Compiled Public Comments | Submitted to Ncpc & Dcop
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
COMPILED PUBLIC COMMENTS | SUBMITTED TO NCPC & DCOP Includes written testimony and letters received by NCPC and DCOP by the close of the Phase 3 Public Comment Period on October 30, 2013. WRITTEN TESTIMONY Lindsley Williams George R. Clark Benedicte Aubrurn Janet Quigly, Capitol Hill Restoration Society Alma Gates, Neighbors United Trust Sue Hemberger Loretta Newman, Alliance to Preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington John Belferman Jim Schulman Richard Busch, Historic Districts Coalition Richard Houghton Dorn C. McGrath Jr. Gary Thompson, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3/4G02 Eugene Abravanel Joseph N. Grano, The Rhodes Tavern-DC Heritage Society Nancy MacWood, Committee of 100 William Haskett Sally L. Berk Laura Phinizy Roger K. Lewis Ben Klemens Kenan T. Fikri Jeff Utz, BF Saul Company and Goulston & Storrs Denis James, Kalorama Citizens Association Robert Robinson and Sherrill Berger, DC Solar United Neighborhoods (DCSUN) Robert T. Richards, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 7B C.L. Kraemer Roberta Faul-Zeitler Judy Chesser David C. Sobelsohn Erik Hein Tersh Boasberg Andrea Rosen ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS www.ncpc.gov/heightstudy/comments.php FORMAL LETTERS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS Cheryl Cort, Coalition for Smarter Growth Kindy French David R. Bender, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2D Donna Hays, Sheridan-Kalorama Historical Association, Inc. William M. Brown, Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia Marilyn J. Simon, Friendship Neighborhood Association Christopher H. Collins, DC Building Industry Association (DCBIA) Phyllis Myers, State Resource Strategies Penny Pagnao, DC Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3D National Coalition to Save Our Mall Christopher B. Leinberger, George Washington University Rob Nieweg, National Trust for Historic Preservation Reid Nelson, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The Developers Roundtable James C. Dinegar, Greater Washington Board of Trade Janet Quigley, Capitol Hill Restoration Society Mayra Addison, Preserve Our Green Space in Sheridan-Kalorama Mary Fitch and David T. Haresing, American Institute of Architects Washington John G. Parsons William N. Brown, Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia Christopher K. Chapin, Sheridan-Kalorama Neighborhood Council Tenleytown Neighbors Association Richard Busch, Historic Districts Coalition Nancy McWood, Committee of 100 on the Federal City Meg Maguire Frederick Harwood ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS www.ncpc.gov/heightstudy/comments.php WRITTEN TESTIMONY National Capital Planning Commission October 30, 2013 Hearing on the Draft Recommendation from the NCPC Executive Director and the Recommendation from D.C. Mayor Gray TESTIMONY OF GEORGE R. CLARK My name is George Clark. I am a 40 year resident of this City, drawn to it by its scale and beauty. I am a past Chair of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, a three time President of Federation of Citizens Associations, served 6 years on the Zoning Review Task Force, and am currently on the DDOT Transportation Planning Task Force. I urge you to reject the late and unvetted proposal from the Office of Planning and keep the Height of Buildings Act as it is, with perhaps further study of the penthouse issue as noted by the Staff Report, which I heartily endorse. I say unvetted because in none of the public meetings this past summer did OP give even a hint of this Manhattanization proposal to any of the citizens who attended. In fact OP denied that it had any intent to ask for so many tall buildings in so many places. And even with that, the large majority of those in attendance saw no reason to change the Height Act. And now OP goes directly to Rep. Issa, without even bothering to ask the citizens what they think. Some Home Rule issue. The people don’t want change so let’s do an end run around them in Congress! But OP tells us that we need tall buildings so that housing will be less expensive, you know, like in Manhattan or downtown Chicago. Recognizing the folly of this assertion, OP tries to justify it at page 14 of the Economic Analysis of the Height Master Plan from James Davis Construction (forget why you’d ask a construction company to do an economic analysis): While newly constructed higher-rise apartments are likely to have relatively high rents, expansion of the housing supply should result in lower rents if new supply exceeds the growth in demand. The availability of new apartments will put competitive pressure on existing buildings to renovate and maintain their edge and/or lower their rents. Units that are not as well located and maintained will see a lessening of demand and lower rents. However, the impacts on prevailing rents are likely to occur primarily at the margin. The District’s