within or between parks, facilitating access and exploration | Paved or dirt trails, boardwalks, promenades | ½ to ¼ mile to access point | *\* Some parks are nationally significant and serve an area larger than Washington, DC* [^.6]: 804.6 Map 8.1 ## Location of District Parks [^804.7] <
> *(Source: DC Office of Planning, 2018 )* [^804.7]: 804.7 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### New Parkland A 2014 DPR study estimated that 180 acres of new parkland will be needed to meet demands associated with increased population over the next 15-20 years. 804.15a #### Policy PROS-1.1.2: Consideration of Federal Parkland Work with federal agencies to evaluate the role that federal lands play in meeting the recreational needs of District residents, particularly for regional parks and sports complexes. Because these properties are used by residents, they should be considered when identifying underserved areas and assessing the need for local park improvements. 804.10 #### Policy PROS-1.1.3: Park Diversity Provide a diverse range of recreational experiences in parks within Washington, DC, including a balance between passive and active recreational uses, and a mix of local-serving, region-serving, and national recreational uses. 804.11 #### Action PROS-1.1.A: Park Classification Complete the classification of each of the District’s 375 properties using Figure 8.1. Identify suggested (advisory only) classifications for federal parks as part of this process. 804.12 #### Action PROS-1.1.B: Parks Master Plan Implement the Parks Master Plan for the District of Columbia Parks System. Update the plan at least once every five years or as needed to reflect changing conditions and needs. Use the Parks Master Plan as the basis for the annual Capital Improvement Program request for park and recreational facilities. 804.13 #### Action PROS-1.1.C: Master Plans for Individual Parks Prepare master plans for large individual parks (such as regional parks) prior to major capital improvements as funding allows and use these plans to guide capital improvement and implementation processes. 804.14 #### Action PROS-1.1.D: Quality of Existing Park Spaces Develop an enhanced maintenance and improvement schedule to upgrade the quality of passive and active parklands and outdoor facilities, to make the most of existing District parks. 804.15 ### PROS-1.2 Closing the Gaps [^p10-805] At first glance, Washington, DC appears to have a more than adequate supply of parkland. There are 12.6 acres of parks per 1,000 residents, compared to 7.9 acres per 1,000 in Baltimore, 6.9 acres per 1,000 in Philadelphia, and 7.7 acres per 1,000 in Boston.[^p10-iv] However, most of the District’s parkland consists of passive federally owned natural resource areas. Neighborhood and community parkland is much more limited and amounts to less than one acre per 1,000 residents in many parts of the District. By contrast, suburban communities typically set standards of four or five acres of active parkland per 1,000 residents. 805.1 [^p10-805]: 805 [^p10-iv]: iv CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Even neighborhoods with abundant parkland may lack access to recreational amenities and facilities. Other neighborhoods have parks that are too small to meet local needs, such as relief from the impacts of increasing temperatures. For example, a lack of open space and accompanying vegetation can result in heat islands that reduce local health quality. Many of these neighborhoods include areas where significant growth is taking place, and the increased volume strains the ability of the facilities to meet neighborhood needs. Improved access to parks is also needed through improvements to bus service, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle routes, and better security. Figure 8.3 presents recommended benchmarks for delivery of parks and recreation services. 805.2[^p11-1] Recreational needs are also a function of demographics and density. The need for parks may be more critical in some areas of the District due to: * Limited mobility due to low rates of auto ownership; * Larger numbers of children, older adults, and/or populations with chronic disease; * Larger numbers of apartment dwellers living in housing without usable open space; * Denser development patterns without the aesthetic amenities, heat island mitigation, and stormwater management benefits afforded by open space; and * Larger concentrations of youth who may benefit from programmed recreational activities. 805.3[^p11-2] These factors suggest that special attention be given to increasing usable open space in the District’s densest neighborhoods, even where parks already exist. Special attention must be given to improving access, park capacity, and acreage for communities where access or acreage is poor. 805.4[^p11-3] Improved data collection will allow the District and its partners to plan for a healthier and more active community. More robust data will help improve facilities usage and participation measurement, master planning, capital investment, and programming decisions. The implementation of systems to track the work of DPR—such as maps to show progress in closing level of service gaps—and visitor data to observe trends in program participation are important for prioritizing projects and improving community outcomes. 805.5[^p11-4] ### Policy PROS-1.2.1: Closing the Gaps Achieve a better distribution of high-quality parks in all neighborhoods of Washington, DC. Provide access to the natural environment or quality green [^p11-1]: 805.2 [^p11-2]: 805.3 [^p11-3]: 805.4 [^p11-4]: 805.5 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS space within a 10-minute walk of all residents. This will require a priority to improve or expand parks in: * More densely populated neighborhoods with limited open space; * Areas that are more than a half mile from a neighborhood or community park (or a federal park that serves an equivalent function); # Figure 8.3 # Benchmarks for Delivery of Park and Recreation Services [^805.6] | Variable | Benchmark | | :--- | :--- | | Access to "Meaningful" Public Open Space (improved parks larger than 1/3 acre) | Within one-half mile of all residents | | Public Open Space Land Area | • 4 acres per 1,000 residents in each neighborhood cluster
• 2 acres per 1,000 residents in greater Downtown DC (e.g., the Central Employment Area) | | Access to Recreation Centers | Within one mile of all residents | | Access to Aquatics Facilities | • Indoor pool within two miles of all residents
• Outdoor pool within 1.5 miles of all residents
• Splash pad within one mile of all residents | | Access to Outdoor Facilities | 80 percent of all DC residents will rate their access to outdoor facilities as good or excellent | | Program Options | 25 percent of all DC residents will participate in a DPR program, and 90 percent will rate their experience as being good or excellent | [^805.6]: 805.6 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS * Areas where substantial new housing growth is expected, based on the forecasts of the Comprehensive Plan; * Areas where the existing recreation centers and parks are in poor condition; and * Areas where social and economic conditions compel a greater investment in parks to improve health, public safety, and community well-being. [^805.7] ### Policy PROS-1.2.2: Improving Accessibility Improve accessibility to and within the major park and open space areas through pedestrian safety and street crossing improvements, wayfinding signage, bike lanes and storage areas, perimeter multiuse trails within select parks, and adjustments to bus routes where appropriate. All parks should be accessible by foot, and most should be accessible by bicycle. Seek to provide access within parks for all ages and abilities consistent with park use and recognize that paved trails are accessible to wheelchair users, whereas dirt, cinder, and wood chip trails can present challenges for these users. [^805.8] ### Policy PROS-1.2.3: Responding to Community Change Update and improve existing parks in response to changing demographics, cultural norms, and community needs and preferences. Parks should reflect the identity and needs of the communities they serve. Further, the parks and recreation system should evolve to offer a variety of facilities located within a reasonable distance of each resident and provide a range of programs in spaces designed to flex as residents’ needs and interests change. [^805.9] #### Action PROS-1.2.A: Bus Routing Consult with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and the DC Circulator to identify locations where additional bus stops are needed to serve neighborhood and community parks, particularly those with recreation centers. [^805.10] #### Action PROS-1.2.B: Public Involvement Consult with Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) and local community groups on park planning and development to understand and better address resident priorities. [^805.11] #### Action PROS-1.2.C: Park Spaces on District Properties Encourage shared-use agreements for green spaces owned by District government and DCPS so that these areas are available and accessible to residents for recreational purposes. [^805.12] [^805.7]: 805.7 [^805.8]: 805.8 [^805.9]: 805.9 [^805.10]: 805.10 [^805.11]: 805.11 [^805.12]: 805.12 *Action PROS-1.2.D: Temporary Activation of Underutilized Spaces* Identify underutilized spaces that can be programmed on a seasonal and temporary basis to advance public life. Focus on commercial corridors where park space is scarce. Consult with ANCs, local community groups, and local businesses to identify locations where on-street parking spaces, empty lots, or parking lots could be seasonally repurposed for outdoor recreational use. 805.13[^805.13] *Action PROS-1.2.E: Open Space Plan* Evaluate the need for a District-wide open space plan focusing on improving physical access to green space and the rivers. 805.14[^805.14] *Action PROS-1.2.F: Promoting Access* Promote access to biking and swimming facilities and programs, with an emphasis on underserved and underrepresented groups. Explore opportunities for roving park programming to serve residents in their communities. 805.15[^805.15] ### PROS-1.3 Preserving the Value of Parkland 806[^p14-806] A park often reflects a neighborhood’s vitality and character. However, too often, District parks have not been treated as the resource for revitalization and community empowerment that they should be. Some suffer from deferred maintenance, illegal dumping, and crime. Others face challenges accommodating competing needs within limited space. Previous plans have created hundreds of small pockets of green space, contributing to the uniqueness of the District’s character. Yet these spaces often pose a challenge in terms of programming and maintenance. In addition, the parks are not managed by a single government but by multiple entities. Collaboration and coordination are both necessary and often complex. 806.1[^806.1] Washington, DC’s parks should be viewed as limited and precious resources, no less valuable than the neighborhoods they serve. But the purpose of park management should not be solely to preserve open space. Parks meet the recreation, education, and social needs of District residents. The tree canopy and green infrastructure parks provide can improve community resilience and sustainability through such activities as stormwater management, energy conservation, and carbon sequestration. They can support urban agriculture in areas with limited access to fresh produce. They can generate and support economic and social benefits, such as youth employment, business attraction, cultural activities, and community gathering space. The District should strive to realize these multiple and diverse benefits in the design of its parks and other public spaces. 806.2[^806.2] Small open spaces (those less than one acre in size) are a significant untapped resource that can enhance the District’s neighborhoods, connect residents to their community through green networks, provide additional green space, and create a sense of place. There are 1,149 of these spaces in the District. They are controlled by multiple entities of the District government: DPR, DGS, and the District [^805.13]: 805.13 [^805.14]: 805.14 [^805.15]: 805.15 [^p14-806]: 806 [^806.1]: 806.1 [^806.2]: 806.2 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S Department of Transportation (DDOT). Collectively, these spaces total over 148 acres. NPS manages additional small open spaces throughout the District. These combined small open spaces are triangle parks, circles, medians, paper streets, open spaces at interchanges, and narrow strips of green space running parallel to freeways. They are part of open space systems that contribute to the park-like character of the District and its neighborhoods, creating an urban environment that is distinct to Washington, DC. 806.3[^806.3] ### Policy PROS-1.3.1: Balancing Competing Needs Manage the District’s parklands to preserve and enhance their open space character while also accommodating a range of recreational, educational, and environmental functions. Park activities and facilities should be designed in a way that makes the best possible use of each space while minimizing conflicts between different recreational uses. 806.4[^806.4] ### Policy PROS-1.3.3: Preserving Small Open Spaces Use park improvements to achieve environmental objectives, such as water quality improvement, air quality improvement, wildlife habitat restoration, and tree canopy conservation and improvement. 806.5[^806.5] ### Policy PROS-1.3.3: Preserving Small Open Spaces Develop a coordinated approach for the improvement of small open spaces. Maintain the District’s small open spaces as neighborhood amenities supporting a range of recreational, ecological, cultural, and commemorative uses. These active and passive uses should vary based on the setting of each space and should range from planted islands to more active spaces. The spaces should be designed in a way that mitigates stormwater runoff and air pollution from adjacent corridors. 806.6[^806.6] ### Policy PROS-1.3.4: Conversion of Parkland/Open Space Preserve the basic function of District parks as public open spaces and prevent parkland conversion to other uses. On select park sites with active uses, complementary uses, such as concessions, may be considered as a way to generate the revenue needed to sustain and modernize recreation facilities and further activate such spaces. 806.7[^806.7] ### Policy PROS-1.3.5: Park Buildings Require any new structure on District-owned parkland to be sited to minimize impacts on existing recreational activities and facilities, avoid encroachment onto athletic fields, and retain as much of the site as possible as usable open space. Public facilities that do not relate to recreational needs should be discouraged from locating on District-owned parkland, especially in areas with parkland deficiencies. 806.8[^806.8] <
