Construction by Randall Myers used with permission.

Way back in 2016, when we thought updating DC’s Comprehensive Plan would take merely a year or two, GGWash, alongside affordable housing groups, tenants’ organizers, developers, and others, formed the Housing Priorities Coalition. We didn’t agree on everything, but coalition members were willing to put aside differences to craft amendments to the Comp Plan on which they could unite.

All of the coalition members agreed then that DC needed more affordable housing, more housing overall, and protections against displacement, and put together a set of principles for the Comp Plan.

On October 2, Chairman Phil Mendelson’s latest draft of the plan’s Framework Element added language similar to those principles, especially around building and preserving affordable housing and protecting tenants in affordable housing when their properties undergo redevelopment. The chairman’s draft also centers the importance of, as DC grows, building in racial and economic equity, a credit to interventions by Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5) and Councilmember Trayon White (Ward 8).

The final vote on the Framework bill is on Tuesday, October 8, and last week, some opponents emerged to fight this language. We’re pushing for it to remain.

The coalition’s priorities include producing, preserving, and protecting affordable housing

Here are the relevant suggestions from the Housing Priorities Coalition:

Prioritize affordable housing as a community benefit. When rezoning or granting significant zoning relief, the District should affirm through the Comprehensive Plan that affordable housing (in addition to any underlying requirement) is the highest priority benefit and that other community benefits should be long-lasting.

Preserve existing affordable housing. When redevelopment occurs on properties with housing made affordable through subsidy, covenant, or rent control, the District, Zoning Commission, and neighborhoods should work with landowners to create redevelopment plans that preserve such units or replace any lost ones with similar units either on-site or nearby. These entities should provide the necessary density and/or potential funding to ensure it is financially feasible to reinvest in the property with no net loss of affordable units.

Protect tenants. Through the Comprehensive Plan, the District should ensure that when affordable housing is undergoing redevelopment, tenants have a relocation plan, are allowed to continue their tenancy with minimal disruption, and will have the right to return to their units or an equivalent replacement. Whenever feasible, redevelopment should observe build-first principles.

Build-first is the practice of, when redeveloping multiple buildings, building a new building on, say, a parking lot first, so that residents of the old buildings can move there before their building is torn down. That way, nobody has to move far away, even temporarily.

The Comp Plan Framework now borrows much of this language

Chairman Phil Mendelson’s latest draft of the Framework has…a lot of what the Housing Priorities Coalition proposed! (The final version will be released on Monday.)

Notably, it reflects an amendment introduced by Councilmember Brianne Nadeau (Ward 1) at the bill’s first reading. Advocacy by many of affordable housing groups who were part of the original coalition, like, DC Fiscal Policy Center, Housing Association of Nonprofit Developers, Enterprise Community Partners, Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Economic Development, and Coalition for Smarter Growth emphasized the necessity of this sort of language, so it’s a win that Mendelson added more beyond what he had included in the version voted on at first reading.

Now, the Framework says this about community benefits for Planned Unit Developments (a type of review process for larger-scale developments where property owners get more flexibility on zoning in exchange for paying for community benefits):

Specific public benefits are determined through each PUD application and should respond to critical issues facing the District as identified in the Comprehensive Plan and through the PUD process itself. In light of the acute need to preserve and build affordable housing, described in Section 206, and to prevent displacement of on-site residents, the following should be considered as high-priority public benefits in the evaluation of residential PUDs:

  • The production of new affordable housing units above and beyond existing legal requirements or a net increase in the number of affordable units that exist on-site,
  • The preservation of housing units made affordable through subsidy, covenant, or rent control, or replacement of such units at the same affordability level and similar household size,
  • The minimizing of unnecessary off-site relocation through the construction of new units before the demolition of existing occupied units, and
  • The right of existing residents of a redevelopment site to return to new on-site units at affordability levels similar to or greater than existing units.

This isn’t exactly the same wording, but it has a lot in common. This language just applies to PUD benefits rather than (as the coalition favored) applying to any redevelopment, but PUDs represent a lot of the big redevelopments (they did even more, before a spate of lawsuits led people to seek other avenues to build housing).

