Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:52 PM
To: ward5@yahoogroups.com; greaternyavegatewaygroup@gmail.com
Subject: [WARD5] Developers Take Aim at the Comprehensive Plan in Arguments for Affordable Housing (Intowner)
Developers Take Aim at the Comprehensive Plan in Arguments for Affordable Housing
PUBLISHED:
MARCH 15TH, 2017
Accompanying images can be viewed in the March
2017 issue pdf
Stephen A. Hansen*
Under the guise of
promoting affordable housing, some developers hope to remove protections for
neighborhood densities designated in the DC Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is a
key document that provides a framework for the city’s growth and development
through Area Elements that outline development priorities for specific
neighborhoods, and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) that designates specific
densities for residential and commercial areas. Under current DC regulations,
the Zoning Commission must ensure that a project is “not inconsistent with” the
Comprehensive Plan in terms of its designated neighborhood densities and land
use map, and that it would not have an adverse impact on the public interest.
To bypass density
limits established for neighborhoods in the Comprehensive Plan’s land use map,
developers are turning to Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) projects. A PUD is a
DC Zoning Commission action that permits a project to exceed to some extent
“by-right” allowances for density for a site by offering to provide community
benefits or amenities.
Last year, citizens
appealed decisions in two zoning cases in which the Zoning Commission approved
major PUD projects that neighbors argued were more dense than the Comprehensive
Plan allowed. In a blow to developers, the DC Court of Appeals overturned the
Zoning Commission’s approval of mixed-use PUD projects at 901 Monroe Street, NE
(“Colonel Brooks” tavern) and at the McMillan Park project site on North
Capitol Street.
The court’s decision essentially killed the Colonel Brooks
project. In the
McMillan case, where the Vision McMillan Partners (VMP)’s
project called for higher-density zoning than the Plan allowed, the court
determined that while the Comprehensive Plan does not exclude any high-density
development on the site, the Zoning Commission had failed to adequately address
a number of adverse impacts that the project might have on the public interest,
including the destabilization of land values and the displacement of
neighboring residents.
The Comprehensive Plan is currently being amended. Calling
the Appeals Court decisions on Colonel Brooks and McMillan “a
setback for housing in the District,” a coalition of DC-area
developers and nonprofit organizations issued a housing
and priorities statement for the Plan’s revision. While
most of the statement’s 10 priorities advocate for affordable housing, one of
them, “Clarify zoning authority,” calls to give the Zoning Commission the power
to supersede the density levels in the Plan for PUD projects in exchange for “community
benefits.” PUDs are already required to provide some type of community benefit
or amenities, so this is simply a call to remove the Plan’s established limits
on a PUD’s bonus density.
This far-reaching
proposed change would give the Zoning Commission’s five unelected members the
final word in the approval of major PUD projects and would preempt the ability
of residents to legally challenge developments that do not adhere to the Plan’s
land use map for their neighborhoods. It would benefit developers and
potentially undermine the coalition’s other stated priorities for affordable
housing, as increased building height and density in themselves do not
guarantee more affordable housing and could actually threaten existing housing.
Such a measure as
called for by this coalition of developers and organizations is not necessary
to increase the amount of affordable housing. DC’s Inclusionary Zoning (IZ)
program is designed to increase the amount of available affordable housing for
working families earning 60 percent of the Area Median Income of $109,200 or
$65,520 for a family of four.
In exchange for
bonus density, IZ requires that eight to 10 percent of residential floor area
in all new developments or any substantial addition to an existing development
must be set aside as affordable units and rented or sold to low- and
moderate-income households. If the justification to amend the Plan is to be
able to increase density to provide for more affordable housing, developers can
already do so through IZ.
Providing for
affordable housing requires more than just bringing new units onto the market.
According to a September 16, 2016 Washington
Post article (“The
rent is too high in big cities. This mayor has a plan to fix it”), from 2013 to
2015 the city’s boom in apartment construction added 37,267 new units, while
5,000 families teetered on the brink of homelessness at any time. But
apartments that lower-income residents are living in or can now afford are
being replaced by thousands of costly smaller, luxury units.
Yet the PUDs
favored in the developer-backed proposal are virtually all for mixed-use
buildings with only studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments. PUDs do little to
supply what the District needs most — affordable family housing.
Access to
affordable housing also requires protecting the existing housing stock in
neighborhoods where residents own their homes or rent. PUD developments with
higher densities than otherwise permitted in the Comprehensive Plan for
specific neighborhoods could adversely affect existing homeowners who cannot
afford higher taxes as the result of higher property values caused by increased
density and are forced to leave. They can also cause a rise in neighborhood
rents that only those with sufficient incomes can afford. As a result of a
recent Zoning Commission ruling, developers can now request PUDs for lots as
small as 5,000 square feet, leaving neighborhoods vulnerable to incompatible
in-fill and re-development through the combination of as little as just two
lots. This creates opportunities to scatter PUDs throughout our less dense and
stable residential neighborhoods.
The bar is already
very low for developers to qualify for a PUD. A developer need only promise to
provide some form of public benefit of special value to the neighborhood or the
city as a whole. Providing affordable housing as a PUD benefit is not a
requirement. Promised benefits are arbitrary and can be for the building
itself, the neighborhood, or somewhere off-site, and at times can also be quite
trivial. For example, a green roof or other sustainable building practices may
benefit the building’s residents, but it provides no actual community benefit.
Developers may also
claim exceptional architectural design as a community benefit.
In the Mt. Vernon neighborhood, at 9th and L Streets, NW,
Capstone Development is currently building Columbia Place, a
570,000-square-foot, 12-story mixed-use PUD project. When completed, the $230
million development will include a 310-room Marriott Courtyard hotel, a
190-room Residence Inn, and 230 studios, one- and two-bedroom residential units
to be offered at market rate — and no affordable housing units.
To meet the PUD
public benefit requirements, Capstone went for off-site options and proffered
to donate only $45,000 in financial contributions to be split between three
local groups: $20,000 each to two nearby park friends groups and $5,000 to a
local school for playground blocks.
To date, the city
has not conducted a thorough study of PUDs, and it is unclear how effective PUD
benefits are, or how many proffered benefits have actually ever been delivered.
Residents have a
right to expect that their neighborhood’s character and future growth will be
in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is a contract with citizens
that spells out goals within a set of rules and procedures to reach those
goals, including land use, development, and access to affordable housing. For
the protection of current and future residents of the city, the Zoning
Commission must continue to follow the Comprehensive Plan, and not vice versa.
[Editor’s note: Just as this article was being prepared
for publication we received a press release from Ward 5 Councilmember and chair
of the council’s Committee on Business and Economic Development Kenyan R.
McDuffie that on March 7th he had introduced
legislation to require the Deputy Mayor for Planning and
Economic Development “to produce a biennial report studying the District’s need
for 3, 4, and 5-bedroom apartment units in the District of Columbia — and to
increase the amount of family-size units built with funds from the Housing
Production Trust Fund.”]
No comments:
Post a Comment