> “Make bigger parks truly useable, safe, and attractive, for residents.” PARTICIPANT AT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP [^806.3]: 806.3 [^806.4]: 806.4 [^806.5]: 806.5 [^806.6]: 806.6 [^806.7]: 806.7 [^806.8]: 806.8 ### Sustainable DC 2.0: One of the District’s most important resources is the health of its residents. The District consistently ranks at the top of lists of the country’s healthiest and fittest cities. Yet significant disparities in health exist along the lines of race, income, and geography. For example, residents in Ward 8 are four times as likely to have diabetes compared to residents in other wards in the District, and Black residents are almost 2.5 times more likely to have heart disease than White residents. Depending on which Ward a person lives in, life expectancy can vary by up to 10 years. Further, many District residents suffer from the negative effects of air pollution, lack safe places to exercise, and are disproportionately at risk for chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Climate impacts, like asthma and heat-related injuries, further compound these issues and often fall disproportionally and unfairly on low-income populations [^806.10a] Sustainable DC 2.0, Washington, DC’s plan to make the District the healthiest, greenest, and most livable city in the United States, affirms that building a culture of health means thinking beyond hospitals and clinics as the main sources of personal well-being. The opportunity to make healthy choices starts in homes, schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, and communities. Access to high-quality parks and open spaces and completing at least 150 minutes of physical activity per week are key components to achieving personal wellness. [^806.10b] #### Policy PROS-1.3.6: Compatibility with Adjacent Development Design and manage park activities and facilities, including recreation centers, in a way that is compatible with nearby residential and commercial uses. [^806.9] *See also the Historic Preservation Element and the Urban Design Element for additional policies and actions related to historic natural areas and the squares, circles, and triangles associated with the L’Enfant Plan. See the Infrastructure Element for policies on the siting of communication towers (in parks and elsewhere).* #### Policy PROS-1.3.7: Health and Wellness Use Washington, DC’s parks, open space, and recreation spaces to help meet the District’s health and wellness priorities, which are linked to physical activity, public safety, healthy food access, psychological health, air and water quality, and social equity. [^806.10] #### Policy PROS-1.3.8: Multipurpose Infrastructure Design parks and recreational facilities with infrastructure to serve multiple purposes, including flood risk reduction, urban heat island mitigation, and stormwater management. [^806.11] ##### Action PROS-1.3.A: Transfer of Small Open Spaces to DPR Develop a strategy for small open spaces through a coordinated management approach among the various government agencies. The strategy should define the role of small open spaces in the larger park system, which will help agencies manage them more efficiently and promote system-wide investment of resources. Consider the transfer of maintenance responsibilities for small open spaces from DDOT and NPS to DPR to recognize their primary function as parkland stewards, where appropriate. [^806.12] *See also the Environmental Protection Element for policies related to preventing development on land adjacent to parks, which would hinder access, destroy views, or otherwise compromise the value of parkland.* ##### Action PROS-1.3.B: Site Plan Review Plans for the redesign of individual parks or the development of park facilities shall be reviewed by appropriate District agencies so that they advance the District’s goals for better public recreation facilities, environmental protection, open space [^806.10a]: 806.10a [^806.10b]: 806.10b [^806.9]: 806.9 [^806.10]: 806.10 [^806.11]: 806.11 [^806.12]: 806.12 preservation, historic preservation, public safety, accessibility, and resilience. 806.13 #### Action PROS-1.3.C: District-wide Ecosystem Support a District-wide ecosystem consortium that will work to increase wildlife habitat and connectivity, especially among parks. The consortium can collectively identify, map, and protect wildlife and natural resources so that wildlife has access to high-quality habitat throughout Washington, DC. 806.14 ### PROS-1.4 Meeting the Needs of a Growing District [^p17-807] The addition of thousands of new jobs and households over the next 20 years will increase demand for programmed parks, open space, and recreational activities. Existing parks will accommodate more users, particularly in neighborhoods where high-density infill development is planned. New parks will be needed to serve new and growing communities. Given the developed character of the District, finding land for such parks will be difficult and expensive. The District must seize opportunities for parkland dedication on its largest redevelopment sites and take steps now to promote park provision elsewhere as Washington, DC grows. 807.1 A 2014 DPR study estimated that 180 new acres of parkland will be needed to meet demands associated with increased population over the next 15-20 years. Additional recreation facilities and programs also are needed to close gaps in underserved neighborhoods. Many residents are more than a half-mile from a usable park or open space or live in a neighborhood where park acreage is low. New parks planned at Buzzard Point, Near Southeast, Poplar Point, Hill East, and elsewhere along the Anacostia River will meet some of this demand. Additional parkland will be needed to serve growth and development in the north central, northeastern, and southeastern parts of the District, where a substantial amount of additional housing is planned in an area with a dearth of public parks. Substantial areas for new parks should also be designated in the reuse plans for any large federal sites that are transferred to the District or used for private development in the future. 807.2 Creating new parks in built-up neighborhoods will be more challenging. There is competing pressure to use public land for other purposes, particularly revenue-generating uses like housing and office development, which tend to make potential new park sites more expensive. The District does not have a dedicated funding source for parkland acquisition (such as an impact fee) and capital improvement funds are typically used for new facilities rather than to acquire vacant land. Acquisition may occur through a variety of means, such as donations and grants, payment in lieu of taxes, tax increment financing, and public-private partnerships. Open space may also be set aside within new projects through development agreements and Planned Unit Development (PUD) amenity packages. Such open space should be usable, publicly accessible, and address open space needs of the area, including rooftops and [^p17-807]: 807 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS courtyards. Business improvement districts (BIDs) also have a potential role to play. In 2012, the North of Massachusetts Avenue (NoMa) BID formed the NoMa Parks Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to securing additional park space in the neighborhood. 807.3[^807.3] New and improved parks along the waterfront have contributed to the vitality of the District in three powerful ways: making the waterfront broadly accessible, adding economic value to new development as a neighborhood amenity through recreation and programming, and providing environmental resilience to mitigate flooding and the impacts of climate change. Canal Park, Yards Park, Diamond Teague Park, and the Wharf Park are linked to new developments and provide neighborhood amenities for existing and new waterfront residents, workers, and visitors. Additionally, long-standing federal park and open space assets—from Langston Golf Course to the National Arboretum, to Anacostia Park—are experiencing reinvestment, including plans for stronger connections to adjacent communities. 807.4[^807.4] The increase in the District’s population means that there is a greater demand for commemorative parks under federal jurisdiction, such as Franklin Park, to serve residents. Additionally, the federal government has struggled to provide adequate funding to plan, develop, and maintain the range of parks and open space that it operates. Federal partnerships with local agencies and organizations—such as DPR, BIDs, and nonprofit groups—are key to developing strategies that improve the character and function of these parks, provide new visitor amenities, and better support their neighborhoods while still preserving commemorative and historic resources within the parks. 807.5[^807.5] ### Policy PROS-1.4.1: Park Planning Prioritize the creation of parks and recreation spaces through neighborhood planning and development review processes, particularly in areas where residents are not within a 10-minute walk of sufficient park space. 807.6[^807.6] ### Policy PROS-1.4.2: Park Acquisition Acquire and improve additional parkland to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents. This should occur both through the expansion of existing parks and the development of new parks. 807.7[^807.7] ### Policy PROS-1.4.3: Acquisition Methods Use a variety of methods to acquire and improve parkland, including easements, donations, land purchases, strategic property transfers, long-term land leases, and park set-asides on new development sites. Recognize the impacts of new development on the need for additional park and recreational [^807.3]: 807.3 [^807.4]: 807.4 [^807.5]: 807.5 [^807.6]: 807.6 [^807.7]: 807.7 facilities and mitigate impacts through dedication of parkland or in-lieu payments. 807.8 #### Policy PROS-1.4.4: Parks on Large Sites Include new neighborhood and/or community parks on large sites that are redeveloped for housing and other uses that generate a demand for recreational services. The potential for such parks to enhance the connectivity of parks and open spaces throughout the District should be an important planning and design consideration, particularly where multiple large adjacent sites are being redeveloped. 807.9 #### Policy PROS-1.4.5: Parks on Surplus Land Acquire and convert abandoned or tax delinquent land, surplus rail or road rights-of-way, and other land not in productive use into recreational use where feasible and appropriate, particularly in parts of Washington, DC, that lack adequate access to parkland. Balance the need for additional open space with other District priorities, such as affordable housing. 807.10 #### Policy PROS-1.4.6: Park Amenities on NPS Land Where consistent with other policies in the Comprehensive Plan and NPS plans, and supported by nearby neighborhoods and needs assessments, encourage federal government projects that would provide new recreational amenities—such as soccer fields, picnic areas, and trails—that increase equitable District resident access to national parkland. 807.11 #### Policy PROS-1.4.7: Parks in Employment Growth Areas Provide new parks and open spaces in areas of expected employment growth. Small pocket parks, plazas, and other open spaces should be created in the vicinity of the NoMa-Gallaudet U Metro station, Buzzard Point, the east end of downtown/Mount Vernon Triangle, and the Near Northeast neighborhood to provide visual relief and space for active and passive recreation. 