We are at a turning point in our fiscal crisis, the long-term failure of road expansion, rising household transportation costs, loss of Virginia’s scenic and historic landscape, and the impacts of climate change. It is time for a new approach.
Category: Resources
Testimony: Support for Lutherville Station TOD Designation (Baltimore County)
Transit-connected, walkable communities are highly desirable to many people—and that makes transit, and the land around it, a valuable asset that Baltimore County can better leverage for public benefit.
Testimony: Amend CB 92-2026, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) requirements in Prince George’s County
September 14, 2026
Hon. Wala Blegay, Chair, PHED Committee, Prince George’s County Council
Wayne K. Curry Administration Building, 1301 McCormick Drive, Largo, MD 20774
RE: Amend CB 092-2026, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) requirements
Dear members of the Committee:
Please accept this testimony on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. CSG advocates for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Washington, DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all. We also support and work closely with RISE Prince George’s, a group of county residents and allies advocating for policies and practices that build shared, sustainable prosperity in Prince George’s County by creating safe, walkable, inclusive and transit-oriented communities.
We have several concerns about this bill which could create unnecessary barriers to creating an accessory dwelling unit on a single family detached house lot.
- Owner occupancy – we oppose this requirement as an impediment to creating ADUs. However, if this requirement is implemented, we ask that the provisions for exceptions be broadened to allow more time for an absent owner to rent out the property. We recognize the bill has created a path for new construction, which is welcome.
- Notice – we oppose the provision for an informational notice. The purpose of this is unclear. It creates a new, special notice provision that is an unnecessary burden for an owner who is building and ADU. This notice provision treats the action like a partial variance or special exception process – yet a new process would have to be invented.
- Short term rental – we oppose special restrictions on short term rental for ADUs. We recommend that ADU rentals be governed by county law on short term rentals. Short term rentals should be governed by rental licensing provisions.
- Woodland, Wildlife Conservation and Tree Canopy Coverage ordinances – we oppose this special provision for ADUs to be restricted from variances, waivers. We recommend that the ADU be subject to the same standards in these ordinances.
- Imperviousness surface requirements – we ask that the Council ensure this provision be consistent with existing treatment of single family residential uses. We suggest that the provision for adding a small amount of imperviousness could be addressed by setting a threshold under which new construction can comply with existing permitted imperviousness. We also recognize that the Planning Department comments recommend deleting this provision, as lot coverage can be assessed through the building permit site plan.
We urge the Committee to support the creation of ADUs, without adding costly and complicated requirements that will have a significant impact on the ability of a resident to build an ADU.
ADUs offer many benefits to individual families and to the community. ADUs help meet a variety of needs, and often help provide new types of housing close to in-demand locations like Metro stations and downtowns.
ADUs benefit the environment by providing smaller, less costly housing in an existing neighborhood already served by existing infrastructure. This creates more affordable housing options, while better utilizing existing public investments. These smaller homes help fulfill housing needs such as caregiver housing for an aging homeowner or for an adult child with a disability. An ADU can also help a young family afford to have a larger home by allowing them to rent out the unit until they are ready to use the expanded living space for themselves.
We urge the Committee to remove the burdensome requirements from this bill so we can encourage this flexible type of housing. It’s hard enough to build an ADU, it might be impossible with costly, complicated restrictions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Cort, DC and Prince George’s Policy Director
CSG News: Let’s get together!
Great communities thrive when we come together, and this season offers plenty of opportunities to connect, from our popular walking tours and online action-taking opportunities to, of course, our favorite night of the year: Smart Growth Social!
TESTIMONY: CSG Support for ADUs in Prince George’s
CSG strongly supports CB 74, to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a matter of right on lots with single-family detached homes.
LETTER: CSG and M4All urge veto override for Hedrick appointment
We were deeply disappointed to learn that the County Executive once again plans to veto the appointment of Planning Board Member James Hedrick.
TESTIMONY: Comments on the Draft RFK Campus Master Plan, DC
August 14, 2026
Ms. Anita Cozart, Director, DC Office of Planning
Via: OP.RFKMasterPlan@dc.gov
RE: Comment on RFK Campus Master Plan – Public Comment Draft
Dear Director Cozart:
Please accept these comments on the housing and mobility components of the draft RFK Campus Master Plan on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG). CSG advocates for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Washington, DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all.
In summary:
- Affordable Housing – CSG reiterates our support for and expectation that all the housing and affordable housing requirements are met, phased together as the redevelopment plan builds out.
