TESTIMONY OF BERTHA HOLLIDAY

TO DC ZONING COMMISION ON CASE 13-14B (McMillan Site), MODIFICATION TO PUD, PARCEL 4

MARCH 10, 2016 Good evening Commissioners,

My name is Bertha Holliday and I am a resident of the Bloomingdale neighborhood, in

which the McMillan site is located. I am a Vice-President of the Bloomingdale Civic Association, and a SMD Commissioner of ANC 5E. But this testimony is not on behalf of either of these organizations, but presented as a resident of the Bloomingdale

neighborhood.

I wish to voice three concerns – the first two are rather simple and straight forward, while the third is somewhat complicated.

CONCERN#1: Parking fees for grocery store patrons. Increasingly, new groceries in DC -– especially those in mixed use buildings -- charge grocery store patrons reduced

fees for off-street parking. The Final Order for 13-14 is mute on this issue. When asked about reduced parking fees for grocery patrons at an ANC Public Meeting, the Parcel 4

Developer indicated that negotiations with Harris Teeter had not as yet proceeded to discussion of parking fees. However, the 2/15/16 Holland & Knight Letter of Final Proffer on 13-14A (Pg. 5, Parking & Loading, sect. E) states: “All on-site parking shall be priced

at market rates at minimum, defined as the average cost for parking in a 0.25 mile radius from the site, and all residential parking will be unbundled from the costs of leasing

apartments or purchasing condos”. Several related questions arise from the proffer language, for example: Given the site’s environs, is 0.25 miles a sufficiently large comparison area for determining on-site parking fees? Will affordable unit tenants be

eligible for reduced parking fees?

In consideration of the current lack of clarity on this matter, it is recommended that the Zoning Commission’s Final Order for 13-14B, include language (related to community amenities and parking) that the Developer will diligently request of, and negotiate with

Harris Teeter regarding establishment of off-street parking fees/policies for its patrons that are consistent with the average of those charged at its NOMA location and other

urban groceries located within 4 miles of the McMillan site. CONCERN #2: Loading dock management strategy. DDOT has identified a need for

more effective loading management to avoid negative impacts on North Capitol Street. Developer has affirmatively responded, but DDOT indicates proposed modifications are

insufficient to avoid traffic backups on North Capitol Street - especially during rush hours. The development’s negative traffic impacts on Bloomingdale streets have been a

consistent priority concern of Bloomingdale residents, as reflected in the record for 13-14. Consequently, it is recommended that consideration of issuing a Final Order for 13-14B

NOT occur until a more workable solution that is endorsed by DDOT is provided by Applicant.

CONCERN #3: Configuration and location of Senior Affordable Housing.

In reviewing the 13-14 Final Order, I could only find the following single sentence related to the configuration of Parcel 4's affordable senior units: “These units [85 senior

affordable units] will be located in the southern wing of the building” (pg. 19). Consequently, when I reviewed the Parcel 4 architectural plans of 10/12/15, I was quite surprised to see renderings that detailed separate entrances, elevators, lobbies,

contiguous apartment units, and mechanical penthouses for ‘market rate’ and affordable (50% - 60% AMI) senior (age 55 years or more) units. This was even more surprising as

the proposal related to Parcel 2 (13-14A) explicitly notes that its approximately 25 affordable units (80% AMI) will be interspersed among that building’s market-rate units.

As the modified Parcel 4 PUD proposal provides no rationale or justification for such market rate and affordable senior separation, I initially speculated this separation was

age-related and intended as a means to more effectively address any special needs of seniors. But then I realized, if you were a senior with an income of 80% AMI or more, you would use the “market rate” entrance, and lobby, and elevator, dwelling unit and

mechanical penthouse.

I concluded the separation was not age-related, but rather social-economic. And let’s be honest: In this city, that kind of social-economic separation usually translates to racial

separation/segregation. I believe our seniors -– many who actively engaged the struggle for racial and economic equality, are expecting and deserving more in their golden years, than enduring the indignity of separate entrances, lobbies, elevators, mechanical

penthouses, and dwelling units that are segregated from ‘market rate’ units. This indignity gains added valence and significance because it will occur in the midst of the

lushness and luxury of the proposed McMillan development, which is funded in part by our City government. Furthermore, we know the related potential impact of such ‘separation’/segregation on the social fabric of the McMillan development and its

surrounding neighborhoods.