807.12 *Action PROS-1.4.A: New Parkland Dedication or Park Impact Fee* Study a requirement for a dedication of new parkland—or a park impact fee in lieu of new parkland creation—for new development or redevelopment based on the size, use, and density of the new development. 807.13 *See also the Educational Facilities Element for polices on the use of school recreational facilities and lands.* ## PROS-2 Park and Recreational Facilities [^p19-808] While the previous section of this element focused on park planning, this section focuses specifically on park facilities. 808.1 [^p19-808]: 808 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS The District currently operates 76 recreation centers with a combined total of approximately one million square feet of floor space. It also operates over 50 aquatic facilities comprised of 11 indoor pools, 18 outdoor pools, four children’s pools, and 20 splash pads. The range of facilities have grown to include 34 community gardens, five skate parks, and over a dozen dog parks. There are more than 340 fields and courts, accommodating field sports, tennis, basketball, and other athletic activities. These facilities are used to provide recreational services to residents in all parts of the District. DPR activities range from aquatics, quilting, and environmental education to martial arts, personalized weight training, and even poetry slams. Many of the programs are targeted toward specific age groups, such as older adults and teens. Others are designed for persons with disabilities or for families. [^808.2] Demand for recreational programs—and the facilities to accommodate them—is expected to grow in the future as population grows. Demand will also be affected by cultural changes, new technology, sports and entertainment trends, and demographic shifts. The growth of the youth and older adult populations, in particular will influence recreational needs in the District over the next 20 years. The text box, The District Speaks Out on Parks, provides an indication of current recreational habits and trends in Washington, DC, based on a 2013 resident survey. [^808.3] ### PROS-2.1 Assessing Recreational Facilities [^p20-809] The 2014 Parks Master Plan identified three primary facility types in the District’s parks: * Recreation centers, which provide space for the delivery of indoor recreation services and support space for outdoor activities; * Aquatic facilities, including pools and splash pads; and * Outdoor facilities, including courts, playgrounds, fields, and similar park features. [^809.1] The text and policies below provide general direction on how these facilities can be managed to meet future needs. In general, residents overwhelmingly favor enhancing existing assets to building new facilities. This focus should continue, particularly in areas experiencing subpar levels of service today. [^809.2] The District has one of the highest ratios of recreation centers to residents in the country. The District’s ratio is substantially higher than ratios for the largest East Coast cities and several major West Coast cities. However, this benchmark does not consider the condition or size of the center, or the accessibility of recreational services to residents. Most of the District’s recreation centers meet basic expectations, but some need modernization. DPR and DGS are actively working to improve the quality and size of outdated centers. [^809.3] [^808.2]: 808.2 [^808.3]: 808.3 [^p20-809]: 809 [^809.1]: 809.1 [^809.2]: 809.2 [^809.3]: 809.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### The District Speaks Out on Parks The Parks Master Plan process conducted in 2013-2014 engaged the community in a discussion about park needs in Washington, DC. Public input was solicited through stakeholder interviews, an advisory committee, staff workshops, focus groups, an online engagement tool, a recreation center survey, and a statistically valid mail-in survey. Major findings of the survey included: * Seventy-one percent of the respondents had visited any DPR park in the last 12 months. Of this total, 77 percent rated the visited park as good or excellent. Another 20 percent rated the park as fair, and only 23 percent rated the park as poor * Twenty-eight percent of the respondents indicated they visited an indoor recreation center at least once a week. * Eighteen percent of the respondents had participated in a DPR recreation program in the last 12 months. Of this total, 82 percent rated the program as good or excellent. * The most frequently mentioned reasons for not using parks and recreation centers more often were lack of time (47 percent), lack of program awareness (32 percent), and absence of desired amenities (12 percent). * The facilities in greatest demand were trails (66 percent), small neighborhood parks (66 percent), indoor pools (59 percent), large community parks (57 percent), indoor exercise and fitness facilities (55 percent), picnic areas (54 percent), and outdoor pools (53 percent). * The programs in greatest demand were community special events (59 percent), adult fitness and wellness (52 percent), water fitness (40 percent), adult leisure learning (40 percent), and nature programs (40 percent). 808.3a The needs assessment during the 2013-2014 master planning process determined that: * The District’s strengths include a relatively large number of recreation centers and amenities, including some with state-of-the-art spaces. However, some facilities are underused because they are outdated or not well maintained. * Thereis a major need to improve and maintain existing facilities. Deferred maintenance is a problem at many recreation centers. Improvements need to be addressed in a prioritized, equitable, and efficient method. * There is a perception of inequity in parks and recreation services. This is partially due to the gap between high-quality new or recently modernized facilities and those that are older. Some parts of the District have better access to facilities than others. * The existing neighborhood-based model of providing services may not be sustainable and requires too many facilities to be built, operated, and staffed. Although consolidation would result in a smaller number of facilities, it may translate into higher levels of service, since these facilities could reach larger populations and be operated more efficiently. 808.4 # CITYWIDE ELEMENTS As Map 8.2 indicates, there are still many parts of the District that may require additional recreation center space. Service gaps appear in Near Southeast, the far western and far northern parts of the District, and downtown. [^809.4] DPR’s design guidelines identify four recreation center prototypes: neighborhood, community, District, and specialty. They are distinguished by their size, amenities, and service area. Criteria are provided for the functional relationship of interior spaces for each center type. There are also guidelines to recognize the historic significance of older centers and protect their historical integrity. [^809.5] The District has one of the highest number of aquatics facilities per capita in the country. However, sometimes these facilities are not in locations that are easily accessed by residents in their service area or in the best condition, and sometimes they are not large enough to meet demand. To promote equitable access to and excellence in aquatics, continued investment in pools and other facilities is needed. Evaluations of potential new aquatic facilities, including those that can generate revenue and draw visitors from other jurisdictions, may be considered in the future. Other water-oriented activities, such as river canoeing, kayaking, and fishing, also will be supported through recreational programs. [^809.6] Probably the most familiar function of a neighborhood or community park is to provide space for active outdoor recreation. District parks support hundreds of facilities, including softball and baseball fields, football and soccer fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, dog parks, and skate parks. In addition, an unprecedented number of playgrounds were renovated in 2013 and 2014, drawing thousands of children and other users to new equipment across the District. The District continues to work toward securing more outdoor facilities and modernizing existing facilities so they can be operated and maintained more efficiently. In some instances, this may require partnering with agencies such as DCPS and DDOT to creatively accommodate facilities on school grounds or in transportation rights-of-way. Given the limitations of the District’s compact geographic area and the varied amounts of space for outdoor facilities, recreation can become a component of new urban infrastructure projects in a number of settings. [^809.7] ### Policy PROS-2.1.1: Recreational Facility Development Improve the physical and psychological health of District residents by providing a variety of recreational and athletic facilities, including playing fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, basketball courts, trails and paths, art studio and exhibition spaces, boating facilities, docks, and open areas for other sports activities. [^809.8] [^809.4]: 809.4 [^809.5]: 809.5 [^809.6]: 809.6 [^809.7]: 809.7 [^809.8]: 809.8 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Map 8.2: # Recreation Center Buildings [^809.9] <
> [^809.9]: 809.9 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy PROS-2.1.2: Use of Service Standards Develop recreational facilities in an orderly way by using service standards and design guidelines that help identify local needs. Further, consistently apply the new classification system for recreation centers included in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Direct investment in new facilities to the areas with the greatest unmet needs and areas where additional demand is expected in the future. 809.10 #### Policy PROS-2.1.3: Quality and Compatible Design All park improvements should be of high design and construction quality, sensitive to the natural environment, respectful of historic structures and important cultural landscapes, sensitive to the needs of people of all ages and abilities, and compatible with surrounding land uses. 809.11 #### Policy PROS-2.1.4: Responding to Local Preferences Provide amenities and facilities in District parks that are responsive to the preferences and needs of the neighborhoods around the parks. Park planning should recognize that there are different leisure time interests in different parts of Washington, DC. To better understand these differences, the community must be involved in key planning and design decisions. 809.12 #### Policy PROS-2.1.5: Adapting to Changing Needs Allow the development of flexible facilities that respond to changing preferences and community needs in appropriate District parks, including dog parks, skate parks, tot lots, and water spray parks. 809.13 #### Policy PROS-2.1.6: Nature-Based Design New recreational facilities should incorporate nature-based design principles that value residents’ innate connection to nature and allow abundant opportunities to be outside and to enjoy the multisensory aspects of nature. Nature-based elements can include a visual connection with nature, the presence of water, the use of natural materials, and incorporation of dynamic and diffuse light. 809.14 #### Policy PROS-2.1.7: Alternatives to New Facilities Identify opportunities to meet outdoor recreational needs through existing public or private facilities, as an alternative to building new facilities. 809.15 #### Policy PROS-2.1.8: Project Development Process Maintain a well-defined and transparent project development process that includes public participation so that future park projects meet resident needs and achieve context-sensitive design solutions. Recreational needs should be confirmed through area plans, neighborhood plans, and plans for individual parks. 