Comments Received on the DC Historic Preservation Plan 2016 Topic Organization or Comment Person (Note: Comments have been organized according topic area, following the layout of the Plan document. The text of comment letters has been divided so that all comments on the same topic appear together. Editorial comments are not included.) GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE PLAN ANC 2B Whereas, the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has released a draft “2016 District of Columbia Historic Preservation Plan: Enriching Our Heritage” and seeks public comment; Whereas, ANC 2B recognizes the effort that went into the draft plan and commends the HPO on its work; Whereas, ANC 2B includes parts of 5 historic districts and numerous designated historic landmarks, and thus deals regularly with the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) and the HPO; Whereas, ANC 2B agrees with the draft report that “some of the [HPRB/HPO] systems are rusty,” that the HPRB/HPO “communications are not up to par,” and that the HPRB/HPO “need[s] to strengthen and reinvigorate . partnerships,” especially with respect to ANCs; Therefore be it resolved that ANC 2B requests that the draft plan be revised to address explicitly the following points: [see comments below] ANC 6B ANC 6B comprises the southeast portion of Capitol Hill and includes a large portion of the Capitol Hill Historic District. Our monthly meetings typically consist of a number of historic preservation cases and we frequently work with HPO staff. The commission appreciates the significant time and effort that HPO put into drafting the plan. The document is extremely thorough, and includes a helpful timeline of the city’s preservation history along with recommendations on how HPO and the Historic Preservation Review Board can better achieve the goal of preserving our city’s historic structures. ANC 6B also appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the office’s four year draft preservation plan. The following sections highlight key recommendations that we agree with along with suggested additions to the plan. We also want to acknowledge our excellent working relationship with HPO staff, a group we find to be extremely responsive, knowledgeable and supportive on cases related to the Capitol Hill Historic District. We look forward to working with HPO and the HPRB in the years ahead to help the city achieve its preservation goals. Capitol Hill We appreciate the opportunity to review and offer comments on this draft plan, which will guide the city’s preservation efforts Restoration Society for the next four years. We also appreciate that this step is seen as the beginning of input from the public regarding the four- year plan, and that HPO and HPRB will be welcoming feedback throughout the life of the plan. Putting up front the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for stewardship of DC’s heritage gives the 2016 Plan a solid footing for all that follows and grounds the specific goals and objectives in one overarching goal: to preserve and enhance the city’s unique cultural heritage, beauty, and identity by respecting its historic physical form and recognizing “the enduring value of its historic structures and places.” Capitol Hill We commend the tremendous dedication and hard work that went into preparing this four-year plan and look forward to Restoration Society working with HPO during its implementation. Citizens Planning There is no question that the 2016 Preservation Plan (draft) is a quantum step forward. The organization of the plan, including Coalition the history and heritage section with a timeline and historical overview, a section on preservation achievements (especially the style, quality, and innovativeness of the graphic presentation), and the section on preservation challenges are great additions to the plan’s organization. Recognition of the need for “Ward Heritage Plans” in the face of the lack of a process for creating neighborhood or sector plans, where a systematic preservation element could be included, is another positive step. At the same time, while a definite “great leap forward” as a master plan document and approach, the Preservation Plan is not yet “masterful.” While the section on preservation challenges is an improvement, the section (and therefore the plan) does not rise to the level of a systematic evaluation of the challenges, opportunities, processes, and approaches. It does not appear that such an evaluation of the city’s preservation “system” was conducted as a part of the process of developing the plan. As a result, a goodly portion of the planning document feels idiosyncratic and some of the “really big issues and questions” aren’t being asked and answered. For example: What is the purpose of historic preservation in the city, is it time for an assessment of preservation practice based on the 35 years of experience since the local law was passed?; What gaps may exist in the processes, regulations, and practices?; Would a “windshield level” evaluation of the involved advocacy organizations be a helpful addition to the plan, including an assessment of capacity development needs and asking the question of how to create a robust city-wide and neighborhood network of preservation organizations; Would some comparisons to preservation practice in other jurisdictions have been helpful?; The addition of case studies of particular preservation problems and issues (popups, Marc Fisher’s writings, particularly about Mount Pleasant, failures to create historic districts, inability to restore art deco treatment to Brookland Shopping Center once the panels were uncovered during a renovation project, community opposition to landmark applications, specific demolition by neglect cases, RLUIPA cases, the incongruence between zoning height and mass maximums and architectural practices when pre-1950 DC neighborhoods were constructed, the Georgetown Apple Store debacle, etc.). In short, a much deeper presentation of “current conditions,” including an evaluation of all of HPO’s publications and website, and a response, would contribute to a stronger plan. State of the historic preservation movement Pro. Preservation is the city is at a crossroads. It is fair to argue that historic preservation has been incredibly successful, given the number of designated properties and historic districts, the popularity of historic building stock, the fact that the city is gaining population—in large part attracted to historic residential building stock and neighborhood commercial districts. But this success was based on the diligent efforts of residents willing to live in the city when trends did not favor urban living. In the face of the outmigration of residents and businesses, neighborhood preservations focused on stabilizing and staunching leakage, preserving neighborhoods in the face of municipal decline, and maintaining and enhancing these places in ways that kept them attractive and positioned for later success. Con. On the other hand, despite the reality that preservationists “saved the city” during the many decades that trends did not favor urban living, in many quarters this fact is not recognized, and in fact preservation is denigrated and seen as a hindrance or millstone frequently in the way of “progress.” The number of historic districts that have been created over the past 10 years has been minimal compared to the first 15 years since the National Historic Preservation Act passed. [continues at Negative Attitudes about Preservation below] Citizens Planning Some recommendations/observations: Coalition a content analysis of media coverage would be useful; there should be specific cultural interpretation and communications elements within the plan; cemetery preservation issues could be better addressed; transportation history issues could be better addressed; Plan should include a workflow diagram of the various processes. Dupont Circle The Dupont Circle Conservancy (DCC or the Conservancy) believes that the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has done an Conservancy excellent job drafting its 4-yearwork plan for the period 2013-2016. We single out chief David Maloney for his leadership in this work and for what we understand was his special role is writing Chapter 2, “A Legacy of Visionary Plans,” and Kim Elliott for plan‘s the layout. The use of many historic and present-day images and photos, along with engaging graphics and tables, adds to the value of this statement. We see Chapter 2, along with Chapter 4, “What we Heard from our Constituents,” as creating an essential plan baseline if historic preservation is to continue its important and integrated role as a major driver in the growth and development of the District of Columbia. Southwest The Southwest Neighborhood Assembly, Inc. believes Enriching our Heritage, 2016 Draft DC Historic Preservation Plan (Plan) is Neighborhood a well-reasoned document. Association Due to prevailing development pressures, Near Southwest is one of the fastest changing communities. The Southwest Neighborhood Assembly has been working to document, promote and provide forums for the necessary conversations. We’ve prepared or supported historic nominations, some of which the Historic Preservation Review Board has already approved, including Tiber Island and Harbour Square. We’re currently holding a lecture series that brings architects, professors and city planners into dialogue with the community. But we cannot do it alone. The Plan’s four overarching goals are precisely what the city needs. Indeed, our experience in Southwest has demonstrated that