I share the view of those who see this plan as an exciting opportunity to celebrate Alexandria’s arts and history and to open up the waterfront to greater public access and new parks. As the City Council representative to our Arts Commission, I am particularly excited about the new arts and archeology features planned for the waterfront as well as having new parkland to visit with my family and a new promenade to run and walk along.
And I am particularly pleased that the National Park Service endorsed this plan. For decades, the City has been working with the National Park Service to improve public access and the public experience along our waterfront. The adopted plan is aligned with this multiple decades of work and is consistent with the Park Service’s expectations for public access to the waterfront. I know the City is looking forward to working with the Park Service on implementation.
I’d like to take a moment to address a few of the concerns I heard in recent weeks and to share my view of the next steps for this plan. This is a long letter, but it is not comprehensive. If you want to discuss anything in more detail, please let me know.
The greatest area of disagreement in the plan was the proposal to change zoning along the waterfront. The zoning changes had three components: new zoning controls, new uses and changes to the density allowed on eleven different pieces of land that comprise four distinct warehouse areas.
First, the plan adds new rules to control new development that:
- increase the amount of open space any development provides, including increased public space along the waterfront;
- require new, stringent design guidelines;
- require any new development to provide funding for waterfront improvements (parks, flood control, museums, etc);
- add unprecedented rules to manage and limit new restaurants so as to minimize their impact on residents;
- add new rules to ensure new development makes its parking available for public and neighborhood use, and;
- require that before any new development occurs, owners must first commit to the preservation of historic buildings on their property.
In the last few weeks, the Council expanded the plan’s development obligations on historic preservation and open space and clarified height restrictions on waterfront properties — properties in the Old Town historic district must follow already established Old Town height requirements. All of these rules are significantly more stringent than existed under current zoning. If the current zoning were allowed to stand, developers could have more easily removed historic buildings, would not have been required to make significant room for public open space, would have been able to build closer to the shoreline, and would have had minimal obligations for helping us build parks and other features that improve the waterfront. These new rules give us more waterfront access, stronger tools to protect historic buildings and increase access to the waterfront. And in my view, all of these will help the community manage any new development proposals that may be offered.
The second major zoning change is that hotels as well as arts & cultural institutions were specifically added as permitted uses in the zone. Despite some comments to the contrary, the city does expect this plan to result in new cultural uses along the waterfront and changed the zoning to be clear that this is a use we want. In response to concerns about hotels, the total number allowed has been reduced from four to two with under 150 rooms each. And the Council changed the plan’s emphasis from hotels to mixed-use development that balances residential space with commercial space and buffers current residents in Old Town from any new, active uses that could create noise or other quality-of-life issues.
I understand that some would prefer no hotels. And I know and respect that some also believe that town homes with less public water access or public open space under the previous zoning are preferred to hotels or to the new zoning controls described above. While I respect that view, I don’t think creating private residential enclaves along the waterfront is in the best interest of providing quality public access and use. Private residences will diminish our ability to host new festivals and events along the waterfront as residences will naturally have noise and other concerns about events right in their back-yard.
I also know that many would rather the City buy the warehouse buildings instead of allowing them to be developed at all. Again, I understand the desire to increase parkland. And I expect that the implementation of the Waterfront Plan may create opportunities to add additional open space. But as a custodian of the City’s finances, I can’t subscribe to a plan to buy or take private warehouses at the expense of our need to build new schools and provide fire services, our requirement to manage and pay annually to keep Metro running, and our need to manage other aging City infrastructure like our sewers and roads. The City is already spending millions of dollars to buy land along the waterfront for parks. Old Town is getting a larger share of City park preservation dollars than any other area of the City. The waterfront is important and deserves this investment, but we also have an obligation to look after the park needs of other areas of the City. In the interest of balance and fairness to the whole community, we can’t spend all of our limited resources in just one place. And I don’t believe the community is able to absorb the significant tax increases that would be needed to follow this approach.