809.16 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy PROS-2.1.9: Use of Emerging Technologies Support the use of emerging technologies, such as tech lounges and e-sports, to create interactive gathering spaces for residents, particularly youth and older adults. [^809.17] #### *Action PROS-2.1.A: Capital Improvements* Regularly identify and update the cost of improvements needed to meet service delivery standards, including those for recreation centers, aquatic facilities, and outdoor facilities. Provide systematic and continuing funds for park improvements through the annual Capital Improvement Program, with investments prioritized for the facilities and communities that are most in need. [^809.18] #### *Action PROS-2.1.B: Needs Assessments and Demographic Analysis* Conduct periodic needs assessments, surveys, and demographic studies to better understand the current preferences and future needs of District residents regarding parks and recreation. [^809.19] #### *Action PROS-2.1.C: Parks Restroom Inventory* Conduct an assessment of the existing parks restroom inventory, considering park size and usage to determine the needs for additional public restrooms. [^809.20] *See also the Community Services and Facilities Element for policies on the co-location of recreational uses with other public facilities* #### *Action PROS-2.1.D: Level-of-Service and Classification Systems* Evaluate existing level-of-service standards by type of facility and amenity, and where deemed necessary, develop facility-specific classification systems. [^809.21] #### *Action PROS-2.1.E: Improvement of Outdoor Recreational Facilities* Systematically evaluate existing outdoor recreational facilities based on the Parks Master Plan design guidelines. Implement plans to eliminate deficiencies and close gaps through capital improvements. Typical capital projects might include turf restoration, addition of lighting and seating at sports fields, playground renovation, and resurfacing of basketball and tennis courts. [^809.22] ### PROS-2.2 Providing Quality Service to All Residents [^p25-810] Maintaining a quality park system requires a high level of facility maintenance, modernization, and repair. A 2009 assessment of 72 DPR facilities found that 10 were in poor condition, 11 were in fair condition, [^809.17]: [^809.18]: [^809.19]: [^809.20]: [^809.21]: [^809.22]: [^p25-810]: CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> A steady, reliable stream of funds will be essential to keep our parks safe and attractive, and to respond to future needs. and 51 were in good condition. A supplemental assessment of 56 recreation centers was done by DGS in 2013. It found 11 facilities in poor condition, 17 in fair condition, and 28 in good condition.[^810.1] On a per capita basis, the District spends less on park operations and maintenance than peer cities like Minneapolis, Portland, and San Francisco. Since 2003, however, the District’s annual expenditures on park capital improvements have been higher than expenditures in these cities. New facilities are replacing aging buildings and providing attractive new community centers. With more capital construction planned in the coming years, the District will need to dedicate additional funds to cover the higher expenses of operating and maintaining these facilities.[^810.2] Similar efforts will be needed to address a wide variety of park planning issues, including the personal safety of park visitors, provisions for youth and residents with disabilities, staffing needs, and the coordination of service delivery with other agencies. A steady, reliable stream of funds will be essential to keep our parks safe and attractive, and to respond to future needs.[^810.3] Programming is one of the core elements of recreational service delivery. DPR delivers over 400 programs a year at its facilities. Recent data indicates that fewer than 20 percent of DC residents participate in these programs. Detailed data on demographics, resident preferences, and user satisfaction can help create more responsive programming. There are also opportunities for better marketing and programming for targeted audiences like youth and older adults. In some cases, service delivery by other agencies or nonprofits may be the most effective option.[^810.4] Looking ahead, new funding sources—such as public-private partnerships, grants, and concessions—may be necessary. A commitment to future funding should recognize the many tangible and intangible benefits that the District’s parks provide to neighborhoods.[^810.5] ### Policy PROS-2.2.1: Maintenance and Renovation Provide for the continuing maintenance, renovation, and upgrading of the District’s parks and recreational facilities to prevent their deterioration so that they continue to meet community needs. Prioritize the asset management of existing facilities during the capital improvement process.[^810.6] ### Policy PROS-2.2.2: Park Safety and Security Design parks, trails, and recreational facilities to improve the safety of visitors and staff. Avoid creating hidden and difficult-to-access areas, where security problems or vandalism could result. Lighting, fencing, building materials, and other design components should be selected to enhance [^810.1]: 810.1 [^810.2]: 810.2 [^810.3]: 810.3 [^810.4]: 810.4 [^810.5]: 810.5 [^810.6]: 810.6 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS the safety of park users. Park lighting should be compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. 810.7[^810.7] ### Policy PROS-2.2.3: Program Diversity Provide diverse recreational activities to promote healthy living for persons of all ages and cultural backgrounds. Such activities must be distributed equitably in all parts of the District. Coordinate activities and offerings with other service providers, including DCPS and community-based organizations such as wellness centers for older persons, to maximize the effectiveness of service delivery and minimize redundancy. 810.8[^810.8] ### Policy PROS-2.2.4: Data-Driven Programming Collect and analyze data on recreational program participation and use this data to shape decisions on future programs and operations. Programs should reflect local and national trends in recreation and regular surveys of District residents, with a focus on meeting the needs of underserved populations. 810.9[^810.9] ### Policy PROS-2.2.5: Youth Recreational Services Provide recreational services that are particularly responsive to the special needs of the District’s youth, using recreation and athletics to promote self-esteem, responsibility, and leadership skills among youth. 810.10[^810.10] ### Policy PROS-2.2.6: Special Needs Increase efforts to meet the needs of underserved population groups, particularly older residents and persons with disabilities. Provide barrier free access by modifying existing facilities to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities and modifying existing indoor and outdoor facilities and parks to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. Explore the use of alternative participation styles and formats in the program curriculum so that activities can be easily adjusted to allow persons with disabilities and residents needing additional accommodations to participate. 810.11[^810.11] ### Policy PROS-2.2.7: Physical Activity in Everyday Spaces Prioritize community-driven strategies to support physical activity in non-traditional, everyday spaces across the District. Childhood play is essential to physical, cognitive, creative, social, and emotional development. However, many children face barriers to play, such as a perceived or actual lack of safe spaces. District government and its partners should provide additional opportunities for play in everyday locations where kids and families already spend time, including bus stops, grocery stores, and sidewalks. 810.12[^810.12] ### Policy PROS-2.2.8: New Funding Sources Seek out and pursue new forms of local, federal, nonprofit, and private financial support to acquire, develop, and operate the District’s park and recreational facilities. Streamline the process for accepting private donations of parks-related goods, services, and facilities. 810.13[^810.13] [^810.7]: 810.7 [^810.8]: 810.8 [^810.9]: 810.9 [^810.10]: 810.10 [^810.11]: 810.11 [^810.12]: 810.12 [^810.13]: 810.13 <
> Encourage volunteer assistance and stewardship in the maintenance of the District’s parks. Local community organizations should be encouraged to donate goods, services, and time to help in the oversight and upkeep of such spaces. *For more information, see PROS-4.1 on public-private partnerships.* ### Policy PROS-2.2.9: Park Stewardship Encourage volunteer assistance and stewardship in the maintenance of the District’s parks, particularly the triangle parks along major thoroughfares. Local community organizations should be encouraged to donate goods, services, and time to help in the oversight and upkeep of such spaces. Stewardship should be viewed as a way to increase environmental awareness, reduce maintenance costs, and build civic pride in parks. [^810.14] ### Policy PROS-2.2.10: Fiscal Impact of Park Improvements Evaluate proposed park facilities to determine their ability to generate revenue and help recover operational and maintenance costs. When developing new facilities, assess the projected operation and maintenance costs prior to requesting capital funding approval. [^810.15] #### Action PROS-2.2.A: Facility Assessments Conduct regular facility condition and utilization studies and use this data to determine if there is a need for improvement, reconstruction, closure, or expansion. A comprehensive facility condition assessment should be performed for each recreation center at least once every five years. [^810.16] #### Action PROS-2.2.B: Maintenance Standards Create official maintenance standards based on industry best practices, such as Sustainable SITES Initiative (SITES) or an equivalent system, to improve the effectiveness of current maintenance and service levels for recreational buildings, facilities, and landscaping. Both maintenance contractors and the District should adhere to these standards. [^810.17] #### Action PROS-2.2.C: Adopt-a-Park Continue to encourage community groups, businesses, and others to participate in the District’s Adopt-a-Park/Adopt-a-Playground program and publicize the program through signs, advertisements, websites, and other media. Support Friends of Parks groups in stewarding, advocating, and hosting fundraising events for park sites to help maintain grounds and buildings and assist in the planning process. [^810.18] #### Action PROS-2.2.D: Data Tracking Establish a system to maintain and regularly update data and maps on parks, recreational facilities, and programming offered by DPR and affiliated providers to measure improvements in levels of service and document achievements. [^810.19] #### Action PROS-2.2.E: Marketing and Branding Develop a marketing plan to increase public awareness of programs and to more firmly establish an identity for Washington, DC, parks. [^810.20] [^810.14]: 810.14 [^810.15]: 810.15 [^810.16]: 810.16 [^810.17]: 810.17 [^810.18]: 810.18 [^810.19]: 810.19 [^810.20]: 810.20 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *See also policies in the Environmental Protection Element about green maintenance and green building practices, including requirements that future recreation centers meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards.* #### Action PROS-2.2.F: Integration of Federal and District Athletic Fields Better integrate federal and District athletic fields under the jurisdictions of NPS, DPR, and DCPS. [^810.21] #### Action PROS-2.2.G: Design Standards Create District-wide parks and recreation facility design standards for outdoor facilities. Design parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities to reflect the preferences and culture of the local population, to accommodate a range of age groups and abilities, and to improve the safety of visitors and staff. When renovating playgrounds and parks, design new infrastructure for active recreation, including workout equipment, for all ages and abilities. [^810.22] #### Action PROS-2.2.H: Hospital and Clinic Partnerships Explore partnerships with hospitals and clinics to increase the number of doctors prescribing parks and recreational activities to patients of every age. [^810.23] #### Action PROS-2.2.I: Performance Monitoring Provide the necessary hardware and software to track customer use and evaluations, determine gaps in programming and facilities, and identify opportunities to improve the overall performance of the parks and recreation system. [^810.24] #### Action PROS-2.2.J: Recreation Program Action Plan Develop a recreation program action plan that elevates, standardizes, and expands the quality of DPR program offerings. The plan should help DPR to prioritize program investments while promoting broader goals of health, fitness, artistic expression, and community building. [^810.25] #### Action PROS-2.2.K: Public-Private Partnerships When using a public-private partnership model to fund park acquisitions or improvements, incorporate programming and maintenance plans. [^810.26] #### Action PROS-2.2.L: New Kiosk Development Amend the zoning regulations to allow temporary and permanent kiosks at residentially zoned parks, where appropriate. Kiosks would be owned by the District and revenue from the kiosks would be used to support park maintenance and operations. [^810.27] [^810.21]: 810.21 [^810.22]: 810.22 [^810.23]: 810.23 [^810.24]: 810.24 [^810.25]: 810.25 [^810.26]: 810.26 [^810.27]: 810.27 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> Langston Golf Course is part of an open space network that spans both banks of the Anacostia River ## PROS-3 Open Space Networks [^p30-811] Washington, DC, is characterized by four outstanding and distinct networks of open space: * The Monumental Core, including the National Mall and adjacent areas in East and West Potomac Parks; * Rock Creek Park and the linear parks along its tributary streams, extending from the Potomac River to the Maryland border; * The Civil War Defenses of Washington, otherwise known as the Fort Circle Parks, forming a ring of open space approximately five miles out from the center of the District; and * The Anacostia and Potomac