- Gold Line and Transit Center – CSG is concerned that the Gold Line and Transit Center are not given sufficient priority, based on low funding commitments and lack of specificity for location and design in the draft Campus Master Plan. We urge clear commitments to: A) funding final design, construction and operations of the Gold Line BRT service to Union station, and B) the Transit Center’s location, design and buildout, which is the essential platform for attracting and efficiently boarding riders for the Gold Line. The goal should be to make this a transit-first stadium, where motor vehicle parking and private vehicles are minimized and sustainable modes of access maximized.
We endorse the comments of the RFK Stadium Coalition, which represents residents and stakeholders working to ensure the RFK redevelopment delivers lasting public good through equitable development, environmental stewardship, affordable housing, and fiscal responsibility. We also endorse WABA’s helpful comments on the draft plan.
Below are CSG’s detailed comments on housing and mobility.
- Affordable housing
CSG supports the overall commitment to 6,500 new homes, of which 30% will be affordable at 30% and 60% median family income. The income targeting should be explicitly stated in the plan, which is a requirement in B26-0288 – Robert F. Kennedy Campus Redevelopment Act of 2025.
CSG supports the plan’s phasing commitment for affordable units, that “To ensure the construction of affordable units keeps pace with market-rate units, the provision of affordable units should be phased so that no less than 30 percent of residential units built at any time are affordable, and the zoning for the campus should ensure compliance with this requirement.” We expect these commitments to be met.
- Transportation for a transit-first stadium
Planned Stadium-Armory Metro station upgrades are critical
We commend the DC and WMATA commitments to upgrades to double the capacity of Stadium-Armory Metro station for $300 million. We appreciate that these Stadium-Armory Metro Station improvements will include elevators, escalators, stairs, mezzanines, and an expanded north entrance. These improvements will help distribute crowds for orderly, efficient, and safe station operations. These upgrades will be crucial to the success of the stadium as well as improved service for existing residents and future development.
Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): DC government must commit to funding final design, construction and operations
We strongly support the planning and full implementation of the Gold Line BRT line as a central component of the transportation strategy which relies on transit to provide the largest mode of access. The Gold Line BRT is needed to provide a fast, reliable, high-capacity connection to the Red Line at Union Station in Phase 1. This is to be center-running, dedicated bus lanes on H Street/Benning Road NE to deliver capacity, convenient, and competitive travel time to Union Station for transfers to the Red Line, Amtrak, MARC, and VRE. The Gold Line-Union Station connection would reduce pressure on Stadium-Armory Metro station, served by the Orange/Blue/Silver lines, and replace and improve on the discontinued DC Streetcar.
We commend DC’s $5 million allocation for the 30% Gold Line design. However, deeply concerning is that no funds are identified for the final design, construction, or operations of the Gold Line. DC must identify and program all necessary funding by spring of 2027 to be ready for opening day in 2030.
Transit Center: show the site and bus priority lanes, and articulate the DC government and Master Plan commitment to implementing it
We are greatly concerned about the vagueness of commitment to the Transit Center in this land use master plan. The Transit Center is essential to attracting and efficiently boarding post-game riders on the Gold Line.
Per the draft Master Plan:
WMATA’s RFK Campus/Kingman Park Transit Improvements Study recommends a Campus Transit Center station to be located in or near Kingman Commons. The station will have access to dedicated bus lanes and other priority infrastructure that link RFK to Union Station. (Final location and design of bike and bus transit facilities will be determined through future feasibility and engineering studies.) (page 59)
The Transit Center must be shown as a specific site and design concept in the Campus Master Plan. The plan must clearly commit to the Transit Center and the street design with bus priority lanes connecting to Benning Road to ensure high-performance BRT that achieves the needed ridership and reliability. This Master Plan should state that the DC government and this Master Plan are wholly committed to the Transit Center — not just mention that WMATA has made recommendations for a transit station.
Other Mobility Recommendations
Vehicle Parking
This stadium should be a transit-first stadium. This means giving priority to the modes used by the largest share of fans to access games — via Metrorail and Metrobus, along with bicycling, and walking. Motor vehicle parking should be limited. The Master Plan should minimize surface parking as much as possible, make the pause on a third parking garage permanent, and focus on improving access to the area by improved transit, bicycle networks, bicycle parking, and an enhanced walk environment.
Curbside management for for-hire vehicles
Taxis and for-hire vehicles should be managed to protect the priority movements of buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. Since we fully expect some visitors to use this mode, we should have a plan in place to manage their access and impacts.