Third, the new zoning includes an increase in square footage allowed on four warehouse sites in order to offset some of the costs of the new zoning controls and to help pay for the implementation of some (not all) aspects of the plan. This density is consistent with National Park Service’s longstanding expectations for development on those sites and it will help us to implement the plan. The plan does not expect that density will pay for all of the public improvements, but it is a component of making sure the parks and other features have a realistic chance of being implemented, especially given all of the other projects around the city that have need for resources. This plan will allow us to balance public investment and private investment through thoughtful public-private partnerships. But again, I understand that some would rather have town homes than public amenities that the density helps support. Or they believe the City should pay for it all. But that approach is not consistent with the way the City has worked to manage its AAA bond rating and financial stability over the decades. Throughout the City there are examples of fantastic park and infrastructure amenities paid for through partnerships with private property owners. Brenman Park, the new park, fields, firestation and bridge in Potomac Yard, new parks in Eisenhower Valley and around the City new sewer infrastructure and much more have all been paid for this way. Development done well and with proper design and height controls can be very compatible with Old Town and can bring significant public benefits. But we have to do it well. That is why I pushed for Board of Architectural review to have oversight over any new development along the waterfront. And it is why the City will be putting together a citizen-led implementation committee to oversee the project.
A number of people asked the City delay this plan until GenOn is ready to be planned and developed. I don’t agree with that view for a few reasons. First, the environmental clean-up costs of GenOn will be complicated and large. They deserve a focus and care and time to do right. The four warehouses at the center of the Waterfront Plan are not related to those issues at all. Second, GenOn will have significant issues to integrate with the GW Parkway, North Old Town and the Northeast neighborhood. Those neighbors should be at the center of that planning project. The Waterfront Plan is predominantly a south Old Town plan and comes with a separate set of important traffic and neighborhood issues. Third, I know some see GenOn as an opportunity to push all development north. Figuring out a way to manage all of the environmental and neighborhood issues on that site will be hard enough without trying to make it the custodian of every other issue in Old Town. And lastly, I want to see the city start work on the parks, public spaces, arts and other benefits in the Waterfront plan. I don’t think we accomplish anything by putting off that work.
The plan calls for the creation of new flood controls to address nuisance flooding that now plagues Old Town 100-150 times a year. This plan gives us a path forward to implement those improvements. Some have correctly pointed out that there is complicated engineering work needed to get these systems right and to make sure new controls don’t unintentionally compound large flood events. Everybody agrees with these concerns and as specific systems are designed, these and other engineering issues will be addressed.
Parking and traffic are big concerns with or without this new plan. Union Street needs better traffic management, and the residents of Old Town need better parking help. One of the first work products of the new plan will be the development of new traffic and parking systems to address these issues. And I have and will continue to push for better neighborhood parking controls to help residents in Old Town. While there is no silver bullet for any of these issues, we specifically added plans to look at residential parking hours and to add new community parking in any new development. And I believe implementing the waterfront walkway will help move people off of Union Street by giving them a new, beautiful waterfront to walk along instead of Union Street.
A number of people wrote me to ask for more time. In my view, the plan is a solid workplan for us to start implementing. As with any plan, new issues and ideas will come up. And plans do evolve through implementation. But while I would love it if everybody could find consensus on the questions of residential, hotel or mixed use as well as on the right density, I didn’t see any benefit to debating those issues indefinitely. With the divisiveness and hyperbole and attacks on the City and on community members on all sides of this issue in recent weeks, it has become clear to me that we had debated this plan thoroughly and that more time would make it even harder to work together. More time, in my view, would have only compounded the divisiveness in our City without bringing any new information or facts to the debate. I think there is a great opportunity for community collaboration as we work to implement this plan. I know there is more agreement than disagreement and that creative implementation can present more opportunities for common ground.
To that end, the City is going to create an implementation committee to oversee this plan. And I have asked that we create a non-profit that can help raise private funds to help implement the arts, cultural and parks elements of the plan. And it is my hope to play an active role in setting up that non-profit so we can get to work as quickly as possible.
Regardless of where you stand on the final plan, I am looking forward to working with all of you to make this a plan we can all be proud of. If you are skeptical, your skepticism will help us make sure implementation is done well. If you are excited, your energy will help us ensure we move forward.
Either way, I ask for your continued help and input as we work to create a wonderful waterfront for all of us to use and enjoy.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Rob Krupicka