parklands, including linear parks along tributary streams. [^811.1] Each of these areas is profiled in more detail below. Together, they comprise 6,700 acres of parkland, or about 18 percent of the District’s land area. Because almost all of this land is under the control of NPS, the policies presented here are intended to express the District’s aspirations for the land’s long-term management. They are statements of the District’s values and priorities, to be consulted by our federal partners as they plan and manage these important properties. [^811.2] In addition to the four open space networks described above, there are other important chains of interconnected open space across the District. Among the most significant is the corridor of District, federal, and institutional lands extending from McMillan Reservoir on the south to Fort Totten on the north. [^811.3] This section of the Comprehensive Plan includes a special focus on park and open space planning for Washington, DC’s waterfronts. The need to improve connectivity between open spaces through trails and greenways also is addressed. Policies on these topics are supplemented in Section PROS-4.0 with information on functional open spaces that may augment this network and further contribute to community needs, environmental quality, and economic value. [^811.4] Figure 8.4 compares the total parkland acreage within Washington, DC, to other high-density U.S. cities, using data from a recent analysis by the Trust for Public Land. [^811.5] [^p30-811]: 811 [^811.1]: 811.1 [^811.2]: 811.2 [^811.3]: 811.3 [^811.4]: 811.4 [^811.5]: 811.5 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> ### PROS-3.1 Sustaining and Enhancing the Federal Open Space Systems [^p31-812] Although Washington, DC, does not have jurisdiction over the National Mall and the adjoining open spaces in East and West Potomac Parks, these are arguably the most visible and high-profile parklands in the District. They project the image of Washington, DC, to the world and attract millions of visitors each year. The future of the landscaped glades between the U.S. Capitol and the Potomac River is the focus of national debate, as the need for new monuments and memorials is balanced against the need to retain the Mall’s historic form, sight lines, and open quality. Under statehood, the National Mall and environs would be preserved as the core of the federal district. In addition, the prospect of sea level rise threatens the continued viability of recreational uses at East Potomac Park and Hains Point. The Mall serves local, national, and international communities. It is integral to Washington, DC’s history. The National Mall should remain an inclusive space that allows users to recognize history while balancing the need to draw [^p31-812]: 812 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS visitors to the District. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) has prepared several important plans on these issues, including the Legacy Plan and the Memorials and Museums Master Plan. Both plans seek to preserve the historic proportions of the Mall, recognize its multiple functions as a passive and active open space, and expand the open space network to new areas along South Capitol Street and the Anacostia River. 812.1[^p32-1] Several planning initiatives for the National Mall have been completed. In 2000, NPS completed a Comprehensive Design Plan for the White House and President’s Park. The approved plan provides the management framework and flexibility needed to manage and preserve the site for the presidency and the public. In 2001, NCPC released the Memorials and Museums Master Plan, which identifies 100 potential locations for memorials and museums, and provides general guidelines for their development. In addition, in 2004, the nonprofit organization National Mall Coalition launched the National Mall Third Century Initiative (3C Initiative). The mission of the 3C Initiative is to renew the vitality of the Mall through creative public use, wise stewardship for the next century, and appropriate expansion. The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) is also involved in planning and design decisions on the Mall. 812.2[^p32-2] Rock Creek Park is the largest contiguous open space within the District, encompassing over 2,000 acres along the Rock Creek Valley and its tributary streams. The park’s scenic landscapes provide a respite from the cityscape of Washington, DC. Each year, more than two million people visit the park to hike, picnic, play, and enjoy its rugged beauty. More than 12 million people a year use the park roads for commuting or scenic driving. In 2005, NPS completed a General Management Plan (GMP) for the largest unit of Rock Creek Park, providing guidance on how to best protect natural resources and manage visitor services. The goals of the GMP are to preserve and perpetuate the ecology of the Rock Creek Valley, protect archaeological and historic resources, provide for education and exploration, and create opportunities for recreation that are compatible with the park’s natural and cultural setting. The GMP itself includes management prescriptions that will guide future land use decisions and issues regarding road closures and traffic management. 812.3[^p32-3] At the start of the Civil War in 1861, a series of fortifications was built around Washington, DC, to protect the nation’s capital from a Confederate invasion. Among the fortifications were Fort Stevens, site of an 1864 battle; Fort Reno, highest point in the District; and Fort Dupont, the largest park Ward 7 or 8. After the Civil War, most of the 68 forts and 93 batteries were dismantled, and the land was returned to its pre-war owners. Before they disappeared completely, a number of fort sites were purchased by the federal government and developed as parkland. An envisioned Fort Circle greenbelt featured prominently in the McMillan Plan of 1901, and with the advent of the [^p32-1]: 812.1 [^p32-2]: 812.2 [^p32-3]: 812.3 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS automobile, the greenbelt was proposed as a 23-mile circumferential parkway around the growing District (the Fort Drive). 812.4[^p33-4] NPS prepared a GMP for the Fort Circle Parks in 2003. The GMP’s primary objectives include protection of ecological and historical values and accommodation of local recreational interests. The GMP seeks to remedy issues such as the deteriorated state of the parks’ historical earthworks, concerns about visitor safety, and the lack of visitor services and interpretive facilities. Among the planned improvements are a new hiking trail linking the forts through existing parkland, new recreational features, coordinated signage, and new public access points. 812.5[^p33-5] The Potomac and Anacostia rivers and their associated tributaries, such as Watts Branch and Pope Branch, provide an important link in the District’s open space network. They provide protection for sensitive natural habitat, scenic beauty, and water-oriented recreation for District residents and visitors. Washington, DC’s waterfront open spaces encompass an area larger than all of Rock Creek Park. 812.6[^p33-6] Investments in infrastructure have started to provide a connected waterfront, so that the Anacostia River no longer divides neighborhoods, although further connections, many in planning, are needed. State-of-the-art multimodal projects are enhancing mobility and public access to and along the waterfront, such as the nearly 20-mile Anacostia Riverwalk Trail and the local 11th Street Bridge, which now serves pedestrians and cyclists. When constructed, the planned Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge will continue this momentum along with the planned pedestrian and cyclist bridge spanning the Anacostia River and additional new miles of bike paths linking underserved communities. 812.7[^p33-7] In addition, the Anacostia waterfront has emerged as a cultural center complementing the Mall with cultural venues, sports arenas, and museums. These amenities enliven the waterfront’s shores with millions of annual visitors and reinforce the District’s unique cultural heritage. There are also new developments and neighborhoods that serve as destinations themselves, such as the Wharf, and that are changing the image of the District and its relationship with the water through unique public spaces and programming. From Nationals Park and Audi Field to new museums, music venues, future monuments, and the planned 11^th[^th] Street Bridge Park, the Anacostia waterfront is adding to the cultural energy and dynamism of Washington, DC. Despite these successes, significant environmental, urban design, and infrastructure challenges remain. 812.8[^p33-8] *See the Environmental Protection, Urban Design, and Infrastructure elements for more information about these issues.* [^p33-4]: 812.4 [^p33-5]: 812.5 [^p33-6]: 812.6 [^p33-7]: 812.7 [^p33-8]: 812.8 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS Policies for the waterfront are presented in the Section PROS-3.2 of this element 812.9[^812.9] #### Policy PROS-3.1.1: District Open Space Networks Coordinate with NPS and other relevant organizations to restore the environmental health of the District’s open space networks, including tree cover and habitat, and to help more residents experience these areas through nature programs and trails. 812.10[^812.10] #### Policy PROS-3.1.2: Monumental Core Preserve the integrity of the National Mall open space, and advocate for federal plans and programs that protect this area from inappropriate or excessive development. 812.11[^812.11] #### Policy PROS-3.1.3: East and West Potomac Parks Work with the federal government to protect and enhance the great open spaces of the Monumental Core beyond the National Mall, such as Hains Point and the Tidal Basin parklands. In efforts consistent with the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, support the use of these areas for outdoor cultural events and celebrations, and for recreational activities and amenities that serve District residents and visitors. Planning for these areas should provide opportunities to expand the National Mall and better integrate East Potomac Park with the Southwest Waterfront across the Washington Channel. Planning for these areas should also seek to mitigate sea level rise through nature-based design solutions where possible. 812.12[^812.12] #### Policy PROS-3.1.4: Rock Creek Park The District’s land use and transportation decisions should support the conservation of Rock Creek Park as a national scenic resource. Actively participate in discussions about the management of park resources—including roadways and recreational facilities—and environmental quality. 812.13[^812.13] #### Policy PROS-3.1.5: Tributary Parks Maintain the scenic open space qualities and ecology of the District’s stream valley parks, including tributaries to the Potomac and Anacostia rivers and tributaries to Rock Creek. Create and maintain hiking and walking paths along tributary streams as appropriate to preserve habitats, minimize erosion, and preserve trees. Ensure that development adjacent to stream valley corridor parks does not compromise visual and ecological values and access to natural and forested areas. 812.14[^812.14] [^812.9]: 812.9 [^812.10]: 812.10 [^812.11]: 812.11 [^812.12]: 812.12 [^812.13]: 812.13 [^812.14]: 812.14 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *See the Environmental Protection Element for additional policies on stream preservation* #### Policy PROS-3.1.6: Fort Circle Parks Protect and enhance the Fort Circle Parks as an integrated network of permanent open spaces that connect neighborhoods, provide scenic beauty and historic interest, and offer a variety of recreational activities. Recognize these parks as an important District and national resource. Prevent District and federal actions that would harm historic and ecological resources in the Fort Circle Parks, and strongly support actions that would improve their maintenance, connectivity, visibility, accessibility, and safety. [^812.15] #### Policy PROS-3.1.6: Compatibility with Parklands Maintain and design public and private development adjacent to the edges of open spaces and parks to be compatible with these parklands and improve park access and safety. [^812.16] ##### Action PROS-3.1.A: Participation in Federal Planning Park Efforts Support and participate in NPS and NCPC efforts to plan for parks and open spaces in, and adjacent to, the Monumental Core. Encourage resident participation in these efforts. [^812.17] ##### Action PROS-3.1.B: Monument and Memorial Siting Actively participate with the appropriate federal agencies, commissions, and others in discussions and decisions on the siting of new monuments, memorials, and other commemorative works on open spaces within Washington, DC. [^812.18] ##### Action PROS-3.1.C: Implementation of General Management Plans Support federal efforts to implement the Comprehensive Design Plan for the White House and President’s Park and the GMPs for Rock Creek Park and the Fort Circle Parks. [^812.19] ##### Action PROS-3.1.D: Fort Circle Park Trail Use land acquisition and/or easements to complete the Fort Circle Park Hiker-Biker Trail and to provide additional Fort Circle Park signage and historic markers. [^812.20] ##### Action PROS-3.1.E: Fort Circle Partnerships Actively participate in interjurisdictional and public-private partnerships to preserve, enhance, restore, and complete the Fort Circle Parks. [^812.21] ##### Action PROS-3.1.F: Park Land Transfers In cooperation with appropriate federal agencies, identify park resources in federal ownership that could potentially be transferred to the District [^812.15]: 812.15 [^812.16]: 812.16 [^812.17]: 812.17 [^812.18]: 812.18 [^812.19]: 812.19 [^812.20]: 812.20 [^812.21]: 812.21 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS for conservation or recreational purposes only, such as Franklin Park, the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium (RFK Stadium), and Langston Golf Course, along with various triangle parks, such as Murrow and Monroe parks. 