It’s also significant that Mendelson clarified in the Comp Plan that Planned Unit Developments can allow more density than what’s otherwise shown in the Future Land Use Map. A big point of contention in the Comp Plan debate was, if the map shows an area as, say, “moderate density residential,” does that mean a) nothing can ever be built that’s bigger than moderate density, or b) moderate density is the default, but in exchange for community benefits, the Zoning Commission can authorize something that’s more than moderate?

What’s really important about Mendelson’s latest draft is it does two things at once. First, it clarifies that (b) above is the right interpretation. But also, it now enumerates a set of “high priority public benefits.” These aren’t the only benefits, but they are explicitly high priority ones. That will go a long way toward encouraging property owners to design projects which add and/or preserve affordable housing, minimize relocating people off-site, and let people return. Because if they do, they know the plan clearly says those are the kind of public benefits the city wants to see, and so the Zoning Commission can grant extra density to pay for it.

This is a huge step toward steering redevelopments to incorporate the priorities that so many groups endorsed: more affordable housing, preserving existing affordable housing, minimizing residents having to move away, and ensuring they can return if they do.

Equity also becomes more central

There’s additional language in the new draft about equity. While it’s part of the Framework’s narrative rather than an explicit policy, it sets the tone for the rest of the plan:

As the District grows and changes, it must do so in a way that encourages choice, not displacement, and builds the capacity of vulnerable, marginalized, and low-income communities to fully and substantively participate in decision-making processes and share in the benefits of the growth, while not unduly bearing its negative impacts. …

To grow equitably and achieve racial equity, equity-centered approaches that address the needs of underserved communities are necessary. …

We must recognize that managing growth and change includes addressing the historic, structural, and systemic racial inequities and disenfranchisement of many District residents. And, we must recognize the importance of longtime businesses, as well as educational and cultural institutions. An equitable and inclusive city includes access to housing that is healthy, safe, and affordable for a range of household types, sizes, and incomes in all neighborhoods. A citywide problem requires citywide solutions – ones that overcome the legacy of segregation, avoid concentrating poverty, and afford the opportunity to stay in one’s home and not be displaced.

Opposition arose on Friday

Not everyone is happy with the new community benefits language. Attorney David Goldblatt of Goldblatt Martin Pozen LLP, which does lobbying and real estate transactions for large companies, wrote a letter on behalf of the DC Building Industry Association (DCBIA) asking to water down this language. Goldblatt said the changes were in the interests of the DC Housing Authority, though his letter says he’s not speaking for DCHA, just DCBIA.

It’s worth repeating that this language is only about benefits given in exchange for zoning flexibility as part of a PUD, like more density. It doesn’t impose any kind of unfunded requirement on property owners. What it does is say is that in exchange for more affordable housing or anti-displacement measures, you can build taller or bigger in proportion.

Affordable housing is really necessary. It’s also expensive. With more floors or larger buildings, it can become economically feasible to offer one-for-one replacement, “build first,” and other features that the city’s residents deserve when their homes are redeveloped.

Not all developers are supportive of this concept, but a lot are. Many think it’s a great idea to build more affordable housing and avoid displacing anyone, as long as they can design a project which does so and actually works economically. Sure, if people could build higher and didn’t have to build affordable units, that would be even more profitable, but public policy can ensure we get affordable housing, while projects still “pencil out.”

Right now, DC’s acute limits on new buildings directly prevent developers from paying for more affordable housing to avoid displacement. Some people from the development community, at least, would like to be part of the solution, and the proposed rule would let them.

The proposed Framework language takes a big step toward achieving what the Housing Priorities Coalition recommended. It’s not everything, because this language just applies to PUD benefits. There will be other opportunities to enact these and the rest of the coalition’s 10 principles in the rest of the Comp Plan. The Office of Planning will release its amendments to the rest of the document October 15, along with housing targets and map changes.