In this regard, I wish to note that my written testimony submission includes a 48-page attachment – a booklet prepared by Paul Cerruti and me on behalf of the Bloomingdale Civic Association, funded by the DC Humanities Council, ANC 5E, and the Bloomingdale

Civic Association, and titled Social and Architectural History of the Bloomingdale Neighborhood, Washington DC: 1800-2015. This booklet reveals the history of

Bloomingdale as a microcosm of the City – and nation. The booklet’s contents are pertinent to concern about the proposed ‘separateness’ of

proposed senior affordable housing on Parcel 4, and documents the more than 100-year struggle that Bloomingdale endured related to intentional, legally sanctioned housing

segregation. It was a struggle that pitted developers against realtors, realtors against homeowners, blacks against whites, whites against each other, and HUD and DOJ against other government and private entities.

The booklet’s Timeline documents that earlier housing segregation in Bloomingdale was

initiated in the late 1800s by some developers’ speculative marketing strategies that emphasized the need to protect homes in the new Bloomingdale neighborhood through

use of developer-placed covenants on deeds that prohibited any future sales to Blacks. Doing so purportedly served to ’ensure’ protection of home values in the newly built

neighborhood, and the creation and sustainability of a relatively economically and racially homogeneous neighobrhood. Subsequently, neighborhood associations, appraisers,

realtors, banks, federal and private mortgage lenders, local government, and others pursued additional policies and practices (e.g., covenants by petition, professional practice guidelines, lending criteria, redlining, etc.) that were intentionally developed to

strengthen, legitimize and institutionalize housing segregation.

I do not know if various local/national, public/private housing agencies and financing programs and incentives (e.g., LIHTC) condone the configuration of the 85 units of senior affordable housing as proposed. However, I would guess that none REQUIRE such

economic/racial segregation in a mixed income residential building. This means that: We as a City, and you as our Zoning Commission, HAVE A CHOICE about whether to

knowingly, intentionally, and officially embark upon policies that support and promote economically and racially segregated housing. The Bloomingdale History booklet describes the many public and private procedural variations that can evolve in the service

of maintaining and expanding such policies; the resulting incivility and disruption to the social fabric of affected communities; and the significant time (more than a lifetime) and

effort required to undo such policies and practices.

I have spoken with several local and federal agencies regarding the rationale for and appropriateness of economic/racial separation/segregation in mixed-income residential buildings. The responses received were confusing, contradictory, and generally

unsatisfying. For example, a DMPED staffer’s email response noted: “Fair housing act prohibits discrimination of housing based on age

so senior affordable housing units have to have separate entrance. If they were dispersed through the building it would be a violation.”

If indeed we have a CHOICE (vs. complying with federal, local or financing REQUIREMENTS) -- that choice should be guided by deep, thorough and informed

consideration by the Zoning Commission as to whether it seeks to support the Applicant’s request for senior housing consistent with its current proposed (separated/segregated) configuration, and associated economic and social costs and benefits. Such consideration

might require some delay in issuing a Final Order for 13-14B, so that efforts such as the following might occur:

1. Requesting the applicant to provide to ZC and affected ANCs and civic associations,

written rationale and justification of the current senior housing proposal, and

suggestions of alternative non-economically/racially segregated configuration proposals; identification of the pros and cons of existing and alternative proposals,

etc.; 2. Requesting legal review from the Attorney General’s Office of Parcel 4 – especially

its building configuration;

3. Consulting with federal and local senior housing agencies, housing financing agencies and others regarding the appropriateness of the proposed Parcel 4

building configuration, and whether that configuration can be portrayed as a single building for zoning purposes, but as two buildings (senior affordable and market-

rate) for other purposes. 4. Determining the most recent racial composition of 50%-60% AMI tenants in mixed-

income residential buildings in DC.

Thank you for time, your hard work, and your consideration. Bertha Holliday