I saw this over on JDLand:
According to the presentation, the new office building would use the same design as the condo building, with a few tweaks (they appear to be wanting to get rid of the turret in the original design). But because of the switch to office space, the number of parking spaces required goes up to 30, far more than the 13 in the condo design. According to the architects, groundwater and possible soil contamination issues (since a gas station used to be located there) would make digging two extra levels of parking prohibitively expensive, and so they are seeking relief from the 30-space requirement. (And, for those wondering, the garage entrance would be on L Street, not Eighth or Virginia).
Here's a project where if the developer doesn't get relief from a minimum off-street parking requirement, the project is in serious jeopardy of not being built. The additional 17 spaces are the difference between a new office building with street-level retail in a walkable district, and an empty lot as it is now. This is in a neighborhood where some streets have no RPP and no parking restrictions at all, and others have performance meters. Installing performance meters on the remaining uncontrolled blocks will control any spillover effects and provide revenue for the district.
Anybody want to argue now that parking minimums don't have any costs?