812.22[^812.22] ### PROS-3.2 Reclaiming the Waterfront [^p36-813] The contrast between the District’s two waterfronts—the Potomac and the Anacostia—has been well documented. Virtually the entire Potomac shoreline north of Hains Point is publicly accessible, with such amenities as the Chesapeake and Ohio (C&O) Canal towpath, Georgetown Waterfront Park, Thompson Boat Center, and Theodore Roosevelt Island. The shoreline affords stunning views of the District’s monuments and picturesque vistas across the river to Virginia. On the other hand, much of the 22 miles of shoreline along the Anacostia River, while inaccessible, is natural and relatively undisturbed.. In 2003, the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan set a visionary and ambitious agenda for the revitalization of the Anacostia waterfront as a world-class destination and the center of 21st-century Washington, DC. The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI) set in motion a transformation that includes new mixed-income neighborhoods, environmental restoration, transportation infrastructure, enhanced public access, new connected parks, and cultural destinations. Fifteen years after the AWI Plan, the turnaround of the Anacostia waterfront is a national model for urban rivers in terms of environmental restoration, public access, economic development, and inclusive growth. 813.1[^813.1] Along the Potomac, the District’s priority is conserving the federal parklands, retaining public access, and improving access where it does not exist today. Along the Anacostia, the District has created a system of interconnected and continuous waterfront parks that establish access to the river for recreation, from signature locations like Yards Park to improved facilities like Kenilworth Recreation Center, all joined by the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail. However, despite these significant achievements, several recreational and open space improvements have yet to be realized. Map 8.3 provides an overview of completed and ongoing projects along the Anacostia waterfront. The Area Elements should be consulted for additional detail. 813.2[^813.2] #### Policy PROS-3.2.1: Preserving Waterfront Open Space Recognize the importance of Washington, DC’s waterfronts for recreation, public access, ecological protection, and scenic beauty. 813.3[^813.3] #### Policy PROS-3.2.2: Connecting Neighborhoods to the Rivers Develop open space linkages between the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers and adjacent neighborhoods using stream tributaries such as Watts Branch [^812.22]: 812.22 [^p36-813]: 813 [^813.1]: 813.1 [^813.2]: 813.2 [^813.3]: 813.3 and Pope Branch as a framework for linear parks between the shoreline and nearby residential areas. 813[^.4] #### Policy PROS-3.2.3: Linking Residents to Waterfront Park Spaces Establish stronger multimodal linkages between the waterfront and adjacent upland neighborhoods, including Deanwood, Mayfair, Kenilworth-Parkside, River Terrace, Fairlawn, Twining, Kenilworth, Historic Anacostia, Carver-Langston, Kingman Park, Hill East, Capitol Hill, Barney Circle, Southwest, and Buzzard Point. Maximize public access to the waterfront from these areas through the development of a continued riverwalk and shoreline trail, natural shorelines, green infrastructure along streets, improved public <
> [^.4]: 813.4 [^.5]: 813.5 transportation, redesigned bridges and freeways, additional pedestrian access routes, and the extension of neighborhood streets and avenues to the water’s edge. 813.6[^813.6] #### Policy PROS-3.2.4: Waterfront Visibility and Accessibility Improve access to the shoreline parks from across Washington, DC, and reduce barriers to waterfront access created by railroads, freeways, and non-water-dependent industrial uses. However, no freeway or highway removal shall be undertaken prior to the completion of an adequate and feasible alternative traffic plan that has been approved by the District government. 813.7[^813.7] #### Policy PROS-3.2.5: Water-Oriented Recreation Provide for a variety of water-oriented activities—including fishing, boating, kayaking, and paddle-boarding—on the District’s rivers. Recognize both the Anacostia and Potomac rivers as vital aquatic resources than can accommodate kayaking, canoeing, sculling, fishing, and other forms of water-oriented recreation. 813.8[^813.8] #### Policy PROS-3.2.6: River Facilities Coordinate with federal and private partners to create a network of facilities along the Anacostia and Potomac rivers that provide water access, recreational equipment, educational space, and other amenities. These amenities must be equitably distributed along the rivers and easily accessible from nearby neighborhoods. 813.9[^813.9] #### Policy PROS-3.2.7: Shoreline Access On waterfront development sites under District jurisdiction, require public access to the shoreline unless precluded by safety or security considerations. Incorporate natural shorelines where appropriate. 813.10[^813.10] #### Policy PROS-3.2.8: Waterfront Park Design Waterfront parks shall be designed and planned to maximize the scenic and recreational value of the rivers. Features such as parking lots and park maintenance facilities should be located away from the water’s edge, and environmentally sensitive resources should be protected. 813.11[^813.11] #### Policy PROS-3.2.9: Upper Potomac Waterfront Partner with NPS and other federal agencies to conserve open space along the Potomac waterfront and to protect the wooded and scenic qualities of the Potomac Palisades and adjacent islands and shoreline. Support efforts by NPS and partners to restore, reimagine, and revitalize the C&O Canal National Historic Park. 813.12[^813.12] [^813.6]: 813.6 [^813.7]: 813.7 [^813.8]: 813.8 [^813.9]: 813.9 [^813.10]: 813.10 [^813.11]: 813.11 [^813.12]: 813.12 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### Policy PROS-3.2.10: Lower Potomac Waterfront Support additional public access to the Potomac waterfront from the mouth of the Anacostia River southward. While general access is currently restricted due to existing uses (such as that by Bolling Air Force Base), the District should identify long-term opportunities for shoreline open space and recreation, in the event that federal needs and use of this land change.[^813.13] *See also the Urban Design Element for additional policies and actions related to shoreline development and aesthetics and the Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest Element for additional information about the planned shoreline parks.* #### Action PROS-3.2.A: Anacostia River Park Improvements Work collaboratively with the federal government, the private sector, and community and nonprofit groups to implement the open space improvement plans of the AWI. Planned improvements include: * A major destination park at Poplar Point; * Restored natural areas at Kingman and Heritage islands; * New parks, including recreational fields, around RFK Stadium; * Continuous bicycle and pedestrian trails along the waterfront and new pedestrian crossings on the upper reaches of the river; * New neighborhood parks and athletic fields within redeveloping areas along the waterfront, including the Southwest Waterfront, Buzzard Point, Near Southeast, and Hill East; and * Enhancements to the existing waterfront parks.[^813.14] *For more details on these planned parks, see the Lower Anacostia Waterfront/Near Southwest Area Element and the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Framework Plan.* #### Action PROS-3.2.B: Signage and Branding Work with NPS to develop and implement a consistent system of signage and markers for the Anacostia and Potomac waterfronts.[^813.15] #### Action PROS-3.2.C: Anacostia River Boating Develop additional marine facilities, including rowing centers, appropriately scaled boathouses, boat slips, and piers along the banks of the Anacostia River as recommended in the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan. All new marinas should become Clean Marina Partners. Implement boating access improvements utilizing the Boating Access grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife & Sport Fish Restoration Program.[^813.16] [^813.13]: 813.13 [^813.14]: 813.14 [^813.15]: 813.15 [^813.16]: 813.16 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS <
> The Fort Circle Trail #### Action PROS-3.2.D: Anacostia Riverwalk Construct new sections of the Anacostia Riverwalk according to the Buzzard Point Vision Framework’s riverwalk design guidelines. Work with Fort McNair to extend the Anacostia Riverwalk along the Washington Channel and design it to include co-benefits, such as enhanced security and flood protection for the base and ecological restoration features, thereby completing a key piece of the District-wide riverwalk system. 813.17[^813.17] ### PROS-3.3 Other Significant Open Space Networks 814[^p40-814] The District’s formal open space networks are complemented by several smaller open space systems. These networks may be lesser known due to fragmented ownership and multiple functions, but they are no less important—particularly to the communities they serve. 814.1[^814.1] A unique open space network comprised primarily of major federal facilities, cemeteries, and institutional uses is located just north of Washington, DC’s geographic center, in an area otherwise lacking in public parkland. The network includes McMillan Reservoir, the Armed Forces Retirement Home, Rock Creek Cemetery, Battleground National Cemetery, and Glenwood, Prospect Hill, and St. Mary’s cemeteries. This area was already established as a major recreational ground for Washington, DC, in the 19^th century. Its role was confirmed by the 1901 McMillan Plan, which recognized the dual purposes of these lands as functional facilities and passive open spaces. While public access to many of these properties is restricted today, their presence as an open space corridor is plainly visible on aerial photos of the District. 814.2[^814.2] *See the Upper Northeast Element for more information on these properties.* Several sites along the path of the McMillan to Fort Totten open space network are currently under consideration for development. As detailed plans are developed for these sites, the District should take an active role in conserving the connected open space network as a historic, ecological, aesthetic, and recreational resource. 814.3[^814.3] Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr.’s Highway Plan for the District created two kinds of boulevards and parkways that are part of a larger park and open space system. Some broad boulevards—including Nebraska Avenue, South Dakota Avenue, and Minnesota Avenue—connect parks to the Potomac and Anacostia rivers. Winding parkways along ridges, in valleys, or other roadways leading into large parks include Reno Road, Arkansas Avenue, and Alabama Avenue. These boulevards and parkways, enhanced by circle and triangle parks, should be preserved and maintained as elements of the larger park and open space system. Additionally, although parkways were not intended or designed to be major transportation arteries, they also currently function as primary transportation routes. 814.4[^814.4] [^813.17]: 813.17 [^p40-814]: 814 [^814.1]: 814.1 [^814.2]: 814.2 [^814.3]: 814.3 [^814.4]: 814.4 Continued enhancement and preservation of open space networks in other parts of the District are also important. These networks include the forested greenbelt along Oxon Run, the woodlands and wetlands around Oxon Cove (extending south into Maryland), and the wooded areas extending from Westmoreland Circle to the Potomac River (including Dalecarlia Reservoir). 814[^.5] #### Policy PROS-3.3.1: North-Central Open Space Network Preserve and enhance the historic open space network extending from McMillan Reservoir to Fort Totten. As land use changes in this area, an integrated system of permanent open spaces and improved parks should be maintained or created. 814[^.6] #### Policy PROS-3.3.2: Other Open Space Networks Recognize the recreational, scenic, environmental, and historic value of other interconnected or linear open spaces in the District, including Oxon Run, Oxon Cove, and the Dalecarlia Reservoir area. 814[^.7] #### Policy PROS-3.3.3: Small Park and Open Space Cluster Improvements Prioritize improvements of small open spaces in areas with limited access to parks and open space, and a growing population. Apply common themes, such as sustainability, placemaking, or connectivity to plan, enhance, and maintain the small parks as a system. 