high costs of development and natural market forces will limit the extent of oversupply and rent reductions over the longer term, though during the down parts of market cycles, the additional supply could lead to lower rents until supply and demand are back in balance. In other words, rents will go down if we overbuild tall building housing for rich folks because they will move out of their current housing which will deteriorate and be more affordable for the masses. And if that doesn’t work, a good depression might come along and lower rents! And by the way, forget that ownership stuff – you will all be renters. So what is the real reason for OP pushing for tall buildings? Fortunately we have the answer from the Board of Trade. In an e-mail the BOT sent me they said the following: Yesterday the District of Columbia Office of Planning released the District’s Height Study Draft Recommendations which calls for Congress to modify the Height Act to allow for taller [buildings] in the District. As indicated in the press release linked below, this recommendation will result in a substantial opportunity for increased future development in the District. - 2 - Well now we know who this building height is supposed to help -- not the average person, not the poor, not the homeless – but developers! Thank you OP! And let’s not forget the claim that D.C. will gain significant property tax benefits. When is last time you heard that the City did not give a developer of a large project 25 years of tax relief or TIF financing to build, thus wiping out any tax benefit? Home Rule is not more height for favored developers. It isn’t jeopardizing the views, the scale and the feel that has made this City iconic and made it grow and prosper and attract more residents. Home Rule is Statehood, or voting rights or budget autonomy. OP has come up with a solution in search of a problem. Let’s file it where it belongs. - 3 - Ten Reasons Not to Change the Height Act (A response to the Office of Planning’s “draft” report and recommendations, presented to the DC Council’s Committee of the Whole on October 28, 2013) 1. This is not a home rule issue. The Mayor has not asked Congress to abdicate its power to legislate on building heights in DC. Nor has he asked Congress to grant DC’s elected representatives the power to make such decisions themselves. Instead, he’s asked Congress to pass a new law with a different set of height limits and to let an unelected five-member board (with two federal appointees) decide where higher heights will be allowed. 2. We’re in no danger of being overwhelmed by newcomers any time soon. There is a lot of evidence that suggests we’re experiencing more churn than growth. In fact, the 30,000 new arrivals that the Census Bureau projected between 2010 and 2012 required the production of only about 3500 new housing units. OP’s so-called low growth scenario is actually 60% higher than what we experienced between 2000 and 2010. And their demand calculations assume that each new household or employee will require significantly more space than the people who currently live or work here do. 3. OP has systematically underestimated the development capacity available under existing Height Act constraints. Their model assumes that institutional sites (like Walter Reed) can’t be redeveloped, that redevelopment won’t happen on any parcel that is already built out to 30% of matter-of-right, and that, when redevelopment does occur, landowners will generally only be able to build 75% of the square footage that is theoretically possible under any given scenario. These are clearly counterfactual assumptions and, tellingly, when it comes time to calculate the economic benefits of height increases, OP quickly abandons them. 4. Increased height won’t produce more affordable housing. OP’s own study indicates that raising heights also raises construction costs and that taller buildings will be economically viable only in areas where rents are already quite high. And remember that in downtown, where developers will be most likely to take advantage of increased heights, residential projects are generally exempt from inclusionary zoning requirements. 5. Larger buildings mean less (and less flexible) redevelopment – a single 200 foot building can soak up a quite a bit of demand for either residential or commercial space in most submarkets. Which means that one or two slowly-absorbed projects will pre-empt a series of smaller projects that would have contributed much more to neighborhood revitalization – more ground floor retail, a diversity of housing types and styles, units that come online at different times, and the elimination of blight and vacant lots. 6. Increased volatility will decrease the flow of foreign capital into DC’s real estate market. The Height Act has created an extraordinarily stable and predictable real estate market and, as a result, foreign investors have treated DC as a very safe investment, even during recessions and at times when domestic financing is difficult to obtain.