more persuasive (transcript, pp. 13 and 27), if one is able to overlook the fact that the Department of State has always supported the zoning regulations which permitted these problems to arise. I think the record will show that the Department's interest in a solution to this old problem is of recent origin (perhaps since the Senate vote on S. 646). I think that this background, which may not be known to everyone, is necessary for a proper evaluation of the testimony of the State Department's spokesman, Mr. Crockett. Second, the State Department's apparent solicitude for local residents, as represented by the amendments proposed by Mr. Crockett, is not only much belated but unconvincing. This is because Mr. Crockett's amendments (1) do not meet the problem, which is basically the matter of locating commercial establishments in residential areas, and (2) they still leave the final decision on these thorny matters to the discretion of the BZA, where it presently resides. Mr. Crockett's amendments with the 2-acre limitation for new or additional structures would certainly prohibit additional chanceries in the Sheridan-Kalorama area, but this is only part of the problem. These amendments would not prevent massive office buildings such as the British, Canadians, and West Germans have already constructed, and which the Russians hope to construct, from being located in residential areas. This is the basic problem which Mr. Crockett's amendments do not pretent to meet. Furthermore, the amendments in setting forth additional findings to be made by the BZA in determining compatibility do not seriously limit the discretion the BZA already possesses in deciding these questions. If the BZA by a 3-2 vote (the two private members dissenting) can decide that the erection of a large chancery office building with 125 offices and 145 parking spaces is compatible with the present and proposed development of an area in Chevy Chase bearing the most restrictive zoning classification (R-1), it is submitted that the additional findings proposed by Mr. Crockett will make little or no difference. In view of the BZA's action in the Russian chancery matter, Mr. Crockett's confidence in the value of criteria binding on the BZA seems to be misplaced. The State Department was quite interested in the result there reached and is in the best position to know that the requirements of findings can mean very little. Mr. Crockett's assertion that his criteria would prevent the expansion of existing chanceries (transcript, p. 26) and that a foreign government would have to get BZA permission to put up housing on land it owns (transcript, p. 19) is most surprising because it ignores that fact that foreign governments are immune from process and have the power and right to do anything they wish to property over which they are sovereign. The BZA's recent experience with this very problem should be a warning to all. In summary, the amendments proposed by the State Department and presented by Mr. Crockett never "come to grips" with the real problem, which is the protection of residential areas for the purposes for which they have been zoned. The criteria he suggests merely becloud the real issue and are not helpful. I am very hopeful that your committee, when it considers this matter, will agree with this analysis of the position set forth by Mr. Crockett. To conclude, I take this opportunity to correct a misconception which Mr. Multer and Mr. Crockett both seem to share, i.e., that doctors and dentists, insurance brokers and real estate brokers are freely permitted in this jurisdiction to have offices in residential areas (transcript, p. 33). This is not the law under the present zoning regulations, except in one respect. A single doctor or dentist residing on the premises may maintain an office with not more than two employees. All other offices, including those of real estate or insurance brokers, are not permitted in any residential area. To cite the example of the lone doctor who has an office in his residence as a reason why chanceries should be permitted in residential areas is hardly persuasive. I shall not labor the point. Should you or any members of your committee wish to discuss this matter, I will be happy to be available. If the record is still open, I would appreciate your making this letter a part of the record. Sincerely yours, 1 References to transcript of Aug. 7, 1963, hearing. See pp. 79, 88, supra. JOHN H. PRATT. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C.,September 17, 1963. Hon FREDERICK G. DUTTON, Department of State, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. DUTTON: As you know, Subcommittee No. 3 has been considering S. 646 and H.R. 5882, respecting location of foreign chanceries. The subcommittee desires some additional information from the Department and if you can furnish same it will be deeply appreciated: 1. The question has been raised as to the cost of operation of a chancery and hence it is wondered if you can advise what is the reasonable cost of constructing and operating a small chancery with a staff of approximately 6 to 10 people in other than a residential area. This information is desired as a basis for determining the extent of any financial hardship, if any, which might be placed upon a small nation in the event there is a complete prohibition of foreign chanceries in residential areas. 