814[^.8] *See the Environment Protection Element for more information on the use of pollinator gardens in small parks and open spaces.* #### Policy PROS-3.3.4: Small Parks Database Develop a shared database of small parks, as defined by the CapitalSpace Plan, to inform coordination efforts between agencies and with the public. The database should include data on ownership, size, location, function, level of use, historic or cultural value, commemorative elements, programs, and condition. Assess existing agency jurisdiction for certain small parks so that each parcel is managed effectively to meet District and/or federal objectives and clarify the responsibilities of the managing agencies. 814[^.9] #### Policy PROS-3.3.5: Boulevards and Parkways Balance the transportation needs and safety standards of modern roadways with the preservation of resources and of scenic parkway goals to minimize impacts on viewsheds and natural and cultural resources that comprise the parkway landscape. 814[^.10] *See the Urban Design Element for additional information on parkways.* #### Policy PROS-3.3.6: Enlivening Cemeteries Explore using cemeteries for passive open space. Collaborate with cemetery administrators to reconnect the burial grounds to the surrounding neighborhoods for greater public access. 814[^.11] CITYWIDE ELEMENTS *Action PROS-3.3.A: Creating Washington, DC’s Central Park* Work with the federal government and institutional and open space landowners to create a linear system of parks and open space extending from Bryant Street on the south to Fort Totten on the north. This system should be created from existing large publicly-owned and institutional tracts, as well as adjacent triangle parks, cemeteries, and rights-of-way. 814.12 *See the Rock Creek East and Mid-City elements for additional information on this network. 814.8* *Action PROS-3.3.B: Boulevards and Parkways* Preserve and maintain boulevards and parkways as elements of the larger park and open space system. Proposed improvements and maintenance projects along trails and parkways should minimize impacts on viewsheds and be sensitive to the natural and historic qualities that make them significant. 81413 ### PROS-3.4 Connecting the District Through Trails [^p42-815] Trails and linear parks are an important part of the open space network. They link the District’s open spaces to one another and provide access between neighborhoods and nature. In some cases, they provide stream buffers or visual edges within communities. There are many different kinds of trails serving a range of recreational and transportation functions. Recent trail planning efforts have focused on improving bicycle mobility and waterfront access, and on showcasing the District’s cultural, historic, and scenic resources. Trail planning is an integral part of park and open space planning. It is a means of improving access to parks and developing new trails within parks. 815.1 Key trail-building initiatives include the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail and Fort Circle Parks Hiker-Biker Trail (both referenced in the previous section), the Metropolitan Branch Trail between Union Station and Silver Spring, the Watts Branch Trail, the Georgetown Waterfront Trail, the Broad Branch Road NW connection between the Western Ridge Trail and Soapstone Valley Trail, and the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail (PHNST). The PHNST is of particular interest, as it is one of the country’s 22 scenic national trails and includes multiple strands extending from the Chesapeake Bay to western Pennsylvania. Several of these strands pass through Washington, DC. 815.2 The Bicycle Element of moveDC, released in 2014, includes many recommendations to improve bicycle facilities and infrastructure, such as expanding and upgrading the network of shared-use paths to eliminate bicycle network gaps, and facilitating and supporting development of regional and national trail routes. Additional details on the Bicycle Element of moveDC may be found in the Transportation Element of this Comprehensive Plan. 815.3 [^p42-815]: 815 Figure 8.5 # Trail Improvements Recommended by moveDC [^815.4] | | | :--- | | Anacostia Park Trail/Prince George’s County’s Colmar Manor Park Trail | | Gallatin Street NE Trail/Prince George’s County’s Trail Connection to West Hyattsville Metrorail Station | | Long Bridge Trail/Mount Vernon Trail in Arlington County | | New York Avenue NE Trail/Prince George’s County’s Colmar Manor Park Trail | | Oxon Run Trail/Prince George’s County’s Oxon Run Trail | | Pennsylvania Avenue SE Trail/Prince George’s County’s Pennsylvania Avenue Bicycle Lane/Trail | | Rock Creek Park (Beach Drive NW) Trail/Montgomery County’s Rock Creek Trail | | Suitland Parkway Trail into Prince George’s County | | South Capitol Street Trail into Oxon Hill Farm and Prince George’s County | | Dalecarlia Parkway shared use path | ### Policy PROS-3.4.1: Trail Network Develop a network of trails, paths, and linear parks to link the District’s open space areas and improve access to open space. Trails and paths should provide a safe and convenient way for residents to experience Washington, DC’s scenery and natural beauty on foot or by bicycle. [^815.5] ### Policy PROS-3.4.2: Linear Park Connections Work with the federal government to improve connections between the open spaces within the District of Columbia through land acquisition and park dedication, particularly where gaps in the District’s open space network exist. Attention should be given to acquisitions that better connect the Fort Circle Parks and improve shoreline access. [^815.6] ### Policy PROS-3.4.3: Preserving Natural Features Preserve the scenic qualities of trails and the parklands they traverse. This includes designing trails to reduce erosion and tree removal and preserving the integrity of the settings that make each trail unique. [^815.7] [^815.4]: 815.4 [^815.5]: 815.5 [^815.6]: 815.6 [^815.7]: 815.7 #### Policy PROS-3.4.4: Trails in Underutilized Rights-of-Way Develop multiuse trails in underutilized rights-of-way, including surplus railroad corridors, undeveloped street rights-of-way, and possibly alleys. 815.8[^815.8] #### Policy PROS-3.4.5: Trail Dedication Require trail dedication, as appropriate, on privately-owned development sites along the District’s streams, waterfronts, and linear parks. 815.9[^815.9] #### Policy PROS-3.4.6: Trails and Rivers New development along the Anacostia and Potomac rivers should provide public right-of-way for trail connections and extensions where needed, and to construct trails according to applicable design standards and guidelines. 815.10[^815.10] #### Policy PROS-3.4.7: Trails and the Environment Limit the effects of trails on natural areas and open space by using environmentally responsible building materials, paving to prevent erosion where necessary, and locating new trails in areas that will minimize the degradation of sensitive environmental areas. Recognize that trails have broader environmental benefits, such as reducing vehicular traffic and emissions. 815.11[^815.11] #### Policy PROS-3.4.8: Multijurisdictional Coordination Work closely with other jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) to provide a regional system of trails. Continually seek to connect District trails with those in bordering jurisdictions and complete a regional system of trails. 815.12[^815.12] ### Action PROS-3.4.A: Bicycle Trail Implementation Initiate focused trail planning and construction efforts to eliminate gaps in the bicycle trail network and to improve substandard trails, as itemized in moveDC. Coordinate with NPS on trails for which both DDOT and NPS have responsibility. Support District and federal agencies, including DDOT and NPS, in developing, funding, and building multiuse trails within select parks that can connect to the District-wide trail system. Work with NPS to align District planning and implementation efforts with the NPS National Capital Region Paved Trails Study (2016), which calls for coordination with local jurisdictions to advance trail projects that contribute to the success of the regional trail network. 815.13[^815.13] ### Action PROS-3.4.B: District-wide Bicycle Network In support of Sustainable DC, continue to develop a District-wide 100-mile bicycle lane network. Prioritize bicycle connections to parks and recreation facilities. 815.14[^815.14] [^815.8]: 815.8 [^815.9]: 815.9 [^815.10]: 815.10 [^815.11]: 815.11 [^815.12]: 815.12 [^815.13]: 815.13 [^815.14]: 815.14 *Action PROS-3.4.C: Signage and Parking* Provide more consistent and unified signage along the District’s trails to improve their identity and accessibility. Provide secure bike parking at trailheads and key destinations. [^815.15] *Action PROS-3.4.D: Water Trails* Continue to develop designated water trails and water access points in the Potomac and Anacostia rivers for travel by canoe, kayak, and other paddlecraft. [^815.16] ## PROS-4 Maximizing Assets [^p45-816] The Parks and Recreation Master Plan estimated that meeting the projected parks and recreation needs of the District would require $1.2 billion in capital funds over the next 20 years. The District government has neither the land nor the dollars to completely fill parkland gaps and meet future recreational needs on its own. In addition to capital costs, competing budget needs make it difficult to deliver optimal levels of services, maintenance, and programming. In 2015, the District spent about $162 per capita, per year on its park system. While this was slightly above the average for large U.S. cities, more resources may be required to meet District goals for quality and equity. Through increased investment, collaboration with the federal government, and community partnerships, non-traditional forms of support can be leveraged to dramatically improve access to open space and recreational services. It is important to foster agreements with the federal government, public and private schools, local colleges and universities, major employers, and others in the private sector in support of the District’s efforts to broaden recreational choices for all residents. [^816.1] Maximizing assets also means redefining open space to include more than just parkland. Broadly defined, open space includes cemeteries, golf courses, reservoirs, institutions, parkways, military bases, and even private lawns and backyards. In this context, the value of open space may be its contribution to the District’s form rather than its use for recreation. Preserving a balance between development and open space is important in all District neighborhoods and essential to the health of the community. Similarly, provisions for high-quality open space in new development—including amenities such as balconies, courtyards, and landscaping—is important to the psychological well-being of future residents and the aesthetic qualities of the District. [^816.2] <
> Open spaces such as Congressional Cemetery—while not public parks—serve as important open space assets, particularly where conventional parks are in short supply. [^815.15]: 815.15 [^815.16]: 815.16 [^p45-816]: 816 [^816.1]: 816.1 [^816.2]: 816.2 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### CapitalSpace Over 23 percent of Washington, DC’s land area is devoted to parks and open spaces, ranging from the formal circles and squares established by the L’Enfant Plan to neighborhood pocket parks, large, forested stream valley corridors, recreational centers, and waterfront parks. Planning, ownership, and management of these different areas are provided by different branches of the District government, the federal government, and, occasionally, nonprofit organizations. 817.3a DPR, NCPC, the DC Office of Planning (OP), and NPS joined together for the CapitalSpace Initiative to establish a shared planning framework to address all of the parks and open spaces within the District. 817.3b CapitalSpace is an opportunity to achieve a seamless system of high-quality parks and open spaces meeting both national and local needs; addressing the often-competing demands placed on these spaces; clarifying their appropriate uses; providing established and new neighborhoods access to adequate parkland; and developing strategies to best use scarce resources to design, program, and maintain parks and open spaces according to the highest possible standards. 