Bike network
We agree with the analysis and recommendations that WABA has provided. Bicycling has great potential to supplement transit access to the stadium if the Master Plan can provide high-quality bicycle facilities including protected bike lanes, convenient bike routes, and convenient, secure, high-capacity parking. The District must create safe cycling connections to areas surrounding the RFK Campus in time for the expected 2030 stadium opening. The District must provide fully protected bikeways across the Anacostia River along Pennsylvania Ave SE, East Capitol St, and Benning Road NE, as shown in the RFK Campus Context Plan, with fully protected bikeways extending into Wards 7 and 8 along those major arterials. Bike share and bike parking are essential, including bikeshare docking stations and bike-valet for events.
Serving a neighborhood
While much of the planning is focused on the stadium and what happens when an event occurs, the District needs to ensure that the existing and new neighborhood can function at all times. For example, significant amounts of bus service will need to operate in the new mixed-use districts every day with or without a game. This bus service needs to be able to get through all day, every day. Similarly, bicycle and walk access should be supported every day.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Cort
DC & Prince George’s Policy Director
CSG News: Two big wins for housing
With your support, we secured some major wins for housing and transit-oriented development, including in Fairfax, Virginia, and Montgomery, Maryland. Read on to learn more and see what’s coming up next!
Testimony: Support for Friendship Commons (GEICO Site), Maryland
The Friendship Commons development planned for Friendship Heights’ former GEICO campus will add 500+ homes, 10-foot bikeways and sidewalks, and new businesses and gathering spaces just one block from Metro’s Red Line.
Streamline development review in Prince George’s – reduce uncertainty & excessive process, oppose LDR 153-2026 (Maryland)
July 30, 2026
Prince George’s County Planning Board, M-NCPPC
1616 McCormick Drive, Largo MD Via: pgcpb@mncppc.org
RE: Oppose LDR 153-2026, reduce uncertainty & excessive process
Dear members of the Board:
The Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG), advocates for walkable, bikeable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities as the most sustainable and equitable way for the Washington, DC region to grow and provide opportunities for all. We also support and work closely with RISE Prince George’s, a group of county residents and allies advocating for policies and practices that build shared, sustainable prosperity in Prince George’s County by creating safe, walkable, inclusive and transit-oriented communities.
On behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, we urge the Planning Board to work with Planning Department staff and County Council members to create better development streamlining procedures instead of supporting this LDR. This LDR lacks legal soundness and misses key issues in improving the county’s development review process.
Prince George’s development review process is out of step with best practices. This harms the county by discouraging competitive, quality developers from wanting to take a chance on the county. It short changes community members who want to see planning turn into quality homes, and mixed use places.
The zoning rewrite was supposed to remove procedural burdens. The key goals of zoning rewrite were to streamline and create predictability. It was supposed to provide clear input from the public at the outset. The new zoning rules require a pre-application meeting with the community which is designed to get stakeholders’ feedback at the beginning of the process — before the development team had invested in costly plans and advanced designs. Before this requirement, the community often found out about a project in their area with a Planning Board hearing notice.
As part of the modernization of the zoning regulations — the zoning rewrite set a clear baseline that could be reviewed administratively. The code was made more regulatory, providing more detailed, form-based standards.
The new zoning code would streamline review with increased public engagement on the front end, followed by administrative, matter-of-right review that did not require additional steps of discretionary or political-level review on the back end. However, the administrative unpredictability was retained through “election to review” or “call up” by the County Council. This meant zoning regulations were more detailed but all the procedural uncertainties remained. This is not the improvement and streamlining we had hoped for.
Far more development review could be done administratively. Detailed Site Plans (DSPs) are often a poor use of everyone’s time. The staff report for LDR 153-2026 recommends exempting single-family detached and three family dwellings from DSP review, citing the negligible value added after a subdivision review, which addresses all the major impacts and requirements. Two-family dwellings could also be grouped with townhouse dwellings and the DSP threshold increased.
Most importantly, retaining the District Council election to review an application or “call up” — stands out as a major impediment to predictability for the review process. The public engagement is on the front side of planning and individual projects. Call up generates uncertainty on the back end that takes applicable laws, zoning regulations, and master plan recommendations into a political realm. If the county cannot catch up to other jurisdictions by eliminating call up, it should at least set new parameters around it to limit the downsides of this approach.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Cort
DC & Prince George’s Policy Director