2. The committee, under date of July 26, received a letter from Mr. R. O. Clouser, Director of Planning for the government of the District of Columbia, responding to certain inquiries with regard to our question No. 8 as to what foreign nations had established chanceries following the 1938 act. Mr Clouser listed about 34 chanceries established between 1958 and 1963. These are shown on page 95 of the page proof of the hearings attached. Could you supply us with copies of the budgets of these countries, or a representative number thereof, showing the expenditures by them for such chanceries as well as for the operation thereof? If their budgets are not available perhaps you can in any event furnish a statement showing expenditures for said chanceries, as well as annual operating costs or an estimate thereof, or a statement showing costs and operating expenses of a representative group of chanceries. Thank you again for your further assistance to the committee. Sincerely yours, JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your request of September 17, 1963, we have gathered the following information concerning the approximate costs of construction and operation of a small foreign chancery. Costs of construction.-The cost to a foreign country of constructing a chancery in Washington involves the cost of the land and the cost of erecting the building. The cost of the land varies greatly from one zoning area to another and can only be given in reference to that particular area. Cost of land: The cost of ground per square foot in those areas of Washington at all suitable for the location of a foreign chancery is estimated at the following levels: Special purpose zone: $40 to $70; commercial, C-4: $100; commercial, C-3-B: $65; residential, R-5-B: $10; R-5-A: $5; R-3: $2. If one takes 9,000 square feet as a conservative but still reasonable figure for the amount of land needed for a small chancery, the cost for the lot would then be roughly $450,000 in special purpose zone, $900,000 in commercial C-4, $585,000 in commercial C-3-B, $90,000 in R-5-B, residential, $45,000 in residential R-5-A, and $18,000 in residential R-3. Cost of building: The cost of erecting a building for such a chancery can be estimated at roughly $100,000. This can be itemized as follows: 1. $88,000 for the cost of constructing a building of appropriate size— (a) 4,000 gross square feet of floor area is necessary to accommodate the staff and also provide ample hallways, closets, corridors, etc. (b) $22 per square foot of construction is the current estimated cost of very good construction of a building of this size in the District of Columbia. This figure could be lowered to $18 per square foot depending on the quality of material and craftsmanship desired. 2. $10,000 is the current estimate architectural fees required for the completion of a project of this size. They Costs of operation.-Copies of the budgets of foreign chanceries are not in the possession of the Department of State, nor is it felt that it is really appropriate for the Department to officially request them from the diplomatic missions here. We have, however, made inquiries of several of the smaller chanceries. have provided us with the following figures, which can serve as a rough indication of the range of a small chancery's operating costs. These chanceries are all located in residential areas. We have not been able to obtain figures from any chancery in a nonresidential area, but, except for rent, the expenses involved would not be affected by the location of the chancery. Chancery A: Staff: Six officers and eight employees. Total budget: $200,260 (exact figure of their estimated expenditures for 1963). Break down into two main categories: Personal emoluments (salaries, allowances) $148,430. The latter category represents all nonpersonnel operating costs and includes the following: Chancery and embassy building maintenance: $3,000. Rent (on chancery only, embassy previously purchased): $950 (per month); utilities of chancery, $1,500; upkeep of two cars, $2,250; etc. Chancery B: Staff: Seven officers and two employees. Total budget estimated at $79,000 to $80,000. This includes all operating expenses (salaries, utilities, supplies, etc.), but does not include rent since the chancery is owned by the country. Chancery C: Staff: Four officers and five employees. This includes all operating expenses, including Telex. It also includes rent on the Ambassador's residence, but not on the chancery, which is owned. Chancery D: Staff: Three officers and four employees. Total operating expenses estimated at from $30,000 to $35,000. This figure includes $550 monthly rental on the chancery building. We hope this information will be of assistance to your committee. Sincerely yours, FREDERICK G. DUTTON, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. O THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 684 and H.R. 2036 BILLS TO REVISE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC JUNE 11 AND 19, 1963 Printed for the use of the Committee on the District of Columbia 21-065 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1963 |