817.3c ## PROS-4.1 Maximizing Access Through Partnerships [^p46-817] The need for joint planning to coordinate federal and District open space planning has been mentioned throughout this element. In 2005, the District, NPS, and NCPC launched the CapitalSpace Initiative to increase access to green space for District residents and visitors (see the CapitalSpace text box). It focuses on improving access to parks in neighborhoods where they are in short supply, such as Central and Northeast DC. NCPC continues to work with partnering agencies to implement the plan’s recommendations, including the coordination of planning and management of small parks among the various park and planning agencies for efficiency and the promotion of investments across all small park resources. In 2017, NPS developed the Small Parks Management Strategies Plan, which lays out several management options to achieve that goal. In addition, NCPC maintains the Parks and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital (Federal Elements), which includes policies for improved coordination between the federal and District governments. Similar joint planning and design exercises should be pursued with the District’s public schools and with other local governments in the region. 817.1 More recently, public-private partnerships have been recognized as a way to develop and operate new parks. Such partnerships can facilitate the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of park and recreational facilities, offering a win-win for local government and private partners. Typically, the private partner provides the capital funds or operating services in exchange for a return on investment over the life of the project. The public benefits by getting new facilities at a lower cost. Recent park improvements at the Yards and Canal Parks were completed in this manner, creating some of the District’s most popular recreation spaces and facilities. A number of ingredients are required for success, including a sound business plan, realistic revenue forecasts, a commitment to programming and maintenance, and sustained and equitable access for all District residents. 817.2 There are several different forms of public-private partnerships. Real estate development provides a range of opportunities, such as the renovation of aging recreation centers in exchange for allowing private development above it or adjacent to it. Allowing private concessions in parks or in recreation centers is another example. In other cases, recreation center hours might be extended to allow a third party to [^p46-817]: 817 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S provide services. The District could also lease space in its recreation centers to nonprofit service providers with missions that are compatible with the mission of DPR, such as health and wellness organizations. In all of these cases, such partnerships must preserve the fundamental function of parks as open spaces and places for public gathering. 817.3[^817.3] The philanthropic community is another important partner. Foundations, “friends” groups, and other charitable or advocacy organizations offer significant potential for funding. Nonprofit service providers also provide recreational facilities and programs for District residents. Groups like the United Planning Organization, Friendship House Association, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and the YMCA/YWCA fill gaps in local recreational services as they pursue their missions to foster the spiritual, mental, and physical development of individuals, families, and communities. Local colleges and universities also provide athletic programs and community services, many for free or at greatly reduced costs. These entities should not be viewed as competitors to DPR, but as partners that can help increase recreational access for all. 817.4[^817.4] Building a world-class park system is not only a governmental responsibility. It is a collective effort that requires the contribution of private businesses, institutions, nonprofits, residents, and community organizations. 817.5[^817.5] ### Policy PROS-4.1.1: National Park Service Partnerships Promote expanded partnerships with NPS and other District agencies to broaden the range of recreational opportunities available to District residents. 817.6[^817.6] ### Policy PROS-4.1.2: Joint Planning and Management Strategies Develop joint planning and management strategies for all parks for which the District and NPS have overlapping responsibilities. Use coordinated standards for lighting, fencing, walkways, maintenance, and security in these areas. 817.7[^817.7] ### Policy PROS-4.1.3: Greener, More Accessible Schoolyards Work with DCPS to improve the appearance and usefulness of schoolyards and outdoor recreational facilities such as playgrounds and athletic fields. Strive to make such areas more park-like in character, with increased tree canopy, especially in communities without access to District-operated parks. 817.8[^817.8] *See the Educational Facilities Element for policies on joint-use agreements between the District government and DCPS.* [^817.3]: 817.3 [^817.4]: 817.4 [^817.5]: 817.5 [^817.6]: 817.6 [^817.7]: 817.7 [^817.8]: 817.8 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS #### *Policy PROS-4.1.4: Nonprofit Recreational Facilities* Support the development of nonprofit recreational facilities, such as Boys & Girls Clubs, to meet the recreational needs of District residents and complement the facilities provided by the District. 817[^.9] #### *Policy PROS-4.1.5: Regional Open Space Planning* Support federal, interstate, and multi-jurisdictional efforts to preserve open space and create interconnected greenbelts and hiking trails within and around the Washington region. 817[^.10] #### *Action PROS-4.1.A: Capital Space* Complete implementation of the CapitalSpace Initiative, which provides a coordinated strategy for open space and park management between the District and federal government. 817[^.11] #### *Action PROS-4.1.B: Expanding Partnerships* Provide an annual list of parks and recreation partnerships, including “friends” groups, program partners, inter-agency government partners, and sponsors that support District parks, recreation facilities, and programs. In concert with community members and agency staff, create an action plan to recruit new business, philanthropic, nonprofit, and governmental partners in the region to enhance park and recreation services benefitting residents and visitors. 817[^.12] #### *Action PROS-4.1.C: Sponsorships and Foundations* Explore opportunities for financial sponsorship of park and recreation facilities by corporate and nonprofit partners, foundations, and “friends” organizations. 817[^.13] #### *Action PROS-4.1.D: Joint-Use Partnerships* Consider alternative joint-use partnership models with DCPS and nonprofit service providers and select and implement the most effective approaches. 817[^.14] #### *Action PROS-4.1.E: Cooperative Management Agreements* Develop a District-wide strategy for securing cooperative management agreements with NPS and other federal partners to update, operate, and maintain federally controlled parks in Washington, DC. 817[^.15] ### PROS-4.2 Recognizing the Value of Functional Open Space 818[^] Functional open space refers to undeveloped land used for purposes other than parks and conservation. Such space comprises hundreds of acres of public and private land in the District, including sites that are valued for their large trees, scenic vistas, and natural beauty. Some of these sites are [^.9]: 817.9 [^.10]: 817.10 [^.11]: 817.11 [^.12]: 817.12 [^.13]: 817.13 [^.14]: 817.14 [^.15]: 817.15 [^]: 818 C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S regarded as public amenities, with features like hiking trails, lawns for picnics, and other forms of recreation. Such spaces are particularly important in neighborhoods like Brookland, where conventional parks are in short supply. There and elsewhere in the District, the grounds of seminaries, hospitals, and cemeteries are informally serving some of the functions usually associated with a neighborhood park. 818.1[^p49-1] Retaining public access to these assets is important to the well-being of surrounding neighborhoods. Even where public access is not possible, the role of these spaces in improving the physical environment and shaping the visual quality of District neighborhoods should be acknowledged. 818.2[^p49-2] #### Policy PROS-4.2.1: Institutional Open Space Encourage local institutions—such as private and parochial schools, colleges and universities, seminaries, hospitals, and churches and cemeteries—to allow the cooperative use of their open space lands for the benefit of District residents. Explore funding and insurance mechanisms that would incentivize and preserve local institutions that choose to provide cooperative use. Ensure that cooperative uses recognize and respect institution missions and operations. 818.3[^p49-3] #### Policy PROS-4.2.2: Utility Open Space Recognize the value of undeveloped land associated with utilities, reservoirs, and other infrastructure facilities in providing visual buffers for adjacent neighborhoods and opportunities for recreational trails. 818.4[^p49-4] #### Policy PROS-4.2.3: Parkways and Medians Enhance the visual and open space qualities of Washington, DC’s streets and highways through the landscaping of medians, traffic islands, and rights-of-way. If sufficient right-of-way is available, consider use of these spaces for active recreation. 818.5[^p49-5] #### Policy PROS-4.2.4: Freeway Joint Use Where compatible with adjacent land uses, support the use of land under or adjacent to freeways or other limited-access roadways for passive open space, public art, or other uses that enhance the usefulness and appearance of such land. 818.6[^p49-6] #### Policy PROS-4.2.5: Podium Parks Consider the development of podium-type open spaces and parks in the air rights over below-grade freeways and urban federal highways, including the I-395 through Downtown Washington, DC, the Southeast-Southwest Freeway near Capitol Hill, and the underpasses of North Capitol Street. 818.7[^p49-7] [^p49-1]: 818.1 [^p49-2]: 818.2 [^p49-3]: 818.3 [^p49-4]: 818.4 [^p49-5]: 818.5 [^p49-6]: 818.6 [^p49-7]: 818.7 CITYWIDE ELEMENTS ### PROS-4.3 Open Space and the Cityscape [^p50-819] Improving open space is part of the District’s broader vision of building green and healthy communities. The Sustainable DC Plan envisions a District with high-quality, well-connected habitats on land and water providing strong corridors and ecosystems for wildlife. The following policies seek to increase the amount of open space in Washington, DC, and preserve open space where it exists today. Although these spaces are often small, they collectively make an important contribution to the livability of the District. [^819.1] Zoning provisions seek to retain open space by setting lot coverage limits and front, rear, and side yard requirements. The maximum area that may be covered by structures varies from 40 percent to 75 percent in residential zones and from 60 to 100 percent in commercial zones. Creation or preservation of open space is also defined as a public benefit or public amenity for the purpose of granting additional density in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). [^819.2] #### Policy PROS-4.3.1: Open Space in the Downtown Landscape Sustain a high-quality network of downtown pocket parks, courtyards, arcades, plazas, and rooftop gardens that provide space for recreation, scenic beauty, and outdoor activities for workers, visitors, and residents. [^819.3] #### Policy PROS-4.3.2: Plazas in Commercial Districts Encourage the development of high-quality, multifunctional, and publicly accessible outdoor plazas around Metro station entrances, in neighborhood business districts, around civic buildings, and in other areas with high volumes of pedestrian activity. Design plazas to reflect neighborhood preferences, to serve as gathering spaces, and to function as green infrastructure. Use the PUD process to promote such spaces for public benefit and to encourage tree planting, public art, sculpture, seating areas, and other amenities within such spaces. [^819.4] #### Policy PROS-4.3.3: Common Open Space in New Development Work with developers for new and rehabilitated buildings to include green roofs, rain gardens, landscaped open areas, and other common open space areas that provide visual relief and aesthetic balance. [^819.5] #### Policy PROS-4.3.4: Preservation of Open Space in Multi-family Development Recognize the implicit value of the lawns, courtyards, gardens, and other open areas that surround many of the District’s older high- and medium-density residential buildings. Discourage the practice of building on these areas if the historic proportions and character of the original buildings would be compromised. [^819.6] [^p50-819]: [^819.1]: [^819.2]: [^819.3]: [^819.4]: [^819.5]: [^819.6]: #### Policy PROS-4.3.5: Residential Yards Recognize the value of residential yards as a component of the District’s open space system and discourage increased coverage of such areas by buildings and impervious surfaces while balancing that value against other District priorities such as the creation of affordable housing. 819[^.7] i American College of Sports Medicine, 2018. ii Trust for Public Land, 2018. iii Policies for National Park Service lands are contained in individual General Management Plans prepared by NPS, and are also included in the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. There have also been several joint District-federal park planning initiatives launched since the 1960s. iv Trust for Public Land, 2018. [^.7]: 819.7 (blank page)